A person's perceived value of an art object will always be influenced by the object's aesthetic appeal. But aesthetics is only one component of determining an art object's perceived value as the following examples illustrate: An identical poster print of a Mondrian painting would, by definition, have the same aesthetic appeal as the original painting, yet the former would have much lower perceived value and would also not be perceived as art (it merely represents a copy of an art object). Likewise, a software algorithm could generate an unlimited number of original “Mondrian” motifs. Some might even be more appealing, creative, or unique than those created by the artist himself. But again, only the paintings with the motifs designed by Mondrian would be considered as art and hence be perceived as having artistic value.
These two examples illustrate what makes art different from other forms of aesthetically appealing objects such as décor and entertainment objects. As we have shown elsewhere (Kreuzbauer & Keller Reference Kreuzbauer and Keller2017; Kreuzbauer et al. Reference Kreuzbauer, King and Basu2015), art objects are intentionally made to embody a producer's (i.e., artist's) expression. In other words, the art object represents the materialised expression from the very moment when it was produced (i.e., the material object “freezes” a moment of time and space). Whereas Mondrian's original painting is a truthful representation of his expression in the moment of creation, the poster print would merely be its copy. Likewise, an expression can be performed only by a human being and not by a computer algorithm.
This shows that art objects are social objects, whose appeal and value are determined largely by the strategic interaction between the artist and the audience.
Besides determining whether the artwork truly embodies an artist's expression, psychological valuation and appeal towards the artwork depend mainly on the content it intends to communicate. For example, an artist might draw the content of a trash can to address the negative consequences of consumerism. It is possible that such kind of negative associations would lead to higher pleasure as predicted by the Distancing-Embracing model in the target article. But under the perspective of strategic interaction, this causal mechanism between negative emotions and appeal is less clear. Instead, perceived value should be determined largely by the interactive context. For example, some perceivers might find the artwork as highly appealing when the artist's message is consistent with their own political view. Others might instead find it highly conventional and cliché-like and might therefore infer that the artist's true intention is not to criticise consumerism, but mainly to make money for him- or herself. In the latter case, the audience should have a negative reaction towards the artwork as it believes the artist to be dishonest. This negative reaction towards the artwork would be caused largely by a lack of trust of the artist and not by the object's aesthetics.
On a macro level, artists would even use symbolic elements to coordinate groups to compete for influence and status. For example, postmodernism was a social movement against the hegemony of modernism. Postmodern artists who planned to challenge the dominance of modernism did therefore intentionally select countersignals (Klimek et al. Reference Klimek, Kreuzbauer and Thurner2017; Kreuzbauer & Cheon Reference Kreuzbauer and Cheon2015), that is, symbolic elements which are in total opposition to values and common symbols of modernism (e.g., huge ornaments or dysfunctional elements to challenge modernism's “form follows function” doctrine). The side on which a person stands within this “battle for social influence” affects the person's appeal and emotional impression towards postmodern art. As endorser of modernist values, his or her reaction towards postmodern art would obviously be highly negative, but this should flip for a supporter of the postmodernist movement.
To sum up, I agree with Menninghaus et al. that negative emotions can positively affect an art object's perceivers value and pleasure. However, when aspects of strategic interaction are taken into consideration, the outcome might vary. In particular, I anticipate that a person's emotional reaction depends on whether the art object is perceived as a truthful embodiment of the artist's expression. In addition, when art is used to question or challenge the status of a particular group, a perceiver's emotional reaction would depend on whether he or she is a member of this group or not. Identifying such basic mechanisms of strategic interaction (e.g., status competition through countersignals) would also allow us to specify social contexts. Rather than a claim that “context matters,” it would allow us to determine causal mechanisms for specific contexts of strategic interaction (e.g., during status competition, signal X would lead to reaction a for members of group w). See Klimek et al. (Reference Klimek, Kreuzbauer and Thurner2017) for an empirical test of the mechanism of counterdominance signalling in the context of musical style cycles.
