Art has no gender, only gender bias

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.