Nature experiences affect the aesthetic reception of art: The case of paintings depicting aquatic animals

Anne-Sophie Tribot; Daniel Faget; Thomas Changeux

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303584

. 2024 Jul 18;19(7):e0303584. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303584

Nature experiences affect the aesthetic reception of art: The case of paintings depicting aquatic animals

Anne-Sophie Tribot ¹, Daniel Faget ¹, Thomas Changeux ^2,^*

Editor: Avanti Dey³

PMCID: PMC11257337 PMID: 39024209

Abstract

Art is a promising pathway to raise emotional engagement with nature, while enabling an indirect exposure to nature through aesthetic experience. However, the precise relationships between aesthetic experiences of art and experiences of nature remain unclear. The aim of this observational study is to highlight the effect of nature experiences on the aesthetic reception art, based on Early Modern paintings (16th-18th century). By focusing on marine ecosystems, that are difficult to directly interact with, the results presented are intended to explore whether marine activities and fish consumption affect the aesthetic reception of artworks depicting marine biodiversity. A photo-questionnaire survey based on four paintings has been conducted with 332 French participants with a diverse range of marine practices, fish consumption and artistic sensitivity. Fish consumption and value attributed to fish as food had a significant positive impact on the aesthetic reception, suggesting that taste and food consumption could be considered as a relevant nature aesthetic experience that elicits affective and emotional responses. Results also showed an indirect effect of fishing and diving on the aesthetic reception of paintings whose iconography relates with the observers’ experiences. These findings are of particular interest in both environmental psychology and ecological mediation through art. This study brings evidences of the connection between art and nature experiences, and that art could be an innovative way of experiencing nature. Finally, this study also highlights the need to broaden the scope of nature experiences, for instance by including food.

1. Introduction

The aesthetic perception of nature is an essential part of the relationship between humans and nature, in the same way that art is a constituent element of human culture [1]. Within the many ways to experience nature, the engagement with nature’s beauty is particularly important regarding current environmental challenges [2,3], since emotional and sensory engagement with nature seems to have more effect on pro-environmental behaviors than do knowledge and theoretical education [4–7]. Aesthetic engagement with nature is thus a promising tool to improve motivation for conservation through nature experiences [8] while contributing to mental well-being [2]. In this perspective, environmental education has largely been dedicated to the mediation of biodiversity conservation through exposure to nature that enhance aesthetic experiences and promote engagement with nature’s beauty [9]. Although promising, this research questions the way of applying these methods to inaccessible or inconspicuous nature. This is notably the case for aquatic ecosystems, which represent a very pertinent concern in the context of emotional engagement through nature aesthetic experience. They combine strong human and ecological issues, and as such are included in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, while the relationships that humans develop with these ecosystems are mostly derived from indirect exposure (typically through food or cultural objects such as movies or pictures). Indeed, these ecosystems often remain inaccessible due to remoteness, mobility issues, lack of specific skills such as swimming, or to financial constraints [10]. This results in many beliefs and misapprehension in the perception of these ecosystems, that is often disconnected from ecological realities [11,12]. The resulting separation between human perception and ecological goals can act as a barrier to acceptance of conservation or restoration programs, and reveals the need to explore experiences that trigger significant affective and emotional responses.

Art is a worthy pathway in this context, because it allows to transcend the cognitive dimension of environmental concerns and to influences people’s worldviews and life goals [13], while either enabling an aesthetic experience through indirect exposure to nature [14] or engaging with nature’s beauty through artistic creation inspired by nature-based sources [15]. Given that art aesthetic experience here aims to substitute for the direct exposure to nature, there is therefore a need to define the factors though which they would mutually structure each other. More precisely, it is necessary to understand which experiences of nature have an effect on which dimensions of the aesthetic response. Surprisingly the field of psychology dedicated to the aesthetic sciences seems to have generally focused on art rather than nature, since works of art commonly elicit beauty judgments in people [16]. However, it is counterproductive to separate, on the one hand, nature experience and on the other hand art experience in this context, since aesthetic experience occurs in any situation that involves evaluative appraisal of objects [16,17]. This study therefore aims to reconcile art reception and nature experience, by considering the aesthetic reception of visual artworks representing the living world as an aesthetic experience of nature.

It has already been well demonstrated that artistic sensitivity and art knowledge influence the aesthetic reception of art [18]. In the same way, our hypothesis is therefore that experiences of nature may influence the aesthetic reception of artworks representing nature, in an iconographic context that echoes to the experiences of the observer. The observation of such an effect would constitute a new evidence of the link between nature experience and art aesthetic experience. This is of particular interest in environmental mediation through art, in order, for example, to take into account the previous nature experience of the target audience, and therefore the expected responsiveness [19], to adapt the artistic media used. Among the various ways of experiencing aquatic nature, food occupies an important place [20], as it represents the main regular contact with marine and freshwater fauna. It is thus relevant to question the perception of aquatic fauna as food in artistic and environmental mediation contexts, especially since overfishing represents one of the main concerns regarding aquatic biodiversity conservation [21]. Moreover, there is a clear link between aesthetics and food, since cooking could be interpreted as a kind of art, and taste and food consumption as aesthetic experiences [22]. Unlike numerous research that seeks to underlie the determinants of fish and seafood consumption [23,24], this article conversely considers consumption as a determinant of aesthetic valuation.

Early modern (16th– 18th centuries) paintings represent a convenient way to integrate this dimension, since in European still-lifes of this period, aquatic fauna -and in particular fish- is mainly represented as food. The fish are generally represented in different types of scenes such as fishmonger’s stalls, fishing products, kitchens, meals, or rather naturalistic paintings with a natural setting. This iconography is therefore particularly suited to the subject of this study. Other advantages of using Early Modern paintings relate to the temporal dimension of the relationship of humans with aquatic animals, and the changes of human perceptions of nature over time. This point is particularly important, since most ArtScience initiatives generally focus on post-19th c. art [25,26], while older art depicting nature in multiple aspects also deserves attention [14]. Finally, artworks from this period are likely to arouse multiple feelings ranging from curiosity, wonder, or appetite, to pity, disgust or unease [27], and thus elicit a multitude of positive or negative aesthetic responses.

In this context, this study aims to examine the effect of nature experience on the aesthetic reception of Early Modern paintings depicting aquatic biodiversity. This study thus proposes a step forward both in the ArtSciences field dedicated to environmental mediation and conservation biology, using an innovative and little explored material that is ancient art.

2. Material and methods

2.1 Participants

The survey was conducted with 332 online participants in France, aged between 16 and 95 years old. Participants were recruited using email distribution from local institutional mailing lists and advertisements. Women represented 60% of the participants, 6% were under 20, 46% were between 20 and 40, 36% were between 40 and 60, and 12% were over 60 years old. A large proportion of participants (54%) had higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations, and a job or a professional project related to the environment (70%). Fishing and spearfishing were regularly practiced by 13% of respondents, and scuba diving by 42%. Regarding artistic sensitivity, 20% of respondents had a job or professional project related to the visual arts, and 30% had visited a museum or exhibition at least 5 times in the past year.

2.2 Materials

Two sets of two paintings were randomly submitted in an online photo-questionnaire, for a total of four evaluated paintings (Fig 1). In order to limit the duration of the questionnaire and thus prevent the task from being too repetitive—and leading to biased responses -, the choice was made to assign only two paintings per participant instead of four. During each participation, one of the two sets of paintings was thus randomly assigned to each viewer. The number of ratings for each painting was 166 for 332 participants. The four paintings were Mediterranean still-lifes from the early modern period (16th-18th century) representing aquatic fauna. Stimuli have been chosen to show different types of scenes and iconographies, in which the marine fauna is represented in different contexts of representation (Fig 1): the diversity and abundance of resources, food and cooking, the fish market and pleasure, and the living animals. These paintings were chosen from a database of more than 300 painted works, by applying the following selection criteria: artworks from the same region (Mediterranean) to guarantee a homogeneity of artistic style, images available in high definition and under the public domain or CC0-License, or whose permission to publish has been obtained. The paintings should also be able to trigger positive or negative feelings depending on the viewers. Among the dozen works of art corresponding to these criteria, we selected the four that seemed most representative of the different contexts of representation, based on free exploratory interviews.

