Polygon tilings in natural and man-made objects show great variety. Unlike previous studies that have mainly focused on their classification and production methods, this study aimed at exploring factors that may contribute to the perceived beauty of convex polygon tilings. We analyze the dimensions of regularity, curvature, and density, as well as individual differences. Triangle tilings and hexagon tilings were tested in Experiment 1 and 2, respectively. The results showed that the perceived beauty of convex polygon tilings can be enhanced by higher levels of regularity and nonobvious local curvature. Surprisingly, the effect of density appeared to be different, with the dense triangle tilings and the less dense hexagon tilings scoring higher than the reverse. We discuss a possible explanation based on trypophobia caused by different types of polygons, as well as the observers’ personality trait of agreeableness.
AbasS. J.SalmanA. S. (1994). Symmetries of islamic geometrical patterns. World Scientific Publishing Company.
2.
AbboushiB.ElzeyadiI.TaylorR.SerenoM. (2019). Fractals in architecture: The visual interest, preference, and mood response to projected fractal light patterns in interior spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.005
BertaminiM.PalumboL.GheorghesT. N.GalatsidasM. (2016). Do observers like curvature or do they dislike angularity?British Journal of Psychology, 107, 154–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12132
6.
BertaminiM.SilvantoJ.NorciaA. M.MakinA. D. J.WagemansJ. (2018). The neural basis of visual symmetry and its role in mid- and high-level visual processing: Neural basis of visual symmetry. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1426, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13667
7.
BiesA. J.Blanc-GoldhammerD. R.BoydstonC. R.TaylorR. P.SerenoM. E. (2016). Aesthetic responses to exact fractals driven by physical complexity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 210–210. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00210
8.
CárdenasR. A.HarrisL. J. (2006). Symmetrical decorations enhance the attractiveness of faces and abstract designs. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.05.002
9.
Chamorro-PremuzicT.ReimersS.HsuA.AhmetogluG. (2009). Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness. The British Journal of Psychology, 100, 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X366867
10.
CotterK. N.SilviaP. J.BertaminiM.PalumboL.VartanianO. (2017). Curve appeal: Exploring individual differences in preference for curved versus angular objects. i-Perception (London), 8, 2041669517693023. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517693023
11.
DyeD. S. (2012). Chinese Lattice designs. Dover Publications.
12.
EberleR. S. (2014). The role of children's mathematical aesthetics: The case of tessellations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 35, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.07.004
13.
EisenmanR.GellensH. K. (1968). Preferences for complexity-simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26, 888–890. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1968.26.3.888
14.
FeldmanJ. (2000). Bias toward regular form in mental shape spaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.1.152
15.
FriedenbergJ. (2018). Geometric regularity, symmetry and the perceived beauty of simple shapes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 36, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237417695454
16.
FriedenbergJ. (2019a). Beauty in the Eye of the beholder: Individual differences in preference for randomized visual patterns. Experimental Psychology, 66, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000432
17.
FriedenbergJ. (2019b). The perceived beauty of regular polygon tessellations. Symmetry (Basel), 11, 984. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11080984
18.
FriedenbergJ.LibyB. (2016). Perceived beauty of random texture patterns: A preference for complexity. Acta Psychologica, 168, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.04.007
19.
FuK.ZhangY.LinX. (2019). The automatic evaluation of regularity and semantic decodability in wallpaper decorative patterns. Perception, 48, 731–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006619862142
FurnhamA.WalkerJ. (2001a). The influence of personality traits, previous experience of art, and demographic variables on artistic preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 997–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00202-6
22.
FurnhamA.WalkerJ. (2001b). Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.340
23.
GombrichE. H. (2015). The sense of order: A study in the psychology of decorative art (Chinese ed.). Guangxi Fine Arts Publishing House.
24.
GrebenkinaM.BrachmannA.BertaminiM.KaduhmA.RediesC. (2018). Edge-Orientation entropy predicts preference for diverse types of man-made images. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 678. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00678
25.
GrenierS.BarretteA.-M.LadouceurR. (2005). Intolerance of uncertainty and intolerance of ambiguity: Similarities and differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.014
26.
GrünbaumB.ShephardG. C. (2016). Tilings and patterns (Second ed.). Dover Publications, Inc.
27.
GüçlütürkY.JacobsR. H. A. H.van LierR. (2016). Liking versus complexity: Decomposing the inverted U-curve. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 112. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00112
28.
HannM. A. (2019). The grammar of pattern. Taylor & Francis Group.
29.
HannM. A.MoxonI. S. (2018). Patterns: Design and composition. Taylor & Francis Group.
30.
HekkertP.Van WieringenP. (1996). Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. The American Journal of Psychology, 109, 389–407. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423013
31.
HogarthW. (1753). The analysis of beauty: Written with a view of fixing the fluctuating ideas of taste. University of Michigan Library.
32.
HorneC. E. (2000). Geometric symmetry in patterns and tilings (Woodhead Publishing series in textiles). Cambridge.
