We connect the Distancing-Embracing model to theoretical and empirical evidence regarding empathy, which raises questions about the ordering and modulation of distancing in particular. Namely, distancing may not be a binary, continuously on/off process. Rather we suggest that changes in distancing as actualized via the relation between the individual and art (e.g., through empathy) might be a useful avenue for further consideration.

Distancing and then embracing constitutes a useful way of thinking about the paradox of aesthetic pleasure. However, the model does not account for live theatre. When live actors perform behaviors perceptually close to real life and possibly really experienced by the actors, audiences may experience autonomic reactions, with less distance, or may have to distance post-experiencing/embracing their emotions.

We propose an extension of the Distancing-Embracing model to the use of stories for prosocial ends. Specifically, audiences may find stories of individuals in need too emotionally overwhelming. Audiences may attempt to regulate or reduce negative emotions, which can reduce empathy and willingness to help. Through distancing, fictionalized accounts may counteract this tendency and thus increase prosocial behavior.

Menninghaus et al. portrayed meaning in art as a vehicle for transforming negative emotions into pleasure. Although it is intuitively appealing that meaningful experiences should feel good, meaningfulness does not necessarily entail pleasure or positive emotions. Whereas easily comprehended art may elicit pleasure, meaningfulness is more closely tied to challenge and interest than to pleasure.

Menninghaus et al. offer a comprehensive model to explain why people pursue darker emotions in art, but we believe they underplay the considerable role of situational factors in driving these preferences. In particular, changing mood states are likely to shape artistic preferences, in large part because positive mood states act as a protective buffer against otherwise aversive experiences.

The insightful analysis of Menninghaus et al. could be deepened and rendered more systematic by recognizing that our emotional enjoyment of tragedy – and our response to fiction more generally – are versions of what happens with simulation. They derive from the operation and evolutionary function of simulation. Once we understand emotion in simulation, we largely understand emotion in tragedy (and fiction).

The commendably ambitious project by Menninghaus et al. fails because its main connective tissue – “negative emotions” – is beyond the grasp of the authors' largely literary approach. The critique focuses on their treatment of the Paradox of Fiction, the neglect of the biological, adaptive nature of emotions, and the absence of convincing empirical support for key aspects of the proposed model.

Art objects differ from other objects because they are intentionally created to embody a producer's (i.e., artist's) expression. Hence, art objects are social objects whose appeal and value are determined largely by the strategic interaction between the artist and the audience. I discuss several aspects of how strategic interaction can affect an art object's perceived value and aesthetic appeal.

Theatrical magic is designed to elicit negative emotions such as feelings of vulnerability, loss of control, apprehension, fear, confusion, and bafflement. This commentary suggests that the Distancing-Embracing model can help us understand how the experience of magic can be aesthetically pleasurable, not despite, rather thanks to, some of the strong negative emotions it provokes.

With respect to the Distancing-Embracing model, we discuss whether experts with well-developed and highly accessible schemata that lend themselves to distancing have initial affective reactions similar to those of novices, who lack access to well-developed distancing mechanisms, and whether differences between experts' and novices' responses are apparent only after distancing mechanisms have had a chance to do their work. We revisit findings from Leder et al. (2014) and discuss the role of mixed emotions and fluency.

We commend Menninghaus et al. for tackling the role of negative emotions in art reception. However, their model suffers from shortcomings that reduce its applicability to empirical studies of the arts: poor use of evidence, lack of integration with other models, and limited derivation of testable hypotheses. We argue that theories about art experiences should be based on empirical evidence.

The Roman poet Horace said poetry gives pleasure and instructs. A more informative theory is that poetry and art, in general, are less about pleasure than about exploration of emotions. Literary authors concentrate on negative emotions, seemingly to try and understand them. In two studies, reading literary art enabled the transformation of selfhood, not by being instructed but by people changing in their own ways.

Menninghaus et al. distinguish art from fiction, but no current arguments or data suggest that the concept of art can be meaningfully circumscribed. This is a problem for aesthetic psychology. I sketch a solution by rejecting the distinction: Unlike most animal communication, in which signals are either true or false, art and fiction consist of signals without determinate truth values.

As evidence for the second process of the Embracing factor, the target article characterizes being moved as a mixed emotion linked to sadness through metonymy. We question these characterizations and argue that emotions should not be equated with their vernacular labels.

The “art form” of parent-infant bonding critically involves baby conveying negative emotions – literally compelling parents to respond and provide care. Current research on the brain basis of parenting is combining brain imaging with social, cognitive, and behavioral analyses to understand how parental brain circuits regulate thoughts and behavior in mental health, risk, and resilience. Understanding the parental brain may contribute to solving the long-standing paradox of self-sought hedonic exposure to negative emotions in art reception.

The Distancing-Embracing model reserves a role for genre scripts in the hedonic valuation of negative emotion in art. Genre scripts, as defined in the target article, leave higher-level recipient intuitions out of scope. We argue that, in film genre scripts, lower-level stylistic features lend access to more complex conceptual knowledge, including pragmatic principles. The argument implies a consideration of the communicative dimension of aesthetic works, which could strengthen both factors of the Distancing-Embracing model.

We use the example of art-derived solace to discuss a broader mechanism by which negative affect is instrumental in creating positive appreciation of artworks. Based on the theory of predictive processing, we argue that increasing attunement or reduction of prediction errors, which implies increasing validation of the agents (models), is experienced as positive, even if the artwork's content is negative.

Any model aiming to explain the enjoyment of negative emotions in the context of the arts should consider how works of art are able to induce emotional responses in the first place. For instance, research on empathy and the arts suggests that the psychological processes that mediate the enjoyment of sadness and horror may be fundamentally different.

The Distancing factor of Menninghaus et al.'s model includes schemas that remind consumers that the representation is fictional. Although they claim that these schemas are crucial to the functioning of the Embracing factor of the model, we argue that consumers can have similar responses to nonfictional representations. We urge the authors to expand their model to include such cases.

While covering all commentaries, our response specifically focuses on the following issues: How can the hypothesis of emotional distancing (qua art framing) be compatible with stipulating high levels of felt negative emotions in art reception? Which concept of altogether pleasurable mixed emotions does our model involve? Can mechanisms of predictive coding, social sharing, and immersion enhance the power of our model?