The Bulletin of National Defence University of Ukraine

  • Home
  • Vol. 20, No. 5, 2025

  • Psychology of perception and understanding of a work of art: Content analysis of foreign empirical research

  • Received 15.08.2025,
  • Revised 17.09.2025,
  • Accepted 30.09.2025
Download article Download article
Vol. 20, No. 5, 2025
  • psychology of art; aesthetic perception; perception of art; understanding of a visual work; experiencing an aesthetic experience
  • https://doi.org/10.33099/2617-6858-2025-87-5-52-60
  • Pages 52-60

Within the scope of the review, two major directions existing in the psychology of understanding art are distinguished - object and subject. The object approach considers works of fine art as some kind of specially organized information, the perception and understanding of which are subject to certain schemes. Within the object direction, researchers are usually interested in those aspects of a person's reaction related to their aesthetic evaluations of works of art (viewers like or dislike, seem harmonious or not), as well as some parameters that indicate successful processing of the received visual information (for example, such as the fluidity of style processing or the ability to categorize the information seen)

References

  1. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments / H.Leder, B. Belke, A. Oeberst, D. Augustin. British journal of psychology. 2004, 95, 4, 489-508. DOI:10.1348/0007126042369811
  2. A new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity / G.Corradi, E.G. Chuquichambi, J.R. Barrada, A.Clemente, M.Nadal. British Journal of Psychology. 2020, 111, 4, 630-658. DOI:10.1111/bjop.12427
  3. Augustin D., Leder H. (2006). Art expertise: A study of concepts and conceptual spaces. Psychology Science, 48, 2, 135-156.
  4. Axelsson Ö. (2011). Aesthetic Appreciation Explicated: Dr. Sci. (Psychology) diss. Stockholm. 41 p.
  5. Brielmann A.A., Dayan P. (2021). Introducing a computational model of aesthetic value. Psychological review. 33 p.
  6. Brinck I. (2018). Empathy, engagement, entrainment: The interaction dynamics of aesthetic experience. Cognitive Processing, 19, 2, 201-213. DOI:10.1007/s10339-017-0805-x
  7. Chamberlain R. (2022). The interplay of objective and subjective factors in empirical aesthetics. Human Perception of Visual Information: Psychological and Computational Perspectives / Eds. B. Ionescu, W.A. Bainbridge, N.Murray. Cham: Springer, 115-132.
  8. Clemente A. (2022). Aesthetic sensitivity: Origin and development. The Routledge International Handbook of Neuroaesthetics / Eds. M. Skov, M. Nadal. New York, NY: Routledge, 240-253. DOI:10.4324/9781003008675
  9. Cross-cultural empirical aesthetics / J.Che, X.Sun, V.Gallardo, M. Nadal. Progress in Brain Research. 2018, 237, 77-103. DOI:10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.03.002
  10. Engagement with Beauty: Appreciating Natural, Artistic, and Moral Beauty / R.Diessner, R.D. Solom, N.K. Frost, L.Parsons, J.Davidson. The Journal of Psychology. 2008, 142, 3, 303-332. DOI:10.3200/JRLP.142.3.303-332
  11. Fancourt D., Finn S. (2019). What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review. Copenhagen: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. 146 p.
  12. Fechner G.T. (1876). Preschool of aesthetics. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. 283 p.
  13. Feist G.J., Brady T.R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts,. 22, 1, 77-89. DOI:10.2190/Y7CA-TBY6-V7LR-76GK
  14. Graf L.K.M., Landwehr J.R. (2017). Aesthetic pleasure versus aesthetic interest: the two routes to aesthetic liking. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Article ID 15. 14 p. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00015
  15. Hekkert P., van Wieringen P.C.W. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta psychological, 94, 2, 117-131. DOI:10.1016/0001-6918(95)00055-0
  16. Individual differences in preference for architectural interiors / O. Vartanian, G.Navarrete, L.Palumbo, A.Chatterjee. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2021, 77. Article ID 101668. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101668
  17. Inomjonovna R.I., Mahmadaliyevna D.C. Development of pedagogical technology of use of art therapy in preschool children. Journal of new century innovations. 2022, 11, 2, 125-130.
  18. Landwehr J.R., Labroo A.A., Herrmann A. (2011). Gut liking for the ordinary: Incorporating design fluency improves automobile sales forecasts. Marketing Science. 2011, 30, 3, 416-429. DOI:10.1287/mksc.1110.0633
