This research study
was my final project for the Msc psychology, University of Hertfordshire, 2017
I asked artists and non-artists to participate in a study to
find out if they understood objects differently, if that was measurable, and
what any differences might mean in terms of art. The most significant finding was
that artists tend to refer to their own memories, or think up a story, when
they are deciding what an ambiguous object is, whereas non-artists don’t. This
means that when artists look at or present those ambiguous objects which are
artworks, they are already thinking in different ways to non-artists. If
artists and curators want viewers to see and understand their work fully, they
could provide titles, narratives and ways that viewers can personally relate to
art.
Artists are a relatively under-researched demographic in
psychology. Artist training usually includes the art crit - critique sessions where student artists debate the
intrinsic and implied properties of objects and concepts, and artists typically
continue similar critique throughout professional practice, suggesting that as
individuals, artists may have an atypical approach to concept formation which
could be compared to non-artists. A group of 30 adult professional artists was
compared to a group of 30 adult non-artists in a series of tasks and trials.
Everyone who participated completed the same tasks in the same order, under
similar conditions and with the same instructions, so that results could be
compared.
Box
My supervisor, Sue Anthony, remembers our first meeting as
me plonking down the paper/brick/box object on the table and stating that
artists would immediately be able to tell me all sorts of implied narratives
about it. I remember that meeting rather differently, but Sue and I ended up
spending many hours over the next few months thrashing out how we know what
things are when we look at them, and how anything means more than its
constituent parts.
When I first started studying psychology, I was rather
excited about the bit where we would get around to creativity, what it is and
what its mechanisms are thought to be. I’ve always loved that part of art
practice - analysis of the self and the impulse to make things, and how we
think we are imbuing objects and images with meanings and implications. Well, I
was rather disappointed that my Msc didn’t really cover that until I could
devise my final project.
I’d never been very convinced by the measures that attempt
to quantify creativity by how many uses for a thing, like a brick or some wire,
a person can think up: a doorstop, a pair of earrings, a weapon, and so on. Yes,
it’s some sort of test of some sort of creativity, but I had anecdotal and
instinctive reasons to think that conversely, artists may tend to limit
themselves in their thinking, away from squandering thought in endless variety,
to choosing a few and then thinking more deeply about them. Artists tend to
specialise, to have recurring themes and imagery, to reiterate the same train
of thought in new ways, rather than have a scattergun approach. Perhaps an
artist could think up more uses for the brick - it may or may not tell us
something. I am more interested in the depth of creativity rather than its
width.
Sue Anthony is a specialist in the wonderful mechanisms by
which we know what a thing is when we look at it, even though we may never have
seen that particular object before. Once it’s broken down, it’s a wonderfully
complex process, applicable to myriad applications in science - psychology, cognition, semantics, and in art
- curation, fine art practice and education.
Background -
categories
Concept formation and
how we know what things are even if we have not seen them before. Categorisation
is the process by which we recognise and understand objects, and how concepts
are grouped together in our understanding. A concept is a general term used to
group together objects, events or ideas. Concepts typically have a set of
defining ideas, and probabilistic concepts define the concept in terms of
features likely to be found, for example, the concept of tree might include
such features as having branches and green leaves, but not every tree has all
these features. When we see a novel object, we make predictions about it
through features and similarities it shares with already familiar concepts and
categories, and so we know it by grouping it together with similar types of
things. This study investigated the relationship between concepts, objects and
categories, and how people form a concept about objects so that they decide
which category it belongs in.
Framework of
psychology tests
To make my study measurable in the context of other psychology
research, I adapted and devised new formations of existing scientific
experiments and more real-life handling of objects.
Quantitative and
qualitative research
Quantitative -
measurements and statistics. Qualitative - understanding reasons and
motivations.
There is a
paradox inherent in measuring human behaviour - quantitative research deals in statistical analysis - the numbers. Qualitative research can be just as
rigorous and precise, but deals in the more subjective area of decoding meaning.
One without the other is meaningless or mere speculation, and so methodology
that combines both methods is preferable to me, especially in the realms of art
research.
Group size,
demographic, artist criteria
Numbers of
participants in which to get a significant result, statistical norms.
Studying psychology gave
me an appreciation of statistical analysis. I didn’t exactly take to statistics
like a duck to water, but I could follow the logic of scientific research
methods. Two groups of thirty participants is a large enough group for any
comparative differences to be statistically significant and not by chance. I
matched the groups of participants as evenly as possible for age, gender and educational
background. Artists were defined by criteria borrowed from AN The Artists
Information Company, and AUE Artists Union England - both professional artists
organisations which give several criteria for memberships such as having a
visual arts degree, exhibiting publicly and participating in residencies.
Artists, then, were defined not by having or commenting upon any artistic
tendency or appreciation, but by measurable professional training and
experience of the art crit.
Ambiguity
The study included a measure of individual tolerance for ambiguity
(McLain 1993), as ambiguity is a key component in looking at artworks, and
decoding the meaning of objects. The study also went further in investigating
ambiguity, by presenting deliberately ambiguous choices in the object triad
tasks, and by measuring how difficult it was to make those choices. There was
an expectation that artists and non-artists would respond differently, with
artists more accustomed to contemplating ambiguous properties through their art
crit practice.
Ambiguity is clearly an essential component in art, layered
in different ways by various artists. An object in a frame or on a plinth
implies that is it art and that it represents something. Even the most
photo-realist art is always a representation of a way of seeing - we do not
even see our surroundings as clearly as photography. We really see in a
sequence of moments, some of which are blurred of focussed, or implied, and all
subject to our own understanding. The more abstract art becomes, the less it
looks like categories of things we already know. What does red mean? What does
a shadow say? Or a line, or a splash?
Triad tests - established scientific method
In a triad of one key and two choices, the choice reveals
tendencies in how objects and concepts are understood. I used triads from Linn
and Murphy, 2001. For example, in the triad Sapphire, Ring, Emerald - for the
key Sapphire, Ring is the thematic choice as it is linked to Sapphire only by a
narrative association, and Emerald is the taxonomic choice as it shares some gemstone
properties with Sapphire. These triads are usually given on paper but I decided
to make them into a cards task to prime
my participants towards handling objects, and to familiarise them with the format
of choosing one to match the key, so they would know what to do with the later
ambiguous choices. Participants gave their choice without being asked for their
reasons in this task, but were asked to explain their choices in the later
object triads.
Thematic -
themes, narrative, meanings. Taxonomic -
properties
It’s thought that participants’ choices reveal their
tendency to think about objects in certain ways - thematically - creating
categories by narrative, or taxonomically - creating categories by properties. In
the cards triad task, a score of 14 or more choices out of 20 indicates that is
not by chance.
Results
Thematic
(score 14 or more): all participants 24(40%), artists 9(30%), non-artists
15(50%)
Taxonomic (score 14 or more): all participants
2(3%), artists 2(7%), non-artists 0(0%)
No tendency (score
less than 14): all participants 34(40%), artists 19(63%), non-artists 15(50%)
The art crit is central to art training, where art is
discussed and debated thematically and taxonomically. In other words, artists go
through group critiques, explaining to others what they are doing and what they
intend it to mean, while fellow students and tutors challenge and suggest
alternatives. It can be harsh criticism and yet enlightening. It’s part of the
training allowing artists to deepen understanding of their own work, and to
show it without feeling personally exposed.
Object triad: Cow
Milk Lemonade
The first object triad choice was Cow Milk Lemonade, a Linn
and Murphy triad presented in the study as objects which were given to the
participants to handle. The key is Milk, and the choice Milk and Cow indicated
a thematic choice, where the link is through a narrative, whereas Milk and
Lemonade is taxonomic, as the two share properties - liquid, drinks, glass, bottles.
There are no shared properties between the small plastic cow, and a miniature
bottle (seemingly) of milk.
Results:
Cow Milk Lemonade
Milk Cow: all participants 44(73%), artists
24(80%), non-artists 20(66%)
Artist
- Eh, colour. Form. Milk. Eh, milk
bottles, dairy, herds. This, this one's all citric and would make milk go
funny, but they're both in bottles and you can drink, so this one, the cow,
they just look right together. They're both really pleasing, they’ve both got
sort of white, solid, thing. Monotone. Em, they're both charming things I would
put in my studio.
Non-artist - It's the bottle of
milk, so it's the milk associated with the cow rather than the other bottle. So
it's what's inside the bottle rather than, the bottle, the fact of the bottle
itself. Also, lemon juice would tend to curdle milk, so I would tend to think
that you would not have these things together unless you wanted something else.
Milk Lemonade: all participants 16(27%), artists 6(20%), non-artists 10(33%)
Artist - Because I like the
arrangement, of the bottle with the lemon, in the rectangle. I think it's very pleasing.
Non-artist
- I think, I think maybe if it was
different drinks I would categorise them together, but I'm thinking it's
obviously cow comes from milk but I think it's connotations in my head of the
milk, and lemonade would be in different places in a shop.
