Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics [1st ed.] 9783030516406, 9783030516413

Citation preview

Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics

Martin S. Lindauer

Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics “Why do so many “unsophisticated” people love the kind of art that critics and connoisseurs demean  – like cheap paintings sold in retail stores? If this kind of “Hallmark” art is so popular, why have psychologists of art ignored it? A provocative read that makes us question the sharp divide between “great” and ordinary art.” —Ellen Winner, Professor of Psychology, Director, Arts and Mind Lab, and Senior Research Associate, Harvard Project Zero, Boston College, USA. [email protected]. 617 413 7273. Author of How Art Works: A Psychological Exploration. “Martin Lindauer adds to our understanding of art, art criticism, aesthetics, and creativity with a unique perspective, namely by examining a kind of everyday art that you might see in a mall or hotel. This focus on mass produced art eliminates name recognition as an influence on a viewer’s judgment. Lindauer addresses fascinating questions, including several concerning the impact of expectations based on the fame of the artist and others concerning the evolution of art. His is a fresh approach and his thinking, as is true of his other volumes, is provocative and convincing.” —Mark A. Runco, PhD. Director of Creativity Research and Programming, Southern Oregon University, USA. [email protected]. www.markrunco.com. Author of Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. “Psychologist Martin Lindauer takes factory-produced, mall paintings seriously, a first for a book length study. Drawing upon evolutionary aesthetics, everyday aesthetics, cultural studies, and popular culture studies, and concepts like psychic closeness, he has gone into malls to conduct empirical research into ordinary people’s pictorial preferences. By demonstrating the differences but also the marked similarities of viewer response to mass versus museum paintings, the book is a theoretically informed and data-based challenge to modernist aesthetics and elitist views of museum art.” —Paul Duncum, Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois, USA, and Adjunct Professor, University of Tasmania, Australia. [email protected]. 26 Leslie Street, South Launceston TAS, 7249. AUSTRALIA. Author of Picture Pedagogy: Visual Culture to Enhance the Curriculum

“Lindauer’s book is unique for its interdisciplinary focus on mass-produced original paintings and for advancing a number of controversial issues, including the importance of originality, creativity, and signature recognition for the casual observer. The book, supported by original research, expands the boundaries of aesthetics by including the everyday kind. Lindauer is well qualified, having published four books on the arts, literature, aesthetics, and creativity. His work will be of interest to specialists as well as general readers attracted to the popular arts.” —Scott Barry Kaufman, PhD. USA. [email protected]. 610-256-6144. Host of The Psychology Podcast and author of Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization “The book raises a host of issues, not only in the meaning of originality by massproducing “beauty,” but in raising the question of what may be gained in the diffusion of paintings across mass culture. Here is a new perspective on the growing interest in the aesthetics of everyday life, as well as engaging social, economic, and psychological issues of mass-produced art.” —Arnold Berleant, Professor Philosophy (Emeritus), Long Island University, USA. [email protected]. 207-326-4306. Author of Aesthetics Beyond the Arts “Prof. Lindauer’ who has a distinguished career in psychology, has written a book that is interdisciplinary, ground-breaking, free of jargon and a pleasure to read. Philosophers of art, aestheticians, psychologists who do empirical aesthetics, sociologists of art, art critics and artists will find that this study of the status of massproduced painting within the world of art provides a welcome new perspective. Lindauer convincingly shows that there IS something of value to what is often called “kitsch.”” —Thomas Leddy, Professor, Department of Philosophy, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA. [email protected]. 408-679-4285 A member of the Editorial Board for the online journal Contemporary Aesthetics, a blog, “Aesthetics Today,” and author of The Extraordinary in the Ordinary: The Aesthetics of Everyday Life

Martin S. Lindauer

Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics

Martin S. Lindauer State University of New York College at Brockport Brockport, NY, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-51640-6    ISBN 978-3-030-51641-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover pattern © John Rawsterne/patternhead.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Also by Martin S. Lindauer The expressiveness of perception: Physiognomy reconsidered Psyche and the literary muses: The contribution of literary content to scientific psychology. Aging, creativity, and art The psychological study of literature

To My Parents, Benj. and Helen, Who made me feel and think that I was better than I was and To public, college, and university libraries and librarians, my de facto research assistants

Contents

Part I Introduction   1 1 What This Book Is About  3 2 The Characteristics of Mass-Produced Original Paintings 15 Part II Critical Issues  27 3 Can Mass-Produced Original Paintings Be Called Art? 29 4 What’s Wrong with Mass-Produced Original Paintings? 39 5 In Defense of Mass-Produced Original Paintings 53 Part III Two Larger Contexts for Mass-Produced Original Paintings: The Popular Arts and Evolution  69 6 The Popular Arts 71 7 Historical and Contemporary Approaches to the Popular Arts 79

ix

x 

CONTENTS

8 Evolutionary Roots 87 Part IV Studies of Mass-Produced Original Paintings  97 9 An Overview of the Studies 99 10 The Findings105 11 Explanations119 Part V Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics 127 12 The Psychology of Art: A Research Perspective129 13 Mass-Produced Original Paintings and an Everyday Aesthetics135 14 Conclusions147 Index157

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 1.3 Fig. 1.4 Fig. 1.5

Seascape Watercolor and ink Chinese landscape Stilllife Rustic landscape  Street or urban location

6 7 8 8 9

xi

PART I

Introduction

CHAPTER 1

What This Book Is About

Abstract  The book’s coverage is outlined. The reasons for focusing on the visual arts, popular arts, and paintings not in the collections of art museums are explained. Mass-produced original paintings are described along with their importance to art criticism, the psychology of art, and aesthetics; why they serve as a bridge between the popular and traditional arts; and how their study interrelates science and the humanities. Noted, too, is the place of mass-produced paintings in the fine arts, the popular arts, evolutionary theory, history, cultural studies, aesthetics, and the social sciences, especially psychology. The advantages of studying mass-produced originals and their neglect by the artworld are introduced. The author’s empirical and multidisciplinary approach is emphasized. Mass-produced paintings are illustrated. Keywords  Mass-produced original paintings • The psychology of art • Psychological aesthetics • The popular and traditional arts • Science and the humanities • Multidisciplinary approaches A sale at a Sears sold 39,000 pieces of art, $120,000 worth, in 10 days, including 400 in a single day. Over 3000 people were present on each day of the two-week sale. (“Art sales in supermarkets,” 1995)

© The Author(s) 2020 M. S. Lindauer, Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3_1

3

4 

M. S. LINDAUER

People are interested in if not fascinated by the arts, and not just the traditional ones: symphonies, ballet, literary classics, and other expressions of the fine arts. But appealing to many who may know little if anything about the arts listed above and don’t care to are the popular arts, also known as commercial, decorative, mass market, and low-brow.1 Nonetheless, they are appreciated by people who rarely if ever attend or read plays by Shakespeare and literary masterpieces; attend a performance of Madame Butterfly and operas; sees a Fellini film retrospective in an art film theater; or visit an art museum. Among the visual varieties of the popular arts are mass-produced original paintings, the focus of this book. It seems contradictory, though, to call mass-produced paintings original since they imitate if not copy museum works.2 Derivative in subject matter and style, highly familiar looking, and considered trivial, they are not “genuine.”3 I’ll have more to say about this apparent conundrum subsequently. For now, though, look at the examples of mass-produced original paintings. Depicted  below are five frequent scenes: a seascape, a rustic landscape, a watercolor and ink Chinese landscape, a street or urban location, and a still-life. You may have seen one like these in your home as a child or in the living room of a relative of a friend, own one now, and have probably come across examples in motel rooms and other public places. They raise the following question: Can “assembly-line paintings” be considered “art” in the same way as masterpieces in museums are called that? Mass-produced original paintings, despite the apparently clashing juxtaposition of “mass-produced” and “original,” nonetheless touch on a number of important questions. Begin with the fact that ordinary people who don’t know much about art and don’t feel the need to do so, find them approachable and pleasing, see beauty in them, like and buy these paintings, and feel pleasure in looking at them. Contrast these attractive features with the masterpieces in art museums, about which a modicum of knowledge about art history, criticism, and theory adds to their enjoyment. This raises the question (addressed in the studies reported in this book) of how much one should know about art in order to appreciate it? Nothing? A little? One can ask the same question of casual readers, occasional listeners of music, and ordinary audiences of dance, opera, and theater.

1  WHAT THIS BOOK IS ABOUT 

5

Another key question is raised in the course of examining mass-­ produced paintings: “What makes a painting liked?” To which one can add related questions: What makes it good or bad? Creative? Original? Is the difference between museum and non-museum paintings obvious? Is it justifiable for scholars and researchers to focus exclusively on “good” (museum) paintings? If mass-produced originals are poor examples of art, do they nonetheless deserve serious attention? One can easily think of many other pertinent questions: How important is skill compared to a work’s “message,” especially if it is novel or insightful? Can a painting be decorative as well as inspire? What is the difference between art that appeals to informed or unsophisticated audiences? Can preferences for art include both high- as well as low-brow tastes? Are there unexpected similarities between museum-caliber and pedestrian paintings despite their obvious differences in quality? If so, what are they? Are the masterpieces in museums the optimum if only basis for an aesthetic experience?

These questions are addressed directly and indirectly, or partially, along with others. What is the role of evolution and history in the development of art, whether traditional (museum-caliber) or popular (mass-produced original paintings)? What is the impact of signatures on viewers’ evaluation of a work, especially if they are by recognized artists? I do not promise definitive answers to these questions, or ones that will satisfy all readers. How could I, or anyone, given the complexities of art and the individual tastes of viewers? Experts have discussed these questions for centuries and have offered many answers. But a consideration of contentious matters about art within the context of rather ordinary paintings throws some unexpected light on works that hang in museums and our reactions to them.

6 

M. S. LINDAUER

Five examples of mass-produced original paintings

Fig. 1.1  Seascape

1  WHAT THIS BOOK IS ABOUT 

Fig. 1.2  Watercolor and ink Chinese landscape

7

8 

M. S. LINDAUER

Fig. 1.3  Stilllife

Fig. 1.4  Rustic landscape

1  WHAT THIS BOOK IS ABOUT 

9

Fig. 1.5  Street or urban location

A close look at mass-produced paintings, as this book does systematically for the first time, provides a more complete picture of art than is usually the case: what it is, the audience it attracts, and the reasons for its appeal. This promise rests on my emphasis on non-elitist and unsophisticated viewers of rather commonplace paintings, rather than focusing, as most treatments of art do, on sophisticated audiences of great works. But rather than sharpening distinctions between the fine and low arts, traditional and popular, high- and low-brow, I emphasize the amorphous and shifting boundaries between mass-produced and museum paintings. Mass-produced originals therefore have more significance than meets the eye. Nonetheless, most academics, scholars, and researchers strongly object to including them in discussions of art—except to censor, condemn, or ridicule them. The low opinion of mass-produced paintings is reflected by their many negative synonyms: sofa-, factory-, assembly-line-­ manufactured-, motel-, and manufactured-art; junk, kitsch, schlock, rubbish, and “dreck.”

10 

M. S. LINDAUER

However, these labels miss a great deal of what is valuable about mass-­ produced original paintings if we ask those who shop for, like, and display them. What do they see, feel, and think about such works, especially when compared to museum examples? Are mass-produced paintings really that bad? The original research reported here (Part IV) examines these questions, along with the role played by age, gender, art background, and setting. In raising these issues, I must make this disclaimer: My expertise is not in art history, theory, or criticism. To attempt to include what these fields have written about the questions raised above would take me too far afield and blur what I am trying to say (and would require much more than a book-length treatment if not several books). My focus is much more limited. I am an empirically grounded (research-oriented) psychologist who studies perception and the arts. I emphasize subjective and personal reactions, observe people’s behavior, and obtain self-reports along with objective measures: ratings, checklists, questionnaires. These are completed under standard conditions and carefully planned procedures. I concentrate on facts, the evidence. But I recognize that a “hard-headed” approach of the sort outlined above is not sufficient when it comes to the arts. Needed, too, is a qualitative context, a framework, in which to place statistical data. That comes from scholarly discussions of both the traditional and popular arts in the humanities: history, philosophy, and popular culture. Additional contexts are sociology and psychology, theoretical and research-oriented, evolutionary arguments, and neuroscience. In short, I take a multidisciplinary approach. The relationship between art and science need not be one of “a conflict between cultures” (Chap. 14). Aside from taking multiple perspectives, mass-produced original paintings are examined along the following lines: their predominant subject matter and colors; the artists and their production methods; their cost, buyers, and sales outlets; and their evaluation in different settings by shoppers who differ in age, gender, and art background (Part IV). The primary questions are these: Are mass-produced originals liked and, if so, to what extent? How do they compare with museum paintings? What are the similarities as well as differences between the two kinds of paintings? Criticisms of mass-produced paintings are presented and addressed (Part II). Covered, too, are the advantages of studying mass-produced paintings compared to relying solely on museum examples.

1  WHAT THIS BOOK IS ABOUT 

11

Discursive and empirical coverage, as outlined above, demonstrate that mass-produced original paintings are much more than clichés, mere wall decorations. They have a more important place and significance than is apparent, especially when professional biases favor museum works and the high arts. A serious, thoughtful, and in-depth consideration of mass-­ produced paintings, as I will argue, challenges the accepted wisdom of the artworld of historians, critics, and curators; expands the scope of the psychology of art; and broadens the meaning of aesthetics. I have concentrated on one popular art: paintings. Other popular forms are found in literature (e.g., the Jack Reacher adventure series), music (the Beatles), and others (line dancing, for instance). But paintings stand out because we live in a world in which visual depictions are prominent. The movies, TV, computer screens, and advertisements are ubiquitous. “Mass culture is traditionally characterized by the dominance of images, and in this sense most mass culture can be understood as an appeal to the visual” (Bermingham, 2006, p. 5; see also Taylor & Ballengee-Morris, 2003). Paintings also have several advantages over other popular forms. Their content is concrete, direct, and immediate. “A picture is worth a thousand words.” A visual representation is equivalent or close to reality, closely resembling a physical person, object, and place. Subject matter can usually be captured by a fairly quick glance (although the underlying “message” might take a bit longer). A quick look is usually sufficient to attract and capture a viewer’s interest—or not. Within a millisecond or two, a decision is made: Does the painting appeal to me or not, worth looking at or walking away? A painting, moreover, hangs continuously on a wall in front of a viewer, on a page in a book, or on the screen of a computer. It stays put, stationary, and can therefore be continuously observed. Paintings, a stationary surface, are read into and viewers can project and express their feelings and thoughts. Furthermore, the words “paintings” and “painter” are often synonyms (often implicitly) for art and artist. Paintings also frequently illustrate high culture and high-brow tastes as well as discussions of originality, creativity, and aesthetics. In addition, no special place is required to display a painting (aside from a wall in an art museum). Nor does it require traveling to a place in a distant location in a remote part of a city; almost any location with a wall (or bookshelf) at home or in a library will do. Paintings are also easily photographed, reproduced, and stored in digital form. Contrast these advantages with two other prime examples of the visual arts, TV, and the movies. They, along with theater, require 30 minutes to

12 

M. S. LINDAUER

a few hours to be looked at. Music takes even more time to run its course. A literary work spans days or weeks to read. Paintings therefore have a special and unique place. But why popular paintings, mass-produced originals in particular? Alone among the popular arts, they mimic a traditional art form—museum paintings—in subject matter and style; they look familiar. As such, less challenging than masterpieces in museums, they are not as demanding, provoking, and stimulating, but more obvious. More easily understood, mass-produced paintings are therefore more accessible to the general public than museum works. They are more available, too, since they can be readily purchased in retail outlets, often conveniently located in malls. Inexpensive, they are also affordable, often less than $100 for a small canvas. But the major factor in their favor is their similarity to museum paintings. The overlap between the two serves as a bridge between cheap and great paintings despite vast differences in quality and price. The overlap between the popular and traditional arts, the low- and high-brow, also reveals some unexpected parallels between mass and elitist tastes in the arts and between unsophisticated and sophisticated arts audiences. A cautionary note: I have relied on several frameworks to contextualize mass-produced original paintings: art, history, popular culture, aesthetics, science, evolution, psychology, and more. Each of these subjects is a major field of scholarly and empirical study, requiring and deserving a book of its own (as has already been done many times over).4 However, given the space available, the patience of the reader, and my specialization as an experimental psychologist, these major subjects can only be sketched in. Much of art, and the questions it raises, cannot be pursued in this book. That would take me too far afield from my narrower concerns. (Nor am I qualified to act as an art critic or theorist.) A great deal is thereby omitted or slighted, as experts in the aforementioned fields will be quick to point out. Interested readers are encouraged to refer to the Endnotes and the cited references in the text for information on areas slighted or secondary to my main focus. So much for preliminary matters. Mass-produced originals paintings are described more fully next.

1  WHAT THIS BOOK IS ABOUT 

13

Notes 1. The terms high- and low-brow originated in the nineteenth century’s discredited pseudoscience known as phrenology, where high foreheads (brows) were a sign of intelligence. The terms are also sometimes associated with the letters “U” and “Non-U,” where the “U” stands for upper class. 2. A “copy” is not necessarily a shortcoming. As many as 200 or more prints, for example, are made of the same subject (and numbered) yet each is accepted as equal in merit (and price). 3. Not all mass-produced paintings look like museum art. Included are portraits of Elvis, sports figures, celebrities (real or imagined), ferocious-­looking tigers on black velvet, malnourished-looking but appealing children with big eyes, and religious subjects. 4. When the research for this book began, the citation format for items retrieved from the internet was not yet established. Hence, many internet citations to which I refer do not have the dates on which they were retrieved. However, all were accessed from 2016 on. Another bibliographic matter. It was occasionally a necessity to cite a large number of references. Rather than embed so many in the text, as is usually done (at least when using APA style) and which I follow when the citations are relatively few, detracts from the passage’s readability. In a few cases, I have therefore listed references, when numerous, in the Endnotes as an eye-­ saving device. I have also, contrary to current practice, included older references (published more than five or ten years ago) for historical and other reasons, such as citing authors who were one of the first to write about some important aspect of a topic.

References Art sales in supermarkets (1995). Newsweek, 65 (June 21), 75–78. Bermingham, A. (2006). Introduction: Nineteenth-century popular arts. Visual Resources: An International Journal of Documentation, 22, 1–6. Taylor, P. G., & Ballengee-Morris, C. (2003). Using visual culture to put a contemporary “fizz” on the study of pop art. Art Education, 56, 20–24.

CHAPTER 2

The Characteristics of Mass-Produced Original Paintings

Abstract  Mass-produced original paintings are described, including where and how they are produced; their subject matter, artists, and buyers; outlets; and prices. The work of several well-known popular artists is described (e.g., Thomas Kinkade), as are the anonymous Chinese artists of Dafen village as well as internet artists. The justification for treating mass-­ produced paintings as originals is discussed. Keywords  Mass-produced original paintings • Dafen village, China • Thomas Kinkade • Internet artists • Originality How can mass-produced original paintings be called original, a question touched on in the introductory chapter. The same subjects (sunsets, beaches, boulevards) are done over and over again in the hundreds if not thousands (or more). However, each painting is a little different. Several artists work on the canvases; they change, become fatigued, are interrupted, and distractions occur. The paintings are also done at different times and places. Purposeful changes are made, too, in order to make a painting more pleasing to customers; some works are customized according to buyers’ instructions. Artists, unconcerned about exactness, brighten colors, thicken brushstrokes, and change the scale or perspective. Made-­ to-­order paintings are also tailored to meet the color schemes of interior © The Author(s) 2020 M. S. Lindauer, Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3_2

15

16 

M. S. LINDAUER

designers (Tinari, 2007, p.  344). Thus, multiple copies with the same subject can legitimately be called “originals” because they vary from one another. In recognition of this ambiguity and its possible abuse, a Massachusetts law protected buyers by requiring a work that is truly original to be labeled “independently created and signed by the individual artist.”1 A mass-produced painting’s credibility as original, genuine, and unique is enhanced by a signature, often illegible. In addition, a slavish application of thick and textured pigments is used (impasto); brushstrokes are obvious (“painterly”); and surfaces are uneven with blemishes (antiqued). To affirm a painting’s authenticity, prospective buyers are allowed if not encouraged to hold up, re-orient, and touch it. Subject matter, typically, is representational: realistic, pictorial, figural. Landscapes, for example, imitate the Hudson Valley scenery of upstate New York’s mountainous area. Typically done in the style of Romanticism, the emphasis is on scenes from nature that evoke feelings and imagination (see Fig. 1.2). Mimicked, too, are museum paintings of valleys, lakes, woods, mountains, waterfalls, and sunsets similar to those by recognized artists (Thomas Cole, Albert Bierstadt, Asher Brown Durand, Frederic Edwin Church). The allegorical landscapes of night skies, morning mists, barren trees, and ruins, in the manner of the German painter Albert Bierstadt, are also favored. Still-lifes depict impossibly luscious fruits, unrealistically gorgeous flowers, and appetizing-looking fish and game (see Fig. 1.3). In general, scenes are bland, photographic-like, and not radical in content or style. A goodly number are similar to paintings by artists of the French salons of the nineteenth century that conformed to the official criteria of the established authorities (the academy). The salons—gathering places for intellectuals, artists, and the leading figures of society—were influential in training, monitoring, fostering, and exhibiting works of art (as well as literature and language) with the goal of protecting French culture. They encouraged what they considered respectable works, usually classical, historical, allegorical, and mythological while censoring radical examples. Subjects are also frequently of foreign-looking (Parisian) streets and cafe life (see Fig. 1.5); the canals of Venice; pastoral scenes of farms and streams; fields of grass and trees with snow-capped mountains and valleys in the distance; sunsets; a rowboat on a beach framed by a lighthouse; and a calm (or rough) sea with a sailing ship racing nearby or at a distance. Pictured, too, are generic cowboys, romanticized Indians (see Fig. 1.4), and muscled horses galloping wildly across an idealized Western plain.

2  THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

17

Portraits are of impressive-looking (but unknown) dignitaries. Impressionistic works portray washed-out and rainy urban scenes with crowds, boulevards, parks, street scenes, and cafe life (see Fig. 1.5). “Oriental” or Chinese-style paintings have broad and rough brushstrokes (see Fig. 1.1). In short, the contents and treatments of mass-produced original paintings are the clichés of (mostly) Western art. Predominant colors are of special interest because shoppers choose paintings that “go with” or match the rugs, furniture, and walls in a room of their home. Colors vary with genre. Seascapes are primarily blues and whites; landscapes are dark browns and deep greens; still-lifes favor soft and light colors, like pink; and cityscapes are grays in washed-out dark shades and blacks. Shoppers are generally middle-class, the petit-bourgeois, ordinary people. Unembarrassed by buying cheaply priced art by unknown artists in retail outlets, they do not apologize for hanging “bargain-priced” paintings in their living rooms. Instead, they are likely to boast about the “steal” they got. Buyers do not reflect the values and ideals of the upper-middle to upper classes and certainly not the wealthy, who buy paintings by recognized artists, hold them as investments, and donate them to museums (Golden, 1974). Mass-produced original paintings are not only purchased by homeowners for living rooms. They are also bought by motels and hotels; by restaurants; for the foyers of upscale apartment houses and the entrances, lobbies, and corridors of buildings and institutions; to decorate reception areas and waiting rooms of hospitals and other public areas; and to fill the corridors and offices of businesses and industries. Choices may be appropriate to a locale, reflect the clientele of an establishment, and owners’ preferences for pastoral, hunting, or industrial scenes. The walls of one fast-food McDonald’s, for example, had depictions of nature that emphasized ruggedness and masculinity (Huddleston, 1978). Architects budget mass-produced paintings for new buildings in the same way they do heating and air-conditioning, at so much a square foot. Interior designers order generic landscapes and made-to-order works by the bulk in bales that hold thousands. Low-end art galleries also order large quantities. A typical canvas might sell for $100, more or less, depending on its size and whether a frame and matting are included. Mass-produced paintings can therefore be purchased by anyone on a tight budget. The average

18 

M. S. LINDAUER

price at a Woolworth’s (a large chain of retail stores that went out of business in the United States in 1983) was $150. The paintings are widely available in retail shops that specialize in this kind of art; outlets in malls and shopping centers; department and furniture stores; souvenir and tourist outlets; and flea markets. Occasional and temporary sales, advertised in local newspapers, also take place in motels that attract thousands of shoppers on weekends (Reed, 1965a, 1965b). Most mass-produced paintings are anonymous or with fictitious names, produced overseas, and by untrained artists. However, many are by identifiable artists with recognizable names and sold at exclusive and franchised galleries. Well known is Thomas Kinkade (d. 2012). (DeCarlo, 1999; Flegenheimer, 2012; and Pincus, 2004 are a recent sample of the many references to him.) Kinkade’s paintings are realistic and typically done in saturated pastel colors with glowing highlights. Kinkade describes himself as a “painter of light” since many of his canvases portray exaggerated beams of light streaming out from behind windows as if there were flames inside. Mainly pastoral and tranquil, the paintings depict cozy-looking villages, quaint cottages, colorful gardens, inviting town squares, lush landscapes, peaceful streams, and snow-covered mountains in the distance. Favored, too, are Christian themes (churches, crosses) and Biblical subjects. In general, they evoke nostalgic and sentimental feelings. Through the late 1900s and into the early 2000s, Kinkade’s work was represented by at least 350 independently owned retail franchises from which fees and commissions totaled $50 million. He also sold through mail order and online. Apprentices, assistants, and craftsmen worked on, completed, and touched up his work. Following his death, Kinkade’s paintings continued to be produced and were signed “Thomas Kinkade Studio Artists” or “new Kinkade originals.” His name trademarked and his work licensed, Kinkade’s paintings were used in celebratory tributes to Disney, Graceland, Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, and other notable places as well as events, historic buildings, the opening of new housing communities, advertisements for the Daytona and Indianapolis race tracks, and on Hallmark greeting cards and calendars. Kinkade is the author or subject of over 120 books and novels; at least one film refers to him. He has received many forms of recognition, including an Artist-of-the-Year award and a place in the California Tourism Hall of Fame. He has been called “America’s most successful artist.” It is estimated that 5% of American homes own his work.

2  THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

19

Critics, however, call his paintings awful and hideous; commercially successful kitsch (or kitschy); without substance; and as “chocolate-box” or “mall art.” In response, Kinkade asserts that his work emphasizes simple pleasures with life-affirming and moral messages that touch people, inspire faith, and bring joy into their lives. Leroy Nieman (d. 2012) is another trained, prolific, and popular American artist (Grimes, 2012). His paintings of public life and leisure activities, of athletes, musicians, celebrities, sporting events, and nightlife are known for their flamboyant and bright colors (“gaudy, bold, brilliant”). His style is in the tradition of French Impressionism (think Renoir, Degas) as well as others (Toulouse-Lautrec, Salvador Dali). Painting quickly, he produced dozens of paintings a year, some in signed and limited editions of 250–500 copies. Nieman also worked in many media: oil, enamel, watercolor, pencil, pastels, serigraphs, lithographs, and etchings. His work routinely sold in the five-figure range; gross annual sales were reported to be over $10 million. In 2002, one of his paintings sold for over $105,000. Nieman’s work has been entered in competitions, shown at exhibitions, held in private collections, and hung in several museums. He was on the faculty of several art schools, received honorary degrees and other awards, is listed in several Who’s Who, authored many books, sketched on live TV for an audience of millions, and was an illustrator for Playboy magazine. Called one of the most popular artists in the United States (Grimes, 2012), his high name recognition rivals other popular artists like Norman Rockwell, Grandma Moses, and Andrew Wyeth (whose works are in museums). Like Kinkade, though, critical respect has passed him by. Ignored by major critics, his work is dismissed as garish, magazine-like, and superficial. Maxfield Parrish (d. 1966), an American painter, falls roughly in the same group of trained and commercial artists with recognizable names as Kinkade and Nieman do and with a wide and popular following. He is best known for his idealized neo-classical imagery, androgynous figures, dazzlingly luminous oil colors (“Parrish blue”), and distinctively saturated hues. Other artists advertise made-to-order “museum quality oil paintings” on the internet. Customers can order hand-painted reproductions of famous paintings by choosing a subject from a list of A to Z (abstract, still-­ life), by style or movement (Art Nouveau, Surrealism), by best sellers (Water Lilies), by artist, or by museum holding. Photos can also be

20 

M. S. LINDAUER

reproduced. Paintings at the time of this writing cost about $200 with a money-back guarantee. One artist’s work is touted in the following terms: Own a museum quality hand-painted masterpiece today at 50–75% below gallery prices. We specialize in reproductions of famous oil paintings for sale at affordable prices.

Customers are assured that our artists stick with the style they are most suited for. Each artist in our team is adept at different art genres—whether it be abstract, modern, cubism, landscape, folk, expressionism, baroque, greek [sic], renaissance, or gothic. …. We … replicate the technique used by the original artist. Are the brush strokes bold or soft? Is the oil liberally applied?

In one ad, an example of the sequence of stages followed by an artist in producing a Mona Lisa demonstrates a work’s authenticity. We … get an essence of the original painting. Shadows, density, and contrasts in the subjects now begin to appear, while giving texture to each element … the original and reproduction should be nearly identical.

Paintings can also be done, some ads note, with signs of age, such as cracked surfaces. One site boasts that it normally takes 3–4 weeks to complete a painting, of having sold over 7500 paintings since 1997, and that the work is done in America, not China. To confirm the nationality of the artists, photos are shown of members of the team, along with their names and their specialty, for example, “Impressionism.” Free shipping is provided, too. There are also occasional specials. Another internet site shows photos of subjects taken by the artist that can be hand-painted, are museum quality, and reproduced on canvas in oil, acrylic, or watercolor. The prices at this writing start at about $600 and increase to $1000 and more, depending on the particular subject chosen, its size, and whether framed or not. Prints are cheaper ($60 to $100), depending on whether they are framed or not; the latter and matting can be chosen. Subjects available include “Mediterranean, Provence, Tuscany; Venice; Rustic English Cottages; natural wilderness.” A mass market for paintings at mid-level pricing is also available on cruise ships for vacationing tourists. They are promoted as museum

2  THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

21

worthy, although not as original or skilled. Paintings at a wide range of prices are also sold at art fairs, clearinghouses for all kinds of art (Moore, 2012, p. 2447). In 2010, more than 260 major art fairs took place around the world. The London Frieze Art Fair in 2011, for example, had around 60,000 visitors in four days. Art galleries serve different economic levels, with offerings ranging from the mass-produced kind, or close to it, to those bordering or at museum quality (Crow, 2006). Upscale galleries are located near museums and in fashionable neighborhoods, like Madison Avenue in New York City. They sell original paintings by recognized artists that are not as well known, costly, rare, or original as those in museums. A step below are boutique art galleries in less exclusive neighborhoods of a city. They display paintings at more moderate prices and aimed at a wider public. Chic window displays and elegant interiors imitate the upscale galleries with more expensive paintings. Further down the economic scale, less posh than upscale and boutique galleries, are mid-level stores that project a distinguished look that enhances the credibility of their paintings to buyers with moderate incomes. The Wentworth Gallery, a Miami-based chain for example, has shops in malls and resort towns. Their main stock is by artists who are not (yet) listed in Who’s Who biographies and whose works have not (so far) been purchased by museums. The hope, though, is that they eventually will (Gibbon & Fitz, 1987). Sold, too, are small originals and print versions by lesser-known artists at even lower prices for a less discerning public and with more limited incomes. A survey of 18 art galleries in and around Chicago reported that they sold lesser and unknown artists who aspired to have their works installed in museums one day, as did the gallery owners (Gibbon & Fitz, 1987). The paintings depicted familiar themes, such as mothers with children and sports, and were bought primarily to decorate a room in a home. Buyers and gallery owners hoped the paintings would appreciate in value. The paintings appealed to shoppers without much knowledge about art, although gallery owners said their goal was to educate them. The average price (in the 1980s when the survey was conducted) was $500, although some sold for as much as $1000. Reproductions in back rooms cost less than $100. The galleries were financially successful. Some bought and sold large lots to corporations, hotel chains, and other galleries; a few published books on art. They also advertised, promoted, and held exhibitions. Owners attended art fairs, gave out awards, had signings, and aimed to

22 

M. S. LINDAUER

create “stars.” Art was treated like any other business, as a consumer product that caters to a large public and aims to make a profit. Gallery owners maintained that the paintings, although much lower in price and name recognition than museum paintings, were authentic (read: original) because they were individually painted and signed by the actual artists. The owners also believed that the galleries served as potential gateways to museum art. They also maintained that buying the paintings brought viewers closer to the creative act, process, object, and person. Mass-produced paintings of the anonymous kind and produced overseas are big business. Sales run into at least hundreds of millions of dollars a year (Lindauer, 1991a, 1991b; Tinari, 2007). As reported earlier, a sale at a Sears (in 1962) sold 39,000 pieces of art, $120,000 worth, in 10 days, including 400 in a single day. Over 3000 people were present on each day of the two-week sale (“Art sales in supermarkets,” 1995). Numbers like these, adjusted for inflation, presumably characterize today’s market. When one considers the cost of materials (paint, wood, canvas, brushes) and the people involved (one or multiple artists, shipper, middlemen, frame-maker, retailer) it is hard to see how a profit can be made on purchases that cost so little. Keep in mind, though, that nearly all paintings are done abroad in art factories where workers receive very low wages. Mass-produced paintings are generally produced in one of two ways: one artist does the entire painting or different artists paint various parts (the sky, the grass, etc.). One group was reported to have as many as 60 crew members producing 500–1000 paintings a week (“Starving artists,” 2001). The total value of the paintings was estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The paintings are produced in Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (Li, 2014). Most, though, are done in China. Art factories, sometimes a whole village, employ thousands in hundreds of sweatshops at very low wages (Reed, 1988; Tinari, 2007). Some 250,000 people in about 20 Chinese cities, it is estimated, are involved. Art-making is considered to be like any other industry and a booming one at that. In the once unimportant village of Dafen and nearby, about 10,000 painters operated in more than 800 galleries (Li, 2014). A bust of Leonardo da Vinci sits on a main street. The Chinese government officially named the location “Dafen Oil Painting Village” after investing about US $4 million to upgrade its product into a national brand. Different stalls sell seascapes, others specialize in portraits (George Bush, Osama bin Laden, the Chinese President). Some do copies of works

2  THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

23

ranging from Vincent van Gogh to Tamara de Lempicka (an Art Deco painter). Digitalized photographs are also printed onto canvasses. Higher-­ quality works are sent to auction houses, mid-level works go to antique stores, and the rest to flea markets. (Unclear is who determines which paintings are of higher quality and where they are consigned.) The revenue from auctions was reported to be over US $8 billion. A painting is not credited to a specific artist, even if it is signed; the name that appears is made-up and often not legible. A work does not spring from an artist’s private life, experiences, motives, or feelings, as is the case with museum paintings. A mass-produced work does not represent a creative act, process, or person, at least not in the usual sense of these terms. The artists—some would prefer to call them something else, perhaps producers (or hacks)—are not professionally trained as a rule. They do not expect (or hope) to display their work in museums or upscale galleries given their method of production (imitating, copying) and they do not aspire to achieve fame, fortune, and recognition. The paintings are targeted for a market like any other kind of consumer goods. The manager of one retail store in the United States (Chap. 10) guessed that it takes an artist less than an hour to do a painting and is paid about $10 for a work. An artist might paint up to 30 paintings over a 16-hour day. One exceptional artist had 5600 works attributed to him in 2011 (compared to “only” 381 in 2000; Barboza, Bowley, Cox, & McGinty, 2013). Over a 20-year span, his work appeared in auctions 27,000 times. More than 18,000 distinctive works are attributed to him. Workshops also forge old Chinese masters from earlier centuries. A canvas may also be in the style of a known master and called an “original creation” or “in the style of____.” They command better prices than exact replicas. (Produced, too, are ceramic and jade pieces and antiquities.) As might be expected of work done on so large a scale, problems arise. In one private museum in China, for example, 40,000 “originals” were determined to be counterfeits of museum art. The wholesaling of art in China has been explained in several ways. Copying is generally accepted because students in art schools are taught by imitating the masters, a practice no longer generally followed in Western schools. Chinese also venerate the past, including its art. Another possibility is that the business and collection of art are indirect reactions to the oppressiveness of the government, a way to sublimate or deflect criticism.

24 

M. S. LINDAUER

Mass-produced original paintings are a success story, at least in popular and commercial terms. But for scholars they raise a number of doubts and qualms, if not fears. Are mass-produced paintings Art (with a capital or even a small “a”)? Are they bad art?2 Do they somehow take something away from our appreciation of “real” (museum) paintings? These and other objections to mass-produced originals paintings, along with a rebuttal and defense, are discussed in the next few chapters (Part II).

Notes 1. Retrieved from https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/ TitleXV/Chapter94/Section277C. 2. The term “bad art,” in my opinion, does not apply to mass-produced original paintings. The work is skilled, competent, and developed; it does not look amateurish or awkward. Some works labeled “bad art” ascended to museum status. Some artists of the nineteenth-century Impressionist movement, for example, were initially criticized for not knowing how to draw. For a discussion of bad art in the context of museum paintings, see Arnheim, R. (1974).

References Arnheim, R. (1974/1954). Art and visual perception. Berkeley, CA: University of Caliornia Press. Art sales in supermarkets (1995). Newsweek, 65 (June 21), 75–78. Barboza, D., Bowley, G., Cox, A., & McGinty, J. C. (2013, October 28). Forging an art market in China. The New  York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes.com/projects/2013/china-art-fraud Crow, K. (2006, July 14). Shopping-mall masters. Wall Street Journal (Eastern ed.). W1. DeCarlo, T. (1999). Landscapes by the carload: Art or kitsch? The New  York Times, 7(1), 4. Flegenheimer, M. (2012). Thomas Kinkade, artist to mass market, dies at 54. The New York Times, 7, A20. Gibbon, H., & Fitz, M. (1987). From prints to posters: The production of artistic value in a popular art world. Symbolic Interaction, 10, 111–128. Golden, A. (1974). The aesthetic ghetto: Some thoughts about public art. Art in America, 62, 31–33. Grimes, W. (2012). LeRoy Neiman dies at 91: Artist of bold life and bright canvases. The New York Times, 21, A1.

2  THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

25

Huddleston, G. (1978). McDonald’s interior decor. Journal of American Culture, 1, 363–369. Li, V. (2014). Original imitations for sale: Dafen and artistic commodification. Art History, 37, 728–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8365.12112 Lindauer, M. S. (1991a). Comparisons between mass-produced and museum art. Empirical Studies of Aesthetics, 9, 11–22. Lindauer, M.  S. (1991b). Mass-produced art: Towards a popular aesthetics. Journal of Popular Culture, 25, 247–256. Moore, H. L. (2012). Laughing out loud: Art, culture, and fantasy. Cardozo Law Review, 33, 2441–2452. Pincus, R. L. (2004, May 16). Heaven on earth for Kinkade fans. The San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved from http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/ uniontrib/20040516/news_1a16pincus.html Reed, C. (1965a). Art sales. In supermarkets. Newsweek, 65, 75–78. Reed, C. (1965b). Originals. The New Yorker, 41, 36–38. Reed, C. (1988). Off the wall and onto the couch! Sofa art and the avant-garde analyzed. Smithsonian Studies in American Art, 2, 33–43. Starving artists. (2001, October 15). The New  Yorker digital edition. Retrieved September 2, 2012, from Archives.newyorker.com Tinari, P. (2007). Original copies: Philip Tinari on the Dafen oil painting village. Artforum International, 46, 344–351.

PART II

Critical Issues

CHAPTER 3

Can Mass-Produced Original Paintings Be Called Art?

Abstract  The reasons for considering mass-produced paintings as art are reviewed, including the ambiguous and changing meanings of art, original, and creative. Discussed are changes in the status of art and reputation of artists over time; the acceptance of forgeries as genuine; the role of assistants by historical and contemporary artists; the origins and goals of Pop Art; challenges by Marxists and feminists; and the role of gatekeepers (critics, historians), investors, and donors in defining what is art and who is an artist. It is argued that since art has no fixed meaning, various kinds of art can be placed on a continuum. Mass-produced originals occupy a place somewhere around the middle. Keywords  Art and artists, definition • Art and artists, ambiguities • Art, challenges The artworld—scholars, curators, critics, experts—would most likely argue that mass-produced original paintings do not deserve the designation “art.” However, “art” is a rather complex and ambiguous term, since it can be defined in a number of different ways (Feagin, 2003; Winner, 2018) which makes it difficult to assert that mass-produced paintings are non-art, or maintain that position unequivocally. Consider some of the many meanings of art. It is an expression of an innovative concept, an original idea, an insightful vision. Content or style © The Author(s) 2020 M. S. Lindauer, Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3_3

29

30 

M. S. LINDAUER

can be revolutionary, new, novel, and unique. Art reveals something that lies behind the work itself. Denis Dutton (2000) takes a broadly cross-­ cultural perspective to emphasize the following characteristics: intentionally pleasurable; displays skill; has a recognizable style; follows certain established rules; gives audiences a certain experience in a language or form that can be judged and appreciated; and has a special and distinct status that is acknowledged by the public. The word “art,” aside from definitional matters, has other problems. It carries a halo of elitism and an aura of superiority that can be off-putting to some. Authorship and signatures count a great deal, more than they should, according to others. Anyone can paint an ordinary can of soup, but it is highly valued and labeled art when Andy Warhol, a famous Pop artist, does it. Difficult to define and distinguish, too, is art that is called original, authentic, excellent, and valued. Definitional problems are also magnified by the difficulty of assigning objective indicators to whatever terms are used to define art, as well as experts agreeing on their usefulness. The word art is thorny in additional ways. It is often used as an umbrella term for many kinds of art: visual, auditory, literary, and performing. Thus, paintings, music, novels, dance, and theater are all collectively called art (or the arts). Complicating matter, too, are the numerous sub-­divisions that fall under each of the larger headings listed above. The visual arts include oils and acrylics; prints; charcoal, black and white, and pencil drawings; watercolors and pastels; and so on. Each major type and their sub-types have distinguishable and unique characteristics as well as similar and common features. Yet one term—art—covers them all. Art is not limited to paintings in museums, either, but refers to all sorts of activities that do not involve art, such as the “art” of persuasion. Adjectives closely associated with art add additional perplexities: original or imitative, real or fake, unique or ordinary, good or bad. Art is also associated with a number of complicated if not controversial topics like beauty, aesthetics, creativity, merit, skill, and talent. Associated with art, too, are several contentious issues (Currie, 1985; Dutton, 2003; Hubard, 2007; Locher, Smith, & Smith, 2001; Locher & Dolese, 2004; Vermazen, 1991). Who is a (“true”) artist as opposed to an amateur, hobbyist, or dabbler? What is the place of untrained artists? The so-called primitive artist Grandma Moses (Anna Mary Robertson) was self-taught. Marcel Duchamp, a world-class artist, hired a sign painter to do Tu m’ (1918) (Tinari, 2007). A number of different words are also

3  CAN MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS BE CALLED ART? 

31

used to describe recognized artists: genius, prodigy, creative, gifted, talented, skilled, good, first-rate. Art can also be a decoration as posters, magazine covers, and advertisements; for enhancing a room’s decor; and for filling a blank space. Decorative art can eventually become “art,” appreciated aesthetically for its own sake (e.g., a Toulouse-Lautrec print). The line between decoration and art is often difficult to draw. Even more perilous is defining the boundary between original and non-­ original. Upscale art galleries sell “duplicate originals” or “original reproductions,” euphemisms for replicas of works by well-known artists. Dali, for example, painted and signed hundreds of copies of his works that were in museums and priced them accordingly. Judgments about what is art also change. What was once considered acceptable and good varies over time (Kulka, 1996). Mediocre art or worse becomes museum-worthy while the latter lose favor over the years. Painters considered great today, like van Gogh, were not so honored in their time. Conversely, some artists admired in bygone days are largely unknown and forgotten after their work is reevaluated and placed out of sight in storage. The seventeenth-century Dutch painters Govert Flinck and Ferdinand Bol, whose works are highly similar to and often confused with Rembrandt’s, are mostly unknown today. Caravaggio’s realism in his time was thought of as vulgar; Monet’s haystacks were unimaginative; and Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon was lacking in skill. But in time, these works, initially considered shocking or deficient in some way, became exemplary, favorites, wanted, and beloved (Moore, 2012, p. 2442). Kitsch is not a positive way to describe a work of art (Greenberg, 1961). Yet in other times and places, what we call kitsch today was not so judged. A pseudo-impressionistic 1980s motel room painting would not be “schlocky” in the 1880s when the Impressionistic style was a new invention deemed radical and incomprehensible to viewers—and it might still be bothersome in a developing Asian or African context. Given time and familiarity, our cultural imagination accommodates innovations. (Sheridan & Gardner, 2012, p. 282)

Thus, what is considered kitsch changes over time depending on shifting tastes and evaluations. The same could be said for art that is called good or bad.

