Analysis of Theoretical Approaches to Perceiving and Matching Aesthetics Experience in Environmental Sciences

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Ph.D. in Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Problem statement: The research areas of environmental aesthetics require theoretical rules and principles to introduce a fundamental background to an empirical, cognitive, and emotional perception of infusion of aesthetics into the environment through human experience. Therefore, given the gap in the theoretical foundations regarding the nature of environmental aesthetics experience and its perception and formation process, this study aims to find a different perspective to seek and introduce new paths in order to identify the problem more accurately in other areas (which have thoroughly addressed the problem). Hence, two questions may arise. How is the process of forming and perceiving aesthetics experience in the theoretical areas of the psychology of art? In this regard, what theories are more practical in environmental aesthetics?
Research objective: The study aims to review the prominent models of aesthetics experience perception in the psychology of art  by Identifying the  basic structures of  the theories, can make benefits from their capabilities to lay the foundation for discussion about the theoretical concepts in environmental sciences.
Research Method: This is a qualitative study that seeks to analytically identify different perceptual models of aesthetics experience in the psychology of art. After the prominent perceptual models were analyzed, six models were selected. Their contents were analyzed to identify the relationships between their variables. Finally, two main models were introduced presented. Based on the concepts of environmental aesthetics and the potential of the two designated models, it was recommended to converge their paths to provide a theoretical context for multiple research methods of environmental aesthetics.
Conclusion: Leder’s theory and Silvia’s theory introduce an integrated network of perceptual, cognitive, and emotional processes to compete with each other. They also propose a flexible modeling mechanism for a wide range of variables regarding the priorities of aesthetics experience. As a result, new hypotheses can be developed for environmental aesthetics.

Keywords


Arthur, L. M., Daniel, T. C. & Boster, R.S. (1977). Scenic assessment: an overview. Landscape Planning, (4), 109-129.
Balling, J. D. & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5-28.
Bell, S. (2013). Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process (B. Aminzade, Trans.). Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
Berleant, A. (2013). What is aesthetic engagement? Contemporary Aesthetics, 11(1), 5.
Bourassa, S. C. (1990). A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 22(6), 787-812.
Briggs, D. J. & France, J. (1980). Landscape evaluation-a comparative-study. Journal of Environmental Management, 10(3), 263-275.
Carroll, N. (2013). Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction (S. Tabatabayi, Trans.). Tehran: Iranian Academy of the Arts.
Chalmers, D. (1978). Environmental aesthetics: concepts and methods. in Proceedings of a Workshop on Environmental Perception. University of Otago, New Zealand.
Chatterjee, A. (2004). Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychological and the Art, (4), 55-60.
Chen, B., Adimo, O. A. & Bao, Z. (2009). Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users’ perspective: the case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 93(1), 76-82.
Collinson, D. (2009). Philosophical Aesthetics: An Introduction (F. Farnoudfar, Trans.). Tehran: Iranian Academy of the Arts.
Cupchik, G. C. (1986). A decade after Berlyne: New directions in experimental aesthetics. Poetics, 15(4-6), 345-369.
Cupchik, G.C. & Gignac, A. (2007). Layering in art and in aesthetic experience. Visual Arts Research, 33(64), 56-71.
Dakin, S. (2003). There's more to landscape than meets the eye: towards inclusive landscape assessment in resource and environmental management. Canadian Geographer, 47(2), 185-200.
Daniel, T. C. & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring Landscape Aesthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method (USDA Forest Service Research Paper). Fort Collins, Colorado.
Daniel, T. C. & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. in Behavior and the Natural Environment (pp. 39-84). New York: Plenum.
Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4), 267-281.
Dewey, J. (2012). Art as Experience (M. Owlia, Trans.). Tehran: Qoqnous.
Dufrenne, M. (2017). In the Presence of the Sensuous: Essays in Aesthetics (F. Benvidi, Trans.). Tehran: Varaa.
Gaut, B. & Lopes, D. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics (M Sane’i Darrebidi et al.). Tehran: Matn.
Gobster, P. H. (1983). Judged appropriateness of residential structures in natural and developed shore land settings. in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Guter, E. (2010). Aesthetics AZ (M. Abolghasemi). Tehran: Mahi.
Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(1), 27-43.
Hetherington, J. (1991). Representing the environment: visual surrogates in environmental assessment. Healthy Environments, 22(1), 246-252.
Hubbard, P. (1996). Conflicting interpretations of architecture: an empirical investigation. Environmental Psychology, 16(2), 75-92.
Ja’fariha, R. (2017). Urban Landscape Aesthetics. Qazvin: Jahad-e Daneshgahi.
Leath, C. (1996). The aesthetic experience. Retrieved from http:// purl.oclc. org/ net/ cleath/ writings/ asexp113
Leder, H. & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode–Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443-464.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A. & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, (95), 489-508.
Levinson, J. (Ed.). (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics (F. Majidi, Trans.). Tehran: Matn.
Locher, P., Overbeeke, K. & Wensveen, S. (2010). Aesthetic interaction: a framework. Design Issues, (26), 70–79.
Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 177-198.
Martindale, C. & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and Performance, 14(4), 661–670.
Pelowski, M. & Akiba, F. (2011). A model of art perception, evaluation and emotion in transformative aesthetic experience. New Ideas in Psychology, (29), 80-97.
Pelowski, M., Markey, P. S., Lauring, J. O. & Leder, H. (2016). Visualizing the impact of art: An update and comparison of current psychological models of art experience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, (10), 160.
Porteous, J. D. (2013). Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning. Abingdon: Routledge.
Radovic, D. (2004). Towards culturally responsive and responsible teaching of urban design. Urban Design International, 9(4), 175-186.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N. & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, (8), 364-382.
Ribe, R. G. (1982). On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty-A response. Landscape Planning, 9(1), 61-74.
Saito, Y. (2008). Everyday aesthetics: prosaics, the play of culture and social identities. British Journal of Aesthetics, 48(4), 461-463.
Scruton, R. (1989). The Aesthetics of Architecture. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Seeley, W. (2014). Empirical aesthetics. in M. Kelley (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silvia, P. J. (2005). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of general psychology, 9(4), 342-357.
Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L. & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9(1), 1-33.