Psychology of art 1

Psychology of artThe psychology of art is an interdisciplinary field that studies the perception, cognition and characteristics of artand its production. For the use of art materials as a form of psychotherapy, see art therapy. The psychology of art isrelated to architectural psychology and environmental psychology.[citation needed]

The work of Theodor Lipps, a Munich-based research psychologist, played an important role in the earlydevelopment of the concept of art psychology in the early decade of the twentieth century.[citation needed] His mostimportant contribution in this respect was his attempt to theorize the question of Einfuehlung or "empathy", a termthat was to become a key element in many subsequent theories of art psychology.[citation needed]

Vincent van Gogh, 1853-1890, Wheatfield with Crows

History

1880-1950

One of the earliest to integratepsychology with art history wasHeinrich Wölfflin (1864–1945), aSwiss art critic and historian, whosedissertation Prolegomena zu einerPsychologie der Architektur (1886)attempted to show that architecturecould be understood from a purelypsychological (as opposed to a historical-progressivist) point of view.[1]

Another important figure in the development of art psychology was Wilhelm Worringer, who provided some of theearliest theoretical justification for expressionist art. The Psychology of Art (1925) by Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934) isanother classical work. Richard Müller-Freienfels was another important early theorist.[citation needed]

Numerous artists in the twentieth century began to be influenced by the psychological argument, including NaumGabo, Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, and somewhat Josef Albers and György Kepes. The French adventurer andfilm theorist André Malraux was also interested in the topic and wrote the book La Psychologie de l'Art (1947-9)later revised and republished as The Voices of Silence.

1950-presentThough the disciplinary foundations of art psychology were first developed in Germany, there were soon advocates,in psychology, the arts or in philosophy, pursuing their own variants in the USSR, England (Clive Bell and HerbertRead), France (André Malraux, Jean-Paul Weber, for example), and the US.[citation needed]

In the US, the philosophical premises of art psychology were strengthened - and given political valence - in the workof John Dewey.[2] His 'Art as Experience was published in 1934, and was the basis for significant revisions inteaching practices whether in the kindergarten or in the university. Manuel Barkan, head of the Arts EducationSchool of Fine and Applied Arts at Ohio State University, and one of the many pedagoges influenced by the writingsof Dewey, explains, for example, in his book, The Foundations of Art Education (1955), that the aesthetic educationof children prepares the child for a life in a complex democracy. Dewey himself played a seminal role in setting upthe program of the Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia, which became famous for its attempt to integrate art into theclassroom experience.[citation needed]

The growth of art psychology between 1950 and 1970 also coincided with the expansion of art history and museum programs. The popularity of Gestalt psychology in the 1950s added further weight to the discipline. The seminal

Psychology of art 2

work was Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality (1951), that was co-authored by FritzPerls, Paul Goodman, and Ralph Hefferline. The writings of Rudolf Arnheim (born 1904) were also particularlyinfluential during this period. His Toward a Psychology of Art (Berkeley: University of California Press) waspublished in 1966. Art therapy drew on many of the lessons of art psychology and tried to implement them in thecontext of ego repair.[3] Marketing also began to draw on the lessons of art psychology in the layout of stores as wellas in the placement and design of commercial goods.[4]

Art psychology, generally speaking, was at odds with the principles of Freudian psychoanalysis with many artpsychologists critiquing, what they interpreted as, its reductivism. The writings of Carl Jung, however, had afavorable reception among art psychologists given his optimistic portrayal of the role of art and his belief that thecontents of the personal unconscious and, more particularly, the collective unconscious, could be accessed by art andother forms of cultural expression.[5]

By the 1970s, the centrality of art psychology in academy began to wane. Artists became more interested inpsychoanalysis[6] and feminism,[7] and architects in phenomenology and the writings of Wittgenstein, Lyotard andDerrida. As for art and architectural historians, they critiqued psychology for being anti-contextual and culturallynaive. Erwin Panofsky, who had a tremendous impact on the shape of art history in the US, argued that historiansshould focus less on what is seen and more on what was thought.[8][9] Today, psychology still plays an importantrole in art discourse, though mainly in the field of art appreciation.[10]

Because of the growing interest in personality theory—especially in connection with the work of Isabel BriggsMyers and Katherine Briggs (developers of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)[11], contemporary theorists areinvestigating the relationship between personality type and art. Patricia Dinkelaker and John Fudjack have addressedthe relationship between artists’ personality types and works of art; approaches to art as a reflection of functionalpreferences associated with personality type; and the function of art in society in light of personality theory.[12]

Aesthetic ExperienceArt is considered to be a subjective field, in which one composes and views artwork in unique ways that reflect one’sexperience, knowledge, preference, and emotions. The aesthetic experience encompasses the relationship betweenthe viewer and the art object. In terms of the artist, there is an emotional attachment that drives the focus of the art.An artist must be completely in-tune with the art object in order to enrich its creation.[] As the piece of art progressesduring the creative process, so does the artist. Both grow and change to acquire new meaning. If the artist is tooemotionally attached or lacking emotional compatibility with a work of art, then this will negatively impact thefinished product.[] According to Bosanquet (1892), the “aesthetic attitude” is important in viewing art because itallows one to consider an object with ready interest to see what it suggests. However, art does not evoke an aestheticexperience unless the viewer is willing and open to it. No matter how compelling the object is, it is up to thebeholder to allow the existence of such an experience.[]

In the eyes of Gestalt psychologist Rudolf Arnheim, the aesthetic experience of art stresses the relationship betweenthe whole object and its individual parts. He is widely known for focusing on the experiences and interpretations ofartwork, and how they provide insight into peoples’ lives. He was less concerned with the cultural and socialcontexts of the experience of creating and viewing artwork. In his eyes, an object as a whole is considered with lessscrutiny and criticism than the consideration of the specific aspects of its entity. Artwork reflects one’s “livedexperience” of his/her life. Arnheim believed that all psychological processes have cognitive, emotional, andmotivational qualities, which are reflected in the compositions of every artist.[]

Psychology of art 3

Psychological research

Overview: bottom-up and top-down proccessingCognitive psychologists consider both "bottom-up" and "top-down" processing when considering almost any area ofresearch, including vision.[][][] Similar to how these terms are used in software design, "bottom-up" refers to howinformation in the stimulus is processed by the visual system into colors, shapes, patterns, etc.[][] "Top-down" refersto conceptual knowledge and past experience of the particular individual.[][] Bottom-up factors identified in how artis appreciated include abstract vs figurative painting, form, complexity, symmetry and compositional balance,laterality and movement.[] Top-down influences identified as being related to art appreciation include prototypicality,novelty, additional information like titles, and expertise.[]

Abstract versus figurative artAbstract paintings are unique in the explicit abandonment of representational intentions.[] Figurative orrepresentational art is described as unambiguous or requiring mild interpretation.[]

Abstract vs Figurative art

Figurative art

Abstract artAbstract art is more ambiguous than figurative art.

The importance of meaning

The popular distaste for abstract art is a direct consequence of semantic ambiguity.[] Researchers have examined therole of terror management theory (TMT) concerning meaning and the aesthetic experience of abstract versusfigurative art. This theory suggests that humans, like all life forms are biologically oriented toward continuedsurvival but are uniquely aware that their lives will inevitably end. TMT reveals that modern art is often dislikedbecause it lacks appreciable meaning, and is thus incompatible with the underlying terror management motive tomaintain a meaningful conception of reality.[] Mortality salience, or the knowledge of approaching death, wasmanipulated in a study aimed at examining how aesthetic preferences for seemingly meaningful and meaningless artare influenced by intimations of mortality. The mortality salience condition consisted of two opened ended questionsabout emotions and physical details concerning the participant’s own death.[] Participants were then instructed toview two abstract paintings and rate how attractive they find them. A t test comparing the mortality saliencecondition and the control found that participants in the mortality salience condition found the art less attractive.[]

The meaning maintenance model of sociology states that when a committed meaning framework is threatened, people experience an arousal state that prompts them to affirm any other meaning framework to which they are committed.[] Researchers sought to illustrate this phenomenon by demonstrating a heightened personal need for structure following the experience of abstract artwork.[] Participants were randomly assigned to a between-subjects viewing of artwork (abstract vs. representational vs. absurd artwork), followed by allocation of the Personal Need for Structure scale. Personal Need for Structure scale is used to detect temporary increases in people’s need for

Psychology of art 4

meaning.[] Theoretically, one should experience more need for structure when viewing abstract art than figurative artsince unrelated meaning threats (abstract art) evoke a temporarily heightened general need for meaning.[] However,results showed that overall scores for representational art, and abstract art did not differ significantly from oneanother. Participants reported higher scores on the Personal Need for Structure scale in absurd rather than abstractart. Yet, the question remains as to whether the same kinds of results would be obtained with an expanded sample ofabstract expressionist or absurd images.[]

Complexity

Studies have shown that when looking at abstract art, people prefer complexity in the work to a certain extent. Whenmeasuring "interestingness" and "pleasingness," viewers rated works higher for abstract works that were morecomplex. With added exposure to the abstract work, liking ratings continued to rise with both subjective complexity(viewer rated) and judged complexity (artist rated). This was only true up to a certain point. When the works becametoo complex, people began to like the works less.[13]

Neural evidence

Neuroanatomical evidence from studies using fMRI scans of aesthetic preference show that representationalpaintings are preferred over abstract paintings.[] This is displayed through significant activation of brain regionsrelated to preference ratings.[] To test this, researchers had participants view paintings that varied according to type(representational vs. abstract) and format (original vs. altered vs. filtered). Behavioral results demonstrated asignificantly higher preference for representational paintings.[] A positive correlation existed between preferenceratings and response latency. FMRI results revealed that activity in the right caudate nucleus extending to putamendecreased in response to decreasing preference for paintings, while activity in the left cingulate sulcus, bilateraloccipital gyri, bilateral fusiform gyri, right fusiform gyrus, and bilateral cerebellum increased in response toincreasing preference for paintings.[] The observed differences were a reflection of relatively increased activationassociated with higher preference for representational paintings.[]

