Not only does the art market include human and nonhuman creators, it also incorporates technologically augmented artists, called cyborgs. They use wearables, sensors, chips, and even new organs to process various stimuli, such as electromagnetic radiation, atmospheric pressure, or ultraviolet rays, to produce artworks. Little is known however, how the objects produced by them are perceived by the art recipients. This paper applies an experimental study with 373 non-experts in the field of art. The results show that the perceived value of the painting depends on the type of agent and on the context of the evaluation. The price of objects created by a human artist is significantly higher if the context cue is the price of the canvas made by humanoid robot than another human. People value cyborg's artwork similarly to human-generated artwork when contextual cue is human, and similarly to robot-generated artwork when contextual cue is humanoid robot.
AlvarezM. F. (2019). Animals, postmodern feminist theories and artistic practices. Boletin de Arte-Uma, 20, 135–146.
2.
Anthonisen-AñabeitiaI.MagureguiI. (2020). An approach to the conservation of digital printing: Technologies and materials employed by artists. Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 43(2), 162–173.
3.
ArielliE. (2012). Contrast and assimilation in aesthetic judgments of visual artworks. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 30(1), 59–74.
4.
BaddeleyA. D. (2002). Is working memory still working?European Psychologist, 7, 85–97.
5.
BenjaminW. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. London: Penguin.
6.
BlessH.SchwarzN. (1998). Context effects in political judgment: Assimilation and contrast as a function of categorization processes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 195–172.
7.
BlessH.WänkeM. (2000). Can the same information be typical and atypical? How perceived typicality moderates assimilation and contrast in evaluative judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 306–314.
8.
CandelaG.ScorcuA. E. (1997). A price index for art market auctions. Journal of Cultural Economics, 21(3), 175–196.
9.
CarvalkoJ. (2012). The techno-human shell-a jump in the evolutionary gap. Mechanicsburg: Sunbury Press.
10.
CaveS.DihalD.DillonD. (2020). AI narratives: A history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines. Oxford: University Press.
11.
ChaiF.PengK.YuF. (2016). Pricing aesthetics: How cognitive perception affects bidding for artworks. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(4), 541–554.
12.
ClarkJ. (2004). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
ClynesM. E.KlineN. S. (1960). Cyborgs and space. Astronautics, September.
14.
DeCookJ. R. (2020). A [White] Cyborg’s Manifesto: the overwhelmingly Western ideology driving technofeminist theory. Media, Culture & Society, 1158–1167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720957891
15.
DuttonD. (2003). Authenticity in art. In LevinsonJ. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of aesthetics, 258–274. New York: New York University Press.
16.
FortunaP.GorbaniukO. (2022). What is behind the buzzword for experts and laymen: Representation of “artificial intelligence” in the IT-professionals’ and non-professionals’ minds. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.5473
17.
FortunaP.ModlińskiA. (2021). A(I)rtist or counterfeiter? artificial intelligence as (D)Evaluating factor on the art market. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 51, 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2021.1887032
18.
FullerS. (2021a). Cyborg persons: humanity played in a different key. Postdigital Science and Education, 3, 668–677.
GangadharbatlaH. (2021). The role of AI attribution knowledge in the evaluation of artwork. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237421994697
21.
GinsburghV.MeiJ.MosesM. (2006). The computation of prices indices. In GinsburghV. A.ThrosbyD. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of art and culture, 947–979. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
22.
GladdenM. (2016). Neural implants as gateways to digital-physical ecosystems and posthuman socioeconomic interaction. In JonakŁ.JuchniewiczN.WłochR. (Eds.), Digital ecosystems: Society in the digital age (pp. 85–98). Warszawa: Digital Economy Lab, University of Warsaw.
23.
GrayH. M.GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science (New York, N.Y.), 315(5812), 619.
24.
GulerS. D.GannonM.SicchioK. (2016). Superhumans and cyborgs. In GulerS. D.GannonM.SicchioK. (Eds.), Crafting wearables (pp. 145–159). Berkeley, CA: Apress.
25.
HairJ.AndersonR.TathamR.BlackW. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26.
HarbissonN. (2019). Hearing colors: My life experience as a cyborg. In PavieX. (Ed.) Creativity, imagination and innovation (pp. 1–10). Singapore: ESSEC Business School.
27.
Hawley-DolanA.WinnerE. (2011). Seeing the mind behind the art: People can distinguish abstract expressionist paintings from highly similar paintings by children, chimps, monkeys, and elephants. Psychological Science, 22(4), 435–441.
28.
