a Pion publication
i-Perception (2012) volume 3, pages 18–24
Aesthetic judgement of orientation in modern art
School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QH, UK [Present address: School of
Psychology, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK]; e-mail: email@example.com;
Received 13 May 2011, in revised form 16 December 2011; published online 18 January 2011
which the work is to be hung based on their aesthetic judgement and the message conveyed by
the piece. Is the impact or aesthetic appeal of a work diminished when it is hung at an incorrect
orientation? To investigate this question, Experiment 1 asked whether naïve observers can appreciate
the correct orientation (as defined by the artist) of 40 modern artworks, some of which are entirely
abstract. Eighteen participants were shown 40 paintings in a series of trials. Each trial presented
all four cardinal orientations on a computer screen, and the participant was asked to select the
orientation that was most attractive or meaningful. Results showed that the correct orientation was
selected in 48% of trials on average, significantly above the 25% chance level, but well below perfect
performance. A second experiment investigated the extent to which the 40 paintings contained
recognisable content, which may have mediated orientation judgements. Recognition rates varied
from 0% for seven of the paintings to 100% for five paintings. Orientation judgements in Experiment
1 correlated significantly with “meaningful” content judgements in Experiment 2: 42% of the variance
in orientation judgements in Experiment 1 was shared with recognition of meaningful content in
Experiment 2. For the seven paintings in which no meaningful content at all was detected, 41%
of the variance in orientation judgements was shared with variance in a physical measure of image
content, Fourier amplitude spectrum slope. For some paintings, orientation judgements were quite
consistent, despite a lack of meaningful content. The origin of these orientation judgements remains
to be identified.
When creating an artwork, the artist makes a decision regarding the orientation at
Keywords: aesthetics, visual art, abstract art, orientation.
Two paintings by the American abstract artist Mark Rothko from his Black on Maroon series
were donated to the Tate Modern Gallery in London in 1968, which hung them for many
years with the stripes running horizontally. The paintings were then rotated so that they were
hung with the stripes running vertically for a time, before being returned to the horizontal
orientation for an exhibition of Rothko’s work. Controversy has surrounded the question
of the correct orientation in which to hang the paintings. Rothko’s signature indicates a
horizontal orientation (see Jamieson 2008), but the works are currently hung vertically. The
artist himself may have been unsure; paint dribbles run in both directions on the canvas.
Art historians have debated the relative aesthetic merits of the two orientations. There are
work by Matisse, Rauschenberg, van Gogh, and O’Keeffe. But does orientation really matter
in an abstract or semiabstract painting, at least to the untrained eye?
Modern art often contains little or no recognisable representation of real-world objects
or scenes. Abstraction allows the artist to focus on composition and medium rather than on
subject matter. In the process of creating a modern artwork, an artist may make an aesthetic
message. The correct orientation is often specified on the back of the canvas. However, this
intended orientation is not always obvious to others viewing the work, especially if there is
no recognisable content at all, which raises questions about aesthetics. Is there sufficient
information in a modern artwork for a naïve viewer’s judgement to align with the correct
Orientation judgement in modern art 19
orientation? Is the impact or aesthetic value of a work diminished by viewing at an incorrect
orientation? Relatively few studies have addressed such questions, but answers to them
should throw some light on the cognitive processes underlying visual aesthetic judgement.
Lindauer (1969) asked participants to indicate their preferred orientation for 54 abstract
paintings and found that half were in agreement with the artist’s intended orientation. On
the other hand, Swartz and Hewitt (1970) showed their participants a series of abstract
paintings, either in the original format or rotated or mirror-reversed, and asked participants
to rate each image aesthetically. Aesthetic ratings were not affected by rotation or mirror
reversal. Latto et al (2000) were primarily interested in preferences for vertical and horizontal
orientations over oblique orientations in Mondrian paintings, though they did report slightly
higher aesthetic ratings for paintings presented at the intended orientation. Plumhoff and
Schirillo (2009) more recently found some evidence of higher aesthetic ratings for Mondrian’s
paintings presented at the correct orientation. In Johnson et al’s (2010) study of the same
Mondrian paintings, pupil size was significantly higher for the correct orientation than for
The present study aims to build on previous studies by (i) systematically investigating the
relevance of recognisable content in preferences for orientation (a potential confounding
factor in previous studies employing a range of abstract artworks) and (ii) assessing whether
a commonly used statistical measure of information content in images has any bearing
on orientation-dependent judgements. Recent work suggests that the Fourier amplitude
spectrum slope plays a role in aesthetic judgements of art (Graham and Field 2008; Redies
2007; Redies et al 2007). It may also play a role in orientation judgements.
In the first experiment, participants were shown four versions of each artwork, oriented
at 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees clockwise with respect to the intended orientation, and asked
to select the most pleasing or meaningful image. Was the correct orientation chosen more
often than would be expected on the basis of chance?
2 Experiment 1
Eighteen naïve participants were recruited from the student body at Sussex University, none
of whom had any previous formal training in art.
2.1.2 Visual materials
Forty modern artworks were selected from three art books (Gerhardus and Gerhardus 1979;
Gibson 1997; Hunter 1997), scanned electronically, and rescaled so that the longer dimension
of each image was 300 pixels (to allow all four versions to be visible simultaneously on a
computer monitor). Fifteen images had a vertical “portrait” aspect ratio, and twenty-two
had a horizontal “landscape” aspect ratio. The remaining three were square. The criteria for
inclusion of paintings were that (i) there was a clear intended or “correct” orientation, (ii)
the work was produced by an artist of international renown, and therefore of high aesthetic
quality, (iii) the set as a whole represented a sample of modern art from the early to mid
20th century, and (iv) paintings varied in the extent to which they exhibited recognisably
representational content. Figure 1 shows three of the paintings in the set. A full list of artists
and titles for all 40 paintings is available as supplementary material.
20 G Mather
Composition: Airplane Flying, 1914–15. (b) Piet Mondrian (1872–1944) Composition, 1933. (c) Jackson
Pollock (1912–56) One, Number 31, 1950. All digital images © 2011, The Museum of Modern Art, New
2.1.3 Apparatus and procedure
The experiment was controlled by a Flash application running on a Dell desktop PC. Stimuli
appeared on the screen of a Sony Trinitron Multiscan G400 monitor (resolution 1024 × 768).
A single trial involved presentation of one of the 40 artworks (order randomised across
participants). All four cardinal orientations were shown on-screen (0, 90, 180, 270 deg
clockwise with respect to the correct orientation as defined in the source book; oblique
frame orientations were not used because they occur much less frequently in true artworks,
and only a few orientations could be presented on the screen at an acceptable resolution).
The screen was divided virtually into four quarters, with one image in each quarter. The
on-screen ordering of the four orientations varied randomly from trial to trial and between
participants. The centre-to-centre separation of the images was 17 deg horizontally and 12
deg vertically at the 57-cm viewing distance. The longer dimension of each image subtended
10.3 deg. Images were presented against a uniform dark grey background (2.3 cd/m2); the
mean image luminance varied from image to image between approximately 3.7 and 38
Participants were given an unrestricted time to view each set of four on-screen images
and used a mouse to click an on-screen button next to each image according to the following
instruction: “Select the orientation which is the most pleasing or meaningful.” Given that
participants may detect some meaningful content in a given painting (even if none was
intended by the artist), this instruction acknowledged the possibility that they may use that
information in their judgement. Successive trials were separated by a 0.5-s interval during
Orientation judgement in modern art 21
which the screen remained blank. Responses were recorded by the Flash application and
transferred to an Excel spreadsheet at the end of the session.
