Perceptual, semantic and affective dimensions of experience of abstract and representational paintings

Psihologija

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 191-210

  Marković, Slobodan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE   (Serbia)

Author keywords

Perceptual; Representational and abstract paintings; Semantic and affective dimensions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857976992     PISSN: 00485705     EISSN: 14519283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2298/PSI1103191M     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Arnheim, R. (1949). The Gestalt theory of expression. Psychological Review, 56, 156-171.
2. Arnheim, R. (1969). Art and visual perception. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
3. Arnheim, R. (1980). Visual thinking. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
4. Augustin, D. M., & Leder, H. (2006). Art expertise: a study of concepts and conceptual spaces. Psychology Science, 48(2), 135-156.
5. Avital, T., & Cupchik, G. C. (1998). Perceiving hierarchical structures in nonrepresentational paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16(1), 59-70.
6. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.
7. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). The new experimental aesthetics. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 1-25). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
8. Berlyne, D. E., & Ogilvie, J. C. (1974). Dimensions of perception of paintings. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 181-226). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
9. Black, B. (1972). How do pictures represent? In E. C. Gombrich, J. Hochberg, & M. Black (Eds), Art, perception and reality (pp. 97-130). Baltimor and London: The John & Hopkins University Press.
10. Boselie, F., & Cesaro, A. (1994). Disjunctive ambiguity as a determinant of the aesthetic attractivity of visual patterns. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12(1), 85-94.
11. Cupchik, G. C. (1974). An experimental investigation of perceptual and stylistic dimensions of paintings suggested by art history. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 235-257). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
12. Elbert, J., Temme, V., & Gieszen, C. A. C. (1995). Contrast effects and social desirability in art appreciation. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13(2), 171-181.
13. Fairhall, S. L., & Ishai, A. (2008). Neural correlates of object indeterminacy in art compositions. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 923-932.
14. Feist, G. J., & Brady, T. R. (2004). Openness to e xperience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(1), 77-89.
15. Gombrich, E. H. (1969). Art and illusion. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
16. Gombrich, E. H. (1972). The mask and the face: The perception of physiognomic likeness in life and in art. In E. C. Gombrich, J. Hochberg, & M. Black (Eds), Art, perception and reality (pp. 2-46). Baltimor and London: The John & Hopkins University Press.
17. Gombrich, E. H. (1973). Illusion and art. In R. L. Gregory & E. H. Gombrich (Eds), Illusion in nature and art (pp. 193-243). London, UK: Duckworth.
18. Gooding, M. (2000). Abstract Art. London, UK: Tate Publishing.
19. Heinrichs, R. W., & Cupchik, G. C. (1985). Individual differences as predictors of preference in visual art. Journal of Personality, 53, 502-515.
20. Hekkert, P. (1995). Artful Judgements. A psychological inquiry into aesthetic preference for visual patterns. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
21. Hekkert, P., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94, 117-131.
22. Ishai, A., Fairhall, S. L., & Pepperell, R. (2007). Perception, memory and aesthetics of indeterminate art. Brain Research Bulletin, 73, 314-324.
23. Kawabata, H., & Zeki, S. (2004). Neural correlates of beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91, 1699-1705.
24. Kubovy, M. (1999). On the pleasures of the mind. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 134-154). New York: Russell Sage.
25. Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. (1972). Psychology of the arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
26. Leder, H., Carbon, C. C., & Ripsas A. L. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121, 176-198.
27. Lengger, P. G., Fischmeister, F., Leder, H., & Bauer, H. (2007). Functional neuroanatomy of the perception of modern art: A DC-EEG study on the influence of stylistic information on aesthetic experience. Brain Research, 11589, 93-102.
28. Lindauer, M. S. (1987). Perceived and preferred orientations of abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 5(1), 47-58.
29. Marković, S. (2006). Denotativne dimenzije umetničkih slika [Denotative dimensions of paintings]. XII Naučni skup Empirijska istraživanja u psihologiji, Beograd, Rezimei, [Unpublished study presented at 12-th Scientific Conference Empirical Studies in Psychology, Belgrade, Abstract book], p. 15.
30. Marković, S. (2010). Aesthetic experience and the emotional content of paintings. Psihologija, 42(1), 43-60.
31. Marković, S., & Jelić, A. (2007). Perceptivne dimenzije stila u slikarstvu [Perceptual dimensions of style in paintings]. Psihologija, 40(1), 57-74.
32. Marković, S. & Radonjić, A. (2008). Implicit and explicit features of paintings [Special Issue - Art and Perception: Towards a Visual Science of Art, Part 3]. Spatial Vision, 21(3-5), 229-259.
33. McManus, I. C., Cheema, B., & S toker J. (1993). The aesthetics of composition: A study of Mondrian. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 11(2), 83-94.
34. Moszynska, A. (1990). Abstract Art. London, UK: Thames & Hudson.
35. Neperud, R. W. (1989). The relationship of art training and sex differences to aesthetic valuing. Visual Arts Research, 12(2), 1-9.
36. Osgood, C., Succi, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
37. Osgood, C., May, W., & Miron, M. (1975). Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
38. Penrose, R. (1973). In praise of illusion. In R. L. Gregory & E. H. Gombrich (Eds.), Illusion in nature and art (pp. 245-284). London, UK: Duckworth.
39. Pepperell, R. (2006). Seeing Without Objects: Visual Indeterminacy and Art. Leonardo, 39, 394-400.
40. Perry, V. (2005). Abstract Painting: Concepts and Techniques. New York, NY: Watson-Guptill.
41. Polovina, M., & Marković, S. (2006). Estetski doživljaj umetničkih slika [Aesthetic experience of paintings]. Psihologija, 39(1), 39-55.
42. Rawlings, D. (2000). The Interaction of Openness to Ex perience and Schizotypy in Predicting Preference for Abstract and Violent Paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18(1), 69-91.
43. Rawlings, D. (2003). Personality correlates of liking for 'unpleasant' paintings and photographs. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 395-410.
44. Russell, P. (2003). Effort after meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 99-110.
45. Russell, P. A., & Milne, S. (1997). Meaningfulness and hedonic values of pai ntings: Effects of titles. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15(1), 61-73.
46. Specht, S. M. (2007). Successive Contrast Effects for Judgments of Abstraction in artwork following minimal pre-exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25(1), 71-95.
47. Tucker, W. T. (1955). Experiments in aesthetic communication (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.
48. Ullan, A. M., & Belver, M. H. (1999). The Meanings of Modern Art. Empirical St udies of the Arts, 17(1), 22-35.
49. Vartanian, O., & Goel, V. (2004). Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, 15(5), 893-897.
50. Vasić, S., & Marković, S. (2007). Veza izmed{stroke}u denotativnog i konotativnog značenja umetničkih slika [Correlation between dennotative and connotative meaning of paintings]. Psihologija, 40(1), 75-91.
51. Vessel, E. A., & Rubin, N. (2010). Beauty and the beholder: Highly individual taste for abstract, but not real-world images. Journal of Vision, 10(2):18, 1-14.
52. Vogt, S., & Magnussen, S. (2005). Hemispheric specialization and recognition memory for abstract and realistic pictures: A comparison of painters and laymen. Brain and Cognition, 58, 324-333.
53. Wöfflin, H. (1950). Principles of art history. New York: Dover. [Kunstgeschitliche Grundbegriffe. Munich: Bruckman, 1915.]
54. Zangemeister, W. H., Sherman, K., & Stark, L. (1995). Evidence for a global scanpath strategy in viewing abstract compared with realistic images. Neuropsychologia, 33(8), 1009-1025.