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

Martin S. Lindauer

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9783030516406
• eBook ISBN: 9783030516413
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Art General
• Index: Psychology

This book examines the contribution of mass-produced original painting to the psychology of art, psychological aesthetics, and art criticism. Mass-produced paintings are an inexpensive, accessible, ubiquitous, and hand-painted popular art by anonymous artists or teams. Sold in an array of outlets, ranging from flea markets to shopping centers to cruise ships, they decorate hotels, offices, and homes. Addressed is their neglect in current scholarship in favor of a nearly exclusive investigation of the high arts and their audiences, as represented by museum paintings. Lindauer contextualizes his analysis by tracing the historical origins of this type of painting, popular art in general, and their evolutionary trajectory, exploring issues including: the impact of art and artists' creativity on viewers; the overemphasis on originality and name recognition; what is art and who can be called an artist; and the extension of aesthetics to include an everyday kind.
The book concludes with directions for future research in the popular and traditional arts, the psychology of art, and, more broadly, the ties that transcend barriers between science, the arts, and the humanities. It will appeal to students and scholars from across the fields of psychology, sociology, philosophy, art history, and cultural, media and communication studies.

Part IIntroduction

© The Author(s) 2020

M. S. LindauerMass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aestheticshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51641-3_1

Begin Abstract

1. What This Book Is About

Martin S. Lindauer¹

(1)

State University of New York, College at Brockport, Brockport, NY, USA

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 paintingsThe psychology of artPsychological aestheticsThe popular and traditional artsScience and the humanitiesMultidisciplinary approaches

End Abstract

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)

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.

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.

Five examples of mass-produced original paintings

Fig. 1.1

Seascape

Fig. 1.2

Watercolor and ink Chinese landscape

Fig. 1.3

Stilllife

Fig. 1.4

Rustic landscape

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.”

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...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• Part I. Introduction
• Part II. Critical Issues
• Part III. Two Larger Contexts for Mass-Produced Original Paintings: The Popular Arts and Evolution
• Part IV. Studies of Mass-Produced Original Paintings
• Part V. Mass-Produced Original Paintings, the Psychology of Art, and an Everyday Aesthetics
• Back Matter