Abstract
Although the reasons individuals have specific stable aesthetic preferences—for example, for abstract art or for classical music—are often studied (e.g., Furnham and Walker, 2001), there is a growing stream of research (e.g., Nodine et al., 1993; Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2004; Axelsson, 2007; Kozbelt and Seeley, 2007; Silvia, 2007; Myszkowski et al., 2014) that is interested in the various abilities involved when evaluating art: Are we all equally “armed” to process aesthetic stimuli? Our aim in this paper is to propose a new direction for this stream of research. While a typical approach to the study of aesthetic ability consists in measuring single facets, notably aesthetic sensitivity (e.g., Myszkowski et al., 2014), we propose a multi-content approach. More specifically, mirroring the “g-to-IQ” shift in intelligence measurement, we want to propose a “T-to-AQ” shift from single-content measures of “good taste” (“T”) to comprehensive assessments of an “Aesthetic Quotient” (AQ), which would include other facets of aesthetic ability—like artistic knowledge, sensitivity to complexity and aesthetic empathy. Rather that questioning the existence of an AQ, we argue its usefulness, notably in predicting creative potential and achievement.
Highlights
INTEGRATING CONNECTED CONSTRUCTSAmong what were designed as pure “T” measures, the Design Judgment Test (Graves, 1948) and the Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test (Götz, 1985) have been, because of their psychometrical qualities, the most heavily used (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2004; Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004; Myszkowski et al, 2014; Summerfeldt et al, 2015)
Reviewed by: Aaron Kozbelt, Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, USA
What we propose as a central construct to aesthetic ability has gone by many names—“Aesthetic Judgment” (Meier, 1940; Graves, 1948), “Aesthetic Perception” (Meier, 1963) or “Aesthetic Sensitivity” (Götz, 1985)—but it is commonly referred to as “T” for “Taste” (Eysenck, 1983; Myszkowski et al, 2014), which embraces the most clearly its definition: It is the ability to respond to aesthetic stimuli in agreement with “external standards” (Child, 1964)
Summary
Among what were designed as pure “T” measures, the Design Judgment Test (Graves, 1948) and the Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test (Götz, 1985) have been, because of their psychometrical qualities, the most heavily used (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2004; Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004; Myszkowski et al, 2014; Summerfeldt et al, 2015). When building these measures, researchers have built items that are not representative of the entire visual domain, and we could point to many signs of this lack of representativeness— the stimuli of these tests are mostly black and white (or black, gray and white) paintings (Götz, 1985). These measures have been severely criticized as not being representative of “T.” Gear While intelligence researchers switched from appreciated attempts to build pure “g” measures (Raven, 1941)— which are still not measures of pure intelligence (Gignac, 2015)— to comprehensive multifactorial IQ test batteries (e.g., Wechsler, 2008), this hasn’t been the case for aesthetic ability, which hasn’t evolved from “T” to AQ
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call