Can art really reduce stress?
Art is unlikely to reduce stress on its own. Yet a growing body of research suggests that visual environments — including art — can contribute to restoration, emotional wellbeing and cognitive recovery.
Not because a painting treats stress. But because it becomes one part of an environment that asks less from the mind.
- What the research actually shows
- What researchers are still working out
- The question we think matters more
- How this shaped EXHALE
Why this question deserves a better answer
Every few months another headline appears. "Art reduces stress." "Museums improve wellbeing." "Beautiful environments make us healthier."
Most are based on genuine research. Many also oversimplify it. Because science rarely speaks in absolutes — and neither should we.
The more interesting question isn't whether art magically changes people. It's whether thoughtful artistic decisions can contribute to experiences that people consistently describe as calmer, more focused or more comforting.
That's the question that drives ODE. If you're looking for the practical side of it, we've written separately about why a home can feel beautifully furnished and still not feel relaxing.
What research actually tells us
Over the past forty years, researchers in psychology, neuroscience and environmental psychology have become increasingly interested in how our surroundings influence human experience.
One influential theory, Attention Restoration Theory, proposed by Stephen and Rachel Kaplan, suggests that some environments gently engage our attention rather than constantly demanding it. They described this quality as soft fascination — an effortless form of attention that may allow directed attention to recover.
Roger Ulrich's Stress Reduction Theory approaches the question from another perspective. His 1984 study published in Science found that surgical patients in rooms with a view of trees had shorter hospital stays and needed fewer strong analgesics than matched patients facing a brick wall — one of the most cited findings in the field.
More recently, research in neuroaesthetics has begun exploring how aesthetic experiences emerge through interactions between perception, emotion, memory, expectation and context. A 2024 perspective in Nature Reviews Psychology proposes that aesthetic experience rests on the same neurobiological reward mechanisms as other forms of sensory valuation — shaped by a person's history, physiological state and circumstances, not by the artwork alone.
Together, these fields point towards an important conclusion: our surroundings matter. Art is one part of those surroundings.
What researchers are still trying to understand
This is where we think the conversation becomes more interesting.
Although evidence continues to grow, researchers also remain careful. A 2025 systematic review in The Journal of Positive Psychology examined 38 studies covering nearly 7,000 participants. It found convergent evidence that viewing art can support eudaimonic wellbeing — a sense of meaning — but no strong support for other wellbeing outcomes.
The same review highlights an important limitation. There is still no universal formula explaining exactly which artistic characteristics create which psychological outcomes, or why different people respond differently to the same artwork.
In other words: the evidence is encouraging. The mechanisms are still evolving. We think that's exactly how science should work.
The question we keep coming back to
Most research asks: can art influence how people feel?
We find ourselves asking something slightly different: if art can influence experience, how might an artwork be intentionally designed around that possibility?
That's a very different question. Because it shifts the conversation from whether art matters — to how artistic decisions come together.
Where science ends, and art begins
Research doesn't tell us how to create a single artwork. It doesn't say "use this colour" or "add this texture" or "draw this line."
Instead, research offers insights into perception, attention, aesthetics and human experience. At ODE, those insights inform individual creative decisions. They never dictate them.
Every artwork becomes an artistic interpretation rather than a scientific formula. Because no single design choice creates an experience. The composition does.
How that shaped EXHALE
Take EXHALE as an example.
The gradual colour transition wasn't chosen because research proves colour gradients create calm. The meandering horizon wasn't included because diagonal lines have a guaranteed psychological effect. The restrained visual complexity, subtle focal point, asymmetrical balance and natural rhythm weren't selected as isolated techniques.
Each decision was considered as one small contribution to a larger composition. Together, they create an artwork designed around a single intention: to become part of an environment that quietly asks less from the people living with it.
Whether someone experiences that as calming will always remain personal. That's exactly as it should be.
Research informs individual decisions. Composition creates the experience.
Research rarely tells us which artwork someone should buy. It helps us ask better questions.
That's where ODE begins.
Where the research stands
Science evolves. We believe it's more honest to show where evidence is strong, where it's emerging, and where important questions remain — than to make claims the research doesn't support.
| Topic | Where the research stands |
|---|---|
| Visual environments influence human experience | Well established across environmental psychology |
| Attention Restoration Theory | Widely studied, with ongoing debate about mechanisms |
| Stress Reduction Theory | Supported by decades of research, particularly in healthcare settings |
| Neuroaesthetics | An emerging field, still developing its methods and models |
| Individual artworks directly reducing stress | Not demonstrated — and probably the wrong question |
Environmental psychology · Attention Restoration Theory · Stress Reduction Theory · Neuroaesthetics
Design principles explored in EXHALE
Rather than copying science, ODE interprets it. This collection explores the relationship between gradual colour transitions, restrained visual complexity, asymmetrical balance, meandering visual pathways, subtle focal hierarchy, fractal-inspired rhythm, negative space and natural material references.
No single principle creates the experience. The composition does. We write more about how that works in ODE Philosophy.
References and further reading
Freely available
- Trupp, M. D., Howlin, C., Fekete, A., Kutsche, J., Fingerhut, J. & Pelowski, M. (2025). The impact of viewing art on well-being — a systematic review of the evidence base and suggested mechanisms. The Journal of Positive Psychology. — Open access.
- Pizzolante, M. et al. (2024). Aesthetic experiences and their transformative power: a systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. — Open access.
- Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420–421. — Summary via The Center for Health Design.
Further reading (subscription required)
- Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
- Nadal, M. & Skov, M. (2025). The sensory valuation account of aesthetic experience. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4, 49–63.
Find the work that fits how you want to feel.
Explore the collections ↗
