Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:26:48.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

33 - Creativity and Aesthetics

from Manifestations of Creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2019

By
Pablo P. L. Tinio
Edited by
James C. Kaufman  and
Robert J. Sternberg
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of the psychology of art and aesthetics, especially as it relates to the psychology of creativity. Borrowing from Rhodes’ (1961) conceptualization of creativity, the four main aspects of the aesthetic experience of art are examined: process, product, person, and press. Process refers to the perceptual and cognitive processes involved in the experience of art. These processes progress from early, automatic processing of basic visual features (e.g., contrast and symmetry) and identification of depicted objects to more complex responses involving meaning-making and aesthetic judgments of an artwork. The product is the artwork that has resulted from the creative process, which then becomes the object of attention during an aesthetic encounter. The person is the art perceiver whose art-related knowledge and experiences as well as personality characteristics affect his or her aesthetic experience of art. Finally, press refers to the influence of the context (e.g., museum vs. laboratory) in which an artwork is viewed. Research findings relevant to each of these aspects of the aesthetic experience are discussed.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity , pp. 691 - 708
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnheim, R. (1982). The power of the center: A study of composition in the visual arts. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bar, M. & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17, 645–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brieber, D., Nadal, M., & Leder, H. (2015). In the white cube: Museum context enhances the valuation and memory of art. Acta Psychologica, 154, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brieber, D., Nadal, M., Leder, H., & Rosenberg, R. (2014). Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLoS One, 9, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardenas, R. A. & Harris, L. J. (2006). Symmetrical decorations enhance the attractiveness of faces and abstract designs. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, P. & Graham, W. (1971). Art and ideas: An approach to art appreciation. London: Mills and Boon.Google Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Burke, C., Hsu, A., & Swami, V. (2010). Personality predictors of artistic preferences as a function of the emotional valence and perceived complexity of paintings. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Reimers, S., Hsu, A., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Who art thou? Personality predictors of artistic preferences in a large UK sample: The importance of openness. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, A. (2004). Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 4, 55–60.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A. (2011). Neuroaesthetics: A coming of age story. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chatterjee, A. & Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 370–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO- PI-R). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Cupchik, G. C. & Gebotys, R. J. (1988). The search for meaning in art: Interpretative styles and judgments of quality. Visual Arts Research, 14, 38–50.Google Scholar
Dazkir, S. S. & Read, M. A. (2012). Furniture forms and their influence on our emotional responses towards interior environments. Environment and Behavior, 44, 722–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik [Primary school of aesthetics]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Feist, G. & Brady, T. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedberg, D. & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 197–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furnham, A. & Avison, M. (1997). Personality and preference for surreal paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 923–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A. F. & Bunyan, M. (1988). Personality and art preferences. European Journal of Personality, 2, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality, intelligence, and art. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 705–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A. & Walker, J. (2001). Personality and judgement of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Puerto, G., Rosselló, J., Corradi, G., Acedo-Carmona, C., Munar, E. & Nadal, M. (2018). Preference for curved contours across cultures. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 432–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekkert, P. & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1996). Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of Psychology, 109, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitler, H. & Kreitler, S. (1972). Psychology of the arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Latto, R., Brain, D., & Kelly, B. (2000). An oblique effect in aesthetics: Homage to Mondrian (1872–1944). Perception, 29, 981–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leder, H., Bär, S., & Topolinski, S. (2012). Covert painting simulations influence aesthetic appreciation of artworks. Psychological Science, 23, 1479–1481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leder, H. & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode – developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leder, H., Tinio, P. P. L., & Bar, M. (2011). Emotional valence modulates the preference for curved objects. Perception, 40, 649–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locher, P. J. (2003). An empirical investigation of the visual rightness theory of picture perception. Acta Psychologica, 114, 147–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locher, P. J. (2010). How does a visual artist create an artwork? In Kaufman, J. & Sternberg, R. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 131–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, P., Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2001). The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings. Perception, 30, 449–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locher, P. J. & Wagemans, J. (1993). Effects of element type and spatial grouping on symmetry detection. Perception, 22, 565–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Massaro, D., Savazzi, F., di Dio, C., Freedberg, D., Gallese, V., Gilli, G., & Marchetti, A. (2012). When art moves the eyes: A behavioral and eye-tracking study. PLoS One, 7, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McManus, I. C., Cheema, B., & Stoker, J. (1993). The aesthetics of composition: A study of Mondrian. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 11, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McManus, I. C. & Furnham, A. (2006). Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes: Influences of education, background and personality on interest and involvement in the arts. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 555–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, G. E. & Bloom, P. (2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 558–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nodine, C. F., Locher, P. J., & Krupinski, E. A. (1993). The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo, 26, 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nusbaum, E. C. & Silvia, P. J. (2014). Unusual aesthetic states. In Tinio, P. P. L. & Smith, J. K. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 519–539). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palumbo, L., Ruta, N., & Bertamini, M. (2015). Comparing angular and curved shapes in terms of implicit associations and approach/avoidance responses. PLoS One, 10, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panga, C. Y., Nadal, M., Müller-Paul, J. S., Rosenberg, R., & Klein, C. (2013). Electrophysiological correlates of looking at paintings and its association with art expertise. Biological Psychology, 93, 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekarik, A. J. & Schreiber, J. B. (2012). The power of expectation. Curator, 55, 487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelowski, M., Forster, M., Tinio, P. P. L., Scholl, M., Leder, H. (2017). Beyond the lab: Framework for examining interactions with art in museums. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelowski, M., Leder, H., & Tinio, P. P. L. (2017). Creativity in the visual arts. In Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Glaveanu, V. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity across different domains (pp. 80–109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S. & Seckel, E. (2014). Neurology of visual aesthetics. Indian nymphs, modern art, and sexy beaks. In Shimamura, A. P. & Palmer, S. E. (eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 375–389). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawlings, D. (2003). Personality correlates of liking for ‘unpleasant’ paintings and photographs. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redies, C. (2007). A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sparse and efficient coding of natural stimuli. Spatial Vision, 21, 97–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.Google Scholar
Silvia, P. J. (2009). Looking past pleasure: Anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 48–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvia, P. J. (2013). Interested experts, confused novices: Art expertise and the knowledge emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 31, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. K. (2014). The museum effect: How museums, libraries, and cultural institutions educate and civilize society. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Smith, J. K. & Smith, L. F. (2001). Spending time on art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19, 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. F. & Smith, J. K. (2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency. In Locher, P., Martindale, C., Dorfman, L., Petrov, V., & Leontiev, D. (eds.). New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the psychology of art (pp. 47–58). Amityville, NY: Baywood.Google Scholar
Smith, L. F., Smith, J. K., & Tinio, P. P. L. (2017). Time spent viewing art and reading labels. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Specker, E., Tinio, P. P. L., & van Elk, M. (2017). Do you see what I see? An investigation of the aesthetic experience in the laboratory and museum. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swami, V. & Furnham, A. (2014). Personality and aesthetic preferences. In Tinio, P. P. L. & Smith, J. K. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 540–561). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. E., Witt, J. K., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Uncovering the connection between artist and audience: viewing painted brushstrokes evokes corresponding action representations in the observer. Cognition, 125, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and parasitic infections in men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinio, P. P. L. (2013). From artistic creation to aesthetic reception: The mirror model of art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinio, P. P. L. (2017). On viewer motivation, unit of analysis, and the VIMAP. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 152–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinio, P. P. L. & Leder, H. (2009). Natural scenes are indeed preferred, but image quality might have the last word. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinio, P. P. L. & Leder, H. (2013). The means to art’s end: Styles, creative devices, and the challenge of art. In Vartanian, O., Bristol, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (eds.), The neuroscience of creativity (pp. 273–298). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinio, P. P. L., Leder, H., & Strasser, M. (2010). Image quality and the aesthetic judgment of photographs: Contrast, sharpness, and grain teased apart and put together. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinio, P. P. L. & Smith, J. K. (2014). Introduction by the editors. In Tinio, P. P. L. & Smith, J. K. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 3–5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vartanian, O. (2014). Empirical aesthetics: Hindsight and foresight. In Tinio, P. P. L. & Smith, J. K. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 6–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., Nadal, M., Rostrup, N., & Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture, PNAS, 110, 10446–10453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winston, A. S. & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 1–14.Google Scholar
Zeki, S. (1999). Inner vision: An exploration of art and the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×