On the basis of current evidence derived from neurocognitive research, it is possible to mediate two alternative theories concerning the relationship between perception and esthetic appreciation, in particular by distinguishing between high-quality images and popular.
BullotN. J.ReberR. (2013). The artful mind meets art history. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 123–137. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12000489
2.
CuttingJ. E. (2006). The mere exposure effect and aesthetic preference. In LocherP.MondaleC.DorfmanL. (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 33–46). Amityville, NY: Baywood
3.
KiddD.CastanoE. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 18, 377–380. doi:10.1126/science.1239918
4.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508. doi:10.1348/0007126042369811
5.
LederH.GergerG.BrieberD.SchwarzN. (2014). What makes an art expert? Emotion and evaluation in art appreciation. Cognition and Emotion. 28, 1–11. doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.870132
6.
LocherP. (2011). Contemporary experimental aesthetics: State of the art technology. i-Perception, 2, 697–707. doi:10.1068/i0449aap
7.
MartindaleC. (1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic change. New York, NY: Basic Books
8.
MeskinA.PhelanM.MooreM.KieranM. (2013). Mere exposure to bad art. British Journal of Aesthetics, 53, 139–164. doi:10.1093/aesthj/ays060
9.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382
10.
Van de CruysS.WagemansJ. (2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art. i-Perception, 2, 1035–1062. doi:10.1068/i0466aap
