Do great artists need to be geniuses like Mozart,
composing symphonies from age five? Or troubled souls, like Vincent Van
Gogh, who cut off his ear before ultimately committing suicide? Are
stable, hardworking artists, ordinary in every way but their artistic
abilities, equally capable of producing masterpieces?
The
connection between genius and artistry, on one hand, and mental demons
or atypical personalities, on the other, has more than anecdotal
evidence. On a modest level, the creative process is associated with
breaking from convention, and atypical backgrounds
such as living abroad
are speculated to aid in its workings. Studies have also found higher incidences of mental illness among creative professions or geniuses.
That said, researchers debate
whether such problems inform the creative process or are unfortunate
side effects of creative capabilities or sensitivities. Other critics disagree entirely, discovering comparable rates of mental illness among the creative class and general population.
The
research of Wijnand A. P. van Tilburg and Eric Igou, however, suggests
that the troubled or aberrant artist stereotype is well established
among the public. And that we hold the art of eccentrics in higher
regard as a result.
-------
Igou and van Tilburg, researchers at the University of Limerick and
University of Southampton, respectively, investigated how individuals’
perceptions of artists impact judgments of their art in the recently published paper “From Van Gogh to Lady Gaga: Artist eccentricity increases perceived artistic skill and art appreciation.”
Their work draws on the studies and popular perception cited above. In the same way that research has shown that people rate rap songs as better
if they believe the rapper is black rather than white, they speculated
that individuals will appraise art more positively if they believe the
artist to be eccentric. In other, more ironic words, people think better
of artists that conform to the stereotype of artists as unconventional.
In
five experiments with university students, the researchers found the
stereotype in action. In one, students liked Van Gogh’s painting Sunflowers
better when told that the artist cut off his ear than those not primed
with the information. In a second, students looked at paintings after
reading a short bio of the fictional artist. The students who read a
biography that included a description of the artist as “very eccentric”
again rated the artwork higher.
To ensure that the students liked the paintings better because
of the artists’ supposed eccentricity -- and not because the group told
about the artists’ idiosyncrasies received more information than the
control group -- a third study swapped the biographies with pictures.
Students looked at the same paintings used in study 2, but the paintings
were accompanied by a picture of a man with short hair in a white
shirt, or a man “who was skinny, had half-long hair combed over one side
of his head, had not shaved for several days, and was wearing a black
shirt and vest.” Stereotypes triumphed again as the average looking
artist received more lackluster reviews.
But do people
expect eccentricity from all artists? What about a painter of
conventional portraits? Or a designer working on Microsoft Office?
“Lady with a Bunch of Flowers” by Andrea del Verrocchio and “The Pack” by Joseph Beuys
Igou’s
and van Tilburg’s fourth experiment asked students to rate the
attractiveness of the two artworks shown above. The setup described the
creator of each as a “respected contributor to art.” But some students
additionally read about each artist that he was
"eccentric." When viewing the conceptual art (The Pack), the students
once again rated the artwork higher when told of the artist's
eccentricity. But when evaluating the 15th century bust, the stated
eccentricity of the artist had no impact on evaluations of the work.
The
eccentric artist stereotype is a marketing staple. This author, for
one, has often wondered how much of an artist’s eccentric image is the
artist playing the part. In a final study entitled “Lady Gaga’s Tight
Black Outfit,” the researchers tested whether people punish artists
whose eccentricity seems inauthentic.
Students
assembled by Igou and van Tilburg for the experiment all knew Lady
Gaga’s music. So, they simply presented the participants with a short
bio of Lady Gaga -- who once accepted a video music award in a dress made of meat
-- accompanied by a picture of the artist. Half saw Gaga wearing “a
tight black suit, black boots, black gloves, and a large, shiny mask”;
the others saw a picture of her seated in a simple black dress with her
hair in a ponytail.
The researchers then primed half
the students in each group to doubt Lady Gaga’s genuineness by including
a line in her biography that read “Some music critics say that the
appearance and image of Lady Gaga is one of the most heavily marketed
and strategically thought-through in contemporary pop-music.”
Reminding
students of Lady Gaga’s eccentricity increased the ratings of her
artistic skill and their appreciation of her music. But the picture had
no effect on students primed to think that Gaga’s eccentricity may be a
marketing ploy. People often turn to stereotypes as a quick way to
understand the world. Since great artists tend to be eccentric (or so
people believe at least), then people assume an eccentric artist is
likely a great one. Artists can take advantage of the stereotype, but
only if they’re not caught in the act.
-------
Museum-goers
could preserve the sanctity of enjoying art by avoiding artists’ bios.
But the eccentric artist stereotype is far from the only influence on
our judgements.
In their paper, Igou and van Tilburg take pains to show that the effect they describe is distinct from those of construal level theory.
The theory describes how greater distance -- either literal or
figurative -- makes people think about objects and events more
abstractly. For example, in one study,
participants asked to describe themselves reading a science fiction
book tomorrow described concrete details like “turning the pages.” Those
asked to think about reading the book a year from now related more
abstract descriptions like “broadening [their] horizons.”
In 2008, researchers investigated
whether manipulating this tendency to think either more concretely or
more abstractly could impact people’s appreciation of (more concrete)
traditional art and (more abstract) contemporary art. In a similar
setup, they recruited university students to look at artworks ranging
from abstract or unconventional to more traditional.
"Apollo & Daphne" by Gian Lorenzo Bernini and "Brillo Boxes" by Andy Warhol
During
a 50 minute period spent performing tasks otherwise unrelated to the
experiment, the researchers asked students to either imagine their life a
year from the present -- or tomorrow. The participants then spent
several minutes writing and reflecting.
Rather than
ask students to rate how much they liked the art, the question of
whether they would accept more contemporary pieces as art at all
interested the researchers. So, they asked the participants to rank
(from 1 to 7) each artwork’s fit within the category of “art.” Sure
enough, those primed to think about the future accepted abstract works
as art more readily.
-------
The
researchers doubt that they would find the same effect among
professional art critics, and the same could be true of van Tilburg’s
and Igou’s study on artist eccentricity. Critics trained to focus on
composition and style likely would not fall for the heuristic of whether
artists seem too normal.
But at least for novices, studies like
these provide an interesting lesson to consider while strolling through a
museum: The context surrounding our perceptions and judgments of art
may be as interesting as the artwork itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment