What is art and how does it differ from aesthetics?

Art objects differ from other objects because they are intentionally created to embody a producer's (i.e., artist's) expression. Hence, art objects are social objects whose appeal and value are determined largely by the strategic interaction between the artist and the audience. I discuss several aspects of how strategic interaction can affect an art object's perceived value and aesthetic appeal.

Individual and culture-level components of survey response styles: A multi-level analysis using cultural models of selfhood.

Variations in acquiescence and extremity pose substantial threats to the validity of cross-cultural research that relies on survey methods. Individual and cultural correlates of response styles when using 2 contrasting types of response mode were investigated, drawing on data from 55 cultural groups across 33 nations. Using 7 dimensions of self-other relatedness that have often been confounded within the broader distinction between independence and interdependence, our analysis yields more specific understandings of both individual- and culture-level variations in response style. When using a Likert-scale response format, acquiescence is strongest among individuals seeing themselves as similar to others, and where cultural models of selfhood favour harmony, similarity with others and receptiveness to influence. However, when using Schwartz's (2007) portrait-comparison response procedure, acquiescence is strongest among individuals seeing themselves as self-reliant but also connected to others, and where cultural models of selfhood favour self-reliance and self-consistency. Extreme responding varies less between the two types of response modes, and is most prevalent among individuals seeing themselves as self-reliant, and in cultures favouring self-reliance. As both types of response mode elicit distinctive styles of response, it remains important to estimate and control for style effects to ensure valid comparisons.

Fashion and art cycles are driven by counter-dominance signals of elite competition: quantitative evidence from music styles.

Human symbol systems such as art and fashion styles emerge from complex social processes that govern the continuous re-organization of modern societies. They provide a signalling scheme that allows members of an elite to distinguish themselves from the rest of society. Efforts to understand the dynamics of art and fashion cycles have been placed on 'bottom-up' and 'top-down' theories. According to 'top-down' theories, elite members signal their superior status by introducing new symbols (e.g. fashion styles), which are adopted by low-status groups. In response to this adoption, elite members would need to introduce new symbols to signal their status. According to many 'bottom-up' theories, style cycles evolve from lower classes and follow an essentially random pattern. We propose an alternative explanation based on counter-dominance signalling (CDS). In CDS, elite members want others to imitate their symbols; changes only occur when outsider groups successfully challenge the elite by introducing signals that contrast those endorsed by the elite. We investigate these mechanisms using a dynamic network approach on data containing almost 8 million music albums released between 1956 and 2015. The network systematically quantifies artistic similarities of competing musical styles and their changes over time. We formulate empirical tests for whether new symbols are introduced by current elite members (top-down), randomness (bottom-up) or by peripheral groups through counter-dominance signals. We find clear evidence that CDS drives changes in musical styles. This provides a quantitative, completely data-driven answer to a century-old debate about the nature of the underlying social dynamics of fashion cycles.

Beyond the 'east-west' dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood.

Markus and Kitayama's (1991) theory of independent and interdependent self-construals had a major influence on social, personality, and developmental psychology by highlighting the role of culture in psychological processes. However, research has relied excessively on contrasts between North American and East Asian samples, and commonly used self-report measures of independence and interdependence frequently fail to show predicted cultural differences. We revisited the conceptualization and measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals in 2 large-scale multinational surveys, using improved methods for cross-cultural research. We developed (Study 1: N = 2924 students in 16 nations) and validated across cultures (Study 2: N = 7279 adults from 55 cultural groups in 33 nations) a new 7-dimensional model of self-reported ways of being independent or interdependent. Patterns of global variation support some of Markus and Kitayama's predictions, but a simple contrast between independence and interdependence does not adequately capture the diverse models of selfhood that prevail in different world regions. Cultural groups emphasize different ways of being both independent and interdependent, depending on individualism-collectivism, national socioeconomic development, and religious heritage. Our 7-dimensional model will allow future researchers to test more accurately the implications of cultural models of selfhood for psychological processes in diverse ecocultural contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record

The mind in the object-Psychological valuation of materialized human expression.

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 144(4) of Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (see record 2015-33206-002). In the article the labels on the X-axis of Figure 1 "Remove Variance" and "Preserve Variance" should be switched.] Symbolic material objects such as art or certain artifacts (e.g., fine pottery, jewelry) share one common element: The combination of generating an expression, and the materialization of this expression in the object. This explains why people place a much greater value on handmade over machine-made objects, and originals over duplicates. We show that this mechanism occurs when a material object's symbolic property is salient and when the creator (artist or craftsman) is perceived to have agency control over the 1-to-1 materialized expression in the object. Coactivation of these 2 factors causes the object to be perceived as having high value because it is seen as the embodied representation of the creator's unique personal expression. In 6 experiments, subjects rated objects in various object categories, which varied on the type of object property (symbolic, functional, aesthetic), the production procedure (handmade, machine-made, analog, digital) and the origin of the symbolic information (person or software). The studies showed that the proposed mechanism applies to symbolic, but not to functional or aesthetic material objects. Furthermore, they show that this specific form of symbolic object valuation could not be explained by various other related psychological theories (e.g., uniqueness, scarcity, physical touching, creative performance). Our research provides a universal framework that identifies a core mechanism for explaining judgments of value for one of our most uniquely human symbolic object categories.