Computer Program Measures the Entropy of Art

The digitization of paintings could help art historians detect previously unknown patterns and connections

Jackson Pollock’s paintings have a high degree of entropy.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

For the romantics among us, physicist Haroldo Ribeiro’s recent work might seem prosaic. He has developed a computer program that deconstructs works of art into sets of numbers. Now Ribeiro has applied his physics-inspired metrics to nearly 140,000 digitized paintings indexed on the visual art encyclopedia WikiArt to look for trends in the evolution of painting styles.

The process, described by Ribeiro and his colleagues last September in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, involves assessing the complexity and entropy, or disorder, of these digitized artworks. Complexity is based on the variability of patterns within each image, ranging from highly variable (more complex) to uniform (less complex). Entropy is determined by the degree of chaos in the image; the more “regular” the painting, the lower the entropy.

The new algorithm analyzes two-by-two grids of pixels within each painting and scores them using the two metrics. Ribeiro and his colleagues observed that shifts in the magnitude of complexity and entropy among various paintings mirror stylistic shifts throughout art history. Modern art—with blended edges and loose brushstrokes—generally possesses low complexity and high entropy. Postmodern art, a simpler style with recognizable objects and stark, well-defined edges (for example, Andy Warhol’s soup cans), has high complexity and low entropy. In the late 1960s there was a rapid shift from modern to postmodern art; the algorithm is able to quantify the extremity of this shift.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


These simple metrics could be used to better understand how art has evolved, capture information about various artistic periods and determine how these periods interacted, the researchers say. By learning from these patterns, the program could even be used to sort lesser-known works of art into specific artistic styles. 

Maximilian Schich, a professor of arts and technology at University of Texas at Dallas, is in favor of the cross-disciplinary research. “One thing I think is very elegant in this paper is that they look at the complexity at the local level, the pixels and the surrounding pixels,” Schich says. “You could say, ‘Yeah, that’s too simple—it doesn’t explain all of the painting.’ But it’s research that is valuable.”

Scientific American Magazine Vol 320 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Entropy in Art” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 320 No. 4 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0419-16b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe