Artistic expertise and multidimensional aesthetic engagement across four impressionist, expressionist, cubist, and surrealist paintings

Previous research has shown that individuals with artistic expertise often engage with visual art differently from non-experts. However, few studies have examined whether these differences vary across artistic styles when subject matter is held constant. This exploratory pilot study examined aesthetic engagement among 44 George Mason University students (8 art majors, 36 non-art majors) viewing four original paintings depicting the same subject—a woman holding a flower—recreated in the styles of Impressionism, Expressionism, Cubism, and Surrealism. Participants completed a survey adapted from the Aesthetic Experience Questionnaire and provided qualitative commentary. Responses were aggregated into five dimensions of aesthetic engagement: emotion, reward, immersion, focus, and understanding. Art majors reported stronger engagement than non-art majors across most dimensions, with the largest differences observed for the Cubist painting. Expertise-related differences varied across artistic styles and engagement dimensions, with focus and emotion showing the strongest average effects. Cubist and Expressionist paintings produced the largest overall expertise-related differences, whereas Impressionist and Surrealist paintings exhibited smaller divergences. Qualitative responses indicated that art majors more frequently discussed symbolism, artistic techniques, and stylistic characteristics, whereas non-art majors emphasized personal preferences and immediate reactions. Together, the findings suggest that artistic expertise was associated with differences not only in the magnitude but also in the character of reported aesthetic engagement across artistic styles. To the author’s knowledge, this study is among the first to compare expertise-related differences across Impressionist, Expressionist, Cubist, and Surrealist renderings of the same subject. By evaluating emotion, reward, immersion, focus, and understanding separately, the study offers a broader, more nuanced framework for investigating aesthetic experience. Because only one self-created painting represented each style, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory and limited to the artworks examined. Nevertheless, the results provide preliminary evidence that artistic style may influence expertise-related differences across multiple dimensions of aesthetic engagement, warranting broader future studies.