Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results

Empirical Studies of the Arts

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 173-191

  Nadal, Marcos ^a   Munar, Enric ^a   Marty, Gisèle ^a   Cela Conde, Camilo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT DE LES ILLES BALEARS   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 82455225363     PISSN: 02762374     EISSN: 15414493     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/EM.28.2.d     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aitken, P. P. (1974). Judgments of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 240-244.
2. Berlyne, D. E. (1963). Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 274-290.
3. Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 279-286.
4. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
5. Berlyne, D. E., Ogilvie, J. C., & Parham, L. C. C. (1968). The dimensionality of visual complexity, interestingness, and pleasingness. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 376-387.
6. Birkhoff, G. D. (1932). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
7. Chipman, S. F. (1977). Complexity and structure in visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 269-301.
8. Cottington, D. (1998). Cubism. London: Tate Gallery Publishing.
9. Day, H. (1967). Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 281-286.
10. Eisenman, R. (1967). Complexity-simplicity: I. Preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity. Psychonomic Science, 8, 169-170.
11. Eysenck, H. J. (1940). The 'general factor' in aesthetic judgements. British Journal of Psychology, 31, 94-102.
12. Eysenck, H. J. (1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48, 83-92.
13. Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The experimental study of the 'Good Gestalt' - A new approach. Psychological Review, 49, 344-363.
14. Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.
15. Francès, R. (1976). Comparative effects of six collative variables on interest and preference in adults of different educational levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 62-79.
16. Gooding, M. (2001). Abstract art. London: Tate Gallery Publishing.
17. Hall, A. C. (1969). Measures of the complexity of random black and white and coloured stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29, 773-774.
18. Heath, T., Smith, S. G., & Lim, B. (2000). Tall buildings and the urban skyline. The effect of visual complexity on preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32, 541-556.
19. Heinrichs, R. W., & Cupchik, G. C. (1985). Individual differences as predictors of preference in visual art. Journal of Personality, 53, 502-515.
20. Ichikawa, S. (1985). Quantitative and structural factors in the judgment of pattern complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 101-109.
21. Imamoglu, C. (2000). Complexity, liking and familiarity: Architecture and nonarchitecture Turkish students' assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 5-16.
22. Katz, B. F. (2002). What makes a polygon pleasing? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 1-19.
23. 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.
24. Lindauer, M. S. (1990). Reactions to cheap art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 95-110.
25. Malpas, J. (1997). Realism. London: Tate Gallery Publishing.
26. Markovic, S., & Gvozdenovic, V. (2001). Symmetry, complexity and perceptual economy:
27. Effects of minimum and maximum simplicity conditions. Visual Cognition, 8, 305-327.
28. McWhinnie, H. J. (1993). Response time and aesthetic preference. Perceptual and Motor kills, 76, 336-338.
29. Messinger, S. M. (1998). Pleasure and complexity: Berlyne revisited. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 558-560.
30. Munsinger, H.,&Kessen, W. (1964). Uncertainty, structure, and preference. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78, 1-24.
31. Neperud, R. W., & Marschalek, D. G. (1988). Informational and affect bases of aesthetic response. Leonardo, 21, 305-312.
32. Nicki, R. M. (1972). Arousal increment and degree of complexity as incentive. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 165-171.
33. Nicki, R. M., Lee, P. L.,&Moss, V. (1981). Ambiguity, cubist works of art, and preference. Acta Psychologica, 49, 27-41.
34. Nicki, R. M., & Moss, V. (1975). Preference for non-representational art as a function of various measures of complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 237-249.
35. Osborne, J. W., & Farley, F. H. (1970). The relationship between aesthetic preference and visual complexity in abstract art. Psychonomic Science, 19, 69-70.
36. Parr, M. (1999). Boring postcards. London: Phaidon Press.
37. Parr, M. (2000). Boring postcards USA. London: Phaidon Press.
38. Saklofske, D. H. (1975). Visual aesthetic complexity, attractiveness and diverse exploration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 813-814.
39. Smith, L., Bousquet, S. G., Chang, G., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Effects of time and information on perception of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2, 229-242.
40. Stamps, A. E., III. (2002). Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 300-320.
41. Thomson, B. (1998). Post-impressionism. London: Tate Gallery Publishing.
42. Vitz, P. C. (1966). Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science, 11, 105-114.
43. 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.