Is a “real” artwork better than a reproduction? A meta-analysis of the genuineness effect.

Abstract

In general, people assume that looking at a real artwork-versus a reproduction-provides an experience that is qualitatively heightened, also called the genuineness effect. In this study, we used meta-analysis to assess the current evidence for the genuineness effect. We found a meta-analytic effect of Hedges's g =.32 (N = 11). However, only three studies did not include a context confound (i.e., real artworks in a museum vs. reproductions in the lab), and when this moderator was considered, the effect seemed to disappear. Furthermore, we found a lot of heterogeneity between studies. Thus, we looked at additional moderators: type of genuine artwork, type (and quality) of reproductions, aesthetic experience measure, and number of artworks included. We found that only the type of reproduction and the number of artworks were significant moderators of the effect. In addition, we found the best model fit for a random-effects model including confound, reproduction type, and number of artworks as moderators (Akaike information criterion [AIC] = 36.96, Bayesian information criterion [BIC] = 48.93, R 2 = 61.91). Nonetheless, even this model had significant residual heterogeneity. The findings suggest that it is too early to conclude that there is no genuineness effect, and we provide one theoretical explanation (the facsimile accommodation hypothesis) and two methodological explanations (a potential anchoring effect and using the wrong experience measures) that could explain why our meta-analysis (after considering the context confound) found no effect. Additionally, based on the included moderators, we discuss methodological concerns for future studies on the genuineness effect and for empirical research on art in general.

Associating With Art: A Network Model of Aesthetic Effects

“…Though both approaches are common practice in the field, it is unclear how these methodological aspects would influence the generalization to "real life" interactions with artworks. With regard to the use of reproductions, a recent meta-analysis (Specker et al, 2021) did not find evidence for a genuineness effect (i.e., a difference in aesthetic experience between genuine artworks and their reproductions). This could be interpreted as support for the generalizability of studies working with reproductions; however, there are several limitations to the work in this direction.…”

“…This could be interpreted as support for the generalizability of studies working with reproductions; however, there are several limitations to the work in this direction. Specifically, Specker et al (2021) only found 11 studies, of which 8 had a context confound-i.e. genuine artworks seen in the museum compared to reproductions seen in a lab-making the above conclusion about generalizability not as straightforward (for a full discussion of this topic see Specker et al, 2021).…”

“…Specifically, Specker et al (2021) only found 11 studies, of which 8 had a context confound-i.e. genuine artworks seen in the museum compared to reproductions seen in a lab-making the above conclusion about generalizability not as straightforward (for a full discussion of this topic see Specker et al, 2021). In any case, future studies should consider these methodological aspects.…”

Can a Brief Interaction With Online, Digital Art Improve Wellbeing? A Comparative Study of the Impact of Online Art and Culture Presentations on Mood, State-Anxiety, Subjective Wellbeing, and Loneliness

“…At the same time, a long-running argument in especially art-critical, and more recently, psychological discussions suggests that art, for its full effect, might require to be seen in person, and that digital formats or other reproductions lose necessary aspects—immediacy, ambiance, level of engagement or importance, even artwork size—of the experience ( Benjamin, 1968 ; Berger, 2008 ; Pelowski et al, 2017a ; Specker et al, 2021 ). A handful of studies have suggested that art especially in digital formats, when compared to in-person gallery viewing, may lead to lower ratings of pleasantness ( Locher et al, 1999 , 2001 ; Locher and Dolese, 2004 ), interest ( Locher et al, 2001 ; Locher and Dolese, 2004 ), liking, time spent viewing ( Brieber et al, 2014 ) or even positive emotion or arousal ( Brieber et al, 2015 ), all of which might be important for wellbeing benefits.…”

Can a brief interaction with online, digital art improve wellbeing?: A comparative study of the impact of online art and culture presentations on mood, state-anxiety, subjective wellbeing, and loneliness

“…At the same time, a long-running argument in especially art-critical, and more recently, psychological discussions suggests that art, for its full effect, might require to be seen in person, and that digital formats or other reproductions lose necessary aspects-immediacy, ambiance, level of engagement or importance, even artwork size-of the experience (Benjamin, 1968;Berger, 2008;Specker et al, 2021). A handful of studies have suggested that art especially in digital formats, when compared to in-person gallery viewing, may lead to lower ratings of pleasantness (Locher et al, 1999(Locher et al, , 2001Locher & Dolese, 2004), interest (Locher et al, 2001;Locher & Dolese, 2004), liking, time spent viewing (Brieber et al, 2014) or even positive emotion or arousal (Brieber et al, 2015), all of which might be important for wellbeing benefits.…”