EMOTIONAL

RESPONSES TO ART WORKS JOHAN WAGEMANS

LABORATORY OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN, BELGIUM “LES ÉMOTIONS DANS LA PSYCHOLOGIE DE LA FORME” (COLLOQUE INTERNATIONAL) PARIS, 24 JANUARY 2015

Aim

• To discuss some classic and recent work from the psychology of art and psycho-aesthetics – focus on emotions as dynamic Gestalt qualities in the context of art – different types of dynamics • dynamical psychology (Ego-World relationships) • microgenesis • on-going brain processes

– theoretical and experimental

Overview

1. THEORETICAL – Koffka on art and emotion • theory + applications

– Predictive coding • theory + applications

2. EXPERIMENTAL – measuring aesthetic responses – investigating microgenesis

INTRODUCTION

Aesthetics and psycho-aesthetics •

aesthetics – ability to receive stimulation from one or more of the five bodily senses – Alexander Gottlieb BAUMGARTEN (1714-1762) taste or sense of beauty based on feelings of pleasure or displeasure, as opposed to judgment based on the intellect

•

(experimental) psycho-aesthetics – scientific discipline devoted to the understanding of the factors that determine aesthetic appreciation – origin: Vorschule der Aesthetik (1876) by Gustav Theodor FECHNER (1801-1887) – proposes formal laws of beauty that can be tested experimentally (e.g. golden section)

THEORETICAL PART 1

KOFFKA ON ART AND EMOTION

Koffka on art • Kurt KOFFKA (1886-1941) – 2 lectures at the Bryn Mawr Symposium on Art in 1940 – (re-)published in a book in 1972 (almost 100 pages) – in addition to a psychology of the artist-creator and a psychology of the spectator, we also need a psychology of the central part, i.e. the work of art – paradoxical nature • phenomenally objective – i.e. belonging to self or not

• functionally subjective – i.e. dependent on organisms or not

– double reference • to artist-creator • to spectator

Koffka on art and emotion

• object ~ emotion ≠ stimulus ~ response • we cannot know the emotions evoked by the stimulus unless by experience • there is nothing in the properties of the stimulus that accounts for its emotional effects

• many different theories

Koffka on tertiary qualities • cf. Locke’s distinction – primary qualities • i.e. properties of objects that exist independent of the observer (e.g. extension, motion, number)

– secondary qualities • i.e. properties of objects that produce sensations in the observer (e.g. colour, taste, smell)

• tertiary qualities = characteristics of experience that belong even less to the real world • incl. physiognomic characters – i.e. qualities resembling facial expressions – originally referring to our own experiences but attributed to objects (e.g. graceful, clumsy, cheerful)

• notes – these distinctions may not be that important – they are all characteristics of phenomenal objects, properties of wholes, not of isolated points

Koffka on empathy

• discussion of older theories (Lipps, Langfeld) • emotions in the presence of art works are caused by certain tertiary qualities of these objects – the self is emotionally in touch with the object – an initimate, dynamic intercourse between them • dynamical psychology between Ego and World • field-characteristics

Koffka on art and Gestalt • a good work of art appeals as a structure – not as an assemblage of parts – but as a coherent whole in which each part demands the others

• internal requiredness – requiredness within the art object itself – purity of art – value (cf. Köhler, 1938: The place of value in a world of facts)

• a good work of art is a good Gestalt – the forces within the Gestalt are well-balanced • each part is where it is because of the demands of the whole • no extraneous forces

Rudolf Arnheim (1904-2007) 1954/1974: Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1969: Visual Thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1982/1988: The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts. Berkeley: University of California Press.

APPLICATIONS

Franz Xaver Messerschmidt (1736-1783)

• Baroque • Neo-classical period • Then: – paranoid, hallucinations – “retired” (last 6 years of his life) – working exclusively on his so-called Kopfstücke or Character heads

Lithograph by Matthias Rudolph Toma depicting Messerschmidt’s Character Heads (1839)

Further discussion

• Not all cases are so obvious and strong – emotions are not always conveyed directly – sometimes the emotions are merely suggested by the spatio-temporal dynamics • Heider & Simmel (1944) • Gao, T., McCarthy, G., & Scholl, B. J. (2010). The wolfpack effect: Perception of animacy irresistibly influences interactive behavior. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1845-1853. • http://www.yale.edu/perception/Brian/bjs-demos.html

Further discussion

• Not all cases are so obvious and strong – emotions are not always conveyed directly – sometimes the emotions are merely suggested by the spatio-temporal dynamics

– Gestalts are not always “given” – sometimes the Gestalts are the result of object creation in microgenesis

Coles Philips

Further discussion

• Not all cases are so obvious and strong – emotions are not always conveyed directly – sometimes the emotions are merely suggested by the spatio-temporal dynamics – Gestalts are not always “given” – sometimes the Gestalts are the result of object creation in microgenesis

• These Gestalts are truly integrated wholes, more than the sum of the parts

Paul Klee Brother and sister (1930)

