Slashdot Mirror
Paintings Reveal Signs of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's In Famous Artists (gizmodo.com)
Researchers from the University of Liverpool believe it is possible to detect cognitive decline in the paintings of famous artists by analyzing subtle changes in their brush strokes over time. The technique may one day be used to flag Alzheimer's and Parkinson's in artists before they're diagnosed. Gizmodo reports: A new study published in Neuropsychology shows that a mathematical technique known as "fractal analysis" can be used to detect signs of neurodegeneration in an artist's work. A research team led by Alex Forsythe from the University of Liverpool's School of Psychology made the discovery by examining 2,092 paintings from the careers of seven famous artists who experienced either normal aging or neurodegenerative disorders. Using fractal analysis, the researchers were able to identify complex geometric patterns in the brushstrokes of each artist. Fractals can reveal hidden and often self-repeating patterns in everyday objects and phenomena. These distinctive geometrical shapes are like fingerprints, allowing scientists to match an artist with his or her work. With this in mind, Forsythe's team sought to learn if variations in an artist's fractal fingerprint over time are a function of increasing age, or if neurological decline has something to do with it. For the study, the researchers examined paintings from four artists known to have suffered from either Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, namely Salvadore Dali, Norval Morrisseau, James Brooks, and Willem De Kooning. The researchers also studied the works of three artists who had no known neurodegenerative problems: Marc Chagall, Pablo Picasso, and Claude Monet. Fractal analysis demonstrated clear patterns of change among the artists who suffered neurological deterioration compared to those who aged normally. In all cases, the fractal fingerprints changed, but the fractal dimensions produced by the Parkinson's and Alzheimer's artists showed consistent patterns that were distinguishable from the healthy group.
in the first place, this is too general, and group too many conditions together (derived from too few clues) to be precise and informative .
second, what is the point?
either we know the artist had these conditions or not already. if we don't, we can't do a correct diagnosis based on this limited method anyway.
nor do this say anything valuable about the creation or creative process, since even if artist had some condition that can be diagnosed, that is just one factor at the time, his emotional and mental states and his relationships, probably had more to do with his creations. nor does a person's physical state remain constant even with a condition; whether he slept, was drugged up, what he ate, etc, are probably more relevant.
third, technologically, this is just another hyped up application of data analysis.
They had only six people in their sample study and they want to draw conclusions from that??