When reading a text, different aspects of a text, different points an author makes, or different interpretations of certain aspects and points are different for different readers. When reading “On Being Moved by Art,” what are one or two aspects/points that stood out to you and why?
6 thoughts on “Response to “On Being Moved by Art…” (Djikic et al.)”
Comments are closed.
One point that stood out to me was when literature being a “cognitive and emotional simulation” (25) was compared to a computer simulation. I found it somewhat poetic that the authors reasoned that just as a computer is affected by simulations when they run, a reader can be mentally affected by the lives of the characters in the stories they are reading.
Another point that stood out to me was how they created the control for the experiment. Having the actual short story being turned into a divorce proceeding with similar events for the control group was a very creative decision.
One point that stood out to me was that this experiment repudiated the idea that personality traits are fully developed by the age of 30. It supports the idea that traits can still be altered even in middle adulthood using distinct forms of artistic texts. The text states: “…appears important to consider that it may not be the sheer presence, but the quality of art-induced emotions–their complexity, depth, range, and intensity– that potentially facilitate the process of trait change” (pg. 5). This shows that the form of art we choose to indulge ourselves in might be a factor to the way we develop our traits and experiences.
One aspect that caught my attention was the idea that books that have impacted an individual’s life was similarly situated “to [that person’s] preoccupations, artistic tastes, and particular life stages” (Pg. 25). I found this rather fascinating because this shows that people are more willing to engage in books that share similar preferences and are relatable. Another aspect that stood out to me was in the experiment when participants read the short story and claimed that it caused changes to their personality traits even though the story was taken place in a different time period.
A point of the article that stood out to me is that studies show reading initiates self-change. “Traits change well into middle adulthood” (25). This meant that it was possible for the subjects of the experiment who said they experienced change, actually have experienced some degree of it. The report later explains that it is possible subjects are relating to the emotions the writer wanted to project (28).
Another aspect of the article that captivated me was that other studies show that reading fiction, as opposed to non-fiction, helps with performing socially.
One aspect of the text that stood out to me was the way in which the researchers address the possible concerns over mood induction affecting their results. The concern whether the observed changes in personality traits were a product of the varying moods that the participants had felt during the experiment was addressed by the fact that the art versus control conditions did not only impact a certain few traits in particular, but the entire trait profile of a participant. It is also interesting to note that the art condition did not only affect participant neuroticism or extraversion, but had a unique effect on each participant’s trait profile that proved to be more profound than in the control group.
In addition, it is important to note that the purpose of this study was not to prove that exposure to art leads to permanent or exceptionally strong personality changes, but instead to display the potential for human personality to shift even slightly after being exposed to quality artistic expression. This final section of the text stood out to me because it frames the experiment in a very particular way, as a foundational study that will go on to inspire other groups of researchers to look deeper into the connection between human personality and art.
One of the interesting points made in the article was that no trait, in particular, was affected among all individuals, but all individuals had their own unique personality changes across the Big Five metric (27). It is fascinating because I thought that a work of art (bias to one emotion or not) might be expected to make a person sad or happy in particular. However, each person had their own unique response to the fictional story and their response suggests that art may be a very personal experience.
Another interesting point made by the article was that the study was very conservative with its art form, and researchers made changes for the control by only modifying paragraphs and sentence structure (27). However, students’ personality trait profiles were still affected (27). This implies simple criteria for what could be considered art. It would be interesting to see what criteria is needed in other disciplines in order for those to be called art.