Hawley-DolanA.YoungL. (2013). Whose mind matters more—the agent or the artist? An investigation of ethical and aesthetic evaluations. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e70759.
29.
HongJ. W. (2018). Bias in perception of art produced by artificial intelligence. In International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 290–303). Springer, Cham.
30.
HongJ. W.CurranN. M. (2019). Artificial intelligence, artists, and art: attitudes toward artwork produced by humans vs. artificial intelligence. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications, 15(2s), Article 58, 1–16.
31.
IsrafilzadeK. (2020). What’s in A name? Experiment on the aesthetic judgments of art produced by artificial intelligence. Journal of Arts, 3(2), 143–158.
32.
JuckerJ. L.BarrettJ. L.WlodarskiR. (2014). ‘I just don’t get it’: Perceived Artists’ intentions affect art evaluations. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 32(2), 149–182.
33.
KrugerJ.WirtzD.Van BovenL.AltermattT. W. (2004). The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 91–98.
34.
LiteratI. (2017). Facilitating creative participation and collaboration in online spaces: The impact of social and technological factors in enabling sustainable engagement. Digital Creativity, 28(2), 73–88.
35.
Łukaszewicz AlcarazA. (2019). Cyborgs’ perception, cognition, society, environment, and ethics: Interview with Neil Harbisson and Moon Ribas, 14 October 2016, Ace Hotel, New York City. Journal of Posthuman Studies, 3(1), 60–73.
36.
Łukaszewicz AlcarazA. (2020). Are cyborgs persons? an account of futurist ethics. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
37.
Meyers-LevyJ.SternthalB. (1993). A two-factor explanation of assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), 359–368.
38.
MichaelK.MichaelM. (2013). The future prospects of embedded microchips in humans as unique identifiers: The risks versus the rewards. Media, Culture & Society, 35(1), 78–86.
39.
MoffatD.SandlerM. B. (2019). Approaches in intelligent music production. Arts, 8(4), 125.
40.
MussweilerT.RueterK.EpstudeK. (2004). The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanism of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 832–844.
41.
NewmanG. E.BloomP. (2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originality in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 558–569.
42.
NiestorowiczE.SzubielskaM. (2017). Maszkary i szkarady. Ocena estetyczna klasycznych dzieł malarskich przedstawiających brzydotę. Historia i Kultura, 32, 228–242.
43.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.
44.
PoczobutR. (2015). Transhumanizm a kognitywistyka. Ethos (Berkeley, Calif )28(3(111)), 233–251.
45.
RagotM.MartinN.CojeanS. (2020). AI-generated vs. human artworks. A perception bias towards artificial intelligence?Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382892
46.
RanishR.SorgnerR. S. (2008). Introducing post- and transhumanism. In R. Ranish & R. S. Sorgner (Eds.), Post- and transhumanism. An Introduction (pp. 5–7). Franfurt Main: Peter Lang Edition.
47.
RenneboogL.SpaenjersC. (2013). Buying beauty: On prices and returns in the art market. Management Science, 59(1), 36–53.
48.
RosenS. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.
49.
SchwarzN.BlessH. (1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In MartinL. L.TesserA. (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 217–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
SherifM.TaubD.HovlandC. (1958). Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(2), 150–156.
52.
SmithM.ClarkeJ. J. (2005). Stelarc: The monograph. Cambridge: MIT Press.
53.
SnapperL.OrancC.Hawley-DolanA.NisselJ.WinnerE. (2015). Your kid could not have done that: Even untutored observers can discern intentionality and structure in abstract expressionist art. Cognition, 137, 154–165.
54.
SohnY.ParkY.LinL.JungM. (2020). Eternal recurrence: Development of a 3D water curtain system and real-time projection mapping for a large-scale systems artwork installation. Digital Creativity, 31, 1–10.
55.
StepanovaE. (2019). The impact of color palettes on the prices of paintings. Empirical Economics, 56, 755–773.
56.
TabatabaeiS. (2020). Performing the post-panopticon condition: On the 3rdi project by Wafaa Bilal (2010–2011). Culture, Theory and Critique, 61(4), 1–15.
57.
Thweatt-BatesJ. (2012). Cyborg selves. A theological anthropology of posthuman. New York: Routledge.
58.
TinioP. P. L.SmithJ. K.PottsK. (2010). The object and the mirror: The nature and dynamics of museum tours. International Joumal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 20, 37–52.
59.
WandsB. (2007). Art of the digital age. In B. Wands (Ed.), Art of the digital age (pp. 52–52). London: Thames & Hudson.
