Object and Subject Approaches in the Psychology of Art Perception: A Review of Empirical Research

The article presents an overview of modern research on the psychology of perception of fine art. Recently, this area has become increasingly in demand both at the theoretical and practical levels. In the theoretical aspect, this direction is important in connection with the increasing trends for the study of value orientations since appreciation of art and beauty are often considered among the highest human values. From a practical point of view, it is important because of the usage of works of fine art for therapeutic purposes, for example, in art therapy. As a result of the analysis of modern foreign research in the field of art perception, author of this article offers classification of works in this field, which includes two main approaches — object and subject. The object approach is close to the traditions established in cognitive psychology and examines patterns of human processing of aesthetic information related to the work of art itself. In the subjective approach, attention is focused on the viewer him/herself, those psychological features that make him aesthetically responsive. Additionally, a division is made between the study of aesthetic evaluations and judgments of viewers and their aesthetic experiences. In the final part of the article, the author suggests principles according to which object and subject models should be chosen for use in practical psychology.

1. Штерн В. Дифференциальная психология и ее методологические основы. М.: Наука, 1998. 335 с.
2. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments / H. Leder, B. Belke, A. Oeberst, D. Augustin // British journal of psychology. 2004. Vol. 95. № 4. P. 489—508. DOI:10.1348/0007126042369811
3. A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity / G. Corradi, E.G. Chuquichambi, J.R. Barrada, A. Clemente, M. Nadal // British Journal of Psychology. 2020. Vol. 111. № 4. P. 630—658. DOI:10.1111/bjop.12427
4. Augustin D., Leder H. Art expertise: A study of concepts and conceptual spaces // Psychology Science. 2006. Vol. 48. № 2. P. 135—156.
5. Axelsson Ö. Aesthetic Appreciation Explicated: Dr. Sci. (Psychology) diss. Stockholm, 2011. 41 p.
6. Brielmann A.A., Dayan P. Introducing a computational model of aesthetic value // Psychological review. 2021. 33 p.
7. Brinck I. Empathy, engagement, entrainment: The interaction dynamics of aesthetic experience // Cognitive Processing. 2018. Vol. 19. № 2. P. 201—213. DOI:10.1007/s10339-017-0805-x
8. Chamberlain R. The interplay of objective and subjective factors in empirical aesthetics // Human Perception of Visual Information: Psychological and Computational Perspectives / Eds. B. Ionescu, W.A. Bainbridge, N. Murray. Cham: Springer, 2022. P. 115—132.
9. Clemente A. Aesthetic sensitivity: Origin and development // The Routledge International Handbook of Neuroaesthetics / Eds. M. Skov, M. Nadal.      New York, NY: Routledge, 2022. P. 240—253. DOI:10.4324/9781003008675
10. Cross-cultural empirical aesthetics / J. Che, X. Sun, V. Gallardo, M. Nadal // Progress in Brain Research. 2018. Vol. 237. P. 77—103. DOI:10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.03.002
11. Engagement with Beauty: Appreciating Natural, Artistic, and Moral Beauty / R. Diessner, R.D. Solom, N.K. Frost, L. Parsons, J. Davidson // The Journal of Psychology. 2008. Vol. 142. № 3. P. 303—332. DOI:10.3200/JRLP.142.3.303-332
12. Fancourt D., Finn S. What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review. Copenhagen: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe, 2019. 146 p.
13. Fechner G.T. Preschool of aesthetics. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1876. 283 p.
14. Feist G.J., Brady T.R. Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art // Empirical Studies of the Arts. 2004. Vol. 22. № 1. P. 77—89. DOI:10.2190/Y7CA-TBY6-V7LR-76GK
15. Graf L.K.M., Landwehr J.R. Aesthetic pleasure versus aesthetic interest: the two routes to aesthetic liking // Frontiers in Psychology. 2017. Vol. 8. Article ID 15. 14 p. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00015
16. Hekkert P., van Wieringen P.C.W. The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings // Acta psychologica. 1996. Vol. 94. № 2. P. 117—131. DOI:10.1016/0001-6918(95)00055-0
17. Individual differences in preference for architectural interiors / O. Vartanian, G. Navarrete, L. Palumbo, A. Chatterjee // Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2021. Vol. 77. Article ID 101668. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101668
18. Inomjonovna R.I., Mahmadaliyevna D.C. Development of pedagogical technology of use of art therapy in preschool children // Journal of new century innovations. 2022. Vol. 11. № 2. P. 125—130.
19. Landwehr J.R., Labroo A.A., Herrmann A. Gut liking for the ordinary: Incorporating design fluency improves automobile sales forecasts // Marketing Science. 2011. Vol. 30. № 3. P. 416—429. DOI:10.1287/mksc.1110.0633
20. Markovic S. Components of aesthetic experience: aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotion // i-Perception. 2012. Vol. 3. № 1. P. 1—17. DOI:10.1068/i0450aap
21. Mastandrea S., Crano W.D. Peripheral factors affecting the evaluation of artworks // Empirical Studies of the Arts. 2019. Vol. 37. № 1. P. 82—91. DOI:10.1177/0276237418790916
22. Myszkowski N., Çelik P., Storme M. A meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and visual “taste” measures // Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2018. Vol. 12. № 1. P. 24—33. DOI:10.1037/aca0000099
23. Myszkowski N., Çelik P., Storme M. Commentary on Corradi et al.’s (2019) new conception of aesthetic sensitivity: Is the ability conception dead? // British Journal of Psychology. 2020. Vol. 111. № 4. P. 659—662. DOI:10.1111/bjop.12440
24. Pombo M., Brielmann A.A., Pelli D.G. The intrinsic variance of beauty judgment // Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 2023. Vol. 85. № 4. P. 1355—1373. DOI:10.3758/s13414-023-02672-x
25. Rawlings D. Personality correlates of liking for ‘unpleasant’ paintings and photographs // Personality and Individual Differences. 2003. Vol. 34. № 3. P. 395—410. DOI:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00062-4
26. Reber R., Schwarz N., Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? // Personality and social psychology review. 2004. Vol. 8. № 4. P. 364—382.
27. Schimmel K., Förster J. How temporal distance changes novices' attitudes towards unconventional arts // Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2008. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 53—60. DOI:10.1037/1931-3896.2.1.53
28. Silvia P.J. Knowledge-based assessment of expertise in the arts: Exploring aesthetic fluency // Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2007. Vol. 1. № 4. P. 247—249. DOI:10.1037/1931-3896.1.4.247
29. Skov M. Aesthetic appreciation: The view from neuroimaging // Empirical Studies of the Arts. 2019. Vol. 37. № 2. P. 220—248. DOI:10.1177/0276237419839257
30. Skov M., Nadal M. The nature of beauty: Behavior, cognition, and neurobiology // Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2021. Vol. 1488. № 1. P. 44—55. DOI:10.1111/nyas.14524
31. Smith L.F., Smith J.K. The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency // New directions in aesthetics, creativity and the arts / Eds. L.F. Smith, J.K. Smith. New York: Routledge, 2020. P. 47—58. DOI:10.4324/9781315224084
32. Social reputation influences on liking and willingness-to-pay for artworks: A multimethod design investigating choice behavior along with physiological measures and motivational factors / B.T.M. Spee, M. Pelowski, J. Arato, J. Mikuni, U.S. Tran, C. Eisenegger, H. Leder // PLoS One. 2022. Vol. 17. № 4. Article ID e0266020. 30 p. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0266020
33. Sutcliffe A. Designing for user engagement: Aesthetic and attractive user interfaces. Springer Nature, 2010. 47 p.
34. Taste typicality» is a foundational and multi-modal dimension of ordinary aesthetic experience / Y.C. Chen, A. Chang, M.D. Rosenberg, D. Feng, B.J. Scholl, L.J. Trainor // Current Biology. 2022. Vol. 32. № 8. P. 1837—1842. DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2022.02.039
35. The Aesthetic Responsiveness Assessment (AReA): A screening tool to assess individual differences in responsiveness to art in English and German / W. Schlotz, S. Wallot, D. Omigie, M.D. Masucci, S.C. Hoelzmann, E.A. Vessel // Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2021. Vol. 15. № 4. P. 682—696. DOI:10.1037/aca0000348
36. The emotional influence of different geometries in virtual spaces: A neurocognitive examination / A. Shemesh, G. Leisman, M. Bar, Y.J. Grobman // Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2022. Vol. 81. Article ID 101802. 24 p. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101802
37. The role of art expertise and symmetry on facial aesthetic preferences / L.C.P. Monteiro, V.E.F. Nascimento, A. Carvalho da Silva, A.C. Miranda, G.S. Souza, R.C. Ripardo // Symmetry. 2022. Vol. 14. № 2. Article ID 423. 16 p. DOI:10.3390/sym14020423
38. Weichselbaum H., Leder H., Ansorge U. Implicit and explicit evaluation of visual symmetry as a function of art expertise // i-Perception. 2018. Vol. 9. № 2. Article ID 2041669518761464. DOI:10.1177/2041669518761464
39. Westgate E.C., Oishi S. Art, music, and literature: Do the humanities make our lives richer, happier, and more meaningful? // The Oxford handbook of the positive humanities / Eds. L. Tay, J.O. Pawelski. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. P. 85—96.