Observers prefer Mondrian's paintings in their original orientation compared to when rotated—“the oblique effect” (Latto et al, 2000 Perception29 981–987). We tested whether eye movements could provide any insight into this aesthetic bias. While recording fixation duration and saccade length, we presented eight Mondrian paintings dated 1921–1944 on a CRT in either their original or seven rotated positions to ten observers who used a Likert scale to report how (dis)pleasing they found each image. We report on eye-movement patterns from nine pairs of images that had a significant orientation effect. During the 20 s scans, fixation durations increased linearly, more so for pleasing images than for non-pleasing images. Moreover, saccade distances oscillated over the viewing interval, with larger saccade-distance oscillations for the pleasing images than the non-pleasing images. Both of these findings agree with earlier work by Nodine et al (1993 Leonardo26 219–227), and confirm that as an abstract painting becomes more aesthetically pleasing, it shows both a greater amount of diversive/specific types of image exploration and balance. Thus, any increase in visual fluency in localizing vertical and horizontal versus oblique lines can lead to an increase in the aesthetic pleasure of viewing Mondrian's work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AntesJ R, 1974“The time course of picture viewing”Journal of Experimental Psychology10362–70.
2.
AppelleS, 1972“Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation; the ‘oblique effect’ in man and animals”Psychological Bulletin78266–278.
3.
BerlyneD E, 1971Aesthetics and Psychobiology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts).
4.
EsmanA H, 1994“Piet Mondrian: The fusion of art and life”Psychoanalysis & Contemporary Thought17325–344.
5.
HaunA MHansenB CEssockE A, 2006“Mondrians, aesthetics, and the horizontal effect”Journal of Vision6(6):968a, http://journalofvision.org/6/6/968/, doi:10.1167/6.6.968.
6.
HeeleyD WBuchanan-SmithH M, 1994“Evidence for separate, task dependent noise processes in orientation and size perception”Vision Research342059–2069.
7.
HigginsG CStultzK, 1949“Variation of visual acuity with various test-object orientations and viewing conditions”Journal of the Optical Society of America40135–137.
8.
HochbergJ, 1976“Toward a speech-plan eye-movement model of reading”, in Eye Movements and Physiological Processes Eds MontyR ASendersJ W, (New York: John Wiley) pp 385–413.
9.
LattoRBrianDKellyB, 2000“An oblique effect in aesthetics: Homage to Mondrian (1872–1944)”Perception29981–987.
10.
LederHBelkeBOebersAAugustinD, 2004“A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments”British Journal of Psychology95489–508.
11.
LocherP J, 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 Arts14143–163.
12.
LocherPKrupinskiE AMello-ThomasCNodineC F, 2007“Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience”Spatial Vision2155–77.
13.
LocherPOverbeekeKStappersP J, 2005“Spatial balance of color triads in the abstract art of Piet Mondrian”Perception34169–189.
14.
LocherP JNodineC F, 1987“Symmetry catches the eye”, in Eye Movements: From Physiology to Cognition Eds O'ReaganJ KLevy-SchoenA, (Amsterdam: North Holland-Elsevier Science Publishers) pp 353–361.
15.
MackintoshJSutherlandN S, 1964“Visual discrimination in animals”British Medical Bulletin2054–59.
MitchellD EFreemanR DWestheimerG, 1966“Effect of orientation on the modulation sensitivity for interference fringes on the retina”Journal of the Optical Society of America57246–249.
18.
MolnarF, 1981“About the role of visual exploration in aesthetics”, in Advances in Intrinsic Motivation and Aesthetics Ed. DayH, (New York: Plenum Press) pp 385–414.
19.
NodineCLocherPKrupinskiE, 1993“The role of formal training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions”Leonardo26219–227.
20.
NodineC FMcGinnisJ H, 1983“Artistic style, compositional design, and visual scanning”Visual Arts Research121–9.
21.
NotonDStarkL, 1971“Eye movements and visual perception”, in Readings from Scientific American: Image, Object and Illusion (San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman) pp 113–122.
22.
ReberRSchwarzNWinkielmanP, 2004“Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?”Personality and Social Psychology Review8364–382.
23.
RussellP AGeorgeD A, 1990“Relationship between aesthetic response scales applied to paintings”Empirical Studies of the Arts815–30.
24.
SparksD L, 2002“The brainstem control of saccadic eye movements”Nature Reviews: Neuroscience3952–964.
25.
StarkLEllisS, 1999“The eyes have it: Eye movements and the perception of art”, in Cognition and the Visual Arts Ed. SolsoR L, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 129–155.
26.
WestheimerG, 2003“Meridional anisotropy in visual processing: Implications for the neural site of the oblique effect”Vision Research432281–2289.
27.
WinkielmanPSchwarzNFazendeiroTReberR, 2003“The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgments”, in The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion Eds MuschJKlauerK C, (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 189–217.
