Slashdot Mirror
Software To Authenticate Paintings
eldavojohn writes, "There's a new software tool out and about called Authentic which analyzes paintings to determine if they are indeed authentic works of the artist. If you don't think this is a serious problem to tackle, some experts estimate up to 15 percent of 'original prints' sold at auction houses are actually fake. From the article: 'By dividing 145 digitized paintings into pixels and analyzing the colors of each and how they compared with nearby pixels, the system was able to spot patterns unique to the painter. The software also showed Van Gogh's use of complementary colors (PDF) increased during his most active period from 1885 to 1890, according to the study published in Pattern Recognition Letters... In tests, Authentic performed as well as 15 human volunteers who were each given a small segment of a painting to study.' I've heard of many tools that analyze texts to verify the author but this is an extra dimension and a new frontier for pattern recognition. Tacking on another dimension, how much longer until we are able to analyze video in the same way?"
If you don't think this is a serious problem to tackle, some experts estimate up to 15 percent of 'original prints' sold at auction houses are actually fake.
What if I *still* don't think this is a serious problem?
The value of those pictures is a pure bubble anyway, if you can willingly give a $10k or so for a mere painting and it looks real to you, maybe it doesn't matter if it's fake. Better not tell you otherwise.
While not obvious at first site, there's a very tight relation to the "authenticity" of paintings (and antiquated things as a whole), and... digital piracy.
In both cases we're talking about things that can't cover their announced value just for what they are. Instead you're told they own some sort of authenticity, and thus cost X dollars.
In both cases you can make much cheaper copies (or free copies) so abuse will always happen, unless we wisen up and stop paying for "star power", and artificially limited supplies.
Maybe it is just the bias of a geek, used to mass-produced goods. Take a nice CPU for example, A multi-million transistor technological work of art. First copy - billions, subsequent production run, pennies apiece - all the same.
If you really like a painting, you can get a print. Want more? You can get reproductions, done brushstroke, by brushstroke. 99% of humanity couldn't tell the difference, your freinds might know you don't have the bucks for the original. In 200 years will an antique 20th century reproduction of a 19th century masterpiece be worth much less than the original?
Many gemstones can be reproduced too. Synthetic rubies, emeralds, saphires (and probably others) are chemically identical - and PERFECT. Yet, "natural" objects of the same materials are more costly. Why? Because it takes a lot more work to get the "natural" version out of the ground. Cosmetically, I'd take a fake emerald over a cloudy natural one any day. Oooh shiney!
A collector will pay a premium for a mis-struck coin. You will take your defective DVD back to Wal-Mart. Stamp collectors on the other hand, like nice, well centered examples... unless they are way off, then - tada! It's a rarity.
If I were to make some "fake" gold coins, out of real gold, are they really fake? I suppose the US Mint breaks old molds, but what if they found an old, rare $20 gold piece die, and decided to whack a few out, just for old times sake - official US minted gold coins with the original dies... what happens to the value of the "rarity"? (Some lawyer would probably take the case :-)
I just don't get artifical scarcity - "rare pokemon cards", "rare beenie babies". Crap, forget rare, I have a yard full of unique, one-of-a-kind "pet rocks"!
And now, the million dollar winner - "rare bits", yesiree, here are some copyrighted bits, far more valuable than those pirate bits...
I think I am rambling.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.