Duncum (1999) 所指出，日常生活中的視覺文化經驗具有深遠的美感影響力，其重要性甚至超越傳統高雅藝術的審美經驗。他主張美感存在於生活的各個層面，並強調藝術教育應涵蓋這些日常經驗，以提升個體對生活美感的覺察與批判能力。校園公共藝術作為實踐美學教育與人文素養的重要媒介，理應在環境美學、藝術參與與文化接觸等面向發揮作用，進而促進學生的心理健康與創造力。然而，實際觀察與相關研究發現，當代大學生普遍對校園藝術品缺乏感知與情感反應，呈現「看見但無感」的經驗斷裂。
因此，本研究以國立成功大學為案例，探討校園公共藝術對學生美感經驗與情感反應的影響。隨著高等教育中藝術教育需求的提升，校園藝術品的功能不僅限於視覺美化，更應成為促進學生與文化、情感產生連結的日常媒介。研究核心關注學生在面對藝術品時所表現出的「無感」現象，並試圖從涉入程度與美感經驗的角度分析其背後成因。
基於美感經驗的動態與複雜性，本研究透過質性與量化相結合的方法，進一步深入分析高低涉入藝文活動的族群對校園藝術的美感經驗的關聯。實驗以兩階段方式進行，第一階段通過文獻回顧和對於專家進行半結構式訪談，系統性的了解校園內的藝術品。第二階段利用涉入程度量表與美感情感量表進行問卷調查，並透過十字分析將參與調查的學生分為四個族群，最後抽樣進行深度訪談，以歸納學生「無感」的原因。資料分析階段，利用質性編碼與美感經驗理論模型對照，進一步探討學生對藝術品缺乏感知、認知或情感聯繫的潛在原因。
本研究提出三大成果：一、藝文活動涉入程度與對於藝術品的美感情感十字軸四象限分類；二、歸納出九類無感成因：主動性低落型、理解焦慮型、視而不見型、無伴共鳴型、情感斷鏈型、傳達失效型、生活侷限型、經驗斷層型、心態受限型；三、研究最終建構出問題辨識與如何做的框架，提供後續藝術設置、教育介入與公共溝通的設計基礎。

Duncum (1999) pointed out that visual cultural experiences in everyday life exert a profound aesthetic influence, whose significance may even surpass the aesthetic experiences associated with traditional fine art. He argued that aesthetics permeates all aspects of life and emphasized that art education should encompass these everyday experiences to enhance individuals’ awareness of and critical capacity toward the aesthetics of daily living. As an important medium for implementing aesthetic education and fostering humanistic literacy, campus public art is expected to play a role in environmental aesthetics, artistic engagement, and cultural exposure, thereby contributing to students’ mental well-being and creativity. However, both direct observation and related research indicate that contemporary university students generally lack perceptual and emotional responses to campus artworks, exhibiting an “I see it, but I feel nothing” form of experiential disconnection.
Against this backdrop, this study takes National Cheng Kung University as a case to explore the influence of campus public art on students’ aesthetic experiences and emotional responses. With the growing demand for art education in higher education, the function of campus artworks should extend beyond mere visual beautification to serve as everyday media that foster connections between students, culture, and emotion. The core focus of the research is the “indifference” phenomenon displayed by students when encountering artworks, analyzed from the perspectives of involvement level and aesthetic experience.
Given the dynamic and complex nature of aesthetic experience, this study adopts a mixed-methods approach to further analyze the relationship between aesthetic experiences and campus art among groups with varying levels of engagement in arts and cultural activities. The research was conducted in two phases: the first involved a literature review and semi-structured interviews with experts to systematically understand artworks on campus; the second employed an involvement scale and an aesthetic-emotion scale to conduct a questionnaire survey. A cross-tabulation analysis was then used to classify participating students into four groups, from which a sample was selected for in-depth interviews to identify the reasons for their indifference. During the data analysis phase, qualitative coding was compared with an aesthetic experience theoretical model to further explore potential reasons behind students’ lack of perception, cognition, or emotional connection to the artworks.
The study yields three major outcomes: (1) a four-quadrant classification framework based on the intersection of art-related involvement levels and aesthetic-emotion responses; (2) the identification of nine types of indifference—low initiative, comprehension anxiety, perceptual neglect, absence of resonance, emotional disconnection, communication failure, lifestyle constraints, experiential discontinuity, and mindset limitation; and (3) the development of a problem-identification and action framework to guide future art installations, educational interventions, and public communication strategies.

Abbs, P. (1994). The Educational Imperative. London: Falmer Press.
Bell, A., Chetty, R., Jaravel, X., Petkova, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). Who becomes an inventor in America? The importance of exposure to innovation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(2), 647-713.
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Sage.
Blashfield, R. K., & Aldenderfer, M. S. (1978). The literature on cluster analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 13(3), 271-295.
Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(7), 370-375.
Cupchik G C. Emotion in aesthetics: Reactive and reflective models. Poetics. 1994;23:177–188. doi: 10.1016/0304-422X(94)00014-W.
Cupchik G C. Gebotys R J. Interest and pleasure as dimensions of aesthetic response. Empirical Studies of the Arts. 1990;8:1–14.
Cupchik G C. Vartanian O. Crawley A. Mikulis D J. Viewing artworks: Contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic experience. Brain and Cognition. 2009;70:84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.003.
Cupchik, G. C., Shereck, L., & Spiegel, S. (1994). The effects of textual information on artistic communication. Visual Arts Research, 62-78.
Cupchik G C. Winston A C. Handbook of perception & cognition: Cognitive ecology.
Denac, O. (2014). The significance and role of aesthetic education in schooling. Creative education, 5(19), 1714.
Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International journal of social research methodology, 14(2), 111-124.
Duncum, P. (1999). A case for an art education of everyday aesthetic experiences. Studies in art education, 40(4), 295-311.
Duran, B. S., & Odell, P. L. (2013). Cluster analysis: a survey (Vol. 100). Springer Science & Business Media.
Dutton, D. (2009). The art instinct: Beauty, pleasure, & human evolution. Oxford University Press, USA.
D'Olimpio, L. (2022). Aesthetica and eudaimonia: Education for flourishing must include the arts. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 56(2), 238-250.
D’olimpio, L. (2022). Defending aesthetic education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 70(3), 263-279.
Fayn, K., MacCann, C., Tiliopoulos, N., & Silvia, P. J. (2015). Aesthetic emotions and aesthetic people: Openness predicts sensitivity to novelty in the experiences of interest and pleasure. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1877.
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(2), 212.
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian & New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 36(6), 717-732.
Gehlen, A. (1986). Zeit-Bilder: Zur Soziologie und Ästhetik der modernen Malerei. Klostermann.
Greenacre, M. (2017). Correspondence analysis in practice. chapman and hall/crc.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Grossi, E., Tavano Blessi, G., Sacco, P. L., & Buscema, M. (2012). The interaction between culture, health and psychological well-being: Data mining from the Italian culture and well-being project. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 129-148.
Havelock, E. A. (1963). Preface to Plato. Harvard UP.
Hartley, J. (2004). What is a case study. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, 323.
Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2018). What is a case study?. Evidence-based nursing, 21(1), 7-8.
Hampshire, K. R., & Matthijsse, M. (2010). Can arts projects improve young people’s wellbeing? A social capital approach. Social science & medicine, 71(4), 708-716.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: an introduction to qualitive research interviewing. Sage.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2009). Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Kenett, Y. N., Cardillo, E. R., Christensen, A. P., & Chatterjee, A. (2023). Aesthetic emotions are affected by context: a psychometric network analysis. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 20985.
Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public opinion quarterly, 29(3), 349-356.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 106(2), 290.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British journal of psychology, 95(4), 489-508.
Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode–Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British journal of psychology, 105(4), 443-464.
Marković, S. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience: aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotion. i-Perception, 3(1), 1-17.
Marković, S. (2010). Aesthetic experience and the emotional content of paintings. Psihologija, 43(1), 47-64.
MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136-154.
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Schindler, I., Hanich, J., Jacobsen, T., & Koelsch, S. (2019). What are aesthetic emotions?. Psychological review, 126(2), 171.
Mitchell, A. A. (1981). The dimensions of advertising involvement. Advances in consumer research, 8(1).
Morgan, D. L., Krueger, R. A., & King, J. A. (1998). The focus group guidebook. Sage.
Myers, J. H., & Tauber, E. (2011). Market structure analysis. Marketing Classics Press.
Ognjenovic,P. (1997). Psychological theory of art. Belgrade Institute of psychology.
Pappas, N. (2008). Plato’s aesthetics.
Pelowski, M., Markey, P. S., Lauring, J. O., & Leder, H. (2016). Visualizing the impact of art: An update and comparison of current psychological models of art experience. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 10, 160.
Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the nutrition society, 63(4), 655-660.
Romesburg, H. C. (2004). Cluster analysis for researchers. Lulu Press.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1996. Confluence and divergence in empirical aesthetics philosophy and mainstream psychology.
Schindler, I., Hosoya, G., Menninghaus, W., Beermann, U., Wagner, V., Eid, M., & Scherer, K. R. (2017). Measuring aesthetic emotions: A review of the literature and a new assessment tool. PloS one, 12(6), e0178899.
Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and identifications.
Silvia, P. J. (2009). Looking past pleasure: anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 48.
Silvia, P. J. (2012). Human emotions and aesthetic experience. Aesthetic science: connecting minds, brain and experience, 250-275.
Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Świątek, A. H., Szcześniak, M., Stempień, M., Wojtkowiak, K., & Chmiel, M. (2024). The mediating effect of the need for cognition between aesthetic experiences and aesthetic competence in art. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 3408.
Wheatley, D., & Bickerton, C. (2017). Subjective well-being and engagement in arts, culture and sport. Journal of cultural economics, 41, 23-45.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer research, 12(3), 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of advertising, 15(2), 4-34.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of advertising, 23(4), 59-70.
林欣薇 (2022). 校園公共藝術之美感教育探究-以國立臺南大學為例. 藝術論壇, (3), 123-150.
黃巧慧, & 莊明振. (2015). 藝術帶來改變: 一個大學藝文中心的美育實踐與省思. 通識教育學刊, (6), 117-138.
徐宗國. (1997). 質性研究概論. Ju liu tu shu gong si.
謝佳穎. (2011). 藝術教育理論在 [公共藝術美學探源] 課程之實踐. 關渡通識學刊, (7), 77-106.
行政院文化建設委員會(2021)。文化藝術獎助條例。取自: https://www.moc.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=181&s=58601
莊育振, 曲家瑞, & 秦庭祥. (2004). 從場所特性觀點談公共藝術之互動性-互動式公共藝術發展初探. 藝術學報, (74), 125-140.
章美英、許麗齡（2006）。質性研究－焦點團體訪談法之簡介與應用。護理雜誌，53(2)，67-72。https://doi.org/10.6224/JN.53.2.67
吳奕芳, & 廖又儀. (2015). 成藝時築：漫遊成大藝隅.
王鍊登. (2012). 審美學. 臺灣科技美學發展
與成大校園藝術品一起在雲端漫步. 國立成功大學校刊第 250 期, 2015.