Relationship Between Visual Complexity and Aesthetics: Application to Beauty Prediction of Photos

  • Litian SunEmail author
  • Toshihiko Yamasaki
  • Kiyoharu Aizawa
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8925)


Automatic evaluation of visual content by its aesthetic merit is becoming exceedingly important as the available volume of such content is expanding rapidly. Complexity is believed to be an important indicator of aesthetic assessment and widely used. However, psychological theories concerning complexity are only verified on limited situations, and the relationship between complexity and aesthetic experience on extensive scope of application is not yet clear. To this end, we designed an experiment to test human perception on the complexity of various photos. Then we propose a set of visual complexity features and show that the complexity level calculated from the proposed features have a near-monotonic relationship with human beings’ beauty expectation on thousands of photos. Further applications on beauty predication and quality assessment demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed method.


Aesthetic assessment Visual complexity Beauty prediction 


  1. 1.
    Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C., Kilicoglu, O.: Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29(1), 124–132 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arbelaez, P., Maire, M., Fowlkes, C., Malik, J.: Contour detection and hierarchical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 33(5), 898–916 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berlyne, D.E.: Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Hemisphere (1974)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berlyne, D.: Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donderi, D.C.: Visual complexity: a review. Psychological Bulletin 132(1), 73 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forsythe, A., Nadal, M., Sheehy, N., Cela-Conde, C.J., Sawey, M.: Predicting beauty: fractal dimension and visual complexity in art. British Journal of Psychology 102(1), 49–70 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    He, X.C., Yung, N.H.: Curvature scale space corner detector with adaptive threshold and dynamic region of support. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, ICPR 2004, vol. 2, pp. 791–794. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heath, T., Smith, S.G., Lim, B.: Tall buildings and the urban skyline the effect of visual complexity on preferences. Environment and Behavior 32(4), 541–556 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mallon, B., Redies, C., Hayn-Leichsenring, G.U.: Beauty in abstract paintings: perceptual contrast and statistical properties. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martín H, J.A., Santos, M., de Lope, J.: Orthogonal variant moments features in image analysis. Information Sciences 180(6), 846–860 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moon, P., Spencer, D.E.: Geometric formulation of classical color harmony. JOSA 34(1), 46–50 (1944)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murray, N., Marchesotti, L., Perronnin, F.: Ava: A large-scale database for aesthetic visual analysis. In: 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 2408–2415. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nasar, J.L.: What design for a presidential library? complexity, typicality, order, and historical significance. Empirical Studies of the Arts 20(1), 83–99 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reber, R.: Processing fluency, aesthetic pleasure, and culturally shared taste. In: Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, pp. 223–249 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reber, R., Schwarz, N., Winkielman, P.: Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(4), 364–382 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Redies, C., Amirshahi, S.A., Koch, M., Denzler, J.: PHOG-derived aesthetic measures applied to color photographs of artworks, natural scenes and objects. In: Fusiello, A., Murino, V., Cucchiara, R. (eds.) ECCV 2012 Ws/Demos, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7583, pp. 522–531. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rigau, J., Feixas, M., Sbert, M.: Informational aesthetics measures. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 28(2), 24–34 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Romero, J., Machado, P., Carballal, A., Santos, A.: Using complexity estimates in aesthetic image classification. Journal of Mathematics and the Arts 6(2–3), 125–136 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stamps III, A.E.: Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. The Journal of General Psychology 129(3), 300–320 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tuch, A.N., Bargas-Avila, J.A., Opwis, K., Wilhelm, F.H.: Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users experience, physiology, performance, and memory. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67(9), 703–715 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vu, C.T., Phan, T.D., Chandler, D.M.: A spectral and spatial measure of local perceived sharpness in natural images. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 21(3), 934–945 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Litian Sun
    • 1
    Email author
  • Toshihiko Yamasaki
    • 1
  • Kiyoharu Aizawa
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations