reflections on parallellepipeda towards a new kind...

REFLECTIONS ON PARALLELLEPIPEDA: TOWARDS A NEW KIND OF

EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHO-AESTHETICS?

JOHAN WAGEMANS

ARTS & PERCEPTION, BRUSSELS, 23 NOV 2010

Parallellepipeda

• an interdisciplinary (cross-over) project on the boundary between arts and sciences– 3 years (2008 – 2010)– minimal funding

• an initiative of a number of partners in Leuven:– “Kunst in Huis”– the Department of Cultural Affairs of the city of Leuven– the City Museum M– STUK/Artefact– the Association K.U. Leuven/IvOK

– Note: IvOK stands for “Instituut voor Onderzoek in de Kunsten” (“Institute for Research in the Arts”), which allows a number of artists to obtain their PhD in Arts (not arts science or arts history, but really practice-based arts)

Parallellepipeda

• different projects

• Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and 4 artists:– Ruth Loos (visual, PhD)– Wendy Morris (visual, PhD)– Anne-Mie Van Kerckhoven (visual)– Carl Van Eyndhoven (Lemmens Institute, carillon, PhD)

• others:– Ronny Delrue (visual, PhD) + Koen Van Laere (nuclear

medicine)– Nick Ervinck (visual) + Pierre Delaere (experimental ORL)– Koen Vanmechelen (conceptual) + Jean-Jacques Cassiman

(human genetics) + Luc Vrielinck (stomatology)

• highlight: joint exhibition in M (Jan 28 till April 25, 2010)

Ronny Delrue

Nick Ervinck

Koen Vanmechelen

Outline

1. some Parallellepipeda projectsa) to illustrate the nature of the collaborationb) to sketch the development

2. some reflectionsa) towards a new kind of experimental psycho-

aesthetics?b) a moment of self-reflection

SOME PARALLELLEPIPEDA PROJECTS

PART 1.

What I will do here

• present a brief introduction of the artists and their work

• present one or two examples of studies we did in relation to their work (in the context of Parallellepipeda)– some from early stage of collaboration (close to

standard lab work)– some from later stage of collaboration (more

remote from standard lab work)

• briefly mention other (on-going) projects

Ruth Loos

• preparing a Ph.D. thesis on different aspectsof “the book object”

• important graphical/visual component to her work:– repetition, symmetry,

balance– 2D vs 3D– texture– scale– perspective– visual relations– …

opgerold boek met paraffine-schijfje en touw

boeken ontbonden, pagina’s herschikt tot lopende meters

“sea of stories - fairy tales”

“harten en dragers” - plaaster, papier, inkt, naaigaren

Early stage experiment

• forced choice and ranking task withseveral series of works

• ideas: balance/composition (visualrightness)

• method:– which one do you like most?– which one do you like least?– rank order the remaining in-between these

extremes– which one do you think is the original?

Example

And the correct answer is…

96 op 126 cm (één van drie) 7

Later stage study (quasi-experiment)

• manipulation/evaluation during an exhibition

• exhibition divided in 2 halves: left/right of diagonal, one with and one without additional information(counterbalanced across participants)

• additional information in this case: explanation bywell-informed guide

• evaluation in this case: standard questionnaires butalso semi-structured interviews (checking whetherwe made them look differently)

• relate viewing/knowing to appreciation

Wendy Morris

• preparing a Ph.D. thesis on her movie work• animated charcoal drawings

• important visual component to her work:– spatiotemporal variations– translations, transformations,

invariance– traces, analogies– micro-macro– visual detail– …

Later stage project

• eye movement and visual memory study (withPeter De Graef & Line Denayer)

• animation film: “Off the Record”

• multiple viewings (1-2-3)• with or without additional information (2 types:

biographical/historical versus anecdotal/visual)• in-between: same aesthetic appreciation (5-

point scales)• afterwards:

– unexpected recognition memory test, using static images from the same film (40 targets) or another film (40 distractors)

– same personal background questionnaire (general art interest, familiarity of the work)

Example result

Anne-Mie Van Kerckhoven

• works with a lot of different techniques (alsodigital)

• important visual component to her work:– perceptual organization– 2D vs 3D– contours vs surfaces– figure-ground ambiguities

(e.g., perceptual holes)– multiple depth layers– depth cues– …

Early stage experiment

• free sorting task with “I’ll rob you” (36 drawings on colored paper, 12 weeks, Lakenhalle, Bruges, 2005)

• question: do people see connectionsbetween the drawings?

