Style follows content: On the microgenesis of art perception

Augustin, Marc; Leder, Helmut; Hutzler, Florian; Carbon, Claus-Christian

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.11.006

Cited by 85 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(note, all statements on presentation times should not be interpreted in an absolute way, depending on the specific masking, the task, and the material, these times will probably strongly vary). These findings add support to others that indicate fast processing of scenes (e.g., biederman, 1981), objects (e.g., Vanrullen & Thorpe, 2001), artwork (augustin, et al, 2008;Augustin, Defranceschi, Fuchs, Carbon, & Hutzler, 2011), and faces (e.g., Veres-Injac, et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

The First 100 Milliseconds of a Face: On the Microgenesis of Early Face Processing

Carbon

2011

Percept Mot Skills

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face recognition involves both processing of information relating to features (e.g., eyes, nose, mouth, hair, i.e., featural processing), as well as the spatial relation between these features (configural processing). In a sequential matching task, participants had to decide whether two faces that differed in either featural or relational aspects were identical or different. In order to test for the microgenesis of face recognition (the development of processing onsets), presentation times of the backward-masked target face were varied (32, 42, 53, 63, 74, 84, or 94 msec.). To test for specific processing onsets and the processing of different facial areas, both featurally and relationally modified faces were manipulated in terms of changes to one facial area (eyes or nose or mouth), two, or three facial areas. For featural processing, an early onset for the eyes and mouth was at 32 msec. of presentation time, but a late onset for the nose was detected. For relationally differing faces, all onsets were delayed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

The First 100 Milliseconds of a Face: On the Microgenesis of Early Face Processing

Carbon

2011

Percept Mot Skills

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Augustin et al (2008) argue that this difference likely reflects the fact that processing of a painting's content is related to general processes of everyday object perception which is presumed to rely on rapid, automatic feedforward mechanisms. Style on the other hand constitutes a complex combination of different feature aspects of an artwork learned through experience that are artspecific and therefore exert some top-down influence on processing.…”

Section: Categorization Of a Painting's Content And Style At First Glmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Augustin and her colleagues (Augustin et al 2008(Augustin et al , 2011) conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the time course and interrelations between content-and style-related processing and to determine when and how these characteristics of paintings play a role during the initial perception of an artwork. Stimuli in their first investigation (Augustin et al 2008) consisted of 48 reproductions of paintings representing four contents, or motifs, (house, flowers, tree/trees, and a male person) fully crossed with four individual artist styles (works by the artists Cézanne, Chagall, Kirchner, and van Gogh). Art-naïve university students gave similarity ratings for pairs of pictures seen for 10, 50, 200, 3,000 ms or for unlimited viewing time.…”

Section: Categorization Of a Painting's Content And Style At First Glmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Aesthetic Experience with Visual Art “At First Glance”

Locher

2015

Contributions to Phenomenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aesthetic experience with visual art has been shown to occur in two stages. Upon initial exposure to a painting, a viewer spontaneously generates a global impression, or gist, of the work. One's first impression of a painting includes a sense of its pictorial content, overall structural organization and style, meaningfulness, and an affective reaction to it. When gist information in a painting is deemed to have sufficient interest to an observer, the second stage of aesthetic processing ensues. This consists of directed focal exploration of the image to expand knowledge concerning the work's compositional features and organization to satisfy cognitive curiosity and to develop aesthetic appreciation of a composition. This chapter presents an overview of research findings that have identified the types of visual properties and semantically related information that collectively lead to the activation of what is labeled a "painting gist" by this author. In addition, the influence of the painting gist response on the focal exploration of paintings is discussed.

show abstract

“…Research has repeatedly documented the effects of viewing and therefore also usable processing time on the specific perception, elaboration, and understanding and appreciation of art. In their seminal microgenetic approach on art perception, Bachmann and Vipper (1983) showed a clear influence of presentation time on the overall perception of art; a finding that was later specifically tested by Augustin, Leder, Hutzler, and Carbon (2008) with regard to the dimensions of content and style of art. It was revealed that information on style was only available after processing of content issues had been started (Augustin et al., 2008), a finding which was further demonstrated via an Event-Related Potentials (ERP) study making use of lateralized readiness potentials combined with the N200 effect (Augustin, Defranceschi, Fuchs, Carbon, & Hutzler, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their seminal microgenetic approach on art perception, Bachmann and Vipper (1983) showed a clear influence of presentation time on the overall perception of art; a finding that was later specifically tested by Augustin, Leder, Hutzler, and Carbon (2008) with regard to the dimensions of content and style of art. It was revealed that information on style was only available after processing of content issues had been started (Augustin et al., 2008), a finding which was further demonstrated via an Event-Related Potentials (ERP) study making use of lateralized readiness potentials combined with the N200 effect (Augustin, Defranceschi, Fuchs, Carbon, & Hutzler, 2011). Even the differential viewing time conditions of artwork titles had a clear impact on the understanding of artworks—people with a deeper knowledge of art especially benefitted from longer viewing times (10 s compared with 1 s) of the titles (Leder, Carbon, & Ripsas, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Art Perception in the Museum: How We Spend Time and Space in Art Exhibitions

Carbon

2017

i-Perception

Self Cite

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aesthetics research aiming at understanding art experience is an emerging field; however, most research is conducted in labs without access to real artworks, without the social context of a museum and without the presence of other persons. The present article replicates and complements key findings of art perception in museum contexts. When observing museum visitors (N = 225; 126 female, M(age) = 43.3 years) while perceiving a series of six Gerhard Richter paintings of various sizes (0.26–3.20 sq. m) in a temporary art exhibition in January and February 2015 showing 28 paintings in total, we revealed patterns compatible to previous research. The mean time taken in viewing artworks was much longer than was mostly realized in lab contexts, here 32.9 s (Mdn = 25.4 s). We were also able to replicate visitors spending more time on viewing artworks when attending in groups of people. Additionally, we uncovered a close positive relationship (r2 = .929) between canvas size and viewing distance, ranging on average between 1.49 and 2.12 m (M = 1.72 m). We also found that more than half of the visitors returned to paintings, especially those people who had not previously paid too much attention at the initial viewing. After adding the times of returning viewers, each picture was viewed longer than had been estimated in previous research (M = 50.5 s, Mdn = 43.0 s). Results are discussed in the context of current art perception theories, focusing on the need for the ecologically valid testing of artworks in aesthetics research.

show abstract

Style follows content: On the microgenesis of art perception

Cited by 85 publications

References 35 publications

The First 100 Milliseconds of a Face: On the Microgenesis of Early Face Processing

The First 100 Milliseconds of a Face: On the Microgenesis of Early Face Processing

The Aesthetic Experience with Visual Art “At First Glance”

Art Perception in the Museum: How We Spend Time and Space in Art Exhibitions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About