Aesthetic Preference for Polygon Shape

Abstract shapes can vary in how much they are preferred by observers, but the key factors are still not well understood. In Experiment 1, observers rated the attractiveness of octagonal polygons that varied in contour length but had approximate constant area. Thus, the shapes differed in compactness. Shapes with partial symmetry were judged to be more attractive as were those with greater total contour length. In a second experiment, participants judged polygons with different numbers of concavities but with constant contour length. Shapes with more concavities were considered more attractive. The data demonstrate a preference for greater complexity—both in terms of contour length and as changes in the number of concavities.

[1]  M. Tovée,et al.  Is symmetry a visual cue to attractiveness in the human female body? , 2000, Evolution and human behavior : official journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society.

[2]  Marcos Nadal Roberts.  Complexity and aesthetic preference for diverse visual stimuli , 2007 .

[3]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[4]  E. Leeuwenberg,et al.  Birkhoff revisited: beauty as a function of effect and means. , 1985, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Goodness of Regularity in Dot Patterns: Global Symmetry, Local Symmetry, and Their Interactions , 2007, Perception.

[6]  Marcos Nadal,et al.  Visual Complexity and Beauty Appreciation: Explaining the Divergence of Results , 2010 .

[7]  H. Day.  Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity , 1967 .

[8]  Bruce F. Katz,et al.  What Makes a Polygon Pleasing? , 2002 .

[9]  Richard M. Nicki,et al.  Preference for non-representational art as a function of various measures of complexity. , 1975 .

[10]  R Eisenman,et al.  Preferences for Complexity-Simplicity and Symmetry-Asymmetry , 1968, Perceptual and motor skills.

[11]  Gustav Theodor Fechner,et al.  Vorschule der Aesthetik , 1876 .

[12]  P. Hekkert,et al.  The mere exposure effect for consumer products as a consequence of existing familiarity and controlled exposure. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[13]  Harry Munsinger,et al.  Uncertainty, structure, and preference. , 1964 .

[14]  K. Grammer,et al.  Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality , 2006 .

[15]  G. Rhodes.  The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. , 2006, Annual review of psychology.

[16]  Flip Phillips,et al.  Fechner's aesthetics revisited. , 2010, Seeing and perceiving.

[17]  M. Bar,et al.  Humans Prefer Curved Visual Objects , 2006, Psychological science.

[18]  J. Friedenberg,et al.  Aesthetic judgment of triangular shape: compactness and not the golden ratio determines perceived attractiveness , 2012, i-Perception.

[19]  Peter S. Stevens,et al.  Handbook of Regular Patterns: An Introduction to Symmetry in Two Dimensions , 1980 .

[20]  K. Bennett,et al.  Attractiveness is influenced by the relationship between postures of the viewer and the viewed person , 2013, i-Perception.

[21]  Hans J. Eysenck,et al.  The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. , 1941 .