Objects triad: Brick
Paper Box
The second object triad was Brick Paper Box, and the key was
Box. If you have participated in the study, you will already know that the Box
was light and made of paper, shaped like a small brick and printed with
small-scale brick walls. The Brick was not a full brick, but clearly part of
one, and Paper, was a small lined notebook without a cover. The thematic and
taxonomic choices, then, were not so clear - Box and Paper shared properties of
paper, and the lines referred to lines of the brick images, however, Box
inferred links to bricks and walls, creating narrative links to Brick. These
and other complex overlapping properties made this triad choice deliberately
ambiguous, and so the choice and reasons for choosing revealed much more about
how participants think about and categorise objects.
Results:
Box Paper Brick
Box Brick: all
participants 44(70%), artists 18(60%), non-artists 24(80%)
Artist - This one. The brick,
Because I like the juxtaposition of the forms. They're very different. I like
the, this, brick, I don't know, what is brick made out of? (Clay, I think) It's
rather lovely isn't it. Yeah, the clay, with the paper. I like it. So the
contrast between the clay, and the paper, and the shapes, I like too, the
contrast in the shapes.
Non-artist
- Because that represents a brick wall,
and, that is a component of them. I don't think I'd associate that (the paper)
with it at all actually.
Box Paper: all participants 18(30%),
artists 12(40%), non-artists 6(20%)
Artist - Doesn't look like brick to me, 'cause it consists of bricks. It's a
little, oh, it's the box, made of a bricks surface, oh, interesting. It's a
mausoleum! I've no idea what you gave me in the first place. So these, as the
potential, it's these really, because this is how I keep knowledge, or you know
it's something that is able to contain information, because of that ability to
contain information.
Non-artist - The brick has associations, but the notebook
is cuboid with straight lines.
Variety of responses
It was so interesting how many people indicated their object
choice by saying something like:
Oh, I’ll just go for the
obvious one.
There were too many responses and types of responses to
reflect here. They are reported in full in my project paper, and are a great resource
of interesting and enlightening reactions. There were other findings, results
and responses from this study to be written about, made into articles, and
which suggest further development and related research.
Uncertain object
I found this object near my home at the beginnings of my
discussions with Sue. When I saw it, I immediately understood it as some
marvellous solid painting, and a three-dimensional manifestation of
impressionism. It reminded of the image for the Monet exhibition, which I had
happened to keep from the previous year. When I dug out the leaflet and saw it
with the roller, the colours, forms and markings were outstandingly similar. I
did not see that the object was originally a roller for some time, and thought
it was some sort of seaside driftwood. So for myself, this was a truly
ambiguous object, at once both art and natural. Sue called it an uncertain object. In psychological
terms, that made a great platform to consider why people understand things
differently, to trace through those cognitive processes, and to design a study
which could present ambiguity to any participant while asking the same
question.
Not immediately obvious, I presented this uncertain object and
asked participants what they thought it was. Out of the 60, 3 participants
recognised that this was an old paint roller.
Artist - So, the two
things that stand out are, one, it could be quite poo-like. And the second one
is it looks like a big stick of ganja. And I instantly made up a story of how
it's ganja, and how it's smuggled, you know, and I've got the whole script
written already in my head.
Non-artist - I think
it's some kind of seaweed. It might be some kind of shell. It might actually be
some kind of real sponge. I mean, I thought it was a courgette.
Objects triad: Roller
Handle Monet
Presenting the other two choices to the Roller key, the
Handle and the Monet exhibition leaflet, made it obvious to (almost) everyone
what the Roller was. Both Handle and Monet have thematic and narrative
implications relating to the roller, making this a task of a different sort of
ambiguity to the Box Brick Paper triad. Again, the reasons for choices provided
more clues as to how people decode the meanings of objects.
Results: Roller
Handle Monet
Roller Monet: all
participants 38(65%), artists 17(57%), non-artists 21(70%)
Artist - I'm going to have to
go with the painting of the modern garden. It's a very interesting one. Partly
because of, just visually, the correlation between, Monet's water lilies and
the flowers, which have the same colours as the bits of plastic inside what I
consider to be a giant mouse poo, eh, now I can clearly see is actually
probably a very well used paint roller, ah, or misused paint roller. Em, but
you're more likely to find a giant mouse in painting of the modern garden, than
in a paint roller. Non-artist
- Em, It has the same colours, this is
like a ... I guess they could both be like arty representations of the same, em,
pondy thing, I think it is. So it makes more sense than the roller.
Roller
Handle: all participants 22(35%), artists 13(43%), non-artists 9(30%)
Artist
- Hmm I think these are clearly two bits
of the same thing now I look at them, 'cause I'd already noticed there was that
little red end, which means that that goes in there, so I suppose I'd
categorise those two together 'cause they're part of the same, overall object.
Although that is the same colour as that, and that, and it has got some nice
red in it, hasn't it? No. I'm going that way – (indicates handle).
Non-artist
- Eh, this explains this. So this is
obviously a hardened, eh, em, a, a once used, eh, roller, paint roller. So that
explains it. Eh, this would be, eh, probably used for painting, perhaps. But
this is a more direct association. Or practical association.
Reasons and coding
I coded all the responses into related categories, so all
the poo-related comments were collated, as were the food, manufactured, stone
references and so on. It was during this coding stage that unexpected themes
emerged - the differences in whether participants thought the roller was
naturally formed or artificially made - the majority of non-artists thought the
roller was natural - some poo, mouldy food or sea-side related, while artists
mostly thought it was artificial - either made to look the way it did
deliberately, or as a consequence of some other manufacturing process.
Ambiguity results
There were various measures for ambiguity during the study.
My own expectation was that artists would be more comfortable with higher
levels of ambiguity, and that this would mean making a choice, and thus
lessening the ambiguity, would be more difficult because they would prefer the ambiguity. This was somewhat
evident in the results.
Thematic and
taxonomic results - differences
between artists and non-artists?
If thematic is what it
means, and taxonomic is what it is,
then the combination somewhat defines the elements of art. In some ways, I
expected artists to be both more thematic and more taxonomic, as the art crit
encourages focussed analysis on both aspects. This study was innovative in
several ways, one of which was asking for and coding the reasons for triad choices. Many responses in the study demonstrated
that people gave more than one association, at times several associations, and a
variety of thematic, taxonomic and narrative reasons for their decisions. This
complexity would seem to more realistically represent concept formation than
simply recording the choice without further explanations. Results showed that artists
had a more taxonomic tendency but used a thematic associations strategy -
narrative or memory - when making an ambiguous decision. Artists were more
analytical and more likely to understand that a novel object was constructed.
Future research
Future research may look at an integrated model of category
formation which includes reasons, associations and indicators given to explain
triad choices. Category depends on prediction, and this study points towards a
model where category concepts are formed by an interaction of strategies and associations.
It would be fascinating to continue this study comparing different groups with
the artists rather than a general population - scientists, writers, and so on,
or to further subdivide the artists into painter, sculptors, etc.
Research applications
This research is applicable to several fields - as a contribution
to the psychological study of category formations and to research in creativity,
art practice and education. There are implications in the presentation and
curation of art - if artists are making a set of assumptions not shared by
non-artists, then different approaches and communication can bridge this gap.
Many artists are interested in reflective practice, and in education, this insight
can filter through, right into the fulcrum of professional art practice - the
art crit.
Comparing any groups can give insight to the field of
concept formation and creative thinking. Results from specific groups gives
more insight into the overall cognitive processes of concept categorisation, or
how we know what things are. Furthermore, several of the innovative scientific
methods this study employed in this study: the structured and scripted interview,
the handling of objects, the use of ambiguous and uncertain objects, and the analysis
of reasons and meanings, contribute to possible methodologies.
Art and psychology research,
personal and thanks
Metacognition is thinking about thinking, an awareness which
is fostered in art practice. For my own practice, this project allowed me to
search deeply into the core of my thinking and make new discoveries. Although I
had to become a very part-time artist while studying psychology, it felt like a
long but essential way round to go to where I want to be as an artist/writer/researcher.
This study was clearly within the realms of psychology, and my interest is in
creativity and fine art, however I believe the crossover of disciplines tends
to be very fruitful.
I’m very grateful to all my participants who so kindly gave
me their time and thoughts. Many sessions developed into fascinating
conversations that I hope to continue. I’d also like to thank my family for
their endless support, my tutors and fellow students at Hertfordshire for an
enjoyable and challenging two years, and Dr Sue Anthony for inspiring and
fascinating supervision of my project.
About - I am an artist, writer and researcher. I make moving
image and sound, and often set up projects through my popup theViewergallery. I have an BA
(Middlesex) and MA (Open College of the Arts) in fine art, and an Msc in
psychology (Hertfordshire). I also work as an academic mentor and arts mentor.