Cross-cultural perspectives on art Davies 2016.pdf

Aesthetics  in  cross-­‐cultural  perspective       Stephen  Davies,  Philosophy,  University  of  Auckland     Important  note:  This  is  a  final  draft  and  differs  from  the  definitive  version,   which  is  published  in  Theoretical  Studies  in  Literature  and  Art,  36  (1),  2016,  20-­‐ 26.  I  have  been  assured  by  the  University  of  Auckland's  research  office  that  if   they  have  made  this  publicly  available  then  it  does  not  violate  the  publisher's   copyright  rules.       I  subscribe  to  two  intuitions  about  the  appreciation  of  art  that  plainly  are  in   tension.  Artworks  are  embedded  in  culturally  relative  art-­‐historical  contexts  and   cannot  be  fully  understood  without  an  awareness  of  these  contexts.  Accordingly,   art  is  not  cross-­‐culturally  transparent.  The  second  intuition  maintains  that   artworks  trade  in  themes  that  are  universally  and  perennially  of  human  interest   and  shape  these  to  cater  to  shared,  biologically  based  perceptual  systems.   Accordingly,  much  art  is  cross-­‐culturally  approachable.    

These  intuitions  can  be  reconciled,  I  think,  by  introducing  some  

qualifications.  To  be  fully  understood  and  appreciated,  art  must  be  considered  by   cultural  insiders  (whether  native  born  or  immigrant)  with  a  relevant  knowledge   of  its  art-­‐historical  and  wider  cultural  location.  But  much  art  can  be  understood   and  appreciated  to  a  partial  extent  by  cultural  outsiders  on  account  of  its   broader  human  appeal.   I  now  elaborate  these  central  claims  (by  developing  claims  expressed  in   Davies  2000,  2009).     &&&     Some  of  an  artwork's  identity-­‐  and  content-­‐conferring  features  are  relative  to   who  made  it,  given  an  assumed  background  knowledge  of  relevant  conventions,   practices,  and  media,  and  of  goals,  constraints,  ideals,  and  precedents.  It  falls   within  an  art-­‐making  tradition,  displays  a  style,  belongs  to  a  genre,  extends  the   artist's  corpus  of  works,  refers  to  other  works,  deliberately  repudiates  formerly    

1  

cherished  models,  and  so  on  (see  Walton  1970,  Davies  2015).  Moreover,  given   art's  self-­‐referential  nature,  it  is  often  the  case  that  what  can  be  made  art  at  a   given  time  depends  on  the  prior  historical  telos  of  the  artworld  to  which  it   belongs.  As  Arthur  C.  Danto  (1981)  insists,  the  artworld  has  to  be  ready  to  accept   the  work,  so  to  speak.  Robert  Rauschenberg  could  create  artworks  by  painting   his  bed  and  by  erasing  a  line  drawing  done  by  Willem  de  Kooning,  but  Leonardo   da  Vinci  could  not  have  succeeded  in  creating  art  by  performing  the  same   actions.  In  his  time,  those  actions  could  not  have  been  art-­‐making  ones,  whatever   the  intention  with  which  they  were  performed.  Locating  the  work  and   comprehending  its  content  will  be  possible,  then,  only  for  someone  who  can   situate  it  in  the  relevant  artworld  context.   Beyond  this,  artworks  can  describe,  depict,  or  express  points  of  view  not   only  on  other  artworks,  but  on  the  wider  life  of  the  culture  in  which  they  are   situated.  Only  someone  familiar  with  the  society's  religion,  politics,  economic   system,  and  morality,  with  its  customs  and  institutions,  with  its  history  and   current  situation,  could  recognize  and  appreciate  art's  commentary  on  these   matters.   Consider  what  is  involved  in  the  deepest  appreciation  of  poetry.  First,  the   appreciator  needs  a  complete  mastery  of  the  work's  language,  including  an   extensive  vocabulary  and  awareness  of  special  poetic  transformations  of   common  words.  She  must  have  knowledge  of  the  poetic  types  available  for  use,   along  with  their  typical  functions,  formal  constraints,  and  the  like.  The  various   styles  and  ideals  perpetuated  in  the  tradition  have  to  be  familiar  to  her.  As  does   the  particular  artist's  influences  and  earlier  works.  She  must  understand  how   metaphors  are  coined  and  used  in  the  poetic  tradition  and  the  modes  and  kinds   of  symbolism  it  recognizes.  She  must  have  the  artistic  background  to  pick  up  on   allusions  to,  parodies  of,  and  quotations  from  other  poetic  works,  styles,  or   genres.  And  she  must  similarly  understand  the  poem's  social  references,  which   might  take  in  any  socio-­‐historical  matter  that  the  poet  could  assume  to  be  known   to  an  educated  audience  within  his  society.   By  this  standard,  a  cultural  outsider,  even  one  with  a  rudimentary  grasp   of  the  language,  is  not  adequately  positioned  to  appreciate  fully  the  poetry  in  

 

2  

question.  Indeed,  it  may  be  that  only  a  minority  of  members  of  the  poet's  society   will  have  the  interest  and  skill  to  become  connoisseurs  of  its  poetic  art.   Of  course,  I  assumed  in  this  discussion  that  neither  a  translated   paraphrase  nor  a  poetic  translation  succeeds  in  counting  as  a  faithful  rendition  of   the  original  poem.  The  paraphrase  cannot  qualify  as  a  poem,  I  assume,  because  it   loses  the  artwork.  And  the  poetic  translation  almost  certainly  misrepresents  the   original  in  artistically  significant  ways.  That  is  because,  especially  in  the  case  of   rhyming,  metric  verse,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  reconcile  style,  form,  and   content  in  a  way  that  successfully  represents  the  original.  But  in  this  respect  I   think  that  poetry  is  distinctively  difficult.  Translations  of  novels  can  be  counted   as  legitimate  versions  of  the  original  if  they  are  well  done  (Davies  2007).  How  far   beyond  a  minimal  grasp  of  the  work  the  reader  then  can  go  still  depends,   however,  on  what  she  can  pick  up  by  way  of  the  artistic  and  socio-­‐cultural   references  it  makes  or  presupposes.     &&&     All  that  said—and  here  we  leave  the  first  intuition  and  head  in  the  direction  of   the  second—an  interested  foreigner  might  make  significant  improvements  in  her   understanding  of  another  culture's  art.  As  a  tourist,  for  instance,  she  might  find   helpful  commentaries  in  her  guidebook,  both  on  the  culture  generally  and  on  its   arts  in  particular.  Or  perhaps  she  investigates  the  work  of  anthropologists  or  of   other  foreigners  who  have  established  an  intimate  relationship  with  the  culture   in  question.  And  building  on  these  foundations,  she  might  go  so  far  as  to  read  (in   translation,  assuming  they  are  available)  the  society's  art  histories  and  art-­‐ theoretical  treatises,  as  well  as  its  more  general  histories  and  social  discourses.   (All  cultures  have  these,  of  course,  whether  in  oral  or  written  form,  and  their   members  are  often  happy  to  share  their  expertise.)   She  then  advances  her  level  of  appreciation  as  the  locals  do:    through   exposure  both  to  its  artworks  and  to  discussions  of  them  by  art-­‐savvy  members   of  the  culture.  Naturally,  she  will  make  errors.  For  instance,  she  might  at  first   take  for  granted  that  the  locals  value  innovation  in  art,  only  to  realize  later  that   they  place  a  higher  worth  on  deference  to  the  tradition.  And  later  still,  she  might  

 

3  

recognize  and  esteem  the  subtlety  with  which  the  tradition  is  massaged,   tweaked,  and  gently  redirected,  even  as  it  is  respected.  Or,  having  noted  the   importance  of  respect  for  the  tradition,  she  might  experience  at  a  much  higher   magnitude  the  shock  and  power  of  an  openly  rebellious  work.  Over  time,  her   appreciation  matures.  She  is  a  late  starter,  and  there  is  a  daunting  amount  of   information  to  absorb,  but  she  might  become  much  better  than  a  novice  in   accurately  extracting  artistic  value  from  the  works  of  the  culture's  indigenous   artists.  It  is  possible  that,  at  some  stage,  the  locals  could  treat  her  opinions  with   the  same  care  and  interest  as  they  do  those  of  their  fellows.     &&&     We  are  helped  in  bootstrapping  our  way  into  the  art  of  other  cultures  by  the  fact   that,  as  evolved  biological  organisms,  we  share  many  interests.  All  people  are   fascinated  by  well-­‐told  tales  of  love,  travel,  and  adventure,  of  where  we  came   from  and  what  our  future  holds  in  store,  of  romance  and  enmity,  of  war  and   conflict,  of  good  fortune  and  underserved  loss,  of  victories  over  adversity,  of   political  struggle  and  competition,  of  parent-­‐childrenrelationships,  of  courage  in   the  face  of  injustice,  of  sacrifice  for  the  group,  of  murder  and  crime,  of  the   struggle  between  virtue  and  vice  (Brown  1991).  The  narrative,  dramatic,  and   depictive  arts  of  all  cultures  take  up  these  themes  and  often  fictionalize  them.   Much  more,  though,  in  the  telling,  acting  or  representing,  they  make  these   themes  yet  more  graphic  and  compelling  (Boyd  2009).    And  this  is  something   that  can  often  be  recognized  by  an  outsider  to  a  culture's  arts,  who  will  be  drawn   to  them  to  the  extent  that  they  deal  with  interests  she  shares.   As  well  as  shared  human  interests,  we  have  in  common  the  same   perceptual  systems.  These  process  and  organize  incoming  data.  Among  the   universals  are  principles  of  gestalt  processing,  in  terms  of  which  we  seek  pattern,   repetition,  and  closure.  Where  the  signal  carries  interference,  we  project  what  is   not  there  but  should  be  present.  These  perceptual  processes  get  applied  to   paintings,  photos  and  movies,  to  music,  to  parsing  oral  and  written  stories   (Ramachandran  and  Hirstein  1999).  And  naturally  enough,  in  catering  to  their  

 

4  

audience,  artists  rely  and  call  upon  these  cross-­‐culturally  relevant  ways  of   organizing  the  world  we  perceive.   Take  music  as  an  example.  Though  scales  may  differ  from  culture  to   culture,  they  inevitably  respect  the  perceptual  equivalence  of  octaves  (which  are   heard  as  the  same  note,  only  higher  or  lower)  and  most  contain  a  perfect  fifth  or   fourth  and  some  unequal  intervals,  and  they  privilege  one  tone  as  a  stable  center.   A  regular  pulse  is  retained  and  listeners  entrain  to  it.  This  pulse  is  organized   metrically  into  groups  of  2,  3,  4  (2+2),  or  6  (3+3  or  2+2+2).  Melodic  leaps  tend  to   be  followed  by  stepwise  descents  and  the  tune  involves  repetition  and  balanced,   complementary  phrases  over  8,  12,  or  16  measures.  Such  patterns  are  found  in  at   least  some  music  in  all  cultures  and  provide  a  scaffold  that  facilitates  cross-­‐ cultural  musical  appreciation.(On  musical  universals,  see  Justus  and   Hutsler2005,  McDermott  and  Hauser,  2005,  and  Higgins  2006,  2012.)   The  other  arts  are  similar.  For  instance,  paintings  or  drawings  usually   depict  a  scene  from  a  fixed  point  of  view  and  comply  with  many  regular   perceptual  clues  to  perspective,  with  more  distant  objects  appearing  relatively   smaller,  for  instance.  And  to  the  extent  that  they  are  realistic,  such  paintings   show  natural  items  with  which  all  cultures  will  be  familiar:  the  human  face  and   body,  trees,  lakes  and  waterfalls,  the  sun  and  moon,  sky  and  clouds,  animals  and   birds,  and  human  constructions  and  artifacts.   Also  universally  recognizable  are  the  attributes  of  familiar  artistic  media  –   stone,  wood,  paint,  and  musical  instruments.  This  means  that,  usually,  we  can   recognize  skill  in  the  artistic  use  of  such  media.  Knowing  how  difficult  it  is  to   carve  wood,  we  appreciate  filigree  carvings,  whatever  their  cultural  provenance.   We  acknowledge  the  massiveness  of  huge  stone  monoliths  and  what  went  into   placing  them.  We  esteem  the  skill  with  which  the  painter  has  captured  a  likeness   or  mood,  using  only  a  few  lines.  Though  the  musical  style  and  scale  is  unfamiliar,   the  virtuosity  displayed  by  the  ornateness  and  speed  of  rendition  is  immediately   apparent.   Of  special  note  in  this  regard  is  the  use  of  the  human  body  as  an  artistic   medium  in  dance.  Everyone  knows  what  it  is  to  inhabit  a  body  and  how  it  is   constrained  by  gravity  and  its  manner  of  construction.  From  that  perspective,   everyone  is  placed  to  be  aware  of  elegance,  power,  athleticism,  grace,  and  control  

 

5  

in  the  movements  of  dancers  and  in  physical  interactions  between  them,   whatever  culture  they  belong  to.   Another  human  universal  recognized  by  psychologists  are  the  facial   expressions  that  betray  "basic  emotions,"  which  are  usually  identified  as  fear,   happiness,  anger,  sadness,  disgust,  and  surprise  (Ekman  1984).  Though  there   can  be  dissembling  or  suppression  of  outward  show,  at  least  sometimes  it  will  be   possible  to  tell  what  emotion  is  depicted,  acted,  or  danced  within  another  culture   via  the  emotion's  physiognomic  expression  or  characteristic  comportment.   Instrumental  music  is  often  regarded  as  the  most  expressive  artform,  and   within  each  culture  there  is  wide  agreement  in  general  terms  about  what  music   expresses.  So  it  is  natural  to  wonder  if  the  expression  of  emotion  in  music  is   cross-­‐culturally  recognizable.  There  are  a  number  of  psychologists'  studies  that   attempt  to  test  the  hypothesis,  but  many  of  these  are  methodologically  flawed   (for  discussion,  see  Davies  2011)  in  ways  that  cast  doubt  on  their  positive   conclusions.  An  overall  assessment  (Thompson  and  Balkwill  2010)  suggests  that,   at  least  between  many  if  not  all  musical  cultures,  there  is  mutual  recognition  and   broad  agreement  on  music's  expressive  character.     &&&     I  have  been  listing  ways  in  which  universal  aspects  of  human  life  and   engagement  with  the  world  imply  that  the  art  of  different  cultures  should  not   always  be  completely  inaccessible  to  us.  And  I  stressed  earlier  that,  with   education,  and  immersion,  a  person  could  come  to  an  enlightened  understanding   and  appreciation  of  another  culture's  art.  But  few  people  have  the  time  and   inclination  to  undergo  much  by  way  of  cultural  retraining.  I  now  want  to   emphasize  the  extent  to  which,  in  the  standard  case,  an  outsider's  grasp  of  a   culture's  arts  and  their  traditions  will  be  partial.    

For  a  start,  there  is  the  inclination  to  error  mentioned  earlier.  Naturally  

enough,  we  must  start  by  assuming  that  things  work  in  the  foreign  culture  much   as  they  do  in  ours.  How  else  could  we  begin?  But  that  initial  assumption  will   often  turn  out  to  be  false.  There  are  great  variations  across  cultures,  even  if  there   are  also  underlying  similarities.  And  these  variations  are  often  ramified  in  their  

 

6  

artworlds.  It  could  be,  for  instance,  that  they  develop  highly  esoteric  forms  of  art,   to  which  the  kinds  of  human  universals  mentioned  above  provide  no  access.   Their  art  could  be  (or  become)  highly  conceptual  or  abstractly  symbolic.     Think  of  the  difficulty  an  art  expert  might  have  in  explaining  and   justifying  the  art-­‐status  of  Duchamp's  readymades  to  a  Westerner  who  had  not   much  concerned  themselves  with  Modernist  art  and  the  reactions  it  provoked.   No  doubt  those  difficulties  would  increase  by  a  new  order  of  magnitude  if  she   were  trying  to  induct  a  present-­‐day  hunter-­‐forager,  whose  artforms  involved   only  concrete  depictions,  dances,  songs,  and  enactments,  into  the  realm  of   Western  art.   The  point  is  not  meant  to  be  one  of  condescension.  The  art  of  every   culture  is  layered  with  meaning.  The  dot  paintings  of  Australian  aborigines  of  the   Western  desert  often  represent  geographical  features  and  animals  in  a  symbolic   form.  And  this  then  further  represents  journeys  and  acts  by  distant  ancestors,   which  in  turn  is  a  metaphor  for  stories  about  the  world's  creation  and  the  place   of  human  beings  within  it  (Bardon  1991).  Some  of  these  layers  of  meaning  may   be  withheld  from  members  of  the  group  who  have  not  undergone  the   appropriate  rites  and  training.  (And  men  and  women  may  have  different   readings  that  they  exclude  from  each  other.)  Unless  they  are  told  about  them,   cultural  outsiders  must  be  blind  to  these  layers  of  artistic  significance.  They  can   access  only  the  formal,  configurational  aspects  of  the  work,  which  is  to   underestimate  it  considerably.     &&&     A  special  case  helps  to  illustrate  the  point  in  dramatic  form.  Artists  of  the  Upper   Paleolithic  in  the  period  (40,000-­‐10,000  years  ago)  painted  the  walls  of  caves  (in   Europe,  but  also  elsewhere).  They  depicted  animals—ones  they  hunted  (horses,   bison,  deer,  aurochs),  ones  that  dominated  parts  of  the  landscape  (cave  bears,   mammoths,  wooly  rhinoceroses),  and  fierce  predators  (cave  lions  and  other   cats)  that  might  have  preyed  on  their  prey  or  on  them.  In  addition,  they  made   positive  and  negative  handprints  and  finger  flutings  in  wet  clay  walls.  They  also   marked  the  walls  with  indecipherable  symbols.  

 

7  

 

Consider  the  so-­‐called  Chinese  horse  from  Lascaux  cave  (which  resembles  

the  nearly  extinct  wild  Przewalski's  horses  of  Mongolia).  The  horse,  head   averted,  is  graphically  captured  with  simple  lines.    

    But  what  are  we  to  make  of  the  chevrons  in  front  of  its  chest  and  across  its  belly?   Or  of  the  straight,  joined  prongs  above  its  neck?  Of  course,  no  one  is  sure.  Recent   computer  analysis  by  Genevieve  von  Petzinger  suggests  that  there  is  a   "vocabulary"  of  such  symbols  that  is  used  from  cave  to  cave  (see   http://frontiers-­‐of-­‐anthropology.blogspot.com/2014/08/geometric-­‐signs-­‐from-­‐ genevieve-­‐von.html),  but  the  significance  of  this  symbolism  has  not  been   decoded.  An  apparently  unrelated  suggestion  is  that  these  marks  recall  the   illusory  visions  of  people  under  the  influence  of  mind-­‐altering  drugs,  in  trance   states,  or  suffering  from  sensory  deprivation  (Klüver1966,  Lewis-­‐Williams  2002,   Fallio  2006).    

And  what  of  the  horse  itself?  Different  animals  might  lead  human  totemic  

cults  (Leroi-­‐Gourhan  1986,  Narr  2008)  or  emblematize  secret  societies  (Fallio   2006).  As  well,  it  has  widely  been  thought  that  the  distribution  of  animal  

 

8  

depictions  carries  a  deep  significance  (Raphael  1945,  Laming-­‐Emperaire  1962),   though  this  is  no  loner  widely  accepted.  (For  an  account  of  these  and  other   interpretations  of  the  marks  and  animals,  see  Lewis-­‐Williams  2002,  57–65.)    

The  Upper  Paleolithic  cave  paintings  are  taken  to  be  art  (for  discussion,  

see  Davies  2012,  2015.)  That  is  not  crucial  for  the  point  at  hand,  however,  which   is  that  complex  social  artifacts,  including  art,  can  have  significance  that  stretches   far  beyond  their  surface  features.  They  might  be  abstract  marks  invested  with   symbolic  meaning.  Or,  they  might  be  straightforward  depictions,  as  of  a  horse,   that  also  stands  for  the  god  heading  a  cult,  or  that  combines  with  other   depictions  to  show  the  distribution  of  forces  in  the  universe,  and  so  on.    

We  might  reasonably  judge  that  Upper  Paleolithic  cave  paintings  are  art.  

But  our  ignorance  of  the  detailed  intentions  of  their  makers,  of  the  context  of   production,  and  of  their  connection  with  the  makers'  wider  mode  of  life  prevent   our  understanding  all  but  their  superficial,  representational  content.  This  is  an   extreme,  limiting  case  of  cross-­‐cultural  artistic  appreciation:  that  in  which  we   can  locate  the  art  and  some  of  its  content  but  are  denied  a  deeper,  more   appreciative  understanding,  this  being  a  situation  that  cannot  easily  be  improved   given  the  prehistoric  location  of  the  art  at  hand.        

