Kaci Harrison

The paradox of painful art explores the general question: why do we sometimes enjoy art that elicits painful emotions that we tend to avoid in real life? The three dominant types of solutions – control, compensatory, and conversionary theories – tend to be treated as mutually exclusive. I argue that our aesthetic engagement with painful art is a play activity that significantly impacts our willingness to experience painful emotions due to the motivational structure of play. Approaching this paradox from the perspective of play reveals a compatibility between the dominant solutions. Here, I develop the play theory of painful art. To take up this task, I focus on three primary questions: What is play? How is play related to aesthetic engagements? And how is pain related to play? First, I introduce C. Thi Nguyen’s two-tier motivational structure of games, which maintains that we have a motivation to play a game and that, to achieve this purpose, requires us to adopt new, temporary goals during gameplay. I extend this view to include the temporary adoption of the norms of play. Then, I add painful emotions to this framework, highlighting how they are only contingently related to play. The resulting play theory of painful art framework maintains that we must temporarily adopt the norms of play and the negative emotions elicited by an artwork in order to achieve our original purpose of aesthetic engagement with that specific work of painful art. Finally, I integrate each solution’s corresponding motivation into this picture, showing how these motivations can happen simultaneously. Ultimately, our willingness to feel painful emotions in the context of art arises, in part, from a deeper appreciation of the aesthetic experience itself.