Knowledge Discovery of Artistic Influences

We approach the challenging problem of discovering influences between painters based on their fine-art paintings. In this work, we focus on comparing paintings of two painters in terms of visual similarity. This comparison is fully automatic and based on computer vision approaches and machine learning. We investigated different visual features and similarity measurements based on two different metric learning algorithm to find the most appropriate ones that follow artistic motifs. We evaluated our approach by comparing its result with ground truth annotation for a large collection of fine-art paintings. Introduction How do artists describe their paintings? They talk about their works using several different concepts. The elements of art are the basic ways in which artists talk about their works. Some of the elements of art include space, texture, form, shape, color, tone and line (Fichner-Rathus ). Each work of art can, in the most general sense, be described using these seven concepts. Another important descriptive set is the principles of art. These include movement, unity, harmony, variety, balance, contrast, proportion, and pattern. Other topics may include subject matter, brush stroke, meaning, and historical context. As seen, there are many descriptive attributes in which works of art can be talked about. One important task for art historians is to find influences and connections between artists. By doing so, the conversation of art continues and new intuitions about art can be made. An artist might be inspired by one painting, a body of work, or even an entire genre of art is this influence. Which paintings influence each other? Which artists influence each other? Art historians are able to find which artists influence each other by examining the same descriptive attributes of art which were mentioned above. Similarities are noted and inferences are suggested. It must be mentioned that determining influence is always a subjective decision. We will not know if an artist was ever truly inspired by a work unless he or she has said so. However, for the sake of finding connections and progressing through movements of art, a general consensus is agreed upon if the argument is convincing enough. Figure 1 represents a commonly cited comparison for studying influence. Figure 1: An example of an often cited comparison in the context of influence. Diego Velázquez’s Portrait of Pope Innocent X (left) and Francis Bacon’s Study After Velázquez’s Portrait of Pope Innocent X (right). Similar composition, pose, and subject matter but a different view of the work. Is influence a task that a computer can measure? In the last decade there have been impressive advances in developing computer vision algorithms for different object recognition-related problems including: instance recognition, categorization, scene recognition, pose estimation, etc. When we look into an image we not only recognize object categories, and scene category, we can also infer various cultural and historical aspects. For example, when we look at a fine-art paining, an expert or even an average person can infer information about the genre of that paining (e.g. Baroque vs. Impressionism) or even can guess the artist who painted it. This is an impressive ability of human perception for analyzing fine-art paintings, which we approach to it in this paper as well. Besides the scientific merit of the problem from the perception point of view, there are various application motivations. With the increasing volumes of digitized art databases on the internet comes the daunting task of organization and retrieval of paintings. There are millions of paintings present on the internet. It will be of great significance if we can infer new information about an unknown painting using already existing database of paintings and as a broader view can inFigure 2: Gustav Klimt’s Hope (Top Left) and nine most similar images across different styles based on LMNN metric. Top row from left to right: “Countess of Chinchon” by Goya; “Wing of a Roller” by Durer; “Nude with a Mirror” by Mira; “Jeremiah lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem” by Rembrandt. Lower row, from left to right: “Head of a Young Woman” by Leonardo Da Vinci; “Portrait of a condottiere” by Bellini; “Portrait of a Lady with an Ostrich Feather Fan” by Rembrandt; “Time of the Old Women” by Goya and “La Schiavona” by Titian. fer high-level information like influences between painters. Although there have been some research on automated classification of paintings (Arora and Elgammal 2012; Cabral et al. 2011; Carneiro 2011; Li et al. 2012; Graham 2010). However, there is very little research done on measuring and determining influence between artists ,e.g. (Li et al. 2012). Measuring influence is a very difficult task because of the broad criteria for what influence between artists can mean. As mentioned earlier, there are many different ways in which paintings can be described. Some of these descriptions can be translated to a computer. Some research includes brushwork analysis (Li et al. 2012) and color analysis to determine a painting style. For the purpose of this paper, we do not focus on a specific element of art or principle of art but instead we focus on finding new comparisons by experimenting with different similarity measures. Although the meaning of a painting is unique to each artist and is completely subjective, it can somewhat be measured by the symbols and objects in the painting. Symbols are visual words that often express something about the meaning of a work as well. For example, the works of Renaissance artists such as Giovanni Bellini and Jan Van-Eyck use religious symbols such as a cross, wings, and animals to tell stories in the Bible. One important factor of finding influence is therefore having a good measure of similarity. Paintings do not necessarily have to look alike but if they do or have reoccurring objects (high-level semantics), then they will be considered similar. However similarity in fine-art paintings is not limited to the co-occurrence of objects. Two abstract paintings look quite similar even though there is no object in any of them. This clarifies the importance of low-level features for painting representation as well. These low-level features are able to model artistic motifs (e.g. texture, decomposition and negative space). If influence is found by looking at similar characteristics of paintings, the importance of finding a good similarity measure becomes prominent. Time is also a necessary factor in determining influence. An artist cannot influence another artist in the past. Therefore the linearity of paintings cuts down the possibilities of influence. By including a computer’s intuition about which artists and paintings may have similarities, it not only finds new knowledge about which paintings are connected in a mathematical criteria but also keeps the conversation going for artists. It challenges people to consider possible connections in the timeline of art history that may have never been seen before. We are not asserting truths but instead suggesting a possible path towards a difficult task of measuring influence. The main contribution of this paper is working on the interesting task of determining influence between artist as a knowledge discovery problem. Toward this goal we propose two approaches to represent paintings. On one hand highlevel visual features that correspond to objects and concepts in the real world have been used. On the other hand we extracted low-level visual features that are meaningless to human, but they are powerful for discrimination of paintings using computer vision algorithms. After image representation we need to define similarity between pairs of artist based on their artworks. This results in finding similarity at the level of images. Since the first representation is meanFigure 3: Gustav Klimt’s Hope (Top Left) and nine most similar images across different styles based on Boost metric. Top row from left to right: “Princesse de Broglie” by Ingres; “Portrait, Evening (Madame Camus)” by Degas; “The birth of Venus-Detail of Face” by Botticelli; “Danae and the Shower of Gold” by Titian. Lower row from left to right: “The Burial of Count Orgasz” by El Greco; “Diana Callist” by Titian; “The Starry Night” by Van Gogh; “Baronesss Betty de Rothschild” by Ingres and “St Jerome in the Wilderness” by Durer. ingful by its nature (a set of objects and concepts in the images) we do not need to learn a semantically meaningful way of comparison. However for the case of low-level representation we need to have a metric that covers the absence of semantic in this type of image representation. For the latter case we investigated a set of complex metrics that need to be learned specifically for the task of influence determination. Because of the limited size of the available influence ground-truth data and the lack of negative examples in it, it is not useful for comparing different metrics. Instead, we resort to a highly correlated task, which is classifying painting style. The assumption is that metrics that are good for style classification (which is a supervised learning problem), would also be good for determining influences (which is an unsupervised problem). Therefore, we use painting style label to learn the metrics. Then we evaluate the learned metrics for the task of influence discovery by verifying the output using well-known influences.