The Relationship between Artwork and Public Reaction - Literature review Example

? Research Report Why the irrational will affect design identity: the relationship between artwork and public reaction. November 2012 Introduction The creative process has long been associated with irrationality, or “madness” to use an old-fashioned term. In previous ages this has been conceived of romantically, as the inspiration of a supernatural dimension on an ordinary mortal, or as the curse of some evil inheritance, enhanced by drink, drugs or mental illness. The qualities that people have traditionally valued in art and design are “inconsistencies, spontaneity and upredictability in behaviour” (Throsby, 1994, p. 4) all of which are not rational qualities. In the postmodern world of the twenty first century there is more tolerance of the irrational as a current of understanding which runs parallel to the dominant logical positivist view of the world. This report explores the way that irrationality can affect design identity. Its focus is not so much on the designer, but on the public, since nowadays the meaning of an object or work of art is understood as being jointly constructed by the creator and by the viewer. This is an interesting field to explore because it may help to explain some of the curious reactions which can occur in relation to modern art and design. Some objects are elevated to the level of a cult while others languish unappreciated in a corner, and there appears to be no rational explanation for the difference in popularity. In design, much use is made of concepts from the field of psychology because issues of perception, affect and reaction have to do with the way the brain processes information, and then prompts a mix of emotional and rational reactions that individuals have to any design. According to Cialdini (2004, p. 71) there are six basic tendencies of human behaviour which come into play when a positive response to a media stimulus occurs, namely reciprocation, consistency, social validation, liking, authority and scarcity. Most of these tendencies rely on explicit and rational connections with areas of human experience that the viewer is already well acquainted with, for example consistency, social validation and authority imply an existing standard or convention which is widely accepted and consciously acknowledged by the viewer. Reciprocation and liking create a bond between the viewer and the object, and in these cases there are emotional elements that are not fully conscious. The dimension of scarcity is interesting, because it is not so much an attribute of the object itself, but a function of its availability in society. These explanations explain some, but not all of the factors that contribute to an object’s desirability. The dimension of the irrational is buried within these psychological theories. In order to tease out what role irrationality plays in design, both in terms of the original creative process, and in the final object’s reception and appreciation by the public, the present study seeks to explore areas beyond psychology and marketing. It begins with a review of what has been written about the irrational in design, and then focuses on different paradigms from a wide variety of fields, including sociology, business studies and some esoteric areas in order to gain a better understanding of the role of the irrational in the design field. The irrational in design The field of art and design is different from many other areas of modern life because it actively fosters and appreciation of the irrational, while at the same time taking advantage of all the technical advantages that the scientific world provides. The Surrealists, for example, have long been celebrated for the fact that they deliberately avoided, even in their writings, rationalizing their artistic works, (Chipp, 1968, p. 644). The most weird and wonderful points of view and juxtapositions conjure up a different world than the one that people operate in as they go to work and socialise with their friends and family. Art and design communicate with their public on multiple levels, some of which by-pass the cognitive processes of logic and conscious thought, and touch areas of irrationality deep within the psyche. In a consumer society there is an incentive for designers to create objects that have symbolic meanings, many of which are not in the least rational. Baudrillard notes that this is a kind of liberation so that the modern consumer is “free to project one’s desires onto produced goods ... free to regress and be irrational” (Baudrillard, 1988, p. 16). Art expressly offers access to these non-rational dimensions of human experience. The creative side of design work makes constant use of the irrational. In fact it is precisely the quirkiness and unpredictability of the irrational that makes it so attractive for those who work in the creative professions. As far as consumers of design are concerned, there is also an in-built capacity to understand and appreciate irrationality. Studies of children note that rationality is only one method that children use in their play, and that magical, mystical and religious ways of viewing the world are freely used as well (Rosengren et al., 2000). Ariely notes that people base their knowledge of the world on assumptions which are actually irrational. The power of news media to prioritise, anchor, and frame crime figures in certain ways, for example, leads people to assume that violent crime is much more common than the figures dictate. Paradoxically, marketers and economists can predict and exploit the irrational behaviour of consumers, as for example in the phenomenon which Ariely calls “the endowment effect.” This is what happens when consumers confer a high value to things which for which they