Popular Art, typically rejected by high art patrons, consists of technically skilled but sentimentalized images of wildlife, country life, and family life. Major themes and features of popular art are discussed. In a series of studies, viewers without art background focused on warm, pleasant feelings to justify choice of popular images, whereas experienced viewers focused on the structure of the work to justify preference for high art images. Preference for popular art was associated with the general belief that good art provides immediate pleasure to a wide audience. The ways in which popular art violates high art rules, such as the requirement for disinterested contemplation, are outlined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LindauerM. S., Reactions to Cheap Art, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, pp. 95–110, 1990.
2.
CalinescuM., Faces of Modernity: Avant-garde, Decadence, and Kitsch, University of Indiana Press, Bloomington, 1977.
3.
DorflesG. (ed.), Kitsch: The World of Bad Taste, Universe Books, New York, 1969.
4.
GansH., Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste, Basic Books, New York, 1974.
5.
RosenbergH., The Tradition of the New, Thames & Hudson, London, 1962.
6.
CupchikG. C. and GebotysR., The Search for Meaning in Art: Interpretive Styles and Judgements of Quality, Visual Arts Research, 14, pp. 38–50, 1988.
7.
GombrichE., Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1963.
8.
BerlyneD., Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1971.
9.
MartindaleC., Aesthetics, Psychobiology, and Cognition, in The Foundations of Aesthetics, Art, and Art Education, FarleyF. H. and NeperudR. W. (eds.), Praeger, New York, 1988.
10.
MartindaleC.MooreK., and WestA., Relationship of Preference Judgments to Typicality, Novelty, and Mere Exposure, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, pp. 79–96, 1988.
11.
SharrockJ., Artist Profiles, 1988, Art Impressions, 4, pp. 25–38, 1988.
12.
BrochH., Notes on the Problem of Kitsch, in Kitsch: The World of Bad Taste, DorflesG. (ed.), Universe Books, New York, pp. 49–76, 1969.
13.
PeowrieJ., A Recognition of Nostalgic Art, Art Impressions, 4, pp. 31–35, 1988.
14.
LorenzK., Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung, Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 5, pp. 233–409, 1943.
15.
Eibl-EibesfeldtI., Ethology: The Biology of Behavior, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1970.
16.
BerryD. S. and McArthurL. Z., Perceiving Character in Faces: The Impact of Age-Related Craniofacial Changes on Social Perception, Psychological Bulletin, 100, pp. 3–18, 1986.
17.
BerryD. S. and McArthurL. Z., What's in a Face: The Impact of Defendant Intent and Facial Maturity on the Attribution of Legal Responsibility, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, pp. 23–33, 1988.
18.
BlackC., Advertisement, in Midwest Art, 7, 1988.
19.
WinstonA. S., Sweetness and Light: Psychological Aesthetics and Sentimental Art, in Emerging Visions of the Aesthetic Process: Psychology, Semiology, and Philosophy, CupchikG. and LaszloJ. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 118–136, 1992.
20.
MartindaleC.MooreC., and BorkumJ., Aesthetic Preference: Anomalous Findings for Berlyne's Psychobiological Theory, American Journal of Psychology, 103, pp. 53–80, 1990.
21.
HekkertP. and van WieringenP. C. W., Complexity and Prototypicality as Determinants of the Appraisal of Cubist Paintings, British Journal of Psychology, 81, pp. 483–495, 1990.
22.
BaraschM., Theories of Art, New York University, New York, 1985.
23.
CashS., Review of Ron Athey at P.S. 122, Art in America, 83, pp. 99–100, 1995.
24.
WolterstorffN., Philosophy of Art after Analysis and Romanticism, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 46, pp. 151–167, 1987.
25.
DantoA. C., The Artworld, Journal of Philosophy, 61, pp. 571–584, 1964.
26.
BourdieuP., The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, Columbia University Press, New York, 1993.
27.
WinstonA. S. and CupchikG. C., The Evaluation of High Art and Popular Art by Naive and Experienced Viewers, Visual Arts Research, 18, pp. 1–14, 1992.
28.
Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury, Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, and Times, Vol. 1, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1964, original work published in 1711.
29.
KantI., Critique of Judgment, BernardJ. H. (trans.), MacMillan, London, 1914, original work published 1790.
30.
SchopenhauerA., The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1, PayneE. J. (trans.), Dover, New York, 1969, original work published in 1818.
31.
BeardsleyM. C., Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism, Hackett, Indianapolis, 1981.
32.
van PeerW., “High” and “Low” Cultural Products and Their Social Functions, Empirical Studies of the Arts, forthcoming.
