Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40422985›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging2025

Revisiting Wölfflin in the Age of AI: A Study of Classical and Baroque Composition in Generative Models.

Adrien Deliege, Maria Giulia Dondero, Enzo D'Armenio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Adrien DeliegeDepartment of Romance Languages and Literatures, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
Maria Giulia DonderoDepartment of Romance Languages and Literatures, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2320-8130
Enzo D'ArmenioUFR Sciences Humaines et Sociales, Université de Lorraine, 57000 Metz, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1223-3827

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study explores how contemporary text-to-image models interpret and generate Classical and Baroque styles under Wölfflin's framework-two categories that are atemporal and transversal across media. Our goal is to see whether generative AI can replicate the nuanced stylistic cues that art historians attribute to them. We prompted two popular models (DALL•E and Midjourney) using explicit style labels (e.g., "baroque" and "classical") as well as more implicit cues (e.g., "dynamic", "static", or reworked Wölfflin descriptors). We then collected expert ratings and conducted broader qualitative reviews to assess how each output aligned with Wölfflin's characteristics. Our findings suggest that the term "baroque" usually evokes features recognizable in typically historical Baroque artworks, while "classical" often yields less distinct results, particularly when a specified genre (portrait, still life) imposes a centered, closed-form composition. Removing explicit style labels may produce highly abstract images, revealing that Wölfflin's descriptors alone may be insufficient to convey Classical or Baroque styles efficiently. Interestingly, the term "dynamic" gives rather chaotic images, yet this chaos is somehow ordered, centered, and has an almost Classical feel. Altogether, these observations highlight the complexity of bridging canonical stylistic frameworks and contemporary AI training biases, underscoring the need to update or refine Wölfflin's atemporal categories to accommodate how generative models-and modern visual culture-reinterpret Classical and Baroque.

Indexed as

art historyBaroque paintingClassical paintingDALL•Egenerative AIMidjourneytext-to-image modelsvisual semioticsWölfflin categories

Identifiers

PMID40422985
PMCPMC12111813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.