When creating an artwork, the artist makes a decision regarding the orientation at which
the work is to be hung based on their aesthetic judgement and the message conveyed by the
piece. Is the impact or aesthetic appeal of a work diminished when it is hung at an
incorrect orientation? To investigate this question, Experiment 1 asked whether naïve
observers can appreciate the correct orientation (as defined by the artist) of 40 modern
artworks, some of which are entirely abstract. Eighteen participants were shown 40
paintings in a series of trials. Each trial presented all four cardinal orientations on a
computer screen, and the participant was asked to select the orientation that was most
attractive or meaningful. Results showed that the correct orientation was selected in 48%
of trials on average, significantly above the 25% chance level, but well below perfect
performance. A second experiment investigated the extent to which the 40 paintings
contained recognisable content, which may have mediated orientation judgements.
Recognition rates varied from 0% for seven of the paintings to 100% for five paintings.
Orientation judgements in Experiment 1 correlated significantly with “meaningful” content
judgements in Experiment 2: 42% of the variance in orientation judgements in Experiment 1
was shared with recognition of meaningful content in Experiment 2. For the seven paintings
in which no meaningful content at all was detected, 41% of the variance in orientation
judgements was shared with variance in a physical measure of image content, Fourier
amplitude spectrum slope. For some paintings, orientation judgements were quite
consistent, despite a lack of meaningful content. The origin of these orientation
judgements remains to be identified.
GerhardusMGerhardusD,
1979Cubism to Futurism: The Evolution of the Self-Sufficient Picture
(Oxford: Phaidon)
◂
2.
GibsonA
E, 1997Abstract Expressionism: Other Politics
(London: Yale University
Press) ◂
3.
GrahamDFieldD,
2008“Variations in intensity statistics for representational and abstract art,
and for art from the Eastern and Western hemispheres”Perception371341–1352 doi:10.1068/p5971 ◂
4.
HunterS,
1997The Museum of Modern Art, New York: The History and the Collection
(New York, NY: Abrams)
◂
5.
JamiesonA,
2008“Rothko hung ‘wrong way round’ in exhibition”Daily Telegraph 9 November ◂
6.
JohnsonM GMudayJ ASchirilloJ
A, 2010“When viewing variations in paintings by Mondrian aesthetic preferences
correlate with pupil size”Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts4161–167 doi:10.1037/a0018155 ◂
7.
LattoRBrainDKellyB,
2000“An oblique effect in aesthetics: Homage to Mondrian
(1872–1944)”Perception29981–987 doi:10.1068/p2352 ◂
8.
LindauerM
S, 1969“The orientation of form in abstract art”Proceedings of the American Psychological Association4475–476
9.
PlumhoffJSchirilloJ
A, 2009“Mondrian, eye movements, and the oblique effect”Perception38719–731 doi:10.1068/p6160 ◂
10.
RediesC,
2007“A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of
natural stimuli”Spatial Vision2197–117 doi:10.1163/156856807782753886 ◂
11.
RediesCHasensteinJDenzlerJ,
2007“Fractal-like image statistics in visual art: Similarity to natural
scenes”Spatial Vision21137–148 doi:10.1163/156856807782753921 ◂
12.
SwartzPHewittD,
1970“Lateral organization in pictures and aesthetic preference”Perceptual and Motor Skills30991–1007 doi:10.2466/pms.1970.30.3.991 ◂
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
