Loss and beauty: how experts and novices judge paintings with lacunae.
Journal
Psychological research
ISSN: 1430-2772
Titre abrégé: Psychol Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0435062
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
14
11
2019
accepted:
28
05
2020
pubmed:
9
6
2020
medline:
20
8
2021
entrez:
8
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Lacunae are the voids left by missing or damaged pieces of artwork, and their presence constitutes a central problem in the aesthetic experience of viewing artwork. However, we hypothesize that experience and knowledge of art might differentially modify viewer reactions to degraded artwork. Here, we investigated the implicit and explicit attitudes of art experts and non-experts towards the aesthetics of perfectly intact and lacunar artwork. Sections of Flemish oil paintings were displayed with or without a degradation mask, which mimics lacunae. Three groups differing in their interaction with art were assessed: art restorers, art historians, and art viewers lacking any art-related professional expertise. We found that (1) professional experience/expertise in art restoration affected implicit, but not explicit, attitudes among restorers, (2) art historians had positive explicit, but not implicit, attitudes toward intact artwork, and (3) it was difficult for non-specialist viewers to understand or appreciate artwork that was not perfectly intact. We further discuss the implications of these results to other forms of aesthetic evaluation and expertise. Modified preferences in experts may improve knowledge of the plastic changes that occur in the cognition of aesthetics and may thus be of significant relevance to enhance the effectiveness of art conservation programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32506246
doi: 10.1007/s00426-020-01370-9
pii: 10.1007/s00426-020-01370-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1838-1847Subventions
Organisme : Sapienza Università di Roma
ID : multidisciplinary award C26M145M33
Informations de copyright
© 2020. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Brown, S., Gao, X., Tisdelle, L., Eickhoff, S. B., & Liotti, M. (2011). Naturalizing aesthetics: Brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. Neuroimage, 58, 250–258.
pubmed: 21699987
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.012
pmcid: 21699987
Chamberlain, R., Drake, J. E., Kozbelt, A., Hickman, R., Siev, J., & Wagemans, J. (2019). Artists as experts in visual cognition: An update. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13, 58–73.
doi: 10.1037/aca0000156
Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2016). Neuroscience of aesthetics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369, 172–194.
pubmed: 27037898
doi: 10.1111/nyas.13035
pmcid: 27037898
Chatterjee, A., Widick, P., Sternschein, R., Smith Ii, W. B., & Bromberger, B. (2010). The assessment of art attributes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 207–222.
doi: 10.2190/EM.28.2.f
Cohen, J. (1973). Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 107–112.
doi: 10.1177/001316447303300111
Conway, B. R., & Rehding, A. (2013). Neuroaesthetics and the trouble with beauty. PLoS Biology, 11, e1001504.
pubmed: 23526878
pmcid: 3601993
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001504
Di Dio, C., Ardizzi, M., Massaro, D., et al. (2015). Human, nature, dynamism: The effects of content and movement perception on brain activations during the aesthetic judgment of representational paintings. Front Hum Neurosci, 9, 705.
pubmed: 26793087
pmcid: 26793087
Di Dio, C., & Gallese, V. (2009). Neuroaesthetics: A review. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19, 682–687.
doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2009.09.001
Ericsson, K. A. (2018). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi: 10.1017/9781316480748
Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 197–203.
pubmed: 17347026
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.02.003
pmcid: 17347026
Gallese, V. (2017). Visions of the body. Embodied simulation and aesthetic experience. Aisthesis, 1, 41–50.
Gallese, V., & Di Dio, C. (2012). Neuroesthetics: The body in esthetic experience. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), The encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 687–693). New York: Academic Press. (ISBN 9780123750006).
doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-375000-6.00251-2
Galli, G., Lenggenhager, B., Scivoletto, G., Molinari, M., & Pazzaglia, M. (2015). Don't look at my wheelchair! The plasticity of longlasting prejudice. Medical Education, 49, 1239–1247.
pubmed: 26611189
doi: 10.1111/medu.12834
pmcid: 26611189
Greenwald, A. G., Mcghee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
pubmed: 9654756
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
pmcid: 9654756
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
pubmed: 12916565
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
pmcid: 12916565
Kelly, A. M. C., & Garavan, H. (2005). Human functional neuroimaging of brain changes associated with practice. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1089–1102.
pubmed: 15616134
doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhi005
pmcid: 15616134
Kirk, U., Harvey, A., & Montague, P. R. (2011). Domain expertise insulates against judgment bias by monetary favors through a modulation of ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 10332–10336.
pubmed: 21646526
pmcid: 3121850
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1019332108
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Christensen, M. S., & Nygaard, N. (2009). Brain correlates of aesthetic expertise: A parametric fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 69, 306–315.
pubmed: 18783864
doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.08.004
pmcid: 18783864
Leder, H. (2013). Acknowledging the diversity of aesthetic experiences: Effects of style, meaning, and context. Behav Brain Sci, 36, 149–150.
pubmed: 23507104
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12001690
pmcid: 23507104
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.
pubmed: 15527534
doi: 10.1348/0007126042369811
pmcid: 15527534
Leder, H., Gerger, G., Dressler, S. G., & Schabmann, A. (2012). How art is appreciated. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 2–10.
doi: 10.1037/a0026396
Lorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood: Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychological Science, 21, 1777–1782.
pubmed: 21051521
doi: 10.1177/0956797610388048
pmcid: 21051521
Maguire, E. A., Woollett, K., & Spiers, H. J. (2006). London taxi drivers and bus drivers: A structural MRI and neuropsychological analysis. Hippocampus, 16, 1091–1101.
pubmed: 17024677
doi: 10.1002/hipo.20233
pmcid: 17024677
Nodine, C. F., Locher, P. J., & Krupinski, E. A. (1993). The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgement of art compositions. Leonardo, 26, 219–227.
doi: 10.2307/1575815
Pang, C. Y., Nadal, M., Muller-Paul, J. S., Rosenberg, R., & Klein, C. (2013). Electrophysiological correlates of looking at paintings and its association with art expertise. Biological Psychology, 93, 246–254.
pubmed: 23159877
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.10.013
pmcid: 23159877
Parsons, M. J. (1987). How we understand art: A cognitive developmental account of aesthetic experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pazzaglia, M. (2015). Body and odors: Non just molecules, after all. Current Directions in Psychological Science., 24, 329–333.
doi: 10.1177/0963721415575329
Pelowski, M., Gerger, G., Chetouani, Y., Markey, P. S., & Leder, H. (2017a). But is it really art? The classification of images as "Art"/"Not Art" and correlation with appraisal and viewer interpersonal differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1729. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01729
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01729
pubmed: 29062292
pmcid: 5640778
Pelowski, M., Markey, P. S., Forster, M., Gerger, G., & Leder, H. (2017b). Move me, astonish me … delight my eyes and brain: The Vienna Integrated Model of top-down and bottom-up processes in Art Perception (VIMAP), and corresponding affective, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 80–125.
pubmed: 28347673
doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2017.02.003
pmcid: 28347673
Pihko, E., Virtanen, A., Saarinen, V. M., et al. (2011). Experiencing art: The influence of expertise and painting abstraction level. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 94.
pubmed: 21941475
pmcid: 3170917
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00094
Redies, C., & Brachmann, A. (2017). Statistical image properties in large subsets of traditional art, bad art, and abstract art. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, 593. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00593 .
pubmed: 29118692
pmcid: 5660963
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00593
Schlegel, A., Alexander, P., Fogelson, S. V., et al. (2015). The artist emerges: Visual art learning alters neural structure and function. Neuroimage, 105, 440–451.
pubmed: 25463452
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.014
pmcid: 25463452
Sherman, A., & Morrissey, C. (2017). What is art good for? The socio-epistemic value of art. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 411.
pubmed: 28894418
pmcid: 5581397
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00411
Skov, M., & Nadal, M. (2017). Commentary: What is art good for? The socio-epistemic value of art. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 602.
pubmed: 29276484
pmcid: 5727017
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00602
Solso, R. L. (2001). Brain activities in a skilled versus a novice artist: An fMRI study. Leonardo, 34, 31–34.
doi: 10.1162/002409401300052479
Van Paasschen, J., Bacci, F., & Melcher, D. P. (2015). The influence of art expertise and training on emotion and preference ratings for representational and abstract artworks. PLoS ONE, 10, e0134241.
pubmed: 26244368
pmcid: 4526639
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134241
Vartanian, O., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Psychological and neural responses to art embody viewer and artwork histories. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 161–162.
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12001823
Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., et al. (2012). A century of gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1172–1217.
pubmed: 22845751
pmcid: 3482144
doi: 10.1037/a0029333
Wan, C. Y., & Schlaug, G. (2010). Music making as a tool for promoting brain plasticity across the life span. Neuroscientist, 16, 566–577.
pubmed: 20889966
pmcid: 2996135
doi: 10.1177/1073858410377805
Wharton, G. (2018). Bespoke ethics and moral casuistry in the conservation of contemporary art. Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 41, 58–70.
doi: 10.1080/19455224.2017.1417141
Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 1–14.
Yang, T., Silveira, S., Formuli, A., et al. (2019). Aesthetic experiences across cultures: Neural correlates when viewing traditional eastern or western landscape paintings. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 798.
pubmed: 31057452
pmcid: 6478896
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00798