You have
Access
A person's perceived value of an art object will always be influenced by the object's aesthetic appeal. But aesthetics is only one component of determining an art object's perceived value as the following examples illustrate: An identical poster print of a Mondrian painting would, by definition, have the same aesthetic appeal as the original painting, yet the former would have much lower perceived value and would also not be perceived as art (it merely represents a copy of an art object). Likewise, a software algorithm could generate an unlimited number of original “Mondrian” motifs. Some might even be more appealing, creative, or unique than those created by the artist himself. But again, only the paintings with the motifs designed by Mondrian would be considered as art and hence be perceived as having artistic value.
These two examples illustrate what makes art different from other forms of aesthetically appealing objects such as décor and entertainment objects. As we have shown elsewhere (Kreuzbauer & Keller Reference Kreuzbauer and Keller2017; Kreuzbauer et al. Reference Kreuzbauer, King and Basu2015), art objects are intentionally made to embody a producer's (i.e., artist's) expression. In other words, the art object represents the materialised expression from the very moment when it was produced (i.e., the material object “freezes” a moment of time and space). Whereas Mondrian's original painting is a truthful representation of his expression in the moment of creation, the poster print would merely be its copy. Likewise, an expression can be performed only by a human being and not by a computer algorithm.
This shows that art objects are social objects, whose appeal and value are determined largely by the strategic interaction between the artist and the audience.
Besides determining whether the artwork truly embodies an artist's expression, psychological valuation and appeal towards the artwork depend mainly on the content it intends to communicate. For example, an artist might draw the content of a trash can to address the negative consequences of consumerism. It is possible that such kind of negative associations would lead to higher pleasure as predicted by the Distancing-Embracing model in the target article. But under the perspective of strategic interaction, this causal mechanism between negative emotions and appeal is less clear. Instead, perceived value should be determined largely by the interactive context. For example, some perceivers might find the artwork as highly appealing when the artist's message is consistent with their own political view. Others might instead find it highly conventional and cliché-like and might therefore infer that the artist's true intention is not to criticise consumerism, but mainly to make money for him- or herself. In the latter case, the audience should have a negative reaction towards the artwork as it believes the artist to be dishonest. This negative reaction towards the artwork would be caused largely by a lack of trust of the artist and not by the object's aesthetics.
On a macro level, artists would even use symbolic elements to coordinate groups to compete for influence and status. For example, postmodernism was a social movement against the hegemony of modernism. Postmodern artists who planned to challenge the dominance of modernism did therefore intentionally select countersignals (Klimek et al. Reference Klimek, Kreuzbauer and Thurner2017; Kreuzbauer & Cheon Reference Kreuzbauer and Cheon2015), that is, symbolic elements which are in total opposition to values and common symbols of modernism (e.g., huge ornaments or dysfunctional elements to challenge modernism's “form follows function” doctrine). The side on which a person stands within this “battle for social influence” affects the person's appeal and emotional impression towards postmodern art. As endorser of modernist values, his or her reaction towards postmodern art would obviously be highly negative, but this should flip for a supporter of the postmodernist movement.
To sum up, I agree with Menninghaus et al. that negative emotions can positively affect an art object's perceivers value and pleasure. However, when aspects of strategic interaction are taken into consideration, the outcome might vary. In particular, I anticipate that a person's emotional reaction depends on whether the art object is perceived as a truthful embodiment of the artist's expression. In addition, when art is used to question or challenge the status of a particular group, a perceiver's emotional reaction would depend on whether he or she is a member of this group or not. Identifying such basic mechanisms of strategic interaction (e.g., status competition through countersignals) would also allow us to specify social contexts. Rather than a claim that “context matters,” it would allow us to determine causal mechanisms for specific contexts of strategic interaction (e.g., during status competition, signal X would lead to reaction a for members of group w). See Klimek et al. (Reference Klimek, Kreuzbauer and Thurner2017) for an empirical test of the mechanism of counterdominance signalling in the context of musical style cycles.