In order to verify that these various representations of aquatic fauna were indeed perceived as belonging to different contexts, we collected written statements of what each painting evoked to observers. The results of the textual analysis of these statements are shown in S1 File.

Painting 1 (P1, Recco, Pisces, 1683) can be interpreted as a fish stall or fish products representing the richness of the sea. Through an ordered but complex composition, the purpose of this artwork is to show the diversity and the abundance of aquatic fauna. Overall dark, the painting is characterized by textures and light effects, with contrasting colors that highlight orange-red species, and with attention paid to the details while rendering reality. By showing a large number of dead fish out of the water, this painting also evokes in contemporary viewers the negative impact of human activities on marine biodiversity.

Painting 2 (P2, Viladomat, Still Life with Shellfish, Fish and Vessels, 1710–1740) can be interpreted as a kitchen scene. Kitchen utensils, fruits and vegetables evoke a recipe. Here aquatic animals are mainly interpreted as food or gastronomic objects. The composition is simple but very homogeneous, with a marked degree of realism in a monochrome of ocher, orange and brown tones.

Painting 3 (P3, Campi, The fishmongers, 1579) is a market scene with a popular and comic dimension. The fish is present but it is not the main subject, which are the three characters: a couple and their child having their meal. Here, people are portrayed in their everyday life, and for this reason it can be described as genre scene painting. This painting evokes the sensations of pleasure and taste, family everyday life, diversity and abundance. Like P1, the fish stall, where fish that are visibly dead or prepared for cooking also—evoke for contemporary viewers the overconsumption of aquatic resources by humans.

Painting 4 (P4, Porpora, Still life of fish and crustaceans, 1617–1673) approaches naturalistic painting, with amazing living animals seen as in an aquarium, mainly crustaceans in movement with strange shapes and colors. It is an intimate scene that looks like a realistic cabinet of curiosities, and invites wonder and the discovery of the underwater world.

The objective of this survey is thus to identify whether the aesthetic reception of these artworks presenting different scenes with aquatic fauna vary according to the viewer’s relationship to marine environments. This relationship was delimited through different types of exposure (i.e. experiences) to marine environment: marine activities as direct exposure (scuba-diving, snorkeling, fishing and spearfishing); and fish consumption as indirect exposure through the senses and the pleasure of taste. Since artistic sensitivity of participants is also likely to directly influence aesthetic reception, we also assessed the frequency of museum visits and identified the participants with a professional activity related to the visual arts (Fig 2). Finally, we also checked the effect of socio-demographic variables on aesthetic reception, such as age and socio-professional category.

Fig 2 — Arrows represent the tested relationships.

2.3 Procedure

2.3.1 Photo-questionnaire

This study was declared to the ethics committee of Aix-Marseille University. Ethical approval was not required for this photo-questionnaire, conducted in accordance with the French public agency Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL): it was strictly anonymous, no personal data was collected, the participants were informed of the general purpose of the study and the processing of the data, the contact details of the researchers were provided to the participants, participants gave their consent by checking a box at the beginning of the questionnaire. The study was carried out from September 2022 to November 2022, on an adult audience (over 18 years old), recruited by an email information campaign among Aix-Marseille University staff and national academic mailing lists.

The photo-questionnaire consisted of several steps (see questionnaire provided in S2 File): (i) Instructions: the viewers were informed of the different steps of the questionnaire, they were asked to be in a quiet place, at a computer, and if possible, with a large screen. There was no time limitation. (ii) Observation: two photos of the paintings from the random set were sequentially shown in high definition on the screen. The viewer could observe the painting as long as he/she wished and could return to it at any time. (iii) Art Reception Survey: the viewer rated two paintings using a questionnaire. A textual content field was also available to viewers, to express in a few words what the paintings evoked for them. (iv) Fish consumption survey: viewers provided information on their fish consumption habits and the values they attribute to fish as food, using a questionnaire. (v) Marine practices and experiences: additional questions were intended to identify persons engaged in fishing or spearfishing, and/or scuba diving. We also asked for the number of years lived in coastal areas, and identified participants with a professional activity related to the environment (vi) Artistic interest: we estimated artistic interest by asking how many times the participants had visited a temporary exhibition or a museum in the last twelve months, and by identifying participants with a professional activity related to visual arts (vii) Socio-demographic variables: we asked participants their age, gender and socio-professional category (SPC).

2.3.2 Assessment of aesthetic reception

To assess the aesthetic experience of the viewers, we used the Art Reception Survey adapted from Hager at al. [1]. This self-assessment scale aims to precisely measure the different structuring factors of the aesthetic experience. Based on the model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgement proposed by Leder et al. [28], this scale measures 6 factors: Cognitive stimulation, Negative emotionality, Expertise, Self-reference, Artistic quality and Positive attraction (see S3 and S4 Files). We used a simplified version of the scale, by selecting the most informative items tested by Hager et al. (items with Loading > 0.7). Within the factor ‘Negative emotionality’ we added an item dedicated to the feeling of anger, as we hypothesized that some paintings may trigger such feelings due to the representation of fish out of water (Particularly for P1 and P2). For each item, the participants were asked to rate their endorsement on a five-point rating scale, ranging from 1 = completely disagree, 2 = rather disagree, 3 = neither nor, 4 = rather agree, 5 = completely agree. We determined the aesthetic reception score (ARS) of participants by calculating the mean of each factor for each painting. Factor scores were calculated by averaging each corresponding item. We also calculated the overall ARS for each painting by averaging the total scores obtained for each factor.

2.3.3 Viewers’ factors

Fish consumption. In order to assess whether fish consumption behavior and the value attributed to fish as food influence aesthetic reception, we used a self-assessment scale adapted from Verbeke and Vackier [29], based on the Theory of Planned Behavior [30] that links attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control to behavior. In order to shorten the duration of the questionnaire, we have chosen to use a simplified scale by selecting the most informative items according to Verbeke and Vackier [29]. The scale is thus composed of 13 items classified among 5 factors: Behavior; Attitude (evaluative and affective judgements); Perceived behavioral control; and Past experiences (see S3 and S4 Files). For each item, the participants were asked to rate their endorsement on a five-point rating scale, ranging from 1 = completely disagree, 2 = rather disagree, 3 = neither nor, 4 = rather agree, 5 = completely agree. The final fish consumption score (EAT) for each participant was calculated by averaging each factor. Factor scores were calculated by averaging each corresponding item.

We expected that participants who regularly consume fish, and who have a more positive attitude and experience in preparing and eating fish are more likely to have a higher aesthetic reception. Given that fish as depicted in Early Modern still-lifes is mostly represented as food (particularly in P1, P2 and P3), we expect that fish consumption score mainly affects the factor ‘Self-reference’ of aesthetic reception.

Marine activities. We identified participants that practice fishing or spearfishing (Fsh), and/or scuba diving and snorkeling (Div). We also asked for the number of years lived in coastal areas (Litt) and identified participants who have a professional activity related to the environment (P.env). The aim is to test the hypothesis that viewers who are more often directly exposed to marine life are more likely to have strong aesthetic experiences in front of paintings representing the aquatic biodiversity (particularly for P4).

Artistic sensitivity. Since regular exposure to art can influence aesthetic reception [18], we asked participants how many times they had visited a temporary exhibition or a museum in the last twelve months (Mus). We hypothesized that participants who regularly visit museums are more likely to obtain a higher aesthetic reception score, regardless of the painting. We also identified participants with a professional activity related to visual arts (P.art).

Socio-demographic variables. We also tested the effect of variables such as age and socio-professional category, since they are likely to influence fish consumption, marine practices and the museum attendance.

2.4 Statistical analyses

2.4.1 Aesthetic reception scores of paintings

We computed the aesthetic reception score (ARS) of each painting by calculating the mean and the standard deviation of each of the six factors (Cognitive stimulation, Negative emotionality, Expertise, Self-reference, Artistic quality and Positive attraction). In order to assess the validity of the observed ARS score of paintings, we first computed an exploratory factor analysis (see Supporting information). Overall, all items had a Cronbach’s alpha value higher to 0.7, but a few had item-rest correlation values less than 0.2 (‘This painting is pleasant’, ‘This painting disgust me’, ‘This painting makes me feel afraid’) and a uniqueness value close to 0.7 (‘This painting is very innovative’, ‘I know this painting’ and ‘I can relate this painting to its art historical context’). Given that the construction of the six factors based on the items’ contributions did not perfectly match that of Hager et al. [1], we have therefore chosen to keep the original ARS factors from the authors, and perform a confirmatory factor analysis based on this model (see S4 File). The parameters of the model obtained had a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.87, a Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.84, and a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.08.

2.4.2 Fish consumption scores of participants

We computed the fish consumption score (EAT) of each participant by calculating the mean and the standard deviation of each of the five measured factors (Behavior; Evaluative and Affective judgements; Perceived behavioral control; and Past experiences). In order to assess the validity of the observed EAT scores, we used an exploratory factor analysis followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (see S3 and S4 Files), based on the model from Verbeke and Vackier [29]. The parameters of the obtained model had a CFI of 0.98, a TLI of 0.96, and a RMSE of 0.05.

2.4.3 Marine activities, Artistic sensitivity and Sociodemographic variables

In order to explore the links between the different variables that are not based on a psychometric scale, we performed a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), with the aim of gathering the associated variables into new factors (see S5 File). The four resulting factors explained 64% of the variance, based on the grouping of the following variables: (i) socio-professional category and age (17%); (ii) fishing and number of years lived in a coastal area (FSH); (iii) diving and professional activity related to the environment (DIV); and (iv) frequency of museum visits and professional activity related to the visual arts (ART). These four factors were then used in the final structural equation model as latent variables.

2.4.4 Effect of viewers’ factors on aesthetic reception

In order to assess the correlations between the viewer’s factors and each of the six ARS factors, we performed Pearson’s correlation tests. We then carried out a structural equation model (SEM) in order to identify the directionality of the effect of viewer’s factors on aesthetic reception. The latent variables used in the model were defined on the basis of the previous factorial analyses. The effects of each of these latent variables on ARS scores were then assessed using multiple regression. Additional regressions between significantly correlated intra-factorial variables were also added.

3. Results

3.1 Aesthetic reception of the paintings

Overall, the mean aesthetic reception scores of the four paintings were not significantly different. However, the results showed a noticeable difference between P3 which obtained the highest mean ARS score, and P2 which had the lowest mean ARS score (Table 1). Regarding the mean of each factor considered separately, P3 obtained the lowest score of Artistic quality and Cognitive stimulation. P1 obtained the highest score of negative emotionality, conversely P4 got the highest score for Attractivity.

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of each Aesthetic reception score (ARS) factor, separated for each painting (P1 to P4).

Factor	P1		P2		P3		P4
Factor	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Qual	2.383	.711	1.837	.758	2.442	.640	2.275	.764
Attr	1.738	1.013	2.030	.997	2.051	.925	2.762	.889
Neg	1.483	.896	.816	.755	1.248	.860	.582	.641
Exp	1.042	.854	.839	.785	1.100	.859	.847	.879
Self	1.018	1.063	.978	1.145	.857	.959	.886	1.058
Cog	2.282	.939	1.708	.943	2.535	.816	2.169	.956
ARS	1.658	.466	1.368	.507	1.706	.445	1.587	.531

Open in a new tab

M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. Qual = Artistic quality; Attr = Attractivity; Neg = Negative emotionality; Exp = Expertise; Self = Self-reference; Cog = Cognitive stimulation.

3.2 Correlations between viewers’ factors and aesthetic reception factors

Pearson’s tests revealed significant correlations between viewer’s factors and ARS factors (Table 2). Fish consumption score (EAT) was the one most often correlated with ARS factors, particularly with Attractiveness, Expertise, and Negative emotionality (negative correlation). Fishing (FSH) and diving (DIV) were also positively correlated with Self-reference aesthetic factor for all paintings except P3, suggesting that the iconographic content from which humans are absent directly echoes the past experiences of divers and fishers. Artistic sensitivity (ART) showed a high correlation with ARS of P3 and P4, especially for Expertise and Cognitive stimulation, while it was not correlated with ARS of P1 and P2. This suggest that scene genre and naturalist paintings arouse more aesthetic interest for art enthusiasts than still-lifes.

Table 2. Correlations between the Aesthetic reception score (ARS) factors of each painting and the viewer’s factors.

Factor	P1				Factor	P2
Factor	ART	EAT	DIV	FSH	Factor	ART	EAT	DIV	FSH
Qual	.07 (.346)	.08 (.315)	.07 (.398)	.08 (.314)	Qual	-.01 (.895)	.15 (.05)	.02 (.809)	.05 (.552)
Attr	.02 (.794)	.22 (.005)	.01 (.856)	.14 (.080)	Attr	.16 (.040)	.22 (.005)	-.04 (.586)	.12 (.124)
Neg	-.01 (.861)	-.30 (.000)	.00 (.988)	-.15 (.051)	Neg	-.04 (.642)	-.32 (.000)	-.01 (.887)	-.24 (.002)
Exp	.10 (.220)	.31 (.000)	.00 (.958)	.18 (.026)	Exp	.04 (.662)	.25 (.001)	-.08 (.334)	.17 (.026)
Self	-.05 (.534)	.11 (.180)	.23 (.003)	.22 (.006)	Self	-.03 (.749)	.17 (.034)	.24 (.002)	.20 (.013)
Cog	.19 (.013)	.13 (.113)	.04 (.659)	.09 (.261)	Cog	.04 (.597)	.17 (.030)	.07 (.371)	.15 (.057)
ARS	.10 (.211)	.18 (.023)	.12 (.131)	.18 (.018)	ARS	.05 (.498)	.21 (.007)	.08 (.320)	.16 (.049)
Factor	P3				Factor	P4
Factor	ART	EAT	DIV	FSH	Factor	ART	EAT	DIV	FSH
Qual	.15 (.061)	.11 (.180)	-.09 (.283)	.13 (.092)	Qual	.09 (.264)	.21 (.006)	.08 (.343)	.04 (.583)
Attr	.16 (.037)	.21 (.007)	-.11 (.178)	.11 (.183)	Attr	.18 (.019)	.14 (.066)	.08 (.287)	-.02 (.778)
Neg	-.20 (.011)	-.23 (.004)	.12 (.138)	-.07 (.376)	Neg	-.08 (.328)	-.10 (.227)	.02 (.829)	.02 (.851)
Exp	.29 (.000)	.21 (.007)	-.03 (.689)	.03 (.707)	Exp	.27 (.001)	.22 (.006)	.03 (.703)	-.01 (.910)
Self	.14 (.073)	.23 (.003)	.16 (.041)	.19 (.013)	Self	.16 (.047)	.25 (.002)	.22 (.005)	.23 (.003)
Cog	.23 (.003)	.18 (.025)	-.07 (.356)	.04 (.594)	Cog	.20 (.011)	.20 (.012)	.11 (.166)	.10 (.204)
ARS	.24 (.002)	.23 (.003)	.01 (.945)	.14 (.082)	ARS	.24 (.002)	.27 (.000)	.16 (.042)	.11 (.157)

Open in a new tab

Values correspond to the Pearson correlation coefficient r. Values in brackets show the p-value of the Pearson correlation test. Bold values represent significant correlations. Qual = Artistic quality; Attr = Attractivity; Neg = Negative emotionality; Exp = Expertise; Self = Self-reference; Cog = Cognitive stimulation. ART = Artistic sensitivity (museum frequentation and professional activity related to visual arts); EAT = Fish consumption score; DIV = Diving (coupled with professional activity related to environment); FSH = Fishing (coupled with number of years lived in a coastal area).

