This article’s aim is to explore the possibilities and limitations of some quantitative tools for the analysis of images. It shows how three different families of tools – manual annotation, eye-tracking and signifier analysis – can help to better understand the meaning effects of figurative and plastic (abstract) elements in pictures. Advantages and disadvantages for each family of tools are discussed. The author also suggests some theoretical implications of the adoption of quantitative tools in the humanities and especially within semiotic disciplines.
ArnheimR (1992[1982]) The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
BarthesR (1964) The rhetoric of the image. Communications4.
3.
BertinJ (1967) Sémiologie graphique. Les diagrammes, les réseaux, les cartes, with Marc Barbut et al. Paris: Gauthier-Villars (trans. WilliamJ Berg, Semiology of Graphics, 1983).
4.
Chartier, et al. (2019) A data-driven computational semiotics: The semantic vector space of Magritte’s artworks. In: CompagnoDTreleaniM (eds) Meaningful Data/Données signifiantes. Semiotica, 230.
5.
CholetC (2018) Images as utterances and as multimodal perceptual experiences. In: CompagnoD (2018) Quantitative Semiotic Analysis. Berlin: Springer.
6.
DeAngelusMPelzJB (2009) Top-down control of eye movements: Yarbus revisited. Visual Cognition17(6/7): 790–811.
7.
DeliègeA (2024) Advances on the F.R.S.-FNRS research project ‘Towards a Genealogy of Visual Forms’. Carnet Centre de Sémiotique et Rhetorique. Available at: ceserh.hypotheses.org/3929 (accessed 13th May 2024).
8.
DesolneuxAMoisanLMorelJ-M (2008) From Gestalt Theory to Image Analysis: A Probabilistic Approach. Berlin: Springer.
9.
DonderoMG (2020) The Language of Images. Berlin: Springer.
10.
EcoU (1975) A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
11.
EcoU (1979) The Role of the Reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
12.
EcoU (1984) Semiotics and Philosophy of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
13.
EcoU (1997) Kant and the Platypus. New York, NY: Harcourt.
14.
FlochJ-M (1985) Petites mythologies de l’oeil et de l’esprit. Paris: Hadès-Benjamins.
15.
FoscoC, et al. (2020) Predicting visual importance across graphic design types. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: 10.1145/3379337.3415825.
16.
GeertzC (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
17.
GreimasAJ (1984) Sémiotique figurative et sémiotique plastique. Actes sémiotiques60.
18.
Groupe μ (1992) Traité du signe visual. Paris: Seuil.
19.
GuillaumeG (1984[1929]) Foundations for a Science of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20.
HébertLTrudelE (2013) Analyse des images. Available at: http://magrittedb.com (accessed 16 March 2016).
21.
HjelmslevL (1943) Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Baltimore, MD: Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics (IJAL Memoir, 7).
22.
ImpettLMorettiF (2017) Totentanz. Pamphlets du Stanford Literary Lab16.
23.
KandinskyW (1926) Point and Line to Plane. New York, NY: Dover Publications.
24.
KanizsaG (1997) Grammatica del Vedere. Bologna: Mulino.
25.
KleeP (1951[1924]) Pedagogical Sketchbook. New York, NY: Praeger.
26.
KoideN, et al. (2015) Art expertise reduces influence of visual salience on fixation in viewing abstract paintings. PLoS ONE10(2). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117696.
27.
LyssenkoNRediesCHayn-LeichsenringGU (2016) Evaluating abstract art: Relation between term usage, subjective ratings, image properties and personality traits. Front Psychology, 28June, 7: 973. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00973. PMID: 27445933; PMCID: PMC4923070.
OsgoodCESuciGTannenbaumP (1957) The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
30.
PolidoroP (2012) Umberto Eco e il dibattito sull’iconismo. Lexia7.
31.
QuirogaRPedreiraC (2011) How do we see art: An eye-tracker study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience5: 98
32.
RastierF (1989) Sens et textualité. Paris: Hachette.
33.
RastierF (2011) La mesure et le grain. Paris: Champion.
34.
ReyesESonessonG (2019) New approaches to plastic language: Prolegomena to a computer-aided approach to pictorial semiotics. Semiotica230: 71–95. DOI: 10.1515/sem-2018-0106.
35.
SaportaA, et al. (2022) Benchmarking saliency methods for chest X-ray interpretation. Nature Machine Intelligence4: 867–878. DOI: 10.1038/s42256-022-00536-x.
ShenS, et al. (2023) From stock shots to ghost data: Tracking audiovisual archives about the European Union. VIEW: Journal of European Television History and Culture12(23): 4–23. DOI: 10.18146/view.292.
38.
SonessonG (1989) Pictorial Concepts. Lund: Lund University Press.
39.
ThomR (2006) Morfología del semiotico. Rome: Meltemi.
40.
YarbusAL (1965) Role of Eye Movements in the Visual Process. Moscow: Nauka.
