So. The accusations about & #39;phrenology& #39; are kinda misplaced, but the paper still frustrates me because it looks at these portraits as if they are just old selfies instead of complex cultural artifacts. Also that Pinker-style historical progress thesis is pretty annoying. https://twitter.com/baumard_nicolas/status/1308715606196342784">https://twitter.com/baumard_n...

Like: Maybe it does something to portraits if there is no longer a really intense patron-relationship, but an art market? Maybe a king is not into smiling in a picture, but some rando bourgeois is?

This thread by @Calthalas explains the issues pretty well. I think Cultural (Data) Analysis has a lot of potential, but doing it in a "big statements" kinda way like this paper is the wrong way https://twitter.com/Calthalas/status/1309403512867106816">https://twitter.com/Calthalas...