Intricate prints hold their interest in how much is happening rather than in how loud it is. Dense line work, layered pattern, fine botanical detail, architectural complexity. The classifier measures this directly from the image — edge density and fine texture — rather than inferring it from the palette, because a dense drawing and a flat wash can use exactly the same colours. These prints reward standing close, and most of them lose their point at a distance.
Complexity is an arousal driver independent of colour, which is why it is measured here rather than folded into the palette. Berlyne treated it as a "collative variable" alongside novelty and surprise, and the modern computational work bears that out: Donderi's review of visual complexity establishes edge and contour density as the measures that track human judgement, and Nadal and colleagues found complexity judgements of artwork decomposing into edge density and variety — which is why this classification uses two terms, one for large structure and one for fine texture. What the evidence does not support is that detail is better or worse than restraint. It is a different kind of attention: intricate work is looked *at*, where the serene collection is looked *past*. Hang accordingly.