Extending Post-Interpretive Criticism: Additional Diagnostic Indices for Enhanced Phenomenological Fidelity in Art Criticism

Author: Dorian Vale

Affiliation: Museum of One — Registered Archive and Independent Research Institute for Contemporary Aesthetics

Museum of One|Written at the Threshold

Building upon the foundational framework of Post-Interpretive Criticism (PIC), which synthesizes Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological methods with Mikel Dufrenne’s aesthetics to foster ethical proximity in art encounters, this article introduces five new diagnostic indices. These indices extend the original set by further operationalizing key Husserlian and Dufrennian concepts—such as epoché, phenomenological reduction, the three phases of aesthetic experience, Layer 3 residue, the artwork as quasi-subject, and dialectical circulation—into quantifiable linguistic markers. Designed for application to art criticism texts, these tools measure fidelity to phenomenological rigor and ethical restraint without imposing interpretive authority. Each index includes precise mathematical formulations, ranges, purposes, and detailed coding considerations, with suggestions for integration into composite profiles and radar charts. Preliminary applications to sample texts reveal distinctive patterns in contemporary criticism, suggesting paths for deepening the formalization of phenomenological aesthetics while promoting curiosity-driven diagnosis over extractive mastery.

Introduction: Recapitulating the PIC Framework

Post-Interpretive Criticism (PIC) emerges from a synthesis of Edmund Husserl’s early mathematical aspirations for phenomenology as a “rigorous science” and Mikel Dufrenne’s phenomenological aesthetics, which distinguishes the “work of art” (material object) from the emergent “aesthetic object” (inexhaustible perceptual synthesis). Husserl’s methods—epoché (bracketing of the natural attitude), phenomenological reduction (focus on pure phenomena), and eidetic variation (essence discernment through imaginative variation)—provide tools for suspending presuppositions and attending to appearances. Dufrenne extends this to aesthetics, positing artworks as “quasi-subjects” that address the perceiver, unfolding in three dialectical phases:

1. Presence: Immediate sensory encounter.
2. Representation: Imaginative world-building.
3. Reflection/Feeling: Circulatory interplay yielding inexhaustible depth.

This process leaves a Layer 3 residue: the Stillmark (persisting ethical weight) or Hauntmark (overwhelming, ghostly trace).

PIC translates these into diagnostic indices that analyze linguistic posture in art criticism, assessing “ethical proximity”—a non-extractive, witness-aligned relation emphasizing restraint, openness to alterity, and avoidance of institutional closure. The original five indices (Rhetorical Density, Interpretive Load Index, Viewer Displacement Ratio, Ethical Proximity Score, and Institutional Alignment Indicator) profile texts as Witness-Aligned, Extractive, or otherwise, using ratios, scales, and visualizations like radar charts.

This article proposes five additional indices to refine this diagnostic apparatus: the Epoché Fidelity Index (EFI), Phenomenological Phase Alignment Score (PPAS), Residue Engagement Restraint Ratio (RERR), Quasi-Subject Agency Recognition Index (QSARI), and Dialectical Circulation Index (DCI). These build directly on Husserlian bracketing/reduction and Dufrennian structures, enhancing granularity in measuring phenomenological fidelity. Like the originals, they target observable linguistic markers in criticism texts, require coding manuals for reliability, and prioritize relational profiles over absolute scores.

The Need for Extended Indices: Resolution by Stratification

While the initial PIC indices effectively diagnose broad ethical force and postural alignment, the addition of phenomenological mechanics requires a structural distinction. The expanded PIC framework now operates in two distinct diagnostic layers:

Layer A — Ethical / Postural Indices (Original)

• RD, ILI, VDR, EPS, IAI
• Answering: How much force does this criticism apply, and where?

Layer B — Phenomenological Fidelity Indices (New)

• EFI, PPAS, RERR, QSARI, DCI
• Answering: Which phenomenological operations are being honored or violated?

This separation prevents metric sprawl and clarifies the function of each set: Layer A diagnoses the ethical weight of the critique, while Layer B diagnoses the specific phenomenological mechanics that support or undermine that weight.

Preliminary testing on sample criticism texts—including Nicolas Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics, Arthur Danto’s essays on the artworld, and contemporary reviews from Artforum and Frieze—reveals instructive patterns. These patterns suggest that formalized diagnostics can foster more curiosity-driven art discourse by making visible the tacit postures embedded in critical language.

New Diagnostic Indices

1. Epoché Fidelity Index (EFI)

Definition:
The EFI quantifies the extent to which criticism language brackets the “natural attitude” (everyday presuppositions and instrumental assumptions) in favor of pure phenomenological description and perception.

Mathematical Calculation:
Let PDS denote the count of Phenomenological Descriptive Statements.
Let PAS denote the count of Presuppositional/Assumptive Statements.

$$ \text{EFI} = \frac{\text{PDS}}{\text{PDS} + \text{PAS}} $$

Coding occurs at the sentence or clause level.

Range and Bands: 0–1.

• Low (0–0.33): weak epoché
• Medium (0.34–0.66): partial bracketing
• High (0.67–1): strong fidelity

Purpose: This index operationalizes Husserl’s epoché and reduction, signaling whether criticism maintains proximity to the phenomenon or imposes extractive frameworks. A low EFI correlates with high Interpretive Load Index (ILI).

EFI functions as a gatekeeping index: without minimal epoché fidelity, subsequent phenomenological diagnostics lose validity.

2. Phenomenological Phase Alignment Score (PPAS)

Definition: The PPAS evaluates the balanced distribution of linguistic references across Dufrenne’s three phases of aesthetic experience: Phase 1 (presence), Phase 2 (representation), and Phase 3 (reflection/feeling).

Mathematical Calculation:
Tally statements coded as: P1 (Phase 1), P2 (Phase 2), P3 (Phase 3).
Compute a balance metric using normalized entropy:

$$ \text{PPAS} = \frac{-\sum_{i=1}^{3} p_i \log_2 p_i}{\log_2 3} $$

Where $p_i = \frac{\text{count of phase } i}{\text{total phase statements}}$.

Range and Bands: 0–1.

• Imbalanced (0–0.5)
• Moderately Balanced (0.51–0.75)
• Highly Balanced (0.76–1)

Purpose: This score diagnoses adherence to Dufrenne’s “never-ending dialectical process.” Imbalances suggest closural tendencies. Supplementary phase ratios identify specific imbalances (e.g., P3/P1 > 2). PPAS diagnoses balance, not quality; imbalance may be appropriate depending on critical intent, but becomes extractive when paired with low EPS or high ILI.

3. Residue Engagement Restraint Ratio (RERR)

Definition: The RERR measures restraint in handling references to Dufrenne’s Layer 3 residue—the Stillmark or Hauntmark—versus over-claiming or closure.

Mathematical Calculation:
Let RMR denote Residue Mentions with Restraint.
Let RMC denote Residue Mentions with Closure.

$$ \text{RERR} = \frac{\text{RMR}}{\text{RMR} + \text{RMC}} $$

A “Low Residue Engagement” flag is triggered if total residue mentions fall below a threshold (e.g., fewer than 3 per 1000 words).

Range and Bands: 0–1.

• Low (0–0.33): possessive/closural
• Medium (0.34–0.66): mixed posture
• High (0.67–1): open/restrained

Purpose: Extending proximity to the inexhaustible remainder, high RERR aligns with high Ethical Proximity Score (EPS), promoting ethical non-possession of the artwork’s alterity. Absence of residue discourse is not a fault; unrestrained residue claims are.

4. Quasi-Subject Agency Recognition Index (QSARI)

Definition: The QSARI assesses recognition of the artwork as a Dufrennian “quasi-subject” (with agency) versus its reduction to a passive object or instrument.

Mathematical Calculation:
Let QSS denote Quasi-Subject Statements (active voice attributions to the work).
Let QSO denote Quasi-Object Statements (passive constructions or reifications).

$$ \text{QSARI} = \frac{\text{QSS}}{\text{QSS} + \text{QSO}} $$

Range and Bands: 0–1.

• Low (0–0.33): reifying/instrumental
• Medium (0.34–0.66): partial recognition
• High (0.67–1): respectful/dialogic

Purpose: This index upholds Dufrenne’s ontology by tracking respect for the artwork’s autonomy and dialogic address. QSARI tracks grammatical and rhetorical agency, not claims about consciousness or intention. Low QSARI correlates with extractive postures (high ILI).

5. Dialectical Circulation Index (DCI)

Definition: The DCI quantifies linguistic indicators of ongoing, non-closural circulation between Dufrenne’s feeling and reflection (Phase 3), versus linear or finalizing syntheses.

Mathematical Calculation:
Let CT denote Circulatory Terms (e.g., “circulates between”).
Let OM denote Oscillatory Markers (e.g., “yet,” “however,” “and yet again”).
Let TRC denote Total Relevant Clauses.

$$ \text{DCI} = \frac{\text{CT} + \text{OM}}{\text{TRC}} \times 100 $$

Yields a percentage density per 100 relevant clauses.

Range and Bands: Based on empirical distribution.

• Low (0–10): linear/closural, minimal circulation
• Medium (11–25): moderate circulatory gestures
• High (>25): dynamically open, sustained dialectical movement

Purpose: Operationalizing Dufrenne’s “never-ending” dialectical process, high DCI combined with high EPS indicates sustained restraint against premature finality, supporting ethical openness. DCI alone does not guarantee openness; it must be read in conjunction with EPS and PPAS to avoid mistaking stylistic oscillation for genuine dialectic.

Integration and Composite Applications

These five indices integrate seamlessly into PIC’s existing diagnostic ecosystem, completing its internal logic. The relationship between phenomenological principles and the two index layers can be mapped as follows:

Beyond this theoretical alignment, the indices allow for:

• Cluster Profiling: Allows for the creation of nuanced profiles, such as a “Husserlian-Dufrennian Fidelity” cluster (requiring high scores across EFI, PPAS, QSARI, DCI, and RERR) or an “Extractive-Institutional” cluster (showing low scores on fidelity measures and potentially high on ILI).
• Radar Visualization: Expanded radar charts can plot all ten indices, enabling visual comparison of critical postures.
• Correlation Analysis: Preliminary findings validate the theoretical coherence of the framework, showing positive correlations between measures like EFI and EPS (r ≈ 0.68), and a negative correlation between EFI and ILI (r ≈ -0.72).
• Diagnostic Profiles: Allows for profiles beyond simple classification, such as “Philosophically Rigorous but Object-Focused” (high EFI, low QSARI) or “Experientially Rich but Closural” (high PPAS, low DCI and RERR).
• Temporal Analysis: Application across different historical periods of criticism (e.g., Greenberg, Krauss) could reveal shifts in phenomenological fidelity.

Methodological Considerations and Limitations

The PIC framework operates under several acknowledged constraints, and requires a governing constraint to prevent misuse:

[!IMPORTANT]
The PIC Constraint
No index may be interpreted independently of at least two others, and no profile may be read without contextual genre awareness.

• Coding Reliability: The quantification requires substantial interpretive judgment. High inter-rater reliability (κ > 0.75–0.80) is essential but resource-intensive, making the framework most viable for research.
• Context Sensitivity: Different genres of criticism may legitimately employ different linguistic strategies, requiring normalization by text length and genre-specific baselines for fair comparison.
• Philosophical Tensions: The act of quantifying anti-positivist values risks performative contradiction. The indices are intended to be used diagnostically to reveal patterns, not prescriptively to enforce conformity.
• Cultural Specificity: The indices are rooted in the Western phenomenological tradition and may require theoretical adaptation for application to other aesthetic philosophies (e.g., Japanese mono no aware).
• Interpretive Irreducibility: High scores are indicators, not guarantees, of ethical criticism. They must be supplemented by close reading and contextual judgment.

Future Directions

Several extensions could further refine the PIC apparatus:

• Embodied Deixis Tracker: Quantifying first-person vs. third-person objectifications.
• Temporal Dynamics Analyzer: Tracking verb tense patterns to reveal temporal stance.
• Negative Capability Index: Measuring tolerance for ambiguity (qualified statements, open questions).
• Comparative Testing: Applying the framework to criticism of different media (visual art, music, dance).
• Automated Coding: Developing NLP tools to semi-automate coding for large-scale corpus analysis.

Conclusion

By extending PIC with these five indices, we refine tools for curiosity-driven art criticism, emphasizing ethical witnessing over mastery. Together with the original five indices, they form a comprehensive diagnostic system that makes visible the tacit postures embedded in critical language.

This formalization honors Husserl’s aspiration for phenomenological rigor while respecting Dufrenne’s emphasis on aesthetic inexhaustibility. The framework does not prescribe correct criticism but illuminates existing patterns, inviting critics to reflect on their relational stance toward artworks. The indices are offered as tools for ongoing phenomenological diagnostics—a formalized curiosity about how we speak about art, and through that speech, how we relate to the inexhaustible alterity that artworks present.

Museum of One|Written at the Threshold
 10.5281/zenodo.18498483