In the context of rapidly developing technologies and widespread online access, it is important to understand how our perception of images on a computer screen may vary from traditional in-person encounters. This research compared the perception of subjects in view of eight paintings, presented either on a computer monitor or as a printed reproduction. Both stationary and mobile eye-tracking technologies were used to analyze the viewing patterns of both forms of engagement. Results suggested that subjects engaging with physical works tended to exhibit more varied fixational patterns than those viewing the same works on a computer monitor. Data showed parity in the high degree of correlation between viewing times and personal preference, regardless of viewing medium. The results indicate that the modalities through which we engage with works of art matter, and that a single image can resonate across an array of media.
Al-RahayfehA.FaezipourM. (2013). Eye tracking and head movement detection: A state-of-art survey. IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine, 1, 2100212–2100212.
2.
BachtaE.SteinR. J.Filippini-FantoniS.LeasonT. (2012, April 11–14). Evaluating the practical applications of eye tracking in museums. In Museums and the Web.
3.
BenjaminW. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction(J. A. Underwood, Trans.). London: Penguin Books. (Original essay published in 1935).
4.
BrieberD.NadalM.LederH. (2015). In the white cube: Museum context enhances the valuation and memory of art. Acta Psychologica, 154, 36–42.
5.
BrieberD.NadalM.LederH.RosenbergR. (2014). Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLoS One, 9(6), e99019.
6.
BuswellG. T. (1935). How people look at pictures—A study of the psychology of perception in art. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
CarbonC. C. (2017). Art perception in the museum: How we spend time and space in art exhibitions. i-Perception, 8(1), 1–15.
8.
ClarkeJ. C.ShortessG. K.RichterM. L. (1984). Stimulus size, viewing distance, and experimental aesthetics. Visual Arts Research, 10(2), 1–8.
9.
Currie, G. (1985). The authentic and the aesthetic. American Philosophical Quarterly, 22(2), 153–160.
10.
DareZ.BrinkmannH.RosenbergR. (2020). Testing a calibration-free eye tracker prototype at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 13(2), 1–8.
11.
DondiP.PortaM.DonvitoA.VolpeG. (2022). A gaze-based interactive system to explore artwork imagery. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 16(1), 55–67.
12.
Eghbal-AzarK. (2016). Affordances, appropriation and experience in museum exhibitions: Visitors’ (eye) movement patterns and the Influence of digital guides (PhD thesis, Universität zu Koln).
13.
Eghbal-AzarK.WidlokT. (2013). Potentials and limitations of mobile eye tracking in visitor studies: Evidence from field research at two museum exhibitions in Germany. Social Science Computer Review, 31(1), 103–118.
FontouraP.SchaefferJ. M.MenuM. (2019). The vision and interpretation of paintings: Bottom-up visual processes, top-down culturally informed attention, and aesthetic experience. Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, 1–3.
16.
GalaniA.ChalmersM. (2010). Empowering the remote visitor: Supporting social museum experiences among local and remote visitors. Museums in the digital age, 159–169.
17.
GarbuttM.EastS.SpeharB.Estrada-GonzalezV.Carson-EwartB.ToumaJ. (2020). The embodied gaze: Exploring applications for mobile eye tracking in the art museum. Visitor Studies, 23(1), 82–100.
18.
GrünerS.SpeckerE.LederH. (2019). Effects of context and genuineness in the experience of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37(2), 138–152.
19.
HanE. (2021). Integrating mobile eye-tracking and VSLAM for recording spatial gaze in works of art and architecture. Technology| Architecture+ Design, 5(2), 177–187.
20.
Heidenreich, S.M., & Turano, K.A. (2011). Where does one look when viewing artwork in a museum? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 29(1), 51–72.
21.
HueyE. B. (1979). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, (Originally published in 1908).
22.
KapoulaZ.LangA.LocherP. (2014). Op art, regard et posture. Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology, 44(1), 120.
23.
KingE.SmithM. P.WilsonP. F.WilliamsM. A. (2021). Digital responses of UK museum exhibitions to the COVID-19 crisis, March–June 2020. Curator: The Museum Journal, 64(3), 487–504.
LocherP. J.SmithJ. K.SmithL. F. (2001). The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings. Perception, 30(4), 449–465.
26.
LocherP.SmithL.SmithJ. (1999). Original paintings versus slide and computer reproductions: A comparison of viewer responses. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 17(2), 121–129.
27.
MartyP. F. (2008). Museum websites and museum visitors: Digital museum resources and their use. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(1), 81–99.
28.
MartyP. F.BuchananV. (2021). Exploring the contributions and challenges of museum technology professional during the COVID-19 crisis. The Museum Journal, 65(1), 1–17.
29.
MassaroD.SavazziF.Di DioC.FreedbergD.GalleseV.GilliG.MarchettiA. (2012). When art moves the eyes: A behavioral and eye-tracking study. PLoS One, 7(5), 1–16, e37285.
30.
McGrathJ. (2020). Museums and social media during COVID-19. The Public Historian, 42(4), 164–172.
31.
NewmanG. E.BloomP. (2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 558–569.
32.
PelowskiM.ForsterM.TinioP. P.SchollM.LederH. (2017). Beyond the lab: An examination of key factors influencing interaction with ‘real’ and museum-based art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(3), 245–264.
33.
ProctorN. (2010). Museums facing the crisis: Challenge or opportunity. European Museum Academy Annual Conference. Italy, Volterra.
34.
QuirogaR. Q.DudleyS.BinnieJ. (2011). Looking at Ophelia: A comparison of viewing art in. ACNR, 25, 15.
35.
ReitstätterL.BrinkmannH.SantiniT.SpeckerE.DareZ.BakondiF.MiscenáA.KasneciE.LederH.RosenbergR. (2020). The display makes a difference: A mobile eye tracking study on the perception of art before and after a museum’s rearrangement. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 13(2), 1–29.
36.
RosenbergR.KleinC. (2015). The moving eye of the beholder: Eye tracking and the perception of paintings. In HustonJ. P.NadalM.MoraF.AgnatiL. F.Cela-CondeC. J. (Eds.), Art, aesthetics, and the brain (pp. 79–108). Oxford University Press.
37.
SantiniT.BrinkmannH.ReitstätterL.LederH.RosenbergR.RosenstielW.KasneciE. (2018, June). The art of pervasive eye tracking: Unconstrained eye tracking in the Austrian Gallery Belvedere. In Proceedings of the 7th workshop on pervasive eye tracking and mobile eye-based interaction (pp. 1–8).
38.
SmithL. F.SmithJ. K.TinioP. P. (2017). Time spent viewing art and reading labels. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 77–85.
39.
SpeckerE.TinioP. P.van ElkM. (2017). Do you see what I see? An investigation of the aesthetic experience in the laboratory and museum. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(3), 265–275.
40.
WalkerF.BuckerB.AndersonN. C.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2017). Looking at paintings in the Vincent Van Gogh Museum: Eye movement patterns of children and adults. PLoS One, 12(6), 1–23.
41.
WindhagerF.SalisuS.MayrE. (2019). Exhibiting uncertainty: Visualizing data quality indicators for cultural collections. Informatics, 6(3), 29.
42.
WoodingD. S.MugglestoneM. D.PurdyK. J.GaleA. G. (2002). Eye movements of large populations: I. Implementation and performance of an autonomous public eye tracker. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(4), 509–517.
