Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art
Forsythe, A., Nadal, M., Sheehy, N., Cela-Conde, C.J., Sawey, M.: Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art. British Journal of Psychology 102(1), 49–70 (2011)
Visual complexity has been known to be a significant predictor of preference for artistic works for some time. The first study reported here examines the extent to which perceived visual complexity in art can be successfully predicted using automated measures of complexity. Contrary to previous findings the most successful predictor of visual complexity was Gif compression. The second study examined the extent to which fractal dimension could account for judgments of perceived beauty. The fractal dimension measure accounts for more of the variance in judgments of perceived beauty in visual art than measures of visual complexity alone, particularly for abstract and natural images. Results also suggest that when colour is removed from an artistic image observers are unable to make meaningful judgments as to its beauty.
Aitken, P. P. (1974). Judgments of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 240–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036787
Aks, D., & Sprott, J. (1996). Quantifying aesthetic preference for chaotic patterns. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 1–16.
Attneave, F., & Arnoult, M. D. (1956). The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 452–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0044049
Barnsley, M. (1993). Fractals everywhere (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Academic Press.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279–286.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Birkhoff, G. D. (1933). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chipman, S. F. (1977). Complexity and structure in visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 269–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-34188.8.131.529
Cupchik, G. C. (1992). From perception to production: A multilevel analysis of the aesthetic process. In G. Cupchik & J. Laszlo (Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process (pp. 83– 99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cutting, J. E., & Garvin, J. J. (1987). Fractal curves and complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 42, 365–370.
Dali, S.. (1940). Face of War (Visage de la Guerre), Museum Boymans-Van Beuningen, Rotterdam.
Donderi, D. (2006a). An information theory analysis of visual complexity and dissimilarity. Perception, 35(6), 823–835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p5249
Donderi, D. (2006b). Visual complexity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 73–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.73
Eysenck, H. J. (1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48, 83–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062483
Eysenck, H. J. (1968). An experimental study of aesthetic preference for polygonal figures. Journal of General Psychology, 79, 3–17.
Eysenck, H. J., & Castle, M. (1970). Training in art as a factor in the determination of preference judgments for polygons. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 65–81.
Feist, G. J, & Brady, T. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(1), 77–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/Y7CA-TBY6-V7LR-76GK
Fleetwood, M. D., & Bryne, M. D. (2006). Modeling the visual search of displays: A revised ACT- R model of icon search based on eye-tracking data. Human Computer Interaction, 21(2), 153–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci2102_168
Forsythe, A., & Mulhern, G., & Sawey, M. (2008). Confounds in pictorial sets: The role of complexity and familiarity in basic-level picture processing. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 116–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.116
Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N., & Sawey, M. (2003). Measuring pictorial image complexity: An automated analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 334–342.
Fromm, E. (1965). The heart of man. Its genius for good and evil. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001). Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and represen- tational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15, 57–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.340
Garcia, M., Badre, A. N, & Stasko, J. T. (1994). Development and validation of pictorial images varying in their abstractness. Interacting with Computers, 6, 191–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0953-5438(94)90024-8
Gilden, D. L., Schmuckler, M. A., & Clayton, K. (1993). The perception of natural contour. Psychological Review, 100, 460–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.460
Gouyet, J. F. (1996). Physics and fractal structures. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hagerhall, C. M., Laike, T., Taylor, R. P., K ̈uller, M., K ̈uller, R., & Martin, T. P. (2008). Investigations of human EEG response to viewing fractal patterns. Perception, 37(10), 1488– 1494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p5918
Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 138–172). Covelo, CA: Island Press.
Heinrich, R. W., & Cupchik, G. C. (1985). Individual difference as predictors of preference in visual art. Journal of Personality, 53(3), 502–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1985.tb00379.x
Hochberg, J. E. (1968). Perception (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hochberg, J. E., & Brooks, V. (1960). The psychophysics of form: Reversible perspective drawings of spatial objects. American Journal of Psychology, 73, 337–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1420172
Hogeboom, M., & Van Leeuwen, C. (1997). Visual search strategy and perceptual organisation covary with individual preference and structural complexity. Acta Psychologica, 95, 141–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(96)00049-2
Jacobsen, T., & H ̈ofel, L. (2003). Descriptive and evaluative judgement processes: Behavioural and electrophysical indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics. Cognitive Affective and Behavioural Neuroscience, 3(4), 289–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/CABN.3.4.289
Joye, Y. (2005). Evolutionary and cognitive motivations for fractal art in art and design education. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 24(2), 175–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2005.00438.x
Joye, Y. (2006). Some reflections on the relevance of fractals for art therapy. Arts in Psychotherapy, 33, 143–147. doi:10.1016/j.aip.2005.11.001
Kaplan, S. (1995). Review of the biophilia hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 27, 801–804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276004
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1989). The visual environment: Public participation in design and planning. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 59–86.
Krupinski, E., & Locher, P. (1988). Skin conductance and aesthetic evaluative responses to non representational works of art varying in symmetry. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 355–358.
Lempel, A., & Ziv, J. (1976). On the complexity of finite sequences. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 22, 75–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1976.1055501
Maffei, L., & Fiorentini, A. (1995). Arte e Cervello [Art and Brain]. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Mandelbrot, B. B. (1977). The fractal geometry of nature. New York: Freeman.
Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661–670.
Martindale, C., & Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 53–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1423259