Cargando…
Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures
Recent research on aesthetics has challenged the adage that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” by identifying several factors that predict ratings of beauty. However, this research has emerged in a piecemeal fashion. Most studies have examined only a few predictors of beauty, and measured either...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6034882/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29979779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200431 |
_version_ | 1783337955804315648 |
---|---|
author | Sidhu, David M. McDougall, Katrina H. Jalava, Shaela T. Bodner, Glen E. |
author_facet | Sidhu, David M. McDougall, Katrina H. Jalava, Shaela T. Bodner, Glen E. |
author_sort | Sidhu, David M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Recent research on aesthetics has challenged the adage that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” by identifying several factors that predict ratings of beauty. However, this research has emerged in a piecemeal fashion. Most studies have examined only a few predictors of beauty, and measured either subjective or objective predictors, but not both. Whether the predictors of ratings of beauty versus liking differ has not been tested, nor has whether predictors differ for major distinctions in art, such as abstract vs. representational paintings. Finally, past studies have either relied on experimenter-generated stimuli—which likely yield pallid aesthetic experiences—or on a curation of high-quality art—thereby restricting the range of predictor scores. We report a study (N = 598) that measured 4 subjective and 11 objective predictors of both beauty ratings and liking ratings, for 240 abstract and 240 representational paintings that varied widely in beauty. A crossover pattern occurred in the ratings, such that for abstract paintings liking ratings were higher than beauty ratings, whereas for representational paintings beauty ratings were higher than liking ratings. Prediction was much better for our subjective than objective predictors, and much better for our representational than abstract paintings. For abstract paintings, liking ratings were much more predictable than beauty ratings. Implications and directions for future research are discussed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6034882 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60348822018-07-19 Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures Sidhu, David M. McDougall, Katrina H. Jalava, Shaela T. Bodner, Glen E. PLoS One Research Article Recent research on aesthetics has challenged the adage that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” by identifying several factors that predict ratings of beauty. However, this research has emerged in a piecemeal fashion. Most studies have examined only a few predictors of beauty, and measured either subjective or objective predictors, but not both. Whether the predictors of ratings of beauty versus liking differ has not been tested, nor has whether predictors differ for major distinctions in art, such as abstract vs. representational paintings. Finally, past studies have either relied on experimenter-generated stimuli—which likely yield pallid aesthetic experiences—or on a curation of high-quality art—thereby restricting the range of predictor scores. We report a study (N = 598) that measured 4 subjective and 11 objective predictors of both beauty ratings and liking ratings, for 240 abstract and 240 representational paintings that varied widely in beauty. A crossover pattern occurred in the ratings, such that for abstract paintings liking ratings were higher than beauty ratings, whereas for representational paintings beauty ratings were higher than liking ratings. Prediction was much better for our subjective than objective predictors, and much better for our representational than abstract paintings. For abstract paintings, liking ratings were much more predictable than beauty ratings. Implications and directions for future research are discussed. Public Library of Science 2018-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6034882/ /pubmed/29979779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200431 Text en © 2018 Sidhu et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Sidhu, David M. McDougall, Katrina H. Jalava, Shaela T. Bodner, Glen E. Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures |
title | Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures |
title_full | Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures |
title_fullStr | Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures |
title_full_unstemmed | Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures |
title_short | Prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures |
title_sort | prediction of beauty and liking ratings for abstract and representational paintings using subjective and objective measures |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6034882/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29979779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200431 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sidhudavidm predictionofbeautyandlikingratingsforabstractandrepresentationalpaintingsusingsubjectiveandobjectivemeasures AT mcdougallkatrinah predictionofbeautyandlikingratingsforabstractandrepresentationalpaintingsusingsubjectiveandobjectivemeasures AT jalavashaelat predictionofbeautyandlikingratingsforabstractandrepresentationalpaintingsusingsubjectiveandobjectivemeasures AT bodnerglene predictionofbeautyandlikingratingsforabstractandrepresentationalpaintingsusingsubjectiveandobjectivemeasures |