  19. Markovic S. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience: aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotion. i-Perception, 3, 1, 1-17. DOI:10.1068/i0450aap
  20. Mastandrea S., Crano W.D. (2019). Peripheral factors affecting the evaluation of artworks. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37, 1, 82-91. DOI:10.1177/0276237418790916
  21. Myszkowski N., Çelik P., Storme M. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and visual “taste” measures. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 1, 24-33. DOI:10.1037/aca0000099
  22. Myszkowski N., Çelik P., Storme M. (2020). Commentary on Corradi et al.’s (2019) new conception of aesthetic sensitivity: Is the ability conception dead? British Journal of Psychology, 111, 4, 659-662. DOI:10.1111/ bjop.12440
  23. Pombo M., Brielmann A.A., Pelli D.G. (2023). The intrinsic variance of beauty judgment. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85, 4, 1355-1373. DOI:10.3758/s13414-023-02672-x
  24. Rawlings D. (2003). Personality correlates of liking for ‘unpleasant’ paintings and photographs. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 3, 395-410. DOI:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00062-4
  25. Reber R., Schwarz N., Winkielman P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and social psychology review, 8, 4, 364-382.
  26. Schimmel K., Förster J. (2008). How temporal distance changes novices’ attitudes towards unconventional arts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 1, 53-60. DOI:10.1037/1931-3896.2.1.53
  27. Stern, W. (1912). The Psychological Methods of Intelligence Testing. (G.Whipple, Trans.). Baltimore: Warwick and York. General Psychology from the Personalistic Standpoint.
  28. Silvia P.J. (2007). Knowledge-based assessment of expertise in the arts: Exploring aesthetic fluency. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,, 1, 4, 247-249. DOI:10.1037/1931-3896.1.4.247
  29. Skov M. (2019). Aesthetic appreciation: The view from neuroimaging. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 37, 2, 220-248. DOI:10.1177/0276237419839257
  30. Skov M., Nadal M. (2021). The nature of beauty: Behavior, cognition, and neurobiology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1488, 1, 44-55. DOI:10.1111/nyas.14524
  31. Smith L.F., Smith J.K. (2020). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency // New directions in aesthetics, creativity and the arts / Eds. L.F. Smith, J.K. Smith. New York: Routledge, 47-58. DOI:10.4324/9781315224084
  32. Social reputation influences on liking and willingness-to-pay for artworks: A multimethod design investigating choice behavior along with physiological measures and motivational factors / B.T.M. Spee, M.Pelowski, J.Arato, J.Mikuni, U.S. Tran, C.Eisenegger, H.Leder. PLoS One. 2022, 17, 4. Article ID e0266020. 30 p. DOI:10.1371/journal. pone.0266020
  33. Sutcliffe A. (2010). Designing for user engagement: Aesthetic and attractive user interfaces. Springer Nature, 2010. 47 p.
  34. Taste typicality» is a foundational and multi-modal dimension of ordinary aesthetic experience / Y.C. Chen, A.Chang, M.D. Rosenberg, D.Feng, B.J. Scholl, L.J. Trainor. Current Biology. 2022, 32, 8, 1837-1842. DOI:10.1016/j. cub.2022.02.039
  35. The Aesthetic Responsiveness Assessment (AReA): A screening tool to assess individual differences in responsiveness to art in English and German / W.Schlotz, S.Wallot, D.Omigie, M.D. Masucci, S.C. Hoelzmann, E.A. Vessel. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2021, 15, 4, 682-696. DOI:10.1037/aca0000348
  36. The emotional influence of different geometries in virtual spaces: A neurocognitive examination / A.Shemesh, G.Leisman, M.Bar, Y.J. Grobman. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2022, 81. Article ID 101802. 24 p. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101802
  37. The role of art expertise and symmetry on facial aesthetic preferences / L.C.P. Monteiro, V.E.F. Nascimento, Carvalho da Silva, A.C. Miranda, G.S. Souza, R.C. Ripardo. Symmetry. 2022, 14, 2. Article ID 423. 16 p. DOI:10.3390/sym14020423
  38. Weichselbaum H., Leder H., Ansorge U. (2018). Implicit and explicit evaluation of visual symmetry as a function of art expertise. i-Perception, 9, 2. Article ID 2041669518761464. DOI:10.1177/2041669518761464
  39. Westgate E.C., Oishi S. (2021). Art, music, and literature: Do the humanities make our lives richer, happier, and more meaningful? The Oxford handbook of the positive humanities / Eds. L.Tay, J.O. Pawelski. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 85-96.

Submission

 
Flag Counter