Paintings Reveal Signs of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's In Famous Artists (gizmodo.com) 24
Researchers from the University of Liverpool believe it is possible to detect cognitive decline in the paintings of famous artists by analyzing subtle changes in their brush strokes over time. The technique may one day be used to flag Alzheimer's and Parkinson's in artists before they're diagnosed. Gizmodo reports: A new study published in Neuropsychology shows that a mathematical technique known as "fractal analysis" can be used to detect signs of neurodegeneration in an artist's work. A research team led by Alex Forsythe from the University of Liverpool's School of Psychology made the discovery by examining 2,092 paintings from the careers of seven famous artists who experienced either normal aging or neurodegenerative disorders. Using fractal analysis, the researchers were able to identify complex geometric patterns in the brushstrokes of each artist. Fractals can reveal hidden and often self-repeating patterns in everyday objects and phenomena. These distinctive geometrical shapes are like fingerprints, allowing scientists to match an artist with his or her work. With this in mind, Forsythe's team sought to learn if variations in an artist's fractal fingerprint over time are a function of increasing age, or if neurological decline has something to do with it. For the study, the researchers examined paintings from four artists known to have suffered from either Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, namely Salvadore Dali, Norval Morrisseau, James Brooks, and Willem De Kooning. The researchers also studied the works of three artists who had no known neurodegenerative problems: Marc Chagall, Pablo Picasso, and Claude Monet. Fractal analysis demonstrated clear patterns of change among the artists who suffered neurological deterioration compared to those who aged normally. In all cases, the fractal fingerprints changed, but the fractal dimensions produced by the Parkinson's and Alzheimer's artists showed consistent patterns that were distinguishable from the healthy group.
this is too broad, and useless, data analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
in the first place, this is too general, and group too many conditions together (derived from too few clues) to be precise and informative .
second, what is the point?
either we know the artist had these conditions or not already. if we don't, we can't do a correct diagnosis based on this limited method anyway.
nor do this say anything valuable about the creation or creative process, since even if artist had some condition that can be diagnosed, that is just one factor at the time, his emotional and mental states and his relationships, probably had more to do with his creations. nor does a person's physical state remain constant even with a condition; whether he slept, was drugged up, what he ate, etc, are probably more relevant.
third, technologically, this is just another hyped up application of data analysis.
Re: (Score:3)
in the first place, this is too general, and group too many conditions together (derived from too few clues) to be precise and informative .
I agree with you there. I wonder if there isn't some confirmation bias going on. The first article says they "examined paintings from four artists know to have suffered from either Parkinson's or Alzheimer's". I think it's too easy to pick out things and say "See? I told you he had Alzheimer's".
second, what is the point?
If you could actually detect things like that based on a person's life work, be it painting or accounting or software development it might be a very valuable tool.
I'm wondering what it could tell from the softwa
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if you read TFA: The researchers also studied the works of three artists who had no known neurodegenerative problems: Marc Chagall, Pablo Picasso, and Claude Monet.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how I quoted it if I didn't read it.
Okay, so they also studied works by other artists who had no known neurodegenerative problems.
And that disproves my point?
Actually, I think it reinforces it.
I read the article. I did not read the study. Maybe there really is something to it, but I'm skeptical.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical "social science" horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
"second, what is the point?"
Proof of concept on a method of diagnosis of early-onset cognitive disorders.
"this is just another hyped up application of data analysis"
Seems you are a bit of a rage boy in this.
eyesight problems? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wild guess: blurred & colour biased eyesight doesn't cause tremors that show up in brushstrokes.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps your finger got tired, but it was mentioned that there was a control group who didn't have any degenerative diseases, AFAWK.
6 samples? (Score:2, Insightful)
They had only six people in their sample study and they want to draw conclusions from that??
Re: (Score:3)
... and no independent test set to determine if their method can detect neurodegeneration in samples where the algorithm does not already know the neural status of the artists?
Re: (Score:2)
Fractals are magic.
Don't question them.
Fractals can reveal hidden and often self-repeating patterns in everyday objects and phenomena.
It doesn't say how exactly, but I remember when I first learned about fractals. It was Chaos [wikipedia.org]
Unfortunately Gizmodo doesn't explain their methods and I'm too tired to read the actual study.
Every once in a while I attribute things to fractals, particularly Cantor Dusts. People look at me weird, but they think I'm smart when I say stuff like that.
This falls under ... (Score:2)
"Too good to check" department.
Did they get better (Score:3)
Sounds like hindsight. (Score:2)
Whatever the fancy term for hindsight is (selection bias? or some such), it's clearly unavoidable in any study of 6.
Did they find an absence of these signs in the works of artists who didn't die of nervous system degenerative disease?
Salvador Dalí (Score:2)
More obvious (Score:2)