Bullshit (Sometimes) Makes the Art (Slightly) More Attractive: A Field Study in Gallery-Goers

Abstract

Vague, impressive language used in descriptions (bullshit) is thought to make art seem more profound and valuable to the viewer. We studied the effect during art exhibitions in real-life gallery-goers who saw paintings of four artists, each with either simplified, neutral, or bullshitty description. We crafted a typical description of each painting, which we later manipulated in terms of language. A simplified description was modified to be concrete and simplistic, while a bullshitty one was very abstract and vague. After analyzing over 1500 ratings, we found the expressive language of descriptions had a negligible effect on the perceived quality and monetary value of art (R² marginal ≤ 1%). We conclude that, at least for experienced gallery-goers, the description accompanying a painting has little influence, and the art speaks for itself.

Keywords

bullshit language art perception field study art pricing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andersen

M. M.

Kiverstein

Miller

Roepstorff

(2022). Play in predictive minds: A cognitive theory of play. Psychological Review, 130(2), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000369

Andersen

M. M.

Schjoedt

Price

Rosas

F. E.

Scrivner

Clasen

(2020). Playing with fear: A field study in recreational horror. Psychological Science, 31(12), 1497–1510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620972116

Beck

Forstmeier

(2007). Superstition and belief as inevitable by-products of an adaptive learning strategy. Human Nature, 18(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02820845

Darda

K. M.

Chatterjee

(2023). The impact of contextual information on aesthetic engagement of artworks. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 4273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30768-9

Dissanayake

(1995). What is art for? (3. print). University of Washington Press.

Donald

(1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Harvard University Press.

Eriksson

(2012). The nonsense math effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(6), 746–749. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500003296

Feist

G. J.

Brady

T. R.

(2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.2190/Y7CA-TBY6-V7LR-76GK

FeldmanHall

Shenhav

(2019). Resolving uncertainty in a social world. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(5), 426–435. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0590-x

10.

Frankfurt

H. G.

(2005). On bullshit. Princeton University Press.

11.

Gallucci

(2019). GAMLj: General analyses for linear models. [jamovi module]. Retrieved from https://gamlj.github.io/

12.

Gerger

Leder

(2015). Titles change the esthetic appreciations of paintings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00464

13.

Humphrey

(1999). Cave art, autism, and the evolution of the human mind. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6–7), 116–143.

14.

Krauss

Ott

Opwis

Meyer

Gaab

(2021). Impact of contextualizing information on aesthetic experience and psychophysiological responses to art in a museum: A naturalistic randomized controlled trial. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(3), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000280

15.

Landau

M. J.

Greenberg

Solomon

Pyszczynski

Martens

(2006). Windows into nothingness: Terror management, meaninglessness, and negative reactions to modern art. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 879–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.879

16.

Leder

Carbon

C.-C.

Ripsas

A.-L.

(2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121(2), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.08.005

17.

Leder

Gerger

Brieber

Schwarz

(2014). What makes an art expert? Emotion and evaluation in art appreciation. Cognition and Emotion, 28(6), 1137–1147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.870132

18.

Lewis-Williams

(2011). The mind in the cave: Consciousness and the origins of art. Thames & Hudson.

19.

Loewenstein

(1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75

20.

Mari

Quaglieri

Lausi

Boccia

Pizzo

Baldi

Barchielli

Burrai

Piccardi

Giannini

A. M.

(2021). Fostering the aesthetic pleasure: The effect of verbal description on aesthetic appreciation of ambiguous and unambiguous artworks. Behavioral Sciences, 11(11), 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs11110144

21.

Mattson

M. P.

(2014). Superior pattern processing is the essence of the evolved human brain. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 265. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00265

22.

Millis

(2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1(3), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.320

23.

Mullennix

J. W.

Robinet

(2018). Art expertise and the processing of titled abstract art. Perception, 47(4), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006617752314

24.

Pennycook

Cheyne

J. A.

Barr

Koehler

D. J.

Fugelsang

J. A.

(2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006999

25.

Pihko

Virtanen

Saarinen

V.-M.

Pannasch

Hirvenkari

Tossavainen

Haapala

Hari

(2011). Experiencing art: The influence of expertise and painting abstraction level. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 10994. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00094

26.

Pratt

J. W.

(1978). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32(1/2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913738

27.

Ramachandran

V. S.

Hirstein

(1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6–7), 15–51.

28.

Russell

P. A.

Milne

(1997). Meaningfulness and hedonic value of paintings: Effects of titles. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.2190/EHT3-HWVM-52CB-8QHJ

29.

Shermer

(2011). The believing brain: From ghosts and gods to politics and conspiracies—How we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths. Macmillan.

30.

Silvia

P. J.

(2013). Interested experts, confused novices: Art expertise and the knowledge emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 31(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.31.1.f

31.

Sokal

A. D.

(1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46/47, 217–252.

32.

Szubielska

Imbir

Szymańska

(2021). The influence of the physical context and knowledge of artworks on the aesthetic experience of interactive installations. Current Psychology, 40(8), 3702–3715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00322-w

33.

The jamovi project (2022). jamovi. (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org

34.

Turpin

M. H.

Walker

A. C.

Kara-Yakoubian

Gabert

N. N.

Fugelsang

J. A.

Stolz

J. A.

(2019). Bullshit makes the art grow profounder. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(6), 658–670. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3410674

35.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574

36.

Van Harreveld

Rutjens

B. T.

Schneider

I. K.

Nohlen

H. U.

Keskinis

(2014). In doubt and disorderly: Ambivalence promotes compensatory perceptions of order. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1666–1676. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036099

37.

Whitson

J. A.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845