3.3 Effect of viewers’ factors on aesthetic reception

The SEM model (Fig 3) shown a direct significant effect of artistic sensitivity and fish consumption score on aesthetic reception, including an indirect effect of scuba-diving and fishing on fish consumption score. Note that professional activity related to the environment and number of years lived in a coastal area had a significant effect on diving and fishing, respectively. Age and SPC were included in the model as belonging to fish consumption (EAT) latent variable, because the model obtained better validity parameters with this classification. These two variables therefore had an indirect effect on aesthetic reception, since they positively influenced fish consumption.

4. Discussion

Engagement with nature’s beauty is an important determinant of motivation for the conservation of biodiversity. Although this particular aspect of human-nature relations has mostly been explored through the prism of direct experiences of nature, exposures to nature through art deserve particular attention in the case of inaccessible environments such as aquatic ecosystems. However, the characterization of the link between art reception and nature experience needs to be better defined. As a first step, this observational study thus aims to explore the effect of previous nature experiences of the observer on the aesthetic reception of art depicting nature, based on Early Modern paintings. A photo-questionnaire survey based on four paintings has been conducted on 332 French participants with a diverse range of marine practices, fish consumption and artistic sensitivity.

4.1 Fish consumption

One of the most important contribution of this study concerns fish consumption and valuation of fish as food: Aesthetic reception of the four paintings has been particularly sensitive to the fish consumption score that aggregates Behavior; Evaluative and Affective judgements; Perceived behavioral control; and Past experiences. More precisely, this specific kind of exposure to aquatic organisms increases the attractivity of the paintings, and decreases negative emotionality. Thus, it seems that observers who regularly consume and enjoy fish as food tend to judge the still-lifes to be more beautiful and pleasurable.

This result seems counter-intuitive given previous research on the assessment of consumed animals, that are typically denied any kind of positive evaluation: meat eaters tend to reduce mind attribution to animals, and ascribe to edible animals lesser mental capacities [31,32]. Particularly, Loughnan et al. [32] showed that aquatic animals (fish, lobster, prawn and crab) were ranked among the most edible animals with the lowest mental capacities. According to the authors, the dissonance related to their consumption therefore may be less evident than for other animals such as mammals. One hypothesis regarding our results is that eating fish might be considered a more morally acceptable practice, and thus more conducive to a positive aesthetic response. However, it is important to note that scuba diving had a direct effect on fish consumption. This sporting and contemplative activity seems a priori incompatible with a negative valuation of aquatic species. It would thus suggest that the consumption of these animals does not depress the affective and aesthetic value attributed to them. Another hypothesis, which needs to be explored, is that people with a strong taste for fish could consider cooking and eating as an aesthetic experience in itself. In addition, the cultural dimension of this product probably plays a major role here. Given that the fish consumption was influenced by fishing and the number of years lived in the coastal area, fish could be considered as a gastronomic symbol of a region, and as a factor of cultural identity. In France, the most consuming regions are unsurprisingly the coastal areas, including marked regional specificities, according to a report published in 2021 by FranceAgriMer, La consommation des produits aquatiques en 2020 [33].

It therefore seems important to question here the purely utilitarian vision of nature within the act of eating. Taste and food consumption should be considered as a relevant nature aesthetic experience that elicits affective and emotional responses, and reveal the existence of an intrinsic and relational heritage value [34]. In this sense, engaged consumption might not systematically be unfavorable to the motivation for the sustainable conservation of biodiversity, since these aesthetic experiences could trigger concerns about overfishing and consumption-related issues. Conversely, it is important to acknowledge that taste enjoyment related to fish as food may also arouse the desire to consume and therefore influence behaviors that not favorable to sustainable aquatic biodiversity, especially for species whose consumption results from overfishing or intensive aquaculture. Thus, we hypothesize that the act of eating could be considered as an aesthetic experience of nature that could generate pleasure and interest in marine life, capable of having a favorable effect on behavior, on the condition that this specific behavior is engaged -both physically and morally- and thoughtful. This perspective, however, needs to be tested experimentally.

4.2 Fishing and scuba-diving

Fishing and scuba-diving had an indirect effect on global aesthetic reception, by influencing fish consumption. Scuba-diving was influenced by professional activity related to the environment, and fishing was partly determined by the number of years spent in a coastal area. These marine practices were positively correlated to P1, P2 and P4 through Self-refence. It clearly appears here that experiences of marine environments act on the aesthetic reception of still-lifes through a mere exposure effect. In other words, these representations directly echo the experiences of observers, and create a sense of identification and familiarity with the represented species [19,35]. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that scuba-diving and fishing were not correlated to the aesthetic reception of P3, whose subject is not aquatic animals but human characters.

4.3 Age and SPC

Age and Socio-professional category had an indirect effect on global aesthetic reception, by influencing fish consumption. This result is congruent with statistics regarding French fish consumption, which increases with age and income level [33].

4.4 Artistic sensitivity

Unsurprisingly, artistic sensitivity had the highest impact on the global aesthetic reception of the paintings. This factor, which includes the frequency of museum visits and professional activity related to visual arts, was particularly correlated to the aesthetic score of P3 and P4, especially for Expertise and Cognitive stimulation. It thus seems that observers with a strong artistic sensibility and knowledge had stronger aesthetic responses trough the cognitive dimension. P3 represent a classical market scene largely inspired by famous Flemish painters such as Joachim Beuckelear, and correspond to the genre scenes to which museum audiences in Europe are commonly exposed. Regarding P4, it is a naturalist painting in which the animals are represented alive and are integrated into the environment, which makes it particularly original for its time, likely to pique the interest of experienced observers.

4.5 Focus on iconographic interpretation

The textual statements related to the iconographic interpretation of the paintings (see S1 and S2 Files) revealed information that helps to understand their general aesthetic reception.

In particular, these interpretations are differentiated by positive and negative valences. Positive interpretations related to richness, abundance, diversity and wonder, and to a lesser extent to taste and appetite. Conversely, negative interpretations referred to overconsumption, overfishing and animal suffering, and were felt by people that were not engaged in marine activities and fish consumption. These perceptions are obviously anachronistic, since the artists of that period did not aim to alert the public to environmental issues. Although it is difficult to assess how negative emotions contribute to aesthetic pleasure [36], these interpretations demonstrate how artworks from the past can echoes with our contemporary environmental concerns. These paintings also seem to trigger a feeling of empathy in an audience with little exposure to marine ecosystems, and could therefore be considered as a possible mediation tool. Regarding P4, which shows living species from a rather naturalistic approach, the interpretations were much more consensual and its aesthetic reception was overall more positive.

Whether positive or negative, these aesthetic experiences arouse interest and convey emotional involvement with the animals depicted. Among the several possible aesthetic responses, the observation of these artworks therefore invites reflection and allows us to question the evolution of our perception of the environment and its resources over time. These artworks seem to allow us to connect with aquatic worlds, otherwise inaccessible, through the senses and emotions.

5. Conclusions

The results of these observational study highlight a link between perception of artistic representations of nature, and personal experiences with the living world. This link can be explained by exposure effect and consequently by a feeling of familiarity, and of cultural, affective and emotional attachment. In this way, taste and food consumption could be considered as a relevant nature aesthetic experience that elicits affective and emotional responses, and could be beneficial–or at least not deleterious–for biodiversity conservation. Aesthetic experience of art could thus be a relevant entry point to discuss the personal history and relationship to nature of the observers.

We acknowledge that this observational study has limitations. First, the sample was intended to measure the effect of marine practices on the aesthetic reception of still-lifes, and therefore constitutes a specific study case that it would be unwise to generalize. Furthermore, this study was conducted specifically in France, based on European artworks from a particular period. This study is therefore culturally and artistically biased. It would thus be necessary to test the aesthetic reception of these artworks by observers from other countries to evaluate more precisely the effect of cultural dimensions, such as place attachment [35]. In addition, this study focuses on fish consumption, yet the aquatic animals that are both commonly consumed and depicted in still life paintings are not limited to fish. A similar study could be conducted by focusing on other groups, such as crustaceans or molluscs, whose aesthetic perception could be slightly different. Finally, this study relied on a photo-based method, and therefore cannot replace an experience carried out in-situ [37]. However, such an approach offers relevant perspectives intended to show artworks outside of museums, in order to reach an audience that does not visit them [38].

In conclusion, although it is impossible to assert that the aesthetic experience of art can be directly substituted for an aesthetic experience of nature—given its multi-sensory dimension—this study demonstrates however the fundamental connection between art and nature experiences. Art could therefore be an innovative way of experiencing nature. By providing further evidence that art should be considered a promising means of engaging with biodiversity by indirect exposure and through aesthetic experience, this study is of particular interest for aesthetic learning and biological conservation, and is a contribution to the development of ArtScience initiatives dedicated to the promotion of biodiversity through affective and emotional dimensions. This study also highlights the need to redefine and broaden the scope of nature experiences, for example by including food. This line of research would make it possible to add a new sensory dimension—in this case taste—to Human-Nature relationships.

This result constitutes a first step, the next one consists of exploring the reverse relationship: studying precisely how art can influence the perception of nature. This perspective is of particular interest for environmental psychology and ecological mediation, and to address the potential role of museum collections and ancient art as a means of engaged exposure to physically inaccessible ecosystems [14].

Supporting information

S1 File. Semantic analysis of the representations of the paintings according to the observers.

(PDF)

pone.0303584.s001.pdf^{(487.2KB, pdf)}

S2 File. Questionnaire.

(PDF)

pone.0303584.s002.pdf^{(143.5KB, pdf)}

S3 File. Exploratory factor analysis of aesthetic reception scale and fish consumption scale.

(PDF)

pone.0303584.s003.pdf^{(100.5KB, pdf)}

S4 File. Confirmatory factor analysis of aesthetic reception scale and fish consumption scale.

(PDF)

pone.0303584.s004.pdf^{(109.9KB, pdf)}

S5 File. Principal component analysis of marine activities, artistic sensitivity and socio-demographic variables.

(PDF)

pone.0303584.s005.pdf^{(105.2KB, pdf)}

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Figshare repository: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23592327.v1.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Fondation de France, the Institut Méditerranéen pour la Transition Environnementale (ITEM), Excellence Initiative of Aix-Marseille University - A*MIDEX, a French “Investissements d’Avenir” programme, and Agence de l’eau Rhône Méditerranée Corse. The funding mainly paid AST's salary, ans also the small costs of DF, AMU agent and TC,IRD agent. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Hager M, Hagemann D, Danner D, Schankin A. Assessing aesthetic appreciation of visual artworks—The construction of the Art Reception Survey (ARS). Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts. 2012;6: 320–333. doi: 10.1037/a0028776 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2.Zhang JW, Howell RT, Iyer R. Engagement with natural beauty moderates the positive relation between connectedness with nature and psychological well-being. J Environ Psychol. 2014;38: 55–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3.Barrows PD, Richardson M, Hamlin I, Van Gordon W. Nature Connectedness, Nonattachment, and Engagement with Nature’s Beauty Predict Pro-Nature Conservation Behavior. Ecopsychology. 2022;14: 83–91. doi: 10.1089/eco.2021.0036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
4.Zylstra MJ, Knight AT, Esler KJ, Le Grange LLL. Connectedness as a Core Conservation Concern: An Interdisciplinary Review of Theory and a Call for Practice. Springer Sci Rev. 2014;2: 119–143. doi: 10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5.Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Klaniecki K, Dorninger C, et al. Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2017;26–27: 106–113. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
6.Lumber R, Richardson M, Sheffield D. Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. Bastian B, editor. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0177186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Pritchard A, Richardson M, Sheffield D, McEwan K. The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic Well-Being: A Meta-analysis. J Happiness Stud. 2020;21: 1145–1167. doi: 10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8.Lundberg P, Vainio A, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ, Veríssimo D, Arponen A. The effect of knowledge, species aesthetic appeal, familiarity and conservation need on willingness to donate. Anim Conserv. 2019;22: 432–443. doi: 10.1111/acv.12477 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Barrable A. Refocusing Environmental Education in the Early Years: A Brief Introduction to a Pedagogy for Connection. Educ Sci. 2019;9: 61. doi: 10.3390/educsci9010061 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Januchowski-Hartley SR, Bear C, O’Gorman E, Januchowski-Hartley FA. “Underwater". An A to Z of Shadow Places Concepts. 2020.
11.Langlois J, Guilhaumon F, Baletaud F, Casajus N, De Almeida Braga C, Fleuré V, et al. The aesthetic value of reef fishes is globally mismatched to their conservation priorities. Tanentzap AJ, editor. PLOS Biol. 2022;20: e3001640. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001640 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Tribot A-S, Deter J, Mouquet N. Integrating the aesthetic value of landscapes and biological diversity. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2018;285: 20180971. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.0971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Heras M, Galafassi D, Oteros-Rozas E, Ravera F, Berraquero-Díaz L, Ruiz-Mallén I. Realising potentials for arts-based sustainability science. Sustain Sci. 2021;16: 1875–1889. doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-01002-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14.Tribot A-S, Faget D, Richard T, Changeux T. The role of pre-19th century art in conservation biology: An untapped potential for connecting with nature. Biol Conserv. 2022;276: 109791. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109791 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Renowden C, Beer T, Mata L. Exploring integrated ArtScience experiences to foster nature connectedness through head, heart and hand. People Nat. 2022;4: 519–533. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10301 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Chatterjee A, Cardillo ER, editors. Brain, beauty, and art: essays bringing neuroaesthetics into focus. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2022. [Google Scholar]
17.Carlson A. Environmental aesthetics. 1st ed. Routledge; Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2016. [Google Scholar]
18.Shimamura AP. Toward a Science of Aesthetics: Issues and ideas. Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience. Oxford Academic; 2012. pp. 3–28. [Google Scholar]
19.Güsewell A, Ruch W. Are there multiple channels through which we connect with beauty and excellence? J Posit Psychol. 2012;7: 516–529. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2012.726636 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20.Jones E, Chikwama C. Access to marine ecosystems services: Inequalities in Scotland’s young people. Ecol Econ. 2021;188: 107139. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Jackson JBC. Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science. 2001;293: 629–637. doi: 10.1126/science.1059199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Bottinelli S, Valva MD, editors. The Taste of Art: Cooking, Food, and Counterculture in Contemporary Practices. University of Arkansas Press; 2017. [Google Scholar]
23.Olsen SO. Antecedents of Seafood Consumption Behavior: An Overview. J Aquat Food Prod Technol. 2004;13: 79–91. doi: 10.1300/J030v13n03_08 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Govzman S, Looby S, Wang X, Butler F, Gibney ER, Timon CM. A systematic review of the determinants of seafood consumption. Br J Nutr. 2021;126: 66–80. doi: 10.1017/S0007114520003773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Lesen AE, Rogan A, Blum MJ. Science Communication Through Art: Objectives, Challenges, and Outcomes. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;31: 657–660. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Black JE, Morrison K, Urquhart J, Potter C, Courtney P, Goodenough A. Bringing the arts into socio-ecological research: An analysis of the barriers and opportunities to collaboration across the divide. People Nat. 2023; pan3.10489. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10489 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Vézilier-Dussart S. L’odyssée des animaux: les peintres animaliers flamands du XVIIe siècle [exposition, Cassel, Musée départemental de Flandre, 8 octobre 2016–22 janvier 2017]. Gand Cassel: Snoeck Musée de Flandre; 2016.
28.Leder H, Belke B, Oeberst A, Augustin D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. Br J Psychol. 2004;95: 489–508. doi: 10.1348/0007126042369811 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Verbeke W, Vackier I. Individual determinants of fish consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite. 2005;44: 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50: 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Bastian B, Loughnan S, Haslam N, Radke HRM. Don’t Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012;38: 247–256. doi: 10.1177/0146167211424291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Loughnan S, Bastian B, Haslam N. The Psychology of Eating Animals. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2014;23: 104–108. doi: 10.1177/0963721414525781 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.La consommation des produits aquatiques en 2020. FranceAgriMer; 2021 p. 130.
34.Azzopardi E, Kenter JO, Young J, Leakey C, O’Connor S, Martino S, et al. What are heritage values? Integrating natural and cultural heritage into environmental valuation. People Nat. 2023;5: 368–383. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10386 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T. Associations between Landscape Preferences and Place Attachment: A study in Røros, Southern Norway. Landsc Res. 2002;27: 381–396. doi: 10.1080/0142639022000023943 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
36.Menninghaus W, Wagner V, Hanich J, Wassiliwizky E, Jacobsen T, Koelsch S. The Distancing-Embracing model of the enjoyment of negative emotions in art reception. Behav Brain Sci. 2017;40: e347. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X17000309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Hull RB, Stewart Wp. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. J Environ Psychol. 1992;12: 101–114. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80063-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
38.Winkin Y, Doueihi M. Ré-inventer les musées? Paris: MkF éditions; 2020.

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303584.r001

Decision Letter 0

Dharmendra Kumar Meena

2 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-28152Nature experiences affect the aesthetic reception of art: The case of paintings depicting aquatic biodiversityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Changeux,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 17 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dharmendra Kumar Meena

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

"NO"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

A.) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

B.) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Additional Editor Comments:

Article can not be processed in its present form and recommend a through major revisions

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript explores the relationship between aesthetic experiences of art and experiences of nature, focusing on aquatic animals. The idea and perspective of this manuscript are intriguing, but some contents are not always clear. The authors need to clarify the following:

Specific comments:

1. Line 204-220. The use of Marks (1)-(7) for labeling may be confused with reference citation numbers. The way they are used in Line 307 and 308 appears to be clearer.

2. I suggest the author includes their questionnaire as supplementary information. This would greatly assist readers in quickly understanding their work.

3. Based on their questionnaire, the authors concluded that “fish consumption and value attributed to fish as food had a significant positive impact one the aesthetic reception (Line 23-24, and also Line 293-293)”. Then they proposed that “taste and food consumption could be considered as a relevant nature aesthetic experience that elicits affective and emotional responses (Line 24-25)”. This conclusion and discussion seem reasonable.

However, on this basis, the authors emphasized that “taste and food consumption could be beneficial for biodiversity conservation (Line 26, and also Line 416-419)”. I found the logic behind this notion in the manuscript unclear. While it is true that these experiences would increase the attractivity of the paintings and decreases negative emotionality, it seems challenging to predict whether this would ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to biodiversity conservation. Someone might be more concerned about the sustainable conservation of biodiversity. Conversely, it may also arouse people's desires, potentially leading to overfishing. Additionally, even if it is helpful to increase the number of edible aquatic animals, this could disrupt the ecological balance and not contribute to overall bio-“diversity" conservation.

The authors must clarify this in the revised version.

Reviewer #2: 1. The introduction is a little bit too long and may reduce readers’ attentions. I suggest simplifying this section and 4-5 paragraphs should be enough to describe the background and importance of the study, as well as objectives.

2. Honestly, I am not very familiar to methods of questionnaire surveys. I am wondering why there were only two paintings but not four assigned to each participant. It would be better to present the reason in the method.

3. Line 139: remove “,” following 166.

4. Result 3.2 (lines 339-342). More information should be present. For example, based on Table 2, both DIV and FSH appeared to be correlated with Self in most pictures. This findings were actually mentioned in the discussion section (line 425). In P3 and P4, ART showed a high correlation with ARS, especially for Exp and Cog, which was different from P1 and P2. These findings were also mentioned in the discussion section (lines 438-444) and it maybe interesting to explain this difference in the discussion.

5. Lines 375-384: this paragraph (the design and objectives of the study) would be better to present in introduction section than discussion section.

6. Actually, there were many different marine captures but only “fish” consumption were considered in this study. I know it is impossible to change the factor of fish consumption to the consumption of marine captures now, but it will be good to mention this limitation in the discussion section.

7. Subtitle: The case of paintings depicting aquatic biodiversity. Based on the paintings in this MS, it maybe not proper to use “aquatic biodiversity”. Words, like aquatic/marine animals, aquatic/marine captures, maybe better.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: ZENG XIANYUAN

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 18;19(7):e0303584. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303584.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

24 Nov 2023

Responses to reviewers

> We thank Reviewer 1 for his/her comments that helped us to improve the manuscript and clarify and the proposed conclusions.

Specific comments:

1. Line 204-220. The use of Marks (1)-(7) for labeling may be confused with reference citation numbers. The way they are used in Line 307 and 308 appears to be clearer.

> We modified the labels accordingly (Lines 236-251).

2. I suggest the author includes their questionnaire as supplementary information. This would greatly assist readers in quickly understanding their work.

> We added the questionnaire as supporting information (S2, translated from French to English).

The authors must clarify this in the revised version.

> We agree with statement. The fact that aesthetic experience through taste is beneficial to conservation is not obvious, it is rather an idea or a perspective to be tested. For this reason, we deleted the mention of this hypothesis in the abstract (Line 32). In discussion, we put this statement into perspective by precising whether consumption might or might not be unfavorable to the motivation for the sustainable conservation of biodiversity (Lines 461-476).

Reviewer #2:

1. The introduction is a little bit too long and may reduce readers’ attentions. I suggest simplifying this section and 4-5 paragraphs should be enough to describe the background and importance of the study, as well as objectives.

> We thank Reviewer 2 for his/her comments that helped us to improve the manuscript regarding the introduction, methods, results and discussion.

> We deleted the paragraph dedicated to neuro-aesthetic theories, since it was disconnected from the core subject of the study (Line 76). We also shortened the following paragraph (Line 97), and restructured the introduction in 4 paragraphs.

> We have specified the justification for this methodological choice in the “materials” section (Line 154-156): In order to limit the duration of the questionnaire and thus prevent the task from being too repetitive - and leading to biased responses -, the choice was made to assign only two paintings per participant instead of four.

3. Line 139: remove “,” following 166.

> Done

4. Result 3.2 (lines 339-342). More information should be present.

- For example, based on Table 2, both DIV and FSH appeared to be correlated with Self in most pictures. These findings were actually mentioned in the discussion section (line 425).

- In P3 and P4, ART showed a high correlation with ARS, especially for Exp and Cog, which was different from P1 and P2. These findings were also mentioned in the discussion section (lines 438-444) and it may be interesting to explain this difference in the discussion.

> We added comments related to Table 2 accordingly (Lines 382-388), mentioned again in discussion (Lines 486-488 and 504-510).

5. Lines 375-384: this paragraph (the design and objectives of the study) would be better to present in introduction section than discussion section.

> This paragraph (Lines 421-430) aims to remind the objectives of the study before discussing the results in the details. If possible, we would like to keep this reminds here.

6. Actually, there were many different marine captures but only “fish” consumption was considered in this study. I know it is impossible to change the factor of fish consumption to the consumption of marine captures now, but it will be good to mention this limitation in the discussion section.

> We added these limitations in conclusions (Lines 557-561).

> We modified the title accordingly.

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303584.r003

Decision Letter 1

PLOS ONE Editors

14 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-28152R1

Nature experiences affect the aesthetic reception of art: The case of paintings depicting aquatic biodiversity

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Changeux,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE, and for responding to our recent requests regarding your submission. After careful evaluation, we have decided that your submission does not meet our publication criteria and must be rejected.

Based on our evaluation of your manuscript and the information you provided, we do not feel that your submission meets our ethical requirements for human subjects research submissions. PLOS ONE requires that research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/human-subjects-research). We reserve the right to reject any submission that does not meet our internal ethical standards, which in some cases are more stringent than local ethical standards.

You have not submitted the requested ethics approval documents. It is therefore not clear whether you obtained the necessary ethical approval for the study to take place. Please be aware that we expect all research involving human participants and/or medical data to have been approved by the authors' Institutional Review Board (IRB) or by an equivalent ethics committee(s).

As a result of these concerns we cannot consider the manuscript for publication at PLOS ONE. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you understand the reasons for this decision.

Asmita Karmakar, PhD

- - - - -

For journal use only: PONEDEC3

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 18;19(7):e0303584. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303584.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

11 Mar 2024

A-Responses to reviewers (academics)

> We thank Reviewer 1 for his/her comments that helped us to improve the manuscript and clarify and the proposed conclusions.

Specific comments:

1. Line 204-220. The use of Marks (1)-(7) for labeling may be confused with reference citation numbers. The way they are used in Line 307 and 308 appears to be clearer.

> We modified the labels accordingly (Lines 236-251).

2. I suggest the author includes their questionnaire as supplementary information. This would greatly assist readers in quickly understanding their work.

> We added the questionnaire as supporting information (S2, translated from French to English).

The authors must clarify this in the revised version.

Reviewer #2:

> We thank Reviewer 2 for his/her comments that helped us to improve the manuscript regarding the introduction, methods, results and discussion.

3. Line 139: remove “,” following 166.

> Done

4. Result 3.2 (lines 339-342). More information should be present.

- For example, based on Table 2, both DIV and FSH appeared to be correlated with Self in most pictures. These findings were actually mentioned in the discussion section (line 425).

> We added comments related to Table 2 accordingly (Lines 382-388), mentioned again in discussion (Lines 486-488 and 504-510).

5. Lines 375-384: this paragraph (the design and objectives of the study) would be better to present in introduction section than discussion section.

> This paragraph (Lines 421-430) aims to remind the objectives of the study before discussing the results in the details. If possible, we would like to keep this reminds here.

> We added these limitations in conclusions (Lines 557-561).

> We modified the title accordingly.

B- Responses to editorial decision

Subject: PLOS ONE Decision: PONE-D-23-28152R1 - [EMID:6507259d54a45917]

Dear Dr Karmakar,

Last December you have rejected our manuscript in reference because you were feeling that it didn’t comply with the ethical requirements for human subject research submissions of PLOS One.

After an in-depth examination of the issue you have raised, we suggest that you reconsider your position in the light of the new information below completed in response to the summary of requirements of your journal http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/human-subjects-research)..

1-Obtain prior approval for human subjects research by an institutional review board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee(s)

>>We can now provide you with the CNIL (French national commission for data processing and freedoms) declaration of conformity to the reference methodology framework MR-001, received on December 5, 2023, knowing that the ethic committee of Aix-Marseille University has adopted the following (translation from https://www.univ-amu.fr/fr/public/comite-dethique).

“2-OUTSIDE THE JARDE LAW AND THE ETHICS COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION

Research involving the human person within the meaning of II of article R1121-1 of the Public Health Code (...) - opinion surveys, pure observations in the social, ethnological or ethological sciences.”

Our on line questionnaire study is clearly an opinion survey and do not enter ethic committee jurisdiction.

2-Submit documentation from the review board or ethics committee confirming approval of the research. Identifying information about study participants must be redacted from the approval document before it is submitted to the journal”

>> We do not have any information enabling to identify the participants, as the online questionnaire was anonymous.

3-Declare compliance with ethical practices upon submission of a manuscript

>>You will find in the end of this letter a copy of PLOS One Human Participants Research Checklist we have signed and kept at your disposal.

4-Report details on how informed consent for the research was obtained (or explain why consent was not obtained)

>> Participants gave their informed consent by checking a box at the beginning of the questionnaire stating: “Knowing the information transmitted to me, I freely and voluntarily agree to participate in the research project entitled: “Aesthetic reception of aquatic biodiversity in art.””

5-For clinical trials, provide trial registration details, the study protocol, and CONSORT documentation (more information below)

>> It is not a clinical trial.

6-Confirm that an identified individual has provided written consent for the use of that information

>> We confirm that, even if they are not identifiable, the participants have given their consent by ticking the box as indicated in previous §4.

Our manuscript had already been the subject of a previous review (PONE-D-23-28152R1, to which we responded to each point raised by the reviewers), but following your comments, we have modified it slightly (line 205-207).

If you agree to reconsider your decision, we offer you the opportunity to submit a new version and the original .pdf documents mentioned in this letter.

Sincerely,

Thomas CHANGEUX, Ph D

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copy of PLOS One One Human Participants Research Checklist

Complete the following if your study involved human participants or human participants’ data. These questions should be addressed for prospective and retrospective studies.

1.Did you obtain ethics approval for this study?

•If yes, please upload (file type “Other”) the original approval document you received from your ethics committee. If the original document is in another language, please also provide an English translation.

>>English translation of the document:

“CNIL (national commission for data processing and freedoms) declaration of conformity

Declaration of conformity to the reference methodology framework MR-001, received on December 5, 2023

By this declaration, the declarant certifies the conformity of his/her processing(s) of personal data with the reference system mentioned above. The CNIL may at any time verify, by mail or by means of an on-site or online inspection, the conformity of this processing(s).”

X Uploaded

2. If you prospectively recruited human participants for the study – for example, you conducted a clinical trial, distributed questionnaires, or obtained tissues, data or samples for the purposes of this study, please report in the Methods:

i. the day, month and year of the start and end of the recruitment period for this study.

>> The study was carried out from September 2022 to November 2022 (see L. 205)

ii.whether participants provided informed consent, and if so, what type was obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

>> The information is now included L. 205 – 207 ou our new manuscript: “The study was carried out on an adult audience (over 18 years old), recruited by an email information campaign among Aix-Marseille University staff and national academic mailing lists. Participants gave their informed consent by checking a box at the beginning of the questionnaire stating: Knowing the information transmitted to me, I freely and voluntarily agree to participate in the research project entitled: “Aesthetic reception of aquatic biodiversity in art”.”

_X__ Completed ___ N/A

3.If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please report in the Methods section:

i. the day, month and year when the data were accessed for research purposes

ii. whether authors had access to information that could identify individual participants during or after data collection

___ Completed _X__ N/A: not concerned

Signed Thomas CHANGEUX

Attachment

Submitted filename: 4-Responses after rejection for editorial reasons.doc

pone.0303584.s006.doc^{(35KB, doc)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303584.r005

Decision Letter 2

Avanti Dey

22 Apr 2024

Nature experiences affects the aesthetic reception of art: The case of paintings depicting aquatic animals

PONE-D-23-28152R2

Dear Dr. Changeux,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Avanti Dey, PhD

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Its an ethical issue that has ben raised very relevant by the Editorial team and now I can see that you have tried best to addressed the issue. However it s needs to be confirmed once again whether its is violating any further terms and condition of the journal.

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303584.r006

Acceptance letter

Avanti Dey

9 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-28152R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Changeux,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Avanti Dey

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 File. Semantic analysis of the representations of the paintings according to the observers.

(PDF)

pone.0303584.s001.pdf^{(487.2KB, pdf)}

S2 File. Questionnaire.

(PDF)

pone.0303584.s002.pdf^{(143.5KB, pdf)}

S3 File. Exploratory factor analysis of aesthetic reception scale and fish consumption scale.

(PDF)

pone.0303584.s003.pdf^{(100.5KB, pdf)}

S4 File. Confirmatory factor analysis of aesthetic reception scale and fish consumption scale.

(PDF)

pone.0303584.s004.pdf^{(109.9KB, pdf)}

S5 File. Principal component analysis of marine activities, artistic sensitivity and socio-demographic variables.

(PDF)

pone.0303584.s005.pdf^{(105.2KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: 4-Responses after rejection for editorial reasons.doc

pone.0303584.s006.doc^{(35KB, doc)}

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Figshare repository: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23592327.v1.

[pone.0303584.ref001] 1.Hager M, Hagemann D, Danner D, Schankin A. Assessing aesthetic appreciation of visual artworks—The construction of the Art Reception Survey (ARS). Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts. 2012;6: 320–333. doi: 10.1037/a0028776 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref002] 2.Zhang JW, Howell RT, Iyer R. Engagement with natural beauty moderates the positive relation between connectedness with nature and psychological well-being. J Environ Psychol. 2014;38: 55–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref003] 3.Barrows PD, Richardson M, Hamlin I, Van Gordon W. Nature Connectedness, Nonattachment, and Engagement with Nature’s Beauty Predict Pro-Nature Conservation Behavior. Ecopsychology. 2022;14: 83–91. doi: 10.1089/eco.2021.0036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref004] 4.Zylstra MJ, Knight AT, Esler KJ, Le Grange LLL. Connectedness as a Core Conservation Concern: An Interdisciplinary Review of Theory and a Call for Practice. Springer Sci Rev. 2014;2: 119–143. doi: 10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref005] 5.Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Klaniecki K, Dorninger C, et al. Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2017;26–27: 106–113. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref006] 6.Lumber R, Richardson M, Sheffield D. Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. Bastian B, editor. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0177186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref007] 7.Pritchard A, Richardson M, Sheffield D, McEwan K. The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic Well-Being: A Meta-analysis. J Happiness Stud. 2020;21: 1145–1167. doi: 10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref008] 8.Lundberg P, Vainio A, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ, Veríssimo D, Arponen A. The effect of knowledge, species aesthetic appeal, familiarity and conservation need on willingness to donate. Anim Conserv. 2019;22: 432–443. doi: 10.1111/acv.12477 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref009] 9.Barrable A. Refocusing Environmental Education in the Early Years: A Brief Introduction to a Pedagogy for Connection. Educ Sci. 2019;9: 61. doi: 10.3390/educsci9010061 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref010] 10.Januchowski-Hartley SR, Bear C, O’Gorman E, Januchowski-Hartley FA. “Underwater". An A to Z of Shadow Places Concepts. 2020.

[pone.0303584.ref011] 11.Langlois J, Guilhaumon F, Baletaud F, Casajus N, De Almeida Braga C, Fleuré V, et al. The aesthetic value of reef fishes is globally mismatched to their conservation priorities. Tanentzap AJ, editor. PLOS Biol. 2022;20: e3001640. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001640 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref012] 12.Tribot A-S, Deter J, Mouquet N. Integrating the aesthetic value of landscapes and biological diversity. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2018;285: 20180971. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.0971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref013] 13.Heras M, Galafassi D, Oteros-Rozas E, Ravera F, Berraquero-Díaz L, Ruiz-Mallén I. Realising potentials for arts-based sustainability science. Sustain Sci. 2021;16: 1875–1889. doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-01002-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref014] 14.Tribot A-S, Faget D, Richard T, Changeux T. The role of pre-19th century art in conservation biology: An untapped potential for connecting with nature. Biol Conserv. 2022;276: 109791. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109791 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref015] 15.Renowden C, Beer T, Mata L. Exploring integrated ArtScience experiences to foster nature connectedness through head, heart and hand. People Nat. 2022;4: 519–533. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10301 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref016] 16.Chatterjee A, Cardillo ER, editors. Brain, beauty, and art: essays bringing neuroaesthetics into focus. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2022. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref017] 17.Carlson A. Environmental aesthetics. 1st ed. Routledge; Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2016. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref018] 18.Shimamura AP. Toward a Science of Aesthetics: Issues and ideas. Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience. Oxford Academic; 2012. pp. 3–28. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref019] 19.Güsewell A, Ruch W. Are there multiple channels through which we connect with beauty and excellence? J Posit Psychol. 2012;7: 516–529. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2012.726636 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref020] 20.Jones E, Chikwama C. Access to marine ecosystems services: Inequalities in Scotland’s young people. Ecol Econ. 2021;188: 107139. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref021] 21.Jackson JBC. Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science. 2001;293: 629–637. doi: 10.1126/science.1059199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref022] 22.Bottinelli S, Valva MD, editors. The Taste of Art: Cooking, Food, and Counterculture in Contemporary Practices. University of Arkansas Press; 2017. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref023] 23.Olsen SO. Antecedents of Seafood Consumption Behavior: An Overview. J Aquat Food Prod Technol. 2004;13: 79–91. doi: 10.1300/J030v13n03_08 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref024] 24.Govzman S, Looby S, Wang X, Butler F, Gibney ER, Timon CM. A systematic review of the determinants of seafood consumption. Br J Nutr. 2021;126: 66–80. doi: 10.1017/S0007114520003773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref025] 25.Lesen AE, Rogan A, Blum MJ. Science Communication Through Art: Objectives, Challenges, and Outcomes. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;31: 657–660. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref026] 26.Black JE, Morrison K, Urquhart J, Potter C, Courtney P, Goodenough A. Bringing the arts into socio-ecological research: An analysis of the barriers and opportunities to collaboration across the divide. People Nat. 2023; pan3.10489. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10489 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref027] 27.Vézilier-Dussart S. L’odyssée des animaux: les peintres animaliers flamands du XVIIe siècle [exposition, Cassel, Musée départemental de Flandre, 8 octobre 2016–22 janvier 2017]. Gand Cassel: Snoeck Musée de Flandre; 2016.

[pone.0303584.ref028] 28.Leder H, Belke B, Oeberst A, Augustin D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. Br J Psychol. 2004;95: 489–508. doi: 10.1348/0007126042369811 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref029] 29.Verbeke W, Vackier I. Individual determinants of fish consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite. 2005;44: 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref030] 30.Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50: 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref031] 31.Bastian B, Loughnan S, Haslam N, Radke HRM. Don’t Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012;38: 247–256. doi: 10.1177/0146167211424291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref032] 32.Loughnan S, Bastian B, Haslam N. The Psychology of Eating Animals. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2014;23: 104–108. doi: 10.1177/0963721414525781 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref033] 33.La consommation des produits aquatiques en 2020. FranceAgriMer; 2021 p. 130.

[pone.0303584.ref034] 34.Azzopardi E, Kenter JO, Young J, Leakey C, O’Connor S, Martino S, et al. What are heritage values? Integrating natural and cultural heritage into environmental valuation. People Nat. 2023;5: 368–383. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10386 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref035] 35.Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T. Associations between Landscape Preferences and Place Attachment: A study in Røros, Southern Norway. Landsc Res. 2002;27: 381–396. doi: 10.1080/0142639022000023943 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref036] 36.Menninghaus W, Wagner V, Hanich J, Wassiliwizky E, Jacobsen T, Koelsch S. The Distancing-Embracing model of the enjoyment of negative emotions in art reception. Behav Brain Sci. 2017;40: e347. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X17000309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref037] 37.Hull RB, Stewart Wp. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. J Environ Psychol. 1992;12: 101–114. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80063-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303584.ref038] 38.Winkin Y, Doueihi M. Ré-inventer les musées? Paris: MkF éditions; 2020.

PERMALINK

Nature experiences affect the aesthetic reception of art: The case of paintings depicting aquatic animals

Anne-Sophie Tribot

Daniel Faget

Thomas Changeux

Roles

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Material and methods

2.1 Participants

2.2 Materials

Fig 1. Selected paintings.

Fig 2. Summary of the measured variables.

2.3 Procedure

2.3.1 Photo-questionnaire

2.3.2 Assessment of aesthetic reception

2.3.3 Viewers’ factors

2.4 Statistical analyses

2.4.1 Aesthetic reception scores of paintings

2.4.2 Fish consumption scores of participants

2.4.3 Marine activities, Artistic sensitivity and Sociodemographic variables

2.4.4 Effect of viewers’ factors on aesthetic reception

3. Results

3.1 Aesthetic reception of the paintings

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of each Aesthetic reception score (ARS) factor, separated for each painting (P1 to P4).

3.2 Correlations between viewers’ factors and aesthetic reception factors

Table 2. Correlations between the Aesthetic reception score (ARS) factors of each painting and the viewer’s factors.

3.3 Effect of viewers’ factors on aesthetic reception

Fig 3. Path diagram of the structural equation model (SEM) of the relationship between observer variables and global aesthetic reception.

4. Discussion

4.1 Fish consumption

4.2 Fishing and scuba-diving

4.3 Age and SPC

4.4 Artistic sensitivity

4.5 Focus on iconographic interpretation

5. Conclusions

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Dharmendra Kumar Meena

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

PLOS ONE Editors

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Avanti Dey

Roles

Acceptance letter

Avanti Dey

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases