Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 1975,40,
155-164. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1975
CONTRAST EFFECTS IN THE RESPONSE T O ART1 MARTIN S. LINDAUER State Univezsiiy of New YorR, College at Brockport
AND
DIANE D. DmTRUFF University of Kdnras
Summary.-Slides of traditional and abstract paintings were rated for either preference or complexity by 120 Ss following their earlier exposure to a contrasting series of slides of another type of art. Traditional art was liked more when it followed abstract art than when it was viewed after its own type of art. Abstract art, on the other hand, was liked less when it followed traditional art than when it followed the same type of art. Complexity judgments for both types of art, compared to their ratings withour an earlier contrasting series, increased after seeing another type of art, although traditional art increased more than abstract art did. These findings were related to several theoretical approaches to cognition, general psychology, aesthetics, and the practical problems of art education. The research also illustrates that the humanistic content of experimental psychology can be broadened by including aesthetics and that experimental aesthetics can be liberalized by using slides showing real art.
An individual's response to art is dependent upon several factors. These include the type of art, the circumstances under which it is viewed, the characteristics of the observer, including his personality and background, and the social milieu. Some of these factors, like motives and values, are deeply rooted in the individual, and little can be done to modify or change them. One can, at most, note their presence or absence under different aesthetic conditions, i.e., as in correlational studies. Ocher factors that influence the response to art are more transient and immediate in nature. These include events that take place in the viewing circumstances themselves. These, unlike personal variables, can be modified or changed so as to affect the response to art. Events which are contemporaneous with the perception, evaluation, and judgment of a work of art are therefore manipulable and controllable. Hence, they should be of interest to the art educator in his attempts to train or guide. Further, external conditions present during the observation of art lend themselves to experimental study. Research variables which refer to the immediate viewing circumstances of the aesthetic experience include looking behavior (Lindauer, 1971; Wohlwill, 1968), repetition or familiarity (Zajonc, 1968; Zajonc, Swap, Harrison, & Roberts, 1971, p. 3 8 4 ) , and the information made available to Ss (Child & Schwartz, 1966, 1968; Lindauer, 1970a; Thibaut & Ross, 1969). Of direct interest to the present paper are the temporal relations which can affect the response to art. Thus, Gregson (1968) found a recency effect: art 'A summary of this study was presented at the Vth International Colloquium on Experimental Aesthetics. Louvilin. Belgium. 1773. Requests for reprints should be sent to Martin S. Lindauer, State University College at Brockport, Brockport, New York 14420.
156
M. S. LINDAUER & D. D. DINTRUFF
presented at the end of a series of several sets of representarional arc, in contrast to its position at an earlier point in the sequence, was liked more. Similarly, Dornic and Kuric (1970) found a serial position effect in a set of representational art: a painting in the middle of the series was liked less than when located at either the beginning or end of the series. Ferguson (1972) found that evaluations of representational art at the end of a series were either over- or under-evaluated depending upon whether the earlier paintings increased or decreased, respecrively, in their good-bad qualities. However, the three studies relevant to the effects of immediate past experiences on the aesthetic response reviewed above have several limitations which restrict their generalizability to the role of cemporal relations in the response to art. Firstly, they relied solely on representational art, whose meaningfulness and familiarity may be a confounding factor in the results. Preference may be a function of the content of a work of art rather than the temporal factors postulated. It would, therefore, be valuable to include abstract art in temporal studies of aesthetics, since this type of art is more likely to arouse a response to pure forms and colors than to specific subject matter. Another limitation of these studies is that only preference measures were obtained. The more cognitive reactions to art are therefore overlooked, such as judgments of its complexity. The present investigation examined the effects of an earlier series of art experiences, either representational or abstract art, on subsequent evaluations and judgments of contrasting art, either abstract or representational, respectively. It was hypothesized that these earlier experiences would affect subsequent responses to contrasting art, although no specific predictions on the direction of chis effect were made.
METHOD Ss were 120 volunteers from an undergraduate general psychology class. They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: the task was either one of preference or complexity; and the initial series of exposures was to either a set of representarional (traditional) or non-representational (abstract) art. In each of the four conditions, the sexes were equally divided. The paintings were presented on 35-mm. color slides selected from the college's art library and professionally reproduced. Each was projected consecutively in a dim room for 30 sec. each, to small groups of 10 Ss, seated close to a filled 4- X 5-ft. screen. The slides of the paintings were rated for either preference or complexity during the exposure period on a 7-point scale ( 7 = high preference or complexity, 4 = neutral). There were 24 paintings, divided equally between abstract and traditional examples. Nine of each type were fillers, presented first to establish a set for either abstract or traditional art. Three additional examples of each type were either the control or experimental set of stimuli, depending upon whether they were exposed after a similar or contrasting filler series, respectively. The nine
CONTRAST EFFECTS IN RESPONSE TO ART
157
