» Articles » PMID: 27199697

Visualizing the Impact of Art: An Update and Comparison of Current Psychological Models of Art Experience

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2016 May 21
PMID 27199697
Citations 44
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The last decade has witnessed a renaissance of empirical and psychological approaches to art study, especially regarding cognitive models of art processing experience. This new emphasis on modeling has often become the basis for our theoretical understanding of human interaction with art. Models also often define areas of focus and hypotheses for new empirical research, and are increasingly important for connecting psychological theory to discussions of the brain. However, models are often made by different researchers, with quite different emphases or visual styles. Inputs and psychological outcomes may be differently considered, or can be under-reported with regards to key functional components. Thus, we may lose the major theoretical improvements and ability for comparison that can be had with models. To begin addressing this, this paper presents a theoretical assessment, comparison, and new articulation of a selection of key contemporary cognitive or information-processing-based approaches detailing the mechanisms underlying the viewing of art. We review six major models in contemporary psychological aesthetics. We in turn present redesigns of these models using a unified visual form, in some cases making additions or creating new models where none had previously existed. We also frame these approaches in respect to their targeted outputs (e.g., emotion, appraisal, physiological reaction) and their strengths within a more general framework of early, intermediate, and later processing stages. This is used as a basis for general comparison and discussion of implications and future directions for modeling, and for theoretically understanding our engagement with visual art.

Citing Articles

Elicited emotion: effects of inoculation of an art style on emotionally strong images.

Gutierrez A, Tejada J, Fernandez-Abascal E Exp Brain Res. 2025; 243(4):89.

PMID: 40072572 PMC: 11903571. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-025-07030-x.


Twelve Tips for Facilitating Visual Thinking Strategies with Medical Learners.

Ker J, Yenawine P, Chisolm M Adv Med Educ Pract. 2024; 15:1155-1161.

PMID: 39610836 PMC: 11602429. DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S468077.


A volitional account of aesthetic experience.

McCrae R Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1480304.

PMID: 39512573 PMC: 11542096. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1480304.


Using machine learning to predict judgments on Western visual art along content-representational and formal-perceptual attributes.

Spee B, Leder H, Mikuni J, Scharnowski F, Pelowski M, Steyrl D PLoS One. 2024; 19(9):e0304285.

PMID: 39241039 PMC: 11379394. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304285.


Psychological Benefits of Arts Participation for Emerging Adulthood: A Pathway to Flourishing.

Fan J, Ni X, Wu T, Wang Y, Qian Y Behav Sci (Basel). 2024; 14(6).

PMID: 38920780 PMC: 11200805. DOI: 10.3390/bs14060448.


References
1.
Clark A . Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behav Brain Sci. 2013; 36(3):181-204. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X12000477. View

2.
Nadal M, Munar E, Capo M, Rossello J, Cela-Conde C . Towards a framework for the study of the neural correlates of aesthetic preference. Spat Vis. 2008; 21(3-5):379-96. DOI: 10.1163/156856808784532653. View

3.
Locher P, Krupinski E, Mello-Thoms C, Nodine C . Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience. Spat Vis. 2007; 21(1-2):55-77. DOI: 10.1163/156856807782753868. View

4.
Leder H, Nadal M . Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments : The aesthetic episode - Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. Br J Psychol. 2014; 105(4):443-64. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12084. View

5.
Cupchik G, Vartanian O, Crawley A, Mikulis D . Viewing artworks: contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic experience. Brain Cogn. 2009; 70(1):84-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.003. View