Shared Aesthetics: A Commentary on Collaborative Art

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeShared Aesthetics: A Commentary on Collaborative ArtHenrik HagtvedtHenrik HagtvedtBoston College Search for more articles by this author Henrik Hagtvedt ([email protected]) is associate professor of marketing at the Carroll School of Management at Boston College (Fulton Hall 450D, 140 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA 02467).PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreSee “Collaborative Art: A Transformational Force within Communities” by Bublitz et al., in this issue.Collaborative art-making has deep historical roots. Examples range from hunter-gatherer dances to the construction of cathedrals that galvanized medieval communities. Some scholars argue that collaborative art-making was, from the outset, the norm rather than the exception; the arts may have evolved through prehistory as part of ritual ceremonies, in which groups of people transformed ordinary objects and events and imbued them with meaning (Dissanayake 1995). Relatedly, my own view is that aesthetic engagement, along with individual and collaborative art-making, initially evolved from a prelinguistic faculty for interpreting and communicating sensory information.Although culturally learned nuances inspire variety in art and aesthetic preferences, the same basic aesthetics principles that informed our ancestors continue to inform consumers today. Bublitz et al. (2019) provide a wealth of important insights into the phenomenon of collaborative art-making, but I disagree with their distinction between current everyday-aesthetics research and what they call “traditional art-centric constructs” such as “unity and prototypicality.” The same constructs can be applied to various contexts, as in everyday products ranging from prototypical cars to prototypical flyswatters, as well as millennia-old prototypical artifacts of various kinds. I also disagree somewhat with the assertion that “Previous work considering aesthetics in the context of consumer behavior or elsewhere has, almost entirely, considered it purely hedonic in nature.” There are numerous examples to the contrary, in topics ranging from group cohesion (Dissanayake 1995) to prosocial behavior (Grinstein et al. 2019) to terror management (Landau et al. 2006) to meaning in life (Hagtvedt and Vohs 2017).However, I agree with Bublitz et al. that collaborative art-making poses unique challenges. Despite basic commonalities, collaborators can have differing visions for the same artwork. Those differences may pertain to aesthetics, not only in the narrow sense of what is beautiful, but also in the broader sense of what is interesting, meaningful, or emotionally stirring. It can be difficult to combine potentially clashing visions, let alone create synergy from them. Relatedly, it is notoriously difficult to gauge the quality of artworks, in part because creative visions, as well as audiences’ interpretations and experiences, have subjective components. Thus, the basis on which to assign creative roles, orchestrate joint efforts, and evaluate the outcomes of individual and combined contributions is nebulous at best. At worst, such assessments and decisions may be predominantly shaped by money and marketing, as is arguably the case in much of the contemporary art market.Collaboration can, however, be intrinsically rewarding and produce fascinating results. Art entails exploration and elaboration, and it springs from the creative and skillful structuring of formal qualities such as shapes, colors, and rhythms (Hagtvedt, Hagtvedt, and Patrick 2008). Conceptualizations of creativity and skill may vary, but the aesthetic impact of artworks is rooted in the same foundation that our prehistoric ancestors had when collaboratively creating works such as the Lascaux cave paintings. If collaborators today can embrace the spirit of exploration and elaboration exhibited by those cave painters almost 20,000 years ago, perhaps the collective result can be equally magnificent.ReferencesBublitz, Melissa G., Tracy Rank-Christman, Luca Cian, Xavier Cortada, Adriana Madzharov, Vanessa M. Patrick, Laura A. Peracchio, et al. (2019), “Collaborative Art: A Transformational Force within Communities,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 4 (4), in this issue.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarDissanayake, Ellen (1995), Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why, Seattle: University of Washington Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarGrinstein, Amir, Henrik Hagtvedt, and Ann Kronrod (2019), “Aesthetically (Dis)Pleasing Visuals: A Dual Pathway to Empathy and Prosocial Behavior,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36 (1), 83–99.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHagtvedt, Henrik, Reidar Hagtvedt, and Vanessa M. Patrick (2008), “The Perception and Evaluation of Visual Art,” Empirical Studies of the Arts, 26 (2), 197–218.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHagtvedt, Henrik, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2017), “Art Enhances Meaning by Stimulating Integrative Complexity and Aesthetic Interest,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 30–31.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarLandau, Mark J., Jeff Greenberg, Sheldon Solomon, Tom Pyszczynski, and Any Martens (2006), “Windows into Nothingness: Terror Management, Meaninglessness, and Negative Reactions to Modern Art,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (6), 879–92.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Association for Consumer Research Volume 4, Number 4October 2019Everyday Consumer Aesthetics: Transformative Directions for Aesthetics in Everyday LifeGuest Editors: Vanessa M. Patrick, Laura A. Peracchio, and Claudia Townsend Sponsored by the Association for Consumer Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/705024 © 2019 the Association for Consumer Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.