BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//wp-events-plugin.com//7.2.3.1//EN
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:1805@ub.edu
DTSTART:20220204T100000Z
DTEND:20220204T120000Z
DTSTAMP:20250928T160320Z
URL:https://www.ub.edu/grc_logos/activities/fifth-session/
SUMMARY:Fifth session
DESCRIPTION:Two common observations about aesthetics are in tension: that p
 eople generally consider aesthetic judgments subjective\, and that people 
 generally behave like objectivists (arguing over judgments\, making choice
 s based on judgments of trusted critics\, rejecting strong assertions of a
 esthetic equivalence). This tension would be resolved if the first observa
 tion turned out to be false&mdash\;if people endorsed subjectivism weakly\
 , flexibly\, or rarely. We tested whether people can be pushed to endorse 
 objectivism under certain circumstances. Across a large sample (N = 58
 8)\, aesthetic subjectivism proved consistent and robust to experimental m
 anipulations. Even judgments that reflected participants' own evaluations 
 of artworks were considered just as subjective as judgments directly oppos
 ed to their personal evaluations. We conclude that the apparent tension ca
 n be explained by the philosophical position of expressivism and discuss e
 xpressivism's prospects as a framework for understanding aesthetic judgmen
 t.Raab\, N.et al (2020) &ldquo\;Expressivist to the chore: Metaaesthetic s
 ubjectivism is stable and robust&rdquo\;\, New Ideas in Psychology 57
LOCATION:via zoom
X-APPLE-STRUCTURED-LOCATION;VALUE=URI;X-ADDRESS=\, Spain;X-APPLE-RADIUS=100
 ;X-TITLE=via zoom:geo:0,0
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR