aesthetic products and aesthetic consumption: a review
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 28 October 2014, At: 02:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Consumption Markets & CulturePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcmc20
Aesthetic Products and AestheticConsumption: A ReviewSteve ChartersPublished online: 20 Aug 2006.
To cite this article: Steve Charters (2006) Aesthetic Products and Aesthetic Consumption: A Review,Consumption Markets & Culture, 9:3, 235-255, DOI: 10.1080/10253860600772255
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10253860600772255
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Consumption, Markets and Culture,Vol. 9, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 235–255
ISSN 1025–3866 (print)/ISSN 1477–223X (online) © 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/10253860600772255
Aesthetic Products and Aesthetic Consumption: A ReviewSteve ChartersTaylor and Francis LtdGCMC_A_177181.sgm10.1080/10253860600772255Consumption, Markets and Culture1025-3866 (print)/1477-223X (online)Original Article2006Taylor & Francis93000000September 2006Dr [email protected]
This article presents a review of recent thinking about consumers’ aesthetic experiences.These experiences are examined within the context of philosophical, psychological, andsocial science perspectives on aesthetics. A distinction is made between aesthetic productsand aesthetic consumption, and these two concepts are discussed in terms of marketingviews of their core elements. The review also reflects on the impact of “postmodernism” onaesthetics within marketing. Consideration is given to four philosophical conundrumsrelating to the aesthetic experience which are relevant to marketing theory: disinterestedattention; objective and subjective taste; the nature of the aesthetic encounter; and the rela-tionship of evaluation to preference.
Keywords: Aesthetics; Experiential Consumption; Symbolic Consumption; Postmodernism
Introduction
Aesthetic processes have received increasing but generally disjointed attention frommarketing academics over the last quarter century. With the developing focus on theexperiential and symbolic aspects of consumption, these processes are of increasing rele-vance to the discipline. The aim of this article is to review the current understanding ofaesthetic products and aesthetic consumption. The two concepts are distinct and, whilstthey may be linked, this is not invariably the case. The focus is on experiential consump-tion; the review is therefore primarily concerned with products which have aestheticpurpose as a substantial goal, rather than products which use aesthetic elements (suchas styling) as a marketing or promotional tool. Consequently the aesthetic dimensionof promotion and advertising is not addressed. Additionally the review considers the
Correspondence to: Steve Charters, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup WA 6027, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
236 S. Charters
impact of post-modern thought on the understanding of the aesthetic experience. It alsoconsiders some fundamental issues arising from the original philosophical perspectiveon aesthetics which form part of the experience and remain relevant in the field ofmarketing, namely disinterested attention, objective and subjective taste, the nature ofthe aesthetic encounter, and the relationship of evaluation to preference. As a prelimi-nary, however, it is necessary to consider the scope and origin of the aesthetic concept.
Defining the Aesthetic
The consideration of aesthetics began as a branch of Western philosophy and philoso-phers continue to dispute the nature of art, the evaluation of beauty and the scope ofthe aesthetic experience (Railton 1998; Dickie 2000; Sibley 2001). However, aestheticsand the nature of the aesthetic experience can now also be seen as an aspect of psychol-ogy (Berlyne 1971, 1974; Funch 1997), sociology (Bourdieu 1986; Grunow 1997),anthropology (Douglas 1982; Dissanayake 1992) and marketing (Holbrook and Zirlin1985; Brown and Patterson 2000b). Nevertheless, as one contemporary philosopherhas commented, the different disciplines which study aesthetics “are only vaguelyaware of each other” (Leddy 2000, 118).
As the various disciplines argue about the nature of aesthetic processes it is difficultto get an agreed meaning of aesthetics. A simple definition is “the study of the feelings,concepts, and judgements arising from our appreciation of the arts or of the wider classof objects considered moving, or beautiful, or sublime” (Blackburn 1994, 8). This is thedefinition which will be used in this paper. Whilst a philosopher may dispute the detailit reflects what is generally agreed to be the core of the discipline. Dickie (1997, 3), forinstance, talks about the two “concerns” of “the theory of beauty and the theory of art”.Korsmeyer (1999, 5) talks about theories of beauty forming the basis for our analysis ofthe “philosophy of art and aesthetic value”. Armstrong (2004, 54) considers the topicto revolve around “the nature and value of beauty and art”. As will be seen, this paperdoes not take a narrow perspective on what constitutes an art form, using the muchwider perspective of consumer researchers. Nevertheless, this general definition ofaesthetics forms the starting point for this review. The definition given by Blackburn(1994) is also useful because it has echoes in one of the first marketing papers onconsumer aesthetics which suggests that it is the “presence or absence of beauty” whichis claimed as the core of aesthetics (Levy and Czepiel 1974, 387).
The problem of defining the “beautiful object” meant that under the influence ofHegel, beauty as an objective characteristic was replaced as the focus of aesthetics fromthe nineteenth century onwards by a concentration on the aesthetic experience.However, even for Schopenhauer in the mid-nineteenth century beauty was still thekey—except that it was the subjective experience which established the existence ofbeauty, rather than any properties in the aesthetic object (Dickie 1997). The conceptremains a core feature of many contemporary examinations of aesthetics (Scruton1979; Cothey 1990; Dickie 1997; Armstrong 2004), and its centrality may also beassumed by modern popular writers on aesthetics (Postrel 2003). It has also beensuggested that the attention given to the beautiful is in itself a focus on aesthetic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Consumption, Markets and Culture 237
preference (Schaper 1983). The sublime, meanwhile, is that which inspires awethrough an awareness of what is majestic, fearful, or noble (Blackburn 1994). Somephilosophers have linked a sense of the sublime to beauty; others, most notably Burkein the eighteenth century, have distinguished between them although with question-able logic (Dickie 1997). What is “moving” is what stirs us when contemplating thebeautiful or the sublime.
There is an argument that ugliness can have aesthetic value (Schlegel n.d., quoted inCupchik 2002); in which case, whilst not strictly beautiful, it may still be moving.Nevertheless, beauty is still the aestheticians’ starting point for the determination ofwhether or not an object is aesthetic (Townsend 1997). Unfortunately in modern usebeauty tends to imply primarily visual appeal, so “attractiveness” may be a marginallybetter term. Nevertheless, in this review beauty is retained because of its historical use.
It is relevant to note that whilst philosophers of aesthetics focus on beauty as theinitial stimulus for an experience, in common language beauty has a much wider usage.Research carried out by Holbrook (2004) suggests that beauty has a far wider interpre-tation and use in contemporary society, so that natural or functional beauty, or thebeauty of relationships, are equally important. Indeed, within Holbrook’s (2004) typol-ogy of eight forms of beauty, aesthetic beauty was one of the less significant types ofbeauty for his informants. It is worth suggesting, however, that the processes used andthe experience undergone during an aesthetic encounter may well be similar to thosesensed in engaging with other forms of beauty, particularly those relating to nature andfunction.
One psychologist has suggested that the individual’s aesthetic experience containsboth sensory and symbolic elements (Cupchik 2002). The symbolic dimension is alsoacknowledged by some philosophers (e.g. Goodman 1968). At the very simplest levelart forms are seen to employ symbolic devices (the use of a skull in a picture torepresent death, for instance). However, for other theorists the symbolic dimensionof arts entails the proposition that an artwork conveys some meaning (if onlyemotional expressiveness), an idea which became very common with the developmentof Romanticism, early in the nineteenth century, and developed with Susan Langer’sidea of expressive symbolism more recently (Dickie 1997). Necessarily such a perspec-tive assumes that part of the aesthetic experience entails apprehending the messageconveyed in by the aesthetic object. The symbolic purpose of art has been developedfurther by Goodman (1968), who sees the core of art as being essentially semiotic,signifying meaning.
It can also be suggested that aesthetic appreciation is widely agreed to have a cogni-tive or evaluative element to it—with terms such as judgment, contemplation, andperception being commonplace (Dickie 1971; Townsend 1997). Like Blackburn, otherphilosophers and some psychologists would also allow an affective component(Schaper 1983; Funch 1997). However, many—perhaps most—philosophers ofaesthetics tend to have a narrow view of what constitutes an aesthetic object, tendingto restrict it to “high art”. For example, a meal or a bottle of wine would have noaesthetic value for some philosophers (Scruton 1979; Beardsley 1980), while for othersthey would (Gale 1975; Sibley 2001). Generally, psychologists seem to have a less rigid
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
238 S. Charters
approach to the nature of an aesthetic object (Child 1969; Csikszentmihalyi andRobinson 1990), but for them definitional issues are secondary to processes.
It is worth suggesting at this stage that philosophers of art sometimes make a distinc-tion between the artistic nature of an object and the process of aesthetic evaluation.Thus a work of art such as a picture may have aesthetic value, whilst a natural view ofa landscape may not—but both can be appreciated by the same processes of aestheticjudgment (Townsend 1997; Sibley 2001). However, the influence of Hegel has been torelegate the natural to a secondary status after artworks (Sibley 2001). This distinc-tion—between object and experience—will underpin much of this review.
The Development of Aesthetic Thought
The concepts which aesthetics considers were first expressed by Plato in his consider-ation of beauty (Plato [n.d.] 1951). However the term aesthetics was first used at thebeginning of the eighteenth century by Baumgarten (Dickie 1997), and it has only beena major branch of philosophical thought for the past three hundred years. Initially thefocus for the discipline was on the nature of beauty and the evaluative role of taste (e.g.Hume [1757] 1998; Kant [1790] 1987). However, subsequently the influence of Hegeland Nietzsche turned the focus onto the individual’s experience and the subjectivityrather than the objectivity of the process (Ferry 1993). The twentieth century saw adevelopment of the subjective perspective via various forms of attitude theory (Dickie1997). At the same time, however, an alternative stream of thought developed, termedmetacriticism, which moved the emphasis away from the individual and back onto theaesthetic object (e.g. Beardsley 1980). Another recent approach has seen a focus on thesymbolic purposes of artworks (e.g. Goodman 1968), whose essentially semioticapproach has informed much contemporary aesthetic thought.
Aesthetics began as a branch of philosophy and as a result it is often viewed as a merelyphilosophical discipline. However, since the middle of the nineteenth century psychol-ogists have also spent some time examining the aesthetic responses of individuals andthe idea of creativity. One clear analysis of the psychological interpretation of aestheticswhich adopts common modes of psychological theory has been offered in a global studyby Funch (1997). He suggests four broad (and often interacting) psychologicalapproaches to the topic. Chronologically the first of these was the psychophysical (forrecent interpretations see Child 1969; Berlyne 1971). This outlook focuses on arousalas a stimulus to aesthetic experience but offers little foundation for evaluative processesin assessing aesthetic products other than an instinctive sensory response. Second, thereis the cognitive viewpoint (Kreitler and Kreitler 1972), which includes Gestalt psychol-ogy (Arnheim 1974, 1988). This perspective concentrates on the response to theaesthetic product as a mental activity (especially examining issues like harmony andbalance) and minimises the emotional element of the aesthetic experience. The thirdapproach is the psychoanalytical, developed out of the work of Freud, which focusesmainly on artistic creativity rather than the consumer. Where it does examine the latterit sees the aesthetic response as being firmly rooted in the individual’s unconscious—and thus as a subjective process. Fourth is the existential-phenomenological position
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Consumption, Markets and Culture 239
(such as Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson 1990). This also tends to be subjective inapproach and places emphasis on the experiential aspects of aesthetic consumption.This perspective claims that the aesthetic reaction, at its deepest, is different from anyother emotional event, to the extent that it can on occasions be transcendent (Funch1997). These different slants are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and insights fromall of them have informed the marketing perspective on aesthetic consumption.
In the second half of the twentieth century the social sciences began to focus on theimpact of art and the aesthetic. A number of sociologists explored the social aspects ofartworks, considering areas such as fashion and crafts (Blumer 1969; Becker 1978).The key sociological perspective was provided by Bourdieu (1986), who used hisresearch as part of a sustained attack on the position of Kant to show that aestheticjudgments are socially determined rather than of an objective nature. Bourdieu’sarguments, however, have not received universal acceptance, partly on the groundsthat his analysis had a limited temporal and geographic basis (Grunow 1997; Seymour2004) and that he avoids the historical and personal context of individuals’ taste judg-ments (de Certeau, Giard, and Mayol 1998). In any event, his sociological focus on themacro glosses over many of the specifics that make up the individual’s consumptionexperience.
Summary
On the basis of the definitions outlined above, the following can be suggested as theparameters for this review. Aesthetics deals with the experience of objects whichprovide the consumer with an element of beauty, or which are emotionally and/orspiritually moving. The experience has both experiential and symbolic dimensions.Appreciation of such consumption has a strong cognitive component but probably alsosensory and affective aspects. It can engage a number of products, including thosewhich are traditionally seen as “high art”, but perhaps also others which have a substan-tial dimension of the “beautiful”. This is a broad definition which would not necessarilygain the agreement of many—even most—aesthetic theorists, but is an attempt toextract the core of the exploration of aesthetic concepts over the centuries.
Aesthetics and Marketing
Comparatively little work has been done within the discipline of marketing on the anal-ysis of the aesthetic dimension as a core component of a product (as distinct fromancillary aesthetics). Furthermore, it is worth suggesting at this point a major limita-tion on consumer research into aesthetic responses. The consumer’s engagement withsome art forms (e.g., paintings, photographs, and short pieces of music) is easier toassess in experimental research than responses to other, lengthier, art forms (e.g.,novels or symphonies). This has almost certainly coloured much of the researchprocess of consumer researchers. One can add to this the fact that advertising is a coreaspect of marketing, so that the visual image is especially important to many research-ers in the discipline of marketing. As a result much of the consideration of aesthetics
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
240 S. Charters
within marketing has focused on products with a substantial visual dimension(Bamossy, Scammon, and Johnston 1982; Schindler, Holbrook, and Greenleaf 1989;Scott 1994; Schroeder 2000; Joy and Sherry 2003), rather than novels and music(Holbrook 1981, 1982, Holbrook and Schindler 1989 is an exception here) and, evenless, poetry, dance or architecture.
The literature within the field of consumer research refers both to “aesthetic” and“hedonic” consumption and the two at times seem to be used synonymously(Holbrook 1980; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Venkatraman and MacInnis 1985).Nevertheless, it can be argued that they are not identical. An aesthetic response relatesfundamentally to the consumer’s appreciation of beauty (Wagner 1999). As previouslysuggested, it is potentially a cognitive and an affective response and, it has been argued,it may also include “an involuntary physical response” that is sensory (Wagner 1999,134). On the other hand, hedonic consumption is essentially about pleasure. Pleasuremay be one element of aesthetic appreciation, and that appreciation will almostcertainly lead to a hedonic response—but the two are not identical. Compare readinga well-loved book with bungy jumping. The former has a substantial cognitive element(in grappling with language, plot, and ideas) and will result in pleasure; the latter mayalso result in pleasure, but has little or no cognitive element (at least on the part of thejumper), nor any sense of aesthetic appreciation—it merely results from the awarenessof risk and sense of speed in a free-fall. In summary, then, it can be suggested that anaesthetic experience is one type of hedonic consumption, but that other, non-aestheticforms also exist.
As well as the hedonic experience of an aesthetic product, marketing theorists havealso noted the possibility for symbolic connotations, echoing the philosophers whoalso consider that conveying significance or emotion is a key part of the aestheticprocess. It has been noted that popular cultural works may have “layers of meaning”for consumers (Hirschman 1980) and the symbolic meaning of the aestheticisationof everyday life has also been considered (Postrel 2003). Scott (1994), who basesmuch of her analysis of the response to advertisements on the work of the philosopherGoodman (1968), observes that pictures are often assumed to represent reality, but thatin fact even when they appear realistic a series of factors ensure that they must beviewed metaphorically. Consequently, responding to an aesthetic product is an active,learned process engaging with and interpreting its symbolic significance rather thanpassively relating an image to the natural world (Scott 1994).
Aesthetic Products
Within the discipline of marketing the nature of an aesthetic object is generally notdefined precisely but rather has a wide range of interpretations. Thus not only food ormusic may be aesthetic products but the styling of a washing machine can offer at leastan aesthetic dimension (Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998; Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold2003). It must be acknowledged that aesthetics has an influence on most consumergoods, as Figure 1 suggests. Figure 1 visualises the aesthetic dimension of products as acontinuum. It offers, below the continuum, exemplars at various stages, from products
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Consumption, Markets and Culture 241
with a minimal aesthetic component (an unusual occurrence; perhaps a generic storebrand of washing powder is a possibility) through to the highly aesthetic, which couldbe typified as high art.Figure 1 The range of aesthetics in consumer goods.
This continuum has been adopted by some consumer researchers (e.g. Bloch,Brunel, and Arnold 2003), but, it is suggested, there is a key distinction between its twosides. Some products have an aesthetic function as their primary purpose (that is, theirconsumption is experiential and essentially “moving”, or involves a consideration of“beauty”). Other products have a purpose which is essentially utilitarian, albeit withsome ancillary aesthetic dimension. Indeed, books have been devoted to the latter, suchas that by Schmitt and Simonson (1997), which deals with the management of aesthet-ics from the point of view of branding and promotion. The importance of aesthetics formarketers seeking to establish product differentiation is now crucial in a world whereperformance and quality are assumed, a fact acknowledged both in academic and morepopular literature (Bloch 1995; Postrel 2003). However, styling and promotionalaesthetics do not in themselves create an aesthetic product and are outside the scope ofthis review. Where the aesthetic purpose is primary there may be a further distinctionbetween products whose fundamental purpose is the stimulation of aesthetic appreci-ation—such as classical music, much poetry, and some photography—and productswhich combine a substantial aesthetic purpose (and which are therefore susceptible toaesthetic appreciation) with other social, or even utilitarian, functions. These can belabelled quasi-aesthetic products, and could include some foods (Coleman 1965), wine(Gale 1975), and perhaps clothing and traditional crafts.
Holbrook has noted that aesthetic product categories tend to be highly fragmented(Holbrook 1980) and that aesthetic products usually have an “especially large numberof product variants from any given manufacturer” (Holbrook 1982, 115). Despite thishe suggests that:
Many respondents who might find it impossible to provide valid perceptual or preferencejudgments on more than one or two brands of toothpaste, deodorant or detergent can—with comparative ease—provide meaningful evaluations of innumerable musicians, writ-ers, actors, artists, entertainers or other types of esthetic offering. (Holbrook 1982, 115)
The consequence of this, however, is that choice in products with a substantial aestheticdimension is far wider than for most goods. Whereas supermarkets may stock twenty
Minimalaestheticdimension
Almostentirely
aestheticAesthetic
designSubstantially
aesthetic
Own labeldetergent
Car Hautecuisine
ChamberMusic
Figure 1 The range of aesthetics in consumer goods.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
242 S. Charters
brands and product variants of tuna, or seventy of biscuits, the varieties of clothes orwine—and even more of music and books—available to the consumer will run into thethousands. For the consumer with some expertise or high involvement with theseproducts selection may be a fascinating and simple process; for the less involved it canbe daunting. One result of this is that gatekeepers become especially important in theevaluation and promotion of such products to provide guidance to the consumer whomay feel overwhelmed by choice (Wallendorf 1980).
It is also useful to note that, unlike most other products, production of aestheticgoods may be less about satisfying consumer needs than on allowing the producerartistic expression (Hirschman 1983). This is not an absolute—even artists need toearn a living and with some forms of aesthetic expression, such as movies, the financialrequirements of meeting marketing demand are substantial; nevertheless, even withproducts like these the marketing imperative of consumer orientation is not absoluteas the spread of “directors’ cuts” suggests. It also means that peer evaluations maybe important to producers as a means of estimating the worth of what they do(Hirschman 1983).
The use of the idea of “aesthetic products” is widespread within the context of expe-riential consumption (Sexton and Britney 1980; Hirschman 1986; Holbrook andSchindler 1989; Schindler, Holbrook, and Greenleaf 1989; Batra and Ahtola 1991), andthis viewpoint is mirrored in disciplines other than marketing. The anthropologistDouglas, for instance, talks about “the aesthetics of a meal” and “food as an art form”(Douglas 1982). Grunow (1997), a sociologist, has claimed that social structures can beseen as aesthetically beautiful.
Despite the widespread use of the term “aesthetic product” the concept is subject tocriticism. The first problem is that the approach is essentialist. That is, the aestheticfocus is on the product, rather than the consumer’s experience. This focus leads tocomplex philosophical arguments about the nature of an aesthetic product, which havenever been finally resolved. The second problem centres on the idea of aesthetic andquasi-aesthetic products, and suggests that the distinction between the two is arbitraryand irrelevant. A meal in a “good” restaurant may appear to involve a greater socialdimension and a more limited focus on the appraisal of beauty than a performance ofchamber music and thus have less of an aesthetic dimension. However, that is notnecessarily the case when pre-performance drinks, the interval conversation and post-performance analysis at the concert, all of which give a social focus to the event, aretaken into account.
Aesthetic Consumption
Twenty-five years ago Holbrook (1980) claimed that consumer researchers had notheoretical framework for the analysis of aesthetic consumption, a view later echoed byothers (e.g. Day 1985). Much of the subsequent examination of the role and functionof aesthetic products arose from the work of Holbrook and his collaborators, springingfrom an original exploration of experiential consumption (Hirschman and Holbrook1982; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982) and later developed in a series of other works.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Consumption, Markets and Culture 243
One can suggest, moreover, that as the opus on aesthetic consumption has evolved, ithas been the psychological approaches to aesthetics, rather than the philosophical,which have had the most immediate impact (Holbrook 1980, 1987; Bamossy 1985).This particularly applies to the influence of the Gestalt approach (Arnheim 1974) andpsychophysical perspectives (Child 1969; Berlyne 1971, 1974), perhaps because theylend themselves more easily to experimental quantification by researchers.
The most comprehensive of Holbrook’s contributions to this analysis was co-authored with Zirlin (1985). In that review, however, Holbrook and Zirlin adoptedsome of the more philosophical approaches to aesthetics, rather than relying purely onthe psychological perspective. Thus they distinguished between an aesthetic object andthe process of aesthetic appreciation; the latter, they suggest, does not necessarilyrequire the former in order to occur. They also suggested that “aesthetic appreciationranges along a continuum between simple hedonic pleasure and profound” (Holbrookand Zirlin 1985, 3). It is worth observing that many philosophers and psychologiststend to focus on the profound rather than the less intense form of aesthetic responseand may not accept the concept of a continuum, although there are exceptions, such asDickie (1964) and Zuniga (1989). Crucially, and in distinction to the traditional philo-sophical approach, Holbrook and Zirlin (1985) also claimed that aesthetic appreciationmay be relevant to products which do not necessarily claim the status of an “artwork”.Much of Holbrook’s work, however, has been on products with a high aestheticcomponent such as movies (1999b) or music (1982, Holbrook and Schindler 1989),rather than quasi-aesthetic products.
Other researchers have contributed to the growing understanding of aestheticconsumption. It has been suggested that the process entails a certain level of cognitivecomplexity (Wallendorf, Zinkhan, and Zinkhan 1980), although excessive complexitymay inhibit a positive response (Huber and Holbrook 1980). The evaluation ofaesthetic products may be considered to be quasi-objective, especially where there issome consensus about their value (Solomon, Pruitt, and Insko 1984). (Note,however, the underlying assumption in much consumer research into aesthetic goodsthat their evaluation is necessarily subjective and idiosyncratic [Wallendorf 1980;Hirschman 1983; Holbrook and Zirlin 1985; Wagner 1999]). It has also beenobserved that in Western cultures (though not necessarily in others) aesthetic behav-iour is seen to be distinct from ordinary behaviour (Day 1985). Critically, it has beensuggested that products which are predominantly aesthetic are more closely related topositive affective states than products which are essentially utilitarian (Mano andOliver 1993). It has further been noted that the value of the product to the consumer,the experience and skill needed to evaluate it and the intensity of the affectiveresponse all operate in tandem (Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold 2003). This implies thatthe importance of an aesthetic product type to the consumer and his or her ability tojudge it have a close relationship. Finally there has also been research on embodimentas a means of understanding the consumer’s response to an aesthetic encounter (Joyand Sherry 2003).
As the specific research of Holbrook and others has thus shown, there is a closelink between the experiential consumption of a product displaying “beauty” and the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
244 S. Charters
judgments which inform that consumption and which comprise the aspects of appre-ciation, quality evaluation, and taste. The consumption provides a stimulus for, andthe judgments the outworking of, aesthetic consumption.
Post-modern Consumer Aesthetics
The impact of postmodernism on marketing thought over the last twenty years hasbeen substantial, especially in the area of consumer aesthetics. However, assessing thisimpact is complicated by the fact that postmodernism is hard to define precisely. Oneprotagonist of the post-modern standpoint has been keen to distinguish the approachfrom the “plethora of unorthodox perspectives which have materialised in recentyears” (Brown 1995 paragraph 3), including semiotics, interpretive consumer research,and humanism.
Three possible features of postmodernism may be relevant to this review. First,Lyotard (1984, xxiv) defines postmodernism as “incredulity towards metanarratives”.This means that overriding theories which seek to explain general human behaviourare treated with suspicion. Consequently the past approach of aesthetic thinkers whohave sought to find general rules governing the appreciation and experience ofartworks or aesthetic products is considered irrelevant. Rather the traditional reposito-ries of aesthetic quality have become both “tedious” and “elitist” (Brown, Hirschman,and Maclaran 2000, 147).
At the same time, some post-modern thinkers have adopted ideas from aesthetics asa metaphor for the way society is developing or functioning. Thus it has becomecommon to talk of the “aestheticisation of everyday life” (Featherstone 1991). Thisapproach argues that the boundaries of “life” and “art” are breaking down. Advertisingand product design borrow from “high art” whilst avant-garde artists create art fromthe everyday, typified by Warhol’s paintings of Campbell’s soup (Featherstone 1990).Meanwhile “the rapid flow of signs and images … saturate the fabric of everyday life incontemporary society” (Featherstone 1991, 67).
Thirdly, one can note the concept of hyperreality—the idea that media images havereplaced the sense of an evolving historical process to provide the context for everydaylife (Featherstone 1991, 67). Whereas postmodernists may view the overarching idea ofthe aesthetic cautiously, aesthetic products are considered to have come to dominatesocial reality (Sloan 2004).
One incisive interpretation has suggested that whereas historically aesthetic qualitycould have an objective dimension, after the enlightenment it could only be conceivedof as subjective, and in the post-modern world merely as an “expression of individual-ity” (Ferry 1993). Thus, as postmodernism eschews grand theory, it turns the focusonto other aspects of the aesthetic experience. Authenticity (Ferry 1993; Goulding2000), scandal as a means of promoting aesthetic products (Schroeder 2000), parodyand pastiche (Goulding 2000), and the importance of unsettling consumers (Brownand Patterson 2000a) are all issues that are addressed.
An interesting development, influenced by the post-modern perspective, has beenthe changing concept of consumer aesthetics held by marketing practitioners. One of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Consumption, Markets and Culture 245
the clearest outlines of this is to be found in Postrel’s (2003) book on style and aestheticvalue. This stresses the role of individual aesthetic choice in expressing our freedomand individuality. It also recreates the aesthetic concept, shedding its philosophicalroots. In some cases this “new aesthetic” adopts ideas completely at odds with previousviewpoints. Thus:
“Aesthetics” obviously does not refer to the philosophy of art. Aesthetics is the way wecommunicate through the senses. It is the art of creating reactions without wordsthrough the look and feel of people, places and things. Hence, aesthetics differs fromentertainment that requires cognitive engagement with narrative, word play or complex,intellectual allusion. While the sound of poetry is arguably aesthetic, the meaning is not.(Postrel 2003, 5)
The traditional idea of aesthetics is turned on its head; it is primarily symbolic, usedas part of the extended self or a company’s public relations programme to stimulateresponses in others. It is sensory in apprehension and explicitly not cognitive, unliketraditional aesthetic engagement. Because it has complex meaning which must beunderstood the aesthetic element of poetry is diminished (ironically poetry, exempli-fied in different forms by five of the nine ancient Greek muses, is one of the mostlong-standing “traditional” aesthetic forms). Indeed, in some cases the newapproach to aesthetics may completely dismiss any claim to special significancemade for the arts (Carey 2005). We can flesh out the nature of the new aesthetic. Itis almost entirely about visual forms—both those we respond to (films, advertise-ments, etc.) and those we create ourselves via fashion and bodily adornment. It isnot about a profound experience (unlike the philosophical interpretation whichassumes that it will be). It is mass produced but it has also to be authentic. Thisrevolutionary definition of aesthetics tends to minimise the significance of experi-ences which may be more intense and rather focuses on a more general hedonicexperience.
From a post-modern perspective, therefore, a review such as this which seeks toplace the consumer’s aesthetic experience into a broader outlook drawing on a moretraditional approach may seem to be a meaningless exercise. However, those postmod-ernists who focus on the aestheticisation of everyday life, whilst dismissing the conven-tional philosophical tendency to write a metanarrative, may yet gain metaphoricalinsights into social reality from an understanding of the context of aesthetics.
Problems Around the Nature of the Aesthetic Experience
Four issues surrounding the aesthetic experience, all of which have been pondered byphilosophers and psychologists, inform the understanding of aesthetic consumption.They comprise disinterested attention, objective, and subjective taste, what the individ-ual actually undergoes during the aesthetic encounter and the relationship of evalua-tion to preference. Each of these topics will be examined with an initial considerationof general aesthetic thought followed by an analysis of how marketing academics haveunderstood the idea.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
246 S. Charters
Disinterested Attention
A key point, made by both philosophers and psychologists, is that aesthetic engagementis intrinsic—that the product is appreciated for its own sake, and not for any utilitarianpurpose it may serve. Philosophers term this “disinterested appreciation” (Dickie 1971;Townsend 1997) while psychologists refer to it as “psychical distance” (Funch 1997;Cupchik 2002). The notion of disinterested appreciation of art was developed initiallyby Lord Shaftesbury (Cupchik 2002), and later became a core feature of the aestheticsof Kant (Kant [1790] 1987). Quoting Stolnitz, Dickie defines it as “disinterested (withno ulterior purpose) and sympathetic attention to and contemplation of any object ofawareness whatever, for its own sake alone” (Dickie 1971, 52). The idea that an artworkshould be appreciated only for its own sake, with no ulterior motive, has been widelyaccepted by philosophers over the last two hundred years (for recent examples noteSchaper 1983; Bayley 1991; Railton 1998).
The idea of disinterested attention has not been universally unchallenged, however.Dickie is the most well known critic, arguing that neither disinterestedness nor psychi-cal distance exist and that the concept means nothing special beyond merely payingclose attention to something (Dickie 1964). Osborne notes “that there are many pitfallsand snags in the way of deciding whether any particular judgment is wholly disinter-ested and complete certainty can rarely, if ever, be achieved” (1979, 138).
Connected with the argument for disinterested appreciation is the claim that sensualpleasure is not in itself an aesthetic experience. The aesthetic appreciation of beautyinvolves more than the mere satisfaction of bodily needs (Coleman 1965). If this iscorrect one could thus suggest that the hungry person’s eager consumption of food,however well-prepared, is not an aesthetic experience whereas the gourmet’s savouringof a complex and carefully constructed dish could be.
Within a consumer behaviour framework Holbrook (Holbrook and Zirlin 1985;Holbrook 1986) has developed this approach and suggested that aesthetic consumptionpresupposes an “intrinsic” motivation and must exclude any “extrinsic” motivation;that is, any instrumental use of the aesthetic product to facilitate other, non-aestheticends (Holbrook 1986). However, the criteria for determining what an aesthetic objectis within the discipline of consumer research do not necessarily have to follow preciselythe rules adopted in other disciplines and it is worth examining the idea in more detail.A hypothetical scenario may add some clarity to the debate. Imagine the wine aficiona-dos who savour with great pleasure a 1990 Chateau Lafite. In isolation they may beundertaking consumption with intrinsic motivation. When they meet to enjoy the samewine, using the product instrumentally rather than autotelically, they can no longer beconsidered to be undertaking aesthetic consumption. In practice the processes they useand the experience they undergo could be identical in both situations.
It is therefore suggested that aesthetic consumption involves the use of a productwhere (1) the utilitarian function of the product is not the primary consumption goal,(2) enjoyment of its beauty or sublimeness is the primary purpose of consumption, but(3) there may also be some extrinsic motivation in the form of symbolic consumption.This latter point is accepted by some consumer researchers, with Bell, Holbrook, and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Consumption, Markets and Culture 247
Solomon (1991, 246) noting that “intrinsic esthetic or hedonic value and extrinsicstatus or social value may operate simultaneously”. It may be worth suggesting thatmultiple types of value may be “compresent” in one aesthetic encounter, includingboth aesthetic and non-aesthetic types of value (Holbrook 1999a). However, the post-modern perspective, with its focus on the “death of the subject” (Brown 1995), wouldtend to argue that any dichotomy between the intrinsic and the extrinsic is meaningless.
Objective and Subjective Taste
In the eighteenth century the “antinomy of taste” was a major issue for aestheticians.Essentially the paradox revolves around the fact that “taste” is a personal judgment andthat aesthetic experience relies on an individual emotional response, yet society claimsthat some works of art are better than others. The paradox was most effectively put bythe Scottish philosopher David Hume ([1757] 1998) who noted that the subjectiveposition thus argues that to seek real beauty is pointless, for the quest merely reflectspersonal taste and there are no externally valid, universally agreed reference points onwhich to base aesthetic judgments. Yet, as Hume pointed out, whilst many poets of theclassical era have been forgotten:
The same Homer who pleased at Athens and Rome two thousand years ago, is still admiredat Paris and London. All the changes of climate, government, religion, and language, havenot been able to obscure his glory. (Hume [1757] 1998, 139)
The continuing regard for Homer therefore suggests that aesthetic appreciation has anobjective dimension, applicable across ages and cultures (an argument still acceptedby some, even including one post-modern critic [Ferry 1993, 25]). Hume claimed tobe able to show, empirically, how certain evaluative processes combined to create agenerally acceptable “standard of taste” but his argument was not generally accepted.Subsequently Kant tried to resolve this paradox, which he named the “antinomy oftaste” ([1790] 1987, 210), by arguing that universal validity resided not so much in thejudgment made of a particular aesthetic object as in the disinterested attitude whichinformed that judgment. Thus, if an individual makes a reasoned “estimation” of anobject, in a disinterested manner, then that is valid as an objective process (Schaper1983). Kant’s argument, likewise, was not perfectly reasoned, but as noted previouslythe nineteenth century saw the focus of the aesthetic encounter shift to subjective expe-rience so that objective evaluative criteria became less important (Dickie 1997). Never-theless, the paradox retains some relevance for contemporary aesthetic philosophers(Osborne 1979; Schaper 1983), and some have attempted to show that evaluation atleast has objective elements to it (Railton 1998).
The idea of the antinomy of taste has informed the work of some sociologists, espe-cially Bourdieu (1986) for whom it formed the spur to his classic work on taste. It hasadditionally been explored within the domain of the sociology of fashion (Grunow1997). It was also considered within the field of consumer research, again in the area offashion and fashionability, by Solomon, Pruitt, and Insko (1984), who note that judg-ments may, perhaps, be quasi-objective. These are evaluations when experts tend to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
248 S. Charters
agree, and which are “certainly not fully objective. But neither are they fully subjective,since they are based to some extent on criteria capable of being objectively determined”(Solomon, Pruitt, and Insko 1984, 116). In slightly different form, as part of an argu-ment that discrimination, which relies on impersonal criteria, is an essential element ofthe aesthetic response, Holbrook (1998) has also supported the idea of objectiveevaluative norms. Additionally, the interrelationship of subjective and objective hasoccasionally been considered by consumer researchers (Holbrook 1981; Charters andPettigrew 2003, 2005). Nevertheless, the appraisal of products generally—at least oftheir “quality”—is generally claimed by consumer researchers to be “perceived”, andtherefore subjective (Zeithaml 1988). Meanwhile a postmodernist, emphasising theindividuality of the consumer (Ferry 1993), or indeed the death of the subject (Brown1995), may consider the debate about subjectivity and objectivity futile.
The Nature of the Aesthetic Encounter
Another issue relating to the aesthetic experience has been the debate about what itactually entails. This includes three related issues: the individual’s psychophysicalresponse, the role of pleasure in appreciation, and the “flow experience”. The first ofthese centres on the issue of whether the encounter is a cognitive, affective, or sensoryprocess. This argument began in the eighteenth century so that Voltaire, for instance,claimed that aesthetic appreciation was a felt response whereas Edmund Burke main-tained that taste is a “faculty of the mind”—a cognitive process (Schaper 1983). Onecould add that, in the work of Kant and others, there is a suggestion that the aestheticresponse is essentially sensory (Osborne 1979) (although whilst Kant acknowledgedthis possibility, he situated the aesthetic experience firmly within the domain of cogni-tion). This sensory perspective sees “judgments of aesthetic taste within the field ofimmediate perceptual awareness rather than [in] discursive cognition” (Osborne 1979,137). This same division between the cognitive, affective, and sensory is also replicatedin psychology. Some see aesthetic experience being primarily about a mentalresponse—for instance the Gestalt school (Arnheim 1974, 1988). Others stress theemotional experience (Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson 1990; Funch 1997). Withothers arousal is a key (if not dominant) issue—thus sensation becomes of crucialimportance (Berlyne 1971, 1974). This variety of response is noted by Csikszentmihalyiand Robinson (1990), whose research amongst art gallery curators reported varyingbut widespread emphasis by the professionals on perceptual (sensory) reaction,emotional impact, and on the intellectual processing of the experience.
The way in which consumers respond to aesthetic experiences has been consideredby consumer researchers, most notably Joy and Sherry (2003). They criticise the tradi-tional philosophical (especially Kantian) focus on reason as the centre of understand-ing, separate from the body, and apply the concept of embodiment—the totalapprehension of experience using the body, without divorcing sensory, cognitive oremotional functions from each other. In this context they observe that on occasions theresponse to artworks in galleries can be visceral (Joy and Sherry 2003, 270, 276) imply-ing a sensory response which has not been mentally evaluated. They also note that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Consumption, Markets and Culture 249
traditional phenomenological focuses on perception used by consumer researcherstend to ignore unconscious schemata which shape our experience. Scott (1994), also,has noted that the traditional approach in marketing has been to focus on theconsciously cognitive, rather than a more immediate imaginative response to aestheticproducts.
Connected to the psychophysical response to an aesthetic encounter is the issue ofpleasure. For early philosophers of aesthetics pleasure was deemed to be integral to theaesthetic experience (Hume [1757] 1998). However, since the time of Kant pleasure perse has been discounted as part of the encounter (Osborne 1979). Rather pleasurebecame an almost co-incidental “symptom” (Osborne 1979, 137) of the process. Somemodern philosophical aestheticians agree that pleasure is irrelevant (Scruton 1979),but most psychologists would probably accept that pleasure is fundamental to theexperience, whilst not its distinguishing feature. Even so, Funch has suggested that:
Art appreciation from a psycho-physical point of view is centered on a feeling of aestheticpleasure. The phenomenology of this feeling is seldom studied in depth because it is gener-ally considered to be a purely sensory or sensuous pleasure which is a direct and immediateresponse to the aesthetic properties of a work. (Funch 1997, 39)
It is therefore an open question whether or not pleasure is a core element of theaesthetic experience. Certainly mere pleasure has not been considered enough on itsown to justify an aesthetic experience. The latter should have features which distin-guish it from other pleasurable events (Townsend 1997). However, philosophers havebeen unable to agree on what those other features are. It is worth noting that marketingresearchers have made a distinction between the process of aesthetic evaluation and theresulting benefit of aesthetic consumption—an experience of pleasure or fun(Holbrook and Hirschman 1982).
The final issue relevant to the nature of the aesthetic encounter results from the workof Csikszentmihalyi on the “flow experience” (Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson 1990;Csikszentmihalyi 2002). The flow experience does not just apply to aesthetic engage-ment but to any autotelic, ludic process on which an individual focuses concentration.Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson (1990) compare the elements of the flow experiencewith the work on aesthetic experience of the philosopher Beardsley (1980) andconclude the two analyses are similar. Each stresses the fact that the attention is focusedon an object or activity; that the individual becomes insulated from the temporal pastor future; that there is a sense of emotional detachment; that ability is harnessed toovercome intellectual challenge; and that the individual gains a sense of personal devel-opment as a result of the experience. It is necessary to stress that this is an analysis of afairly intense version of aesthetic experience but it has been suggested that it has a rela-tionship to similar psychological ideas, such as Maslow’s concept of peak experiences(Funch 1997).
These issues are relevant as they have rarely been considered in detail by consumerresearchers. Some have concentrated on the cognitive dimension of the aestheticprocess (Wallendorf, Zinkhan, and Zinkhan 1980), others have emphasised theemotional or sensory (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982), but without examining the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
250 S. Charters
basis for these assertions in detail. Pleasure is certainly assumed to be a key element ofthe experience, without reference to the related philosophical disputes. Meanwhilefeelings of profound aesthetic response are sometimes discussed without necessarilyany detailed analysis of the event similar to that suggested in the flow experience(although there are exceptions, such as Holbrook and Zirlin 1985; Holbrook 1995).
Evaluation and Preference
There is some suggestion from aesthetic theorists that a distinction exists between anindividual’s appraisal of an aesthetic object and their pleasure in it (although evenamongst philosophers it has been noted that “not liking is usually tantamount to thedenial of value” [Fisher 1968, 135]). What is aesthetically good may not ultimately beenjoyed by the individual (Kenny 1963; Fisher 1968; Dickie 1971).
Within the discipline of marketing it is almost universally assumed that a positiveproduct appraisal leads to purchase. Only occasionally is the connection questioned(Olshavsky 1985), and rarely is evidence adduced to suggest otherwise. Monroe andKrishnan (1985) appear to suggest that the relationship between a favourable evalua-tion and purchase is not invariable, but even they are only considering the quality/pricerelationship.
With aesthetic products, however, it is possible that consumers can make evalua-tions irrespective of a purchase decision. Research has suggested that when askedabout aesthetic value many consumers offer their preference rather than an appraisalof a product’s quality (Bamossy 1985), and it has been noted that many commonresearch experiments “do not distinguish between preference and judgment”(Bamossy, Scammon, and Johnston 1982, 686). It is, indeed, possible that consumersmay evaluate product quality highly yet still dislike it, so that taste and aesthetic valuedo not coincide. There is some evidence—at least with wine—that this is the case(Charters and Pettigrew 2003).
Conclusion
It has been suggested here that the aesthetic product has four fundamental compo-nents. First, it must have aesthetic considerations as a primary, rather than a secondary,purpose. That is, the aesthetic component (the pursuit of beauty, or of the sublime) isindispensable to the consumption purpose, rather than marginal, as it is with productstyling. Second, the product must be designed to stimulate aesthetic consumption.Thus it must have dimensions that, in the widest sense, can be considered beautiful ormoving by a number of consumers. The third criterion is that the product is capable ofproviding intrinsic value. That means that it can be appreciated essentially for its ownsake, rather than merely as a means to an end. Fourth, aesthetic products exist in ahighly fragmented market.
One may also hypothesise that an aesthetic product can be susceptible to some formof consensus about its “objective” value. However, this is a more debatable point whichexists in tension with the opposite—subjectivist—view that the appreciation of art is
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Consumption, Markets and Culture 251
essentially a function of personal taste. Another way of looking at this is to consider thepossibility of intersubjectivity—the idea that an evaluation may be considered objec-tive by nature of a broad collective agreement about the worth of the aesthetic productamongst a group of consumers. The evaluation would not be fully objective, and estab-lished by reference to fixed, external criteria, but would gain a level of agreement thattakes it beyond the merely idiosyncratic.
This is a broad definition. It was noted by Holbrook and Hirschman (1980) that anaesthetic product can include such disparate productions as Shakespeare’s plays andThe Waltons. More precisely, an aesthetic product includes both mass culture and“high art” (Levy, Czepiel, and Rook 1980). It is also relevant to record that a postmod-ernist, whilst not necessarily disputing this general definition, would apply it to an evenwider range of goods, such as billboards, street signs and gentrified urban landscapes(Featherstone 1991).
As a synopsis of the current marketing perspective, aesthetic consumption can beseen to have a number of elements. Crucially it involves the use of a product primarily(though not necessarily exclusively) for the appreciation of its beauty or its expressive(emotionally moving) characteristics, although potentially with other forms of valuecompresent. It is a form of experiential consumption, but is not coterminous with allexperiential consumption, involving as it does a more substantial cognitive elementthan many forms of experiential consumption. Nevertheless, it also has a distinctsensory component and will additionally stimulate affective responses. It has a strongsymbolic element, comprising both inner-directed elements (dealing with one’s senseof identity and self-development) and an outer-directed focus (conveying messages tothose around us). Additionally aesthetic appreciation can exist on a continuum frombasic “hedonic experience” (mild pleasure) through to one which is profound andmoving.
As the aspects outlined above will have made clear, there is no effective agreementabout the nature of the aesthetic experience. However, for consumer researchers it maybe possible to suggest that the following issues are especially relevant—and particularlythat in them the marketing perspective may diverge from traditional aesthetic thought.First, whilst the intrinsic nature of aesthetic engagement has been deemed paramountby many, it is likely that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are both key elements of theprocess—even if the intrinsic forms the dominant focus. Further, despite the tradi-tional subjectivist marketing view of quality, there may be both objective and subjectiveelements to the appraisal of aesthetic products. Next, it seems likely that the aestheticexperience involves contemporaneously aspects that are sensory, affective, and cogni-tive and that these may be of varying importance over different “aesthetic episodes”,depending on the individual, the product and the situation of consumption. Linkedwith this is the idea that pleasure is generally bound up in aesthetic experience—although there may be instances where individuals are able to separate their ownpleasure from product appraisal. The aesthetic experience can encompass a range offeelings, from a sense of mild hedonic pleasure through to intense aesthetic experienceswhich focus individuals’ concentration on the product, and isolate them in theircontemplation. At this last extreme the experience may be profound.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
252 S. Charters
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful for the interesting and challenging comments of the two review-ers which have undoubtedly improved the quality of this paper.
References
Armstrong, John. 2004. The secret power of beauty. London: Allen Lane.Arnheim, Rudolf. 1974. Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University
of California Press.———. 1988. The power of the center: A study of composition in the visual arts. Berkeley: University of
California Press.Bamossy, Gary. 1985. Aesthetic judgment and arts patronage of adolescents. In Advances in nonprofit
marketing, edited by R. W. Belk. London: JAI Press.Bamossy, Gary, Debra L. Scammon, and Marilyn Johnston. 1982. A preliminary investigation of the
reliability and validity of an aesthetic judgment test. Advances in Consumer Research 10: 685–90.Batra, Rajeev, and Olli T. Ahtola. 1991. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitudes. Marketing Letters 2 (2): 159–70.Bayley, Stephen. 1991. Taste: The secret meaning of things. New York: Random House.Beardsley, Monroe C. 1980. Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. 2d ed. Indianapolis:
Harcourt, Brace and World.Becker, Howard S. 1978. Arts and crafts. American Journal of Sociology 83 (4): 862–89.Bell, Stephen S., Morris. B. Holbrook, and Michael. R. Solomon. 1991. Combining esthetic and
social value to explain preferences for product styles with the incorporation of personality andensemble effects. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality 6 (6): 243–74.
Berlyne, D. E. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Meredith Corporation.———, ed. 1974. Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. Washington: Hemisphere.Blackburn, Simon. 1994. Dictionary of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bloch, Peter H. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of
Marketing 59 (July): 16–29.Bloch, Peter H., Frederic F. Brunel, and Todd J. Arnold. 2003. Individual differences in the centrality
of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research 29(March): 551–65.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Fashion: From class differentiation to collective selection. The SociologicalQuarterly 10 (1): 275–91.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Translated by R. Nice.London: Routledge.
Brown, Stephen. 1995. Postmodern marketing research: No representation without taxation. Journalof the Market Research Society 37 (3): 287–311.
Brown, Stephen, Elizabeth C. Hirschman, and Pauline Maclaran. 2000. Presenting the past: Onmarketing’s re-production orientation. In Imagining marketing: Art, aesthetics and the avant-garde, edited by S. Brown and A. Patterson. London: Routledge.
Brown, Stephen, and Anthony Patterson. 2000a. Figments for sale: Marketing, imagination and theartistic imperative. In Imagining marketing: Art, aesthetics and the avant-garde, edited by S.Brown and A. Patterson. London: Routledge.
———, eds. 2000b. Imagining marketing: Art, aesthetics and the avant-garde. London: Routledge.Carey, John. 2005. What good are the arts? London: Faber and Faber.Charters, Steve, and Simone Pettigrew. 2003. “I like it but how do I know if it’s any good?” Quality
and preference in wine consumption. Journal of Research for Consumers 5.———. 2005. The relevance of the quality construct to wine consumption. Paper read at European
Association for Consumer Research, 15–18 June, at Goteberg.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Consumption, Markets and Culture 253
Child, Irvin L. 1969. Esthetics. In The handbook of social psychology, edited by G. Lindzey and E.Aronson. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Coleman, Francis J. 1965. Can a smell or a taste or a touch be beautiful? American PhilosophicalQuarterly 2 (4): 319–24.
Cothey, Anthony L. 1990. The nature of art. London: Routledge.Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 2002. Flow: The classic work on how to achieve happiness. London: Rider.Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, and Rick E. Robinson. 1990. The art of seeing. Malibu: J. Paul Getty Trust.Cupchik, Gerald C. 2002. The evolution of psychical distance as an aesthetic concept. Culture and
Psychology 8 (2): 155–87.Day, Ellen. 1985. Accounting for musical tastes, preferences and attendance patterns. In Advances in
nonprofit marketing, edited by R. W. Belk. London: JAI Press.de Certeau, M., L. Giard, and P. Mayol. 1998. The practice of everyday life. Translated by T. J.
Tomasik. Vol. 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Dickie, George L. 1964. The myth of the aesthetic attitude. American Philosophical Quarterly 1 (1):
56–65.———. 1971. Aesthetics: An introduction, traditions in philosophy. New York: Pegasus.———. 1997. Introduction to aesthetics: An analytic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.———. 2000. Art and value. British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (2): 228–41.Dissanayake, Ellen. 1992. Homo aestheticus. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Douglas, Mary. 1982. In the active voice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Featherstone, Mike. 1990. Perspectives on consumer culture. Sociology 24 (1): 5–22.———. 1991. Consumer culture and postmodernism. London: Sage.Ferry, Luc. 1993. Homo aestheticus. Translated by R. de Loaiza. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Fisher, John. 1968. Evaluation without enjoyment. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 27:
135–39.Funch, Bjarne Sode. 1997. The psychology of art appreciation. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum
Press.Gale, George. 1975. Are some aesthetic judgments empirically true? American Philosophical Quarterly
12 (4): 341–48.Goodman, Nelson. 1968. Languages of art. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Goulding, Christina. 2000. The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the search
for authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. European Journal of Marketing34 (7): 835–53.
Grunow, Jukka. 1997. The sociology of taste. London: Routledge.Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1980. Commonality and idiosyncracy in popular culture: An empirical
examination of the “layers of meaning” concept. Paper read at Consumer Esthetics andSymbolic Consumption, at New York.
———. 1983. Aesthetics, ideologies and the limits of the marketing concept. Journal of Marketing 47(3): 45–56.
———. 1986. The effect of verbal and pictorial stimuli on aesthetic, utilitarian and familiarityperceptions. Journal of Advertising 15 (2): 27–35.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C., and Morris B. Holbrook. 1982. Hedonic consumption: Emergingconcepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46 (Summer): 92–101.
Holbrook, Morris B. 1980. Some preliminary notes on research in consumer esthetics. Advances inConsumer Research 7: 104–08.
———. 1981. Integrating compositional and decompositional analyses to represent the inter-vening role of perceptions in evaluative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research 18(February): 13–28.
———. 1982. Mapping the retail market for esthetic products: The case of jazz records. Journal ofRetailing 58 (1): 114–31.
———. 1986. Aims, concepts and methods for the representation of individual differences inesthetic responses to design features. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (December): 337–47.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
254 S. Charters
———. 1987. Progress and problems in research on consumer esthetics. In Artists and culturalconsumers, edited by D. V. Shaw, W. Hendon, and C. Waits. Akron: Association for CulturalEconomics.
———. 1995. Consumer research: Introspective essays on the study of consumption. Thousand Oaks:Sage.
———. 1998. The dangers of cultural populism: Three vignettes on the problems of aesthetic insen-sitivity, the pitfalls of pandering, and the virtues of artistic integrity. Journal of ConsumerAffairs 32 (2): 394–423.
———. 1999a. Introduction. In Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research, edited by M.B. Holbrook. New York: Routledge.
———. 1999b. Popular appeal versus expert judgments of motion pictures. Journal of ConsumerResearch 26 (September): 144–55.
———. 2004. The eye of the beholder: Beauty as a concept in everyday discourse and the collectivephotographic essay. Review of Marketing Research 1: 35–100.
Holbrook, Morris B., and Elizabeth. C. Hirschman. 1980. Symbolic consumer behavior: An introduc-tion. Paper read at Consumer Esthetics and Symbolic Consumption Conference, at New York.
———. 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings and fun.Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September): 132–40.
Holbrook, Morris B., and Robert M. Schindler. 1989. Some exploratory findings on the developmentof musical tastes. Journal of Consumer Research 16 (June): 119–24.
———. 1994. Age, sex and attitude toward the past as predictors of consumers’ aesthetic tastes forcultural products. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (August): 421–22.
Holbrook, Morris B., and Robert B. Zirlin. 1985. Artistic creation, artworks and aesthetic apprecia-tion. In Advances in nonprofit marketing, edited by R. W. Belk. London: JAI Press.
Huber, Joel, and Morris B. Holbrook. 1980. The determinants of esthetic value and growth.Advances in Consumer Research 7: 121–26.
Hume, David. [1757] 1998. Selected essays. Sydney: Oxford University Press.Joy, Annamma, and John F. Sherry. 2003. Speaking of art as embodied imagination: A multisensory
approach to understanding aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 259–82.Kant, Immanuel. [1790] 1987. Critique of judgment. Translated by W. S. Pular. Indianapolis: Hackett.Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, emotion and will. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Korsmeyer, Carolyn. 1999. Making sense of taste. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Kreitler, Hans, and Shulamith Kreitler. 1972. Psychology of the arts. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.Leddy, Thomas. 2000. Review of The psychology of art appreciation, by B. S. Funch (1997). Journal of
Aesthetic Education 34 (1): 118–20.Levy, Sidney J., and John Czepiel. 1974. Marketing and aesthetics. Paper read at Proceedings of the
American Marketing Association, at Chicago.Levy, Sidney J., John A. Czepiel, and Dennis W. Rook. 1980. Social division and aesthetic specializa-
tion: The middle class and musical events. Paper read at Consumer Esthetics and SymbolicConsumption Conference, at New York.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984. The post-modern condition: A report on knowledge. Translated by G.Bennington and B. Massumi. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Mano, Haim, and Richard L. Oliver. 1993. Assessing the dimensionality and structure of theconsumption experience: Evaluation, feeling and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research20 (December): 451–66.
Monroe, Kent B., and R. Krishnan. 1985. The effect of price on subjective product evaluations. InPerceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise, edited by J. Jacoby and J. C.Olson. Lexington: D. C. Heath.
Olshavsky, Richard W. 1985. Perceived quality in consumer decision making: An integrated theoret-ical perspective. In Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise, edited by J.Jacoby and J. C. Olson. Lexington: D. C. Heath.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Consumption, Markets and Culture 255
Osborne, Harold. 1979. Some theories of aesthetic judgment. The Journal of Aesthetics and ArtCriticism 38: 135–44.
Plato. [n.d.] 1951. Symposium. Translated by W. Hamilton. London: Penguin.Postrel, Virginia. 2003. The substance of style: How the rise of aesthetic value is remaking commerce,
culture and consciousness. New York: HarperCollins.Railton, P. 1998. Aesthetic value, moral value and the ambitions of naturalism. In Aesthetics and
ethics: Essays at the intersection, edited by J. Levinson. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Schaper, Eva. 1983. The pleasures of taste. In Pleasure, preference and value, edited by E. Schaper.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schindler, Robert M., Morris B. Holbrook, and Eric A. Greenleaf. 1989. Using connoisseurs topredict mass taste. Marketing Letters 1 (1): 47–54.
Schmitt, Bernd, and Alex Simonson. 1997. Marketing aesthetics. New York: The Free Press.Schroeder, Jonathan E. 2000. Edouard Manet, Calvin Klein and the strategic use of scandal. In
Imagining marketing: Art, aesthetics and the avant-garde, edited by S. Brown and A. Patterson.London: Routledge.
Scott, Linda M. 1994. Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. Journal ofConsumer Research 21 (2): 252–73.
Scruton, Roger. 1979. The aesthetics of architecture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Sexton, Donald E., and Kathryn Britney. 1980. A behavioral segmentation of the arts market.
Advances in Consumer Research 7: 119–20.Seymour, Diane. 2004. The social construction of taste. In Culinary taste: Consumer behaviour in the
international restaurant sector, edited by D. Sloan. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.Sibley, Frank. 2001. Approach to aesthetics: Collected papers on philosophical aesthetics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.Sloan, Donald. 2004. The postmodern palate: Dining out in the individualized era. In Culinary taste:
Consumer behaviour in the international restaurant sector, edited by D. Sloan. Oxford: ElsevierButterworth-Heinemann.
Solomon, Michael R., Dayton J. Pruitt, and Chester A. Insko. 1984. Taste versus fashion: Theinferred objectivity of aesthetic judgments. Empirical Studies of the Arts 2 (2): 113–25.
Townsend, Dabney. 1997. An introduction to aesthetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Venkatraman, Meera P., and Deborah J. MacInnis. 1985. The epistemic and sensory exploratory
behavior of hedonic and cognitive consumers. Advances in Consumer Research 12: 102–07.Veryzer, Robert W., and J. Wesley Hutchinson. 1998. The influence of unity and prototypicality
on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (March):374–94.
Wagner, J. 1999. Aesthetic value. In Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research, edited byM. B. Holbrook. New York: Routledge.
Wallendorf, Melanie. 1980. The formation of aesthetic criteria through social structures and socialinstitutions. Advances in Consumer Research 7: 3–6.
Wallendorf, Melanie, G. Zinkhan, and L. S. Zinkhan. 1980. Cognitive complexity and aesthetic pref-erence. Paper read at Consumer Esthetics and Symbolic Consumption Conference, at NewYork.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end modeland synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52 (July): 2–22.
Zuniga, Joaquin. 1989. An everyday aesthetic impulse: Dewey revisited. British Journal of Aesthetics29 (1): 41–46.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Am
s/G
iron
a*ba
rri L
ib]
at 0
2:53
28
Oct
ober
201
4