Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:24:15.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological and neural responses to art embody viewer and artwork histories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Oshin Vartanian  and
James C. Kaufman
Oshin Vartanian
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto–Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada. [email protected]
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
Learning Research Institute, California State University at San Bernardino, Department of Psychology, San Bernardino, CA 92407. [email protected]://psychology.csusb.edu/facultyStaff/james_kaufman.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The research programs of empirical aesthetics and neuroaesthetics have reflected deep concerns about viewers' sensitivities to artworks' historical contexts by investigating the impact of two factors on art perception: viewers' developmental (and educational) histories and the contextual histories of artworks. These considerations are consistent with data demonstrating that art perception is underwritten by dynamically reconfigured and evolutionarily adapted neural and psychological mechanisms.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 161 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hekkert, P. & van Wieringen, P. C. W., (1996b) The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica 94:117–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishizu, T. & Zeki, S. (2012) Toward a brain-based theory of beauty. PLoS ONE 6:e21852.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (2012) Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Creativity Research Journal 24:83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S. & Zeki, S. (2009b) Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage 44(3):1125–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811908011099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A. & Augustin, D. (2004) A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology 95:489–508. DOI: 10.1348/0007126042369811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leder, H., Carbon, C.-C. & Ripsas, A.-L. (2006) Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica 121(2):176–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.08.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martindale, C. (1990) The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic change. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Müller, M., Höfel, L., Brattico, E. & Jacobsen, T. (2010) Aesthetic judgments of music in experts and laypersons – An ERP study. International Journal of Psychophysiology 76:40–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munar, M., Nadal, M., Rosselló, J., Flexas, A., Moratti, S., Maestú, F., Marty, G. & Cela-Conde, C. J. (2012) Lateral orbitofrontal cortex involvement in initial negative aesthetic impression formation. PLoS ONE 7:e38152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vartanian, O. & Goel, V. (2004) Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings. NeuroReport 15:893–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed