Advertisement

Research on the Influence of Interactivity on the Aesthetic Cognition of Art

  • Gao YangEmail author
  • I-Ting Wang
  • Hsienfu Lo
  • Rungtai Lin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11576)

Abstract

The art participation of the public has been declining year by year, and art has become more and more difficult to understand. However, the complex pressure of modern life has made people’s spiritual needs getting urgent. How to let art re-enter into the daily life of the public is a problem that art workers need to face. Interactive art seems to be a good medium to attract the public to participate in art activities, but the impact of interactivity on the audience’s aesthetic cognition remains to be explored. This study takes the art work “Iron Bird” as the object, uses Norman’s emotional design theory, and uses questionnaires to understand the audience’s perception situation of “iron bird” from the three levels of “instinct”, “behavior” and “reflection”, also to explore the impact of interaction on the aesthetic perception of art. The research shows that: 1. The influence of interaction on cognition is mainly reflected in the instinct level and behavior level. 2. Compared with pleasure, the influence of interaction on cognition is less and weaker. 3. Interactivity has no significant effect on the preference. 4. Interaction can significantly improve viewer’s sense of pleasure. 5. Interaction can enhance the viewer’s rational cognition and make them judge in a more objective way. The sense of pleasure can influence the viewer’s perceptual cognition and subjective recognition.

Keywords

Interactivity Cognition 

References

  1. 1.
    Silber, B., Triplett, T.: A decade of arts engagement: findings from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, 2002-2012. National endowment for the arts (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caulton, T.: Hands-On Exhibitions: Managing Interactive Museums and Science Centres. Routledge, London (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldman, A.: Evaluating art. In: The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, pp. 93–108. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Trivedi, S.: Artist-audience communication. Tolstoy Reclaimed 38, 38–52 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alexander, V.D.: Sociology of the Arts Exploring Fine and Popular Forms, 1st edn. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, pp. 193–210 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhou, P.Y.: Aisina jiaoyu piping lilun zhi yanjiu (Unpublished master’s thesis). National TaiwanNormal University, Taipei City (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roger, F.: Vision and Design. Chatto & Windus, London (1920)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Civitas Books, pp. 21–83 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Isen, A.M.: Positive affect and decision making. In: Lewis, M., Haviland, J.M. (eds.) Handbook of emotions, pp. 261–277. Guilford, New York (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gao Yang
    • 1
    Email author
  • I-Ting Wang
    • 1
  • Hsienfu Lo
    • 1
  • Rungtai Lin
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Creative Industry DesignNational Taiwan University of ArtsBanqiaoTaiwan

Personalised recommendations