Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial Complexity, Visual Complexity and Aesthetics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Spatial Complexity

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)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aitken, P. P. (1974). Judgments of pleasingness and interestingness as functions of visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 240–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelle, S. (1972). Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: the “oblique effect” in man and animals. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 266–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachelard, G. (1994). The poetics of space. Boston MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, T. L., Farina, A., & Barrett, G. W. (2009). Aesthetic landscapes: An emergent component in sustaining societies. Landscape Ecology, 24(8), 1029–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1963). Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E., & Peckham, S. (1966). The semantic differential and other measures of reaction to visual complexity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 20, 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94(2), 115–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkhoff, G. D. (1932). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cache, B. (2003). Philibert de l’ Orme Pavillon: Towards an associative architecture. Architectural design, March–April.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.-C., Wu, J.-H., & Wu, C.-C. (2011). Reduction of image complexity explains aesthetic preference for symmetry. Symmetry, 3, 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeterier, J. F. (1996). Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 34, 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, D. (2009). Humans in the land: The ethics and aesthetics of the cultural landscape. British Journal of Aesthetics, 49(2), 188–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowther, P. (1991). Kant’s analytic of the sublime: Fro the preliminary sections to the mathematical mode. The kantian sublime, March, 78–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delplanque, J., De Loof, E., Janssens, C., & Verguts, T. (2019). The sound of beauty: How complexity determines aesthetic preference. Acta Psychologica, 192, 146–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donderi, D. C. (2006). Visual complexity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 73–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenman, R. (1967). Complexity-simplicity: I. Preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity. Psychonomic Science, 8(4), 169–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenman, R., & Gellens, H. K. (1968). Preference for complexity–simplicity and symmetry–asymmetry. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26, 888–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48, 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, T. M., & Mao, Y. (1999a). Designing tie knots by random walks. Nature, 398, 31–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, T. M., & Mao, Y. (1999b). Tie knots, random walks and topology. Physica A, 276, 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, S. (2001). Beauty from complexity. Contemporary Physics, 42(5), 323–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gombrich, E. (1979). The sense of order: A study in the psychology of decorative art. Oxford: Phaidon press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensel, M., Menges, A., & Weinstock, N. (2006). Techniques and technologies in morphogenetic design. Architectural Design, 76, 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, T. (2004). Individual and group modelling of aesthetic judgment strategies. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R., Hofel, L., & Cramon, D. Y. (2006). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage, 29, 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, C. (1997). Nonlinear architecture. New science—New architecture. Architectural Design, 67, 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandinsky, W. (1931). Reflexions sur l’ art abstrait. Cahiers d’ Art, 7(8), 351–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuper, R. (2015). Preference, complexity, and color information entropy values for visual depictions of plant and vegetative growth. Horticulture Technology, 25(5), 625–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühne, O. (2012a). Urban Nature between modern and Postmodern Aesthetics: Reflections based on the social constructivist approach. Questiones Geographicae, 31(2), 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühne, O. (2018). Landscape and power in geographical space as a social-aesthetic construct. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kühne, O. (2019). Landscape theories. A Brief Introduction. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locher, P., & Nodine, C. (1989). The perceptual value of symmetry. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 17, 475–484.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Meehan, A. (1991). Celtic design: Knotwork. New York: Thames and Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R. (1995). Notes on Sculpture. In G. Battock (Ed.), Minimal art: A critical anthology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nohl, W. (2001). Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception- preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ode, A., Hagerhall, C. M., & Sang, N. (2010). Analysing visual landscape complexity: Theory and application. Landscape Research, 35(1), 111–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otahel, J. (1999). Visual Landscape Perception: Landscape pattern and Aesthetic Assessment. Ekologia Bratislava, 18(1), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadimitriou, F. (2010). Conceptual Modelling of Landscape Complexity. Landscape Research, 35(5), 563–570.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Papadimitriou, F. (2012). Modelling landscape complexity for land use management in rio de janeiro. Brazil. Land Use Policy, 29(4), 855–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, F., Norman, J., & Amanda, M. (2010). Fechner’s Aesthetics Revisited. Seeing and Perceiving, 23(3), 263–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, Y. (2010). Future directions for environmental aesthetics. Environmental Values, 19(3), 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saklofske, D. H. (1975). Visual aesthetic complexity, attractiveness and diverse exploration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 813–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2009). Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2889–2899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamps, A. E. (2002). Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 300–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamps, A. E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strumse, E. (1994). Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 293–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, L., Yamasaki, T., & Aizawa, K. (2018). Photo aesthetic quality estimation using visual complexity features. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77(5), 5189–5213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trilling, J. (1995). Medieval interlace ornament: The making of a cross-cultural idiom. Arte Medievale, 9, 59–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyrvainen, L., Silvennoinen, H., & Kolehmainen, O. (2003). Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1(3), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitz, P. C. (1966). Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science, 11, 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsor, P. (2004). Complexity in the experimental audio/visual arts. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 20, 45–53.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forschungsbereich Geographie, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Fivos Papadimitriou

Authors
  1. Fivos Papadimitriou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fivos Papadimitriou .

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation