Redies and colleagues studied the qualities of images to learn which ones are most likely to be present in preferred images. They determined that “more saturated colors, correlates with positive ratings for valence [which ranged from pleasant to unpleasant]. . . . we obtained evidence from non-linear and linear analyses that affective pictures evoke emotions not only by what they show, but they also differ by how they show.”
Estrada-Gonzalez and teammates studied the effects of painting size on museum visitors’ viewing behaviors. A literature review completed by the team before they began to collect data revealed that “Seidel and Prinz (2018) . . . found that merely altering physical scale of a painting (small vs. large) influenced aesthetic judgment. Participants evaluated larger reproductions more positively, regardless of whether the painting was high in complexity (Picasso’s Three Musicians) or low (Joan Miro’s Blue II). . . .
Williams and colleagues evaluated preferences for various painting techniques. They determined that “brushstroke paintings were found to be more pleasing than pointillism paintings.”
Louis Williams, Eugene McSorley, and Rachel McCloy. “Enhanced Associations with Actions of the Artist Influence Gaze Behaviour.” i-Perception, in press, https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669520911059
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.