In an article from Science News called, “Simple Recipe For Ad Success: Just Add Art”, a study from the University of Georgia found that consumers exposed to art looked at products more positively. The effect of art on product consumption was labeled the art infusion effect. A product seemed to be more excellent, luxurious and sophisticated when it was associated with art.

There seems to be an association with fine art that gives products an aura of luxury. Two science researchers, Henrik Hagtvedt and Vanessa Patrick, tried studies of this ‘art infusion effect’. They showed 100 people at a local restaurant, sets of silverware in black velvet boxes. The tops of the boxes had either a print of Vincent Van Gogh’s Café Terrace at Night or a photograph of another scene. The diners all thought that the silverware with art on the box was more luxurious.

Their other study involved using unfamiliar artwork competing with celebrity pictures on everyday items. Their third study looked at the significance of general connotations of art, rather than the specific content of the art. People associate art with beauty and creative excellence, even if it was seen on a soap dispenser.

It works according to Vanessa Patrick. “Consumers are constantly being bombarded by advertising messages, and the fact that something works despite the noise that exists in a retail environment is very valuable for marketers,” said Patrick. Art stands out even with all the other noise and stimuli of advertising. The researchers also say that because this effect of art is independent of its content, art is a uniquely powerful marketing tool.

Art is not like popular celebrities who try to market products. Art is universally recognized and timeless. The study also shows that the art infusion effect, contrary to popular wisdom, even works for everyday, non-luxury items.

Art wins attention at advertising, pictures win attention in writing. The eye-catching color of photos adds appeal and the perception of professionalism in article writing. Susan Cross, a writer on Associated Content, says that pictures add viewers to your published articles. See her entire article at:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/219709/photos_increase_your_page_views_on.html?cat=9.

Therefore, would pictures of art not add to the sophistication and perception of writers? Would the universality and timelessness of art make a writer seem more authoritative and experienced?

If you look at graffiti on a wall, the signatures with the more color and artistic appeal make it more authoritative. Some people have seen amazing graffiti. Erik Ball, a teacher in Las Vegas, NV has an opinion on graffiti and vandalism in his blog at:

http://lordwhatsmymotivation.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/artist-vs-vandal-the-graffiti-argument/

He says, “I’ve seen amazing graffiti displayed that I could easily categorize as breath-taking. Even the lettering of some simple offerings are completed with poise, flare and prestige. I think whoever invests time in something…anything…that is original, artistic and theirs (in other words, something they are passionate about)….then it should be considered art.”

If people feel graffiti is art, what about the writing associated with art? If writers attached a picture of art, a graffiti signature with their writing, would it be a powerful marketing tool for their writing?

Illustrators who aid novel writers add to the quality of the book. Is the content or the story better? Some would argue that the same story could simply not be as appealing without the illustrator. Look at the characters in a Doctor Seuss book, for example. The characters in the story of the Grinch, Cat in The Hat and Horton Hears a Who had Seuss-like qualities which enhanced the writing.

Pictures aid writing. Do pictures of art aid writing more than just photos, or illustrations? I think another scientific study would have to be done to test this theory. If art is powerful in advertising, I believe it would be powerful in writing also. Would it be more powerful to have a portrait or sculpture of the writer themselves or would a famous statue be better?

If for the first part of this article I provided an artistic picture of a serious, thoughtful statue, would it be taken seriously? Would the second photo of the red and white girl be taken more seriously? Both are art forms, one perhaps an older form of sculpture with connotations of intellectual sophistication and achievement. The other is more modern and yet an artform from popular culture.

Both art pictures would lead to a good debate. Some writers chose art, animation and abstract art forms to represent themselves when they are asked to provide a profile photo. How would their articles be perceived if every article had a Claude Monet picture attached to it? It would be an interesting experiment.

Art added to the packaging of a product provided a postive perception of that product. Art works in advertising. We know a picture is worth a thousand words. If those words say to the reader that the author is as sophisticated, as meticulous, and as creative as the artist associated with the writing, then let my Monet speak for my content.