Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201103/my-monkey-could-have-painted-really

People occasionally look at paint splattered on a canvas in a gallery and say, "My child could have painted that." (Or, among eccentric pet-owners, "My monkey could have painted that.") How much better is abstract art than work by kids and monkeys? New research reveals the answer.



Take a look at the two images in this post. Which do you prefer? Which do you think is by a professional artist? (See the answer below.) For a paper in press at Psychological Science, Angelina Hawley-Dolan and Ellen Winner of Boston College collected 72 undergrads, 32 of which were studio-art majors, and showed them 30 paintings by abstract expressionists. Each painting was paired with a painting by a child, a monkey, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, or an elephant. The images were matched on superficial attributes such as color, line quality, and brushstroke, and subjects were asked which piece they personally liked more, and which they thought was a better work of art.

Even the art students preferred the child's or animal's painting over the professional's-and judged it to be objectively better-30 to 40 percent of the time. And that's even when they were labeled correctly.

Even the Blind could get it right 50% of the time. An art students can get it right a whopping 66% of the time!
Us non-art major sighted people can only get it right about 55% of the time.

In other professions, "Did a Monkey Do This !???" is just a joke. In the art world, it is a serious question

Here is an online quiz you can take too.
http://reverent.org/an_artist_or_an_ape.html

If I'm reading the article correctly, they didn't test them on identifying which was the chimpanzee's painting - but instead asked which of the two they preferred. I suppose a reason is that this ultra modern art pretty much all looks the same and a lot of it is indistinguishable from random brushstrokes like those a chimp or young child would make. It's not really my cup of tea.

AndreD wrote:If I'm reading the article correctly, they didn't test them on identifying which was the chimpanzee's painting - but instead asked which of the two they preferred. I suppose a reason is that this ultra modern art pretty much all looks the same and a lot of it is indistinguishable from random brushstrokes like those a chimp or young child would make. It's not really my cup of tea.

I beleive they asked them both, identification and preference.

Though if a monkey can make something indistinguishable from modern art, that implies that modern art simply isn't art. As everyone knows that humans are the only primates that create art

Like AndreD, it's generally not my cup of tea either. I was an art major, but generally gave up studying museum work past 1960.

What they often call animal art is made by animals, but the trainer is doing two things: selecting the palate, and taking it away at a certain point. If they didn't take it away, the animal would just keep smearing the paint around until it was a big smudge.

Of course, I think they need to be very selective in the artists they choose. A lot of abstract expressionists weren't as vague and featureless as the ones in the first post.

This article is a good indictment of the gallery system, which is an art unto itself, and not a sign of artistic talent. Which is why I dropped out of it.

Tyrannical wrote:...if a monkey can make something indistinguishable from modern art, that implies that modern art simply isn't art.

Why? Because you don't like it?

As everyone knows that humans are the only primates that create art

Yet I agree with this. What are you missing?

I knew it, I knew it.Modern abstract art is also pseudoart.Perhaps, there should be a necessary basic test on artists being able to draw something clear first, and only later the other kinds should be judged. But, with technology and 3d printing, art of painting, drawing and sculpture will be history.

Woohoo, look at me. I scored 100%. The 2 I liked most were Nay and Pollock but Congo was a very close 3rd with the blue and black one. But honestly, I'd never buy one unless it was an investment. They were all kind of crap to me.

Tyrannical wrote:

Here is an online quiz you can take too.
http://reverent.org/an_artist_or_an_ape.html

I got 100%

matt8819 wrote:

Tyrannical wrote:

Here is an online quiz you can take too.
http://reverent.org/an_artist_or_an_ape.html

I got 100%

Me too.

Protip: the inverted "U" shapes in the last one are a dead giveaway to it being by Kandinsky.

Here's the thing: I liked the first painting best.

Here's the other thing: the chimp is not the artist.

I only missed the first one.
Some I think are easy because I don't think a monkey can draw circles or squares.
The monkey stuff wasn't bad, in comparison of course.

Nicko wrote:

matt8819 wrote:

Tyrannical wrote:

Here is an online quiz you can take too.
http://reverent.org/an_artist_or_an_ape.html

I got 100%

Me too.

Protip: the inverted "U" shapes in the last one are a dead giveaway to it being by Kandinsky.

Here's the thing: I liked the first painting best.

Here's the other thing: the chimp is not the artist.

I tried to look for lines and shapes that seemed to have purpose. Those were the humans. Though that first one really did make me think of jungle.

This only suggests commonality of mentality. Both humans and monkeys are primates and we're genetically similar including brain structures. (Quoting Wikipedia) - Humans and closely related primates are usually trichromats, as are some of the females of most species of New World monkeys.

Monkey see, monkey do. We aren't that special.

Not surprised by this at all. There's a lot of complete rubbish being whored out by pimpish "artists" these days. Art students and other ar snobs are no different to wine tasters when it comes to art.. If it has a high price tag on it and associated with a name they'll make themselves believe that it's good. The Damien Hirsts and Tracy Emins of this world are laughing at people. That's presuming they don't buy nto their own bullshit which, like psychics, they probably do.

I just got 100% on that test, too. For the record.

I missed one. thought mokeys will simply mix things up, so when i saw different colors i different separate patches, I picked different.

byofrcs wrote:This only suggests commonality of mentality. Both humans and monkeys are primates and we're genetically similar including brain structures. (Quoting Wikipedia) - Humans and closely related primates are usually trichromats, as are some of the females of most species of New World monkeys.

Monkey see, monkey do. We aren't that special.

I wouldn't be opposed to keeping some of these modern artists in zoos now that you mention it

Admittedly, a lot of "abstract" art is shit and probably made just because the artist wasn't very good at anything else, but part of the reason why abstract art seems silly is because the average person thinks art is about painting pretty flowers or odd looking women who you can't tell if they're smiling or not. For example, these are excellent pieces of art:





One is just a canvas almost maniacally spattered with paint, and the other is literally just a urinal with the signature "R.Mutt" on it. The point being that art is more than just aesthetics, in Pollock's piece it's about the experience - being faced with the massive canvases that he used is like being immersed in a landscape, the "naturalistic" aspect of art and his love of accidents in his work was supposed to move away from the rigid and almost tedious forms of art that preceded it. Then with Duchamp's "Fountain" the idea was to question the idea of art, and he argued that whatever was made by an artist was art. So when a famous art museum asked him to submit a piece, he found an old urinal, gave it a random signature and sent it in.

The point is just that art isn't about creating pretty pictures - if that's what people want, then they're better off skimming through the desktop pictures on their computer rather than going to an art museum.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Admittedly, a lot of "abstract" art is shit and probably made just because the artist wasn't very good at anything else, but part of the reason why abstract art seems silly is because the average person thinks art is about painting pretty flowers or odd looking women who you can't tell if they're smiling or not. For example, these are excellent pieces of art:

The average person is not mentally ill, that gullible, has better taste then a monkey, and isn't afraid to yell bull shit when they see it.

Samsa, I agree that art is more than just visual aesthetics, it should evoke emotion too. However, the problem with a lot of abstract art is that it has to be explained in order to appreciate it, and for me that indicates it has little intrinsic worth.
The urinal one you posted is a good example - it isn't art unless accompanied by an explanation written by a complete wanker or by its presence in an art museum. Without those things it's just something you piss into.

Tyrannical wrote:Art Students can't tell a monkey's painting from art

Why is a monkey painting not considered art?

For me art needs to be one of two things. It needs be aesthetically pleasing and/or intellectually challenging.

I wouldn't call the money paintings ugly so technically as far as I'm concerned it's art.