[CESERH] IMACTIS Research Seminar. Images Today org. by DONDERO & D’ARMENIO (21/9/21) - Seance 3

[CESERH] IMACTIS Research Seminar. Images Today org. by DONDERO & D’ARMENIO (21/9/21) - Seance 3

[CESERH] IMACTIS Research Seminar. Images Today org. by DONDERO & D’ARMENIO (21/9/21) - Session 3

🎙 Massimo Leone 👥 178 📅 November 25, 2021 ⏱ 144 min 👁 91 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-10-09
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

semioticsAIface perceptionbig dataresearch project

Summary

Massimo Leone presents his ERC-funded project FACETS (Face Aesthetics in Contemporary Technological Societies) and its evolution into the FRESCO branch, which applies artificial intelligence to analyze facial images from social networks. He begins by introducing the importance of innovating within visual semiotics, then describes the initial challenges of working with big data, including legal issues with Amazon Mechanical Turk and infrastructure problems at the University of Turin. He eventually collaborates with engineers from the Polytechnic University of Turin to build computational observation methods. The talk emphasizes the need to combine qualitative semiotic expertise with quantitative AI approaches, discussing datasets, GDPR constraints, and the pitfalls of using pre-existing datasets. Leone highlights the resistance from conservative scholars and encourages younger researchers to embrace new methods. He also touches on the potential of AI to address representativity issues in semiotic analysis. The seminar is part of a broader research initiative on images and spans about two and a half hours, including audience interaction.

160 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The talk offers significant value by documenting the real-world difficulties and solutions in a large interdisciplinary research project. Leone argues convincingly for the integration of AI into humanities research, addressing both legitimate concerns (biases, limits) and outdated resistance. He provides concrete examples of obstacles (legal, infrastructural) and how they were overcome through collaboration. The argumentation is coherent and personally grounded, though it leans on anecdotal evidence rather than systematic data. The discussion of dataset creation and GDPR compliance is particularly insightful, highlighting often-overlooked ethical and practical aspects.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The presentation is academically rigorous, based on the speaker’s extensive experience and project documentation. However, no external sources are explicitly cited in the video; the content relies on project details and personal reflections. The title is somewhat cryptic but aligns with the seminar’s theme of images and digital studies. The audience is likely specialized, as indicated by the technical terms and academic context. No comments were provided, so audience reception cannot be assessed.

175 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the seminar context and the speaker's focus on images and digital semiotics, though the acronyms and session number make it less descriptive than the actual content.

Quality & Reliability

7/10

Presentation by a full professor of philosophy of communication and semiotics, discussing his ERC-funded project FACETS. The content is based on his own experience and project details, credible but not peer-reviewed. Some claims about AI limitations are general and reflect personal perspective.

Key Moments

Contribution & Novelties

The talk’s originality lies in presenting a pioneering attempt to apply AI to visual semiotics, specifically for large-scale analysis of facial images. It offers a candid account of the challenges, including ethical and legal barriers, and demonstrates how collaboration with engineers reshaped a humanities project. The speaker’s emphasis on teaching AI to ‘see’ semiotically is a novel concept.

Pour aller plus loin :

111 words

Radar Profile

The profile shows relatively high scores across all dimensions, with the highest in information quantity and quality, reflecting the depth and academic value. Slightly lower scores in technical level and reliability suggest the content is accessible but not deeply technical, and relies on the speaker's personal account rather than peer-reviewed evidence.

Reliability 7/10