Marschallek, Barbara

Following Fechner’s (1876) “aesthetics from below,” this study examines the conceptual structure of the aesthetics of various materials (Werkstoffe)—for instance, leather, metal, and wood. Adopting a technique used by Jacobsen et al. (2004), we asked 1,956 students to write down adjectives that could be used to describe the aesthetics of materials within a given time limit. A second subsample of a broader cross-section of the population (n = 496) replicated the findings obtained with the first subsample. A joint analysis of both subsamples identified the term “smooth” as by far the most relevant term, followed by the other core terms “hard,” “rough,” “soft,” and “glossy.” Furthermore, sensorial qualities (e.g., “warm” and “see-through”) constituted the main elements of the aesthetics of materials, and the great majority of these were haptic qualities (e.g., “cold” and “heavy”). The terms offered were mostly descriptive and of rather neutral valence, according to an additional valence rating study that we conducted with 94 participants. Comparisons between the terms offered for different materials revealed commonalities as well as material specificity of the conceptual structure of the aesthetics. In addition, the word “beautiful,” although by no means representing one of the most relevant terms in this study, still proved its preeminence in aesthetics in general. The results of this study contribute to the corpus of existing studies of the conceptual structure of aesthetics

The haptic exploration and aesthetic processing of all kinds of materials' surfaces are part of everyday life. In the present study, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to investigate the brain correlates of active fingertip exploration of material surfaces and subsequent aesthetic judgments of their pleasantness (feels good or bad?). In absence of other sensory modalities, individuals (n = 21) performed lateral movements on a total of 48 textile and wood surfaces varying in terms of their roughness. Behavioral results confirmed the influence of the stimuli's roughness on aesthetic judgments, with smoother textures being rated as feeling better than rough textures. At the neural level, fNIRS activation results revealed an overall increased engagement of the contralateral sensorimotor areas as well as left prefrontal areas. Moreover, the perceived pleasantness modulated specific activations of left prefrontal areas with increasing pleasantness showing greater activations of these regions. Interestingly, this positive relationship between the individual aesthetic judgments and brain activity was most pronounced for smooth woods. These results demonstrate that positively valenced touch by actively exploring material surfaces is linked to left prefrontal activity and extend previous findings of affective touch underlying passive movements on hairy skin. We suggest that fNIRS can be a valuable tool to provide new insights in the field of experimental aesthetics.

Natural occurrences and the choice of specific materials have a major impact on the experience of the physical environment. The results of a recent study using a free listing task involving only adjectives suggested that the conceptual structure of the aesthetics of materials is structured by sensorial, neutrally valenced, descriptive terms, while showing no primacy of beauty. The present article examined the conceptual structure underlying the aesthetic experience of various materials using a different methodological approach. Applying a technique based upon semantic differentials, individuals in the present study (n = 272) were asked to judge the applicability of the most frequently listed terms in the previous study to the aesthetics of different materials. Overall, the results of multiple analyses yielded a converging picture for the two studies. Additionally, as materials constitute the basis of complete entities, the role of products in the conceptual representation of the aesthetics of materials was investigated with an exploratory approach. No support was found for the hypothesis that products play such a role. Finally, limitations regarding the outcome of the present study are discussed. All things considered, the results of this study highlight the uniqueness of the aesthetics of materials and its distinctness from the conceptual representations underlying most other aesthetic domains.

The present study’s aim was to examine whether interindividual differences in levels of expertise influence the aesthetic processing of materials. In particular, we elucidated experts’ conceptual structure of the aesthetics of different materials using a free list task and compared it to recent non-expert data. To this end, we asked 401 architects, designers, and interior designers to list adjectives that could be used to describe the aesthetics of materials. The experts listed a large number of sensorial as well as aesthetically evaluative terms. As measured in a supplementary study, a slight majority of the listed terms had a neutral valence, followed by a large proportion of positive terms. The term beautiful, frequently the preeminent term in aesthetics, was by no means one of the most relevant terms in both studies. The results suggest that the conceptual structure of the aesthetics of materials is multifaceted and expressive, and, to some extent, influenced by expertise. Furthermore, the findings indicate that concepts underlying materials aesthetics differ from other domains.