• method: free sorting

Sorting criteria

• color of paper• color of central blob• female present or not• furniture present or not• female: body and head integrated or not• one or more blobs• homogenously colored background or not• …

Later stage study

• eye movement study with “Kalligrafie”- with Peter De Graef & Karen De Ryck- a series of 15 drawings

• goal: to get insight in the process of viewing and appreciating art by– studying on-line visual sampling– relating scan parameters to

• questionnaire measures of art appreciation – explicit (evaluative statements and ratings)– implicit (Osgood semantic differential)

– as a function of • level of art experience• level of episodic experience• interpretive set available to the viewer

Effects of art expertise on individual scan paths

• the artist• checking balance


• the novice• reading


• the expert• checking composition

Future projects

SOME REFLECTIONS

PART 2.

Themes

• the nature of the collaboration we have developed

• the development from working with art works as stimuli to working with artists as a source of stimulation and inspiration

• the possibilities and limitations of experimental psycho-aesthetics (and, more generally, between the arts and sciences)

• a moment of self-reflection about the ways this project has changed my being a vision scientist and an art-lover

Nature of the collaboration

Quite intense, intensive, extensive

– extensive:• many different projects• 3 years (+ beyond)

– intensive:• time• labour

– intense:• more personal than other types of research• more complicated

Development

• Events:– studio visits, seminars, joint visits of exhibitions– joint participation in Art & Science conference

(Benasque, Spain, July 2009)– joint exhibition (Leuven, 3 months, Spring 2010)

• Stages:1. working with art works as stimuli2. working with artists as a source of stimulation and

inspiration3. artists and scientists working together in a truly

mutual collaboration

A new kind of psycho-aesthetics?

• Traditional psycho-aesthetics usually of two types:– well-controlled, experimental work, often with reduced

stimuli and responses– famous art works by famous (often dead) artists

• Traditional psycho-aesthetics faced with all the problems of psychology as a discipline:– internal, private experience

• mind/brain problem• difficult to access

– perception/cognition/emotion interplay– determined by many different factors– some general principles but large degree of interindividual

variability– challenge to investigate properly

• tension between experimental control and ecological validity• aesthetic “response” (questionnaire, psychophysiology, “thrills”)• dilemma: what is interesting, is hard to study (and vice versa)

A new kind of psycho-aesthetics?

• working with real, active artists who are scientificallyinterested and motivated

• added value– new kinds of research:

• new art work as “experiments” (different stages/versions possible)• appreciation in the exhibition environment

– new insights in visual perception, aesthetics, and arts

• multi-method approach:– combining more controlled lab work and rigorous measurements

with less rigid work in richer contexts and more private/subjective measurements

• in addition to immediate scientific results, also long-termenrichment, both of the arts and the sciences involved

Limitations

• Less easy to publish in traditional outlets– alternative journals? monographs? joint

exhibitions/catalogues/websites?

• Less easy to obtain funding?

• Barriers between disciplines:– even if the artists and scientists are enthousiastic,

the other players must be able to follow (museum directors, staff, curators, public, media, …)

• Long-term efforts required

My personal evaluation

• It is definitely worth doing this– It has been my most precious collaboration so

far– It has affected my way of looking at art and

science quite strongly, literally and metaphorically:

• I see more in artworks (more aspects, more dimensions, more perspectives, more layers, more connections, …)

• I can tolerate more different ways of performingresearch

– I have enjoyed this project a lot

Take home message

• I see multiple ways of doing experimentalpsycho-aesthetics

• I have illustrated what I believe to be a relativelyuncommon type of collaboration between artistsand scientists

• I think this kind of research is hard work butalso great fun

THANK YOU

www.gestaltrevision.be

[email protected]

reflections on parallellepipeda towards a new kind...

Documents