Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Art trained and untrained participants evaluated postcard images of nine paintings by renowned artists on 16 measures of the compositions' physical and structural characteristics, novelty of content, and aesthetic qualities. These ratings were compared to those obtained by Locher et al. (2001) from individuals experiencing the original paintings in the galleries of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art and from viewers of slide-projected and computer-generated images of the set of art stimuli. Analyses revealed significant differences in the judged hedonic properties of the originals as compared to the postcard images, whereas the pictorial qualities of the artworks were comparable for these two format conditions. This was the case for both art trained and untrained participants. Additionally, ratings on all measures were found not to differ reliably across the three reproduction formats (viz., postcard, slide, and computer images). Findings are discussed in terms of Locher et al.'s facsimile-accommodation hypothesis of picture perception.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Currie

(1985). The authentic and the aesthetic. American Philosophical Quarterly, 22, 153–160.

Csikszentmihalyi

, & Robinson

(1990). The art of seeing: An interpretation of the aesthetic encounter. Malibu, CA: J Paul Getty Museum and Center for Education in the arts.

Elkins

(1997). What is seeing exactly? Art Bulletin, 79, 191–198.

Henry

C. K.

(1992). Retention and recall of images: Evaluating museum experiences of school children. Visual Arts Research, 18, 82–92.

Locher

(1995). A measure of the information content of visual art stimuli for studies in experimental aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 183–191.

Locher

(1997). A verbal report measure of the complexity of visual art stimuli for studies in experimental aesthetics. In Dirfman

Martindale

Leontiev

Cupchik

Petrov

, & Machotka

(Eds.), Emotion, creativity, and art (pp. 277–286). Perm, Russia: Perm State Institute of Arts and Culture.

Locher

Smith

, & Smith

(1999). Original paintings versus slide and computer reproductions: A comparison of viewer responses. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 17, 121–129.

Locher

Smith

, & Smith

(2001). The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings. Perception, 30, 449–465.

McManus

, & Kitson

(1995). Compositional geometry in pictures. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 73–94.

10.

Mehrabian

, & Russell

(1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art. (1994). The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Guide. Verona, Italy: Mondadori Printing.

12.

Russell

, & Gray

(1991). The heterogeneity of the preferability scale in aesthetic judgments of paintings. Visual Arts Research, 17, 76–84.

13.

Smith

, & Wolf

(1993). Issues of measurement and evaluation in art museum education: Final report to the National Endowment for the Arts. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

14.

Witmer

, & Singer

(1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7, 225–240.

A Comparison of the Perceived Pictorial and Aesthetic Qualities of Original Paintings and Their Postcard Images

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References