The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 94, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 117-131

  Hekkert, Paul ^a   Van Wieringen, Piet C W ^b  

^a FACULTY OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN ENGINEERING   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Aesthetic preferences; Arts; Evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141664291     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(95)00055-0     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Amann, P., undated. Postimpressionisme. Alphen aan den Rijn: Atrium.
2. Austin, J.R. and R.B. Sleight, 1951, Aesthetic preference for isosceles triangles. Journal of Applied Psychology 35, 430-431.
3. Bartko, J.J., 1976. On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin 83, 762-765.
4. Berlyne, D.E., 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
5. Berlyne, D.E., 1974. Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Wiley.
6. Berlyne, D.E., 1975. Dimensions of perception of exotic and pre-Renaissance paintings. Canadian Journal of Psychology 29, 151-173.
7. Birkhoff, G., 1933. Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Boselie, F., 1992. The golden section has no special aesthetic attractivity! Empirical Studies of the Arts 10, 1-18.
9. Boselie, F. and E. Leeuwenberg, 1985. Birkhoff revisited: Beauty as a function of effect and means. American Journal of Psychology 98, 1-39.
10. Bourdieu, P., 1989. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1979.)
11. Child, I.L., 1978. 'Esthetic theory'. In: E.C. Carterette and M.P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception, Vol. 10 (pp. 111-131). New York: Academic Press.
12. Crozier, W.R. and A.J. Chapman, 1984. 'The perception of art: The cognitive approach and its context'. In: W. R. Crozier and A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Cognitive processes in the perception of art (pp. 3-23). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
13. Cupchik, G.C., 1992. 'From perception to production: A multilevel analysis of the aesthetic process'. In: G. Cupchik and J. Laszlo (Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process (pp. 83-99). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Cupchik, G.C. and R.J. Gebotys, 1988. The search for meaning in art: Interpretive styles and judgments of quality. Visual Arts Research 14, 38-50.
15. Cupchik, G.C. and R.J. Gebotys, 1990. Interest and pleasure as dimensions of aesthetic response. Empirical Studies of the Arts 8, 1-14.
16. Eysenck, H.J., 1941. A critical and experimental study of colour preferences. American Journal of Psychology 54, 385-394.
17. Farnsworth, P.R., 1932. Preferences for rectangles. Journal of General Psychology 7, 479-481.
18. Fechner, G.T., 1876. Vorschule der Ästhetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hèrtel.
19. Getzels, J.W. and M. Csikszentmihalyi, 1976. The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
20. Gibson, J.J., 1975. Pickford and the failure of experimental aesthetics. Leonardo 8, 319-321.
21. Hekkert, P. and H.M.J.J. Snelders, 1995. Prototypicality as an explanatory concept in aesthetics: A reply to Boselie (1991). Empirical Studies of the Arts 13, 149-160.
22. Hekkert, P. and P.C.W. van Wieringen, in press. Beauty in the eye of expert and non-expert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of Psychology.
23. Jaworska, W., 1971. Paul Gauguin et l'école de Pont-Aven. Neuchâtel: Editions Ides et Calendes.
24. Kreitler, H. and S. Kreitler 1972. Psychology of the arts. Durham: Duke University Press.
25. Lindauer, M.S., 1981. 'Aesthetic experience: A neglected topic in the psychology of the arts'. In: D. O'Hare (Ed.), Psychology and the arts (pp. 29-75). Sussex: The Harvester Press.
26. Locher, P.J., 1995. A measure of the information content of visual art stimuli for studies in experimental aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts 13, 183-191.
27. Martindale, C., K. Moore and J. Borkum, 1990. Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology 103, 53-80.
28. Neperud, R.W., 1988. 'A propositional view of aesthetic experiencing for research and teaching in art education'. In: F.H. Farley and R.W. Neperud (Eds.), The Foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 273-319). New York: Praeger.
29. Neperud, R.W. and D.G. Marschalek, 1988. Informational and affect bases of aesthetic response. Leonardo 21, 305-312.
30. Nodine, C., P. Locher and E. Krupinski, 1993. The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo 26, 219-227.
31. O'Hare, O.P.A., 1976. Individual differences in perceived similarity and preference for visual art: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Perception and Psychophysics 20, 445-452.
32. O'Hare, O.P.A. and I.E. Gordon, 1977. Dimensions of the perception of art: Verbal scales and similarity judgments. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 18, 66-70.
33. Parsons, M.J., 1987. How we understand art: A cognitive developmental account of aesthetic experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Pickford, R.W., 1976. Gibson and the success of experimental aesthetics. Leonardo 9, 56-57.
35. Runeson, S., 1977. On the possibility of 'smart' perceptual mechanisms. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 18, 172-179.
36. Runeson, S., 1980. There is more to psychological meaningfulness than computation and representation. Comment on S. Ullman's 'Against direct perception'. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 399-400.
37. Serullaz, M., 1959. Les peintres Impressionistes. Paris: Éditions Pierre Tisné.
38. Sillevius, J., H. Verbeek and H. Kraan, 1990. Een feest van kleur: Post-impressionisten uit particulier bezit. Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers.
39. Smets, G., 1973. Aesthetic judgment and arousal: An experimental contribution to psycho-aesthetics. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
40. Solso, R.L., 1994. Cognition and the visual arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Top, T., 1993. Art and gender: Creative achievement in the visual arts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
42. Valentine, C.W., 1962. The experimental psychology of beauty. London: Methuen.
43. Vitz, P., 1966. Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science 11, 105-114.
44. Winston, A.S., 1992. 'Sweetness and light: Psychological aesthetics and sentimental art'. In: G. Cupchik and J. Laszlo (Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process (pp. 118-136). New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Winston, A.S. and G.C. Cupchik, 1992. The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research 18, 1-14.
46. Ziff, P., 1981. 'About the appreciation of dance'. In: G. Fancher and G. Myers (Eds.), Philosophical essays on dance (pp. 69-83). Brooklyn, NY: Dance Horizons.