Gustav Klimt Reclining Woman (1914-17)

drawings of human figures by Salvador Dali

Further discussion • Not all cases are so obvious and strong – emotions are not always conveyed directly – sometimes the emotions are merely suggested by the spatio-temporal dynamics – Gestalts are not always “given” – sometimes the Gestalts are the result of object creation in microgenesis

• These Gestalts are truly integrated wholes, more than the sum of the parts • Gestalt discovery is intrinsically rewarding • Some art works intentionally play with the level of ambiguity to stimulate organizational processes

THEORETICAL PART 2

PREDICTIVE CODING THEORY OF ART AND EMOTION

Introduction • References – –

Van de Cruys, S., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Gestalts as predictions: Some reflections and an application to art. Gestalt Theory, 33, 325-344. Van de Cruys, S., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art. i-Perception (special issue on Art & Perception), 2, 1035-1062. doi:10.1068/i0466aap.

• General idea – predictive coding in general – predictive coding applied to aesthetics • aesthetic pleasure (reward) = succesful resolution of prediction error https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9oxmRT2YWw

Paul Klee Brother and sister (1930)

Gustav Klimt Reclining Woman (1914-17)

Robert Pepperell Succulus (2005)

Computer rendition of Fragment 6/9 by Bridget Riley (Neil Dodgson, 2009)

René Magritte Blanc Seing (1965)

Vincent van Gogh The Olive Trees (1889)

Edvard Munch Separation (1896)

TRANSITION

EXPERIMENTAL PART

Introduction

• Difficulties of experimental psycho-aesthetics – experimental control vs. ecological validity

• Measuring aesthetic responses • Investigating microgenesis

EXPERIMENTAL PART 1

MEASURING AESTHETIC RESPONSES

Introduction • Collaboration with – M. Dorothee Augustin

– Claus-Christian Carbon (Bamberg) – Uwe Fischer (Bamberg)

•

References – Augustin, M.D., Wagemans, J., & Carbon, C.-C. (2012). All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 139, 187-201.

– Augustin, M.D., Carbon, C.-C., & Wagemans, J. (2012). Artful terms: A study on aesthetic word usage for visual art versus film and music. i-Perception, 3, 319-337. doi: 10.1068/i0511aap

Starting point

• Lack of standardised instruments in research in visual art • Language tells us a lot about meaning and how people think and feel about things

• Aim: To develop a questionnaire to measure aesthetic impressions of visual art

Some definitions to begin with

• Aesthetic experience – The entirety of cognitive and affective processes involved when examining an artwork, from mere sensory processes to “results” in terms of aesthetic judgments and emotions (Leder, Belke, Oeberst, & Augustin, 2004)

• Aesthetic impressions – “...the entirety of affective and cognitive results of an aesthetic experience that are object-related and that can at least theoretically be verbally expressed” (Augustin, Wagemans, & Carbon, 2012) • Everything that can be put into a judgment about the artwork itself or one’s feeling and attitude towards that artwork

General approach • Empirical approach: People’s aesthetic word usage as starting point (see Jacobsen et al., 2004) – Create tool that is understandable and meaningful to a relatively broad current public

• Enhance chances of “true” and relatively intense aesthetic experiences – Consider encounters with real artworks in an art-friendly environment

• Consider the diversity of art

• Important source of inspiration: Zentner, Grandjean & Scherer (2008)

Three steps to be taken 1) What terms could generally be relevant for a verbal measure of aesthetic impressions? → How do people describe their aesthetic impressions?

2) What are important aesthetic dimensions? → Which dimensions underlie aesthetic word usage?

3) Which items can be used to measure these dimensions, and how well do they capture them? → Test of item selections with new materials, in different samples

Step 1: Method

• Participants – 178 mother tongue speakers of Dutch (25 male, mean age = 18.8 y)

• Procedure – “Which terms would you use to describe your aesthetic impressions of...?” • visual art, landscapes, faces, geometric shapes and patterns, cars, clothing, interior design, buildings

Step 1: Results •

Participants produced 351 different terms for visual art

•

Most frequent: – – – –

•

Generally, aesthetic word usage for visual art strongly refers to – – – –

•

beautiful ugly abstract colourful

beauty (beautiful, ugly, wonderful) colour (colourful, colours) style (abstract, modern) originality (special, interesting, boring, original)

Word usage is relatively close to design classes, relatively far from landscapes or geometric patterns

Extraction of basic pool of terms

• Terms mentioned by at least two people

• Adjectives, or nouns turned into adjectives • Reduction of this set (104) based on synonym checks by three native speakers

→ Basic item pool of 77 words (Q1)

Step 2 • Starting point: Parallellepipeda exhibition (interaction between art and science) = opportunity to work in a live environment: Museum M, Leuven

Wall of words, Science corridor, Parallellepipeda-Exhibition, 2010

Conducted in two different exhibitions Parallellepipeda

Permanent Collection

contemporary art

medieval to 19th century art

(painting, sculpture, installation)

