A key question in scholarship on evaluation is the extent to which the role of social construction is constrained by objective reality. This question is addressed in an analysis of the evaluation of artistic excellence. In an online experiment, we manipulate the subjective social status (both artwork and artist) and the degree of aesthetic complexity of the artwork. The results confirm the independent role of the objective aesthetic factor in art evaluation. Most importantly, we document an interaction between subjective and objective factors whereby aesthetic complexity serves as a credibility lever, amplifying or attenuating the credibility of the status labels. Excessive praise (i.e., a masterpiece by a world-famous artist) tends to reduce the appreciation of aesthetically simple artworks when status labels are questioned. However, the association of aesthetic complexity with the capacity to provoke thought may encourage respondents to take the paintings more seriously. Complexity is typically discouraged for standard products, but it can be instrumental in the process of singularization by stimulating visual exploration and sustaining interest over time.
AbbottAndrew D.1988. The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BaxandallMichael. 1980. The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany. New Haven: Yale University Press.
3.
BeardsleyMonroe C.1958. Aesthetics: Problems in the Theory of Criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
4.
BeckerHoward S.1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
5.
BeckerHoward S.1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
BeckertJens. 2011. “Where Do Prices Come from? Sociological Approaches to Price Formation.” Socio-Economic Review9:757–86.
7.
BergerJosephWebsterMurrayJr.2006. “Expectations, Status, and Behavior.” Pp. 268–300 in Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, edited by BurkeP. J.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
8.
BerlyneDaniel E.1974. Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics. New York: Wiley.
9.
BeltingHans. 2000. “L’Art Moderne à l’Epreuve du Mythe du Chef-d’Oeuvre.” Pp. 47–66 in Qu’Est-Ce Qu’un Chef-d’Oeuvre?, edited by GalardJ.WaschekM.Paris: Musée du Louvre/Gallimard.
10.
BikhchandaniSushilHirshleiferDavidWelchIvo. 1992. “A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades.” Journal of Political Economy100:992–1026.
11.
BirkinGuy. 2010. Aesthetic Complexity: Practice and Perception in Art & Design. PhD dissertation, Nottingham Trent University.
12.
BourdieuPierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
13.
BourdieuPierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
14.
CavesRichard E.2000. Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15.
CentolaDamonWillerRobbMacyMichael. 2005. “The Emperor’s Dilemma: A Computational Model of Self-Enforcing Norms.” American Journal of Sociology110:1009–40.
16.
CorrellShelly J.RidgewayCecilia L.ZuckermanEzra W.JankSharonJordan-BlochSara. 2017. “It’s the Conventional Thought That Counts: How Third-Order Inference Produces Status Advantage.” American Sociological Review82:297–327.
17.
CowlingElizabeth. 2002. Picasso: Style and Meaning. London: Phaidon Press.
18.
DantoArthur C.2000. “L’Idée de Chef d’Oeuvre dans l’Art Contemporain.” Pp. 137–54 in Qu’Est-Ce Qu’un Chef-d’Oeuvre?, edited by GalardJ.WaschekM.Paris: Musée du Louvre/Gallimard.
19.
DantzigCharles. 2013. A Propos des Chefs-d’Oeuvre: Collection Bleue. Paris: Grasset.
20.
DaviesStephen. 1991. Definitions of Art. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
21.
DickieGeorge. 1974. Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
22.
DiMaggioPaul J.1987. “Classification in Art.” American Sociological Review52:440–55.
23.
DodgsonNeil A.2008. “Regularity and Randomness in Bridget Riley’s Early Op-Art.” Pp. 107–14 in Proceedings of the Fourth Eurographics Workshop on Computational Aesthetics in Graphics, Visualization, and Imaging, edited by BrownP.CunninghamD. W.InterranteV.McCormackJ.Aire-la-Ville: Eurographics Association.
24.
DonderiDon C.2006. “Visual Complexity: A Review.” Psychological Bulletin132:73–97.
25.
DurandRodolpheRaoHayagreevaMoninPhilippe. 2007. “Code and Conduct in French Cuisine: Impact of Code Changes on External Evaluations.” Strategic Management Journal28:455–72.
26.
ElgammalAhmedSalehBabak. 2015. “Quantifying Creativity in Art Networks.” Retrieved October12, 2017 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00711).
27.
EngelMartin1967 “Frank Lloyd Wright and Cubism: A Study in Ambiguity” American Quarterly19:24–38.
28.
GalardJean. 2000. “Une Question Capitale pour l’Esthétique.” Pp. 5–24 in Qu’Est-Ce Qu’un Chef-d’Oeuvre?, edited by GalardJ.WaschekM.Paris: Musée du Louvre/ Gallimard.
29.
GrafLaura K. M.LandwehrJan R.2015. “A Dual-Process Perspective on Fluency-Based Aesthetics: The Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking.” Personality and Social Psychology Review19:395–410.
30.
HannanMichael T.PólosLászlóCarrollGlenn R.2007. Social Codes and Ecologies: Logics of Organization Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31.
HayesAndrew F.2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
32.
HeinichNathalie. 1998. Ce Que l’Art Fait à la Sociologie. Paris: Aux Editions de Minuit.
33.
HekkertPaulSneldersDirkVan WieringenPiet C. W.2003. “Most Advanced, yet Acceptable: Typicality and Novelty as Joint Predictors of Aesthetic Preference in Industrial Design.” British Journal of Psychology94:111–24.
34.
JacobsMichael. 2015. Everything Is Happening: Journey into a Painting. London: Granta Books.
35.
KarpikLucien. 2010. Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
36.
KolmogorovAndrey N.1965. “Three Approaches to the Quantitative Definition of Information.” Problems of Information Transmission1:1–7.
37.
Kunst-WilsonWilliam R.ZajoncRobert B.1980. “Affective Discrimination of Stimuli That Cannot Be Recognized.” Science207:557–58.
38.
KuranTimur. 1995. “The Inevitability of Future Revolutionary Surprises.” American Journal of Sociology100:1528–51.
39.
KuwabaraKoAnthonyDeniseHorneChristine. 2017. “In the Shade of a Forest Status, Reputation, and Ambiguity in an Online Microcredit Market.” Social Science Research64:96–118.
40.
LangGladys E.LangKurt. 1988. “Recognition and Renown: The Survival of Artistic Reputation.” American Journal of Sociology94:79–109.
41.
LederHelmutBelkeBennoOeberstAndriesAugustinDorothee. 2004. “A Model of Aesthetic Appreciation and Aesthetic Judgments.” British Journal of Psychology95:489–508.
42.
LynnFreda B.PodolnyJoel M.TaoLin. 2009. “A Sociological (De)Construction of the Relationship between Status and Quality.” American Journal of Sociology115:755–804.
43.
LynnFreda B.WalkerMark H.PetersonColin. 2016. “Is Popular More Likeable? Choice Status by Intrinsic Appeal in an Experimental Music Market.” Social Psychology Quarterly79:168–80.
44.
MacGregorNeil. 2000 “Chef-d’Oeuvre-Valeur Sûre?” Pp. 67–104 in Qu’Est-Ce Qu’un Chef-d’Oeuvre?, edited by GalardJ.WaschekM.Paris: Musée du Louvre/ Gallimard.
45.
PhillipsDamon J.ZuckermanEzra W.2001. “Middle-Status Conformity: Theoretical Restatement and Empirical Demonstration in Two Markets.” American Journal of Sociology107:379–430.
46.
PodolnyJoel M.1994. “Market Uncertainty and the Social Character of Economic Exchange.” Administrative Science Quarterly39:458–83.
47.
PreacherKristopher J.HayesAndrew F.2008. “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models.” Behavior Research Methods40:879–91.
48.
RidgewayCecilia L.2001. “Gender, Status, and Leadership.” Journal of Social Issues57:637–55.
49.
RobertsMarcos N.2007. Complexity and Aesthetic Preference for Diverse Visual Stimuli. PhD dissertation, Universitat de les Illes Balears.
50.
RossmanGabriel. 2014. “The Diffusion of the Legitimate and the Diffusion of Legitimacy.” Sociological Science1:49–69.
51.
SalganikMatthew J.DoddsPeter S.WattsDuncan J.2006. “Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market.” Science311:854–956.
52.
SalganikMatthew J.WattsDuncan J.2008. “Leading the Herd Astray: An Experimental Study of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in an Artificial Cultural Market.” Social Psychology Quarterly71:338–55.
53.
SgourevStoyan V.2013. “How Paris Gave Rise to Cubism (and Picasso): Ambiguity and Fragmentation in Radical Innovation.” Organization Science24:1601–17.
54.
SgourevStoyan V.AlthuizenNiek. 2014. “‘Notable’ or ‘Not Able’: When Are Acts of Inconsistency Rewarded?” American Sociological Review79:282–302.
55.
ShimamuraArthur P.2013. Experiencing Art: In the Brain of the Beholder. New York: Oxford University Press.
56.
SilviaPaul J.2005. “What Is Interesting? Exploring the Appraisal Structure of Interest.” Emotion5:89–102.
57.
UtleyGertje R.2008. “Más Meninas: Through the Looking Glass, Repeatedly.” In Oblidant Velázquez. Las Meninas (exhibition catalogue), Museu Picasso, Barcelona, Spain.
58.
Van MaanenHans. 2009. How to Study Art Worlds. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
59.
VasariGiorgio. [1550] 2006. The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. New York: Modern Library Classics.
60.
VelthuisOlav. 2003. “Symbolic Meanings of Prices: Constructing the Value of Contemporary Art in Amsterdam and New York Galleries.” Theory and Society32:181–215.
61.
WaschekMatthias. 2000. “Le Chef-d’Oeuvre: Un Fait Culturel.” Pp. 25–46 in Qu’Est-Ce Qu’un Chef-d’Oeuvre?, edited by GalardJ.WaschekM.Paris: Musée du Louvre/ Gallimard.
62.
WeickKarl E.1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
63.
WhiteHarrison C.2002. Markets from Networks: Socioeconomic Models of Production. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
64.
WillerRobbKuwabaraKoMacyMichael W.2009. “The False Enforcement of Unpopular Norms.” American Journal of Sociology115:451–90.
65.
WolframStephen. 2002. A New Kind of Science. Champaign: Wolfram Media.
66.
WoodWendyKartenStephen J.1986. “Sex Differences in Interaction Style as a Product of Perceived Sex Differences in Competence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50:341–47.
67.
ZuckermanEzra W.2012. “Construction, Concentration, and (Dis)Continuities in Social Valuations.” Annual Review of Sociology38:223–45.