32 

M. S. LINDAUER

More problems. The status of a painting and an artist is not solely (or primarily, in some cases) determined by the work itself but by whether it is attributed to a “name” along with an authentic and verifiable signature. Located in an established venue, like a museum, is another criterion. The amount of money paid for a work also affects its status. Forgeries, first-rate copies, or incorrectly attributed paintings, seemingly genuine and highly rated, were once believed to have been done by Master artists. Experts have been fooled for years if not centuries and continue to be hoodwinked. Art-savvy dealers of modern art and their clients were duped for decades by an artist who churned out “Pollocks” and “Rothkos” that sold for millions (Gopnik, 2013). Pop Art, a highly accepted kind of art, is a kind of forgery in that it imitates if not copies the comics. Rembrandt, as the painter of many works attributed to him, has been a contentious issue for decades (Alpers, 1989). The authenticity of his paintings is the subject of more articles than many other topics in art history— including those about his art (Gopnik, 2006). Well-known works, such as The Polish Rider, The Man with the Golden Helmet, A Girl with a Broom, Saskia van Uylenburgh, The Wife of the Artist, The Mill, and others long considered examples of his world-famous paintings have been questioned as actually his. Hence the title of a show in Amsterdam, “Really Rembrandt?” (Gopnik, 2006). In 1968, the Dutch government initiated the “Rembrandt Research Project” in order to determine the real Rembrandts. The project’s final decisions are not yet finalized as of this writing—at least in the opinion of many curators and museum-goers— who have seen their favorite Rembrandts become the work of unknowns. Another well-known example is Hals’ Portrait of a Man, which was auctioned for $10 million. Scientific studies, however, proved that it was not his work, as experts insisted, but a copy. “That confirms, to no one’s surprise, that the market value was all about the name and provenance of the work rather than in the beauty” (“Editorial,” 2016, p. A20). Fakes that look like originals and are accepted as such also raise a question about whether great art(ists) have some irreproducible, special, and unique quality. Surprisingly, though, originality has not always been prized. In ancient Rome, Greek statues were copied, sometimes even modified, without any indication on the part of the artist or public that their meaning or significance mattered if it was not original (Gopnik, 2013). What was important was that its aesthetic value, beauty, and harmony were perceived and appreciated. Today, too, the notion of art as

3  CAN MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS BE CALLED ART? 

33

singular and irreproducible is irrelevant for some, especially purchasers of mass-produced original paintings. Originality, furthermore, is not necessarily the ultimate defining feature of art. In the past as well as today, artists like Michelangelo and the contemporary painter and sculptor Robert Rauschenberg depended on assistants to complete their work. With some works by Warhol, viewers cannot tell—and are not supposed to be able to, according to the artist—how much was actually done by him or by someone in his art factory. Warhol also occasionally attributed his works to others even though he had actually done them (Gopnik, 2013). If art is made or supplemented by someone other than the artist whose name is on the work, is the work less valuable than a completely solo piece? A painting attributed to “Rembrandt’s assistants” or “From the workshop of Rembrandt” has much less value monetarily and perhaps intrinsically than one with Rembrandt’s signature. Not many investors would buy a painting signed by “Anon.” Thus, it is often the signature of a celebrated artist on a canvas that gives it value, attracts viewers, and sells. The high status and the special place of fine art are also challenged by some intellectual and social movements. Marxists attacked art for its class biases and the kinds of people it celebrated: royalty, the powerful, wealthy, the upper class, the military, and the aristocracy; corporate and business interests; leisure pursuits; and victories in wars. Largely ignored were depictions of ordinary people, the proletariat, workers, and laborers. Similarly, feminists have pointed out that women artists have been neglected or portrayed in paintings in stereotypical and prejudiced ways. Art historians are also criticized for celebrating people, events, scenes, and activities that are important to privileged (white) men. Minorities, too, point to biases in art. What is art, and whether it is judged good or bad, also depends on the prejudices and preconceived notions of those supposedly in the know: art historians, critics, scholars, curators, dealers, auction houses, and journalists. The art in museums has the seal of approval by experts who decide what is art or great art. Not included are what the masses accept and like. Yet, who are the experts? Presumably, they have superior knowledge and a greater understanding of art. But their credentials vary, depending on the ties they have to an institution (university or museum, newspaper or magazine); experience; books written and articles published; and certification by some official body (guild, art academy, museum). Name recognition also counts. Gilbert Seldes, Dwight Macdonald, and Clement

34 

M. S. LINDAUER

Greenberg, for example, are well-known and accepted arbiters. Yet “the process of identifying the true art expert remains contentious and debatable, and as a consequence, so is the construction of knowledge itself in the art world” (Arora & Vermeylen, 2013, p. 201). The diversity of views among experts throws the reliability of their judgments about art and artists into some doubt, as the following quote elaborates. [E]mpirical studies have tended to find statistically significant but rather weak associations between expert judgment (as a criterion of excellence) and popular appeal (to ordinary consumers) or market success (with the mass audience). Specifically, such studies have usually reported correlations [that account] for an explained variance of less than 10%. (Holbrook & Addis, 2007, p. 415)

As a result, decisions by art experts have been protested, derided, and rejected by other experts—nonprofessionals, too. The objections of family members, for example, recently led to successful changes of statues of President Eisenhower and Martin Luther King, Jr. in Washington, D.C., and the National Mall (Coughlin, 1991; Macnaughton, 2007). Non-artistic considerations also play a part in determining what is art. These include funding; political implications (statues of Confederate generals); manipulation by the government and other bodies for non-artistic purposes, like propaganda; and assigning new meanings and evaluations of works that were not originally intended. People also feel intimidated if not threatened by what art experts say about art in high-falutin language, which acts as a barrier to what audiences may actually experience. Consequently, the public comes to believe that they don’t know enough about the art they are looking at, only sophisticated specialists do. In this connection, a letter-writer, D. Gozonsky (2018), wrote the following response to an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times entitled “The Classical Music Insecurity Complex.” People react to art … on a deeply personal level. But when confronted with labels that use “art-speak,” they are unable to decipher meaning from the words they read, which only serves to dismay them more. I say trust your eyes (and your ears) and enjoy the experience [of] a wonderful, visceral visual experience.

A similar uneasiness casts a shadow over what constitutes good art.

3  CAN MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS BE CALLED ART? 

35

The valuation of art is a nebulous process. The difficulty of defining quality in the arts is one of the aspects that set cultural products apart from other goods. … While members of the public no doubt express their opinions on such matters, it has been conventionally left to the experts to determine the relevancy of the art in question. Also, even though there is tension between the economic valorization process by consumers (price) and the evaluations made by actors in the art world (e.g. by artists, curators, dealers), this is still limited to buyers who comprise a small minority of the larger masses. (Arora & Vermeylen, 2013, p. 197)

The psychologist Steven Pinker (1999) has criticized the focus of experts on the fine arts to the exclusion of the popular kinds. But to understand the psychology of the arts… we must leave at the door our terror of being mistaken for the kind of person who prefers Andrew Lloyd Weber to Mozart. We need to begin with folk songs, pulp fiction, and paintings in black velvet, not Mahler, Eliot, and Kandinsky. (p. 523)

He adds, “Think ‘motel room,’ not ‘Museum of Modern art’” (p. 526). Along similar lines, Dutton (2009) begins his book on the evolutionary basis of art, The art instinct, with a chapter on calendar art. [C]alendars and the kinds of landscape illustrations that decorate them across the world. [illustrate] the state of the arts worldwide today. [From this] we can then look back toward what is known about human evolution [and] construct a valid picture of … human nature, with its innate interests, including tastes in entertainment and artistic experience. (pp. 3–4)

A major writer on art and evolution, Ellen Dissanayake (1992), argues that art is not to be limited to high art or works in art museums that require specialized intermediaries to explain it. When art is uninvolved with life, different from other human activities, removed from life and nature, esoteric and institutionalized, it needs mentors and interpreters, informed, educated, and elite, to explain it. “Art [in this sense is] a privileged kind of knowledge” (p. 173). Thus, what makes something “art,” or to be called that, is open to considerable question. Here is Seven Pinker (1999) again, stating the matter even more strongly (if not extremely). “[T]he tens of thousands of scholars and millions of pages of scholarship have shed almost no light on the question of why people pursue the arts at all. The function of the arts

36 

M. S. LINDAUER

is almost defiantly obscure” (pp. 521–522). (Softening Pinker’s point, to take a few examples, is that we know the effects of major and minor keys in music, of certain colors and contrasts in paintings, and what the frequent tropes in literature are.) The variety of viewpoints on what is art, as sketched here, defies any consensus. “[O]bjective quality assessments [of art] are virtually unattainable” (Arora & Vermeylen, 2013, p. 200). Whatever definition is offered, it needs to be qualified, hedged with reservations, and laced with some skepticism. More than the intrinsic value of a work, if that, puts it on a wall in a museum (or on a stage, in a concert hall, or in the literary canon). Art attracts controversy. Mass-produced paintings are not alone in that regard. Hence a great deal of uncertainty casts a shadow over the special status assigned to the art in museums. (So, too, the music heard in concert halls, the novels in the literary canon, and so on, as well as the high arts in general.) The meaning of art, as some fixed and agreed-upon definition, is not absolute. What’s in a word, indeed? The label “art” is therefore a legitimate matter of debate. The word by itself, out of context, is not self-­ explanatory. What makes something “art” can be ambiguous if not confusing. The term “art” is therefore open-ended, not limited to certain well-­ defined and specific examples that have been historically validated by knowledgeable bodies. Perhaps for these reasons a definition of art, or at least one that most can agree on, has baffled scholars for centuries as well as triggered heated and lengthy debates. Consequently, some have argued that anything can be called art if it is based on a consensus of informed and respected authorities who call it “art” (Becker, 1982; Dante, 1973; Dickie, 1974). However, one might ask whether consensus is solely the province of experts, itself a matter of disagreement, as noted earlier. A definition of art, it therefore seems fair to conclude, albeit provisionally (and for some uncomfortably), is not obvious or stringent but challenging. Questions can therefore be legitimately raised about the certainty, relevance, and distinction between art, quasi-art, and non-art; between traditional art and popular art; between fine art and commercial art; and between high- and low-brow art (Fisher, 2001). Similar doubts apply to mass-produced original paintings. The many contending points of view about art therefore require a fluid and open-minded perspective. The problem of defining art might be minimized (but not resolved) by relying on a relative or sliding scale on which to place particular examples.

3  CAN MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS BE CALLED ART? 

37

Different kinds of art fall on a continuum, moreover, one subject to change or modification. The traditional arts, the sort that hangs in museums (or performed by symphony orchestras, staged by professionals in legitimate theaters, and the like), are more or less firmly established at the extreme end of the scale. The non-traditional arts—popular, quasi, kitsch—fall somewhere at the other end of the scale. The large middle area is occupied by shifting and ambiguous exemplars. Mass-produced original paintings probably fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum, closer to the popular than traditional varieties. A more exact location cannot at this time be determined since so little scholarly and empirical attention has been paid to mass-produced paintings. Perhaps we should turn to the marketplace, to people who buy art for the home, for their opinions. If we look to the general public, a good case can be made for including mass-produced original paintings under the label of art. Not so quickly, say the critics. We turn next to their objections.

References Alpers, S. (1989). Rembrandt’s enterprises: The studio and the market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Arora, P., & Vermeylen, F. (2013). The end of the art connoisseur? Experts and knowledge production in the visual arts in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 194–214. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1369118X.2012.687392 Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Coughlin, E. K. (1991). New history of Iwo Jima Monument highlights questions researchers bring to “public art”. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 16(A8–9), 14. Currie, G. (1985). The authentic and the aesthetic. American Philosophical Quarterly, 22, 253–160. Dante, A. C. (1973). Artworks and real things. Theoria, 38, 1–17. Dickie, G. (1974). Art and the aesthetic: An institutional analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Dissanayake, E. (1992). Homo aestheticus: Where art comes from and why. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Dutton, D. (2000). They don’t have our concept of art. In N.  Carroll (Ed.), Theories of art today (pp. 217–238). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Dutton, D. (2003). Aesthetics and evolutionary psychology. In J. Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook for aesthetics (pp. 1–11). New York: Oxford University Press. Dutton, D. (2009). The art instinct: Beauty, pleasure, and human evolution. New York: Oxford University Press/Bloomsbury Press.

38 

M. S. LINDAUER

Editorial. (2016, October 31). The New York Times. A20. Feagin, S. (2003). Painting. In J. Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of aesthetics (pp. 516–536). New York: Oxford University Press. Fisher, J. A. (2001). High art versus low art. In B. N. Gaut & D. Lopes (Eds.), The Routledge companion to aesthetics (pp.  409–422). London and New  York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis. Gopnik, B. (2006). The merit of a signature: Rembrandt’s genius lies in the brand, not the hand. The Washington Post, 30, 16. Gopnik, B. (2013). In praise of art forgeries. The New York Times, 2, 12. Gozonsky, D. (2018). Making classical music and art accessible to all. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/opinion/classical-musicart.html Greenberg, C. (1961). Avant-garde and kitsch. In C. Greenberg (Ed.), Art and culture: Critical essays (pp. 3–21). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Holbrook, M. B., & Addis, M. (2007). Taste versus the market: An extension of research on the consumption of popular culture. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 415–424. Hubard, O. M. (2007). Originals and reproductions: The influence of presentation formats in adolescents’ responses to a Renaissance anting. Studies in Art Education, 48, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2007.11650104 Kulka, T. (1996). Kitsch and art. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Locher, P., & Dolese, M. (2004). A comparison of the perceived pictorial and aesthetic qualities of original paintings and their postcard images. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.2190/ EQTC-09LF-JRHA-XKJT Locher, R., Smith, J., & Smith, L. (2001). The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings. Perception, 30, 449–465. Macnaughton, J. (2007). Art in hospital spaces. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630701201962 Moore, H. L. (2012). Laughing out loud: Art, culture, and fantasy. Cardozo Law Review, 33, 2441–2452. Pinker, S. (1999). How the mind works. New York: Norton. Sheridan, K. M., & Gardner, H. (2012). Artistic development: The three essential spheres. In A. P. Shimamura & S. E. Palmer (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 277–296). New York: Oxford University Press. Tinari, P. (2007). Original copies: Philip Tinari on the Dafen oil painting village. Artforum International, 46, 344–351. Vermazen, B. (1991). The aesthetic value of originality. In P.  A. French, T. E. Uehling Jr., & H. K. Wettstein (Eds.), Midwest studies in philosophy (Vol. 16, pp. 266–279). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Winner, E. (2018). How art works: A psychological exploration. New York: Oxford University Press.

CHAPTER 4

What’s Wrong with Mass-Produced Original Paintings?

Abstract  The shortcomings of mass-produced original paintings, according to critics, are discussed. Covered in this chapter are their inferiority to museum examples, the anonymity of artists, and the unsophistication of viewers. Offsetting these objections are the deficiencies of museum paintings: the waxing and waning of artists’ reputations, the rushed and overwhelming nature of museum visits, the power and biases of experts and donors, the difficulties in appraising art, the selectivity of museum attendees, and the obscurity of modern art. Keywords  Mass-produced original paintings, limitations • Mass-­ produced original paintings and museum works, compared • Museum paintings, shortcomings No one is called a connoisseur, aficionado, or cognoscenti of mass-­ produced original paintings. They won’t be found on the walls of boardrooms or in the homes of the rich, in upscale art galleries, and definitely not in museums. Their artists, if called that, are not listed in Who’s Who compilations and never will be even if their canvases were not anonymous or had legible signatures (if signed). In short, mass-produced original paintings are easy to disparage and deserve to be held in low esteem, at least by experts, if mentioned at all. For critics, mass-produced originals © The Author(s) 2020 M. S. Lindauer, Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3_4

39

40 

M. S. LINDAUER

are to museum paintings as Reader’s Digest abridgments are to the literary canon and jingles are to symphonies. Deficient in creativity, unoriginal in treatment, imitative in style, blatantly commercial in intent, ordinary in skill, pedestrian in subject matter, and bland if not simple in meaning, there is much about mass-produced paintings to criticize (Adler & Robinson, 1988; Driscoll, 1988; Jones, 1988). Subjects, themes, styles, methods, techniques, and messages are “old hat.” Cheap in price (appropriately), mass-produced paintings are vapid and uninteresting, without depth or virtuosity, overfamiliar if not trite, say critics. Museum-like though they appear, to the trained eye they are poor copies, formula-like, and mechanically produced. Critics level other charges: trivial, superficial, and derivative, fleeting and shallow, a casual distraction; viewers require little effort to comprehend or appreciate. By encouraging passivity and sappy emotions, they pander to the hoi polloi, philistines, cultural “barbarians,” and the unsophisticated masses. No one holds them up as models for art. They lower artistic standards and cheapen aesthetic values, degrade and corrupt the arts, demean good taste, and nullify historically established principles of excellence. Mass-produced paintings are not a stepping-stone to good art, critics insist, nor are they identified or identifiable as such. They debase the artistic triumphs of the past, the proud exemplars of the present, and the best that society might offer to the future. Moreover, they are not by “real” (creative) artists. Faultfinders have more objections. Lacking depth and virtuosity, a brief look at a mass-produced work is sufficient, if that much, before viewers (if informed to even a minor extent) turn away and move on. After-effects, if any, are brief. But even that is too much, complain critics, for they detour potential audiences away from museum paintings. Rejected by critics, too, are the (implicit) claim that mass-produced original paintings are “original,” the pretentious argument (unstated) of being “art,” and the (unrecognized) confusion with museum works. Mass-produced paintings are disruptive upstarts, phony usurpers of what is genuine, critics charge. Borrowing indiscriminately, uncritically, and insensitively from museum paintings, they show no real grasp of what they are imitating. Mass-produced paintings stretch standards beyond any usefulness in order to meet the likes and dislikes of uninformed and naive audiences with conventional low-brow tastes. Mass-produced paintings are a waste of time and money, say their detractors.

4  WHAT’S WRONG WITH MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS? 

41

Yet more objections are raised. Mass-produced paintings reduce if not minimize or eliminate the role of experts, connoisseurs, aficionados, tastemakers, museum curators, and collectors who appreciate the “better” (expensive) works of art. Similarly devalued are the lectures, writings, and research of specialists in the arts, teachers, and government agencies that subsidize art. To pay any attention to mass-produced paintings means that much less time is available for masterpieces. Mass-produced paintings, for critics, are appropriately (and should be) anonymous and fittingly sold in (and suitable for) souvenir shops. Highly commercial, the goal of their so-called artists and shopkeepers is strictly and solely to make money. Considered a “joke” by art professionals, mass-­ produced original paintings lag far behind the best, significant, and worthwhile paintings in art museums. Mass-produced producers (don’t call them artists) are hacks, critics insist, who devalue the prestige and status of reputable artists as well as long-accepted notions of talent, giftedness, and creativity. Their work falls far short of any measure of originality, freshness, and novelty. Their work does not display authentic aesthetic values. No one can say that their “art is done for its own sake.” Mass-produced paintings are kitsch incarnate, grumble critics. Predigested, spoon-fed, and uncomplicated, they are bad for the discerning, pander to the masses, indulge the poor tastes of the uncultured, and “dumb down” art. Easy to comprehend, deficient in subtlety, and lacking in complexity, they foster passivity, conformity, and conventionality. Weak and bogus substitutes for great works, they are pale shadows of the singularity of true art, “spoiling” our eyes and “contaminating” good taste. They lack the sublime and transforming power of museum works. Lost or displaced are refined artistic and aesthetic tastes that are developed by, sharpened with, dependent on, and illustrated by masterpieces. With museum paintings so central to “the good life” and society at large, why bother with ersatz knock-offs? The many objections of critics can be summed up as follows: We are more than busy enough with such matters as changes in styles over time; the rise and fall of artists’ reputations; the sources of creativity; the complex and often vague meanings of artistic works; the cultural and individual influences on art that find favor or not and hold that reputation; differences between masterpieces, great art, and good work; and determining which paintings are avant-garde or a passing fad. These problems and more

42 

M. S. LINDAUER

keep us sufficiently occupied without having to pay any attention to mass-­ produced paintings.