 

 

9  

Bibliography   Bardon,  Geoffrey.  Papunya  Tula:  Art  of  the  Western  Desert.  Sydney:  McPhee   Gribble/Penguin,  1991.   Boyd,  Brian.  On  The  Origin  of  Stories,  Cambridge:  Harvard  University  Press,  2009.   Brown,  Donald  E.    Human  Universals,  Philadelphia:  Temple  University  Press,   1991.     Danto,  Arthur  C.  The  Transfiguration  of  the  Commonplace.  Cambridge,  MA:   Harvard  University  Press,  1981.   Davies,  Stephen.  "Non-­‐Western  Art  and  Art's  Definition."  In  Theories  of  Art  Today,   edited  by  N.  Carroll.Madison:  University  of  Wisconsin  Press,  2000.  199–216.   Davies,  Stephen.  "Versions  of  Musical  Works  and  Literary  Translations."  In   Philosophers  on  Music:  Experience,  Meaning,  and  Work,  edited  by  K.  Stock.   Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,  2007.  79–92   Davies,  Stephen.  "Life  is  a  Passacaglia."  Philosophy  and  Literature  33,  (2009):   315–28.   Davies,  Stephen.  "Cross-­‐cultural  Musical  Expressiveness:  Theory  and  the   Empirical  Programme."  In  The  Aesthetic  Mind:  Philosophy  and  Psychology,   edited  by  E.  Schellekens  andP.  Goldie.Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,  2011.   376–88.   Davies,  Stephen.  The  Artful  Species:  Aesthetics,  Art,  and  Evolution.  Oxford:  Oxford   University  Press,  2012.   Davies,  Stephen.  "Defining  Art  and  Artworlds."  Journal  of  Aesthetics  and  Art   Criticism  73,  (2015):  375–84.   Ekman,  Paul.  "Expression  and  the  Nature  of  Emotion."  In  Approaches  to  Emotion,   edited  by  K.  Scherer  and  P.  Ekman.  Hillsdale,  N.  J.:  Lawrence  Erlbaum   Associates,  1984.  319-­‐343.   Fallio,  Vincent  W..  New  Developments  in  Consciousness  Research,  New  York:  Nova   Publishers,  2006.   Higgins,  Kathleen  Marie.  "The  Cognitive  and  Appreciative  Impact  of  Musical   Universals."  Revue  Internationale  de  Philosophie,  60,  (2006):  487–503.     Higgins,  Kathleen  Marie.  The  Music  between  Us,  Chicago:  University  of  Chicago   Press  2012.    

 

10  

Justus,  Timothy  and  Hutsler,  Jeffrey  J.  "Fundamental  Issues  in  the  Evolutionary   Psychology  of  Music:  Assessing  Innateness  and  Domain  Specificity."  Music   Perception  23,  (2005):  1–27.     Klüver,  Heinrich.  Mescal  and  Mechanisms  of  Hallucination,  Chicago:  University  of   Chicago  Press,  1966.   Laming-­‐Emperaire,  Annette.La  Signification  de  l’artrupestrepaléolithique,  Paris:   Picard,  1962.     Leroi-­‐Gourhan,  Andre.  "The  Religion  of  the  Caves:  Magic  or  Metaphysics?"   translated  by  Annette  Michelson  ,  October  37,  (1986):  6–17.   Lewis-­‐Williams,  J.  David.  The  Mind  in  the  Cave:  Consciousness  and  the  Origins  of   Art,  London:  Thames  and  Hudson,  2002.   McDermott,  Josh  and  Hauser,  Marc  D.  "The  Origins  of  Music:   Innateness,Uniqueness,  and  Evolution."  Music  Perception  23,  (2005):  29–59.     Narr,  Karl  J..  "Prehistoric  religion."  Britannica  online  encyclopedia,  2008.   http://concise.britannica.com/oscar/print?articleId=109434&fullArticle=tr ue&tocId=52333   Ramachandran,  Vilayanur  and  Hirstein,  William.  "The  Science  of  Art:  A   Neurological  Theory  of  Aesthetic  Experience."  Journal  of  Consciousness   Studies,  6  (June–July),  (1999):  15–51.     Raphael,  Max.  Prehistoric  Cave  Paintings,  translated  by  N.  Guterman,  Pantheon   Books:  New  York,  1945.   Thompson,  William  Forde  and  Balkwill,  Laura-­‐Lee.  "Cross-­‐Cultural  Similarities   and  Differences."  In  Oxford  Handbook  of  Music  and  Emotion:  Theory,   Research,  Applications,  edited  by  P.N.  Juslin  and  J.  Sloboda,    Oxford:  Oxford   University  Press,  2010.  755–88   Walton,  Kendall  L.."Categories  of  Art."  Philosophical  Review  79,  (1970):  334–67.  

 

11