DAD´s Arthur Flexer gave a virtual lecture on our plans for the DAD exhibition opening early summer at the Austrian Museum of Folk Life and Folk Art. The lecture was given at the Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (OFAI), where DAD was also located during the first nine month. This last CRITICAL SPACE was conducted to get feedback about our plans to build exhibits documenting our engagement with the collections of the Glyptothek of the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, the Volkskundemuseum Wien and the Belvedere. Results for these three case studies differ according to the level of interaction between curators and machine: from using natural language processing tools for research in museum databases to a symbiotic interaction between curators and algorithms to robots visiting museums autonomously.
The ensuing conversation centered around ways to include and document aspects of algorithmic bias and societal stereotypes existing in natural language models. We also discussed our approaches to turn digital findings into analog exhibits and how using a robot to explore the Glyptothek aligns with the public’s (mis)conception that AI is predominantly about building machines not software.
Our initial intention was to review and audit the current development of all our approaches after 18 months of the project‘s time span in a (semi-public) symposium-esque format. Due to COVID-19 this CONCLUSIVE SPACE was a somewhat smaller affair in the form of a one day workshop (29.1.2021) including the whole DAD team with all COVID precautions taken.
We planned the remaining half year of the project which will be used for a final documentation of the assembled approaches, of the models, code and curatorial developments. This CONSTRUCTIVE SPACE will also finalize hands-on displays and physical proof of concepts for use in the final PRESENTATION SPACE.
This PRESENTATION SPACE will be a comprehensive exhibition documenting and presenting all achievements and works-in-progress at the Austrian Museum of Folk Life and Folk Art. Please watch this space for a making-of and behind-the-scenes documentation of this process, as well as announcement of the exhibition which will open beginning of summer.
DAD’s Arthur Flexer presented our work on analysing the semantic meaning of works of art at the International online conference The Art Museum in the Digital Age of the Belvedere Research Center. This conference is concerned with the digital transformation of art museums, which seems even more relevant lately because of COVID-19 related lockdowns and closures.
Arthur presented our (somewhat radical) approach to analyse text about artworks rather than the usual route of analysing images of the artworks. We chose this semantic driven approach because a lot of information about an artwork cannot be found in the artwork itself. Think e.g. of subjecting the “Mona Lisa” to an automatic visual analysis. Computational results will tell you that it is a picture of a young woman, in front of a landscape, and (if your algorithm is really good) is sort of smiling. This information of course totally misses the significance of the painting for (Western) art history, its immense relevance and the many connotations it has. All of this rather is a societal construct and result of centuries of discourse and reception history (for more on this see our previous blogpost). Our semantic driven approach  towards the collection of the Belvedere enables us to discover X degrees of keyword separation between works of art.
This is achieved by using the technique of word embedding [Mikolov et al 2013], which encodes semantic similarities between words by modelling the context to their neighboring words in a large training text corpus. This was used to embed keywords of Belvedere´s online fine arts collection and obtain pathways through the resulting semantic space.
The above result starts with a painting having keywords ’Clouds’, ’Mountain’, ’Meadow’ from which we transit to ’Mountain’, ’Lake’, ’Alps’ and ’Austria’, next to a painting tagged ’Fog’, then one with ’Rocky coast’ and finally with ’Clouds’, ’Rocky Coast’, ’Sea’. Our pathway therefore smoothly transits from a mountain setting to a lake in the mountains to the sea.
We also presented one very concrete solution for a room in Belvedere’s permanent exhibition. It is a room about “Viennese portraiture in the Biedermeier period”, assembling the “greatest portrait painters” from this period. In the above picture you can see four blue frames which indicate empty slots which we like to fill using our algorithm with the respective neighboring artworks as input.
The keywords for these neighboring artworks however are purely descriptive, e.g. ‘headgear’, ‘necklace’, ‘bonnet’, ‘eye contact’, probably not doing the semantic content of the artworks full justice. We believe that one underlying topic of the Biedermeier room is ‘gender’, with all but one painting depicting females. We therefore add an additional algorithmic constraint by requiring all suggested artworks to respects both the requirement of being part of a pathway and having a ‘gender’ related keyword. Since ‘gender’ is not a keyword in the Belvedere taxonomy, we use word embedding to obtain Belvedere keywords with high similarity to the topic of ‘gender’. This translation step yields keywords like: ‘femaleness’, ‘religion’, ‘islam’, ‘equality’, ‘motherhood’ or ‘headscarf’. It is obvious that these keywords point to a stereotypical discourse of gender, quickly derailing towards topics of religion and a compulsion to wear headscarfs or women being predominantly seen in their role as mothers.
This is also why we termed the use of word embedding in this context world embedding: it confronts the very rigid taxonomy of the Belvedere keywords (based on Iconclass, a classification system for cultural content) with everyday language as represented in the textual training data of the word embedding. It thereby recontextualizes or even “resocializes” taxonomic art histories via natural language processing since it uncovers biases and prejudice in our use of language and (re-?) introduces them to the world of fine arts.
The above picture shows three paintings from the Biedermeier room plus four additional paintings (with red frames) which our algorithm suggests. The second painting from the left is suggested because its keyword ‘femaleness’ is a gender keyword and its keyword ‘necklace’ makes it similar to the keywords of the first painting (‘earrings’, ‘pearl necklace’) and the one in the middle (‘brooch’, ‘bracelet’). The 5th painting from the left is suggested because ‘headscarf’ is a gender keyword and ‘eye contact’ and ‘earring’ make it similar to both the painting in the middle (‘brooch’, ‘bracelet’, ‘eye contact’) and the painting on the far right (‘eye contact’, ‘bonnet’).
In the ensuing discussion with the conference’s audience Arthur Flexer advocated that our semantic apprach is more helpful for building a curatorial narrative than a purely aesthetic procedure. It allows to answer the question about curatorial gaps between artworks shown in an exhibition. What works of art exist in the holdings of the museum that fit the curatorial narrative but did not succeed in becoming part of the exhibition?
He also tried to make clear that by using such a machine learning tool like word embedding, curating becomes a joint endeavor of man and machine, where curatorial decisions have to be formulated as input and constraints to the algorithm. But even a simple curatorial Google search already is an interaction of man and machine, with algorithms (oblique to the curator) nevertheless to a certain extent shaping their curatorial enterprise by showing specific selections of information only. It was also discussed that such a man/machine approach is able to uncover algorithmic biases in the methods used, as e.g. stereotypical representations of societal discourse in word embedding.
Looking towards future extensions of our work it can be said that of course we could analyse longer (art historic) texts about artworks with the same methodology thereby gaining much richer semantic context then by relying on simple keywords only. Another possible extension is to embed semantic and visual information simultaneously which could yield curatorial solutions that respect semantic and viusal constraints at the same time [Frome et al 2013].
DAD’s Arthur Flexer engaged in an online meeting with Dr. Sandra Manninger (SPAN, Tsinghua SIGS, IAAC) and Dr. Matias del Campo (SPAN, Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan) discussing “Data, Dust, Art & Techno”. Sandra Manninger and Matias del Campo are working in the intersection of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Architecture. Our communication centered on the opportunities as well as possible pitfalls of applying AI to the arts. Please enjoy what is the first in a series of “AI chats” by Manninger and del Campo.
On 12.11.2020 DAD’s Niko Wahl presented our intermediate results on the third research day of the Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna. Due to COVID-19, this event was an online ZOOM meeting. The goal of the ]a[ research days is to give an overview of all ongoing research projects at the academy including discussions with all participating colleagues.
Niko Wahl gave a short introduction of our project and an overview of DAD’ s collaborations with three different museums, where we work with an archive of an ethnological journal, a fine arts gallery and the statues in the Academy’s Glyptothek.
Since our work with the Austrian Museum of Folk Life and Folk Art and with the Belvedere, Vienna, has already been documented in previous blogposts , lets turn to the presentation of plaster casts at the Academy‘s Glyptothek, which we explored with Dusty, an off-the-shelf household robot.
Many people associate Artificial Intelligence (AI) with the development of ever more powerful and dextrous robots, along with horror scenarios of these machines taking over the planet. In reality robots are a small part of AI which is rather dominated by machine learning software solutions powering your Internet search engine, the natural language interface to your mobile phone, online music, movie and product recommendations and many other everyday technologies.
On the other hand, many people already own robots with limited forms of AI, for instance vacuum cleaning robots. What if we confront such a household robot with a – supposedly obsolete – museum collection of historic plaster copies of famous statues, whose very physis seems to be made of dust.
The robot takes its own route through the museum space. Following its built-in algorithms it perpetually finds new ways through the collection. It seemingly decides for itself in what order to visit the museum objects, all the time metaphorically internalizing the objects of art while inhaling their dust.
Other visitors are free to follow the robot on its path through the museum space engaging with its exhibition narrative. They might benefit form surprising relationships between objects of art established by the often creative course of the robot. Smart last generation vacuum cleaning robots are able to share their sensory experiences with others of their kind. These shared experiences usually are measurements of objects and how to avoid them when traversing a room. But what if this cloud communication, usually not accessible to us, deals with objects of art instead of everyday items? Will meeting David or the Pieta change the robots’ discourse? What if the robot meets a portrait of itself?
On the 22nd of September 2020 the DAD team met with Christian Huemer and Johanna Aufreiter from the Belvedere Research Center to discuss our results concerning Belvedere’s online collection. One focus of the meeting was our engagement with the room on “Viennese Portraiture in the Biedermeier Period” in Belvedere’s permanent exhibition.
Applying our algorithm to find pathways of semantic meaning[Flexer 2020] between works of art, we are able to suggest additional works for the liminal spaces between individiual positions in the curatorial narrative, opening up new sub-narratives for the room. Based on a word embedding [Mikolov et al 2013] of the keywords associated with the paintings, our algorithm suggests works of art which follow a pathway between the respective semantic meanings. Moreover we are able to further constrain our liminal curation by requiring all art works to fit an additional overall topic chosen by a human curator, again translated to the language of Belvedere’s keyword system via word embedding. As an example see a “Gender” constraint applied to the Biedermeier room.
