Cultural influences on artistic depiction
a psychological perspective on art historyBachelorthesis Social Psychology Name: Eva Specker
Student number: 6234305/10004684 Supervisor: Eftychia Stamkou
Index
Abstract 3
Cultural influences on artistic depiction 3
Discerning a Cultural Shift 6
Cultural Change and its Reflection in Art 9
Conclusion and Research Proposal 13
Method 13
Results 14
Discussion 15
Abstract
The present study draws on the work by Masuda et al. (2008) which showed that cultural differences between collectivism and individualism, specifically in the importance of context, are reflected in the art produced by those cultures. I discern a cultural shift in the cultural context of the West from collectivism to individualism in the 17th century. I then investigate if this is reflected in the art of the different periods by analyzing and comparing landscapes and portraits produced before and after the 17th century. As expected, the location of the horizon was higher in the collectivistic period in comparison with the individualistic period. Contrary to my hypothesis the face-size of the collectivistic period was larger than that of the individualistic period. I argue that the latter findings can be explained by a restriction of artistic freedom when creating portraits and a lack of theoretical fit. A larger face size is assumed to facilitate the separation of figure and ground, however seeing as most portraits included in the study (approximately 70%) had a single colour background this function is eliminated. Futhermore, portraits are by their very nature pictures wherein the focus is on a focal object, namely the person portrayed. Thus it can be questioned how well the theoretical framework of separation of figure and ground fits on this type of painting. Thus I conclude that the data support the notion of a connection between artistic depiction and the
sociocultural environment and lends support to the idea that psychological factors, in this case cultural influences, influence art production.
Cultural influences on artistic depiction
Art research within the domain of psychology mainly focuses on perception, ranging from
nativistic to directed perception. Nativistic perception concerns itself with how vision works
biologically and the implications thereof (Solso, 2003; Mather, 2013). Directed perception concerns itself with the subjectivity in perception and how, for example, knowledge directly structures our perception (Solso, 2003). Van Tilburg and Igou (2014) for example, investigated how the stereotype of the artist as eccentric influences our perception of artistic skill and art appreciation. They found that as perceived artist eccentricity increases so does the evaluation of artistic skill and level of art appreciation (Van Tilburg & Igou, 2014).
However it seems only logical that psychological processes not only play a role in our perception of art but also in the process of making art. Masuda, Gonzalez, Kwan and Nisbett
(2008), made a first step towards investigating this question. Their study focused on the influence of collectivistic vs. individualistic cultures on art. They compared collectivistic (East Asian) and individualistic (Western) art on measures of horizon height and face size. These measures resulted from a theoretical framework which postulates that collectivistic cultures pay more attention to context, relations between objects/people, and have in a sense a “binding” of the object to the context (e.g., Ji,Peng & Nisbett, 2000; Kitayama, Duffy, Kawamura & Larsen, 2003; Masuda & Nisbett, 2001). In addition Choi, Dalal, Kim-Prieto and Park (2003) have demonstrated that people from collectivistic cultures have the desire to include more pieces of information when making attributions. Thus they expected that collectivistic cultures would have a higher horizon height (enabling the inclusion of more contextual information) and that individualistic cultures would have a larger face size (enabling the separation of figure and ground). Their results supported their hypotheses.
Despite this convincing evidence one might argue that other relevant aspects could be causing the difference in artistic style between these cultures. For example, different conventions of drawing learned in school education, exposure to different visual styles, differences in the roles
visual images play, different aesthetic norms, differences in physical environments etc., as argued by Istomin, Panáková and Heady (2014). In their study of three indigenous and non-indigenous cultural groups in northwestern and northeastern Siberia they found support for the hypothesis that cultural differences in artistic styles can be related to underlying perceptual tendencies, specifically the attention accorded to contextual information. Furthermore they found support for the
hypothesis that these tendencies reflect corresponding differences in patterns of social and environmental interaction. To paraphrase, they hypothesized that differences in social and environmental interaction would result in a difference in collectivism/individualism in a cultural group. They also hypothesized that this would cause differences in artistic style. Thus they used different cultural groups who differed on measures of collectivism/individualism but at the same time operated within a larger cultural framework (and thus holding things such as education
constant), and found support for these hypotheses. They thus showed that one can find the expected difference on height of the horizon within one cultural context as a consequence of variation of the degree of collectivism/individualism.
Other studies have also found support for the influence of culture conceptualized as
collectivistic vs. individualistic on cultural products. The meta-analysis of Morling and Lamoreaux (2008) showed effects of collectivism/individualism on a whole range of cultural products; such as a broad scope of advertisement (TV, Internet, magazines), attributions in press coverage, song lyrics, religious texts, children's books to name but a few. Similarly implications of culture for art, design and advertisement have been described by Masuda, Wang and Senzaki (2012). Furthermore Huang and Park (2013), using the methodology of Masuda et. al. (2008), have even found cultural influences on Facebook photographs.
Taken together, these studies illustrate that influences of collectivism/individualism can be found in a whole range of cultural products including works of art. They also provide
psychological backing for art-historical ideas about the connections between visual styles and other aspects of sociocultural development.
Thus, the aims of the present study are twofold. First it aims to support the claim that psychological factors influence art production. Building on the literature discussed, the present study looks into the influence of the psychological factor of culture, specifically collectivism vs. individualism, on art production. The second aim is to support the notion that there is a connection between artistic depiction and the sociocultural environment. Seeing as cultures are in constant flux it assumes that differences between cultures in artistic depiction can not only be found in the present day but also in history. It assumes that, with the variation of the level of collectivism/individualism, one can find corresponding differences in artistic style within one cultural context, as Istomin, Panáková and Heady (2014) have shown.
To fulfill the second aim, this study will first look into the history of one cultural context, in this case the West, to discern a shift from collectivism to individualism, which is currently
dominant. It will then investigate if this cultural shift can be connected to the artistic depiction of the time. To do this the relevant art historic literature will first be discussed. Then the focus will shift to psychology. By use of the methodology of Masuda et al. (2008), paintings from the collectivistic period will be compared to paintings from the individualistic period on measures of horizon height and face size. Taken together this investigation should be able to establish whether there is a connection between artistic depiction and the sociocultural environment and should also be able to support the claim that psychological factors, in this case the degree of
individualism/collectivism of a culture, influence art production.
Discerning a Cultural Shift
When looking into the cultural history of the West one can find evidence for a cultural shift
in the 17th century (Ashworth 1990; Bono, 1999; Rupp 1990, Davies et al., 2011) which can be
described as a shift from a collectivistic to an individualistic culture. Ashworth (1990) describes the
Emblematic world view which was dominant in the West until the second half of the 17th century.
Within the Emblematic world view: context and the relations between things are central concepts (Ashworth, 1990). As such, the Emblematic world view can be described as collectivistic, which is
most evident in the description of Ashworth (1990) saying that in the Emblematic world view : “to know something one must know the entire context.” As discussed in the introduction, within collectivistic cultures there is a high level of importance of context (e.g., Ji, Peng & Nisbett, 2000; Kitayama et al., 2003; Masuda & Nisbett, 2001). Ashworth (1990) discusses the change from this Emblematic world view into a Taxonomic world view (which can be seen as individualistic) that dominated the second half of the 17th century. This change is described as part of the Scientific Revolution and was further worked out by Bono (1999). Davies et al. (2011) even place this cultural change, which they described as a re-evaluation of humanity and its relation to the universe, at the center of understanding this century.
Rupp (1990) illustrates this change by the rise and fall of anatomical theaters. These places functioned as cultural centers not only for science but also for the arts. Due to this dual function, Rupp (1990) supposes that the anatomical theater served as a meeting place for artists and scientists and thus had a major influence on the art of that time. Davies et al. (2011) also underscore this relationship between art and science, documenting close relationships between artists and scientists of that time. When the practice of publicly dissecting corpses started at the end of the 16th century it was deeply embedded in a deeper context (Rupp, 1990). Private dissection was prohibited but public dissection was allowed and even encouraged (Rupp, 1990). Anatomy was seen as having to serve the moral good in two ways; scientifically and morally (Rupp, 1990). Both were deeply embedded in a deeper context that emphasized the relativity of human existence by use of moral messages in the form of Vanitas and Memento Mori motifs in a similar fashion the human body served as a microcosm of the macrocosm (Rupp, 1990). This can be related to the Emblematic world view of Ashworth (1990) since it is the relationship of the thing (in this case a dead body) with the rest of the world that is important. In the second half of the 17th century this deeper context began to fall away and so did the moral function of dissecting, which lead to a shift from the public dissection to private (“professional”) dissection thus leading to the disappearing of the public anatomical theaters (Rupp, 1990).
Ashworth (1990) uses works of natural history to document his point, which show a clear difference between the emblematic world view and the taxonomic world view when arranging or grouping concepts together. In the first, for example in the work History of Animals by Conrad Gesner, when one looks up the peacock one finds a complex web of associations that links the peacock with history, mythology, etymology, the rest of the animal kingdom and the rest of the cosmos (Ashworth, 1990). This is in contrast to works from the taxonomic world view where one would find merely a collection of true statements about the peacock including an anatomical description and the peacocks place in a taxonomic scheme based on physical characteristics (Ashworth, 1990). This can be connected to studies such as those by Ji, Peng, and Nisbett (2000), showing that people from collectivistic cultures are more attentive to relationships in the
environment.But even more to studies showing cultural differences of categorization (e.g.,
Norenzayan, Smith et al. 2002; Chiu, 1972; Ji, Zhang, & Nisbett, 2004). Especially the work of Chiu (1972) and Ji, Zhang, and Nisbett (2004) showing that people from collectivistic cultures categorize things on the basis of family resemblance and relationship-based processes as opposed to people from individualistic cultures who categorize things according to simple rules and shared attributes commonly applicable to all things. Ji, Zhang and Nisbett (2004) asked participants: “which one is least like the other two? A carrot, a rabbit or an eggplant?”. People from
individualistic cultures, who use simple rules and shared attributes to categorize, would answer that the rabbit does not belong since it is an animal and the others are both vegetables. As opposed to people from collectivistic cultures who, categorizing on the basis of family resemblance and relationship-based processes, would answer that the eggplant doesn't belong since rabbits and carrots have a relationship (rabbits eat carrots) that eggplants do not share. Similar differences in categorization are also evident in the works of natural history described by Ashworth (1990); works produced in the Emblematic world view include all of the relevant relationships that e.g., the peacock has to other things whereas in works produced in the Taxonomic world view these are excluded and things are ordered according to simple rules and shared attributes.
Based on the discussed literature a cultural shift can be discerned in the 17th century from collectivism to individualism within the cultural context of the West. Though it is important to note that cultural change does not happen in a year but is a gradual and complex process for pragmatic reasons, it is important to make a specific distinction between the collectivistic and individualistic periods. Thus the collectivistic period will be conceptualized as the period before 1650 and the individualistic period as the period after 1650. However, before the question of whether one can find the influences of collectivism vs. individualism on measures of face size and horizon height when comparing art of the period until the first half of the 17th century (art before 1650) with art of the second half of the 17th century onward (art after 1650) can be investigated, it is necessary to take the relevant art historic literature into account.
Cultural change and its reflection in art
When discussing the reflection of the described cultural change in art there are a few issues that need to be addressed. First and foremost, it is important to note that with the development of time there is a coinciding stylistic development. It seems implausible however that differences between collectivistic and individualistic cultures should be solely attributed to stylistic differences. Studies studying the drawings of lay people support this claim (Masuda et al. 2008; Istomin,
Panáková & Heady, 2014). In both studies lay people were asked to draw simple landscape scenes. Both found higher horizons for collectivistic cultures as well as a higher rate of inclusion of
contextual objects. In addition Istomin, Panáková and Heady (2014) also noted a smaller size of objects in general for drawings originating from collectivistic cultures. In another task Masuda et al. (2008) asked lay people to take pictures of a confederate with a simple camera with zoom function. The zoom function allowed participants to vary the size of the model in the frame. As expected people from collectivistic cultures composed photographs in which the model was smaller in comparison with photographs made by people from individualistic cultures. Furthermore Masuda, Wang, and Senzaki (2012) report on a study done by Senzaki and Masuda (2011) looking into the developmental course of such cultural influences in children from age 6 to 12. They found that
children of both individualistic and collectivistic cultures understood the concept of the horizon by age 9. The children did however differ in the drawings they produced, as expected children from a collectivistic culture drew a higher horizon and a larger number of objects, which is consistent with other studies showing cultural influences around the age of 9 (Ji, 2008; Minoura, 1992).
These findings counter the idea that such differences are due to stylistic developments rather than a consequence of the influence of culture. Adding to this is the existence of image traditions, themes, and types in art history and iconography (Lash, 1998). Creating similar depictions of the same theme or type regardless of considerable stylistic development and variation, illustrating that style does not dictate all of artistic depiction.
Another issue is the use of perspective, which Kubovy (1986) attributes two functions to. The first is to rationalize the representation of space and the second is to draw the spectators' eye to the focal object or action in a painting. The latter can be seen as a reflection of individualism where more attention is paid to this focal object rather than to the context (e.g., Ji, Peng & Nisbett, 2000; Kitayama, Duffy, Kawamura & Larsen, 2003; Masuda & Nisbett, 2001). Though perspective can certainly have this second function it is not necessary. One can also use perspective in combination with a birds-eye view which would lead to a grand overview of a scene rather than draw attention to a focal object such as in The Battle of Issos by Albrecht Altdorfer (1529). Thus it is not perspective
an sich that draws attention to a focal object, but how it is used. Consequently perspective an sich
can not be linked to individualism as such and the fact that its (re)invention is placed in the 15th century (Kubovy, 1986) is not problematic.
Lastly, as we have seen Rupp (1990) and Davies et al. (2011) already supposed a connection
between the cultural developments of the 17th century and art produced during that time. In art
history this has mostly been represented in a debate on symbol and meaning in Dutch art of the 17th
century within the domain of iconology. Iconology attempts to explain the very basis for the existence of a work of art and its entire meaning (Lash, 1998). With reference to the broader cultural background, the iconologist pinpoints those features of a work of art that can be seen as
symptomatic of a specific culture (Lash, 1998). Thus psychological studies of influence of
collectivism/individualism on cultural products (e.g., Masuda et al., 2008; Morling & Lamoreaux, 2008; Huang & Park, 2013) including the present study can be seen as existing within the
framework of iconology, since they attempt to explain a work of art (or another cultural product) as symptomatic of a specific culture.
The iconological debate concerning the 17th century can be split up in two camps, to use the
distinction of Lowenthal (1986), the “iconologists” and the “descriptionists”. The iconologists of who de Jong (e.g., 1976) is the main advocate believe that painters in the 17th century were
continually using realistic depictions to transfer a thought or moral idea. The main method to unveil these “hidden meanings” behind the realistic depictions are emblems (mainly in the form of emblem books). Emblems consist of three parts: a visual image, a short motto and a slightly longer epigram (Ashworth, 1990; De Jong, 1976). Interestingly these emblems are exactly what Ashworth (1990) named his Emblematic world view after. The descriptionists of who Alpers (e.g., 1975/6, 1978/79) is the leading spokesperson see the same art primarily as describing the world. As a consequence of this new way of seeing things introduced by Alpers and the reintroduction of the work of Van de Waal (1952), the debate has led to a synthesis of both views (e.g., Lowenthal, 1986; Hecht, 1986; Sluijters, 1990; Bedaux, 1980). This synthesis is best described by Hecht (1986): “Much as
superficial resemblance between a picture and an illustration in an emblem book can be misleading, without the value of emblematic literature as a source for our understanding of Dutch seventeenth-century painting being a serious topic of dispute, the perfectly legitimate study of the formal relation between two pictures can also lead us very much astray.”
Of more interest to the present study are less central ideas written in the articles concerning this debate. Alpers (1975/6) for example notes that the bird-eye view of perspective is dominant in most kermis paintings which, when knowing the connection of that perspective with collectivism (Masuda et. al., 2008), point into the direction of collectivism. Unfortunately she does not specify
renders one of her sources of interpretation of these pictures irrelevant since it dates from 1672. Miedema (1977) furthermore notices a change in depiction (in this case of peasants) from around the middle of the 17th century, he states that the source of this change is for him unknown but it is certain something had changed. In light of the present article it can be suggested that this is linked to the cultural change at the time. Miedema (1977) also states that the art of the first few decades of
the 17th century display an overwhelming preference for the expression of ideas and for an
intellectual comprehension of the subjects depicted. Though he does not state that this is not the case in the second half, it is of course suggested in his comment which specifically points to the first few decades as opposed to the entire 17th century. This difference can of course be seen in relation to the collectivism vs. individualism distinction. The notion that in the first half of the 17th century collectivism was dominant corresponds with Miedema's notion (1977) of the art of that period since in this type of art the context is of higher importance. Lastly, de Jong (1976) describes a difference between the theorist Jacob Cats (1577-1660), who advocates for purposely giving depictions multiple meanings, and the theorist Gerard Lairesse, who in the work Groot Schilderboek of 1707 argues for a clarity within a work where the entire context references one single
interpretation (De Jong, 1976). De Jong (1976) describes the difficulty in choosing which way of thinking (that of Cats or of Lairesse) to apply when interpreting a work of art. However, since Jacob Cats lived during the first half of the 17th century and Lairesse's work is from the beginning of the
18th we can see these diverging views as symptomatic of collectivism and individualism. Where in
collectivism more attention is paid to the context it would be stimulating and interesting if this context provided different interpretations. Whilst in individualism, where the focal object takes a more important place, one would assume a preference for a context that would facilitate one single interpretation. Interestingly enough it is this possibility of multiple meanings that has been
described by later theorists such as Hecht (1986), Lowenthal (1986), Bedaux (1980) and Sluijter (1990) as an important factor that needs to be taken into account when investigating the meaning of
paintings to a single interpretation using emblems. Sluijter (1990) further introduced the argument of the importance of image traditions or conventional ways of portrayal, as previously discussed, in artistic depiction. In particular their function of directing differing associations to convey meaning, which could be specified by the viewer by use of their own background (Sluijter, 1990).
When taken together, these somewhat peripheral notions in the debate and articles can be seen as related to the cultural change of that time and the concepts of collectivism and
individualism. Thus making a relation between the cultural change of the time and artistic depiction seem plausible.
Conclusion and Research Proposal
Taking the reviewed literature together it can now be concluded that when looking at the cultural history of the West a cultural shift can be discerned. This cultural shift appears to have
taken place during the 17th century and can be described in terms of the psychological concepts of
collectivism and individualism. It holds a shift from a collectivistic culture (before 1650) to an individualistic culture (after 1650). In regard to artistic depiction it seems plausible that a relation between the cultural change of the 17th century and artistic depiction of that time exists. Thus the focus can now shift to psychology and the question of whether the expected differences based on Masuda et.al (2008) in face size and horizon height can be found when comparing the art of these different periods in Western cultural history.
I would therefore hypothesize that art produced before 1650 (collectivistic period) should have a higher horizon and a smaller face size as compared to art produced after 1650
(individualistic period).
Method Materials
Digital images accessible on the website of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam were selected. In
total 300 paintings of the period 1500-1650 were included (200 of the period 1500-1600 and 100 of the period 1600-1650) and 300 paintings of the period 1650-1800 were included (100 of the period
1650-1700 and 200 of the period 1700-1800). The selected images were partitioned in two
categories: landscapes and portraits. Landscapes refer to artworks that treat nature as a central topic. To find these works the search term landscape (“landschap” in Dutch) was used. Paintings with a prominent figurative scene were excluded. For the categories 1500-1600 and 1700-1800 prints and drawings were included in order to include enough art works. For all other categories only paintings were included. Artworks which were dated in an overlapping fashion (e.g., 1600-1699 or 1640-1660) were excluded since their production time was unclear and could for this study not be appropriately categorized in the period before or after 1650. In other cases where the dating was a time frame the first year was used to categorize the work. Portraits refer to artworks in which a single person is depicted. To find these works the search term portrait (“portret” in Dutch) was used. All other types of artworks were excluded from analysis. In some cases it was impossible to discern what the edges of the frame were of a work on the website of the Rijksmuseum, as a consequence these artworks were excluded. All categories and included paintings can be found at:
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/rijksstudio/146613—eva-specker/verzamelingen.
Criteria of measurement
The criteria of measurements were derived from Masuda et al. (2008). Height of horizon
was measured as the ratio between the distance from the bottom of the picture to the location of the horizon and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the top of the picture. Note that this differs from the methodology used by Masuda et al. (2008) where only the measure of the distance between the bottom of the picture to the location of the horizon was used. I chose to use the
aforementioned ratio instead to eliminate effects of different sizes of paintings. The distinction of Masuda et al. (2008) between four types of horizons was used in measuring the horizon height. When either a flat field horizon or a flat water horizon was present those were measured. If a protuberance (such as hills) obscured the identification of the horizon the average locations of the summit and the bottom were measured. If a horizonless field occupied the entire space, the top part of the frame was considered. Face size was measured by the ratio of the area of the face compared
to the area of the entire frame. Area of the face was measured by the following criteria: a) height was determined by measuring the distance from the chin to the top of the head, including hair or hat and b) width was determined by measuring the longest horizontal distance across the face excluding hair and hat. All measurements were executed with GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP).
Results
Acknowledging that cultural change is a gradual and complex process, the 17th century in
which the cultural change occurred, was excluded from initial analysis. For landscapes 100 paintings of the collectivistic period (1500-1600) and 100 paintings of the individualistic period (1700-1800) were included. The location of the horizon was higher in the collectivistic period (M= 54.49 , SD= 14.16) in comparison with the individualistic period (M=38.30, SD=12.58 ), t(198) = 8.55, p < .001. Even when the 17th century was included in the analysis, the location of the horizon was higher in the collectivistic period (M= 50.17 , SD= 15.37) than in the individualistic period (M= 38.61 , SD= 11.49), thus the effect remained, t(275.89) = 7.38, p < .001. For portraits 100 paintings of the collectivistic period (1500-1600) and 100 paintings of the individualistic period (1700-1800) were included. Contrary to the hypothesis the face size of the collectivistic period was larger (M= 12.19 , SD= 10.76) than that of the individualistic period (M= 8.47 , SD= 6.35),
t(160.49) = 2.98, p < .05. After inclusion of the 17th century in the analysis the face size of the
collectivistic period (M= 12.47, SD = 9.85) remained larger than that of the individualistic period (M= 7.59, SD= 5.67), t(238.09) = 5.27, p < .001.
Discussion
I found that the cultural change of the 17th century had a significant effect on the placement of the horizon. The data suggest that there is a connection between artistic depiction and the sociocultural environment and lends support to the idea that psychological factors influence art production. For portraits a pattern opposite to my hypothesis was observed. There are several explanations for this finding. First and foremost, portraits are most often commissioned works especially during the period investigated. This might have restricted the freedom of artists when
painting and made factors such as the client wishes and expectations on their portraiture more influential, leaving less room for cultural influences. Furthermore, most of the portraits included in
this study (of both periods) had a background consisting of a single colour. When excluding the 17th
century, 142 of the 200 paintings included (71%) had a single colour background, when including
the 17th century, 208 of the 300 paintings included (69.33%) had a single colour background. Thus
the question arises of how well the theoretical framework fits. The theoretical idea behind the measure of face size is that a larger face facilitates the separation of figure and ground. In this function it can be a reflection of individualism in which a focal object, in this case the person portrayed, is most important and thus separation of figure and ground is important. However, when the ground consists of a single colour one would assume that separation of figure and ground is already clear enough, thus eliminating an effect of face size and leaving more room for influences of style. Lastly, portraits are by their very nature pictures wherein the focus is on a focal object, namely the person portrayed. Thus it can be questioned how well the theoretical framework of separation of figure and ground fits on this type of painting. Taken together it seems reasonable to assume that the location of the horizon is a better indication of cultural change than face size which is subject to influences of the client and whose indicative function can be eliminated by use of a single colour background or even the type of painting. Though it remains unclear what caused the significant difference between face sizes of the collectivistic and individualistic period it seems reasonable to assume that they were caused by influences not related to cultural change. I thus maintain that the data supports the notion of a connection between artistic depiction and the sociocultural environment and lends support to the idea that psychological factors influence art production.
For further research it seems advisable not to use the measure of face size as an indicator of collectivism/individualism due to the problems surrounding this measure outlined above. The measure of horizon height doesn't seem to have these problems. Though stylistic development can certainly influence the way a landscape appears it seems illogical that this would influence the
placement of the horizon. Where styles such as mannerism and rococo which value odd shapes and forms can be assumed to influence a face size though they can influence the way certain features are painted in a landscape an influence on horizon height seems less likely. The same can be said for paintings made for a client. Though this can be assumed to have considerable influence on face size it seems more plausible that when landscapes are commissioned the client's influence would be more concerned with what scene was portrayed, e.g., the client's residence, than with the location of the horizon. Other measures that can be used, when working with simple drawings made by
participants, are the rate of inclusion of contextual objects used by Masuda et al. (2008) and Istomin, Panáková and Heady (2014) and the size of objects in general used by Istomin, Panáková and Heady (2014). An interesting supplement to the present study would be a research in which collectivism/individualism was manipulated. Afterwards participants can be asked to draw a simple landscape which will be analyzed on the height of the horizon, rate of inclusion of contextual objects, and the size of objects in general. A manipulation allows one to directly examine the effect of a variation of the level of collectivism/individualism influences artistic depiction within a group of participants who share a broader cultural context. As such it eliminates a lot of alternative explanations, as outlined by Istomin, Panáková and Heady (2014), which can be argued when comparing participants who do not share a broader cultural context. Thus bringing us one step closer in understanding the psychological processes involved in artistic creation.
References
Alpers, S. (1975-1976). Realism as a Comic Mode: Low-life Painting Seen through Bredero's Eyes.
Simiolus, The Netherlands Quartely for the History of Art, 8,3, 115-144. doi:
dx.doi.org/10.2307/3780447
Alpers, S. (1978-1979). Taking Pictures Seriously: A Reply to Hessel Miedema. Simiolus, The
Netherlands Quartely for the History of Art, 10, 1, 46-50. doi: dx.doi.org/10.2307/3780562
Ashworth, W.B.Jr. (1990). Natural History and the Emblematic World View. In D.C. Lindberg and R. S. Westman (Ed.), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (pp 303-332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bono, J.J. (1999). From paracelsus to Newton: The Word of God, the Book of Nature, and the Eclipse of the 'Emblematic World View'. In Force and Popkin (Ed.), Newton and Religion (pp.45-76). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2426-5_3
Chiu, L-H. (1972). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Cognitive Styles in Chinese and American Children. International Journal of Psychology, 7,4, 235-242. doi:
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207597208246604
Choi, I., Dalal, R., Kim-Prieto, C., & Park, H. (2003). Culture and judgment of causal relevance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 46–59. doi:
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.46
Davies, J.E., Denny, W.B., Hofrichter, F.F., Jacobs, J., Roberts, A.M., & Simon, D.L. (2010).
Janson's History of Art: the Western Tradition. (8th edition), Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall.
De Jongh, E. (1976). Tot lering en vermaak, betekenissen van Hollandse genrevoorstellingen in de
Hecht, P. (1986). The Debate on Symbol and Meaning in Dutch Seventeenth-century Art: An Appeal to Common Sense. Simiolus, The Netherlands Quartely for the History of Art, 16,
2/3, 173-187. doi: dx.doi.org/10.2307/3780637
Huang, C-M., & Park, D. (2013). Cultural Influences on Facebook Photographs. International
Journal of Psychology, 48,3, 334-343. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.649285
Istomin, K.V., Panáková, J., & Heady, P. (2014). Culture, Perception and Artistic Visualization: A Comparative Study of Children's Drawings in Three Siberian Cultural Groups. Cognitive
Science,38, 76-100. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12051
Ji, L. (2008). The leopard cannot change his spots, or can he? Culture and the development of lay theories of change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 613–622. doi:
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167207313935
Ji, L., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control and perception of relationship in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 943-955. doi:
dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.5.943
Ji, L., Zhang,Z., & Nisbett, R.E. (2004). Is It Culture or Is It Language? Examination of Language Effects in Cross-Cultural Research on Categorization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87,1, 57-65. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.57
Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., Kawamura, T., & Larsen, J. T. (2003). Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures: A cultural look at the New Look. Psychological Science, 14, 201-206. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.02432
Kubovy, M. (1986). The psychology of perspective and Renaissance art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lash, W. F. (1998). Iconography and Iconology in Turner, J. (Ed.), Grove Art Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lowenthal, A.W. (1986). Response to Peter Hecht. Simiolus, The Netherlands Quartely for the
Masuda, T., Gonzalez, R., Kwan, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Culture and Aesthetic Preference: Comparing the attention to context of East Asians and Americans. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 9, 1260-1275. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208320555
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 922-934. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.5.922
Masuda, T., Wang, H., Ito, K., & Senzaki, S. (2012). Culture and Cognition: Implications for Art, Design, and Advertisement.University of Alberta. In S. Okazaki (Ed.), Handbook of
Research in International Advertising (pp. 109-133). Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.
Mather, G. (2014). The psychology of visual art: eye, brain and art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miedema, H. (1977). Realism and Comic Mode: The peasant. Simiolus, The Netherlands Quartely
for the History of Art, 9, 4, 205-219. doi: dx.doi.org/10.2307/3780555
Minoura, Y. (1992). A sensitive period for the incorporation of a cultural meaning system: A study of Japanese children growing up in the United States. Ethos, 20, 304–339. doi:
dx.doi.org/10.1525/eth.1992.20.3.02a00030
Morling, B., & Lamoreaux, M. (2008). Measuring Culture Outside the Head: A Meta-Analysis of Individualism-Collectivism in Cultural Products. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
12,3, 199-221. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868308318260
Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 653–684. doi:
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00082-4
Solso, R. L. (2003). The psychology of art and the evolution of the conscious brain. Cambridge,Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Sluijter, E.J. (1988). Belering en verhulling? Enkele 17-de eeuwse teksten over de schilderkunsten de iconologische benadering van Noord Nederlandse schilderijen uit deze periode. De
Zeventiende eeuw, 4, 2, 3-28.
Rupp, J.C.C. (1990). Matters of Life and Death: The Social and Cultural Conditions of The Rise of Anatomical Theatres, with Special Reference to Seventeenth Century Holland. Historical
Science, 28, 263-286.
van de Waal, H. (1952). Drie eeuwen vaderlandsche geschieduitbeelding: 1500-1800. Een
iconologische studie. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
van Tilburg, W.A.P. & Igou, E.R. (2014). From van Gogh to Lady Gaga: Artists eccentricity increases perceived artistic skill and art appreciation. European Journal of Social
