Visual Complexity and Beauty Appreciation: Explaining the Divergence of Results

Although a number of studies have verified Daniel Berlyne's (1971) predicted maximum preference for intermediately complex stimuli, others have found that preference increased or decreased in relation to complexity. The objective of the present work was to assess whether differences in the kinds of stimuli used in prior studies or in the way complexity was defined could explain this divergence. In the first phase a set of 120 stimuli varying in complexity, abstraction, and artistry was assembled. In the second phase 94 participants were asked to rate the beauty of the stimuli. In the final phase the same participants rated 60 of the stimuli on seven complexity dimensions. We failed to detect any meaningful influence of complexity on beauty ratings for any of the kinds of stimuli. However, our results suggest that there are three different forms of complexity that contribute to people's perception of visual complexity: one related with the amount and variety of elements, another related with the way those elements are organized, and asymmetry. We suggest that each of these types of complexity influences beauty ratings in different ways, and that the unresolved relation between complexity and beauty appreciation is mainly due to differences in the conception, manipulation, and measurement of visual complexity.

[1]  D. Berlyne,et al.  COMPLEXITY AND INCONGRUITY VARIABLES AS DETERMINANTS OF EXPLORATORY CHOICE AND EVALUATIVE RATINGS. , 1963, Canadian journal of psychology.

[2]  R. Francés,et al.  Comparative effects of six collative variables on interest and preference in adults of different educational levels. , 1976 .

[3]  Russell Eisenman,et al.  Complexity-simplicity: I. Preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity , 1967 .

[4]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Skin conductance and aesthetic evaluative responses to nonrepresentational works of art varying in symmetry , 1988 .

[5]  J. C. Ogilvie,et al.  The dimensionality of visual complexity, interestingness, and pleasingness. , 1968, Canadian journal of psychology.

[6]  A. Stamps.  Entropy, Visual Diversity, and Preference , 2002, The Journal of general psychology.

[7]  R. Nicki,et al.  Ambiguity, cubist works of art, and preference , 1981 .

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

[9]  Tom Heath,et al.  Tall Buildings and the Urban Skyline , 2000 .

[10]  Jean Paul,et al.  Vorschule der Ästhetik , 1990 .

[11]  S. Marković,et al.  Symmetry, complexity and perceptual economy: Effects of minimum and maximum simplicity conditions , 2001 .

[12]  Frank H. Farley,et al.  The relationship between aesthetic preference and visual complexity in absract art , 1970 .

[13]  S. Ichikawa,et al.  Quantitative and structural factors in the judgment of pattern complexity , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  Lisa F. Smith,et al.  Effects of Time and Information on Perception of Art , 2006 .

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

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

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

[18]  Melinda J Ickes,et al.  Abstract Art , 2011, Health promotion practice.

[19]  G. Cupchik,et al.  Individual differences as predictors of preference in visual art , 1985 .

[20]  P. P. Aitken.  Judgments of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity. , 1974 .

[21]  D. Berlyne.  Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value , 1970 .

[22]  A. C. Hall.  Measures of the Complexity of Random Black and White and Coloured Stimuli , 1969, Perceptual and Motor Skills.

[23]  D. Saklofske,et al.  Visual Aesthetic Complexity, Attractiveness and Diversive Exploration , 1975, Perceptual and motor skills.

[24]  P. Vitz.  Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. , 1966, Behavioral science.

[25]  Sandra M. Messinger.  Pleasure and Complexity: Berlyne Revisited , 1998 .

[26]  H. Eysenck.  THE GENERAL FACTOR IN AESTHETIC JUDGEMENTS1 , 1940 .

[27]  H. J. Eysenck,et al.  The experimental study of the 'good Gestalt'--a new approach. , 1942 .

[28]  Çağrı Imamoğlu,et al.  Complexity, liking and familiarity : Architecture and non-architecture Turkish students' assessments of traditional and modern house facades , 2000 .

[29]  R. Nicki.  Arousal increment and degree of complexity as incentive. , 1972, British journal of psychology.

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

[31]  S F Chipman,et al.  Complexity and structure in visual patterns. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  M. Lindauer.  Reactions to Cheap Art , 1990 .

[33]  Ronald W. Neperud,et al.  Informational and Affect Bases of Aesthetic Response , 2017 .

[34]  D. Berlyne,et al.  Aesthetics and Psychobiology , 1975 .

[35]  Gerald C. Cupchik,et al.  The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. , 1992 .