The “beholder’s share” may help you understand online disagreements.
Key points
- How we view art, including our favorite shows, is subjective, shaped by our knowledge and history.
- The “beholder’s share” explains that art is never finished; we complete it from our own experience.
- Brain scans show that the more ambiguous the art, the greater differences in interpretation between people.
Source: Concord90/Pixabay
I often write about the benefits of fandom—finding community, a sense of belongingness, boosts to self-esteem and optimism, and a welcome respite from everyday stressors. Nevertheless, I sometimes log onto social media to enjoy the latest news about my favorite show and bask in that sense of togetherness, only to find fans hurling insults at each other with accusations of “you’re wrong, that’s not what happened.”
What happened to that wonderful sense of community?
A new study suggests that fans’ differences of opinion don’t have to be a reason to get mad at each other. In fact, the reason for those differences of opinion might be something that’s also good for us.
It’s All Subjective
If you examine what fans are usually arguing about, it often comes down to one faction insisting that X happened on the show and another insisting that those people are very wrong on the internet, and instead Y happened. Why, you might ask, would there be so much disagreement about something that they all watched on their TV screens? Shouldn’t we all be able to agree on what we saw if we all saw the same thing?
The question is, did we? Sure, our eyes took in the same visual information—whatever was broadcast. But it’s clear that what we perceive is not just whatever images our visual cortex or any of our senses absorb. The human brain interprets that information, sometimes in very disparate ways.
A new study by researchers at the National Academy of Sciences confirms that a work of art is essentially “completed” by the person viewing it, as they infuse it with meaning from their own individual experience and history. The more abstract the piece of art, the more personal the interpretation, with differences in brain activity in response to viewing it.
Art and the Beholder’s Share
This idea of the “beholder’s share” suggests that people actively engage in creating meaning when we look at a piece of art. How we all experience the world is subjective, not objective, shaped by our own individual experiences. Our memories and the knowledge we’ve accumulated influence the associations we make when we take in new information. In the art world, the idea of the beholder’s share holds that a piece of art is never actually finished by the artist; instead, the person viewing it completes it, infusing it with meaning out of their own unique experience.
These differences in perception, the NAS study found, aren’t due to differences in sensory processing. Instead, functional MRI brain scans found that variability in processing art is due to higher cognitive processes—in other words, we don’t just see with our eyes.
A Little Ambiguity Can Be a Good Thing
It’s well known that viewing art can boost mood, but it can also impact our creativity and critical thinking, which is ultimately therapeutic. This is especially true when we’re viewing something, whether a painting or a television show, that is up for interpretation. The study showed that people use their brains differently when viewing abstract art, with brain activity that differs more from person to person. People interpreted abstract art with more subjectivity, so their own individual experience shaped the meaning they drew from the art.
The parts of the brain that were engaged to do so are known as the default mode network, higher brain processing regions that also kick in when someone is daydreaming or reminiscing, associated with both creativity and imagination. This type of cognitive engagement can improve mood and spark creativity, which are both beneficial.
People derive pleasure from making sense of their world, including making meaning from art. The more ambiguity in the art, the more the default mode network is activated and the bigger differences in interpretation. Our aesthetic preferences are unique to each of us, based on our own experiences.
What does this have to do with fan arguments on the internet? We make these aesthetic evaluations not just when viewing artworks, but also when watching our favorite films and television shows. No wonder fans so often disagree!
Your Favorite TV Show as Abstract Art
In the world of visual media, there has long been debate about why some television series and films elicit passionate fan bases, while others may be enjoyed while airing but don’t spark years (or decades) of discussion and debate and fan communities that remain vibrant and engaged. Henry Jenkins suggested that one thing they have in common is “producerly stories,” ones that have some ambiguity so that fans can apply their own interpretations, essentially molding the stories into ones that they relate to. Similar to viewing abstract art, the fan uses what is created and broadcast as a stepping off point for their own subjective interpretation of the canon.
As we’ve seen from the research, that ensures that there will be differences in how fans see the story, depending on their own personal experience, history, knowledge and associations. But is that necessarily a bad thing?
The Benefits of Aesthetic Evaluation
In a word, no.
The process of aesthetic evaluation affects mood, sense of wellbeing, and even time it takes for us to heal from illness in a positive way. A recent meta-analysis found that viewing art can increase creativity and improve eudemonic wellbeing, including feelings of empowerment, cohesive identity, increased connection and sense of belonging, and finding meaning in life. The World Health Organization includes art as a social determinant of health.
So, the next time you sit down to watch the work of art that is your favorite show—especially one that leaves its characters and relationships open for interpretation—indulge in some aesthetic evaluation and reap the benefits. At the same time, keep in mind the idea of the beholder’s share when you come across fans’ interpretations that are vastly different from your own. That’s a testament to your favorite show’s ability to incorporate some ambiguity, and may be contributing to its continued popularity.
No wonder we don’t agree on exactly what we’re seeing onscreen—because we’re seeing with a lot more than our eyes.
References
Durkin, C., Apicella, M., Baldassano, C. & Shohamy, D. (2025). The beholder’s share: Bridging art and neuroscience to study individual differences in subjective experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122 (15) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2413871122
Trupp, M. D., Howlin, C., Fekete, A., Kutsche, J., Fingerhut, J., & Pelowski, M. (2025). The impact of viewing art on well-being—a systematic review of the evidence base and suggested mechanisms. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2025.2481041
Vessel, E.A., Maurer, N., Denker, A.H. & Starr, G. (2018). Stronger shared taste for natural aesthetic domains than for artifacts of human culture, Cognition, 179, 121-131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.009.
