The Semiotics of the Face in the Digital Era.

Massimo Leone, University of Turin.

Abstract.
The semiotics of the face studies the meaning of the human face in contemporary visual cultures.
There are two complementary research foci: widespread practices of face exhibition in social
networks like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Tinder; and minority practices of occultation,
including the mask in anti-establishment political activism (Anonymous) and the veil in religious
dressing codes. The meaning of the human face is currently changing on a global scale: through the
invention and diffusion of new visual technologies (digital photography, visual filters, as well as
software for automatic face recognition); through the creation and establishment of novel genres of
face representation (the selfie); and through new approaches to face perception, reading, and
memorization (e.g., the ‘scrolling’ of faces on Tinder). Cognitions, emotions, and actions that
people attach to the interaction with one’s and others’ faces are undergoing dramatic shifts. In the
semiotics of the face, an interdisciplinary but focused approach combines visual history, semiotics,
phenomenology, visual anthropology, but also face perception studies and collection and analysis of
big data, so as to study the social and technological causes of these changes and their effects in
terms of alterations in self-perception and communicative interaction. In the tension between, on the
one hand, political and economic agencies pressing for increasing disclosure, detection, and
marketing of the human face (for reasons of security and control, for commercial or bureaucratic
purposes) and, on the other hand, the counter-trends of face occultation (parents ‘hiding’ their
children from the Internet, political activists concealing their faces, religious or aesthetic veils,
writers and artists like Bansky or Ferrante choosing not to reveal their identity), the visual syntax,
the semantics, and the pragmatics of the human face are rapidly evolving. The semiotics of the face
carries on a comprehensive survey of this socio-cultural phenomenon.

Keywords: face, semiotics, occultation, exhibition, digital era, internet, social networks.

1. The face: old and new facets.

In digital social networks, human beings are exposed to an unprecedented quantity of images of
faces; they visually and haptically interact with them in new ways, like ‘scrolling’ them through
digital touch screens; rapidly evolving communication devices and formats co-determine this
experience, for instance, through the mobility of smart phones and the architecture of digital
platforms; most human beings, today, store, carry, and manipulate daily hundreds if not thousands
of little icons of faces.
The face is, in human anthropology, a central surface for interpersonal interaction, including
that of subjects observing the reflected image of their visage. Many sociocultural practices, as a
consequence, seek to mould the communicative power of the face. The face is the object of
countless strategies of signification, like controlling one’s facial expressions, making up, arranging
facial hair, masking, veiling, piercing, tattooing, etc. It is also the object of numerous strategies of
reading, as the history of physiognomy attests. It is, finally, a central object in human visual
cultures; on the one hand, some of them represent it obsessively: Pliny the Elder and other ancient
sources have the history of painting start with the nostalgic representation of the silhouette of a
face; on the other hand, alternative visual cultures restrict the communicative power of the face
through forbidding its representation or veiling its appearance.
Practices of exhibition and occultation of the face in the era of digital communication are,
therefore, not entirely new. Their features must be traced back to the long period of visual cultures.

1
No serious account of the new representative genre of the selfie, for instance, can omit to compare
and contrast it with previous practices of self-representation, from death masks to self-portraits.
The novelty of what people do with pictures of their own or others’ faces on the Internet,
however, should not be underestimated either. There are three key-factors. First, quantity: not even
the most avid art or photography collector could, in the past, store as many icons of faces as the
average social network user does nowadays; a Tinder user, for instance, can spend entire days
flicking through the digital images of potential lovers’ faces. Second, alteration: the face is
coloured, distorted, and transformed; human beings have often attached an aesthetic and ludic
pleasure to the modification of their face, for instance through masks in carnivals; yet, the fact that
millions of teenagers, today, daily enjoy exchanging Snapchat images of their faces, heavily
transformed through flamboyant visual effects, deserves investigation. Third, pervasiveness: human
beings are represented by the digital icons of their faces in an increasing number of social and
communicative domains; exchanges of digital icons, moreover, are more and more not only
representing but actually replacing face to face interaction, also in the domains of friendship and
love. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Tinder, and other digital social networks are creating a ‘face
world’ in which the cognitive, emotional, and pragmatic value of the face is dramatically changing.
From the cognitive point of view, the key-factors of quantity, alteration, and pervasiveness are
revolutionizing the interplay of identities and the practice of introspection; in many interactions,
there is barely any time to attach a personality, a story, and a relation to the digital image of a face:
icons of visages are accumulated, flicked through, saved, or cancelled with a rapidity that, in the
long term, will affect non-digital interactions too.
From the emotional point of view, the global multiplication of faces is changing the
mechanism of empathy: other human beings are increasingly seen as trading cards that one can
easily replace at any moment; empathizing with the image of the other’s face, moreover, becomes
harder, since each face-icon drowns in an ocean of similarly formatted images, each rapidly
evolving in the cyberspace and heavily altered by filters and visual effects.
Given this cognitive and emotional context, finally, that which people do with faces, that is,
their pragmatic value, changes as well. On the one hand, the face is everything: in most digital
environments, it is the only thing others will pay attention to. On the other hand, the face is nothing:
alterable and disposable at will, its power to represent one’s identity is feeble.
In a complex dialectics, ‘face countercultures’ take shape in contrast with the key-factors of
quantity, alteration, and pervasiveness. Religious, political, and aesthetic minorities device different
strategies of occultation so as to resist the global trends of face disclosure, exhibition, and
multiplication. These strategies too connect with a distant past: the veil, the mask, and anonymity
are occultation devices with a long history. Yet, paradoxically, these counterstrategies too acquire a
new dimension in their dialectics with the digital ‘face world’: wearing a mask at a political
demonstration, for instance, owes its polemical meaning also in contrast with the systematic storage
of icons of faces in digital archives.

2. Facing the face.

Observing contemporary visual cultures, it is easy to realize that the face is at the core of major
shifts. Yet, still too little is known about them. Understanding how present-day human beings use
images of faces is fundamental: a thick range of social, economic, political, and aesthetic
phenomena revolves, nowadays, around the ‘digital life of the face’. Studying it, however, is
difficult. It defies common disciplinary boundaries, established methodologies, and even common
sense. Many disciplines, from psychology to art theory, from neurophysiology to
ethnomethodology, have produced abundant and excellent literature about the face. Yet, a new
interdisciplinary effort is necessary so as to understand how the meaning of the face transforms in
the extraordinary crucible of digital communication.
The semiotics of the face, therefore, seeks to develop a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and
critical study of the face in present-day digital communication. It is an innovative research angle for

2
it singles out a new object, asks new questions about it, and answers them in a new methodological
framework. Several, interconnected dimensions must simultaneously be taken into account: the
prominence of the face in the neurophysiology of perception and cognition; the impact of visual
cultures on these mechanisms; the role of the arts in singling out the face through specific genres of
representations, like medals, portraits, and self-portraits; the evolution of these genres through the
history of communication; the parallel evolution of ‘face reading’, from ancient physiognomy until
present-day face perception theory; the watershed of digital imaging for the creation, circulation,
and usage of face-icons; the aesthetics of new genres and formats of face communication (selfies,
Snapchat effects, filters, etc.); the economic and political implication of ‘digital face storage’; the
dialectics between these trends and ‘face counter-cultures’; the value of the veil, the mask, and
anonymity in the digital ‘face-world’; the changing of introspection, empathy, and interaction
therein.
Although the semiotics of the face is unique in developing a crosscut perspective across all
these dimensions, it does not start from scratch but treasures punctual insights about the face from
previous and parallel enquiries. Scholarly attention to the face stretches back to antiquity; to the
origins of physiognomy, as regards the ‘reading of the face’ (Rodler 2000); to Pliny the Elder and
other ancient sources relating the ‘invention of painting’, as regards the representation of faces
(Stoichita 1997: 18-20). In contemporary scholarship, the face is an object of enquiry for a
multitude of approaches, which nevertheless often fail to consistently interact in order to interpret
the new role of the face in digital societies.
‘Face perception’, ‘face expression’, and ‘face recognition’ are now autonomous fields in
neurophysiology, psychophysiology, and cognitive psychology. Through combining functional
brain imaging and experimental methods, Andrew W. Young and other present-day scholars have
produced precious insights about multimodal contributions to interpreting other people’s emotions
(Young 2016). Some of this literature applies to the holistic study of faces in digital
communication. Sutherland, Young, and Rhodes (2016), for instance, experimentally find that
within-person variability for impressions of key traits of trustworthiness, dominance, and
attractiveness depends predominantly on the emotional expression of the face, but the viewpoint of
the photograph also affects impressions and modulates the effects of expression. The most complete
survey to date about the psychology of face perception is Calder et al. (2011).
This abundance of experimental insights, however, must be intertwined with social studies
about the face, focusing on cultural variability in facial interaction. Along this line, Wikins (2017)
shows that even the biological evolution of the face has been intimately connected with that of the
brain, and that mental and social processes have helped shape the human face well into the recent
history of the human species; hence, the role of communication in the ‘post-speciation’ of the face
must not be underestimated.
From this point of view, interdisciplinary studies about the communicative phenomenology of
the face are particularly precious. Groebner (2015), for example, develops a transversal enquiry
about the face as “machine of attention”, combining cognitive psychology and cultural history;
Guédron (2015) resorts to neurophysiology, the philosophy of the body, cultural anthropology, and
the history of visual arts so as to seize the essence of the face in the western civilization.
The fabric of socio-cultural agencies that pattern the current meaning of the face decisively
includes also face representations in the various media. Their influence must be placed in the long
period. Facebook, Instagram, Tinder, etc. are relatively new phenomena, but their ‘aesthetics of the
face’ is to be read through comparison and contrast with older formats and genres of facial
representations. Gaspari (2016) is a survey on the literary representation of the face in Francophone
and Anglophone literatures from the early modern epoch until nowadays. Patrizia Magli, the most
prominent expert on the ‘semiotics of the face’, also focuses, in a recent study (2016), on the
evolution of literary portraits and self-portraits. Literature on the ‘prehistory of the selfie’ is
abundant as regards the genres of both portraits and self-portraits.

3
 One of the most eminent contemporary art historians, Hans Belting, has devoted a volume on
the “history of the face”, with abundant information on masks and a last chapter on “Cyberfaces:
Masken ohne Gesicht” [Cyberfaces: Masks without Face] (Belting 2013). Another key author in
contemporary visual studies, Gottfried Boehm, has edited an exemplary interdisciplinary collection
of essays on the face, resulting from a collaboration of the NCCR Iconic Criticism (eikones) at the
University of Basel, the Istituto Svizzero in Rome, and the University of Applied Sciences and Arts
(FHNW) in Basel (Boehm et al. 2015); in this collection, see Boehm 2015 for a reflection on the
relation between visual image and identity (which updates and prolongs Boehm and Rudolph 1995;
see also the recent and excellent Guido 2017). A comprehensive semiotic survey on the evolution of
self-portraits is in Calabrese (2006); by the same author, on the semiotics of ‘group portraits’,
Calabrese and Strinati (2003); on the morphogenesis of portraits, Terrosi (2012); on the
development of ‘portrait photography’, Kemp and Witzgall (2002); on the face in the history of
cinema, Coates (2012).
Scholarship on the use of digital face images in social networks is relatively recent; it has
produced insights that should be better integrated in a general anthropology of digital
communication. Dorsh and Ilhan (2016), for instance, investigate image tolerance among teenager
Facebook users, finding that, in general, users’ tolerance for friends’ usages of photos is higher than
for their own self-presentation, and that the most often used and tolerated picture category for cover
pictures is a photo without any actual people in it, whereas for all other picture types on Facebook,
portraits are the type most often used and tolerated.
These and similar indications, however, must be refined through a more sophisticate reading
of the semiotics of digital face icons. Another article along the same line, Veszelszki and Parapatics
(2016), bearing on the online elaboration of mourning, offers data about the expression of empathy
in Facebook but does not specifically focus on visual materials. Critical studies on the
predetermining mechanisms of Facebook include Eisenlauer 2013 (focusing on discourse analysis
and computer-mediated communication) and the works of Geert Lovink (2016, in particular,
devotes a chapter to the ‘selfie culture’); a less critical stance is in Lambert (2013), according to
whom Facebook is intensifying the social labour needed to sustain and protect interpersonal
intimacy, contributing to a state of ‘intensive intimacy’, also through large collections of digital
facial icons. An interesting methodological approach is in Miller (2011), which studies Facebook
through a series of micro-biographical narratives.
Software Studies Initiative (a research laboratory led by Lev Manovich) has carried out the
most systematic study of digital face iconography to date. Since 2008, this research laboratory has
used computational and data visualization methods so as to analyse large numbers of Instagram
photos. Manovich and Tifentale (2015) summarize Selfiecity.net, a research project studying 3,200
selfies shared via Instagram from five global cities: Bangkok, Berlin, Moscow, New York, and Sao
Paulo (with the recent addition of London). Other scholars are investigating the same set of big data
and their visualization through different angles; Elizabeth Losh (2015), for instance, adopts feminist
media theory. The methodology of this research initiative is inspiring: pictures are initially selected
and filtered by a first group of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk workers (a crowdsourcing Internet
marketplace enabling individuals and businesses to coordinate the use of human intelligence in
order to perform tasks that computers are currently unable to do); then they are tagged by a second
group of MTurk workers; then they are analysed through software for automatic face analysis with
algorithmic estimations of eye, nose, and mouth positions, the degrees of different emotional
expressions, etc.; finally, they are manually studied by one or two members of the project. Thus far,
however, the conclusions of the investigation are trivial: people take less selfies than it is often
assumed; they are more women than men; they are rather young; in Bangkok and Sao Paulo selfies
‘smile’ more; women strike more extreme poses; etc. The research initiative, at least until now, has
failed to place its big data analysis in a theoretically thick framework of human face anthropology.
The reflection of anthropological, social, and political philosophy on the face, indeed, finds
new ground in the arena of digital facial communication but is not new. The tension between, on the

4
one hand, the universalistic ethics of the face in Levinas (1961) and, on the other hand, the call for a
dismantlement of the ethnocentric face in Deleuze and Guattari (1980) crucially bears on current
preoccupations regarding the ‘destiny of empathy’ in social networks and the various ‘counter-
cultures’ of the face. Edkins (2015) summarizes and opens this debate under the label of ‘face
politics’.

3. Interfacing the face.

A survey of the state of the art on the ‘meaning of the face’ reveals several sources of useful
insights but also numerous shortcomings. First, there is a lack of inter-disciplinarity among different
‘disciplines of the face’. The gap between, on the one hand, evolutionary biology, neurophysiology,
neuropsychology, face perception studies, and cognitive studies and, on the other hand, historical,
philosophical, and anthropological approaches, is still wide. Some scholars individually attempt at
bridging it, but results are, to date, unsatisfactory.
Second, the gap between, on the one hand, semi-automatic visualization and analysis of big
data and, on the other hand, specific hermeneutics of digital face iconography is also wide.
Conclusions reached by the former are trivial, whereas insights produced by the latter are
impressionistic and lack adequate empirical evidence.
Third, research in this domain neglects to consider that face icons abundantly continue to
circulate in the non-digital public iconosphere through traditional arts and media. The dialectics
between digital and non-digital face iconography is neglected. Fourth, studies on the present-day
digital iconography of the face are not ambitious enough. They fail to place the analysis of current
phenomena such as the diffusion of selfies in the broader picture and the long period of the
anthropology of the face. That prevents scholars from establishing connections among apparently
distant ‘facets of the face’ in contemporary cultures (for instance, is there a link between, on the one
hand, the fact that the number of assaults involving acid throwing and other corrosive substances
aiming at the (usually female) face has tripled in six years in England, as official records show and,
on the other hand, the new anthropology of the digital face and its gendered dimension?)
The semiotics of the face is meant to study the meaning of the face in contemporary visual
cultures through a set of criteria, methods, and strategies. As regards criteria, the semiotics of the
face adopts a cross-disciplinary approach: the meaning of the face, that is, its cognitive, emotional,
and pragmatic value, is determined by nature but shaped by culture. Insights from evolutionary
biology, neurophysiology, neuropsychology, face perception studies, and cognitive studies are
central but must enter a dialectics with historical, anthropological, socio-cultural, and philosophical
approaches. The analysis of a cluster of digital icons of smiling faces, for instance, must take into
account both the neurocognitive biology of the smile and its determinations according to historical
period, cultural area, social milieu, gender, medium, genre, and style. Only a team of scholars can
develop such a complex approach. All ‘face researchers’, therefore, must commit to the same
attitude: what matters the most in each ‘discipline of the face’ are the frontiers, for instance the way
in which the ‘firing’ of mirror neurons in facial expression recognition is altered by cultural life-
exposure to a specific face-iconography.
As regards methods, the semiotics of the face combines big data collection and screening with
tailored visual hermeneutics. First, large sets of data about the present-day digital iconography of
the face are semi-automatically gathered and filtered using Amazon MTurk workers. These sets are
then visualized and analysed through intelligence software that prepares and analyses both big and
disparate datasets. Semi-automatically created clusters of digital face iconography are then sampled
and studied by a multi-disciplinary team of scholars, involving scientists, historians, and
anthropologists. Unlike previous investigations, such as Lev Manovich’s Selfiecity.net, the
semiotics of the face focuses not only on syntactic features, such as the inclination of the head in
relation to the frame, but also on semantic and pragmatic features.
To this regard, two key strategies are adopted. First, a narratological approach: each facial
image circulating in the iconosphere is considered as central element of a visual narrative through

5
which personal and/or collective identities are told. The semiotics of the face pinpoints the co-
determination of cognitive and contextual factors granting a facial icon its specific narrative value.
That is the case for face counter-cultures too, wherein the mask, the veil, or other visual strategies
of anonymity and concealment give rise, by subtraction, to a ‘negative facial narrative’.
Second, an epidemiological approach: the quantitative analysis of big data and the qualitative
interpretation of ‘small data’ lead not only to a static representation of the meaning of the face in
contemporary visual cultures but also to a dynamic picture, in which clusters of face-icon types are
seen in their evolution and mutual interaction with historical events and sociocultural trends. The
semiotics of the face builds, analyses, and compares two datasets: on the one hand, a
comprehensive digital database of face representations in art and visual history; on the other hand, a
selected database of social network profile pictures, extracted from platforms such as Facebook,
Instagram, and Twitter by relying on a group of users volunteering their profile image to semiotic
analysis. Both databases are semi-automatically created through Amazon MTurk workforce and
facial recognition software but then they undergo manual study by visual specialists with different
backgrounds.
The semiotics of the face aims not only at understanding ‘the meaning of the face’ through the
inter-disciplinary, narratological, and epidemiological analysis of these databases but also to create
an open-access indexed archive of facial representations, which subsequent teams of scholars can
interrogate according to their research goals.

Bibliography.
Belting, Hans. 2013. Faces: eine Geschichte des Gesichts. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Boehm, Gottfried and Enno Rudolph, eds. 1995. Individuum: Probleme der individualität in Kunst,
Philosophie und Wissenschaft. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Boehm, Gottfried. 2015. “Der lebendige Blick: Gesicht – Bildnis – Identität”, 15-32. In Boehm,
Gottfried et al., eds. 2015. Gesicht und Identität / Face and Identity. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink
Verlag.
Boehm, Gottfried et al., eds. 2015. Gesicht und Identität / Face and Identity. Paderborn: Wilhelm
Fink Verlag.
Calabrese, Omar and Claudio Strinati. 2003. Persone: ritratti di gruppo da Van Dick a De Chirico.
Cinisello Balsamo (Milan): Silvana.
Calabrese, Omar. 2006. Artists’ Self-Portraits, Engl. trans. by Marguerite Shore. New York:
Abbeville Press Publishers.
Calder, Andrew J. et al., eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Face Perception. Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press.
Coates, Paul. 2012. Screening the Face. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. 1980. Mille Plateaux. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
Dorsch, Isabelle and Aylin Ilhan. 2016. “Photo Publication Behavior of Adolescents on Facebook”,
45-71. In Knautz, Kathrin and Katsiaryna S. Baran, eds. 2016. Facets of Facebook: Use and
Users. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Saur.
Eisenlauer, Volker. 2013. A Critical Hypertext Analysis of Social Media: The True Colours of
Facebook. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gaspari, Fabienne, ed. 2016. L’écriture du visage dans les littératures francophones et anglophones
: de l’âge classique au XXIe siècle. Paris : L’Harmattan.
Groebner, Valentin. 2015. Ich-Plakate : eine Geschichte des Gesichts als
Aufmerksamkeitsmaschine. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.
Guédron, Martial. 2015. Visage(s) : Sens et représentations en Occident. Paris: Hazan.
Guido, Laurent, et al., eds. 2017. Visages. Histoires, représentations, creations. With a preface by
Jean-Jacques Courtine [Collection : Bibliothèque d’histoire de la médecine et de la santé].
Lausanne: Éditions BHMS.

6
Edkins, Jenny. 2015. Face Politics. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon and New York, NY: Routledge,
2015.
Kemp, Cornelia and Susanne Witzgall. 2002. Das zweite Gesicht: Metamorphosen des
fotografischen Porträts. Munich and New York: Prestel.
Klinke, Harald, ed. 2014. Art Theory as Visual Epistemology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Klinke, Harald, ed. 2015. Bilder der Gegenwart. Aspekte und Perspektiven des digitalen Wandels.
Göttingen: Graphentis Verlag.
Lambert, Alex. 2013. Intimacy and Friendship on Facebook. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Leone, Massimo. 2016. “Nature and Culture in Visual Communication: Japanese Variations on
Ludus Naturae”, online. Semiotica; DOI 10.1515/sem-2015-0145.
Leone, Massimo, Henri de Riedmatten, and Victor I. Stoichita, eds. 2016. Il sistema del velo /
Système du voile: Trasparenze e opacità nell’arte moderna e contemporanea / Transparence
et opacité dans l’art moderne et contemporain. Rome: Aracne.
Lévinas, Emmanuel. 1961. Totalité et infini ; essai sur l’extériorité. La Haye, M. Nijhoff.
Losh, Elizabeth. 2015. “Beyond Biometrics: Feminist Media Theory Looks at Selfiecity”, online. In
Manovich, Lev et al. 2015. Selfiecity.net. Online. Available at http://selfiecity.net/ (last
accessed January 29, 2017).
Lovink, Geert. 2016. Social Media Abyss: Critical Internet Cultures and the Force of Negation.
Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Magli, Patrizia. 2016. Il volto raccontato: ritratto e autoritratto in letteratura. Milan: Raffaello
Cortina editore.
Miller, Daniel. 2011. Tales from Facebook. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Reyes García, Everardo. 2017. The Image-Interface: Graphical Supports for Visual Information.
London: Wiley-ISTE.
Riedmatten, Henri de. 2014. Narcissus in Troubled Waters: Francis Bacon, Bill Viola, Jeff Wall.
Rome: L’ERMA di Bretschneider.
Rodler, Lucia. 2000. Il corpo specchio dell’anima: teoria e storia della fisiognomica. Milan: B.
Mondadori.
Stoichita, Victor. 1997. A Short History of the Shadow. London: Reaktion Books.
Sutherland, Clare A.M., Andrew W. Young, and Gillian Rhodes. 2016. “Facial First Impressions
from Another Angle: How Social Judgements are Influenced by Changeable and Invariant
Facial Properties”, online. British Journal of Psychology; DOI 10.1111/bjop.12206.
Talley, Heather Laine. 2014. Saving Face: Disfigurement and the Politics of Appearance. New
York: New York University Press.
Terrosi, Roberto. 2012. Filosofia e antropologia del ritratto: ritratto, identità, individuazione.
Milan: Mimesis.
Manovich, Lev and Alise Tifentale. 2015. “Selfiecity: Exploring Photography and Self-Fashioning
in Social Media”, 109-22. In Berry, David M. and Michael Dieter, eds. 2015. Postdigital
Aesthetics: Art, Computation and Design. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Veszelszki, Ágnes and Andrea Parapatics. 2016. “From Cooperation to Compassion: Death and
Bereavement on Social Networking Websites”, 172-209. In Knautz, Kathrin and Katsiaryna
S. Baran, eds. 2016. Facets of Facebook: Use and Users. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter
Saur.
Young, Andrew W. 2016. Facial Expression Recognition: The Selected Works of Andy Young.
London and New York: Routledge.
Wilkins, Adam S. 2017. Making Faces: the Evolutionary Origins of the Human Face. Cambridge,
MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.