33.
JacobsenT.HöfelL. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 755–766. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.755
34.
JadvaV.HinesM.GolombokS. (2010). Infants’ preferences for toys, colors, and shapes: Sex differences and similarities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1261–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9618-z
35.
JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (2008). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
36.
KupferT. R.LeA. T. D. (2018). Disgusting clusters: Trypophobia as an overgeneralised disease avoidance response. Cognition and Emotion, 32, 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1345721
37.
LattoR.Russell-DuffK. (2002). An oblique effect in the selection of line orientation by twentieth century painters. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.2190/3VEY-RC3B-9GM7-KGDY
38.
LederH.CarbonC. C. (2005). Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 603–618. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1088
39.
LederH.TinioP. P. L.BrieberD.KrönerT.JacobsenT.RosenbergR. (2019). Symmetry is not a universal law of beauty. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37, 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237418777941
40.
LisanbyS. H.LockheadG. R. (1991). Subjective randomness, aesthetics, and structure. In GarnerW. R. (Ed.), The perception of structure: Essays in honor (pp. 97–114). American Psychological Association.
41.
LocherP. J. (2015). The aesthetic experience with visual art “at first glance”. In BundgaardP. F.StjernfeltF. (Eds.), Investigations into the phenomenology and the ontology of the work of Art: What are Artworks and how do we experience them? (pp. 75–88). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
42.
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 (London), 30, 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3008
43.
MastandreaS.UmiltàM. A. (2016). Futurist art: Motion and aesthetics as a function of title. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00201
44.
MunarE.Gómez-PuertoG.CallJ.NadalM. (2015). Common visual preference for curved contours in humans and great apes. PLoS One, 10, e0141106–e0141106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141106
45.
NadalM. (2007). Complexity and aesthetic preference for diverse visual stimuli (doctoral dissertation). Universitat de les Illes Balears.
46.
NadalM.MunarE.MartyG.Cela-CondeC. J. (2010). Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 173–191. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.2.d
47.
NucciM.WagemansJ. (2007). Goodness of regularity in Dot patterns: Global symmetry, local symmetry, and their interactions. Perception, 36, 1305–1319. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5794
48.
PalumboL.BertaminiM. (2016). The curvature effect: A comparison between preference tasks. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 34, 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237415621185
49.
PalumboL.RutaN.BertaminiM. (2015). Comparing angular and curved shapes in terms of implicit associations and approach/avoidance responses. PLoS One, 10, E0140043. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140043
50.
QimingL.ZhixiaC. (2015). Age differences in personality traits from 15 to 75: Big five domains and 10 facets in a large cross-sectional sample in Chinese. Journal of Psychological Science, 38, 131–138. http://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2015.01.015
RodemannP. (1999). Patterns in interior environments: Perception, psychology, and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
53.
SanadR. (2017). Pattern design preference based on symmetry. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 3, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v3i5.1954
54.
SilviaP. J.BaronaC. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.b
StinyG. (1977). Ice-Ray: A note on the generation of Chinese lattice designs. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 4, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1068/b040089
57.
SwamiV.FurnhamA. (2012). The effects of symmetry and personality on aesthetic preferences. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.2190/IC.32.1.d
58.
TapiaM. (1992). Chinese lattice designs and parametric shape grammars. The Visual Computer, 9, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01901028
59.
TaylorR. P.SpeharB.Van DonkelaarP.HägerhällC. (2011). Perceptual and physiological responses to Jackson Pollock's Fractals. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 60. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00060
60.
Van der HelmP. A.LeeuwenbergE. L. J. (1996). Goodness of visual regularities: A nontransformational approach. Psychological Review, 103, 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.429
61.
Van GeertE.WagemansJ. (2020). Order, complexity, and aesthetic appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14, 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000224
62.
VartanianO.NavarreteG.ChatterjeeA.FichL. B.LederH.ModroñoC.NadalM. (2019). Preference for curvilinear contour in interior architectural spaces: Evidence from experts and nonexperts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000150
WashburnD. K.CroweD. W. (1988). Symmetries of culture: Theory and practice of plane pattern analysis. University of Washington Press.
65.
WeichselbaumH.LederH.AnsorgeU. (2018). Implicit and explicit evaluation of visual symmetry as a function of Art expertise. i-Perception (London), 9, 2041669518761464. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518761464
66.
Westphal-FitchG.FitchW. T. (2013). Spatial analysis of “crazy quilts”, a class of potentially random aesthetic artefacts. PLoS One, 8, e74055. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074055
67.
Westphal-FitchG.HuberL.GómezJ. C.FitchW. T. (2012). Production and perception rules underlying visual patterns: Effects of symmetry and hierarchy. Philosophical Transactions. Biological Sciences, 367, 2007–2022. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0098
68.
WhitfieldT. W. A.SlatterP. E. (1979). The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. The British Journal of Psychology, 70, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02144.x
69.
WinstonA. S.CupchikG. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 1–14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715763
