跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.201.99.222) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/12/03 23:49
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:黃詩婷
研究生(外文):Huang, Shih-Ting
論文名稱:探討寫實繪畫者的觀察策略與認知風格
論文名稱(外文):Observational Strategies and Cognitive Styles of Realistic Drawers
指導教授:陳一平陳一平引用關係謝翠如謝翠如引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chen, I-PingHsieh, Tsuei-Ju
口試委員:陳瓊花伊彬許峻誠
口試委員(外文):Chen, Jo Chiung-HuaI, BinHsu, Chun-Cheng
口試日期:2017-01-16
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立交通大學
系所名稱:應用藝術研究所
學門:藝術學門
學類:應用藝術學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:109
中文關鍵詞:寫實繪畫忠實觀察認知風格空間能力物件能力場地相依/獨立
外文關鍵詞:Realistic drawingObservationCognitive styleSpatial abilityObject abilityFieldindependence and field dependence
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:125
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:16
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
寫實繪畫的最初一步是奠基於觀察,Cohen和Bennett(1997)的研究便探討了觀察對寫實繪畫的重要性,研究中他們提出了四個成人繪畫運思階段:「觀察」、「決策」、「手眼協調」、「自我評估」,結果指出以觀察的正確性對寫實繪畫的影響力最大。本研究同樣著眼於寫實繪畫的觀察行為,同時探究「由上而下」的認知影響-認知風格,會對寫實繪畫的觀察策略產生何種影響。
我們規劃了三個繪畫實驗:(1)「觀察廣度」實驗是從注意力廣度的角度出發,以訪談資料與行為觀察的方式,歸納出兩種觀察策略:第一種觀察時能互相比較所有物件間的關係脈絡,稱之為「由整體著眼」;第二種策略只專注在單一物件或較小的範圍做觀察,且無法全面比較畫面內所有物件。我們稱之為「由局部入手」,結果顯示熟手畫家多使用「由整體著眼」的觀察策略,使用這種策略同時也可以讓寫實繪畫有較好的表現水準;(2)「平面定位」實驗關心的是手眼協調議題,而「平面定位」指的是畫者利用圖面上的線索找出下筆時的正確位置,目前我們檢驗了兩種與寫實繪畫的有關的平面定位策略:第一種「絕對定位」是利用圖面的四周的邊框作為定位參考系統,通常發生在圖面空白要畫下第一筆時;第二種「相對定位」是利用圖面已畫出的物件作為定位參考。最後一個作業是討論畫者「手部執行能力」,也就是繪圖時筆畫的流暢度與正確度,結果顯示這個能力也與平面定位和寫實繪畫能力有關;(3)「心像作畫」關注的焦點是心像記憶,實驗設計是模擬畫者無法時時比較原有觀察對象物,需要透過提取與重組心像記憶再現在圖面上的繪圖模式。我們發現空間心像能力越好的畫者,越能勝任這種繪圖模式。
比較整體研究結果後,我們發現「場地獨立」的能力在寫實繪畫中占有重要的基礎地位,場地獨立能力好的畫者都能勝任本研究中的各個繪畫作業,推論是因為場地獨立的能力涉及了解析視覺資訊,提取有利的結構作為再現使用,而這幫助了繪畫的觀察準確度,乃至於提升繪畫表現水準。
The first step of realistic drawing is observation. Cohen and Bennett (1997) examined the importance of observation in realistic drawing and divided the adults’ mental processes in drawing into four stages: observation, decision making, hand-eye coordination, and self-evaluation. Their results indicated that the accuracy of observation exerted the greatest impact on realistic drawing. This study also focused on observation behavior in realistic drawing. We based on our discussion on crucial issues in cognitive styles and investigated the influence of top-down approach on observation strategies in realistic drawing.

We designed three drawing experiments: (1) The observation span experiment that focused on the drawer’s attentional span. The analysis of interview data and behavioral observations revealed two observation strategies: taking on the whole and taking on a local part. The former allows the drawers to compare the relationships among objects, whereas the latter concentrates on single objects or on a smaller scope rather than the full range of view in the image. The results indicated that most skilled drawers take the holistic strategy, which we found promoted better performance in realistic drawing. (2) The 2D positioning experiment that focused on the drawer’s eye-hand coordination issues. 2D positioning ability is a skill that demands the drawer to use cues on the canvas to position his/her strokes. So far, we examined two 2D positioning strategies associated with realistic drawing: absolute positioning and relative positioning. The former uses the four edges of the canvas as a position reference system and is generally used to make the first stroke on a blank canvas. The latter uses objects that have already been drawn on the canvas as positioning references. The third task in this group was about evaluating the quality of a drawer’s hand execution, the smoothness and accuracy of strokes in drawing. Our results indicated that this ability was also associated with 2D positioning and realistic drawing abilities. (3) The mental imagery drawing experiment that focused on mental imagery ability. The experimental design simulated the situation in which drawer cannot keep comparing the drawing with the target object, requiring the drawer to create and maintain a mental imagery and then draw it on the canvas. We found that drawers with better spatial imagery ability were more competent in this situation.

The overall results indicated that field independence cognitive style plays an important role in realistic drawing. Field independent drawers outperformed field dependent drawers in all of the drawing tasks in this study. We infer that this is because field independent drawers can analyze visual information and extract useful structures for reproduction and reuse, which benefits the accuracy of observation during drawing and even enhances drawing performance.

Keywords: Realistic drawing, Observation, Cognitive style, Spatial ability, Object ability, Field independence and field dependence
中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………i英文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………i
誌謝……………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………v
目錄……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………vi
表目錄…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…viii
圖目錄…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………x
第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 研究背景與動機……………………………………………………………………………………………1
1.2 研究目的………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
1.3 研究範圍與限制…………………………………………………………………………………………6
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7
2.1.1 觀察與寫實繪畫………………………………………………………………………………….……7
2.1.2 觀察繪畫的「Bottom-up研究取徑」理論依據……………………………………..………8
2.1.3 觀察繪畫的「Bottom-up研究取徑」相關研究………………………………………………8
2.1.4 觀察繪畫的「Top-down研究取徑」徑理論依據…………………………………………11
2.1.5 觀察繪畫的「Top-down研究取徑」相關研究……………………………………………11
2.2. 認知風格(cognitive style)…………………………………………………………………………12
2.2.1 心像偏好:物件心像導向(object visualizers)及空間心像導向(spatial visualizers)………………………………………………………………………………………………12
2.2.2 與物件心像導向(object visualizers)及空間心像導向(spatial visualizers)有關的繪畫研究……………………….……………………………………………….…………….13
2.2.3 場地相依(field–dependent)和場地獨立(field–independent)………………………………………..………………………………………………….15
第三章認知能力檢驗……………………………………………………………………………………….………17
3.1 認知能力檢驗…………………………………………………………………………...………18
3.1.1「認知風格」作業………………………………………………………………………………….……18
3.1.2「空間心像能力」作業……………………………………………………………………...……….19
3.1.3「物件心像能力」作業………………………………………………………………………….…..20
3.1.4「場地相依型/獨立型」作業………………………………………………………………….21
3.2. 所有受試者之認知分析………………………………………………………………………………21
第四章前行實驗-「繪畫行為」………………………………………………………………………………….………25
4.1 前行實驗……………………………………………………………………………………………….……25
4.2 分析與討論………………………………………………………………………………………………..28
4.3 前行實驗「繪畫行為」綜合討論……………………………………………………………………34
第五章繪畫能力檢驗-實驗一「觀察廣度」…………………………………………………………….………36
5.1 「觀察廣度」作業…………………………………………………………………………………….……36
5.2 分析與討論………………………………………………………………………………………………..43
5.3 實驗一「觀察廣度」綜合討論………………………………………………………………………46
第六章繪畫能力檢驗-實驗二「平面定位」…………………………………………………………….………47
6.1.1 作業一:「絕對定位能力」………………………….………………….………………………….…49
6.1.2 作業二:「相對定位能力」……………………………………………………………………………51
6.1.3 作業三:「手部動作執行度」……………………………………………….……………..…….…54
6.1.4 作業四:「寫實繪畫能力」………………………………………………………….…………..…...58
6.2 分析與討論……………………………………………………...…………………………………………62
6.3 實驗二「平面定位」綜合討論………………………………………………………………………78
第七章繪畫能力檢驗-實驗三「心像作畫」…………………………………………………………….………81
7.1 作業一:心像作畫」……………………………………….…………………….……………..…….…82
7.2 分析與討論……………………………………….……….…………………….……………………….…88
7.3 實驗三「心像作畫」綜合討論…………………………………………………………………….…95
第八章結論……………………………………….……….………………………………………………………………………98
參考文獻……………………………………….……….…………………………………………………….……….…………104
中文文獻
張索娃(譯)。(民93)。像藝術家一樣思考(原作者:B. Edwards)。台北:時報文化。(原著出版年:1979)
周元琪(民96)。繪畫相關能力與心像認知能力之間的相關性(未出版之碩士論文)。國立交通大學,新竹市。
黃詩婷(民97)。心像認知能力與繪畫手法之間的相關性(未出版之碩士論文)。國立交通大學,新竹市。


英文文獻
Al-Johany, S., AlShaafi, M., Bin-Shuwaish, M., Alshahrani, F., Alazmah, A., Aldhuwayhi, S., & AlMaflehi, N. (2011). Correlation between handwriting, drawing skills and dental skills of junior dental students. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, 12(5), 327-332.
Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (1978). Cognitive styles: Some information and implications for instructional design. Educational Communications & Technology Journal, 26, 337-354.
Baddeley, A. (1990). Acoustic memory and language-a citation classic commentary on short-term-memory for word sequences as a function of acoustic, semantic and formal similarity by baddeley, ad. Current contents/social & behavioral sciences, (20), 24-24.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(11), 417-423.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of learning and motivation, 8, 47-89.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–117. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115
Blajenkova, O., Kozhevnikov, M., & Motes, M. A. (2006). Object‐spatial imagery: a new self‐report imagery questionnaire. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 239-263.
Blazhenkova, O., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2009). The new object‐spatial‐verbal cognitive style model: Theory and measurement. Applied cognitive psychology, 23(5), 638-663.
Calabrese, L., & Marucci, F. S. (2006). The influence of expertise level on the visuo-spatial ability: differences between experts and novices in imagery and drawing abilities. Cogn Process. 7(1), 118–20.
Carson, L., & Allard, F. (2013). Angle-drawing accuracy as an objective performance-based measure of drawing expertise. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7, 119–129.
Chamberlain, R., McManus, I. C., Riley, H., Rankin, Q., & Brunswick, N. (2013). Local processing enhancements associated with superior observational drawing are due to enhanced perceptual functioning, not weak central coherence. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1448–1466.
Cohen, D. J. (2005). Look little, look often: The influence of gaze frequency on drawing accuracy. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 997–1009.
Cohen, D. J., & Bennett, S. (1997). Why can't most people draw what they see? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 609-621.
Cohen, D. J., & Earls, H. (2010). Inverting an image does not improve drawing accuracy. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(3), 168-172.
Cohen, D. J., & Jones, H. E. (2008). How shape con-stancy relates to drawing accuracy. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 8–19.
Day, R. H. (1972). The basis of perceptual constancy and perceptual illusion. Investigative Ophthalmology, 11, 525–532.
Farah, M. J., Hammond, K. M., Levine, D. N., & Calvanio, R. (1988). Visual and spatial mental imagery: Dissociable systems of representations. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 439-462.
Gillet, D., Quinton, A., & Jeannel, A. (2002). Is there a link between writing ability, drawing aptitude and manual skills of dental students? European Journal of Dental Education, 6(2), 69-73.
Gombrich, E. H. (1960). Art and Illusion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Guisande, M.A., Páramo, M.F., Tinajero, C., & Almeida, L.S. (2007). Field dependence-independence (FDI) cognitive style: An analysis of attentional functioning. Psicothema 19(4), p. 572-577.
Hammad, S., Kennedy, J. M., Juricevic, I., & Rajani, S. (2008). Ellipses on the surface of a picture. Perception, 37, 504–510. doi:10.1068/p5840
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 684-689.
Helmholtz, H. von (1867/1962). Treatise on Physiological Optics, vol. 3(J. P. C. Southall, Trans.). New York, NY: Dover.
Jonassen, D.H., & Grabowski, B.L. (Ed.). (1993). Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Kosslyn, S. M., & Koenig, O. (1992). Wet Mind: The New Cognitive Neuroscience. New York: Free Press.
Kosslyn, S. M., Anderson, A. K., Hillger, L. A., & Hamilton, S. E. (1994). Hemispheric differences in sizes of receptive fields or attentional biases? Neuropsychology, 8(2), 139-147.
Kozbelt, A. (2001). Artists as experts in visual cognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 705–723.
Kozbelt, A., & Seeley, W. P. (2007). Integrating art historical, psychological, and neuroscientific explanations of artists' advantages in drawing and perception. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 80-90.
Kozbelt, A., Seidel, A., ElBassiouny, A., Mark, A., & Owen, D. R. (2010). Visual selection contributes to artists’ advantages in realistic drawing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 93–102.
Kozbelt, A. (2001). Artists as experts in visual cognition. Visual Cognition, 8(6), 705–723.
Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological bulletin, 133(3), 464.
Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Revising the visualizer/verbalizer dimension: evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition & instruction, 20, 47-77.
Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S. M., & Shepard, J. (2005). Spatial versus object visualizers: a new characterization of visual cognitive style. Memory and Cognition, 33, 710-726.
Krajčíková, L., & Urbánek, T. (2014). Field independence as a spatial cognitive ability: Correlation study of verbal and spatial short term memory (Doctoral dissertation, Masarykova univerzita, Filozofická fakulta).
Levine, D. N., Warach, J., & Farah, M. J. (1985). Two visual systems in mental imagery: Dissociation of “what” and “where” in imagery disorders due to bilateral posterior cerebral lesions. Neurology, 35, 1010-1018.
MacLeod, C. M., Jackson, R. A., & Palmer, J. (1986). On the relation between spatial ability and field dependence. Intelligence, 10(2), 141-151.
McManus, C., Chamberlain, R. S., Loo, P.-K., Rankin, Q., Riley, H., & Brunswick, N. (2010). Art students who cannot draw: exploring the relations between drawing ability, visual memory, accuracy of copying, and dyslexia. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 4, 18-30.
McManus, I. C., Loo, P.-W., Chamberlain, R., Riley, H., & Brunswick, N. (2011). Does shape constancy relate to drawing ability? Two failures to replicate. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 29(2), pp. 191-208.
Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19, 59-74.
Mitchell, P., Ropar, D., & Ackroyd, K. (2005). How perception impacts on drawings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 996–1003.
Miyake, A., Witzki, A. H., & Emerson, M. J. (2001). Field dependence–independence from a working memory perspective: A dual-task investigation of the Hidden Figures Test. Memory, 9(4-6), 445-457.
Moskowitz, D. S., Dreyer, A. S., & Kronsberg, S. (1981). Preschool children's field independence: prediction from antecedent and concurrent maternal and child behavior. Perceptual and motor skills, 52(2), 607-616.
Nodine, C. F., Locher, P. J., & Krupinski, E. A. (1993). The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo, 219-227.
Ostrofsky, J., Kozbelt, A., & Cohen, D. J. (2015). Observational drawing biases are predicted by biases in perception: Empirical support of the misperception hypothesis of drawing accuracy with respect to two angle illusions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(5), 1007-1025.
Ostrofsky, J., Kozbelt, A., & Kurylo, D. D. (2013). Perceptual grouping in artists and non-artists: A psychophysical comparison. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2, 131–143.
Ostrofsky, J., Kozbelt, A., & Seidel, A. (2012). Perceptual constancies and visual selection as predictors of realistic drawing skill. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(2), 124-136.
Ostrofsky, J., Kozbelt, A., Cohen, D. J., Conklin, L., & Thomson, K. (2016). Face inversion impairs the ability to draw long-range, but not short-range, spatial relationships between features. Empirical Studies of the Arts. doi:10.1177/0276237416634851
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Paivio, A., & Harshman, R. (1983). Factor analysis of a questionnaire on imagery and verbal habits and skills. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 461-483.
Perdreau, F., & Cavanagh, P. (2011). Do artists see their retinas? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(171). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00171
Perdreau, F., & Cavanagh, P. (2013). Is artists’ perception more veridical? Frontiers in neuroscience, 7(6), 1-11.
Posner, M. I., & Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological review, 78(5), 391.
Repovš, G., & Baddeley, A. (2006). The multi-component model of working memory: explorations in experimental cognitive psychology. Neuroscience, 139(1), 5-21.
Richardson, A. (1977). Verbalizer-visualizer: A cognitive style dimension. Journal of Mental Imagery, 1, 109-125.
Richardson, J. A., & Turner, T. E. (2000). Field dependence revisited I: Intelligence. Educational psychology, 20(3), 255-270.
Rittschof, K. A. (2010). Field dependence–independence as visuospatial and executive functioning in working memory: implications for instructional systems design and research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 99-114.
Seeley, W., & Kozbelt, A. (2008). Art, artists, and perception: A model for premotor contributions to perceptual analysis and form recognition. Philosophical Psychology, 21(2), 149-171.
Shepard, R. (1990). Mind Sights: Original Visual Illusions, Ambiguities, and Other Anomalies. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Tchalenko, J. (2007). Eye movements in drawing simple lines. Perception,36, 1152–1167.
Tchalenko, J. (2009). Segmentation and accuracy in copying and drawing: Experts and beginners. Vision Research, 49, 791–800.
Tchalenko, J., & Miall, R. C. (2009). Eye hand strategies in copying complex lines. Cortex, 45, 368–376.
Tchalenko, J., Nam, S. H., Ladanga, M., & Miall, R. C. (2014). The gaze-shift strategy in drawing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 330.
Thouless, R. H. (1931). Phenomenal regression to the real object. Part I. British Journal of Psychology, 21, 339–359.
Thouless, R. H. (1932). Individual differences in phenomenal regression. British Journal of Psychology, 22, 216–241.
Todorovic, D. (2002). Constancies and illusions in visual perception. Psihologija, 35, 125–207.
Todorovic, D. (2010). Context effects in visual perception and their explanations. Review of Psychology, 17, 17–32.
Vannucci, M., Cioli, L., Chiorri, C., Grazi, A., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2006). Individual differences in visuo-spatial imagery: further evidence for the distinction between object and spatial imagers. Cognitive Processing, 7, 144-145.
Waber, D. P. (1977). Biological substrates of field dependence: Implications of the sex difference. Psychological Bulletin, 84(6), 1076.
Walker, C.M., Winner, E., Hetland, L., Simmons, S., & Goldsmith, L. (2011). Visual thinking: Art students have an advantage in geometric reasoning. Creative Education. 2(1), 199-202.
Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., &Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R. & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1-64.
Wyttenbach, R. A. (2006). PsyCog: explorations in perception and cognition. Sinauer.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