Beyond the lab: An examination of key factors influencing interaction with ‘real’ and museum-based art

Matthew Pelowski

Educational tools in art exhibitions seem crucial to improve the cultural and aesthetic experience, particularly of non-expert visitors, thus becoming a strategic goal for museums. However, there has not been much research regarding the impact of labels on the quality of visitors’ aesthetic experience. Therefore, here we compared the impact on the cognitive and emotional experience of naïve visitors between essential and descriptive labels, through multiple objective and subjective measurements, focusing on the controversial modern art museum context. We found that, after detailed descriptions, observers spend more time inspecting artworks, their eyes wander more looking for the described elements, their skin conductance and pupil size increase, and overall, they find the content less complex and more arousing. Our findings show that people do receive important benefits from reading detailed information about artworks. This suggests that elaborating effective labels should be a prim...

We consider the phenomenon of social interactions within the art museum, arguing that even the bare possibility of meeting others or intruding into their gaze can have a profoundly detrimental effect on art experience. This is done by tracing a finding from our previous studies in which we considered three museum galleries—each with the same artist’s paintings and basic layout; the only major difference being design elements within one space encouraging social interaction and in turn causing repressed enjoyment, negative emotional experience and negative art evaluation. We use this example as a frame for introducing a model of the psychological impact of social interaction on the behavioral and cognitive experience of art, considering its implications for education—which often focuses on the social—as well as implications for personal or introspective art engagement. We also consider a number of measures and aspects that relate to this model and which might be considered by educator...

Based in current debates in aesthetics, we examined whether people's beliefs match philosophers' arguments that an original painting or carved sculpture possesses a privileged nature when compared with originals in other types of art. We tested whether participants believe the destruction of an original art piece has different consequences on the ability to experience that piece if the art is visual, literary, or musical (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2 we explored how different forms of destruction varied whether people believe an art piece still exists and the perceived quality of an experience with the piece. In summary, we demonstrated that people have a more lax view of how art can be experienced than is assumed by most philosophers, but share an intuition that the original form of a work of visual art has a unique nature.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2017, Vol. 11, No. 3, 245–264 © 2017 American Psychological Association 1931-3896/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000141 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Beyond the Lab: An Examination of Key Factors Influencing Interaction With ‘Real’ and Museum-Based Art Matthew Pelowski and Michael Forster Pablo P. L. Tinio University of Vienna Montclair State University Maria Scholl and Helmut Leder University of Vienna The authors present a comprehensive review and theoretical discussion of factors that could influence our interaction with museum-based art. Art is an important stimulus that reveals core insights about human behavior and thought. Art perception is in fact often considered one of the few uniquely human phenomena whereby we process multiple types of information, experience myriad emotions, make evaluations, and where these elements not only occur but dynamically combine. Art viewing often occurs in museums, which—in conjunction with “real” artworks—may contribute greatly to experience. However, to date, psychological aesthetics studies have only begun to consider in-museum examinations, focusing instead on highly controlled laboratory-based studies, and leading to calls for a need to shift to ecologically valid examinations. To provide a foundation for such research, the authors consider what key psychological differences may be expected between original/reproduced and museum/lab-based art, and why the art experience may be different when occurring within the museum context. They also review factors that should be controlled for, or which may raise new, unexplored areas for empirical research. These include 3 main levels: the artwork, the viewer, and physical aspects of the museum. The authors connect these factors to a model of art processing and relate to findings from sociology and general museum studies, which have largely been overlooked in psychological aesthetics research. Keywords: visual art, museum study, ecologically valid study, art perception, context effects Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000141.supp core behavioral and psychological phenomena (Cela-Conde, Agnati, Huston, Mora, & Nadal, 2011). Art is able to provoke myriad emotions, sensations, and physiological reactions. It can evoke memories, judgments, and encourage meaning making. Art is also associated with a host of particularly intense reactions— chills, awe, anger, disgust, epiphany, and crying—which have recently piqued the interest of psychologists (Pelowski & Akiba, 2011). As a result, the last two decades have seen psychology of art and aesthetics grow into an active field, with important relations to all social, human, and even neurobiological sciences (Pearce et al., 2016). “Why should the casual viewer [and the laboratory reproduction] be our source for characterizing the art experience?” —(Carroll, 1986, p. 66) Every day, millions of people across the globe encounter art. Whether in a museum, a city-center, or in one’s home, art is an omnipresent part of human life. People direct their interest and allocate their resources to art display and production, and many regard art as a pinnacle of human culture and of the human species itself (Zaidel, 2010). For scholars who study human behavior, art also represents a special object that when experienced—as when looking at a painting— has the potential to provide insights into We wish to acknowledge previous reviews for general museums studies (e.g., Bitgood, 1992) and sociological approaches (Griswold et al., 2013), which have served as an important frame for the present, psychologyfocused, analysis, as well as the recent reviews by Tinio et al. (2014) and Smith (2014), which began collecting such previously overlooked discussion for use in psychological studies. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew Pelowski, Faculty of Psychology, Department of Basic Psychological Research and Research Methods, University of Vienna, Liebiggasse 5, A-1010 Vienna, Austria. E-mail: matthew.pelowski@univie .ac.at Editor’s Note. Paul J. Silvia served as the action editor for this article.—RR-P Matthew Pelowski and Michael Forster, Faculty of Psychology, Department of Basic Psychological Research and Research Methods, University of Vienna; Pablo P. L. Tinio, Department of Educational Foundations, Montclair State University; Maria Scholl and Helmut Leder, Faculty of Psychology, Department of Basic Psychological Research and Research Methods, University of Vienna. The writing of this article was supported by a grant to Matthew Pelowski and Helmut Leder by Marie Skłodowska-Curie (MSCA-IF-2014-EF: Individual Fellowships, 655379). 245 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 246 PELOWSKI, FORSTER, TINIO, SCHOLL, AND LEDER At the same time, despite the field’s growth, the psychological study of art faces a major conundrum regarding how and where art is studied versus where art is actually experienced. From the founding of psychology of art as a scientific field (e.g., Fechner, 1876), scholars have generally agreed that a major component of art’s impact and character involves the tangible, immediate, and “real” experience of original artworks (Tschacher et al., 2012). As put by Berlyne and Ogilvie (1974, p. 182), “the ‘synthetic’ approach”—involving studies in a laboratory using reproductions— although important, “must sooner or later be supplemented with ‘analytic’ studies in which reaction to genuine works” is investigated “with a view to unraveling their determinants.” This realization has only grown in recent decades with the increasing awareness of the importance of context in aesthetic judgments (Lauring et al., 2016). Researchers are becoming concerned with the need to consider art reception as a complex interplay of the expectations of the viewer, the characteristics of the art object, and the conditions in which it is experienced. Those conditions often involve the museum. The amount of (often public) money invested in museums is growing, as are the number of blockbuster exhibitions (Leder, 2013) and the popularity of art tourism (Chan & Yeoh, 2010). Along with this comes the realization of the need to better understand and study the experience of art within this unique setting (Brieber, Nadal, & Leder, 2015; Mastandrea, Bartoli, & Bove, 2007, 2009; Pelowski, 2015; J. K. Smith, 2014; Tröndle, Greenwood, Kirchberg, & Tschacher, 2014). Scholars also argue that current experimental approaches, dominated by laboratory studies, may lead to an understanding of the aesthetic experience that is wholly detached from, or even in opposition to, “real” museum art interactions (Augustin, Wagemans, & Carbon, 2012; Brown & Dissanayake, 2009; Cela-Conde et al., 2011; Cross & Ticini, 2012)—an argument that is only now receiving support from empirical research (e.g., Specker, Tinio, & Van Elk, in press). This state of affairs has led to a call for more ecologically valid studies and a renewed demand for research incorporating the museum (Brieber et al., 2015; Mastandrea et al., 2007, 2009; Pelowski, 2015; J. K. Smith, 2014; Tröndle, Greenwood, et al., 2014). This can provide clear hypotheses regarding what components may differ between originals and laboratory reproductions, or which may interact with typical art-related experiments, and that can address what makes original pieces and museum settings so potentially special in our engagement. To accomplish this, however, it is necessary to systematically consider the theoretical foundations, current theories, and empirical findings related to museum-based art. In this article, we examine key factors that directly influence the experience of real art in the genuine context of the museum and that may differ when examined in the laboratory. We will focus on three sets of factors: (a) features of the artwork, which includes a work’s physical and conceptual qualities; (b) characteristics of the viewer, including personality and demographics, and (c) characteristics of the presentational context, which refer to the manner in which an artwork is presented as well as physical and architectural features and visitor behavior. This review will also feature a number of tables (included as online supplementary materials), that provide a comprehensive summary of relevant past studies and outstanding questions, which will be referred to throughout the article, and with factors also connected to a model for art process- ing which may provide better context for these factors’ specific influence. We also discuss research from the fields of museum studies and sociology, which often show intriguing overlaps with psychology, but in this field have largely been overlooked (Tinio, Smith, & Smith, 2014).1 Current Studies of Museum/Laboratory, Original Artworks/Reproductions Differences Before the main discussion, it is useful to briefly paint a picture of what we are describing regarding museum/real versus laboratory/reproduced art. Although interactions can occur in numerous settings, many would associate the art experience with the museum or gallery space. Experiencing art in a museum typically involves a conscious decision to travel to such a setting, pay an entry fee, and proceed from room to room while perusing a collection of art and stopping and looking at those pieces that draw attention, all the while being surrounded by other visitors typically within a rather opulent building. This is not, however, how art is met in a laboratory study. Laboratory studies are constrained by protocols associated with highly controlled experiments (Cela-Conde et al., 2011) and involve the reduction of extraneous variables so that only the effects of key manipulated variables manifest. This often goes hand-inhand with the need for a large number of stimuli and the use of repeated measures (Pelowski & Akiba, 2011). Thus, one reaches the following paradigm: Participants— often undergraduate students participating for class credit or money—arrive individually at a laboratory. They may talk briefly with a researcher and are often told that they will see “some art” or participate in an art-related task. They are then seated at a chair before a screen and are shown an image for a few (typically less than 5) seconds, followed by an intervening pause, cue, and then the next image. A task is often involved, such as making an evaluation. What results is a parade of digitized art images, presented without apparent reason or interconnection. In a paradigm involving brain imaging, the participants may find themselves lying prone in an MRI machine, wearing earplugs, with their arm and head movements restricted, and viewing “art” projected on a small mirror. If electroencephalogram (EEG) or eye-tracking is involved, the art viewing experience might be preceded by a period of electrode fitting or calibration, with instructions to avoid moving the head and body. Given the above comparison, it is not surprising that researchers have begun to identify differences between art experiences in the laboratory and museum. Laboratory studies are acknowledged to have made important advances, especially concerning the basic processing of low-level features of artworks (e.g., color, style, symmetry, fluency) and related emotional, physiological, and evaluative responses. However, it is also suggested that actual experiences with art are probably much more complex than can be captured in such a setting. Scholars have further argued that 1 Note that this article purposefully limits itself to the viewer, artwork, and museum aspects because these factors most closely touch targets of laboratory research. Although important, we do not consider, for example, social aspects. Unfortunately, the present manuscript does not have the space to give this topic its due. We also limit analysis to static, visual media (e.g., painting, photography, sculpture) because these are the topics of most current research with visual art. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FACTORS INFLUENCING ‘REAL’ AND MUSEUM-BASED ART current approaches to studying the art experience cannot hope to capture aesthetic responses arising from the interplay of emotion, cognition, expectations, physical movements, and longer, more open-ended interactions, which may lead to quite different outcomes (Augustin et al., 2012; Brown & Dissanayake, 2009; Cross & Ticini, 2012; Tallis, 2008). The few studies that have compared art experiences in the laboratory and museum have mostly shown differences (see Table 1). Locher, Smith, and Smith (2001, 1999) compared slide-projected images of paintings (later followed up with postcard-printed images; Locher & Dolese, 2004) against the corresponding originals at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. They found that although evaluations related to pictorial content or composition were gen- 247 erally similar across presentation formats, viewers, irrespective of art background or training evaluated original artworks higher on hedonic measures of interest and pleasantness and found them more surprising, rare, and immediate. In a more recent study, Brieber, Nadal, Leder, and Rosenberg (2014) had two groups freely view an exhibition of original photographs or their reproductions in the laboratory. Original photographs were liked more, viewed longer, and found more interesting. Brieber et al. (2015) compared evaluations of contemporary paintings and sculptures in a museum against a computer-simulated version of the exhibition. Originals were liked more and found more arousing, positive, interesting, and better remembered. In the same study, after first viewing the real works in the museum, participants also found Table 1 Comparisons of Real Art and/or Museum Context Versus Digital Reproductions/Lab Viewing Authors Comparison Art type, participants, and measures (Locher, Smith, & Smith, 1999) Evaluation of real paintings (in Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) vs. slideprojected or monitorpresented images. (Locher, Smith, & Smith, 2001) Follow-up and re-analysis of Locher et al. (1999) dataset, comparing assessment between trained and non-art trained viewers. (Locher & Dolese, 2004) Follow-up of Locher et al. (1999, 2001) with additional condition of postcard-size print images of paintings. 9 oil paintings (14th–18th c.), 140 adult museum visitors (109 women, M age ! 45, 10–15% art training. Unrestricted viewing. Evaluate for sixteen adjective pairs (9-point scale). Between-subject assessment. Same paintings, conditions and participant dataset as above. Training assessed via 7-point scale. In addition, 55 untrained undergraduate students (age 18–24) viewed slide and computer conditions in laboratory. Between-subject assessment. Same conditions as Locher et al. (2001). Additionally, 40 undergraduate students in postcard condition (19 art majors, 21 untrained, M age ! 21.5). Betweensubject assessment. 14 photos/photo series from “distURBANces. How fiction beats reality” exhibition. Lab format used 31” screen. 44 psychology students (30 women, age 18–31,). Unrestricted viewing. Evaluate for liking, interest, understanding, ambiguity scales. Viewing time recorded by mobile eye tracking. Between-subject assessment. 25 paintings, photos, collages from “Beauty Contest.” Simulated version included labels and art reproductions (9.85 " 7.50 in., 24== screen). Could navigate between artworks and hide/show info; previous/ next work also shown on screen. 137 psychology students (93 women, M age ! 22.5) assigned to three groups (museum–lab, lab–museum, lab–lab). Unrestricted viewing. Evaluate for arousal, valence, liking, interest, understanding. 18 conceptual art photographs from “Seven years Raum mit Licht”. Art viewed on tables in gallery or lab for real condition; on 15” laptop (in gallery/lab) for reproduction. 110 psychology students (77 F, M age ! 24.2), 4 groups: gallery/ original, gallery/reproduction, lab/original, lab/reproduction. Evaluate liking, interest, arousal, valence, understanding. (Brieber, Nadal, Leder, & Evaluation of real contemporary art photographs (Museum Rosenberg, 2014) Startgalerie Artothek, MUSA, Vienna) vs. reproductions in lab on computer. (Brieber, Nadal, & Leder, Evaluation of real contemporary 2015) paintings, photos and collages (Museum Startgalerie Artothek, Vienna) vs. computer simulated version of exhibition in laboratory. (Brieber, Leder, & Nadal, Compare interaction of separate 2015) factors real art vs. reproductions (Raum mit Licht Gallery, Vienna) and lab vs. museum context. Findings Real art evaluated as more immediate, similar, and pleasant. Main effect for format. Originals rated by untrained/trained as more interesting, pleasant, surprising, rare, immediate, apparent, dense. No sig. dif. between two non-real formats. Training " Format not significant. Original sig. more surprising, pleasant, interesting. Postcard images rated as significantly less varied and larger in scale than original. Original more liked, interesting, viewed longer. Original art more arousing, liked, positive, interesting, understood. No change in ratings for lab–lab group. Museum–lab order ratings lower than all other lab conditions, suggests disappointment. Participants recalled more artworks if first viewed real version. MANCOVA with physical context (gallery, laboratory) and genuineness (genuine, reproduction) as betweensubjects factors not significant for main effects/interactions. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 248 PELOWSKI, FORSTER, TINIO, SCHOLL, AND LEDER laboratory reproductions particularly disappointing. Specker et al. (in press) directly compared people’s aesthetic experience of the same artwork in the laboratory (reproduction) and the museum (using the Unusual Aesthetic Experience Scale by Silvia & Nusbaum, 2011, which assesses intense reactions such as awe or crying) and found that the art experience was generally more intense in the museum as compared to the laboratory. Such findings are supported by a number of theoretical discussions (Jacobsen, 2006; Pelowski, 2015) arguing that studies have almost completely ignored many of the more intriguing emotional and cognitive responses—novelty, anger, anxiety, profound emotions, and personal transformation. These responses may actually be at the heart of the human fascination with art, and are extremely difficult to arouse in artificial contexts. This once again raises the fundamental question of what key factors— especially those that have been neglected by previous research—must be considered when investigating the art experience. A Framework, and Previous Findings Regarding Experiences With Art in Museums As a framework for this examination, our discussion will also use a cognitive model of art processing by Leder et al. (2004; updated in Leder & Nadal, 2014; Leder, Markey, & Pelowski, 2015), which has been used extensively to frame empirical investigations of the art experience (J. K. Smith, 2014; Tinio, 2013). As shown in Figure 1, the model proposes a series of informationprocessing stages wherein we attend to and process aspects of artworks: (a) an initial preclassification (presumably regarding presentational context); (b) perceptual analysis, which involves initial processing of low-level visual features (e.g., shape, contrast); (c) memory integration, during which art is processed via previous experiences, expertise, and the particular schema held by the viewer; (d) explicit classification, which involves attention to conceptual or formal aspects of art (e.g., style/content); and (e) cognitive mastering, in which individuals combine elements and create meaning, and culminating in the outputs of understanding, aesthetic judgment, and affective response. There is also the possibility of viewers cycling again through various stages, as might occur if individual factors draw specific interest, or stopping and moving on to a new work. Recently, the model has also been augmented with additional stages (5B, 5C), which describe additional top-down, viewer-centered outputs (Pelowski & Akiba, 2011; Pelowski, Markey, Forster, Gerger, & Leder, 2017). These account for situations, for example, in which the viewer fails to understand or cognitively master his or her engagement (as designated by the small box at Stage 5), or where an artwork is viewed as somehow threatening or challenging to the self, which can lead to an artwork’s de-valuation and potentially negative affect. Alternatively, this situation could also elicit self-reflection and modification of expectations, which themselves could lead to insight and a positive experience. Although we will not delve into the nuances of these stages, the model is useful for considering the potential influence of various factors in art experiences. As shown in Figure 1, each stage of the model is associated with specific factors inherent in artworks or the presentational contexts (e.g., Stage 1 is related to artwork size). These factors directly impact the specific processes occurring in a stage, and thus influence the output and subsequent processes in other stages of the model. For the purpose of the present discussion, we have updated the model to highlight these factors (shown in the top gray sections of Figure 1), as well as the specific understanding, evaluative, affective, or perceptual processing, displayed in the boxes at the bottom of the figure. For each factor, we posit hypotheses for how, and at what point, it might influence the art viewing experience. Returning to the above example, the model would suggest that factors such as size, hanging position, lighting, and so forth, in the Preclassification stage, may influence the perceived importance of an object or the motivation of the viewer, or even the viewer’s propensity to classify something as art or to take a detached, form-focused versus pragmatic, content-focused approach. Throughout this review we will therefore refer to these stages, and thus the main processing sequences or implications, as hypotheses for the reviewed factors’ influence. Although we cannot discuss these implications for every reviewed element, we have also provided the model stages posited to be influenced by each factor in the accompanying tables (supplementary material, bold text). By cross-referencing these stages with the outputs specified in Figure 1, the reader will find the hypotheses for these factors’ influence. Within the figure, the input factors are also divided into three sections (artwork, viewer, and museum context), which also constitutes this article’s organization. Features of the Artwork The first set of factors involves features inherent in artworks (online supplementary file, Supplemental Table S1), and focus on the texture, immediacy, physical presence, size, and perceived authenticity, as well as on remnants of the artist’s touch and effort, and the phenomenon of seeing objects as “art.” Texture Most artworks, including paintings and photographs, are not truly two-dimensional. Even seemingly flat artworks have some level of texture. There is evidence that texture or haptic quality (e.g., impasto paintings, smooth glazes, rough canvas, or cool bronzes) may be particularly important for how art is perceived and evaluated. In terms of the model, this texture could play a key role in the second Perceptual Analysis stage (see Figure 1), and may influence early visual processing (e.g., of structural complexity, symmetry, and balance) as well as level of attention, initial affective reaction, or the overall impression or gist derived from art. For example, Locher, Overbeeke, and Wensveen (2010) noted that haptic information may be rapidly recognized from sensory information. Hekkert (2012) added that perceiving tactile qualities may impact the perceived balance between unity (typicality) and variety (novelty), with greater influence on the former in tactile sensation and the latter in visual perception. Concerning general museum studies, Bitgood (1992) noted that multisensory or threedimensional objects, when compared to flatter images, may increase attention or level of interest. Texture is also a key component of certain art techniques, such as brushstrokes and paint layering. For example, sprezzatura, or studied carelessness and looseness of paint application, attributed to many Modern artists as well as classic artists such as Rembrandt, could signify an artist’s personal touch and has been noted 249 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FACTORS INFLUENCING ‘REAL’ AND MUSEUM-BASED ART Figure 1. Model of art processing, based on Leder et al. (2004; updated in Leder & Nadal, 2014; Pelowski & Akiba, 2011). Context/artwork inputs highlighted. as key to the appreciation of works painted in such a manner (Funch, 1993). Texture, such as raised brushstrokes at occluding edges, can also denote visual outlines in artworks. Ramachandran and Hirstein (1999) argued that the visual cortex, used in early processing, responds mainly to edges or contrasts, but not to homogeneous surface colors. Thus, this may modulate viewers’ selective attention and could heighten the visual fluency associated with viewing an artwork. Verisimilitude or incongruence between how something looks and how it (might) feel, can also lead to pleasure, surprise, or tension (Ludden, Schifferstein, & Hekkert, 2012; Ziolkowski, 1977). Texture is one key factor that differentiates between an original artwork and its reproduction. A painting’s or sculpture’s threedimensional quality is flattened when it is reproduced, thus resulting in the loss of both haptic and visual information. Such loss may be especially detrimental to the aesthetic experience of some art 250 PELOWSKI, FORSTER, TINIO, SCHOLL, AND LEDER styles, such as impressionism and postimpressionism, which are heavily textured. Reproductions minimize or eliminate these elements. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Immediacy and Physical Presence A related issue involves the physical presence of real art as it may be experienced in a museum. The interplay of the physical aspects of a work and its content may be key to reception (influencing stages from the preclassification to perceptual analysis, as well as explicit classification). Dufrenne (1973, p. 303) noted that “ultimately . . . materials become aesthetic by advertising themselves . . . displaying all of their sensuous richness.” Similarly, Bersson (1982, p. 35) noted that awareness of the sensuous “immediacy” of materials can provide a gateway (preclassification) to a contemplative aesthetic experience. This idea may be particularly important for certain art styles. Saltz (1997, p. 126) noted that much modern art was created with the expectation of “presence and immediacy,” requiring the physical sharing of a space between object and perceiver. Mid 20th century paintings such as abstract expressionism also emphasized the “raw everydayness”—weight, viscosity, brushstrokes, layers, drips— of a unique medium (Dezeuze, 2005, p. 17). Dezeuze similarly suggested that pop art, readymades, and conceptual art may require a sensual presence that could activate the tension between the “everyday object” character of artworks and their status as “art,” worthy of display in museums (also Vitz, 1988). Art with special materials (gold leaf, rich glazes; Locher et al., 2010) may also influence the work’s perceived value (derived mainly in the explicit classification stage and feeding into final aesthetic judgment) that may not translate in reproductions (see also Supplemental Table S1). Physical Remnants of the Artist’s Touch and Effort The basic knowledge that an artwork is a result of a creative act, and is an object possessing the marks of the artist as evidenced by brushstrokes, finger marks in clay, and chisel marks on stone, should also have an impact on its perceived— or expected— quality, meaning, and importance. Studies have shown that a good deal of the pleasure that people derive from art might be due to its being viewed as an end-result of a performance (Dutton, 2009; Newman & Bloom, 2012). In an empirical study, Kruger, Wirtz, Van Boven, and Altermatt (2004) found that participants believe that if a painting took longer to paint, it is aesthetically superior and worth more money. In similar studies, Newman and Bloom (2012) asked participants for the value of original artworks or reproductions, and found that participants assigned greater value to originals (vs. reproductions) and to works that were produced with high (vs. low) effort. Interestingly, when comparing low-effort originals (e.g., a readymade artwork) with high effort duplicates (e.g., a recreated artwork using new materials), no significant effect was found for originality, which further suggested the importance placed on the maker, an aspect that relates to the stages of preclassification, explicit classification, and cognitive mastering. An artwork could also be considered a dialogue between artist and materials (e.g., Elkins, 1999). Crowther (1993, p. 22) suggested that the “grounds of our appreciation” may rely on awareness of “feelings or intentions which we take to be embodied” in art. Freedberg and Gallese (2007, pp. 201–202) noted that viewers “often feel a form of somatic response” to especially “vigorous handling of the artistic medium” and to visual evidence of hand movements. Recreation, from physical signs, of the act of making may be key for meaning (Seeley & Kozbelt, 2008; Taylor, Witt, & Grimaldi, 2012). By using the formal clues of the “hand of the artist,” viewers may also enjoy higher fluency or other perceptual advantages. This effect was shown by Leder, Bär, and Topolinski (2012) who had participants perform hand movements that were concealed from view behind a screen and that were in accordance with typical strokes of postimpressionist or pointillist paintings. This positively affected liking of art in the style corresponding to the movement. Concerning the artist’s touch, and referencing work on mirror neurons (Urgesi, Calvo-Merino, Haggard, & Aglioti, 2007), Freedberg and Gallese (2007, p. 197) suggested that artist’s gestures may “induce the empathetic engagement of the observer, . . . activating the relevant motor areas in the observer’s brain” (p. 202). An empirical study by Taylor, Witt, and Grimaldi (2012) showed that viewing brushstrokes elicits brain responses in motor regions that correspond to hand or brushing movements in the direction employed by the artist to make the mark. Umilta, Berchio, Sestito, Freedberg, and Gallese (2012) compared photographs (shown on a screen) of artworks by Lucio Fontana—which consist of stretched canvas with vertical slashes cut by the artist— against simplified reproductions with black lines in place of slashes. Mu rhythm suppression (registered via EEG over sensorymotor and occipital electrode positions) was evoked by the observation of the originals but not the controls. The original works were also liked more and had greater perceived movement. In contrast, the controls may have been “merely processed as images” (Umilta et al., 2012, p. 7). This effect may again be more important to certain styles such as Abstract art, Expressionism, and Impressionism (see Freedberg & Gallese, 2007), and may also be differently related to expertise (see Supplemental Table S1). Perceived Authenticity The idea of the artist’s touch, and original, physical art, also relates to an artwork’s perceived authenticity. This is a major distinction between laboratory and museum studies and originals and reproductions. In the classic book, Ways of Seeing, Berger (1972, p. 31) suggested that following the traces of the artist’s gestures in the material “has the effect of closing the distance in time between the painting of the picture and one’s own act of looking.” Benjamin (1969), in his famous treatise on the “aura”— or sense of authenticity— claimed that “even the most perfect reproduction” lack a “presence in time and space, [or] unique existence at the place where it happens” (p. 220). Thus, when speaking of evaluation, it may often be as much the realization that a work is the genuine object— over and above visual appearance— that informs reception and expectations. Wolz and Carbon (2014) found that perceived authenticity had an impact on the estimation of a painting’s quality and the artist’s talent. On a similar note, Kirk, Skov, Hulme, Christensen, and Zeki (2009) found that artworks (shown as digital reproductions) that were thought to be created by esteemed artists and borrowed from museums were found to be more appealing than artworks thought to be made by a researcher. An fMRI study by Huang, Bridge, Kemp, and Parker FACTORS INFLUENCING ‘REAL’ AND MUSEUM-BASED ART (2011) found that artworks (Rembrandt portraits) perceived as authentic (vs. copies) resulted in higher activation of orbitofrontal areas of the brain that are associated with reward (see also Noguchi & Murota, 2013). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Seeing Objects as “Art” One important question to consider when comparing aesthetic experiences with art in the laboratory and the museum is to what extent people see a reproduction as an actual artwork? Studies have shown that believing a work to be art (a consideration made both in preclassification, based on context, and in explicit classification, based on early processing experience; see Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2008) may be key for its reception. Art may involve a transfiguration or suffusing of ordinary things and events with deeper meaning (e.g., Danto, 1974), which might cause viewers to look harder for meaning or pay more attention. This aspect would connect to expectations, which feed into later stages, and has been empirically related to pleasurable experience (Cupchik, 1995; Leder et al., 2004), or use of more elaborative processing beyond simple object recognition (Nadal, Munar, Capó, Rosselló, & CelaConde, 2008). It should not be expected that just because a researcher shows a picture of a sculpture or painting that it would be received as an art. Consider, for example, the discussion of a “transferability thesis” (Currie, 1985; Locher et al., 1999), which questions whether viewers are willing to treat an underlying digital reproduction as an artwork. Several studies, which simplified artworks or contrasted physical objects against images, have found that these are considered less “real” by viewers. Lacey et al. (2011) contrasted paintings and similarly arranged photographic images and found that viewers considered the latter not to be art (see also similar results from Umilta et al., 2012, discussed in Supplemental Table S1). A recent laboratory study by Pelowski, Gerger, Chetouani, Markey, and Leder (2017), which presented viewers with a range of artworks and specifically asked them to designate if they were indeed artworks, found that even in cases of abstract paintings, “yes” answers were only given about 70% of the time. Readymade or conceptual art was around 50% of the time. Considering an object as an artwork may also be particularly important for challenging or less easily interpretable artworks. Parsons (1987, p. 74) suggested that “the thought of the artist’s intentions” may allow us to believe that a work has meaning “even when we cannot grasp” it. This “faith in the artist” may then motivate us to “persist in looking,” for example, when moving from a negative to a positive/insightful reaction in the Cognitive Mastering stage. Seeing an object as an artwork is particularly important in cases where an artwork ultimately has no clear meaning, as in many conceptual works (Goldie & Schellekens, 2010). As put by Danto (1974, p. 142), rather than assuming that an object is meaningless, we may feel that “it is merely not about anything” and appreciate it as such. Classifying something as art may also encourage a detached “aesthetic” processing mode (e.g., Cupchik, 2013). Wagner, Menninghaus, Hanich, and Jacobsen (2014) touched on this issue in a study in which participants were shown stimuli depicting disgusting objects, which were framed as either “artistic” photos or documentary materials. Positive affective responses were higher in the artistic condition, whereas reported negative emotions were 251 similar in both conditions. Similarly, Gerger, Leder, and Kremer (2014) presented participants with images of both positively- and negatively valenced artworks and variably valenced International Affective Picture System (IAPS) pictures along with information that the images were art or photograph. They found that positive emotional reactions—joy and smiling—were reduced for images labeled as art, while context did not affect negative emotions, suggesting an aesthetic or “emotional distancing” (p. 174). Expecting to see real art, or potentially revising one’s expectations in the explicit classification stage, has also been shown to increase liking or activation in brain areas concerned with reward (Di Dio, Macaluso, & Rizzolatti, 2007; Kirk et al., 2009). Size Original artworks are often larger than their reproductions presented on a screen (Clarke, Shortess, & Richter, 1984). Museum studies have found that larger works generally attract and hold visitor attention better (Bitgood, Patterson, & Benefield, 1988). In addition, artists often play with size to influence viewers in a certain manners (relating to stages from preclassification, to later explicit classification, and meaning making). Small paintings may draw viewers in, asking them to approach the work as an intimate, personal meeting. Large, monumental works may impart a grandeur that can overwhelm viewers. Works that are larger than the human body, or are beyond the periphery of vision, can also envelop a viewer, thus eliciting a powerful experience (e.g., see Rothko in Barnes, 1989, p. 25). Large pictures can also evoke importance or communicate a higher meaning (Pelowski, Akiba, & Palacios, 2012), while size can also clash with content (e.g., Ron Mueck’s enlarged portraits, see Pelli, 1999). These aspects may often be lost in laboratory studies. Size may also play a role in basic perception. Locher, Krupinski, Mello-Thoms, and Nodine (2008), suggested that exploration of a painting starts with a rapid survey of the pictorial field to acquire an initial impression of structural arrangements and meaning. This then drives a second phase consisting of scrutiny of interesting features to develop aesthetic judgment. In both phases, individuals pay little attention to outer regions, concentrating gaze on the central 25% of the image. It is an interesting question as to whether such response is related to size and viewpoint. It may be that smaller screen-based images would be more easily seen using peripheral vision, leading to differences in focus or overall impression. Summary for Features of the Artwork Factors inherent in the artwork are related to multiple stages of viewing and response, which differ between art seen in the museum and the laboratory. According to Figure 1, viewers may be influenced during their classification of an object as being art, or during the initial stages (e.g., perceptual analysis) of processing an artwork in terms of its size and textural characteristics brought about by the marks of the artist. More conceptual aspects of the work such as its “artness” and historical importance may inform later top-down processing related to explicit classification, meaning-making, and judgments of artistic significance. These are factors that should be considered in future research, especially those conducted in museums. 252 PELOWSKI, FORSTER, TINIO, SCHOLL, AND LEDER Characteristics of the Viewer The characteristics of the viewer may be as influential to the art experience as features of the artwork. Here as well, the difference between the museum visitor and the laboratory participant may be as dramatic as the difference between the genuine artwork and its reproduction. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Basic Characteristics of Art Viewers in Museums First, the basic demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of a viewer may influence reception—modulating stages from preclassification through to the final cognitive mastery and emotional/evaluative response. As noted by Hanquinet (2013, p. 791; see also Tinio et al., 2014 for recent review), for over 40 years (beginning from DiMaggio & Useem’s 1975 U.S. study, DiMaggio & Useem, 1978), art museum visitors have fit a general profile: white-collar professionals from middle to upper social classes, with generally high levels of education and income, and more often female. Similar findings have been obtained in European and North American countries (see DiMaggio, 1996; Schuster, 1991). Of these characteristics, the best predictor of museum attendance is education. DiMaggio and Useem (1978) found that of those who reported to have visited an art museum during the previous 12 months, over 75% were college educated. Furthermore, participation rose with income (see also Chang, 2006). The above profile is different from that of a typical laboratory participant: undergraduate students, who are younger and possess less wealth. They also have less art-related knowledge and experiences and may be less comfortable visiting museums. Difference in age may also be a critical factor, as studies of general differences between college students and older general populations have noted that the students may be less likely to have set opinions, have less determined sense of self, and have stronger cognitive skills mixed with more willingness to comply with authority (Peterson, 2001; Sears, 1986). All of these issues might make viewers less likely to engage fully with art, to find it interesting, or to continue to engage with a work that is challenging. They could also lead to more stereotypical assessments, liking of more classic styles, higher susceptibility to priming (e.g., Kirk, Harvey, & Montague, 2011), and dislike of nontypical works. In contrast, DiMaggio found that art museum visitors are more likely to “hold less negative views of modern painting.” Mastandrea et al. (2009) also showed correlations between age and liking for abstract or contemporary art as well as between education and liking of abstract art. As they are relatively middle-class, educated, and young, it is also possible that students may be more likely to have “omnivorous” interests (Hanquinet, 2013), including both low and high brow culture, and thus differ in their appreciation of cultural genres from museum visitors who have more focused tastes. Tröndle, Kirchberg, and Tschacher (2014) considered reactions to traditional artworks (paintings, drawings, sculptures) as well as conceptual installations, and found that agreement with the installations being considered art correlated with age and frequency of museum visits. Art Expertise Museum visitors also often possess more art-related expertise and experience than typical laboratory participants (Augustin & Leder, 2006; Leder, Gerger, Brieber, & Schwarz, 2014, for reviews). Art experts, more than art-naïve viewers, emphasize formal, stylistic, and relational properties of artworks more than content, craftsmanship, or level of realism (Hekkert & Van Wieringen, 1996). Art naïve viewers may take an approach to viewing that is a mere extension of everyday perception (Cupchik & Gebotys, 1988), and thus are less likely to use an aesthetic, or detached pleasure-seeking mode. This may limit positive and increase negative emotions. On the other hand, Leder et al. (2014) showed, in a laboratory study, that experts have fewer negative emotional reactions toward negative or challenging artworks and rate such works more positively. Experts also rated the emotional qualities of artworks in a more neutral way. Art-naïve viewers may also have different attitudes about what art should do, holding a belief that art should please, evoke peaceful feelings, positive memories, and appeal to many people (Winston & Cupchik, 1992). More experienced art viewers may believe that art should be intellectually challenging, express an artist’s feelings, and hold layers of meaning (Cupchik, 1995). These aspects may be key in appraisals of liking or quality. Experts are also more likely to perceive artworks “for their own sake” (Hekkert & Van Wieringen, 1996), considering each as a unique example, rather than, for example, rating an entire art type uniformly, and are less swayed by context or priming (Kirk et al., 2011). Becker (1982, p. 48) has noted that experts may use “the history of attempts” to make similar works in that medium, genre [or] characteristic features of different styles and periods.” Differences in art viewing as a function of expertise can even manifest in low-level visual processing. For example, experts tend to look more at a painting’s periphery, evaluate the entirety of the canvas, and use a global or visual “gist” perspective, whereas art naïve viewers focus more on the center of a work (Pihko et al., 2011). Of course, some of the above factors can be controlled for in empirical studies. However, a key point may be that entire populations of viewers possess a baseline of expectations that differ between groups. As noted by Carroll (1986), it is quite curious that the casual noninterested viewer is often our source for characterizing the art experience. Motivations and Expectations A good deal of sociology and general museum studies research has also explored visitors’ motivations for going to museums as well as their viewing expectations (Falk, 2009; Tinio et al., 2014). Although these factors connect to the various stages of the model, they are particularly relevant to preclassification. The very decision to visit a museum and to see art sets the basis for the entire experience. A survey by Hendon, Costa, and Rosenberg (1989, performed in 1981) for example, found that 45% of visitors to a museum had plans to see specific artworks. Hendon et al. (1989) showed that galleries that contained art that participants were most interested in before a visit were rated as most interesting at the end of their museum visit. Museum visitors also have general expectations about their art visit. Hendon et al. (1989, p. 237), reviewed surveys from the mid-1970s to 1980s and suggested that about 40% of museum This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FACTORS INFLUENCING ‘REAL’ AND MUSEUM-BASED ART visitors come for “general interest and curiosity,” 15–20% visit to accompany children, and 15% visit to see specific exhibits. JansenVerbeke and van Rekom (1996) found that 25% of visitors had the goal of “learning something,” followed by “enriching life” (#10%) and “relaxation” (#6%). Chang (2006, p. 173) suggested that frequent visitors “value learning,” want to “undertake new experiences,” and place a high value on doing something worthwhile with leisure time. Furthermore, Falk (2009) identified five motivations: intention to explore, have new experiences, recharge/ rejuvenate, facilitate art experience for friends or children, and see specific artworks or exhibits. Viewers may also differ with regard to what constitutes a generally “successful” or satisfying experience. Roberts (1997) found that visitors expected to experience reminiscence, fantasy, personal involvement, restoration, and intellectual curiosity. Kotler and Kotler (2000; also Falk & Dierking, 1992; Kotler, 1999) noted six types of expectations for their museum visit: recreation, social interaction, learning, aesthetic experience, celebration, and enchantment. In another study that looked at museum visitors’ expectations, Pitman-Gelles and Hirzy (2010) surveyed 1,500 visitors to the Dallas Museum of Fine Art and found four “clusters” that were based on expectations: participants, who sought emotional or social art engagement; independents, who sought self-paced, introspective engagement; enthusiasts, who were interested in art history and technique; and observers, who were not especially engaged and just visiting for tourism or family reasons. Pekarik and Schreiber (2012, see also Pekarik, Doering, & Karns, 1999) identified similar categories of visitors who expected to: learn new information; find an emotional connection; find beauty; reflect on art’s meaning; feel specific reactions such as awe, wonder, calm, or curiosity; imagine other events or locations through art; and have interactions with rare, real objects. The above expectations may provide viewers with a particular cognitive frame of reference through which information is processed. Individuals who expect learning or exploration may be more likely to deeply engage, cognitively process, and seek out and respond positively to challenge or confusion. Those seeking pleasure may be more likely to use an aesthetic mode, respond positively to positively valenced art, or consider only style and visual aspects. The level of enjoyment or art appraisal that individuals report may also directly tie to whether or not their specific expectations are met (e.g., see Falk, 2009; Tinio et al., 2014). These factors can, of course, differ between art museum viewers and should be considered when designing empirical studies. It is also instructive to compare these motivations against a laboratory visitor. As noted by Hilton and Darley (1985, p. 13) in a discussion of general psychological testing in a laboratory, “from [an] interaction goals perspective, consider the . . . task we impose on the interactants. . . . Psychologists create situations in which people interact briefly, without set goals,” with some previously unexpected and unsought stimulus, and with which “they may expect no further interaction.” They argue that “given this interaction context, the major interaction goal is likely to simply be to get through the experience smoothly without any negative consequences.” Hekkert (2012, p. 9) makes a related argument, suggesting that participants who are primed to think of hopes or goals, as opposed to those who begin a task by first thinking of obligation, should favor novelty or variety in art. Returning to the above discussion regarding “real” art, Pekarik and Schreiber (2012), across a 7-year study of 18 museum sites, 253 showed that the most oft-noted expectation was finding rare, real, in-person experiences. Mastandrea et al. (2007, 2009) similarly noted visitors’ desire to see genuine artworks in addition to other motivations. Social “Distinction” and Museum Expectations/Attendance Although again largely outside this review, the above discussion also touches sociological aspects. In his classic papers, Bourdieu (1968, 1979; Bourdieu & Darbel, 1969; see also Chang, 2006; McCracken, 2003, for reviews) notes that choice to interact with art can mark a means of social demarcation, enabling vicarious interaction with those who also value art. This also ties to the above discussions of who typically goes to a museum (more educated, higher income viewers), which represents a class many wish to join. Hendon et al. (1989, p. 240), reporting results of a review of several museum visitor surveys, noted that “a large proportion of people appeared to value status differences,” over half felt that art should improve morals and 44% thought people who liked art were “better than people who did not” (see also Hanquinet, 2013). Implications can also be found in those who claim that they do not visiting museums. Surveys suggest that those who do not attend, or who even visit infrequently (Chang, 2006), feel that galleries can be overly formal, formidable, or inaccessible places, leading to discomfort and intimidation. Leong (2003), for example, also found that nonvisitors perceived museums not for themselves, but for other classes, who were presumed to be more knowledgeable. If individuals do not feel that they meet the criteria of a typical visitor, they may enter with expectations that create more negative mood, may devote more resources to social processing, and may have more anxiety/negative experience. Group Size and Between-Visitor/Museum Differences Finally, if designing museum studies, researchers should also consider particular circumstances that may influence makeup of visitors. For example, summer may have a larger number of tourists, and art-naïve visitors, as might weekends or blockbuster exhibits (Pekarik et al., 1999). Higgs, Polonsky, and Hollick (2005) suggested that first-timers have slightly lower expectations in general, which may cause more facile interactions. Differences may also be found between types of museums (Mastandrea et al., 2007; Pekarik et al., 1999; J. K. Smith & Carr, 2001). Chosen participants from among museum attendees may also share certain personalities—such as openness to experience, sensation seeking, or need for cognition—which may lead to seeking certain results (e.g., Cacioppo & Petty, 1982; DiMaggio, 1996, p. 166; see further discussions in Supplemental Table S2). A last critical factor concerns whether participants are alone or in groups. Adults in groups larger than two, as well as adults accompanying children, have been shown to approach their visit as primarily social or educational, with emphasis on conversing with their partners. Chang (2006) suggested that this could lead to groups paying less attention to exhibits, reading less information, and spending less time with individual works (see Tröndle, Kirchberg, et al., 2014 for similar findings in an art museum). Adults with children also focus primarily on the child rather than the art. PELOWSKI, FORSTER, TINIO, SCHOLL, AND LEDER 254 Individual visitors, on the other hand, are more likely to approach art with expectations of introspection. They may look at art longer and more intently/introspectively (Chang, 2006; McManus, 1996). McManus (1996) further found that adult couples show the same behavior as do individual adults, employing the same personal introspective approach. Thus, if a researcher wants to assess introspective experience (i.e., as might fit a lab comparison), we recommend two adults as a key cut-off. Of course, other group types and sizes are natural variables unique to museums, and also require examination in future research. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Summary for Viewer Context The above factors concerning viewers involve expectations that they bring with them into their interactions with art. The factors have effects that could run through all stages of the model, but notably, during the implicit memory integration stage, in which memory and past experiences become important, and could led to both a sense of familiarity regarding artworks as well as preference judgments and emotional reactions. The stage of explicit classification is also particularly relevant as it involves deliberate classification of artworks based on style or content. Based on the review of the above factors, the differences between museum visitors and laboratory participants are noteworthy. However, researchers must be mindful of the limitations of assessing art viewing only among individuals who purposely choose to visit a museum. Although these viewers may present many qualities important for more in-depth study of the art experience, the people who walk through museum doors are self-selected as much as laboratory participants. The Museum and Presentation Context The interaction between viewer and artwork is also mediated by factors inherent in the presentation context. These include (a) the specific ways in which artworks are presented, (b) aspects of the physical space of the museum that may influence expectations or ways of viewing (see Supplemental Table S3), and (c) the behav- Figure 2. iors of the art viewer and other key factors such as the amount of time that people have to view art (see Supplemental Table S4 and Figure 2). Display/Hanging Concerning presentation, one of the most obvious factors is the manner in which artworks are displayed. Paintings may be leaned against a wall, hung alone or in groups. Sculptures could be placed in a corner or set in the middle of a room. The approach taken may depend on trends, resources, or particular concepts associated with an exhibition or museum. Museum studies suggest that the simple act of placing an object on a higher plane, as compared to other objects, could increase the object’s importance and the attention that it receives (Bitgood, 1992). This effect could also be achieved by placing a particular work among smaller ones, by emphasizing a work’s distinctive color or texture, and by using spotlighting. Nodelman (1997) suggested that paintings can be hung to create rhythms (e.g., big-small-big; vertical-horizontal) that could prime expectations for the next work or instill a sense of interconnected meaning among the works. Pelowski et al. (2012) suggested that paintings hung particularly high on a wall or with an upright, human-like orientation can be felt to “watch” viewers in a gallery, potentially cueing self-awareness, awareness of one’s body, and/or selfreflection. Frame The physical frame acts as another visual element that influences the way an artwork is viewed. Frames are ubiquitous in most art settings. As noted by Ensor and Hamilton (2014, p. 121; see also Curry, 2000), frames provide a border and structural support to a flat visual art object, while simultaneously “tell[ing] the eye” where to look and potentially “completing” a painting or drawing. Despite the prevalence of the use of frames, there have been few empirical studies examining their influence on the art experience. Factors to consider in gallery viewing and movement. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FACTORS INFLUENCING ‘REAL’ AND MUSEUM-BASED ART Koutstaal (1998), working in the laboratory, asked participants to view a succession of framed pictures, with the frames varying in color and pattern. This was accompanied by a task in which participants were either given a question focused on both frame and picture or on picture alone. Results showed that without a task directing participants’ attention to the frames, most participants could not recall the specific frames of pictures. However, when the task did direct participants’ attention to frames, participants were better able to recall the frames, but recall for the pictures was reduced. This latter finding suggests that frames may compete with pictures for cognitive or attentional resources (note however, the task of explicitly thinking of a frame and its picture may also not be typical art viewing behavior itself). Boundaries Boundaries, such as cases, ropes, and even pedestals, also frame and influence interaction. In considering these elements, Bitgood (1992, p. 8) suggested that focus should be placed on the way that boundaries create both a space for the visitor and for the exhibit. These spaces may prescribe certain ways of interacting with art and could emphasize specific elements within artworks. Pedestals or barriers might increase the feeling of distance by placing the work “in a space of its own” that is not shared by the viewer (Cupchik, 2006, p. 218), and could thus lead to an aesthetically detached mode of viewing and encourage the processing of formal properties of artworks. On a similar note, Griswold, Mangione, and McDonnell (2013, p. 352) suggested that although barriers may “prescribe (or forbid)” certain interactions, their absence— especially when barriers are typically present—may also “cue” a viewer-centered approach that promotes “freedom of movement and engagement” (see also Akrich & Latour, 1992). This potentially makes art seem more lighthearted or entertaining. Artworks that are in some way set apart, via a barrier, may also be deemed more respected and important (e.g., think of the classic example of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre; see also Belting, 1994). Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein (1977, p. 550) reported that even subtle framing/boundary elements in a gallery could modulate depth of engagement. In an observation study of several museums, they found that many exhibits failed to “hold” people resulting in short viewing durations. However, in an exhibit with a strip of brightly colored carpet running parallel to a wall with displayed artworks, which created a visual barrier that one had to cross to engage the objects, viewers spent a longer time interacting with the exhibit. These aspects of the presentational context have largely been neglected by empirical psychological research. Lighting Lighting is another factor differentiating the laboratory and museum. Griswold et al. (2013, p. 359) noted that lighting may “act on people” by affecting physical positioning and influencing “how they locate and . . . comprehend.” Lighting direction may draw attraction to certain works in a gallery, and the type of light used (e.g., warm or cool and spot or uniform lighting) may change the experience of sculptures and paintings. Many galleries, especially those displaying paintings and sculptures, use natural lighting that highlight brushstrokes or colors that are features of certain 255 techniques such as impasto, or certain styles such as impressionism (see Model Stage 4). Lighting is able to reveal depth in paintings with multiple layers or glazing, or can show a finely cracked surface that changes as one shifts the angle of viewing. These features are almost impossible to perceive in reproductions of artworks. Labels and Art-Related Information Artworks in museums are also often accompanied by supporting “extra-exhibit media” (Bitgood, 1992), including labels, texts or catalogs, maps, and audio guides. Contextual information has been a focus of empirical study, especially in the laboratory. Providing titles has been shown to increase ratings of meaningfulness and to decrease the perceived abstractness of works (Russell & Milne, 1997). Titles can also boost a work’s hedonic value (Gerger & Leder, 2015; Russell, 2003), perhaps through increasing fluency or understanding (related to explicit classification and cognitive mastering stages). Title information may also increase an artwork’s importance, cognitively challenge the visitor, and encourage/influence meaning making (Cupchik, Shereck, & Spiegel, 1994). On the other hand, laboratory study (L. F. Smith, Bousquet, Chang, & Smith, 2006) has also found that labels may not always affect ratings (via 24 adjectival pairs) of art. Turning to the museum, there is also a growing body of research, and outstanding questions, concerning the use of labels. Regarding what might occur when a label is added to a display, Bitgood and Patterson (1993, p. 762) noted that “two alternative and seemingly incompatible visitor reactions have been postulated.” On the one hand, the need to read a label may “distract attention or compete with other components,” or may disrupt aesthetic or spontaneous reactions by shifting focus on didactic information (see also Funch, Kroyer, Roald, & Wildt, 2012). On the other hand, labels may direct attention and stimulate interest. Peart (1984; see Bitgood & Patterson, 1993 for a review) demonstrated that an object with a label generally produces a higher percentage of visitors stopping to see a work and longer viewing times. Pekarik (2004, p. 12) thus noted that an important question for museum studies is “when does an interpretation [enhance or] diminish the fundamental nature of . . . experience and place limits on independent judgment?” (see also Supplemental Table S3 for further examples). This difference has only begun to be considered with museum art. It should be noted that information about an artwork in laboratory studies is based on testing specific hypotheses and is controlled by the research. In the museum, such information—if present—is almost always accessible to the viewer, who can then decide whether to either engage with it or not. This type of decision-making should be considered when making comparisons between laboratory and museum research. Physical Aspects of the Museum Specific elements of the museum environment also have a bearing on how art experiences will play out. Of the above factors related to presentational contexts, the art viewing space may be the most salient factor differentiating museum and laboratory research in aesthetics. Architectural elements such as the presence of hallways and room layout influence the way in which artworks are approached. Staircases or doors may create certain viewpoints, and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 256 PELOWSKI, FORSTER, TINIO, SCHOLL, AND LEDER thus direct initial attention to and awareness of specific artworks or artwork elements (related to the preclassification stage). Griswold et al. (2013) noted that the size of spaces may change visitors’ moods and evaluations. Large halls could imbue art with greater importance, or encourage a sense of the sublime. Intimate spaces or low ceilings could emphasize more personal evaluations, or benefit small-sized art. In a recent empirical study, Vartanian et al. (2013) showed that rooms with curved walls, as opposed to rectilinear walls, led to higher judgments of beauty and pleasantness, as well as activations of the anterior cingulate cortex—tied to reward—and higher activations of the visual cortex. These factors could also influence the assessment of art, as could general levels of room opulence or austerity—for example, consider the contrast in ambience between a former palace-turnedmuseum versus the modern “white cube” museum (O’Doherty, 1986). Gartus and Leder (2014) argued that the white cube may minimize outside influences, leading to a more thoughtful environment. On the other hand, austere modern art presentation has been noted by artists/critics to potentially lead to dull, cold (Hickey, 1993), antiseptic (Kaprow, 1961) feelings as well. The direct interaction between architecture and art needs to be further explored empirically. To our knowledge, the only systematic study of such interaction was that conducted by Gartus and Leder (2014). They used a computer program to embed modern artworks and graffiti art in street (concrete background) and museum (white wall) settings. They found no significant impact of context on liking and interest; however, this may be because the art was on a computer and not in a physical setting. Brieber et al. (2015), attempted to reproduce a museum through digital means, contrasting against an actual museum visit. They found that participants who first visited museums recalled more artworks from their visit. They suggested that participants may have been successfully using spatial cues to retrieve the artworks from memory, which was absent in the laboratory. Weather and odors have also been shown to influence mood (Gendolla, 2000, regarding general museum studies) as well as sounds or views from windows and hallways (Bitgood, 1992; Bitgood et al., 1988). Cultural Factors Related to the Museum Space The museum setting itself carries culturally relevant factors that could influence experience. Visiting a museum is often considered a special activity. Bourdieu (1968, p. 26) noted that everything in museum design— classic or monumental architecture, materials— combine to indicate that the world of art is “sacred” or contrary to the world of everyday life. He stated that “the mere fact that works are consecrated by being exhibited” is sufficient to “change their signification” and to “raise the level of their emission.” This may have to do with a sense of access or exclusion, with the museum emphasizing the latter. Sacredness may especially play a role with works that are more conceptual, disturbing, or challenging to interpret. The museum context may help to neutralize otherwise troubling objects or to create a safe zone for viewing (e.g., Goffman, 1967). Many museums are situated in central, prized locations and are themselves cultural attractions. Barthes (1983, p. 30) noted that for most Western cities, the center where many museums are located is “a marked site,” where “the values of civilization are gathered.” To go to the city-center is “to participate in the proud plenitude of ‘reality’” and perhaps encourages us to look for certain qualities (e.g., deeper meaning, challenge), or take art more seriously and give it importance. Museums may also induce a detached, aesthetic mode through their ability to “annex” objects, separating them from the ordinary and “aestheticizing” them (Dufrenne, 1973, p. 153). Jacobsen (2006, p. 161) noted that “being in a museum” facilitates processing, because it primes use of certain schema allowing us to more easily attend to certain aspects important for viewing/understanding art. On the other hand, this may also reduce cognitive or intellectual engagement. Fenner (2003) suggested that the detached museum mode may create passive receivers, and dissuade active discovery or sense of challenge (see also Cross & Ticini, 2012). Museum culture may also be important when artists directly play with the sense of aesthetic distance, causing tension with expectations. This is perhaps especially important for conceptual or readymade artists, whose works may be art only because they are in a museum (Crowther, 1993). As also noted above, the museum—via its cultural place— could also blunt impact, or render art less potent. Blanchot (1997, pp. 15–16) suggested a tendency for works to become seen as “museum art.” He called museums “artificial places,” in which “the world [is] constrained, solitary, dead”. Hickey (1993, p. 54) suggested, especially with controversial works, museums can “validate . . . and detoxify” objects, “neutraliz[ing] their power” by making them “exhibits” or aesthetic objects (see also Dezeuze, 2005; Nerdrum, 2001). Museum Viewing Experience and Movement in Galleries How museum space is designed and artworks are presented have a bearing on how visitors move about the gallery spaces. From general museum studies, a general pattern of movement has emerged (see also Griswold et al., 2013): Upon entering a gallery, visitors often pause and survey the room, determining which objects should be engaged with and identifying a desired path to follow (Pelowski, Liu, Palacios, & Akiba, 2014). Visitors observe other viewers, obstacles, and displayed information. They then move from work-to-work, giving brief glances, until one particular work is focused on. Subsequently, a gist impression of the work is derived (Locher, 1996; Locher et al., 2008). They then either move on to another work, or stay and give the current one additional attention (J. K. Smith & Smith, 2001). Visitors also tend to move to the right upon entering a gallery and may give more attention to works on the right side of a room (Bitgood, 2006). There is a tendency to follow the wall around a room and to leave at the first doorway (Bitgood & Dukes, 2006; Melton, 1972). Visitors typically do not backtrack to see works missed on the first go-through (Bitgood, 2006; Klein, 1993). Such patterns could influence art assessment. Regarding rightward movement—whether a natural propensity or a statistical artifact from culture/design of museums (see Bitgood & Dukes, 2006; M. Parsons & Loomis, 1973)— hung artworks may often be approached from the right edge. Freestanding sculptures may be circumnavigated looking over the left shoulder. In turn, for example, Wilson and Chatterjee (2005, p. 165) noted that images with salient objects located on the right are preferred in general. These This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FACTORS INFLUENCING ‘REAL’ AND MUSEUM-BASED ART features would be met first when walking. An interesting question would be if changing direction of approaching changes evaluation. The act of physically moving toward an artwork may also play an important role in the way it is experienced. Works that are given priority placement in museums are often approached from a distance. As one example, Winged Victory of Samothrace in the Louvre, gradually reveals itself as one ascends the main stairway. Museums also often place major paintings at the back of galleries to draw individuals toward them, thus imbuing the works with importance. Novitz (2001, p. 153) noted that a slow revealing can afford deference or “internal” or “participatory” perspective (see also Wolterstorff, 2003, p. 26, describing the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington D.C.; Funch, 2007, p. 3 for an example with painting). Advancing toward an artwork could highlight certain features and reinforce a progression of attention from large gestalt aspects to more detailed looking, as in paintings by Chuck Close. Thus, when considering the art experience in the museum and the laboratory, it is important to consider how artworks are approached or first seen by visitors. Cost-Minimization, Museum Fatigue, and Satiation There are also more general aspects of museum engagement that may be specific to museums and are indirectly related to the presentational context. Research suggests that museum behavior involves a cost-minimizing approach (Bitgood & Patterson, 1993; Turner & Penn, 2002), where viewers spend the minimum amount of energy required to view art. Museum studies have also identified museum fatigue (for overviews, see Bitgood, 2009; Davey, 2005; Melton, 1972), which refers to a decrease in effort and interest (measured via viewing time) as visitors see more works. Past a certain threshold, visitors may also cease viewing additional works, unless they are very compelling (Bitgood, 2006; Davey, 2005). These findings are attributed to a combination of factors including limits on cognitive processing, exhaustion, stress, information overload, and object competition (Bitgood, 2009). A related concept is “satiation” (Bitgood, 2006, 2009), which involves decreased attention not as a function of tiredness, but of repeated exposure to homogenous stimulation (e.g., a series of similar artworks). The above concepts all await rigorous empirical testing. To date, we could find only one reported study. Robinson (1928; see Bitgood, 2009) asked participants to look at 100 art prints for as long as they wished. Results showed a progressive decrease in attention. This was more pronounced in the laboratory as compared to the museum. Museum fatigue and satiation could be argued to lead participants to select and look at artworks that they expect to be deeply engaging, and to bypass others. In the laboratory, the viewer is a passive receiver with little or no control over what they look at. Therefore, they might be less engaged than if they were looking at similar works in a museum. The Body During Viewing Standing or walking, as opposed to sitting, may itself mark a key difference between the art experience in the museum and laboratory. Human cognition is inextricably linked to motor behavior (Gramann, Gwin, Bigdely-Shamlo, Ferris, & Makeig, 2010). This ties to ideas of “natural vision” (Gibson, 1986; see Turner & Penn, 257 2002 for a review), which considers vision as involving the entire perceptual system. As noted by Gibson (1986, p. 205), one “sees the environment . . . with the eyes-in-the-head-on-the-bodyresting-on-the-ground.” Unlike the fixed perception of a seated viewer, “when [fewer] constraints are put on the visual system,” we “move around” an object “so as to see it from all sides, and go from one vista to another” (Gibson in Turner & Penn, 2002, p. 474). This aligns with Berlyne’s (1971) approach to art-viewing, which suggests three types of exploration: orienting (which might come through initial viewing and gist impressions), manual, and locomotor responses. He defined the latter as “movements towards sources of stimulation or towards vantage points” from which art can be efficiently inspected (p. 993). He also tied this to potential outcomes in hedonic assessment and understanding. Griswold et al. (2013, p. 355) suggested that the viewer glances at the work, approaches to read a label, and then steps back to view for a longer time. The specific movement pattern may influence the degree of intimacy felt by the viewer or guide attention, and thus influence the appraisal of work or meaning derived from art. Bodily sensations are other contributing factors to the art experience. Cupchik (2006, p. 209; see also Tröndle & Tschacher, 2012) noted that purposive mental activity always includes “generalized bodily arousal,” which focuses attention and facilitates evaluation of objects. Kapoula, Lang, and Locher (2014) have begun to explore this area. Using a belted accelerometer, they showed that visual exploration in free viewing paradigms, as opposed to fixed viewing, induced larger antero-posterior sway speed and displacement, which may also tie to or enhance macroeye movements. Kapoula, Adenis, Lê, Yang, and Lipede (2011) also showed that pictorial depth effects postural sway and stability when individuals stand before paintings, and these effects are modulated by local depth information (i.e., individuals lean into paintings with deeper pictorial fields). In a museum study involving Mark Rothko paintings, Pelowski et al. (2014) showed that the body can play an important role in inducing more self-reflective responses. They report that, especially when facing particularly engrossing or challenging art, contextual sensations (e.g., hearing one’s own footsteps, sensing wind from the air conditioning system) may shift attention to the body and one’s current actions. This awareness, which they place at the cognitive mastering stage of the art experience, may induce metacognitive reflection in which individuals reconsider assumptions. Such physical “triggers” are important topics for future research. Viewing Distance The distance between viewer and artwork is another critical factor. An early study of viewing distance was originally conducted by Maertens (1884; see Clarke et al., 1984 for a review), who reported that a painting could be viewed completely from a distance of twice the longest dimension of a work. More recent literature, however, such as by Clarke et al. (1984), suggests a less linear relation between viewing distance and the sizes of artworks. They also found that varying instructions to participants regarding choice of viewing distance between what “looks best” and is “most comfortable” did not influence selected distance. Instead, participants looked longer when standing closer. Choice of distance, and relation to both liking and interest, also showed high interpersonal differences (specific differences not reported). Viewers sometimes 258 PELOWSKI, FORSTER, TINIO, SCHOLL, AND LEDER choose perspectives to limit or change their viewing experience. For example, they may stand quite far away in order to better appraise form or may stand very close to a work to achieve a sense of being enveloped (O’Doherty in Elderfiled, 2005, p. 102). On the other hand, Papathomas (2002) investigated paintings in which perspectival elements were salient and showed that individuals increase enjoyment by increasing viewing distance. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Time Finally, time may delineate between art experienced in the laboratory and museum. Museum studies suggest that individuals do not look at art for very long. Smith and Smith’s (2001; Smith, 2014, p. 35, for a replication in a European setting) classic study of visitors to the Metropolitan Museum of Art found that visitors spent an average of 27.2 viewing paintings that were considered masterpieces of the collection. A follow-up study by L. F. Smith, Smith, and Tinio (2016) at The Art Institute of Chicago found a duration of 28.6 s. Other studies have shown similarly short durations. Tröndle and Tschacher (2012) found a median duration of 11 s (ranging between 3 s to 13 min) and Brieber et al. (2014) found approximately 39 s. Even such short durations allow for initial and intermediate stages of processing as people are able to rapidly detect and categorize the style characteristics (abstract/ representational), composition, pleasantness, and interestingness of an artwork with a single rapid, 100-ms glance (Locher et al., 2010). Neuroimaging studies also suggest that 3 to 4 s marks a major threshold for basic emotional responses (Geday, Kupers, & Gjedde, 2007), whereas studies by J. K. Smith and Smith (2001) in museums showed that initial assessments—an action they called “sampling”—took roughly 10 s. It is reasonable to assume that most laboratory presentations, which often do not exceed 5s (Brieber et al., 2014), may not allow for more detailed or in-depth processing. Laboratory studies have shown that artificially limiting viewing time to less than 6 seconds could lead to relatively unstable assessments (Bachmann & Vipper, 1983; however see L. F. Smith et al., 2006). This may be due to artificial limits on the normal processes associated with viewing and appraisal. More profound experiences of art seem to require longer periods of engagement. Leder and Nadal (2014, p. 449) argued that a key component of “aesthetic” experience may be their “its long extension in time, which allows for several cycles of feedback and feed-forward . . . processes related to perception, cognition, and emotion.” J. K. Smith and Smith (2001) noted this in their observation of viewers who spent over one minute viewing art, who the authors considered to be “savoring” a work. For art-induced insight or personal/interpretive transformations, Pelowski and Akiba (2011, p. 95) suggest even longer durations. Follow up study in three galleries (Pelowski, 2015), found means of 7.5 to 20 min— roughly two times longer than other viewers. Summary for Museum Context Factors related to the presentational context may mark the most overlooked and potentially most fruitful area for future research on the psychology of art. One can argue that the physical space of the museum creates the optimal context for experiencing art, a context that promotes deep engagement with art and with the potential to experience art in a self-referential and personally transformative manner. Conclusion To conclude, we hope that the above examination has identified the key factors that can influence the art experience, with many of the factors being inherent in museum-based art. Although it is undeniable that laboratory research is extremely valuable in uncovering the processes associated with our interactions with art, we must further extend such work into the museum. In this article, we aimed to highlight and place a framework— using of a model of aesthetic experiences—around the above factors and examine them within the context of psychology of art study, and which we hope will provide a useful resource for constructing future research. References Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259 –264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Augustin, M. D., & Leder, H. (2006). Art expertise: A study of concepts and conceptual spaces. Psychological Science, 48, 135–156. Augustin, M. D., Wagemans, J., & Carbon, C. C. (2012). All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 139, 187–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.004 Baber, C., Bristow, H., Cheng, S.-L., Hedley, A., Kuriyama, Y., Lien, M., . . . Sorrell, P. (2001). Augmenting museums and art galleries. Paper presented at the 13rd Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Interact. Bachmann, T., & Vipper, K. (1983). Perceptual rating of paintings from different artistic styles as a function of semantic differential scales and exposure time. Archiv fur Psychologie, 135, 149 –161. Bailey, G. (2000). Art: Life after death? In N. Carroll (Ed.), Theories of art today (pp. 160 –174). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Barnes, S. J. (1989). The Rothko Chapel; An act of faith. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Barthes, R. (1983). Empire of signs. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Becker, H. S. (1974). Art as collective action. American Sociological Review, 39, 767–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094151 Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Belting, H. (1994). Likeness and presence: A history of the image before the era of art. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Benjamin, W. (1969). Illuminations. New York, NY: Schocken Books. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London, UK: Penguin. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Oxford, UK: Hemisphere. Berlyne, D. E., & Ogilvie, J. C. (1974). Dimensions of perception of paintings. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 181–226). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons. Bersson, R. (1982). Against feeling: Aesthetic experience in technocratic society. Art Education, 35, 34 –39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3192619 Bitgood, S. (1992). The anatomy of an exhibit. Visitor Behavior, 7, 4 –15. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FACTORS INFLUENCING ‘REAL’ AND MUSEUM-BASED ART Bitgood, S. (2006). An analysis of visitor circulation: Movement patterns and the general value principle. Curator, 49, 463– 475. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2006.tb00237.x Bitgood, S. (2009). Museum fatigue: A critical review. Visitor Studies, 12, 93–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10645570903203406 Bitgood, S., Devia, C., Goodwin, P., Rudin, C., Trammell, A., & Zimmerman, B. (2001). Projective focusing: Motivated attention to works of art. Current Trends in Audience Research, 14, 25–31. Bitgood, S., & Dukes, S. (2006). Not another step! Economy of movement and pedestrian choice point behavior in shopping malls. Environment and Behavior, 38, 394 – 405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00139165052 80081 Bitgood, S., & Patterson, D. D. (1993). The effects of gallery changes on visitor reading and object viewing time. Environment and Behavior, 25, 761–781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916593256006 Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit design and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships. Environment and Behavior, 20, 474 – 491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916588204006 Blanchot, M. (1997). Friendship (E. Rottenberg, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Boas, G. (1943). Art and reality. College Art Journal, 2, 115. http://dx.doi .org/10.2307/773341 Bourdieu, P. (1968). Outline of a sociological theory of art perception. International Social Science Journal, 20, 589 – 612. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris, France: Les Edition de Minuit. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Darbel, A. (1969). L’amour de l’art. Paris, France: Les Edition de Minuit. Brieber, D., Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2015). The experience of art in museums: An attempt to dissociate the role of physical context and genuineness. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 33, 95–105. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0276237415570000 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.004 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, e99019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone .0099019 Brown, S., & Dissanayake, E. (2009). The arts are more than aesthetics: Neuroaesthetics as narrow aesthetics. In M. Skov & O. Vartanian (Eds.), Neuroaesthetics (Vol. 43–57). Amityville, NY: Baywood. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116 –131. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 Calvo-Merino, B., Grèzes, J., Glaser, D. E., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2006). Seeing or doing? Influence of visual and motor familiarity in action observation. Current Biology, 16, 1905–1910. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.065 Carroll, N. (1986). Art and Interaction. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 45, 57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/430466 Cela-Conde, C. J., Agnati, L., Huston, J. P., Mora, F., & Nadal, M. (2011). The neural foundations of aesthetic appreciation. Progress in Neurobiology, 94, 39 – 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.03.003 Chan, J. K. L., & Yeoh, E. (2010). The experiential dimensions of museum experiences: The visitors’ perspectives. International Journal of Business & Accountancy, 1, 20 –31. Chang, E. (2006). Interactive experiences and contextual learning in museums. Studies in Art Education, 47, 170 –186. Clarke, J. C., Shortess, G. K., & Richter, M. L. (1984). Stimulus size, viewing distance, and experimental aesthetics. Visual Arts Research, 10, 1– 8. 259 Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Cross, E. S., & Ticini, L. F. (2012). Neuroaesthetics and beyond: New horizons in applying the science of the brain to the art of dance. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11, 5–16. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11097-010-9190-y Crowther, P. (1993). Art and embodiment: From aesthetics to selfconsciousness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cupchik, G. C. (1995). Emotion in aesthetics: Reactive and reflective models. Poetics, 23, 177–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94) 00014-W Cupchik, G. C. (2006). Emotion in aesthetics and the aesthetics of emotion. In P. Locher, C. Martindale, & L. Dorfman (Eds.), New Directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 209 –224). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company. Cupchik, G. C. (2013). I am, therefore I think, act, and express both in life and in art. In T. Roald & J. Lang (Eds.), Art and identity: Essays on the aesthetic creation of mind (pp. 67–92). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi. Cupchik, G. C., & Gebotys, R. J. (1988). The search for meaning in art: Interpretive styles and judgments of quality. Visual Arts Research, 14, 38 –50. Cupchik, G. C., Shereck, L., & Spiegel, S. (1994). The effects of textual information on artistic communication. Visual Arts Research, 20, 62–78. Cupchik, G. C., Vartanian, O., Crawley, A., & Mikulis, D. J. (2009). Viewing artworks: Contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic experience. Brain and Cognition, 70, 84 –91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.003 Cupchik, G. C., & Winston, A. S. (1996). Confluence and divergence in empirical aesthetics, philosophy, and mainstream psychology. In M. P. Friedman & E. C. Carterette (Eds.), Handbook of cogntion and perception: Cognitive ecology (2 ed., pp. 61– 85). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012161966-4/50005-0 Cupchik, G. C., & Wroblewski-Raya, V. (1998). Loneliness as a theme in painting. Visual Arts Research, 24, 65–71. Currie, G. (1985). The authentic and the aesthetic. American Philosophical Quarterly, 22, 153–160. Curry, D. P. (2000). What’s in a frame? In E. Wilner (Ed.), The gilded edge: The art of the frame (pp. 134 –155). San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books. Danto, A. C. (1974). The transfiguration of the commonplace. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 33, 139. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 429082 Davey, G. (2005). What is museum fatigue? Visitor Studies Today, 8, 1–21. Davoli, C. C., & Abrams, R. A. (2009). Reaching out with the imagination. Psychological Science, 20, 293–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14679280.2009.02293.x Dewey, J. (1980). Art as experience. New York, NY: Perigee. Dezeuze, A. (2005). Transfiguration of the commonplace. Variant, 22, 17–19. Di Dio, C., Macaluso, E., & Rizzolatti, G. (2007). The golden beauty: Brain response to classical and renaissance sculptures. PLoS ONE, 2, e1201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201 DiMaggio, P. (1996). Are art-museum visitors different from other people? The relationship between attendance and social and political attitudes in the United States. Poetics, 24, 161–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0304-422X(96)00008-3 DiMaggio, P., & Useem, M. (1978). Social class and arts consumption. Theory and Society, 5, 141–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01702159 Dufrenne, M. (1973). The phenomenology of aesthetic experience. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 260 PELOWSKI, FORSTER, TINIO, SCHOLL, AND LEDER Dutton, D. (2003). Authenticity in art. In J. Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of aesthetics (pp. 258 –274). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dutton, D. (2009). The art instinct: Beauty, pleasure, & human evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Elderfiled, J. (2005). Transformations. In G. Phillips & T. Crow (Eds.), Seeing Rothko (pp. 101–122). Los Angeles, CA: Getty Research Institute. Elkins, J. (1999). Why are our pictures puzzles? On the modern origins of pictorial complexity. New York, NY: Routledge. Ensor, K., & Hamilton, M. (2014). Effect of distinctive frames on memory for pictures. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 32, 121–131. http://dx.doi .org/10.2190/EM.32.2.EOV.6 Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J. (2012). Stirring images: Fear, not happiness or arousal, makes art more sublime. Emotion, 12, 1071– 1074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027200 Falk, J. H. (1993). Assessing the impact of exhibit arrangement on visitor behavior and learning. Curator, 36, 133–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.2151-6952.1993.tb00786.x Falk, J. H. (2009). Identity and the museum visitor experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books. Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf & Härtel. Feist, G. J., & Brady, T. R. (2004). Openness to experience, nonconformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 77– 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/Y7CA-TBY6-V7LR-76GK Fenner, D. E. W. (2003). Aesthetic experience and aesthetic analysis. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 37, 40 –53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 3527420 Flexas, A., Rosselló, J., Christensen, J. F., Nadal, M., Olivera La Rosa, A., & Munar, E. (2013). Affective priming using facial expressions modulates liking for abstract art. PLoS ONE, 8, e80154. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1371/journal.pone.0080154 Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 197–203. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.02.003 Fried, M. (2005). Barthes’s Punctum. Critical Inquiry, 31, 539 –574. Funch, B. S. (1993). Educating the eye: Strategies for museum education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 27, 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 3333344 Funch, B. S. (2007). A psychological theory of the aesthetic experience. In L. Dorfman, C. Martindale, & V. Petrov (Eds.), Aesthetics and innovation (pp. 3–19). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Funch, B. S., Kroyer, L. L., Roald, T., & Wildt, E. (2012). Long-term effect of aesthetic education on visual awareness. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 46, 96 –108. http://dx.doi.org/10.5406/jaesteduc.46.4.0096 Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001). Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15, 57–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.340 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, 311–320. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0036847 Geday, J., Kupers, R., & Gjedde, A. (2007). As time goes by: Temporal constraints on emotional activation of inferior medial prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 2753–2759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/ bhm002 Gendolla, G. H. E. (2000). On the impact of mood on behavior: An integrative theory and a review. Review of General Psychology, 4, 378 – 408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.4.378 Gerger, G., & Leder, H. (2015). Titles change the esthetic appreciations of paintings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 464. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00464 Gerger, G., Leder, H., & Kremer, A. (2014). Context effects on emotional and aesthetic evaluations of artworks and IAPS pictures. Acta Psychologica, 151, 174 –183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.06.008 Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1969). Aesthetic opinion: An empirical study. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 34. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1086/267665 Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. London, UK: Erlbaum. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Goldie, P., & Schellekens, E. (2010). Who’s afraid of conceptual art? London, UK: Routledge. Gramann, K., Gwin, J. T., Bigdely-Shamlo, N., Ferris, D. P., & Makeig, S. (2010). Visual evoked responses during standing and walking. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 202. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2010 .00202 Griswold, W., Mangione, G., & McDonnell, T. E. (2013). Objects, words, and bodies in space: Bringing materiality into cultural analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 36, 343–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11133-0139264-6 Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 379 –389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr .45.3.379 Hanquinet, L. (2013). Visitors to modern and contemporary art museums: Towards a new sociology of “cultural profiles”. The Sociological Review, 61, 790 – 813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12072 Hekkert, P. (2012). Project UMA: Towards a unified model of aesthetics. Paper presented at the 22nd Biennial Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, Taipei, Taiwan. Hekkert, P., & Van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1996). Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. The American Journal of Psychology, 109, 389 – 407. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 1423013 Hendon, W. S., Costa, F., & Rosenberg, R. A. (1989). The general public and the art museum: Case studies of visitors to several institutions identify characteristics of weir publics. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 48, 230 –243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150 .1989.tb02120.x Hickey, D. (1993). The invisible dragon: Four essays on beauty. Los Angeles, CA: Art Issues Press. Higgs, B., Polonsky, M. J., & Hollick, M. (2005). Measuring expectations: Forecast vs. ideal expectations. Does it really matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12, 49 – 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .jretconser.2004.02.002 Hilton, J. L., & Darley, J. M. (1985). Constructing other persons: A limit on the effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(85)90002-2 Holtzer, R., Mahoney, J. R., Izzetoglu, M., Izzetoglu, K., Onaral, B., & Verghese, J. (2011). fNIRS study of walking and walking while talking in young and old individuals. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 66A, 879 – 887. http://dx.doi .org/10.1093/gerona/glr068 Huang, M., Bridge, H., Kemp, M. J., & Parker, A. J. (2011). Human cortical activity evoked by the assignment of authenticity when viewing works of art. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 134. http://dx.doi .org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00134 Hudson, K. (1987). Museums of influence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ingarden, R. (1985). Selected papers in aesthetics. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FACTORS INFLUENCING ‘REAL’ AND MUSEUM-BASED ART Jacobsen, T. (2006). Bridging the arts and sciences: A framework for the psychology of aesthetics. Leonardo, 39, 155–162. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1162/leon.2006.39.2.155 Jansen-Verbeke, M., & van Rekom, J. (1996). Scanning museum visitors. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 364 –375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0160-7383(95)00076-3 Kapoula, Z., Adenis, M.-S., Lê, T.-T., Yang, Q., & Lipede, G. (2011). Pictorial depth increases body sway. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 186 –193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022087 Kapoula, Z., Lang, A., & Locher, P. (2014). Saccades, fixations and body sway with op art. Paper presented at the 23nd Biennial Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, New York, NY. Kaprow, A. (1961). Happenings in the New York scene. ARTnews, 60, 36 –39. Kemp, S. W. P., & Cupchik, G. C. (2007). The emotionally evocative effects of paintings. Visual Arts Research, 33, 72– 82. Kiefer, A. (2005). The intentional model in interpretation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63, 271–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j .0021-8529.2005.00207.x Kirk, U., Harvey, A., & Montague, P. R. (2011). Domain expertise insulates against judgment bias by monetary favors through a modulation of ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 10332–10336. http://dx .doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019332108 Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., & Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44, 1125–1132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage .2008.10.009 Klein, H. J. (1993). Tracking visitor circulation in museum settings. Environment and Behavior, 25, 782– 800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0013916593256007 Kotler, N. (1999). Delivering experience: Marketing the museum’s full range of assets. Museum News, 78, 30 –39. Kotler, N., & Kotler, P. (2000). Can museums be all things to all people?: Missions, goals, and marketing’s role. Museum Management and Curatorship, 18, 271–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647770000301803 Koutstaal, W. (1998). Memory for picture frames. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16, 47–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/4CCH-9030-3THM-LTMH Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, T. W. (2004). The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 91–98. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00065-9 Kuchinke, L., Trapp, S., Jacobs, A. M., & Leder, H. (2009). Pupillary responses in art appreciation: Effects of aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 156 –163. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/a0014464 Lacey, S., Hagtvedt, H., Patrick, V. M., Anderson, A., Stilla, R., Deshpande, G., . . . Sathian, K. (2011). Art for reward’s sake: Visual art recruits the ventral striatum. NeuroImage, 55, 420 – 433. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.027 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, 344 –359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ aca0000063 Leder, H. (2013). Next steps in neuroaesthetics: Which processes and processing stages to study? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 27–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031585 Leder, H., Bär, S., & Topolinski, S. (2012). Covert painting simulations influence aesthetic appreciation of artworks. Psychological Science, 23, 1479 –1481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612452866 Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489 –508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811 261 Leder, H., Gerger, G., Brieber, D., & Schwarz, N. (2014). What makes an art expert? Emotion and evaluation in art appreciation. Cognition and Emotion, 28, 1137–1147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013 .870132 Leder, H., Markey, P. S., & Pelowski, M. (2015). Aesthetic emotions to art—what they are and what makes them special: Comment on “The quartet theory of human emotions: An integrative and neurofunctional model” by S. Koelsch et al. Physics of Life Reviews, 13, 67–70. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2015.04.037 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084 Lengger, P. G., Fischmeister, F. P. S., Leder, H., & Bauer, H. (2007). Functional neuroanatomy of the perception of modern art: A DC-EEG study on the influence of stylistic information on aesthetic experience. Brain Research, 1158, 93–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007 .05.001 Leong, J. (2003). Art museum education in Singapore. In M. Xanthoudaki, L. Tickle, & V. Sekules (Eds.), Researching visual arts education in museums and galleries (pp. 49 – 63). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0043-7_4 Locher, P. (1996). The contribution of eye-movement research to an understanding of the nature of pictorial balance perception: A review of the literature. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 143–163. http://dx.doi .org/10.2190/D77M-3NU4-DQ88-H1QG Locher, P., & Dolese, M. (2004). A comparison of the perceived pictorial and aesthetic qualities of original paintings and their postcard images. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 129 –142. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ EQTC-09LF-JRHA-XKJT Locher, P., Krupinski, E. A., Mello-Thoms, C., & Nodine, C. F. (2008). Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience. Spatial Vision, 21, 55–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156856807782753868 Locher, P., Overbeeke, K., & Wensveen, S. (2010). Aesthetic interaction: A framework. Design Issues, 26, 70 –79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ DESI_a_00017 Locher, P. J., 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p3008 Locher, P., Smith, L. F., & Smith, J. K. (1999). Original paintings versus slide and computer reproductions: A comparison of viewer responses. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 17, 121–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ R1WN-TAF2-376D-EFUH Lorand, R. (1994). Beauty and its opposites. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 52, 399 – 406. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/432027 Ludden, G. D. S., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2012). Beyond surprise: A longitudinal study on the experience of visual-tactual incongruities in products. International Journal of Design, 6, 1–10. Maertens, H. (1884). Der optische Maassstab; oder, die Theorie und Praxis des ästhetischen Sehens in den bildenden Künsten (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Ernst Wasmuth. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 – 253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 Mastandrea, S., Bartoli, G., & Bove, G. (2007). Learning through ancient art and experiencing emotions with contemporary art: Comparing visits in two different museums. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 173–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/R784-4504-37M3-2370 Mastandrea, S., Bartoli, G., & Bove, G. (2009). Preferences for ancient and modern art museums: Visitor experiences and personality characteristics. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 164 –173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013142 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 262 PELOWSKI, FORSTER, TINIO, SCHOLL, AND LEDER McCracken, G. (2003). CULTURE and culture at the Royal Ontario Museum: Anthropology Meets Marketing, Part 1. Curator, 46, 136 –157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2003.tb00084.x McManus, P. (1996). Visitors: Their expectations and social behavior. In G. Durbin (Ed.), Developing museum exhibitions for lifelong learning (pp. 59 – 62). London, UK: Museums and Galleries Commission. Melton, A. W. (1935). Problems of installation in museums of art. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/11526-000 Melton, A. W. (1972). Visitor behavior in museums: Some early research in environmental design. Human Factors, 14, 393– 403. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/001872087201400503 Miles, R., Alt, M., Gosling, D., Lewis, B., & Tout, A. (1982). The design of educational exhibits. London, UK: Unwin. Millis, K. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1, 320 –329. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/1528-3542.1.3.320 Mizokami, Y., Terao, T., Hatano, K., Hoaki, N., Kohno, K., Araki, Y., . . . Kochiyama, T. (2014). Difference in brain activations during appreciating paintings and photographic analogs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 478. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00478 Morgan, R. L., & Heise, D. (1988). Structure of emotions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786981 Morsella, E., & Krauss, R. M. (2004). The role of gestures in spatial working memory and speech. The American Journal of Psychology, 117, 411– 424. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4149008 Nadal, M., Munar, E., Capó, M. À., Rosselló, J., & Cela-Conde, C. J. (2008). Towards a framework for the study of the neural correlates of aesthetic preference. Spatial Vision, 21, 379 –396. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1163/156856808784532653 Nerdrum, O. (Ed.), (2001). On kitsch. Oslo, Norway: Kagge. Newhouse, V. (2005). Art and the power of placement. New York, NY: Monacelli Press. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026035 Nodelman, S. (1997). The Rothko Chapel paintings: Origins, structure, meaning. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Noguchi, Y., & Murota, M. (2013). Temporal dynamics of neural activity in an integration of visual and contextual information in an esthetic preference task. Neuropsychologia, 51, 1077–1084. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.03.003 Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books. Novitz, D. (2001). Participatory art and appreciative practice. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 59, 153–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 0021-8529.00015 O’Doherty, B. (1986). Inside the white cube: The ideology of the gallery space. Santa Monica, CA: Lapis Press. Overbeeke, K., & Forlizzi, J. (2006). Creativity and design, what the established teaches us. In P. Dorfman & C. Martindale (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 137–150). Amityville, NY: Baywood. Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2002). Motivational factors and the visitor experience: A comparison of three sites. Curator, 45, 183–198. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2002.tb00055.x Papathomas, T. V. (2002). Experiments on the role of painted cues in Hughes’s reverspectives. Perception, 31, 521–530. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1068/p3223 Parsons, M. J. (1987). How we understand art: A cognitive developmental account of aesthetic experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Parsons, M., & Loomis, R. (1973). Visitor traffic patterns: Then and now. Washington, DC: Office of Museum Programs, Smithsonian Institution. Pearce, M. T., Zaidel, D. W., Vartanian, O., Skov, M., Leder, H., Chatterjee, A., & Nadal, M. (2016). Neuroaesthetics: The cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 265–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691615621274 Peart, B. O. B. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitudes, and behavior. Curator, 27, 220 –237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.21516952.1984.tb01278.x Pekarik, A. J. (2004). To explain or not to explain. Curator, 47, 12–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00363.x Pekarik, A. J., Doering, Z. D., & Karns, D. A. (1999). Exploring satisfying experiences in museums. Curator, 42, 152–173. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.2151-6952.1999.tb01137.x Pekarik, A. J., & Schreiber, J. B. (2012). The power of expectation. Curator, 55, 487– 496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2012 .00171.x Pelli, D. G. (1999). Close encounters—an artist shows that size affects shape. Science, 285, 844 – 846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.285 .5429.844 Pelowski, M. (2015). Tears and transformation: Feeling like crying as an indicator of insightful or “aesthetic” experience with art. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01006 Pelowski, M., & Akiba, F. (2011). A model of art perception, evaluation and emotion in transformative aesthetic experience. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 80 –97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.04 .001 Pelowski, M., Akiba, F., & Palacios, V. (2012). Satori, koan and aesthetic experience: Exploring the “realization of emptiness” in Buddhist enlightenment via empirical study of modern art. Psyke & Logos, 33, 236 –268. Pelowski, M., Gerger, G., Chetouani, Y., Markey, P. S., & Leder, H. (2017). But is it art? The classification of laboratory-presented images as “art”/“not art” and correlations with appraisal and viewer interpersonal differences. Mansucript submitted for publication. Pelowski, M., Liu, T., Palacios, V., & Akiba, F. (2014). When a body meets a body: An exploration of the negative impact of social interactions on museum experiences of art. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 15, 1– 47. Pelowski, M., Markey, P. S., Forster, M., Gerger, G., & Leder, H. (2017). Move me, astonish me . . . delight my eyes and brain: The Vienna integrated model of top-down and bottom-up processes in art perception (VIMAP) and corresponding affective, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.02.003 Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450 – 461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/323732 Peyton, J. L., Bass, W. T., Burke, B. L., & Frank, L. M. (2005). Novel motor and somatosensory activity is associated with increased cerebral cortical blood volume measured by near-infrared optical topography. Journal of Child Neurology, 20, 817– 821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 08830738050200100701 Pihko, E., Virtanen, A., Saarinen, V. M., Pannasch, S., Hirvenkari, L., Tossavainen, T., . . . Hari, R. (2011). Experiencing art: The influence of expertise and painting abstraction level. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 94. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00094 Pitman-Gelles, B., & Hirzy, E. C. (2010). Ignite the power of art: Advancing visitor engagement in museums. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 15–51. Rawlings, D., Vidal, N. B. I., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and aesthetic preference in Spain and England: Two studies relating sensation seeking and openness to experience to liking for paintings and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. FACTORS INFLUENCING ‘REAL’ AND MUSEUM-BASED ART music. European Journal of Personality, 14, 553–576. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1099-0984(200011/12)14:6$553::AID-PER384%3.0.CO;2-H Roberts, L. (1997). From knowledge to narrative: Educators and the changing museum. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Robinson, E. (1928). The behavior of the museum visitor. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. Rollins, M. (2004). What Monet meant: Intention and attention in understanding art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 62, 175–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-594X.2004.00150.x Russell, P. A. (2003). Effort after meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 99 –110. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1348/000712603762842138 Russell, P. A., & Milne, S. (1997). Meaningfulness and hedonic value of paintings: Effects of titles. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15, 61–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/EHT3-HWVM-52CB-8QHJ Saltz, D. Z. (1997). The art of interaction: Interactivity, performativity, and computers. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 55, 117–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/431258 Schuster, J. (1991). Introduction: Who are the visitors to art museums? The audience for American art museums. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/0022-3514.51.3.515 Seeley, W., & Kozbelt, A. (2008). Art, artists, and perception: A model for premotor contributions to perceptual analysis and form recognition. Philosophical Psychology, 21, 149 –171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 09515080801976573 Serrell, B. (1996). Using behavior to define the effectiveness of exhibits. In G. Durbin (Ed.), Developing museum exhibitions for lifelong learning (pp. 140 –143). London, UK: Museums and Galleries Commission. Silvia, P. J. (2006). Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the appraisal model of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 139 –161. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/DX8K-6WEA-6WPA-FM84 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0014632 Silvia, P. J., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2011). On personality and piloerection: Individual differences in aesthetic chills and other unusual aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 208 – 214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021914 Smith, J. K. (2014). The museum effect: How museums, libraries, and cultural institutions educate and civilize society. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Smith, J. K., & Carr, D. (2001). In Byzantium. Curator, 44, 335–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2001.tb01174.x Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2001). Spending time on art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19, 229 –236. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/5MQM59JH-X21R-JN5J Smith, L. F., Bousquet, S. G., Chang, G., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Effects of time and information on perception of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 229 –242. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/DJM0-QBDW-03V7-BLRM 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. Advance online publication. Smith, R. A. (1992). Building a sense of art in today’s world. Studies in Art Education, 33, 71. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1320356 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000107 263 Swami, V., Stieger, S., Pietschnig, J., & Voracek, M. (2010). The disinterested play of thought: Individual differences and preference for surrealist motion pictures. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 855– 859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.013 Tallis, R. (2008). The limitations of a neurological approach to art. Lancet, 372, 19 –20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60975-7 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.012 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030872 Tinio, P. P. L., Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2014). The walls do speak: Psychological aesthetics and the museum experience. In P. L. Tinio, J. K. Smith, & L. F. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 195–218). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tröndle, M., Greenwood, S., Kirchberg, V., & Tschacher, W. (2014). An integrative and comprehensive methodology for studying aesthetic experience in the field: Merging movement tracking, physiology, and psychological data. Environment and Behavior, 46, 102–135. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/0013916512453839 Tröndle, M., Kirchberg, V., & Tschacher, W. (2014). Is this art? An experimental study on visitors’ judgement of contemporary art. Cultural Sociology, 8, 310 –332. Tröndle, M., & Tschacher, W. (2012). The physiology of phenomenology: The effects of artworks. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 30, 75–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/EM.30.1.g Tschacher, W., Greenwood, S., Kirchberg, V., Wintzerith, S., van den Berg, K., & Tröndle, M. (2012). Physiological correlates of aesthetic perception of artworks in a museum. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 96 –103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023845 Turner, A., & Penn, A. (2002). Encoding natural movement as an agentbased system: An investigation into human pedestrian behaviour in the built environment. Environment and Planning B, Planning & Design, 29, 473– 490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b12850 Umilta, M. A., Berchio, C., Sestito, M., Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2012). Abstract art and cortical motor activation: An EEG study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 311. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ fnhum.2012.00311 Urgesi, C., Calvo-Merino, B., Haggard, P., & Aglioti, S. M. (2007). Transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals two cortical pathways for visual body processing. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 8023– 8030. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0789-07.2007 Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., . . . Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 2), 10446 –10453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas .1301227110 Verstegen, I. (2006). Arnheim, gestalt and art: A psychological theory. New York, NY: Springer. Vitz, P. C. (1988). Analog art and digital art: A brain-hemisphere critique of modern painting. In F. H. F. W. Neperud (Ed.), The foundations of aesthetics, art & art education (pp. 43– 86). New York, NY: Praeger. Wagner, V., Menninghaus, W., Hanich, J., & Jacobsen, T. (2014). Art schema effects on affective experience: The case of disgusting images. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 120 –129. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036126 Wesp, R., Hesse, J., Keutmann, D., & Wheaton, K. (2001). Gestures maintain spatial imagery. The American Journal of Psychology, 114, 591– 600. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1423612 264 PELOWSKI, FORSTER, TINIO, SCHOLL, AND LEDER This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Whyte, W. H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the center. New York, NY: Doubleday. Wilson, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2005). The assessment of preference for balance: Introducing a new test. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 165–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/B1LR-MVF3-F36X-XR64 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. Wolterstorff, N. (2003). Why philosophy of art cannot handle kissing, touching, and crying. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 61, 17–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6245.00088 Wolz, S. H., & Carbon, C. C. (2014). What’s wrong with an art fake? Cognitive and emotional variables influenced by authenticity status of artworks. Leonardo, 47, 467– 473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/LEON_ a_00869 Zaidel, D. W. (2010). Art and brain: Insights from neuropsychology, biology and evolution. Journal of Anatomy, 216, 177–183. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01099.x Ziolkowski, T. (1977). Disenchanted images: A literary iconology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Received October 11, 2016 Revision received March 6, 2017 Accepted May 14, 2017 ! Members of Underrepresented Groups: Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this process. If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at Reviewers@apa.org. Please note the following important points: • To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective review. • To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of existing research. • To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information. Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example, “social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude change” as well. • Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly. APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/reviewmanuscript-ce-video.aspx. Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art Supplemental Materials Beyond the Lab: An Examination of Key Factors Influencing Interaction With 'Real' and MuseumBased Art by M. Pelowski et al., 2017, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000141 Supplementary Materials (Integral): Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art Tables of Context Factors and Past studies Table S1 Artwork context: Key aspects and previous studies regarding original/museum vs. laboratory art Factor Hypothesized impact and connection to processing stage (bold) Notable findings Texture • Perceptual Analysis (2): Informs early visual assessments, increase awareness of complexity, symmetry, balance • Directs attention. High texture = more interest, attention, visual appeal (Locher, Overbeeke, & Wensveen, 2010) • Delivers surprise or novelty via tension between texture/vision (Hekkert, 2012; Norman, 2004). • Recognition of edges/contrasts may increase early fluency • Visual-haptic systems may integrate in initial “visceral” processing level. Key in hedonic judgments (Overbeeke & Forlizzi, 2006). • Explicit classification (4): Important for works with compelling surfaces (impasto, glazing) and in relation to certain techniques (sprezzatura) - identification of artist's unique approaches, style or artwork quality • three-dimensional objects generate more attention than 2D images (Bitgood, 1992; Peart, 1984). Size • Perceptual analysis (2): Viewers pay little attention to outer edges of full-size paintings, focus on middle (Locher, Krupinski, Mello-Thoms, & Nodine, 2007). • Pre-classification (1), Explicit classification (4): Key tool of artist to determine intimacy/impact/envelopment of viewer. • Smaller reproductions may lead to differences in impression formation. • Larger objects attract and hold visitor attention better (Bitgood, 1992; Bitgood, Patterson, & Benefield, 1988). • real paintings vs. smaller screen images: small images visually denser/complex (Locher et al., 1999). Awareness • Pre-classification (1), Explicit classification (4): Knowledge that art represents act of making key for assessed originality, creativity, skill. (Crowther, 1993; Newman & Bloom, 2012). • Art presence as end-result of a performance (Dutton, 2003, 2009) or “contagion”—having been touched/shaped by artist (Newman & Bloom, 2012)—may increase pleasure, hedonic value. • Believing painting took longer = aesthetically superior, worth more money (Kruger, Wirtz, Van Boven, & Altermatt, 2004). • Significant difference in assessed value between originals/copies, and high/low making effort. Low-effort of making 1 Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art • Viewers may approach art as dialogue between material and artist. May evaluate in context of history or artist intention. • Experts focus on originality, or appreciate looser handling of media, potentially explaining commonly found higher appreciation of abstract art (Leder & Nadal, 2014). May also notice and consider more technical aspects of making (thinness of a glaze, tautness of canvas), suggesting difference between groups higher with real art. • Perceptual Analysis (2): Artist's gestures may activate simulation of motor system or motor neurons in viewer (Calvo-Merino, Grèzes, Glaser, Passingham, & Haggard, 2006; Freedberg & Gallese, 2007). Especially strong with abstract painting/sculpture • Non-experts may tie evaluations to mimetic aspects, traditional craftsmanship, fidelity, attention to detail (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1969; Hekkert & Van Wieringen, 1996). original and high-effort reproductions equivalent (Newman & Bloom, 2012). • Oil paintings (reproduction) vs. photos duplicating content = higher beauty, liking (Mizokami et al., 2014), reward-related/visual brain regions (Lacey et al., 2011). • Viewing brushstrokes elicit responses in motor regions corresponding to hand movement in direction used to make the brushstroke (Taylor, Witt, & Grimaldi, 2012). • EEG comparison of photographs of artworks of stretched canvas with slashes cut by artist, vs. simplified reproductions = mu rhythm suppression (over C3/C4, sensory-motor, and occipital) in originals. Originals more liked (Umiltà, Berchio, Sestito, Freedberg, & Gallese, 2012). • Eye-tracking: experts give less scrutiny to composition elements and balance (Augustin & Leder, 2006). Authenticity • Pre-classification (1): Knowledge that art is actual product of making can imbue “aura” (Benjamin, 1969), historical connection (Berger, 1972; Newman & Bloom, 2012). • Difference between "index"--object with intact historical connection to object/origin--and icon/image--or reproduction (e.g., Pierce, 1903) • Art loses value to greater extent if it switches status to nonoriginal/reproduction, compared to similar one-of-a-kind objects (i.e., jewelry or furniture) (Newman & Bloom, 2012). • Cognitive mastery (5): Assessed beauty or other hedonic factors heightened by use of certain media/textures (Parsons, 1987), through sense of importance from physical presence (Lorand, 1994), historical significance, fragility (Ingarden, 1985; Pelowski & Akiba, 2011). • Believing that artist had high degree of hands-on contact with sculpture = more valuable (Newman & Bloom, 2012). • Authentic artwork vs. copy = higher perceived quality and artist talent (Wolz & Carbon, 2014), activation of the orbitofrontal cortex (Huang et al., 2011), frontal, and parietal regions (Noguchi & Murota, 2013). • Artworks thought to be by esteemed artists/from museums vs. designs by researcher = more appealing, activate prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortices, associated with perceived reward and value (Kirk, Skov, Hulme, Christensen, & Zeki, 2009). empirical museum study by Pelowski et al. (2012). • Survey contemporary art viewers =major reason for going seeing real art (Mastandrea, Bartoli, & Bove, 2009). Seeing as • Pre-classification (1): “Transferability thesis” (Currie, 1985; Locher et al., 1999)—viewers are willing to treat an image as an artwork—may not always apply with many viewers/art types. • Photos of paintings vs. similarly arranged images without marks of artists = the latter considered “not art,”, 'Art' 2 Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art Interplay of material/ image • Art photos or simplified images may be considered less “real”. • Believing work to be art may increase expected pleasure (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2008; Leder, Belke, Oeberst, & Augustin, 2004), cause attention to stylistic and formal properties (Cupchik, Vartanian, Crawley, & Mikulis, 2009; Kirk et al., 2009), cause elaborative processing style beyond simple object recognition (Nadal, Munar, Capó, Rosselló, & Cela-Conde, 2008). • May trigger aesthetic mode or detached judgment. Focus on form and hedonic aspects rather than content (Cupchik & Winston, 1996; Gerger, Leder, & Kremer, 2014). • Cognitive mastery (5), Secondary Processing (5B, 5C): Arthood motivates search for intention or belief that object has underlying rules/meaning. May cause objects to be seen as controlled instead of random (Boas, 1943), important (Bailey, 2000); interaction taken more seriously (Rollins, 2004). Important for initially novel, challenging art (Kiefer, 2005; Parsons, 1987)-viewer may persist longer or not disengage--or cases where art never has clear meaning (e.g., conceptual art). • May increase (Wagner, Menninghaus, Hanich, & Jacobsen, 2014) or decrease positive emotional arousal (Gerger et al., 2014). May allow detached appreciation of negative emotion, or allow to feel disgust because of underlying intention (Becker, 1974; Silvia, 2009). • Perceptual analysis (2): Imperfections in art vs. crisp digital reproductions may lead to less fluency, liking/beauty. • Explicit classification, Cognitive Mastery (2-5): Imperfections may play role as "punctum," reinforcing historical aspect or artist contribution, giving deeper sense of importance or meaning. • awareness of brushstrokes or rawness of material important for impressionist/abstract painting (Dezeuze, 2005); surprising textures. • Modern art created with "analog" quality, requiring sharing of space with viewer (Saltz, 1997; Vitz, 1988). Opposed to "digital" art focused on mimetic content/less impacted by reproduction? • Art may use verisimilitude between materials/image. Pop Art, ready-mades may require sensual presence to activate conceptual tension between ‘everyday object’ and ‘art’ status (Dezeuze, 2005). 3 lower hedonic ratings and brain activations of reward-related and visual brain regions (Lacey et al., 2011). • Comparing photographs of slashedcanvas artworks vs. simplified black and white images= simplified images assessed as “not art,” with lower liking, familiarity and sensorimotor brain responses (Umiltà et al., 2012). • Disgusting photos framed as "artistic" vs. documentary materials = higher positive emotional responses, same reported negative emotion (Wagner et al., 2014). • Positive/negative artworks and IAPS pictures, accompanied by the information “this is art” or “this is a photograph” showed reduced reported joy and smiling in art context, no difference in negative reaction (Gerger et al., 2014). ---- Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art Table S2 Viewer context: Key aspects and previous studies regarding original/museum vs. laboratory art Factor hypothesized impact Notable empirical findings Typical museum • Pre-classification (1), Implicit Memory Integration (3), Explicit classification (4) • Typical museum visitor likely white-collar/professional, upper/middle class, with high education and income, female • Difference from lab participant: older, higher income/art interest. • Younger (lab) viewers less comfortable with art? May have “omnivorous” interests (Hanquinet, 2013), like both low/high brow culture, prefer newer styles/ abstract art. • Recent changes in demographics of museum visitors from high/low class, to "omnivore" visitor who enjoys a wide range of both low/highbrow activities. May be more tied to education (Chang, 2006; Hanquinet, 2013), and thus better align with lab participant. • Cognitive Mastery (5): More expertise in museum viewers: emphasize formal, stylistic, historical, and relational properties (Hekkert & Van Wieringen, 1996); more likely to use aesthetic mode, more positive, less negative emotion (Cupchik & Gebotys, 1988); more likely to see artwork as autonomous entity (Hekkert & Van Wieringen, 1996), less swayed by context or priming (Kirk, Harvey, & Montague, 2011). • Art naïve viewer expectations: art should please, evoke peaceful feelings, positive memories, and appeal to many people (Winston & Cupchik, 1992). Experienced viewers: art should intellectually challenge, express artist's feelings, hold layered meaning (Cupchik, 1995). Key for art that violates/confirms ideas? • Museum study shows negative correlation between age and liking of abstract or contemporary art; positive correlation of abstract liking and education (Mastandrea et al., 2009). • Recent survey of Belgian art viewers (Hanquinet, 2013), showed previously unobserved “heterogeneity” in visitors’ tastes, cultural and leisure activities and art knowledge. Suggests change to herbovore model. • Schuster (1991) survey of museum visitors: 55% had some graduate school education. • Experts show less extreme emotional valence and less negative emotion when viewing negative/difficult art. Also rate more positively (Leder, Gerger, Brieber, & Schwarz, 2014). • Art expertise insulates against judgment bias from contextual priming (corporate sponsorship of study, previously shown to impact ratings of art in non-experts). Correlates with lack of modulation of VMPFC, activation of DLPFC (Kirk et al., 2011). • Sensation seeking level higher in comparison of contemporary art museum visitors vs. ancient art museum (Mastandrea et al., 2009). • Survey of museum visitors: tend to enjoy “uncertain and varied terrain” and show “openness” to new art or ideas (DiMaggio, 1996). vs. lab visitor Personality differences • Pre-classification (1): Participants from museum/lab may self-select personality aspects. • Openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992) likely among museum visitors/experts? = predicts chills, feeling touched, absorption (Silvia & Nusbaum, 2011), positive ratings of abstract (Feist & Brady, 2004), Pop, representational art (Furnham & Walker, 2001). • Sensation seeking: similar correlations as Openness (Rawlings, Vidal, & Furnham, 2000; Swami, Stieger, Pietschnig, & Voracek, 2010), may correlate to visiting art museum (Mastandrea et al., 2009). • Personal independence: motivates actions that allow expression of self-defining attributes (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), may cause look for novel or non-traditional art. • Need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) may motivate 4 Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art museum visitors in meaning making or higher enjoyment from challenging art (Packer & Ballantyne, 2002). Expectations for visiting playfulness/ spontaneity Museum, seasonal, audience differences • Pre-classification (1): Typical motivations: enjoyment, interest; learning/enrichment; leisure; social opportunity (Chang, 2006; Hendon, Costa, & Rosenberg, 1989; JansenVerbeke & van Rekom, 1996); seeing real art (Mastandrea, Bartoli, & Bove, 2007; Mastandrea et al., 2009). • Basic choice to visit a museum/see art may influence framing, expectations, increase value (Newman & Bloom, 2012). • Expectation for enjoyment/learning, may increase hedonic pleasure, emotion, cognitive engagement (Bitgood, 1992; Packer & Ballantyne, 2002). • Possible differences in regards to what constitutes successful/satisfying museum experience. Lab interaction typically involves goal of getting through smoothly with no negative outcomes (Hilton & Darley, 1985) = lower introspection, leisure, learning. • Expectation of learning/receiving information vs. detached, formal appreciation; inversely correlated? (Pekarik, Doering, & Karns, 1999) • (Mastandrea et al., 2007, 2009): Survey of Modern and ancient art museum visitors = first motivation among Modern visitors = see genuine art. • Hendon et al. (1989): review of museum surveys 1976-79 = 40% come for interest/ curiosity, 15-20% bring children. • Need for cognitive experience, vs. emotional etc., higher in art museum visitors vs. science/natural hisotry museums (Packer & Ballantyne, 2002). • Pekarik et al. (1999) surveyed visitors in nine Smithsonian museums (US, including contemporary, classic art, history and science). Four experience categories: Object, Cognitive, Introspective, Social. • Cognitive Mastery (5): Noted in museum expectations (e.g., Kotler, 1999). May inform interaction--not following sequence, fulfilling own agenda (Bitgood, 2006; Falk, 1993). • May provide more viewer-centered experience, sense of control, personal connections (Packer & Ballantyne, 2002), learning and risk-taking (Peyton, Bass, Burke, & Frank, 2005). May be important for “detached” or “profound” experience. • Increased activation in frontal lobe when individuals take playful or novel approach to rudimentary tasks, providing support for a relationship between play and learning (Peyton et al., 2005). • Summer, weekend, blockbuster exhibits may have a larger number of tourists/art-naïve visitors (e.g., Pekarik et al., 1999). For frequent visitors, peak times may be less comfortable--long lines/crowding--causing more negative mood compared to tourists? (Griswold, Mangione, & McDonnell, 2013) • Modern/contemporary art: younger, more educated, less wealthy, more interested in art/expert audience. Classic/historical museums. more tourists, less art interest • Going to museums 3+ times a year = more likely to highly value leisure attributes of museum, not cognition/learning. More comfortable with the art (Hendon et al., 1989). • Expectations may differ between museums, or times of visits • (Mastandrea et al., 2007): Comparison of attendees at ancient vs. contemporary art = Classic: less overall art interest, expectations for learning. Contemporary: more familiar with art, attended more regularly, expectation of emotion and pleasure seeking. • (Mastandrea et al., 2009) comparing lesser-known contemporary and museums = Contemporary viewers 10 years younger, same motivation 5 Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art (weekend/week day, peak tourist season). However, type of expectations remain stable between visits and in general for one museum (Pekarik et al., 1999). First timers (Higgs, Polonsky, & Hollick, 2005) have lower expectations, may cause facile or stunted interactions). 6 differences. Contemporary visitors higher sensation seeking, higher/more varied emotions, including negative. • Haacke (in Becker, 1982) study of visitors to avant-garde gallery (NY) = more leftist political leanings, more adventurous taste than typical museum visitors. Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art Table S3 Museum/Gallery context: Physical space and artwork display factors Factor hypothesized impact Notable empirical findings Architecture • Pre-classification (1): hallways, elevators, stairs may create certain types of approaches or viewpoints, thus framing attention to specific aspects (Griswold et al., 2013). • Room size may create certain moods: large halls = more important art, encourage sublime? Small room = more personal/intimate or aesthetic response. • Opulence/austerity ("white cube") of gallery may inform perceived art importance, value, and increase/decrease outside influence. • Lay-out, ease of navigation may impact general pleasure or interest. • Other exhibits/galleries my disrupt viewing or compete for attention. • Implicit Memory (3): spatial cues of museum may help with recall of specific art. • Pre-classification (1): hanging object higher than others, hanging large object with smaller others, hanging against distinctive color wall/spotlight, increases focus and perceived importance (Bitgood, 1992; Miles, Alt, Gosling, Lewis, & Tout, 1982). • painting heights can be arranged to create rhythms or connect artworks into units/sequence. • paintings hung very high can give sense of "observing"--cue self-awareness (Pelowski et al., 2012). • Rooms with curved walls vs. rectilinear = higher judgment of room beauty, pleasantness, activation of ACC (reward) and visual cortex (Vartanian et al., 2013). • placing exhibits opposite each other can reduce attention to specific objects (general museum study see Bitgood, 1992). • computer-based display of art/graffiti in white wall vs. street (concrete background) setting = no impact from context. Frame • Perceptual Analysis (2), Implicit Memory (3): may guide looking, complete a work, draw attention via color or shape. • frame opulence or design may also interact (concord/discord) with art. Ropes, boundaries, cases • Pre-classification (1), Perceptual Analysis (2): create both art and visitor space, prescribing certain approaches/focus. • Cognitive Mastery (5): May cause sense of distance, aesthetic response, sense of importance. • crossing barrier may increase viewing time or hold a visitor. • lab study of art with frames varying in color/pattern = no recall of frame unless viewing task drew attention to frame. If frame-focused task, less recall of art (Koutstaal, 1998). • lab study of drawings with frames varying in color (black, blue, red) and straight/wavy, followed by recall task = lower recall only when frame suprising/incongruous. • crossing subtle barrier (bright strip of deep pile carpet) increased viewing time of museum display (Alexander, Ishikawa, & Silverstein, 1977). Lighting • Pre-classification (1), Perceptual Analysis (2): May act to draw attention to specific art, increase/decrease importance, position the viewer, highlight style/context features. • certain art media may benefit from certain light: sculpture/painting = natural light. Textures/glazes = low levels/incandescent light? • Pre-classification (1), Explicit classification (4): certain lighting types may also change viewer mood or the emotional tone of art. Artwork display, hanging 7 • hanging object higher than others, hanging large object with smaller others, hanging against distinctive color wall/spotlight, increases focus and perceived importance (Miles et al., 1982). --- Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art Labels • Explicit Classification (4), Cognitive Mastering (5): titles, artwork descriptions may increase fluency, understanding, positive ratings. • labels may also distract from viewing or direct attention. • choice to read label may vary with personality, and also indicate level of prior comfort or knowledge about art. • label position may change standing/viewing location. • Cognitive Mastery (5): type of information may prime specific aesthetic/pragmatic processing modes. • didactic information may suggest to lay viewers that they should understand or should not feel confusion/challenge. Culture and the Museum • Pre-expectations (1): Cultural attitudes about museum can enhance art importance/value. • Objects ‘enshrined’ or connected to cultural centrality, opulence (Jacobsen, 2006). • Western museum: “responsibility” to enlighten visitors and improve morally/socially (McCracken, 2003), encourage reverence, seriousness (Hudson, 1987). • Museums invite codes for behavior, or decorum (not touching, not yelling/being mindful of others; Newhouse, 2005). May change between country, time, museum. • Museums may diffuse troubling art, create safe zone for viewing (Goffman, 1967), encourage nationalistic/patriotic focus (Dewey, 1980), historical connection (R. A. Smith, 1992). • Location: museums situated in central, prized civic locations. Trip to museum special occasion. May encourage sense of social engagement, importance (Barthes, 1983). • Cognitive Mastery (5): Museum may encourage “aesthetic” mode: belief that that one should adopt contemplative assessment of form vs. more goal-driven assessment (Dezeuze, 2005). May have positive or negative implications. • Positive: provide required context for appreciating initially ambiguous or challenging art; increase fluency by priming us to look for certain art-important qualities (Jacobsen, 2006). Processing mode: require detached, non-personal approach (Bourdieu, 1984; Fried, 2005). Artists may play with/require aesthetic distance, causing tension with expectations (e.g., destroy detached experience, readymades, conceptual art; Crowther, 1993; Pelowski & Akiba, 2011). • Negative: Museum could blunt art impact, or render art impotent by “annexing” objects, separating them from ordinary life, “aestheticizing” them (Dufrenne, 1973; Hickey, 1993). • Museum cultural context could reduce importance of real art: viewers may not question images as art if in museum. Museum and aesthetic/oth er processing modes 8 • titles increase meaningfulness, decrease abstractness of art (Russell & Milne, 1997). • artwork description and name of artist = higher hedonic ratings (Gerger & Leder, 2015; Russell, 2003). • descriptive vs. metaphorical titles increase comprehension of photos. Metaphorical increase aesthetic experience (Millis, 2001). • removing labels from MOMA sculpture exhibition = generally not noticed by visitors (Pekarik, 2004). • Didactic title info = less careful viewing and recall of formal artwork elements (Baber et al., 2001). • in museum, viewers stand to side of painting that has label (Tröndle & Tschacher, 2012). • Comparison of contemporary artworks in museum (real art) vs. laboratory (reproduction): participants liked art more, found more interesting, spent more time looking in museum context (Brieber et al., 2014). • Museum (real) art more arousing, liked, positive, interesting, understood. Ratings in lab, after museum, lower than all other lab conditions, suggesting high disappointment. Participants recalled more artworks if first viewed in museum (Brieber, Nadal, et al., 2015). • Brieber et al. (2014, Table 1), showed that the relation between ambiguity and viewing time was positive in the museum and negative in laboratory context. “Museums foster an enduring and focused aesthetic experience.” Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art Table S4 Museum/Gallery context: Viewer action and movement Factor hypothesized impact Noted related empirical findings In-Gallery movement and action • Perceptual Analysis (2): Generally follow similar pattern in museums: survey the room, assess, move from work to work with brief glances, form gist impression and decide to continue or move on (Locher et al., 1996). • Follow wall around room, leave at first doorway, without crossing gallery (Bitgood, 1992; Bitgood & Dukes, 2006; Melton, 1972). • Visitors turn/move right upon entering, give more attention to works on right (Bitgood, 1992). May connect to research suggesting preference of paintings with right-side details/rightward movement (Wilson & Chatterjee, 2005, but see Locher et al., 2007). • Does changing direction of approaching change art evaluation? • Approach across room: slowly reveal/highlight features (colors, large details), impact hedonic assessment, reinforce progression from gestalt shape/color to detail. Imbue importance, increase participatory perspective (Alexander et al., 1977; Novitz, 2001). • Images with salient objects located on right preferred, Western cultures prefer images with implied left to right movement (Wilson & Chatterjee, 2005). • Eye-tracking study (Locher et al., 2007) = right-handed individuals prefer asymmetrical paintings with areas of interest in left pictorial field. Viewers concentrate attention on right, avoid right field. • Study of behavior in public areas = usually walk on right, "oddballs" go left, against traffic (Whyte, 1988). Cost, museum fatigue, satiation • Pre-classification (1): "Cost-minimizing approach” (Bitgood & Patterson, 1993): viewers spend minimum energy required to see exhibits. Difficult/easy to access works differently evaluated? Selected works = deeper attention/engagement? • “Museum fatigue” (Bitgood, 2009; Davey, 2005; Melton, 1935): visitors decrease effort/interest, viewing time as they see more works. • Exhibits near entrance get more attention (Chang, 2006). • “Satiation” (Bitgood, 2006, 2009): decreased attention due to repeated exposure to homogenous stimulation (e.g., a series of similar artworks)? • Museum fatigue not yet considered in empirical aesthetic psychology. • Unstructured vs. Structured (sequence linear, determined by designer/researcher) viewing may lead to higher hedonic rating, more comfort, enjoyment, less fatigue (Falk, 1993). • Study of lab art viewing involving 100 art prints, participants asked to look as long as desired = progressive decrease in attention, higher rate in lab vs. museums (Robinson, 1928). • Study of viewing times in general museum: the larger the number of works, the shorter the time spent viewing individual pieces (Serrell, 1996, see Chang, 2006). • Comparative study of general museum viewing = visitors show, and report, less confusion when freely selecting objects (Falk, 1993). 9 Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art Viewing distance and movement in front of artworks • Perceptual analysis (2): Glance at work, approach, read a label, step back, find viewing distance. • Viewing distance used by viewer/artist to change intimacy/impact, guides attention, meaning. • Viewers may choose perspectives/distance to limit or change experience: stand too far away for form appraisal, enjoy ‘too-close’ perspective for envelopment/intimacy; move between up-close and more distant perspective. • Movement may tie to eye-tracking research (gist to details)? • Standing/ambulatory viewing may be key for perception: cognition linked to motor behavior (Gramann, Gwin, Bigdely-Shamlo, Ferris, & Makeig, 2010). “Natural vision” (Gibson, 1986) may lead to more temporal uncovering of information, hedonic assessment, understanding (Berlyne, 1974), neural function. • Movement key for art types? (e.g., Sculpture requires viewing from all sides, Verstegen, 2006) • Active vs. passive viewing may increase sense of participation (Novitz, 2001). • Painting can be viewed completely from distance of twice longest dimension, proposed viewing angle of ~27° (Clarke, Shortess, & Richter, 1984; Maertens, 1884). • Museum/laboratory analysis of individuals allowed to look at large (175x117cm) and small (67x46cm) art reproductions: Visual angle greater for large (~35°) than small (25°) paintings. Viewers look longer when closer. Choice of distance, and relation to liking/interest differed between participants (Clarke et al., 1984). • Investigation of paintings with perspectival elements: individuals increase enjoyment by increasing viewing distance (Papathomas, 2002). • Museum study: large individual differences when participants asked to move to point where portraits transitioned from abstract pattern to image (Pelli, 1999). • Walking while doing cognitive tasks vs. sitting = increased PFC activation (Holtzer et al., 2011). Body, physiologic al responses • Stages 1-3: Body movement/gesture may be important for vision, fluency or working memory/maintenance of spatial representations (Leder, Bär, & Topolinski, 2012; Wesp, Hesse, Keutmann, & Wheaton, 2001). Restriction on gesture/ arm movement may reduce cognitive ability (Davoli & Abrams, 2009; Morsella & Krauss, 2004). Generalized bodily arousal/awareness of movement may focus attention/facilitate evaluation (Cupchik, 2006; Jacobsen, 2006; Tröndle & Tschacher, 2012). • 5B: Sounds, smells, touch could heighten self-awareness or reflection (Pelowski et al., 2012). Restrained movements (chair in theater or social rules against clapping/yelling), in engagement of emotionally powerful, sublime, beautiful stimuli, can cause intense reaction/helplessness (Pelowski, 2015). • Museum study with belt accelerometer = free vs. fixed viewing paradigm induced larger antero-posterior sway speed and displacement (Kapoula, Lang, & Locher, 2014). • Postural sway and stability modulated by local pictorial depth, lean into deep paintings (Kapoula, Adenis, Lê, Yang, & Lipede, 2011). • Viewers unconsciously adopt leaning or upright postures of tall sculptures (Richard Serra, see Kapoula et al., 2011). • Museum study of abstract paintings: environmental "triggers" (hearing one’s footsteps, blown air conditioning) may induce meta-cognitive reflection, insight, positive assessment (Pelowski et al., 2012). • Museum study: heart rate correlated to assessed artwork “dominance” and curative quality. Heart rate variability predicted by art aesthetic quality and felt surprise/humor (Tschacher et al., 2012). 10 Supplimentary Materials: Factors Influencing Interaction with ‘Real’ and Museum-based Art Mood or emotion • Pre-expectations (1), Explicit Classification (4): Weather, odors, lighting, may influence mood, (energy, edginess, calmness; Gendolla, 2000). • Museum environment/real art more likely to engage/threaten self. May evoke negative responses. • Emotion tone/type may vary depending on felt potency of art/environment (Morgan & Heise, 1988) or felt requirement for coping (Silvia, 2006). More/less likely in museum. Time • All stages: Museum studies: 20-40s may allow for gist, classification of style, preference. • Gist viewing may only require a few fixations (Kuchinke, Trapp, Jacobs, & Leder, 2009; Locher et al., 2007; Locher et al., 2010) • 3-4 seconds major threshold for basic emotional response (Geday, Kupers, & Gjedde, 2007). • Many lab studies less than 5s, (Brieber et al., 2014): does not allow detailed or in-depth processing. • Truncating viewing to < 6s causes less robust appraisals (e.g., liking) (Bachmann & Vipper, 1983). • Longer durations (5-10+ minutes) may be required for more profound/changed perception or aesthetic experiences (Leder & Nadal, 2014; Pelowski & Akiba, 2011) 11 • Performing hand movements mimicking strokes of paintings = higher liking (Leder et al., 2012). • Abstract art liked more when primed by happy faces and less with disgusted faces (Flexas et al., 2013). • Participants in negative affective state wanted to see paintings with negative themes a second time vs. neutral, however because the art “evoked thoughts rather than feelings” (Kemp & Cupchik, 2007) • Lonely viewers asked to assess paintings of lonely figures, preferred stylistic qualities over subject (Cupchik & Wroblewski-Raya, 1998). • Being exposed to fear-inducing video before rating artworks = more positive evaluations (Eskine, Kacinik, & Prinz, 2012). • Museum studies of viewing time: Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY= 30s average (J. K. Smith & Smith, 2001). Museum of Fine Arts, St. Gallen, Switzerland = Median 11s (Tröndle & Tschacher, 2012). Museum of contemporary art, Vienna = 30s average (Brieber et al., 2014). • Lab study, participants allowed to look freely = average of 32.5s (Locher et al., 2007). • Eye-tracking: individuals can detect and categorize abstract/representational, composition pleasantness/ interestingness within 100ms (Locher et al., 2007; Locher et al., 2010). • EEG study of representational/abstract art: difference in activations only after 6 and 8.25s (Lengger, Fischmeister, Leder, & Bauer, 2007). • Comparison of museum vs. laboratory = participants like contemporary art more/find more interesting when spend more time. Look longer in museum (Brieber et al., 2014) • Museum study with abstract paintings of insightful experience/crying= 7.5 to 20 minutes, ~2x longer than other viewers (Pelowski, 2015).

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Beyond the lab: An examination of key factors influencing interaction with ‘real’ and museum-based art

Beyond the lab: An examination of key factors influencing interaction with ‘real’ and museum-based art

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS