Study finds 'magical contagion' spreads creator's essence to pieces, adding value

September 16, 2014, University of Chicago

Not all things are created equally. We don't view a Picasso sculpture in the same way we look at a hammer, for example—no matter how fancy the hammer.

The reason? We see the Picasso more as a person than an object, according to new research from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

And in some cases, we make distinctions between artworks—say, an of a piece created by the , versus one created by a different artist.

Art, in other words, is an extension of the creator, write Professor Daniel M. Bartels of Chicago Booth, and Professor George E. Newman and Rosanna K. Smith, a doctoral student, both of Yale University School of Management.

In their paper, "Are Artworks More Like People Than Artifacts? Individual Concepts and Their Extensions," published in the journal Topics in Cognitive Science, the researchers build on previous studies that looked at the continuity of people. For example, if you transplant someone's brain into another body and the memories remain stored in the body, is that the same person? Identity is determined by the sameness of physical and mental states—and this view applies to art, as well.

"We have intuitions about the continuity of people and other kinds of one-of-a-kind objects," Bartels said.

They found that people viewed copies of tools the same as the original, no matter who manufactured them. But with art, replicas created by the original artist were viewed similarly to the original, whereas they were not when another artist made the re-creations.

This has to do with "magical contagion"—the idea that the essence of the artist rubs off on the creation.

"If the artist made physical contact with the replica, it's as if the artist imbued the work with her/his essence by having worked with the (new, replica) piece—it seems like others who might make the copy or other processes by which a copy could be made can't transmit this essence in this way," Bartels said.

Newman added: "One prediction that comes out of this idea is that artwork that seems like it has really had a lot of close physical contact with the artist, i.e., you can see evidence of his or her 'hand,' may be preferred to art where that direct physical connection is less obvious."

Explore further: Living replica of van Gogh's ear on display in Germany

Related Stories

Science to the rescue of art

September 14, 2014

Vincent van Gogh's "Sunflowers" are losing their yellow cheer and the unsettling apricot horizon in Edvard Munch's "The Scream" is turning a dull ivory.

Engineering the Kelpies

August 27, 2014

Recently, Falkirk in Scotland saw the opening of the Kelpies, two thirty metre high horse head sculptures either side of a lock in a new canal extension.

How Do We Perceive Art?

September 14, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Neuroscientists at the University of Leicester are to work with a renowned international artist in order to gain new insights into perception.

Recommended for you

Why war is a man's game

August 15, 2018

No sex differences in attitudes or abilities are needed to explain the near absence of women from the battlefield in ancient societies and throughout history, it could ultimately all be down to chance, say researchers at ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nik_2213
not rated yet Sep 16, 2014
ROFL !! Can you spell 'provenance' ??

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.