SeIns: Semantic Instability in Art

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

Many artworks defy determinacy of meaning by inducing a variety of potential meanings. We aim to describe different kinds of such semantic instability (which we call ‘SeIns’) by comparing related concepts as well as specific phenomena in order to arrive at concise definitions. These analyses will be positioned in the framework of Predictive Coding. Furthermore, this article fathoms the specifics of semantic instability in art and presents a psycho-aesthetic account on the appeal of semantic instability in art. We propose that one factor for the appeal of semantic instability might be that it offers the opportunity of rewarding insight. Furthermore, we suggest that positive affect can be gained not only by arriving at an insight but also by anticipating it — a crucial point with regard to those kinds of semantic instability that are not ‘resolvable’ into semantic stability. Current challenges within this field of research include the necessity of an empirical approach to classes of semantic instability, the lack of a specification of psycho-aesthetic theories on the appeal of each class, as well as the need for an integration of context- and person-related facets of the experience of art.

SeIns: Semantic Instability in Art

in Art & Perception

Sections

References

AdornoT. W. (1970/1973). Ästhetische Theorie. Suhrkamp Frankfurt am MainGermany.

AlbrechtS. and CarbonC. C. (2014). The Fluency Amplification Model: Fluent stimuli show more intense but not evidently more positive evaluations. Acta Psychol. 148195203.

ApterM. J. (1989). Reversal theory: A new approach to motivation, emotion and personality. Anu. Psicol. 421729.

ArmstrongT. and Detweiler-BedellB. (2008). Beauty as an emotion: The exhilarating prospect of mastering a challenging world. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 12305329.

BartoA.MirolliM. and Detweiler-BedellB. (2008). Novelty or Surprise?Front. Psychol. 4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00907.

BelkeB.LederH. and CarbonC. C. (2015). When challenging art gets liked: Evidences for a dual preference formation process for fluent and non-fluent portraits. ploS one 10 e0131796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138962.

BelkeB.LederH.HarsanyiG. and CarbonC. C. (2010). When a Picasso is a “Picasso”: The entry point in the identification of visual art. Acta Psychol. 133191202.

BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and PsychobiologyAppleton-Century-CroftsNew York, NY, USA.

BiedermanI. and VesselE. A. (2006). Perceptual pleasure and the brain. Am. Sci. 94249255.

BlijlevensJ.CarbonC. C.MuggeR. and SchoormansJ. P. (2012). Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicality and arousal. Br. J. Psycholo. 1034457.

BornsteinR. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychol. Bull. 106265289.

BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction — A Social Critique of the Judgement of TasteHarvard University PressCambridge, MA, USA.

BourriaudN. (1998). Relational AestheticsLes Presses du RéelDijon, France.

BrieberD.NadalM.LederH. and RosenbergR. (2014). Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. ploS one 9 e99019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099019.

BurkeE. (1757). A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and BeautifulDodsleyLondon, UK.

BurwickF. (1990). The grotesque: Illusion vs. delusion in Aesthetic illusion. Theoretical and historical approachesBurwickF. and PapeW. (Eds) pp. 122132Walter de GruyterBerlin, Germany.

CarbonC. C. (2010). The earth is flat when personally significant experiences with the sphericity of the earth are absent. Cognition 116130135.

CarbonC. C. (2014). Understanding human perception by human-made illusions. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 816. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00566.

CarbonC. C. and JakeschM. (2013). A model for haptic aesthetic processing and its implications for design. Proc. ieee 10121232133.

CarbonC. C. and LederH. (2005). The Repeated Evaluation Technique (ret): A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 19587601.

CarbonC. C.FaerberS. J.GergerG.ForsterM. and LederH. (2013). Innovation is appreciated when we feel safe: On the situational dependence of the appreciation of innovation. Int. J. Design 74351.

ChetverikovA. (2013). Warmth of familiarity and chill of error: Affective consequences of recognition decisions. Cogn. Emot. 28385415.

ChetverikovA. and FilippovaM. (2014). How to tell a wife from a hat: Affective feedback in perceptual categorization. Acta Psychol. 151206213.

ClarkA. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 36181204.

ConsoliG. (2015). Creativity and aesthetic evaluation. Two proposals to improve the model of aesthetic dis/fluency. Front. Psychol. 5. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01520.

DallenbachK. M. (1951). A puzzle-picture with a new principle of concealment. Am. J. Psychol. 64431433.

Di PaoloE.RohdeM. and De JaegherH. (2007). Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction and play in Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm for Cognitive ScienceStewartJ.GapenneO. and PaoloE. D. (Eds) pp. 3388MITCambridge, MA, USA.

DörnerD. and VehrsW. (1975). Ästhetische Befriedigung und Unbestimmtheitsreduktion. Psychol. Forsch. 37321334.

EcoU. (1989). The Open WorkHarvard University PressCambridge, MA, USA.

FaerberS. J.LederH.GergerG. and CarbonC. C. (2010). Priming semantic concepts affects the dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychol. 135191200.

FiedlerK. (1887). Der Ursprung der künstlerischen Thätigkeit. Retrieved from http://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/fiedler_kuenstlerische_1887/9.

FostJ. W. (1999). Neural rhythmicity, feature binding, and serotonin. A hypothesis. Neuroscientist57985.

FristonK. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 360815836.

FristonK.ThorntonC. and ClarkA. (2012). Free-energy minimization and the dark-room problem. Front. Psychol. 3. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00130.

GamboniD. (2002). Potential Images: Ambiguity and Indeterminacy in Modern ArtReaktion BooksLondon, UK.

GaverW. W.BeaverJ. and BenfordS. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for designProc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing SystemsFort Lauderdale, FL, USA.

GibsonJ. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual PerceptionLawrence Erlbaum Hillsdale NJ USA.

GombrichE. H. (1950/2002). Die Geschichte der KunstPhaidonBerlin, Germany.

GombrichE. H. (1960/2002). Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (5th ed.) Phaidon PressOxford, UK.

GregoryR. L. (1970). The Intelligent EyeWeidenfeld & NicolsonLondon, UK.

GregoryR. L. (1980). Perceptions as hypotheses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 290181197.

HallJ. (2014). The Self-Portrait: A Cultural HistoryThames & HudsonLondon, UK.

HekkertP. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychol. Sci. 48157172.

HohwyJ.RoepstorffA. and FristonK. (2008). Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review. Cognition 108687701.

HymanJ. (2010). Art and Neuroscience in Beyond Mimesis and ConventionFriggR. and HunterM. (Eds) pp. 245261SpringerDordrecht, The Netherlands.

IshaiA.FairhallS. L. and PepperellR. (2007). Perception, memory and aesthetics of indeterminate art. Brain Res. Bull. 73 319°324.

JakeschM. and CarbonC. C. (2012). The mere exposure effect in the domain of haptics. ploS one 7e31215. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031215.

JakeschM. and LederH. (2009). Finding meaning in art: Preferred levels of ambiguity in art appreciation. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 6221052112.

JakeschM.LederH. and ForsterM. (2013). Image ambiguity and fluency. ploS one 8e74084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074084.

JamesL. J. (1962). Effects of Repeated Stimulation on Cognitive Aspects of Behaviour. Some Experiments on the Phenomenon of Semantic Satiation. Doctoral dissertation McGill UniversityMontreal, QC, Canada.

KaplanA. and KrisE. (1948). Esthetic ambiguity. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 8415435.

KesnerL. (2014). The predictive mind and the experience of visual art work. Front. Psychol. 51417. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01417.

KonečniV. I. (2005). The aesthetic trinity: Awe, being moved, thrills. Bull. Psychol. Arts 52744.

KriegerV. (2010). “At war with the obvious” – Kulturen der Ambiguität. Historische, psychologische und ästhetische Dimensionen des Mehrdeutigen in: Ambiguität und Kunst — Typen und Funktionen eines ästhetischen ParadigmasKriegerV. and MaderR. (Eds) pp. 1350BöhlauWien, Austria.

KubovyM. (1994). The perceptual organization of dot lattices. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 1182190.

LeopoldD. A. and LogothetisN. K. (1999). Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3254264.

LuddenG. D. S.SchiffersteinH. N. J. and HekkertP. (2012). Beyond surprise: A longitudinal study on the experience of visual-tactual incongruities in products. Int. J. Design 6110.

MajetschakS. (2003). Die Modernisierung des Blicks. Über ein sehtheoretisches Motiv am Anfang der modernen Kunst in: Die Kunst der Wahrnehmung. Beiträge zu einer Philosophie der sinnlichen ErkenntnisHauskellerM. (Ed.) pp. 298349Die graue EditionKusterdingen, Germany.

MamassianP. (2008). Ambiguities and conventions in the perception of visual art. Vis. Res. 4821432153.

MeinhardtJ. (1997). Ende der Malerei und Malerei nach dem Ende der MalereiHatje CantzOstfildern, Germany.

MuthC. and CarbonC. C. (2012). There's more than one way to irritation! An attempt to categorize ambiguity in art. Perception 41(Suppl.)233.

MuthC. and CarbonC. C. (2013). The Aesthetic Aha: On the pleasure of having insights into Gestalt. Acta Psychol. 1442530.

MuthC.PepperellR. and CarbonC. C. (2013). Give me Gestalt! Preference for cubist artworks revealing high detectability of objects. Leonardo 46488489.

MuthC.RaabM. and CarbonC. C. (2015). The stream of experience when watching artistic movies. Dynamic aesthetic effects revealed by the continuous evaluation procedure (cep). Front. Psychol. 6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00365.

MuthC.HesslingerV. and CarbonC. C. (2015). The appeal of challenge in the perception of art: How ambiguity, solvability of ambiguity and the opportunity for insight affect appreciation. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 9206216.

