Using a digital environment, this study tested how setting (museum vs. street), reputation (established vs. unestablished), and style (abstract vs. representational) affected people's aesthetic perception of art. Art novices, quasi-experts, and experts were randomly assigned to rate paintings that varied in setting, reputation, and style. Although there was no significant main effect of setting, follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that novices gave higher aesthetic judgment to paintings in street settings. There was a significant interaction between reputation, style, and expertise, such that the greater the expertise, the greater the differences in ratings between established and unestablished paintings, and the smaller the differences between abstract and representational style paintings. Quasi-experts and experts gave higher ratings to established rather than unestablished paintings, and all groups preferred representational over abstract style; however, the expert preferences reversed with unestablished paintings. The study found that the effect of reputation and expertise persisted after controlling for painting familiarity.
AxelssonO. (2007). Towards a psychology of photography: Dimensions underlying aesthetic appeal of photographs. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105(6), 411. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.105.6.411-434
2.
BlancaM. J.AlarcónR.ArnauJ.BonoR.BendayanR. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option?Psicothema, 29(4), 552–557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383
3.
BrieberD.NadalM.LederH. (2015). In the white cube: Museum context enhances the valuation and memory of art. Acta Psychologica, 154, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.004
4.
BrieberD.NadalM.LederH.RosenbergR. (2014). Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLoS ONE, 9(6), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099019
5.
BrodieN. (2014). Provenance and price: Autoregulation of the antiquities market?European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 20(4), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-014-9235-9
6.
CurrieG. (1985). The authentic and the aesthetic. American Philosophical Quarterly, 22(2), 153–160.
7.
CuttingJ. E. (2006). The mere exposure effect and aesthetic preference. In LocherP.MartindaleC.DorfmanL. (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 33–46). Baywood Publishing Co.
Dorothee AugustinM.& LederH. (2006). Art expertise: A study of concepts and conceptual spaces. Psychology Science, 48(2), 135–156.
10.
ElseJ. E.EllisJ.OrmeE. (2015). Art expertise modulates the emotional response to modern art, especially abstract: An ERP investigation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 525. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00525
11.
ForgasJ. P.TehaniG. (2005). Affective influences on language use: Mood effects on performance feedback by experts and novices. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(3), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X05278388
12.
FurnhamA.WalkerJ. (2001a). Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.340
13.
FurnhamA.WalkerJ. (2001b). The influence of personality traits, previous experience of art, and demographic variables on artistic preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6), 997–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00202-6
14.
GalatiF. (2015). Complexity of judgment: What makes possible the convergence of expert and nonexpert ratings in assessing creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.992667
15.
GartusA.LederH. (2014). The white cube of the museum versus the gray cube of the street: The role of context in aesthetic evaluations. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036847
16.
GridleyM. C. (2013). Preference for abstract art according to thinking styles and personality. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(3), 463–481.
17.
GrünerS.SpeckerE.LederH. (2019). Effects of context and genuineness in the experience of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37(2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418822896
18.
HekkertP.van WieringenP. C. W. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(95)00055-0
KirkU.SkovM.HulmeO.ChristensenM. S.ZekiS. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1125–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009
21.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology (London, England : 1953), 95(Pt 4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
22.
LederH.GergerG.DresslerS. G.SchabmannA. (2012). How art is appreciated. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026396
23.
LederH.NadalM. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode–developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084
24.
LocherP.DoleseM. (2004). A comparison of the perceived pictorial and aesthetic qualities of original paintings and their postcard images. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.2190/EQTC-09LF-JRHA-XKJT
25.
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. https://doi.org/10.2190/R1WN-TAF2-376D-EFUH
26.
LongH. (2014). More than appropriateness and novelty: Judges’ criteria of assessing creative products in science tasks. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.05.002
27.
MadsenC. K.ByrnesS. R.Capperella-SheldonD. A.BrittinR. V. (1993). Aesthetic response to music: Musicians versus nonmusicians. Journal of Music Therapy, 30(3), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/30.3.174
28.
MunarE.ChuquichambiE. G.RutaN.DoradoA.ReyC.PepperellR. (2023). Preference for curvature in paintings extends to museum context. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000601
29.
PazzagliaM.GalliG.LeemhuisE.GianniniA. M.PascucciT.BilliE. (2020). Loss and beauty: How experts and novices judge paintings with lacunae. Psychological Research, 85(5), 1838–1847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01370-9
30.
PihkoE.VirtanenA.SaarinenV.-M.PannaschS.HirvenkariL., Tossavainen, T., Haapala, A., &, Hari, R. (2011). Experiencing art: The influence of expertise and painting abstraction level. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(September), 94. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00094
31.
SilviaP. J. (2007). Knowledge-based assessment of expertise in the arts: Exploring aesthetic fluency. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(4), 247–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.4.247
32.
SilviaP. (2013). Interested experts, confused novices: Art expertise and the knowledge emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 31(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.31.1.f
33.
SmithL. F.SmithJ. K. (2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency. In LocherP.MartindaleC.DorfmanL. (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 47–58). Baywood Publishing Company Inc.
34.
SongJ.KwakY.KimC.Y. (2021). Familiarity and novelty in aesthetic preference: The effects of the properties of the artwork and the beholder. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 694927. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.694927
35.
SwamiV. (2013). Context matters: Investigating the impact of contextual information on aesthetic appreciation of paintings by Max Ernst and Pablo Picasso. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030965
36.
TinioP. P. L.LederH.StrasserM. (2011). Image quality and the aesthetic judgment of photographs: Contrast, sharpness, and grain teased apart and put together. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019542
37.
TousignantC.BodnerG. E. (2014). Context effects on beauty ratings of photos: Building contrast effects that erode but cannot be knocked down. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034942
38.
Van PaasschenJ.BacciF.MelcherD. P. (2015). The influence of art expertise and training on emotion and preference ratings for representational and abstract artworks. PLoS ONE, 10(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134241
39.
ZajoncR. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