2.1.4 Spectral slope
The amplitude spectrum slope was estimated for each image using a script written in
(L = 0.2989 × R + 0.5870 × G + 0.1140 × B). A two-dimensional discrete Fourier transform
was performed on the largest central square section of the image. The slope of the best-
fit line to the rotationally averaged amplitude spectrum (plotted on log–log coordinates)
was calculated. In order to avoid spatial frequency artefacts owing to image sampling and
nonlinearities, line fitting was restricted to the middle range of frequencies between 0.25×
and 0.5× the maximum spatial frequency available in the Fourier transform (cf Redies et al
2007). To assess possible orientational anisotropies in the images, the ratios of horizontal to
vertical (H:V) power and oblique to cardinal power (O:C, where C = ([H + V] / 2)) were also
2.2 Results and discussion
Each participant provided four scores that correspond to the proportion of responses at each
of the four available orientations (0, 90, 180, 270 deg clockwise) across the 40 images. Figure 2
shows the mean scores across the 18 participants (±1 SE). Since there were four orientations,
chance performance falls at 25%. Observers reliably selected the correct orientation over
the other three available orientations in almost 50% of trials, a figure which is close to
that reported by Lindauer (1969). One-factor ANOVA revealed a highly significant effect of
orientation, F(3, 51) = 85.06; p < .0001. Pairwise comparisons showed that responses at the
correct orientation (0 deg) were significantly higher than responses at each other orientation.
Notice that all the other available orientations were selected much less frequently and at
about the same rate of 16–18% or so each. This result indicates that participants were not
generally prone to confuse upright with inverted versions of the images consistently; they
either selected the correct orientation or chose one of the others equally often overall.
Figure 2. Mean percentage responses at each orientation across the 18 participants (±1 SE). The
correct orientation corresponds to 0 deg; other orientations are expressed in degrees clockwise relative
to this orientation. The dotted line corresponds to chance performance.
22 G Mather
The mean spectral slope of the 40 images was –1.248 (SD 0.221), close to the value cited
in a previously published study of abstract art (–1.13; Graham and Field 2008). There was no
judgements (r = 0.0124, ns). Correlations of orientation judgements with measures of
anisotropy were higher but nonsignificant: for O:C (oblique to cardinal power), r = 0.171; for
H:V (horizontal to vertical power), r = –0.181.
On inspection of the data for individual images, it is clear that the correct orientation was
judged quite consistently in some cases but not in others. For certain images, it is possible to
discern a pictorial element in the image that may have facilitated a decision. For example,
a tree shape may be seen on careful viewing of Braque’s House at Estague (88.9% correct).
In other cases, it is not clear how participants were able to infer the correct orientation.
Miro’s Birth of the World is quite abstract, as is von Wiegand’s City Lights, but both supported
reliable performance (55.6% and 77.8%, respectively).
Responses in Experiment 1 may have been influenced by detection of meaningful content
in some paintings, rather than by aesthetic pleasure alone, and this factor may have masked
any effect of spectral slope. A second experiment assessed the extent to which recognisable
content in the form of a meaningful object or scene was detected in the experimental stimuli.
3 Experiment 2
Eight naïve participants were recruited from the student body at Sussex University, none of
whom had taken part in Experiment 1.
3.1.2 Materials, apparatus, and procedure
that in Experiment 1. The experimental task was also almost identical to that in Experiment
1; all four orientations were displayed for each painting, but in this experiment the on-screen
instruction read: “Does each painting contain recognisable or meaningful content?” Two on-
screen response buttons were available, labelled “Abstract” and “Recognisable.” Observers
wereinstructedtoclick on“Recognisable” ifthey saw any meaningfulcontentinthe painting,
otherwise to click on “Abstract”. They were also instructed to base their answer on any of the
four orientations presented and were given an unlimited time to make a judgement.
3.2 Results and discussion
The mean percentage of "meaningful” responses was calculated for each of the 40 paintings
and ranged from 0% for seven paintings such as Kasimir Malevich’s Suprematist Composition
to 100% for five paintings such as Fernand Leger’s Two Women with Still Life. Across the
40 paintings, the correlation between correct orientation judgements in Experiment 1 and
“meaningful” responses in Experiment 2 was 0.65 (p < .0001); thus, recognisable content
clearly did have a significant relation to orientation judgements, though only 42% of the
variance in orientation judgements in Experiment 1 can be attributed to recognition of
A partial correlation was performed across the 40 paintings to assess whether spectral
slope played a role in orientation judgements independently of “meaningful” judgements.
The correlation was 0.157 (ns), so across the full image set, orientation judgements were
dominated by recognition of meaningful content. The seven paintings in which no partici-
pant reported any meaningful content at all had a mean spectral slope of –1.26, and a mean
Orientation judgement in modern art23
percentage of correct orientation judgements of 23.02% (range 0–55.6%). In these purely
abstract paintings the correlation between percentage correct and spectral slope was 0.64
(r2= 0.41), so there is a hint that purely abstract images with the shallowest spectral slope
are easiest to judge, though the sample size is very small. One painting in this abstract set,
Jackson Pollock’s One, was judged correctly in 55.6% of responses and has a spectral slope of
There are other intriguing variations between individual paintings. The three paintings
in Figure 1 are particularly interesting. In the case of Kasimir Malevich’s Suprematist
from the correct orientation, and none of the 18 observers selected the correct orientation.
No observer discerned any meaningful content in this painting, which has a very steep
spectral slope of –1.56. All observers also agreed that Piet Mondrian’s Composition contained
no meaningful content, and only 5.6% of them selected the correct orientation (the other
three orientations were chosen equally often by observers). The painting’s spectral slope is
–1.58. Only one participantsaw anything meaningful in Joan Miro’s The Birth of the World, yet
over half of the participants in Experiment 1 selected the correct orientation. The painting’s
spectral slope is –1.38.
A limitation of the present study was that there was no systematic attempt to assess the
degree to which participants were familiar with any of the artworks, though participants
did not report any familiarity during informal debriefing. For example, Pollock’s One (see
Figure 1) is famous and should therefore arguably be quite familiar to some participants.
However, given the abstract nature of the work, it seems unlikely that untrained participants
would have retained such detail in memory that they were able to judge its orientation
In agreement with anecdotal reports from galleries, the judgements of nonexpert viewers
accord with the intended orientation for abstract or semiabstract art at levels well above
chance. However, performance is far from perfect, consistent with results in previous studies.
The most important new result is that orientation judgements are mediated at least in part by
some appreciation of meaningful content in the image. However, in a minority of paintings, a
consistent orientation effect was obtained, even when no meaningful content was apparent.
The origin of these orientation judgements remains to be identified conclusively, but image
spectral slope may play a role.
Acknowledgements. I am grateful to Heather Dowling and Kirsten Challinor for assistance with
stimulus preparation and data collection. I am also grateful to the editor for suggesting the second
Gerhardus M, Gerhardus D, 1979 Cubism to Futurism: The Evolution of the Self-Sufficient Picture
(Oxford: Phaidon) ?
Gibson A E, 1997 Abstract Expressionism: Other Politics (London: Yale University Press) ?
Graham D, Field D, 2008 “Variations in intensity statistics for representational and abstract
art, and for art from the Eastern and Western hemispheres” Perception 37 1341–1352
Hunter S, 1997 The Museum of Modern Art, New York: The History and the Collection (New York, NY:
Jamieson A, 2008 "Rothko hung ‘wrong way round’ in exhibition" Daily Telegraph 9 November
Johnson M G, Muday J A, Schirillo J A, 2010 “When viewing variations in paintings by Mondrian
aesthetic preferences correlate with pupil size” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 4
161–167 doi:10.1037/a0018155 ?
24G Mather Download full-text
Latto R, Brain D, Kelly B, 2000 “An oblique effect in aesthetics: Homage to Mondrian (1872–1944)”
Perception 29 981–987 doi:10.1068/p2352 ?
Lindauer MS, 1969 "The orientation of form in abstract art" Proceedings of the American Psychologi-
cal Association 4 475–476
Plumhoff J, Schirillo J A, 2009 “Mondrian, eye movements, and the oblique effect” Perception 38
719–731 doi:10.1068/p6160 ?
Redies C, 2007 “A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural
stimuli” Spatial Vision 21 97–117 doi:10.1163/156856807782753886 ?
scenes” Spatial Vision 21 137–148 doi:10.1163/156856807782753921 ?
Swartz P, Hewitt D, 1970 “Lateral organization in pictures and aesthetic preference” Perceptual and
Motor Skills 30 991–1007 doi:10.2466/pms.1922.214.171.1241 ?
Copyright © 2012 G Mather
Published under a Creative Commons Licence
a Pion publication