So. The accusations about 'phrenology' 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

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