Psychology of Art

One can suppose that the psychology of art began when the first Magdalenian peoples entered the grottos of Lascaux to discover there elaborate realistic wall paintings. How were these people affected by what they saw, and what did those images mean to them? Intriguingly, some Paleolithic animal drawings show signs of having been struck with blunt objects, as if in ritualistic killing. Or, one can suppose that the psychology of art began somewhat earlier when the same peoples actually painted on those cave walls. Why and how did these painters create such art works? Doubtlessly, prehistoric art served religious and social functions, but the quality and surety of these depictions and the fact that some gallery drawings are superimposed on earlier etchings suggest that artistry for its own sake was also involved. Or, perhaps, the psychology of art began when those same painters first thought to depict their ideas or subjects from life around them.

The questions that these earliest art works provoke are the same that arise today when we wander through the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the British Museum in London, or the Louvre in Paris. We wonder what works of art mean to their audience and how works of art affect an audience. We wonder too how and why artists create works that fire our imagination and quicken our feelings. We also wonder what purposes art serves. These questions define and motivate a psychology of art, and the psychological questions art provokes constitute the foci around which this essay is organized.

Art is a curious and in many ways paradoxical aspect of life. Humans expend great energy and resources on art, though it seems to be of little biological necessity or relevance. Unlike many things, art must be experienced first-hand-to be told about a painting, a building, or a sculpture is wholly unsatisfying. Art is conveyed in form and content, but the experience of art transcends both; moreover, the subject theme and materials matter, but attention specifically drawn to them can detract from their very effect. Art is private and often wholly idiosyncratic, but it is also largely public-opinion and preference vary in art as much or more than anywhere in human experience, but there is also surprisingly wide consensus. Further, emotion and understanding in art may be coincident or not-one may understand and enjoy a painting, be moved in the absence of comprehension, have insight without feeling, or neither apprehend nor emote in the presence of works of art. The psychology of art must be concerned with all of these contradictory and mysterious dimensions of the art experience.

Freud's insights in art were broad and sweeping; he endeavored to bring art under a general psychological theory of personality. Gustav Fechner ( 1801-1887) originated the scientific tradition. Fechner's views about art were focused and narrow; he thought to submit art to experimental analytic investigation in the laboratory. Though these two different paths have led to seemingly different perspectives on art, a panorama of the psychology of art is more detailed and richly textured for their joint efforts.