Size influences outcomes
Bhattacharjee and Pal studied the implications of spotlighting paintings in dimly lit rooms with light of different colors. They determined that “the appearance of paintings changes due to different CCTs [correlated color temperatures] of LEDs having the same illuminance.
Krauss and teammates evaluated how the context in which art is shown influences human responses to it via a study in an actual museum. They report that their “study set out to assess the aesthetic experience and psychophysiological responses of participants in an art museum viewing 6 artworks of Flemish expressionism. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions, either receiving elaborative information or descriptive information on the artworks. Aesthetic experiences were assessed via a questionnaire and through psychophysiological markers.
Siri and colleagues investigated whether the format of a piece of visual art influences how it is perceived by viewers. The team had people look at abstract works of art, without knowing if the piece they were looking at was an original or a digital reproduction of that original. The researchers collected physiological data related to participant energy level and “participants provided behavioral ratings of color intensity, emotional intensity, aesthetic evaluation, perceived movement, and desire to touch the works of art. . . .
Kim, Burr, and Alais studied how recently viewed art influences perceptions of subsequently seen pieces. Their results “showed that the current painting earned significantly higher aesthetic ratings when participants viewed a more attractive painting on the previous trial, compared to when they viewed a less attractive one. . . .
Roose and colleagues studied how the position of horizons in images influence thought processes. They report that “when consumers adopt an abstract processing style (broad perspective), they attach more weight to the advantages of a remote situation . . . and they exhibit increased moral behavior . . . and willingness to pay. . . .
Pelowski and colleagues studied how gallery lighting influences appraisals and emotional experience of visual art. They report that when “Participants viewed a selection of original representational and abstract art under three different CCT [temperature] conditions. . . . The selected lighting temperatures were chosen based on an initial investigation of existing art museums within the Vienna area. . . . We also allowed the same participants to set the light temperature themselves in order to test hypotheses regarding what might be an ‘ideal’ lighting condition for art.
Schepman and Rodway evaluated meanings attributed to abstract and representational art. Working with adults who were not art experts, they found that meanings attributed to artworks “were shared to a somewhat greater extent for representational art but that meanings for abstract artworks were also shared above baseline. . . . analyses . . . showed core shared meanings for both art types, derived from literal and metaphoric interpretations of visual elements. The findings support the view that representational art elicits higher levels of shared meaning than abstract art.”
Science-informed visual art selection, placement, and labeling can enrich wellbeing via its effec
Formal elements drive outcomes