Ok so I've just been alerted to this and... yeah, I wouldn't say, based on the available data, that I'd make any firm conclusions based on it. www.theguardian.com/science/2024... I *certainly* wouldn't say it warrants mainstream media coverage. Why? Well, several reasons... /1

JKjameskelleher.pilcrow.ieOct 3, 2024 6:10pm

I urgently need a neuroscientist to demolish this nonsense

Real art in museums stimulates brain much more than reprints, study finds

Scientists in Netherlands using eye-tracking and MRI scans found ‘enormous difference’ between genuine works and posters

Firstly, this study *appears* to be the work of a 'technical art historian' doing her PhD NB: That's in 'quotes' as I'm not sure if that's her actual title, or some best guess from Google translation of a Dutch website. Don't want to disparage an art-based qualification at all. However... /2

I'm not a scientist but surely for this to be valid you would have to do it blind? Put a mix of originals and repros in an exhibition and then do it? Otherwise it's like saying, can you tell the difference between a Kit Kat and a cheap imitation? First, we'd like you to eat this Kit Kat.....🤣🤣🤣🤣