Visual Image Statistics in the History of Western Art

in Art & Perception
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The history of Western visual art is traditionally divided into a succession of stylistic movements on the basis of the art-historical provenance and visual qualities of artworks. Little is known about how the visual statistics of Western artworks have changed over time, though this data could inform debate about the transitions between art movements. This longitudinal statistical study shows that two measures of the statistics of Western paintings remained relatively stable for 500 years, and similar to the values found in photographic images depicting the same subjects. Dramatic changes began in the late nineteenth century between the years 1878 and 1891, when the statistics of artworks became steadily more variable, and more frequently departed from values that are typical of representational images. This period can be considered as a major turning point that marks the beginning of the Modern Art movement. Statistically, abstract Modern art is more diverse than the representational art of any period. There is only limited evidence that aesthetic responses to paintings bear any relation to their visual statistics.

Visual Image Statistics in the History of Western Art

in Art & Perception

Sections

References

Aks D. J. and Sprott J. C. (1996). Quantifying aesthetic preference for chaotic patternsEmpir. Stud. Arts 14116.

Amirshahi S. A. Denzler J. and Redies C. (2013). JenAesthetics — A public dataset of paintings for aesthetic research. Tech. rep.Computer Vision Group, University of Jena, Germany pp. 112.

Amirshahi S. A. Hayn-Leichsenring G. U. Denzler J. and Redies C. (2015). JenAesthetics subjective dataset: Analyzing paintings by subjective scores in: Agapito L. Bronstein M. and Rother C. (Eds) Computer Vision — ECCV 2014 Workshops. ECCV 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 8925 pp. 319. SpringerCham, Switzerland. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16178-5_1.

Brettell R. R. (1999). Modern Art 1851–1929. Oxford University PressOxford, UK.

Burton G. J. and Moorhead I. R. (1987). Color and spatial structure in natural scenesAppl. Opt. 26157170.

Denis M. (1890 August). Définition du néo-traditionnismeArt Critique 65540542.

Elger D. (2017). Abstract Art. TaschenKoln, Germany.

Field D. J. (1987). Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cellsJ. Opt. Soc. Am. A 423792394.

Gombrich E. (1972). The Story of Art13th ed. Phaedon Oxford UK.Graham D. J. and Field D. J. (2007). Statistical regularities of art images and natural scenes: Spectra, sparseness and nonlinearitiesSpat. Vis. 21149164.

Graham D. J. and Field D. J. (2008). Variations in intensity statistics for representational and abstract art, and for art from the Eastern and Western hemispheresPerception 3713411352.

Graham-Dixon A. (2008). Art: The Definitive Visual Guide. Dorling KindersleyLondon, UK.

Güçlütürk Y. Jacobs R. H. A. H. and Lier R. van (2016). Liking versus complexity: Decomposing the inverted U-curveFront. Hum. Neurosci. 10112. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00112.

Hayn-Leichsenring G. U. Lehmann T. and Redies C. (2017). Subjective ratings of beauty and aesthetics: correlations with statistical image properties in Western oil paintings iPerception 8 2041669517715474. http://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517715474.

Jin X. C. and Ong S. H. (1995). A practical method for estimating fractal dimensionPattern Recognit. Lett. 16457464.

Kersten D. (1987). Predictability and redundancy of natural imagesJ. Opt. Soc. Am. A 423952400.

Knill D. C. Field D. J. and Kersten D. (1990). Human discrimination of fractal imagesJ. Opt. Soc. Am. A 711131123.

Li J. Du Q. and Sun C. (2009). An improved box-counting method for image fractal dimension estimationPattern Recognit. 4224602469.

Little S. (2004). - isms: Understanding Art. BloomsburyLondon, UK.

Liu Y. Chen L. Wang H. Jiang L. Zhang Y. Zhao J. Wang D. Zhao Y. and Song Y. (2014). An improved differential box-counting method to estimate fractal dimensions of gray-level imagesJ. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 2511021111.

Mather G. (2014). Artistic adjustment of image spectral slope. Art Percept. 21122.

Olmos A. and Kingdom F. A. A. (2004). A biologically inspired algorithm for the recovery of shading and reflectance imagesPerception 3314631473.

Peitgen D. and Saupe H. (1988). The Science of Fractal Images. Springer-VerlagNew York, NY, USA.

Phillips S. (2012). …isms. Understanding Modern Art. BloomsburyLondon, UK.

Redies C. (2007). A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural stimuliSpat. Vis. 2197117.

Redies C. and Brachmann A. (2017). Statistical image properties in large subsets of traditional art, bad art, and abstract artFront. Neurosci. 11593. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00593.

Redies C. Hänisch J. Blickhan M. and Denzler J. (2007a). Artists portray human faces with the Fourier statistics of complex natural scenesNetwork 18235248.

Redies C. Hasenstein J. and Denzler J. (2007b). Fractal-like image statistics in visual art: similarity to natural scenesSpat. Vis. 21137148.

Ruderman D. L. (1994). The statistics of natural imagesNetwork 5517548.

Ruderman D. L. (1997). Origins of scaling in natural imagesVis. Res. 3733853398.

Sartori A. (2014). Affective analysis of abstract paintings using statistical analysis and art theory in: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction - ICMI ’14V(212)IstanbulTurkey pp. 384388. http://doi.org/10.1145/2663204.2666289.

Saupe D. (1988). Algorithms for random fractals in: The Science of Fractal Images Peitgen D. and Saupe H. (Eds) pp. 71136. Springer-VerlagNew York, NY, USA.

Schweinhart A. M. and Essock E. A. (2013). Structural content in paintings: Artists overregularize oriented content of paintings relative to the typical natural scene biasPerception 4213111332.

Shannon C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communicationBell Syst. Tech. J. 27379–423623656.

Spehar B. Clifford C. W. G. Newell B. R. and Taylor R. P. (2003). Universal aesthetic of fractalsComput. Graph. 27813820.

Spehar B. Walker N. and Taylor R. P. (2016). Taxonomy of individual variations in aesthetic responses to fractal patternsFront. Hum. Neurosci. 10350. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00350.

Yanulevskaya V. Uijlings J. Bruni E. Sartori A. Zamboni E. Bacci F. Melcher D. and Sebe N. (2012). In the eye of the beholder: Employing statistical analysis and eye tracking for analyzing abstract paintings categories and subject descriptors in: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on MultimediaNaraJapan pp. 349358. http://doi.org/10.1145/2393347.2393399.

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Upper: Scatterplot of the fractal dimension of 542 Western artworks created during the period 1400–2008. The solid line represents the moving average fractal dimension at each date (mean of artworks within +/− 25 years of the date). The dashed line represents the mean fractal dimension of 245 photographic images of the same range of subjects. Lower: Scatterplot of the Shannon entropy of 542 Western artworks created during the period 1400–2008. The solid line represents the moving average Shannon entropy at each date (mean of artworks within +/− 25 years). The dashed line represents the mean Shannon entropy of 245 photographic images of the same range of subjects.

  • View in gallery

    The variability of Shannon entropy and fractal dimension in 542 Western artworks over time. The red points and right-hand vertical axis represent Shannon entropy; the blue points and left-hand vertical axis represent fractal dimension. Variability at each date corresponds to the standard deviation of artworks within +/− 25 years of the date. The straight lines represent best-fitting linear segments according to piecewise linear regression analysis, for SE (red) and FD (blue).

  • View in gallery

    Upper: Scatterplot of beauty ratings of 451 paintings from the JenAesthetics and MART datasets. The solid line represents the moving average value of beauty over time. The vertical dashed lines mark the best-fitting split dates from the analysis of statistical variability in FD (blue line) and SE (red line). Lower: Variability (moving standard deviation) of beauty ratings over time. The vertical dashed lines mark the best-fitting split dates from the analysis of statistical variability in FD (blue line) and SE (red line).

  • View in gallery

    Scatterplots of beauty ratings of artworks prior to 1878 against FD (blue points and left-hand axis), and of artworks prior to 1891 against SE (red points and right-hand axis). R-squared values were 0.023 for FD and 0.036 for SE.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 36 36 36
Full Text Views 10 10 10
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0