According to Martindale's cognitive theory, the main determinant of aesthetic preference is prototypicality, and preference is usually related to its determinant in a monotonic or U-shaped fashion. Such a relation between aesthetic preference and prototypicality has been proposed before by other investigators. Contrary to their view, it will be argued that prototypicality will not do as a central concept in aesthetics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KaplanA. and KrisE., Aesthetic Ambiguity, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 3, pp. 415–435, 1948.
2.
BerlyneD. E., Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century, Crofts, New York, 1971.
3.
HochbergJ., Art and Perception, in Handbook of Perception, Vol. X, CarteretteE. C. and FriedmanM. P., (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 225–258, 1978.
4.
RosenbergJ., On Quality in Art, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey1967.
5.
OsborneH. (ed.), Aesthetics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1972.
6.
BirkhoffG. D., Aesthetic Measure, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1933.
ArnheimR., Art and Visual Perception, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1954.
9.
LangeK., Das Wesen der Kunst, Grote, Berlin, 1907.
10.
MolesA., Information Theory and Aesthetic Perception, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, 1966.
11.
BeverT., The Aesthetic Basis for Cognitive Structures, in The Representation of Knowledge and Belief, BrandM. and HarnishR. (eds.), The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 314–357, 1987.
12.
KoestlerA., The Act of Creation, Macmillan, New York, 1964.
13.
KaplanS., Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition, Environment and Behavior, 19, pp. 3–32, 1987.
14.
EysenckH. J., The Experimental Study of the ‘Good Gestalt’—A New Approach, Psychological Review, 49, pp. 344–364, 1942.
15.
LindauerM., Physiognomy and Art: Approaches from Above, Below, and Sideways, Visual Arts Research, 10, pp. 52–65, 1984.
16.
MartindaleC. and MooreK., Priming, Prototypicality, and Preference, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, pp. 661–670, 1988.
17.
GoodmanN., Languages of Art (2nd Edition), Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1976.
18.
LangerS. K., Feeling and Form, Scribner's, New York, 1953.
19.
ApterM. J., The Experience of Motivation, Academic Press, London, 1982.
20.
KreitlerH. and KreitlerS., Psychology of the Arts, Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, 1972.
21.
VitzP. C., Analog and Digital Art: A Brain-Hemisphere Critique of Modern Painting, in The Foundations of Aesthetics, Art, and Art Education, FarleyF. H. and NeperudR. W. (eds.), Praeger, New York, pp. 43–88, 1988.
22.
FechnerG. T., Vorschüle der Asthetik, Breitkopf und Härtel, Leipzig, 1876.
23.
MartindaleC.MooreK., and WestA., Relationship of Preference Judgments to Typicality, Novelty, and Mere Exposure, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, pp. 79–96, 1988.
24.
MartindaleC., Aesthetics, Psychobiology, and Cognition, in The Foundations of Aesthetics, Art, and Art Education, FarleyF. H. and NeperudR. W. (eds.), Praeger, New York, pp. 7–42, 1988.
25.
MartindaleC.MooreK., and BorkumJ., Aesthetic Preference: Anomalous Findings for Berlyne's Psychobiological Theory, American Journal of Psychology, 103, pp. 53–80, 1990.
26.
FehrB. and RussellJ., Concept of Emotion Viewed from a Prototype Perspective, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, pp. 464–486, 1984.
27.
NeisserU. (ed.), Concepts and Conceptual Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
28.
BarsalouL., Ideals, Central Tendency, and the Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, pp. 629–654, 1985.
29.
HospersJ., Understanding the Arts, Printice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1982.
30.
FrijdaN., The Emotions, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1986.
31.
WhitfieldT. and SlatterP., The Effects of Categorization and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Choice, British Journal of Psychology, 70, pp. 65–76, 1979.
32.
PurcellA., The Aesthetic Experience and Mundane Reality, in Cognitive Processes in the Perception of Art, CrozierW. and ChapmanA. (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 135–138, 1984.
33.
UyedaK. and MandlerG., Prototypicality Norms for 28 Semantic Categories, Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, pp. 587–595, 1980.
34.
WiegersmaS. and vanLoonA., Some Variables in the Blue (Red) Phenomenon, Journal of General Psychology, 116, pp. 259–269, 1989.
35.
McEvoyC. and NelsonD., Category Name and Instance Norms for 106 Categories of Various Sizes, American Journal of Psychology, 95, pp. 581–634, 1982.
36.
McManusI.JonesA., and CottrellJ., The Aesthetics of Color, Perception, 10, pp. 651–666, 1981.
37.
PurcellA. T., Individual Differences in Aesthetic Experiences of Paintings, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Empirical Aesthetics, Budapest, pp. 135–138, 1990.
38.
PurcellT. and NasarJ., Australian Architect and Non-Architect Students Experiences of American Houses, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Empirical Aesthetics, Budapest, pp. 237–240, 1990.
39.
HekkertP. and van WieringenP. C. W., Complexity and Prototypicality as Determinants of the Appraisal of Cubist Paintings, British Journal of Psychology, in press.
40.
HekkertP. and van WieringenP. C. W., Expert's Appraisal of Cubist Paintings, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Empirical Aesthetics, Budapest, pp. 118–121, 1990.
41.
HumphreyN. K., Natural Aesthetics, in Architecture for People, MikellidesB. (ed.), pp. 59–73, Studio Vista, London, 1980.
42.
BoselieF. and LeeuwenbergE., Birkhoff Revisited: Beauty as a Function of Effect and Means, American Journal of Psychology, 98, pp. 1–39, 1985.
43.
BoselieF. and LeeuwenbergE., Paradoxical Properties of Creative Achievements, Visual Arts Research, 12, pp. 333–342, 1986.
