Understanding metaphor in art: Distinguishing literal giants from metaphorical challenges.

Christopher A. Crawford,Igor Juricevic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000477

2022-05-05

Abstract:The structural-contextual dual frameworks theory comprises two heuristic frameworks that provide alternative means for the interpretation of metaphor in pictorial artworks (Crawford & Juricevic, 2016). The first of these frameworks is the contextual framework, which contends that the interpretation of pictorial metaphors is contextually rooted, and the second is the structural framework which interprets metaphor based on structural components of an artwork. We used these frameworks to analyze the literal and metaphorical use of the pictorial device of exaggerated size in 59 well-known works of art sampled from across history. Exaggerated size was chosen for analysis because it is often used literally (e.g., to depict an actual giant) or metaphorically (e.g., to depict an existential concern). The artworks were sorted into four separate categories (Literal-Literal, Metaphorical-Literal, Literal-Metaphorical, and Metaphorical-Metaphorical) based on their interpretation by the structural and contextual frameworks (respectively). A cumulative Poisson distribution with α < .05 revealed that artists typically produced artworks in all categories except for the incongruent combination of literal contextual information and metaphoric structural information. This suggests that when contextual and structural information conflicts in art, viewers rely on contextual information; when metaphoric and literal information conflicts, viewers favor metaphoric interpretations. This present study supports the idea that the structural-contextual dual frameworks theory may be used to investigate the use of metaphors across art styles and media. These results also provide a guide for combining literal and metaphorical information, whether the goal is ease of communication or to intentionally challenge the viewer.

psychology, experimental