Mental aesthetic processing, with its sub-processes of aesthetic appreciation, judgment or production,is a topic that seems to resist a unified approach while illus-trating a complex range of issues. This article presents aframework for a modern psychology of aesthetics. In the fu-ture, a strongly interdisciplinary version of this branch of psy-chology could present a general, unified account of the mentalprocessing of aesthetics. It would serve to build bridges be-tween the arts and sciences, having strong ties to both realms(Fig. 1).

This article briefly reviews work showing that aesthetic pro-cessing—the evaluation or production of beauty, ugliness,prettiness, harmony, elegance, shapeliness or charm [1]—isgoverned by a host of factors, such as stimulus symmetry, com-plexity, novelty, familiarity, artistic style, appeal to social statusand individual preferences. Humans appreciate a wide rangeof entities aesthetically: painting, sculpture, music, opera, the-ater, literature, design and buildings, as well as faces, flowers,landscapes, food, machinery, habitats and various other ob-jects of everyday life. Cultures differ in what is considered beau-tiful, and within each culture people differ as well in what theyconsider beautiful. Therefore, aesthetic processing can be use-fully considered from evolutionary, historical, cultural, edu-cational, cognitive, (neuro)biological, individual, personality,emotional and situational perspectives, and probably manymore. Hence I argue that human aesthetics as a whole appearsbest viewed from a number of different perspectives and atseveral different levels of analysis. A framework of seven suchvantage points is introduced here.

HISTORYGustav Theodor FechnerThe Vorschule der Aesthetik summarized Gustav Fechner’s ma-jor work on psychological aesthetics and was published inLeipzig in 1876 [2]. If one takes this year of publication tomark the beginning of a strongly empirical psychology of aes-thetics, this discipline is more than 125 years old and can be considered the second-oldest branch of experimental psy-chology, after Fechner’s psychophysics. In contrast to most ofthe very popular philosophical aesthetics of his day, Fechnerargued for an empirical “aesthetics from below” that would assemble pieces of objective knowledge. He called it “exper-

imental aesthetics,” but such ex-pressions as “empirical aesthetics,”“psychological aesthetics” or “psy-choaesthetics” are common as well.Today’s psychology of aesthetics stillfollows Fechner’s example.

Fechner: A Source of InspirationTo this day, Fechner’s works remaina source of inspiration within ex-perimental psychological aesthet-ics. Many of his concepts, however, have yet to be adopted intotoday’s inventory of psychological terminology, and some as-pects of his work have fallen into oblivion. The concept of the

©2006 ISAST LEONARDO, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 155–162, 2006 155

Bridging the Arts and Sciences: A Framework for the Psychology of Aesthetics

Thomas Jacobsen

Thomas Jacobsen (psychologist), Institute of Psychology I, University of Leipzig, Seeburgstrasse 14-20, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. E-mail: <jacobsen@uni-leipzig.de>. Web: <www.uni-leipzig.de/jacobsen>.

A B S T R A C T

The investigation of aestheticprocessing has constituted alongstanding tradition in experi-mental psychology, of whichexperimental aesthetics is thesecond-oldest branch. Thestatus of this psychology ofaesthetics, the science ofaesthetic processing, is brieflyreviewed here. Building on thisheritage and drawing on a hostof related scientific disciplines, a framework for a stronglyinterdisciplinary psychology of aesthetics is proposed. It is argued that the topic can be fruitfully approached from at least seven different perspec-tives, each with multiple levelsof analysis: diachronia, ipsichro-nia, mind, body, content, personand situation. Eventually, thiswork may coalesce into a unifiedtheory of aesthetic processing.

ARTS

CIE

NC

E: T

HE

ESS

ENTI

ALC

ON

NEC

TIO

N

Fig. 1. The ScienceTunnel, an international exhibition of Germany’sMax Planck Society, 2005. (© MPG/Archimedes GBR) It displaysscience in an aesthetically pleasing way; therefore it metaphoricallybridges art and science.

aesthetic threshold, for example, impliesthat a stimulus has to cross a specific in-dividual threshold in order to trigger ex-periences that are aesthetically pleasantor unpleasant. This concept was sub-jected to empirical and experimental ver-ification, and the results were publishedin a renowned psychological journal, thePsychological Review, in 1906 [3]. In recentyears, however, Fechner’s concept of theaesthetic threshold, or the aesthetischeSchwelle, can no longer be found in thework of international experts.

When we consider the history of ex-perimental aesthetics, a few major trendscan be identified. Following Fechner’sseminal writings, some works in particu-lar stand out. On the one hand, Gestaltpsychology had a strong influence on the psychology of art and aesthetics. In

chometric publications to experimentalaesthetics. Another milestone is Martin-dale’s cognitive theory [7]. Martindaleput particular emphasis on the deter-mining role of a person’s structure ofknowledge in aesthetic processes. Ac-cording to their main orientations, thesetrends all have contributed specific find-ings to the psychology of aesthetics.

THE STATUS OFOUR KNOWLEDGEA host of factors influencing aesthetic ex-perience and behavior have been identi-fied throughout the course of research[8]. It is known that the symmetry orasymmetry of an object [9], complexityor simplicity [10], novelty or familiarityof an object [11], proportion or compo-sition [12], semantic content as opposedto formal qualities of design [13] and thesignificance of or mere exposure to astimulus [14] all influence aesthetic ex-perience and judgments. In addition, as-pects of a person’s emotional state [15];degree of interest in a stimulus [16]; ap-peal to social status or financial interest[17]; education; and historical, culturalor economic background [18] are knownto influence aesthetic judgments. Varioussituational aspects also play a role; wemight appreciate an object differently ina museum as opposed to in a supermar-ket, for example. In addition, aestheticjudgment is also determined by inter-individual differences [19]. Naturally,there are numerous other findings. How-ever, even this short listing shows thataesthetic experiences and behavior aresubject to a relatively complex networkof stimulus-, person- and situation-relatedinfluences.

PROBLEMS OF METHODOLOGYPresent-day psychology of aesthetics ischaracterized by a mosaic of empiricaldiscoveries. In many cases, however, theproblems that have to be faced today are the same as in the past: for instance,the conflict between the degree of ex-perimental control on the one hand andthe range of generalizability of the find-ings on the other. The logic of experi-ment requires that only clearly definedaspects of the experimental setup bechanged, within well-defined conditions,while other factors remain constant. Inthe case of aesthetic considerations, theresult is that geometrical shapes, or meresimple lines, become attractive stimu-lus material for the scientist, because controlled variations are possible. Can in-dividuals, however, produce genuine aes-

this context, Arnheim’s work representsan important application of the famousGestalt laws of perception to art and aes-thetics [4]. Particular importance shouldbe attached to Berlyne’s work, donemainly during the 1960s and 1970s [5].He advocated a psychobiological ap-proach and managed to revive experi-mental aesthetics on a large scale after ithad attracted much less attention in thepreceding decades. His work emphasizedthe importance of physiological arousaland suggested relations expressible as in-verted U shapes between so-called colla-tive variables (complexity, novelty, etc.)and aesthetic appreciation. Berlyne’s im-petus can still be felt today. Eysenck [6],an eminent theorist in personality struc-ture research, also contributed a greatnumber of mostly comparative and psy-

156 Jacobsen, Bridging the Arts and Sciences

ARTS

CIE

NC

E: T

HE

ESS

ENTI

ALC

ON

NEC

TIO

N

Fig. 2. The frameworkfor the psychology ofaesthetics. (© ThomasJacobsen) The topic isviewed from seven differ-ent vantage points, whichare not mutually exclu-sive: diachronia, ipsichro-nia, mind, body, content,person and situation.Eventually, this workcould coalesce into a unified theory of processing aesthetics.

Fig. 3. Diachronia: Examples of how sculpture changes over time. (a, left) Michelangelo,David, 1504 (Photo: Bildarchiv Foto Marburg); (b, center) Duane Hanson, Bodybuilder,1995 (© VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2005); (c, right) Salvador Dalí, Hommage à Newton, 1980. (© Salvador Dalí; Foundation Gala—Salvador Dalí/VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2005)

thetic judgments about such objects?Usually individuals are more inclined tomake aesthetic judgments about paint-ings, sculptures or buildings, which aremuch more complex. These objects, how-ever, mostly combine variations of a mul-titude of stimulus dimensions that makeadequate experimental control very dif-ficult or even impossible. If, for this reason, researchers often restrict them-selves to simple, easy-to-control stimuli,they will be very much confined in theirstatements about combinatory effectsand interactions between the facets in-vestigated. In the worst case, it is impos-sible to come to any conclusions aboutthe objects of interest. This is a challenge,a challenge of successfully bridging artand science, that still stands today.

THE STATUS OF THEPSYCHOLOGY OFAESTHETICS AS A DISCIPLINESince the days of Fechner, psychology hasdeveloped significantly and has becomea fully established scientific discipline. Today, the mainstream of psychologicalaesthetics works with experimental orempirical methods. Thus, it has acceptedand continued Fechner’s original con-ceptual and methodological ideal of “bottom-up aesthetics,” in contrast to atheoretical and introspective kind of psy-chological aesthetics, and thus clearly fol-lows this tradition.

The psychology of aesthetics is not, un-fortunately, a strong academic disciplinetoday. How can the status of a disciplinebe measured? Perhaps by the number of its full-time scientists, the number ofpublications, the status of specialist jour-nals in which the articles are published,the number of specialist journals in thefield, professional societies and so forth.When measured by these parameters, thediscipline shows a great potential for de-velopment in comparison with others.There is no general textbook for the psy-chology of aesthetics, either in Germanor in English. Essentially, the disciplinehas only one specialist journal, EmpiricalStudies of the Arts [20], the organ of theInternational Association of EmpiricalAesthetics. Furthermore, there are fewscientists who completely devote theirwork to psychological aesthetics; for mostof those who attend to it, it is their sec-ond or third area of research activity. Thisleads to a situation very much in contrastto other sub-disciplines in psychology,where scientists are almost forced to fo-cus completely on a single field of re-search. Moreover, the psychology ofaesthetics is rarely an integral part of stan-

work. The other applied arts work in asimilar way. This is also true, although toa far lesser extent, of media and literarystudies. Art history can provide a cornu-copia of insights. In addition, oral and fa-cial surgery and dentistry contribute tothe empirical study of aesthetics in theirfields. As a consequence, the psychologyof aesthetics, being rather fragmented at present, could develop an interdisci-plinary and integrative approach, bridg-ing and uniting a range of disciplines andapplications.

A FRAMEWORK FOR THEPSYCHOLOGY OF AESTHETICSThe framework presented here adoptsseven vantage points on the topic of aes-thetic processing. Each vantage point canhave different levels of analysis, render-ing it a perspectival pillar. These levelsare not mutually exclusive. Rather, theyall are concerned with the processing ofaesthetics, while approaching the subjectin a multifold way from different angles,covering a broad range of partly inter-related topics, focusing on different as-pects. These seven perspective pillars are:diachronia, ipsichronia, mind, body, con-tent, person and situation (Fig. 2). Theyare introduced below.

TerminologyPsychology is the science of experienceand behavior. The psychology of aes-thetics is the subdiscipline of psychologyconcerned with the mental processing of aesthetics. For this purpose, the termentity refers to an object of aesthetic

dard psychological curricula. Whether ornot students of psychology become fa-miliar with it often depends on the indi-vidual teacher’s interest in the field. Thusit is not unusual to encounter qualifiedpsychologists who consider experimen-tal aesthetics to be a trend in modern artrather than the second-oldest branch ofexperimental psychology.

The psychology of aesthetics is not ahomogeneous discipline but consists offragmented sub-disciplines. Experimen-tal aesthetics as outlined above mainlydeals with research on art, as well as withartifacts in a wider sense. In order tocover the full range of aesthetic behav-ior and experience, however, the psy-chology of aesthetics must include a widerange of subject areas. Research on hu-man attractiveness in social psychology,for instance, deals with aspects of humanbeauty. Market research covers numerousaspects of the identification of aestheticpreferences. Although the focus in thatcase is on the application—the directutility of the research—aesthetic experi-ence and behavior are of immediate rel-evance for the marketing of products.There are numerous overlapping areasin the psychology of art and in psycho-logical aesthetics. Aesthetic processing,however, is not limited to art; thereforethe two fields should not be equated.There are also many similarities betweenthis field and the psychology of music.Anthropology and evolutionary biologydeal with the origins and bases of aes-thetic behavior. In architecture, research-ing and integrating aesthetic aspects ofbuildings are natural components of the

Jacobsen, Bridging the Arts and Sciences 157

ARTS

CIE

NC

E: T

HE

ESS

ENTI

ALC

ON

NEC

TIO

N

Fig. 4. Ipsichronia: Experimental stimulus material for the empirical investigation of maleand female attractiveness based on variations of the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and bodyweight. (© Devendra Singh) Attractiveness of the WHR is subject to variation across cultures.

processing. An entity may be a thing, a living being, an event, scenery or an environment.

The meaning of the word aesthetics ismultifold and has changed over time.Two main clusters of meaning can beidentified. One is related to processes of sensation, as derived words such asanesthetic (relating to the absence of sensation) and synesthetic (involuntary co-sensation) illustrate. The second clus-ter is related to discussion in the arts, philosophy and art history. In a recentstudy of German college students, a bi-polar beautiful-ugly dimension clearlyappeared to be the primary and proto-typical descriptive dimension for the aes-thetics of objects [21]. This result, ofcourse, converges with the main aestheticconceptualization in philosophical andpsychological aesthetics: beauty. At a sec-ondary level, there is a conceptual systementailing a larger set of concepts (e.g. el-egant, harmonious, shapely, small, big,round, colored, etc.). The descriptive approach of such a study yields infor-mation about a given state, withoutnegating potential change due to his-torical, educational, cultural and otherinfluences. The study showed that in con-temporary Western culture the latterrange of meanings of the word aestheticspredominates. The former meaning, re-lated to sensation, however, is entailed inthat a sensory component is mandatoryfor aesthetic processing. For instance, an aesthetic judgment of beauty requiressensory processes, whereas a memory-based judgment of beauty does not. Consequently, aesthetic processing is sensation-based evaluation of an entitywith respect to the above conceptual sys-tem, primarily the beauty dimension.The sensory subcomponents of aestheticprocessing can be mentally simulated us-ing imagination.

DiachroniaDiachronia is the perspective concernedwith change over time (Fig. 3). It can be pursued at different levels of analysis—for instance, from the perspective ofevolutionary biology or evolutionary an-thropology. Biological evolution affordedsubstantial changes in the progressionfrom nonhuman to human primates. Thequestion of the origins of and reasons foraesthetic behavior are at the center of at-tention here. Why do individuals pro-duce splendid and elaborate tools andweapons that are not intended for use?Why do faces have to show a certain de-gree of symmetry to be perceived as beau-tiful? What is the role of evolution in thedevelopment of our aesthetic faculties

158 Jacobsen, Bridging the Arts and Sciences

ARTS

CIE

NC

E: T

HE

ESS

ENTI

ALC

ON

NEC

TIO

N

Fig. 5. Mind: Experimentalstimulus material for the investigation of mental cogni-tive memory representations of semantic categories. (© William Labov)

Fig. 6. Body: Anton Räderscheidt, Selbstbildnisse nach Schlaganfall (Self-Portraitsof a Patient/Painter with Hemi-Neglect). (© VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2005)

and skills? [22] These questions lead toa classical complex of questions in psy-chology: the nature-nurture question.This question of the relation betweenheredity and biological setup on the onehand and the impact of a cultural super-structure on the other hand was, for ex-ample, the subject of a heated debate inintelligence research and is a matter ofwidespread discussion in current lin-guistic research [23].

This leads to the other side of the nature-nurture question, that of histori-cal change and cultural development.Cultural evolution explains the majorvariations in aesthetic processing today.Another perspective of psychological aes-thetics is the historical one, especiallyconnected with the history of civilization.Aesthetic judgments and preferenceschange over time [24]. On the one hand,aesthetic usage is changed by the avail-ability of tools, the development andavailability of materials and productiontechniques. On the other hand are tem-poral changes not determined by what isfeasible.

Here fashion comes into play. Fashion,another aspect of historical change, canbe due to mere trends that can be basedon or independent of current technicaldevelopment. Trends can lead to ex-treme instantiations of an ideal of beauty,including unwearable clothes, plastic surgery and (self-)mutilations. Consid-ering these two aspects, the historicalmethod can open up an important per-spective on aesthetic behavior and expe-rience that can also contribute to findinganswers to questions that are psycholog-ical in nature.

In addition to these group levels ofanalysis of diachronia, there are indi-vidual levels. During ontogenesis, in-dividuals can acquire different degrees ofdevelopmental refinement [25] throughaesthetic education and other develop-mental achievement. Furthermore, aes-thetic processing is subject to differingdegrees of individual temporal stability,also governed by novelty or mere expo-sure to stimuli [26].

IpsichroniaThe vantage point of ipsichronia focuseson comparisons within a given time segment. Together with diachronia, itcovers the entire realm of aesthetic pro-cessing. A wide range of entities of aes-thetic processing is subjected to culturaland social processes. Hence, effects ofculture, influences of social roles, socialstatus or cultural differences are takeninto consideration [27] (Fig. 4).

Comparisons of cultures can be a very

ence-for-prototype model, for example,holds that prototypical exemplars of agiven category will be preferred over lesstypical ones [30]. This theoretical ac-count in the psychology of aesthetics ap-plied an influential cognitive model [31].The systematic transfer of contemporarypsychological concepts, however, has yetto be carried out.

Here there are many possibilities for

informative method [28]. The investi-gation of major cultural tendencies andtheir predominant ideals of beauty andcontrasting trends in subcultures is be-coming more and more important.When looking at the picture of a man inhis shirtsleeves in the 1950s, for example,the answer to the question of what is miss-ing would have been “the tie.” This wasthe correct answer in the most widelyused intelligence test of the time. Today,people in Western metropolitan areaswould perhaps instead suggest a tattoo orfacial piercing. This is certainly true forsome subcultural groups. A systematicsurvey of the cultural shaping of possiblyuniversal aesthetic tendencies would bean interesting facet in an interdiscipli-nary approach. There are numerous ex-amples of aesthetic preferences that arepeculiar to a given culture or subculture.Research in the psychology of aestheticscan take advantage of research in otherdisciplines on cultural specificities in order to avoid the proposition of psy-chological models that are culture de-pendent and therefore not general.

MindThis is the view on aesthetic processingfrom the perspective of modern aca-demic psychology (Fig. 5). Of course, thepsychology of aesthetics is an integralpart of this scientific discipline. A num-ber of investigators have adopted cog-nitive terminology in accounting foraesthetic processing [29]. The prefer-

Jacobsen, Bridging the Arts and Sciences 159

ARTS

CIE

NC

E: T

HE

ESS

ENTI

ALC

ON

NEC

TIO

N

Fig. 7. Content: Leonardo da Vinci’s famousdrawing Vitruvian Man, 1485, shows therealm of natural beauty and artistic beauty inone illustration, an example of the blend ofart and science during the Renaissance.

Fig. 8. Person: Examples ofgraphic patterns that elicitedconsiderable interindividualdifferences in aesthetic judg-ments of beauty in the studiesby Jacobsen and Höfel [45].(© Thomas Jacobsen and LeaHöfel)

establishing connections with modernpsychological theories. Judgments oftaste may serve as an example. A deter-mining judgment requires the mentalrepresentation of the object to be judgedas well as the assessment by the judge. In the case of a determining judgment,both are “retrieved.” Cognitive social psy-chology employs elaborate research anda conceptual framework—the concept of“attitudes”—for these mental processes[32]. A theoretical link is quite possi-ble here. In addition, cognitive social psychology has developed a theoreticalinventory that could be used more in-tensely for research into the psychologyof aesthetics.

This also applies to the psychology of emotions [33]. How does mood in-fluence aesthetic judgment? What is theeffect of emotional styles? Certainly, thereare a number of other perspectives fromwhich one could view psychological aes-thetics. Philosophical aesthetics, espe-cially, could be an almost inexhausti-ble source. Psychological penetration ofmany concepts is yet to be undertaken.Famous philosophical concepts, such asthe distinction between reflecting and de-termining aesthetic judgments or the con-ception of artificial versus natural beauty,remain to be studied in psychology.

ContentHuman aesthetic processing relates to alarge number of different entities (as dis-cussed above) (Fig. 7). These differentrealms of content may show vastly differ-ent characteristics that in turn lead todifferent determiners of aesthetic pro-cessing. Evolution has left humans moreattuned to certain stimulus characteris-tics than to others. The sensory modali-ties are governed by different principles.The brain has specialized areas for pro-cessing certain stimulus categories. Someentities are highly socially relevant, oth-ers less so. All these factors lead to a differentiation of content in aestheticprocessing. Therefore, investigators willcarefully evaluate the generalizability oftheir findings. For instance, does theGestalt law that accounts for a given pref-erence in the visual modality extend to music or culinary preferences [38]?Most likely not. Color preferences, for ex-ample, appear to be highly context de-pendent. They depend on the object thatis to be colored [39].

PersonThis perspective focuses on individ-ual processing characteristics and pref-erences. As expressed in the ancient Roman saying De gustibus non est dis-putandum, it is well known that there isno accounting for taste. There is, how-ever, discussion about matters of taste—and sometimes quite violent arguments.A systematic examination of interindi-vidual differences in aesthetic processingremains to be carried out. Relatively lit-tle is known about such interindividualdifferences of aesthetic processing withinhomogeneous groups.

In a recent study, aesthetic judgmentsof beauty of 49 novel formal graphic pat-terns were collected from nonartist par-ticipants [40] (Fig. 8). The data weresubjected to individual analyses, result-ing in models reflecting the individual’sstrategy of aesthetic judgment. Individualcase modeling can capture these differ-ences. The study also derived a groupmodel based on data averages. Thismodel, however, could sufficiently ac-count for only one-half of the partici-pants’ judgments, whereas the individualmodels gave a much more precise ac-count. Thus, it also appears to be rea-sonable that some nomothetic studiesmay have camouflaged noted individualdifferences by using data averaging.Hence one may debate whether or notthe mere nomothetic approach is justi-fied, given such a data pattern. Thus it isargued that the idiographic approachshould be additionally adopted, if such

BodyThe body perspective views aesthetic pro-cessing according to somatic aspects. To-gether, mind and body also cover theentire realm of aesthetic processing.

Biology contributes to our under-standing of aesthetics. The neurosciences,in particular, have made dramatic ad-vances in the last decade. Our knowledgeof brain function has increased substan-tially. These achievements will also beused in research on aesthetics.

Furthermore, the integration of find-ings of cognitive neuroscience also isbecoming increasingly feasible. For in-stance, some areas of the brain con-tribute in a special way to the perceptionof faces, whereas they hardly respond tothe presentation of artifacts [34]. How isthis face-specific processing connectedwith the predominant status of the aes-thetic judgment of human faces? What is the role of hemispheric asymmetries?[35] (Fig. 6) Here we can easily estab-lish a quite comprehensive catalog ofquestions.

A few studies have begun directly to in-vestigate brain activity during aestheticprocessing [36]. Furthermore, there aresome initial insights into how acquiredlesions in the central nervous system af-fect aesthetic production [37].

160 Jacobsen, Bridging the Arts and Sciences

ARTS

CIE

NC

E: T

HE

ESS

ENTI

ALC

ON

NEC

TIO

N

Fig. 9. Situation: An example of an object that receives differing aesthetic appreciationdepending on the current situation of viewing—Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, the first ready-made art object, 1917, 1964 (third version, replicated under the direction of the artist in 1964 by the Galerie Schwarz, Milan). (© Succession Marcel Duchamp/VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2005)

an equivocal empirical situation is en-countered. In that sense, there is (no) ac-counting for taste, indeed.

Some differences between individualsare, however, reasonably well accountedfor at the level of group differences. Ex-perts and nonexperts, laymen or novicesdiffer in their abilities and skills. Expertshave specific, structured knowledge oftheir areas of expertise. Knowledge sys-tems show different degrees of complex-ity. These different cognitive systems inturn can lead to different aesthetic pro-cessing. The typical study contrasted theperformance of groups of experiencedjudges with the performance of groupsof naive or inexperienced judges [41].There is also a considerable literaturebased on personality-structure research[42]. In addition to the consideration of individuals versus groups, the com-parison of cultures is another importantperspective.

SituationThe combination of a given time and agiven place—the situation—affects aes-thetic processing (Fig. 9). The perspec-tives of content, person and situation,taken together, also provide full coverageof the topic of aesthetic processing.

A can of tomato soup, for instance, willmost likely be processed differently whenit is encountered in a supermarket versusa museum. Such situational conditionselicit the use of a mentally stored scriptor schema [43]. Schemata or scripts are or-ganized memory representations that

ing and should understand its message,is not included in this process. The ex-pertise and spirit of the gifted, profes-sional designer is relied upon. Empiricalresearch, however, shows that there aresubstantial differences in the processes of perception and evaluation of expertsand nonexperts (Fig. 10). Could an elab-orate psychology of aesthetics help tobridge the gap here? Fields such as thishave a great, untapped potential fordevelopment.

FINALEAs mentioned above, the psychology ofaesthetics today is quite heterogeneous.In a strongly interdisciplinary approach,all above-mentioned disciplines in thearts and the sciences would make theircontributions to it. The ultimate goalwould be a unified theory of the mentalprocessing of aesthetics that describesand explains the whole network of stimulus-, personality- and situation-related factors. To meet this huge chal-lenge, it could be helpful to approach thesubject matter from the different per-spectives introduced above, identify andextract psychologically relevant aspectsand gradually integrate these step by step.Nonetheless, an inherently complex andfinely textured theoretical structure willeventually emerge.

Such a strongly interdisciplinary ap-proach is not impossible. In cognitiveneuroscience, for instance, this is a basicand very common approach [44]. For thepsychology of aesthetics, this approachremains to be undertaken. Taking thisstatement one step further: In today’swork in the psychology of aesthetics, theinterdisciplinary perspective should besensibly upheld and broadened. Follow-ing this lead, many fruitful, fascinatingbridges between the arts and the scienceswill be built in the future.

References

1. G.C. Cupchik, “The Scientific Study of Artistic Cre-ativity,” Leonardo 16, No. 3, 193–195 (1983); T. Ja-cobsen et al., “The Primacy of Beauty in Judging theAesthetics of Objects,” Psychological Reports 94, No. 3,1253–1260 (2004).

2. G.T. Fechner, Vorschule der Aesthetik (ExperimentalAesthetics; “Pre-School” of Aesthetics) (Leipzig, Ger-many: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1876).

3. L.J. Martin, “An Experimental Study of Fechner’sPrinciples of Aesthetics,” Psychological Review 13(1906) pp. 142–219.

4. R. Arnheim, Art and Visual Perception: The New Ver-sion (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,1974).

5. D.E. Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology (New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971).

6. H.J. Eysenck, “A New Measure of ‘Good Taste’ in Visual Art,” Leonardo 16, No. 3, 229–231 (1983).

store domain-specific knowledge that isused to guide behavior in a given sit-uation. Hence schemata can drasticallyreduce processing load. They are pre-dominantly socially determined, thus cul-turally limited, and individually acquired.Being in a museum, a theater, an operaor a gallery usually facilitates aestheticprocessing, because a corresponding cog-nitive schema is put to use. A gas stationor supermarket script, on the other hand,does not. Consequently, one and thesame entity will be processed differentlybecause a different mind-set is inducedby the currently active schema. The rightschema will help to activate a mentalmode of aesthetic contemplation or aes-thetic productivity.

When using the present framework,one research task would be to extract theinformation relevant for the psychologyof aesthetics from the cornucopia of ma-terial provided by the seven perspectives.

A PSYCHOLOGICAL-AESTHETIC UTOPIAOne could go further and conceive autopia for psychological aesthetics. It is quite conceivable to develop a disci-pline with a strong focus on application.The design process in architecture mayserve as an example. Often, buildings aremeant to convey a certain message. Thearchitect intentionally incorporates thissemantic aspect in the design process. Inmost cases, however, the user or observer,the person who will experience the build-

Jacobsen, Bridging the Arts and Sciences 161

ARTS

CIE

NC

E: T

HE

ESS

ENTI

ALC

ON

NEC

TIO

N

Fig. 10. Komar and Melamid, America’s Most Wanted, oil and acrylic on canvas, 24 × 32 in, 1994. (Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York. Photo: D. James Dee.)<www.diacenter.org/km/homepage.html>. Komar and Melamid introduced an empiricalmethod of painting by basing their painting on professional, large-scale market researchsurveys, also a way to bridge art and science. Their paintings are indicative of biologicalevolution in that they depict the human habitat preference.

7. C. Martindale, “Aesthetics, Psychobiology, andCognition,” in F.H. Farley and R.W. Neperud, eds.,The Foundation of Aesthetics, Art and Art Education (NewYork: Praeger, 1988).

8. Fechner [2]; Arnheim [4]; Berlyne [5].

9. Fechner [2]; Berlyne [5]; T. Jacobsen and L. Höfel,“Aesthetic Judgments of Novel Graphic Patterns:Analyses of Individual Judgments,” Perceptual and Mo-tor Skills 95, No. 3, 755–766 (2002).

10. D.E. Berlyne, “Novelty, Complexity and HedonicValue,” Perception and Psychophysics 8 (1970) pp.279–286; Berlyne [5].

11. Berlyne [10]; Berlyne [5].

12. H. Höge, “Fechner’s Experimental Aesthetics andthe Golden Section Hypothesis Today,” EmpiricalStudies of the Arts 13, No. 2, 131–148 (1995); P.J.Locher, “An Empirical Investigation of the VisualRightness Theory of Picture Perception,” Acta Psy-chologica 114 (2003) pp. 147-–164.

13. Martindale [7].

14. H. Leder et al., “A Model of Aesthetic Apprecia-tion and Aesthetic Judgments,” British Journal of Psy-chology 95, No. 4, 489–508 (2004).

15. V.J. Konecni, “Determinants of Aesthetic Prefer-ence and Effects of Exposure to Aesthetic Stimuli:Social, Emotional and Cognitive Factors,” Progress inExperimental Personality Research 9 (1979) pp. 149–197.

16. Berlyne [5].

17. Konecni [15]; U. Ritterfeld, “Social Heuristics inInterior Design Preferences,” Journal of Environmen-tal Psychology 22 (2002) pp. 369–386.

18. Konecni [15]; Ritterfeld [17]; T. Jacobsen,“Kandinsky’s Questionnaire Revisited: FundamentalCorrespondence of Basic Colors and Forms?” Per-ceptual and Motor Skills 95, No. 3, 903–913 (2002).

19. Fechner [2]; Berlyne [5]; A. Whitfield, “Individ-ual Differences in Evaluation of Architectural Colour:

34. Gazzaniga [23].

35. M. Stephan, A Transformational Theory of Aesthet-ics (London: Routledge, 1990).

36. T. Jacobsen and L. Höfel, “Descriptive and Eval-uative Judgment Processes: Behavioral and Electro-physiological Indices of Processing Symmetry andAesthetics,” Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuro-science 3, No. 4, 289–299 (2003).

37. A. Chatterjee, “The Neuropsychology of VisualArtistic Production,” Neuropsychologia 42, No. 11,1568–1583 (2004).

38. Arnheim [4].

39. Whitfield [19].

40. Jacobsen [19].

41. C.F. Nodine, P.J. Locher and E.A. Krupinski, “TheRole of Formal Art Training on Perception and Aes-thetic Judgment of Art Compositions,” Leonardo 26,No. 3, 219–227 (1993); Parsons [25].

42. Eysenck [6].

43. Baldwin [27].

44. Gazzaniga [23].

45. Jacobsen and Höfel [9]; Höfel and Jacobsen [24].

Manuscript received 12 July 2004.

Thomas Jacobsen is associate professor of psy-chology (Oberassistent) at the Institute of Psychology I of the University of Leipzig, Ger-many. His main research focus is on the experimental psychology and cognitive neu-roscience of pre-attentive cognitive processingof language and non-language sounds. Healso works on the (neuro-cognitive) psychol-ogy of aesthetics.

Categorization Effects,” Perceptual and Motor Skills 59(1984) pp. 183–186; Martindale [7]; Jacobsen [18];T. Jacobsen, “Individual and Group Modeling of Aes-thetic Judgment Strategies,” British Journal of Psy-chology 95 (2004) pp. 41–56; Jacobsen and Höfel [9].

20. Höge [12].

21. Jacobsen et al. [1].

22. W. Wundt, Völkerpsychologie (10 vols.), Bd. III: Die Kunst (Leipzig, Germany: Kröner-Engelmann,1900–1920); Berlyne [5].

23. M.S. Gazzaniga, ed., The New Cognitive Neuro-sciences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).

24. Jacobsen [18]; L. Höfel and T. Jacobsen, “Tem-poral Stability and Consistency of Aesthetic Judg-ments of Beauty of Formal Graphic Patterns,”Perceptual and Motor Skills 96, No. 1, 30–32 (2003).

25. M. Parsons, How We Understand Art: A CognitiveDevelopmental Account of Aesthetic Experience (Cam-bridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).

26. Berlyne [10]; Höfel and Jacobsen [24]; Leder etal. [14].

27. M.W. Baldwin, “Relational Schemas and the Pro-cessing of Social Information,” Psychological Bulletin112, No. 3, 461–484 (1992); Ritterfeld [17].

28. Wundt [22].

29. Martindale [7].

30. P. Hekkert and P.C.W. van Wieringen, “Com-plexity and Prototypicality as Determinants of theAppraisal of Cubist Paintings,” British Journal of Psy-chology 81, No. 4, 483–495 (1990).

31. E. Rosch, “Cognitive Representations of Seman-tic Categories,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-eral 104, No. 3, 192–233 (1975).

32. R.E. Petty, D.T. Wegener and L.R. Fabrigar, “At-titudes and Attitude Change,” Annual Review of Psy-chology 48 (1997) pp. 609–647.

33. Konecni [15].

162 Jacobsen, Bridging the Arts and Sciences

ARTS

CIE

NC

E: T

HE

ESS

ENTI

ALC

ON

NEC

TIO

N