Concept

To achieve our objectives, ARTIS is framed around three main concepts that together will drive the project and define the scope of our work: the concept of transformation as a theoretical and scientific focus for investigating interactions with art, empirical assessment as a means of approaching this topic, and a multiplicity of perspectives that we will considered.

Transformations

The central concept for our consortium is that of transformation. Most simply, transformation can be thought of as a synonym for change, referring to the modulation of something in relation to an event. For the purpose of the ARTIS project, transformation provides a particularly useful vehicle for approaching our objectives and for discussing and quantifying the efficacy of art. Transformation as a topic is considered in both the arts and in science, providing a conceptual bridge between the humanities, art theory, and especially psychology.

With respect to art, it has long been argued that aesthetic experiences are transformative by nature. For example, Kant (2000), suggested that in an art experience one might transition from being overwhelmed by a stimulus, to regaining control, and, within this process, changing themselves. In the same tradition, Schiller (1982) more explicitly insisting that art has the power to change the world through its noble images of beauty, morality, and justice that can inspire and educate humankind and transform attitudes to life. For Schiller, one is literally not the same person after an encounter with art, because one has become inoculated with new capacities to deal with challenges. In current art theory, several writers and artists specifically vouch for this topic. According to the currently widely received Arte Útil (2019) program, art has to satisfy the following criteria they list on their webpage: “Propose new uses for art within society. [...] Be implemented and function in real situations. [...] Have practical, beneficial outcome for its users. [...] Re-establish aesthetics as a system of transformation.” They taking concepts like the “total work of art” as they have been reconceived in the 20th century (e.g., by artists such as Schlingensief, Hirschhorn) to a direct assessment of the practical outcome of transformations for our society (Wolterstorff, 2015).

Transformation, as seen in the examples that began this proposal, is also specifically used by art critics, curators, and everyday viewers to describe their experiences, referring again to notable changes in their perception (e.g., Turrell), their conceptions (Abramović), or relations to others (Tate Exchange). Transformation is also specifically used in policy discussions of art/cultural management (Belfiore & Bennett, 2007; Cohen & Heinecke, 2018; Grillitsch et al., 2019), once again to refer to specific effects or adjustments that are sought as a focus of art.

Importantly, especially in the discussion of psychology, transformation is also a topic, which gives actionable frameworks and hypotheses for empirical assessment. Here, transformation is typically suggested to refer to a cognitive process whereby individuals encounter or perceive the environment, and as a result tend to change or modulate something about themselves or experience some modulation of their behavior or bodies. This topic was specifically suggested for the domain of art by Dewey (1950), and in an early cognitive discussion by Lasher, Carroll, and Bever (1983), which related transformations to the process of insight and personal development. More recently, transformations were made the specific topic of a model by our UNIVIE team (the Vienna Integrated Model of Art Perception, VIMAP, Pelowski et al., 2017). This model (see Methodology 1.3.2 for more discussion below) is considered the most comprehensive attempt to organize and explain art responses (Kuiken & Jacobs, 2017). It is also the first to specifically articulate, within this frame, transformative experiences or specific cognitive or behavioral changes as a distinct type of art engagement. The model specified a particular process involving an individual’s prior expectations, or schema, which they would use to guide their actions and thought. These in turn could be applied in the interaction with art. They proposed that in cases whereby an individual would experience a mismatch or a “challenge” to their schema and beliefs, this could lead to a process of, first, attempting to cope or push back, followed by acceptance, reflection, and eventual change of schema or the self, leading to what they considered a “transformative art experience.” This process was related again to insight, personal growth, and change of conceptions. The conception of schema change or affective-behavioral modification at the individual level can also connect to similar discussions in social psychology (e.g., Cialdini, Petty, & Cacioppo, 1981; Gergen, 2012), which notes that cumulative transformative events can shape collective behavior, social or political movements, identity, even culture. Thus, transformation as a focus nicely encapsulates the very changes and implications desired for art research and will be the target using our methods (see Methodology 1.3.2).

The model also embeds transformation with three other outcomes, which provide important counterpoints to considering or comparing transformative experiences. Here, members of our consortium have specifically considered such alternative modes of art engagement. Among them are intense emotional experience such as beauty (Armstrong & Detweiler-Bedell, 2008) or experiences of awe and wonder. Especially the latter has been a research focus of HUB: art often aims at wonder experiences (as do, e.g., the works of our collaborating partner Olafur Eliasson) and wonder entails a mode of engagement (e.g. the widening of the eyes in order to take in more information) that might be conducive to change (Fingerhut & Prinz, 2018). Intense awe as it is experienced for example by astronauts in space flight has led to substantial changes in their outlook in life and their concept of self: many have become more religious after such experiences (Gallagher et al., 2015). Other modes of engagement such as playfulness, addressed by our AAU consortium member, where we engage with a stimulus, other people, or the environment free from rules, may also be transformative in the sense that they allow individuals to take new perspectives or try out new ways of thinking—potentially especially a basis for participatory art (Heimann & Roepstorff, 2018). Importantly, these outcomes have also been connected to the above model, and thus give important comparative varieties of art experience that also may have important effects.

It is also important to consider that transformation does not necessarily imply a positive development. This too can be considered by using the model frame. It is possible that art experience may lead to negative changes. The long history of art as propaganda or its use to support dictators, fascism, or nefarious purposes is a testament to this. Recently, as noted by our UOXF consortium partner who investigated postsocialist art, the artworks considered do not necessarily have positive effects on emerging democracies (Gardner, 2015). It is important to be mindful of such uses or framing of transformation within different political and social contexts. It is also possible that negative transformations may occur, for certain individuals, without the intention of the artist. Art, or transformative experiences, could lead to outcomes that are not socially desirable. For example, another outcome of astronauts’ space flights was higher rates of divorce. Certainly, post-traumatic stress disorder or other negative effects of war—described by Benjamin (1986) as powerful artworks—suggest that a nuanced understanding of this topic is needed. Of course, it is also important to consider the possibility that transformations may not happen, or that art, especially, may have only a fleeting effect. These potentialities, too, will be considered.

BACK TO TOP

Empirical assessment

In order to address transformations, or the actual scope and limitations of engaging art, it is necessary to employ empirical assessment. Empirical assessment is often thought of as involving the domain of science, referring to the collection of data or the conducting of experiments. However, empirical has a more basic meaning, which constitutes the foundation of this project. For us, the defining aspect of empirical research involves a systematic approach to the investigation of a phenomenon (Kerlinger, 1979). This presupposes a specific process: (a) defining a target that one wishes to investigate, (b) deriving a theoretical basis or expectations (hypotheses) for what one expects, (c) identifying the factors or aspects by which one can assess this topic, and (d) collecting data on these features which can then lead to actual inferences about the nature or even existence of the phenomenon. By grounding investigation in a systematic basis, this also allows others to use the results for their own ends, building on and further developing our work. Thus, we can move beyond assumptions or anecdotes and arrive at a cumulative knowledge regarding the possible efficacy of art. Such a systematic and actionable way of investigating art has been especially called for by multiple stakeholders in the field of art. Belfiore (& Bennett, 2007), our external advisory board member, has put it this way:

“whether in education or in society at large, the belief is the same: ‘the artistic experience can have transformative effects on both the individual and society’ The challenge at both levels is also the same: to explain exactly how the arts operated their magic upon people; by what mechanisms the arts were capable of leaving a life-altering mark on the human psyche; and what aspects of the aesthetic experience were likely to play the major part in determining or shaping the impact.”

The ARTIS project is therefore designed around a systematic approach to these questions. We therefore use methods developed in specific areas of neuroscience, psychology, and other social sciences which have been specifically tailored for the empirical investigation of art. First and foremost this includes a new approach for using the model hypotheses for specific factors that may delineate events, in conjunction with advanced statistical modeling (see Methodology 1.3.2.1).In addition, beyond mere systematic analysis, we aim to be comprehensive. One particular approach, or measure, often due to the very need for a controlled, systematic analysis, also has limitations. It might also provide evidence that is contrary to other approaches.

By combining measures and expertise, we will directly address this. This is especially necessary because philosophy and art history have recently also worked more and more experimentally. We will incorporate philosophical approaches regarding the role experiments could play in aesthetics (Cova & Réhault, 2019), in order to be comprehensive in our approach to empirical sciences.

We also argue that empirical should not be reduced to only quantitative measures. Philosophy, social sciences, and phenomenology work with qualitative approaches that also provide important evidence. This can especially fill in the gaps between reductive empirical data, while also providing the most expansive, nuanced present understanding of art experience. The need to accompany quantitative data has led to new ways of assessing also qualitative data, which include recent developments such as micro-phenomenology that one of our consortium members (AAU, see methods section below) actively seeks to combine with psycho-physical measures from cognitive psychology

Artworks and the actions of artists can also be thought of as empirical or even laboratories for investigation. This may include both the artist’s work to consider a topic or work through an artistic problem, but also their action to place a work within the world, and therefore change or modulate something. The results of this can and in the ARTIS project will be measured.

BACK TO TOP