abstract fillers were equally divided among the works of three contemporary American artists, Davis, DeKooning, and Pollock and had been used in previous studies (Lindauer, 1 9 7 0 ~ ) . Three control-experimental abstract stimuli were by Kandinsky, Klee, and Mondrian. The nine traditional fillers were divided equally among the works of Delacroix, DaVinci, and Rembrandt; three controlexperimental traditional paintings were by Rubens, Bronzino, and Ruisdael. The traditional art examples fell into the categories of portraits, landscapes, and historical scenes. Although matched fairly closely in content, the works could not be as closely matched by time period and country of origin. Thus the traditional fillers were Dutch, Italian, and French works of the 16th, 17th, and 19th cenruries, while their experimental counterparts were Dutch, Italian and Flemish works of the 16th and 17th c e n t ~ r i e s . ~ Ss were not told about the type or content of the slides, which artists were represented, or that there would be a contrasting work exposed at the end of the series. They were instructed on the general procedure of rating the art for either "liking" or "complexity" (neither of which was further defined), and the use of a 7-point rating scale. At the end of the study, Ss completed a questionnaire, using a 7-point rating scale again, to indicate the degree to which they liked the paintings shown, their liking for art in general, and their background and training in art. The procedure first exposed Ss to a set of nine fillers, made up of either abstract or uaditional slides. This was followed by an experimental stimulus, either a traditional or abstract type of art, depending upon the kind of fillers used. The control stimulus was shown between the nine fillers and the single experimental stimulus. It was similar in type to the fillers, and as far as Ss were concerned, it was another filler. This control stimulus would be the experimental stimulus in another condition for a different group of Ss. The rating of this non-contrasting control stimulus was compated with its rating when placed in a contrasting experimental condition. For example, when a traditional example of art was seen last, Ss had initially seen 10 absuact stimuli: the nine fillers by Davis, DeKooning, and Pollock, followed by an additional stirnulus (the control) from Kandinsky, Klee, or Mondrian. One of these control stimuli would be an experimental stimulus when traditional art was viewed first. The procedure is outlined in Table 1. There was a small unavoidable difference in the position of the stimulus as a control or as an experimental stimulus ( 10th vs l l t h , respectively), but this was not thought to be serious. The nine filler T h e nine filler abstract art stimuli by Davis, DeKooning, and Pollock are listed in Lindauer (1970b, p. 473, footnote 1 ) . The three experimental abstract stimuli were Kandinskv's One Center. Klee's Cafiice in Pebruarr. and Mondrian's Blue and Yellow. The nine-filler traditional art samples were as follows: DaVinci, Madonna St. Anne, Selfportrait, and Bacchus; Delaccoix, Liberty Leading the People, Self-portrait, and View of Tangiers; and Rembrandt, Pilate Washing Hir Hands, Artist's Mother, and Landscape with Obelisk. The three traditional ex erirnenral stimuli were Brontino's Por~sait of Medici P ~ i n c e Rubens' ~~, Fa11 of the ~ n g e Eand , Ruisdael's A Waterfall on o Rockr bndrcapa.
M. S. LINDAUER & D. D. DlNTRUFF
TABLE 1 SHQUENC6 OF STIMULUS CONDITIONS IN PREFERENCE AND COMPLEXITY RATING TASKS
Sequence Fillers Positions 1-9
Stimulus Conditions Control Position 10
Abstract art (11) Abstract arc ( 1 ) " Traditional art ( I ) ' Traditional art (11) " "Nine paintings by Davis, DeKooning, and Pollock. of three paintings by Kandinsky, Klee, or Mondrian. 'Nine paintings by DaVinci, Delacroix, and Rembrandt. "One of rhree paintings by Bronzino, Rubens, or Ruisdael. A
B
Experimental Position I I Traditional art ( I J ) d Abstract art (11)
stimuli, whether traditional or abstract, were presented in the same order to all Ss. I n summary, the order of events, in both the preference and complexity tasks, was as follows: nine fillers (either traditional or abstract), one control stimulus of the same type as the fillers, and one experimental stimulus of a contrasting type ( either abstract or traditional, respectively ) . This procedure required 12 groups of Ss (two tasks, two types of art, and three examples of each type).
RESULTS Preference Preference ratings for the three experimental stimuli representing abstract and traditional art were affected by the contrast (Fig. 1). In the control (or noncontrasting) condition, when the slides were viewed after a series of the same type of art, preferences for traditional and abstract art did not differ from one another (M = 4.33 vs 4.77, respeccively, indicating a moderate degree of liking for both types, t = 0.89, p > .05). However, when the same art was seen in the experimental condition, following a contrasting series of anocher type of arc, the ratings for the traditional and abstract art types did differ from one another-and in directions contrary to their initial evaluations. Thus traditional art was liked more in the experimental condition than in the control condition ( M = 5.70 vs 4.33, respectively), and abstract arc was liked less ( M = 4.17 vs 4.77, respectively). The difference between the values of the two types of art in the experimental condition was significant ( t = 3.23, 1, < .01).3 Thus the 3A conditions X type-of-art interaction could not be directly obtained by an analysis of variance technique, since Ss and conditions were confounded: control Ss used for one type of art were experimental Ss for the other type of art. This procedure reduced the number of Ss required in the smdy by half. The resulting disadvantage was that it did necessitate separate analysis for each type of art for each condition, and hence did not permit a direct test of the interaction across art types. Nevertheless, the two sets of t tests, between the two rypes of art at the control and at the experimental conditions, did show that differences in the former condition were non-significant while they were significant in the latter condition. While this analysis is perhaps less elegant than a directly obtained factorial interaction, it does essentially reflect the presence of an interaction.
CONTRAST EFFECTS IN RESPONSE TO ART
---
TRADITIONAL ART
ABSTRACT ART
6.00
-
5.50
-
COMPLEXITY
PREFERENCE
U)
5.00-
E 2 Z 4
4.50
W
4.00
5
3.50
-
-
/
-\
/*
*.-%
b
) / 0
-0
/
. , S
M4
// I
I
I
I
CONTROL
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTROL
EXPERIMENTAL
CONDITIONS FIG. 1. Mean preference and complexicy ratings for traditional and abstract art under control (non-contrasting) and experimental (contrasting) conditions
effect of the experimental treatment of contrast, whether it increased or decreased preferences, depended on the type of art viewed. This interaction was also apparent in examining the difference between the control and experimental values for each type of art considered separately. Ratings of abstract art did not significantly change between control and experimental conditions ( F = 1.86, p > .05), while ratings of traditional art increased significantly ( F = 4.74, p < .05). There were other differences in the response to the two types of art, but these were independent of the contrast manipulation. In the experimental condition, preferences for the three examples of abstract art did not differ from one another ( F = 1.57, p > .05), although examples of traditional art did ( P = 5.60, p < .01)? However, these preferences did not vary over the control and experimental conditions, as indicated by the absence of an examples X conditions interaction ( F < 1.00). Nor did sex differences play a critical role in the contrast effect, as there was no sex X conditions interaction ( F < 1.00). Further, there was no sex difference in the preferential response to abstract art ( F < 1.00), but the sexes did differ in their response to traditional art ( F = 5.52, p < .05) as males liked traditional art more than females did. However, this sex difference varied with the examples used ( F = 3.56, p < .05), as males liked both the Rubens and Ruisdael more than the females did, but the females liked the Bronzino more. 'Individual analysis (according to Duncan's test) indicated that the Ruisdael was liked .05) than the Rubens, while the Bronzino was intermediate in preference. more ( p
.05). The complexity ratings for the three paincings in the experimental condition, for both the abstract and traditional examples; significantly differed from one another (F ' .5.47, P < .01), but these differences did not vary over the control and experimental conditions ( F < 1.00) .5 O t h e ~Analyses Three questions were asked at the end of the study regarding ( 1 ) Ss' liking for the paintings seen; ( 2 ) their liking for art generally; and ( 3 ) the extent of their background in art. With respect to Question 1, Ss who saw mainly traditional art, i.e., nine fillers and one control out of 11 stimuli, liked these examples more than chose who saw mainly abstract arc ( M = 4.50 vs 4.00, respectively; F = 5.75, # < .05). However, despite this over-all feeling, preference ratings for the nine abstract and nine traditional fillers (unlike their experimental counterparts) did not significantly differ from one another ( M = 3.86 vs 4.25, respectively; F = 3.25, p > .05). Further, in reply to Question 2, Ss who saw mostly traditional or abstract art did not differ in their liking for art in general (F 1.00), although females indicated a higher preference for art than males (M = 5.36 vs 4.83, respectively; F = 5.07, p < .05). Nevertheless, this sex difference in preference for art in general did not vary across the two rating tasks ( F < 1.00). In response to Question 3, Ss who parcicipated in the two tasks, although assigned randomly, did differ in their background and experience with art ( M = 3.42 vs 2.88, respectively), which although rather low in absolute terms in both groups (the preference group was higher), was significant ( F = 5.32, p < .05). However, this difference in background did not affect the ratings for either type of art ( F = 2.47, p > .05), nor did it vary with sex (F < 1.00). The response to filler and control art did differ somewhat, even though they were of the same general type. here was a significant difference between filler and control ratings in seven of 12 instances ( t 1 3.06, p < .01), most
.05). Although the control stimuli unavoidably differed from the filler material and from each other in most cases, the design of the study. -prevented this from detracting from the main contrast results. The stimuli were counterbalanced across tasks, conditions, and sex. Further, the examples of art used did not interact with any other variable (except for their interaction with sex on the preference racings for traditional art noted earlier). Affirming the basic finding of a contrast effect for the difference between the ratings of paintings under control and experimental conditions, the two sets of Ss' ratings combined for 120 scores over the two conditions, irrespective of task or type of art, were not correlated ( r = ,169, # > .05 ) .
DISCUSSION Prior exposure to one type of art influenced Ss' subsequent response to a contrasting type of art, whether the response was preference or complexity ratings. Slides of traditional art were liked more when seen after abstract arr then when they were presented after a series of other traditional art examples. Conversely, abstract art slides were liked less when seen after a sequence of traditional art than when they were viewed after other abstracc examples. Both types of art were also judged more complex when they followed a contrasting set of paintings than when seen without this juxtaposition, and traditional art was judged to be even more complex than abstract art. These effects were consistently found for both sexes. They were also consistently found across the three examples of abstract art by Kandinsky, Klee, and Mondrian and the three examples of traditional art by Bronzino, Rubens, and Ruisdael. These contrast effects are even more dramatic when it is considered that preference for noncontrascing traditional and abstract art (when used as filler examples, or as controls without any contrasts) did not differ from one another. Abstract and traditional art in the control condition did not differ in their complexity, although abstract art fillers were judged more complex than traditional art fillers, a relationship that was just the opposite of the experimental findings. It seems that sheer exposure co art, without guidance or instructions, as is commonly the
162
M.S. LINDAUER & D.D.DINTRUFF
situation for most museum visitors, can substantially alter one's subsequent response to art, at least over a short time period, and especially for preferential evaluations. This contrast effect, although probably not unexpected on the basis of traditional experimental findings for the role of temporal factors in learning and perception, has not previously been demonstrated in art. In addition to contributing to our general understanding of the temporal circumstances that influence aestheric responses, the study also illustrates the usefulness of aesthetic materials to several areas of general experimental psychology (Lindauer, 1973), e.g., not only perception (first impressions), but attention (set, expectancy, surprise, novelty) and learning (transfer of training, recency effects, incidental learning, and warm-up). The study is also of practical interest to art educators. The sequence with which we view art, as we move from room to room in a museum, or as we look from painting to painting in different areas of the room, probably affects our preferences and judgments. Although museum curators have most likely developed an intuition about such contrast effects, there are few systematic smdies on this question; an early but still rare exception is that of Melton (1935). Some doubt may be raised about the relevance of a response to slides to real art (Dreher, 1966, 1968). The response to full-sized reproductions (or originals) may be "more truly" aestheric. However, the contrast effects found in this study, while perhaps reduced in absolute value when used for slides, black and white photos, mounted color prints, and orher forms of aesthetic presentation, should probably hold within each type of presentation. However, this remains an empirical question to be assessed. The results can be most generally described in terms of the cognitive effects of exposure (Thibaut & Ross, 1969). An early sequence of experiences provides information which increasingly reduces Ss' uncertainty, confusion, mbiguity, and the competition of responses, and instead, arouses certain expectations and focuses attention. However, as a consequence of this perceptual narrowing, there is less openness to new experiences and a reduced possibiliry for accepting subsequent information. Thus, when a different type of art was presented at the end of a sequence of another type, there was a discongruity with the established set. Following Helson's (1964) adaptation level theory, the new stimulus was over-reacted to, as the response to it moved away rather than toward the established anchoring point. Berlyne's (1971) collative variables of surprise and novelty can also be broadly used to interpret these results, i.e., the contrasting stimulus acted to arouse either a pleasant or unpleasant level of tension, depending on the previous existing level of excitation-inhibition. However, a general cognitive framework does not account for the opposite directions in which contrast affected the preference values of abstract and traditional art: the latter increased and the former decreased in liking. Nor does
CONTRAST EFFECTS IN RESPONSE TO ART
163
this cognitive interpretation completely account for the complexity judgments, in which traditional art increased significantly more than abstract art did. Several factors may have contributed to these interactions, although their specific role cannot be determined on the basis of the present data. First, traditional and abstract art may have aroused different reactions in the viewer (Lindauer, 1 9 7 0 ~ ) . A preference task ("liking") may be inappropriate for abstractions, which are more likely to be judged in cognitive ("interestingness") rather than affective terms. Second, the dimension of complexity, as in many studies of this variable, was left undefined in the instructions (cf. Dernber & Earl, 1957). Perhaps Ss defined complexity as the number of meaningful scenes, objects, and details-in which traditional art abounds-rather than in response to the diversity of lines, patterns, textures, and colors, in which abstract arc is outstanding. Despite these problems in interpreting the results, the aesthetic quescions raised can at least be further explored experimentally. Two of the crucial variables are a greater specification of stimulus complexity, defined either physically or by judges, and varying the nature of the task, e.g., comparing ratings of interestingness and pleasingness. There are other empirical possibilities to be investigated. These include extending or shortening the number or duration of the earlier exposures; using several contrasting types of art; and most broadly, including personality and socio-economic variables (Roubertoux, Carlier, & Chaguiboff, 1971). These potentialities for further study attest to the technical practicability of using experimental procedures with aesthetic materials. The results of such investigations contribute to quescions related to both psychology and art, thereby furthering the liberalization of experimental aesthetics and the humanizing of experimental psychology (Lindauer, 1973). BERLYNE,D. E.
REFERENCES P~ychobiology and aesthetics. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1971. & SCHWARTZ,R. S. Exploring the teaching of arc values. Jousnal of Aesthetic Education, 1966, 1 , 41-51. CHILD,I. L., & SCHWARTZ, R. S. Exposure to better and poorer art. Journal of Aestheiic Education, 1968, 2, 111-124. D m ~ wW. , N., & EARL, R. W. Analysis of exploratory, manipulatory, and curiosity behaviors. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 9 1-96. DORNIC,S., & KURIC, J. Aesthetic preference and short term memory: serial position effect. Studia Psychologica, 1970, 12, 156-158. DREHER,R. E. The experimental esthetics laboratory at San Francisco State College. Paper read at the APA Convention, New York, 1966. DREHER, R. E. Esthetic responses to paintings: as originals, Kodachrome prints, and black-and-white photographs. Proceedings of 76th Annual Cornention APA, 1968, 3. 451-452. GREGSON, R. A. M. An aesthetic hedonic contrast paradox. Australian Journal of Prychology, 1968, 20, 225-232.
CHILD,I. L.,
164
M. S. LINDAUER
& D.
D. D m T R U F F
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. LINDAUER,M. S. The effects of clues in perceiving the "good figure." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, 30, 588. ( a ) M. S. Physiognomic properties of abstract art and titles. Proceedings 78th LINDAUER, Annual Convention APA, 1970, 5, 493-494. ( b ) LINDAUER,M. S. Psychological aspects of form perception in abstract art. Science D'Art, 1970, 7, 19-24. ( c ) LINDAUER,M. S. Preference for abstract art as a function of complexiry and exposure nme. Proceedings 79th Annual Convention APA, 1971, 6, 409-410. LINDAUER,M. S. Contributions to a humanistic experimental psychology within the context of a liberalized experimental aesthetics. Paper presented at the Vrh International Conference on Experimental Aesthetics, Louvain, Belgium, 1973. MELTON,A. W. Problems of instalhtion in museums of art. Washington, D.C.: Publication of the American Association of Museums, 1935. [See also a summary abridgement in Human Factorr, 1972, 14, 393-403.1 ROUBERTOUX, P., CARLIER, M., & CHAGUIBOFF,J. Preference for non-objective arc: personal and psycho-social determiners. British journal o f Psychology, 1971, 62, 105-110. THIBAUT,J., & ROSS, M. Commitment and experience as decernlinants of assimilation and contrast. jorn.nal of Personaliry and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 322-329. WOHLWILL, J. F. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophydcr, 1968, 4, 307-312. ZAJONC,R. B. Attimdinal effects of more exposure. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Safiplenzen~s,1968, 9, No. 2, Parc 2, 1-32. ZAJONC, R. B., SWAP,W. C., HARRISON, A. A,, 9( ROBERTS, P. Limiting conditions of the ex sure effect: satiation and relativity. Journal of Personality and Social psychogggy, 1971, 18, 384-391.
Accepted November 5, 1974.
