Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


A Chimp Couldn’t Have Created That Painting

• March 08, 2011 • 11:49 AM

New research finds even nonexperts can differentiate between masterful abstract art and similar works painted by a child or an animal. See for yourself with our enclosed art quiz.

Angry dismissals of abstract art are commonly framed by the assertion. “A (blank) could have done that.” The key word in the clichéd complaint is often “child,” “monkey” or “elephant.”

But Jumbo, you’re no Rothko. Newly published research finds that, in spite of our protestations, nonexperts can tell the difference among acclaimed abstract paintings, colorful canvasses created by a nursery school students or residents of the zoo.

“People untrained in visual art see more than they realize when looking at abstract expressionist paintings,” Boston College psychologists Angelina Hawley-Dolan and Ellen Winner report in the journal Psychological Science. Non-aficionados might not like a particular artwork, but in a direct-comparison test, they can usually identify it as the product of human creativity.

The researchers conducted an experiment in which 72 undergraduates — 40 psychology majors and 32 studio art majors — looked at a series of paintings placed side by side. Each pair featured one image taken from an art history textbook (the artists included Mark Rothko and Cy Twombly), and one created by either a young child or one of four types of animal (a monkey, gorilla, chimpanzee or elephant).

“We matched professional and nonprofessional paintings according to various attributes (color, line quality, brushstroke and medium),” Hawley-Dolan and Winner write. “Paired images were presented side by side in PowerPoint on a laptop; as much as possible, the images were equated in size and resolution.”

The first 10 pairs of paintings were presented without labels. For the remaining 20 pairs, the paintings were labeled (“artist,” “child,” “monkey” or “elephant”), but half of those labels were deliberately incorrect.

After viewing each pair of images, the participants were asked “Which do you like more? Why?” and “Which image do you think is the better work of art? Why?” The questions were phrased to obtain separate results for personal preference (which is based in one’s immediate emotional response) and judgment (which is based on cognitive evaluation). Some of the participants then explained how they justified their decisions.

“Both groups chose the professional work significantly more often than would be predicted by chance,” the researchers write. “As predicted, art students preferred professional works more often than did non-art students. However, the two groups’ judgments did not differ.”

When there was no label attached, nonexperts preferred the professional artwork 56 percent of the time; art students did so 62 percent of the time. But when it came to judging which was the better piece of art, the two groups were very much of one mind: The art students chose the professional piece 67.5 percent of the time, the nonart students 65.5 percent of the time.

“In the aesthetic domain,” the researchers note, “people can recognize that a work is good, but still not like it.”

The strength of that recognition was evident from the almost-nonexistent impact of the labels. When the works were correctly labeled, nonexperts preferred the professional work 79 percent of the time. But when the labels were incorrect, the nonart students (like their art student counterparts) tended to discard them, judging the professional (but wrongly labeled) work as their preferred piece 62.5 percent of the time.

“Analysis of the justifications revealed that when participants preferred the professional works, and judged them as better, they did so because they saw more intention, planning and skill in those works than those done by nonprofessionals,” Hawley-Dolan and Winner write.

This suggests a blue squiggle created by an artist as a means of expression is fundamentally different than a blue squiggle created randomly by a monkey holding a paint brush — and more often than not, viewers can make the distinction. (One wonders whether this will also hold true for the computer-generated music created by David Cope’s software.)

“People may say that a child could have made a work by a recognized abstract expressionist,” the researchers note, “but when forced to choose between a work by a child and one by a master such as Rothko, they are drawn to the Rothko.” This suggests that, for all the sneering done by cynics such as Morley Safer, nonrepresentational art truly does communicate — even if not everyone likes the message.

“People untrained in visual art see more then they realize when looking at abstract expressionist paintings,” the researchers conclude. “People see the mind behind the art.”

 

“Like” Miller-McCune on Facebook.

Follow Miller-McCune on Twitter.

Add Miller-McCune.com news to your site.

Subscribe to Miller-McCune

Tom Jacobs
Staff writer Tom Jacobs is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience at daily newspapers. He has served as a staff writer for The Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. His work has also appeared in The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Ventura County Star.

More From Tom Jacobs

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

November 26 • 4:00 PM

Turmoil at JPMorgan

Examiners are reportedly blocked from doing their job as “London Whale” trades blow up.


November 26 • 2:00 PM

Rich Kids Are More Likely to Be Working for Dad

Nepotism is alive and well, especially for the well-off.


November 26 • 12:00 PM

How Do You Make a Living, Taxidermist?

Taxidermist Katie Innamorato talks to Noah Davis about learning her craft, seeing it become trendy, and the going-rate for a “Moss Fox.”


November 26 • 10:28 AM

Attitudes About Race Affect Actions, Even When They Don’t

Tiny effects of attitudes on individuals’ actions pile up quickly.


November 26 • 10:13 AM

Honeybees Touring America


November 26 • 10:00 AM

Understanding Money

In How to Speak Money, John Lanchester explains how the monied people talk about their mountains of cash.


November 26 • 8:00 AM

The Exponential Benefits of Eating Less

Eating less food—whole food and junk food, meat and plants, organic and conventional, GMO and non-GMO—would do a lot more than just better our personal health.


November 26 • 6:00 AM

The Incorruptible Bodies of Saints

Their figures were helped along by embalming, but, somehow, everyone forgot that part.


November 26 • 4:00 AM

The Geography of Real Estate Markets Is Shifting Under Our Feet

Policies aimed at unleashing supply in order to make housing more affordable are relying on outdated models.



November 25 • 4:00 PM

Is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Doing Enough to Monitor Wall Street?

Bank President William Dudley says supervision is stronger than ever, but Democratic senators are unconvinced: “You need to fix it, Mr. Dudley, or we need to get someone who will.”


November 25 • 3:30 PM

Cultural Activities Help Seniors Retain Health Literacy

New research finds a link between the ability to process health-related information and regular attendance at movies, plays, and concerts.


November 25 • 12:00 PM

Why Did Doctors Stop Giving Women Orgasms?

You can thank the rise of the vibrator for that, according to technology historian Rachel Maines.


November 25 • 10:08 AM

Geography, Race, and LOLs

The online lexicon spreads through racial and ethnic groups as much as it does through geography and other traditional linguistic measures.


November 25 • 10:00 AM

If It’s Yellow, Seriously, Let It Mellow

If you actually care about water and the future of the species, you’ll think twice about flushing.


November 25 • 8:00 AM

Sometimes You Should Just Say No to Surgery

The introduction of national thyroid cancer screening in South Korea led to a 15-fold increase in diagnoses and a corresponding explosion of operations—but no difference in mortality rates. This is a prime example of over-diagnosis that’s contributing to bloated health care costs.



November 25 • 6:00 AM

The Long War Between Highbrow and Lowbrow

Despise The Avengers? Loathe the snobs who despise The Avengers? You’re not the first.


November 25 • 4:00 AM

Are Women More Open to Sex Than They Admit?

New research questions the conventional wisdom that men overestimate women’s level of sexual interest in them.


November 25 • 2:00 AM

The Geography of Innovation, or, Why Almost All Japanese People Hate Root Beer

Innovation is not a product of population density, but of something else entirely.


November 24 • 4:00 PM

Federal Reserve Announces Sweeping Review of Its Big Bank Oversight

The Federal Reserve Board wants to look at whether the views of examiners are being heard by higher-ups.



November 24 • 2:00 PM

That Catcalling Video Is a Reminder of Why Research Methods Are So Important

If your methods aren’t sound then neither are your findings.


November 24 • 12:00 PM

Yes, Republicans Can Still Win the White House

If the economy in 2016 is where it was in 2012 or better, Democrats will likely retain the White House. If not, well….


November 24 • 11:36 AM

Feeling—Not Being—Wealthy Cuts Support for Economic Redistribution

A new study suggests it’s relative wealth that leads people to oppose taxing the rich and giving to the poor.


Follow us


Attitudes About Race Affect Actions, Even When They Don’t

Tiny effects of attitudes on individuals' actions pile up quickly.

Geography, Race, and LOLs

The online lexicon spreads through racial and ethnic groups as much as it does through geography and other traditional linguistic measures.

Feeling—Not Being—Wealthy Cuts Support for Economic Redistribution

A new study suggests it's relative wealth that leads people to oppose taxing the rich and giving to the poor.

Sufferers of Social Anxiety Disorder, Your Friends Like You

The first study of friends' perceptions suggest they know something's off with their pals but like them just the same.

Standing Up for My Group by Kicking Yours

Members of a minority ethnic group are less likely to express support for gay equality if they believe their own group suffers from discrimination.

The Big One

One in two United States senators and two in five House members who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists. November/December 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.