There are therefore more than enough reasons, and good ones, too, for holding mass-produced original paintings in low regard despite (or because of) their broad but unjustified (to the art establishment) public acceptance and widespread popularity. Art historians and other specialists therefore have valid reasons for concluding that mass-produced paintings are not worthy of any consideration. In short, mass-produced paintings are bad for art, artists, and art audiences as well as scholars who discuss art and researchers who study it—or so say its critics. They continue: paintings have nothing to say about creativity, aesthetics, and other topics associated with the arts, except to demean these terms. To ignore or fail to recognize the vast and irreconcilable differences between mass-produced and museum paintings diminishes the status of masterpieces, outstanding artists, and keen viewers of art, as well as warps our understanding of the fine arts. An appreciation of what makes art worthy of praise is not to be found with mass-­ produced works. For a multitude of factors, mass-produced paintings do not merit any acceptance, at least from the well informed, argue critics. To take them seriously depreciates museum works and their artists, audiences, experts, and funding agencies. Mass-produced originals are rightly snubbed by art historians, philosophers of art, aestheticians, connoisseurs, the wealthy, speculators, and the cultural establishment (Fearing, 1957; Gracyk, 2007, p. 380; A. Kaplan, 1966). Mass-produced paintings do not deserve respect or serious consideration, only contempt. The academic disciplines that discuss and study art, understandably therefore, ignore, look down upon, and reject mass-produced original paintings. Their low opinions are reflected by the many derogatory terms for mass-produced originals: bubble gum-, chain-store-, common-, easy-, factory-, junk-, manufactured-, motel-, (pseudo) folk-, schlock-, sentimental-, sofa-, synthetic-, and tourist-­ art; crude (or cheap) oils, “imitation originals,” “original imitations,” and “unoriginal originals.” (L. E. Carroll, 2012; Dickinson, 1985; Fisher, 2001; Parker, 2011)

Add to these the similarly disparaging synonyms for popular art in general, under which mass-produced paintings fall:

4  WHAT’S WRONG WITH MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS? 

43

anti-cultural, bad, banal, barbarian, corrupted, crass, deficient, derivative, ephemeral, fake, imitative, insubstantial, kitsch, lightweight, low-brow, mediocre, non-controversial, ordinary, knock-offs, pedestrian, pseudo-art, rubbish, schlock, sentimental, shallow, shoddy, substandard, tawdry, the worst, uncultivated, undemanding, undesirable, unoriginal, unscholarly, unsophisticated, vulgar.1

Much fewer in number are positive terms that might be applied to mass-­ produced paintings: cool (or hot), fashionable, marketable, trendy, in vogue, all the rage. No surprise, then, is the marginal status, at best, of mass-produced paintings. Compare that with the many positive features of museum paintings against which they are compared.

The Contrasting Virtues of Museum Paintings Few doubt the superiority of museum paintings over the mass-produced kind, differing sharply and obviously, at least to the trained eye, in its creativity and “freshness of vision.” Similarly, it goes without saying that expert knowledge helps viewers appreciate the world’s best art more fully than would be the case if we were completely in the dark. Unique and scarce if not rare, masterpieces by da Vinci, Gauguin, Manet, Rembrandt, Rubens, van Gogh, and other luminaries from the past have a long, honored, and established place, as do contemporary works by Pollack, Kline, O’Keeffe, Rothko, and other modern painters. Their work lines the walls of well-endowed and prestigious art museums, the stock of upscale galleries, the homes of the wealthy, and the vaults of investors. Great art is reproduced, photographed, and printed in full color in oversized and glossy coffee-table books, shown on TV, written about in newspapers, magazines, and professional journals, discussed by teachers, scholars, intellectuals, and other professionals in and outside of the arts, and investigated by researchers in a range of disciplines. Books about paintings and artists are available in bookstores, libraries, and museum shops. Headlines are made when a painting sells in the millions, the provenance of a work is questioned, and a long-accepted forgery is unmasked. Masterpieces have a high if not the highest value not only in the arts but in general, a view strongly supported and steadfastly promoted by individuals and institutions. Well-known and notable paintings in museums are often treated as synonymous with “Art” with a capital A and used to illustrate general

44 

M. S. LINDAUER

discussions of art, aesthetics, and beauty; giftedness, talent, and creativity; high-brow tastes and cultural capital; and the arts audience. Artists are supported by grants from national, regional, and local governments as well as non-profit and private agencies. Paintings are set aside in special, exclusive, and architecturally imposing buildings (museums) that are supported by memberships, donations, subscriptions, gifts, and grants. Ownership of a masterpiece is a sign of status, “culture,” and wealth. The significance of paintings is bolstered by their originality, novelty, innovativeness, emotional force, and insights, along with the pleasure they give. Picasso’s work, for example, raises complex questions about motivation and the sources of inspiration, the experience paintings prompt in viewers, and the multiple and provocative layers of meanings in art. More generally, a work has more than one interpretation. There is the literal, the “plain facts” (the subject matter), and then there are its implications, usually multiple and individual. These take into account the painting’s origins, the artist’s history, and the development of art in general. Open to revisiting over time and influenced by others and reading, efforts to understand a work continue for viewers who want to be informed. Honored for hundreds of years and more, museum-caliber paintings therefore appeal to the higher if not highest sensitivities, tastes, and intelligence for illustrating the values and preoccupations of the times in which they were done. Visitors to art museums, generally above average in education and income, and somewhat if not extensively knowledgeable about art, are challenged by the multiple layers of a painting’s message. To decipher its meanings require if not demand as well as benefit from sustained and repeated inspections from which viewers never tire. The public is encouraged to attend museums—and they do (DiMaggio, Useem, & Brown, 1978). Enriched by emotional feedback and inspired by what they see, viewers of works in museum as well as elsewhere (in books, computer screens, photographs) receive a great deal of satisfaction and gratification. The artists whose paintings are in museums are distinguished, too, by their reputations and the high if not extreme prices for their work, if not now then in the future. Stimulated by private, personal, and idiosyncratic sources that arise from unique and individualistic visions developed and nurtured over a lifetime, artists serve a long apprenticeship of education, training, and practice. They aspire to attain and sustain the high regard of

4  WHAT’S WRONG WITH MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS? 

45

peers, critics, and investors. Their paintings, often on tour, are well received. Great paintings and their artists are major subjects of scholarly publications, textbooks, research, and art courses. Art appreciation classes, dominated by paintings, are an integral part of education and are supported by the public (Keller, 1987a, 1987b; McFate, 1984). Rooms, if not entire buildings, are set aside for art classes and workshops, student and faculty exhibitions, and traveling shows. After-class excursions are scheduled for art museums. Paintings are also the special province of a highly educated cadre of experts: art historians, art critics, and curators; philosophers of art and aesthetics; psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and other social scientists (economists, political scientists); and specialists in communication, cultural studies, and the media. Their work is disseminated, noted, and reacted to by journalists, essayists, intellectuals, and laypersons. To be informed about paintings is to acknowledge the significant, superior, and best of civilization. Paintings also fulfill a variety of purposes: they entertain, act as moral guidelines, serve as propaganda, and decorate places. For all these noteworthy reasons, museum paintings have a well-­ deserved and secure reputation. The meanings and feelings they evoke, the way they do that, and the consequences, long-lasting and deep, are unique, exceptional, and special. The result is a strong, persistent, and deep preoccupation with and appreciation of paintings for their embodiment and reflection of the highest standards of excellence. Yet museum paintings have their limitations, discussed next. These offset some of their virtues and negate a few of the criticisms of mass-produced original paintings.

The Limitations of Museum Paintings The reputations of some paintings in museums are not always deserved and others are open to question, as mentioned earlier (Chap. 3) and developed further here. A painting in a lofty place with an exalted reputation and an expensive price tag does not necessarily mean that it is remarkable, worthy of high esteem, or merits its special status. Even if it does, or did so in the past, that is no guarantee that it will be highly evaluated in the future. Judgments about paintings and the reputations of artists once considered noteworthy can be reversed, as have favored styles and what was

46 

M. S. LINDAUER

once thought of as avant-garde. Cycles, fashions, and fads influence what is considered good or bad art, even what is art, as are artists whose work is (or is not) said to be up-and-coming (or losing favor). Changes also occur because of exposure to and the development of new kinds of art; additional critical analyses by critics; contributions from other disciplines (like psychoanalysis), published research, and articles; and the discovery of lost works. Some of today’s praised museum holdings were once undeserving of that honor and an unknown number now judged superior can lose their high status in the future if the past is any guide. What was once unfit for museum collections becomes accepted (e.g., Courbet) and vice versa: the avant-garde of yesteryear falls into the “rear-garde” (Bouguereau). Fakes, forgeries, first-rate copies, and incorrect attributions have been accepted as originals for long periods of time before they were unmasked. Some surely await that fate in the future. Assistants working on a canvas also make the criterion of originally ambiguous. Signatures by celebrated artists on a canvas often seem to count as much if not more than the actual painting. The special status of museum art is challenged by Marxists, feminists, and minority groups, as noted earlier. Viewers of paintings in museums have a limited time in which to contemplate them, given the many works that crowd the walls of multiple galleries on several floors. Only a few can be glanced at for a second or two. As visitors move briskly through collections for an hour or two, fatigue sets in. Some stop in front of a work, scratch their heads, and ask, “That’s art?” “It’s worth millions?” The judgments of experts can at times be questioned, too. Opinions are often based on debatable qualifications: experience, some sort of certification, social acclamation (by whom?), consistency of judgments, consensus with other experts, and links to a university or some other institution. Furthermore, expert judgments are based, to an unknown degree, on personal and subjective criteria, often unstated, perhaps tinged with sexism, racism, and other biases, including elitist tendencies and the tax purposes of donors in mind. Consider the advice given by the noted art critic Clive Bell (in Kamhi, 2006) on how to look at museum paintings. He said: Maintain a detached impersonal attitude. “To appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions” (p. 32). To take an impersonal approach, Bell states, removes the viewer from a painting, thereby encouraging a perspective that isolates the self from the object viewed.

4  WHAT’S WRONG WITH MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS? 

47

Contrast Bell’s position when looking at a mass-produced painting. The viewer’s personal involvement is stimulated if not exaggerated rather than suspended by a work’s clarity, obviousness, and simplicity. Thoughts and feelings are provoked and enhanced as the person thinks, “This painting ‘works’ for me. I’ll buy it” or “keep looking at it.” So much for objectivity. Expert appraisals of the merits of museum-caliber works are difficult to make for a host of reasons, as discussed earlier. Otherwise, how account for the frequent and sharp differences between critics on what belongs in museums, whether changes in content and style over time are good or bad, and if new works advance our understanding of art or not? Disagreements are therefore frequent, sometimes seem to be resolved, at least temporarily, and then re-appear. It is no surprise, then, when evaluations of museum paintings and their artists shift, sometimes radically. The role of specialists who evaluate art and inform viewers of their opinions is therefore problematic. And no wonder. Decisions by experts require an extensive knowledge of art history, styles, and technical matters about color, composition, and materials. Opinions are also influenced by historical, societal, and cultural factors as are those about art, artists, and audiences. In short, assertions about what makes a museum painting “art” great, valued, and worthy of its institutional place and elevated status are open to debate, question, and uncertainty. That said, experts have much in their favor. They know a great deal about art, have much experience with hundreds if not thousands of paintings, studied the lives of dozens of artists, and are aware of the views of other experts. They are professionals. Nonetheless, although well informed, they still diverge from one another, change their minds, and make mistakes. Perhaps this is what makes them interesting and readable. Museum paintings have serious limitations, too. Relatively few in number, many are unavailable for viewing because they are in storage or viewing space is limited (room is needed for recent acquisitions). Others are kept out of sight for reasons that may be legal (stolen Nazi art) or moral (as “colonial booty”). Controversies over a painting’s provenance or authenticity may also keep it out of sight. Some paintings are on temporary display elsewhere or on tour. Artists fall out of favor and their work disappears while others become fashionable and come out of storage.

48 

M. S. LINDAUER

Museum paintings also attract a relatively small, select, and homogeneous audience drawn mainly from the middle or upper classes (Graburn, 1977; Hanquinet, 2013; Merriman, 1989). The elite and privileged are over-represented and do not reflect a cross-section of the general population (DiMaggio & Unseem, 1978; DiMaggio et al., 1978). Attendees are often relatively if not highly informed about art, aware of up-and-coming (and in- and out-of-favor) artists. They are also likely to be aware of books and articles in the news about art, especially if interested in the paintings and artists on current view in a museum or if a special exhibition is on tour in their city. For some, a visit to the city’s art museum(s) is an obligation as is membership. Accordingly, different payment levels—member, patron, sponsor, supporter—reflect a hierarchy of visitors. Few attendees can afford to buy original and museum works that cost, at the minimum, tens of thousands of dollars. Even reproductions, matted and with a frame, are relatively expensive (at hundreds of dollars) for those on a budget or of modest means. Potential visitors also have to be willing and able to pay an admission charge or make a voluntary donation in order to enter a museum. Even the most conscientious will tire of walking for several hours through a sequence of galleries, often confusingly laid-out on different floors, wings, and galleries. Visits to museums typically occur only once a year or less; many people never go (Gans, 1974/1999; Merriman, 1989). Moreover, the number of visitors is declining in size and becoming older (DiMaggio & Mukhtar, 2004; National Endowment for the Arts, 2015, p. 10). Museum attendance lags far behind other leisure pursuits and recreational activities, such as dining out, cruises, TV, golf, and viewing sports events. It also costs a great deal of money to bring art to the public. Architecturally customized museums are expensive to build and maintain. Only a small number of cities, like New  York, Chicago, Paris, London, Berlin, and Rome, are large and wealthy enough to support one, let alone several museums. Not every city can afford even one or has the money to develop and expand collections. Curators, restorers, lighting designers, carpenters, and other behind-the-scenes specialists and administrators need to be hired. Exhibits have to be funded, organized, and advertised. Even in cities with multiple art museums, visitors’ exposure to paintings is limited to a few hours on a handful of days over a span of several years. Usually located in the center of cities or downtown, museums are far from where most people live. Nor are they easily accessible, convenient to public transportation, or with free (or any) kind of parking. Tickets have

4  WHAT’S WRONG WITH MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS? 

49

to be purchased for special exhibits during limited hours (box offices are open only on certain days and hours), usually far in advance to ensure availability, and have a cost. Once inside a museum, viewing distances to paintings are limited by crowds of onlookers, physical barriers (a line on the floor, a rope around the perimeter of a canvas), intimidating notices (“Do Not Touch!!”), and the watchful eyes of attentive guards. Those who write about, discuss, recommend, promote, sell, and buy paintings are a small band of curators, art historians, critics, educators, gallery owners, auction houses (Christie’s, Sotheby’s), speculators, and philanthropists. Furthermore, the public has little access to and interest in the meetings, publications, discussions, and studies of art, or even an awareness of these professional forums. If they do, they have little understanding of what they are about. Decisions about the selection, purchase, and display of paintings in museums are also influenced if not made by wealthy patrons through donations. Their motives, at least in part, are based on status, personal glory, tax write-offs, a desire to augment the value of their collections, and competition with other investors and speculators (Kirsten, 1961; Rosenblum, 1981). Thus, the criteria for a museum’s selection of paintings and artists are not always based solely on standards of excellence— assuming these are known, agreed upon, and applied. Modern paintings place additional burdens on unsophisticated visitors to art museums. Non-figurative, non-representational, and abstract without recognizable forms, meaningful use of colors, and “wrong” (if any) perspective, such works have been around for over 100 years. Yet they are not fully accepted as art by the casual observer. Contemporary works, especially the avant-garde, are seemingly out of touch with daily experience, detached from life in general, and require experts to tell them what they mean as well as what they are about (Kamhi, 2006). When most ordinary people think of visual art … what generally comes to mind for them are traditional (that is, representational) works of painting. … They are more likely to think of Rembrandt, van Gogh, or Michelangelo, for example, than of Mondrian, Rothko, or Pollock. And they surely do not think of postmodernist inventions such as “installation art,” “performance art,” “video art,” “conceptual art,” or “earth art.” But why, one may well ask, do so many people fail to regard these twentieth-­ century inventions as art? (Kamhi, 2006, pp. 31–32)

50 

M. S. LINDAUER

With forms, colors, and arrangements making no sense (and are not supposed to, at least obviously), viewers may not perceptually or emotionally “get it.” “It” being what they might think about, feel, or imagine such works depict. Not easy to find, get to, attend, and pay for, much of the general public is unfamiliar with or have little experience with paintings in museums. No wonder attendance is infrequent, if not sparse except for blockbuster shows on tour. One might ask what our knowledge of psychology or any other subject would be if it were based on, limited to, or addressed primarily to undergraduates at Harvard, graduates of Stanford, and professors at MIT. The prominence, status, and influence of museum paintings matter for only a select and small segment of the public.2 The high status of museum paintings should therefore not be automatically assumed, taken for granted, or exaggerated. Nor should it be used as an excuse to ignore mass-produced original paintings in discussions of art. Museum paintings have their shortcomings, too. Nonetheless, the focus on the world’s best paintings is generally accepted as fully warranted. To list their deficiencies is not to deny that “good” paintings are superior to “bad” ones. Museum paintings have many readily acknowledged virtues against which mass-produced works compare unfavorably. In any case, the general public is not likely to be aware of the objections that critics have vigorously mounted against mass-produced original paintings. Even if they were, most would probably not care, be bothered by them, or see them as overriding a positive reaction. Indeed, as research reported later indicated (Part IV), viewers with a variety of backgrounds (in art, age, and gender) liked mass-produced paintings as much as museum examples—and sometimes more. The limitations of museum paintings, nonetheless, should be considered when weighing the deficiencies of mass-produced original paintings. The latter, while not on a par with museum works, are less objectionable than the artworld contends. The reality, though, is that museum paintings are the main if not the only kind of art that receives primary if not exclusive attention from the artworld. Mass-produced originals are largely overlooked or slighted despite their standing as a popular art and as a part of popular culture (Chap. 6). They are looked down upon as trifling or marginal (if they are at all looked at). Contrast that to the enormous amount of attention given

4  WHAT’S WRONG WITH MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS? 

51

to other exemplars of the popular visual arts, like movies and TV, and to a lesser but still prominent degree the comics, graphic novels, and graffiti. Compare the indifference to mass-produced paintings to their army of artists, shoppers, buyers, and owners along with the numerous places where they are found (motels, offices, etc.). To advance our understanding of the kinds of art many people like, they expand the art audience and perhaps give them a greater appreciation of great paintings in museums. If nothing else, their popularity is a good reason to capture our attention. But there are other good reasons to do so. But first, I begin with their defense.

Notes 1. Many of the criticisms of mass-produced original paintings are similar to the charges leveled not that long ago to photography and more recently to computer-generated art and conceptual art. It is doubtful, though, that a comparable renaissance for these newer forms will take place for mass-­ produced paintings since they reveal nothing new in style, content, treatment, or message, or are likely to affect the future development of art. 2. A similar disconnect between the public and experts exists for physics and science in general, mathematics, economics, and philosophy, as well as with “eggheads,” “nerds,” and “wonks.”

References Adler, J. & Robinson, K. (1988). A boom in crude oils: Scenes of America are now made in Taiwan. Newsweek, 64 (August), p. 70. Carroll, L. E. (2012). In praise of honest sentiment. New Oxford Review, 79, 34–36. Dickinson, C. (1985). Sofa art. The New Yorker, 6, 42–48. DiMaggio, P., & Mukhtar, T. (2004). Arts participation as cultural capital in the United States, 1982–2002: Signs of decline? Poetics, 32, 69–94. DiMaggio, P., & Unseem, M. (1978). Social class and arts consumption: The origins and consequences of class differences in exposure to the arts in America. Theory and Society, 5, 141–162. DiMaggio, P., Useem, M., & Brown, P. (1978). Audience studies of the performing arts and museums: A critical review. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. Driscoll, A. (1988). Artists join against factory school of painting. The New York Times, 14, 15.

52 

M. S. LINDAUER

Fearing, F. (1957). High art and kitsch. Review of B. Rosenberg, & D. M. White (Eds.), Mass culture: The popular arts in America. Contemporary Psychology. pp. 2, 233. Fisher, J. A. (2001). High art versus low art. In B. N. Gaut & D. Lopes (Eds.), The Routledge companion to aesthetics (pp.  409–422). London and New  York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis. Gans, H. J. (1999). Popular culture and high culture: An analysis and evaluation of tastes. New York: Basic Books. (Originally published 1974). Graburn, N. H. H. (1977). The museum and the visitor experience. In L. Draper (Ed.), The visitor and the museum (pp. 4–28). Seattle, WA: American Society of Museums. Gracyk, T. (2007). Allusion and intention in popular art. In W. Irwin & J. Gracia (Eds.), Philosophy and the interpretation of pop culture (pp. 65–87). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Hanquinet, L. (2013). Mondrian as kitchen tiles? Artistic and cultural conceptions of art museum visitors in Belgium. Cultural Trends, 22, 14–29. https://doi. org/10.1080/09548963.2013.757892 Jones, R. A. (1988). FBI inquiry puts artist, Carmel galleries to test: Validity of French paintings doubted. The Los Angeles Times, 1(Part I), 15–16. Kamhi, M. M. (2006). Modernism, postmodernism, or neither? A fresh look at “fine art”. Arts Education Policy Review, 107, 31–38. https://doi. org/10.3200/AEPR.107.5.31-38.ch Kaplan, A. (1966). The aesthetics of the popular arts. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 24, 351–364. (Originally published 1967). Retrieved from http://ezproxy2.drake.brockport.edu/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/427970.pdf Keller, E. B. (1987a). Culture as commodity: The marketing of cultural objects and cultural experiences. In M. Wallendorf & P. Anderson (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 14–24). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Keller, E. B. (1987b). Museums as status symbols II: Attaining a state of having been. Advances in Nonprofit Marketing, 2, 1–38. Kirsten, L. (1961). Rembrandt and the bankers. The Nation, 9, 474–475. McFate, P.  A. (1984). Preface. Paying for culture. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 471, 9–12. Merriman, N. (1989). Museum visiting as a cultural phenomenon. In P.  Vergo (Ed.), The new museology (pp. 149–171). London: Reaktion Books. National Endowment for the Arts. (2015, January). A decade of arts engagement: Findings from the survey of public participation in the arts, 2002–2012. EA Research Report #58. Parker, H. N. (2011). Towards a definition of popular culture. History and Theory, 50, 147–170. Rosenblum, R. (1981). How about a show of the ten highest-priced artists whom no right-thinking museum would ever consider exhibiting? Artnews, 80, 133.

CHAPTER 5

In Defense of Mass-Produced Original Paintings

Abstract  The criticisms of mass-produced original paintings (Chap. 4) are addressed by pointing out that museum paintings have their limitations too (some knowledge of art history is useful) and that similarities and parallels exist between the two kinds of art (both are a source of pleasure). The advantages of mass-produced paintings, offsetting their limitations, are discussed, including comprehensibility; physical and psychological accessibility; ease of study; acting as a gateway to museum works; and offering a fresh look at questions about paintings, art in general, the popular arts, and the importance of originality. Keywords  Mass-produced original paintings, criticisms addressed • Museum paintings, limitations • Mass-produced original paintings, advantages of The distinctions between mass-produced and museum paintings, made much of by critics, are actually somewhat blurred rather than sharp and in flux (Foreman-Wernet & Dervin, 2005). The similarities between them, largely unacknowledged and unrecognized by critics, are usually passed over. Yet the commonalities between them, discussed in this chapter, offer another set of reasons to consider mass-produced original paintings among the arts. © The Author(s) 2020 M. S. Lindauer, Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3_5

53

54 

M. S. LINDAUER

The Similarities Between Mass-Produced and Museum Paintings Let’s begin with some simple yet easily overlooked parallels between mass-­ produced and museum paintings. Both use the same materials: paint, brushes, canvas, and so on. The two rely on advertising, sales, the media, and marketing. Each depicts a variety of events and situations, scenes and settings, people and behaviors, social traditions and cultural norms. They hint at harmful, hurtful, distorted, prejudicial, and stereotypical views— real, imaginary, and fantastic. The two kinds of paintings touch on the traditions, social conditions, culture, standards, and preferences of a society at a particular time and place. Consequently, they mirror the stereotypes, conventions, and myths of the past, the prejudices of the present, and the expectations for the future. Viewers thereby achieve some understanding of and feelings about different times, places, and people. In addition, mass-produced and museum paintings trigger all sorts of emotions, ideas, associations, memories, judgments, and images. These distract, entertain, and are enjoyed as well as annoy, upset, and offend. Both inform, propagandize, moralize, and exaggerate in order to make some point, which may be obvious or elusive. The two sorts of paintings also have similar functions: to decorate, educate, amuse, enhance a place, and promote certain ideals. Further parallels. Mass-production methods were used by some artists whose works are in museums. The anonymous studio assistants of Titian, Rubens, Rembrandt, and other major artists filled in the details or completed unfinished works. Andy Warhol, a well-known contemporary Pop artist, operated an art factory that mass produced his work. Both museum and mass-produced paintings fulfill the individual tastes of viewers and owners, the talents and skills of artists, and hint at the status of owners. The two provide viewers with special if not unique experiences, such as a sense of being “lost in the moment,” of feeling “something more,” and alluding to what is not apparent (Gracyk, 2007). The two are also alike in taking viewers away, temporarily, from their physical surroundings, thereby providing a momentary mental or emotional break from the stresses and routines of daily life. Mass-produced and museum paintings are also evaluated as good or bad, valuable or worthless, refreshing or dull, and worthy of praise or worthless. These reactions, and more, are shared with other viewers.

5  IN DEFENSE OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

55

Both kinds of paintings fall on similar dimensions of quality, complexity, and meaning—albeit at widely different distances from one another. Each prompts a host of reactions—although varying markedly in intensity and depth, that is, in seeing or emphasizing more about the painting than was initially  perceived. Artists from both camps also display talent and skills—but for different ends. The two kinds of paintings, moreover, attract, invite, and stimulate audiences—although not necessarily the same ones, to an equal degree, or in the same ways. While museum and mass-­ produced paintings differ in the amount and kind of effort expended (or needed) in looking at, reflecting, and interpreting a work—they do so only in degree. So, too, is viewers’ depth of understanding. Subject matter, whatever kind of art, can be arresting and treatments provocative—to some viewers but not others. To look at paintings, whether masterpieces or pedestrian, is a pleasant way to spend time and engage in a leisure activity. Not every subject, style, or message is to everyone’s taste, though—whether the painting is in a museum or a flea market. Reactions are also related to viewers’ class, education, and socio-economic status, probably gender, and perhaps race and ethnicity as well. With some art education, for example, viewers become better informed about how to look at a painting, what to look for, what is important about it, put it into some context, and perhaps relate it to the times in which it was made. Museum and mass-produced paintings have their unique measures of success. With the former it is acquisition by a museum, patron of the arts, and an investor as well as placement in a gallery. For a mass-produced painting, success is purchased by a shopper or interior designer, a prominent place in a home, and visitors who say, “Where did you find this lovely work?” Furthermore, the experience of visitors to art museums is not completely at odds from shoppers of mass-produced works in a retail store. Both examine and compare paintings and either like them or not, and decisions are made (to move away or keep looking, buy or not). In each case viewers are exposed to new, attractive, and interesting works and are perhaps inspired (Hanquinet, 2013).

The Ambiguous Boundaries of Museum Paintings The line between museum and mass-produced paintings is not absolute but blurred. Take Pop Art. Created and signed by professional artists with conventional training, recognized degrees, and high status, it was initially

56 

M. S. LINDAUER

not accepted or taken seriously by collectors and investors because it looked so much like kitsch. A notable example is the rows of soup cans and multiple faces of celebrities painted by Andy Warhol. As noted earlier, his work was mass produced in an art factory. Today, though, it is a mainstay of modern art and art museums. Other notable Pop artists are Roy Lichtenstein (blown-up comic strip panels) and Richard Hamilton (collages of Mr. America muscular types and half-naked models randomly placed in a jumbled living room-like setting). Robert Rauschenberg and Jim Dine depict familiar popular icons of popular culture in unfamiliar contexts. Pop Art has a close connection with popular art and popular culture. Pop artists relied on the visual vocabulary, styles, and techniques of movies, comics, and TV; commercial art; product packaging; advertising; and stars of the mass media (Taylor & Ballengee-Morris, 2003). But they have a serious purpose couched in ironic, critical, and humorous terms: to comment on fame, wealth, consumerism, commercialism, materialism, and lifestyles (Varneddoe & Gopnik, 1990). Pop Art also draws attention, through exaggeration and bold ways, to the everyday and ordinary. Viewers’ interest if not derision, once captured, leads to an awareness of the art around them and the neglected aesthetic value of the everyday and popular (Menna, 1987). The Works Progress Administration (WPA) also illustrates the porous line between art for the masses and museum paintings. A government agency formed during the 1930s Depression in the United States, the WPA gave work to tens of thousands of unemployed and professional artists who did paintings and murals, among other works, with public tastes in mind (Harep, 1949). They decorated the interiors and exteriors of tax-­ supported institutions, government buildings, civic works, and post offices. The subjects, shown in everyday places, were of historical, regional, and local significance that ordinary citizens could relate to. Religious paintings from the Middle Ages are another example of the shifting boundary between museum and popular works. The events, saints, and angels depicted on the walls, ceilings, and columns of churches were intended to attract, entertain, advance sacred goals, and please the masses (pun not intended; L.  E. Carroll, 2012). The Church supported artists who produced art that informed people about faith, religious values, acceptable morals, and appropriate behavior. Today, these religious works occupy a significant place in secular museums.

5  IN DEFENSE OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

57

A similar transition from popular to museum-worthy occurred with the tribal costumes and ceremonial dress of the native peoples of Africa. Now they are displayed in art museums. They are also a source of ideas for Western artists. Some of Picasso’s paintings, for example, were inspired by ornamental masks used for religious and other celebratory functions among African tribes. More prosaic examples of the fluctuating line between museum and popular paintings are Leonardo’s Mona Lisa and Last Supper, mass-­ produced on black velvet canvases; the latter is also on cigar box covers. The “picture postcard” paintings of scenes in Venice, originally sold as souvenirs for tourists by the Guardi brothers and Canaletto in the early eighteenth century, today hang in art museums. The paintings of Andrew Wyeth and Norman Rockwell, initially judged as unfit for museums or less than worthy for such lofty places because of their popularity or commercial use, have moved or are moving into fine arts institutions. Rockwell’s sweet, idealistic, sentimental, bourgeois, and kitsch portrayals of American life, for example, were initially dismissed by critics as not serious, as “Rockwellesque”; he was an “illustrator,” not an artist. All that changed in his later years, especially after a painting of his was displayed in the White House. Consequently, he received more attention as an artist, not merely an illustrator. A similarly mixed reaction characterizes earlier criticism of Wyeth as “one of the most popular and also most lambasted artists in the history of American art [for representing middle-class values and ideals]. Art critics mostly heaped abuse on his work, saying he gave realism a bad name. [Yet s]upporters said he spoke to the silent majority who jammed his exhibitions.”1 Museum works, when placed in everyday contexts, are popular with mass audiences. Whistler’s Mother, by a recognized artist, has appeared in the movies and on TV, was referred to in novels of the 1940s and 1950s, and was reproduced on a three-cent stamp in 1932 to honor Mother’s Day. Other established artists, like Winslow Homer and Mary Cassatt, along with reproductions of their work, have also been honored on millions of postage stamps. Forty paintings by the famed Impressionist Claude Monet were exhibited in a mall in China as a way to lure shoppers away from competitors and to sell merchandise (Pechman, 2004). Initially inexpensive works, intended for advertising, later became museum-worthy (and expensive). The posters of Toulouse-Lautrec, for example, were originally done for French nightclubs. Today, they have museum status as  do other examples of poster-, illustrative-, and

58 

M. S. LINDAUER

commercial-art. A Norman Rockwell 1945 painting for a magazine cover of a soldier’s homecoming, for example, sold for $9.2 million at an auction. “To the art world’s chagrin, painters once known for $10 posters are selling original works for up to $300,000 [and] so too are the values of paintings by artists … known for neon sunsets, frolicking dolphins and photorealistic unicorns” in poster shops (Crow, 2006, p. W1). Paintings in non-museum settings (e.g., bars), and popular with the public, have also eventually been relocated to museums. Cole, Courbet, Peale, Remington, and Benjamin West, for instance, appealed to the general populace in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Now they are museum mainstays. Works that were once ignored, disparaged, or considered marginal works of art, such as Found-, Performance-, Conceptual-, Behavioral-, Body-, Land-, and Environmental-art, are now increasingly installed in and around museums and other public places.2 Influential critics bring attention to certain artists that otherwise would not happen, leading to the purchase of their work by museums and their inclusion in private collections. Alternatively, critics downgrade artists, initially accepted as museum-caliber, and as a result they fall out of favor. Bouguereau (1825–1905), for example, a French painter of realistic genre works, mythological themes, and the female form was once ranked as one of the greatest painters in the world by the academic art community. He is no longer so evaluated. In short, the reputations of paintings and artists can swing from high to low. Rock posters have backgrounds of surrealist, abstract, and experimental art. What was once considered avant-garde and daring, breakthroughs against accepted traditions, becomes accepted as fads rise and disappear. Preferences for paintings go through cycles. Art museums themselves, aside from their collections, are popular with the public. The Louvre in Paris, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Tate in Britain, and the National Galleries in London and Washington are popular places to visit for their architecturally interesting exteriors, interiors, and spaces. They are also popular places to interact with and watch people, meet a friend and bring a date, and have a coffee break or lunch. Museum gift shops are also popular places for browsing and shopping. For hurried tourists, shops in museums may be the only place they visit, never looking at the paintings inside (Robertson, 2009, 2011). In addition to reproductions, prints, posters, and postcards of museum paintings, museum shops sell souvenirs: imprinted images of the paintings on hats,

5  IN DEFENSE OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

59

T-shirts, coffee mugs, games, and playing cards. Van Gogh’s sunflowers and the colored rectangles of varied sizes by Mondrian are favorites on aprons, clothing, and ashtrays (Walker, 1987). The fuzzy line between traditional and popular paintings, museum and mass-produced, once recognized and acknowledged, advances the argument that what can be called art is ambiguous. Thus, mass-produced original paintings can be a legitimate part of discussions and studies of art. Even more directly, mass-produced paintings have their own distinctive merits.

The Positive Qualities of Mass-Produced Original Paintings The shifting boundaries between high and popular art, along with the similarities between museum and mass-produced paintings, add credibility to the status of “unoriginal originals.” So, too, is the fact that mass-­ produced paintings are looked at, accepted, bought, displayed, enjoyed, and afforded by homeowners as well as motel operators. Add affordability and couple that with their availability almost anywhere: in shops that specialize in this kind of art, retail outlets in malls, including furniture stores, craft fairs, street corners, empty lots, motel sales, and flea markets. Their ubiquity in homes, hotels, restaurants, lobbies, waiting rooms, offices, and other public places are visible signs of widespread acceptance. That status would not be possible if mass-produced paintings had little appeal to the general public. Contrast their broad and ready reception with the relatively small number of visitors to out-of-the-way, isolated, and one-of-a-­ kind art museums per city; the relatively small number of paintings in these places; the comparatively few artists and buyers; and the rarity of visiting and viewing them. For Tolstoy (1996/1899), art is not of great value unless it attracts a large number of people. High art, he declared, over-refined and self-­ indulgent, caters to a narrow and small audience. Art that is popular, and low-brow, Tolstoy held, is more valuable, worthy, and superior than the fine arts (Gracyk, 2007). Although perhaps exaggerating to make his point, Tolstoy would probably have included mass-produced original paintings as a “people’s art.” Mass-produced paintings also have several practical advantages. Hanging on a wall in a living room, they are right there, always in the same

60 

M. S. LINDAUER

place whenever one wants to look at them. Unlike holdings in a museum, they are not set aside in a special and distant place where visits have to be planned. But in a home, physically available, mass-produced originals immediately spark imagination and feelings “on demand.” They are also psychologically accessible. Subject matter and styles are uncomplicated, direct, recognizable, understandable, and undemanding. Their “story” can be “read” quickly and often in personally relevant terms (Bryson, 1949). Actions, relationships, and the (implicit) values, ideals, and hopes of individuals, groups, classes, and societies are depicted in concrete, attractive, straightforward, and prosaic ways. Thus, their “message” is not conceptual, inscrutable, hidden, or pretentious, as often is the case with contemporary museum paintings. There is no need to depend on or require much knowledge about art or be familiar with the codified and specialized layers of historical traditions associated with museum paintings. What one sees is “what one gets,” unencumbered by rules that have to be learned in order to decipher art. To their credit as well, mental and emotional outcomes are quick, not delayed or absent; understanding and feelings happen immediately. As a consequence, unsophisticated, untrained, and uninformed viewers feel free and unselfconscious about accepting, disapproving, or ignoring a work. “I like and appreciate it (or don’t).” Ordinary folks have no problem in saying that a mass-produced painting is “nice” or “pretty.” To judge mass-produced original paintings as an “easy” art—easy to comprehend—is not a criticism. It means that there is no need to call on experts to explain what you should be looking at or for. Viewers require little, if any, technical or theoretical knowledge in order to enjoy a work. No articles, books, essays, and studies have to be read, or classes and lectures attended, in order to appreciate a painting. Comprehension, ideas, and emotions flow swiftly and effortlessly and are readily communicated to others. A mass-produced painting is also easy to buy (affordable), easy to find (accessible), and easy to view (at home). A visit to a distant and inconvenient museum—hard to get to, park, and pay to enter—is not necessary. In short, mass-produced paintings are easy on the eye (when looked at), brain (in interpreting), and heart (in the feelings evoked). With all these advantages in mind, a viewer of a mass-produced original painting might say:

5  IN DEFENSE OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

61

This is the kind of art I like, it makes me feel good, and I understand it. I look forward to seeing it again (or not). I’d like to buy it (or not). I know just where to hang it.

Viewers of mass-produced original paintings, comfortable and at ease, feel free to evaluate it, approvingly or not. “I love it.” “I hate it.” Opinions are unencumbered by considerations of how one should or is supposed to respond according to official voices. Mass-produced originals are also easier to study, compared to museum works. Experimental aesthetics, a highly rigorous approach to art, anticipated the difficulties of investigating museum paintings (Berlyne, 1971, 1974; Fechner, 1876; Jacobsen, 2006). They solved the problem by substituting simpler stand-ins for the real thing: geometrical forms, random shapes, patches of color, and other basic components of art. (Similarly, tones replaced music, syllables substituted for literature, and so on.) By taking a reductionist approach, general response patterns to art-like materials (and eventually art itself, hopefully) could be revealed. For example, as complexity (of nonsense forms, say) increased, preferences followed a particular trajectory, linear rather than bow-like. Familiarity, pleasingness (of colors), and other reactions had different patterns (an inverted U-shape trajectory, for instance). These outcomes, considered fundamental, were generalized and applied to actual paintings (as well as sculptures, architecture, etc.). However, critics contend, with some justification, that information gained this way is a pale reflection, at most, of an actual painting and the experience it evokes. Other scientific approaches to art and aesthetics also rely on proxies for the real thing in order to make their study manageable: slides, photographs, reproductions, digital images. Mass-produced paintings, like other surrogates, are simpler than museum works, that is, easier to interpret. But they are more like museum paintings than other alternatives (nonsense materials, reproductions) in the freshness of colors, clarity of forms, surface imperfections (texture), size, and general “look.” Closer to real art, mass-produced originals are a more appropriate material than other sorts of replacements for museum paintings (Lindauer, 1973, 1984). Mass-produced paintings, in addition to all the positive points discussed above, have broader benefits. They may be the closest some ever get to museum art. Exposure to mass-produced originals at home, in an office, or anywhere may pique people’s curiosity. They may then wonder how

62 

M. S. LINDAUER

such works differ from masterpieces in museums. As a consequence they may be motivated to visit a museum to find out. Mass-produced paintings also offer a fresh look at a number of perplexing questions about the arts in general that are usually addressed with more complex museum examples. Questions include the importance of originality, name familiarity, and signatures in evaluating a work; the practical, every day, and decorative uses of art versus art-for-its-own sake; the perceived differences as well as similarities between costly works of art, reproductions, and affordable paintings like the mass-produced kind; the role of any kind of art—whether great or not—in fulfilling personal, educational, therapeutic, and other goals (like a good use of leisure time); whether looking at paintings, either at home or in a museum, makes one a “better” person (however defined); and the sorts of experiences and consequences that are evoked by paintings, whatever their quality, good or not.

The Contrasts Between Mass-Produced and Museum Paintings Summarized Museum paintings, without a doubt, are superior to the mass-produced kind. Everything about them—composition, colors, subject matter—is well done: unified, harmonious, effective; they “work.” Viewers are affected personally, emotionally, and cognitively. Few would disagree. But there is some equivalence between the two kinds of art. Undergraduates reported, for example, that both museum and popular art were helpful and useful in providing opportunities for relaxation, pleasure, and self-expression (Foreman-Wernet & Dervin, 2005). Exchanges between high- and low-brow art are particularly striking with Pop Art. Art museums themselves, the embodiment of the fine arts, are popular meeting and shopping destinations. The high status of museum paintings is sometimes reversed. Thus, the distinction between museum and mass-­ produced paintings, given their common and overlapping characteristics, is not always strict; the line between the two is often bridged. Many of the criticisms hurled at mass-produced original paintings can therefore be deflected. Such works may be a marginal, tainted, and degraded kind of art, as critics insist with some validity. Nonetheless they have some of the properties of museum paintings, even if only slightly and tangentially, but in some cases identical, new, or clearer. “There is no

5  IN DEFENSE OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

63

absolute boundary between popular art and high art, and each realm may share characteristics of the other” (Winston & Cupchik, 1992, p. 13). Mass-produced paintings, despite the strident and numerous objections of critics, have a great deal in their favor. They are the kind of art seen and displayed in many places and easily purchased because they are affordable. These compensations make up for some of their inadequacies as well as offer certain advantages lacking in museum works. These should be weighed against their deficiencies, numerous though they are, and as a counterbalance to the virtues of museum paintings, at least somewhat. Yes, museum works have greater depth than mass-produced paintings, and their effects are sustained (assuming they are comprehended). On the other hand, mass-produced paintings achieve their effects, some of which are shared with museum examples, more clearly, faster, frequently, and conveniently. Important distinctions exist between good and bad art, serious and insignificant paintings, elitist and ordinary audiences, and high- and low-­ brow tastes. But preferences for paintings can be eclectic as well as neither right nor wrong. One kind of art does not fit all tastes. The focus on great paintings and painters, and their place in art history, needs no if any justification. “Art history has a role to play in changing the conversation about the arts and humanities in society as a whole” (Hamlin & Leader, 2014, p.  138). Nonetheless, not every museum painting by every recognized artist deserves an unequivocal and unquestioned high status, at least not always. One might ask what our knowledge of psychology or any other subject would be like if it were limited to a small number of rare examples found in a few out of the way places, promoted by a small band of highly trained and skilled specialists, brought to the public’s attention by a relatively few professionals, supported by a relatively exclusive clientele, and chosen by non-democratic, exclusive, and self-selected cliques. This is not to say that expertise, whether in art or medicine, physics or mathematics, should be ignored. Consider physics, a subject arguably more difficult than art, that is largely incomprehensible by laypeople. But art specialists have a burden not found with physics, since “everyone knows what they like (or don’t).” One might go so far as to say that mass-produced and museum paintings are alternate versions of one another. Classical music, for example, has the three Bs (Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms), and three Rs define much of popular music (rap, rock, and rhythm-and-blues). The literary canon sits

64 

M. S. LINDAUER

alongside best-selling novels in libraries. People watch classical ballet and dance to social, ballroom, Latin, and folk music. Moviegoers attend art films in intimate cinema houses with a limited run and flock to blockbusters in multiplex theaters. To argue that museum paintings unequivocally and exclusively deserve their elevated status for their special qualities, and that mass-produced originals have nothing to offer, warrants some wariness if not a cautionary note (or two). The boundaries between the two kinds of paintings are occasionally vague; borders are sometimes porous. Museum paintings are not the only kind of art that merits discussion, study, teaching, display, purchase, viewing, research, or endorsement. To do so ignores the popular kind that appeals to mainstream audiences who rarely, infrequently, or are never exposed to museum paintings. Impressionism, Cubism, Pop Art, and other major movements in the history of art posed challenges to the art establishment, led to new ways of looking at paintings, and modified previous notions about art and artists. The study of mass-produced paintings is not likely to have these radical outcomes. Nonetheless, mass-produced originals encourage a new if not a reinvigorated look at a number of issues about art, such as the importance or salience of a painting’s creativity among nonprofessional audiences. They also open up, as discussed later, new lines of research in the psychology of art (Chap. 12) and advance the notion of an everyday aesthetics (Chap. 13). One might facetiously conclude that the major differences between museum and mass-produced original paintings are location (whether in some formal institutional venue or not); price (high or low); and signature, name, or artist recognition (known, unknown, illegible, absent). This is not to say, though, that mass-produced original paintings are without serious shortcomings (Chap. 4). That said, there is no question that museum and mass-produced paintings differ sharply from one another, usually to the advantage of the former. But not always. Museum paintings merit the strong endorsement they receive from the establishment as part of a nation’s “cultural capital.” They have a high if not the highest value not only among the fine arts but in general as well, a view strongly supported and steadfastly promoted by the public and institutions. Nevertheless, museum painting cannot always or unequivocally be put on a high pedestal (or stay there). They have their limitations, too, (Chap. 4), such as their relative inaccessibility, and these should be acknowledged

5  IN DEFENSE OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

65

and weighed against their obvious merits (e.g., in creativity). To do so lessens the opprobrium and condemnation directed at mass-produced original paintings.3 Distinctions between the two are sometimes uncertain and fluid. Both, surprisingly, have much in common (this chapter). Mass-produced works should not be automatically relegated to the trash heap (although some should be). Mass-produced original paintings are not alone in having their faults. Museum paintings have limitations, too. It would therefore be a mistake to consider mass-produced paintings of little or no value. To do so reflects a kind of “aesthetic schizophrenia” (Madden, 1973) where one kind of art—museum paintings—are for elite audiences while the other—mass-produced—are for ordinary folks. To make too much of the distinctions between the two, real as they are, is to overlook many important similarities between them. These blur some of the sharp differences between the two kinds of art and lessen the criticisms directed at mass-produced paintings (Foreman-Wernet & Dervin, 2005). Additional reasons for taking mass-produced original paintings seriously come from their place in the popular arts, discussed in the next chapter. Their status is further bolstered in subsequent chapters by their historical sources and contemporary discussions (Chap. 7), evolutionary precedents (Chap. 8), and empirical evidence (Part III). The arguments presented in forthcoming chapters, in this one, and previous sections, once recognized and acknowledged, further the position advocated here: mass-produced original paintings can be called art and more than that, contribute to discussions about that topic.

