pp 1–19 | Cite as

Aesthetics and action: situations, emotional perception and the Kuleshov effect

  • Matthew CrippenEmail author
S.I. : Gestalt Phenomenology and Embodied Cognitive Science


This article focuses on situations and emotional perception. To this end, I start with the Kuleshov effect wherein identical shots of performers manifest different expressions when cut to different contexts. However, I conducted experiments with a twist, using Darth Vader and non-primates, and even here expressions varied with contexts. Building on historically and conceptually linked Gibsonian, Gestalt, phenomenological and pragmatic schools, along with consonant experimental work, I extrapolate these results to defend three interconnected points. First, I argue that while perceiving expression is sometimes about reading minds, it is more squarely about perceiving solicitations or closures for action. Second, I frame expressions as a subcategory of Gibson’s affordances. This includes those showing up through context, in turn suggesting Kuleshov-like scenarios are not mere perceptual tricks. Third, I maintain that situations—with or without other human beings—have action-motivating expressive qualities or what Gestalt theorists called physiognomic characters, following Werner. These likewise emerge through ecological relations, and are very much like affordances and in the world as much as them. With resemblance theories, my account agrees that we perceive expression in the world. However, it indicates a broad range of cases in which expression shows up as consequences of overall situations that solicit or close actions, as opposed to mere resemblance between entities and human expressions.


Aesthetics Affordance theory Emotion Expression Gestalt psychology Perception Phenomenology Pragmatism Situations 



  1. Arnheim, R. (1971). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aviezer, H., Hassin, R. R., Ryan, J., Grady, C., Susskind, J., Anderson, A., et al. (2008). Angry, disgusted, or afraid? Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychological Science, 19, 724–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aviezer, H., Trope, Y., & Todorov, A. (2012a). Holistic person processing: Faces with bodies tell the whole story. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aviezer, H., Trope, Y., & Todorov, A. (2012b). Body cues, not facial expressions, discriminate between intense positive and negative emotions. Science, 338(6111), 1225–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barratt, D., Rédei, A. C., Innes-Ker, Å., & van de Weijer, J. (2016). Does the Kuleshov Effect really exist? Revisiting a classic film experiment on facial expressions and emotional contexts. Perception, 45, 847–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett, L. F. (2014). The conceptual act theory: A précis. Emotion Review, 6, 292–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D. M. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076–1096.Google Scholar
  8. Böhme, G. (1993). Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetic. Thesis Eleven, 36, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brendl, C. M., Markman, A. B., & Messner, C. (2003). The devaluation effect: Activating a need devalues unrelated objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 463–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buck, R. (1994). Social and emotional functions in facial expression and communication: The readout hypothesis. Biological Psychology, 38, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calbi, M., Heimann, K., Barratt, D., Siri, F., Umiltà, M. A., & Gallese, V. (2017). How context influences our perception of emotional faces: A behavioral study on the Kuleshov effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, N. (1993). Toward a theory of point-of-view editing: Communication, emotion, and the movies. Poetics Today, 14, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll, J. M., & Russell, J. A. (1996). Do facial expressions signal specific emotions? Judging emotion from the face in context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chemero, A., & Käufer, S. (2016). Pragmatism, phenomenology, and extended cognition. In R. Madzia & M. Jung (Eds.), Pragmatism and embodied cognitive science: From bodily interaction to symbolic articulation (pp. 55–70). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crippen, M. (2010). William James on belief: Turning Darwinism against empiricistic skepticism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 46, 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crippen, M. (2016). Dewey, enactivism and Greek thought. In R. Madzia & M. Jung (Eds.), Pragmatism and embodied cognitive science: From bodily interaction to symbolic Articulation (pp. 229–246). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Crippen, M. (2017). Embodied cognition and perception: Dewey, science and skepticism. Contemporary Pragmatism, 14, 121–134.Google Scholar
  20. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: G.P. Putnam.Google Scholar
  21. Davies, S. (2006). Artistic expression and the hard case of pure music. In M. Kieran (Ed.), Contemporary debates in aesthetics and the philosophy of art (pp. 179–191). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Dewey, J. (1908/1931). The practical character of reality. In J. Dewey (Ed.), Philosophy and civilization (pp. 35–56). New York: Minton, Balch and Company.Google Scholar
  23. Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York: Henry Holt and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. New York: Minton, Balch and Company.Google Scholar
  25. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch and Company.Google Scholar
  26. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  27. Dreyfus, H. (1991). Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger’s Being and time, division I. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Du, S., Tao, Y., & Martinez, A. M. (2014). Compound facial expressions of emotion. PNAS, 111, E1454–E1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dussutour, A., Latty, T., Beekman, M., & Simpson, S. J. (2010). Amoeboid organism solves complex nutritional challenges. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 460–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. K. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 207–283). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ekman, P. (1992). Are there basic emotions? Psychological Review, 99, 550–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system: A technique for the measurement of facial movement. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (2003). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Frijda, N. (2010). Impulsive action, and motivation. Biological Psychology, 84, 570–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gendron, M., Mesquita, B., & Barrett, L. (2013). Emotion perception: Putting the face in context. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 539–556). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Gibson, J. J. (1975). Pickford and the failure of experimental esthetics. Leonardo, 8, 319–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  39. Heft, H. (2001). Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James’ radical empiricism. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Hufendiek, R. (2017). Affordances and the normativity of emotions. Synthese, 194, 4455–4476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hume, D. (1757). Four dissertations. London: A Millar, in the Stand.Google Scholar
  42. Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  43. Jack, R. E., Sun, W., Delis, I., Garrod, O. G. B., & Schyns, P. G. (2016). Four not six: Revealing culturally common facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 708–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. James, W. (1879/1992). The sentiment of rationality. In G. E. Myers (Ed.), William James: Writings 18781899 (pp. 950–985). New York: Library of America.Google Scholar
  45. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 1, 4–32.Google Scholar
  46. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  48. Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  49. Krueger, J. W. (2010). Doing things with music. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Krueger, J., & Colombetti, G. (2018). Affective affordances and psychopathology. Discipline Filosofiche, 18, 221–247.Google Scholar
  51. Kuleshov, L. (1929/1974). The art of the cinema. In R. Levaco (Ed. & Trans.), Kuleshov on film: Writings of Lev Kuleshov (pp. 147–158). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mealey, L., & Theis, P. (1995). The relationship between mood and preferences among natural landscapes: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/1962). Phenomenology of perception (Trans., C. Smith). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1947/1964). Film and the new psychology. In Sense and non-sense (Trans., H. Dreyfus & P. Dreyfus) (pp. 43–59). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Mobbs, D., Weiskopf, N., Lau, H. C., Featherstone, E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006). The Kuleshov effect: The influence of contextual framing on emotional attributions. Scan, 1, 95–106.Google Scholar
  56. Nussbaum, C. (2007). The musical representation: Meaning, ontology, and emotion. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Prince, S., & Hensley, W. E. (1992). The Kuleshov effect: Recreating the classic experiment. Cinema Journal, 31, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Prinz, J. (2004). Gut reactions: A perceptual theory of emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Proffitt, D. R., & Linkenauger, S. A. (2013). Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 171–197). London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pudovkin, V. (1926/1968). Film technique. In I. Montagu (Ed. & Trans.), Film technique and film acting (pp. 19–220). London: Vision Press.Google Scholar
  62. Ratcliffe, M. (2002). Heidegger’s attunement and the neuropsychology of emotion. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ratcliffe, M., & Broome, M. (forthcoming). Beyond ‘salience’ and ‘affordance’: Understanding anomalous experiences of significant possibilities. In S. Archer (Ed.), Salience: A philosophical inquiry. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Reed, E. (1988). James J. Gibson and the psychology of perception. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Reid, C. R., Latty, T., Dussutourc, A., & Beekmana, M. (2012). Slime mold uses an externalized spatial ‘memory’ to navigate in complex environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 17490–17494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Riener, C. R., Stefanucci, J. K., Proffitt, D., & Clore, G. L. (2011). An effect of mood on the perception of geographical slant. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Robinson, J. (2011). Expression theories. In T. Gracyk & A. Kania (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy and Music (pp. 201–211). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Rosar, W. H. (1994). Film music and Heinz Werner’s theory of physiognomic perception. Psychomusicology A Journal of Research in Music Cognition, 13, 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Russell, J. A. (1993). Forced-choice response format in the study of facial expression. Motivation and Emotion, 17, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Russell, J. A. (1994). Is there universal recognition of emotion from facial expression? A review of cross-cultural studies. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 102–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Russell, J. A. (2006). Emotions are not modules. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 36, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schmitz, H., Müllan, R. O., & Slaby, J. (2011). Emotions outside the box—The new phenomenology of feeling and corporeality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10, 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schnall, S., Zadra, J., & Proffitt, D. R. (2010). Direct evidence for the economy of actions: Glucose and the perception of geographical slant. Perception, 39, 464–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Slaby, J. (2014). Emotions and the extended mind. In M. Salmela & C. Scheeve (Eds.), Collective emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, M. L., Cottrell, G. W., Gosselin, F., & Schyns, P. G. (2005). Transmitting and decoding facial expressions. Psychological Science, 16, 184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stern, D. N. (2010). Forms of vitality: Exploring dynamic experience in psychology, the arts, psychotherapy, and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tomkins, S. S., & McCarter, R. (1964). What and where are the primary effects: Some evidence for a theory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 18, 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Trivedi, S. (2011). Resemblance theories. In T. Gracyk & A. Kania (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy and music (pp. 201–211). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Veltkamp, M., Aarts, H., & Custers, R. (2008). Perception in the service of goal pursuit: Motivation to attain goals enhances the perceived size of goal-instrumental objects. Social Cognition, 26, 720–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wallbott, H. (1988). In and out of context: Influences of facial expression and context on emotion attributions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27(4), 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Weinberger, S. (2010). Airport security: Intent to deceive. Nature, 465(7297), 412–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Werner, H. (1927/1978). On physiognomic modes of perception and their experimental investigation. In S. S. Barten & M. B. Franklin (Eds.), Developmental processes: Heinz Werner’s selected writings (Vol. 1, pp. 149–152). New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  83. Werner, H. (1948). Comparative psychology of mental development. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  84. Wertheimer, M. (1938). General problems. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source gestalt psychology (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  85. Zadra, J., Schnall, S., Weltman, A., & Proffitt, D. (2010). Direct physiological evidence for the economy of action: Bioenergetics and the perception of spatial layout. Journal of Vision, 10, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Grand Valley State UniversityAllendaleUSA

Personalised recommendations