As the Golden Globes roll around each year, the buzz about winners and nominees dominates the cultural conversation. Awards, after all, have the power to catapult movies into the global consciousness, launch careers, and set trends. But how much do these trophies truly reflect artistic merit or enduring quality?
A deeper dive into the history and dynamics of awards reveals a fascinating interplay of commercial success, critical acclaim, and the test of time.
Do Awards Predict Greatness?
The Golden Globes, like the Oscars, aim to celebrate excellence in filmmaking. But do they really spotlight the best? Between 1950 and 1980, researchers, including Victor Ginsburgh from the Université Libre de Bruxelles, analyzed the correlation between awards, box office success, and long-term acclaim. The findings were eye-opening.
In a sample of 559 films produced during this period, only 65% of Oscar-winning Gmovies appeared on at least one “best movies” list decades later. The Golden Globes fared worse: of their 65 winning films, 45 were not cited on any major best movies list. Notable misses include classics like Singin’ in the Rain (1952), which failed to secure an Oscar or Golden Globe nomination but is now universally lauded as one of the greatest films ever made. Meanwhile, The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) won the Oscar but has faded into obscurity.
A glaring pattern emerges: awards often align with immediate commercial success but do not reliably predict enduring cultural or artistic value. For instance, Oscar-winning films between 1950 and 1980 enjoyed significantly higher box office rentals compared to their non-nominated counterparts. However, when judged decades later, only 26% of these films consistently appeared across all three major “best of” lists compiled by critics.
The Influence of the Booker Prize on Literature
The Booker Prize, one of literature’s most prestigious awards, presents a similar story. Established in 1969 to honor the best novel written in English, its winners have historically enjoyed a surge in popularity. However, this initial acclaim rarely translates into timeless recognition.
A study of Booker Prize winners from 1969 to 1982 revealed that, in most cases, shortlisted titles outperformed winners in terms of editions published 11 to 20 years after their selection. For example, Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children (1981) remains a defining work of modern literature, but for every Midnight’s Children, there are numerous winners that have been forgotten.
Interestingly, the number of titles an author publishes after their nomination often indicates lasting quality more reliably than the prize itself. Authors shortlisted for the Booker produced more books per year (0.56) than winners (0.43) in the years following their nominations.
Musical Talent and the Queen Elisabeth Competition
In music, competitions like the Queen Elisabeth Piano Competition in Belgium highlight another angle of awards: the unpredictability of human judgment. This prestigious event, known for its rigorous demands, has launched many successful careers. However, its rankings do not always reflect true talent.
A detailed analysis of 132 finalists from 11 competitions held between 1952 and 1991 found that factors like performance order and gender significantly influenced rankings. Musicians who performed first on any given evening were less likely to secure top positions, revealing a bias unrelated to their talent.
Moreover, the presence of a performer in major music catalogs years later—an indicator of success—was often disconnected from their competition rankings. For instance, Vladimir Ashkenazy, a globally celebrated pianist, participated in multiple competitions without consistently winning top prizes.
The Role of Time: A True Test of Quality
If awards cannot reliably predict enduring quality, what can? Scholars like David Hume and J.M. Coetzee argue that time is the ultimate arbiter. Works that survive decades or even centuries transcend the biases of judges, the whims of fashion, and the pressures of commercial interests.
Take Italian Renaissance art as an example. Artists like Michelangelo and Raphael were celebrated in their lifetimes, but their enduring reputations were shaped by centuries of admiration and analysis. Similarly, films like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), overlooked by the Oscars, have only grown in stature as their groundbreaking artistry becomes more evident with each passing year.
What This Means for Modern Audiences
For audiences, these findings offer a valuable lesson: awards provide a snapshot of a work’s immediate impact but are far from a definitive measure of its value. The next time you see a movie crowned at the Golden Globes, remember that its true legacy will be written not by the judges but by time itself.
Meanwhile, creators might take comfort in the idea that recognition is not always immediate. Some of the most enduring works in history were underappreciated in their day, waiting for future generations to discover their brilliance.
In a world saturated with content, awards serve as guideposts, but they are not the final word. The true test of greatness lies not in golden statues but in the ability to resonate across time, cultures, and changing tastes.
One contemporary example of this phenomenon is the Brazilian actress Fernanda Torres and her acclaimed role in I’m Still Here (Eu Ainda Estou Aqui). While the film explores themes of resilience and identity with emotional depth, it has yet to gain the global acclaim its artistry deserves. Much like overlooked classics of the past, the legacy of Torres’ performance may take years to fully resonate. The story of I’m Still Here is a reminder that the value of art often transcends the fleeting moment of awards season, finding its true audience and recognition through the passage of time.
KEY FINDINGS
Awards often fail to predict enduring greatness: Between 1950 and 1980, only 65% of Oscar-winning movies appeared on at least one “best movies” list decades later, and Golden Globe winners fared even worse, with 45 of 65 not cited on any major list. Immediate commercial success does not guarantee timeless cultural value.
Shortlisted works in literature often outperform winners over time: A study of Booker Prize winners from 1969 to 1982 showed that shortlisted authors produced more works (0.56 books/year) than winners (0.43 books/year), and their books often had more lasting impact.
Human judgment in music competitions is often biased: Factors like performance order and gender influenced rankings in the Queen Elisabeth Piano Competition, demonstrating that competition results do not always reflect true talent or long-term success.
Time is the ultimate test of artistic quality: Enduring recognition, as seen with overlooked classics like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Michelangelo’s works, often transcends awards, highlighting the role of timeless appeal over immediate acclaim.
Curious for more? Dig deeper into the science of our references:
Ginsburgh, Victor. Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts. Journal of Economic perspectives 17.2. 2003, pp. 99-111.
Discover more from PsyBites
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
