Hello,

We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode.

To continue reading this article, please exit incognito mode or log in.

Not an Insider? Subscribe now for unlimited access to online articles.

Emerging Technology from the arXiv

A View from Emerging Technology from the arXiv

Measuring The Quality Of Abstract Art

Abstract artists are only 4 per cent better than child artists, according to a controversial new way of evaluating paintings

  • June 14, 2011

Here’s a bit of mischief from Mikhail Simkin at the the University of California, Los Angeles.

Simkin has a made a name for himself evaluating the relative performance of various groups and individuals. On this blog, we’ve looked at his work on the performance of congress, physicists and even World War I flying aces.

Today, he turns his attention to abstract artists. For some time now, Simkin has a run an online quiz in which he asks people to label abstract pictures either real art or fake. It’s fun–give it a go.

One average, people answer correctly about 66 per cent of the time, which is significantly better than chance.

Various people have interpreted this result (and others like it) as a challenge to the common claim that abstract art by well-know artists is indistinguishable from art created by children or animals.

Today, Simkin uses this 66 per cent figure as a way of evaluating the work of well known artists. In particular, he asks how much better these professional artists are than children.

First, he points out the results of another well known experiment in which people are asked to evaluate weights by picking them up. As the weights become more similar, it is harder to tell which is heavier. In fact, people will say that a 100g weight is heavier than a 96g weight only 72 per cent of the time.

“This means that there is less perceptible difference between an abstractionist and child/animal than between 100 and 96g,” says Simkin.

So on this basis, if you were to allocate artistic ‘weight’ to artists and gave an abstract artist 100g, you would have to give a child or animal 96g. In other words, there is only a 4 per cent difference between them.

That’s not much!

Simkin goes on to say this is equivalent in chess to the difference between a novice and the next ranking up, a D-class amateur.

If ever a paper was designed to trigger controversy, this is it. If it catches the public imagination, just sit back and watch the fists fly.

That’ll be fun. But let’s hope he never gets round to applying the same logic to physicists’ ability to evaluate dodgy papers on the arxiv.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1106.1915: Abstract Art Grandmasters Score Like Class D Amateurs

The latest Insider Conversation is live! Listen to the story behind the story.

Subscribe today
Already a Premium subscriber? Log in.

Uh oh–you've read all of your free articles for this month.

Insider Premium
$179.95/yr US PRICE

Want more award-winning journalism? Subscribe to Insider Basic.
  • Insider Basic {! insider.prices.basic !}*

    {! insider.display.menuOptionsLabel !}

    Six issues of our award winning magazine and daily delivery of The Download, our newsletter of what’s important in technology and innovation.

    See details+

    What's Included

    Bimonthly magazine delivery and unlimited 24/7 access to MIT Technology Review’s website

    The Download: our daily newsletter of what's important in technology and innovation

/
You've read all of your free articles this month. This is your last free article this month. You've read of free articles this month. or  for unlimited online access.