Art, Geography/GIScience, and Mathematics: A Surprising Interface

References

• Abdi, A. 2007. The Eigen-decomposition: Eigenvalues and eigenvectors. In Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics, ed. N. Salkind, 305–09. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Abudayah, M., O. Alomari, and T. Sander. 2018. Spectrum of free-form sudoku graphs. Open Mathematics 16 (1):1445–54. doi: 10.1515/math-2018-0125.
   Google Scholar
• Albadarneh, I., and A. Ahmad. 2017. Machine learning based oil painting authentication and features extraction. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 17:8–17. http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/201701/20170102.pdf.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bian, L., and Z. Xie. 2004. A spatial dependence approach to retrieving industrial complexes from digital images. The Professional Geographer 56 (3):181–93. doi: 10.1111/j.0033-0124.2004.05603007.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burdzy, K. n.d. Hot spots problem illustrated. Accessed June 20, 2022. https://sites.math.washington.edu/∼burdzy/hot_spots.php.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, W., G. Gartner, and A. Lehn, eds. 2009. Cartography and art. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Delaney, J., M. Thoury, J. Zeibel, P. Ricciardi, K. Morales, and K. Dooley. 2016. Visible and infrared imaging spectroscopy of paintings and improved reflectography. Heritage Science 4 (6). doi: 10.1186/s40494-016-0075-4.
   Google Scholar
• Farsi, C., and D. Craft. 2005. One in two, two in one: Mathematics and the arts. Math Horizons 12 (3):12–15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25678525. doi: 10.1080/10724117.2005.12021799.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, W., and D. Marble. 1964. Factor-analytic study of the connectivity of a transportation network. Papers of the Regional Science Association 12 (1):231–38. doi: 10.1007/BF01941256.
   Google Scholar
• Gavrilov, D., R. Maev, and D. Almond. 2014. A review of imaging methods in analysis of works of art: Thermographic imaging method in art analysis. Canadian Journal of Physics 92 (4):341–64. doi: 10.1139/cjp-2013-0128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geary, R. 1954. The contiguity ratio and statistical mapping. The Incorporated Statistician 5 (3):115–127, 129–46. doi: 10.2307/2986645.
   Google Scholar
• Gould, P. 1967. On the geographical interpretation of eigenvalues. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 42 (42):53–92. doi: 10.2307/621372.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, D. 2000. Eigenfunction properties and approximations of selected incidence matrices employed in spatial analyses. Linear Algebra and Its Applications 321 (1–3):95–112. doi: 10.1016/S0024-3795(00)00031-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith, D. 2003. Spatial autocorrelation and spatial filtering: Gaining understanding through theory and scientific visualization. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, D. 2016. Spatial autocorrelation and art. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography: art. 46. doi: 10.4000/cybergeo.27429. Accessed January 23, 2016. http://cybergeo.revues.org/27429.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, D. 2020. A spatial analysis of selected art: A GIScience–humanities interface. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 14 (1–2):154–75. doi: 10.3366/ijhac.2020.0250.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, D. 2021a. Eigenvector visualization and art. Journal of Mathematics and the Arts 15 (2):170–87. doi: 10.1080/17513472.2021.1922239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith, D. 2021b. Interpreting of Moran eigenvector maps with the Getis–Ord Gi* statistic. The Professional Geographer 73 (3):447–63. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2021.1878908.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith, D., and Y. Chun. 2019. Implementing Moran eigenvector spatial filtering for massively large georeferenced datasets. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 33 (9):1703–17. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2019.1593421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith, D., and B. Li. 2017. A geocomputation and geovisualization comparison of Moran and Geary eigenvector spatial filtering. Paper presented at the 25th International Conference on Geoinformatics, Geoinformatics 2017, SUNY/Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, August 2–4.
   Google Scholar
• Haining, R. 1983. Anatomy of a price war. Nature 304 (5928):679–80. doi: 10.1038/304679a0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hückel, E. 1931. Quantentheoretische Beiträge zum Benzolproblem [Quantum-theoretical contributions to the benzene problem]. Zeitschrift Für Physik 70:204–86. doi: 10.1007/BF01339530.
   Google Scholar
• Hurtut, T. 2010. 2D artistic images analysis, a content-based survey. hal-00459401. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00459401v1.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, C., E. Hendriks, I. Berezhnoy, E. Brevdo, S. Hughes, I. Daubechies, J. Li, E. Postma, and J. Wang. 2008. Image processing for artist identification. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 25 (4):37–48. doi: 10.1109/MSP.2008.923513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, D., S.-W. Son, and H. Jeong. 2014. Large-scale quantitative analysis of painting arts. Scientific Reports 4:7370–77. doi: 10.1038/srep07370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, H., and N. Saito. 2019. Metrics of graph Laplacian eigenvectors. In Proceedings of SPIE Wavelets and Sparsity XVIII, ed. D. Van de Ville, M. Papadakis, and Y. M. Lu, vol. 11138, 111381K. San Diego, CA: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
   Google Scholar
• Machado, J., and A. Lopes. 2019. Artistic painting: A fractional calculus perspective. Applied Mathematical Modelling 65:614–26. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2018.09.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malkevitch, J. 2009. Mathematics and art. Accessed June 20, 2022. http://www.ams.org/publicoutreach/feature-column/fcarc-art1.
   Google Scholar
• Mennis, J. 2018. Geographic representation in GIS and art: Common threads as exemplified in paintings by Seurat, Signac, Mondrian, and Diebenkorn. GeoHumanities 4 (1):178–95. doi: 10.1080/2373566X.2017.1415156.
   Google Scholar
• Merris, R. 1998. Laplacian graph eigenvectors. Linear Algebra and Its Applications 278 (1–3):221–36. doi: 10.1016/S0024-3795(97)10080-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran, P. 1950. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37 (1–2):17–23. doi: 10.2307/2332142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ord, K. 1975. Estimation methods for models of spatial interaction. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70 (349):120–26. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1975.10480272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redies, C., and A. Brachmann. 2017. Statistical image properties in large subsets of traditional art, bad art, and abstract art. Frontiers in Neuroscience 11:593. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. 2010. Psychedelic: Optical and visionary art since the 1960s. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, D. 2003. Mathematics and art—So many connections. MAM2003. Accessed June 20, 2022. http://www.mathaware.org/mam/03/essay3.html.
   Google Scholar
• Schoch, K., H. Gruber, and T. Ostermann. 2017. Quantitative picture analysis—A rating instrument for two-dimensional pictorial work (RizbA). The Arts in Psychotherapy 55:73–79. doi: 10.1016/j.aip.2017.04.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigaki, H., M. Perc, and H. Ribeiro. 2018. History of art paintings through the lens of entropy and complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (37):E8585–E8594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stork, D. 2010. From digital imaging to computer image analysis of fine art. In Arts and technology: Proceedings of ArtsIT 2009, ed. F. Huang and R. Wang, vol. 30, 1–8. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Tinkler, K. J. 1972. The physical interpretation of eigenfunctions of dichotomous matrices. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 55 (55):17–46. doi: 10.2307/621721.
   Google Scholar
• Xue, J., and B. Su. 2017. Significant remote sensing vegetation indices: A review of developments and applications. Journal of Sensors 2017:1–17. doi: 10.1155/2017/1353691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, S., and P. Kelly. 2017. Macro or micro? A visual art exhibition challenging our perceptions of scale. GeoHumanities 3 (1):250–65. http://www.tandfonline.com/. doi: 10.1080/2373566X.2017.1295815.
   Google Scholar