Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Expecting the Unexpected: How Gallery Visitors Experience Semantic Instability in Art

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Art & Perception

The perception of artworks rarely—if ever—results in the instantiation of a determinate meaning. Instead, when entering an art gallery, we often expect Semantic Instability (SeIns): the experience of perceptual and cognitive habits being challenged. By comparing the experience of an artistic movie in an exhibition with the experience in a laboratory via the Continuous Evaluation Procedure, we found that the movie was less semantically unstable and more pleasing to the eyes of gallery visitors than to those of participants in the laboratory. These findings suggest that a gallery context might induce the expectation of perceptual challenge, thus decreasing the intensity of SeIns and at the same time heightening the appreciation of SeIns. Exhibition visitors might even be on the lookout for challenging experiences.

Affiliations: 1: Department of General Psychology and Methodology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany ; 2: Forschungsgruppe EPÆG (Ergonomics, Psychological Æsthetics, Gestalt), Bamberg, Germany ; 3: Bamberg Graduate School of Affective and Cognitive Sciences (BaGrACS), Bamberg, Germany


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

1. Amir O.,, Biederman I.,, Wang Z., and Xu X. (2015). "Ha Ha! Versus Aha! A direct comparison of humor to nonhumorous insight for determining the neural correlates of mirth, Cereb". Cortex 25, 14051413.
2. Apter M. J. (1989). "Reversal theory: A new approach to motivation, emotion and personality", Anu. Psycol. 42, 1729.
3. Armstrong T., and Detweiler-Bedell B. (2008). "Beauty as an emotion: The exhilarating prospect of mastering a challenging world", Rev. Gen. Psychol. 12, 305329.
4. Barto A.,, Mirolli M.,, and Detweiler-Bedell B. (2008). "Novelty or surprise?" Front. Psychol. 4, 907. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00907.
5. Berlyne D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology , Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY, USA.
6. Bourdieu P. (1984). Distinction—A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
7. Brieber D.,, Nadal M.,, Leder H., and Rosenberg R. (2014). "Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time", PLoS One 9, e99019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099019.
8. Carbon C. C. (2010). "The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation", Acta Psychol. 134, 233244.
9. Carbon C. C. (2011). "Cognitive mechanisms for explaining dynamics of aesthetic appreciation", i-Perception 2, 708719.
10. Carbon C. C. (2017a). "Art perception in the museum: How we spend time and space in art exhibitions". i-Perception . 8, 115. doi: 10.1177/2041669517694184.
11. Carbon C. C. (2017b). "Universal principles of depicting oneself across the centuries: From Renaissance self-portraits to selfie-photographs", Front. Psychol . 8, 245.
12. Carbon C. C.,, Faerber S. J.,, Gerger G.,, Forster M., and Leder H. (2013). "Innovation is appreciated when we feel safe: On the situational dependence of the appreciation of innovation", Int. J. Des. 7, 4351.
13. Chetverikov A. (2013). "Warmth of familiarity and chill of error: Affective consequences of recognition decisions", Cogn. Emot. 28, 385415.
14. Clark A. (2013). "Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science", Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 181204.
15. Cupchik G. C. (1994). "Emotion in aesthetics: Reactive and reflective models", Poetics 23, 177188.
16. De Bont C. J. P. M.,, Schoormans J. P. L., and Wessel M. T. T. (1992). "Consumer personality and the acceptance of product design", Des. Stud. 13, 200208.
17. Di Paolo E.,, Rohde M., and De Jaegher H., (2007), "Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction and play", in: Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science , Stewart J.,, Gapenne O., and Paolo E. D. (Eds), pp. 3387, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
18. Dörner D., and Vehrs W. (1975). "Aesthetical appreciation and reduction of uncertainty", Psychol. Res. , 321334.
19. Faerber S. J.,, Leder H.,, Gerger G., and Carbon C. C. (2010). "Priming semantic concepts affects the dynamics of aesthetic appreciation", Acta Psychol. 135, 191200.
20. Friston K. (2005). "A theory of cortical responses", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 360, 815836.
21. Friston K.,, Thornton C., and Clark A. (2012). "Free-energy minimization and the dark room problem". Front. Psychol. 3, 130. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00130.
22. Fry B., and Reas C. [Computer Software] (2013). Processing library for visual arts and design. Available online at: .
23. Gamboni D. (2002). Potential Images: Ambiguity and Indeterminacy in Modern Art , Reaktion Books, London, UK.
24. Gregory R. L. (1980). "Perceptions as hypotheses". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 290, 181197.
25. Hall J. (2014). The Self-Portrait: A Cultural History , Thames & Hudson, London, UK.
26. Ishai A.,, Fairhall S. L., and Pepperell R. (2007). "Perception, memory and aesthetics of indeterminate art, Brain Res". Bull. 73, 319324.
27. Jakesch M., and Leder H. (2009). "Finding meaning in art: Preferred levels of ambiguity in art appreciation", Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 62, 21052112.
28. Jakesch M.,, Leder H., and Forster M. (2013). "Image ambiguity and fluency", PLoS One 8,e74084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074084.
29. Krieger V., (2010). “"At war with the obvious”—Kulturen der Ambiguität. Historische, psychologische und ästhetische Dimensionen des Mehrdeutigen", in: Ambiguität und Kunst—Typen und Funktionen eines ästhetischen Paradigmas , Krieger V., and Mader R. (Eds), pp. 1350, Böhlau, Vienna, Austria, Cologne & Weimar, Germany.
30. Locher P. J.,, Smith L., and Smith J. (1999). "Original paintings versus slide and computer reproductions: A comparison of viewer responses", Empir. Stud. Arts 17, 121129.
31. Locher P. J.,, Smith J. K., and Smith L. F., (2001). "The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings," Perception 30, 449465. Muth C., and Carbon C. C. (2013). "The Aesthetic Aha: On the pleasure of having insights into Gestalt", Acta Psychol. 144, 2530.
32. Muth C., and Carbon C. C. (2016). "SeIns: Semantic Instability in art", Art Percept. 4, 145184.
33. Muth C.,, Hesslinger V. M., and Carbon C. C. (2015a). "The appeal of challenge in the perception of art: How ambiguity, solvability of ambiguity and the opportunity for insight affect appreciation", Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 9, 206216.
34. Muth C.,, Hesslinger V. M., and Carbon C. C. (in press). "Variants of Semantic Instability (SeIns) in the arts. A classification study based on experiential reports", Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts .
35. Muth C.,, Raab M., and Carbon C. C. (2015b). "The stream of experience when watching artistic movies. Dynamic aesthetic effects revealed by the continuous evaluation procedure (CEP)." Front. Psychol . 6, 365. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00365.
36. Muth C.,, Raab M. H., and Carbon C. C. (2016). "Semantic stability is more pleasurable in unstable episodic contexts. On the relevance of perceptual challenge in art appreciation". Front. Hum. Neurosci . 10, 43. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00043.
37. Neisser U. (1976). Cognition and Reality. Principles and Implications of Cognitve Psychology , W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, USA.
38. Noë A. (2000). "Experience and experiment in art", J. Consc. Stud. 7, 123136.
39. Pepperell R. (2006). "Seeing without objects: Visual indeterminacy and art", Leonardo 39, 394400.
40. Reber R.,, Schwarz N., and Winkielman P. (2004). "Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?" Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 364382.
41. Reis J. (1996). Inventar zur Messung der Ambiguitätstoleranz , Asanger, Heidelberg, Germnany.
42. Scherer K. R., (2001). "Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking", in: Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Method, Research , Scherer K. R.,, Schorr A., and Johnstone T. (Eds), pp. 92120, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
43. Smith J. K.,, and Smith L. F. (2001). "Spending time on art", Emp. Stud. Arts 19, 229236.
44. Van de Cruys S., and Wagemans J. (2011). "Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art", i-Perception 2, 10351062.
45. Warren C., and McGraw A. P. (2016). "Differentiating what is humorous from what is not", J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110, 407430.
46. Watson D.,, Clark L. A., and Tellegen A. (1988). "Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales", J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 10631070.
47. Wolz S., and Carbon C. C. (2014). "What’s wrong with an art fake?" Cognitive and emotional variables influenced by authenticity status of artworks, Leonardo 47, 467473.

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Art & Perception — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation