In one study, four tests of artistic judgment and a battery of cognitive ability tests were administered to examinee artists and nonartists. In another study, the artistic judgment tests were administered to professional artists and nonartists. The results showed professional artists and nonartists to differ significantly on all dimensions of visual preference and examinee artists to score significantly higher on several tests of cognitive ability. The results suggest fundamental differences between the visual preferences of artists and nonartists with interesting implications concerning the influence of art background on cognitive development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GardnerH., Art Through the Ages, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1926.
2.
JansonH. W., History of Art, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1962.
3.
BrighouseG., Variability in Preference for Simple Forms, Psychological Monographs, 51, pp. 68–74, 1939.
4.
GetzelsJ., The Creative Vision: The Evaluation of Works of Art in the Creative Vision, John Wiley, New York, 1976.
5.
GoudeG., A Multidimensional Scaling Approach to the Perception of Art II, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 13, pp. 258–271, 1972.
6.
AndreasenR. G., Creativity and Mental Illness: Prevalence Rate in Writers and Their First-Degree Relatives, American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, pp. 1288–1292, 1987.
7.
ChildI. C., Observations on the Meaning of Some Measures of Esthetic Sensitivity, Journal of Psychology, 57, pp. 49–64, 1964.
8.
EysenckH. J., Personal Preferences, Aesthetic Sensitivity and Personality in Trained and Untrained Subjects, Journal of Personality, 40, pp. 544–557, 1972.
9.
EysenckH. J. and CastleM., Training in Art as a Factor in the Determination of Preference Judgements for Polygons, British Journal of Psychology, 61, pp. 65–81, 1970.
10.
WinnerE., Visual and Spatial Abilities in Young Artists, paper presented at the Symposium on Art and the Brain, Chicago, 1988.
11.
BezruczkoN. and SchroederD. H., Artisric Judgment III: Artist Validation, Technical Report 1991-1, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Chicago, 1991.
12.
BezruczkoN. and SchroederD. H., Artistic Judgment Project I: Internal-Structure Analyses, Technical Report 1989-2, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Chicago, 1989. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 317 583).
13.
ShambaughI. C., Design Judgment Research, Worksample 654 Form A, Leading to Form AA: First Purification, Technical Report 792, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, 1973.
14.
GravesM., Design Judgment Test, The Psychological Corporation, 1946.
15.
EysenckH. J., An Application of the Maitland Graves Design Judgement Test to Professional Artists, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 30, pp. 598–590, 1970.
16.
EysenckH. J. and CastleM., Comparative Study of Artists and Nonartists on the Maitland Graves Design Judgement Test, Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, pp. 389–392, 1971.
17.
EysenckH. J., Factor Analytic Study of the Maitland Graves Design Judgement Test, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24, pp. 73–74, 1967.
18.
EysenckH. J., The Development of Aesthetic Sensitivity in Children, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 13, pp. 1–10, 1972.
19.
BezruczkoN., The Construction and Validation of a Rasch Preference Scale for Design Complexity: An Aspect of Aesthetic Judgment, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1990.
20.
BezruczkoN. and SchroederD. H., Artistic Judgment II: Construct Validation, Technical Report 1990-4, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Chicago, 1990. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335 401).
21.
HaberR. N. and HershensonM., Effects of Repeated Brief Exposures on the Growth of a Percept, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, pp. 40–46, 1965.
22.
KelletK. R., A Gestalt Study of the Functions of Unity in Aesthetic Perception, Psychological Monographs, 51, pp. 23–51, 1939.
23.
KülpeO., Beitrag zur Experimentaellen Aesthetik, American Journal of Psychology, 14, pp. 215–231, 1903.
24.
KoffkaK., Principles of Gestalt Psychology, Harcourt & Brace, New York, 1935.
25.
KöhlerW., Die Physischen Gestalten in Ruhe und im Stationaren Zustand, Weltkreis-verlag, Erlangen, 1920.
26.
BezruczkoN., Artistic Judgment: A Review of Research, Technical Report 1988-1, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Chicago, 1988.
27.
AttneaveF., The Quantitative Study of Shape and Pattern Perception, Psychological Bulletin, 6, pp. 452–471, 1956.
28.
AttneaveF., Physical Determinants of the Judged Complexity of Shapes, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, pp. 221–226, 1957.
29.
AttneaveF., Stochastic Composition Processes, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 17, pp. 503–510, 1959.
30.
DorfmanD. D., Esthetic Preference as a Function of Pattern Information, Psychonomic Science, 3, pp. 85–86, 1965.
31.
NollA. M., Human or Machine: A Subjective Comparison of Piet Mondrian's “Composition With Lines” (1917) and a Computer-Generated Picture, Psychological Record, 16, pp. 1–10, 1966.
32.
NollA. M., The Effects of Artistic Training on Aesthetic Preferences for Pseudo-Random Computer-Generated Patterns, Psychological Record, 22, pp. 449–464, 1972.
33.
BirkhoffG. P., Mathematics of Aesthetics, in The World of Mathematics, (Vol. 4, pp. 2185–2195), NewmanJ. (ed.), Simon & Schuster, New York, 1956.
34.
GamerW. R., Good Patterns Have Few Alternatives, American Scientist, 58, pp. 34–42, 1970.
35.
BezruczkoN. and SchroederD. H., Construction and Validation of a Scale for Eysenck's K Factor, Proceedings from the XIth International Congress on Empirical Aesthetics, Budapest, Hungary, 1990.
36.
BezruczkoN., Item Specifications for 84 Forced-Choice VDT Items, Research Memorandum 1989–3, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Chicago, 1989.
37.
QuesnelL. J., A Study of Proportion Appraisal Worksample 235 Form B, Technical Report 251, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, New York, 1946.
38.
HortonS. P., Two Experiments in the Simplification of the Measure of Art Appraisal, Technical Report 44, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, New York, 1939.
39.
BerlyneD. E., Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1971.
40.
LindstrumS. J., A Further Experiment in the Measurement of Proportion Appraisal, Technical Report 99, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, New York, 1942.
41.
O'ConnorJ., Unsolved Business Problems, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, New York, 1940.
42.
TremblyD., Learning to Use Your Aptitudes, Erin Hills Publishers, San Luis Obispo, California, 1974.
43.
DanielM., Large Sample Intertest Correlations, Technical Report 1983-2, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Boston, 1983.
44.
DanielM., Aptitudes of Physicians, Technical Report 1983-6, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Boston, 1983.
45.
VecciaE. M., Sex Effects on JOCRF Standard Worksamples, Statistical Bulletin 1990–2, Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Chicago, 1990.
