The effect of abstraction degree in contemporary painting subjects on gallery visitors' appreciative responses: an aesthetic psychology approach

Mujiyono Mujiyono; Eko Haryanto; Gunadi Gunadi; Muhammad Ibnan Syarif

doi:10.33153/dewaruci.v20i1.6346

Authors

Mujiyono Mujiyono Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang
Eko Haryanto Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang
Gunadi Gunadi Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang
Muhammad Ibnan Syarif Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33153/dewaruci.v20i1.6346

Keywords:

Contemporary , Aesthetic, Affection , Perception , Cognition

Abstract

One of the main challenges in understanding contemporary paintings is their high degree of abstraction. Each painting simplifies and alters its subject's form, with varying degrees of similarity to objects from nature. This study aims to examine how the degree of abstraction in contemporary painting subjects affects visitors' appreciative responses using an aesthetic psychology approach. The study employs a mixed-methods approach with a multiple-case study design. Semarang Gallery and Sangkring Art Space, both reputable galleries known for their artistic collections and high visitor numbers, were selected for this study. An evaluative survey was conducted with visitors at each gallery using a standardized set of operational questions. Descriptive statistical analysis was applied to calculate the average appreciation scores for each structure within the aesthetic psychology framework. Qualitative data from interviews and observations were employed to explain and enrich the survey findings. A cross-case analysis was carried out to identify the similarities and differences in the tendencies of aesthetic psychological structures across the two galleries. The findings indicate that three types of contemporary paintings, each with a varying degree of subject abstraction, were appreciated by visitors at both Semarang Gallery and Sangkring Art Space across the affective, perceptual, and cognitive dimensions. Affective responses emerged as the most dominant, followed by perceptual and cognitive responses, with an insignificant difference level (p < 0.05). The finding suggests that the degree of abstraction in contemporary paintings does not significantly affect the public's ability to appreciate them, particularly in affective, perceptual, and interpretative responses.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] S. Wisetrotomo, Kuasa Rupa, Kuasa Negara: Kurator di Antara Tegangan Pasar dan Kekuasaan, 1st ed. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Buku Baik, 2021.

[2] T. Barrett, Criticizing Art: Understanding the Contemporary, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw HIll, 2011.

[3] S. Irvin and J. Dodd, “In advance of the broken theory: philosophy and contemporary art,” J. Aesthet. Art Crit., vol. 75, no. 4, 2017. doi: 10.1111/jaac.12412

[4] S. Sunardi, Semiotika Negativa. Yogyakarta: Buku Baik, 2004.

[5] J. Lewison, “LeWitt, Sol,” in Oxford Art Online, Oxford University Press, 2018. doi: 10.1093/gao/9781884446054.article.T050793

[6] T. Binkley, “Piece: contra aesthetics,” J. Aesthet. Art Crit., vol. 35, no. 3, p. 265, 1977, doi: 10.2307/430287.

[7] D. Atkinson, “Without Criteria: Art and Learning and the Adventure of Pedagogy,” Int. J. Art Des. Educ., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 141–152, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1111/jade.12089.

[8] J. Stallabrass, Contemporary art: a very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

[9] M. Meskimmon, Women making art: history, subjectivity, aesthetics. New York: Routledge, 2003.

[10] Y. A. Piliang, Hipersemiotika: Tafsir Cultural Studies Atas Matinya Makna. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra, 2013.

[11] D. Fenner, “Aesthetic Absence and Interpretation,” Estetika, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 162–175, 2023, doi: 10.33134/eeja.315.

[12] O. G. Ocvirk, R. E. Stinson, P. R. Wigg, R. Bone, and D. L. Cayton, Art Fundamental: Theory and Practice, 12th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2012.

[13] W. Woninger, Abstraction and Empathy. 2018. doi: 10.4324/9780429498909-30

[14] A. Gozali, “Dimensi Spiritual Dalam Seni Lukis Abstrak Kontemporer Indonesia: Sejarah Dan Wacana,” Acintya J. Penelit. Seni Budaya, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2019, doi: 10.33153/acy.v11i1.2609.

[15] H. Pelowski, Matthew Gerger, Gernot Chetouani, Yasmine Markey, Patrick S. Leder, “But is it really art? The classification of images as ‘Art’/‘Not Art’ and correlation with appraisal and viewer interpersonal differences.” Front. Psychol., vol. 8, 2017. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01729

[16] K. R. Schindler, I., Hosoya, G., Menninghaus, W., Beermann, U., Wagner, V., Eid, M., & Scherer, “Measuring aesthetic emotions: a review of the literature and a new assessment tool,” PLoS One, vol. 12, no. 6, 2017. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178899

[17] H. Leder and M. Nadal, “Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode - Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics,” Br. J. Psychol., vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 443–464, 2014, doi: 10.1111/bjop.12084.

[18] R. Ho, M. Szubielska, and N. Kopi-s-Posiej, “Cultural-Match Effect on the Appreciation of Traditional and Contemporary Visual Arts: Evidence From Poland and Hong Kong,” Psychol. Aesthetics, Creat. Arts, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 451–462, 2022, doi: 10.1037/aca0000535.

[19] B. Belke, H. Leder, T. Strobach, and C. C. Carbon, “Cognitive Fluency: High-Level Processing Dynamics in Art Appreciation,” Psychol. Aesthetics, Creat. Arts, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 214–222, 2010, doi: 10.1037/a0019648.

[20] A. I. Saidi, Narasi Simbolik Seni Rupa Kontemporer Indonesia. Jakarta: Isac Book, 2008.

[21] M. Susanto, Mengapa sih Lukisan Mahal? Wacana Penetapan Harga Karya Seni. Yogyakarta: Dicti Art Laboratory, 2021.

[22] G. Dickie, “Is Psychology Relevant to Aesthetics?,” Philos. Rev., vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 285–302, 1962, doi: 10.2307/2183429.

[23] Y. Bai and H. Jin, “The Impact of Visual, Thermal, and Acoustic Environments in Urban Public Spaces in Cold Regions on the Psychological Restoration of the Elderly,” Buildings, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 2685, 2024, doi: 10.3390/buildings14092685.

[24] E. Rahman, J. D. A. Carruthers, P. Rao, Z. Rahman, S. S. Esfahlani, and W. R. Webb, “From Posts to Perceptions: Sentiment and Psychological Analysis of Aesthetic Enhancements on Social Media.,” Aesthetic Plast. Surg., vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1478–1494, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s00266-024-04455-7.

[25] Y. Fang, J. Tian, A. Namaiti, S. Zhang, J. Zeng, and X. Zhu, “Visual aesthetic quality assessment of the streetscape from the perspective of landscape-perception coupling,” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., vol. 106, p. 107535, May 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107535.

[26] A. Chatterjee and O. Vartanian, “Neuroscience of aesthetics,” Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 1369, no. 1, pp. 172–194, 2016, doi: 10.1111/nyas.13035.

[27] M. T. Pearce et al., “Neuroaesthetics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience,” Perspect. Psychol. Sci., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 265–279, 2016, doi: 10.1177/1745691615621274.

[28] S. Beudt and T. Jacobsen, “On the role of mentalizing processes in aesthetic appreciation: an ERP study,” Front. Hum. Neurosci., vol. 9, no. NOVEMBER, pp. 1–13, 2015, doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00600.

[29] Y. C. Lin, “An Aesthetic Model for Popular Illustration,” Empir. Stud. Arts, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 108–134, 2023, doi: 10.1177/02762374211047972.

[30] H. Henrik, H. Reidar, and V. M. Patrick, “The Perception and Evaluation of Visual Art,” Empir. Stud. Arts, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 197–218, 2008, doi: 10.2190/em.26.2.d.

[31] P. Ognjenovic, “Processing of Aesthetic Information,” Empir. Stud. Arts, vol. 9, no. 1, 1991. doi: 10.2190/KC25-JWTN-NRX4-C7A1

[32] S. E. Palmer, K. B. Schloss, and J. Sammartino, “Visual aesthetics and human preference,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., vol. 64, pp. 77–107, 2013, doi: doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504.

[33] A. P. Shimamura, “Toward a science of aesthetics: issues and ideas,” in Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience, A. P. Shimamura and S. E. Palmer, Eds. Oxford University Press., 2012, pp. 3–28. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.003.0010

[34] R. K. Yin, Studi Kasus: Desain dan Metode. Jakarta: Rajawali Press, 2014.

[35] “‘Yogya Annual Art #8 : Infinity,’” Katalog Pameran, 28 Juni -28 Agustus 2023. Sangkring Art Space, Yogyakarta.

[36] “‘Sapuan Kuas dan Kelaliman Bentuk,’” Exhibition Catalogue, 19 August -10 October 2023. Semarang Gallery, Semarang, 2023.

[37] J. Jacoby and M. S. Matell, “Three-Point Likert Scales Are Good Enough,” J. Mark. Res., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 495–500, May 1971, doi: 10.2307/3150242.

[38] P. Locher, “The aesthetic experience with visual art ‘at first glance,’” in Investigations Into the Phenomenology and the Ontology of the Work of Art - What are Artworks and How do We Experience Them?, P. F.Bundgaard and F. Stjernfelt, Eds. Springer, 2015, pp. 145–165.

[39] M. Matthen, “Art Forms Emerging: an Approach to Evaluative Diversity in Art,” J. Aesthet. Art Crit., vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 303–318, 2020, doi: 10.1111/jaac.12740.

[40] A. Goldman, “Beardsley’s Legacy: The Theory of Aesthetic Value: Symposium: Monroe Beardsley's Legacy in Aesthetics,” J. Aesthet. Art Crit., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 185–189, 2005. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8529.2005.00196.x

[41] L. S. Hearnshaw, Cyril Burt, psychologist. New York: Cornell University Press, 1979.

[42] A. S. Winston, “Simple Pleasures : the Psychological Aesthetics of High and Popular Art,” Empir. Stud. Arts, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 193–203, 1995, doi: 10.2190/U40C-QXB0-4RXQ-8PQ0.

[43] R. E. Sanders, “Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech: Controlling Understandings in Conversation and Persuasion.” State Univ of New York Pr, New York, 1986.

[44] S. Davies, “Defining Art and Artworlds,” J. Aesthet. Art Crit., vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 374–384, 2015. doi: 10.1111/jaac.12222

[45] P. J. Silvia, “Artistic Training and Interest in Visual Art: Applying the Appraisal Model of Aesthetic Emotions,” Empir. Stud. Arts, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 139–161, 2006, doi: 10.2190/dx8k-6wea-6wpa-fm84.

[46] K. M. Higgins, “Global Aesthetics—What Can We Do?,” J. Aesthet. Art Crit., vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 339–349, 2017. doi: 10.1111/jaac.12403