Empirical aesthetics focuses on understanding how perceptual features shape aesthetic preferences, with symmetry being a key aspect. However, recent studies show variation in symmetry preference across samples and stimuli. Our study aims to explore the boundaries of symmetry preference, particularly in relation to meaning, prototypicality and expertise in visual arts. With our stimuli we can test the comparative dominance of these features. In our forced-choice preference task (N = 196), we manipulated images for symmetry, meaning, and prototypicality. Findings reveal that symmetry preference is only remarkable in meaningless images among non-experts. Instead, meaningfulness emerged as a significant factor influencing their aesthetic preferences. Experts show no distinct preference for symmetry or meaningfulness. However, prototypicality is favoured by both groups in meaningful stimuli, regardless of symmetry. These results highlight the dominance of meaning in aesthetic experience and underscore the complex interplay between symmetry, meaning, and expertise in visual arts.
ArndtB.RévészG. (2018). Vizuális esztétikai döntéshozatal vizsgálata egyszerű geometriai ábrák téri kompozíciójában. In CzefnerD.FedelesT. (Eds.), Mesterek és Tanítványok 2: Tanulmányok a bökcsészet- és társadalomtudományok területéről (pp. 343–368). PTE BTK Kari Tudományos Diákköri Tanács.
3.
BarlowH. B.ReevesB. C. (1979). The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays. Vision Research, 19(7), 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(79)90154-8
4.
BelkeB.LederH.HarsányiG.CarbonC. C. (2010). When a Picasso is a “Picasso”: The entry point in the identification of visual art. Acta Psychologica, 133(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.11.007
5.
BertaminiM. (2010). Sensitivity to reflection and translation is modulated by objectness. Perception, 39(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6393
6.
BertaminiM.MakinA. D. (2014). Brain activity in response to visual symmetry. Symmetry, 6(4), 975–996. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.12.578
7.
BertaminiM.RamponeG. (2020). The study of symmetry in empirical aesthetics. In NadalM.VartanianO. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of empirical aesthetics (pp. 488–509). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198824350.001.0001.
8.
BertaminiM.RamponeG.MakinA. D.JessopA. (2019). Symmetry preference in shapes, faces, flowers and landscapes. PeerJ, 7, e7078. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7078
9.
BimlerD. L.SnellockM.ParameiG. V. (2019). Art expertise in construing meaning of representational and abstract artworks. Acta Psychologica, 192, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.10.012
CastiJ.KarlqvistA. (2003). Art and complexity. Elsevier.
12.
CeballosL. M.HodgesN. N.WatchravesringkanK. (2019). The MAYA principle as applied to apparel products: The effects of typicality and novelty on aesthetic preference. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 23(4), 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-09-2018-0116
13.
ChamberlainR. (2017). The development of expertise in the visual arts. In HambrickD. Z.CampitelliG.MacnamaraB. N. (Eds.), The science of expertise (pp. 129–150). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315113371.
14.
ChamberlainR. (2022). Perception and cognition in visual art experience. In MarcosN.MartinS (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of neuroaesthetics (pp. 295–314), Routledge. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/aca0000632.
ChoE.YoonS.-A.ParkH.-J. (2024). Neural processing of prototypicality and simplicity of product design in forming design preferences. PLoS ONE, 19(1), e0297148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297148
17.
ChuquichambiE. G.VartanianO.SkovM.CorradiG. B.NadalM.SilviaP. J.MunarE. (2022). How universal is preference for visual curvature? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1518(1), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14919
18.
CorradiG.ChuquichambiE. G.BarradaJ. R.ClementeA.NadalM. (2020). A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity. British Journal of Psychology, 111(4), 630–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12427
19.
DuttonD. (2009). The art instinct: Beauty, pleasure, & human evolution. Oxford University Press.
20.
EysenckH. J.CastleM. (1970). Training in art as a factor in the determination of preference judgements for polygons. British Journal of Psychology, 61(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1970.tb02802.x
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
23.
GartusA.LederH. (2013). The small step toward asymmetry: Aesthetic judgment of broken symmetries. i-Perception, 4(5), 361–364. https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fi0588sas
24.
GartusA.VölkerM.LederH. (2020). What experts appreciate in patterns: Art expertise modulates preference for asymmetric and face-like patterns. Symmetry, 12(5), 707. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12050707
25.
GoldsteinE. B. (1989). Sensation and perception (8th ed.). Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
26.
HalberstadtJ.RhodesG. (2003). It’s not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196479
27.
HekkertP.Van WieringenP. C. (1996). Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. The American Journal of Psychology, 389–407. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423013
28.
IllesA. (2008). Behind the beholder’s eye–searching for ‘expertness’ in gazing patterns. In BordensK. S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th biennial congress of the international association of empirical aesthetics (pp. 35–37). IAEA.
JacobsenT.BeudtS. (2017). Stability and variability in aesthetic experience: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00143
31.
JuleszB. (1971). Foundations of cyclopean perception. University of Chicago Press.
32.
KomarV.MelamidA. (1999). Painting by numbers: Komar and Melamid’s scientific guide to art. University of California Press.
33.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
34.
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
35.
LederH.TinioP. P.BrieberD.KrönerT.JacobsenT.RosenbergR. (2019). Symmetry is not a universal law of beauty. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37(1), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418777941
36.
LittleA. C. (2014). Domain specificity in human symmetry preferences: Symmetry is most pleasant when looking at human faces. Symmetry, 6(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym6020222
37.
LocherP. J. (2014). Empirical investigation of the elements of composition inpaintings: A painting as stimulus. In TinioP. P. L.SmithJ. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 221–242). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139207058.013.
38.
MartindaleC. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5(1), 49–80.
39.
MartindaleC. (1988). Cognition, psychobiology, and aesthetics. In FarleyF.NeperudR. (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 7–42). Praeger.
40.
MartindaleC.MooreK. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 661. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.4.661
MillerG. F. (2001). Aesthetic fitness: How sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 2(1), 20–25.
43.
MonteiroL. C. P.NascimentoV. E. F. d.Carvalho da SilvaA.MirandaA. C.SouzaG. S.RipardoR. C. (2022). The role of art expertise and symmetry on facial aesthetic preferences. Symmetry, 14(2), 423. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14020423
44.
NadalM.MunarE.MartyG.Cela-CondeC. J. (2010). Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.2.d
45.
OlivaA.TorralbaA. (2006). Building the gist of a scene: The role of global image features in recognition. Progress in Brain Research, 155, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(06)55002-2
46.
Palkó-ArndtB. (2024). Supplementary materials for “Symmetry and meaningfulness in the spotlight of expertness”. Open Science Framework.https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZW2XT.
PecchinendaA.BertaminiM.MakinA. D. J.RutaN. (2014). The pleasantness of visual symmetry: Always, never or sometimes. PloS ONE, 9(3), e92685. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092685
49.
PihkoE.VirtanenA.SaarinenV. M.PannaschS.HirvenkariL.TossavainenT.HaapalaA.HariR. (2011). Experiencing art: The influence of expertise and painting abstraction level. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 94. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00094
50.
RamachandranV. S.HirsteinW. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6-7), 15–51.
51.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
SmithJ. D.MelaraR. J. (1990). Aesthetic preference and syntactic prototypicality in music: ‘tis the gift to be simple’. Cognition, 34(3), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90007-7
55.
SuhaimiS. N.KuysB.BarronD.LiN.RahmanZ.WhitfieldA. (2023). Probing the extremes of aesthetics: The role of typicality and novelty in the aesthetic preference of industrial boilers. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 41(1), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374221094137
56.
TrederM. S. (2010). Behind the looking-glass: A review on human symmetry perception. Symmetry, 2(3), 1510–1543. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym2031510
57.
Van GeertE.WagemansJ. (2020). Order, complexity, and aesthetic appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(2), 135. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/aca0000276
WagemansJ.Van GoolL.D’YdewalleG. (1992). Orientational effects and component processes in symmetry detection. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 44A(3), 475–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749208401295
60.
WeichselbaumH.LederH.AnsorgeU. (2018). Implicit and explicit evaluation of visual symmetry as a function of art expertise. i-Perception, 9, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518761464
WinkielmanP.HalberstadtJ.FazendeiroT.CattyS. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17(9), 799–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01785.x
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.
