Possession and Access: Consumer Desires and Value Perceptions Regarding Contemporary Art Collection...

925

� 2008 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 35 ● April 2009All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2009/3506-0003$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/593699

Possession and Access: Consumer Desiresand Value Perceptions RegardingContemporary Art Collection and Exhibit Visits

YU CHEN*

This research develops a multilevel and multifaceted perspective on art con-sumption behavior by separating consumption modes from the consumption prod-ucts (artworks), by comparing possession (collection) with access (exhibit visits),and by distinguishing desire from value. The findings challenge the presuppositionthat possession is the ultimate expression of consumer desire and illustrate thatcontemporary art collectors and visitors choose collection or visits based on dif-ferent desires. While artwork is perceived similarly, collection and visits have dif-ferent impact on consumers’ perception of value. The findings confirm, extend,and challenge previous research on desire, value, possession, and experientialapproach.

From a consumption perspective, a painting can be con-sumed through two different modes: it can be purchased

and possessed or it can be viewed and admired at art mu-seums and galleries. The consumption act—that of enjoyingthe painting—is similar in both modes. The consumptionmodes—that of either purchasing or viewing at art exhib-its—provide two different circumstances of consumption:one is through a private, permanent, and ownership-linkedapproach; the other is through a public, temporal, and cir-cumstantial approach. In consumer behavior research, objectaccumulation and attachment, “things we call ‘ours,’” arereferred to as possession (Belk 1988) whereas the temporalor long-term utilization without purchase and ownership isreferred to as experience (Evrard and Benavent 2002; Hol-brook and Hirschman 1982; Pine and Gilmore 1999) or“access” in the present research. Possession and the con-sequent self-extension have been considered as the “mostbasic and powerful fact of consumer behavior” (Belk 1988,

*Yu Chen is assistant professor of marketing, Oakland University, Roch-ester, MI 48309 ([email protected]). The author thanks the editor, theassociate editor, and the reviewers for their guidance and constructivecomments throughout numerous rounds. The author appreciates the in-sightful discussions with Yves Evrard and the marketing professors at HECSchool of Management Paris during her PhD study. The author is gratefulfor the hospitality of the marketing department of the University of Utahduring her visiting studies. The author also appreciates the generous par-ticipation of collectors, visitors, and students in Paris, the assistance fromthe marketing department of the University of Geneva, and the assistancefrom the Oakland University Writing Center and the marketing department.

John Deighton served as editor and Russell Belk served as associate editorfor this article.

Electronically published October 14, 2008

139). Access (experience), “the apprehension . . . throughthe senses or mind” (American Heritage Dictionary), is con-sidered as a “stage setting” consumption (Pine and Gilmore1999).

Previous research suggests that the value of possessionsis manifold. Possessions imply an “extended self” (Belk1988), demonstrate a “meaning receptacle” (Richins 1994a),and create an affiliation. Possession also represents symbolsof autonomy seeking (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995), af-fective freedom, and harmony (Richins 1994b). Possessorsuse possessions to characterize themselves, to communicatewith others, and to express or define their group member-ships (Belk 1988; Boorstin 1973). Values ascribed to accessor experience include imaginary value, sentiments, and plea-sure (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982); stimulation and he-donist value (Csikszentmihalyi and Halton 1981; Mano andOliver 1993); self-orientation and interpersonal orientation(Holt 1995); social practice (Evrard and Aurier 1996); en-tertaining and aesthetic value, status, ethic, esteem, and spir-ituality (Holbrook 1999); and distraction, exhibitionism, andevangelism (Holbrook and Addis 2001). Access (experi-ence) is memorable (Pine and Gilmore 1999) and cumula-tive; each new experience appears in the trajectory of con-sumption, and each visit in the museum increases the valueof the visits (Evrard and Benavent 2002).

While previous research provides insight into possessionand access, several issues need resolution. First, previousresearch has not conceptually separated the possession modefrom the possessed object. This omission could lead to animportant bias. If possession is assumed to be the only con-sumption mode, that is, the only way to establish a rela-tionship with the object, its importance could be largely

926 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

overestimated. This research proposes that access (experi-ence) could permit consumers to establish other kinds ofrelationships with the objects, thereby mediating or reducingthe need to possess. Consequently, the value historically as-signed to possession is nothing but an educated illusion ofthe value of the possessed objects. This ambiguity demandsdifferentiation between “possession and access”—two modesto establish relationships with the same consumption prod-ucts. Second, earlier research has not explicitly interrogatedwhether possession is the ultimate consumption mode. Thus,this research seeks to determine the forces driving consum-ers to choose one mode over the other if consumers canchoose between possession and access. Third, previous re-search does not explain how consumers perceive the con-sumption experience. Prior studies have not exploredwhether consumers change their behaviors based on theirperception of value or whether they simply maintain thebehaviors dictated by their illusions. These gaps invite afurther investigation of consumer perceptions about pos-session and access, as well as a comparison between themotivating force of consumption and the postconsumptionperception.

The current research is an attempt to answer these ques-tions. In this study, possession and access are separated fromthe related objects. Both possession and access are insteadinvestigated as consumption modes, which are assumed tohighly influence consumer behavior. Consumer behaviorcommonly refers to how consumers purchase, possess, use,and dispose of products. By challenging “possession” as theultimate desired consumption mode and proposing “access”as an alternative mode, the present research provides a newperspective on consumer behavior. This perspective is ofgreater importance in contemporary society, where consum-ers are presented with multiple choices and experience op-portunities without the obligation to purchase and own. Artconsumption is an example where possession of and accessto the same products are feasible consumption modes. Inthe art field, possession is reflected as collection whereasaccess is reflected as exhibit visits. Why consumers consumeart with different consumption modes and how they valuetheir consumption experiences remain unresolved issues thatthe present research will investigate.

A close similarity between the motivating forces of artconsumption and desire invites the application of desire inthe present research. The forces that drive art collectors tocollect are studied as social, functional, and financial “mo-tivations” in economics (Moureau 2000a) and as love, play,and profane “motivations” in sociology (Moulin 1967). Al-though “motivation” seems to provide a rational explanationfor the “why” of art consumption, researchers widely admitthat a contemporary painting requires the intellectual andaffective participation of consumers (Moureau 2000b). This“participation” is characterized as emotional and mental“pulling” (Belk, Ger, and Askegaard 2003). It is better de-fined as “desire,” which addresses “the interplay of . . .bodily passions and mental reflection” (Belk et al. 2003,329). Similarly, the motivating force that drives visitors to

art exhibits is studied as “motion (the fact of being pulled),”“bodily orientation (emotions relating to surprise, emotionsopposing physical force, heat, immensity of sensation)” andembodiment (Sherry and Joy 2003, 268–69). These descrip-tions are similar to that of desire: “desire pulls,” and desireis an “embodied passion” (Belk et al. 2003). The abovecomparisons between desire and other art consumption mo-tivation concepts show that the driving force, previouslydefined as “motivation” or “motives,” is better defined as“desire” (Belk et al. 2003, 327).

In the present research, consumer value relates to theevaluation of an object by a subject (Holbrook 1999).Hirschman (1983) has shown that each observer of art cre-ations could see a different artwork. The postconsumptionanalysis should include subjective and emotional evaluationand perception as felt by members of an audience on theinteraction with an artwork (Evrard and Benavent 2002).Such evaluation is defined as “consumer value” in this re-search and is different from the concept of “value” as thesimple comparison between benefits and costs.

RESEARCH PROPOSITIONThe current research investigates the desires of and per-

ceived values of contemporary art collectors and exhibitvisitors. The research will focus on two major comparisons:collectors versus visitors (first on desire and next on value)and desire versus value (first on collectors and next onvisitors).

“Collector,” as used in this research, refers to a purchaserwho aims to accumulate contemporary artworks for personalgratification and not for speculation. “Visitor” refers to aperson who frequently visits contemporary art exhibits with-out ever purchasing. In order to compare possession andaccess, the researcher limits consideration to these two ex-tremes. Occasional buyers are not considered in the presentresearch.

Contemporary art collectors and exhibit visitors sharesimilarities and differences in desire and value. Similaritiesare linked to the characteristics of artworks (the objects)themselves—no matter whether possessed or accessed. Dif-ferences, on the other hand, reveal the nature of possessionand access as consumption modes.

This research, combining the consumption modes of pos-session and access, offers a global vision of and new insightsinto the concept of consumption: consumers, attracted bythe same products, form multilevel and dynamic relation-ships with said objects. Some consumers prefer to possessthe product as their own; others stay in the “access only”relationship with the product.

The finding that possession and access reveal differentdesires challenges previous research and implies that pos-session is not the ultimate reflection of consumer desire.Possession is desired by collectors who have strong self-identification with the artworks or long for a particularintimate and long-term relationship. Visitors, lacking self-identification or desiring temporal and situational relation-ships, desire visits instead of possession. This contrast dem-

POSSESSION OF AND ACCESS TO ART 927

onstrates that consumers can consume products throughpossession or through other consumption modes, even tem-porarily, in the absence of and possibly in rejection of own-ership or possession. Possession, as access, is only onechoice for the consumers to consume the products based ontheir desires.

The finding that consumers who possess the desired ob-jects perceive different value than those who only tempo-rarily access the objects challenges previous possession re-search. The value of possession (as a consumption mode)should be reconsidered if access could permit consumers toestablish other consumption relationships with the product.The fact that possession and access modify consumers’ per-ception and evaluation augments previous research into therelationship between consumer desire and consumer value.

No matter how they perceive the value of their experience,collectors continue to collect and visitors continue only tovisit. The findings implicitly illustrate that consumers sustaintheir behaviors relevant to their desires but not to their per-ceived values. Such findings challenge previous researchpropositions that consumers’ choices are based on their post-consumption evaluation and demonstrate that consumers aremore desire driven than value driven.

The research focuses on the field of art instead of otherfields because of the nonfunctional aspect of art objects.Possession of functional objects is sometimes necessary oreven indispensable to satisfy consumers’ utilitarian or phys-iological needs; under such circumstances, possession andaccess could not be considered as alternative consumptionchoices. Art, however, has nonfunctional aspects and makespossession and access distinct. In this research, contempo-rary art refers to works created after the 1960s. The con-tinuing production makes contemporary artworks availableat all price levels for both purchase and visit. Therefore,contemporary art is an appropriate field for comparing pos-session and access regarding the same products.

This research is an example of a possession and accessstudy. The approach is applicable to tangible products thatcan be both possessed and accessed. The approach is notapplicable to tangible products that cannot be consumed by“access only,” and it is not applicable to intangible productsthat cannot be possessed.

METHODS

Data Collection and Sample Choice

The research explicates in-depth interviews conductedwith 116 informants. The interviews generally lasted from1 to 3 hours. All interviews were tape-recorded and fullytranscribed. The data were collected in Paris and Geneva,both with French-speaking populations, to allow for stabilityin findings.

The collector samples include persons who accumulate20–3,500 pieces of contemporary artworks without ever re-selling. Occasional and speculative buyers are excluded inthe present research. The visitor samples include persons

who visit contemporary art exhibits but never purchase anyartwork. Both regular visitors and students are included inthe visitor sample.

The qualitative data were collected during three and a halfyears through two series of interviews with art collectorsand museum visitors. Altogether, 40 interviews were com-pleted with collectors; 30 interviews were completed withvisitors; and 36 self-reports were collected with visitors.Field notes and field diaries were taken throughout the pe-riod. In the first interview set (Paris), collectors and majorsupporters of profit and nonprofit contemporary art galleriesand participants in contemporary art auctions in HotelDrouot (the biggest auction house in Paris) were selectedas the collector sample (table 1). Students and regular vis-itors (table 1) of contemporary art exhibits in Paris wereselected as the visitor sample. In the second interview set(Geneva), collectors (table 1) who loan their artworks to thetemporal exhibits of the Museum of Contemporary Art inGeneva (MAMCO) were selected as the collector sample.Regular visitors (table 1) and students visiting the MAMCOcontemporary art exhibits were selected as the visitor sam-ple. Similar interview questions were asked of collectorsand visitors, even though questions were modified accordingto concrete circumstances. The interviewees were nativesof France and Geneva. All of the interviews were conductedin French.

Collectors. The difficulty in interviewing art collectorswas noted by Moulin (1967); the interviewer is rarely al-lowed to see a collector’s entire collection, which can be avaluable source of information—because it reveals not onlythe collector’s status but also his/her cultural background,taste, and philosophy of collecting. This difficulty was over-come in the first interview set (Paris) as the collectors agreedto allow the researcher to visit their collections during theinterviews. Questions were asked of collectors to make re-flections on what drove them to purchase the paintings andengage in art collection experiences. Also, questions wereasked of them to reflect how they perceived the artworksand the collection experiences. For consistency, in the first(Paris) and second (Geneva) interview sets, similar questionswere asked of the collectors. Interviews with collectors ofcontemporary artworks in Geneva were conducted by theresearcher and students from the University of Geneva aspart of their final project for the course “Consumer Behav-ior.”

Visitors. In the first interview set (Paris), both univer-sity students and regular exhibit visitors were included. Fif-teen students were queried in the first in-depth interviews.The interviews were not face to face; the researcher con-tacted students by e-mail and queried them about their de-sires for, or expectations for, contemporary art museum vis-its. This kind of contact was very efficient because studentshad a certain freedom when they composed their responsesat their computers. The researcher kept in contact with eachstudent on average every two and a half days, according to


TABLE 1

DEMOGRAPHICS OF COLLECTORS AND REGULAR VISITORS

Age Gender Occupation

Collector 1 (F) 60 M BankerCollector 2 (F) 58 M RetiredCollector 3 (F) 57 M RetiredCollector 4 (F) 62 M EntrepreneurCollector 5 (F) 45 M ProfessorCollector 6 (F) 59 M DealerCollector 7 (F) 40 M BankerCollector 8 (F) 57 M RetiredCollector 9 (F) 64 M RetiredCollector 10 (F) 60 M EntrepreneurCollector 11 (F) 57 M EntrepreneurCollector 12 (F) 56 M BankerCollector 13 (F) 70 M RetiredCollector 14 (F) 45 F DesignerCollector 15 (F) 64 M Real estate managerCollector 16 (F) 50 M EntrepreneurCollector 17 (F) 60 M RetiredCollector 18 (F) 57 F Director of nonprofit

organizationCollector 19 (F) 39 M AttorneyCollector 20 (F) 48 M MBA studentCollector 21 (F) 49 F ArtistCollector 22 (F) 59 M ArtistCollector 23 (F) 57 M ProfessorCollector 24 (F) 46 M BankerCollector 25 (F) 52 M EmployeeCollector 26 (S) 52 M BankerCollector 27 (S) 46 M ProfessorCollector 28 (S) 67 F ManagerCollector 29 (S) 54 M ManagerCollector 30 (S) 36 M ProfessorCollector 31 (S) 42 M EmployeeCollector 32 (S) 51 F DoctorCollector 33 (S) 62 F RetiredCollector 34 (S) 61 M EntrepreneurCollector 35 (S) 53 M ProfessorVisitor 1 (F) 54 F ArtistVisitor 2 (F) 36 M ManagerVisitor 3 (F) 68 M RetiredVisitor 4 (F) 58 M ProfessorVisitor 5 (F) 53 F ArtistVisitor 6 (F) 47 M EmployeeVisitor 7 (F) 49 F ManagerVisitor 8 (F) 50 M ManagerVisitor 9 (F) 45 F ProfessorVisitor 10 (F) 62 M RetiredVisitor 11 (F) 54 M EmployeeVisitor 12 (F) 57 M EmployeeVisitor 13 (F) 48 M Budget controllerVisitor 14 (F) 54 M AuditorVisitor 15 (F) 46 M ProfessorVisitor 16 (S) 51 F Real estate managerVisitor 17 (S) 59 M ProfessorVisitor 18 (S) 60 F EditorVisitor 19 (S) 78 F RetiredVisitor 20 (S) 65 M WriterVisitor 21 (S) 54 F DancerVisitor 22 (S) 45 M BankerVisitor 23 (S) 50 M EmployeeVisitor 24 (S) 41 M EngineerVisitor 25 (S) 30 F Doctoral student

NOTE.—F p France, S p Switzerland.

their availability. Students were asked to make reflectionson what drove them to visit museum and exhibits and howthey generally perceived the value afterward. The messageswere mainly communicated in the evening so that studentscould have a relatively longer and quieter time to think andrespond. All of the exchanges were written in French. Also,15 regular visitors were interviewed during the InternationalContemporary Art Forum (FIAC) 2005 and the Great Mar-ket of Contemporary Art (GMAC) 2006. Visitors from dif-ferent demographic backgrounds were chosen at the entryof the two exhibits. Interviews with questions on desire andvalue were conducted before and after the exhibit visits.These visitors had never purchased any artwork.

