Expecting the Unexpected: How Gallery Visitors Experience Semantic Instability in Art

in Art & Perception
Authors: Claudia Muth 1 , 2 , Marius Hans Raab 1 , 2 and Claus-Christian Carbon 1 , 2 , 3
View More View Less
1 Germany
2 Germany
3 Germany
Online Publication Date:
05 Jun 2017
Volume/Issue:
Volume 5: Issue 2
Article Type:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-00002062
Keywords:
Empirical aesthetics; semantic instability; ambiguity; ecological context; Aha insight; gestalt; elaboration; museum
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 perception of artworks rarely—if ever—results in the instantiation of a determinate meaning. Instead, when entering an art gallery, we often expect Semantic Instability (SeIns): the experience of perceptual and cognitive habits being challenged. By comparing the experience of an artistic movie in an exhibition with the experience in a laboratory via the Continuous Evaluation Procedure, we found that the movie was less semantically unstable and more pleasing to the eyes of gallery visitors than to those of participants in the laboratory. These findings suggest that a gallery context might induce the expectation of perceptual challenge, thus decreasing the intensity of SeIns and at the same time heightening the appreciation of SeIns. Exhibition visitors might even be on the lookout for challenging experiences.

Expecting the Unexpected: How Gallery Visitors Experience Semantic Instability in Art

in Art & Perception
E-ISSN:
2213-4913
Print ISSN:
2213-4905
Publisher:
BRILL
Cover Art & Perception

Sections

References

Amir O. Biederman I. Wang Z. and Xu X. (2015). Ha Ha! Versus Aha! A direct comparison of humor to nonhumorous insight for determining the neural correlates of mirth, Cereb . Cortex 25 1405–1413.

Apter M. J. (1989). Reversal theory: A new approach to motivation, emotion and personalityAnu. Psycol. 42 17–29.

Armstrong T. and Detweiler-Bedell B. (2008). Beauty as an emotion: The exhilarating prospect of mastering a challenging worldRev. Gen. Psychol. 12 305–329.

Barto A. Mirolli M. and Detweiler-Bedell B. (2008). Novelty or surprise? Front. Psychol. 4907. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00907.

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

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

Brieber D. Nadal M. Leder H. and Rosenberg R. (2014). Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing timePLoS One 9 e99019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099019.

Carbon C. C. (2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciationActa Psychol. 134 233–244.

Carbon C. C. (2011). Cognitive mechanisms for explaining dynamics of aesthetic appreciationi-Perception 2 708–719.

Carbon C. C. (2017a). Art perception in the museum: How we spend time and space in art exhibitions. i-Perception. 81–15 . doi: 10.1177/2041669517694184.

Carbon C. C. (2017b). Universal principles of depicting oneself across the centuries: From Renaissance self-portraits to selfie-photographsFront. Psychol . 8245. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00245.

Carbon C. C. Faerber S. J. Gerger G. Forster M. and Leder H. (2013). Innovation is appreciated when we feel safe: On the situational dependence of the appreciation of innovationInt. J. Des. 7 43–51.

Chetverikov A. (2013). Warmth of familiarity and chill of error: Affective consequences of recognition decisionsCogn. Emot. 28 385–415.

Clark A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive scienceBehav. Brain Sci. 36 181–204.

Cupchik G. C. (1994). Emotion in aesthetics: Reactive and reflective modelsPoetics 23 177–188.

De Bont C. J. P. M. Schoormans J. P. L. and Wessel M. T. T. (1992). Consumer personality and the acceptance of product designDes. Stud. 13200–208.

Di Paolo E. Rohde M. and De Jaegher H. (2007) Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction and play in: Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm for Cognitive ScienceStewart J. Gapenne O. and Paolo E. D. (Eds) pp. 33–87MIT PressCambridge, MA, USA.

Dörner D. and Vehrs W. (1975). Aesthetical appreciation and reduction of uncertaintyPsychol. Res. ∫ 321–334.

Faerber S. J. Leder H. Gerger G. and Carbon C. C. (2010). Priming semantic concepts affects the dynamics of aesthetic appreciationActa Psychol. 135 191–200.

Friston K. (2005). A theory of cortical responsesPhil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 360 815–836.

Friston K. Thornton C. and Clark A. (2012). Free-energy minimization and the dark room problem. Front. Psychol. 3130. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00130.

Fry B. and Reas C. [Computer Software] (2013). Processing library for visual arts and design. Available online at: http://www.processing.org.

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

Gregory R. L. (1980). Perceptions as hypotheses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 290181–197.

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

Ishai A. Fairhall S. L. and Pepperell R. (2007). Perception, memory and aesthetics of indeterminate art, Brain Res . Bull. 73 319–324.

Jakesch M. and Leder H. (2009). Finding meaning in art: Preferred levels of ambiguity in art appreciationQ. J. Exp. Psychol. 62 2105–2112.

