Advertisement

Computational Beauty: Aesthetic Judgment at the Intersection of Art and Science

  • Emily L. Spratt
  • Ahmed ElgammalEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8925)

Abstract

In part one of the Critique of Judgment, Immanuel Kant wrote that “the judgment of taste ... is not a cognitive judgment, and so not logical, but is aesthetic [1].” While the condition of aesthetic discernment has long been the subject of philosophical discourse, the role of the arbiters of that judgment has more often been assumed than questioned. The art historian, critic, connoisseur, and curator have long held the esteemed position of the aesthetic judge, their training, instinct, and eye part of the inimitable subjective processes that Kant described as occurring upon artistic evaluation. Although the concept of intangible knowledge in regard to aesthetic theory has been much explored, little discussion has arisen in response to the development of new types of artificial intelligence as a challenge to the seemingly ineffable abilities of the human observer. This paper examines the developments in the field of computer vision analysis of paintings from canonical movements within the history of Western art and the reaction of art historians to the application of this technology in the field. Through an investigation of the ethical consequences of this innovative technology, the unquestioned authority of the art expert is challenged and the subjective nature of aesthetic judgment is brought to philosophical scrutiny once again.

Keywords

Computer Vision Aesthetic Judgment Aesthetic Theory Critical Theory Formalism 

References

  1. 1.
    Kant, I.: Critique of Aesthetic Judgment (Part One), from Critique of Judgment. Translated by James Creed Meredith. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1911)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stork, D.G.: Computer vision and computer graphics analysis of paintings and drawings: An introduction to the literature. In: Jiang, X., Petkov, N. (eds.) CAIP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5702, pp. 9–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sablatnig, R., Kammerer, P., Zolda, E.: Hierarchical classification of paintings using face- and brush stroke models. In: ICPR (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, J., Wang, J.Z.: Studying digital imagery of ancient paintings by mixtures of stochastic models. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13(3), 340–353 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lyu, S., Rockmore, D., Farid, H.: A digital technique for art authentication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101(49), 17006–17010 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson, C.R., Hendriks, E., Berezhnoy, I.J., Brevdo, E., Hughes, S.M., Daubechies, I., Li, J., Postma, E., Wang, J.Z.: Image processing for artist identification. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 25(4), 37–48 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berezhnoy, I.E., Postma, E.O., van den Herik, H.J.: Automatic extraction of brushstroke orientation from paintings. Machine Vision and Applications 20(1), 1–9 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polatkan, G., Jafarpour, S., Brasoveanu, A., Hughes, S., Daubechies, I.: Detection of forgery in paintings using supervised learning. In: 2009 16th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pp. 2921–2924 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, J., Yao, L., Hendriks, E., Wang, J.Z.: Rhythmic brushstrokes distinguish van gogh from his contemporaries: Findings via automated brushstroke extraction. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lombardi, T.E.: The classification of style in fine-art painting. ETD Collection for Pace University. Paper AAI3189084 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Widjaja, I., Leow, W., Wu., F.: Identifying painters from color profiles of skin patches in painting images. In: ICIP (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan, F.S., van de Weijer, J., Vanrell, M.: Who painted this painting? In: The CREATE 2010 Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carneiro, G.: Graph-based methods for the automatic annotation and retrieval of art prints. In: ICMR (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carneiro, G., da Silva, N.P., Del Bue, A., Costeira, J.P.: Artistic image classification: An analysis on the PRINTART database. In: Fitzgibbon, A., Lazebnik, S., Perona, P., Sato, Y., Schmid, C. (eds.) ECCV 2012, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 7575, pp. 143–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graham, D., Friedenberg, J., Rockmore, D.: Mapping the similarity space of paintings: image statistics and visual perception. Visual Cognition (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cabral, R.S., Costeira, J.P., De la Torre, F., Bernardino, A., Carneiro, G.: Time and order estimation of paintings based on visual features and expert priors. In: SPIE Electronic Imaging, Computer Vision and Image Analysis of Art II (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arora, R.S., Elgammal, A.M.: Towards automated classification of fine-art painting style: A comparative study. In: ICPR (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Torresani, L., Szummer, M., Fitzgibbon, A.: Efficient object category recognition using classemes. In: Daniilidis, K., Maragos, P., Paragios, N. (eds.) ECCV 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6311, pp. 776–789. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abe, K., Saleh, B., Elgammal, A.: An early framework for determining artistic influence. In: 2nd International Workshop on Multimedia for Cultural Heritage (MM4CH) (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saleh, B., Abe, K., Arora, R.S., Elgammal, A.: Toward automated discovery of artistic influence. Multimedia Tools and Applications - Special Issue on Multimedia for Cultural Heritage (2014) (in press)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Datta, R., Joshi, D., Li, J., Wang, J.Z.: Studying aesthetics in photographic images using a computational approach. In: Leonardis, A., Bischof, H., Pinz, A. (eds.) ECCV 2006. LNCS, vol. 3953, pp. 288–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dhar, S., Ordonez, V., Berg, T.L.: High level describable attributes for predicting aesthetics and interestingness. In: 2011 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 1657–1664. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sparkes, M.: Could Computers Put Art Historians Out of Work? The Telegraph (August 18, 2014). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11041814/Could-computers-put-art-historians-out-of-work.html?fb
  24. 24.
    Marche, S.: Literature is not Data, Against Digital Humanities. Los Angeles Review of Books (October 28, 2012). http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/literature-is-not-data-against-digital-humanities
  25. 25.
    Fish, S.: Mind Your P’s and B’s: The Digital Humanities and Interpretation. The Opinion Pages, The New York Times (January 23, 2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paul, E.S., Kaufman, S.B.: On philosophical interpretations of what makes us human. In: The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays. Oxford University Press (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Preziosi, D.: The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology. Oxford University Press (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baumgarten, A.G.: Aesthetica. Georg Olms Publishing House (1961)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McMahon, J.A.: Art and Ethics in a Material World: Kant’s Pragmatist Legacy. Routledge (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aristotle: Poetics. Translated by Joe Sachs. Focus Publishing, Newburyport (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zittel, C. (ed.): Philosophies of Technology: Francis Bacon and His Contemporaries. Brill, Leiden (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Findlen, P.: Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy (Studies on the History of Society and Culture). University of California Press, Berkeley (1994) Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fernie, E.: Art History and its Methods, a Critical Anthology. Phaidon Press Limited, Regent’s Wharf (1995)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morelli, G.: Kunstkritische Studien uber italienische Malerei: die Galerien Borghese und Doria Pamfilj in Rom. Leipzig (1890)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morelli, G.: Principles and Methods in Italian Painters: Critical Studies of Their Works. Translated by C.J. Ffoulkes, London (1892)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dawkins, R.: The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. W. W. Norton & Company, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Onians, J.: Neuroarthistory: From Aristotle and Pliny to Baxandall and Zeki. Yale University Press, New Haven (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tsukiura, T., Cabeza, R.: Shared brain activity for aesthetic and moral judgments: implications for the beauty-is-good stereotype. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 6(1), 138–148 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Freedberg, D.: The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1989) Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baxandall, M.: Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1972)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Arnheim, R.: Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles (1954)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Louden, R.B.: Kant’s Impure Ethics: From Rational Beings to Human Beings. Oxford University Press (2002)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meier-Graefe, J.: Modern Art: Being a Contribution to a New System of Aesthetics. Translated by Florence Simmonds and George W. Chrystal. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York and London (1908)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wiener, N.: The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society. Da Capo Press, New York (1996) Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spratt, E.L.: Man versus Machine: Aesthetic Judgment in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Presentation, Theoretical Archaeology Annual Group Meeting, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (May 2014)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hughes, J.M., Mao, D., Rockmore, D.N., Wang, Y., Wu, Q.: Empirical mode decomposition analysis for visual stylometry. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 34(11), 2147–2157 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Podro, M.: The Critical Historians of Art. Yale University Press (1984)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Boden, M.A.: Creativity and artificial intelligence: A contradiction in terms? In: The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays (2014)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bohm, D.: On Creativity. Routledge, New York (1998) Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hume, D.: Of the standard of taste and other essays. In: Lenz, J.W. (ed.). Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis (1965)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Art and ArchaeologyPrinceton UniversityNJUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceRutgers UniversityNJUSA

Personalised recommendations