Dear Maximilian,
In a way you are of course right, but we should never confuse
uncertainty to be something
due to the nature of art. Such opinions are not very useful to
adequately dealing with humanities
in IT.
The uncertainty you describe for artist attribution is exclusively due
to being a fact of the past, which
we cannot redo.
There is absolutely no difference to geological history, evolution of
species, big bang, social
history etc. Every knowledge is an opinion, a "gradient" as you say. By
wonder, knowledge can be so reliable that we can shoot each other ;-)
(or just fly to a meeting).
We must not confuse the fact that a painting must have one or more
painter, which is described
by the ontology, and the epistemological problem "how do you know". In
our information systems,
we need mechanisms that make this difference in order to describe
science. Therefore CRM-SIG has now CRMInf proposed.
The analogy to opinions about gender is to my opinion quite misleading.
Categories such as "gender" are social conventions which are dynamically
formed in the society, as any category. Whereas the artist must have
existed, and our knowledge depends on the form of evidence (texts,
video, fingerprints etc.) in the forensic sense, the concept such as
"gender" depends on individual definitions. The existence of the
artist is not a question of subjectivity. Concepts on the other side are
used in communication by agreement on common definition. Therefore most
legal texts start with definition of terms.
I believe the "absolute truth" discussion distracts us from the
practicalities of research. "Absolute
truth" exists only im mathematics. Truth in physical reality is always
an empirical problem. To
ask me "how do you know you live?" is not the level of questions of any
science, including cultural heritage studies. The distinction between
"true" and 100% probable is irrelevant for us.
In an information system we describe best knowledge, until falsified by
better evidence or argument.
It may be practical to distinguish a few values like "assumed to be
true" "assumed to be false", "unknown", "possible", but the IT solution
is not to use gradients of belief, but to document the evidence.
For categories, fuzzy logic has some success, but more practical is to
make definitions explicit, and to
simply distinguish a "wider sense" from a "narrower sense" in an IT
environment.
Opinions?
Best,
Martin
On 20/2/2015 7:10 μμ, Maximilian Schich wrote:
- There no truth in art. Every artist attribution is an opinion, even if its
probability is 100%.
- There is a gradient, not a dualism: There are +250 versions of "not quite
Rembrant", just like there are +250 versions of gender in Facebook. Their frequency
is tailed.
Best, Max
Dr. phil. Maximilian Schich
www.schich.info
On Feb 20, 2015, at 10:13, martin <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Simon, Dan,
I'd argue that "fake" is genuine property of the E12 Production
event itself. The "new" Van Meegeren works were ingenious creations of art. The
intention to make people believe they were from another painter should be sort of a plan
. That Van Meegeren is
still not recognized as one of the great artists is a social question (or
problem).
How to model the intention of deceipt? I'd say it needs a goal, which is
characterized by the
propositions of a future state (people believing), and a method, how to achieve
that - another
set of propositions (signature, painting style). This looks similar to and
argument in CRMInf.
Funny problem with a lot of Named Graphs.
Does anyone like to draw a graph?
Cheers,
Martin
On 19/2/2015 11:00 μμ, Dan Matei wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Spero <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:37:52 -0500
The Fake work was created to induce a false belief that the work has a
certain identity, and a belief that the creator was TPR.
That's my case ! And not simple situations like fake coins (when the similarity with
the original is the point), but works of art made "a la
maniere de" say, Rubens by an unidentified "artist". The style is replicated,
not a work.
And I want to emphesize the intent to deceive.
Van Meegeren, père et fils, present an interesting test case for the new
model. It is easy to think of realistic questions that historians might
wish to ask a unified system-
What works in the style of Vermeer exist, in which collections?
What are the paintings that are currently believed to be Vermeers?
What are the paintings that were believed to be Vermeers in 1938?
In 1951?
What paintings are currently believed to be Fake Vermeers?
What justification is there for these beliefs?
Right !
Dan
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
