After more than a decade of research into the effect of prototypicality on aesthetic preference, Boselie strongly questioned the validity of this concept [1]. It is argued, however, that his arguments against prototypicality as an explanatory concept in aesthetics are not convincing. The observed effects of prototypicality on preference together with theoretical notions on the importance of classification for perception and appraisal make a strong case for examining the relations between aesthetic preference and (proto)typicality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoselieF., Against Prototypicality as a Central Concept in Aesthetics, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 9, pp. 65–73, 1991.
2.
BrunerJ. S., On Perceptual Readiness, Psychological Review, 64, pp. 123–152, 1957.
3.
MartindaleC., Cognition and Consciousness, The Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois, 1981.
4.
GibsonE. J. and LevinH., The Psychology of Reading, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1975.
5.
RoschE., Principles of Categorization, in Cognition and Categorization, RoschE. and LloydB. B. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 27–48, 1978.
6.
HarnadS., Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
7.
NeisserU., Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
8.
RoschE. and MervisC. B., Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories, Cognitive Psychology, 7, pp. 573–605, 1975.
9.
RoschE., Cognitive Representations and Semantic Categories, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, pp. 192–233, 1975.
10.
CohenG., The Psychology of Cognition, Academic Press, London, 1977.
11.
WhitfieldT. W. A. and SlatterP. E., The Effects of Categorization and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Choice in a Furniture Selection Task, British Journal of Psychology, 70, pp. 65–75, 1979.
12.
MartindaleC., The Pleasures of Thought: A Theory of Cognitive Hedonics, Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, pp. 49–80, 1984.
13.
MartindaleC. and MooreK., Priming, Prototypicality, and Preference, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, pp. 661–670, 1988.
14.
WhitfieldT. W. A., Predicting Preference for Familiar, Everyday Objects: An Experimental Confrontation between Two Theories of Aesthetic Behavior, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, pp. 221–237, 1983.
15.
LangloisJ. H. and RoggmanL. A., Attractive Faces are Only Average, Psychological Science, 1, pp. 115–121, 1990.
16.
PurcellA. T., The Aesthetic Experience and Mundane Reality, in Cognitive Processes in the Perception of Art, CrazierW. R. and ChapmanA. J. (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 189–210, 1984.
17.
PedersenD. M., Perception of Interior Designs, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, pp. 671–676, 1986.
18.
MartindaleC.MooreK., and BorkumJ., Aesthetic Preference: Anomalous Findings for Berlyne's Psychobiological Theory, American Journal of Psychology, 103, pp. 53–80, 1990.
19.
HekkertP. and van WieringenP. C. W., Complexity and Prototypicality as Determinants of the Appraisal of Cubist Paintings, British Journal of Psychology, 81, pp. 483–495, 1990.
20.
BoselieF., Prototypicality and Aesthetic Preference, Proceedings of the XIth International Congress on Empirical Aesthetics, Budapest, pp. 155–165, 1990.
21.
MartindaleC.MooreK., and WestA., Relationship of Preference Judgments to Typicality, Novelty, and Mere Exposure, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, pp. 79–96, 1988.
22.
FehrB. and RussellJ. A., Concept of Emotion Viewed from a Prototype Perspective, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 113, pp. 464–486, 1984.
23.
TanE. S., Film als Emotiemachine (Film as an Emotion Machine), PhD Dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1991.
24.
GaverW. W. and MandlerG., Play it Again Sam: On Liking Music, Cognition and Emotion, 1, pp. 259–282, 1987.
25.
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.
26.
ZajoncR. B., Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 9, pp. 1–27, 1968.
27.
LokenB. and WardJ., Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, pp. 111–126, 1990.
28.
PurcellT. and NasarJ., Australian Architect and Non-architect Students Experiences of American Houses, Proceedings of the XIth International Congress on Empirical Aesthetics, Budapest, pp. 237–240, 1990.
29.
HekkertP. and van WieringenP. C. W., Experts' Appraisal of Cubist Paintings, Proceedings of the XIth International Congress on Empirical Aesthetics, Budapest, pp. 118–121, 1990.
30.
PurcellA. T., Individual Differences in Aesthetic Experiences of Paintings, Proceedings of the XIth International Congress on Empirical Aesthetics, Budapest, pp. 135–138, 1990.
31.
ParsonsM. J., How We Understand Art: A Cognitive Developmental Account of Aesthetic Experience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
32.
SchmidtJ. A.McLaughlinJ. P., and LeightenP., Novice Strategies for Understanding Paintings, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, pp. 65–72, 1989.
33.
CupchikG. C., From Perception to Production: A Multilevel Analysis of the Aesthetic Process, in Emerging Visions of the Aesthetic Process, CupchikG. and LaszloJ. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 83–99, 1992.
34.
HekkertP. and van WieringenP. C. W., The Role of Color in the Aesthetic Appraisal of Cubist Paintings, Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress on Empirical Aesthetics, Berlin, 1992.
35.
PotterJ. and WetherellM., Discourse and Social Psychology, Sage, London, 1987.
36.
SneldersH. M. J. J. and StokmansM. J. W., Product Perception and Preference in Consumer Decision Making, in Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences: Recent Developments and Applications, GreenacreM.BlasiusJ., and KristofJ. W. (eds.), Academic Press, London, pp. 324–349, 1994.
37.
AlleyT. R. and CunninghamM. R., Average Faces are Attractive, but Very Attractive Faces are not Average, Psychological Science, 2, pp. 123–125, 1991.
38.
PerrettD. I.MayK. A., and YoshikawaS., Facial Shape and Judgements of Female Attractiveness, Nature, 368, pp. 239–242, 1994.
39.
EtcoffN. L., Beauty and the Beholder, Nature, 368, pp. 186–187, 1994.
40.
ApterM. J., Reversal Theory, Cognitive Synergy and the Arts, in Cognitive Processes in the Perception of Art, CrazierW. R. and ChapmanA. J. (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 411–426, 1984.
41.
ArnheimR., Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye (The New Version), University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1974.
42.
BerlyneD. E., Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1971.
43.
MandlerG., The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste, in Affect and Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, ClarkM. S. and FiskeS. T. (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1982.
44.
MandlerG., Cognitive Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1985.