have developed a strong but irrational attachment (Ariely, 2008). Conformity in social groups Gustave le Bon (2003) explains some human behaviour in terms of crowd theory, according to which people develop tastes and opinions along with their peers, and usually by adopting the views of a leader figure. A more modern theory of “memes” has also been developed and it can explain some how some of the apparently irrational behaviours of human beings have evolutionary value and are passed on through generations and across cultures (Blackmore, 1999, pp. 158-161). Herding and self-herding The phenomenon of herding and self herding can be seen in the way that the iphone has been adopted by younger people recently. Herd behaviour is common to humans and animals and it appears to be a natural way of acting in a group in a similar way, without there being an explicit and planned direction. Self herding is when people fall into a pattern of believing that something is good or bad, based purely on their own previous behaviour (Ariely, 2008, pp. 36-37). The halo effect The halo effect is a kind of cognitive bias that people tend to have. It comes from a deep seated assumption that what is beautiful is good, and conversely, what is ugly must be bad (Dion et al., 1972). It can be seen, for example, in the way that attractive people are usually more favourably treated than less attractive people, and it can mean that a person who has one dominant favourable attribute can be perceived more favourably in other unrelated domains. A range of similar concepts have been developed, such as “art infusion” (Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2008, p. 795) or “aura of art” (Margolin, 1992) which describe the positive associations that people derive from art, and that they even transfer onto objects which are associated with a work of art. The opposite kind of influence can occur also, and one variety of this is called “the Lucifer effect” (Zimbardo, 2007) which describes the way that morally bad behviours and trends can spread amongst people when the context is right. Art cannot be reduced to a simple good/evil dichotomy because it contains so many dimensions but there is certainly a possibility for viewers and consumers of art to endow it with these moral attributes, even though they may not be at all rational. The Matthew effect The phenomenon known as “The Matthew Effect” was first noticed in the field of science, and it refers to the way that scientists who have won a major prize tend to receive more and more fame and reward throughout their lives than others who might not have achieved a prize, but may produce work which is equally good. The name comes from the passage in the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus indicates that those who have much shall receive more, while those who have little, shall lose even that small amount. The tipping point An interesting concept in terms of the waves of enthusiasm that some design objects cause is that of the tipping point (Gladwell, 2002). According to this theory, there are a few well connected individuals who can start off a trend, and by exploiting just one ore two features of a product, such as for example its “stickiness” in the consciousness of consumers, can ensure that it reaches a maximum audience. The tipping point is the moment when the efforts to sell the product cease, and it takes off on its own steam because it has reached a certain point of saturation in people’s minds. Preliminary conclusions and areas for further investigation It is clear from this brief exploration of works on the subject of irrationality in design that there are still many areas which are not fully explained. Artists and designers may think that they have control over the meanings of their creations, but experience has shown that irrational effects can arise within in the unpredictable contributions that are made by the public. Bibliography Ariely, Dan. Predictably irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York: Harper Collins, 2008. Ariely, Dan. The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and Home. Baudrillard, Jean. “Consumer society.” In Jean Baudrillard and Mark Poster (Ed.), Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings. Cambridge: Polity, 1988. Print. Blackmore, Susan. The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print. Chipp, H.B. Theories of Modern Art. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: California University Press, 1968. Print. Cialdini, Robert B. “The Science of Persuasion.” Scientific American Special Edition 14 (1), (January, 2004), pp. 70-77. Print. Dion, Karen, Berscheid, Ellen and Walster, Elaine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24 (3), (1972), pp. 285-290. Print. Hagtvedt, Henrik and Patrick, Vanessa. “The Influence of Art Infusion on the Perception and Evaluation of Consumer Products.” Advances in Consumer Research 35, pp. 795-796. Print. Le Bon, Gustave. The crowd: a study of the popular mind. London: Dover, 2003. Print. Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Ilford: Abacus, 2002. Print. Margolin, Victor. “Product Appeal and the Aura of Art”. In Susann Vihma (Ed.), Objects and Images: Studies in Design and Advertising. Helsinki: University of Industrial Arts. Print. Merton, Robert K. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science, New Series Vol. 159, No 3810. (January 1968), pp. 56-63. Print. Rosengren, K.S., Johnson, C.N., and Harris P.L. Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific and Religious Thinking in Children. New York: Cambridge University Press. Print. Throsby, David. “The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 32 (March 1994), pp. 1-29. Print. Zimbardo, Philip. The Lucifer Effect. London: Rider, 2007. Print. Read More