Art has no gender, only gender bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Abstract Expressionism art movement was predominantly showcased by men, leading to the exclusion of women artists from the art canon. Art critics of the time also deemed women’s art as “decoration” whereas men’s art was considered “real art”, further marginalizing women artists. Based on this historical context, our study examined whether and how the appreciation of art is influenced by gender biases. Across three experiments (N=800) using 160 Abstract Expressionist paintings by an equal number of men (Pollock, Louis, Twombly, Kline) and women (Krasner, Frankenthaler, Mitchell, Hartigan) artists, we tested whether people show a bias for attributing authorship of artworks to men, and investigated whether artworks created by men and women are evaluated differently. Results confirmed that participants were significantly more likely to judge that the artworks were painted by men (57.07%, p < 0.001), regardless of the actual gender of the artist, specifically if the artworks contained higher levels of black paint (beta = 0.36, t(466) = 6.28, p < 0.001) and angular lines (beta = 0.15, t(466) = 2.37, p = 0.018). Experiments 2 and 3 revealed that artworks thought to be painted by men received significantly lower scores for attributes describing so-called “woman art” (e.g., “decorative”, “childish”), but also for attributes describing “good art” (e.g., “vibrant”, “memorable”), as well as for liking, pleasure, interest, and order (all p < 0.005). These findings suggest that art criticism of the 60s is no longer reflected in art perception by a general audience nowadays. In summary, while there appears to be a general bias in assuming the paintings were created by men, the actual gender of the artists did not significantly impact overall appreciation of the artworks. Instead, the authorship bias, influenced by stylistic elements within the paintings, plays a more significant role in aesthetic evaluations of the paintings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".