Algorithms Determine Mona Lisa's True Emotions

caffeinemessiah writes "The BBC reports that researchers at UIUC and the University of Amsterdam, Holland have used "emotion recognition" software to determine Mona Lisa's true emotions. The algorithm is based on a library of neutral face images of young women and determined that Mona Lisa was 83% happy and 9% disgusted." From the article: "The program, developed with researchers at the University of Illinois, US, draws on a database of young female faces to derive an average 'neutral' expression. The software uses this average expression as the standard for comparisons. The New Scientist says that software capable of recognising emotions just by looking at photographs could lead to PCs that adjust their response depending on the user's mood. "

Thank you

[Undaar]

Thank you science, for trying to take the mystery out of art. Not everything can be quantified. Some things just need to be appreciated and enjoyed for what they are.

Re:Thank you

[gardyloo]

It's also possible to appreciate and enjoy this science, whether or not you believe the algorithm's results.

She doesn't have emotions

[Kohath]

Mona Lisa doesn't have emotions. She's made of paint.

Art needs two

[quokkapox]

They're not trying to take the mystery out of it, they're trying to understand it in yet another way.

Art needs two, one to start, and one to reply.

It's meaningless (to society) unless somebody else looks at it, thinks about it, talks about it. The more, the better.

Re:A painting isn't a photograph

[Surt]

It's not really about the subjects expression, it's about the painting's expression. People find the smile very interesting in this painting, and that is most of the reason for the painting's particularly great fame. Why is the smile so interesting to people? Perhaps it is the 9% disgust. That's what this kind of analysis can hope to tell us about our response to this painting.

Nice trick these researchers have discovered

[Darius Jedburgh]

1. Invent algorithm
2. Apply it in a domain where your work can't be falsified
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:Thank you

[slashdotnickname]

Thank you science, for trying to take the mystery out of art.

That's assuming the study is logically sound. I didn't see them take into account how the Renessaince culture (with its repressive religious cooncerns and high-society rearings) might affect how emotions were facially expressed.

Re:Art needs two

[h4rm0ny]

They're not trying to take the mystery out of it, they're trying to understand it in yet another way.

That's the truth, I think. Everyone sees Art in the way they choose. I think people often get upset when a new and scientific approach is taken to interpreting a piece of art however, because they often feel the scientist is implying their interpretation is somehow more valid than anothers. And to be fair, there is some truth to that.

But the painting remains the painting, before and after.

So what does that mean?

[theotherbastard]

83% happy and 9% disgusted? And just what does that mean? All of life's greatest mysteries can be solved in a quantitative manner? I for one don't want my computer to act differently if I'm happy, sad, pissed off, stoned, whatever. Just what I've always wanted, a computer with a Genuine People Personality (TM).

Re:You know

[Rude Turnip]

He wasn't "gay" in the sense that you think of today. The concept of a gay identity (in other words another "us vs. them"-ism) is a relatively modern construct that arose during Victorian times, especially during the trial of Oscar Wilde.

Re:You know

[RabidMoose]

And analyzing art isn't a hobby?

Re:Thank you

[bogado]

Yes I was searching a commentary on culture to reply, since I have saw a few articles on how the americans and english smile differently. Culture afects many, many things including, apparently, how we express emotions. Sure there is a large "basic emotions" overlap that comes from instinct, we can even recognize them in other mammals, but to get a proper "reading" to a level of 83% happy, 9% disgusted, 6% fearful and 2% angry, that is cited in the article you must take into account culture, I believe.

Another way of testing this would use the program to test several different cultures people. If it holds aggainst the test, then I will be more inclined to believe that the mona lisa was 21% bored or whatever.

Re:You know

[greenguy]

No, the parent is right. In those days, there were only gays acts, not gay people. By extension, the same thing went for straight people. People were just people, and their sex acts did not define them. There's definitely something to be said for that.

Re:And...

[KevinIsOwn]

This doesn't change the fact that the article description is still stupid. It should have included that extra 8%.