Skills, 1975,40,
155-164. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1975
CONTRAST EFFECTS IN THE RESPONSE T O ART1 MARTIN S. LINDAUER State Univezsiiy of New YorR, College at Brockport
AND
DIANE D. DmTRUFF University of Kdnras
Summary.-Slides of traditional and abstract paintings were rated for either preference or complexity by 120 Ss following their earlier exposure to a contrasting series of slides of another type of art. Traditional art was liked more when it followed abstract art than when it was viewed after its own type of art. Abstract art, on the other hand, was liked less when it followed traditional art than when it followed the same type of art. Complexity judgments for both types of art, compared to their ratings withour an earlier contrasting series, increased after seeing another type of art, although traditional art increased more than abstract art did. These findings were related to several theoretical approaches to cognition, general psychology, aesthetics, and the practical problems of art education. The research also illustrates that the humanistic content of experimental psychology can be broadened by including aesthetics and that experimental aesthetics can be liberalized by using slides showing real art.
An individual's response to art is dependent upon several factors. These include the type of art, the circumstances under which it is viewed, the characteristics of the observer, including his personality and background, and the social milieu. Some of these factors, like motives and values, are deeply rooted in the individual, and little can be done to modify or change them. One can, at most, note their presence or absence under different aesthetic conditions, i.e., as in correlational studies. Ocher factors that influence the response to art are more transient and immediate in nature. These include events that take place in the viewing circumstances themselves. These, unlike personal variables, can be modified or changed so as to affect the response to art. Events which are contemporaneous with the perception, evaluation, and judgment of a work of art are therefore manipulable and controllable. Hence, they should be of interest to the art educator in his attempts to train or guide. Further, external conditions present during the observation of art lend themselves to experimental study. Research variables which refer to the immediate viewing circumstances of the aesthetic experience include looking behavior (Lindauer, 1971; Wohlwill, 1968), repetition or familiarity (Zajonc, 1968; Zajonc, Swap, Harrison, & Roberts, 1971, p. 3 8 4 ) , and the information made available to Ss (Child & Schwartz, 1966, 1968; Lindauer, 1970a; Thibaut & Ross, 1969). Of direct interest to the present paper are the temporal relations which can affect the response to art. Thus, Gregson (1968) found a recency effect: art 'A summary of this study was presented at the Vth International Colloquium on Experimental Aesthetics. Louvilin. Belgium. 1773. Requests for reprints should be sent to Martin S. Lindauer, State University College at Brockport, Brockport, New York 14420.
156
M. S. LINDAUER & D. D. DINTRUFF
presented at the end of a series of several sets of representarional arc, in contrast to its position at an earlier point in the sequence, was liked more. Similarly, Dornic and Kuric (1970) found a serial position effect in a set of representational art: a painting in the middle of the series was liked less than when located at either the beginning or end of the series. Ferguson (1972) found that evaluations of representational art at the end of a series were either over- or under-evaluated depending upon whether the earlier paintings increased or decreased, respecrively, in their good-bad qualities. However, the three studies relevant to the effects of immediate past experiences on the aesthetic response reviewed above have several limitations which restrict their generalizability to the role of cemporal relations in the response to art. Firstly, they relied solely on representational art, whose meaningfulness and familiarity may be a confounding factor in the results. Preference may be a function of the content of a work of art rather than the temporal factors postulated. It would, therefore, be valuable to include abstract art in temporal studies of aesthetics, since this type of art is more likely to arouse a response to pure forms and colors than to specific subject matter. Another limitation of these studies is that only preference measures were obtained. The more cognitive reactions to art are therefore overlooked, such as judgments of its complexity. The present investigation examined the effects of an earlier series of art experiences, either representational or abstract art, on subsequent evaluations and judgments of contrasting art, either abstract or representational, respectively. It was hypothesized that these earlier experiences would affect subsequent responses to contrasting art, although no specific predictions on the direction of chis effect were made.
METHOD Ss were 120 volunteers from an undergraduate general psychology class. They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: the task was either one of preference or complexity; and the initial series of exposures was to either a set of representarional (traditional) or non-representational (abstract) art. In each of the four conditions, the sexes were equally divided. The paintings were presented on 35-mm. color slides selected from the college's art library and professionally reproduced. Each was projected consecutively in a dim room for 30 sec. each, to small groups of 10 Ss, seated close to a filled 4- X 5-ft. screen. The slides of the paintings were rated for either preference or complexity during the exposure period on a 7-point scale ( 7 = high preference or complexity, 4 = neutral). There were 24 paintings, divided equally between abstract and traditional examples. Nine of each type were fillers, presented first to establish a set for either abstract or traditional art. Three additional examples of each type were either the control or experimental set of stimuli, depending upon whether they were exposed after a similar or contrasting filler series, respectively. The nine
CONTRAST EFFECTS IN RESPONSE TO ART
157
abstract fillers were equally divided among the works of three contemporary American artists, Davis, DeKooning, and Pollock and had been used in previous studies (Lindauer, 1 9 7 0 ~ ) . Three control-experimental abstract stimuli were by Kandinsky, Klee, and Mondrian. The nine traditional fillers were divided equally among the works of Delacroix, DaVinci, and Rembrandt; three controlexperimental traditional paintings were by Rubens, Bronzino, and Ruisdael. The traditional art examples fell into the categories of portraits, landscapes, and historical scenes. Although matched fairly closely in content, the works could not be as closely matched by time period and country of origin. Thus the traditional fillers were Dutch, Italian, and French works of the 16th, 17th, and 19th cenruries, while their experimental counterparts were Dutch, Italian and Flemish works of the 16th and 17th c e n t ~ r i e s . ~ Ss were not told about the type or content of the slides, which artists were represented, or that there would be a contrasting work exposed at the end of the series. They were instructed on the general procedure of rating the art for either "liking" or "complexity" (neither of which was further defined), and the use of a 7-point rating scale. At the end of the study, Ss completed a questionnaire, using a 7-point rating scale again, to indicate the degree to which they liked the paintings shown, their liking for art in general, and their background and training in art. The procedure first exposed Ss to a set of nine fillers, made up of either abstract or uaditional slides. This was followed by an experimental stimulus, either a traditional or abstract type of art, depending upon the kind of fillers used. The control stimulus was shown between the nine fillers and the single experimental stimulus. It was similar in type to the fillers, and as far as Ss were concerned, it was another filler. This control stimulus would be the experimental stimulus in another condition for a different group of Ss. The rating of this non-contrasting control stimulus was compated with its rating when placed in a contrasting experimental condition. For example, when a traditional example of art was seen last, Ss had initially seen 10 absuact stimuli: the nine fillers by Davis, DeKooning, and Pollock, followed by an additional stirnulus (the control) from Kandinsky, Klee, or Mondrian. One of these control stimuli would be an experimental stimulus when traditional art was viewed first. The procedure is outlined in Table 1. There was a small unavoidable difference in the position of the stimulus as a control or as an experimental stimulus ( 10th vs l l t h , respectively), but this was not thought to be serious. The nine filler T h e nine filler abstract art stimuli by Davis, DeKooning, and Pollock are listed in Lindauer (1970b, p. 473, footnote 1 ) . The three experimental abstract stimuli were Kandinskv's One Center. Klee's Cafiice in Pebruarr. and Mondrian's Blue and Yellow. The nine-filler traditional art samples were as follows: DaVinci, Madonna St. Anne, Selfportrait, and Bacchus; Delaccoix, Liberty Leading the People, Self-portrait, and View of Tangiers; and Rembrandt, Pilate Washing Hir Hands, Artist's Mother, and Landscape with Obelisk. The three traditional ex erirnenral stimuli were Brontino's Por~sait of Medici P ~ i n c e Rubens' ~~, Fa11 of the ~ n g e Eand , Ruisdael's A Waterfall on o Rockr bndrcapa.
M. S. LINDAUER & D. D. DlNTRUFF
TABLE 1 SHQUENC6 OF STIMULUS CONDITIONS IN PREFERENCE AND COMPLEXITY RATING TASKS
Sequence Fillers Positions 1-9
Stimulus Conditions Control Position 10
Abstract art (11) Abstract arc ( 1 ) " Traditional art ( I ) ' Traditional art (11) " "Nine paintings by Davis, DeKooning, and Pollock. of three paintings by Kandinsky, Klee, or Mondrian. 'Nine paintings by DaVinci, Delacroix, and Rembrandt. "One of rhree paintings by Bronzino, Rubens, or Ruisdael. A
B
Experimental Position I I Traditional art ( I J ) d Abstract art (11)
stimuli, whether traditional or abstract, were presented in the same order to all Ss. I n summary, the order of events, in both the preference and complexity tasks, was as follows: nine fillers (either traditional or abstract), one control stimulus of the same type as the fillers, and one experimental stimulus of a contrasting type ( either abstract or traditional, respectively ) . This procedure required 12 groups of Ss (two tasks, two types of art, and three examples of each type).
RESULTS Preference Preference ratings for the three experimental stimuli representing abstract and traditional art were affected by the contrast (Fig. 1). In the control (or noncontrasting) condition, when the slides were viewed after a series of the same type of art, preferences for traditional and abstract art did not differ from one another (M = 4.33 vs 4.77, respeccively, indicating a moderate degree of liking for both types, t = 0.89, p > .05). However, when the same art was seen in the experimental condition, following a contrasting series of anocher type of arc, the ratings for the traditional and abstract art types did differ from one another-and in directions contrary to their initial evaluations. Thus traditional art was liked more in the experimental condition than in the control condition ( M = 5.70 vs 4.33, respectively), and abstract arc was liked less ( M = 4.17 vs 4.77, respectively). The difference between the values of the two types of art in the experimental condition was significant ( t = 3.23, 1, < .01).3 Thus the 3A conditions X type-of-art interaction could not be directly obtained by an analysis of variance technique, since Ss and conditions were confounded: control Ss used for one type of art were experimental Ss for the other type of art. This procedure reduced the number of Ss required in the smdy by half. The resulting disadvantage was that it did necessitate separate analysis for each type of art for each condition, and hence did not permit a direct test of the interaction across art types. Nevertheless, the two sets of t tests, between the two rypes of art at the control and at the experimental conditions, did show that differences in the former condition were non-significant while they were significant in the latter condition. While this analysis is perhaps less elegant than a directly obtained factorial interaction, it does essentially reflect the presence of an interaction.
