Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Information Provision Through Online Curating Platform on Appreciating Contemporary Art Among Novices

온라인 큐레이션 플랫폼을 이용한 정보 제공이 현대미술 감상에 미치는 효과

  • Received : 2017.07.26
  • Accepted : 2017.08.31
  • Published : 2017.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Current research aimed to demonstrate a way to enhance the aesthetic experience of the general public while appreciating contemporary art via online platform. Contemporary art is highly complicated and are avoided by the general public. Meanwhile, previous research confirmed that external information can lead to better aesthetic experience and appreciation of the artwork. Therefore, current research hypothesized that provision of explicit information may enhance the appreciation of contemporary artworks and aimed to demonstrate which phase of the cognitive process from Leder et al. (2004) profits from the aid of written information. Experimental environment reproduced online curating platform to reflect the current trend on exhibition. In experiment 1, subjects were presented with written information and reported how well they understood the artwork, and their willingness to visit the artwork in real life. Results revealed that written information had a positive effect on overall appreciation. Further analysis discovered a full mediation between information comprehension, artwork comprehension, and willingness to visit. In experiment 2, ARS questions and an interactive interface were added. Results indicated that information enhanced comprehension and intention to visit the artwork. Expertise, self-reference, and artistic quality which belong to later stages of Leder et al. (2004) model, acquired higher scores on information conditions. In sum, the current research illustrated clear effects of explicit information in inducing better aesthetic experience and cognitive process of contemporary artworks in online environment.

본 연구는 온라인 큐레이션 플랫폼을 이용한 외현적 정보의 제공이 현대미술에 대한 일반대중의 진입장벽을 낮추는 효과를 가지는지 알아보았다. 현대미술은 일반대중이 접근하기 난해한 장르로 여겨져 왔다. 한편, 미술 감상에 대한 연구들은 외현적인 정보의 제공이 미학적 감상 경험에 긍정적인 영향을 줄 수 있음을 밝혔다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 작품에 대한 구체적 정보를 제공하는 것이 현대미술을 감상하는 데에 긍정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있는지 알아보았으며 감상 경험을 심리학적으로 분석한 Leder et al.(2004)의 이론적 모델에 기초하여 외현적 정보가 어떠한 인지적 처리과정을 도와주는지 분석하였다. 더 나아가 최근의 전시 트렌드를 반영하여 온라인 플랫폼 환경을 적용하였다. 실험 1에서는 작품과 설명문이 제공되었고 작품에 대한 이해도, 관람의향을 보고하였다. 실험 결과, 해설이 제시된 조건에서 작품에 대한 이해도가 더 높았다. 또한, 긴 해설이 제시된 조건에서 해설 이해도와 관람의향을 작품이해도가 완전매개하는 매개모형이 나타났다. 실험 2에서는 ARS 설문을 추가하고 온라인 큐레이션의 능동적인 조작 환경을 재현했다. 실험결과, 해설이 제공된 조건들에서 관람의향, 작품이해도가 더 높았다. 예술사적 의미, 자아성찰, 창의성 등 Leder et al.(2004) 모델의 후기 단계에 해당하는 지표들 역시 해설조건에서 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 종합하면, 온라인 큐레이션 환경에서의 정보전달이 일반대중의 현대미술 작품에 대한 인지적 처리와 판단에 도움을 줄 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. London: Univ of California Press.
  2. Belke, B., Leder, H., & Augustin, D. (2006). Mastering style. Effects of explicit style-related information, art knowledge and affective state on appreciation of abstract paintings. Psychology Science, 48(2), 115.
  3. Belke, B., Leder, H., Harsanyi, G., & Carbon, C. C. (2010). When a Picasso is a "Picasso": The entry point in the identification of visual art. Acta Psychologica, 133(2), 191-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.11.007
  4. Belke, B., Leder, H., Strobach, T., & Carbon, C. C. (2010). Cognitive fluency: High-level processing dynamics in art appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(4), 214. DOI: 10.1037/a0019648
  5. Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Cashen, T., & Gardiner, H. (2005). Digital art history: A subject in transition (Vol. 1). Portland: Intellect Books.
  6. Bourriaud, N., Pleasance, S., Woods, F., & Copeland, M. (2002). Relational aesthetics. Dijon: Les pressesdu reel.
  7. Bourriaud, N., Schneider, C., & Herman, J. (2002). Postproduction: culture as screenplay: how art reprograms the world. New York: Lukas & Sternberg.
  8. Bullot, N. J., & Reber, R. (2013). The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(2), 123-137. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X12000489
  9. Cela-Conde, C. J., Marty, G., Munar, E., Nadal, M., & Burges, L. (2002). The "style scheme" grounds perception of paintings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95(1), 91-100. DOI: 10.2466/pms.2002.95.1.91
  10. Cleridou, K., & Furnham, A. (2014). Personality correlates of aesthetic preferences for art, architecture, and music. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 32(2), 231-255. DOI: 10.2190/EM.32.2.f
  11. Cupchik, G. C., & Gebotys, R. J. (1988). The search for meaning in art: Interpretive styles and judgments of quality. Visual Arts Research, 14(2), 38-50.
  12. Cupchik, G. C., & Laszlo, J. (1992). Emerging Visions of the Aesthetic Process: In Psychology, Semiology, and Philosophy. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Cupchik, G. C., Shereck, L., & Spiegel, S. (1994). The effects of textual information on artistic communication. Visual Arts Research, 20(1), 62-78.
  14. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
  15. 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. DOI: 10.2190/Y7CA-TBY6-V7LR-76GK
  16. Foster, H. (2003). Arty Party. London Review of Books, 25(23), 21-22.
  17. Franklin, M. B. (1988). "Museum of the Mind": An Inquiry Into the Titling of Artworks. Metaphor and Symbol, 3(1), 157-174. DOI: 10.1207/s15327868ms0303_4
  18. Franklin, M. B., Becklen, R. C., & Doyle, C. L. (1993). The influence of titles on how paintings are seen. Leonardo, 26(2), 103-108. DOI: 10.2307/1575894
  19. Fried, M. (2003). Art and objecthood. Auslander Prformance, 165-87.
  20. Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001). Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 57-72. DOI: 10.1002/per.340
  21. Gartus, A., & Leder, H. (2014). The white cube of the museum versus the gray cube of the street: The role of context in aesthetic evaluations. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 311. DOI: 10.1037/a0036847
  22. Gilmore, J. (2013). Normative and scientific approaches to the understanding and evaluation of art. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(2), 144-145. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X12001641
  23. Hager, M., Hagemann, D., Danner, D., & Schankin, A. (2012). Assessing aesthetic appreciation of visual artworks-The construction of the Art Reception Survey (ARS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 320. DOI: 10.1037/a0028776
  24. Hartley, J., & Homa, D. (1981). Abstraction of stylistic concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(1), 33. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.7.1.33
  25. Hekkert, P., & van Wieringen, P. C. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta psychologica, 94(2), 117-131. DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(95)00055-0
  26. Hodge, S. (2012). Why your five year old could not have done that: Modern art explained. UK: Thames & Hudson.
  27. Jakesch, M., & Leder, H. (2009). Finding meaning in art: Preferred levels of ambiguity in art appreciation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(11), 2105-2112. DOI: 10.1080/17470210903038974
  28. Jucker, J. L., & Barrett, J. L. (2011). Cognitive constraints on the visual arts: an empirical study of the role of perceived intentions in appreciation judgements. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11(1), 115-136. DOI: 10.1163/156853711X568716
  29. Jucker, J. L., Barrett, J. L., & Wlodarski, R. (2014). “I Just Don'T Get it”: Perceived Artists' Intentions Affect Art Evaluations. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 32(2), 149-182. DOI: 10.2190/EM.32.2.c
  30. Koo, B. (2009). The appreciation and experience of digital images-Critical review of use of digital images in museum environment. Art Education Review, 34, 1-29.
  31. Krauss, R. (2009). The Guarantee of the Medium, In Tiina Arpee (Ed), Writing in Context: French Literature, Theory and The Avant-Gardes (pp. 139-145). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
  32. Krauss, R. E. (1999). Reinventing the medium. Critical Inquiry, 25(2), 289-305. DOI: 10.1086/448921
  33. Lauring, J. O., Pelowski, M., Forster, M., Gondan, M., Ptito, M., & Kupers, R. (2016). Well, if they like it... Effects of social groups' ratings and price information on the appreciation of art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(3), 344. DOI: 10.1037/aca0000063
  34. Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489-508. DOI: 10.1348/0007126042369811
  35. Leder, H., Carbon, C. C., & Ripsas, A. L. (2006). Entitlin g art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121(2), 176-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.08.005
  36. Lester, P. (2006). Is the virtual exhibition the natural successor to the physical? Journal of the Society of Archivists, 27(1), 85-101. DOI: 10.1080/00039810600691304
  37. Levinson, J. (1985). Titles. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 44(1), 29-39. DOI: 10.2307/430537
  38. Locher, P., Overbeeke, K., & Wensveen, S. (2010). Aesthetic interaction: A framework. Design Issues, 26(2), 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00017
  39. Maffei, L., & Fiorentini, A. (1995). Arte e Cervello.[Art and Brain]. Bologna: Zanichelli.
  40. Martindale, C. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5(1), 49-80.
  41. Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypica lity, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psycho logy: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 661. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.14.4.661
  42. Maslow, A. H. (1937). The influence of familiarization on preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21(2), 162. DOI: 10.1037/h0053692
  43. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258
  44. Millis, K. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: the influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1(3), 320. DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.320
  45. Neperud, R. W. (1986). The relationship of art training and sex differences to aesthetic valuing. Visual Arts Research, 12(2), 1-9.
  46. Parsons, M. J. (1987). How we understand art: A cognitive developmental account of aesthetic experience. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  47. 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(4), 364-382. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
  48. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45-48. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00008
  49. Roseman, I., & Evdokas, A. (2004). Appraisals cause experienced emotions: Experimental evidence. Cognition and Emotion, 18(1), 1-28. DOI: 10.1080/02699930244000390
  50. Russell, P. A. (2003). Effort after meaning and the hedoni c value of paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 99-110. DOI: 10.1348/000712603762842138
  51. Russell, P. A., & Milne, S. (1997). Meaningfulness and hedonic value of paintings: Effects of titles. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15(1), 61-73. DOI: 10.2190/EHT3-HWVM-52CB-8QHJ
  52. Schimmel, K., & Forster, J. (2008). How temporal distance changes novices' attitudes towards unconventional arts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(1), 53. DOI: 10.1037/1931-3896.2.1.53
  53. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513-523. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513
  54. Silvia, P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5(1), 89. DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.89
  55. Silvia, P. J. (2012). Human emotions and aesthetic experience: An overview of empirical aesthetics. In A. P. Shimamura & S. E. Palmer (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 250-275). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  56. Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2001). Spending time on art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19(2), 229-236. DOI: 10.2190/5MQM-59JH-X21R-JN5J
  57. Smith, L. F., Bousquet, S. G., Chang, G., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Effects of time and information on percep tion of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24(2), 229-242. DOI: 10.2190/DJM0-QBDW-03V7-BLRM
  58. Smith, L. F., Smith, J. K., & Tinio, P. P. (2017). Time spent viewing art and reading labels. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 77. DOI: 10.1037/aca0000049
  59. Specht, S. M. (2010). Artists' statements can influence perceptions of artwork. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 193-206. DOI: 10.2190/EM.28.2.e
  60. Swami, V. (2013). Context matters: Investigating the impact of contextual information on aesthetic appreciation of paintings by Max Ernst and Pablo Picasso. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 285. DOI: 10.1037/a0030965
  61. Temme, J. E. V. (1992). Amount and kind of information in museums: Its effects on visitors satisfaction and appreciation of art. Visual Arts Research, 28-36.
  62. Viralingam, N., & Ramaiah, C. (2008). Comparative study of HTML and animated user interfaces of an online exhibition. Journal of Library and Information Technology, 28(4), 43-54.
  63. Wang, N., & Shen, X. (2013). The research on interactive exhibition technology of digital museum resources. Green Computing and Communications (GreenCo m), 2013 IEEE and Internet of Things (iThings/CPS Com), IEEE International Conference on and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing. IEEE, 2013 (pp. 2070-2070). DOI: 10.1109/GreenCom-iThings-CPSCom.2013.387
  64. Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989
  65. Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18(2), 1-14.
  66. Yenawine, P. (1991). How to look at modern art. New York: HN Abrams.
  67. Yoon, Y., & Lee, S. (2016). Does the preference for emotional paintings depends on personality? Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 19(3), 15-26. DOI: 10.14695/KJSOS.2016.19.3.15
  68. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1. DOI: 10.1037/h0025848
  69. Zorich, D. (2015). Report of the summit on digital curation in art museums. Johns Hopkins University, October.(http://advanced.jhu.edu/academics/certific ate-programs/digital-curation-certificate/program-resources/)
  70. Zuckerman, M., Ulrich, R. S., & McLaughlin, J. (1993). Sensation seeking and reactions to nature paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 563-576. DOI: 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90340-9