Using Computers To Weed Out Art Fakes

jackelfish writes "Reminiscent of handwriting analysis software used in the television series CSI, computers are now being used to evaluate the authenticity of works of art without an expert ever setting eyes on it. The technique identifies the artist by analyzing their characteristic brush or pen strokes from high resolution scans of previously authenticated works. Much like a fingerprint, these characteristics can then be compared to a work in question. The method, to be published in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences promises to reduce the subjectivity of art assessments made by human experts."

Comments

They've got it backwards

[Dancin_Santa]

Extrapolate all that data about each artist's technique, then turn around and paint a bunch of "authentic" art "authored" by those masters.

They already have "pencil sketch", "charcoal sketch", and "regular photo" settings at the picture booths down at your local mall. It's just a matter of running a filter over an original image and reproducing the image with the desired effects.

If they have the filter database built for each master, how hard would it be to have it Markov chain an image with that data?

This seems like the wrong direction if they want to authenticate images.

Re:They've got it backwards

[SerpentMage]

No this wont work... What it will do is give a false sense of security. Recently on Discovery Channel Europe they ran a set of documentaries about art theft and art forgery.

The problem with art forgery is that there are some REALLY good forgers. The one that they interviewed could produce "original" pieces of art in the name of the original artist. The people who were to supposed to catch his forgeries could not because he was that good.

When they interviewed this Dutch forger he actually studied, and set himself in the frame of mind of the artist. EG he had a Picasso room with Picasso paint brushes, paints, etc. What was brilliant about him is that he was like an actor. You know how an actor does a role play and makes themself become the person. With someone who is that clever all that the computer analysis will do is make his work legit! And that is a bigger problem!

Re:They've got it backwards

[HyperCash]

To me the really good forgers make a mockery of the entire "art crowd" for showing it to be the farce that it is. I mean, if you can't tell the difference between the forgers piece and Picasso's then really, whats the difference? If the foremost experts in the field can't tell the difference the forger's work is just as good. The only difference is branding. Amazing that people will pay hundreds of millions for that.

--HC

Re:They've got it backwards

[cmcguffin]

It's a question of art history, not a question of "just as good".

A mediocre work by, say, Picasso, is interesting because it tells a story about his development as an artist, and therefore will likely have some monetary value to a collector or a museum. A mediocre work by, say, me, is just mediocre.

Museums don't exist just to show "good" pictures. Part of their mission is to preserve and illuminate the history of art.

Think of it this way: an early, buggy version of linux is interesting from a historical perspective, while an early, buggy version of my personal operating system is of little interesting to anybody.

Re:Application it won't work for

[Commander Trollco]

I think you put the quotes in the wrong place.
Try this: Some artists make modern "art", where no brushes are used, just lopping paint at weird angles. John Cage sucks.

Mona Lisa

[Ridcully]

But can they detect the message "This is a fake" written with a modern felt tip pen under the painting of the Mona Lisa?

It works

[Tablizer]

It told me that 80% of my porn is fake. They are all westerner heads pasted on Indian bodies. Not that I mind Indian babes, but resent being tricked. I refuse to outsource my pleasure based on wage alone.

Jackson Pollock

[Bowling Moses]

This reminds me strongly of a talk I went to by Richard Taylor, a physics prof at the University of Oregon. He's determined that Jackson Pollock's paintings are fractal in nature, and is one of the people contacted when a new painting of his turns up. So far, he's been in total agreement with expert opinion. An interesting note is that Pollock got to a "sweet spot" of what Taylor calls "drip fractal dimension" of ~1.6-1.7, whereas nature is around about 1.2-1.3. Pollock, Taylor said, seemed to want to challenge the viewer with more intense fractal patterns. He could get higher drip fractal dimensions, to a value of greater than 2, but he decided it was too far and painted over it--too challenging or something. This was something mentioned in Taylor's talk, not in the link. Anyway, it was a really interesting talk that's made me look for repeating patterns in nature when I'm out hunting or something, and gave me a greater appreciation for Pollock's paintings, which always used to look like...er...Jackson Pollocks to me. Also Taylor talked about how fractal nature seems to be appealing and relaxing to us, with our mood improved if there are either real plants or large photographs of natural scenes around our cube farms--which are incredibly unfractal like and horridly plain and repetitive.

Fake Picasso story

[commodoresloat]

I can't remember where I heard this story or if there is any truth to it, but I don't care. Apparently some major art buyer picked up a bunch of picassos and wanted to separate the real from the fake. Since he didn't have a computer that would do it he went to Picasso himself and asked him to go through them for him and let him know which ones were true Picassos. So Picasso puts the paintings in two piles, real and fake. The buyer watches the artist do this for a while and then suddenly stops him as he's putting one in the fake pile and says, "That's not fake; I just bought that from you yesterday; I saw you finish painting it myself!" Picasso looks him in the eye, slightly offended, and says, "I can fake a Picasso as well as anyone else out there."