TY - JOUR

T1 - Warm, lively, rough?

T2 - Assessing agreement on aesthetic effects of artworks

AU - Specker, Eva

AU - Forster, Michael

AU - Brinkmann, Hanna

AU - Boddy, Jane

AU - Immelmann, Beatrice

AU - Goller, Jürgen

AU - Pelowski, Matthew

AU - Rosenberg, Raphael

AU - Leder, Helmut

N1 - Funding Information: The writing of this paper was supported by a grant (“Universal aesthetics of lines and colors? Effects of culture, expertise, and habituation”) to Raphael Rosenberg and Helmut Leder by the Wiener Wissenschafts-, Forschungsund Technologiefonds (WWTF, https://www.wwtf. at/, Project number: CS15-036). The funders did not play any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We would like to thank Lisa Hegelmaier and Maximilian Douda for their help with data collection and the preparation of tables and Karl Pani, Armin Plankensteiner, and René Steyer for editing the stimulus material. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Specker et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

PY - 2020/5/13

Y1 - 2020/5/13

N2 - The idea that simple visual elements such as colors and lines have specific, universal associations—for example red being warm—appears rather intuitive. Such associations have formed a basis for the description of artworks since the 18th century and are still fundamental to discourses on art today. Art historians might describe a painting where red is dominant as “warm,” “aggressive,” or “lively,” with the tacit assumption that beholders would universally associate the works’ certain key forms with specific qualities, or “aesthetic effects”. However, is this actually the case? Do we actually share similar responses to the same line or color? In this paper, we tested whether and to what extent this assumption of universality (sharing of perceived qualities) is justified. We employed—for the first time—abstract artworks as well as single elements (lines and colors) extracted from these artworks in an experiment in which participants rated the stimuli on 14 “aesthetic effect” scales derived from art literature and empirical aesthetics. To test the validity of the assumption of universality, we examined on which of the dimensions there was agreement, and investigated the influence of art expertise, comparing art historians with lay people. In one study and its replication, we found significantly lower agreement than expected. For the whole artworks, participants agreed on the effects of warm-cold, heavy-light, and happy-sad, but not on 11 other dimensions. Further, we found that the image type (artwork or its constituting elements) was a major factor influencing agreement; people agreed more on the whole artwork than on single elements. Art expertise did not play a significant role and agreement was especially low on dimensions usually of interest in empirical aesthetics (e.g., like-dislike). Our results challenge the practice of interpreting artworks based on their aesthetic effects, as these effects may not be as universal as previously thought.

AB - The idea that simple visual elements such as colors and lines have specific, universal associations—for example red being warm—appears rather intuitive. Such associations have formed a basis for the description of artworks since the 18th century and are still fundamental to discourses on art today. Art historians might describe a painting where red is dominant as “warm,” “aggressive,” or “lively,” with the tacit assumption that beholders would universally associate the works’ certain key forms with specific qualities, or “aesthetic effects”. However, is this actually the case? Do we actually share similar responses to the same line or color? In this paper, we tested whether and to what extent this assumption of universality (sharing of perceived qualities) is justified. We employed—for the first time—abstract artworks as well as single elements (lines and colors) extracted from these artworks in an experiment in which participants rated the stimuli on 14 “aesthetic effect” scales derived from art literature and empirical aesthetics. To test the validity of the assumption of universality, we examined on which of the dimensions there was agreement, and investigated the influence of art expertise, comparing art historians with lay people. In one study and its replication, we found significantly lower agreement than expected. For the whole artworks, participants agreed on the effects of warm-cold, heavy-light, and happy-sad, but not on 11 other dimensions. Further, we found that the image type (artwork or its constituting elements) was a major factor influencing agreement; people agreed more on the whole artwork than on single elements. Art expertise did not play a significant role and agreement was especially low on dimensions usually of interest in empirical aesthetics (e.g., like-dislike). Our results challenge the practice of interpreting artworks based on their aesthetic effects, as these effects may not be as universal as previously thought.

KW - Media and communication studies

KW - Digital media

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85084627737&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0232083

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0232083

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 32401777

AN - SCOPUS:85084627737

VL - 15

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

M1 - e0232083

ER -