A conceivable outcome is a revision of the Biedermeier room achieved via a joint curation of human and machine. This, as well as other approaches towards the Belvedere collection, will be the center of further exchange between DAD and the Belvedere.
All depicted paintings in this blog post by Belvedere, Vienna, Austria (CC BY-SA 4.0).
While a virtual workshop is not able to replace the experience and liveliness of a physical scientific meeting, it still allowed us to get an increasing degree of public exposure for our work in progress, which is the purpose of our Liminal Spaces.
DAD´s Arthur Flexer gave a semi-virtual lecture on “Discovering X Degrees of Keyword Separation in a Fine Arts Collection” at the Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (OFAI, 24.6.2020). The presented work is inspired by the project ‘X Degrees of Separation‘ by ‘Google Arts and Culture’, which explores the “hidden paths through culture” by analyzing visual features of artworks to find pathways between any two artifacts through a chain of artworks. In his work, Arthur Flexer is more interested in finding pathways of the semantic meaning of works of art rather than just their visual features. Therefore he used word embedding [Mikolov et al 2013], which encodes semantic similarities between words by modelling the context to their neighboring words in a large training text corpus. This is used to embed keywords of Belvedere´s online fine arts collection and obtain pathways through the resulting semantic space.
Keywords from left to right: [‘Resurrection’, ‘Christ’], [‘Christ’], [‘Death’, ‘Skeleton’], [‘Vulture’], [‘Angel’, ‘Air’, ‘Martyrdom’, ‘Suffering’, ‘Failure’, ‘Death’, ‘Andreas’, ‘Multiple Layer Room’]. All images by Belvedere, Vienna, Austria (CC BY-SA 4.0).
The above exemplary result starts with a sculpture with keywords ‘Resurrection’ and ‘Christ’ where the painting in the end position has keywords around the topic of ‘Death’ and ‘Martyrdom’. The second artwork in the pathway is a relief showing ‘Christ’, while the third is a painting tagged with ‘Death’ and ‘Skeleton’, hence already semantically closer to the topics of ‘Martyrdom’, ‘Suffering’ and ‘Death’ of the end artwork. In fourth position is an etching with the only keyword ‘Vulture’, which is semantically close to ‘Angel’, ‘Air’ and ‘Death’ of the ending artwork.
In the ensuing discussion of results it was found remarkable how machine learning via word embedding replicates existing biases and prejudice in the society. In the above query with the word “Homosexuality” the most similar word out of 22 million terms in the word embedding model is “Paedophilia”, one of the worst prejudice against homosexual people. The word embedding model has been trained on the Wikipedia and Common Crawl corpus [Mikolov et al 2018], which helps explaining the replication of very common and persisting prejudice in our society.
OFAI´s Brigitte Krenn found it interesting how the very reglemented and almost scientific language in Belvedere’s keywords (stemming from the Iconclass project) is contrasted with everyday language via usage of word embedding. As can be seen above, the most similar keywords to “Homosexuality” are “Rape”, “Religion”, “Violence” and “Islam” (all translated from German). This is of course a direct result of the biases inherent to the word embedding model. DAD’s Alexander Martos called this phenomenon “re-socialising of arts via natural language processing” or rather “re-a-socialising” since it uncovers asocial societal tendencies and (re-?) introduces them to the world of fine arts.
During our 2nd Critical Space with guest expert Bob Sturm (KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden) we presented and discussed a first mock-up of our “GO CURATOR” idea.
Here you can see DAD team members setting up the physical model.
GO CURATOR analyses text describing paintings in museum collections. Topic modelling is used to represent the semantic content in these texts, thereby targeting the semantic meaning of the paintings themselves.
Result is a probabilistic distribution across topics for every painting. E.g. in the painting below, the topics “food”, “act”, “human” and “object” are present to an equal extent of 25%.
Curators or museum visitors can change the exhibition interactively by adjusting which topics should be present to what extent. GO CURATOR then automatically adjusts the choice of paintings and their exact hanging in the museum room.
During the research visit of Bob Sturm we will discuss the frontiers of artificial creativity and its criticism in the context of DUST AND DATA. Bob Sturm will also give a public lecture about his work on using machine learning to compose Irish folk music. His talk will also feature live accordion playing.
“Folk the Algorithms” – Bob Sturm, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
In this talk/musical performance, I will recount how a bit of Saturday morning humor turned into an ERC Consolidator Grant four years later. It’s a story of an engineer with an artistic bent meeting a machine learning algorithm through a blog. One part of the story involves the naive misappropriation of music data without consideration of its provenance and significance. Another part involves the serious contemplation of such transgressions, and then endeavors taken to redress them. A variety of interesting perspectives and questions have arisen out of this story, which will be subject to study in the project, Music at the Frontiers of Artificial Creativity and Criticism (MUSAiC, ERC-2019-COG No. 864189).
Time: Wednesday, 26th of February 2020, 6:30 p.m. sharp