Aesthetic judgement of orientation in modern art.

2.5 MB·English

by  Mather, George

aPionpublication
i-Perception(2012)volume3,pages18–24
dx.doi.org/10.1068/i0447aap ISSN2041-6695 perceptionweb.com/i-perception
Aesthetic judgement of orientation in modern art
George Mather
SchoolofPsychology,UniversityofSussex,Falmer,BrightonBN19QH,UK[Presentaddress:Schoolof
Psychology,UniversityofLincoln,Lincoln,UK];e-mail:[email protected];
Received13May2011,inrevisedform16December2011;publishedonline18January2011
Abstract. When creating an artwork, the artist makes a decision regarding the orientation at
which the work is to be hung based on their aesthetic judgement and the message conveyed by
the piece. Is the impact or aesthetic appeal of a work diminished when it is hung at an incorrect
orientation?Toinvestigatethisquestion,Experiment1askedwhethernaïveobserverscanappreciate
the correct orientation (as defined by the artist) of 40 modern artworks, some of which are entirely
abstract. Eighteen participants were shown 40 paintings in a series of trials. Each trial presented
all four cardinal orientations on a computer screen, and the participant was asked to select the
orientation that was most attractive or meaningful. Results showed that the correct orientation was
selectedin48%oftrialsonaverage,significantlyabovethe25%chancelevel,butwellbelowperfect
performance. A second experiment investigated the extent to which the 40 paintings contained
recognisable content, which may have mediated orientation judgements. Recognition rates varied
from0%forsevenofthepaintingsto100%forfivepaintings.OrientationjudgementsinExperiment
1correlatedsignificantlywith“meaningful”contentjudgementsinExperiment2:42%ofthevariance
in orientation judgements in Experiment 1 was shared with recognition of meaningful content in
Experiment 2. For the seven paintings in which no meaningful content at all was detected, 41%
ofthevarianceinorientationjudgementswassharedwithvarianceinaphysicalmeasureofimage
content, Fourier amplitude spectrum slope. For some paintings, orientation judgements were quite
consistent,despitealackofmeaningfulcontent.Theoriginoftheseorientationjudgementsremains
tobeidentified.
Keywords:aesthetics,visualart,abstractart,orientation.
1 Introduction
TwopaintingsbytheAmericanabstractartistMarkRothkofromhisBlackonMaroonseries
containbroadblackstripesacrossthecanvasdefininghazymaroonrectangles.Thepaintings
weredonatedtotheTateModernGalleryinLondonin1968,whichhungthemformany
yearswiththestripesrunninghorizontally.Thepaintingswerethenrotatedsothattheywere
hungwiththestripesrunningverticallyforatime,beforebeingreturnedtothehorizontal
orientationforanexhibitionofRothko’swork.Controversyhassurroundedthequestion
of the correct orientation in which to hang the paintings. Rothko’s signature indicates a
horizontalorientation(seeJamieson2008),buttheworksarecurrentlyhungvertically.The
artisthimselfmayhavebeenunsure;paintdribblesruninbothdirectionsonthecanvas.
Arthistorianshavedebatedtherelativeaestheticmeritsofthetwoorientations.Thereare
anecdotalreportsofotherdisputesaboutthecorrectorientationofotherpaintings,including
workbyMatisse,Rauschenberg,vanGogh,andO’Keeffe.Butdoesorientationreallymatter
inanabstractorsemiabstractpainting,atleasttotheuntrainedeye?
Modernartoftencontainslittleornorecognisablerepresentationofreal-worldobjects
orscenes.Abstractionallowstheartisttofocusoncompositionandmediumratherthanon
subjectmatter.Intheprocessofcreatingamodernartwork,anartistmaymakeanaesthetic
decisionregardingtheorientationatwhichtheworkshouldbehung,basedontheirintended
message.Thecorrectorientationisoftenspecifiedonthebackofthecanvas.However,this
intendedorientationisnotalwaysobvioustoothersviewingthework,especiallyifthereis
norecognisablecontentatall,whichraisesquestionsaboutaesthetics.Istheresufficient
informationinamodernartworkforanaïveviewer’sjudgementtoalignwiththecorrect
Orientationjudgementinmodernart 19
orientation?Istheimpactoraestheticvalueofaworkdiminishedbyviewingatanincorrect
orientation? Relatively few studies have addressed such questions, but answers to them
shouldthrowsomelightonthecognitiveprocessesunderlyingvisualaestheticjudgement.
Lindauer(1969)askedparticipantstoindicatetheirpreferredorientationfor54abstract
paintingsandfoundthathalfwereinagreementwiththeartist’sintendedorientation.On
the other hand, Swartz and Hewitt (1970) showed their participants a series of abstract
paintings,eitherintheoriginalformatorrotatedormirror-reversed,andaskedparticipants
torateeachimageaesthetically.Aestheticratingswerenotaffectedbyrotationormirror
reversal.Lattoetal(2000)wereprimarilyinterestedinpreferencesforverticalandhorizontal
orientationsoverobliqueorientationsinMondrianpaintings,thoughtheydidreportslightly
higheraestheticratingsforpaintingspresentedattheintendedorientation.Plumhoffand
Schirillo(2009)morerecentlyfoundsomeevidenceofhigheraestheticratingsforMondrian’s
paintingspresentedatthecorrectorientation.InJohnsonetal’s(2010)studyofthesame
Mondrianpaintings,pupilsizewassignificantlyhigherforthecorrectorientationthanfor
otherorientations.
Thepresentstudyaimstobuildonpreviousstudiesby(i)systematicallyinvestigatingthe
relevanceofrecognisablecontentinpreferencesfororientation(apotentialconfounding
factorinpreviousstudiesemployingarangeofabstractartworks)and(ii)assessingwhether
a commonly used statistical measure of information content in images has any bearing
onorientation-dependentjudgements.RecentworksuggeststhattheFourieramplitude
spectrumslopeplaysaroleinaestheticjudgementsofart(GrahamandField2008;Redies
2007;Rediesetal2007).Itmayalsoplayaroleinorientationjudgements.
Inthefirstexperiment,participantswereshownfourversionsofeachartwork,oriented
at0,90,180,and270degreesclockwisewithrespecttotheintendedorientation,andasked
toselectthemostpleasingormeaningfulimage.Wasthecorrectorientationchosenmore
oftenthanwouldbeexpectedonthebasisofchance?
2 Experiment1
2.1 Method
2.1.1 Participants
EighteennaïveparticipantswererecruitedfromthestudentbodyatSussexUniversity,none
ofwhomhadanypreviousformaltraininginart.
2.1.2 Visualmaterials
Fortymodernartworkswereselectedfromthreeartbooks(GerhardusandGerhardus1979;
Gibson1997;Hunter1997),scannedelectronically,andrescaledsothatthelongerdimension
ofeachimagewas300pixels(toallowallfourversionstobevisiblesimultaneouslyona
computermonitor).Fifteenimageshadavertical“portrait”aspectratio,andtwenty-two
hadahorizontal“landscape”aspectratio.Theremainingthreeweresquare.Thecriteriafor
inclusionofpaintingswerethat(i)therewasaclearintendedor“correct”orientation,(ii)
theworkwasproducedbyanartistofinternationalrenown,andthereforeofhighaesthetic
quality,(iii)thesetasawholerepresentedasampleofmodernartfromtheearlytomid
20thcentury,and(iv)paintingsvariedintheextenttowhichtheyexhibitedrecognisably
representationalcontent.Figure1showsthreeofthepaintingsintheset.Afulllistofartists
andtitlesforall40paintingsisavailableassupplementarymaterial.
20 GMather
Figure1.Threeofthepaintingsusedintheexperiments.(a)KasimirMalevich(1878–1935)Suprematist
Composition:AirplaneFlying,1914–15.(b)PietMondrian(1872–1944)Composition,1933.(c)Jackson
Pollock(1912–56)One,Number31,1950.Alldigitalimages©2011,TheMuseumofModernArt,New
York/Scala,Florence.
2.1.3 Apparatusandprocedure
TheexperimentwascontrolledbyaFlashapplicationrunningonaDelldesktopPC.Stimuli
appearedonthescreenofaSonyTrinitronMultiscanG400monitor(resolution1024×768).
A single trial involved presentation of one of the 40 artworks (order randomised across
participants). All four cardinal orientations were shown on-screen (0, 90, 180, 270 deg
clockwise with respect to the correct orientation as defined in the source book; oblique
frameorientationswerenotusedbecausetheyoccurmuchlessfrequentlyintrueartworks,
andonlyafeworientationscouldbepresentedonthescreenatanacceptableresolution).
Thescreenwasdividedvirtuallyintofourquarters,withoneimageineachquarter.The
on-screenorderingofthefourorientationsvariedrandomlyfromtrialtotrialandbetween
participants.Thecentre-to-centreseparationoftheimageswas17deghorizontallyand12
degverticallyatthe57-cmviewingdistance.Thelongerdimensionofeachimagesubtended
10.3deg.Imageswerepresentedagainstauniformdarkgreybackground(2.3cd/m2);the
mean image luminance varied from image to image between approximately 3.7 and 38
cd/m2.
Participantsweregivenanunrestrictedtimetovieweachsetoffouron-screenimages
andusedamousetoclickanon-screenbuttonnexttoeachimageaccordingtothefollowing
instruction:“Selecttheorientationwhichisthemostpleasingormeaningful.”Giventhat
participantsmaydetectsomemeaningfulcontentinagivenpainting(evenifnonewas
intendedbytheartist),thisinstructionacknowledgedthepossibilitythattheymayusethat
informationintheirjudgement.Successivetrialswereseparatedbya0.5-sintervalduring
Orientationjudgementinmodernart 21
whichthescreenremainedblank.ResponseswererecordedbytheFlashapplicationand
transferredtoanExcelspreadsheetattheendofthesession.
2.1.4 Spectralslope
The amplitude spectrum slope was estimated for each image using a script written in
MATLAB®asfollows.Eachimagewasconvertedtogrey-scaleusingastandardYIQtransform
(L=0.2989×R+0.5870×G +0.1140×B).Atwo-dimensionaldiscreteFouriertransform
wasperformedonthelargestcentralsquaresectionoftheimage.Theslopeofthebest-
fitlinetotherotationallyaveragedamplitudespectrum(plottedonlog–logcoordinates)
wascalculated.Inordertoavoidspatialfrequencyartefactsowingtoimagesamplingand
nonlinearities,linefittingwasrestrictedtothemiddlerangeoffrequenciesbetween0.25×
and0.5×themaximumspatialfrequencyavailableintheFouriertransform(cfRediesetal
2007).Toassesspossibleorientationalanisotropiesintheimages,theratiosofhorizontalto
vertical(H:V)powerandobliquetocardinalpower(O:C,whereC=([H +V]/2))werealso
calculated.
2.2 Resultsanddiscussion
Eachparticipantprovidedfourscoresthatcorrespondtotheproportionofresponsesateach
ofthefouravailableorientations(0,90,180,270degclockwise)acrossthe40images.Figure2
showsthemeanscoresacrossthe18participants(±1SE).Sincetherewerefourorientations,
chanceperformancefallsat25%.Observersreliablyselectedthecorrectorientationover
the other three available orientations in almost 50% of trials, a figure which is close to
thatreportedbyLindauer(1969).One-factorANOVArevealedahighlysignificanteffectof
orientation,F(3,51)=85.06;p<.0001.Pairwisecomparisonsshowedthatresponsesatthe
correctorientation(0deg)weresignificantlyhigherthanresponsesateachotherorientation.
Noticethatalltheotheravailableorientationswereselectedmuchlessfrequentlyandat
aboutthesamerateof16–18%orsoeach.Thisresultindicatesthatparticipantswerenot
generallypronetoconfuseuprightwithinvertedversionsoftheimagesconsistently;they
eitherselectedthecorrectorientationorchoseoneoftheothersequallyoftenoverall.
Figure2.Meanpercentageresponsesateachorientationacrossthe18participants(±1SE).The
correctorientationcorrespondsto0deg;otherorientationsareexpressedindegreesclockwiserelative
tothisorientation.Thedottedlinecorrespondstochanceperformance.
22 GMather
Themeanspectralslopeofthe40imageswas–1.248(SD0.221),closetothevaluecited
inapreviouslypublishedstudyofabstractart(–1.13;GrahamandField2008).Therewasno
significantcorrelationbetweenimagespectralslopeandthepercentageofcorrectorientation
judgements (r = 0.0124, ns). Correlations of orientation judgements with measures of
anisotropywerehigherbutnonsignificant:forO:C(obliquetocardinalpower),r=0.171;for
H:V (horizontaltoverticalpower),r=–0.181.
Oninspectionofthedataforindividualimages,itisclearthatthecorrectorientationwas
judgedquiteconsistentlyinsomecasesbutnotinothers.Forcertainimages,itispossibleto
discernapictorialelementintheimagethatmayhavefacilitatedadecision.Forexample,
atreeshapemaybeseenoncarefulviewingofBraque’sHouseatEstague(88.9%correct).
In other cases, it is not clear how participants were able to infer the correctorientation.
Miro’sBirthoftheWorldisquiteabstract,asisvonWiegand’sCityLights,butbothsupported
reliableperformance(55.6%and77.8%,respectively).
ResponsesinExperiment1mayhavebeeninfluencedbydetectionofmeaningfulcontent
insomepaintings,ratherthanbyaestheticpleasurealone,andthisfactormayhavemasked
anyeffectofspectralslope.Asecondexperimentassessedtheextenttowhichrecognisable
contentintheformofameaningfulobjectorscenewasdetectedintheexperimentalstimuli.
3 Experiment2
3.1 Method
3.1.1 Participants
EightnaïveparticipantswererecruitedfromthestudentbodyatSussexUniversity,noneof
whomhadtakenpartinExperiment1.
3.1.2 Materials,apparatus,andprocedure
Thesame40modernartworkswereusedasforExperiment1.Theequipmentwasidenticalto
thatinExperiment1.TheexperimentaltaskwasalsoalmostidenticaltothatinExperiment
1;allfourorientationsweredisplayedforeachpainting,butinthisexperimenttheon-screen
instructionread:“Doeseachpaintingcontainrecognisableormeaningfulcontent?”Twoon-
screenresponsebuttonswereavailable,labelled“Abstract”and“Recognisable.”Observers
wereinstructedtoclickon“Recognisable”iftheysawanymeaningfulcontentinthepainting,
otherwisetoclickon“Abstract”.Theywerealsoinstructedtobasetheiransweronanyofthe
fourorientationspresentedandweregivenanunlimitedtimetomakeajudgement.
3.2 Resultsanddiscussion
Themeanpercentageof"meaningful”responseswascalculatedforeachofthe40paintings
andrangedfrom0%forsevenpaintingssuchasKasimirMalevich’sSuprematistComposition
to100%forfivepaintingssuchasFernandLeger’sTwoWomenwithStillLife.Acrossthe
40paintings,thecorrelationbetweencorrectorientationjudgementsinExperiment1and
“meaningful”responsesinExperiment2was0.65(p<.0001);thus,recognisablecontent
clearlydidhaveasignificantrelationtoorientationjudgements,thoughonly42%ofthe
variance in orientation judgements in Experiment 1 can be attributed to recognition of
meaningfulcontent.
Apartialcorrelationwasperformedacrossthe40paintingstoassesswhetherspectral
slopeplayedaroleinorientationjudgementsindependentlyof“meaningful”judgements.
Thecorrelationwas0.157(ns),soacrossthefullimageset,orientationjudgementswere
dominatedbyrecognitionofmeaningfulcontent.Thesevenpaintingsinwhichnopartici-
pantreportedanymeaningfulcontentatallhadameanspectralslopeof–1.26,andamean
Orientationjudgementinmodernart 23
percentageofcorrectorientationjudgementsof23.02%(range0–55.6%).Inthesepurely
abstractpaintingsthecorrelationbetweenpercentagecorrectandspectralslopewas0.64
(r2=0.41),sothereisahintthatpurelyabstractimageswiththeshallowestspectralslope
areeasiesttojudge,thoughthesamplesizeisverysmall.Onepaintinginthisabstractset,
JacksonPollock’sOne,wasjudgedcorrectlyin55.6%ofresponsesandhasaspectralslopeof
–0.768.
Thereareotherintriguingvariationsbetweenindividualpaintings.Thethreepaintings
in Figure 1 are particularly interesting. In the case of Kasimir Malevich’s Suprematist
Composition,72%ofresponsesselectedanincorrectorientationrotated90deganticlockwise
fromthecorrectorientation,andnoneofthe18observersselectedthecorrectorientation.
No observer discerned any meaningful content in this painting, which has a very steep
spectralslopeof–1.56.AllobserversalsoagreedthatPietMondrian’sCompositioncontained
nomeaningfulcontent,andonly5.6%ofthemselectedthecorrectorientation(theother
threeorientationswerechosenequallyoftenbyobservers).Thepainting’sspectralslopeis
–1.58.OnlyoneparticipantsawanythingmeaningfulinJoanMiro’sTheBirthoftheWorld,yet
overhalfoftheparticipantsinExperiment1selectedthecorrectorientation.Thepainting’s
spectralslopeis–1.38.
Alimitationofthepresentstudywasthattherewasnosystematicattempttoassessthe
degreetowhichparticipantswerefamiliarwithanyoftheartworks,thoughparticipants
didnotreportanyfamiliarityduringinformaldebriefing.Forexample,Pollock’sOne(see
Figure1)isfamousandshouldthereforearguablybequitefamiliartosomeparticipants.
However,giventheabstractnatureofthework,itseemsunlikelythatuntrainedparticipants
would have retained such detail in memory that they were able to judge its orientation
correctly.
4 Conclusions
Inagreementwithanecdotalreportsfromgalleries,thejudgementsofnonexpertviewers
accordwiththeintendedorientationforabstractorsemiabstractartatlevelswellabove
chance.However,performanceisfarfromperfect,consistentwithresultsinpreviousstudies.
Themostimportantnewresultisthatorientationjudgementsaremediatedatleastinpartby
someappreciationofmeaningfulcontentintheimage.However,inaminorityofpaintings,a
consistentorientationeffectwasobtained,evenwhennomeaningfulcontentwasapparent.
Theoriginoftheseorientationjudgementsremainstobeidentifiedconclusively,butimage
spectralslopemayplayarole.
Acknowledgements. I am grateful to Heather Dowling and Kirsten Challinor for assistance with
stimuluspreparationanddatacollection.Iamalsogratefultotheeditorforsuggestingthesecond
experiment.
References
Gerhardus M, GerhardusD,1979Cubism toFuturism: TheEvolution of the Self-Sufficient Picture
(Oxford:Phaidon) (cid:74)
GibsonAE,1997AbstractExpressionism:OtherPolitics(London:YaleUniversityPress) (cid:74)
Graham D, Field D, 2008 “Variations in intensity statistics for representational and abstract
art, and for art from the Eastern and Western hemispheres” Perception 37 1341–1352
doi:10.1068/p5971 (cid:74)
HunterS,1997TheMuseumofModernArt,NewYork:TheHistoryandtheCollection(NewYork,NY:
Abrams) (cid:74)
JamiesonA,2008"Rothkohung‘wrongwayround’inexhibition"DailyTelegraph9November (cid:74)
Johnson M G, Muday J A, Schirillo J A, 2010 “When viewing variations in paintings by Mondrian
aestheticpreferencescorrelatewithpupilsize”PsychologyofAesthetics,Creativity,andtheArts4
161–167doi:10.1037/a0018155 (cid:74)
24 GMather
LattoR,BrainD,KellyB,2000“Anobliqueeffectinaesthetics:HomagetoMondrian(1872–1944)”
Perception29981–987doi:10.1068/p2352 (cid:74)
LindauerMS,1969"Theorientationofforminabstractart"ProceedingsoftheAmericanPsychologi-
calAssociation4475–476
Plumhoff J, Schirillo J A, 2009 “Mondrian, eye movements, and the oblique effect” Perception 38
719–731doi:10.1068/p6160 (cid:74)
Redies C, 2007 “A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural
stimuli”SpatialVision2197–117doi:10.1163/156856807782753886 (cid:74)
RediesC,HasensteinJ,DenzlerJ,2007“Fractal-likeimagestatisticsinvisualart:similaritytonatural
scenes”SpatialVision21137–148doi:10.1163/156856807782753921 (cid:74)
SwartzP,HewittD,1970“Lateralorganizationinpicturesandaestheticpreference”Perceptualand
MotorSkills30991–1007doi:10.2466/pms.1970.30.3.991 (cid:74)
Copyright©2012GMather
PublishedunderaCreativeCommonsLicence
aPionpublication