Abstract
The concept of “visual complexity” is related to spatial complexity. From landscapes to paintings and fractals, aesthetic appeal is directly related to spatial complexity (or, at least, to its determinants). In this chapter, it is examined how and why: (a) neither spatial complexity nor simplicity guarantee aesthetic appeal; (b) quite often, neither too complex nor too simple forms are relatively more preferable; (c) the aesthetic appeal of a spatial form can be scale-dependent on its spatial complexity; (d) spatially complex forms may be aesthetically pleasant only as parts themselves of a larger spatial arrangement; (e) the viewer’s perspective of a spatial extent is critical: what seems unordered and complex from one perspective, may appear ordered and simple if viewed from another; (f) spatial orientation, dispersal and aggregation affect spatial complexity and, by consequence, its aesthetic evaluations.
Woe betide him who relies solely on mathematics
(Wassily Kandinsky, 1931, p. 31)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aitken, P. P. (1974). Judgments of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 240–244.
Appelle, S. (1972). Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: the “oblique effect” in man and animals. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 266–278.
Atkins, D. L., Klapaukh, R., Browne, W. N., Zhang, M. (2010). Evolution of aesthetically pleasing images without human-in-the-loop. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, WCCI 2010—2010 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2010, 5586283.
Bachelard, G. (1994). The poetics of space. Boston MA: Beacon Press.
Barrett, T. L., Farina, A., & Barrett, G. W. (2009). Aesthetic landscapes: An emergent component in sustaining societies. Landscape Ecology, 24(8), 1029–1035.
Berlyne, D. E. (1963). Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 274–290.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279–286.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Novelty, complexity, and interestingness. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 175–180). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Berlyne, D. E., & Ogilvie, J.C. (1974). Dimensions of perception of paintings. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 181–226). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Berlyne, D. E., Ogilvie, J. C., & Parham, L. C. C. (1968). The dimensionality of visual complexity, interestingness, and pleasingness. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 376–387.
Berlyne, D. E., & Peckham, S. (1966). The semantic differential and other measures of reaction to visual complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 20, 125–135.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94(2), 115–147.
Birkhoff, G. D. (1932). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cache, B. (2003). Philibert de l’ Orme Pavillon: Towards an associative architecture. Architectural design, March–April.
Campbell, F. W., Kulikowski, J. J., & Levinson, J. (1966). The effect of orientation on the visual resolution of gratings. Journal of Physiology, 187, 427–436.
Chassy, P., Lindell, T. A. E., Jones, J. A., Paramei, G. V. (2015). A relationship between visual complexity and aesthetic appraisal of car front images: An eye-tracker study. Perception, 0(0), 1–13.
Chen, C.-C., Wu, J.-H., & Wu, C.-C. (2011). Reduction of image complexity explains aesthetic preference for symmetry. Symmetry, 3, 443–456.
Choin, J. H., & Lee, H.-J. (2012). Facets of simplicity for the smartphone interface: A structural model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70, 129–142.
Coeterier, J. F. (1996). Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 34, 27–44.
Cooper, D. (2009). Humans in the land: The ethics and aesthetics of the cultural landscape. British Journal of Aesthetics, 49(2), 188–191.
Creusen, M. H., Veryzer, R., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2010). Product value importance and consumer preference for visual complexity and symmetry. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9), 1437–1452.
Crowther, P. (1991). Kant’s analytic of the sublime: Fro the preliminary sections to the mathematical mode. The kantian sublime, March, 78–108.
Day, H. (1967). Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 281–286.
Delplanque, J., De Loof, E., Janssens, C., & Verguts, T. (2019). The sound of beauty: How complexity determines aesthetic preference. Acta Psychologica, 192, 146–152.
Deng, L., & Scott Poole, M. (2012). Aesthetic design of e-commerce web pages—Webpage Complexity, Order and preference. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11, 420–440.
Donderi, D. C. (2006). Visual complexity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 73–97.
Eisenman, R. (1967). Complexity-simplicity: I. Preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity. Psychonomic Science, 8(4), 169–170.
Eisenman, R., & Gellens, H. K. (1968). Preference for complexity–simplicity and symmetry–asymmetry. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26, 888–890.
Eysenck, H. J. (1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48, 83–92.
Fink, T. M., & Mao, Y. (1999a). Designing tie knots by random walks. Nature, 398, 31–32.
Fink, T. M., & Mao, Y. (1999b). Tie knots, random walks and topology. Physica A, 276, 109–121.
Franco, D., Franco, D., Mannino, I., & Zanetto, G. (2003). The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation—The role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landscape and Urban planning, 62(3), 119–138.
Galbraith, S. (2001). Beauty from complexity. Contemporary Physics, 42(5), 323–325.
Gombrich, E. (1979). The sense of order: A study in the psychology of decorative art. Oxford: Phaidon press.
Hensel, M., Menges, A., & Weinstock, N. (2006). Techniques and technologies in morphogenetic design. Architectural Design, 76, 78–87.
Jacobsen, T. (2004). Individual and group modelling of aesthetic judgment strategies. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 41–56.
Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R., Hofel, L., & Cramon, D. Y. (2006). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage, 29, 276–285.
Jenks, C. (1997). Nonlinear architecture. New science—New architecture. Architectural Design, 67, 6–9.
Junge, X., Jacot, K. A., Bosshard, A., & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2009). Swiss people’s attitudes towards field margins for biodiversity conservation. Journal of Nature Conservation, 17, 150–159.
Kandinsky, W. (1931). Reflexions sur l’ art abstrait. Cahiers d’ Art, 7(8), 351–353.
Krejtz, K., Szmidt, T., Duchowski, A.T., Krejtz, I. (2014). Entropy-based statistical analysis of eye movement transitions. Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium (ETRA), 159–166.
Krupinski, E., & Locher, P. (1988). Skin conductance and aesthetic evaluative responses to nonrepresentational works of art varying in symmetry. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 355–358.
Kuper, R. (2015). Preference, complexity, and color information entropy values for visual depictions of plant and vegetative growth. Horticulture Technology, 25(5), 625–634.
Kühne, O. (2012a). Urban Nature between modern and Postmodern Aesthetics: Reflections based on the social constructivist approach. Questiones Geographicae, 31(2), 61–70.
Kühne, O. (2012a). Stadt—Landschaft—Hybridität. Ästhetische Bezüge im postmodernen Los Angeles mit seinen modernen Persistenzen. [City - Landscape—Hybridity. Aesthetic references in postmodern Los Angeles with its modern persistence]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Kühne, O. (2018). Landscape and power in geographical space as a social-aesthetic construct. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kühne, O. (2019). Landscape theories. A Brief Introduction. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Kühne, O. & Schönwald, A. (2018). Hybridisierung und Grenze: Das Beispiel San Diego/Tijuana. [Hybridization and Borders: the example of San Diego/Tijuana]. In M.Heintel, R.Musil, & N.Weixlbaumer (Eds), Grenzen. Theoretische, konzeptionelle und praxisbezogene Fragestellungen zu Grenzen und deren Überschreitungen (pp. 401–417). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Kühne, O., Weber, F. & Jenal,C. (2018). Der Begriff ‚Landschaft‘ sowie essentialistisch und positivistisch orientierte Zugänge. [The term ‘landscape‘, essentialist and positivist orientated approaches] In O. Kühne, F. Weber, & C. Jenal (Eds.), Neue Landschaftsgeographie. Ein Überblick (pp. 5–10). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Li, C. L., Yeung, Y. C., Chiu, W. K., & Yu, K. M. (2007). Modelling of Complex Fractal Objects for Aesthetic Product Development. International Journal of Product Development, 4(3–4), 207–224.
Liu, H., & Luo, J. (1996). A method for generating super large fractal images useful for decoration art. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 1(3), 24–27.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., & Bose, E. (2007). Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 298–307.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegela, R., Schopbach, B., & Junge, X. (2010). Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98, 99–109.
Locher, P., & Nodine, C. (1989). The perceptual value of symmetry. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 17, 475–484.
Meehan, A. (1991). Celtic design: Knotwork. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Morris, R. (1995). Notes on Sculpture. In G. Battock (Ed.), Minimal art: A critical anthology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Nohl, W. (2001). Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception- preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 223–237.
Ode, A., Hagerhall, C. M., & Sang, N. (2010). Analysing visual landscape complexity: Theory and application. Landscape Research, 35(1), 111–131.
Otahel, J. (1999). Visual Landscape Perception: Landscape pattern and Aesthetic Assessment. Ekologia Bratislava, 18(1), 63–74.
Palmer, S.E. (1991). On goodness, gestalt, groups, and garner: local symmetry subgroups as a theory of figural goodness. In G. Lockhead, & J. Pomerantz (Eds.), The perception of structure: essays in honor of Wendell R. Garner. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Papadimitriou, F. (2010). Conceptual Modelling of Landscape Complexity. Landscape Research, 35(5), 563–570.
Papadimitriou, F. (2012). Modelling landscape complexity for land use management in rio de janeiro. Brazil. Land Use Policy, 29(4), 855–861.
Phillips, F., Norman, J., & Amanda, M. (2010). Fechner’s Aesthetics Revisited. Seeing and Perceiving, 23(3), 263–271.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon press.
Saito, Y. (2010). Future directions for environmental aesthetics. Environmental Values, 19(3), 373–391.
Saklofske, D. H. (1975). Visual aesthetic complexity, attractiveness and diverse exploration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 813–814.
Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2009). Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2889–2899.
Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2010). The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy, 27, 827–842.
Stamps, A. E. (2002). Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 300–320.
Stamps, A. E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1–16.
Strumse, E. (1994). Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 293–303.
Sun, L., Yamasaki, T., & Aizawa, K. (2018). Photo aesthetic quality estimation using visual complexity features. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77(5), 5189–5213.
Tinio, P. P. L., & Leder, H. (2009). Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica, 130, 241–250.
Trilling, J. (1995). Medieval interlace ornament: The making of a cross-cultural idiom. Arte Medievale, 9, 59–86.
Tyrvainen, L., Silvennoinen, H., & Kolehmainen, O. (2003). Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1(3), 135–149.
Vitz, P. C. (1966). Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science, 11, 105–114.
Williams, N.R., Willenbockel, V., & Gauthier, I. (2009). Sensitivity to spatial frequency and orientation content is not specific to face perception. Vision Research, 49, 2353–2362.
Winsor, P. (2004). Complexity in the experimental audio/visual arts. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 20, 45–53.
Wu, Κ., Vassilev, J., Zhao, Y., Noorian, Z., Waldner, W., & Adaji, I. (2016). Complexity or simplicity? Designing product pictures for advertising in online marketplaces. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 17–27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Papadimitriou, F. (2020). Spatial Complexity, Visual Complexity and Aesthetics. In: Spatial Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59671-2_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59671-2_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59670-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59671-2
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)