In a world of deepfakes, generative AI, and ongoing debates over cultural appropriation, questions about what makes art “authentic” are newly urgent. We build on work from science and the humanities to offer a unified psychological account of perceived art authenticity. Across six studies, we find that people see art as more authentic when it appears to reveal a mind—a creator's lived experience, emotions, and intentions. The importance of “revealed mind” helps clarify central debates surrounding authenticity, explaining why replicas can sometimes feel authentic, and why audiences celebrate art that reflects an artist's lived experience and grow outraged when an artist tells someone else's story. Perceptions of revealed mind are especially important in the age of AI, explaining why AI-generated art feels inauthentic even when technically impressive. Together, our findings suggest that art feels most authentic when it evokes a sense of connection to the artist's mind.
AryaR. (2021). Cultural appropriation: What it is and why it matters?Sociology Compass, 15(10), e12923. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12923
2.
AvolioB. J.GardnerW. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
3.
BaraI.CrossE. S.RamseyR. (2025). The role of art knowledge training on aesthetic judgements and executive functions. Royal Society Open Science, 12(2), 240175. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240175
4.
Baron-CohenS. (1995). Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind. The MIT Press.
5.
BellaicheL.ShahiR.TurpinM. H.RagnhildstveitA.SprockettS.BarrN.ChristensenA.SeliP. (2023). Humans versus AI: Whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 8(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00499-6
6.
BenjaminW. (1973). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In ArendtH. (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 211–244). Fontana.
BrüneM.Brüne-CohrsU. (2006). Theory of mind—evolution, ontogeny, brain mechanisms and psychopathology. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.08.001
9.
BullotN. J.ReberR. (2013). The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(02), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000489
10.
CarrollN. (1999). Philosophy of art: A contemporary introduction. Routledge.
11.
ChamberlainR.MullinC.ScheerlinckB.WagemansJ. (2018). Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aestheticsm Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000136
12.
ChesneyR.CitronD. K. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107(6), 1753–1819. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38RV0D15J
13.
CollingwoodR. G. (1938). The principles of art. Oxford University Press.
14.
CondiviA. (1999). The life of Michelangelo(A. S. Wohl, Trans.; 2nd ed.; H. Wohl, Ed., pp. 19–21). Pennsylvania State University Press. (Original work published 1553).
DantoA. C. (1981). The transfiguration of the commonplace: A philosophy of art. Harvard University Press.
17.
DemmerT. R.KühnapfelC.FingerhutJ.PelowskiM. (2023). Does an emotional connection to art really require a human artist? Emotion and intentionality responses to AI-versus human-created art and impact on aesthetic experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 148, 107875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107875
18.
de RooijA. (2025). Bias against artificial intelligence in visual art: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000833
19.
De SousaE. (2025, August 13). Why The Whyte removed a culturally appropriative carving from its grounds. The Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies (The Cairn).
20.
Di DioC.ArdizziM.SchieppatiS. V.MassaroD.GilliG.GalleseV.MarchettiA. (2025). Art made by artificial intelligence: The effect of authorship on aesthetic judgments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 19(5), 1164–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000602
21.
DuttonD. (2003). Authenticity in art. In The Oxford handbook of aesthetics (pp. 258–274). Oxford University Press.
EpleyN.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
25.
FuchsC.SchreierM.Van OsselaerS. M. J. (2015). The handmade effect: What’s love got to do with it?Journal of Marketing, 79(2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0018
26.
GangadharbatlaH. (2022). The role of AI attribution knowledge in the evaluation of artwork. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 40(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237421994697
27.
GardnerW. L.AvolioB. J.LuthansF.MayD. R.WalumbwaF. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003
GjersoeN. L.NewmanG. E.ChitucV.HoodB. (2014). Individualism and the extended-self: Cross-cultural differences in the valuation of authentic objects. PLoS One, 9(3), e90787. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090787
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611400915
37.
HekkertP.van WieringenP. C. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of Post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(95)00055-0
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 (TOMM), 15(2s), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3326337
40.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
41.
HuangJ. Y.AckermanJ. M.NewmanG. E. (2017). Catching (up with) magical contagion: A review of contagion effects in consumer contexts. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(4), 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1086/693533
42.
HubardO. M. (2007). Originals and reproductions: The influence of presentation format in Adolescents’ responses to a Renaissance painting. Studies in Art Education, 48(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2007.11650104
JeffreyS.LoveS.PoyadeM. (2021). The digital Laocoön: Replication, narrative and authenticity. Museum & Society, 19(2), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.29311/mas.v19i2.3569
45.
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.
46.
KennyD. A.KaniskanB.McCoachD. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
47.
KöbisN.MossinkL. D. (2021). Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106553
48.
KrachS.PaulusF. M.BoddenM.KircherT. (2010). The rewarding nature of social interactions. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 4(1141). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2010.00022
49.
KreuzbauerR.KellerJ. (2017). The authenticity of cultural products: A psychological perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(5), 417–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417702104
50.
KreuzbauerR.KingD.BasuS. (2015). The mind in the object—psychological valuation of materialized human expression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), 764–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000080
51.
KutaS. (2022). Art made with artificial intelligence wins at state fair. Smithsonian Magazine, 6.
52.
LaiK.GreenS. B. (2016). The problem with having two watches: Assessment of fit when RMSEA and CFI disagree. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(2–3), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1134306
53.
LinJ. D.KimN. Y. J.UduehiE.KeinanA. (2024). Culture for sale: Unpacking consumer perceptions of cultural appropriation. Journal of Consumer Research, 51(3), 571–594. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad076
LocherP.SmithL.SmithJ. (1999). Original paintings versus slide and computer reproductions: A comparison of viewer responses. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 17(2), 121–129.
56.
LocherP. J.SmithJ. K.SmithL. F. (2001). The influence of presentation for mat and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings. Perception, 30(4), 449–465.
McGreevyN. (2021). For Sale: One Real Warhol Print, Hidden Among 999 Fakes. Smithsonian.
59.
MesserU. (2024). Co-creating art with generative artificial intelligence: Implications for artworks and artists. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), 100056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100056
60.
MillerC. L. (2018). Impostors: Literary hoaxes and cultural authenticity. University of Chicago Press.
61.
MosleyA. J. (2025). Investigating cultural appropriation: An introduction, policy implications, and legal recommendations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 19(1), e12110. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12110
62.
MoulardJ. G.RiceD. H.GarrityC. P.MangusS. M. (2014). Artist authenticity: How artists’ passion and commitment shape consumers’ perceptions and behavioral intentions across genders. Psychology & Marketing, 31(8), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20719
NewmanG. E.BartelsD. M.SmithR. K. (2014). Are artworks more like people than artifacts? Individual concepts and their extensions. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(4), 647–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12111
65.
NewmanG. E.BloomP. (2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026035
66.
NewmanG. E.DiesendruckG.BloomP. (2011). Celebrity contagion and the value of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1086/658999
NotarB. E. (2006). Authenticity anxiety and counterfeit confidence: Outsourcing souvenirs, changing money, and narrating value in Reform-Era China. Modern China, 32(1), 64–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700405282348
PhillipsR. B.SteinerC. B. (1999). Art, authenticity, and the baggage of cultural encounter. Unpacking Culture: Art and Commodity in Colonial and Postcolonial Worlds, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.42063212.5
71.
PommerehneW. W.GranicaJ. M. (1995). Perfect reproductions of works of art: Substitutes or heresy?Journal of Cultural Economics, 19(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01074052
72.
RabbN.BrownellH.WinnerE. (2018). Essentialist beliefs in aesthetic judgments of duplicate artworks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(3), 284–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000174
73.
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, 1–10.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
SchwanS.DutzS. (2020). How do visitors perceive the role of authentic objects in museums?Curator: The Museum Journal, 63(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12365
81.
ShiD.DiStefanoC.Maydeu-OlivaresA.LeeT. (2021). Evaluating SEM model fit with small degrees of freedom. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 57(2–3), 179–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1868965
82.
SnapperL.OrançC.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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.12.009
83.
SpechtS. M. (2010). Artists’ statements can influence perceptions of artwork. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.2.e
SwamiV. (2013). Context matters: Investigating the impact of contextual information on aesthetic appreciation of paintings by Max Ernst and Pablo Picasso. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030965
86.
Thompson-BradshawA. L. (2014). The impact of race on perceptions of authenticity in the delivery and reception of African American Gospel music. Bowling Green State University.
87.
Tigre MouraF.CastrucciC.HindleyC. (2023). Artificial intelligence creates art? An experimental investigation of value and creativity perceptions. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(4), 534–549. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.600
88.
VasariG. (1987). Lives of the artists (G. Bull, Trans.; rev. ed.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1568).
89.
WegnerD. M.GrayK. (2016). The mind club: Who thinks, what feels, and why it matters. Penguin Publishing Group.
90.
YoungJ. O. (2010). Cultural appropriation and the arts. John Wiley & Sons.
91.
ZhaoX.GunnS.ChristM.FairozeJ.FabregaA.CarliniN.GargS.HongS.NasrM.TramerF.JhaS.LiL.WangY.-X.SongD. (2024). SoK: Watermarking for AI-generated content (arXiv:2411.18479). arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18479.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
