# The Structure of Part 2 of the [[psychedelic aesthetics]] paper - part 1 introduces [[the idea]] that psychedelic experiences can be understood as mind revealing states - mental processes (of different types) are made opaque - the aim of part 2 is show how this can be used to develop a [[psychedelic aesthetics]]. ## Realisational Properties - It is sometimes suggested that part of the [[aesthetic appreciation]] of images is attending to (being aware of) the way in which [[vehicle properties]] *realise* the depictive content. - Nanay calls these as design scene properties (see below for other names) - **Quote** >I want to return to the specific kind of property that has played an important role in understanding the [[aesthetic appreciation]] of pictures (while acknowledging that there may be other properties that we rou- tinely attribute to pictures when we appreciate them aesthetically). It is the property that Budd describes as ‘the crucial characteristic of pictorial art, namely, the interrelationship between the marks on the surface and what is depicted in them’ (Budd 1995, p. 58...). (p. 58) >Properties of this kind (under different labels) have triggered lively discussion recently, mainly in connection with [[the concept]] of ‘inflection’ (see Podro 1991, 1998; Lopes 2005; Hopkins 2010; Nanay 2010b). Hopkins calls these properties ‘inflected properties’ and argues that ‘a full characterization of [them] needs to make reference to the surface’s design (conceived as such)’ (Hopkins 2010). I myself called them ‘design-scene properties’, where a ‘design-scene property’ is a ‘relational property that cannot be fully characterized without reference to both the picture’s design and to the depicted object’ (Nanay 2010b, p. 194). In the light of the threefoldness account above, which resolves the ambiguity of [[the concept]] of ‘depicted object’ in this definition, I should say that a design- scene property is a relational property that cannot be fully characterized without reference to both the picture’s surface and to the three-dimensional object visually encoded in the surface. (p. 59 but check these page numbers (quotes are crrect though)) ### Design Scene Properties in [[Aesthetic Appreciation]] - One aspect of appreciating a pictorial work of art is the awareness of (attention to) these [[relational properties]]. - **Quote from Nanay:** > A key element in any appreciation of a pictorial work of art is the awareness of design-scene properties (this is what Budd suggests when he says that ‘the interrelationship between the marks on the surface and what is depicted in them’ is ‘the crucial characteristic of pictorial art’ (Budd 1995, p. 58, the second emphasis is mine)). When we are admiring a Miró drawing and the way two simple curved lines somehow manage to depict an expressive human face, what we are attending to is exactly a design-scene property: the relational property partly determined by the shape property of the two-dimensional curved line on the canvas and partly determined by the three-dimensional depicted face. And when we are appreciating Cézanne’s landscapes, one thing that enhances our [[aesthetic appreciation]] is to see the interrelationship between the three- dimensional depicted fascicles of pine needles and the two-dimensional single brushstrokes on the canvas. What Frank Sibley would call our ‘critical and evaluative discourse’ (Sibley 1959, p. 422) is full of references to design-scene properties (from which Sibley would conclude that it is an aesthetic property—see Chapter 4): to the way the depicted object emerges from the marks on the surface or to the way the depicted object is represented by the marks on the surface. (Nanay 2017, pp. 59 - 60) - Design Scene Properties are **shareable** in that two observers can attend to and discuss how the same mark on a Miró realises a face - [[The concept]] is used to illustrate the broader point that [[aesthetic experience]] is not solely about the detection of isolated properties (such as colour or form) but about apprehending the integrated, [[relational structure]] of the artwork. - Arguably, perceiving this *realisation relation* is something that renders an experience distinctly aesthetic rather than merely utilitarian or purely perceptual. - [[The author]] defines design‐scene properties as relational properties that cannot be fully characterised without reference to both of the following components: - **The Picture’s Surface (A):** - This is the two‐dimensional physical medium on which the artwork is rendered. - **The Three‐Dimensional Object Visually Encoded in the Surface (B):** - This is the perceptual construct that arises from the pictorial cues provided by the surface. - In effect, a design‐scene property is one whose full description requires an account of the interrelationship between the physical marks on the surface and the emergent three‐dimensional structure. ### Attention and Realisation (maybe this can be left out) - **A Central Feature of Aesthetic Experience** - The author argues that a significant case of aesthetic experience—particularly in the context of pictorial art—depends on the observer’s capacity to attend to design‐scene properties. - This capacity is related to the notion of “distributed aesthetic attention,” which is defined as the manner in which one’s attention is: - Focused on a single perceptual object (or picture) and simultaneously - Distributed over a variety of its properties, including those that belong to both the surface and the visually encoded three‐dimensional object. - **Role in Distributed Aesthetic Attention** - When an observer appreciates a picture aesthetically, their attention is not exclusively fixed on either the surface (A) or solely on the encoded three‐dimensional object (B). - Instead, the observer’s attention is deployed in a distributed manner so as to capture the relational properties—that is, the design‐scene properties—which emerge from the interaction between the surface and the depicted content. - This attentional mode is presented as distinctive in the aesthetic domain, differing from the more utilitarian or non‐aesthetic modes of attention that may focus on a limited set of properties or on a broader array of objects without a similar integrative focus. - **Bridging Perception and Evaluation** - Design‐scene properties serve to link the perceptual act (the way we see the picture) with the evaluative act (the way we appreciate it aesthetically). - By attending to these relational properties, the observer is able to: - Appreciate how the physical execution of the artwork (its design or marks) gives rise to an impression of a three‐dimensional scene. - Assess qualities such as naturalism, expressiveness, or the accuracy of the representation. - In this respect, the notion of design‐scene properties provides the conceptual resources needed for articulating why certain aesthetic experiences have a lasting or transformative effect. deep research on aesthetics of typography