A painted portrait differs from a photo in that selected regions are often rendered in much sharper detail than other regions. Artists believe these choices guide viewer gaze and influence their appreciation of the portrait, but these claims are difficult to test because increased portrait detail is typically associated with greater meaning, stronger lighting, and a more central location in the composition. In three experiments we monitored viewer gaze and recorded viewer preferences for portraits rendered with a parameterised non-photorealistic technique to mimic the style of Rembrandt (DiPaola, 2009 International Journal of Art and Technology2 82–93). Results showed that viewer gaze was attracted to and held longer by regions of relatively finer detail (experiment 1), and also by textural highlighting (experiment 2), and that artistic appreciation increased when portraits strongly biased gaze (experiment 3). These findings have implications for understanding both human vision science and visual art.
BergerHJr, 1998“The system of early modern painting”Representations6231–57
2.
BergerHJr, 2000Fictions of the Pose: Rembrandt Against the Italian Renaissance (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press)
3.
BirminghamEBischofW FKingstoneA, 2008a“Gaze selection in complex social scenes”Visual Cognition15341–355
4.
BirminghamEBischofW FKingstoneA, 2008b“Social attention and real-world scenes: The roles of action, competition and social content”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology61986–998
5.
BrownH, 2001Harley Brown 's Eternal Truths for Every Artist (Cincinnati, OH: North Light Books)
6.
BuswellG T, 1935How People Look at Pictures: A Study of the Psychology and Perception in Art (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press)
7.
CampbellF WWestheimerGRobsonJ G, 1958“Significance of fluctuations of accommodation”Journal of the Optical Society of America48669, doi:10.1364/JOSA.48.000669
8.
CavanaghP, 2005“The artist as neuroscientist”Nature434301–307
9.
DiPaolaS, 2007“Painterly rendered portraits from photographs using a knowledge-based approach”, in Proceedings of SPIE Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XIIInternational Society for Optical Engineering, 649233–43, doi:10.1117/12.706594
10.
DiPaolaS, 2009“Exploring a parameterized portrait painting space”International Journal of Art and Technology282–93
11.
DiPaolaSRiebeCEnnsJ T, 2010“Rembrandt's textural agency: A shared perspective in visual art and science”Leonardo43145–151
12.
DunloskyJBjorkR A, 2008Handbook of Memory and Metamemory (New York: Psychology Press)
13.
EnnsJ TMacDonaldS C, 2012“The role of clarity and blur in guiding visual attention in photographs”Journal of experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance Advance Online Publication September 17, doi:10.1037/a0029877
14.
FenskeM JRaymondJ E, 2006“Affective influences of selected attention”Current Directions in Psychological Science15312–316
15.
FisherS KCiuffredaK J, 1988“Accommodation and apparent distance”Perception17609–621, doi:10.1068/p170609
16.
FlemingR WDrorR OAdelsonE H, 2003“Real-world illumination and the perception of surface reflectance properties”Journal of Vision3347–368
17.
Graham-DixonA, 2007“Dutch portraits: The age of Rembrandt and Frans Hals”Sunday Telegraph Reviews7 January
18.
HaberR N, 1980“How we perceive depth from flat pictures”American Scientist68370–380
19.
HeidenreichS MTuranoK A, 2011“Where does one look when viewing artwork in a museum?”Empirical Studies of the Arts2951–72
20.
HochbergJ, 1980“Pictorial functions and perceptual structures”, in The Perception of Pictures Ed. HagenM A (New York: Academic Press) volume 2, pp 47–93
21.
JacobsL, 1993“Belasco, DeMille and the development of Lasky lighting”Film History5405–418
22.
KapoulaZDaunysGHerbezOYangQ, 2009“Effect of title on eye-movement exploration of cubist paintings by Fernand Léger”Perception38479–491
23.
KuhnGAmlaniA ARensinkR A, 2008“Towards a science of magic”Trends in Cognitive Sciences12349–354
24.
LangfordM J, 1973Basic Photography3rd edition (Garden City, NY: Amphoto)
25.
LederHBelkeBOeberstAAugustinD, 2004“A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments”British Journal of Psychology95489–508
26.
LevinD TBeckM R, 2004“Thinking about seeing: Spanning the difference between metacognitive failure and success”, in Thinking and Seeing: Visual Metacognition in Adults and Children Ed. LevinD T (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 121–143
27.
LocherP J, 2003“An empirical investigation of the visual rightness theory of picture perception”Acta Psychologica114147–164
28.
LocherPKrupinskiE AMello-ThomsCNodineC F, 2007“Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience”Spatial Vision2155–77
29.
MackA, 2003“Inattentional blindness: Looking without seeing”Current Directions in Psychological Science12180–184
30.
MackARockI, 1998Inattentional Blindness (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
31.
MartinJ, 1988“Scopic regimes of modernity”, in Vision and Visuality Ed. FosterH (Seattle, WA: Bay Press) pp 3–23
32.
MiallR CTchalenkoJ, 2001“Painter's eye movements: A study of eye and hand movement during portrait drawing”Leonardo3435–40
33.
MolnarF, 1981“About the role of visual exploration in aesthetics”, in Advances in Intrinsic Motivation and Aesthetics Ed. DayH I (New York: Plenum Press) pp 385–413
34.
NodineC FLocherP JKrupinskiE A, 1993“The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions”Leonardo26219–227
35.
ReberRWinkielmanPSchwarzN, 1998“Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments”Psychological Science945–48
36.
SandenJ H, 2004Portraits from Life (Cincinnati, OH: North Light Books)
37.
ShapiroK LArnellK ARaymondJ E, 1997“The attentional blink: A view on attention and a glimpse on consciousness”Trends in Cognitive Sciences1291–296
38.
SimonsD JRensinkR A, 2005“Change blindness: Past, present, and future”Trends in Cognitive Science916–25
39.
SmithL FSmithJ K, 2006“The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency”, in New Directions in Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts: Foundations and Frontiers in Aesthetics Eds LocherPMartindaleCDorfmanL (Amityville, NY: Baywood) pp 47–58
40.
WilsonT D, 2009“Know thyself”Perspectives on Psychological Science4384–389
41.
WinstonA SCupchikG C, 1992“The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers”Visual Arts Research181–14
42.
YarbusA L, 1967Eye Movements and Vision translated by HaighB (New York: Plenum Press)
43.
ZangemeisterW HShermanKStarkL, 1995“Evidence for a global scanpath strategy in viewing abstract compared with realistic images”Neuropsychologia331009–1025