Jakesch M. Leder H. and Forster M. (2013). Image ambiguity and fluencyPLoS One 8 e74084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074084.

Krieger V. (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 ParadigmasKrieger V. and Mader R. (Eds) pp. 13–50BöhlauVienna, Austria, Cologne & Weimar, Germany.

Locher P. J. Smith L. and Smith J. (1999). Original paintings versus slide and computer reproductions: A comparison of viewer responsesEmpir. Stud. Arts 17 121–129.

Locher P. J. Smith J. K. and Smith L. F. (2001). The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings, Perception 30 449–465. Muth C. and Carbon C. C. (2013). The Aesthetic Aha: On the pleasure of having insights into GestaltActa Psychol. 144 25–30.

Muth C. and Carbon C. C. (2016). SeIns: Semantic Instability in artArt Percept. 4 145–184.

Muth C. Hesslinger V. M. and Carbon C. C. (2015a). The appeal of challenge in the perception of art: How ambiguity, solvability of ambiguity and the opportunity for insight affect appreciationPsychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 9206–216.

Muth C. Hesslinger V. M. and Carbon C. C. (in press). Variants of Semantic Instability (SeIns) in the arts. A classification study based on experiential reportsPsychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts.

Muth C. Raab M. and Carbon C. C. (2015b). The stream of experience when watching artistic movies. Dynamic aesthetic effects revealed by the continuous evaluation procedure (CEP). Front. Psychol . 6365. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00365.

Muth C. Raab M. H. and Carbon C. C. (2016). Semantic stability is more pleasurable in unstable episodic contexts. On the relevance of perceptual challenge in art appreciation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 1043. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00043.

Neisser U. (1976). Cognition and Reality. Principles and Implications of Cognitve PsychologyW. H. Freeman and CompanySan Francisco, USA.

Noë A. (2000). Experience and experiment in artJ. Consc. Stud. 7 123–136.

Pepperell R. (2006). Seeing without objects: Visual indeterminacy and artLeonardo 39394–400.

Reber R. Schwarz N. and Winkielman P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8 364–382.

Reis J. (1996). Inventar zur Messung der AmbiguitätstoleranzAsangerHeidelberg, Germnany.

Scherer K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking in: Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory Method ResearchScherer K. R. Schorr A. and Johnstone T. (Eds) pp. 92–120Oxford University PressOxford, UK.

Smith J. K. and Smith L. F. (2001). Spending time on artEmp. Stud. Arts 19229–236.

Van de Cruys S. and Wagemans J. (2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual arti-Perception 2 1035–1062.

Warren C. and McGraw A. P. (2016). Differentiating what is humorous from what is notJ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110 407–430.

Watson D. Clark L. A. and Tellegen A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scalesJ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54 1063–1070.

Wolz S. and Carbon C. C. (2014). What’s wrong with an art fake? Cognitive and emotional variables influenced by authenticity status of artworks Leonardo 47 467–473.

Figures

  • View in gallery

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

  • View in gallery

    Impressions from the Griesbadgalerie Ulm. Top left: entrance to the gallery; top right: first exhibition room, passed by every participant of the gallery context before being tested; bottom: participants evaluating the movie via CEP in a separate room.

  • View in gallery

    Mean strength of determinacy (as a measure of inverse SeIns) for gallery visitors (‘Gal’) and participants in the lab (‘Lab’).

  • View in gallery

    Evaluations of determinacy during both presentations of the movie.

  • View in gallery

    Mean strength of liking for gallery visitors (‘Gal’) and participants in the lab (‘Lab’).

  • View in gallery

    Phase-shifted liking evaluations before, at, and after moments of insight, averaged over all seven moments of insight (=frame ‘0’). Height of bars represents ± 1 standard deviation.

  • View in gallery

    Average strength of liking at seven moments of insight.

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

Impressions from the Griesbadgalerie Ulm. Top left: entrance to the gallery; top right: first exhibition room, passed by every participant of the gallery context before being tested; bottom: participants evaluating the movie via CEP in a separate room.

Mean strength of determinacy (as a measure of inverse SeIns) for gallery visitors (‘Gal’) and participants in the lab (‘Lab’).

Evaluations of determinacy during both presentations of the movie.

Mean strength of liking for gallery visitors (‘Gal’) and participants in the lab (‘Lab’).

Phase-shifted liking evaluations before, at, and after moments of insight, averaged over all seven moments of insight (=frame ‘0’). Height of bars represents ± 1 standard deviation.

Average strength of liking at seven moments of insight.

Information

Page Count:
121–142
Subjects:
Psychology, Biology
Copyright:
© 2017 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 2017

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 53 53 16
Full Text Views 94 94 56
PDF Downloads 12 12 5
EPUB Downloads 2 2 0