I address a set of questions that, I believe, natural science cannot answer, at least directly. These questions are normative ones to do with the norms that govern our artistic practices. The view that natural science cannot answer such questions has been most systematically defended recently by the philosopher of art David Davies in formulating a position Davies calls “moderate pessimism” about the contribution of the psychological sciences to the philosophy of art. Since it has been criticized and misunderstood, I spend some time in sections one and two clarifying and defending Davies’s position which, if right, lends further support to my position of moderate autonomism. I then offer in section three what I believe to be a legitimate criticism of Davies’s theory and its endorsement of revisionism by turning to the work of philosopher of art Peter Lamarque, while drawing out some of the implications of Lamarque’s view for the study of film and art, especially his distinction between internal and external perspectives on our practices with art. In doing so, I consider the implications for continuity editing of the recent discovery in perceptual psychology of “change blindness.” I also examine examples like quality television and early cinema.