Holger Höge

Fechner's Experimental Aesthetics and the Golden Section Hypothesis Today

Gustav Theodor Fechner started his “aesthetics from below” with an investigation of the golden section hypothesis because he was fascinated by the fact that a mathematic proportion should directly correspond to pleasingness. Thus, the golden section hypothesis fitted in his psychophysical approach, assuming that there is a correspondence between physical properties of stimuli and the sensations they cause. However, Berlyne believed that even minute variations in instruction or experimental arrangements may cause differences in the proportions preferred [1, p. 300]. Different from many investigations in the field the experimental manipulation to be reported here was to give different verbal criteria to our subjects. One of our experiments followed Fechners method of production—i.e., subjects had to draw rectangles—and the other one was done using the method of choice—i.e., subjects had to sort rectangles. The results show that different criteria lead to different proportions in the material produced and sorted, respectively. Thus, preference judgements seem to be the outcome of a process of information processing by using both sources of information: the physical arrangement of the stimuli and the cognitively represented concept of the subject. However, under both conditions no preference for the golden section was found.

The Golden Section Hypothesis—Its Last Funeral

Since the very beginning of experimental aesthetics with Fechners investigation of the Holbein Madonna (1872) and the aesthetic pleasingness of the golden section (1865, 1871a, 1876/1925/1978) there have been reports with widely differing results on this hypothesis (to quote only a few: Benjafield, 1976; Boselie, 1992; Davis, 1933; Godkewitsch, 1974; Haines & Davies, 1904; Lalo, 1908; Piehl, 1976; Plug, 1980; Svensson, 1977; Thompson, 1946; see also the reviews of Green, 1995 and Höge, 1995). Thus, as there are so many results on the golden section hypothesis showing contradictory outcomes it seemed necessary to replicate Fechners original study as far as possible: giving the same proportions, using white cards on black ground. Other specifics could not be kept constant because Fechners report on the experiment is not very precise (cf. Fechner, 1876/1925/1997). As a complete replication is not possible, three experiments were carried out, each of them being slightly different in methodology. However, regardless of the conditions under which the choices were made, the golden section did not turn out to be the preferred proportion. The comparison with Fechners results makes this research only quasi-experimental in character and, hence, inevitably there are some restrictions with respect to the strength of the conclusions to be drawn. But, nevertheless, the nice peak of preference Fechner reported for the golden section seems to be either an artifact or it is an effect of still unknown factors. Two possible hypotheses (change-of-taste and color-of-paper) are discussed. It is concluded that the golden section hypothesis is a myth.

Why a Special Issue on the Golden Section Hypothesis? An Introduction

The story of the empirical test of the golden section hypothesis (GSH) is more than 100 years old, but still unsolved; thus, the special issue on the aSH seemed necessary. Clearly, there will be future research on the problem, but we hope that it will follow a new direction and gain a more promising flavor thereafter. One of the basic disadvantages of all scientific work on the golden section hypothesis outside the German-speaking area resulted from Fechners original text being not available in the English language. Nevertheless, his investigation inspired researchers for more than 100 years; thus, a translation was necessary-it is given as the opening article in this issue of ESA. When Fechner wrote his text some time in the 1860-1870s he did it according to an old German style, using extremely long sentences. As we wanted to facilitate understanding, we have changed the structure of the sentences and shortened them. Of course, we were as careful as possible to keep the meaning and the way Fechner expressed his thoughts. We hope that the translation will stimulate future research. What is especially of value in this volume of ESA is that we have all methods Fechner proposed for investigations into empirical aesthetics: the method of use (Shortess, Clarke & Shannon), the method of production (Benjafield & McFarlane; Konecni) and the method of choice (Boselie, Hoge). Moreover, Macrosson and Strachan study the behavior of a special population when making aesthetic choices: Do persons trained in design differ in the preference for proportions? Thus, all considerations Fechner made in his basic writings are still in use and contribute to the solution of the problem of preference for proportions. Boselie asks about the limitation of studies in this area; his basic argument: Why should the golden section problem be restricted to the rectangle problem?

A Museum Experience: Empathy and Cognitive Restoration

The evaluation of the Museumsdorf Cloppenburg (MDC) was threefold: 1) report on MDC history and an analysis of the museum policy; 2) environmental walk-through as a qualitative pilot study; and 3) a pre-post design visitor study on the museum experience—results on this part are presented here. Visitors were asked about their experiences by two questionnaires: 1) pre: socio-demographics and several aspects of visitor behavior and expectations were ascertained; and 2) the post-questionnaire asked about their experiences during the visit. Results showed that the way-finding problems identified by the environmental walk-through were not of importance to the visitors. However, although walking for roughly three hours through the MDC, visitors reported only moderate effects of fatigue, instead impressions of mental restoration were given to a high extent. Feelings of nostalgia, refreshed minds, and having received new insights dominated the experience of the museum visit. Hence, museums seem to have some psycho-hygienic power.

Fechner in Context: Aesthetics from Below, Inner and Outer Psychophysics: A Reply to Pavel Machotka:

In his recent article Machotka [1] has discussed several difficulties of Fechners unique approach to look for progress in the field of aesthetics: from below. Machotka proposed a radically different methodology: (a) perception of interrelations, (b) giving form to content, (c) fitting form to content, and (d) bending rules. My basic argument is that his new methodology is still based on Fechners methods, i.e., from below, however, on a higher level of complexity. Finally, some light is cast on the role Fechner assigned to the two parts of psychophysics: inner and outer psychophysics and their relation to aesthetics.