Brain wave studies have also been conducted to look at how artists and non-artists react differently to abstract andrepresentational art. EEG brain scans showed that while viewing abstract art, non-artists showed less arousal thanartists. However, while viewing figurative art, both artists and non-artists had comparable arousal and ability to payattention and evaluate the art stimuli. This suggests abstract art requires more expertise to appreciate it than doesfigurative art.[14]

Personality type

Individual personality traits are also related to aesthetic experience and art preference. Individuals chronicallydisposed to clear, simple, and unambiguous knowledge express a particularly negative aesthetic experience towardsabstract art, due to the void of meaningful content.[] Studies have provided evidence that a person’s choice of art canbe a useful measure of personality.[] Individual personality traits are related to aesthetic experience and artpreference. Testing personality after viewing abstract and representational art was performed on the NEOFive-Factor Inventory which measures the “big five” factors of personality.[] When referencing the “Big Five”dimensions of personality, Thrill and Adventure Seeking were positively correlated with a liking of representationalart, while Disinhibition was associated with positive ratings of abstract art. Neuroticism was positively correlatedwith positive ratings of abstract art, while Conscientiousness was linked to liking of representational art. Openness toExperience was linked to positive ratings of abstract and representational art.[]

Psychology of art 5

Automatic evaluation

Studies looking at implicit, automatic evaluation of art works have investigated how people react to abstract andfigurative art works in the split-second before they had time to think about it. In implicit evaluation, people reactedmore positively to the figurative art, where they could at least make out the shapes. In terms of explicit evaluation,when people had to think about the art, there was no real difference in judgement between abstract andrepresentational art.[15]

Laterality and movement

Handedness and reading direction

Laterality and movement in visual art includes aspects such as interest, weight, and balance. Many studies have beenconducted on the impact of handedness and reading direction on how one perceives a piece of art. Research has beenconducted to determine if hemispheric specialization or reading habits affect the direction in which participants“read” a painting. Results indicate that both factors contribute to the process. Furthermore, hemispheric specializationleads individuals to read from left to right, giving those readers an advantage.[16] Building off of these findings, otherresearchers studied the idea that individuals who are accustomed to reading in a certain direction (right to left, versusleft to right) would then display a bias in their own representational drawings reflecting the direction of their readinghabits. Results indicated that this prediction held true, in that participants’ drawings reflected their reading bias.[17]

Researchers also looked to see if one’s reading direction, left to right or right to left affects one’s preference for eithera left to right directionality or a right to left directionality in pictures. Participants were shown images as well as itsmirror image, and were asked to indicate which they found more aesthetically pleasing. Overall, results indicate thatone’s reading directionality impacts one’s preference for pictures either with left to right directionality or right to leftdirectionality.[18]

In another study, researchers examined if the right-side bias in aesthetic preference is affected by handedness orreading/writing habits. The researchers looked at Russian readers, Arabic readers, and Hebrew readers that wereright handed and non-right-handed. Participants viewed pictures taken from art books that were profiles or humanfaces and bodies in two blocks. Images were shown to participants as inward or outward facing pairs and then in theopposite orientation. After viewing each pair, participants were asked which image of the pair was more aestheticallypleasing. When looking at the results for handedness, right-handed participants had “left preferences” and nonright-handed participants had “right preferences.” These results indicated that “aesthetic preference for facial andbodily profiles is associated primarily with the directionality of acquired reading/writing habits."[19] Readingdirection seems to impact how people of all ages view artwork. Using kindergarten to college aged participants,researchers tested viewers’ aesthetic preference when comparing an original piece of art with its mirror image. Theoriginal paintings followed the convention that viewers “read” paintings from left to right; therefore, the patterns oflight directed the audience to view the painting in the same manner. Findings indicated that participants preferred theoriginal paintings, most likely due to the western style of viewing paintings from left to right.[20]

Lighting direction

The direction of the lighting placed on a painting also seems to have an effect on aesthetic preference. The left-lightbias is the tendency for viewers to prefer artwork that is lit with lighting coming from the left hand side of thepainting. Researchers predicted that participants would prefer artwork that was lit from the left side and when giventhe option, they would choose to place lighting on the upper left side of a piece of artwork. Participants foundpaintings with lighting on the left to be more aesthetically pleasing than when it was lighter on the right side andwhen given the opportunity to create light on an already existing painting.[21]

Psychology of art 6

Left and right cheek bias

The left cheek bias occurs when viewers prefer portraits with the subject displaying their left cheek, while those thathold a right cheek bias prefer portraits displaying the right cheek. Studies have found mixed results concerning theleft cheek bias and the right cheek bias. One set of researchers explored whether people prefer portraits of a personwith either his or her left or right cheek facing the viewer Male and female participants were shown male and femaleportraits, each displaying an equal number of left or right cheek positions. Participants were shown each portrait inits original orientation and in its reversed orientation and asked which portrait they preferred more. Results indicatedthat the majority of participants chose portraits displaying the subject’s right cheek over the left.[22] Another studyexplored which posing orientations conveyed certain messages. Scientists in the 18th century more commonlydisplayed a right cheek bias, and were rated as “more scientific.” According to the researchers, showing one’s rightcheek hides emotion, while the left cheek expresses it. The shift from right to left cheek bias post 18th century mayrepresent more personal or open facial characteristics.[23]

ComplexityComplexity can literally be defined as being “made up of a large number of parts that have many interactions.”[] Thisdefinition has been applied to many subjects, such as art, music, dance, and literature. In aesthetics research,complexity has been divided into three dimensions that account for the interaction between the amount of elements,differences in elements, and patterns in their arrangement. Furthermore, this characteristic in aesthetics consists of awide spectrum, ranging from low complexity to high complexity. Key studies have found through Galvanic skinresponse that more complex artworks produce greater physiological arousal and higher hedonic ratings,[] which isconsistent with other findings that claim that aesthetic liking increases with complexity. Most important, severalstudies have found that there exists a U-shape relationship between aesthetic preference and complexity.[]

Measuring complexity

In general, complexity is a something that has many parts in an intricate progression. Some researchers breakcomplexity down into two different subparts: objective complexity and perceived complexity. Objective complexityis any part of art that could be manipulated. For visual art that may be the size of the shapes, the number of patters,or the number of colors used. For acoustic art that could include duration, loudness, number of different harmonies,number of changes in rhythmic activity, and rate of rhythmic activity.[] Another form of complexity is perceivedcomplexity, or subjective complexity. In this form each individual person rates an object on the complexity theyperceive. Therefore, subjective complexity might depict our view of complexity more accurately, however, themeasure may change from person to person.One form of using computer technology to rate complexity, is by using computer intelligence when rating animage.[] In this format, the amount of computer intelligence used is assessed when creating a digital image.Computer intelligence is assessed by recording the mathematic formulas used in creating the images. Humaninvolvement, adding or taking away aspects of the image, could also add or take away from the complexity of theimage.[]

One was to measure complexity is to manipulate original artwork to contain various levels of density. This process isdone by subtracting and adding pixels to change the density of black and white paintings. This technique allowedresearchers to use authentic artwork, instead of creating artificial versions of artwork, to control stimuli.[24]

Still others find it best to measure complexity based on the number of parts an artwork has.[] More aspects to the art,such as more colors, details, shapes, objects,sounds, melodies, and the like, create a more complex artwork.However, there is limited research done on the comparison between part based complexity and human perception ofcomplexity, making it unclear if people perceive images with more parts as being more complex.

Psychology of art 7

Inverse U-Shape hypothesis

Inverted-U Graph.

The Inverted U-Shape Hypothesissuggests that aesthetic responses inrelation to complexity will exhibit aninverted-shape distribution. In otherwords, the lowest ratings in aestheticresponses correlate with high and lowlevels of complexity, which displays an“avoidance of extremes.” Furthermore,the highest level of aesthetic responseoccurs in the middle level ofcomplexity.[] Previous studies haveconfirmed the U-Shape hypothesis (seeInverted U-graph image). For instance,in a study of undergraduates’ ratings ofliking and complexity of contemporarypop music reported an invertedU-shape relationship between likingand complexity.[]

Previous research, suggest that thistrend of complexity could also beassociated with ability to understand, in which obserevers prefer artwork that is not too easy or too difficult tocomprehend.[25] Other research both confirms and disconfirms predictions that suggest that individual characteristicssuch as artistic expertise and training can produce a shift in the inverted U-shape distribution.[]

Aspects of art

Visual artA general trend shows that the relationship between image complexity and pleasantness ratings form an inverted-Ushape graph (see Expertise section for exceptions). This means that people like increasingly like art as it goes fromvery simple to more complex, until a peak, when pleasantness ratings being to fall again.A recent study had also found that we tend to rate natural environment and landscape images as more complex,hence liking them more than abstract images that we rate as less complex.[26]

MusicMusic shows similar trends in complexity vs. preference ratings as does visual art. When comparing popular music,for the time period, and perceived complexity ratings the known inverted-U shape relationship appears, showing thatgenerally we like moderately complex music the most.[] As the music selection gets more or less complex, ourpreference for that music dips. People who have more experience and training in popular music, however, preferslightly more complex music.[] The inverted-U graph shifts to the right for people a stronger musical background. Asimilar pattern can be seen for jazz and bluegrass music.[] Those with limited musical training in jazz and bluegrassdemonstrate the typical inverted-U when looking at complexity and preference, however, experts in those fields donot demonstrate the same pattern. Unlike the popular music experts, jazz and bluegrass experts did not show adistinct relationship between complexity and pleasantness. Experts in those two genres of music seem to just likewhat they like, without having a formula to describe their behavior. Since different styles of music have differenteffects on preference for experts, further studies would need to be done to draw conclusions for complexity andpreference ratings for other styles.

Psychology of art 8

DancePsychological studies have shown that the hedonic likings of dance performances can be influenced by complexity.One experiment used twelve dance choreographies that consist of three levels of complexity performed at fourdifferent tempos. Complexity in the dance sequences were created varying the sequence of six movement patterns(i.e. circle clockwise, circle counterclockwise, and approach stage). Overall, this studied showed that observersprefer choreographies with complex dance sequences and faster tempos.[27]

Personal differences

Its has been found that personality differences and demographic differences may lead different art preferences aswell. One study tested peoples preferences on various art pieces, taking into account their personal preferences aswell. The study found that gender diffences exist in art preference. Women generally prefer happy, colorful, andsimple paintings whereas men generally prefer geometric, sad, and complex paintings. An age difference incomplexity preferences exists as well, where preference for complex paintings increases as age increases.[]

Certain personality traits can also predict the relationship between art complexity and preference.[] In one study itwas found that people who scored high on conscientiousness liked complex painting less than people who scoredlow on conscientiousness. This falls in line with the idea that conscientious people dislike uncertainly and enjoycontrol, thereby disliking artwork that might threaten such feelings. On the other hand people who scored highly onopenness to experience liked complex artworks more than those who didn't score highly on openness to experience.Individual differences are better predictors for preference of complex art than simple art, where no clear personalitytraits predict preference for simple art. Although educational level did not have a direct relationship with complexity,higher educational levels led to more museum visits which in turn lead to more appreciation of complex art.[] Thisshows that more expose to complex art leads to greater preference, where indeed familiarity causes greater liking.

SymmetrySymmetry and beauty have a strong biological link that influences aesthetic preferences. It has been shown thathumans tend to prefer art that contains symmetry, deeming it more beautiful.[28] Furthermore, symmetry directlycorrelates to the understanding of a face or artwork as beautiful.[] The greater the symmetry within the work or theface, generally the more beautiful it appears to be.[] Research on aesthetic preference for geometric forms and thefluent processing of symmetry sheds light on the role that symmetry plays in the overall aesthetic judgment andexperience.Humans innately tend to see and have a visual preference for symmetry, an identified quality yielding a positiveaesthetic experience that uses an automatic bottom-up factor.[] This bottom-up factor is speculated to rely on learningexperience and visual processing in the brain, suggesting a biological basis.[] Many studies have ventured to explainthis innate preference for symmetry with methods including the Implicit Association Test (IAT).[] Research suggeststhat we may prefer symmetry because it is easy to process; hence we have a higher perceptual fluency when worksare symmetrical.[] Fluency research draws on evidence from humans and animals that point to the importance ofsymmetry regardless of biological necessity. This research highlights the efficiency with which computers recognizeand process symmetrical objects relative to non-symmetrical models.[] There have been investigations regarding theobjective features that stimuli contain that may affect the fluency and therefore the preferences.[] Factors such asamount of information given, the extent of symmetry, and figure-ground contrast are only a few listed in theliterature.[] This preference for symmetry has led to question on how fluency affects our implicit preferences byusing the Implicit Association Test. Findings suggest that perceptual fluency is a factor that elicits implicitresponses, as shown with the Implicit Association Test results.[] Research has branched from studying aestheticpleasure and symmetry on an explicit but also implicit level. In fact, research tries to integrate priming (psychology),cultural influences and the different types of stimuli that may elicit an aesthetic preference.

Psychology of art 9

Further research investigating perceptual fluency has found a gender bias towards neutral stimuli.[] Studiespertaining to generalizing symmetry preference to real-world versus abstract objects allow us to further examine thepossible influence meaning may have on preference for a given stimuli.[] In order to determine whether meaningmattered for a given stimuli, participants were asked to view pairs of objects and make a forced-choice decision,evaluating their preference.[] The findings suggest that an overall preference for symmetric features of visual objectsexisted. Furthermore, a main effect for gender preference existed in the males that consistently indicated a preferencefor symmetry in both abstract and real objects.[] This finding did not transcend in the female participants.[] Furtherstudies need to be conducted to investigate the factors that influence female preferences for visual stimuli as well asfor why males showed a preference for symmetry in both abstract and real world objects.[]

Art containing geometric forms, as seen in much of Islamic art, has an inherent symmetry to the work. Thissymmetry can be correlated to the attractiveness associated with the art form, since there is a correlation betweenhuman preference and symmetry.[] In studies regarding facial attractiveness, symmetry is found to be a significantfactor as well as the shape and coloration in determining attractiveness. The good genes hypothesis for symmetrypreference argues that symmetry is a biological indicator of stable development, mate quality and fitness andtherefore explains why we choose symmetrical traits in our mates.[] The good genes hypothesis does not, however,explain why this phenomenon is observed in our preferences for decoration art.[] Another proposed hypothesis is theextended phenotype hypothesis that argues that decoration art is not mate-irrelevant but rather a reflection of thefitness of the artist, as symmetrical forms are difficult to produce.[] These hypothesis and findings provide evidencefor evolutionary biases on preference for symmetry and as reinforcement for cultural biases.[] Research suggests thatsymmetrical preference due to its evolutionary basis, biological basis and cultural reinforcement, might be replicablecross-culturally.[]

Compositional balanceCompositional balance refers to the placement of various elements in a work of art in relation to each other, throughtheir organization and positioning, and based upon their relative weights.[] The elements may include the size, shape,color, and arrangement of objects or shapes. When balanced, a composition appears stable and visually right.[] Justas symmetry relates to aesthetic preference and reflects an intuitive sense for how things ‘should’ appear, the overallbalance of a given composition contributes to judgments of the work.The positioning of even a single object, such as a bowl or a light fixture, in a composition contributes to preferencesfor that composition. When participants viewed a variety of objects, whose vertical positions on a horizontal planewere manipulated, participants preferred objects that were lower or higher in the plane of vision, corresponding tothe normal placement of the image (e.g., a light bulb should be higher and a bowl lower). The center bias manifestscan explain the preference for the most important or functional part of an object to occupy the center of the frame,suggesting a bias for a ‘rightness’ of object viewing.[29]

We are also sensitive to balance in both abstract and representational works of art. When viewing variations onoriginal artwork, such as the manipulation of the red, blue, and yellow areas of color in several Piet Mondrianpaintings, design-trained and untrained participants successfully identified the balance centers of each variation.Both groups were sensitive to the distribution of color, weight, and area occupied. Expertise (see Art and Expertise)does not seem to have a large effect on perceiving balance, though only the trained participants detected the variationbetween the original work and manipulated versions.[30]

Both experts and novices tend to judge original abstract works as more optimally balanced than experimental variations, without necessarily identifying the original.[31] There appears to be an intuitive sense for experts and non-experts alike that a given representational painting is the original. Participants tend to deem original artwork as original versus the manipulated works that had been both subtly and obviously altered with respect to the balance of the painting.[32] This suggests some innate knowledge, perhaps not influenced by artistic expertise, of the rightness of a painting in its balance. Both masters and novices are equally susceptible to shifts in balance affecting preference

Psychology of art 10

for paintings, which may suggest that both artists viewers have an intuitive sense of balance in art.[33]

Art and expertisePsychologists have found that a person's level of expertise in art influences how they perceive, analyze, and interactwith art.[] To test psychologically, scales have been designed to test experience rather than just years of expertise bytesting recognition and knowledge of artists in a number of fields, fluid intelligence, and personality with the BigFive factor inventory.[] These found that people with high art expertise were not significantly smarter, nor had acollege major in the arts.[] Instead, openness to experience, one of the Big Five factors, predicted someone's expertisein art.[]

Preferences

In one study, experienced art majors and naive students were shown pairs of popular art paintings from magazinesand high-art paintings, from museums.[] Researchers found a significant interaction between expertise and artpreference. Naive participants preferred popular art over high-art, while expert participants preferred high-art overpopular art.[] They also found that naive participants rated popular art as more pleasant and warm and the high-artpaintings as more unpleasant and cold, while experts showed the opposite pattern.[] Experts look to art for achallenging experience, naive participants view art more for pleasure.[]

Eye movements

To investigate if experts and non-experts experience art differently even in their eye movements, researchers used aneye tracking device to see if there are any differences in the way they look at works of art.[] After viewing each work,participants rated their liking and emotional reactions to the works.[] Some works were presented with auditoryinformation about that work, half of which were neutral facts and the other half were emotional statements about thework.[] They found that non-experts rated the least abstract works more preferably, while abstraction level did notmatter to the experts.[] Across both groups, the eye paths showed more fixations within more abstract work, but eachfixation was shorter in time than those within less abstract work .[] Expertise influences how participants thoughtabout works, but did not influence at all how they physically viewed them.[]

In another study using eye-movement patterns to investigate how experts view art, participants were shown realisticand abstract works of art under two conditions: one asking them to free scan the works, and the other asking them tomemorize them.[] Participants' eye movements were tracked as they either looked at the images or tried to memorizethem, and their recall for the memorized images was recorded.[] The researchers found no differences in the fixationfrequency or time between picture types for experts and nonexperts.[] However, across sessions, the non-experts hadmore short fixations while free scanning the works, and fewer long fixations while trying to memorize; expertsfollowed the opposite pattern.[] There was no significant difference in the recall of the images across groups, exceptexperts recalled abstract images better that non-experts, and more pictorial details.[] These results show that peoplewith arts expertise view repeated images less than non-experts, and can recall more details about images they havepreviously seen.[]

Levels of abstraction

Aesthetic reactions to art can be measured on a number of different criteria, like arousal, liking, emotional content, and understanding. The art can be rated on its levels of abstraction or place in time. An experiment examining how these factors combine to create aesthetic appreciation included experts and nonexperts rating their emotional valence, arousal, liking, and comprehension of abstract, modern, and classical art works.[] Experts demonstrated a higher degree of appreciation with higher ratings on all scales, except for arousal with classical works.[] Classical artworks yielded the highest comprehension ratings, with abstract art receiving the lowest values.[] However, emotional valence was highest for classical and modern art, while arousal was highest for abstract works.[] Although experts rated the works higher overall, each factor influenced the nonexperts' ratings more, creating greater flexibility in

Psychology of art 11

their ratings than those of the experts.[]

Another experiment examined the effect of color and degree of realism on participants' perception of art withdiffering levels of expertise. Groups of experts, relative experts, and non-experts viewed stimuli consisting ofgenerated versions of figurative paintings varying in color and abstraction.[] Participants rated the stimuli on theiroverall preference, abstractness, color properties, balance, and complexity.[] Figurative pictures were preferred overabstract pictures with decreasing expertise and colored pictures were preferred over black-and-white pictures.[]

However, experts were more likely to prefer black-and-white pictures over colored ones than non-experts andrelative experts.[] This suggests that experts may view art with cognitive models, while non-experts view art lookingfor familiarity and pleasure.[]

Other factors

An experiment studying the effect of expertise on the perception and interpretation of art had art history majors andpsychology students view ten contemporary art paintings of diverse styles. Then, they grouped them into whateverlabels they thought to be appropriate.[] The data were coded to classify the categorizations and compared betweenexperts and non-experts.[] Experts broke down their classifications into more groups than the non-experts andcategorized by style, while the non-experts depended on personal experiences and feelings.[]

This style-related processing, which leads to a mastery of the artwork, is important in viewing modern abstract artand is affected by expertise.[] Participants viewed and rated their liking on three sets of paintings, half of whichincluded information about the style of the painting, such as artistic technique, stylistic features, and the materialsused.[] The next day, participants viewed new paintings, saw a blank screen, and estimated how long they hadviewed the paintings.[] Participants also completed questionnaires indicating interest in art, a questionnaire indicatingexpertise in art, and the “Positive and Negative Affect Schedule” mood questionnaire.[] The effects of style-relatedinformation depended on art expertise, where non-experts liked the paintings more after receiving information aboutthe paintings and the experts liked the paintings less after receiving style-related information.[] Explicit styleinformation provoked mood changes in liking, where the high Positive Affect group liked the paintings more withinformation and the low Positive Affect group liked the paintings less with information.[] Art expertise did not,however, affect the estimations of presentation time.

Title informationTitles do not simpy function as a means of identification, but also as guides to the pleasurable process of interpretingand understanding works of art.[] Changing title information about a painting does not seem to affect eye movementwhen looking at it or how subjects interpret its spatial organization. However, titles influence a painting’s perceivedmeaning. In one study, participants were instructed to describe paintings while using flashlight pointers to indicatewhere they were looking. The participants repeated this task for the same set of paintings in two sessions. During thesecond session, some of the paintings were presented with new titles to evaluate the consistency in their descriptions.As expected, subjects did not change where their eye-gaze focused, but they did change their descriptions by makingthem more consistent with a given title.[]

Even though descriptions might fluctuate, aesthetically appreciating both abstract and representative art remainsstable, regardless of different title information.[] This suggests that word/image relations can promote differentmodes of understanding art, but do not account for how much we like a particular piece.[]

A famous example of title confusion that altered a work’s title/image relationship, and thus its ostensive meaning, isa painting titled La trahison des images (The treachery of images), by Rene Magritte, that is often referred to as “Thisis not a pipe.” It contains an image of a pipe as well as the legend “This is not a pipe,” even though that was notmeant to be its title. In this case, two different understandings of the artists’ intentions and the content depend onwhich title is chosen to go with it.[]

Psychology of art 12

Overall, random titles, other than the original, decrease understanding ratings, but do not necessarily alter thesignificance of aesthetic experience.[] Elaborative, as opposed to descriptive, titles are particularly important inhelping viewers assign meaning to abstract art. Descriptive titles increase understanding of abstract art only whenviewers are presented with an image for a very short period of time (less than 10 seconds). Because art can have avariety of multi-leveled meanings, titles and other additional information can add to its meaningfulness andconsequently, its hedonic value.[]

ApplicationsDiscoveries from the psychology of art can be applied to various other fields of study. The creative process of artyields a great deal of insight about the mind. One can obtain information about work ethics, motivation, andinspiration from an artist’s work process. These general aspects can transfer to other areas of one’s life. Work ethic inart especially, can have a significant impact on one’s overall productivity elsewhere. There is a potential in any kindof work that encourages the aesthetic frame of mind. Moreover, art defies any definite boundaries. The same appliesto any such work that is aesthetically experienced.[]

The application of psychology of art in education may improve visual literacy.

CriticismsThe psychology of art can be a criticized field for numerous reasons. Art is not considered a science, so research canbe scrutinized for its accuracy and relativity. There is also a great deal of criticism about art research as psychologybecause it can be considered subjective rather than objective. It embodies the artist’s emotions in an observablemanner, and the audience interprets the artwork in multiple ways. The aims of an artist differ dramatically from theaims of a scientist. The scientist means to propose one outcome to a problem, whereas an artist means to givemultiple interpretations of an object. The inspirations of an artist are fueled through his/her experiences, perceptions,and perspectives of the world art movements such as Expressionism are known for the artist’s release of emotions,tension, pressure, and inner spiritual forces that are transcribed to external conditions. Art comes from withinoneself, and it is expressed in the external world for the entertainment of others. Everyone can appreciate a piece ofartwork because it speaks to each individual in unique ways—therein lies the criticism of subjectivity.[]

In addition, the aesthetic experience of art is heavily criticized because it cannot be scientifically determined. It iscompletely subjective, and it relies on an individual’s bias. It cannot be fundamentally measured in tangible forms. Incontrast, aesthetic experiences can be deemed “self-motivating” and “self-closing".[]

References[1] Mark Jarzombek. The Psychologizing of Modernity (Cambridge University Press, 2000)[2] Alan Ryan, John Dewey and the High Time of American Liberalism. W.W. Norton 1995.[3] see for example: Arthur Robbins and Linda Beth Sibley, Creative Art Therapy . (Brunner/Mazel, 1976).[4] See for example, Creating images and the psychology of marketing communication, Edited by Lynn R. Kahle & Chung-Hyun Kim (Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, 2006).[6] Griselda Pollock (ed.), Psychoanalysis and the Image. (Oxford: Blackwell. 2006).[7] Catherine de Zegher (ed.), Inside the Visible. (MIT Press, Boston, 1996)[8] Michael Podro The Critical Historians of Art (Yale University Press, 1982).[9] Dana Arnold and Margaret Iverson (eds.) Art and Thought. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2003.[10] See: Mark Jarzombek, Ibid.[11] http:/ / www. myersbriggs. org/[12] http:/ / tap3x. net/ EMBTI/ j7readintro. html

Lev Vygotsky. Psychology of Art. 1925 / 1965 / 1968 / 1971 / 1986 / 2004.

Psychology of art 13

Bibliography• Mark Jarzombek, The Psychologizing of Modernity. Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN• Alan Ryan, John Dewey and the High Time of American Liberalism. W.W. Norton 1995, ISBN• Michael Podro, The Critical Historians of Art, Yale University Press, 1982. ISBN

Article Sources and Contributors 14

Article Sources and ContributorsPsychology of art  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=555032844  Contributors: Alex Wyse, Amandajm, Bgwhite, Brad7777, Brosi, Calliopejen1, Colonies Chris, Curator3805,Doczilla, Edienicol, FigureArtist, GeoffRodman, Gregbard, Greta Munger, Ironie, J04n, Jamela Peterson, Jamesx12345, John Ellsworth, John of Reading, Johnbod, Kahkonen, KatieRamseur,Kyriosity, Leontes, LilHelpa, Magioladitis, Mandarax, Marylandwizard, MathewTownsend, Mattisse, Nagibina, Nathalya Cubas, Olivia Morrison, RJaguar3, RachFinn27, Rebeccaworrell,Redheylin, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, SKC 2013, Schwnj, Scuola, Smallman12q, Star767, Violetta Bogopolsky, Wafulz, Whpq, WikHead, Writing101MSU, 32 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and ContributorsImage:Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) - Wheat Field with Crows (1890).jpg  Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vincent_van_Gogh_(1853-1890)_-_Wheat_Field_with_Crows_(1890).jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: AndreasPraefcke, J.delanoy,Kilom691, Léna, Man vyi, Mindmatrix, Olivier2, Sailko, W., Wikibob, 2 anonymous editsfile:Floris Gerritsz. van Schooten - Breakfast - WGA21044.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Floris_Gerritsz._van_Schooten_-_Breakfast_-_WGA21044.jpg License: Public Domain  Contributors: AnRo0002, Bukk, JMCC1, Mattes, Oursana, Thib Phil, TwoWings, Vincent Steenbergfile:2009 - 130 x 86 - Strudel.JPG  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2009_-_130_x_86_-_Strudel.JPG  License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0  Contributors:Schwarzes-flimmern (Frank Schwarz)Image:Inverted u.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Inverted_u.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: TeachPe.com

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/