Impression indicators from realistic and abstract art painting as predictors of verbal and imaginative creativity

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The search for patterns in the perception and understanding of art is the subject of research in many scientific fields, including psychology and neurophysiology. In this paper, the analysis of the ratio of indicators of understanding and self-assessment of the emotional impression during the perception of specially selected painting of fine art representing realism and abstractionism is carried out in comparison with psychometrically measured indicators of originality during testing of verbal and non-verbal creativity. The study involved 115 university students aged 17–20 (60 man and 55 women). For a quantitative assessment of the aesthetic impression and the time of decision-making, a computerized program for presenting stimulus pictures was used. A significantly better understanding of the content of realistic paintings was established, which is accompanied by positive emotions and a longer time spent examining them in comparison with abstractionism (respectively, 4.0 and 3.6 s). According to the results of regression analysis, the predictors of verbal originality are the time of decision-making about the impression created when viewing realism, together with the indicator of conceptual thinking (according to the performance of the subtest of the intelligence verbal component, IQ4), and the predictor of figurative originality is the time of assessing the impression and the degree of understanding of abstract paintings. Consequently, the discovered patterns indicate not only the connection between self-assessment of aesthetic impression and psychometric realization of creative abilities, but also different mechanisms of their organization: with a relatively large contribution of conceptual thinking – to verbal creativity and imagination – to figurative.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

O. M. Razumnikova

Novosibirsk State Technical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: razoum@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Novosibirsk

References

  1. Hagtved H., Hagtved R., Patrick V.M. The perception and evaluation of visual art // Empirical Studies of the Arts. 2008. V. 26. № 2. P. 197.
  2. Durkin C., Hartnett E., Shohamy D., Kandel E.R. An objective evaluation of the beholder's response to abstract and figurative art based on construal level theory // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2020. V. 117. № 33. P. 9809.
  3. Furnham A., Chamorro-Premuzic T. Personality, intelligence, and art // Pers. Individ. Differ. 2004. V. 36. P. 705.
  4. Kasirer A., Shnitzer-Meirovich S. The perception of creativity and creative abilities among general education and special education teachers // Think. Skills Creativity. 2021. V. 40. № 4. P. 100820.
  5. Kaube H., Abdel Rahman R. Art perception is affected by negative knowledge about famous and unknown artists // Sci. Rep. 2024. V. 14. № 1. P. 8143.
  6. Pizzolante M., Pelowski M., Demmer T.R. et al. Aesthetic experiences and their transformative power: A systematic review // Front. Psychol. 2024. V. 15. P. 1328449.
  7. Nagornova Zh.V., Galkin V.A., Shemyakina N.V. Neurophysiological characteristics of the “processing” of the metaphorical meaning of images // Human Physiology. 2023. V. 49. № 3. P. 251.
  8. Necka E. Perception and creativity / Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology. Elsevier Publ. 2017. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.06252-0
  9. Brielmann A.A., Pelli D.G. Beauty requires thought // Curr. Biol. 2017. V. 27. № 10. P. 1506.
  10. Muth C., Carbon C.C. The aesthetic aha: On the pleasure of having insights into Gestalt // Acta Psychol. (Amst). 2013. V. 144. № 1. P. 25.
  11. Beaty R.E., Benedek M., Kaufman S.B., Silvia P.J. Default and executive network coupling supports creative idea production // Sci. Rep. 2015. V. 5. P. 10964.
  12. De Pisapia N., Bacci F., Parrott D., Melcher D. Brain networks for visual creativity: A functional connectivity study of planning a visual artwork // Sci. Rep. 2016. V. 6. P. 39185.
  13. Jung R.E., Mead B.S., Carrasco J., Flores R.A. The structure of creative cognition in the human brain // Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013. V. 7. P. 330.
  14. Kounios J., Beeman M. The cognitive neuroscience of insight // Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014. V. 65. P. 71.
  15. Wertz C.J., Chohan M.O., Flores R.A., Jung R.E. Neuroanatomy of creative achievement // Neuroimage. 2020. V. 209. P. 116487.
  16. Atakaya M.A., Sak U., Ayas M.B. A Study on psychometric properties of creativity indices // Creat. Res. J. 2022. V. 36. № 2. P. 348.
  17. Runco M.A., Jaeger G.J. The standard definition of creativity // Creat Res. J. 2012. V. 24. № 1. P. 92.
  18. Korovkin S.U. [The role of anticipation and expectations in insight problem solving] // Psychological Studies. 2021. V. 14. № 76.
  19. Lin J., Cui X., Dai X. et al. Neural correlates of creative insight: Amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation of resting-state brain activity predicts creative insight // PLoS One. 2018. V. 13. № 8. P. e0203071.
  20. Benedek M., Jurisch J., Koschutnig K. et al. Elements of creative thought: Investigating the cognitive and neural correlates of association and bi-association processes // Neuroimage. 2020. V. 210. P. 116586.
  21. Benedek M., Schües T., Beaty R.E. et al. To create or to recall original ideas: Brain processes associated with the imagination of novel object uses // Cortex. 2018. V. 99. P. 93.
  22. Cela-Conde C.J., García-Prieto J., Ramasco J.J. et al. Dynamics of brain networks in the aesthetic appreciation // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013. V. 110. Suppl 2. P. 10454.
  23. Laird A.R., Eickhoff S.B., Li K. et al. Investigating the functional heterogeneity of the default mode network using coordinate-based meta-analytic modeling // J. Neurosci. 2009. V. 29. № 46. P. 14496.
  24. Vessel E.A., Starr G.G., Rubin N. Art reaches within: Aesthetic experience, the self and the default mode network // Front. Neurosci. 2013. V. 7. P. 258.
  25. Belfi A.M., Vessel E.A., Brielmann A. et al. Dynamics of aesthetic experience are reflected in the default-mode network // Neuroimage. 2019. V. 188. P. 584
  26. Boccia M., Teghil A., Guariglia C. Looking into recent and remote past: Meta-analytic evidence for cortical re-organization of episodic autobiographical memories // Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2019. V. 107. P. 84.
  27. Razumnikova O.M. Methods for determining creativity: A teaching aid. Novosibirsk: NGTU, 2003. 36 p.
  28. Razumnikova O.M., Volf N.V. Creativity-related hemispheric selective processing: Correlations on global and local levels of attentional set // Creat. Res. J. 2015. V. 27. № 4. P. 394.
  29. Cela-Conde C.J., Ayala F.J., Munar E. et al. Sex-related similarities and differences in the neural correlates of beauty // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009. V. 106. № 10. P. 3847.
  30. Halpern D.F. Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd edition). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah. NJ., 2000. 420 p.
  31. Hausmann M., Schober B. Sex and gender differences: New perspectives and new findings within a psychobiosocial approach // Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 2012. V. 220. № 2. P. 57.
  32. Hodgetts S., Hausmann M. Sex/gender differences in brain lateralisation and connectivity // Curr. Top. Behav. Neurosci. 2023. V. 62. P. 71.
  33. Cattaneo Z., Schiavi S., Silvanto J., Nadal M. A TMS study on the contribution of visual area V5 to the perception of implied motion in art and its appreciation // Cogn. Neurosci. 2017. V. 8. № 1. P. 59.
  34. Nadal M., Schiavi S., Cattaneo Z. Hemispheric asymmetry of liking for representational and abstract paintings // Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2018. V. 25. № 5. P. 1934.
  35. Pihko E., Virtanen A., Saarinen V.M. et al. Experiencing art: the influence of expertise and painting abstraction level // Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2011. V. 5. P. 94.
  36. Leder H. Beyond perception – information processing approaches to art appreciation / The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Aesthetics and the Arts // Eds. Tinio P.P.L., Smith J.K. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge University Press, 2014. P. 115.
  37. Specker E., Forster M., Brinkmann H. et al. Warm, lively, rough? Assessing agreement on aesthetic effects of artworks // PLoS One. 2020. V. 15. № 5. P. e0232083.
  38. Leder H., Belke B., Oeberst A., Augustin D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments // Br. J. Psychol. 2004. V. 95. Pt. 4. P. 489.
  39. Winston A.S., Cupchik G.C. The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers // Vis. Arts Res. 1992. V. 18. № 1. P. 1.
  40. Aviv V. What does the brain tell us about abstract art? // Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014. V. 8. P. 85.
  41. Gridley M.C. Preference for abstract art according to thinking styles and personality // North Am. J. Psychol. 2013. V. 15. № 3. P. 463.
  42. Chatterjee A., Vartanian O. Neuroscience of aesthetics // Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 2016. V. 1369. № 1. P. 172.
  43. Neri P. Semantic control of feature extraction from natural scenes // J. Neurosci. 2014. V. 34. № 6. P. 2374.
  44. Polzella D.J. Differences in reactions to paintings by male and female college students // Percept. Mot. Skills. 2000. V. 91. № 1. P. 251.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Examples of the presented paintings: avant-garde, positive (A) or negative (B) emotional content, realism (C) and a screenshot of the program used to evaluate the emotional impression (D).

Download (2MB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Screenshots of programs for calculating the originality of the created images with an example of completing the task "Circles" (A) or interpreting the presented images with an example of one of them (B).

Download (2MB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2025 Russian Academy of Sciences