Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Does the frame in which a picture appears become incorporated with our mental representation or memory for the picture? In five experiments, participants were shown several colored drawings, each set in a unique frame, and then later were given an unexpected memory test for the drawings and frames. Participants who initially performed a task that focused their attention on the drawings alone (rating the pleasingness or visual complexity of the drawings) were unable to correctly identify the frames as same or different at above chance levels. In contrast, participants who initially performed a task that focused attention on the drawings in relation to the frames (rating the suitability of the frames for the drawings, or the darkness of the drawings compared to the frames), showed significantly greater than chance frame identifications. Relational or interactive encoding of a picture and its frame is critical for memory of picture frames.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnheim

(1988). The power of the center: A study of composition in the visual arts. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Cannon-Brooks

(1990). Connoisseurship and picture framing in the 1990s. Museum Management and Curatorship, 9, 183–190.

Celant

(1982). Framed: Innocence or gilt? Art Forum, 20, 49–55.

Herbert

R. L.

Cachin

Distel

Stein

S. A.

, & Tinterow

(1991). Georges Seurat, 1859–1891. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Hoenigswald

(1988). Vincent van Gogh: His frames, and the presentation of paintings. The Burlington Magazine, 130, 367–372.

Kennedy

P. E.

(1971). American wild flowers coloring book. Mineola, NY: Dover.

Lebensztejn

J. C.

(1988). Framing classical space. Art Journal, 47, 37–41.

Light

L. L.

, & Carter-Sobell

(1970). Effects of changed semantic context on recognition memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 1–11.

Mendgen

(Ed.). (1995). In perfect harmony: Picture and frame 1850–1920. Amsterdam: Van Gogh Museum.

10.

Merrill

(1992). A pot of paint: Aesthetics on trial in Whistler v. Ruskin. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

11.

Ortega y Gasset

(1990). Meditations on the frame. Perspecta, 26, 185–190.

12.

Paquin

(1992). The frame as a key to visual perception. In Cupchik

G. C.

& László

(Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process: Psychology, semiology, and philosophy (pp. 37–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Prak

N. L.

(1971). Seurat's surface pattern and subject matter. Art Bulletin, 53, 367–378.

14.

Rosenthal

(1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

15.

Savedoff

B. E.

(1993). Looking at art through photographs. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51, 455–462.

16.

Schapiro

(1969). On some problems in the semiotics of visual art: Field and vehicle in image-signs. Semiotica, 1, 223–242.

17.

Sheffield

(1988). Frame ups (& downs). Connoisseur, 218, 112–117.

18.

Tulving

, & Thomson

D. M.

(1971). Retrieval processes in recognition memory: Effects of associative context. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 116–124.

19.

Watkins

M. J.

, & Tulving

(1976). Context effects in recognition memory for faces. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 505–517.

20.

Winograd

, & Rivers-Bulkeley

N. T.

(1977). Effects of changing context on remembering faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 397–405.

Memory for Picture Frames

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References