(painting, sculpture, handcraft)

Step 2: Method • Participants – 357 museum visitors who took part on voluntary basis • 178 in Parallellepipeda, 179 in permanent collection • aged 10 – 82 years (M = 39.3 years); 157 men • 74 persons professionally engaged with art

• Task – “Choose an artwork of this exhibition that creates a strong aesthetic impression on you, be it positive or negative” – “Rate for each term in the list (77): To what extent is this artwork…” • Scale from not at all (1) to very strongly (7) • Or not suitable, if people cannot even apply a word in terms of negation

Factor analysis suggests 5 factors 12.0 % •strange •bizarre •absurd •ugly •unbelievable •confusing

11.7 % •creative •original •different •innovative •special

7.0 % •sad •touching •emotional •profound

•beautiful

6.9 % •warm •dreamy •happy •attractive

5.3 % •detailed •impressive •overwhelming •big

•classical •old-fashioned Aesthetic experience Markovic (2010, 2012) Interest Berlyne (1971, 1974)

Pleasure Berlyne (1971, 1974)

Step 3: Two studies conducted

Study 3a • 118 volunteers and paid participants – 14-74 years – 44 men – 36 people with art background

• Paper-pencil or online study

Study 3b • 188 students participating for course credit – 17-45 years – 39 men – 22 people with art background

• Online study

Step 3: Stimuli

Two item selections tested a) 23 items •

•

•bizarre •chaotic (in)comprehensibility •beautiful •ugly  = .830 •unbelievable •confusing

originality

 = .759

•

emotiveness

 = .729 •

pleasingness

 = .709 •

b) 14 items

impressiveness

 = .642

•fascinating •ordinary •Interesting •original •special •innovative •profound •Dramatic •emotional •moving •attractive •dreamy •happy •warm •impressive •overwhelming •detailed

•

(in)comprehensibility

 = .861

•

originality

 = .837

•

emotiveness

 = .637 •

pleasingness

 = .817

•bizarre •chaotic •unbelievable •confusing

•fascinating •original •special •innovative

•profound •emotional •moving •attractive •dreamy •beautiful

71

Outlook for questionnaire

• “Best” items so far (10 terms) comprehensibility

originality

pleasingness

emotiveness

bizarre

original

beautiful

emotional

chaotic

special

attractive

moving

incomprehensible

or

confusing

fascinating innovative

• Additional cross-validation needed

EXPERIMENTAL PART 2

INVESTIGATING MICROGENESIS

Introduction •

Collaboration with – –

•

People are fast at processing real-world images (e.g., Fei-Fei, Lyer, Koch, & Perona, 2007) – – –

•

before 40 ms: sensory features between 40 and 67 ms: object features first very general (e.g., man-made), then more detailed (e.g., furniture, desk)

Similar differentiated time-course also for person perception (Bar, Neta, & Linz, 2006) – –

•

M. Dorothee Augustin San Verhavert

photographs of faces, presented for 26, 39, 1700 ms consistent ratings for emotion-related feature (threateningness) from 39 ms (not for intelligence)

Research question: – What is the time course for aesthetic responses to art works?

Research question + Design • Differentiated time course for different kinds of aesthetic judgments?

• 3 types of aesthetic judgment (on 7-point Likert-scale) – Beauty – Specialness – Impressiveness – based on Augustin et al. (2011, 2012) but • Emotiveness (3rd factor): very little variance in pilot study • Impressiveness related to the idea of the sublime (Burke, 1757; Kant, 1764; Schopenauer, 1818)

• Presentation Time (PT) – 10, 50, 100 and 500 + unlimited (Exp 1) – 20, 30, 40 + unlimited (Exp 2)

Stimulus materials • Based on pre-study: – 18 art schools (Western European and North American) – 3 to 15 paintings each (diverse content, at least 3 different painters) – basic set of 225 paintings – judged by 12 participants for strength of aesthetic impression (positive or negative) and familiarity

– selected set of 54 paintings (18 x 3) • weak, intermediate and strong impression • known by < 10% of the participants

Examples

Examples

Procedure Experiment 1

Results Experiment 1

Results Experiment 1

all p < .05

Procedure Experiment 2

Results Experiment 2

Results Experiment 2

p < .05 for Beautiful and Special

n.s. for Impressive

Conclusions •

People are extremely fast at forming aesthetic impressions – in many cases, 30 ms of PT = enough to come to a meaningful aesthetic judgment – cf. gist of a scene, threateningness of a face

– correlations with judgments for unlimited PT increase over time – difference between 3 types of judgments • Beautiful > Special > Impressive • Beautiful and Special: from 30 ms on • Impressive: from 50 ms on

General Conclusions • Art, emotions • Art, Gestalt, emotions • Gestalt as structured whole – organization = rewarding

• Dynamics – art object – self (~ Ego – World) – microgenesis – predictive coding • resolution of prediction error = rewarding

• Emotional responses = rich, varied, quick

THANK YOU [email protected] WWW.GESTALTREVISION.BE