User:Annalystad/essaytri2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:25, 18 March 2017

Gestalt and Art

Rudolf Arnheim was an author, art and film theorist, and a perceptual psychologist - born in Germany in 1904. At the University of Berlin he studied Gestalt psychology under Max Wertheimer, and Wolfgang Kohler. Arnheim published several books such as Visual Thinking (1969), The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts (1982), but he is most known for Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye (1954).

With this essay, I am hoping to discover why Gestalt is happening and get a better understanding of this one particular field in psychology of art. I want to explore the possibility of Gestalt being only based on recognizing shapes from previous experiences within the eye - before it reaches the mind and has the possibility to be altered. In Arnheim's chapter on Gestalt and Art for The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism he explains how this is merely a style of science as well as in art. Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Köhler, and Kurt Koffka created this theory which was originally used as a method in psychology, physics, biology and sociology. The theory is ‘the description of the structural features, the whole-qualities of “systems”, i.e., of those natural things or happenings in which the character and function of any part is determined by the total situation.’ (Arnheim 1943, p 71). Arnheim explains it as how it changes the view of an organism, instead of thinking rationally about this one specific subject as just for what it is, to see the world it is a part of and the natural forces around it - as a part of what makes up that specific ecosystem.

Arnheim is explaining how it is important to understand that this is coming from a more simple and spontaneous reactions, such as from children. The human being, on any level of mental and cultural development should preserve ‘an attitude which refuses to reserve the capacity of synthesis to the higher faculties of the human mind, but emphasizes the formative powers and, if I may say so, the “intelligence” of the peripheral sensory process, vision, hearing, touch, etc., which had been reduced by traditional theory of the task of carrying the bricks of experience to the architect in the inner sanctuary of mind’ (Arnheim 1943, p 71). What Arnheim is saying here is that the original reaction, the spontaneous mind where you haven't had the chance to analyze or study the picture, is the precious response of understanding gestalt theory. The importance of gestalt theory is not to formulate it scientifically, rather to experience it before you have the chance to try to make sense of it. Interestingly enough, the science behind it has to be from a more creative artistic mind and not a pure scientist for this to evolve. “Blindness” (as opposed to such insight) is one of the favorite terms of the gestalt vocabulary”(Arnheim 1943, p72). What Arnheim is saying is that if we look at perception through how the eyes respond, with the millions of sensations produced within the retinae, there is a big issue explaining how we perceive. In such a way of looking at it one would think that the simpler mind would be more likely to draw more accurately, in terms of shapes and reality. The more developed mind would be the ones to transform and create more elaborate drawings further from reality.

‘A more adequate approach is possible if we understand that the content of perception is not identical with the sum of qualities corresponding to the projective picture. Rather it seems that productive perception - in the sense of an activity which allows to understand, identify, remember, and recognize things - is grasping of basic structural features, which characterize things and distinguish them from others’ (Arnheim 1943, p.73). Perception is more of an activity which makes us look at basic structures which then allows us to identify what we are looking at and interpret the shapes we see based on previous experiences within the perception phase. Arnheim is explaining how Gestalt theory is not affected by the receiving mind but rather sees shapes as a quality of nature in general. That the active perception sees both organic and inorganic shapes - suggesting that there is an organization phase happening within the retinae that do justice to the physical world. Comparing forces like this to a drop of oil in water, mechanical forces starts to push and pull, ending up as a perfect circle. This balance is not created for its beauty but is merely an organization phase based on the forces under those circumstances. The same is happening when the eye is stimulated by different amplitude and wavelengths of light, forces are pushing and pulling, creating shapes, colors, contours and creates an organized balance. ‘The discovery of this elementary relationship between perception and balance should be welcome to the theory of art’ (Arnheim 1943, p 73). Balance was usually added by an artist although why he/she did so was not always so clear. Arnheim is stating that balance creates pleasure, and that artist use balance to create a more aesthetically pleasurable image - which again points to that pleasure is because of balance. From this perspective you need to understand that pleasure and balance are two components working together, pleasure must not be seen as a product of balance.

One application of Gestalt theory is through expression. Here Arnheim is bringing up the fact that past experiences and logical conclusions are not necessary to understand normal facial or body expressions in general, based on Wertheimer. Expression is purely an understanding of shape, such as the difference between a straight line and a curve. If we see a dance performance which is expressing sadness, we do not understand sadness because we have seen sad people move in that way - but we see the geometry and shapes presented to us. Ultimately, expression within art should not be based on what we think we know about the human body is terms of expression, rather use the expressive qualities of shapes and apply them to any subject matter. Arnheim is saying that this theory is not against Gestalt theory but in favor for it. After reading Arnheim’s text on Gestalt and Art I am having some issues as to how he is trying to explain it. In certain examples he is discussing how less-developed minds such as children and more-developed minds with an adult, he is comparing how the two would potentially draw anything from a circle to a realistic image. My concern here is that these are two different aspects of the human brain working. As Arnheim is saying that Gestalt theory is based on perception and that initial response before it reaches the mind. Drawing on the other hand is a more technical task which requires practice and has little to do with that response. Surly enough we draw what we see, but it is not the seeing that makes for a good drawing. Such an example for text, the more developed your brain, you start to recognize words and not actually reading letter by letter. One such example is when you read a text where only the first and last letter is in its right place and everything else is mixed up, you still fully understand the content without even realizing that they are not actual words. There are of course certain limits to this, but based on humans having two eyes, the first and second half of the world should have the letters be on the same side for an easier ability to be fully comprehensible. This is again in favor of gestalt theory, in the sense of recognising shapes and dynamics before it reaches the brain and you have the opportunity to dissect what is going on.

Bibliography Arnheim, R (1943) Gestalt and Art p 71-75

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Rudolf Arnheim was an author, art and film theorist, and a perceptual psychologist - born in Germany in 1904. At the University of Berlin he studied Gestalt psychology under Max Wertheimer, and Wolfgang Kohler. Arnheim published several books such as Visual Thinking (1969), The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts (1982), but he is most known for Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye (1954).
 With this essay, I am hoping to discover why Gestalt is happening and get a better understanding of this one particular field in psychology of art. I want to explore the possibility of Gestalt being only based on recognizing shapes from previous experiences within the eye - before it reaches the mind and has the possibility to be altered.
 In Arnheim's chapter on Gestalt and Art  for The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism he explains how this is merely a style of science as well as in art. Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Köhler, and Kurt Koffka created this theory which was originally used as a method in psychology, physics, biology and sociology. The theory is ‘the description of the structural features, the whole-qualities of “systems”, i.e., of those natural things or happenings in which the character and function of any part is determined by the total situation.’ (Arnheim 1943, p 71).  Arnheim explains it as how it changes the view of an organism, instead of thinking rationally about this one specific subject as just for what it is, to see the world it is a part of and the natural forces around it - as a part of what makes up that specific ecosystem.
-Arnheim is explaining how it is important to understand that this is coming from a more simple and spontaneous reactions, such as from children. The human being, on any level of mental and cultural development should preserve ‘an attitude which refuses to reserve the capacity of synthesis to the higher faculties of the human mind, but emphasizes the formative powers and, if I may say so, the “intelligence” of the peripheral sensory process, vision, hearing, touch, etc., which had been reduced by traditional theory of the task of carrying the bricks of experience to the architect in the inner sanctuary of mind’ (Arnheim 1943, p 71). What Arnheim is saying here is that the original reaction, the spontaneous mind where you haven't had the chance to analyze or study the picture, is the precious response of understanding gestalt theory. The importance of gestalt theory is not to formulate it scientifically, rather to experience it before you have the chance to try to make sense of it. Interestingly enough, the science behind it has to be from a more creative artistic mind and not a pure scientist for this to evolve.
-“Blindness” (as opposed to such insight) is one of the favorite terms of the gestalt vocabulary”(Arnheim 1943, p72). What Arnheim is saying is that if we look at perception through how the eyes respond, with the millions of sensations produced within the retinae, there is a big issue explaining how we perceive. In such a way of looking at it one would think that the simpler mind would be more likely to draw more accurately, in terms of shapes and reality. The more developed mind would be the ones to transform and create more elaborate drawings further from reality.
+Arnheim is explaining how it is important to understand that this is coming from a more simple and spontaneous reactions, such as from children. The human being, on any level of mental and cultural development should preserve ‘an attitude which refuses to reserve the capacity of synthesis to the higher faculties of the human mind, but emphasizes the formative powers and, if I may say so, the “intelligence” of the peripheral sensory process, vision, hearing, touch, etc., which had been reduced by traditional theory of the task of carrying the bricks of experience to the architect in the inner sanctuary of mind’ (Arnheim 1943, p 71). What Arnheim is saying here is that the original reaction, the spontaneous mind where you haven't had the chance to analyze or study the picture, is the precious response of understanding gestalt theory. The importance of gestalt theory is not to formulate it scientifically, rather to experience it before you have the chance to try to make sense of it. Interestingly enough, the science behind it has to be from a more creative artistic mind and not a pure scientist for this to evolve. “Blindness” (as opposed to such insight) is one of the favorite terms of the gestalt vocabulary”(Arnheim 1943, p72). What Arnheim is saying is that if we look at perception through how the eyes respond, with the millions of sensations produced within the retinae, there is a big issue explaining how we perceive. In such a way of looking at it one would think that the simpler mind would be more likely to draw more accurately, in terms of shapes and reality. The more developed mind would be the ones to transform and create more elaborate drawings further from reality.
 ‘A more adequate approach is possible if we understand that the content of perception is not identical with the sum of qualities corresponding to the projective picture. Rather it seems that productive perception - in the sense of an activity which allows to understand, identify, remember, and recognize things - is grasping of basic structural features, which characterize things and distinguish them from others’ (Arnheim 1943, p.73). Perception is more of an activity which makes us look at basic structures which then allows us to identify what we are looking at and interpret the shapes we see based on previous experiences within the perception phase. Arnheim is explaining how Gestalt theory is not affected by the receiving mind but rather sees shapes as a quality of nature in general. That the active perception sees both organic and inorganic shapes - suggesting that there is an organization phase happening within the retinae that do justice to the physical world. Comparing forces like this to a drop of oil in water, mechanical forces starts to push and pull, ending up as a perfect circle. This balance is not created for its beauty but is merely an organization phase based on the forces under those circumstances. The same is happening when the eye is stimulated by different amplitude and wavelengths of light, forces are pushing and pulling, creating shapes, colors, contours and creates an organized balance. ‘The discovery of this elementary relationship between perception and balance should be welcome to the theory of art’ (Arnheim 1943, p 73). Balance was usually added by an artist although why he/she did so was not always so clear. Arnheim is stating that balance creates pleasure, and that artist use balance to create a more aesthetically pleasurable image - which again points to that pleasure is because of balance. From this perspective you need to understand that pleasure and balance are two components working together, pleasure must not be seen as a product of balance.
 	One application of Gestalt theory is through expression. Here Arnheim is bringing up the fact that past experiences and logical conclusions are not necessary to understand normal facial or body expressions in general, based on Wertheimer. Expression is purely an understanding of shape, such as the difference between a straight line and a curve. If we see a dance performance which is expressing sadness, we do not understand sadness because we have seen sad people move in that way - but we see the geometry and shapes presented to us. Ultimately, expression within art should not be based on what we think we know about the human body is terms of expression, rather use the expressive qualities of shapes and apply them to any subject matter. Arnheim is saying that this theory is not against Gestalt theory but in favor for it.
 After reading Arnheim’s text on Gestalt and Art I am having some issues as to how he is trying to explain it. In certain examples he is discussing how less-developed minds such as children and more-developed minds with an adult, he is comparing how the two would potentially draw anything from a circle to a realistic image. My concern here is that these are two different aspects of the human brain working. As Arnheim is saying that Gestalt theory is based on perception and that initial response before it reaches the mind. Drawing on the other hand is a more technical task which requires practice and has little to do with that response. Surly enough we draw what we see, but it is not the seeing that makes for a good drawing. Such an example for text, the more developed your brain, you start to recognize words and not actually reading letter by letter. One such example is when you read a text where only the first and last letter is in its right place and everything else is mixed up, you still fully understand the content without even realizing that they are not actual words. There are of course certain limits to this, but based on humans having two eyes, the first and second half of the world should have the letters be on the same side for an easier ability to be fully comprehensible. This is again in favor of gestalt theory, in the sense of recognising shapes and dynamics before it reaches the brain and you have the opportunity to dissect what is going on.