Previous work on the aesthetics of simple figures such as rectangles and triangles, as well as on the aesthetics of color, suggests that although there are clear population level preferences, there are also large individual differences which are temporally stable, and which any adequate theoretical analysis must take into account. Data presented here show similar phenomena in a related problem in composition—where to place an object within the frame of a picture to produce the optimal aesthetic effect. A novel and powerful “method of randomized paired comparisons” first showed that there are overall population level preferences, with objects being placed preferentially at the two golden sections horizontally, and between the two golden sections vertically. As in the studies of simple figures and colors, there are large individual differences. A cognitive model of “sensory aesthetics” is proposed in which continua of any type (space, geometric objects, colors, or whatever), are described categorically, usually in terms of words such as “square,” “rectangle,” “line,” etc., each of which is a fuzzy set. Preference functions are then derived from the union and intersection of the fuzzy set functions, which differ between individuals as their categories differ or as they prefer objects which are prototypical, or are at the boundaries between prototypes. There is therefore wide inter-individual variability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AngierR. P. (1903). The aesthetics of unequal division. Psychological Review, Monograph Supplement, 4.
2.
Anonymous. (1984). Raffaelo e la sezione aurea, Exhibition catalogue, Palazzo Barberini, Roma, 27 Mar-30 Apr 1984.Bologna: Edizioni Bora.
3.
ArnheimR. (1955). A review of proportion. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 14, 44–57.
4.
ArnheimR. (1986). The other Gustav Theodor Fechner. In ArnheimR. (Ed.), New essays on the psychology of art. (pp. 39–49). Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
Association des Amis de Boscodon. (1987). L'Art des batisseurs romans. La Geometrie et les Maitres de l'Oeuvre. La Construction: Les metiers et les outils. Boscodon, France: Abbaye de Boscodon.
6.
BenjafieldJ. (1985). A review of recent research on the golden section. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 3, 117–134.
7.
BerlinB., & KayP. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
BirkhoffG. D. (1933). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
9.
BoselieF., & LeeuwenbergE. (1984). A general notion of beauty used to quantify the aesthetic attractivity of geometric forms. In CrozierW. R. & ChapmanA. J. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in the perception of art.Amsterdam: North-Holland.
10.
BoselieF. (1991). Against prototypicality as a central concept in aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 9, 65–73.
11.
BrantL.MarshallP. H., & RoarkB. (1995). On the development of prototypes and preferences. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 161–170.
12.
BurkeE. (1757). A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. London: R and J Dodsley.
13.
CarterB. A. R. (1953). The perspective of Piero della Francesca's “Flagellation.”Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 16, 295–302.
14.
FechnerG. T. (1871). Zur experimentalen Aesthetik, Abhandlungen der Koenigl. Saechsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Leipzig: Hirzel.
15.
FechnerG. T. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Haertel.
16.
GodkewitschM. (1974). The golden section: An artefact of stimulus range and measure of preference. American Journal of Psychology, 269–277.
17.
GombrichE. H. (1984). The sense of order. (2nd ed.). London: Phaidon.
18.
GreenC. D. (1995). All that glitters: A review of psychological research on the aesthetics of the golden section. Perception, 24, 937–968.
19.
HekkertP., & SneldersH. M. J. J. (1995). Prototypicality as an explanatory concept in aesthetics: A reply to Boselie (1991). Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 149–160.
20.
HögeH. (1995). Fechner's experimental aesthetics and the golden section hypothesis today. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 131–148.
21.
HumphreyN. K. (1973). The illusion of beauty. Perception, 2, 429–439.
22.
HumphreyN. K. (1983). Consciousness regained: Chapters in the development of mind.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
KayP. (1975). Synchronic variability and diachronic range in basic color terms. Language in Society, 4, 257–270.
24.
KayP., & McDanielC. K. (1978), The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language, 4, 610–646.
25.
KayP.BerlinB., & MerrifieldW. (1991). Biocultural implications of systems of color naming. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1, 12–25.
26.
KellyG. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Morton.
27.
KoskoB. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 65–75.
MacCarthyF. (1989). Eric Gill.London: Faber and Faber.
30.
MartindaleC. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 49–80.
31.
MartindaleC., & MooreK. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661–670.
32.
McManusI. C. (1980). The aesthetics of simple figures. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 505–524.
33.
McManusI. C.JonesA. L., & CottrellJ. (1981). The aesthetics of colour. Perception, 10, 651–666.
34.
McManusI. C., (1983). Basic colour terms in literature. Language and Speech, 26, 247–252.
35.
McManusI. C.Half a million basic colour words. Perception, 26, 367–370, 1997.
36.
MervisC. B., & RoschE. (1981). Categorisation of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.
37.
PadovanR. (1986). Measuring and counting. The Architect, May, 54–58.
38.
PickfordR. W. (1979). Semantic differential judgements of geometric figures of aesthetic interest. In NodineC. F. & FischerD. F. (Eds.), Perception and pictorial representation. New York: Praeger.
39.
PiehlJ. (1976). The golden section: An artefact of stimulus range and demand characteristics. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 47–50.
40.
PiehlJ. (1978). The golden section: The “true” ratio?Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 831–834.
41.
PophamJ. K. (1957). Pictorial composition. London: Pitman.
42.
RavenscroftI. (1996). Thinking in mentalese. Times Literary Supplement, Dec 27th, 26.
43.
RoschE. (1975). The nature of mental codes for color categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 303–322.
44.
ScrutonR. (1987). Modern philosophy and the neglect of aesthetics. Times Literary Supplement, 604.
45.
ThomasB. (1969). Geometry in pictorial composition. Newcastle: Oriel Press.
