Talk:Psychology of art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Urban studies and planning (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Sounds like a good beginning, but is there a way to categorize the different approaches?Wolfensberger 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for organizing this a bit. Looks goodBrosi 23:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

van Gogh?[edit]

I like the van Gogh, but donl;t know why it is there apart from the fact that he was a messed up character. More appropriate would be an art work by someone who atcually claimed to be using psychologyBrosi 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC), like Gabo or Kandinsky.

Also possibly Salvador Dali (Sigmund Freud) and Pollock (C.G. Jung). Scribblesinmindscapes 21:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

This article does not take into account the so called "experimental aesthetics". It does not mention the efforts of Gustav Theodor Fechner, one of the first empirisists in psychology, to introduce both the experimental method and aesthetics in psychology.

In addition, while it does take into account environmental psychology etc. it does not mention the effects of Berlyne's theory in experimental aesthetics today. Areas, such as clinical psychology, product design, marketing, environmental psychology, biological psychology etc. were greatly affected via Berlyne's theory. He himself preffered to call the area exprimental aesthetics rather than psychology of art.

Could I be wrong? I never come accross the term psychology of art before.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


In order not to just complain without contributing, here my reading list:, and (albeit in German) gives you an idea about the significance of arts psychology. -- (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Symmetry and balance[edit]

Posting some ideas about articles on compositional balance first...this article doesn't directly relate to art, but does relate to spatial composition when viewing objects. Sammartino, J., & Palmer, S. E. (2012). Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of vertical position and perspective on framing single objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 865-879. doi: 10.1037/a0027736 Alex Wyse (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding some recent psychology research[edit]

My seminar Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Cognition_and_the_Arts_(Greta_Munger) will be adding some recent psychology research about art appreciation, under a new section tentatively titled Psychology insights with sub areas including bottom-up and top-down influences on art appreciation. We'll post more details soon. Greta Munger (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OA Feedback[edit]

The section Psychology_of_art#Measuring_Complexity needs some work. "Complexity is a subjective matter, but different psychologists have defined it in different ways nonetheless" should be reworded. The section on GIF compression is awful, partly because the source, Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art, doesn't properly define the "GIF compression" to which it refers. It also erroneously states that "Gif compression works better on pictures with limited colorization (<245)" The GIF palette handles up to 256 (2^8) colors per frame. It also erroneously states that "Gif compression can only reduce a file size to about half of its original size." The term "GIF compression", as used in this paper needs to be better defined. Lossy Image compression for GIFs can take many forms...the schemes used should be specified. What the paper is trying to convey is that certain aspects of the GIF compression scheme correlate with human ratings of complexity in art.

Also, please upload a higher resolution version of File:Inverted u.png.

When wikilinking to articles with [[ ]], you shouldn't have a User: in there. Smallman12q (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A few more notes:

  • Make sure the references come after the period.
  • Use named references so the reference doesn't show up 10x in the reference section.
  • Link to other articles.
  • Add some images. There are 13+ million at the Commons:Main Page.
  • Be compendious.
    • "but did not influence at all" is better said without the "at all"

Smallman12q (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer review: Laterality and movement[edit]

Citations: somehow the references didn't turn out, and then make sure to delete extra spaces! Also, don't need the page number citations for anything. As for the content, I think it might be better to simplify the message overall. There's plenty of good stuff in there, but you just jump right into it. I think a lot can be made more concise. We don't need the author's name, and changing the wording away from "researchers found" or "they studied" should help clear things up. Also, I think it's generally OK to just state things as opposed to saying "according to..." and the direct quotations distract from the content unless the authors came up with a new phrase or definition, perhaps. It is good that you have some sort of moving story throughout the section, but it's probably not necessary to try and connect everything so coherently.

And not that the methods need to change too much, but I think you could probably omit a good amount of the more detailed explanations when they get somewhat redundant. That said, one way to format might be to have what was studied, how it was studied, and what they results were and show- in the format of statements of fact. I also think you could organize the sections within laterality and movement to make them easier to read. Most of it is one big chunk, which is pretty hard to keep place in. Simpler, "topic statements" could serve to break up different findings. Alex Wyse (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be some problems with your citations. Page references are not needed in the text, and citations should be included much more frequently. Also, some of your paragraphs seem a little bulky, and I think the casual Wiki reader might just skim them, so I would try to simplify and shorten them. This could also be done by breaking your articles into subheadings by subject.

I also think a slight overview of laterality or an image that might clarify some of your text might be useful. Some of the methods and concepts were a little hard for me to keep up with, and I think they might be a little confusing for someone not versed in psychology papers. Also, image examples of the left cheek bias or mirrored images might be interesting and eye-catching as well. Rebeccaworrell (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, I am drawn to read this section because it is very dense. It might be helpful to the reader if you outline what you are going to discuss, maybe by using headings. Are the parenthetical numbers representing page numbers where the information is located? If so, I don’t think it is necessary. Overall, I like how you discussed the methods and results of the study, but in the theme of keeping things concise, I think you should clearly state the conclusions and then use the methods of the studies to provide evidence to the statements instead of using so much detail. KatieRamseur (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer review: Abstract vs. Figurative Art[edit]

Instead of defining abstract and figurative art, do an external link to the wiki pages of those things. Try to play pictures to the right or left of the text (looks neater). Need to add more citations. Wiki likes when you cite everything.

When measuring "interestingness" and "pleasingness," viewers rated works higher for abstract works that were more complex…. Not sure what this means. Complexity is also another topic under psychology of art. See what they have under that section to make sure you aren’t being repetitive. I seem to loose you at times. For someone who hasn’t read the articles on abstract and figurative art, the psychology terms might be confusing (TMT, Personal Need for Structure scale, etc.). In general there are a few stops where you can provide the links to other wiki pages so people can know what you are talking about (ex. EEG, “Big Five”). Also check out Dr. Munger’s suggestions on how to write for wiki, some things could just be more concise. I also only counted 7 new articles for this section.

Violetta Bogopolsky (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Violetta Bogopolsky

The layout of the article is clear and easy to follow.

In the section on meaning, I found the description of the Terror Management System confusing. It may be helpful to include a little bit more information on this. I was also confused on what mortality salience was and needed to look it up. It may be good to think this term to the Wikipedia article on mortality salience.

In the section on personality, it may be helpful to link “Big Five” to the Wikipedia page on the Big Five personality factors to give readers some background on it.

In your last footnote, footnote 24, the name of the first author is not capitalized.

SKC 2013 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I found the section simply organized, making it easy to read. Content wise I felt that we needed more information and further explanation of studies. I think you should also link out or suggest for a new wiki page concerning the terror management theory. Your sentences are rather long and complex. Try shortening up your sentences. Places where you can expand on content is to elaborate more on the liking ratings rising instead of ending at "This was only true up to a certain point." You may also want to link the complexity page in this subsection for more information. Other possible places to provide the reader with more background information are linking out to the fMRI and EEG pages in order to interconnect pages more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathalya Cubas (talkcontribs) 23:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The headings are great for organization and ease of reading. A link to figurative and abstract art, the terror management theory, and the Big Five could be added if there is anything on it on Wikipedia. The pictures are also helpful! (I am assuming they are from Wikicommons?) Maybe you could even find one of the brain areas discussed in the neural evidence section. Overall, the writing in this section is concise and easy to read, which I really appreciate! Olivia Morrison (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer review: Title[edit]

The heading Title Information could be one notch bigger, so we know it is a different section from Art and Expertise. This section could use more organization. You seemed to jump from one point to the next when you first start out the section. If there are multiple categories under the section Title, maybe you could use subheadings to make it more readable/understandable. Elaborate more one what title changes and confusing titles mean to the average viewer. How can that hinder or enhance the viewing process? The part about the pipe not being a pipe confused me a bit. I just lost you when you were talking about how it wasn't meant to be part of the painting. Doing a wiki link to the image La trahison might help readers understand that section (a wiki page for that image exists, I checked). You could also just add the image to the psych of art page (check wiki commons).

Violetta Bogopolsky (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Violetta Bogopolsky

Peer review: expertise[edit]

The information looks really solid with lots of details, but some sort of unifying statement in the first part “art and expertise” could improve the flow of the section. It is just confusing to me to have that as the opening to the whole section of expertise without any sort of preface for the different categories like preference that follow. In general, taking out things like "participants rated," "the researchers did...," or "they investigated" will help improve the readability of the sections. This is especially apparent in the way each sub-section opens with very similar descriptions of testing experts and non-experts.

I think overall, though, the methods and results in each subsection are clearly stated but can be condensed (mostly within descriptions of different parts of the same experiment). Just saying what they found when Ps did this and that would be easier than explaining every step. Just keep in mind it's clearer to talk about "facts" that have been revealed through this research.

You might check if there are any internal links to some of those tests or scales. Also, I think the references need to go after the ends of sentences and periods. Like we talked about in class, it should be ok to take out most of the names and extra pronouns. Alex Wyse (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Overall, concise writing will condense the section and make it more clean cut in terms of what you are trying to convey. Insert Wiki links for: Big Five, Artists such as: Matisse (capitalize the M), Morisot, Breugel, Citations should come after the period with no spaces.

I think the results of the Silva study as summarized in the last two sentences of the first paragraph could be more clear. Participants with high expertise were not significantly smarter, etc., but what were they. Is it that Openness predicted expertise more than intelligence and/or having an art major?

I like how you include the methods of the experiments so that the reader is able to see how you go to this conclusion, however the writing should be less like typical psychology writings and more straight-to-the-facts. Highlight your main conclusions and use the methods of the experiments to explain those conclusions. I feel you are using too much detail. KatieRamseur (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer review: Symmetry[edit]

Make sure there is no space between the last word and the citation. Also you alternate between having the period before and after the citation, so make sure you're consistent with that. After the first citation, there is a period after beautiful and one after the citation-- change to just one period. Please revise the last sentence of the first paragraph, it was difficult to read. "Many studies have ventured to explain this innate preference for symmetry with many methods..." I would get rid of the second "many." I think you should also remove "Reber," and "Makin et al." from the article. Other than that, its a great article! Lindy.williams (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Lindy.williams

Good job on concise writing! From looking at all of the other headings, I think the headings need to be capitalized. Transitions in between paragraphs could use some work just so the article comes in a full circle to make sense to the reader how everything fits together. The authors of the Psychology papers can be taken out of the subject of a couple of sentences throughout the section. I am not sure if Wikipedia is looking for this style of writing, but one of my Psychology professors challenged the class to never write in passive voice (as I have done this whole review), and it made our writing come alive (and more concise). Also, great idea putting the link on Implicit Association Task!

In the symmetry section, the methods could be elaborated on to scientifically support all of the claims that the researchers you are citing have made. It does not even have to be long (I know adding more sounds contradictory to saying your writing is concise), but maybe just a sentence on what they did and a sentence on what they found.

On a more specific note, the first two sentences of your first two paragraphs in the symmetry section kind of get to the same idea with different wording. I feel like either paragraph could be the starting paragraph and then things flow from there, but both of them don’t have to sound like opening paragraphs for your section. Perhaps they were different writers? Also, what does it mean in the third paragraph about the mate selection that it is domain independent? I also was confused in the last paragraph; I think the main idea is simpler than my reading of the sentence is making it. That could just be me!

In the compositional balance section, I was not sure what a compositional frame was. Is that a term defined in the literature or common knowledge? Again, the authors can be taken out of the sentences. The methods for Sammartino and Palmer are great though with very clear manipulations and conclusions. The studies in this section are summarized well, but they could transition from one to the other more smoothly. You could also add a link to the word “expertise” directing them to the expertise section of the Psychology of Art page! Olivia Morrison (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer review: Title[edit]

Take out "as opposed to simply being a means of identification." Try to concisely combine sentences two and three. Condense the last sentence of the first paragraph. It was a tad wordy; maybe you could take out words like "necessarily," "particularly," etc. Overall, good work! Lindy.williams (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Lindy.williams

Peer Review: Expertise[edit]

Overall, I think the Expertise section as a great amount of information that can be more effective by cutting down on arbitrary details, such as who were the participants (i.e. history major or psychology student). In general, elaborate more on the results of the studies and cut down on the procedure part. For example, the eye movement section can possibly be reduced to one paragraph. Furthermore, I don’t know how necessary it is to include the names of the questionnaires. If they can be wiki linked or use to create a section labeled “Measuring Expertise”, I think they could be great.

It would also be helpful to have more topic sentences that lead into each section at the beginning of the first paragraph. For instance, in the level of abstraction section, I could not tell how it related to expertise until about the fourth or fifth sentence. I also suggest making a more descriptive title for the last section labeled “other factors” to provide more contextual cues about the section’s purpose.

In addition, I think this section would have better organization if the “level of abstraction” came before “eye movement” section.

Small changes: Wiki link (The big five factor inventory). Fix the periods with spaces Exclude the names of the researchers to put more focus on the study

I hope this is helpful! Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamela Peterson (talkcontribs) 05:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review: Symmetry[edit]

For the most part, the Symmetry section is already concise; however, the last sentence in the first paragraph is a little wordy. I also don’t understand the last sentence in the “compositional balance” section (i.e. "incorporate through creating a balanced work or art" was difficult for me to interpret). Specifically in the section describing Sammartino and Palmer, I think it can be shorten to be more concise. In general, try to use less prepositions like "in which" or "as" to read more smoothly.

Overall, I think this section is easy to read with good organization and just needs a few more tweaks. If possible, maybe this section can upload artwork that illustrate symmetry and non-symmetry.

Small changes: Wiki link Islamic art Exclude the authors name and just describe the study. Remove parenthetical citations Fix periods

I hope this helps! Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamela Peterson (talkcontribs) 05:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC) --Jamela Peterson (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC) --Jamela Peterson (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review: Complexity[edit]

I think that defining complexity is a great way to start off the article. I think that the definitions you used are great and easily understandable. However I found this paragraph to be hard to follow. I would revise it to make it more clear and concise. There are also some grammatical mistakes in it which made it harder to follow and understand. I also liked how you talked about the different methods on how to measure complexity and how you linked GIF Expressions to the Wikipedia page on GIF Expressions. The visual art section was very concise. I think one way to make it clearer is to reword some of the sentences. Some of the wording seemed awkward. I would at some point in this paragraph refer to the graph on side. This may help users who are not familiar with what you are talking about. I thought that the music and the dance sections were very clear and concise.

SKC 2013 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I like that you had a background of the subject, which as a helpful intro onto how the research is done, etc, and that the article was broken down into a number or subheadings that were easy to digest. I would be more explicit about which experiment in the dance section, and clean up the Inverted U graph, but I think the inclusion of the graph is really helpful. Is there any way you can examples for the GIF compression? Overall I think your info is good, the article just needs a bit of cleaning up. Rebeccaworrell (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that overall this is a very well written article. It is mostly concise and to the point but topic sentences can get wordy and very confusing. Additionally, be careful of words that are placed incorrectly in the context of sentences such as "too" and "to". Your citations are good and it shows that you researched and understood the studies well. I think that the graph is a good representation and really furthers our understanding. I agree that more information on GUF would be helpful but great initiative in suggesting that a page for GIF compression be made. Nathalya Cubas (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review: Expertise[edit]

Instead of beginning your sentence with “Psychologists,” maybe say “researchers.” “Psychologists” is very broad, and someone who has no background mind not realize that these findings are the results of empirical research. Instead of mentioning “Silvia,” either use his full name or omit his name completely to fully focus on the facts.

“In order to learn how to control for this in experiments, Silvia designed a scale to measure a participant's level of expertise.The scale is designed to test experience rather than just years of expertise.”

I would suggest you combine these two sentences into one that is more concise. The second sentence seems a bit redundant and unclear. The Big Five factor inventory should have a wiki link. Finally, citations at the end of sentences should come after the period. Overall, good job!


Peer Review: Symmetry[edit]

“Many studies have ventured to explain this innate preference for symmetry with many methods including the Implicit Association Test (IAT).” I would suggest replacing the second “many” with “various” to not repeat the same word twice. “Reber draws on evidence from humans and animals that point to the importance of symmetry regardless of biological necessity, and the efficiency with which computers recognize and process symmetrical objects relative to non-symmetrical models.” You could break this into two sentences for more conciseness, and to emphasize the two distinct findings. Instead of introducing a different researcher (Makin et al. (2012)) to make a counterpoint, just straight-forwardly cite the information. You might not need to use Reber’s name either, just the facts. “These findings provide a counterargument for the perceptual fluency because their judgement is domain-independent.” Spell correction: Judgment I’m confused about who “their” is. Finally, citations at the end of a sentence should come after the period. Overall I really enjoyed reading this!


Image comparison[edit]

If needed, I could add a simple comparison of images to sections as shown to the right.

Cheek bias
Shows leaves emerging from areoles
Left cheek
(Louis XV of France)
Shows leaves emerging from areoles
Right Cheek
(Albert Einstein)
The cause of cheek biases remains unknown.

Smallman12q (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)