Citation:

Carlos A. Ponzio. "Economic Lessons of AI Intrusion into the Art World" International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies, Vol. 4, No. 8, pp. 15-22, 2025. Crossref. http://doi.org/10.56472/25835238/IRJEMS-V4I8P103

Abstract:

Human choices are not the result of simple needs or genetic programming. They are close to enjoyment and pain avoidance: not defined in the void, but as psychological responses towards an experience, which is full of knowledge and prejudices, and sometimes of attachments drawn from ignorance. These elements form prices. The work of art, on the other hand, is a symbolic discourse. When something looks strange to us, it is because its symbols are unfamiliar. It may be creative and not so beautiful, at first. Science requires insight, and Art provides a special form of insight. It is a specific kind of science that we, as economic agents, sometimes confuse with enjoyment. Artificial Intelligence (AI), modeled on human behavior and language has revealed that Human beings confuse or are unaware of their true Marginal Rates of Substitution to the extent that they are influenced by factors traditionally considered “information” by economists, and which AI has revealed to be nothing more than noise, prejudices, and ignorance, mixed with some truth, sometimes. Current markets are not always reliable in answering the question of what constitutes Art. This essay proposes that decisions about which art products should be considered art and which are merely attempts with no future in the market are made through expert opinions, based on two concepts: Beauty and Creativity.

References:

[1] Bar, M., y M. Neta. 2006. “Humans prefer curved visual objects”. Psychologycal Science, 17, pp. 645-648.
[2] Barlow, H. B. y B. C. Reeves. 1979. “The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays”, Vision Research, 19, pp. 783-793.
[3] Baumol, William J., 1986. “Unnatural Value: or Art Investment as a Floating Crap Game”, American Economic Review, 76, pp. 10-14.
[4] Bertamini, M., Palubo, L., Gheorghes, N. T. y M. Galatsidas. 2016. Do observers like curvature or dislike angularity? British Journal of Psychology, 107, pp. 154-178.
[5] Clottes, J. 2003. Chauvet Cave: The Art of Earliest Times. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
[6] Frey, Bruno and Eichenberger, Rainer, 1995. “On the Return of Art Investment Return Analysis”, Journal of Cultural Economics, 19 (3), pp. 207-220.
[7] Gómez Puerto, G., Munar, E., Acedo, C. y A. Gomila. 2013. Is the human initial preference for rounded shapes universal? Preliminary results of an ongoing cross-cultural research. Perception, 42, ECVP Abstract Supplement, 102.
[8] Goodfellow, Ian; Joshua Bengio and Aaron Courville, 2016. Deep Learning. The MIT Press.
[9] Gould, S. J. 1980. The panda´s thumb. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
[10] Hogarth, W. 1753. The Analysis of Beauty. London, UK: Reeves.
[11] Hutter, Michael and Richard Shusterman, 2006. “Value and the Valuation of Art in Economic and Aesthetic Theory”, in: Ginsburgh V. A. y D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, vol. 1, North Holland: Elsevier, B. V., pp. 169-208.
[12] Jadva, V., Hines, M. y S. Golombok. 2010. Infants preferences for toys, colors and shapes: Sex differences and similarities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, pp. 1261-1273.
[13] Köhler, W. 1947. Gestalt Psychology (2nd edition). New York, NY: Liveright.
[14] Lundhom, H. 1921. The affective tone of lines. Experimental researches. Psychologycal Review, 28, pp. 43-60.
[15] Makin, A. D. J., Pecchinenda, A. y M. Bertamini. 2012b. Grouping by closure influences subjective regularity and implicit preference. Iperception, 3, pp. 519-527.
[16] Makin, A. D. J., Wilton, M., A. Pecchinenda y M. Bertanini. 2012. Symmetry perception and affective responses: A combined EEG/EMG Study. Neuropsychologia, 50, pp. 3250-3261.
[17] McCain, Roger, 1986. “Game Theory and the Cultivation of Taste”, Journal of Cultural Economics, 10, pp. 1-15.
[18] McCain, Roger, 1995. “Cultivation of Taste and Bounded Rationality: Some Computer Simulations”, Journal of Cultural Economics, 19(1), pp. 1-15.
[19] McCain, Roger, 2006. “Defining Cultural and Artistic Goods”, in: Ginsburgh V. A. y D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, vol. 1, North Holland: Elsevier, B. V., pp. 147-167.
[20] Mas-Colell, A., M. D. Whinston and J. R. Green. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[21] Peacock, Alan, 1969. “Welfare Economics and Public Subsidies to the Arts”, Manchester School of Economics and Social Studies, pp. 323-235. (Reprinted in Journal of Cultural Economics, 18, pp. 151-161).
[22] Penton-Voak, I. S., Jacobson A., y R. Trivers. 2004. Populational differences in attractiveness judgments of male and female faces: Comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evolution and Humand Behavior, 25, pp. 355-370.
[23] Perret, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., y S. Akamatsu. 1998. Effects of sexual diphormism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, pp. 884-887.
[24] Poffenberger, A. T., y B.E. Barrows. 1924. The feeling value of lines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, pp. 187-205.
[25] Ponzio, Carlos. 2024. “Beauty and Creativity in Choice and Ranking Experiments, International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies, Vol. 3, Issue 12, December 2024, pp. 122-131.
[26] Quinn, P. C., Brown, C. R., y M. L. Streppa. 1997. Perceptual organization of complex visual configurations by young infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 20, pp 35-46.
[27] Russell, Stuart and Peter Norvig, 2020. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson, 4th Edition.
[28] Scitovsky, Tibor. 1992. The Joyless Economy: The Psychology of Human Satisfaction. NY: Oxford University Press.
[29] Silvia, P. J. y C. M. Barona. 2009. Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), pp. 25-42.
[30] Simon, Herbert, 2001. “Creativity in the arts and sciences”, The Kenton Review, vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 203-221.
[31] Sternberg, Robert J., 2018. A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, pp. 50-67.
[32] Throsby, David, 1994. “The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, 32, pp. 1-29.
[33] The scope of government intervention to solve for market failures in Art are at the heart of the field, as in Peacock (1969) and Throsby (1994). However, the present essay does not explore any public policy implications of the analysis or of the persistance of Virtual Economy Models as a better description of economic reality.
[34] Seminal works on Art Investment Return Analysis are Baumol (1986) and Frey and Eichenbergen (1995).
[35] A probably related topic to expert opinion is taste formation. See Scitovsky (1972) and McCain (1986; 1995).
[36] For a standard reference: Mas-Colell, Whinston and Green (1995).

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence and Economics, Art Intelligence, Beauty and Creativity, Virtual Economy Models.