NoëA. (2000). Experience and experiment in art. J. Conscious. Stud. 7123136.

NoëA. (2012). Varieties of PresenceHarvard University PressCambridge, MA, USA.

O’Regan and Noë A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behav. Brain Sci. 249391031.

PepperellR. (2006). Seeing without objects: Visual indeterminacy and art. Leonardo 39394400.

PepperellR. (2015). Artworks as dichotomous objects: implications for the scientific study of aesthetic experience. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00295.

RamachandranV. S. and HirsteinW. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. J. Conscious. Stud. 61551.

ReberR.SchwarzN. and WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Pers Soc Psychol Rev 8364382.

ReisJ. (1996). Inventar zur Messung der AmbiguitätstoleranzAsangerHeidelberg, Germany.

ShklovskyV. (1917/2002). From ‘art as technique’ in Art in Theory 1900–2000: An Anthology of Changing IdeasHarrisonC. and WoodP. (Eds) pp. 277281Wiley-BlackwellCornwall, UK.

SilviaP. J. (2006). Exploring the Psychology of InterestOxford University PressNew York, NY, USA.

TopolinskiS. and ReberR. (2010). Gaining insight into the “Aha” Experience. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19402405.

Van de CruysS. and WagemansJ. (2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art. i-Perception 210351062. doi: 10.1068/i0466aap.

VarelaF. J.RoschE. and ThompsonE. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human ExperienceMIT PressCambridge, MA, USA.

von HelmholtzH. (1866). Handbuch der physiologischen Optik: mit 213 in den Text eingedruckten Holzschnitten und 11 TafelnVossLeipzig, Germany.

von UexküllJ. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der TiereJ. SpringerBerlin, Germany.

VygotskyL. (1976). Psychologie der KunstVEB Verlag der KunstDresden, Germany.

WinkielmanP.SchwarzN.FazendeiroT. and ReberR. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment in The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and EmotionMuschJ. and KlauerK. C. (Eds) pp. 189217Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesHillsdale, NJ, USA.

WittmannB. C.BunzeckN.DolanR. J. and DüzelE. (2007). Anticipation of novelty recruits reward system and hippocampus while promoting recollection. NeuroImage 38194202.

WollheimR. (1982). Objekte der KunstSuhrkampFrankfurt, Germany.

WolzS. and CarbonC. C. (2014). What’s wrong with an art fake? Cognitive and emotional variables influenced by authenticity status of artworks. Leonardo 47467473.

ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere-exposure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 9127.

ZekiS. (2004). The neurology of ambiguity. Conscious. Cogn. 13173196.

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Famous Ready-Made ‘Fountain’ by Marcel Duchamp from the year 1917; photographed by Bart Everson in 2014, license via Creative-Commons. This figure is published in color in the online version.

  • View in gallery

    The so-called Rubin’s Vase displaying a vase or two facial profiles, depending on the respective interpretation. The specific composition shows the two authors, who also created this image.

  • View in gallery

    Macků, M. (1989). Gellage No. 6 [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.michal-macku.eu/image/122.

  • View in gallery

    Cubist artwork by Juan Gris ‘Mann im Café (Man in Café)’ from the year 1914. This figure is published in color in the online version.

  • View in gallery

    Indeterminate or potential image: Robert Pepperell’s (2005) ‘Paradox 1’ provides cues for potential detection but never reveals a determinate Gestalt. Image courtesy of Robert Pepperell. This figure is published in color in the online version.

  • View in gallery

    Hidden image: the indeterminate pattern becomes determinate as soon as we detect a face in it (highlighted in the right panel). This figure is published in color in the online version.

  • View in gallery

    Exemplary frames of the stop-motion movie ‘Konstrukte’ by Claudia Muth from the year 2009.

  • View in gallery

    Adaptation from original hidden image by Karl Dallenbach (1951).

  • View in gallery

    Stefan Wewerka (1969). Untitled; chair-sculpture, corner chair. Munich: Pinakothek der Moderne. Photograph by Claudia Muth. This figure is published in color in the online version.

  • View in gallery

    Models of one static (A) and two dynamic accounts of semantic ‘instability’ (SeIns) and ‘appreciation’ (B+C). In Model B the pattern of changes represents a mechanism by which appreciation is negatively linked to SeIns. Model C considers the positive effect of one or several Aesthetic Ahas on appreciation; caused insights are indicated by exclamation marks (‘!’). This figure is published in color in the online version.

  • View in gallery

    A preliminary model of dynamics in SeIns and appreciation; adapted from Muth et al. (2015a). This figure is published in color in the online version.

  • View in gallery

    Model A considers the positive effect of one or several Aesthetic Ahas (!) on appreciation. Model B additionally integrates the effects of context and person alluded to by variations of the strength of the dimensions (light colored areas). This figure is published in color in the online version.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 33 33 17
Full Text Views 17 17 5
PDF Downloads 3 3 3
EPUB Downloads 5 5 3