A review of research on aesthetic measure

ActarPsychofogica

(1968) 363-375;

0 North-HuNand Pubiishing Co., Amsterdam

Nc-t to be repro&wad by photoprint or microfilm without written permission from the publisher

LD .I. MCWHINNIE School of Art, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT

This paper reviews two groups of studies in the general area of figure preference and aesthetic measure done between 1927 and 1966. One group of studies found that the visual elements of simplicity and symmetry were characteristic of aesthetic objects preferred by artists: whereas the other group of studies found that the visual elements of complexity and asymmetry were characteristic of the aesthetic objects so preferred. Many of the studies attributed these differences in figure preference to differences in personality. The present writer has suggested an alternative hypothesis that might account for the divergent results. He has reviewed research from outside the general area of experimental ze~*Jacticswhich suggest that the specific characteristics of training in art could .account for the discrepancies noted in the review of the research. Future research in aesthetic measure would need to consider the various learning variables involved in both aesthetic preference and aesthetic judgement. This area of learning is critical to new developments in aesthetic education which are concerned with developing aesthetic awareness in children.

One long and interesting interrelation betwe art and psychology has been in the field of aesthetic measure. The ain attempts to empirically test aesthetic theories together with the questions as to why certain individuals prefer specific types of aesthetic objects has long fascinated artist, philosopher, and psychologist. A number of studies done within the past thirty years have sought to compare the perceptual choices of artists with non-artists. Some r:ecent research in this area of psychology has been conducted as a part of a study on creativity by Frank Barron of the University of California (BARRON, 1963). The research in the area of psychology which Valentine called “The Experimental Psychology of Beauty’ (VALENTINE, 1962) is critical to the efforts of the present writer to formulate a Psychology of Art. This paper reflects in part at least some of this effort. This paper will: (I) divide the research on aesthetic measurement into two main groups, (2) integrate separate studies of specific psychologists, and (3) attempt to account for the rather clear differences &served in their results. Thesee discrepancies form such a clear and 363

364

HAROLD J.MCWHINNIE

distinct pattern that some attempt to explain their di&rences would seem to be in order. Before any discussion of these differem studies of aesthetic preferenees can get under way, some consideration must be ma& of whether or not comparable measures of personality have been used. Those studies which were concerned with personality variabIes have in general employed standardized personality tests and it would seem that they are comparable. In all of the studies the nature of the tasks do seem to be comparable. The subjects are asked whether they like or dislike either photographs of works of art or abstracts line drawings. The studies also seem to be consistent in their definitions of simplicity-symmetry or complexity-asymmetry. Artists in these studies have been selected in two ways which also seems to have been fairly consistent over time. (a) Artists as judges: Established professional artists or’ art faculty members were used to establish criteria and norms for the various measures of aesthetic preferences. (b) ArtisLY as subjectst

These have been art students not :;elected for any particular degree of creativity in art. In general they have ;been random samples of unselected art students. The use of two terms need to be clarified as they have been used interchangeably in these studies. The terms are: Aesthetic preference: The extent tu which a person Pikes or dislikes a work of art. AC&&C judgment: ‘I&e extent to which a person judges the aesthetic value of a work of art. ate: These studies will be review in reverse order beginning with the mo& recePltwork.) 1. The work of Frank Barron. Preferences of artists for complexity

Barron has studied the figure preferences of artists vs. non-artists. He measured these differences in perceptual choice in terms of preferences fur either the si~mplesymmetricalor for the complex-asymmetrical &gures on the Welsh Figure Preference Test. (BARRON, 1952). He

A REVIEW OF

ESEARCHON AESTHETICMEASURE

365

found that the artist preferred the complex-asy

etrical and disliked s. These observed differences were distinct nts apart on a sixity-five

the sin&e-symmetrical and they yielded two

‘s original sample the mean for the artist was a retest mean of 39.07; whereas, the mean for non-artists was 16.9 with a retest mean of 18.37, e difference between these means was reported to significant at the 0. 1 level of confidence. argued that these observed diflerences in figure preference may represent a bi-polar factor that e sses itself when both elements (comimplicity, sym and asymmetry) are present in the a choice must be made by the subject for either end of the linear dimension. arron also noted that these differences in perceptual choice may be reflected in the K-polar factor of aesthetic choice identified by Eysenck as the k factor (EYSENCK, 194la). As a part of his work Barron also measured the difference in the aesthetic preference of his two groups of subjects (the simple group and the complex group) for reproductions of works of art (BARRON, 1953). He wished to see if the observed differences in figure preferences on the figure preference test, also held in the preference for works of art. He found that the simple group rejected the esoteric, unnatural and frankly sensual; whereas, the complex group approved the modern, radical, experimental, primitive, and sensual. Examples of the art preferences of these two groups are as follo ARaoN, 196% pp. 184-I 87). (a) Paintings liked ‘best by the simple group: BLUE BOY - Gainsborough FRANCIS I -

Clouet

JOHNTHE BAPTIST THE WOMAN

(b)

Leonardo Da Vinci

AND THE PEARL-

Corot

Paintings liked least by the simple group: THE: BUSTBEFOREA WINDOW -

Picasso

WO~~AN FROM BURGUNDYMARALXO-

Mo@liani

THE CLOWNESS-

Toulouse-Lautrec

(c) Paintings liked best kby the complex group: WOMEN BATHING-

Cezanne

?166

HAROLD

‘WOMIEN W!ITH THE VEIL -

J. MCWmNNIB

Renoir

(d) PainCngs liked best by the complex ‘TEE w~~~cs Rembrandt THE !!W+WE AT PARIS - Gauguin ?%-.VIrZW CBFhNSE - utl% BATHMAR CAST~GLI~NE - Sanzio

gmup:

2. The work of 23. J. Eysenck. Towards a general factor in aesthetic

jugmen t Barron’s findings of 2 distinti patterns of figure preference would s’Clar to the earlier work done by H. J. Eysenck (EYZXNCK, seem to 194lb). Eysenck tried to identify a general factor of aesthetic measure which he called a t factor. However, it must be noted that Eysenck Ldidnot compare the preferences of artists vs. non-artist as Barron had done. He posited the idea that his d factor of aesthetic measure was similar to Spearman’s g factor in the area of iatelhgence testing. Eysenck further argued that hi t factor was a perceptual factor derived from the nature of the nervous sys~tem itself. He cited three ,?ssential characteristics of his t factor which were: (a) Evidbznce shows a genera factor of aesthetic preference which is independr:nt of iearning, traditions, and other irregular associations. This t &tor seems to derive from the nature of man himself. (Substantiated by 1at:erwork of Child.) (blr This t factor extends over modalities of sensory perception other than vision. (cl, When the infiuence of the t factor 4s eliminated in the analyses of the data, a bi-polar factor (personality) emerges which effects appreciation formal and representational art. This factor Eysenck called his k factor. He posited this factor as a general factor in aesthetic judgment. The: k factor is a preference for simple polygons, simple rhythms, highly unified pictures as compared with a preference for complex poPygons, %KNZrhythms, and diversified pictures. Work of MCWHINNIE (1966) and R.CXEN(1955) suggest that Eysenck’s k factor might be attributed to learning as well as personality. ‘This work of Eysenck was made possible by the concept of the

A REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON AESTWETIC MEASURE average

orde

367

n

aesthetrc pref nce developed earlier by (1938). De are found that th layman and arts experts placed pictures of differ ng merit in the same order of preference, (A, later study by CHILD (1962) indicated that the use of an average order in aesthetic preference does irot relate to individual agreements..) The positing of a general factor of aesthetic preference by are and Eysenck brings us to +Qequestion as to whether such a general factor is due to innate qu s or is largely dependent upon cultural influenccs; i.e. tear&g. s brings us to a consideration of cross-cMura1 studies in aesthetic A study by LROY (1952) tested the figure preferences of aborigines in Australia on the material employed ‘by Eysenck. We found no evidence of the existence o a general factor representing taste’ based on inherited predispositions. There was inter-raci at aesthetic valuation is determined by the cultural conevidence ditioning of perception.

ecent research in the area of a cross-cultural study uf aesthetic preferences by CHILD and SIROTO (1965) reports data which suggests there is some degree of universality of good taste in aesthetic judgments. Such findings would su’bstantiate Eysenck’s t factor. Child’s researches had one advantage over the earlier studies which found no evidence trans-cul:ural agreement on matters of aesthetic preference (MC ELROY, 1952; EAWLOR, 1955) which was that Child co pared the transcultural preferences of those interested in art, ereas, the earlier work compared preferences of a general popuiation. Other studies (IWAO aeld CHILD, 3966) (FORD, PROTHRO and CHILD, 1966) found similar evidence of trans-cultural agreement in aesthetic pr&erence. Child like Barron has studied the personality correlates of aesthetic judgment in college students (CHILD, 1965). Child did not find any predicable patterns of significant relationships between aesthetic judgment and various personality variables such as: ‘masculinity vs. femininity, originality etc. Child did find positive correlations with personality variables such as: tolerance of ambiguity, ambivalence, and independence of judgment. Id seem to substantiate Eysenck’s This aspect of Child’s work e that Child’s work did substantiate k factor. In general we c4%ncone Eysenck’s earlier research.

368

HAROLD J. MCWHINNIE

C’ltn~~ (1965) found aesthetic judgment related to the folbwing clusters of variables: (I) Background in art (2) Aslpects of cognitive style (tolerance of complexity, scanning, intuition, perception, independence of judgment). ROSEN(1955) in a partial rephcation of Barron’s work investigated the question as to whether training in a~%(learning) instead of personality affected the figure preferences on the Welsh Fgure Preference Test. He found that the preference for comple.xity and asymmetry of subjects who had bad some training in art differed significantly from the preferences of those subjects who had no training in art at better than the 01. level. Rosen failed to deal with the rival hypothesis that artists might have an innate preference for complexiry and then take up art study. CHILD (1965) like Rosen found a strong r&ationship between background in art and aesthetic judgment. 4.

Work of Birkhofl. Preferences of artists for simplicity

The aesthetic preference for complexity-asymmetry by artists and those trained in art reported in the work of Barron, Rosen, Child, and Eysenck are at a cntisiderable variance with the earlier speculations on the question of aesthetic measure by the Harvard mathmetician George D. BIRKUOFF (1932). This writer would like to suggest the hypothesis that the differences between Barron and Birkhoff might be explained as an influence of current art fashions anad art education upon figure preference and aesthetic taste. If one would compare the works of art: popular at the time when Birkhoff wrote with the works at art in current favor several years ago when Barron did his work, one possibie explanation for such a divergency in result may become clear. A I:ecent article on the work of the Canadian artist Alex Co1vili.e (Dow, 1965) indicated that the aesthetic preference of artists may once again be changing toward simplicity, Colville and other painters (referred to as “pop” artists) have shown a renewed interest in formal composition, simplicity, symmetry, and the use of such compositional schemes as the golden section (HAMBRIDGE, 1926). @M&off formulated much of his theory upon the work of Hambridge.) Experimental data for possjble recent shifts in the #aesthetic preferences of artists is non-existent. The rapid changes of current aesthetic tastes makes research into this question more difficult than heretofore.

ILREVIEW OF RESEARCH ON AESTHETIC MEASURE

369

Birkhoff attempted in his theory to formulate a means by which he could provide a rational basis for tie. intuitive comparison of aesthetic objects. He postulated ::he foilowing formula for Aesthetic Measure: 0 (Order) M -_ (Aesthetic measure) = C (Complexity) Birkhoff’s formula was based on the hypothesis that a subject’s effort of attention to any configuration increases in proportion to the amount ty of visual detail in the perceived object. Aesthetic Measure (M) is the feeling of value that rewards this effort of attention. Birkhoff attempted a number cf empirical tests bj using his formula to calculate he aesthetic value of a number of art objects from different historical periods. He held &at his formulation par& leled the unity-in-variety concept and the Gestalt idea of a “good configuration’. Based on Brikhoff’s formuia, simplicity, symmetry, clarity of detail, etc. would seem to be the preferred. visual characteristics of aesthetic objects. This reflected the aesthetic taste of the period in which he wrote. (Child suggested that it is also possible that BirkhofF’s theory reflected not the aesthetic taste of the period but his own complete lack of it.) 5. Studies te.yting the Birkhofl theury Norman C. Meier’s ten-years study in :he sychology of Art at Iowa State University was in part at least an attempt to tesi the Birkhoff theory on a wide varie:ty of aesthetic objects (MEIER, 1942). A study dcine by Brighouse, as a part of Meier’s program, found that preference for simple, symmetrical forms increased with training in art (Brighouse, 1939). BRIGHOUSE'S rather strange definition of simplicity-complexity needs to be considered in the interpretation of his findings. He reported the following group test means as proof of his thesis: trained adults 915.9

untrained adults 950*2

trained children 959.8

untrained children 969.2

The range of possible choices in the above experiment went from. a score of 8K %P, most s,i.mple) to a score of 1024 (the most complex). Briaouse rqorted significant difference between tihe four groups and argued th8.t tis data seeriled to c:o&rm bhe Birkhoff theory. Brighuuse’s

370

HAROLD

J. MCWHINNIE

data contradicted earlier studies by C. 0. Weber which had found that complexity and asymmetry were the preferred properties of visual forms selected by artists (WEBRR, 1927, 1931). In view of Brighouse’s definitions of complexity, sim$city W&r’s study may represent the artistic taste of the time that Birkhoff’s formula held least for preferences ti art experts. In the BirkhofI formula Aesthetic Measure ) was determined the ratio of or&r and amplexity. The simple square for example, had a very high degree of (M) since it had both a high degree of order and a low degree of complexity. Eysenck on the other hand argued *hat Aesthetic Measure (I@ was the product and not the ratio of order and complexity (Eysenck, 1957). Eysenck hypothesized the form&a for aesth,?tic measure as follows: 0 C M (Aestiietic Measure) = (order) ’ (complexity) Eysenck found th%t those visual objects preferred in his studies seemed to h#a.veboth a high degree of order and of complexity. Beebe-Center sought to test Birkhoff’s theory (BEEBE-CENTER, P,937’). Both Bee’itienter and Davis reported a lack of correlation between their da :a and Birkhoff’s initial formulation (J~AVIS, 1936). Beebe-Center stirdied the aesthetic preferences of three groups of students; a lay group, a group of art students, and a group of psychology students. His results showed more divergency in aesthetic choice among the preferences of art students. He reported the folIowing correlations from his study: (a) The correlation (Pearson Product Moment) between the preference of the art students and BirkhofI’s formulated value for the various art objects. r = 0.22 @I The correlation (Pearson Pro&tot Moment] between the preferences of the lay group and Biskhoff’s formulated value for the tarious art objects. r =

0.47

The intercorrdations among the preferences of art students was 0.31 2nd betweA:nl:he lay group it was 0.47. Beebe-Center concluded that

A REVIEW

OF RESEARCH

QN AESTHETIC

MEASURE

371

his study showed irkhoff’s formula did not predict the aesthetic preferences of art students. 6. Aesthetic preference md GesthtiEt theory CK (1942)

ted to formulate an ex@nental

approach stalt theory of aesthetics. Gestalt writers suggested that the of the ‘Good. C3estalt” were simplicity, regularity, and

senck’s theory of aesthetics postulated thz& pffeasure (beauty) was proportional to the decrease in the nt of energy needed in the act of perceiving the aesthetic object. ostulated two laws: e Law of Retentivity: for completeness and satisfaction the form demands repetition. atigue: for completeness and satisilaction the aesthetic According to Eysenck’s theory the degree to which these two elements or ‘laws’ were balanced in the aesthetic object, the more pleasure would be the result. Eysenck postulated the act of perception as a learned activity and therefore affects d my the degree of the subject’s training. He held that the average order of aesthetic preference was a good criterion for aesthetic measure only under carefully specified conditions which would control the irrelevant factors. The errors in Birkhoff’s formulation of aesthetic measure according to Eysenck were as follows: (a) A factual error: Eysenck held that the eye cxx not foEw successive sides of a percept as Birkhoff’s formulation had ass (b) A theoretical error: Aam&.ng to Birkhoff, Aesthetic is equal to (0) order and inversely equal to (cl) complexity; whereas, amrding to Eysenck Aesthetic Measure (M) is the product and not the ratio of those two elements. (c) lndjvidwzl diflerences; Birkhoff did not consider the relationships of perccJlptua1preferences to the personality structure of the individual. Some individuaIs seem to prefer a high degree of com$exQ and others a high degree of order. 7. Aesthetic preference and trahin~ in art The question of the e&cts of learning, i.e. training in art on aesthetic choice seems to be central to a discussion of changes in the

372

HAROLDJ. MCWNINNIE

aesthetic preferences of artists. Several studies outside of the main stream of research on figure preference may assist in answering questions as to the efTects of training. I habits of artists an Woods 2nd Boudreau compared the y studied the initial eye non-artist (TVOOIXand BO;UDREAU, 1950). fixations by means )of a bi-dimensional camera and observed that the artists initially fixed their eyes upon the more complex areas of the visual stimulus. These experimenters concluded that the artists tended to prefer the more complex areas in the stimuli. Recent research in information theory seems to be related to the concept of Eysenck that Aesthetic Measure (M) is determined by the amount of energy needed to perceive the aesthetic object. Attneave (1954) has attempted to apply developments in information theory to the study of the perceptual process. He has held that recent advances in computer technology make it possible to quantify the Cdestalt Laws of Perceptual Organization. Attneave had identified three main processes by which we sort out, repeat, and classify the vast amount of visual information that our eyes are forced to handle. According to his theory: (a) we classify similar things as units (b) we classify random by averages (c) we classify iu terms of wholes or completions How these three operations influence the individual’s preference for aesthetic objects remains a question for further research. Can the individual learn to process more visual information and by so doing come to prefer the more complex, the more open, and the more asymmetrical forms? A study reported by SALOMB(1965) based in part on Attneave’s work tested the effects of specific training in information-handling skills upon the ability of fourth and fifth grade children to handle visual information and visual complexity. Salome concluded that percentual training relevant to the utilization of visual cues located along contour linss does inaease the amount of relevant visual information fifth grade children will include in a drawing. A study reported by this writer (MCWHINNIE, 1965) tested the effetcs of perceptual training on the figure preference for fifth and sixth grade children. It was found that this specific training did effect the figure preference fcr more complexity and asymmetry on the part

A REVIEW OF RESEARCHON AESTHETICME4SURE

of the

373

s 1. These studies suggest that aesthetic preferences coultl

be a variable for additional research on the ef%zctsof perceptual training in art. 8.

su

cumlu~dum

The foregoing discussion has attempted to show that research into th? problem of aesthetic preference has been extensive and often the results have been contradictory. Some tentative conclusions arc BS follows: ture research into aesthetic preference should consider the (a) effects of learning as well as the relationship between the personality structure of the individual and his aesthetic choice. The work of some individuals would seem to prefer a high degree of complexity; whereas, others would prefer a high degree of order. Many of the early studies in aesthetic choice did not consider the personality of the individual making the aesthetic judgment (CHILD, 1962, 1965) ARROM, 1963) (EYSENCK, 1941).

(b) There seems to

a high correlation between aesthetir preference for geometric and a act drawings with preferences for reproductions of works of art. Based on this finding from the zxk of Barron and Eysenck we might conclude that figure pr ce depends upon thl:: arrangement and USCof visual elements in e stimulus object rather art. than on the subject matter found in the wor (c,\ Individuals with training in art seem to prefer the mure complex figures; whereas, those without training prefer the simple figures. Studies by Rosen, arron, Beebe-Center, Davis, and Eysenak have shown that perceptual chcice seems to be effected by learning. (d) k study by Beebe-Center showed that subjects without special art, training would seem to be more homogeneous in their figure preferences than subjects who have had such training. (e) The inconsistences noted in the research in perceptual choice may be explaned by an interaction between the t factor and the k facto:: of 1 The specific training program focused on those psychophysical elements that H~CH~ERG (1960) had found would determine a subject’s preference of visual complexity or simplicity. The rationale for this instructional program was that by learning to h.andle more visual information in the form of visual complexity and asymmetry the subject would come to prefer in his aesthetic choices more visual complixity.

374

HARO1.D J. MCWHINNIE

Failure to control for these factors in the research design sults noted in the studies may have caused the differences in the reviewed in this paper. (f) Future research into the problems of aesthetic measures needs to consider both .pcrsonality and learning varia.blcs. The research designs used riced to control for these two variables. Eysenck.

(g) New research needs to be insti,gated to measure the rnlore recent shifts in the aesthetic preferences of contemporary artists. Such research needs to consider the nature of current fashions in art and the effects of such fashions on aesthetic preference. (h) Feature research might also explore +he effects of various cognitive styles on aesthetic preference in direction of work by Child and IVPWhinnie. (i) There is a considerable variance im the ulses of the aesthetic preference and aesthetic judgement in the rewrted C!h2d indicates an attempt at standardization of terms. (j) The research in this area of psychology has a structure which would lend its-elf to a computerized retrieval system assist jii making comparisons easier and more efficient.

two terms literature. and order that would

RHXRENCES kkmEAVE, F.,

1954. Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychol. Rev. 61, 3, 18&193. BARRor% F., 1952. Artistic perception as a factor in personality style. J. Psychol. 33, 199-203. -, 1953. Personality style and perceptual choice. J. Pers. 20, 385-401. -----, 1963. Creativity and psychological health. New York: Van Nostrand. BEEBFXENTER,J. H. and C. C. Print, 1930. A test of BirkholFs aesthetic measure. J. Gen. Psychol. 17, 335-350. BIRKW~T,6. D., 1932. Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvr.rd University Press. BRIGHWJSE,G., 1939. Variabihty in preference for simple forms. Psychol. Monogr. 51: 5, whole no. 231, 68-74. CHILD, I. L., 1962. Personal preferences as an expression of aesthetic sensitivity. J. Pers. 30, 3, 496-512. 1965. Personality correlates of esthetic judgment in college students. J. Pets. 33, 476511. and L. Smoro, 1965. Ba K wele and American esthetic evaluations compared. Etbnotogy 4, 4, 349-360. DAW, R. C., 1936. An evaluation and test oi Birkhoff’s aesthetic measure. J. Gen. Psychol. 15, 231-240.

A REVIEW

OF

RESEARCH

ON AESTHETIC

MEASURE

375

DE WAR% H., 1933. A comparison of tests of aesthetic measure. Brit. j. Bduc. ic realism of Alex Colvilre. Coilege Art Journal,

Dow, HELElJ J-9 196 EYSENCK,

H. J., 1941a.

enera

factor in aesthetic judgments. Brit. J.

Psychol.

1941b. Type factors in aesthetic judgment. Brit. J. Psychol. 31, 262-270. , 1941c. A critical and experimental study of color, Amer. J. Psychol. , 385-394. 9 42. An experimental study of the good Gestalt, Psychctl. Rev. , 344-364. 57. Sense and nonsense in psychology, London: Penquin. Pear% C. ‘S., T. E. RUYIWRO and I. L. CHILD, 1966. Some transcultural comparisons of es judgment, J. Sot. Psychol. 68, 19-26. bb4BRIDGE, J., 1926. mic symmetry. Harvard. 1926. H~BnaG, Ji ad V. BROOKS, 1960. T4e psychophysics of form; reversible-perceptive drawings of spatial objects, Amer. J. Psychol. 73, 337-354. JWAO,S. and I. L. CHILD, 1966. comparison of esthetic judgments by American experts and by Japanese potters, J. Psychol. 68, 27-33. LAwLOR,M., 1955. Cultural influences on preferences for designs: J. Abnorm. Sot. Psychot. 61, 690-92. MC ELROY, W. A., 1955. Art judgments of aborigines. In: A. A. Robock, Present day psychology. New York, p. 922, ----, 1952. Aesthetic appreciation in aborigines of K4rhhem Land. Oceania 23, 81-94. MCWHINNIE, I-!.. J., 1965. The effect of a learning experience upon the preferublished doctoral dissertaence for complexity and asymmetry. tion. School of Education, Stanfiord , 1966. Effects of a learning experience on preference for complexity and asymmetry, Percept. Mot. Skills 23, 119-122. MEIER, N. C., 1942. Art in human affairs, New York: McGraw-Hill. bsEh, J. C., The Barron-Welsh art scale as a predicator of originality and level of ability in art. J. Appl. Psychol. SALQME, K. A., 1964. The effects of perceptual training on the two-dimensional drawings of children. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, School of Education, Stanford University. VALENTINE, C. W., 1962. The experimental psychology of beauty. London: Methuen. WEBER, C. O., 1927. Theories of affection and aesthetics of visual forms, Psychol. %e\l. 3 , 193 1. At&Him of rectangles and theories of affection, J. APP~. Psychol. 15, 3 lo-3 18. WOODS,W. A. and J F~OIJDREAU,1950. Design complexity as a determiner of visual attention among artists and non-artists, J. Appl. Psycho]. 3% 335-360. ---=---Y