» Articles » PMID: 37134073

Psychophysiological and Behavioral Responses to Descriptive Labels in Modern Art Museums

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2023 May 3
PMID 37134073
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Educational tools in art exhibitions seem crucial to improve the cultural and aesthetic experience, particularly of non-expert visitors, thus becoming a strategic goal for museums. However, there has not been much research regarding the impact of labels on the quality of visitors' aesthetic experience. Therefore, here we compared the impact on the cognitive and emotional experience of naïve visitors between essential and descriptive labels, through multiple objective and subjective measurements, focusing on the controversial modern art museum context. We found that, after detailed descriptions, observers spend more time inspecting artworks, their eyes wander more looking for the described elements, their skin conductance and pupil size increase, and overall, they find the content less complex and more arousing. Our findings show that people do receive important benefits from reading detailed information about artworks. This suggests that elaborating effective labels should be a primary goal for museums interested in attracting a non-expert public.

Citing Articles

How does contextual information affect aesthetic appreciation and gaze behavior in figurative and abstract artwork?.

Casteau S, Smith D J Vis. 2024; 24(12):8.

PMID: 39514204 PMC: 11552055. DOI: 10.1167/jov.24.12.8.


Age-adapted painting descriptions change the viewing behavior of young visitors to the Rijksmuseum.

Walker F, Bucker B, Snell J, Anderson N, Pilz Z, Houwaart K Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):22880.

PMID: 39384845 PMC: 11464813. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-73963-y.


Effectiveness of labels in digital art experience: psychophysiological and behavioral evidence.

Castellotti S, DAgostino O, Del Viva M Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1342667.

PMID: 39011289 PMC: 11248719. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1342667.

References
1.
Brieber D, Nadal M, Leder H, Rosenberg R . Art in time and space: context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLoS One. 2014; 9(6):e99019. PMC: 4043844. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099019. View

2.
Gernot G, Pelowski M, Leder H . Empathy, Einfühlung, and aesthetic experience: the effect of emotion contagion on appreciation of representational and abstract art using fEMG and SCR. Cogn Process. 2017; 19(2):147-165. DOI: 10.1007/s10339-017-0800-2. View

3.
Reber R, Schwarz N, Winkielman P . Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004; 8(4):364-82. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3. View

4.
Reitstatter L, Brinkmann H, Santini T, Specker E, Dare Z, Bakondi F . The Display Makes a Difference: A Mobile Eye Tracking Study on the Perception of Art Before and After a Museum's Rearrangement. J Eye Mov Res. 2021; 13(2). PMC: 7962802. DOI: 10.16910/jemr.13.2.6. View

5.
Pihko E, Virtanen A, Saarinen V, Pannasch S, Hirvenkari L, Tossavainen T . Experiencing art: the influence of expertise and painting abstraction level. Front Hum Neurosci. 2011; 5:94. PMC: 3170917. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00094. View