But Is It really Art? The Classification of Images as “Art”/“Not Art” and Correlation with Appraisal and Viewer Interpersonal Differences

Abstract

When an individual participates in empirical studies involving the visual arts, they most often are presented with a stream of images, shown on a computer, depicting reproductions of artworks by respected artists but which are often not known to the viewer. While art can of course be shown in presentia actuale—e.g., in the museum—this laboratory paradigm has become our go-to basis for assessing interaction, and, often in conjunction with some means of rating, for assessing evaluative, emotional, cognitive, and even neurophysiological response. However, the question is rarely asked: Do participants actually believe that every image that they are viewing is indeed “Art”? Relatedly, how does this evaluation relate to aesthetic appreciation, and do the answers to these questions vary in accordance with different strategies and interpersonal differences? In this paper, we consider the spontaneous classification of digital reproductions as art or not art. Participants viewed a range of image types—Abstract, Hyperrealistic, Poorly Executed paintings, Readymade sculptures, as well as Renaissance and Baroque paintings. They classified these as “art” or “not art” using both binary and analog scales, and also assessed for liking. Almost universally, individuals did not find all items within a class to be “art,” nor did all participants agree on the arthood status for any one item. Art classification in turn showed a significant positive correlation with liking. Whether an object was classified as art moreover correlated with specific personality variables, tastes, and decision strategies. The impact of these findings is discussed for selection/assessment of participants and for better understanding the basis of findings in past and future empirical art research.

The influence of the physical context and knowledge of artworks on the aesthetic experience of interactive installations

“…All participants were explicitly told that the videos of a person manipulating the artworks were showing a work of art (as it could influence the aesthetic appraisalscf. Pelowski et al 2017b). The short video (lasting about 20-30 s) showed one of the experiment's conductors interacting with a work of art in an exemplary way.…”

Commentary: But Is It really Art? The Classification of Images as “Art”/“Not Art” and Correlation with Appraisal and Viewer Interpersonal Differences

“…We believe, however, that Pelowski et als' ( 2017 ) study has even deeper implications. Not only do its results challenge a methodological assumption guiding experimental work in the laboratory; they challenge the deeply rooted conception of aesthetic experience as a response triggered by formal features of objects (Silvia, 2012 ; Vartanian, 2014 ), particularly combinations and arrangements of such elements as lines, colors, or shapes, among others.…”

“…Pelowski et al ( 2017 ) recently conducted an experiment to examine the validity of this key—but previously unquestioned—assumption. They asked participants to classify images of a broad range of artworks as either works of art or not works art, and also to express their liking for them.…”

“…These results call into question the assumption that participants will necessarily regard artistic stimuli presented in an experimental setting as actual artworks. The implication is important, because, as Pelowski et al ( 2017 ) showed, the attributed artistic status greatly influenced liking: liking ratings for images classified as art were about 20% higher than for images classified as not art.…”

Commentary: Neural substrates of embodied natural beauty and social endowed beauty: An fMRI study

“…In sum, there is no such thing as a sense of beauty that responds to certain object attributes. If anything, beauty is an attribute of our experience of objects brought about by the activity of domain-general brain systems that seek to make meaning of those objects, their features, and their value to us, based on expectations and predictions (Salimpoor et al, 2011 ; Egermann et al, 2013 ), beliefs (Kirk et al, 2009b ; Noguchi and Murota, 2013 ; Locher et al, 2015 ; Pelowski et al, 2017b ), prior experience and expertise (Kirk et al, 2009a ; Harvey et al, 2010 ; Pang et al, 2013 ), currently available information (Lengger et al, 2007 ; Swami, 2013 ), and context (Gartus and Leder, 2014 ; Brieber et al, 2015 ; Pelowski et al, 2017a ).…”