No abstract

Museumgoers often scoff that costly abstract expressionist paintings could have been made by a child and have mistaken paintings by chimpanzees for professional art. To test whether people really conflate paintings by professionals with paintings by children and animals, we showed art and nonart students paired images, one by an abstract expressionist and one by a child or animal, and asked which they liked more and which they judged as better. The first set of pairs was presented without labels; the second set had labels (e.g., "artist," "child") that were either correct or reversed. Participants preferred professional paintings and judged them as better than the nonprofessional paintings even when the labels were reversed. Art students preferred professional works more often than did nonart students, but the two groups' judgments did not differ. Participants in both groups were more likely to justify their selections of professional than of nonprofessional works in terms of artists' intentions. The world of abstract art is more accessible than people realize.

People with no arts background often misunderstand abstract art as requiring no skill. However, adults with no art background discriminate paintings by abstract expressionists from superficially similar works by children and animals. We tested whether participants show different visual exploration when looking at paintings by artists' versus children or animals. Participants sat at an eye tracker and viewed paintings by artists paired with "similar" paintings by children or animals, and were asked which they preferred and which was better. Mean duration of eye gaze fixations, total fixation time, and spatial extent of visual exploration was greater to the artist than child or animal images in response to quality but not preference. Pupil dilation was greater to the artist images in response to both questions and greater in response to the quality than preference question. Explicit selections of images paralleled total fixation times: Participants selected at chance for preference, but selected the artist images above chance in response to quality. Results show that lay adults respond differently on both an implicit as well as explicit measure when thinking about preference versus quality in art and discriminate abstract paintings by artists from superficially similar works by children and animals, despite the popular misconception by the average viewer that "my kid could have done that."

Theory of mind, the capacity for reasoning about mental states such as beliefs and intentions, represents a critical input to ethical and aesthetic evaluations. Did the agent cause harm on purpose? Were those brushstrokes intentional? The current study investigates theory of mind for moral and artistic judgments within the same paradigm. In particular, we target the role of intent for two kinds of judgments: “objective” judgments of quality and “subjective” judgments of preference or liking. First, we show that intent matters more for objective versus subjective judgments in the case of ethics and aesthetics. Second, we show that, overall, intent matters more for ethical versus aesthetic evaluations. These findings suggest that an “objective-subjective” dimension describes judgments across both domains, and that observers assign more weight to the mind of the moral agent than the mind of the artist when making the relevant evaluations.

No abstract