Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art

British Journal of Psychology

Volumn 102, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 49-70

  Forsythe, A ^a   Nadal, M ^b   Sheehy, N ^c   Cela Conde, C J ^b   Sawey, M ^d  

^a ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITAT DE LES ILLES BALEARS   (Spain)

^c LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79751474373     PISSN: 00071268     EISSN: 20448325     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/000712610X498958     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Aitken, P. P. (1974). Judgments of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 240-244. doi:
2. Aks, D., & Sprott, J. (1996). Quantifying aesthetic preference for chaotic patterns. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 1-16.
3. Attneave, F., & Arnoult, M. D. (1956). The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 452-471. doi:
4. Barnsley, M. (1993). Fractals everywhere (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Academic Press.
5. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279-286.
7. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
8. Birkhoff, G. D. (1933). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Chipman, S. F. (1977). Complexity and structure in visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 269-301. doi:
10. Cupchik, G. C. (1992). From perception to production: A multilevel analysis of the aesthetic process. In G. Cupchik & J. Laszlo (Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process (pp. 83-99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Cutting, J. E., & Garvin, J. J. (1987). Fractal curves and complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 42, 365-370.
12. Dali, S.(1940). Face of War (Visage de la Guerre), Museum Boymans-Van Beuningen, Rotterdam
13. Donderi, D. (2006a). An information theory analysis of visual complexity and dissimilarity. Perception, 35(6), 823-835. doi:
14. Donderi, D. (2006b). Visual complexity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 73-97. doi:
15. Eysenck, H. J. (1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48, 83-92. doi:
16. Eysenck, H. J. (1968). An experimental study of aesthetic preference for polygonal figures. Journal of General Psychology, 79, 3-17.
17. Eysenck, H. J., & Castle, M. (1970). Training in art as a factor in the determination of preference judgments for polygons. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 65-81.
18. Feist, G. J, & Brady, T. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(1), 77-89. doi:
19. Fleetwood, M. D., & Bryne, M. D. (2006). Modeling the visual search of displays: A revised ACT-R model of icon search based on eye-tracking data. Human Computer Interaction, 21(2), 153-197. doi:
20. Forsythe, A., & Mulhern, G., & Sawey, M. (2008). Confounds in pictorial sets: The role of complexity and familiarity in basic-level picture processing. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 116-129. doi:
21. Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N., & Sawey, M. (2003). Measuring pictorial image complexity: An automated analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 334-342.
22. Fromm, E. (1965). The heart of man. Its genius for good and evil. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
23. Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001). Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15, 57-72. doi:
24. Garcia, M., Badre, A. N, & Stasko, J. T. (1994). Development and validation of pictorial images varying in their abstractness. Interacting with Computers, 6, 191-211. doi:
25. Gilden, D. L., Schmuckler, M. A., & Clayton, K. (1993). The perception of natural contour. Psychological Review, 100, 460-478. doi:
26. Gouyet, J. F. (1996). Physics and fractal structures. New York: Springer-Verlag.
27. Hagerhall, C. M., Laike, T., Taylor, R. P., Küller, M., Küller, R., & Martin, T. P. (2008). Investigations of human EEG response to viewing fractal patterns. Perception, 37(10), 1488-1494. doi:
28. Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 138-172). Covelo, CA: Island Press.
29. Heinrich, R. W., & Cupchik, G. C. (1985). Individual difference as predictors of preference in visual art. Journal of Personality, 53(3), 502-515. doi:
30. Hochberg, J. E. (1968). Perception (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
31. Hochberg, J. E., & Brooks, V. (1960). The psychophysics of form: Reversible perspective drawings of spatial objects. American Journal of Psychology, 73, 337-354. doi:
32. Hogeboom, M., & Van Leeuwen, C. (1997). Visual search strategy and perceptual organisation covary with individual preference and structural complexity. Acta Psychologica, 95, 141-164. doi:
33. Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2003). Descriptive and evaluative judgement processes: Behavioural and electrophysical indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics. Cognitive Affective and Behavioural Neuroscience, 3(4), 289-299. doi:
34. Joye, Y. (2005). Evolutionary and cognitive motivations for fractal art in art and design education. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 24(2), 175-185. doi:
35. Joye, Y. (2006). Some reflections on the relevance of fractals for art therapy. Arts in Psychotherapy, 33, 143-147. doi:
36. Kaplan, S. (1995). Review of the biophilia hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 27, 801-804. doi:
37. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1989). The visual environment: Public participation in design and planning. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 59-86.
38. Krupinski, E., & Locher, P. (1988). Skin conductance and aesthetic evaluative responses to non representational works of art varying in symmetry. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 355-358.
39. Lempel, A., & Ziv, J. (1976). On the complexity of finite sequences. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 22, 75-81. doi:
40. Maffei, L., & Fiorentini, A. (1995). Arte e Cervello [Art and Brain]. Bologna: Zanichelli.
41. Mandelbrot, B. B. (1977). The fractal geometry of nature. New York: Freeman.
42. Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661-670.
43. Martindale, C., & Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 53-80. doi:
44. McWhinnie, H. J. (1987). Some studies an aesthetic preference. British Journal of Aesthetics, 27(1), 176-86. doi:
45. McWhinnie, H. J. (1993). Response time and aesthetic preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 336-338.
46. Nadal, M. (2007). Complexity and aesthetic preference for diverse visual stimuli. (Doctoral thesis, Universitat de les Illes Balears. Spain ).
47. Nicki, R., & Moss, V. (1975). Preference for non-representational art as a function of various measures of complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 237-249.
48. Orians, G. H. (1980). Habitat selection. In J. S. Lockard (Ed.), The evolution of human social behaviour (pp. 49-66). New York: Elsevier.
49. Pentland, A. P. (1984). Fractal-based description of natural scenes. IEEE Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6, 661-674. doi:
50. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (1999). Index of norms and ratings published in the Psychonomic Society journals. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 659-667.
51. Rawlings, D., & Barrantes i Vidal, N., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and aesthetic preference in Spain and England: Two studies relating sensation seeking and openness to experience to liking for paintings and music. European Journal of Personality, 15, 553-576. doi:10.1002/1099-0984(200011/12)14:6<553::AID-PER384>3.0.CO;2-H.
52. Rump, E. E. (1968). Is there a general factor of preference for complexity Perception and Psychophysics, 3, 346-348.
53. Russell, P. A. (2003). Effort after meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 99-110. doi:
54. Russell, P. A., Deregowski, J. B., & Kinnear, P. R. (1997). Perception and aesthetics. In J. W. Berry, P. R. Dasen, & T. S. Saraswathi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Basic processes and human development (2nd ed.), (Vol. 2, pp. 107-142). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
55. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). Mathematical theory of communication. Illinois, IL: University of Illinois.
56. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictorial images. Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215. doi:
57. Strother, L., & Kubovy, M. (2003). Perceived complexity and the grouping effect in band patterns. Acta Psychologica, 114, 229-244. doi:
58. Taubman, D., & Marcellin, M. (2001). JPEG2000: Image compression fundamentals, standards and practice. London: Kluwer.
59. Taylor, R. P. (1999). Reduction of physiological stress using fractal art and architecture. Leonardo, 39, 245-251. doi:
60. Taylor, R. P. (2002). Order in Pollock's chaos. Scientific America, 116-121. doi:
61. Taylor, R. P., Micolich, A. P., & Jonas, D. (1999). Fractal analysis of Pollock's drip paintings. Nature, 399, 422. doi:
62. Taylor, R. P., Guzman, R., Martin, T. P., Hall, G. D. R., Micolich, A. P., Jonas, D., & Marlow, C. A. (2007). Authenticating Pollocks paintings using fractal geometry. Pattern Recognition Letters, 28, 695-702.
63. Taylor, R. P., Micolich, A. P., & Jonas, D. (2003). The construction of Pollock's fractal drip paintings. Leonardo, 35, 203. doi:
64. Taylor, R. P., Newell, B. R., Sphehar, B. & Clifford, C. W. G.. (2001). Fractals: A resonance between art and nature? In G. Lugosi & D. Nagy (Eds.), Intersections of art and science. The Proceedings of Symmetry: Art and Science, Fifth Interdisciplinary Symmetry Congress and Exhibition of the International Society for the Interdisciplinary Study of Symmetry; Retrieved from
65. Taylor, R. P., & Sprott, J. C. (2008). Biophillic fractals an the visual journey of organic screen-savers. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 12, 117-129.
66. Van Damme, W. (1996). Beauty in context: Towards an anthropological approach to aesthetics. Boston, MA: Brill.
67. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68. Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 114-131.