Notes 1. Kimmelman, M. (2009). Obituary. New York Times, January 16. https:// www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/arts/design/17wyeth.html. 2. Definitions and examples of newer forms of art are in flux. Rough and simplified descriptions follow: Found-art: art made from obvious or modified non-art objects or products that are not normally considered materials from which art is made. Performance-art: an artistic event in front of a public audience that combines one or more of the arts, like acting, singing, and dancing. Conceptual-art: the idea, meaning, means, or processes of producing art objects and their recording, through photographs, for example, rather than the objects themselves, are as important if not more so than the

66 

M. S. LINDAUER

finished product (if there is one). Behavioral-art: works that make people examine and rethink their behavior leads to a change in their behavior, thereby serving as a kind of therapy. Body-art: tattoos, body piercings, and body painting. Land-art: art that is made directly in or on the natural landscape, such as earthwork sculptures that use natural materials like rocks and twigs. Environmental-art: Art that is closely connected to nature and the natural environment, often with a political, sociological, philosophical, ecological, and activist message, such as related to climate change. 3. The many objections lined up against mass-produced original paintings (Chap. 4), as well as their defense (this chapter), apply to other low-brow and popular forms of art, like romance novels and hit tunes, as well as TV and the movies.

References Berlyne, D.  E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New  York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. New York: Taylor & Francis. Bryson, L. (1949). The communication of ideas. Oxford: Harper. Carroll, L. E. (2012). In praise of honest sentiment. New Oxford Review, 79, 34–36. Crow, K. (2006, July 14). Shopping-mall masters. Wall Street Journal (Eastern ed.). W1. Fechner, G. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel. Foreman-Wernet, L., & Dervin, B. A. (2005). Comparing arts and popular culture experiences: Applying a common methodological framework. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 35, 169–187. Gracyk, T. (2007). Allusion and intention in popular art. In W. Irwin & J. Gracia (Eds.), Philosophy and the interpretation of pop culture (pp. 65–87). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Hamlin, A. K., & Leader, K. J. (2014). Art history that! A manifesto for the future of a discipline. Resources: An International Journal of Documentation, 30, 138–144. Hanquinet, L. (2013). Mondrian as kitchen tiles? Artistic and cultural conceptions of art museum visitors in Belgium. Cultural Trends, 22, 14–29. https://doi. org/10.1080/09548963.2013.757892 Harep, L. (1949). Social roots of the arts. New York: International. Jacobsen, T. (2006). Bridging the arts and sciences: A framework for the psychology of aesthetics. Leonardo, 39, 155–162.

5  IN DEFENSE OF MASS-PRODUCED ORIGINAL PAINTINGS 

67

Lindauer, M. S. (1973). Towards a liberalization of experimental aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 31, 459–465. Lindauer, M.  S. (1984). Experimental aesthetics. In R.  J. Corsini (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 464–465). New York: Wiley. Madden, D. (1973). The necessity of an aesthetics of popular culture. Journal of Popular Culture, 7, 1–13. Menna, F. (1987). Behavioral art. In D.  Eggenberg & S.  Carroll (Eds.), Encyclopedia of world art: Supplement II (pp. 494–504). Rome/Jack Haratz & Associates: Unedi. Pechman, A. (2004, June 5). Next to Burberry, a Monet. New Times. Retrieved July 13, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/arts/international/galleries-in-shanghai-combine-shopping-and-exhibitions.hInmalltml Roberson, D. (2011). Free time in an art museum: Pausing, gazing and interacting. Leisure Sciences, 33, 70–80. Robertson, G. (2009). Perfect for your wall or shelf: Shopping at London’s popular tourist attractions. Feliciter, 55, 161–164. Taylor, P. G., & Ballengee-Morris, C. (2003). Using visual culture to put a contemporary “fizz” on the study of pop art. Art Education, 56, 20–24. Tolstoy, L. (1996). What is art? (M. Aylmer, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing (Originally published in 1899). Retrieved from http://web. mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/printer-friendly/Tolstoy_on_ Art_TWO_COLUMNS.pdf Varneddoe, K., & Gopnik, A. (1990). High & low: Popular culture/popular art. New York: The Museum of Modern Art. Walker, J. A. (1987). Cross-overs: Art into pop/pop into art. New York: Methuen. Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naïve and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 1–14.

PART III

Two Larger Contexts for Mass-Produced Original Paintings: The Popular Arts and Evolution

CHAPTER 6

The Popular Arts

Abstract  The relevance of mass-produced original paintings to the popular arts and popular culture is discussed. Examples of the popular visual arts in and around the home are enumerated. Their major characteristics are noted: ubiquity; do not require much if any knowledge; low cost, if any; and “democratic” appeal to many. The power of the popular arts is illustrated by propaganda, fascistic and authoritarian art, and by unauthorized art, kitsch, and camp. Popular paintings, it is pointed out, include museum works (by van Gogh, Andy Warhol) as well. The criticisms of popular art and popular culture (e.g., their triviality), as applied to massproduced original paintings, are reexamined. Keywords  Popular culture • Popular art, examples of • Popular art, power of • Popular art and mass-produced original paintings The significance of mass-produced original paintings is augmented by their place in popular culture, also known as pop culture, mass culture, consumer culture, and culture for the masses; included, too, are celebrity and youth cultures (Browne & Kreisser, 2009).1 Popular culture appeals to large and non-elitist audiences, the so-called low- and middle-brows. It reflects and reveals their values and attitudes, class membership, gender, age and education differences, and ethnic distinctions. These are © The Author(s) 2020 M. S. Lindauer, Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3_6

71

72 

M. S. LINDAUER

manifested by entertainment preferences (professional sports, gambling, computer and video games); clothing; languages and dialects; and a general “style” or manner of behaving (Bellavance, 2008; Fisher & Salmon, 2012; Jenkins, McPherson, & Shattuc, 2003). Falling within popular culture are the popular arts, also known as folk-, mass-, and commercial-art (Bolter, 2014; Morgan, 2013). They direct, change, and solidify feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as twist and distort them (Browne & Kreisser, 2009).2 Thus, they foster intolerance toward others, prejudice, mass hysteria, mob actions, and the ideas and actions of ideologists and rabble-rousers. The popular arts are also used by educators, advertisers, and other image-makers, including politicians. The giant-sized portraits of the leaders of the Soviet Union, China, Iraq, and North Korea illustrate propagandistic, patriotic, fascistic, and authoritarian uses of popular art (Golomstock, 1990). Accordingly, the popular arts, irrespective of whether they are judged as “good” or “bad” artistically, including mass-produced original paintings, should be taken seriously.3 Mass-produced original paintings fall within a subset of the visual popular arts which also includes movies, TV, comics, and graffiti. Many other pictorial examples are enumerated next.4 Wall art consists of posters of TV programs, movie characters, athletic figures, rock stars, cultural heroes, and sports celebrities; ads (reproduced and enlarged) for classic films, long-running musicals, and famous dancers; Rockwell Kent enlarged and reproduced magazine covers from the Saturday Evening Post; and Art Deco prints. Wallpaper art describes the decorative color edges and unusual designs of wallpaper. Table art includes family photos, in frames or albums. Calendar art typically shows land- and seascapes, flowers, and animals. Fridge art is represented by postcards on refrigerator doors with reproductions of famous architecture, like the Eiffel Tower and the Taj Mahal; photos of family and friends; and magnets imprinted with famous works of art. Greeting card art is prominent during holidays and other celebratory events (birthdays, anniversaries). Other examples of the popular visual arts are animation art on TV and the movies; tattoo art on bodies; and computer art (emojis). Additional examples of the popular visual arts are found in family room art, a place with a “homey” and “folksy” knotty-pine finish, a large-screen TV, and a cabinet with paper-craft constructions, origami cut-outs, and pasted paper arrangements (decoupage). (The cabinet with CDs on its shelves also serves as a music center.) A nearby bookcase holds graphic novels (along with mysteries, thrillers, and New York Times bestsellers,

6  THE POPULAR ARTS 

73

examples of the popular literary arts). The kitchen arts feature counters and cabinets with china (bone, crystal, Delph) and “tasteful” table settings illuminated by overhead track lighting. The popular arts outside of the home are represented by sidewalk-, manhole cover-, street-, chalk-, front yard-, fence-, and mailbox-art. The latter, often painted with an American flag, holds weekly magazines and daily newspapers with articles of interest to amateur artists and hobbyists. Pages display elegant advertisement art for jewelry and perfumes, and well-­ designed calligraphy art in the form of fashion- and commercial-art. Front-of-the-house-art consists of pseudo-Greek columns, a jockey sculpture, a ceramic flamingo, a fountain, and a colored globe. Manicured and landscaped lawns are set off by ornamental trees, artfully trimmed hedges and bushes, carefully arranged and specially cut, along with beds of perennial flowers. Located behind the house might be outhouse art, a small and ramshackle building with a half-moon cutout. Down the street, apartment houses and office buildings feature gargoyle art, sculpted creatures that look down from upper levels. Front lobby art has large gilt mirrors, tubs of plantings, and a mass-produced painting or two, which may also decorate hallways, reception areas, and other places. Murals cover the exteriors of buildings along with unwelcome graffiti art. Along the curb are vehicles decorated with van art. Vacant lots contain montage- and assemblage-art from bottles, cans, tires, driftwood, rocks, and tinfoil; they may also be called conceptual-, junk-, found-, grassroots-, “way-out-,” and ready-made-art. An empty field is set aside for performance art, where traveling troupes feature the circus arts. Sprinkled along the streets are public-, community-, and environmental-­ art. Alongside the highway is billboard art. Stores display colorful flashing neon-sign art. Movie theaters feature animated marques art; a drive-in theater shows old-time movie favorites. Take-out, drive-through, and fast-­ food restaurants have a distinctive architectural art, with sidings and roofs in particular styles and colors that identify national franchises. Public transportation stations display murals and mosaics (subway art). The Moscow system, most notably, depicts Russian life and writers (Greene, 2010). The Dostoevsky station, for instance, shows scenes from the author’s books (The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot, and Crime and Punishment). Hallways and platforms are also decorated with statues, ornate lighting, and highly crafted fixtures. Tombstone art in graveyards have flowery designs, delicate scroll art, and elaborate calligraphy inscribed into attractive stone monuments.

74 

M. S. LINDAUER

Attached are ornate urns with delicate carvings in which flowers, real and plastic, are placed. Cemetery plots may have metalwork art. The exteriors of mausoleums have mosaic murals composed of variously colored stones. The outskirts of a city include a “campus” with industrial park art composed of slabs of glass-sheathed buildings, some fronted with large metal sculptures. Inside, corridors are arranged, painted, lit, and decorated in ways that increase workers’ efficiency, ensure safety, and enhance morale. Work cubicles are adorned with photos, posters, pottery, figurines, and flowers (real and artificial) in vases of shaped glass and colorful ceramics. As the above list illustrates, the visual popular arts are quite extensive. However, they can be organized within a few large categories. Kitsch refers to works produced by formula by hacks for the mass market. Here is where one is likely to find mass-produced paintings that depict tigers on velvet, portraits of Elvis, big-eyed children, Parisian street scenes, and sailboats churning the seas. Instantly recognizable, kitsch exemplifies bad taste, an enemy of high culture, and worthless (Kulka, 1996). That said, “more people … like kitsch [more] than … high art” (Ramachandran & Seckel, 2012, p. 376). Camp refers to ridiculous, cheesy, exaggerated, ostentatious, and over-­ the-­ top works (Meehan, 1965; Sontag, 1964). Campy paintings are humorous or shocking because of their affectations and theatricality, either done intentionally or unconsciously. Camp is “art” with quotation marks along with a raised eyebrow and a wink. Some examples may have initially been meant to be taken seriously but later become camp or campy. Perhaps most well known are Art Nouveau, Pop Art, and the drawings of Aubrey Beardsley. A controversial figure of the Art Nouveau movement or style, Beardsley’s black ink drawings emphasized the bizarre, eerie, decadent, and erotic. Other examples of the popular arts might be branded as “trash,” “unauthorized,” or “outsider” art. Like mass-produced originals, they are typically produced by nonprofessional as well as unconventional artists, aimed at untrained audiences, and without the recommendation and support of recognized authorities or the imprimatur of the art establishment (Gracyk, 2000, 2007, Parker, 2011, Simon, 1999). Some museum paintings, like those by van Gogh, are also part of the popular visual arts (Sperling, 2003, 2007). Examples include paintings by George Catlin of Native Americans; Frederic Remington on Western art; and Thomas Nast, an illustrator for Harper’s Weekly. Illusory 3-D

6  THE POPULAR ARTS 

75

paintings (trompe l’oeil), such as those by William Harnett, were originally placed in bars, saloons, men’s private clubs, and hotel lobbies. The popular arts, visual and non-visual, are a ready and plentiful source of pleasure, diversion, and entertainment for ordinary people, not the elite. Critics consider them trivial, superficial, and consumer-oriented, an attitude also found with mass-produced original paintings. Hence, they are judged as having less value than examples of high culture, such as museum paintings. However, this condescending view overlooks the roots of the popular arts in history as well as the work done by the social sciences, discussed next.

Notes 1. The published literature on popular culture is enormous. A sampling follows: “The surge of community arts” (1975), Beutler (1988), N. Carroll (1998), Clements (2008), Cockcroft, Weber, and Cockcroft (1977), Cooper and Chalfant (1984), Deaver (1983), Fundaburk and Davenport (1975), Greenfield (1986), Hillier (1975), Jacobson (1986, 1987), Levine (1988), Lynes (1954), McMullen (1988), Sardesi (2002), Seldes (1958), Sommer (1971, 1974, 1975), Spurling (1984), and West (2010). 2. Museum paintings, among the traditional arts, have an impact, too, which is why the Nazis banned “degraded art.” Paradoxically, though, its leaders looted collections in museums in the countries they occupied and placed them in their personal collections. 3. Examples of the popular arts other than the graphic kinds include certain genres of literature (romance novels), music (the blues), and square dancing (R. D. Carroll, 1988, 1997; Cawelti, 2004). The popular arts also include gee-gaws, brick-a-brack, “dust-catchers,” and chotckas (Yiddish) that are mainly sold in souvenir shop but also antique stores, second-hand outlets, and flea markets. 4. Additional examples of non-visual popular art are numerous. They include “modern” furniture (“contemporary,” “Danish”) and copies of historical styles (Bentwood, Chippendale), some gilded and with wood inlays (marquetry). Surfaces, lit by “designer” lamps, hold pottery and objects made of wood, clay, and stone alongside pseudo-aged pewter; tankards in Early Americana style; and brushed (gold-like) bronze vases. Armrests have lace doilies, crocheting, embroidery, knitting, and needlework. “Antiqued” tables lay out crystal and porcelain (Hummel) figurines; cut flowers (real, plastic, pressed and framed); color-infused and egg-shaped glassware; ­carvings (scrimshaw) of bone, wood, and soap; and miniature ceramic copies of ancient sculpture. Light streams from a stained-glass window (made from

76 

M. S. LINDAUER

a kit) or from a sliver(-plated) candelabra on the ceiling. Walls are lined with an Amish quilt, weavings, and textiles alongside metal-, magnetic, and string-art. Clothing and accessories have “name” labels that may be “knock-­ downs/offs,” copies from well-known fashion houses. Bodies are adorned with glass-beaded jewelry, necklaces, friendship bracelets, birthday stone rings, and tie-dyed T-shirts.

References Bellavance, G. (2008). Where’s high? Who’s low? What’s new? Classification and stratification inside cultural ‘repertoires’. Poetics, 36, 189–216. Beutler, L. (1988). Billboard art: Landscapes on a new level. The Blade (Toledo), 2, E1–E2. Bolter, J. D. (2014). McLuhan and the legacy of popular modernism. Journal of Visual Culture, 1, 23–25. Browne, R. B., & Kreisser Jr., L. A. (Eds.). (2009). Popular culture values and the arts: Essays on elitism versus democratization. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Carroll, R. D. (1988). Popular art. In The new encyclopedia Britannica: Micropaedia (Vol. 25, 15th ed., pp. 1014–1016). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica. Carroll, N. (1998). The philosophy of mass art. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cawelti, J.  G. (2004). Notes toward an aesthetic of popular culture. Journal of Popular Culture, 5, 255–268. (Original work published 1971). Clements, P. (2008). Public art: Radical, functional or democratic methodologies? Journal of Visual Arts Practice, 7, 19–35. Cockcroft, E., Weber, J., & Cockcroft, J. (1977). Toward a people’s art: The contemporary mural movement. (Enlarged ed.). New York: Dutton. Cooper, M., & Chalfant, H. (1984). Subway art. Rinehart & Winston: Holt. Deaver, S. (1983). Van art: Prosaic images. The Journal of Popular Culture, 17, 110–122. Fisher, M., & Salmon, C. (2012). Introduction: Human nature and pop culture. Review of General Psychology, 16, 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/a002790 Fundaburk, E. L., & Davenport, T. G. (1975). Art in public places in the United States. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green Popular Press. Golomstock, I. (1990). Totalitarian art in the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, Fascist Italy and The People’s Republic of China. New York: Overlook Press. Gracyk, T. (2000). Searching for the “popular” and the “art” of popular art. Philosophy Compass, 2/3, 380–395. Gracyk, T. (2007). Allusion and intention in popular art. In W. Irwin & J. Gracia (Eds.), Philosophy and the interpretation of pop culture (pp. 65–87). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

6  THE POPULAR ARTS 

77

Greene, D. (2010, August 10). A dark view of Dostoevsky on the Moscow subway. NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?s toryId=128954859&sc=fb&cc=fp Greenfield, V. (1986). Making do or making art: A study of American recycling. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press. Hillier, B. (1975). The decorative arts of the forties and fifties. New York: Clarkson N. Potter/Crown. Jacobson, S.  W. (1986, January 8). Moving-van Gogh? The Times-Union. Rochester, New York, p. 1. Jacobson, S. W. (1987, September 30). Off the wall, onto the street. The Times-­ Union. Rochester, New York, p. 1C. Jenkins, H., McPherson, T., & Shattuc, J. (2003). Defining popular culture. In H. Jenkins, T. McPherson, & J. Shattuc (Eds.), Hop on pop: The politics and pleasures of popular culture (pp. 26–42). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kulka, T. (1996). Kitsch and art. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Levine, L. (1988). Highbrow/lowbrow: The emergence of cultural hierarchy in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lynes, R. (1954). The tastemakers. New York: Harper & Brothers. McMullen, R.  D. (1988). Popular art. In The new encyclopedia Britannica: Micropaedia (Vol. 25, 15th ed., pp. 1014–1016). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.. Meehan, T. (1965). Not good taste, not bad taste—It’s camp. The New York Times Magazine, 21(30–31), 113–115. Morgan, J. (2013). Intercontinental drift. Artforum International, 51, 223–230. Parker, H. N. (2011). Towards a definition of popular culture. History and Theory, 50, 147–170. Ramachandran, V. S., & Seckel, E. (2012). Neurology of visual aesthetics: Indian nymphs, modern art, and sexy beaks. In A. P. Shimamura, S. E. Stephen, & E.  Palmer (Eds.), Aesthetic science. Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 375–390). New York: Oxford. Sardesi, A. (2002). Popular art: A new angle. Indian Philosophical Quarterly, 29, 31–42. Seldes, G. (1958). The people and the arts. In B.  Rosenberg & D.  M. White (Eds.), Mass culture: The popular arts in America (pp. 74–97). New York: The Free Press. Simon, R.  K. (1999). Trash culture. Popular culture and the great tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sommer, R. (1971). People’s art. Natural History, 80, 40–45. Sommer, R. (1974). Tight spaces: Hard architecture and how to humanize it. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sommer, R. (1975). Street art. San Francisco: QuickFox.

