When artists express their feelings through the artworks they create, it is believed that the resulting works transform into objects with “emotions” capable of conveying the artists' mood to the audience. There is little to no dispute about this belief: Regardless of the artwork, genre, time, and origin of creation, people from different backgrounds are able to read the emotional messages. This holds true even for the most abstract paintings. Could this idea be applied to machines as well? Can machines learn what makes a work of art “emotional”? In this work, we employ a state-of-the-art recognition system to learn which statistical patterns are associated with positive and negative emotions on two different datasets that comprise professional and amateur abstract artworks. Moreover, we analyze and compare two different annotation methods in order to establish the ground truth of positive and negative emotions in abstract art. Additionally, we use computer vision techniques to quantify which parts of a painting evoke positive and negative emotions. We also demonstrate how the quantification of evidence for positive and negative emotions can be used to predict which parts of a painting people prefer to focus on. This method opens new opportunities of research on why a specific painting is perceived as emotional at global and local scales.

The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi‐JCR for the A&HCI (2008) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal–journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as “digital humanities” are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.

This study analyzes the differences between the category structure of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) system (which is one of the widely used library classification systems in Europe) and Wikipedia. In particular, we compare the emerging structure of category-links to the structure of classes in the UDC. With this comparison we would like to scrutinize the question of how do knowledge maps of the same domain differ when they are created socially (i.e. Wikipedia) as opposed to when they are created formally (UDC) using classification theory. As a case study, we focus on the category of "Arts".In modern times, the fast expansion of human knowledge makes categories a necessity in managing and accessing produced knowledge. The science of 'knowledge orders', i.e. taxonomies, classifications, etc., is born out of this need. However today, with all the tools the information society has to offer, taxonomies have a powerful opponent: folksonomies.Folksonomies are an outcome of the phenomenon of collective writing, and collaborative tagging. Wikipedia is one favorite object for studying such behavior. For a long time, Wikipedia relied only on search engines for information retrieval, and its users browsed the content by following simple links (called

Wikipedia, as a social phenomenon of collaborative knowledge creating, has been studied extensively from various points of views. The category system of Wikipedia, introduced in 2004, has attracted relatively little attention. In this study, we focus on the documentation of knowledge, and the transformation of this documentation with time. We take Wikipedia as a proxy for knowledge in general and its category system as an aspect of the structure of this knowledge. We investigate the evolution of the category structure of the English Wikipedia from its birth in 2004 to 2008. We treat the category system as if it is a hierarchical Knowledge Organization System, capturing the changes in the distributions of the top categories. We investigate how the clustering of articles, defined by the category system, matches the direct link network between the articles and show how it changes over time. We find the Wikipedia category network mostly stable, but with occasional reorganization. We show that the clustering matches the link structure quite well, except short periods preceding the reorganizations.