On the basis of the first interviews, a second qualitativestudy (Geneva) was conducted with 36 students (self-re-ports) and 10 regular visitors (depth interviews) of contem-porary art exhibits in Geneva. Most students were regularvisitors of contemporary art exhibits. First, they were askedto describe their desire before the visits. Next, they visitedthe exhibits and wrote down their perceived value duringand after the visits. The self-report was the final project forthe consumer behavior class. The student journals offeredrich impressions; students took their time to enjoy the mu-seums, “tasted” their experience thoroughly, and wrote downtheir feelings, emotions, and perceptions, both during visitsand afterward. Ten more interviews were then conductedby the same group of students with the regular visitors ofMAMCO in Geneva. The interviews and the self-reportsoffered similar findings, which indicated the worthiness ofstudent data.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The data analysis and interpretation were based on in-depth interview transcriptions. The researcher, following theintratextual and intertextual cycles of interpretation (Thomp-son 1997), connected the empirical findings from the inter-views to the conceptual framework. Important themes ofcollectors’ and visitors’ desires and values emerged fromthe interviews. The researcher followed the “comparison”(Spiggle 1994) and identified both similarities and differ-ences between the two populations. Analysis indicated thatthe similarities were linked to the characteristics of the prod-uct—the artworks—while the differences focused on thecharacteristics of the two consumption modes, possessionand access, and implicated a “phenomenological level” ex-perience (Sherry and Joy 2003).

Empirical Concept Confirmation

To avoid falsely identifying “desire,” the researcher que-ried all collectors and visitors before the interviews. Theresearcher asked them to choose among the French wordsmotivation (motivation), but (objective), besoin (need), anddesir (desire) to describe their feelings about the artworks.Most informants chose the term desir (desire) and explainedthat they were “just seduced,” “moved,” and “fell in love.”


FIGURE 1

FINDINGS

The major power driving them into the art world was “apleasure, an emotion, a sensibility,” “a seduction betweena painting and a person,” “a kind of love rather than aprepared, calculated motivation,” “very primary as a reac-tion,” often “difficult to explain.” The expressions illustratethat the driving power is highly emotional and irrational,which is defined as “desire” (Belk et al. 2003). Both the-oretical and empirical comparisons between desire and otherconcepts permit the use of the term desir or “desire” todescribe this driving power. Valeur (value) is applied byinformants to describe whatever they “evaluate, feel, andperceive” after their real consumption experiences. Theirdescriptions coincide with the theoretical definition ofvalue—the evaluation of an object by a subject (Holbrook

1999). The objects of desire and value include both artworksand the whole art consumption experience.

FINDINGS

The findings are divided into three parts. I first presentthe similar aspects of desire and value between collectorsand visitors, then the different aspects of desire betweencollectors and visitors, and finally the different aspects ofperceived value between collectors and visitors. On the basisof these three-part findings, I summarize and interpret thedifferences between the two consumption modes and ana-lyze the transformation from consumers’ desires to theirperceived values (fig. 1).


Similar Desires and Values—Collectorsand Visitors

One revelation of the present research is that collectors andvisitors, regardless of their chosen way of consumption—possession (collection) or access (museum visits)—havemany commonalities in their desires and values. The sim-ilarities reflect the nature of the art (contemporary) and ofthe art world. The present research demonstrates that bothcollectors and visitors desire and value otherness, sociality,philanthropy, spirituality, aesthetics, and novelty. Likewise,both collectors’ and visitors’ desires originate from distanceand inaccessibility. Similarly, both collectors and visitorsperceive intellectuality, love, multisensations, and addictionafter their collection or visit experiences.

This research confirms previous findings on collectors’desire for spirituality (Belk 2001) and on visitors’ desire forsociality (McManus 1987). Offering a more global visionto both collectors’ and visitors’ desires, the research illus-trates that collectors and visitors share their desire for spir-ituality and desire for sociality. Consequently, the researchsuggests that an important part of consumer desire is closelylinked to the nature and characteristics of the product—artitself. The consumers’ product choice, regardless of the con-sumption mode, reveals similar willingness, longing, anddesire.

Also, collectors and visitors perceive similar values (eval-uation) after their experiences—collection and museum vis-its. Consumers’ perception of the experiences goes beyondthe rational “evaluation.” It also includes feelings, senti-ments, and emotions. The complexity of the perceived con-sumer value after art consumption experiences indicates thatconsumer value could be influenced by the product char-acteristics.

The desire for artworks, for both collectors and visitors,is aroused by distance and inaccessibility—the difficulty orimprobability of obtaining the desired object (Belk et al.2003). The early lack of culture and art, the missing anddistance, made the art world inaccessible for collector 1 inhis early life: “I was in a desert of culture when I was achild. . . . The only access to art was through the educationat school and the dictionary.” Similarly, the lack of cultureduring visitor 1’s childhood caused a thirst, a need, or adesire: “Artworks were things that didn’t belong to me.”Empirically, for both informants, “the presence of restraintsmakes the desire stronger . . . because it presents challengesto be heroically overcome” (Belk et al. 2003, 340). Laterin life, collector 1 was exposed to Paris museums, whichhelped him reduce his distance from the art world. Afteryears of a lack of art and culture, exposure to art ignitedhis desire and encouraged him to become an extensive andsupportive art collector. Likewise, when visitor 1 arrived inGeneva, the fire of desire made her a regular visitor tocontemporary art museums. The distance was limited andthe object was not “regarded as impossible to obtain orbeyond any realistic hope” (Belk et al. 2003, 340). Bothovercame their initial distance from art, which aroused and

strengthened their desire. The informant commentaries il-lustrate a strong desire aroused by distance and inaccessi-bility, in other words, the missing. Possession of (collection)and access to (exhibit visits) art are two ways to reduce thedistance from art, to pursue the desire for art, and to stayin contact with art. Collectors and visitors’ common desiresin possession of and access to art are linked with the natureof art.

Art is the central object that provides the otherness, “atransformation and an altered state” (Belk et al. 2003). Col-lectors and visitors both indicate that they desire othernessand perceive the value of otherness through art consumption.Collector 2 desires “an adventure—the dimension of crea-tion, of novelty”; visitor 3 desires “to be far, in a differentplace.” For both, the art world is a world “out of the norm.”Art is different from mass or utilitarian products because itresponds to totally different needs and desires. It is oftenabstract, spiritual, and different from the concrete objectsin real life. Therefore, it provides a different value—thevalue of otherness. People travel, dream, relax, and findshelter in the art world. The beauty of art, the emotionsevoked, and the questions asked bring people to an “irra-tional” world, a “world of imagination,” of “journey withoutdestination,” of life without purpose. Art, as an object, isclosely linked with “otherness”—to be elsewhere, to be ina different space, to be in a different time and a differentworld. Collectors desire otherness and enjoy it by collectingand appreciating their artwork; visitors desire otherness andenjoy it by visiting art exhibits. Their common world is theworld of art, and they use slightly different keys—possession(collection) or access (visits)—to enter this world.

Collectors and visitors desire and perceive sociality, theassociation with others, and formation of social groups (Belket al. 2003). By purchasing “paintings of special styles,”collector 7 creates a social environment and pursues his“desire to tell others that the artworks are special.” Visitor7 considers a museum visit as “a social thing that you dowhen you are a Parisian.” The desire to be considered a real“Parisian” and to behave in a socially accepted mannerdrives him to visit art museums and exhibits. These findingsdemonstrate that art and sociality are integrated. Socialityis more related to the artwork itself than possession of theartwork. Art has been socially recognized as a symbol ofeducation, cultivation, and good taste (Bourdieu 1969).Through possession of or access to art, collectors and visitorspursue their desire to have social activities, and to have, inreturn, social recognition. As a human and social creationand a consequence of civilization, art is not “reduced to anideational configuration of forms” (Maquet 1986) and isembedded by social rules. Collection and access are twosocially accepted manners of approaching art; collectors andvisitors pursue and fulfill their desire for sociality throughart consumption.

Both collectors and visitors desire philanthropy, a reflec-tion of giving and sharing beyond the family life (Ilchman,Katz, and Queen 1998), before their collection and visitexperiences. They choose two different ways to manifest


their desire to directly or indirectly support the artists. Forvisitor 2, the desire involves “understanding the painter’svision for art and his messages.” Collectors desire both“sharing love with the artists” and “collecting and buyingthe artists’ paintings” for “the artists need to show theirartworks and . . . need the galleries, and the galleries needcollectors to purchase the artworks to survive.” Collectorsand visitors both perceive the value of philanthropy aftertheir experiences. Previous research illustrates the impor-tance of philanthropy throughout the history of art evolution(Alexandre 1996; Ilchman, Katz, and Queen 1998). Thepresent research demonstrates that one stimulus of art con-sumption—art collection and exhibit visits—is the desire tosupport artists. Consumers perceive their experience as anact of philanthropy—a support for art and artists. This par-ticular aspect of consumer desire and value is connectedwith the nature of art and contemporary art. Art is not anecessity and is not always immediately accepted by thepublic. Therefore, consumption driven by philanthropic de-sire is indispensable for the creation, improvement, and per-fection of art, especially before its recognition by the society.This research confirms the unique aspect of philanthropy inart consumption and invites future research on the topic.

Both collectors and visitors long for some spiritual shelterfor their reflections, questions, and doubts about life. Col-lector 4 desires purchasing certain paintings, perceiving lifeas more important or more integrated from an insightfulperspective. When struggling during a difficult moment inhis life, he saw in one painting “endless struggle, sufferings,and disappointments.” The collector had experienced lackof understanding, communication, and happiness; he longedfor the elements that he could not obtain in the materialworld. Art, a soul mate, a soul shelter, and a soul echo, asksquestions in silence about life and death, about humanityand the world, about existence and eternity. The contactwith the painting ignited his longing for spirituality. Hedesired a collection of paintings to build a quasi-religiousshelter for his spiritual world. In addition, visitor 19 desiresto visit and to see paintings describing “the reality” that shecan neither describe nor understand. She further developsthis insightful perspective: “Like when reading a book, weare often touched by something that we don’t know how toexpress and suddenly we say: it’s exactly like that.” Artresponds to questions about reality and illusion and providesthe value of spirituality. This spiritual aspect belongs to artitself. Both collection and visit permit access to the artworksand contact with a spirituality that is not always present indaily life.

Both collectors and visitors long for “beautiful” thingson which to look. Even though beauty is somewhat difficultto define, it is considered by both collectors and visitors as“essential in art.” The desire for beauty is linked with anaesthetic experience that is “immediate, dynamic, pleasantand vividly felt” (Wagner 1999). Collectors desire aestheticsand pursue the desire by collecting artwork, and visitorspursue the similar desire by visiting exhibits. After theircollection and visit experiences, both collectors and visitors

perceive an aesthetic value, which could stay in their mem-ories and change their ways of viewing the world.

Collectors and visitors alike desire novelty—new or un-usual ideas, techniques, approaches, expressions, and ex-periences. Collector 6 desires to “only collect new stylepaintings,” for “after Picasso, everybody could paint Pi-casso; after Mathieu, everyone could paint Mathieu,” butwhat pulls him to art is novelty and originality. Visitor 6desires to visit art exhibits “to know and to discover newartists” and the artists who “try all kinds of new creations.”Both collector and visitor look for novelty in contemporaryart, an art that is claimed to depend essentially on the ex-perimentation of all forms of radical change from previousart (Heinich 2000). However, neither collectors nor visitorsperceive contemporary artworks as novel and original. Thevalue of novelty does not appear as a postconsumptionperception.

Intellectuality, the outside intellectual power, is desiredand valued by visitors. For visitor 22, “an artwork is a fruitof an intellectual activity, which answers to what other artistshave not accomplished.” Even though intellectuality was notinitially longed for by collectors, it was well valued afterthe collection experience. Collector 20 recognizes that “thestyles and techniques evolve and the combination betweenthe two creates an identity of an artwork and of a period.”Contemporary art, by its characteristics, is considered more“intellectual” than classical or modern art (Heinich 2000).Collection and visits, as two messengers, transfer the intel-lectual questions and reflections from artists to collectorsand visitors.

Similarly, love is not explicitly desired by collectors andvisitors. Nevertheless, collector 24 describes the perceivedvalue of his collected artwork as “that of a beloved man orwoman.” Visitor 21 has a more detailed description of hisperceived value of love: “I felt that the works focused onme as I focused on them. . . . There was a mutual attractionbetween artworks and me. At the end of the visit, it wasimpossible for me to be indifferent to an artwork. It couldbe compared to ‘fall[ing] in love’ at the first encounter.”Love emerges as another special aspect of value revealedin the present research.

Even though collectors and visitors did not look for mul-tiple sensations during their art consumption experiences,the findings show that multisensorial value, “touching, see-ing, tasting or feeling,” were perceived not only by visitors,as identified by Sherry and Joy (2003), but also by collec-tors. Collector 25 confirms the multisensorial value: “I oftentouch the artworks that I collect . . . just as a belovedwoman. . . . It makes me feel physically close to them.”The multisensorial value is linked with the nature of art-works, which attract, seduce, and deliver through multiplesenses.

Another aspect of value is perceived as certain intensedevotion and attachment to art consumption. The devotionand attachment are, in some context, defined as “addiction.”In the present research, collectors and visitors use this fig-urative term, “addiction,” to describe the intensity of their


dedication to art consumption. “Addiction” was not desiredby collectors and visitors but is perceived as an outcome ofthe art consumption experiences. Collector 23 “can’t stopcollecting art” and admits that “collecting . . . is one of thebest ways to get out emotions—love, hate, appreciation. . . .It’s like a drug or . . . something that has an addictivepower.” Visitor 19 echoes that sentiment: “I felt as if therewere some stimuli that provoked my visits. It became a drugfor me.” The findings not only confirm the addictive be-havior of collectors but also reveal that visits could be ad-dictive. Visitors describe their relationships with art exhibitvisits as analogous to that with drugs. The addiction con-stitutes a special aspect of value perceived after both artcollection and exhibit visit experiences.

Collectors and visitors perceive similar values—otherness,sociality, philanthropy, spirituality, and aesthetics—that theydesire. Collectors’ and visitors’ desire for novelty is notvalued after the experiences. Intellectuality is desired byvisitors but not by collectors; however, the results show thatnot only visits but also art collections bring the value ofintellectuality to art consumers. Consumption of contem-porary art—both by collecting and by visiting—is valuedas a love relationship, multisensorial, and addictive. Art, asthe product of consumption, is valued by the art consumersand satisfies most of their desires.

Different Desires—Collectors and Visitors

While art consumption often reveals a similar desire, col-lectors’ and visitors’ desires differ in significant ways. Theresults illustrate that even though consumers are similarlyattracted by the same product, their particular desires coulddrive them to choose different consumption modes. Strongself-identification drives collectors to collect whereas lackof self-identification keeps visitors visiting instead of pur-chasing. Collectors desire a long-term intimate relationshipwith the artworks while visitors desire a circumstantial anddistant relationship. Collectors desire continuity of senti-ments and understanding, yet visitors desire to avoid rep-etition and dullness. Collectors have strong, possessive de-sire, whereas visitors express desire to share and to enjoyin community. The findings illustrate that collection, as aparticular form of possession, is a reflection of the self anda symbol of commitment and engagement to a long-term,intimate relationship. Also, they reveal the willingness topossess and control the artworks. On the contrary, the mu-seum visit, as a particular form of access (experience), re-flects the lack of the above “possessing” characteristics andreveals the desire for distance and detachment.

Visitors’ and Collectors’ Different Desires. Collec-tors, feeling strong self-identification, desire possession; vis-itors, lacking self-identification, desire access. A sense ofidentification is a way for a person to become psychologi-cally connected to qualities or traits of an external object(Kamler 1994). Lacannian theories (Florence 1978) proposethat all identification is a narcissistic operation; it supportsthe “me” in its fundamental tendency to conserve and main-

tain oneself. Collectors’ desire for possession is aroused bya projection of the “me” in the painting. This narcissismpermits collectors to identify themselves with the paintings:

Collector: I wondered at the moment of buying how the artistknew what I wanted. Of course he didn’t know . . . but Ifelt that he was talking about me, my life, my dreams, mylove, my regret. . . . I felt that I needed to have it for meto be completed. I see a part of myself in this painting; it’sa part of me. (Collector 8)

The collector treats the painting as a part of the “me.”The painting, reflecting his desired life, constructs a kind oftransitive identification and becomes the ideal of “myself.”The painting is not only a physical object, but it is alsointernalized as a psychological object. For the collector, thepainting is desired as a constant and positively comfortingimage, which reflects a part of the self. Possession is sup-posed to prevent the collector’s physical and psychologicalseparation from the object and reveals the desire for the“self” to be accomplished. The findings, however confirm-ing that “a . . . benefit of collecting is in enlarging thecollector’s sense of self” (Belk 2001), reinforce this aspectas desire: it was the collector’s longing before his experi-ence, an exciting illusion that drove him toward collection.

Identification is largely studied in the possession ap-proach. However, what would consumers do if they did nothave self-identification with the objects? Do they have toabandon any relationship of consumption with the objects?Does the experiential approach better respond to consumers’desire in this case? In the current research, the findingsindicate that visitors lacking the self-identification with artobjects do not strongly desire possessions. Nevertheless,they can still have another relationship—access (visits)—todiscover the artworks and the art world.

Visitor: I had no desire to purchase or possess the artworks.To desire possessing something, I need to identify myselfwith it, and then feel an attachment to it. The sentiments thatI felt were too weak during my visits. I feel attracted to theworks and always want to have the visit experiences, butvisits seem to be enough for me as long as I don’t identifymyself in the works. (Visitor 9)

Access permits visitors, without strong identification to theartworks, to form a different relationship with the paintingsand to keep visiting in a more detached, distant, and non-engaging manner.

The findings also disclose that collectors long for a long-term intimate relationship, whereas visitors desire a circum-stantial and distant relationship. Collectors wish to establishan “intimate” relationship with the artworks and to havelongevity in appreciation. This wish leads to a desire forpossession, which is the only way for collectors to have thisintimate relationship with the artworks.

Collector: It seems normal to me to desire a more intimaterelationship with certain artworks than with others. I am eager


to possess them, always look at them, and appreciate them.This attraction, like the feeling of the love for someone,pushes us to desire to stay as the only one in the relationshipas long as possible. (Collector 9)

The above description shows the collector’s desire for anintimate and long-term relationship with artwork. Posses-sion, the purchase and the owning of artwork, excludes oth-ers’ access to them and is the collectors’ manner to pursuetheir desire for intimacy and longevity in the relationship.On the contrary, this kind of desire for keeping and pos-sessing the artwork for the long-term seems to be “disturb-ing” for visitors:

Visitor: I was very often tempted, when I was in galleries,to purchase a piece of artwork to put at home . . . but itdisturbed me to buy it. I don’t want to purchase a piece ofartwork to make the wall look nice. I don’t want that. It isbeautiful by itself, and I prefer seeing it in the museum—withthe backdrop of a white wall. (Visitor 10)

This description shows that the visitor has a special expec-tation for the relationship with the artwork: the existence ofthe object is considered as independent and complete byitself. Neither visitors nor artworks need each other to beaccomplished. Therefore, the only possible relationship thatcan be established between the two is a temporal and cir-cumstantial one. The following explication shows that thefeelings linked with the experiential relationship depend oncircumstances. Therefore, the visit—a momentary access toartworks without possession—is desired.

Visitor: I prefer living the particular circumstances, and prob-ably when I saw them elsewhere, I wouldn’t live the sameemotions—I wouldn’t be in the same psychological circum-stances. It’s beautiful to live it just as a magic instance.(Visitor 10)

The interviewee compares this special relationship with art-work to other encounters or adventures without real resultsand leaving no real traces except for some memories.

Visitor: Yes, it’s exactly like that [an encounter]. Afterwardswe should keep that only in the memories for ourselves. No,I don’t think that I would buy. (Visitor 10)

The visitors’ commentaries reveal a desired distant andcircumstantial object-person relationship instead of a long-term and intimate one. Certain physical distance seems tobe put into the relationship between the visitor and the art-works. Physical and psychological distance, when inten-tionally put into the object relationship, can create detach-ment and disinterestedness. The visitor’s expression “it’sbeautiful by itself” illustrates that this intentional distanceis “obtained by separating the object and its appeal fromone’s own self, but putting it out of gear with practical needsand ends” (Bullough 1912, 91); thus, possessive desire islargely weakened. Circumstantial factors, not only the art-

works, but the moment, space, and atmosphere that consti-tute a scenario that is special and desirable, are importantin the “access” approach.

While collectors desire continuity of sentiments and un-derstanding, visitors desire to avoid repetition and dullness.Collectors long to know about the life and the evolution ofthe artists. Therefore, they rejoice at the prospect of thepossession, which, according to them, is a better way to“follow” the trajectory of the artist.

Collector: If I like an artist and could purchase and possessmore than one painting of his, I do it. At the moment whenwe are attached to an artist, we would like to follow, to seehis evolution and to have his paintings at home. (Collector12)

Collector: Once I began to listen to a piece of music, I didn’tunderstand, and I didn’t like it. Upon hearing it a third time,I began to understand and suddenly it became beauti-ful—sometimes we need time to appreciate something if wereally want to, and the fact of collecting artworks could makepossible the appreciation with time. (Collector 13)

“Appreciation” with time is what the collection or the pos-session of art can provide. Collectors consider the collectionmore as a way for long-term appreciation and self-educationthan for “possessing” and owning artworks. The collectionreflects a willingness to take time to understand and to love.Here, personality traits such as envy, nongenerosity, andpossessiveness (Belk 1988), or materialistic personal valuessuch as success, happiness, and centrality (Richins 1994a),did not clearly appear.

For visitors, on the contrary, the visit can permit them toavoid repetition and dullness. The worry of a boring rep-etition is the major motivating factor for visitors to choose“only visits”: looking at the artworks just once to simplydiscover is acceptable; however, the artworks can becomeboring objects if looked at repetitively.

Visitor: According to me there are not a lot of works thatcould cause a real desire for possession during my visit.Artworks are very nice to look at just for one exhibit, or wediscover them and think of them because we come to seethem—but contemplating them every day should be quitetiring. (Visitor 12)

Collectors and visitors have completely different desires,which are linked with the different natures of possessionand access; possession is connected with collectors’ desireto continuously understand the paintings, to look again andagain at the paintings, and to contemplate them with time.On the contrary, access is linked with the visitors’ desire toescape from any nonnecessary engagement and to forgodullness and repetition. Comparison between the two showsthat possession reveals collectors’ desire for a more pro-found and refined appreciation of artworks.

Collectors desire to take action whereas visitors long forimagination: collectors’ desire for action has been presented


in previous works (Belk 2001): collectors, rather than takingone big painting, prefer to have 20 small ones, in the pleasureof having more action. This aspect is confirmed in the pre-sent research. Its absence in visitors’ desire reinforces it asthe unique desire of collectors. Visitors desire to “imaginewhatever they want,” without being controlled or limited.If collectors are “action-oriented” beings, visitors here seemto be “imagination-oriented” beings.

Collector: I would like to do something with the paintingsthat I love. I am really eager to take action. (Collector 13)

Visitor: Contemporary art provides me with freedom and freeinterpretation. . . . Furthermore, contemporary art gives vis-itors a certain freedom to imagine in its works certain latentcontext that is never clearly shown. This freedom of imag-ination is precious and leads us to be detached from theexisting models and to think more by ourselves. (Visitor 13)

The different desires originate from the different naturesof these two modes of consumption: possession involvesmore action taking, and it reveals the desire for action. Onthe contrary, access (visits) demands less effort from visitorsto engage in action and permits visitors to enjoy momentsof imagination and free thinking.

Collectors desire to possess and control the artworkswhereas visitors desire to share and enjoy the artworks withothers. This research shows that the desire linked with pos-sessiveness is a desire to control, to own, and to keep. Col-lection is desired by collectors to maintain control over theartworks, to possess, or to dominate the artworks.

Collector: I would feel comfortable to keep it with me, tofeel that it is mine. . . . I would want to bring it everywhere,with me, I wouldn’t want to separate with it. . . . It’s whyI desire to buy it. (Collector 16)

On the contrary, visitor responses highlight their desire forsharing and for taking pleasure in community as fulfilled inthe access approach. Visitors pursue their desire for appre-ciating artworks in a public and open atmosphere with otherpeople.

Visitor: At the very beginning I wanted to (possess), but Irealized very quickly that I adored sharing these momentsof pleasure with a maximum number of people. Evidentlywhen we see something that we love a lot, we would like tohave it at home; however, at the same time, it is importantthat we find it in a public place where we could share theappreciation and happiness. (Visitor 14)

Consuming by access—museum visits—reveals the will-ingness of sharing the place, moments, feelings, and mem-ories and enjoying the magic instance with other people.This kind of sharing in a public place can happen only withinthe access approach. Belk (2006) claims that this phenom-enon of “sharing” is determined by culture and associatedto and normalized by some learned behavior. He further

proposes that consumption cultures privilege individualism,materialism, and social status above the value of sharing incommunity. The interviews of the present study show thatthe desire for sharing weakens the possessive desire andstimulates people to take the access approach. Possessionand access differentiate from each other as they respond todifferent desires: in possession, people desire power andcontrol over the paintings; in access (visits), people desireto share the particular moments and environment withothers.

Collectors’ Unique Desires. Two aspects of collec-tors’ desire—the desire for uniqueness and the desire forfamily links—were not mentioned by visitors. The desiresare expected to be fulfilled, socially and psychologically,through the possession of the artworks.

Collector 17 desires to have a unique personality by pos-sessing special pieces of contemporary artworks and byavoiding art exhibition opening parties. He seldom showshis collection to other people but is very generous in sharingstories about his collection when people are his friends andadmire his artwork. His manner is atypical when comparedwith other collectors; this uniqueness is what he desires andit is embedded in his mind-set and behavior. This exampleconfirms that “a related benefit sought by most collectors isthe chance to stand out as being unique by virtue of pos-sessing rare, valued, and unique possessions” (Belk 2001,88). Furthermore, the absence of this aspect in visitors’ de-sire illustrates that it is unique to collectors.

Even though family links can be considered as a type ofsocial link, this research examines family links as an in-dependent category.

Collector: I would like to provide my children with a goodeducation and a good cultural environment, to exchange withmy children the opinions of the artworks that I chose, andhave passionate discussions with them. (Collector 18)

Collector: I want my daughter to be an artist, since it waswhat I failed to do when I was young. It is why I alwaysbought the artworks that she liked. (Collector 19)

Family links here refer mainly to the family environment,the keeping of family tradition, and the education of chil-dren. These aspects can be found in the story told by col-lectors 18 and 19. Desire for family links was not mentionedby visitors during the interviews.

The desire for uniqueness and the desire for family linksare characteristics found in previous literature regarding pos-session (Belk 1988; Richins 1994a). The nature of posses-sion reveals a desire to be different from others and tostrengthen the family links—to be rooted and “extended.”

Visitors’ Unique Desires. The visitors expressed de-sire for surprise, for peacefulness, and for intellectuality thatwas largely absent in collectors’ desire. These three aspectsare a revelation of consumers’ unique expectations of visits;visitors have a strong willingness to discover different and


surprising paintings in a peaceful atmosphere, and they de-sire to have different and new life perspectives from whatthey see, feel, and experience. Contemporary art exhibitvisits have an illusionary image of providing visitors thesesurprising, peaceful, and intellectual aspects.

The desire to “be surprised” is shared by some visitorsbut not collectors. Visitors are searching for surprise andamazement. When asked what they expected to see to besurprised, the informants gave ambiguous answers, such as:

Visitor: I want to be surprised by the paintings, but also bythe people I can see in these places. . . . I love surprises.. . . What kind of? I don’t know. I would like to be shocked,amazed, or surprised . . . because contemporary art is alwayssurprising. . . . It is something that I look for during thevisits. (Visitor 15)

For some visitors, exhibit visits, as a mode of consumption,permit continuous encounters with new experiences and newcircumstances. The unknown aspect, unique to the visit ex-perience, evokes the desire for surprise and for amazement,which is absent in collectors’ desire.

Other visitors express their desire for peacefulness—tobe relaxed, calm, and peaceful. Exhibit visits, as a specialform of experience, create a peaceful atmosphere and permitvisitors to plunge into the visit itself, to forget their concerns,and to live a moment without stress. Access, as a con-sumption mode, reveals the special desire for calm andpeacefulness.

Visitor: I desire to be relaxed and contemplative; the exhibitvisits help me calm down. . . . Wandering around in anexhibition, being surrounded by artworks . . . I am lookingfor calm; I want to relax myself, to concentrate my mind onthe artworks. . . . It is like a meditation which keeps mefocused. (Visitor 16)

The calm and peacefulness is something very unique in theaesthetic experience, which is never rushed and never hur-ried outside of its object. According to Maquet (1986) andRothko (1970), the peaceful desire and feeling is linked tothe “mental de-conditioning” and a state of “bare attention”of aesthetic experience. The absence of desire for peace-fulness in collectors confirms that this aspect of desire isunique to the visit experience.

Certain visitors desire intellectuality. They are eager tolearn about “another vision of the world” and “uncommonideas,” to reflect in another way and to challenge the norms.The participants expressed their desire for an outside intel-lectual power and for a transformation into an intrinsic in-tellectual state. The intellectual desire seems to be muchstronger than the aesthetic desire.

Visitor: Therefore what I would like to get during such ex-hibitions is to be “imprinted” by what I see, to take somethingfrom it, and to envision more original thinking. . . . Con-temporary art invites us to a certain struggle that I findhealthy. It seeks, without violence, to teach us to be against

the common idea instead of living blindly in the tender Be-atitudes. (Visitor 17)

Exhibit visits permit contact with new paintings, forms, andideas. Unlike collection, the visit evokes the desire to learn,to get inspiration, and to absorb intellectual power fromdifferent experiences. This aspect of desire is not found ininterviews with collectors.

Conclusion I. Collectors and visitors differ in desire.The differences found in the present research are linked withthe different natures of possession and access as consump-tion modes. Collectors’ and visitors’ desires reflect theirdifferent expectations and willingness before their dissimilarexperiences.

Findings about collectors’ and visitors’ dissimilar desiresin the present research confirm, to some extent, the resultsof previous research: collectors desire uniqueness and ac-tion, and collection is an enlargement of collectors’ senseof self (Belk 2001). At the same time, the present researchenriches and extends existing research by identifying theunique orientation of visitors; this study demonstrates thevisitors’ lack of self-identification and their desire for imag-ination. The comparison between the collectors and visitorsalso highlights possession as unique to the collectors’ desire.In addition, contrary to the findings that materialism in-volves an existential emphasis on having and on acquisitivedoing (Belk 2001; Fromm 1976; Sartre 1943), the presentresearch shows that collectors desire a more personal, pro-found, and refined emotional relationship with the artworkbefore their collection experiences. Access—the experientialapproach—reveals the desire for a more distant, impersonal,and nonengaging relationship with the artworks.

Desires regarding both possession and access are complexand multifaceted emotional phenomena that are by-productsof interplays between the self, the object, and the society.As similar desires drive collectors and visitors toward theartwork and the world of art, collectors’ and visitors’ dis-similar desires drive them toward two different consumptionmodes—possession and access. While this is evident, onemust ask if desire—a psychological and subjective expec-tation, a highly emotional state of passion—always corre-sponds with the value revealed after the experiences chosenby collectors and visitors. The present research delineatesthe perception of the two consumption modes from both thecollectors’ and visitors’ perspective and leads to a discussionon whether consumers are desire driven or value driven.

Different Values—Visitors and Collectors

While collectors and visitors have different desires beforetheir experiences, the present research also demonstrates thatart consumers’ perceived values after the experiences do notalways correspond to their desires before the experiences.After collection, collectors perceive the value of preserva-tion; after exhibit visits, visitors perceive the value of calm,forgetfulness of time, simplicity in only looking, imagina-tion, and memory.


Collectors’ Perceived Value. Collectors perceive theircollection of artworks more as preservation than as posses-sion. Driven by multiple desires to collect artwork, mostcollectors have an open view regarding their collections.Rather than perceiving their collections as personal “pos-sessions” that represent their power and success, collectorsperceive collection as a way of preserving artworks.

Collector: What does possession mean when we know thatwe are just passengers in this world? Possession, if we seeit objectively, has no sense. I prefer the word preservation.When I collect a painting, I feel that I accommodate it andI take care of it. Hopefully, it could always find another homeonce I’m no longer here. (Collector 3)

The term “preservation” illustrates that the center is theobject itself. It is valuable not because it is possessed bythe collector but because of its own essence. For as Herr-mann states, “works of art are permanent: collectors comeand go” (1972, 22). Under this approach, “possession” isconsidered a “long,” temporal experience that is not strictlylinked with a sense of ownership, domination, and control.The love, respect, sense of responsibility, and altruism forthe object, instead of the egocentric traits found in previousresearch of possession—jealousy, envy, and possessive-ness—largely weaken the sense of “me” and change theobject relationship within possession. The preservation as-pect is unique to the possession of artwork or other objectsthat have characteristics similar to art. It also could be uniqueto French culture.

Visitors’ Perceived Value. Visitors perceive forget-fulness of time, simplicity of “only looking,” calm, imagi-nation, and memory after the visit experience. These ele-ments were not found in interviews with collectors. Theresults confirm that contemporary art exhibit visits havecommon memorable value (Pine and Gilmore 1999) as otherexperiences. In addition, the results confirm the imaginationand calm values found in aesthetic experience (Sherry andJoy 2003). Furthermore, the results extend the existing re-search and make the connection with the philosophical ap-proach of the “being mode” (Fromm 1976): visits permitvisitors to forget the time and enjoy the simplicity of theexperience.

“The forgetfulness of time” is proposed as one charac-teristic of the “being mode,” according to Fromm. Previousresearch offered similar findings as “the transformation oftime” (Csikszentmihalyi 1990): “The objective, external du-ration we measure with reference to outside events . . . isrendered irrelevant by the rhythms dictated by the activity”(66). Difficult to understand on a theoretical and abstractlevel, the term is enriched by the qualitative data housed inthe present research:

Visitor: During the visit, I felt moments when the time wasno longer linear, as if it stopped completely. It is a verystrange sensation, as if people around us were in the sameuniverse as us, even though it was the first time that we met

them. The atmosphere was calm, and people were calm. (Vis-itor 29)1

During the exhibit visits, visitors are “not necessarily outof time, but the time is no longer a dimension which governs.The experience is independent of time. . . . ‘Here and now’is the eternity” (Fromm 1976, 128). The visit experienceitself creates a world in which human beings no longer obeythe demands of time. The informants’ description of theexperience as a moment of eternity confirms the character-istics of the “being mode.” The persistence of this value ininformant testimony permits the researcher to consider the“forgetfulness of time” as an important exhibit visits value.

“Simply looking at . . . and only looking at” makes theexhibit visits interesting. In this universe, nothing else—neitherasking questions nor being stressed—is necessary. This sim-plicity adds a strong point to the perceived value of the visitexperience:

Visitor: [It was] an ambience of calm, where we could benefitfrom whatever we could see. Without asking the questions“should I sit down, should I take a coffee, should I return towork.” . . . I simply looked at them and then . . . I wascaptured. . . . I looked at them, looked at and finally realizedthat I was lost in the museum. . . . It was an ambience ofbubble, a bubble cut from the real world. (Visitor 35)

The visit creates an atmosphere of simplicity and concen-tration, and provides the environment and value of “onlylooking.” This aspect of value is unique to the visit expe-rience.

Consistent with the forgetfulness of time and the sim-plicity of only looking, a sentiment of calm and peace isrevealed in the interviews as another aspect of value per-ceived after the visit experiences. For most of the inter-viewees, the sentiment “calm” is the value most frequentlyfelt and expressed after a contemporary art visit.

Visitor: I have felt a particular sensation during my visit. Infact, I felt like I was swimming in an atmosphere of calmand serenity, totally contrary to the stressful world and thehaste of daily life. . . . Art helps me to find a certain “interiorpeace” and to change completely my ideas. It relaxes me andopens my mind. (Visitor 27)

The value of calm is found to be unique to the visit expe-rience—an experience totally different from daily life andthat brings the visitors to another world.

Museum and exhibit visits provide a particular value ofimagination. In the visit environment, visitors can both con-template in front of the paintings and wander around withoutconstraint. In this environment, visitors can create imagi-nation either from the exposed painting or from movingamong the paintings in the specific atmosphere. As such,

1Visitors not listed in table 1 are students, who were too numerous tolist.


aesthetic experience is linked with bodily movement andorientation to facilitate imagination (Sherry and Joy 2003).

Visitor: We plunged into a very different atmosphere, nearlydetached from time and our small daily world. We are cap-tured by the strangeness of the expression modes of the artistsand by their messages, thinking, sensations, emotions, or eu-phoria. It is finally a leisure experience which demands imag-ination, as going to the cinema or to the theater. (Visitor 36)

As Pine and Gilmore (1999) have shown, visit experienceis also “memorable.” Visitors use the expressions “pervade,”“stay,” and “touch the heart” to describe the value of mem-ory. The finding illustrates that spiritual traces remain afterexperiences; they become memory and can change the senseof the “self.” Consequently, the finding implies that the “ex-tended-self” may be expressed by other spiritual and ex-periential forms than pure material possession.

Visitor: I was surprised to realize to what extent the exhibitstayed with me. In fact, two or three weeks after the visit,the paintings, the videos, and the pictures came back to meas I saw them at the moment, and they always inspire me torelax and to imagine. I could, in my memory, re-plunge intothe environment and reconsider an artwork with a new look.(Visitor 38)

The visit experience is not only memorable but also aliveand changing. Visitors can live the moments and the emo-tions for a long time. By reliving these moments in memory,the sense of the “self” can go through a process of evolutionand change. Consequently, the memory provides other re-sources for self-development and extension. The value ofmemory, adding the “alive,” “changing,” and “eternal” as-pects to access (museum visits), enriches and enlarges theconcept.

Conclusion II. Collectors desire long-term and intimaterelationships, continuity of sentiments, action, and possess-ing and control before acquiring the artwork. However, aftertheir collection experiences, they report only preservationof artworks as the perceived value. The most important valuerevealed from their collection experience is that they takecare of the artwork. The complex aspects of collectors’ de-sire are mainly consumers’ illusion and desire but not theirperceived value.

Visitors desire distant and circumstantial relationships,freedom of imagination, and sharing and enjoyment withothers; they also desire to avoid repetition and dullness.After the visit experiences, they perceive forgetfulness oftime, simplicity, calm, imagination, and memory.

The results show that possession and access, as the chosenconsumption modes, modify consumers’ perception andevaluation compared to their desire. The fact of “never pos-sessing” put a distance between visitors and artworks. Vis-itors, who never owned artworks, perceive unique valuesregarding their visit experiences when compared with col-lectors regarding their collection experiences.

Collectors and Visitors: From Desire to Value

Generally speaking, value does not always correspond tothe same desire regarding the consumption modes. That whichconsumers desire before the experiences is different from theirperceptions after the experiences. Collectors’ and visitors’similar desires are linked to the product—artworks—and aremostly satisfied. Collectors’ and visitors’ different desiresare linked to consumption modes—possession and ac-cess—and do not correspond with the perceived value afterthe experiences. The results imply that possession or accessshould not be considered as the key satisfaction issue ofconsumption. Satisfaction of desire comes mainly from theproduct itself. Art and the art world reveal the desires ofconsumers and fulfill most of them. Possession and accessreveal different desires and illusions in consumers but cannotsatisfy the consumption fantasy. The findings of this researchconfirm that desire is a powerful phenomenon that stimulatesconsumption choices. Consumers are driven by the illusionof their desired world; they choose their considered “correct”way of consumption but also stay, by nature, unsatisfied bythe consequences of the consumption. The fact that collec-tors continue to collect and that visitors continue to visit,no matter how they perceive their collection or visit expe-rience, shows that consumers are more desire driven thanvalue driven. The present research encourages a differentview of the relationship between consumer desire and con-sumer value, one which demands deeper research in thefuture.

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This research develops a multilevel and multifaceted per-spective on consumer behavior by separating consumptionmodes from the consumption objects, by comparing pos-session with access, and by distinguishing desire from value.The separation of consumption mode from consumptionobjects suggests two levels of consumer-product relation-ships: consumers first form relationships with the prod-ucts—artworks—based on their similar desires regarding artand the world of art. They then form possession or accessrelationships to consume the products based on their dif-ferent desires. The possession and access comparison illus-trates that they are both alternatives of consumption modesand can modify consumers’ value perceptions. The distinc-tion between desire and value demonstrates that consumers’perceptions after the experiences do not always correspondwith their expectations before the experiences. However,consumers sustain the same behaviors based on their desires.This contradiction implies that desire and illusions, morethan value and perceptions, are the driving forces behindconsumption.

On the basis of the above findings, the present researchchallenges the presupposition that possession is the ultimateexpression of consumer desire and extends research on pos-session and extended self. Previous research proposes valuesof possession as “extended self,” emotions, and social status,and it focuses on the materiality and tangibility of “extended


self.” The present research refines the theory and demon-strates that “possession”—a consumption mode instead ofthe object—is not the only initiator of the value of the ex-tended self. Access can also provide value of the extendedself through immaterial memories that enrich human senseand life experiences.

The findings of the present research also complementprevious research in art collecting and exhibit visits. In pre-vious research, desires and values were respectively foundas being unique to collectors or visitors. This research syn-thesized desires and values into two groups: similar desiresand values that reflect the characteristics of artworks, anddifferent desires and values that reflect the characteristics ofpossession and access—art collection and exhibit visits.

This research is an exploratory one and is a first step inthe study of possession and access and the relative roles ofconsumer desire and consumer value. On the basis of thecurrent findings, future research should be developed.

The relationship between aesthetic attitude and materi-alistic attitude emerges as a derivative finding in the currentresearch: sharing and “only looking” are found to be linkedwith the weakening of possessive desire. How to discoverand establish this relationship in a larger environment withthe consideration of cultural influence could be another re-search subject. Throughout history, and in every knownculture, people have found pleasure and meaning in whatthey see. If the value of a society is measured by its abilityto fully develop the potential of its members, then the mak-ing of visual beauty and learning how to enjoy it shouldbecome more important items for society as a whole. Threespecific traits of the “only looking” attitude—attention, non-discursiveness, and disinterestedness—are found in the pre-vious literature (Maquet 1986; Wagner 1999). These traitsreflect a logic different from that of a materialistic person-ality—jealousy, possessiveness, and envy (Belk 1988)—andevoke the investigation of the effect of this experience onhuman behaviors in general and consumer behaviors inparticular.

An interesting French-American comparison regardingthe artistic attitude, art consumption, and materialistic atti-tude is conceivable. In French society, art has been a symbolof property, a means of enjoyment, or an instrument ofpower of a minority. The “only looking” aesthetic appre-ciation attitude, officially linked to artistic taste, is inter-preted together with intellectual capability and higher socialstatus; it therefore has a positive image for the French peo-ple. American art has lived through the Colonial portraitperiod, the landscape, the figure in space, the Eight, andafter. Nevertheless, abstract expressionism, which was bornin America after War World II and “imbued with the materialpoetry of the country,” is considered real American art.American artists asserted early in the twentieth century that“we have no need of art as a culture; no need of art as arefined and elegant performance; no need of art for poetry’ssake” (Henri 1910, 160–62). The American artists’ distrustof performance and high culture, apparent in their work andwriting, was a precursor to Pop Art. It is an art that “could

be argued in the language of the street, which proved itssuccess in separating itself from the hothouse atmospheresof an imported and for our country, functionless aesthetics”(Benton 1968, 315). This anti–“functionless aesthetics” at-titude, if substantiated and demonstrated in contemporaryart appreciation, could provide evidence of the differenceconcerning aesthetic attitude in the European and the Amer-ican tradition and reality. An investigation of the impact ofthese two different kinds of aesthetic attitude should be thesubject of future research. The current research finds thatthe “simplicity in only looking” can weaken the possessivedesire and provides some insights into the relationship be-tween aesthetic attitude and materialistic attitude. However,future research with empirical data and stronger theoreticalimplications should be developed.

Beyond the French-American comparison, other culturalimpact on consumer desires and values regarding aestheticand artistic experience could also be studied. Whether andhow different cultures affect the dimensions of desire andvalue, and whether the transformation from desire to valuewill be influenced by cultures, will provide insights intoconsumer behavior.

The possession-access contrasts both inside and outsidethe field of art could be further developed. Within the fieldof art, visits offer an example of access to artworks; othermodes include leasing artworks, accessing street art, andsharing public art. The enlargement of the theoretical frame-work of this study to other access modes in the field of artis necessary. Outside the art world, numerous products andservices affected by the “possession and access” approach(purchasing vs. leasing products) could also evoke signifi-cant research. Concrete examples include DVD, automo-biles, bicycles, skiing equipment, boating equipment, andother tangible products that can be consumed both throughpurchases as possession and through leasing as access. Pub-lic libraries and other kinds of sharing are of emerging im-portance and could be an extended subject for future re-search.

Certain dimensions of consumer desire and consumervalue merit deeper research. Donation has been studied inprevious research. However, the philanthropic desire in con-sumption of special products and services, an important sub-ject in consumer behavior research, has not been sufficientlyanalyzed. Different and similar dimensions between “desire”and “value,” revealed in the present study, can be influencedby the consumption modes possession and access, and theymerit serious future research.

The relationship between desire and value could be furtherstudied with the comparison to the relationship betweenexpectation and satisfaction. As discussed by Arnould andPrice (1993), consumers’ expectations are often prettyvague: “pre-trip expectations about the natural environmentwere consensual and romantic,” and “consumers don’t knowwhat feelings to expect.” The authors also conclude thatsatisfaction may “have little if anything to do with confir-mation of expectation” (40). Findings from the present re-search illustrate that consumers’ perceived values respond


to their desires regarding the core product, artworks, andthat consumers’ perceived values do not necessarily respondto their desires regarding their chosen consumptionmodes—possession or access. This finding, on confirmingArnould and Price’s conclusion, proposes a different per-spective of “desire-value” and “expectation-satisfaction” re-lationship: the certainty and predictability of the “desire-value” relationship are dependent on the tangibility of theproducts and services involved. The present research impliesthat the more intangible the experience, the more uncertainare the consumers’ desires and the more unpredictable isthe consumers’ perceived value. This assumption demandsfurther and thorough research.

While additional studies are envisaged upon the comple-tion of this research, space does not allow an explorationof them here. This research is expected to allow “access”to the topic and to stimulate a wide variety of works in thefuture.

REFERENCES

Alexandre, Victoria D. (1996), Museum and Money: The Impactof Funding on Exhibitions, Scholarship, and Management,Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Arnould, Eric and Linda Price (1993), “River Magic: ExtraordinaryExperience and the Extended Service Encounter,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 20 (June), 24–45.

Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 139–68.

——— (2001), Collecting in a Consumer Society, London:Routledge.

——— (2006), “Ownership, Ego and Sharing,” Proceedings ofConference “To Buy or to Rent.” Paris: ESCP-EAP, 9.

Belk, Russell W., Guliz Ger, and Søren Askegaard (2003), “TheFire of Desire: A Multisited Inquiry into Consumer Passion,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (December), 326–51.

Benton, Thomas H. (1968), An Artist in America, Columbia: Uni-versity of Missouri Press.

Boorstin, Daniel J. (1973), The Americans: The Democratic Ex-perience, New York: Random.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1969), L’amour de l’art: Les musees d’art eu-ropeens et leur public, Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.

Bullough, Edward (1912), “‘Psychical Distance’ as a Factor in Artand as an Aesthetic Principle,” British Journal of Psychology,5, 87–117.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Op-timal Experience, New York: Harper.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Halton (1981), The Meaningof Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self, London: Cam-bridge University Press.

Evrard, Yves and Philippe Aurier (1996), “Identification and Val-idation of the Components of the Person-Object Relation-ship,” Journal of Business Research, 37, 127–34.

Evrard, Yves and Christophe Benavent (2002), “Extension du Do-maine de l’Experience,” Decisions Marketing, 28 (Septem-ber–December), 7–11.

Florence, Jean (1978), L’identification dans la theorie freudienne,Bruxelles: Facultes Universitaires Saint-Louis.

Fromm, Erich (1976), To Have or to Be, New York: Harper &Row.

Heinich, Nathalie (2000), Pour en finir avec la querelle de l’artcontemporain, Paris: Echoppe.

Henri, Robert (1910), “Exhibition of Independent Artists,” in TheCraftsman, Syracuse, NY: Gustav Stickley, 160–72.

Herrmann, Frank (1972), The English as Collectors: A Documen-tary Chrestomathy, London: Chatto & Windus.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1983), “Aesthetics, Ideologies and theLimits of the Marketing Concept,” Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 45–57.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1999), Consumer Value: A Framework forAnalysis and Research, London: Routledge.

Holbrook, Morris B. and Michela Addis (2001), “On the Concep-tual Link between Mass Customisation and Experiential Con-sumption: An Explosion of Subjectivity,” Journal of Con-sumer Behavior, 1 (June), 50–66.

Holbrook, Morris B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), “TheExperiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies,Feelings and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (Sep-tember), 132–40.

Holt, Douglas B. (1995), “How Consumers Consume: Toward aTypology of Consumption Practices,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 22 (June), 1–25.

Ilchman, Warren F., Stanley N. Katz, and Edward L. Queen II(1998), Philanthropy in the World’s Traditions, Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Kamler, Howard (1994), Identification and Character: A Book onPsychological Development, Albany, NY: Libri.

Kleine, Susan S., Robert E. Kleine III, and Chris T. Allen (1995),“How Is a Possession ‘Me’ or ‘Not Me’? Characterizing Typesand an Antecedent of Material Possession Attachment,” Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 327–43.

Mano, Haim and Richard L. Oliver (1993), “Assessing the Di-mensionality and Structure of the Consumption Experience:Evaluation, Feeling and Satisfaction,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 20 (December), 451–66.

Maquet, Jacques (1986), The Aesthetic Experience: An Anthro-pologist Looks at the Visual Arts, New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-versity Press.

McManus, Paulette M. (1987), “It’s the Company You Keep . . .:The Social Determination of Learning-Related Behavior in aScience Museum,” International Journal of Museum Man-agement and Curatorship, 6, 263–70.

Moulin, Raymonde (1967), Le marche de la peinture en France,Paris: Monographie.

Moureau, Nathalie (2000a), Analyse economique de la valeur desbiens d’art, Paris: Economica.

——— (2000b), “Formation des valeurs sur le marche de l’artcontemporain,” in Espaces de la culture, politiques de l’art,ed. Bernie Boissard, Paris: L’Harmattan, 255–91.

Pine, Joseph B., II and James H. Gilmore (1999), The ExperienceEconomy: Work Is a Theatre and Every Business a Stage,Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Richins, Marsha L. (1994a), “Special Possessions and the Ex-pression of Material Values,” Journal of Consumer Research,21 (December), 522–31.

——— (1994b), “Valuing Things: The Public and Private Mean-ings of Possessions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (De-cember), 504–21.

Rothko, Mark (1970), Mark Rothko, New York: Pace Gallery.Sartre, Jean-Paul (1943), L’etre et le neant: Essai d’ontologie phen-

omenologique, Paris: Gallimard.Sherry, John and Annamma Joy (2003), “Speaking of Art as Em-

bodied Imagination: A Multi-sensory Approach to Under-


standing Aesthetic Experience,” Journal of Consumer Re-search, 30 (September), 259–82.

Spiggle, Susan (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of QualitativeData in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research,21(December), 491–503.

Thompson, Craig J. (1997), “Interpreting Consumers: A Herme-

neutical Framework for Deriving Marketing Insights from theTexts of Consumers’ Consumption Stories,” Journal of Mar-keting Research, 34 (November), 438–55.

Wagner, Janet (1999), “Aesthetic Value,” in Consumer Value: AFramework for Analysis and Research, ed. Morris B. Hol-brook, London: Routledge, 126–46.

Possession and Access: Consumer Desires and Value Perceptions Regarding Contemporary Art Collection...

Documents

Transcript of Possession and Access: Consumer Desires and Value Perceptions Regarding Contemporary Art Collection...