Artistic Judgment III: Artist Validation. Technical Report 1991-1.

110 Pages·2012·1.77 MB·English

DOCUMENT RESUME
SO 023 749
ED 367 581
Bezruczko, Nikolaus; Schroeder, David H.
AUTHOR
Artistic Judgment III: Artist Validation. Technical
TITLE
Report 1991-1.
Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Inc., Chicago,
INSTITUTION
IL.
Dec 91
PUB DATE
NOTE
112p.
Research/Technical (143)
Reports
PUB TYPE
MFOI/PC05 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Aptitude Tests; Art Education; *Artists; *Career
DESCRIPTORS
Choice; *Cognitive Ability; Comparative Analysis;
Higher Education; Interest Inventories; Thinking
Skills; *Visual Arts
Artistic Thought
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
Two studies compared the visual preferences,
cognitive abilities, and occupational interests of artists and
nonartists. Study One compared scores on an experimental battery of
artistic judgment tests for three groups: professional artists,
Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation examinees in art-related
professions, and Foundation examinees not in those fields. Study Two
compared the two groups of Foundation examinees on the standard
Foundation battery and the interest scales of the Career Occupational
Preference System (COPS). In Study One, the artists and nonartists
differed significantly on all tests in the experimental battery. On
the Barron-Welsh Art Scale (BWAS), the professional artists scored
significantly higher than a nonartist sample studied previously. In
Study Two, on the standard battery tests, artists scored
1;ignificantly higher than nonartists in Inductive Reasoning,
Structural Visualization, Paper Folding, Memory for Design,
Observation, and Tweezer Dexterity. Study Two also showed that
artists and nonartists differed in their occupational interests, with
artists showing significantly higher interest in artistic
occupations, and significantly less in science, business, and
computation related fields. The Design Judgment Test, Visual Design
Test scales, and the Proportion Appraisal Consensus and .67 scales
were shown to be valid in distinguishing artists from nonartists.
Further research should be conducted into the relationship between
artistic judgment and education and training in the visual arts.
(Contains 104 references and four appendices.) (Author/SG)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
ARTISTIC JUDGMENT III:
ARTIST VALIDATION
U.& DEPARTINENT OF EDUCATION
Oft* of Educatronai Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
1
CENTER (ERIC)
Th.s document has been reproduced 11$
*Cowed from the porton or otpanuation
onpInatinp It
0 Minor Changes hav Mtn mad* to mprove
mtproduCtfon (lushly
Points of weep omnions stated in t hi$ Pool,-
mint do not rtscsatardy reprESnt othcml
OERI pOSMOn Or PoIrcY
Nikolaus Bezruczko
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
M
RIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
and
David H. Schroeder
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERICI."
FOUNDATION, INC.
JOHNSON O'CONNOR RESEARCH
Technical Report 1991-1
December 1991
r
neN7:1
t4c i;
1.17sa
phrOVS1
Pt
:)
J.4111.149at
COPYRIGHT c 1992 BY JOHNSON O'CONNOR RESEARCII FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Artistic Judgment Project HI: Artist Validation
Nikolaus Bezruczko and David H. Schroeder
ABSTRACT
Two studies were conducted that compared the visual preferences, cognitive
In Study One, we
abilities, and occupational interests of artists and nonartists.
compared scores on an experimental battery of artistic judgment tests for three
of
groups: a sample of specially recruited professional artists and a sample
Foundation examinees divided into those in art-related occupations and those not.
In Study Two, the two groups of Foundation examinees were compared on the
standard Foundation battery and the interest scales of the Career Occupational
Preference System (COPS).
In Study One, the artists and nonartists differed significantly on all the tests in
the experimental battery. The differences between the professional artists and the
Foundation-examinee nonartists, after differences in socioeconomic background
Test (DJT), followed by
were controlled, were greatest on the Design Judgment
the Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test (VAST). The effect for the VAST, however,
On the Barron-Welsh Art Scale
was in the opposite direction from expectation.
(BWAS), the professional artists scored substantially higher than a nonartist sample
studied previously (Barron, 1953).
In Study Two, on the standard battery tests, the examinee artists scored
significantly higher than the nonartists on Inductive Reasoning, Structural
Visualization, Paper Folding, Memory For Design, Observation, and Tweezer
Dexterity. The differences ranged from .28 to .41 standard deviation units.
Trends were found between artist status and tests measuring Analytical
Reasoning, Silograms, Finger Dexterity, and English Vocabulary, although these
relationships were smaller in magnitude.
Study Two also showed that artists and nonartists differed in their
occupational interests, with the artists showing significantly greater interest in
artistic occupations. The magnitude of the difference on the Arts-Design scale
showed significantly less
was .72 standard deviation units. The artists also
interest in occupations related to Science-Medical-Life, Business-Finance, and
Computation.
In conclusion, the DJT, the two Visual Design Test scales, and the Proportion
Appraisal Consensus and .57 scales were shown to be (in varying degrees) valid in
4
DJT and the VDT
terms of distinguishing artists from nonartists. Because the
scales also show good reliability and discriminant validity, it is recommended that
the Foundation consider using them in its standard testing battery. Further
research should be conducted into the relationship between artistic judgment and
education and training in the visual arts.
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
1
Background of the Artistic Judgment Project
2
3
Review of Artistic Judgment Testing
Problems With Artistic Judgment Testing
5
The Experimental Artistic Judgment Battery
8
Review of Results From the Experimental Artistic
9
Judgment Battery
Two Studies of Artists .
11
13
Study One
13
Method
13
Samples
18
Measures
29
Procedures
33
Analyses
35
Results
35
Comparison of Artistic Judgment Scores
37
Discriminant Analysis
Comparison of Internal Structure
41
45
Comparison of Intertest Correlations
47
Study Two
47
Method
47
Sample
48
Measures
48
Procedures
50
Analyses
50
Results
50
Standard Foundation Battery
52
COPS Interest Scales
54
Discussion
54
General Review of the Artistic Judgment Project
54
Purpose and Goals
54
Summary of Internal Structure and Construct Validation
55
Validation by Professional Artists
57
Origins of the Differences in Artistic Judgment Scores
58
Limitations of the Investigation
59
Implications for Artistic Judgment Testing
iii
G
60
Implications for a Theory of Empirical Visual Aesthetics
.
.
64
Issues in the Study of Visual Design
64
Dimensions of Designs in Visual Art
69
Method of Investigation
70
Broader Social Implications
71
Future Studies
72
Summary and Recommendations
74
References
Appendix A: Coding System for the Artistic Background Questionnaire
82
for Foundation Examinees
Appendix B: Coding System for the Artistic Background Questionnaire
84
for Professional Artists
86
Appendix C: Psychometric Analysis of Barron-Welsh Art Scale
.
.
89
Appendix D: Bibliographical Information for the Professional Artists
.
Appendix E: Correlations Among the Artistic Judgment Tests for the
98
Professional Artists Not Corrected for Attenuation
iv
7
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Comparison of Backgrounds of Nonartists, Examinee
Table 1
16
Artists, and Professional Artists
Analysis of Covariance of Artistic Judgment Tests by
Table 2
36
Artist Status
Discriminant Analysis of Artistic Judgment Scales for
Table 3
39
Artists and Nonartists
40
Two-Way Classification Tables for Discriminant Analyses
Table 4
Correlations Among the Artistic Judgment Tests for the
Table 5
46
Professional Artists
49
Tests in the Standard Foundation Battery
Table 6
Analysis of Covariance of Battery Tests by Artist Status
51
Table 7
Analysis of Covariance of COPS Interest Scales by Artist
Table 3
53
Status
Item Statistics for the Barron-Welsh Art Scale for the
Table 9
88
Professional Artist Sample
Table 10 Correlations Among the Artistic Judgment
Tests for the Professional Artists Not
98
Corrected for Attenuation
v
3
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
19
Sample Item From Design Judgment Test
Figure 1
Sample Item From Visual Designs Test
21
Figure 2
23
Sample Item From Proportion Appraisal
Figure 3
Item Similar to the Items on the
Figure 4
27
Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test
Items Similar to the Items on the
Figure 5
30
Barron-Welsh Art Scale
Artistic Background Questionnaire for the Foundation
Figure 6
31
Examinees
Artistic Background Questionnaire for the Prolassional
Figure 7
32
Artists
vi
9
ACKNOWLLDGMENTS
In this, the last in this series of technical reports concerning artistic judgment,
validity of
we have attempted to reach a point of closure on the reliability and
several artistic judgment tests. As in prior reports, we gratefully acknowledge the
cooperation and assistance of the test administrators of the Washington, DC, New
Orleans, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Denver, Seattle, and Philadelphia offices in
collecting data for this project. The staff of the Research Department in Chicago,
of these
as well, provided a valuable service in the accurate entry and processing
data, thus contributing to the validity of our results.
As in the prior reports, we extend our sincere appreciation to Professors Hans
J. Eysenck of the University of London and K. 0. Götz of the Düsseldorf Academy
of Fine Arts. Professor Eysenck's continued interest and personal comments have
helped us appreciate the perspective of the larger academic community and relate
for helping us
our findings to that community. We also remain indebted to him
establish a relationship with Professor Götz, developer of the VAST. Professor
Götz generously contributed the printed test books of the VAST that were
administered in the testing offices.
This report, however, differs from the earlier ones because of the extensive
support, as well as active participation, that we have received from many persons
outside the Foundation, which made these studies possible. Our thanks go first to
the professional artists in the study. While artists in general are interested in the
topic of artistic judgment, convincing them of the usefulness of developing tests of
aptitude and persuading them to commit their time for testing and interviewing are
difficult. Thus we are deeply indebted to the entire sample of professional artists
for their contribution. The commitment of these persons to their art careers and
the diversity of their backgrounds, we believe, led to the success of these studies.
In addition, because of their role in both identifying professional artists to
participate in this project and providing us with expert knowledge during the
studies, we would like to acknowledge the assistance we received from the
following persons: Ms. Linda Faucheux, Ms. Diana Foster, and Ms. Arlene
Rakoncay.
Ms. Faucheux, formerly of the Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation
testing office in New Orleans, provided a key service in organizing and conducting
the testing of the artists in New Orleans. She recruited a sample of professional
artists, administered the tests and the questionnaire for this project, and collected
indebted
extensive biographical information at her own time and expense. We are
because her
to her for her personal interest and conscientious assistance
contribution substantially increased the usefulness of this report.
vii
0