Have you ever looked at a piece of art and instantly felt calmer? Art is known to be beneficial to mental health and has positive effects in helping people with a variety of conditions including depression, mood disorders and anxiety (Sampson, 2015), and there’s growing evidence that suggests engagement with the arts is good for us. The Mental Elf has covered a few studies on arts engagement before. Art is also used as complementary therapy to treat a variety of psychiatric disorders (Hu et al, 2021).
Art therapy allows people to create and explore the meaning behind their creations with a trained therapist and can be beneficial for mental health. However, art therapy and simply looking at art is very different. So, the evidence about art therapy cannot automatically be applied to viewing art.
Viewing art may reduce stress and lower blood pressure, but there are not many studies investigating this link and the biological mechanism is unclear (Law et al, 2021). Cortisol is our main stress hormone. When we are stressed, cortisol can interact with our autonomic system to increase heart rate and blood pressure and affect our temperature. Stress also affects our immune system, and long-term stress is linked with higher inflammation (Alotiby, 2024). High inflammation has been linked with many illnesses such as depression, diabetes and heart disease.
An interesting question remains unexplored: does seeing original art affect us differently from seeing a replica?
In this paper, the authors aimed to find out more by testing whether hormonal, immune and autonomic measures were different when viewing original artworks in an art gallery versus viewing matched reproductions in a laboratory (Worrell et al, 2026).
Methods
50 participants were assigned by identification number to one of two groups: the gallery group (odd-numbered IDs) who viewed original paintings or the laboratory group (even-numbered IDs) who viewed high-quality reproductions under matching temperature, humidity and lighting conditions.
Both groups viewed five paintings in sequence for three minutes each, with time for reading labels and moving between paintings: The session lasted approximately 20 minutes. The paintings included:
- Jane Avril in the Entrance to the Moulin Rouge, Putting on her Gloves- (c1892) by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
- Bar at the Folies-Bergere (1882) by Edouard Manet
- Banks of the Seine at Argenteuil. (1874) by Edouard Manet
- Self-portrait with bandaged ear (1889) by Vincent van Gogh
- Te Rerioa (The Dream) (1897) by Paul Gauguin
Before viewing the paintings, researchers measured participants’ salivary cortisol, salivary inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 [IL-6], tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNF-⍺], IL-1β, IL-8). These measures were repeated within 5 minutes of viewing the final painting. Continuous measures of heart rate, heart rate variability, and skin temperature were also recorded.
Results
Immune and endocrine markers
IL-6 (a pro-inflammatory cytokine) decreased more in the gallery group than the laboratory group (time-by-group interaction: F(1, 45.99) = 5.98, p = 0.018). Specifically, IL-6 fell by 30% in the gallery group while there was no statistically significant change in laboratory group before and after viewing art.
TNF-⍺ (another pro-inflammatory protein) decreased by 28% in the gallery group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in change between the gallery and laboratory groups, meaning we cannot conclude that viewing original paintings reduced TNF-α more than viewing reproductions. There was also no differences found for IL-8 or IL-1β before and after viewing art nor between the groups.
Cortisol
Salivary cortisol (a hormone involved in the body’s stress response) decreased after viewing art in the gallery group, but not in the laboratory group (time-by-group interaction: F(1, 45) = 8.73, p = 0.005). Specifically, cortisol decreased by 22% in gallery group while there was no statistically significant change in the laboratory group. The difference in change between groups suggests that the viewing conditions may have influenced cortisol levels, although the study cannot establish that viewing original art itself caused the decrease.
Skin temperature
The gallery group had a larger drop in temperature from baseline (-0.74°C vs -0.32°C, p = 0.032), indicating more pronounced cooling episodes during the session. The range between peak and trough temperatures was also greater in the gallery group (1.78°C vs 1.12°C, p < 0.001), suggesting that their skin temperature fluctuated more during the session. No difference was observed in average temperature, or maximum temperature.
Heart rate
The average time between one heartbeat and the next was slightly lower in the gallery group (729 vs 785 milliseconds; mean difference = -56.34 milliseconds, p = 0.041), meaning that the gallery group had a slightly faster heart rate than the laboratory group.
The pNN20 measure, which reflects the proportion of consecutive heartbeat intervals differing by more than 20 milliseconds, was also lower in the gallery group (0.36 vs 0.46, p=0.005), indicating less variation between consecutive heartbeats by this measure.
Biomarker–heart rate variability correlations
The study tested whether changes in salivary cortisol and inflammatory markers were linked with changes in heart rate variability. No associations were statistically significant after accounting for the number of comparisons made. This means the study could not establish whether changes in stress-related hormones or inflammation were linked to changes in heart activity.
Conclusions
Viewing original artworks in a gallery was associated with larger decreases in an inflammatory marker and stress hormone compared to viewing reproductions in a laboratory. Exploratory analyses also reported heart rate and skin temperature differences between groups.
The authors describe these as “effects not observed when the same works were viewed as reproductions in a laboratory”, and suggest they may be a plausible pathway through which cultural engagement could influence health.
Both groups saw the same five paintings in the same order, and the temperature, humidity and lighting were matched as closely as possible. However, because the originals were seen in a gallery and the reproductions in a laboratory, the study cannot separate the effect of the paintings themselves from the effect of the gallery setting.
Strengths and limitations
This was a small study that recruited 50 participants who were affiliated with a university. Participants may have been interested in art and more likely to be highly educated, making them unrepresentative of a wider population. Importantly, higher levels of education are associated with higher levels of engagement with art events (Bone et al., 2021). Therefore, participants in this study may be likely to already integrate art into their recreational or wellness routines, potentially priming them for a more positive physiological response than the wider population. The participants were also healthy adults aged 18 to 40, and people with heart, neurological or psychiatric conditions were excluded, so the findings may not apply to older people or people with these conditions.
The participants were allocated to groups according to their participant identification numbers rather than through a fully randomised process. Although this provided a simple way to divide participants between the groups, the predictable allocation method may have allowed group assignment to be anticipated, potentially increasing the risk of selection bias.
Although laboratory conditions closely matched the gallery, museum authenticity could not be fully replicated. It is therefore unclear whether the results reflected the original artworks, the gallery setting, or participants’ expectations about viewing original art.
Baseline characteristics of the gallery and laboratory group, including age, sex, co-morbidities and smoking was not reported in the publication. This makes it difficult to assess whether differences in these characteristics could have affected the results.
Saliva samples are non-invasive and easy to collect from participants, but saliva inflammatory markers do not necessarily reflect inflammation in blood or other parts of the body (Szabo and Slavish, 2021). Salivary markers may also be influenced by factors such as gum disease, smoking, alcohol use, toothbrushing and eating. While participants self-reported absence of oral health problems, the study did not report whether other factors were controlled for. This raises the question of whether saliva samples are an appropriate method to measure inflammation. Measurements captured only immediate responses, and the study did not assess participants’ reported stress, anxiety and mood outcomes after viewing the paintings. The persistence of these effects and their potential cumulative impact following repeated exposure remain unknown.
The paintings were famous masterpieces with high-quality reproductions available. The study did not consider how participants felt about the individual paintings. Some of the paintings may prompt negative emotional responses. “Avril in the Entrance to the Moulin Rouge, Putting on her Gloves” portrays a cabaret dancer gaunt faced, thin and miserable, offering a realistic glimpse of her private life behind the spectacle of Parisian cabaret (The Guardian, 2001). Bar at the Folies-Bergere portrays a barmaid interacting with a customer with a detached, melancholy expression, reflecting themes of modern alienation (Courtauld, 2026). Self-portrait with bandaged ear was created shortly after van Gogh experienced a severe mental health crisis and cut off his own ear as an act of self-mutilation (Courtauld, 2026). In Te Rerioa (The Dream), Gauguin depicts two Tahitian women watching over a child. Gauguin has been criticised for his exoticizing portrayal of Polynesian women through the colonial gaze to appeal to white European audiences (BBC, 2026). Participants’ personal responses to these works could therefore have influenced their physiological responses, but the study did not measure this.
The study was funded by the Psychiatry Research Trust and Art Fund, although the authors declared no competing financial interests. Funding alone does not establish bias, but it is relevant context when interpreting the findings.
Implications for practice
This study offers early evidence that viewing original paintings in a gallery may affect the body’s short-term physiological responses. It is one of the first studies to investigate whether the act of simply viewing art can be good for the body.
However, these measurements of inflammatory markers, cortisol, temperature and heart rate do not tell us whether participants felt less stressed or experienced better mental or physical health as a result. The findings therefore do not provide sufficient evidence to suggest that there may be any clinical benefit to viewing art, especially as people with diagnosed psychiatric disorders were excluded.
Nonetheless, this study serves as a very exciting starting point to generate more answers. For researchers, there is a need for larger studies with more diverse groups of people to see if the findings can be reproduced and generalised. In addition, studies across longer periods of time, such as those which see participants take part in viewing art regularly across several weeks, will give a better insight into whether there are any long-term health benefits of viewing art in different environments. This study used saliva samples which are a very practical and fast method to measure short-term physiological response to viewing art. It would be interesting to test whether other methods of cortisol and immune measurements, such as serum blood tests, also show similar patterns.
For clinicians, this study raises a very important question as to whether art can be used to improve the physical and mental health of patients. As discussed above, we cannot know from this study alone whether viewing art will help those with mental health conditions. However, the study found short-term reductions in salivary IL-6, an inflammatory marker, and cortisol, a hormone involved in the stress response, among people viewing original paintings in a gallery. It did not establish whether these changes improve health or benefit people with chronic conditions. GPs already prescribe activities such as exercise groups and community activities through a practice called social prescribing (O’Sullivan et al, 2024). Whether gallery visits could form part of social prescribing remains to be seen.
Perhaps one of the most interesting applications of the findings in this study is in the inpatient hospital setting. All too often, patients facing long periods of hospital stay experience decreased mood and morale. Most hospitals have art in the corridors and other communal spaces which patients can enjoy. This study did not look at hospital settings, and because the artwork and the setting were not separated, it cannot tell us whether original art in a gallery offers more benefit than art seen elsewhere. Research is now needed to explore the possible benefits, accessibility, or feasibility of museum visits for clinically stable patients.
For the general public who may be wondering whether going to an art museum will provide any health benefits, the answer is maybe. Viewing art is such an individual and personal experience. It would be interesting to include a more diverse selection of art that reflects different cultures and artistic traditions. Physiological responses to viewing artwork should also be considered alongside participants’ personal interpretation and response to the art piece rather than assuming art works are universally calming or positive.
Statement of interests
Yijia Dong (she/they) declares no conflicts of interest.
Editor
Edited by Éimear Foley. ChatGPT assisted with language refinement and formatting during the editorial phase.
Links
Primary paper
Courtney Worrell, Madeline Kirkpatrick, Camila Ribeiro Perez, Sorcha Alford, Pierette Fortuna, Leyla Bumbra, Lucy Bradnock, Anthony J. Woods (2026). The Physiological Impact of Viewing Original Artworks in a gallery vs. Reproductions in a laboratory: A Comparative Study, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 137,106789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2026.106789
Other references
Sampson C. Art therapy for common mental health disorders. The Mental Elf. 17 Jul 2015
Law M, Karulkar N, Broadbent EEvidence for the effects of viewing visual artworks on stress outcomes: a scoping reviewBMJ Open 2021;11:e043549. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043549
Hu J, Zhang J, Hu L. et al. (2021) Art Therapy: A Complementary Treatment for Mental Disorders. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 686005. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.686005
Alotiby A. Immunology of Stress: A Review Article. J Clin Med. 2024 Oct 25;13(21):6394. doi: 10.3390/jcm13216394. PMID: 39518533; PMCID: PMC11546738.
Bone JK, Bu F, Fluharty ME. et al (2021) Who engages in the arts in the United States? A comparison of several types of engagement using data from The General Social Survey. BMC Public Health 21(1):1349. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11263-0
Szabo YZ, Slavish DC. (2021) Measuring salivary markers of inflammation in health research: A review of methodological considerations and best practices. Psychoneuroendocrinology 124:105069. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2020.105069
Jane Avril in the Entrance to the Moulin Rouge, Toulouse-Lautrec (1892). (2001) The Guardian, last accessed 6 Oct 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2001/feb/17/art
A Bar at the Folies-Bergère. Courtauld, Accessed 6 October 2026. https://courtauld.ac.uk/highlights/a-bar-at-the-folies-bergere/
Self-portrait with Bandaged Ear. Courtauld, Accessed 6 October 2026. https://courtauld.ac.uk/highlights/self-portrait-with-bandaged-ear/
Gauguin’s ‘strange, beautiful and exploitative’ portraits. BBC Culture, 2019. Accessed 6 October 2026. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20191017-gauguins-strange-beautiful-and-exploitative-portraits
O’Sullivan DJ, Bearne LM, Harrington JM, Cardoso JR, McVeigh JG. The effectiveness of social prescribing in the management of long-term conditions in community-based adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2024 Oct;38(10):1306-1320. doi: 10.1177/02692155241258903. Epub 2024 Jun 11. PMID: 38863236; PMCID: PMC11528982.