The paper “Abstract Shape Aesthetics: Contour, Complexity, Motion, and Individual Variability” (Soranzo et al., 2024) as mentioned in the previous blogpost, breaks aesthetics down into three key variables: contour, complexity, and movement. These variables help researchers understand how we respond to very simple, abstract shapes that carry no specific meaning for us. What I do like about this kind of approach is that there is a separation between aesthetics into its different parts. The focus will now lie on what these different variables mean but also how the study measured them and what these results say about the foundation of visual preference.
One of the first variables is contour. Where the shape edges, curved versus angular. In our daily life, we tend to already associate curved things with softness, smoothness, or safety, and angular things with sharpness or tension. The study confirms this pattern: participants preferred curved shapes over angular ones. This matches earlier research mentioned in the paper, which also found a strong preference for curved contours. The exact reason remains debated. Some theories suggest angular shapes trigger avoidance responses because they can signal danger. Others propose that curved shapes feel more natural to us, connecting to shapes we encounter in the environment.
The second variable, complexity, turned out to be more surprising. The study defines complexity through the number of vertices: six for simple shapes, 22 for complex ones. Complexity is already a controversial topic in aesthetic research. Some theories argue that complexity increases interest, while others suggest simplicity is more appealing because it requires less cognitive effort. In this study, participants clearly preferred simpler shapes. The authors describe this as an effect of simplicity. However, they also acknowledge that previous studies have found more mixed or even opposite patterns, depending on how complexity was defined from the beginning. This suggests complexity is not a single variable but a cluster of different visual features. For example, the paper “Visual Complexity: A Review” (Donderi, 2006) highlights that visual complexity which has been studied across many domains. It looks at how judgments of complexity relate to multiple factors such as amount of detail, predictability, symmetry, and perceptual load. One of Donderi’s key points in his work is that our perception of complexity is very tightly linked to its predictability. Images or shapes that have a more clear and regular pattern, like symmetrical shapes, often feel less complex. On the other hand, unpredictable shapes or compositions feel more complex to us because our visual system cannot easily understand or “compress” them into simple rules. This claim is also supported by the idea that our brain constantly tries to reduce incoming information into simple structures. However, when that is not possible, we perceive it as complex.
The third variable, movement, examined whether rotation or expansion would change how people rated the shapes. The interesting part is that movement did not affect aesthetic ratings. There were also no individual differences. This stands in contrast to contour and complexity, where people varied a lot. But for movement, the participants agreed that it didn’t have a special effect on them. This might mean movement simply does not influence aesthetic judgments for this type of shape. Or it might mean that the study design removed all the expressive value that movement normally carries. My main takeaway is that movement is not a universal aesthetic enhancer. When a shape is abstract and meaningless, adding rotation or expansion does not automatically make it more beautiful. Aesthetic impact depends on context and on the meaning we attach to motion.
Overall the reseach shows that aesthetic judgment are shaped by basic visual features like contour, complexity and movement. Even if movement does not play such a major role for abstract shapes. Simplicity, predictability and visual structure do have a great influence on beauty more that it might have been expected.
Bibliography
Donderi, D. C. (2006). Visual Complexity: A Review. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 73–97.
Soranzo, A., Bertacchini, F., & Bertamini, M. (2024). Abstract Shape Aesthetics: Contour, Complexity, Motion, and Individual Variability. Art & Perception, 12(3), 240–263. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-bja10057
