The art science's paradox: From methodological challenges to rigorous psychological science

Few psychological phenomena are at once as ubiquitous, as culturally significant, and as scientifically elusive as our engagement with art. The very characteristics that make art compelling-its diversity, subjectivity, and complexity-also make it exceptionally challenging to study rigorously. This paper builds on a short review of remarkable progress in the psychology of visual art research over the past decades while examining the challenges that accompany its growth. From our own experiences and struggles, we argue that these point to a common implication for the broader field of empirical aesthetics: the need for methodological rigour. We revisit two long-standing challenges-how to conceptualise art as an experimental stimulus and how to account for the contexts in which art is experienced-to illustrate how seemingly distinct challenges converge on the same methodological principles. We argue that conceptual clarity in defining psychological constructs and theoretically grounded control conditions is key for continuous development of psychology of visual art as a rigorous, transparent, and cumulative psychological science.