Abstract (eng)
The influence of art expertise on the processing of art has been shown many times. The question, however, whether such expertise has any effect on aesthetic processing if the object of interest is not art, did not get much attention till now. The present study aims at answering the question whether 22 art experts (students of art history) differ from 42 non-experts (students of other subjects) in their respective judgments on the pleasingness and the interestingness of 90 patterns, and in their ability to remember them. These patterns vary in two dimensions: symmetry (asymmetrical, broken symmetrical and symmetrical) and content (abstract versus face-like).
Results show that art experts, compared to non-experts, rate asymmetric patters as both more pleasing and more interesting than symmetric ones. Non-experts on the other hand tend to evaluate symmetric patterns as more pleasing and more interesting. Additionally, experts give abstract patterns higher ratings than face-like patterns for both pleasingness and interestingness. Compared to experts, non-experts prefer face-like patterns in both respects. In relation to the ability to remember those patterns, there was no difference between art experts and non-experts. The conclusion is drawn that those two groups differ in their aesthetical processing of visual stimuli, even where the object of interest is not art.