Lay Perceptions of Two Modern Artworks

in Art & Perception
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The paper is based on 82 open-ended interviews conducted by as many students during 2006–2013. The respondents were presented with pictures of two artworks, The Persistence of Memory (1931) by Salvador Dalí and Which Link Fails First? (1992) by Teemu Mäki, a Finnish contemporary artist. They were asked to comment and compare the two pictures and tell which one they liked better. The respondents’ spontaneous comments show different aspects of how an artwork is perceived and evaluated. The interviews were analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. As the result of in vivo coding, 40 variables were created for use in a content analysis. The respondents focused on different things when evaluating the two artworks. When commenting Dalí’s painting, they paid attention on its affective and sensory characteristics, while Mäki’s work was discussed primarily in terms of its message and perceived lack of professional quality. In parallel, a selection of interviews was analysed in order to reveal the temporal sequence of discussing and evaluating different aspects of the paintings. The analysis showed three ways of discussing, which were called naïve, scholarly, and deliberative. The temporally structured model of aesthetic appreciation and judgement suggested in 2004 by Leder and his co-workers was used as a heuristic device for an analysis of the shifts of attention that take place when a discourse is created and anchored in perception. Both cognitive psychology and phenomenological sociology emphasize the dependence of perception on context and intention; there is reason to take that theoretical starting point seriously.

Sections

References

AugustinM. D., LederH., HutzlerF. and CarbonC.-C. (2008). Style follows content: On the microgenesis of art perception. Acta Psychol. 128, 127138.

FunchB. S. (1997). The Psychology of Art Appreciation, Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen, Denmark.

FunchB. S. (2000). Hvorfor ser vi på billedkonst? [Why do we look at visual arts?]. Nordisk Museologi 1, 8796.

HanquinetL. (2013). Mondrian as kitchen tiles? Artistic and cultural conceptions of art museum visitors in Belgium. Cultural Trends 22, 1429.

Katz-GerroT. (2002). Highbrow cultural consumption and class distinction in Italy, Israel, West Germany, Sweden and the United States. Soc. Forces 81, 207229.

KvaleS. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage, London, UK.

LagerspetzO. (2006). Smuts. En bok om världen, vårt hem [Dirt. A book on the world, our home], Bruno Östlings Bokförlag Symposion, Stockholm/Stehag, Sweden.

LederH. and NadalM. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode — Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. Br. J. Psychol. 105, 443464.

LederH., BelkeB., OeberstA. and AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. Br. J. Psychol. 95, 489508.

LederH., CarbonC.-C. and RipsasA.-L. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychol. 121, 176198.

LenggerP. G., FischmeisterF. Ph. S., LederH. and BauerH. (2007). Functional neuroanatomy of the perception of modern art: A DC-EEG study on the influence of stylistic information on aesthetic experience. Brain Res. 1158, 93102.

NeisserU. (1976). Cognition and Reality. Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, USA.

ParsonsM. J. (1987). How We Understand Art: A Cognitive Developmental Account of Aesthetic Experience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

PinnaB., KoenderinkJ., PepperellR. and WagemansJ. (2013). Editorial. Art Percept. 1, 14.

SchutzA. (1964a). Some Structures of the Life-World, in: Collected Papers, II. Studies in Phenomenological Philosophy, SchutzA. (Ed.), pp. 116132, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands.

SchutzA. (1964b). The Dimensions of the Social World, in: Collected Papers, III. Studies in Social Theory, SchutzA. (Ed.), pp. 2063, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands.

SchutzA. (1967 [1932]). ThePhenomenology of the Social World, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, USA.

SilvermanD. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analyzing Text, Talk and Interaction, Sage, London, UK.

StraussA. L. and CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

WagemansJ., KoederinkJ. and van DoornA. (2013). Pleasures of ambiguity: The case of Piranesi’s Carceri. Art Percept. 1, 121138.

WinstonA. S. and CupchikG. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naïve and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Res. 18, 114.

Figures

  • A model of aesthetic experience. Simplified from Leder et al., 2004.

    View in gallery
  • Comments on two artworks by type of statement and temporal sequence (interview 67, F, 21 years, non-university student).

    View in gallery
  • Comments on two artworks by type of statement and temporal sequence (interview 37, F, 51 years, PhD in humanities).

    View in gallery
  • Comments on two artworks by type of statement and temporal sequence (interview 17, M, 22, humanities student).

    View in gallery

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 28 28 1
Full Text Views 8 8 3
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 3 3 0