Urban Aesthetics
The Role of Aesthetics for Well-being in Cities
Art can evoke strong emotions. It can offer a respite from the humdrum routine of everyday life, lifting us out of ourselves by inviting us to experience something out of the ordinary, which makes art a driving factor for change (Carr, 1992; Preminger, 2012), for example regarding attitudes and behavior with respect to climate change (e.g., see Sommer et al., 2019; Sommer & Klöckner, 2022). Art can also be a powerful tool to improve individuals’ health and well-being, a claim recently supported by a scoping review by the World Health Organization (Fancourt & Finn, 2019). The impact of art has been considered at an institutional (i.e., museum) level (e.g., Clow & Fredhoi, 2006; for review, see Cotter & Pawelski, 2021; Howling, 2022) and even with art online (Trupp et al., 2022). However, much less empirical research has been done on the experience and impact of art as it is encountered in urban spaces and everyday context—street-level accessible public galleries, street art, or monuments, even though it has been shown that public art can improve mental wellbeing (Mohatt et al., 2013) and is valued by citizens (Tanguy & Kumar, 2019). Thus, despite this positive potential, there is a lack of primary, systematic quantitative studies on how communities experience public art (for a systematic review, see Cheung et al., 2021) and how public art and mental health relate. Thus, in collaboration with the ARTIS project (Art and Research on Transformations of Individuals and Societies), we are investigating how art in the city is experienced and whether it contributes to urban dwellers’ well-being.
Assessments include surveys to capture and quantify what reactions to public art people actually report when being asked. To assess this, we use a survey with emotional/cognitive experience items and evaluations of representative target public artworks (convenience sample, N = 100 per artwork), as well as a series of demographics and individual difference measures. With this quantitative data, we can measure variety in responses and classify (shared) experience types/outcomes. Secondly, we are investigating how encountering these pieces spontaneously might modulate behavior and well-being/health. Using pre-post survey designs, we will measure changes in people's well-being and attitudes after engaging with free street-level, open-space gallery art exhibitions. In order to measure how long the effects might persist, we will send out a survey 2-4 weeks after engagement, asking about their experience again.
Third, we are designing art interventions in different locations in Berlin to see how art installations change the perception and responses to the city. This will include measures of participants’ subjective perception of density, their subjective well-being, and emotional experience, among others (see more: link to WP4 Intervention TU study). Our project will help understand how urban dwellers’ experiences with art in the every day, shared public realm might shape emotional/cognitive states and contribute to mental well-being, providing criteria for city planners and policymakers to value and increase the impact of public art to create healthier cities.
Besides public art, we are interested in the role of the aesthetic value of urban spaces and architecture for well-being. In the past, the Attention Restoration Theory (ART; Kaplan, 1995) and the Stress Recovery Theory (SRT; Ulrich et al., 1991) have traditionally suggested that the presence of nature itself enhances the restorative potential of a location and diminishes stress. However, we would like to present an additional perspective: the aesthetic value of an urban environment. Berlyne (1971) suggests the possibility that aesthetic activities “promote certain biological functions and that human beings are healthier with them than without them” (p. 9). This mechanism has also been tested in empirical research: Meidenbauer et al. (2020) conducted six studies to investigate whether the positive effects of engaging with nature on well-being stem from the inherent qualities of natural stimuli or from the perception of stimuli with high aesthetic value, meaning those that are preferred. They found that it is not solely the presence of nature itself that uplifts our emotional state, but rather nature enhances emotional well-being due to its high aesthetic value, i.e., being highly preferred. This highlights the potential of aesthetics as an important factor in promoting urban well-being (also see Galindo & Rodríguez, 2000; Mikuni et al., 2023 for review).
Recent research into the aesthetics of interior architecture has revealed that aesthetic responses stem from three interconnected psychological factors: Fascination, which pertains to the depth or appeal of an environment; Coherence, referring to evaluative assessments regarding its arrangement and structure; and Hominess, encompassing sensations of comfort or snugness (Coburn et al., 2020). While the last component is especially applied to interior home spaces, the impact of subjective aesthetic measures such as beauty and fascination, seen as an emotional valuation, has been claimed to capture a holistic sense of architectural experience (Coburn, 2022). Studies (Coburn et al., 2017; Vartanian et al., 2013) have further highlighted how aesthetic factors influence approach-avoidance tendencies (Vartanian et al., 2013) and have found that these psychological dimensions were associated with specific neural signatures (for review, see Coburn et al., 2022). We believe it will be pivotal to extend such research that has been mostly done on interiors and facades (e.g., Doğan, 2022; Ilbeigi & Ghomeishi, 2017; Imamoglu, 2000) to more complex urban settings and to provide initial steps for an evidence-based urban design that includes such aesthetic measures (Sanders et al., under review; Link to WP4 desktop experiment). Specifically interested in whether beauty and interest can contribute or urban dweller’s well-being (also see our study on the role of interest and beauty in the experience of interior public spaces).
Example public artworks (“ALLESANDERSPLATZ”) and public pedestrian-level art galleries (SAVVY Contemporary and Gallerie Wedding).
References:
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Carr, D. (1992). Cultural institutions as structures for cognitive change. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1992(53), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.36719925305
Coburn, A. (2022). Architectural Design and the Mind. In A. Chatterjee & E. Cardilo (Eds.), Brain, Beauty, and Art (1st ed., pp. 235–240). Oxford University Press: New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197513620.003.0046:
Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., & Chatterjee, A. (2017). Buildings, Beauty, and the Brain: A Neuroscience of Architectural Experience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(9), 1521–1531. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01146
Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., Kenett, Y. N., Nadal, M., Hartung, F., Hayn-Leichsenring, G., Navarrete, G., González-Mora, J. L., & Chatterjee, A. (2020). Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex, 126, 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.009
Cotter, K. N., & Pawelski, J. O. (2022). Art museums as institutions for human flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17(2), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.2016911
Clow, A., & Fredhoi, C. (2006). Normalisation of salivary cortisol levels and self-report stress by a brief lunchtime visit to an art gallery by London City workers. Journal of Holistic Healthcare, 3(2), Article 2.
Cheung, M., Smith, N., & Craven, O. (2022). The impacts of public art on cities, places and people’s lives. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 52(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2021.1942361
Doğan, H. A. (2022). Relationship between complexity and perception of aesthetics.
Fancourt, D., & Finn, S. (2019). What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/329834
Galindo Galindo, M. P., & Corraliza, J. A. (2000). Environmental aesthetics and psychological wellbeing: Relationships between preference judgements for urban landscapes and other relevant affective responses. Psychology in Spain, 4, 13–27.
Howlin, C. (2022). The health benefits of art experience. In M. Nadal & M. Skov, The Routledge International Handbook of Neuroaesthetics (1st ed., pp. 410–422). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008675-23
Ilbeigi, M., & Ghomeishi, M. (2017). An assessment of Aesthetics in Conceptual Properties and its Relation to Complexity among Architects and Non-Architects in Residential Façade Design in Iran. 2(1).
Imamoglu, Ç. (2000). COMPLEXITY, LIKING AND FAMILIARITY: ARCHITECTURE AND NON-ARCHITECTURE TURKISH STUDENTS’ ASSESSMENTS OF TRADITIONAL AND MODERN HOUSE FACADES. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0155
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
Mikuni, J., Dehove, M., Dörrzapf, L., Moser, M. K., Resch, B., Böhm, P., Prager, K., Podolin, N., Oberzaucher, E., & Leder, H. (2023). Art in the City Enhances Subjective Well-Being: A Field Study Examining the Impact of Artistic Intervention in Urban Public Space on Well-Being. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4643541
Mohatt, N. V., Singer, J. B., Evans, A. C., Matlin, S. L., Golden, J., Harris, C., Burns, J., Siciliano, C., Kiernan, G., Pelleritti, M., & Tebes, J. K. (2013). A Community’s Response to Suicide Through Public Art: Stakeholder Perspectives from the Finding the Light Within Project. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52(1–2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9581-7
Meidenbauer, K. L., Stenfors, C. U. D., Bratman, G. N., Gross, J. J., Schertz, K. E., Choe, K. W., & Berman, M. G. (2020). The affective benefits of nature exposure: What’s nature got to do with it? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101498
Preminger, S. (2012). Transformative art: Art as means for long-term neurocognitive change. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00096
Sommer, L. K., & Klöckner, C. A. (2021). Does activist art have the capacity to raise awareness in audiences?—A study on climate change art at the ArtCOP21 event in Paris. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000247
Sommer, L. K., Swim, J. K., Keller, E., & Klöckner, C. A. (2019). “Pollution Pods”: The merging of art and psychology to engage the public in climate change. Global Environmental Change, 59, 101992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101992
Tanguy, M., & Kumar, V. (2019). Measuring the extent to which Londoners are willing to pay for public art in their city. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.016
Trupp, M. D., Bignardi, G., Chana, K., Specker, E., & Pelowski, M. (2022). Can a Brief Interaction With Online, Digital Art Improve Wellbeing? A Comparative Study of the Impact of Online Art and Culture Presentations on Mood, State-Anxiety, Subjective Wellbeing, and Loneliness. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 782033. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.782033
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Gonzalez-Mora, J. L., Leder, H., Modroño, C., Nadal, M., Rostrup, N., & Skov, M. (2015). Architectural design and the brain: Effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.006
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., Nadal, M., Rostrup, N., & Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), 10446–10453. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301227110