78 

M. S. LINDAUER

Sontag, S. (1964). Notes on “camp”. Partisan Review, 31, 515–531. Sperling, J. (2003). Famous works of art in popular culture. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Sperling, J. (2007). Art. In G. Hoppenstand & M. Schoenecke (Eds.), The greenwood encyclopedia of world popular culture: North America (pp.  19–46). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Spurling, J. (1984). Art for sale. New Statesman, 107, 30. The surge of community arts. (1975). Arts in America, 1, 6–120. West, E. (2010). A taste for greeting cards: Distinction within a denigrated cultural form. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10, 362–382.

CHAPTER 7

Historical and Contemporary Approaches to the Popular Arts

Abstract  Mass-produced original paintings are placed within their historical framework (pictorial decorations in Medieval churches aimed at the masses; the Industrial Revolution; and the Works Progress Administration [WPA]); in contemporary studies in sociology (the artistic preferences of omnivores and univores; high- and low-brow taste cultures; Gans, Bourdieu); and in psychology (sentimental art). The relative neglect of popular paintings in psychology and cultural studies is noted. Keywords  Mass-produced original paintings, historical background • Mass-produced original paintings, sociological studies • Mass-produced original paintings, psychological studies The popular arts not only are numerous but have a long history as well, adding another strong footing for mass-produced original paintings. Here I focus solely on the visual kinds. The ancient Hebrews embedded astronomical and other decorative features within the tile mosaics of synagogue floors where people could see them daily. Early Greeks and Romans decorated homes, temples, and other public places with murals, statues, and busts. Medieval churches adorned architecturally distinguished buildings with paintings and sculptures, along with tapestries and stained-glass windows; illuminated manuscripts were written and stored there too © The Author(s) 2020 M. S. Lindauer, Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3_7

79

80 

M. S. LINDAUER

(L. E. Carroll, 2012). The walls of Islamic mosques in the past and today are lined with elaborate calligraphy. Inexpensive reproductions of paintings, and the popular arts in general, came into their own in the mid-eighteenth to nineteenth centuries with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Technological and industrial achievements led to cheap methods of production. Art for the non-­ wealthy, advertised in the mass media and sold in department stores (also new developments), were purchased at affordable prices for decorating homes (McMullen, 1988). The Arts and Craft movement in the nineteenth century, led by William Morris and John Ruskin, promoted handcrafted decorations that working people could afford, fostering an appreciation of low-priced beautiful things, including art, for the people. The revision of the copyright laws of 1911 expanded the meaning of art by changing earlier wording from the “fine arts” to “artistic works.”1 Contributing greatly to the bourgeoning of the popular arts in the 1930s in the United States was the Works Progress Administration (WPA) (Chap. 5). Studies of popular paintings, however, lagged behind the other popular arts. An early survey found that popular literature was represented in 55% of printed articles followed by popular film and music (Stevenson, 1977). All other areas combined, including popular paintings (e.g., Currier and Ives prints; Cronin, 1952), accounted for less than 5% of the total. (TV was not yet a major area for research in the time period covered by the survey.) Similarly, only a handful of scattered entries in early reference books and anthologies on popular culture referred to the visual arts (Geist & Nachbar, 1983; Hall & Ulanov, 1967; Hall & Whannel, 1967; Inge, 1981/1989; Rosenberg & White, 1958, 1971; see also Nye, 1970). A strong interest in the popular arts is found in sociology: their societal origins, growth, expansion, and audience; and the influence of economics, class, education, and urbanization.2 Herbert Gans, in his Popular Culture and High Culture (1974, updated in 1999), was highly influential in relating the popular and traditional arts to different taste cultures (his term) and their preferences for the arts. The masses, the working class, or more generally low- to middle-brow audiences, Gans argued, favored the popular arts. They liked, for example, representational paintings done in a romantic style, without stark or harsh realism, and easily evoking emotions, feelings, and moods, especially spirituality and peacefulness. Particularly appealing are landscapes in the style of such well-known artists as Friedrich, Turner, Constable, Gericault, and

7  HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO THE POPULAR ARTS 

81

Delacroix. They are  much copied in mass-produced original paintings. Abstract modern works, like Cubism, were acceptable, Gabs argued, but  only if they contained recognizable forms and were softened by ­pastel colors. High-brow taste cultures, Gans continued, unlike the profile drawn above, leaned to the more orthodox forms of paintings, the kinds displayed in museums. Gans emphasized, though, that low- and high-brow taste cultures were not mutually exclusive but differed only in emphasis. Thus, preferences for different kinds of art in general, and paintings specifically, overlapped to some degree. Importantly, too, Gans held that popular low-brow art was art, not non-art. The low-/high-brow distinction was amplified by others. Peterson (1992), for example, maintained that low-brows imitate the tastes of high-­ brows but do not have the money, experience, education, and background to do it right or well. Consequently, they choose simplified versions of high-brow tastes. Hence, they select easily understood forms of art that stimulate emotions with little effort, as mass-produced original paintings do. Low-brow audiences, too, have undifferentiated tastes and indiscriminate preferences; they are omnivores (Peterson, 1992; Peterson & Kern, 1996). They uncritically accept almost any if not all kinds of popular art, reflecting the blending effects of urbanization, industrialization, and exposure to the mass media. In contrast, high-brows tend to be univores, favoring one or two kinds of art. However, they draw from both conventional and popular kinds. Others held that arts audiences are differentiated by the myths, stereotypes, and cultural conventions they hold (Wahlstrom & Demming, 1980). Low-brows, in contrast to high-brows, for example, prefer paintings that embody folkloric and legendary tales as well as Biblical themes. These are well represented in mass-produced paintings. Bourdieu (1979/1984) developed a concept of cultural capital, which includes familiarity with, knowledge of, and use of the arts (among other areas). In his studies, participants were asked if they preferred a photo of a landscape, a sunset over the sea, or an “old master.” These were shown along with photos of ordinary objects, like a cabbage, a snake, and a rope. Based on his findings, Bourdieu argued that the fine arts are part of the cultural capital of the highest class while the popular arts were the domain of the lower class. “Being in the know” about the high but not the low arts was a mark of status, prestige, and “nobility.” Artistic tastes are

82 

M. S. LINDAUER

defined, organized, practiced, and learned, Bourdieu concluded, in keeping with class membership. [A] work of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the cultural competence, that is, the code, into which it is encoded … and is the hidden condition for recognizing the styles characteristic of a period, a school, or an author … [as well as a basis for] aesthetic enjoyment. (p. 2)

Consequently, one learns a disposition for the “right” (or snobbish, some might say) way to approach art. Summarizing Bourdieu’s important distinction between traditional and popular art (and high and low art audiences): Refined or high-class tastes are learned within one’s class, and aesthetic enjoyment comes from knowing what one’s class likes or not; the work itself is not important. This is what distinguishes upper from lower classes. It is a class-cultural distinction. (Reber, 2012, pp. 238–239)

Artistic taste preferences, as sketched above by Bourdieu, Gans, and others, though, are not rigid (Cohen, 1999). For example, audiences from different economic classes attend blockbuster exhibits of famous paintings in museums and on tour. Thus, tastes are eclectic and widely distributed among both high- and low-brows (Peterson, 1992; Stern, 1977). The sociological position on the arts can be summed up as follows: Low- and low-middle-brows, defined largely but not exclusively by class, which depends mostly on economics and occupation, generally prefer the popular arts, which includes mass-produced original paintings. Uppermiddle- to high-brows are more likely to choose from the traditional arts, the kinds in art museums. However, these broad distinctions are neither sharp nor exclusive. Interest in the arts by different audiences overlaps to some degree. Thus, the line between taste cultures is therefore blurred, overlapping, and shifting. Other studies of popular art, summarized next, are less theoretical, exploratory (not emphasizing methodological and statistical details), and include non-paintings. Reme (1993), for example, surveyed the works on the walls of lower- and working-class homeowners: family photos, mounted butterflies, ceramic pieces, portraits of Jesus and religious motifs, graphic prints, woodcuts, pastel-colored animals on black velvet, and reproductions of landscapes and sailboats. Preferred subjects, in

7  HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO THE POPULAR ARTS 

83

decreasing order, were landscapes, flowers, animals, and people, prints, religious works, and photos of disasters. Abstract and modern paintings were not generally present. The kinds of displays, their typical placement over the sofa, and their relation to the furniture and the room in general, were interpreted as a reflection of residents’ judgments of what was aesthetically “right” or harmonious. They were also seen as expressions of class, status, and moral values that reflected the ideals of leisure and family life. Another survey (Orlando, 2013) compared home decorations, including paintings, in the United States and Peru. (The Dissertation Abstract from which this summary is drawn did not specify the kinds of paintings.) The wall decorations were discussed in terms of family and cultural values, marital satisfaction, and age. Class, as traditionally defined, was surprisingly less of a factor than expected. A questionnaire study (Lin & Bin, 2011) focused on reactions to illustrations in popular magazines. Adults and females differed from adolescents and males on measures of interest, novelty, and meaning, they concluded. Explored by Davis (reported in Sommer, 1974) was the influence of wall decorations on students in a classroom. Differences in van decorations (auto art) across cultures were compared by Deaver (1983). Szekely (2008), discussed in more detail in Chap. 13, observed the behavior of shoppers in stores that sold inexpensive original paintings. Sentimental paintings are of special interest (Bedell, 2011). Like mass-­ produced paintings, they are highly popular. They present a rosy picture of the world in depictions of simplified and idealized portrayals of country and family life (along with cavorting animals). They evoke pleasant feelings that include goodness, blamelessness, nobility, purity, sweetness, and dearness. A well-regarded representative is the Canadian painter Paul Peel, known for his portrayal of youthful bathers. Lilly Martin Spencer, an American working in the mid-nineteenth century, is another popular and recognized artist who specialized in sentimental paintings. She primarily painted domestic scenes, Madonna-like mothers, happy housewives, lovable but inept husbands, and idealized children set in a warm and happy atmosphere. Like mass-produced paintings, sentimental paintings are original works, evoke positive feelings, and are appreciated and purchased by a large and general public that is relatively uninformed about art. They are also disparaged by the artworld as bad art: commercial, kitsch, shallow, emotionally manipulative, and the stuff of Hallmark greeting cards. Sentimental

84 

M. S. LINDAUER

painting were not viewed negatively in the past, though. Trumbull’s (d. 1843) Revolutionary War paintings, for example, were appreciated for arousing patriotic feelings. (Bedell, 2011, p. 10) Unlike mass-produced originals, though, sentimental paintings have been extensively studied. They, along with matched museum art (of the traditional sort), were shown to two groups (Winston, 1992, 1995; Winston & Cupchik, 1992). One group had extensive experience with art, having taken a minimum of ten or more art courses; a contrasting group had none. Responses to the two kinds of paintings depended on art background: Experienced viewers preferred museum paintings over the sentimental kind and largely for objective reasons, such as their structure. They also welcomed the complexity and challenge of the paintings and relied on disinterested contemplation (aesthetic distance). In contrast, inexperienced viewers chose sentimental over museum art and did so largely for subjective reasons that included the feelings they aroused, such as warmth, pleasantness, peacefulness, and pleasure. They also triggered happy memories. In addition, they were valued for realistically portraying things as they really looked. A follow-up study that included popular museum paintings that appealed to a broad audience supported these results. Sentimental paintings have more in common with museum paintings, among which they are found, than mass-produced originals. Moreover, they are painted and signed by recognized and professional artists, not anonymous or unsigned. They are also expensive, in the thousands of dollars or more. In addition, idealized subjects are their primary content, rather than a full range of genres, as with mass-produced paintings. Furthermore, sentimental paintings bear more on conventional views of aesthetics (Chap. 13) rather than, as mass-produced originals do, on an everyday kind (Cupchik & Gebotys, 1988; Winston, 1995). The importance of mass-produced original paintings, I have argued to this point, is based on their similarities to museum works (Chap. 5); their place among the popular arts (Chap. 6); and, in this chapter, their historical basis and contemporary studies. Their evolutionary roots, discussed in the next chapter, are further reasons for acknowledging the importance of mass-produced original paintings.

7  HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO THE POPULAR ARTS 

85

Notes 1. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/46/ section/35/enacted and https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/ PartI/TitleXV/Chapter94/Section277C 2. The economist Galenson (2009) also writes about the popular arts.

References Bedell, R. (2011). What is sentimental art? American Art, 25, 9–12. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1979.). Carroll, L. E. (2012). In praise of honest sentiment. New Oxford Review, 79, 34–36. Cohen, T. (Ed.). (1999) High and low art, and high and low audiences. The Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 57, 137–143. Cronin, M. (1952). Currier and Ives: A content analysis. American Quarterly, 4, 317–330. Cupchik, G.  C., & Gebotys, R.  J. (1988). The search for meaning in art: Interpretive styles and judgments of quality. Visual Arts Research, 14, 38–50. Deaver, S. (1983). Van art: Prosaic images. The Journal of Popular Culture, 17, 110–122. Galenson, D. W. (2009). From “White Christmas” to Sgt. Pepper: The conceptual revolution in popular music. Historical Methods, 42, 17–34. Gans, H. J. (1999). Popular culture and high culture: An analysis and evaluation of tastes. New York: Basic Books. (Originally published 1974). Geist, C. D., & Nachbar, J. (Eds.). (1983). The popular culture reader. Bowling Green, OH: The Popular Culture Press. Hall, J. B., & Ulanov, B. (Eds.). (1967). Modern culture and the arts (pp. 62–78). New York: McGraw-Hill. (Originally published 1964). Hall, J. B., & Whannel, P. (Eds.). (1967). The popular arts. New York: Beacon. Inge, H. T. (1989). Introduction. In T. M. Inge (Ed.), Handbook of American popular culture (pp. xxi–xxviii). New York: Greenwood Press. (Originally published 1981). Lin, Y.-C., & Bin, I. (2011). Generation and gender differences in aesthetic responses to popular illustrations. Visual Arts Research, 37, 30–41. McMullen, R.  D. (1988). Popular art. In The new encyclopedia Britannica: Micropaedia (Vol. 25, 15th ed., pp. 1014–1016). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.. Nye, R. (1970). The Unembarrassed muse: The popular arts in America. New York: The Dial Press.

86 

M. S. LINDAUER

Orlando, A. M. (2013). Taste is within: Decorative material culture at home in Los Angeles and Lima, Peru. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 73, 10–11. Peterson, R.  A. (1992). Understanding audience segmentation: From elite and mass to omnivore and univore. Poetics, 21, 243–258. Peterson, R. A., & Kern, R. M. (1996). Changing highbrow tastes: From snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review, 61, 900–907. Reber, R. (2012). Processing fluency, aesthetic pleasure, and culturally shared taste. In A. P. Shimamura & S. F. Palmer (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. 223–249). New York: Oxford University Press. Reme, E. (1993). Every picture tells a story: Wall decorations as expressions of individuality, family unit and socio-cultural belonging. The Journal of Popular Culture, 26, 19–38. Rosenberg, B., & White, D. M. (Eds.). (1958). Mass culture: The popular arts in America. New York: The Free Press. Rosenberg, B., & White, D. M. (Eds.). (1971). Mass culture revisited. New York: Van Nostrand. Sommer, R. (1974). Tight spaces: Hard architecture and how to humanize it. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Stern, J. (1977). Highbrow taste as popular culture. Studies in Popular Culture, 1, 1–6. Stevenson, G. (1977). The wayward scholar: Resources on research in popular culture. Library Trends, 25, 779–818. Szekely, I. (2008). Art at the mall: A look at the aesthetics of popular mall culture. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 27, 192–201. Wahlstrom, B., & Demming, C. (1980). Chasing the popular arts through the critical forest. The Journal of Popular Culture, 13, 412–426. Winston, A.  S. (1992). Sweetness and light: Psychological aesthetics and sentimental art. In G. Cupchik & J. Laszlo (Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process (pp. 118–136). New York: Cambridge University Press. Winston, A. S. (1995). Simple pleasures: The psychological aesthetics of high and popular art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 193–203. Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naïve and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 1–14.

CHAPTER 8

Evolutionary Roots

Abstract  The evolutionary sources of mass-produced original paintings are discussed in terms of the importance of pictorial displays for early humankind’s adaptation and survival. The appeal of landscape paintings, a dominant genre of mass-produced as well as museum paintings, is reviewed within an evolutionary framework. The “Savannah Project” and “The most and least wanted pictures” studies, major investigations that bear on mass-produced original paintings, are summarized and evaluated. Keywords  Mass-produced original paintings, evolutionary origins • Pictorial displays, importance for adaptation and survival • The “Savannah Project” • “The most and least wanted pictures” In every known human society, some kind [of art]—usually many kinds—is pursued frequently with much vigor and pleasure, strongly suggesting that “artifying” is a characteristic behavior of our species. (Dissanayake, 1995, p. 99)

The origins of the popular arts, along with their historical foundations (Chap. 7), have deep roots in evolution (Dutton, 2003b, 2009; Nadal & Gomez-Puerto, 2014; Pinker, 1999), adding another grounding for mass-­ produced original paintings. Ancient people engaged in proto-art activities that would today be called the popular arts: singing, dancing, playing © The Author(s) 2020 M. S. Lindauer, Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3_8

87

88 

M. S. LINDAUER

music, storytelling. Visual depictions included sculpting (statuettes, amulets, carvings of bone and ivory) and bodily ornamentation (pigmentation, necklaces, tattoos). Pictographs and drawings on natural surfaces (walls, rocks) made important events and activities stand out, be easily remembered, and acted as a guide for future possibilities. For example, cave art—outline drawings of figures by Cro-Magnons or earlier, symbols by Neanderthals, often pigmented—might have recalled or anticipated events during hunting, possible problems, and useful solutions. A hunter lost in a dangerous place might remember a picture (along with a story or a song) that helped him decide what to do and with whom it was safe to do so. Looking at a cave drawing our ancestors might have thought, “That’s the way the animals we hunt and fear are really like and what we have to watch out for” (or perhaps “Good use of the surface characteristics of this cave”). Designs and patterns on weaponry, tools, baskets, and utensils, rather than plain and unadorned or with only regular or random lines, indicated their importance to owners. For artistic and aesthetic reasons, bodies were made attractive, “prettified” with jewelry, charms, amulets, hair styling, colored pigments, pierced bones, and necklaces made of shells, animal teeth, and claws. [T]he mind is best seen as a gaudy, over-powered home entertainment center, evolved to help our stone-age ancestors to attract, amuse, and bed each other. (Dutton, 2003a, p. 7)

Artful embellishments and exaggerations made a point, drew a moral, taught a lesson, emphasized certain experiences, and drew attention to important events, things, and places. They aided recollection and sustained beliefs, augmented religious rituals and other ceremonies, and set sacred places apart. Making pictures and other visual displays—artifying— were practical and necessary. Visual depictions showed our ancestors what nature was like, revealed similarities in actions and feelings among human beings from the outside, and enhanced the sense of being part of a larger world. Consequently, a group became sensitive to and empathic with other people and places (Dissanayake, 1995, p. 99). Pictures and the other proto-arts, along with ritual and play, made things special by giving reality order, adding meaning, deepening significance, and offsetting habitual and reflexive reactions. Our ancestors who favored the arts therefore had an advantage over other

8  EVOLUTIONARY ROOTS 

89

branches of the human ancestral tree that did not express themselves artistically or were not open to such activities. Picture-makers, designers, and other proto-artists were valued, sought out, encouraged, and supported because they focused attention, attracted people, fostered friendships, strengthened relationships, and built bonds between and among observers and participants. The gathering of like-­ minded individuals in a common activity encouraged mating. “Artistic expression [is] a fitness indicator” (Dutton, 2003a, p. 7). Their children were likely to inherit a predisposition for the arts. The universal presence of artful frills, hinted at in fragments from the distant past, strongly suggests a biological urge to surround and cover ourselves, things, and places with attractively artful “extras.” That impulse—a genetic predisposition that facilitated successful adaptation and survival—gave art-like activities a prominent place in our basic nature. A case can therefore be made for the arts meeting a primary need and therefore were  pursued for their own sake, an urge too powerful to be resisted. Consequently, art was not merely a decorative, extraneous, and unnecessary ornamentation but a necessary expression of an inherent, normal, and important part of our heritage. The impulse to make, appreciate, and be in contact with the arts, to express oneself artfully, to participate in and observe artful activities, as our ancestors did, is deeply rooted in the human DNA. On the other hand, the arts may have been an accidental accompaniment, or offshoot of something else, a derived by-product (a “sprandel”). Whatever the case may be, the arts reveal a need to prettify. Thus, today we seek out the arts, including looking at, buying, and displaying paintings, reproductions, prints—and mass-produced original paintings. A built-in evolutionary propensity if not a necessity to activate and surround ourselves with art-like objects, whether directly or indirectly derived, applies not only to paintings. Similar pressures apply to the other popular arts: listening to Broadway tunes, reading romance novels, watching blockbuster movies, tuning into TV dramas. In fact, all kinds of art fulfill a primal yearning to be in touch with and around nice-looking and sounding things that includes visiting art museums, attending concerts, going to the theater, and watching the ballet. Nowadays, though, contemporary paintings, like other modern examples of the arts, are rather obscure if not almost unintelligible. Arts audiences call upon interpreters—journalists, reviewers, critics, docents—to explain what they are seeing (as well as hearing and reading). Consequently,

90 

M. S. LINDAUER

the fine arts appeal to relatively few, a fairly well-educated and sophisticated elite that is supported by academics, specialists, and the moneyed. The result is that museum paintings and other examples of the high arts do not as clearly reflect the artful sensitivities of early humans. Instead, impenetrability describes many contemporary modern paintings: the avant-garde, the new, revolutionary, and out-of-the-mainstream. Experimental works do not, on the face of it, hark back to our evolutionary past. Instead, they point to the future, taking a step—if not more than one—beyond past efforts. Consequently, a good deal of today’s art, narrower in content, subtle, and more esoteric than works in the relatively recent past, and definitely distant from the proto-arts of our evolutionary past, appeals to relatively few. Hence, the strong hold, continued presence, and widespread attraction of the popular arts, including mass-produced original paintings, to the general public. The evolutionary argument presented here for the origins of the arts, popular and traditional, mass-produced and museum paintings, rests on extrapolations from the archeological diggings of prehistoric artifacts (Hatcher, 1999). The evidence is scant and fragmentary, literally bits and pieces. Nonetheless, interpretations based on snippets from the past are compelling, cogent, reasonable, and logical; consistent with observations of today’s pre-industrial tribes, non-technological societies, and less developed countries; and congruent with the behavior of non-human animals. An evolutionary position has proven to be applicable to the other arts, such as literary Darwinism (J. Carroll, 1995; see also Dissanayake, 1996). Landscape paintings, in particular, illustrate an evolutionary account of the arts. [T]he long tradition of representational painting and sculpture has encompassed a wide range of styles and an infinite variety of subject matter, yet certain subjects [landscapes] have recurred from era to era and culture to culture—no doubt because they represent things that have always been of human interest. (Kamhi, 2006, p. 32)

Further, “rarely is the subject [of paintings] one of dead plants, or a brown, drought landscape with starving animals” (Fisher & Meredith, 2012, p. 122). Recall, too, that scenes of the countryside are a dominant genre of mass-produced originals (Chap. 2 and Part IV); the popularity of bucolic and pastoral portrayals by Thomas Kinkade (Chap. 2); and the

8  EVOLUTIONARY ROOTS 

91

museum paintings of natural vistas and scenic panoramas by the Hudson River School of art. The widespread if not universal appeal of landscape paintings—countrified, rustic, unspoiled, and park-like—suggests biological and evolutionary origins (Kettlewell, 1988). Support for this sweeping supposition comes from several seminal studies. Landscapes, albeit wildly distorted, predominated in a groundbreaking study of the kinds of paintings people around the world would prefer in a project known as “The most and least wanted pictures” (Wypijewski, 1997). Two Russian artists, Vitaly Komar and Alexander Melamid, subsidized an international telephone poll of the subjects people wanted to see in paintings. More than a dozen countries from several continents were represented: the United States (with 1000 respondents), Russia, China, France, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Holland, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Ukraine, and Kenya. Respondents were asked, for example, what colors and animals they would like to see in a painting; what kind of natural setting; season; a city or rural scene; and more (Dissanayake, 1998a). Would you choose realistic-looking or “different looking” paintings? Exaggerations? Imaginary objects? Bold stark designs or playful whimsical designs? Sharp angles or soft curves? Geometric patterns or random uneven patterns? Expressive or smooth brushstrokes? A surface that was thickly textured or smooth and flat? … Serious or festive themes? Busy or simple treatment?

Across the various national groups, and despite the diversity of backgrounds represented by those polled, the choices were similar: realistic and tranquil scenes, with water, trees, and plants predominating, followed in decreasing order by historical figures, and animals, particularly large mammals, both wild and domestic. Based on these choices, Komar and Melamid painted the “most and least wanted” paintings. In general, and not unexpectedly, they depicted wildly incompatible elements of landscapes that the artists found comic, profound, and disturbing. America’s “Most Wanted” painting, for example, was a nineteenth-century Hudson River School type of rustic landscape of trees, water, clouds, distant hills, deer—and George Washington standing beside a lake in which a large hippo was bathing. East Africans chose lush scenes that looked more like the open vistas of the parklands of

92 

M. S. LINDAUER

upper New York State than the rainforest in which they live and are most familiar. (America’s “Least Wanted” painting was an abstract work with bold and stark geometric shapes in various colors with a thick textured surface.) Overall, across different countries and cultures, and regardless of class, race, or gender, landscapes dominated, albeit bizarre if not surrealistic. Nonetheless, they were reported as having a nostalgic feel to them, as if those polled yearned for a distant and mythical past. Additional evidence for a genetic-biological-evolutionary preference for landscapes comes from the grassland environment of East Africa’s savannah, considered the birthplace of humans (Dissanayake, 1998b). Grasslands facilitate survival because food from hunting and harvesting is abundant and ease of movement facilitates exploration. The visibility of clouds in wide-open areas also signals changes in the weather, and shadows are cues for depth and distance. Occasional long-branching trees, along with providing shade, can be climbed for safety. Trees also offer good views of distant and potential dangers; watchers can see without being seen. The feelings of safety stirred by the vast expanse of the savannah facilitated reproduction and child-rearing in our ancestors. It was an environment that had “prospect” (a place of possibilities) and was a “refuge” (a place of safety), where tribes and bands could thrive (Appleton, 1988/1984). “It is likely that early humans evolved positive response patterns to landscapes exhibiting … these qualities” (Mealey & Theis, 1995, p. 248). The setting had affordances, using James Gibson’s (1950) term. Consequently, a preference for a savannah-like landscape is embedded in human nature. That possibility is supported by research known as the Savannah Project (Balling & Falk, 1982; Falk & Balling, 2009; Orians & Heerwagen, 1995; Thornhill, 2003). Pictures of a savannah, along with forests of various kinds (tropical, deciduous, coniferous) and a desert were shown to natives of the Nigerian rainforest aged 8 to over 70. Children chose the savannah as the most desirable place to live or visit. Adults, though, did not prefer any particular environment. Western culture and TV, the authors of the studies argued, modified adults’ innate preferences. Youngsters, though, were less affected by culture and learning. Hence, their choice of a savannah was more spontaneous and natural than older respondents. A preference for a grassland environment and the appeal of landscape paintings are also reflected in the design of public parks. Characterized by

8  EVOLUTIONARY ROOTS 

93

visually open vistas, parks evoke a feeling of tranquility, peacefulness, comfort, safety, and security. Visitors sense that potential hazards and possible risks are reduced if not eliminated. Thus, strollers feel free to explore what lies beyond a curve, along a stream, and behind a hill. (For more on the aesthetic properties of landscapes, see Kaplan, 1987; Smith, Goodmon, & Hester, 2018.) A predilection for landscapes, however, is not without its critics. The Savannah project, for example, omitted mountainous areas, cave dwellings, lake country, coastal areas, inland river lands, deltas, tundras, the arctic, and the subarctic. Not included, too, were changes in environments with the seasons and their affect on the look of the land. Woodlands, for example, lose leaves on trees in the fall and fields are flooded following winter rains (Kaplan, 1987). The study of the world’s most and least liked paintings is criticized for its implicit bias for Western conceptions of art, artistic tastes, and aesthetics (Dissanayake, 1998b). Objected to as well was the study’s reliance on polling and a questionnaire to produce paintings. Pooling isolated and individual preferences results in pseudo- or proto-art (“McArt,” “McPaintings”). The components that make up a work of art when put together do not create a work as a whole; paintings are not “built” by collecting isolated verbal replies. The “most wanted pictures” study is also criticized for demonstrating the power of the calendar industry (“wall art”) in influencing pictorial tastes (Danto in Wypijewski, 1997). The poll taken by Komar and Melamid reflects a familiarity with the art that hangs in homes, on greeting cards, and on the pages of calendars. Thus, preferences for savannah-like representations in art, especially the mass-produced kind, fulfill European or Western learned conventions of what paintings should look like. This last objection, though, does not easily account for children’s preferences for a savannah environment. Further, the criticism can be taken as augmenting rather than diminishing Komar and Melamid’s study. Calendar art throughout the world is driven by the same evolutionary forces that lead to a preference for landscapes, outdoor scenes, and portrayals of nature, as mass-produced paintings do. They are reminiscent of the Pleistocene era when early humans roamed the land. A more general criticism of the evolutionary origins of paintings is that people also like cityscapes and street scenes, subjects that do not hark back to our biological heritage. What is the evolutionary basis of abstract modern paintings, “ugly” works that disturb, and the avant-garde? (But see my

94 

M. S. LINDAUER

later comments about contemporary art and the “dark” side of evolution, Chap. 13.) A painting can also be liked for its own sake rather than for its presumed basis in heredity. Difficult to explain within an evolutionary framework, too, are changes in preferences for subjects, treatments, and styles within and between cultures and across time. Problematic, too, are individual differences in artistic tastes, as well as those due to class, gender, and education. Difficult to account for in biological terms are artists who differ in their choice of subjects, and media, along with shifts in style as they age (Lindauer, 2003). In general, an evolutionary explanation of the kinds of art produced and preferred, especially landscapes, does not take into account the influence of history, custom, tradition, and culture. The evolutionary thesis is only one, albeit an important one, of several possible determinants of the origins and role of art. Not every kind of painting has evolutionary roots, adaptive purposes, or facilitates survival. Nor do the same paintings have identical effects, interpretations, or responses. If art were more or less fixed, rooted in our genes, and basically unchanged from 40,000 or so years ago, it is difficult to explain how new art would be possible or accepted. No one approach, evolutionary or otherwise, can answer every question about paintings—or anything else, for that matter (J. Carroll, 1998; Layton, 1981/1991; Symons, 1995). An emphasis on the role of evolution, biology, and heredity is not to deny the role of socialization, learning, and socio-economic factors. All play a part, not one or the other exclusively. In conclusion, artistic impulses are probably rooted in evolution but are directed and modified by societal values, beliefs, and attitudes as well as by economic, historical, and other factors. Class, gender, and race, for example, temper and direct an inborn need for artistic expression, and the biological inclinations of artists are given form and content by traditions, customs, and experiences. This is why different types of art, changes in styles, and variations in aesthetic tastes occur over time and place. Artistic outcomes, whether for popular or traditional works, for mass-produced or museum paintings, reflect environmental influences as well as evolutionary pressures. Studies on the evolutionary basis for art have methodological as well as conceptual shortcomings. Nonetheless, they advance the hypotheses that our ancestors had a strong preference for landscape-like settings; that this is universal and innate; and helps explain the popularity of natural settings,

8  EVOLUTIONARY ROOTS 

95

scenes of nature, and parklands in both life and paintings, whether traditional or popular, museum-caliber or mass-produced. The latter, though, harks back to ancient sources more directly, clearly, and obviously than modern paintings. The evolutionary argument posed here for the origins and appeal of the popular arts in general and landscapes in particular, especially the mass-­ produced variety, will be drawn upon again in discussing an everyday aesthetics (Chap. 13). But prior to taking that up, the following chapters summarize a series of original studies that examined people’s responses to mass-produced paintings and compared them to museum examples.

References Appleton, J. (1988.) Prospects and refuges revisited. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 27–44). NY: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published 1984). Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5–28. Carroll, J. (1995). Evolution and literary theory. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. Carroll, J. (1998). Steven Pinker’s cheesecake for the mind. Philosophy and Literature, 22, 478–485. Dissanayake, E. (1995). Chimera, sprandel, or adaptation: Conceptualizing art in human evolution. Human Values: An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 6, 99–118. Dissanayake, E. (1996). Darwin meets literary theory: Critical discussion. Philosophy and Literature, 20, 229–239. Dissanayake, E. (1998a). Komar and Melamid discover Pleistocene taste. Philosophy and Literature, 22, 486–496. Dissanayake, E. (1998b). The beginnings of artful form. Surface Design Journal, 22, 4–5. Dutton, D. (2003a). Authenticity in art. In J. Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of aesthetics. New York: Oxford University Press. Dutton, D. (2003b). Aesthetics and evolutionary psychology. In J.  Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook for aesthetics (pp.  1–11). New  York: Oxford University Press. Dutton, D. (2009). The art instinct: Beauty, pleasure, and human evolution. New York: Oxford University Press/Bloomsbury Press. Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (2009). Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 42, 479–493. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013916509341244

96 

M. S. LINDAUER

Fisher, M., & Meredith, T. (2012). An evolutionary-guided tour of Western paintings 1400–1892. The Evolutionary Review. Retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/299260296 Gibson, J. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Hatcher, E. P. (1999). Art as culture: An introduction to the anthropology of art. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. (Originally published 1985). Kamhi, M. M. (2006). Modernism, postmodernism, or neither? A fresh look at “fine art”. Arts Education Policy Review, 107, 31–38. https://doi. org/10.3200/AEPR.107.5.31-38.ch Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preferences from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3–32. Kettlewell, N. (1988). The examination of preferences for subject matter in paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 59–65. Layton, R. (1991). The anthropology of art. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published 1981). Retrieved from http://sflib1. sfpl.org/record=b1303473~S1 Lindauer, M. S. (2003). Aging, Creativity, and Art. New York: Kluwer/Springer. Mealey, L., & Theis, P. (1995). The relationship between mood and preferences among natural landscapes: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 247–256. Nadal, M., & Gomez-Puerto, G. (2014). Evolutionary approaches to art and aesthetics. In P. Tinio & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp.  167–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139207058.010 Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1995). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp.  555–580). New  York: Oxford University Press. Pinker, S. (1999). How the mind works. New York: Norton. Smith, P.  L., Goodmon, L.  R., & Hester, S. (2018). The Burtynsky effect: Aesthetic reactions to landscape photographs that vary in natural features. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 34–49. Symons, D. (1995). On the use and misuse of Darwinism in the study of human behavior. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 137–162). New York: Oxford University Press. Thornhill, R. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics informs traditional aesthetics. In K.  Grammer & E.  Voland (Eds.), Evolutionary aesthetics (pp.  9–38). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Wypijewski, J. (Ed.). (1997). Painting by numbers: Komar and Melamid’s scientific guide to art. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

PART IV

Studies of Mass-Produced Original Paintings

CHAPTER 9

An Overview of the Studies

Abstract  A number of researchable questions about mass-produced original paintings are introduced. Eleven original studies by the author are summarized. They focus on (1) mass-produced paintings, (2) comparisons between mass-produced and matched museum paintings, and (3) the ability to recognize the two kinds of paintings. The studies also examined the role of age, gender, art background, and setting in responding to both kinds of paintings. A table outlines the studies. Keywords  Mass-produced original paintings, studies of • Museum paintings, research • Mass-produced and museum paintings, compared • Mass-produced and museum painting, recognition of The relevance, importance, and legitimacy of mass-produced original paintings lie in their connection to the popular arts, the visual kinds in particular; their place in popular culture, history, and evolution; and studies of the popular arts, mainly by sociologists but also a few ­ ­psychologists. However, much of what I have reported about mass-produced paintings, both positively and negatively, is indirect, based on informal, anecdotal, qualitative, and compelling examples; discussions by scholars and other academics; and cogent arguments. While these are interesting and useful, empirical evidence is absent. An early critique of © The Author(s) 2020 M. S. Lindauer, Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3_9

99

100 

M. S. LINDAUER

popular  culture studies is applicable here. “[C]ontrolled observation, surveys, and experimental research [are] infrequent. [There is] little analysis using quantification and statistical analysis” (Stevenson, 1977, p.  797). Contrast the relatively informal information about mass-produced originals I have presented in these pages with the many scientifically rigorous studies of other popular visual art forms, like TV and the movies (e.g., Simonton, 2004). The plain fact is that there are no studies that are primarily addressed to mass-produced paintings. Thus, many questions remain. How strong is their appeal and what is it based on? Is it subject matter? Colors that complement a room’s furniture? To what extent does their attraction depend on art background? Gender? Age? Importantly, how do viewers’ reactions to mass-produced paintings compare to museum examples? Are the two kinds of paintings evaluated differently, as one might expect? Some answers might come from shoppers who buy mass-produced paintings, managers of stores that sell them, and viewers who compare them to museum examples. However, no such inquiries have been conducted. To address these questions and others, 11 studies and 4 informal surveys were conducted in homes and controlled settings among shoppers, store owners, and viewers of mass-produced and museum paintings (Lindauer, 1990, 1991a, 1991b). Mass-produced paintings were the sole focus of five studies and four surveys (Series I in Table 9.1). Viewers’ preferences were obtained, for example, by asking them if they liked the paintings, among other measures. Mass-produced and museum paintings were compared in four other studies, generally in terms related to preferences (Series II). Viewers’ ability to recognize mass-produced and museum paintings was also examined (Series III). The influence of art background was investigated, too. To what extent, if any, did knowledge about art (or lack thereof) affect the responses to the paintings? Studied, too, was the influence of the settings in which the paintings were judged (viewers’ homes, in stores, in a mall, on the street). For the details of the studies—the number of paintings, artists, and viewers; descriptions of the research participants; the methods and procedures used; and the detailed results and statistics—consult the published reports (Lindauer, 1990, 1991a, 1991b). With non-specialists and nonprofessional readers in mind, only the major findings of these studies are summarized here; details are largely omitted or sketched in.1 The general pattern in most studies follows, based largely on Study 1 in Table 9.1. Forty-four mass-produced original paintings, the entire inventory of a retailer who specialized in this kind of art, were presented for

9  AN OVERVIEW OF THE STUDIES 

101

Table 9.1  The studies of mass-produced paintings Mass-produced paintings Series I Study 1 Evaluative and cognitive ratings of 44 paintings on 6 scales 1a Replication of Study 1: Preference ratings only 2a Interviews of managers of two 2b stores 2c Interviews of shoppers 2d Survey of paintings in a store 3a Age differences: Students and parents 3b Age differences: Students and senior citizens 4 Art, dance, and no art background

Major results Paintings were positively rated Paintings were liked Importance of color Importance of color Predominance of land- and sea-scapes Paintings were equally liked by both age groups Paintings were liked by both age groups but more by older viewers Paintings were equally liked by art, dance, and non-art majors

Mass-produced and museum paintings compared Series II 5 Paired examples: Liking 6 Unpaired examples: Good-bad judgments 7

Paired examples: Liking by shoppers

8

Evaluations (3 kinds)

Both kinds of paintings were equally liked Mass-produced paintings tended to be judged as better examples of art than museum works Mass-produced paintings tended to be liked more than examples of museum art; gender was a factor Both kinds of art were equally and positively evaluated

Recognition: Mass-produced and museum paintings, paired and unpaired Series III 9 Recognition of unpaired works

10

Recognition of paired works

Both kinds of paintings were correctly identified; mass-produced works tended to do better Both kinds of paintings were correctly identified; mass-produced works tended to do better

viewing.2 Depending on the study, they were the original canvases, photographs of them (enlarged and mounted as posters), or color slides. Nearly all the paintings were realistic (representational) in content and style. Most

102 

M. S. LINDAUER

(34 or 77%) had nature as their main theme, land- and seascapes or a combination of the two. Many of these (18 or 53%) included non-humans (animals, houses) or a few people (hunters, Indians) but were not the primary subjects. The remaining paintings (10) were equally divided between still-lifes and cityscapes; several of the latter were impressionistic in style; one painting was “Oriental” in treatment. Not included were portraits and modern/abstract (non-representational) works; only a relatively few of these subjects were stocked in the store from which the paintings were taken. Excluded, too, were blatantly non-­museum examples, such as portraits of Elvis Presley, tigers on silk, and posters of celebrities; photographs were also omitted. Paintings identical to those used but in different sizes, mattings, frames, and prices were not shown. The paintings were rated on several scales (using 7 points or fewer, depending on the study). Four polar opposite scales emphasized affective reactions: (1) how much a painting was liked; (2) how good the painting was; (3) whether the painting would be recommended for museum purchase; and (4) willingness to hang the painting in one’s home. Also rated were (5) familiarity with the work and (6) complexity. Additional scales and measures were used in some studies. As many as 48 viewers or as few as 13 participated in a study; the total number across all studies was 310 (Median = 30 per study). Gender was about equally divided in each study unless otherwise noted. Education and art background were also recorded, based on written self-reports or ratings completed either at the beginning or at the  end of the study. Knowledge about art and artists among the participants was usually little or none but there were exceptions, as noted. Participants ranged widely in age and are reported when relevant. The art was viewed in a number of different places, depending on the study. Some participants were tested individually, others in groups; the latter were either relatively small or large in size. The amount of time spent looking at a work varied, depending on the study; it was either controlled or not. In Study 1, for example, each slide was presented for 30 seconds during which time it was rated, followed immediately by the next slide. The main points of each of the studies are summarized in Table 9.1. The two main findings of these studies, reported subsequently, is that mass-­ produced original paintings were liked, and as much as museum examples. Presumably these results hold for people in general. The studies,  overall, are objective, empirical, and quantitative. However,  they are not meant to detract from or diminish subjective,

9  AN OVERVIEW OF THE STUDIES 

103

qualitative, and humanistic approaches to art. Thus, participants were also asked about their reactions in interviews and completed questionnaires. Nor is it the intent of these studies to ignore over 100 years of scientific research on museum paintings. Rather, my goal was to encourage further studies of mass-produced original paintings in order to advance our understanding of the psychological and aesthetic reactions to a popular art by unsophisticated audiences.

Notes 1. The studies were conducted, in large part, while I was on sabbatical at Bowling Green State University, with the support and encouragement of the late Dr. Ray Browne, then Chairman of the Popular Culture Department, and the resources of the Popular Culture Library. At the time, I held a Senior Postdoctoral Fellowship from the National Institute on Aging at the Institute of Gerontology, the University of Michigan. My thanks to Ms. Laurie Boyce, manager of “Affordable Original Art,” Rochester, New York, without whose cooperation the research reported here would not have been possible. She allowed me to interview her and customers, informed me about the business side of selling mass-produced art, and permitted the photographing of her stock for the studies. Thanks to James Dusen, SUNY, College at Brockport, for photographing the paintings and to Norm Frisch for his tabular and graphical work. Most of the research reported here was taken from my published studies (Lindauer, 1990, 1991a, 1991b). The results of unpublished investigation, mainly preliminary and exploratory in nature, are also reported, as are papers presented at conferences. Appreciation and thanks to the following for their assistance: Beth Aiken, John C. Clark, Vince Gonzalez, Lynn Harvey, Arlene Kim, Kathy Long, Marie Massa, Margaret Meyers, Bill Pagano, and Dennis Rifanburg. A word about statistics: Several studies were conducted under naturalistic conditions, for example, in shopping malls and people’s homes, rather than laboratory-like settings. These findings should be considered tentative and provisional. Consequently, for offsite studies, more liberal statistical standards than is usually the case in psychology were used and are reported as “trends.” (In the language of probability, they are p