Previous research on aesthetic preference for spatial compositions has shown robust, systematic preferences for object locations within frames and for object perspectives. In the present experiment, we show that these preferences can be dramatically altered by changing the contextual meaning of an image through pairing it with different titles, as predicted by a theoretical account in terms of “representational fit”. People prefer standard (default) compositions with a neutral title that merely describes the content of the picture (eg side-view of a plane with the title “Flying”) but nonstandard compositions when they “fit” a title with compatible spatial implications (eg rear-view of a plane with the title “Departing”). The results are discussed in terms of their implications for theories based on representational fit versus perceptual and conceptual fluency and with their implications for classic aesthetic accounts in terms of preference for novelty through violating expectations.
ArnheimR, 1954Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye1st edition (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press)
2.
ArnheimR, 1988The Power of the Center (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press)
3.
AugustinM DCarbonC-CWagemansJ, 2012a“Artful terms: A study on aesthetic word usage for visual art versus film and music”i-Perception3319–337
4.
AugustinM DWagemansJCarbonC-C, 2012b“All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics”Acta Psychologica139187–201
5.
BerlyneD E, 1971Aesthetics and Psychobiology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts)
6.
BertaminiMBennettK MBodeC, 2011“The anterior bias in visual art: The case of images of animals”Laterality16673–689
7.
BlijlevensJCarbonC-CMuggeRSchoormansJ P L, 2011“Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicality and arousal”British Journal of Psychology10344–57
8.
BoroditskyL, 2000“Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors”Cognition751–28
9.
BourdierJ P, 2007Bodyscapes (San Rafael, CA: Earth Aware Editions)
10.
CarbonC-CLederH, 2005“The repeated evaluation technique (RET): A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness”Applied Cognitive Psychology19587–601
11.
CupchikG CShereckLSpiegelS, 1994“The effects of textual information on artistic communication”Visual Arts Research2062–78
12.
EstesZVergesMBarsalouL W, 2008“Head up, foot down: Object words orient attention to the objects' typical location”Psychological Science1993–97
13.
GardnerJ SFowlkesCNothelferCPalmerS E, 2008“Exploring aesthetic principles of spatial composition through stock photography”, paper presented at the 8th Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society, Naples, FL, May 2008; copy available at http://www.journalofvision.org/content/8/6/337; poster available at http://www.jonathansammartino.com
14.
HekkertPSneldersDvan WieringenP C W, 2003“‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design”British Journal of Psychology94111–124
15.
KonkleTOlivaA, 2011“Canonical visual size for real-world objects: Evidence from reconstructive memory, imagery, and perceptual preferences”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance3723–37
16.
LakoffGJohnsonM, 1980“Conceptual metaphor in everyday language”Journal of Philosophy77453–486
17.
LederHCarbonCRipsasA, 2006“Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings”Acta Psychologica121176–198
18.
LeyssenM H RLinsenSSammartinoJPalmerS E, 2012“Aesthetic preference for spatial composition in multiobject pictures”i-Perception325–49
19.
LinsenSLeyssenM H RSammartinoJPalmerS E, 2011“Aesthetic preferences in the size of images of real-world objects”Perception40291–298
20.
LocherPOverbeekeKStappersP J, 2005“Spatial balance of color triads in the abstract art of Piet Mondrian”Perception34169–189
21.
LocherP JStappersP JOverbeekeK, 1998“The role of balance as an organizing design principle underlying adults' compositional strategies for creating visual displays”Acta Psychologica99141–161
22.
LocherP JStappersP JOverbeekeK, 1999“An empirical evaluation of the visual rightness theory of pictorial composition”Acta Psychologica103261–280
23.
McManusI CEdmondsonDRodgerJ, 1985“Balance in pictures”British Journal of Psychology76311–324
24.
MartindaleCMooreKBorkumJ, 1990“Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological theory”American Journal of Psychology10353–80
25.
MartindaleCMooreKWestA, 1988“Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure”Empirical Studies of the Arts679–96
26.
MillisK, 2001“Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences”Emotion1320–329
27.
NeelyJ H, 1977“Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention”Journal of Experimenta l Psychology: General106226–254
28.
NodineC FLocherP JKrupinskiE A, 1993“The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions”Leonardo26219–227
29.
OppenheimerD MFrankM C, 2008“A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: Effects of perceptual fluency on categorization”Cognition1061178–1194
30.
PalmerS E, 1975“The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects”Memory and Cognition3519–526
31.
PalmerS EGardnerJ SWickensT D, 2008“Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of position and direction on framing single objects”Spatial Vision21421–449
32.
PalmerS EGuidiS, 2011“Mapping the perceptual structure of rectangles through goodness-of-fit ratings”Perception401428–1446
33.
PalmerS ERoschEChaseP, 1981“Canonical perspective and the perception of objects”, in Attention and Performancevolume IX, Eds LongJBaddeleyA, (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 135–151
34.
PalmerS ESchlossK BSammartinoJ, 2012“Hidden knowledge in aesthetic judgments: Preferences for color and spatial composition”, in Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience Eds ShimamuraA PPalmerS E, (New York: Oxford University Press) pp 189–222
35.
PereaMRosaE, 2002“The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task”Psychological Research66180–194
36.
ReberRSchwarzNWinkielmanP, 2004“Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?”Personality and Social Psychology Review8364–382
37.
SammartinoJPalmerS E, 2012“Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of vertical position and perspective on framing single objects”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance38865–879
38.
WhittleseaB W A, 1993“Illusions of familiarity”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition191235–1253
39.
WinkielmanPHalberstadtJFazendeiroTCattyS, 2006“Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind”Psychological Science17799–806
