Talk:Psychology of art

message: Sounds like a good beginning, but is there a way to categorize the different approaches?Wolfensberger 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning 

message: Thanks for organizing this a bit. Looks goodBrosi 23:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I like the van Gogh, but donl;t know why it is there apart from the fact that he was a messed up character. More appropriate would  be an art work by someone who atcually claimed to be using psychologyBrosi 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also possibly Salvador Dali (Sigmund Freud) and Pollock (C.G. Jung).  Scribblesinmindscapes 21:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  van Gogh? 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: In order not to just complain without contributing, here my reading list: http://www.amazon.de/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/R26XQRN3DSA89C, and http://kunstpsychologie.de/analytischekunstpsychologie/index.html (albeit in German) gives you an idea about the significance of arts psychology. --84.150.85.49 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: Posting some ideas about articles on compositional balance first...this article doesn't directly relate to art, but does relate to spatial composition when viewing objects. 
Sammartino, J., & Palmer, S. E. (2012). Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of vertical position and perspective on framing single objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 865-879. doi: 10.1037/a0027736 Alex Wyse (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symmetry and balance 

message: My seminar Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Cognition_and_the_Arts_%28Greta_Munger%29 will be adding some recent psychology research about art appreciation, under a new section tentatively titled Psychology insights with sub areas including bottom-up and top-down influences on art appreciation.  We'll post more details soon. Greta Munger (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding some recent psychology research 

message: The section Psychology_of_art#Measuring_Complexity needs some work. "Complexity is a subjective matter, but different psychologists have defined it in different ways nonetheless" should be reworded.  The section on GIF compression is awful, partly because the source, Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art, doesn't properly define the "GIF compression" to which it refers. It also erroneously states that "Gif compression works better on pictures with limited colorization (<245)" The GIF palette handles up to 256 (2^8) colors per frame. It also erroneously states that "Gif compression can only reduce a file size to about half of its original size." The term "GIF compression", as used in this paper needs to be better defined. Lossy Image compression for GIFs can take many forms...the schemes used should be specified. What the paper is trying to convey is that certain aspects of the GIF compression scheme correlate with human ratings of complexity in art.
Also, please upload a higher resolution version of :File:Inverted u.png.
When wikilinking to articles with  , you shouldn't have a User: in there.
Smallman12q (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OA Feedback 

message: Citations: somehow the references didn't turn out, and then make sure to delete extra spaces! Also, don't need the page number citations for anything. 
As for the content, I think it might be better to simplify the message overall. There's plenty of good stuff in there, but you just jump right into it. I think a lot can be made more concise. We don't need the author's name, and changing the wording away from "researchers found" or "they studied" should help clear things up. Also, I think it's generally OK to just state things as opposed to saying "according to..." and the direct quotations distract from the content unless the authors came up with a new phrase or definition, perhaps. It is good that you have some sort of moving story throughout the section, but it's probably not necessary to try and connect everything so coherently. 
And not that the methods need to change too much, but I think you could probably omit a good amount of the more detailed explanations when they get somewhat redundant. That said, one way to format might be to have what was studied, how it was studied, and what they results were and show- in the format of statements of fact. I also think you could organize the sections within laterality and movement to make them easier to read. Most of it is one big chunk, which is pretty hard to keep place in. Simpler, "topic statements" could serve to break up different findings. Alex Wyse (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review:  Laterality and movement 

message: Instead of defining abstract and figurative art, do an external link to the wiki pages of those things. Try to play pictures to the right or left of the text (looks neater). Need to add more citations. Wiki likes when you cite everything. 
When measuring "interestingness" and "pleasingness," viewers rated works higher for abstract works that were more complex…. Not sure what this means. Complexity is also another topic under psychology of art. See what they have under that section to make sure you aren’t being repetitive. 
I seem to loose you at times. For someone who hasn’t read the articles on abstract and figurative art, the psychology terms might be confusing (TMT, Personal Need for Structure scale, etc.). In general there are a few stops where you can provide the links to other wiki pages so people can know what you are talking about (ex. EEG, “Big Five”). Also check out Dr. Munger’s suggestions on how to write for wiki, some things could just be more concise. I also only counted 7 new articles for this section.    
Violetta Bogopolsky (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review:  Abstract vs. Figurative Art 

message: The heading Title Information could be one notch bigger, so we know it is a different section from Art and Expertise. This section could use more organization. You seemed to jump from one point to the next when you first start out the section. If there are multiple categories under the section Title, maybe you could use subheadings to make it more readable/understandable. Elaborate more one what title changes and confusing titles mean to the average viewer. How can that hinder or enhance the viewing process? The part about the pipe not being a pipe confused me a bit. I just lost you when you were talking about how it wasn't meant to be part of the painting. Doing a wiki link to the image La trahison might help readers understand that section (a wiki page for that image exists, I checked). You could also just add the image to the psych of art page (check wiki commons).
Violetta Bogopolsky (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review: Title  

message: The information looks really solid with lots of details, but some sort of unifying statement in the first part “art and expertise” could improve the flow of the section. It is just confusing to me to have that as the opening to the whole section of expertise without any sort of preface for the different categories like preference that follow. In general, taking out things like "participants rated," "the researchers did...," or "they investigated" will help improve the readability of the sections. This is especially apparent in the way each sub-section opens with very similar descriptions of testing experts and non-experts. 
I think overall, though, the methods and results in each subsection are clearly stated but can be condensed (mostly within descriptions of different parts of the same experiment). Just saying what they found when Ps did this and that would be easier than explaining every step. Just keep in mind it's clearer to talk about "facts" that have been revealed through this research. 
You might check if there are any internal links to some of those tests or scales. Also, I think the references need to go after the ends of sentences and periods. Like we talked about in class, it should be ok to take out most of the names and extra pronouns.  Alex Wyse (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review:  expertise 

message: Make sure there is no space between the last word and the citation. Also you alternate between having the period before and after the citation, so make sure you're consistent with that.  After the first citation, there is a period after beautiful and one after the citation-- change to just one period.  Please revise the last sentence of the first paragraph, it was difficult to read.  "Many studies have ventured to explain this innate preference for symmetry with many methods..." I would get rid of the second "many." I think you should also remove "Reber," and "Makin et al." from the article. Other than that, its a great article!
Lindy.williams (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review: Symmetry 

message: Take out "as opposed to simply being a means of identification." Try to concisely combine sentences two and three. Condense the last sentence of the first paragraph. It was a tad wordy; maybe you could take out words like "necessarily," "particularly," etc. Overall, good work!
Lindy.williams (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review: Title 

message: Overall, I think the Expertise section as a great amount of information that can be more effective by cutting down on arbitrary details, such as who were the participants (i.e. history major or psychology student). In general, elaborate more on the results of the studies and cut down on the procedure part. For example, the eye movement section can possibly be reduced to one paragraph. 
Furthermore, I don’t know how necessary it is to include the names of the questionnaires. If they can be wiki linked or use to create a section labeled “Measuring Expertise”, I think they could be great.   
It would also be helpful to have more topic sentences that lead into each section at the beginning of the first paragraph. For instance, in the level of abstraction section, I could not tell how it related to expertise until about the fourth or fifth sentence. I also suggest making a more descriptive title for the last section labeled “other factors” to provide more contextual cues about the section’s purpose. 
In addition, I think this section would have better organization if the “level of abstraction” came before “eye movement” section.
Small changes:
Wiki link (The big five factor inventory).
Fix the periods with spaces 
Exclude the names of the researchers to put more focus on the study
I hope this is helpful! Good luck!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamela Peterson (talk • contribs) 05:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review: Expertise 

message: For the most part, the Symmetry section is already concise; however, the last sentence in the first paragraph is a little wordy. I also don’t understand the last sentence in the “compositional balance” section (i.e. "incorporate through creating a balanced work or art" was difficult for me to interpret). Specifically in the section describing Sammartino and Palmer, I think it can be shorten to be more concise. In general, try to use less prepositions like "in which" or "as" to read more smoothly.
Overall, I think this section is easy to read with good organization and just needs a few more tweaks. If possible, maybe this section can upload artwork that illustrate symmetry and non-symmetry.
Small changes: 
Wiki link Islamic art
Exclude the authors name and just describe the study.
Remove parenthetical citations
Fix periods
I hope this helps! Good luck!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamela Peterson (talk • contribs) 05:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review: Symmetry 

message: I think that defining complexity is a great way to start off the article. I think that the definitions you used are great and easily understandable. However I found this paragraph to be hard to follow. I would revise it to make it more clear and concise. There are also some grammatical mistakes in it which made it harder to follow and understand.  I also liked how you talked about the different methods on how to measure complexity and how you linked GIF Expressions to the Wikipedia page on GIF Expressions. 
The visual art section was very concise. I think one way to make it clearer is to reword some of the sentences. Some of the wording seemed awkward. I would at some point in this paragraph refer to the graph on side. This may help users who are not familiar with what you are talking about. I thought that the music and the dance sections were very clear and concise. 
SKC 2013 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review: Complexity 

message: If needed, I could add a simple comparison of images to sections as shown to the right.
Smallman12q (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image comparison