According to new research, bullshit does not always make the art grow profounder. The research team found that art descriptions had little influence on profoundness and attractiveness ratings of artwork. This research was published in the journal Empirical Studies of the Arts.
Human beings have a tendency to discern patterns in their environment, a trait that has evolutionary benefits, such as distinguishing between potential threats and harmless phenomena. This ability also extends into the realm of uncertainty and risk taking, where cognitive functions serve to manage such perceptions and plan accordingly.
People generally favor meaning in their surroundings, which could explain the diverse reactions to abstract art. While some individuals appreciate the unconventional nature of abstract art, others struggle with the lack of recognizable patterns, often resulting in disapproval unless they can ascribe their own meaning to the work.
The way in which art is presented significantly influences how it is received and appreciated. Prior research has shown that contextual information like titles and descriptions can enhance viewers’ understanding and enjoyment of artworks. Titles and information about the artwork, such as the artist’s biography and the work’s historical context increase its aesthetic appeal. However, the impact of additional information can vary depending on the setting, such as online displays versus in-person gallery visits.
In Experiment 1, a total of 107 gallery-goers with a mean age of 42.4 years participated at the Satyrykon Art gallery in Legnica, Poland. This experiment evaluated the influence of painting descriptions on perceived art quality and value during 2020-2021 art exhibitions. Participants were not pre-selected and could participate during their visit to the gallery.
They assessed paintings from four artists using booklets that provided three types of descriptions for each painting: simplified, natural, and bullshit (in Polish). These descriptions were randomized using a Latin square design to avoid order effects. Further, two of the four artists presented their works with titles, while two did not. Participants rated the profoundness and attractiveness of each painting (on a scale of 1 to 10), and provided a monetary value they felt each painting was worth.
Arkadiusz Urbanek and colleagues found that while description type slightly impacted the perceived quality of art, the effect was minimal and accounted for less than 1% of variance in quality and pricing assessments. The more substantial influences were the attributes of the painting itself, whether it was titled, and individual differences among the participants.
Experiment 2 involved 60 first-year psychology students at The Karkonosze University of Applied Sciences. Participants evaluated the language used in the descriptions from Experiment 1, assessing each description based on its level of abstraction, floweriness, and ‘bullshit’ content on a scale from 0 to 10. These ratings were combined into a single language-impressiveness composite score.
Results confirmed significant differences among the three types of descriptions, with bullshit descriptions receiving the highest scores and simplified descriptions the lowest. However, when these language impressiveness scores were used to predict perceived quality and pricing of the art in a robustness check, no significant predictive power was found. This suggests that the specific type of description may not significantly influence the perceived quality or value of art, contrasting slightly with the findings from Experiment 1, where description type had a minimal effect.
Overall, the present research findings revealed that the description style has negligible practical effects on how art is perceived, with inherent characteristics of the artworks, titles, and participant backgrounds having more substantial influence.
A limitation the researchers note is the informal and uncontrollable real-life setting, which while adding realism, made it difficult to isolate the effects of descriptions.
The research, “Bullshit (Sometimes) Makes the Art (Slightly) More Attractive: A Field Study in Gallery-Goers”, was authored by Arkadiusz Urbanek, Anna Borkowska, Wojciech Milczarski, Jarosław Zagrobelny, Jerzy Luty, and Michał Białek.
