Huh.

When I produce something, I usually give it an accurate, functional name. “Aerospace Projects Review. “US Bomber Projects.” Sometimes, the names are self-deprecating yet still accurate, such as “The Unwanted Blog.” I always figured that that was the way to do it, because *clearly* what the public wants is clarity and accuracy.

Guess I was wrong.

Abstract art with “pseudo-profound” BS titles seen as more meaningful

Which describes the findings of this paper, available in PDF:

ᛒᚢᛚᛋᚺᛁᛏ makes the art grow profounder

Across four studies participants (N= 818) rated the profoundness of abstract art images accompanied with varying categories of titles, including: pseudo-profound ᛒᚢᛚᛋᚺᛁᛏ titles (e.g.,The Deaf Echo), mundane titles (e.g.,Canvas 8), and no titles. Randomly generated pseudo-profound ᛒᚢᛚᛋᚺᛁᛏ titles increased the perceived profoundness of computer-generated abstract art,compared to when no titles were present (Study 1). Mundane titles did not enhance the perception of profoundness, indicating that pseudo-profound ᛒᚢᛚᛋᚺᛁᛏ titles specifically (as opposed to titles in general) enhance the perceived profoundness of abstract art (Study 2). Furthermore, these effects generalize to artist-created abstract art (Study 3). Finally, we report a large correlation between profoundness ratings for pseudo-profound ᛒᚢᛚᛋᚺᛁᛏ and “International Art English” statements (Study 4), a mode and style of communication commonly employed by artists to discuss their work. This correlation suggests that these two independently developed communicative modes share underlying cognitive mechanisms in their interpretations. We discuss the potential for these results to be integrated into a larger, new theoretical framework of ᛒᚢᛚᛋᚺᛁᛏ as a low-cost strategy for gaining advantages in prestige awarding domains.

The sci-fi novel I wrote a few years ago and failed to get published had a pretty mundane title. Maybe I should look up an artsy gibberish generator.