Visual art inspired by climate change—An analysis of audience reactions to 37 artworks presented during 21st UN climate summit in Paris

4. Problem-solving, which is an effect of the ambiguity of artworks that offer several alterna- tive ways of perception and interpretation and thus engage the brain in this problem-solv- ing activity. 5. Contrast extraction: In addition to the peak shift principle, the inclusion of strong contrasts in artworks might be stimulating for the brain since it has developed for extracting meaning from such contrasts. 6. Symmetry: As opposed to contrast and peak shift, symmetry can be a stimulating and pleas- ing feature of artworks because it provides the visual system with stability. 7. Use of metaphor: Finally, artwork often makes use of metaphors, which stimulate the observer by telling a new story in a known way. In addition to these principles, we expected that if the artwork offers an element of partici- pation for the viewers, this will allow them to become active creators of the work and thereby increase engagement with the topic of the artwork [4, 5, 34]. The processing stage of the climate change art experience. In the processing stage, early and intermediate processing mechanisms of the artwork take place [15, 35]. Research on this stage is dominated by neuro-aesthetic approaches connecting the processing mechanisms with brain functioning. This is based on the idea that especially early processing mechanisms are bottom-up, immediate, and automated processes and do not underly cognitive control [13, 35]. For methodological reasons (we studied the artworks in the field with short contact time

to the respondents), we were not able to investigate the processing stage in the present study but refer the interested reader to Chatterjee’s proposed model [14, 36, 37] and research on the processing stage [38, 39]. Expected output variables of the climate change art experience. The output stage of art perception is where the focus of research in the field is located [13]. This is also true for the present study since we were mostly interested in the cognitive and behavioral outputs of the climate change art perception process. Major output factors of the art perception process, are according to Pelowski et al. [13], emotional reactions and meaning-making, which can be understood as part of the cognitive output of the art experience. In the following, we will pres- ent the output factors we expected would be triggered by the art experience during the ArtCOP21. Emotional response to art as a motor of behavior change. Emotions are substantial for deci- sion making because they fulfill a relevance and a commitment function and motivate people to act [40]. In the context of environmental art, the relevance function focuses attention on specific features of an artwork that are of personal relevance for the viewer. The result is an evaluation in the form of a discrete emotion such as disappointment or hope, which consti- tutes an appraisal, implying a tendency to act, while the commitment function facilitates social collaboration against the short-term self-interest of people by making people stick to their

decisions. Guilt is a typical example of emotion eliciting commitment, and it has been used to explain pro-environmental intentions and climate change mitigating behaviors [41, 42]. Other relevant emotions in the context of climate change and art are fear or anxiety, which can at times block constructive engagement with climate change [43]. According to Pfister and Bo¨hm [40], they might have evolved under evolutionary selection pressure, as part of a fast avoidance response. On the opposite spectrum of emotions, hope [41] and a sense of awe [3] have been associated with climate change mitigation. For our model, we decided to use a relatively simple categorization of emotions into posi- tive emotions, such as hope, inspiration, etc., and negative emotions, such as anger, fear, etc. We acknowledge that there are differences within these categories, but in terms of model PLOS ONE Visual art inspired by climate change — An analysis of audience reactions PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247331 February 19, 2021 4 / 18