This study investigated whether there are any pathways by combining the five dimensions (i.e., naïve image, imagination, story, interestingness, artistry) of the painting with naïve and childlike interest complex that can unify a high artistic aesthetic value and a high market value of this type of painting. We applied children's ratings to measure the artistic aesthetic value and used auction prices to measure the market value of the paintings. The results are analyzed using the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis method to identify the relevant pathways. Our findings suggest that no pathway can achieve both high artistic aesthetic value and high market value. In some pathways, the two types of values even conflict and contradict each other. Using the principle of prioritizing artistic aesthetic value and considering market value, we advocate the adoption of pathways that both achieve high artistic aesthetic value and avoid resulting in non-high market value.
ArmstrongJ. (2010). Aesthetics and painting. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 50(2), 218–221.
2.
AznarJ.GuijiarroF. (2007). Modelling aesthetic variables in the valuation of paintings: An interval goal programming approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 957–963.
3.
BalmerA. (2021). Painting with data: Alternative aesthetics of qualitative research. The Sociological Review, 69(6), 1143–1161.
4.
BenjaminA. (2011). On the image of painting. Research in Phenomenology, 41, 181–205.
5.
DekkerJ. J. H. (2009). Beauty and simplicity: The power of fine art in moral teaching on education in seventeenth-century holland. Journal of Family History, 34(2), 166–188.
6.
DelmasM. A.PekovicS. (2018). Organizational configurations for sustainability and employee productivity: A qualitative comparative analysis approach. Business & Society, 57(1), 216–251.
7.
DelplanqueJ.LoofE. D.JanssensC.VergutsT. (2019). The sound of beauty: How complexity determines aesthetic preference. Acta Psychologica, 192, 146–152.
8.
FissP. C. (2011). Building better casual theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 393–420.
9.
FraibergerS. P.SinatraR.ReschM., et al. (2018). Quantifying reputation and success in art. Science (New York, N.Y.), 362(6416), 825–829.
10.
FreemanD. (2013). Imaginatively experiencing paintings and persons. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 47(1), 36–45.
11.
FreyB. S.PommerehneW. W. (1989). Muses and Markets: Explorations in the Economies of the Arts. Hoboken: Blackwell.
12.
FrickR. W. (1992). Interestingness. British Journal of Psychology, 83(1), 113–128.
13.
FriedenbergJ.LibyB. (2016). Perceived beauty of random texture patterns: A preference for complexity. Acta Psychologica, 16, 41–49.
14.
GauvritN.Soler-ToscanoF.GuidaA. (2017). A preference for some types of complexity comment on “perceived beauty of random texture patterns: A preference of complexity”. Acta Psychologica, 174, 48–53.
15.
GoetzmannW. N. (1993). Accounting for taste: Art and the finacial markets over three centuries. American Economic Review, 83(5), 1370–1376.
16.
GorodeiskyK. (2021). On liking aesthetic value. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 102(2), 261–280.
17.
GreckhamerT. (2016). CEO Compensation in relation to worker compensation across countries: The configurational impact of country-level institutions. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 793–815.
18.
GygliM.GrabnerH.Riemenschneider, et al. (2013). The interestingness of images. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 1633–1640.
19.
HodgsonD. (2004). Ways of seeing: The innocent eye, individual view and visual realism in art. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(12), 3–16.
20.
HoffmannR.CoateB.ChuahS. H., et al. (2021). What makes an artrepreneur?Journal of Cultural Economics, 45, 557–576.
21.
HumphreyN. (1998). Cave art, autism, and the evolution of the human mind. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 8(2), 165–191.
22.
HutterM.ShustermanR. (2006). Value and the valuation of art in economic and aesthetic theory. In GinsburghV.ThrosbyD. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of art and culture (vol. 1, pp. 169–208). North-Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
23.
JohnsonV. (2021). Obituary: Michael Jagamara Nelson (c. 1947–2020) “without the story the painting is nothing”. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art, 21(2), 304–308.
24.
JudgeW. Q.FainshmidtS.BrownJ. L. (2020). Institutional systems for equitable wealth creation: Replication and an update of Judge et al. (2014). Management and Organization Review, 16(1), 5–31.
25.
KleinerF. S. (2009). Gardener’s Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective (13th ed., Vol. II). Boston, MA: Wadswoth Cengage Learning.
26.
LeeJ. (2016). The innocent eye: Why vision is not a cognitive process. Philosophical Psychology, 29(7), 1074–1076.
27.
LouL. L. (2017). Artists’ innocent eye as extended proximal mode of vision. Art & Perception, 6(1), 1–40.
28.
MaM. X.NoussairC. N.RenneboogL. (2022). Colors, emotions, and the auction value of paintings. European Economic Review, 142, 104004.
29.
MatticeS. (2013). Artistry as methodology: Aesthetic experience and Chinese philosophy. Philosophy Compass, 8, 199–209.
30.
MeerP. V. (2022). Imaginal knowing in action research. Action Research, 20(1), 10–26.
31.
MisangyiV. F.AcharyaA. G. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1681–1705.
32.
PénasseJ.RenneboogL.ScheinkmanJ. A. (2021). When a master dies: Speculation and asset float. The Review of Financial Studies, 34(8), 3840–3879.
33.
RadermecherAS. V. E. (2019). Artworks without names: An insight into the market for anonymous paintings. Journal of Cultural Economics, 43, 443–483.
34.
RaginC. C. (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Social Forces, 88(4), 1936–1938.
35.
RenneboogL.SpaenjersC. (2013). Buying beauty: On prices and returns in the art market. Management Science, 59(1), 36–53.
36.
RihouxB.RaginC. C. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques. New York, NY: Sage Publishing.
37.
Rodriguez-ToroC., et al. (2003). Complexity metrics for design (simplicity + simplicity = complexity). Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 217(5), 721–725.
38.
Ruskin, J. (1857/1971). The elements of drawing. Mineola, NY: Dover.
39.
SchneiderC. Q.WagemannC. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418.
40.
SeifertL. S. (1992). Experimental aesthetics: Implications for aesthetic education of naïve art observes. The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 126(1), 73–78.
41.
SnyderA. W.ThomasM. (1997). Autistic artists give clues to cognition. Perception, 26, 93–96.
42.
ThrosbyD.ZednikA. (2014). The economic and cultural value of paintings: Some empirical evidence. Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, 2, 81–99.
43.
UrueñaA.ArenasÁ. E.HidalgoA. (2018). Understanding workers’ adoption of productivity mobile applications: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 31(1), 967–981.
44.
XieX.WangH. (2020). How can open innovation ecosystem modes push product innovation forward? An fsQCA analysis. Journal of Business Research, 108, 29–41.
