Slashdot Mirror


Machine Vision Reveals Previously Unknown Influences Between Great Artists

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.

11 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Copyright harassment by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How long until dead artists' heirs latch onto techniques like this to prove "substantial similarity" as part of a copyright suit to try to squeeze money out of working artists?

  2. Influence vs. similarity by kruach+aum · · 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.

    1. Re:Influence vs. similarity by Chrisq · · Score: 4, 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

    2. Re:Influence vs. similarity by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or they could of both been influenced by using the same tools, making the same paints in the same way, or being in the same environment.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:Influence vs. similarity by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exaclty...

      when i used to do music reviews I'd interview artists and they'd talk about similarity of sound mostly as a function of the type of instrument or accoutrement they used...

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    4. Re:Influence vs. similarity by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The human can only do that if both pictures come to his attention. But there is so much out there that it's almost impossible for someone to be familiar with every piece to the extent they'd be able to recognize them. The computer has infinite patience, it can attend to vast quantities of the most minute details, it has a catalog that doesn't fade with time, and the ability to re-run increasingly sophisticated algorithms as new ideas are brought to bear.

      For example, Rockwell's barber shop and Bazille's studio share a few subjects in a few common locations, but it's hard to look at them and say "there was an artistic influence." Rockwell was noted for realistic depictions of idyllic Americana, so any influence there would likely have been the architecture of the setting and the choices of overall composition and balance. Choosing to include a group of three people, an unoccupied chair, and a wood stove, does not seem to imply much more than coincidence. But if you weren't comparing every item in the catalog with every other item in the catalog, you might not have bothered to notice at all.

      Which brings us to the real question: how would knowing the answer (or even asking the question) make a difference to the world?

      --
      John
  3. Similarities seem kind of tenuous by timrod · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Similarities seem kind of tenuous by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Informative
      I suppose that's why they say this then:

      ...Saleh and co do not claim that this kind of algorithm can take the place of an art historian. After all, the discovery of a link between paintings in this way is just the starting point for further research about an artist’s life and work.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  4. I don't see it by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, 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"

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:I don't see it by Skewray · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess they are trying to argue that the placement of the items is the connection?

      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.

  5. M.C. Escher by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Interestingly when M.C. Escher paintings were analyzed it kept returning "divide by zero errors". Upon further examination, it was discovered that it was claiming "divide by the letter "O" errors" and not the number zero.