Variations in Intensity Statistics for Representational and Abstract Art, and for Art from the Eastern and Western Hemispheres

Two recent studies suggest that natural scenes and paintings show similar statistical properties. But does the content or region of origin of an artwork affect its statistical properties? We addressed this question by having judges place paintings from a large, diverse collection of paintings into one of three subject-matter categories using a forced-choice paradigm. Basic statistics for images whose caterogization was agreed by all judges showed no significant differences between those judged to be ‘landscape’ and ‘portrait/still-life’, but these two classes differed from paintings judged to be ‘abstract’. All categories showed basic spatial statistical regularities similar to those typical of natural scenes. A test of the full painting collection (140 images) with respect to the works' place of origin (provenance) showed significant differences between Eastern works and Western ones, differences which we find are likely related to the materials and the choice of background color. Although artists deviate slightly from reproducing natural statistics in abstract art (compared to representational art), the great majority of human art likely shares basic statistical limitations. We argue that statistical regularities in art are rooted in the need to make art visible to the eye, not in the inherent aesthetic value of natural-scene statistics, and we suggest that variability in spatial statistics may be generally imposed by manufacture.

[1]  Deborah J. Aks,et al.  Quantifying Aesthetic Preference for Chaotic Patterns , 1996 .

[2]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  The “independent components” of natural scenes are edge filters , 1997, Vision Research.

[3]  G. J. Burton,et al.  Color and spatial structure in natural scenes. , 1987, Applied optics.

[4]  D J Field,et al.  Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[5]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  The human visual system is optimised for processing the spatial information in natural visual images , 2000, Current Biology.

[6]  Joseph J. Atick,et al.  What Does the Retina Know about Natural Scenes? , 1992, Neural Computation.

[7]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Statistics of natural image categories , 2003, Network.

[8]  Joachim Denzler,et al.  Fractal-like image statistics in visual art: similarity to natural scenes. , 2007, Spatial vision.

[9]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  Amplitude spectra of natural images , 1992 .

[10]  David J Field,et al.  Statistical regularities of art images and natural scenes: spectra, sparseness and nonlinearities. , 2007, Spatial vision.

[11]  Daniel L. Ruderman,et al.  Origins of scaling in natural images , 1996, Vision Research.

[12]  S. Laughlin,et al.  Predictive coding: a fresh view of inhibition in the retina , 1982, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[13]  Julien Clinton Sprott,et al.  Automatic generation of strange attractors , 1993, Comput. Graph..

[14]  D. Field,et al.  EFFICIENT NEURAL CODING OF NATURAL IMAGES , 2008 .

[15]  Ben R. Newell,et al.  Universal aesthetic of fractals , 2003, Comput. Graph..

[16]  D. Field,et al.  Estimates of the information content and dimensionality of natural scenes from proximity distributions. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[17]  D. Field,et al.  Visual sensitivity, blur and the sources of variability in the amplitude spectra of natural scenes , 1997, Vision Research.

[18]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  Amplitude spectra of natural images. , 1992, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[19]  David J. Field,et al.  What Is the Goal of Sensory Coding? , 1994, Neural Computation.

[20]  R. Voss,et al.  ’’1/f noise’’ in music: Music from 1/f noise , 1978 .

[21]  D. Field,et al.  Human discrimination of fractal images. , 1990, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[22]  Terry Purcell,et al.  Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference , 2004 .

[23]  C. Redies,et al.  A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural stimuli. , 2007, Spatial vision.

[24]  V. Billock.  Neural acclimation to 1/ f spatial frequency spectra in natural images transduced by the human visual system , 2000 .

[25]  Arthur E. Stamps,et al.  Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty , 2002 .

[26]  Bernice E. Rogowitz,et al.  Shape perception and low-dimension fractal boundary contours , 1990, Other Conferences.

[27]  Daniel J. Graham,et al.  Can the theory of “whitening” explain the center-surround properties of retinal ganglion cell receptive fields? , 2006, Vision Research.

[28]  E. Adelson,et al.  Image statistics and the perception of surface qualities , 2007, Nature.

[29]  Robert A. Frazor,et al.  Local luminance and contrast in natural images , 2006, Vision Research.

[30]  S. Laughlin.  A Simple Coding Procedure Enhances a Neuron's Information Capacity , 1981, Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung. Section C, Biosciences.

[31]  David J. Field,et al.  Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images , 1996, Nature.

[32]  R. Voss.  Random Fractal Forgeries , 1985 .

[33]  F. Attneave.  Some informational aspects of visual perception. , 1954, Psychological review.

[34]  Christopher W. Tyler,et al.  Occlusions contribute to scaling in natural images , 2001, Vision Research.