CONTRAST EFFECTS IN RESPONSE TO ART
---
TRADITIONAL ART
ABSTRACT ART
6.00
-
5.50
-
COMPLEXITY
PREFERENCE
U)
5.00-
E 2 Z 4
4.50
W
4.00
5
3.50
-
-
/
-\
/*
*.-%
b
) / 0
-0
/
. , S
M4
// I
I
I
I
CONTROL
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTROL
EXPERIMENTAL
CONDITIONS FIG. 1. Mean preference and complexicy ratings for traditional and abstract art under control (non-contrasting) and experimental (contrasting) conditions
effect of the experimental treatment of contrast, whether it increased or decreased preferences, depended on the type of art viewed. This interaction was also apparent in examining the difference between the control and experimental values for each type of art considered separately. Ratings of abstract art did not significantly change between control and experimental conditions ( F = 1.86, p > .05), while ratings of traditional art increased significantly ( F = 4.74, p < .05). There were other differences in the response to the two types of art, but these were independent of the contrast manipulation. In the experimental condition, preferences for the three examples of abstract art did not differ from one another ( F = 1.57, p > .05), although examples of traditional art did ( P = 5.60, p < .01)? However, these preferences did not vary over the control and experimental conditions, as indicated by the absence of an examples X conditions interaction ( F < 1.00). Nor did sex differences play a critical role in the contrast effect, as there was no sex X conditions interaction ( F < 1.00). Further, there was no sex difference in the preferential response to abstract art ( F < 1.00), but the sexes did differ in their response to traditional art ( F = 5.52, p < .05) as males liked traditional art more than females did. However, this sex difference varied with the examples used ( F = 3.56, p < .05), as males liked both the Rubens and Ruisdael more than the females did, but the females liked the Bronzino more. 'Individual analysis (according to Duncan's test) indicated that the Ruisdael was liked .05) than the Rubens, while the Bronzino was intermediate in preference. more ( p
.05). The complexity ratings for the three paincings in the experimental condition, for both the abstract and traditional examples; significantly differed from one another (F ' .5.47, P < .01), but these differences did not vary over the control and experimental conditions ( F < 1.00) .5 O t h e ~Analyses Three questions were asked at the end of the study regarding ( 1 ) Ss' liking for the paintings seen; ( 2 ) their liking for art generally; and ( 3 ) the extent of their background in art. With respect to Question 1, Ss who saw mainly traditional art, i.e., nine fillers and one control out of 11 stimuli, liked these examples more than chose who saw mainly abstract arc ( M = 4.50 vs 4.00, respectively; F = 5.75, # < .05). However, despite this over-all feeling, preference ratings for the nine abstract and nine traditional fillers (unlike their experimental counterparts) did not significantly differ from one another ( M = 3.86 vs 4.25, respectively; F = 3.25, p > .05). Further, in reply to Question 2, Ss who saw mostly traditional or abstract art did not differ in their liking for art in general (F 1.00), although females indicated a higher preference for art than males (M = 5.36 vs 4.83, respectively; F = 5.07, p < .05). Nevertheless, this sex difference in preference for art in general did not vary across the two rating tasks ( F < 1.00). In response to Question 3, Ss who parcicipated in the two tasks, although assigned randomly, did differ in their background and experience with art ( M = 3.42 vs 2.88, respectively), which although rather low in absolute terms in both groups (the preference group was higher), was significant ( F = 5.32, p < .05). However, this difference in background did not affect the ratings for either type of art ( F = 2.47, p > .05), nor did it vary with sex (F < 1.00). The response to filler and control art did differ somewhat, even though they were of the same general type. here was a significant difference between filler and control ratings in seven of 12 instances ( t 1 3.06, p < .01), most
.05). Although the control stimuli unavoidably differed from the filler material and from each other in most cases, the design of the study. -prevented this from detracting from the main contrast results. The stimuli were counterbalanced across tasks, conditions, and sex. Further, the examples of art used did not interact with any other variable (except for their interaction with sex on the preference racings for traditional art noted earlier). Affirming the basic finding of a contrast effect for the difference between the ratings of paintings under control and experimental conditions, the two sets of Ss' ratings combined for 120 scores over the two conditions, irrespective of task or type of art, were not correlated ( r = ,169, # > .05 ) .
DISCUSSION Prior exposure to one type of art influenced Ss' subsequent response to a contrasting type of art, whether the response was preference or complexity ratings. Slides of traditional art were liked more when seen after abstract arr then when they were presented after a series of other traditional art examples. Conversely, abstract art slides were liked less when seen after a sequence of traditional art than when they were viewed after other abstracc examples. Both types of art were also judged more complex when they followed a contrasting set of paintings than when seen without this juxtaposition, and traditional art was judged to be even more complex than abstract art. These effects were consistently found for both sexes. They were also consistently found across the three examples of abstract art by Kandinsky, Klee, and Mondrian and the three examples of traditional art by Bronzino, Rubens, and Ruisdael. These contrast effects are even more dramatic when it is considered that preference for noncontrascing traditional and abstract art (when used as filler examples, or as controls without any contrasts) did not differ from one another. Abstract and traditional art in the control condition did not differ in their complexity, although abstract art fillers were judged more complex than traditional art fillers, a relationship that was just the opposite of the experimental findings. It seems that sheer exposure co art, without guidance or instructions, as is commonly the
162
M.S. LINDAUER & D.D.DINTRUFF
situation for most museum visitors, can substantially alter one's subsequent response to art, at least over a short time period, and especially for preferential evaluations. This contrast effect, although probably not unexpected on the basis of traditional experimental findings for the role of temporal factors in learning and perception, has not previously been demonstrated in art. In addition to contributing to our general understanding of the temporal circumstances that influence aestheric responses, the study also illustrates the usefulness of aesthetic materials to several areas of general experimental psychology (Lindauer, 1973), e.g., not only perception (first impressions), but attention (set, expectancy, surprise, novelty) and learning (transfer of training, recency effects, incidental learning, and warm-up). The study is also of practical interest to art educators. The sequence with which we view art, as we move from room to room in a museum, or as we look from painting to painting in different areas of the room, probably affects our preferences and judgments. Although museum curators have most likely developed an intuition about such contrast effects, there are few systematic smdies on this question; an early but still rare exception is that of Melton (1935). Some doubt may be raised about the relevance of a response to slides to real art (Dreher, 1966, 1968). The response to full-sized reproductions (or originals) may be "more truly" aestheric. However, the contrast effects found in this study, while perhaps reduced in absolute value when used for slides, black and white photos, mounted color prints, and orher forms of aesthetic presentation, should probably hold within each type of presentation. However, this remains an empirical question to be assessed. The results can be most generally described in terms of the cognitive effects of exposure (Thibaut & Ross, 1969). An early sequence of experiences provides information which increasingly reduces Ss' uncertainty, confusion, mbiguity, and the competition of responses, and instead, arouses certain expectations and focuses attention. However, as a consequence of this perceptual narrowing, there is less openness to new experiences and a reduced possibiliry for accepting subsequent information. Thus, when a different type of art was presented at the end of a sequence of another type, there was a discongruity with the established set. Following Helson's (1964) adaptation level theory, the new stimulus was over-reacted to, as the response to it moved away rather than toward the established anchoring point. Berlyne's (1971) collative variables of surprise and novelty can also be broadly used to interpret these results, i.e., the contrasting stimulus acted to arouse either a pleasant or unpleasant level of tension, depending on the previous existing level of excitation-inhibition. However, a general cognitive framework does not account for the opposite directions in which contrast affected the preference values of abstract and traditional art: the latter increased and the former decreased in liking. Nor does
CONTRAST EFFECTS IN RESPONSE TO ART
163
this cognitive interpretation completely account for the complexity judgments, in which traditional art increased significantly more than abstract art did. Several factors may have contributed to these interactions, although their specific role cannot be determined on the basis of the present data. First, traditional and abstract art may have aroused different reactions in the viewer (Lindauer, 1 9 7 0 ~ ) . A preference task ("liking") may be inappropriate for abstractions, which are more likely to be judged in cognitive ("interestingness") rather than affective terms. Second, the dimension of complexity, as in many studies of this variable, was left undefined in the instructions (cf. Dernber & Earl, 1957). Perhaps Ss defined complexity as the number of meaningful scenes, objects, and details-in which traditional art abounds-rather than in response to the diversity of lines, patterns, textures, and colors, in which abstract arc is outstanding. Despite these problems in interpreting the results, the aesthetic quescions raised can at least be further explored experimentally. Two of the crucial variables are a greater specification of stimulus complexity, defined either physically or by judges, and varying the nature of the task, e.g., comparing ratings of interestingness and pleasingness. There are other empirical possibilities to be investigated. These include extending or shortening the number or duration of the earlier exposures; using several contrasting types of art; and most broadly, including personality and socio-economic variables (Roubertoux, Carlier, & Chaguiboff, 1971). These potentialities for further study attest to the technical practicability of using experimental procedures with aesthetic materials. The results of such investigations contribute to quescions related to both psychology and art, thereby furthering the liberalization of experimental aesthetics and the humanizing of experimental psychology (Lindauer, 1973). BERLYNE,D. E.
REFERENCES P~ychobiology and aesthetics. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1971. & SCHWARTZ,R. S. Exploring the teaching of arc values. Jousnal of Aesthetic Education, 1966, 1 , 41-51. CHILD,I. L., & SCHWARTZ, R. S. Exposure to better and poorer art. Journal of Aestheiic Education, 1968, 2, 111-124. D m ~ wW. , N., & EARL, R. W. Analysis of exploratory, manipulatory, and curiosity behaviors. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 9 1-96. DORNIC,S., & KURIC, J. Aesthetic preference and short term memory: serial position effect. Studia Psychologica, 1970, 12, 156-158. DREHER,R. E. The experimental esthetics laboratory at San Francisco State College. Paper read at the APA Convention, New York, 1966. DREHER, R. E. Esthetic responses to paintings: as originals, Kodachrome prints, and black-and-white photographs. Proceedings of 76th Annual Cornention APA, 1968, 3. 451-452. GREGSON, R. A. M. An aesthetic hedonic contrast paradox. Australian Journal of Prychology, 1968, 20, 225-232.
CHILD,I. L.,
164
M. S. LINDAUER
& D.
D. D m T R U F F
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. LINDAUER,M. S. The effects of clues in perceiving the "good figure." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, 30, 588. ( a ) M. S. Physiognomic properties of abstract art and titles. Proceedings 78th LINDAUER, Annual Convention APA, 1970, 5, 493-494. ( b ) LINDAUER,M. S. Psychological aspects of form perception in abstract art. Science D'Art, 1970, 7, 19-24. ( c ) LINDAUER,M. S. Preference for abstract art as a function of complexiry and exposure nme. Proceedings 79th Annual Convention APA, 1971, 6, 409-410. LINDAUER,M. S. Contributions to a humanistic experimental psychology within the context of a liberalized experimental aesthetics. Paper presented at the Vrh International Conference on Experimental Aesthetics, Louvain, Belgium, 1973. MELTON,A. W. Problems of instalhtion in museums of art. Washington, D.C.: Publication of the American Association of Museums, 1935. [See also a summary abridgement in Human Factorr, 1972, 14, 393-403.1 ROUBERTOUX, P., CARLIER, M., & CHAGUIBOFF,J. Preference for non-objective arc: personal and psycho-social determiners. British journal o f Psychology, 1971, 62, 105-110. THIBAUT,J., & ROSS, M. Commitment and experience as decernlinants of assimilation and contrast. jorn.nal of Personaliry and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 322-329. WOHLWILL, J. F. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophydcr, 1968, 4, 307-312. ZAJONC,R. B. Attimdinal effects of more exposure. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Safiplenzen~s,1968, 9, No. 2, Parc 2, 1-32. ZAJONC, R. B., SWAP,W. C., HARRISON, A. A,, 9( ROBERTS, P. Limiting conditions of the ex sure effect: satiation and relativity. Journal of Personality and Social psychogggy, 1971, 18, 384-391.
Accepted November 5, 1974.
