Comparison of Aesthetic Evaluation Analyses Based on Information Entropy and Multidimensional Scaling Approaches: Taking Interior Design Works as Example
International Journal of Literature and Arts
Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2016, Pages: 12-19
Received: Jan. 11, 2016; Accepted: Jan. 21, 2016; Published: Feb. 1, 2016
Views 3615      Downloads 97
Yi-Ching Liu, Department of Interior Design, Tungnan University, New Taipei City, Taiwan (R. O. C.)
Article Tools
Follow on us
Beautiful objects and things are welcome by everyone; beautiful view and scenes are attractive. How can interior design works be attractive? This is one of the most important issues of the field. What aesthetic attributes or features of an interior design work should possess to arouse aesthetic response? What visual components compose these aesthetic features? How to decide the order of each visual component and the composition of all visual components in the design process to reach the best effect? All of these are important key issues, and they have not yet been deeply and systematically studied in the world. Information entropy and Multidimensional scaling are two research approaches usually applied by other fields. The information entropy approach applies the “entropy” concept in Thermodynamics to explore the casual link and the best decision order of those compositional elements of an object. The multidimensional scaling approach can find out the most ideal composition of elements by analyzing the relational position of each element in the stimuli space. These two approaches are very suitable to explore the aesthetic evaluation related issues, but the literatures are quite few. By using color photos of designed interiors as measuring instrument, conducting an investigation to the domestic college students, collecting data of aesthetic evaluation of these subjects to the color photos, this study intends to respectively explore and compare the results of aesthetic evaluation analysis of these two approaches. The result of this study will be meaningful and valuable to the fields of interior design and empirical aesthetics.
Aesthetic Evaluation, Information Entropy, Multidimensional Scaling, Interior Design
To cite this article
Yi-Ching Liu, Comparison of Aesthetic Evaluation Analyses Based on Information Entropy and Multidimensional Scaling Approaches: Taking Interior Design Works as Example, International Journal of Literature and Arts. Vol. 4, No. 1, 2016, pp. 12-19. doi: 10.11648/j.ijla.20160401.13
Copyright © 2016 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Wang, T. H. (2004). A Study of Residential Interiors' Spatial Images. Master’s Thesis, Department of Interior Design, Chung Yuan Christian University.
Chen, H. K. & Guan, S. S. (2007). Influences of Visual Feature Information on Aesthetics & Attention by Applying Information Entropy Theory--A Case Study of Poster Design, Journal of Design, 12 (2): 53-70.
Chuang, M. C. & Ma, Y. C. (2001). A Study on the Relationship between Product Image and Product Form of Microelectronic Products, Journal of Design, 6 (1): 1-16.
Tsui, K. C. (1992). Research development of aesthetics judgment. Taipei: Shtabooks.
Chang, T. C. & Tsai, T. W. (2005). An Information Entropy Approach to the Formation of Web Style, The Journal of Commercial Design, 9: 271-286.
Pong, K. L. (2005). The Measurement of Decision Uncertainty by Shannon's Entropy, Minghsin Journal, 31: 171-181.
Wen, F. H. (1993). Software Operation and Interpretation of Multidimensional Scaling. Master’s Thesis, Graduate Institute of Statistics, National Central University.
Schiffman, S. S., Reynolds, M. L. & Young, F. W. (1996). Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. (1989). The beauty and the best: Some preliminary comparisons of “high” versus “popular” residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9: 333-344.
France, M. M. & Henaut, A. (1994). Art, therefore entropy, Leonardo, 27 (3): 219-221.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement Theory for the Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds, Jr., D. J., & Shaw, K. T. (2000). Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons. Environment and Behavior, 32 (2): 163-187.
Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting tasks. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2: 3-22.
Groat, L. N., & Després, C. (1991). The significance of architectural theory for environmental design research. In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, 3: 3-53. New York: Plenum.
Herzog, T. R., & Shier, R. L. (2000). Complexity, age, and building preference. Environment and Behavior, 32 (4): 557-575.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lin, R., Lin, C. Y., & Wong, J. (1996). An application of multidimensional scaling in product semantics. Industrial Ergonomics, 18: 193-204.
Lin, R., Lin, P. C., & Ko, K. J. (1999). A study of cognitive human factors in mascot design. Industrial Ergonomics, 23: 107-122.
Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21 (3): 235-257.
Nasar, J. L., & Kang, J. (1989). A post-jury evaluation: The Ohio State University design competition for a center for the visual arts. Environment and Behavior, 21 (4): 464-484.
Nasar, J. L. (1997). New developments in aesthetics for urban design. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds.), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Volume 4: Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization. (pp. 149-193). New York: Plenum Press.
Oostendorp, A. (1978). The identification and interpretation of dimensions underlying aesthetic behavior in the daily urban environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40 (2): 990B.
Osborne, H. (1970). The Art of Appreciation. London: Oxford University Press.
Petrov, V. M. (2002). Entropy and stability in painting: An information approach to the mechanisms of artistic creativity, Leonardo, 35 (2): 197-202.
Scott, S. C. (1993). Visual attributes related to preference in interior environment. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 18 (1 & 2): 7-16.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication, Bell System Technology Journal, 27: 623-656.
Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. (1963). Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press.
Smith, S. M. (1990). PC-MDS Multidimensional Statistics Package Version 5.1. Institute of Business Mgt. Brigham Young University.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human Behavior and the Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press.
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (001)347-983-5186