A small study has found that people who viewed original paintings in a gallery experienced larger short-term changes in salivary cortisol and the inflammatory marker IL-6 than people who viewed high-quality reproductions in a laboratory.
But the findings do not show that original art itself caused the changes. Because the two groups viewed the paintings in different environments, the study could not separate the possible effect of the artworks from the gallery setting or participants’ expectations.
How the study worked
Fifty healthy adults aged 18 to 40, all affiliated with a university, were assigned to either a gallery group or a laboratory group according to identification number. The gallery group viewed five original paintings, while the laboratory group saw matched reproductions.
The sessions were designed to be similar in temperature, humidity and lighting. Participants viewed each painting for three minutes, with additional time to read labels and move between works. Each session lasted about 20 minutes.
The paintings included works by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Edouard Manet, Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin. Researchers collected saliva before viewing and within five minutes of the final painting. Heart rate, heart-rate variability and skin temperature were recorded throughout.
What changed
Salivary cortisol fell by 22% in the gallery group. The laboratory group had no statistically significant change, and the difference between the groups suggested that the viewing conditions may have influenced cortisol levels.
IL-6 fell by 30% in the gallery group, while there was no statistically significant change in the laboratory group. TNF-α also fell in the gallery group, by 28%, but the difference between groups was not statistically significant. Researchers reported no differences for IL-8 or IL-1β.
The gallery group also showed a larger drop in skin temperature and greater peak-to-trough temperature fluctuation. Average and maximum temperature did not differ. The gallery group had a slightly faster average heart rate and lower pNN20, a measure of variation between consecutive heartbeats.
After accounting for the number of comparisons, no statistically significant associations were found between changes in cortisol or inflammatory markers and changes in heart-rate variability.
What the results do—and do not—mean
The results indicate short-term physiological differences between the two viewing conditions. They do not establish that participants felt less stressed, that their health improved or that the effects would persist.
The study also examined viewing art, not art therapy. Evidence about structured art therapy cannot automatically be applied to simply looking at paintings.
The most important limitation is the comparison itself: original paintings were viewed in a gallery, while reproductions were viewed in a laboratory. Differences in the room, the experience of being in a gallery and expectations about seeing original art could all have contributed to the findings.
Why larger studies are needed
The study was small and involved healthy university-affiliated adults aged 18 to 40. People with heart, neurological or psychiatric conditions were excluded. The participants may also have been particularly interested in art or highly educated, which could make them different from the wider population.
Allocation by identification number was not a fully randomised process, creating a potential risk of selection bias. The report also did not provide baseline details for the groups, including age, sex, co-morbidities and smoking.
Salivary inflammatory markers do not necessarily represent inflammation elsewhere in the body and can be affected by oral-health and other factors that were not fully reported as controlled for.
Further research with more diverse participants and longer follow-up is needed to determine whether the findings can be reproduced, whether they apply beyond the study population and whether repeated visits have any lasting health effects. For now, the study supports interest in the possible effects of museum visits while leaving the cause and practical significance of the changes uncertain.
Key takeaways
- In a study of 50 healthy university-affiliated adults, viewing original paintings in a gallery was linked to a 22% fall in salivary cortisol.
- IL-6 fell by 30% in the gallery group, while the laboratory group showed no statistically significant change.
- TNF-α decreased in the gallery group, but the difference between groups was not statistically significant.
- The study could not separate the effect of the original artworks from the gallery environment or participants’ expectations.
What this means
The study suggests that a short museum-style viewing session can coincide with measurable physiological changes, but it does not show that visitors felt less stressed or gained lasting health benefits. The results may not apply to older adults, people with chronic conditions or people with different levels of interest in art. Responses may also vary between individuals.
What the evidence cannot tell us
- The study was small and included healthy adults aged 18 to 40 affiliated with a university.
- People with heart, neurological or psychiatric conditions were excluded.
- The gallery and laboratory groups experienced different environments, so the study could not isolate the effect of the original artworks.
- It was unclear whether the findings reflected the artworks, the gallery setting or participants’ expectations about viewing original art.ҩ
AI tools were used to assist with the preparation of this article under our editorial standards.
Leave a Reply