Whatever Happened to Cinematic Experience: From Sense Data to Experienceness in the History of Aesthetics

E. A. Strugova


The aesthetics of sensuality is rightfully considered an interdisciplinary field. One of the principles of such reasoning is the shift from the particular to the general, since sensuality is able to resist the 'majors' of rationality among topics (aesthetic judgment, art expertise). Even the most non-reductive approaches, standing apart from the Theories, emphasize the absence of common features that many aesthetic experiences would inherit. Whereas experience, along with observation, has a base that acts as an aid to academic texts. In the language of film criticism, there are seemingly intuitive, but productive notions: intonation, voice and atmosphere. Experienceness as a concept at the intersection of practical aesthetics and film theory makes it possible to find prerequisites for interest in sensuality in a cumulative sense in the history of aesthetics. Being an expression of a particle 'already', referring to both time and space, experienceness in the narrow sense (watchfullness) means a qualitative gap between the value judgment of the film and the depth of experience. While in a broad sense (namely experienceness ) It can be a reason to reconcile the axiology and phenomenology of the sensual side of cinematic experience.


sensuality; experienceness; cinematic experience; film theory; aesthetic reaction; analytical philosophy


Бергсон А. Опыт о непосредственных данных сознания // Собрание сочинений. В 4 т. Т. 1. М.: Московский клуб, 1992. 325 c.

Paszkiewicz K. “The Aesthetics of Impasse and the Affective Rhythms of Survival: Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank as Cinema of Precarity”, New Review of Film and Television Studies, 2023, no. 21(2): 1–27.

Радеев А.Е., Савченкова Н.М. Кинематографический опыт: история, теория, практика. Коллективная монография. СПб.: Порядок слов, 2020. 360 с.

Адорно Т.В. Исследование авторитарной личности. М.: Серебряные нити, 2001. 250 с.

Moore G.E. “The Nature and Reality of Objects of Perception”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1905–6, Vol. 6: 68–127. doi:10.1093/aristotelian/6.1.68.

Пирс Ч. С. Избранные философские произведения / пер. с англ. К.О. Голубович, К.К. Чухрукидзе. М.: Логос, 2000. 448 с.

Bräuer F. “Aesthetic Testimony and Aesthetic Authenticity”, British Journal of Aesthetics, 2023, Iss. 63 (3): 395–416.

Howard C., Rowland R. Fittingness: Essays in the Philosophy of Normativity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023. 416 p.

De Clercq R. “Two Conceptions of Response-dependence”, Philosophical Studies, 2002, Vol. 107: 159–177.

Covach F. J. “The Role of the Senses in the Aesthetic Experience”, The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, 1970, Vol. 1(3): 91–102.

Strawson P. F. Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays, London, Methuen, 1974. 288 p.

Berškytė J., Stevens G. “Faultless Disagreement without Contradiction: Expressive-Relativism and Predicates of Personal Taste”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 2022, Vol. 46(1): 1–34.

Юм Д. Сочинения в 2-х томах. Т. 2 / пер. с англ. С.И. Церетели и др. М.: Мысль, 1996. 799 с.

Purse L. “Layered Encounters: Mainstream Cinema and the Disaggregate Digital Composite”, Film-Philosophy, 2018, Iss. 22 (2): 148–167.

Sauchelli A. “In Defence of the Acquaintance Principle in Aesthetics”, Episteme, 2023: 1–19.

Levinson J. Suffering Art Gladly: The Paradox of Negative Emotions in Art, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. 271 p.

Кант И. Критика способности суждения. М.: Искусство, 1994. 365 c.

Hanich J. “How Many Emotions Does Film Studies Need?: A Phenomenological Proposal”, Projections, 2021, Vol. 15: 91–115.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31312/2310-1245-2023-58-188-204


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2023 E. A. Strugova

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.