Machine Vision Reveals Previously Unknown Influences Between Great Artists 74
KentuckyFC writes Art experts look for influences between great masters by studying the artist's use of space, texture, form, shape, colour and so on. They may also consider the subject matter, brushstrokes, meaning, historical context and myriad other factors. So it's easy to imagine that today's primitive machine vision techniques have little to add. Not so. Using a new technique for classifying objects in images, a team of computer scientists and art experts have compared more than 1700 paintings from over 60 artists dating from the early 15th century to the late 20 the century. They've developed an algorithm that has used these classifications to find many well known influences between artists, such as the well known influence of Pablo Picasso and George Braque on the Austrian symbolist painter Gustav Klimt, the influence of the French romantic Delacroix on the French impressionist Bazille, the Norwegian painter Munch's influence on the German painter Beckmann and Degas' influence on Caillebotte. But the algorithm also discovered connections that art historians have never noticed (judge the comparisons for yourself). In particular, the algorithm points out that Norman Rockwell's Shuffleton's Barber Shop painted in 1950 is remarkably similar to Frederic Bazille's Studio 9 Rue de la Condamine painted 80 years before.
Influence vs. similarity (Score:5, Insightful)
What the computer can do is point out what is similar. Whether the similarity is an example of influence then needs to be established with further evidence.
Similarities seem kind of tenuous (Score:5, Insightful)
I looked at the Rockwell/Bazille comparison, and they don't really seem all that similar - they have three similar elements (stove, chair, and window) but those seem coincidental more than anything. The window in Rockwell's piece, for instance, is small and rectangular while the one in Bazille's is huge and arched. The chair in the Rockwell piece is actually barely identifiable as a chair at first glance, whereas the one in the Bazille piece is immediately recognizable as a wooden chair. They're also three objects that are likely to be close to one another. For instance, my aunt heats with wood and has a stove roughly the same distance from a window as in the Rockwell and Bazille pictures, and if I remember right even has a wooden chair in the same room. I think all this proves is that people tend to put their stoves in rooms with windows and chairs.
I don't see it (Score:4, Insightful)
So...because Rockwell and Bazille's paintings both have windows, people, a chair, and a stove they are influenced by each other? All of these are common things that you would expect in any building in the late 1800s and mid-50s (note the age of the building implies it is not new construction at that time and would definitely still rely on a stove for heating). I guess they are trying to argue that the placement of the items is the connection? Barbershops always have their chairs on one side near the wall, and people tend to put chairs near walls and objects as well, not in the middle of the floor. The right angle formed by the wall and floor and then the pane in the window seems a bit of a stretch, since wouldn't any painting of a man-made structure include right angles at some point?
I guess I just don't "get it"
Re:Influence vs. similarity (Score:5, Insightful)
What the computer can do is point out what is similar. Whether the similarity is an example of influence then needs to be established with further evidence.
Of course even if there is influence it may not be direct. Both artists could have been influenced by another earlier artist, or the second one influenced by an intermediate one, or there could be a whole complex tree of influences
Re:Influence vs. similarity (Score:5, Insightful)
artists program the computer (Score:2, Insightful)
the whole "man vs machine" conversation has gotten hopelessly muddled by "AI" hype from Kurzweil types & pop science news...
impossible...computers are complex machines that follow instructions
what you mean is, "if we continue programming computers to generate art"
the "artist" is whatever monkey programs the machine to make the art....UNDERSTAND THIS FOREVER AND INTEGRATE IT INTO YOU PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY
the researchers in TFA are doing some interesting work, but they are fully choosing the parameters to compare...which means the accuracy of the research is *dependent on the researcher's ability to pick salient visual factors*, the researchers would have to learn alot about how artists work AND have a good understanding of visual design
each artist works differently, and no researcher can ever confirm if the artist has ever seen the art they are supposed to have been influenced by
there are so many holes in this research you could drive 6 trucks into it simultaneously at 6 different angles...call it an "MC Escher error"
Re:I don't see it (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much. I suspect this is one of those situations where "correlation != causality" is an appropriate comment.
I would say instead that, given a sufficiently large enough data set, patterns and correlations are bound to appear. The likelihood that thousands of paintings were analyzed in this way and no matches were found, purely on a random basis, is very small.