Studies show meaningfulness overshadows collative variables in determining aesthetic preferences, and this meaning effect can occur very quickly, requiring only very brief visual information. Observers can understand the gist of a natural scene in a glance, even when the images are blurred. By manipulating spatial frequencies, we varied the image resolution of Realist, Impressionist, Cubist, and Abstract Expressionist paintings, and asked participants with no artistic training to rate them on Meaning, Preference, Complexity, Unity and Variety (each subject saw one level of blur/clarity). No matter how blurred the images, Realist and Impressionist paintings were judged more preferable and meaningful than Cubist and Abstract Expressionist art, and within the former styles meaning was the best predictor of preferences. Results support Martindale's theory of cognitive hedonics, which ascribes aesthetic preference to the net activation of semantic modules.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BachmannT., & VipperK. (1983). Perceptual rating of paintings from different artistic styles as a function of semantic differential scales and exposure time. Archives of Psychology, 135, 149–161.
2.
BarM.KassamK. S.GhumanA. S.BoshyanJ.SchmidtA. M.DaleA. M. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 449–454.
3.
BelkeB.LederH.StrobachT., & CarbonC. C. (2010). Cognitive fluency: High-level processing dynamics in art appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, 214–222.
4.
BerlyneD. E., & OgilvieJ. C. (1974). Dimensions in the perception of paintings. In BerlyneD. E. (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 181–226). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
5.
BordensK. (2010). Contextual information, artistic style, and the perception of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 111–130.
6.
BrighouseG. (1939). A study of aesthetic apperception. Psychological Monographs, 51, 1–22.
7.
CornsweetT. (1970). Visual Perception. New York: Academic Press.
8.
CupchikG., & BerlyneD. E. (1979). The perception of collective properties in visual stimuli. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 20, 93–104.
9.
EysenckH. J. (1942). An experimental study of the “good Gestalt”—A new approach. Psychological Review, 49, 344–364.
10.
GrahamD., & FieldD. (2007). Statistical regularities of art images and natural scenes: Spectra, sparseness, and nonlinearities. Spatial Vision, 21, 149–164.
11.
GreeneM., & OlivaA. (2009a). Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: Seeing the forest without representing the trees. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 137–176.
12.
GreeneM., & OlivaA. (2009b). The briefest of glances: The time course of natural scene understanding. Psychological Science, 20, 464–472.
13.
HekkertP., & van WeiringenP. C. W. (1990). Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 483–495.
14.
JoubertO. R.RousseletG. A.FizeD., & Fabre-ThorpeM. (2007). Fast categorization and object interference. Vision Research, 47, 3286–3297.
15.
KellettK. (1939). A gestalt study of the function of unity in aesthetic perception. Psychological Monographs, 51, 23–51.
16.
KettlewellN.LipscombS.EvansL., & RosstonK. (1990). The effect of subject matter and degree of realism on aesthetic preferences for paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 85–93.
17.
LederH.CarbonC.-C., & RipsasA. L. (2006). Entitling art: The influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 131, 176–198.
18.
LocherP.KrupinskiE.Mello-ThomsC., & NodineC. (2007). Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience. Spatial Vision, 21, 55–77.
19.
MartindaleC. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 49–80.
20.
MartindaleC. (1988). Cognition, psychobiology, and aesthetics. In FarleyF. & NeperudR. (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 7–42). New York: Praeger.
21.
MartindaleC. (1989). Trends in British and French painting: An evolutionary explanation. Visual Arts Research, 15, 1–20.
22.
MartindaleC. (2007a). A neural-network approach to the theory of beauty. In MartindaleC.LocherP., & PetrovV. M. (Eds.), Evolutionary and neurocognitive approaches to aesthetics, creativity and the arts (pp 181–194). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
23.
MartindaleC. (2007b). Recent trends in the psychological study of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 121–141.
24.
MartindaleC.MooreK., & BorkumJ. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53–80.
25.
MartindaleC.MooreK., & WestA. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 79–96.
26.
MooreK.WestA., & MartindaleC. (2006). Exposure duration and aesthetic preference for paintings. In GottesdienerH. & VilatteJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIX Congress, International Association of Empirical Aesthetics (pp. 511–513). Avignon, France: Quercy-Mercurès.
27.
PotterM. (1975). Meaning in visual scenes. Science, 187, 965–966.
28.
RamachandranV. S., & HirsteinW. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 15–51.
29.
ReberR.SchwartzN., & WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder's processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382.
30.
RediesC.HasensteinJ., & DnezlerJ. (2007). Fractal-like image statistics in visual art: Similarity to natural scenes. Spatial Vision, 21, 137–148.
31.
RussellP. A., & MilneS. (2004). Meaningfulness and the hedonic value of paintings: Effects of titles. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15, 61–73.
32.
SchynsP. G., & OlivaA. (1994). From blob to boundary edges: Evidence for time and scale dependent scene recognition. Psychological Science, 5, 195–200.
33.
WinkielmanP.HalberstadtJ.FazendeiroT., & CattyS. (2008). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799–806.
34.
WolfP. (1983). Elements of photogrammetry.New York: McGraw-Hill.
