Effects of Youth Authorship on the Appraisal of Paintings
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 4 (4):235 (2010)
| Abstract | Authorship of a painting affects the evaluation of the artwork. In particular, prestigious authorship predicts an evaluation bias in favor of eminent artists. In the recent years, however, the art appreciation movement has focused attention on youth art. This reverse prestige bias effect raises a number of concerns about the virtue of art and the art evaluation bias. In this study, we asked what specific aspects of children's artworks contribute to the accentuated aesthetic response. Recent theories suggest that the final evaluation of aesthetics is emotionally driven. We proposed that youth authorship would elicit a stronger positive emotional response from the viewers than prestige authorship. In 4 experiments, we examined the effects of prestigious authorship and emotional authorship on aesthetic, creativity, and proficiency evaluations. Experiment 1 was a survey of expected qualities of artworks by artists of various backgrounds (e.g., famous artists, youth, or athletes). The results served as baselines for discussion in subsequent experiments. In Experiment 2, participants judged artworks presumably produced by famous artists or children. We predicted higher ratings for youth. In Experiment 3, participants judged artworks presumably produced by famous artists or athletes. Assuming that athletes do not receive the same compassion as children, we predicted the ratings to be higher for the famous artists. To emphasize the role of compassion, participants in Experiment 4 judged artworks presumably produced by privileged or underprivileged youth artists. Inconsistent with the emotional hypothesis, artistic preference was equal in these two groups. Alternative explanations are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSherri Irvin (2005). Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (2):123-137.
Guy Rohrbaugh (2005). I Could Have Done That. British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (3):209-228.
Barton Moffatt (2011). Responsible Authorship: Why Researchers Must Forgo Honorary Authorship. Accountability in Research 18 (2):76-90.
Frederic Gilbert & Syd M. Johnson (2011). The Impact of American Tackle Football-Related Concussion in Youth Athletes. AJOB Neuroscience 2 (4):48-59.
Mary R. Rose & Karla Fischer (1998). Do Authorship Policies Impact Students' Judgments of Perceived Wrongdoing? Ethics and Behavior 8 (1):59 – 79.
Robyn J. Geelhoed, Julia C. Phillips, Ann R. Fischer, Elaine Shpungin & Younnjung Gong (2007). Authorship Decision Making: An Empirical Investigation. Ethics and Behavior 17 (2):95 – 115.
George C. Schuetze (2005). Convergences in Music and Art: A Bibliographic Study. Harmonie Park Press.
K. E. Gover (2012). Christoph Büchel V. Mass MoCA: A Tilted Arc for the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Aesthetic Education 46 (1).
David Shaw (2011). The Authorless Paper: The ICMJE’s Definition of Authorship is Illogical and Unethical. British Medical Journal 343 (7831):999.
Eugen Tarnow (1999). The Authorship List in Science: Junior Physicists' Perceptions of Who Appears and Why. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (1).
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2011-11-21Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
