Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/64326
|
| Title: | 幾何圖像的平衡度與偏好度知覺歷程研究
The Study of Perceptual Process of Balance and Aesthetic Preference in Geometric Images |
| Authors: | 林幸蓉 |
| Contributors: | 黃淑麗
林幸蓉 |
| Keywords: | 構圖
平衡
美感偏好
對稱
明暗對比
灰階
composition
balance
aesthetic preference
symmetry
contrast
grayscale |
| Date: | 2013 |
| Issue Date: | 2014-03-03 15:31:25 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 平衡是視覺藝術中一項重要的構圖原則，因為它能將畫面中分散的元素統整起來，使得各個元素所造成的知覺強度或張力（tensions）能在平衡中心相互制衡，進而成為一個有秩序的整體，因此以往文獻對於平衡與美感偏好的關係有諸多論述。本研究目的在於以幾何圖像探討平衡性與美感偏好的知覺歷程。參考Wilson與Chatterjee（2005）的研究成果，本研究以幾何圖像為對象，除了對其實驗加以重複驗證，以及進行更深入的分析，並進一步將畫面元素的明暗納進來一併探討。本研究包括四項實驗，實驗一和實驗二皆採用二值化圖像探討平衡度及美感偏好度，實驗三和實驗四則是採用灰階圖像探討平衡度。實驗一探討圖像中元素位置的分布如何影響個體知覺到的整體平衡度，並根據分析結果以改進Wilson與Chatterjee的算則。實驗二探討圖像中元素分布位置之不同如何影響個體的美感偏好度，並探討偏好度與各項平衡指標的關係。實驗三探討圖像中元素的不同灰階是否影響個體知覺平衡度。實驗四則是以實驗三為基礎，進一步操弄畫面中元素的灰階變化，以觀察元素分布位置與灰階對整體平衡度知覺所造成的影響，並檢視改進後的算則是否更能有效預測主觀平衡度。結果指出，採用二值化圖像探討平衡度及美感偏好時，重心偏離度指標和四項軸對稱指標平均對於主觀平衡度均有極佳的預測力。然而，八項對稱指標平均對於主觀美感偏好有較佳的預測力。灰階的主要效果達顯著，支持先前灰階會影響主觀平衡度的想法。最後，將灰階權重納入算則後，大部分客觀平衡性指標對於主觀平衡度的預測力均有增加，然而其差異僅在重心偏離度指標達顯著。基於本研究結果，各分項指標對於主觀平衡度的預測力不盡相同，因此在發展預測主觀平衡度的指標時，應對各分項指標賦予不同的權重。然而，在尚無足以預測美感偏好之最佳指標的情況下，Wilson 與Chatterjee （2005）所發展出的八項對稱指標平均對其的預測力仍是最佳的。最後，研究者建議未來在從事相關研究時，應將影響平衡的因子一併納入考慮。
Balance is an important compositional principle in visual arts. Balance gives unity to an image with separate elements, allowing them to produce visual forces and tensions that compensate for each other, and then becoming a whole with order. Previous research has provided plenty of discussions on the relationship between balance and aesthetic preference. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptual process of balance and aesthetic preference in geometric images. Based on Wilson and Chatterjee (2005), geometric images were used again to reexamine their proposal more thoroughly and study the balance and aesthetic preference further taking grayscale into consideration. In this study, four experiments were conducted. Binary images were used in Experiments 1 and 2. Experiment 1 was aimed to test the effects of element distribution on perception of balance and further improve the algorithm proposed by Wilson and Chatterjee (2005). Experiment 2 was intended to investigate how element distribution affects aesthetic preferences and how each measure of balance is related to aesthetic preferences. In the Experiments 3 and 4, grayscale images were used instead. The goal of Experiment 3 was to test whether grayscale affects the perception of balance. Experiment 4 manipulated grayscale levels based on the results of Experiment 3. The goal of this experiment was to observe the effects of element distribution and grayscale levels on balance perception and examine whether introducing the grayscale weight into the algorithm could help predict subjective perception of balance. Results showed that for binary images, deviation of center of weight and the average of symmetry measures along four principal axes were good predictors for subjective balance rather than the average of eight symmetry measures. In contrast, aesthetic preferences were better predicted by the average of the eight measures of symmetry. The main effect of grayscale was significant, supporting the hypothesis that grayscale contributes to the subjective perception of balance. Finally, after the grayscale weight was included in the algorithm, most objective measures of balance improved predicting power for subjective perception of balance, but the difference was significant only for deviation of center of balance. According to the findings of this research, it is suggested that the weight of four measures of inner and outer symmetry should be reduced when applying to predict the perceived balance because including them lowered the predicting power. As to aesthetic preferences, the average of the eight measures of symmetry introduced by Wilson and Chatterjee (2005) was still a better index for predicting aesthetic preferences. Finally, this study suggested that future researchers should consider other factors which also affecting balance perception and evaluate their effects respectively. |
| Reference: | 中文部分：
安海姆（1984）。藝術與視覺心理學（李長俊譯）。台北：雄獅圖書股份有限公司（原著出版年：1974）。
安伯托‧艾可（2006）。美的歷史（彭淮棟譯）。台北：聯經出版事業股份有限公司。（原著出版年：2004）。
呂滋益、戴孟宗（2008）。西方藝術流派的分析與應用。2008數位科技與創新管理研討會。
陸韜（1993）。平面構形基礎，台南：大孚書局有限公司。
袁金塔（1995）。中西繪畫構圖之比較。台北：藝風堂出版社（原著出版年：1987）。
陳進成（2007）。安海姆視知覺理論：畫面左右平衡感之驗證。南華大學社會學研究所「網路社會學通訊期刊」，64。
朝創直巳（1993）。藝術．設計的平面構成（呂清夫譯）。台北：梵谷圖書出版事業有限公司（原著出版年：1984）。
劉思量（2001）。中國美術思想新論。台北：藝術家出版社。
蔡明勳（2004）。設計繪畫。台北：全華科技圖書股份有限公司。
英文部分：
Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and Visual Perception. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Arnheim, R. (1988). The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts. California: University of California Press.
Attneave, F. (1957). Physical determinants of the judged complexity of shapes.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 221-227.
Birkhoff, G. D. (1933). Aesthetic Measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Berlyne, D. E. (1963). Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of
exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 274-290.
Berlyne, D. E., Ogilvie, J. C., & Parham, L. C. C. (1968). The dimensionality of
visual complexity, interestingness, and pleasingness. Canadian Journal of
Psychology, 22, 376-387.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton Century
Crofts Press.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps toward and Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Bouleau, C. (1980). The Painter’s Secret Geometry. New York: Hacker Books.
Boselie, F., & Leeuwenberg, E. (1985). Birkhoff revisited: Beauty as a function of
effect and means. American Journal of Psychology, 98, 1-39.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: University of Harvard Press.
Bauerly, M., & Liu, Y. (2006). Computational modeling and experimental investigation of effects of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 64(8), 670–682.
Cela-Conde, C. J., Marty, G., Munar, E., Nadal, M., & Burges, L. (2002). The "style
scheme" grounds perception of paintings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 91-
100.
Chatterjee, A. (2002). Portrait profiles and the notion of agency. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 33-41.
Chatterjee, A. (2003). Prospects for a Cognitive Neuroscience of Visual
Aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology of the Arts, 4, 55-60.
Chatterjee, A., Widick, P., Sternschein, R., Smith, W. B., II, & Bromberger, B.
(2010). The assessment of art attributes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28,
207-222.
Crozier, W. R., & Chapman, A. J. (1981). Aesthetic preferences, prestige, and social class in Psychology and the Arts. Brighton: Harvester.
Cupchik, G. C. (1986). A decade after Berlyne. New directions in Experimental
Aesthetics. Poetics, 15, 345-369.
Eysenck, H. J. (1941a). Personality factors and preference judgments. Nature, 148(3751), 346.
Eysenck, H. J. (1941b). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula.
Psychological Review, 48, 83-92.
Eysenck, H. J., & Castle, M. (1970). Training in art as a factor in the determination
of preference judgments for polygons. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 65-81.
Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.
Funch, B. S. (1997). The Psychology of Art Appreciation. Copenhagen: University of
Museum Tusculanum Press.
Garner, W. R. (1974). The Processing of Information Structure. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gershoni, S., & Hochstein, S. (2011). Measuring pictorial balance perception at first glance using Japanese calligraphy. i-Perception, 2, 508-527
Gombrich, E. H. (1984). A Sense of Order. London: Phaidon.
Gombrich, E. H. (1995). The Story of Art. London: Phaidon.
Golomb, C. (1987). The development of compositional strategies in children’s
drawings. Visual Arts Research, 13, 42-52.
Graves, M. (1946). Design Judgment Test. New York: Psychological Corp.
Götz, K. O., Borisy, A. R., Lynn, R., & Eysenck, H. J. (1979). A new visual aesthetic sensitivity test: I. Construction and psychometric properties. Perceptual & MotorSkills, 49(3), 795-802.
Harris, L. J., Cardenas, R. A., Spradlin Jr, M. P., Almerigi J. B. (2009). Adults` preferences for side-of-hold as portrayed in paintings of the Madonna and Child. Laterality, 14, 590-617.
Hekkert, P., & Wieringen, P. C. W. v. (1996). Beauty in the eye of the expert and
nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of
Psychology, 109, 389-407.
Humphrey, D. (1997). Preferences in symmetries and symmetries in drawings: Asymmetries between ages and sexes. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15(1), 41-60.
Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122-1131.
Jacobsen, T. (2006). Bridging the arts and sciences: A framework for the psychology of aesthetics. Leonardo, 39, 155-162.
Kandinsky, V. (1979). Point and Line to Plane. (Dearstyne, H. Rebay, Trans.), New York: Dover (original work published 1926).
Kartiko, I., Kavakli, M., & Cheng, K. (2010). Learning science in a virtual
reality application: the impacts of animated-virtual actors’ visual
complexity, Computers and Education, 55, 881-891.
Kozbelt, A. (2001). Artists as experts in visual cognition. Visual Cognition, 8,
705-723.
Kurosu, M., & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent Usability vs. Inherent Visability: on Experimental Analysis on the Determinants of the Apparent Usability. Paper presented at the CHI’95 MOSAIC OF CREATIVITY.
Lai, C., Chen, P., Shih, S., Liu, Y., Hong, J. (2010). Computational models and experimental investigations of effects of balance and symmetry on the aesthetics of text-overlaid images. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 41-56.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic
appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489-508.
Leyssen, M. H. R., Linsen, S., Sammartino, J., & Palmer, S. E (2012). Aesthetic preference for spatial composition in multi-object pictures. i-Perception, 3, 25-49.
Locher, P., Cornelis, E., Wagemans, J., Stappers, P. J. (2001). Artists` use of
compositional balance for creating visual displays. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19, 213-227.
Locher, P. J. (2003). An empirical investigation of the Visual Rightness Theory of picture perception. Acta Psychologica, 114, 147-164.
Locher, P., Overbeeke, K., & Stappers, P. J. (2005). Spatial balance of color triads in the abstract art of Piet Mondrian. Perception, 34, 169-189.
Maass, A., & Russo, A. (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events: Nature or culture? Psychological Science, 14, 296-301.
Margolis, J. (1980). Prospects for a Science of Aesthetic Perception. Philadelphia, P A: Temple University Press.
McManus, I. C., & Kitson, C. M. (1995). Compositional Geometry in Pictures. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13(1), 73-94.
McManus, I. C. (2005). Symmetry and asymmetry in aesthetics and the arts. European Review, 13, 157-180.
McManus, I. C., Stöver, K., & Kim, D. (2011). Arnheim’s Gestalt theory of visual balance: Examining the compositional structure of art photographs and abstract images. i-Perception, 2, 615-647.
Metzger, W. (1965). The foundations of artistic experience. Acta Psychologica, 24, 409-422.
Ngo, D. C. L., Teo L. S., & Byrne, J. G. (2000). Formalising guidelines for the
design of screen layouts. Displays, 21, 3-15.
Nodine, C. F., Locher, P. J., & Krupinski, E. A. (1993). The role of formal art
training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo,
26, 219-227.
Parsons, M. (1987). How we understand art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, S. E., Gardner, J. S., & Wickens, T. D. (2008). Aesthetic issues in spatial
composition: Effects of position and direction on framing single objects. Spatial Vision, 21, 421-449.
Roberts, M. N. (2008). Complexity and aesthetic preference for diverse visual stimuli. Unpublished doctoral Paper, Universitat de les Illes Balears-TDR.
Ross, D. W. (1907). A Theory of Pure Design: Harmony, Balance, Rhythm. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin.
Samuel, F., & Kerzel, D. (2013). Judging whether it is aesthetic: Does equilibrium compensate for the lack of symmetry ? i-Perception, 4, 57-77.
Shimamura, A. P., & Palmer, E. S.(2012). Aesthetic Science. New York: University of Oxford Press.
Silvia, P. J. (2005). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an
appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 119-
133.
Tatarkiewicz, W. (1970). History of Aesthetics. The Hague: Mouton.
Tyler, C. W. (2007). Some principles in the spatial organization of art. Spatial Vision,
20, 509-530.
Vartanian, O., Martindale, C., Podsiadlo, J., Overbay, S., & Borkum, J. (2005) The
link between composition and balance in masterworks vs.paintings of lower artistic quality. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 493-503.
Welsh, G. S., & Barron, F. (1963). Barron-Welsh Art Scale. San Diego, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Wilson, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2005). The assessment of preference for balance: Introducing a new test. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23(2), 165-180. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學研究所
99752010
102 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099752010 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [心理學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 201001.pdf | | 6110Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 862 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
