Kennedy, John - Arnheim, Gestalt Theory and Pictures

Arnheim, Gestalt Theory and Pictures
Author(s): John M. Kennedy

Source: Visual Arts Research, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring 1985), pp. 23-44
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715585
Accessed: 28-02-2016 09:28 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Visual Arts Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Sun, 28 Feb 2016 09:28:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Arnheim, Gestalt Theory and Pictures
John M. Kennedy
Scarborough College, University of Toronto
For 20,000 years, since the dawn of cave whose loud claims echo throughout the
painting, pictures have been thought of entire discipline of psychology.
as inherentlyvisual, as ways of translat During the past half-century,many tra
ing three dimensions into two dimen ditional gestalt claims and problems have
sions. Conversely, picture perception is become established in popular culture.
the transformation from 2-D back to 3 The more radical force of Gestalt psy
D, by adding something. To learn to draw chology has been kept alive and vigorous
is to learn these translation skills. To by Rudolf Arnheim, who has reanalyzed
make a picture expressive is to go be many of these crucial ideas and applied
them to new fields of investigation (Arn
yond perception, perhaps to cross into
cognition, certainly to do something not heim, 1969, 1974, 1980). Following the
trulyvisual. gestalt influence inNorth America, how
This particular line of reasoning has ever, James J. Gibson has nurtured a
been brought to an abrupt halt with the new approach to perception called "eco
discovery that blind people can make logicaloptics." It,too, is radical and claims
raised-line pictures. We have been forced to be about the nature of perception, and
to rethink the nature of pictures. Such hence of humankind (Gibson, 1866,1979).
Isense the need foryet another wave
reconsideration reveals that pictures are
inour understanding of how perception
often amodal, not solely visual. They do
serves us. Gestalt psychology was begun
not translate but repeat. The develop
ment of drawing skills involves a parallel by perceptionists but turned to physiol
ogy for support, and Gibson's ecological
development in the skill of choosing the
bases on which to repeat aspects of an optics looks to physics for its tools. By
contrast, as a mentalist I believe that
object. Expression is, in fact, something
perception is a gateway to themind and
perceptual, often truly visual and yet can only be understood as part of a
metaphorical.
Gestalt psychology, led by Rudolf Arn knowing, understanding, and communi
cating being, as part of mental life (Ken
heim, has made vital contributions to
nedy, 1982, 1983a).
rethinking the nature of pictures. In this The question forGestalt psychologists
essay Iwish to point out these contri iswhy the world appears as itdoes; for
butions and show how research on the
Gibsonians, how the world provides in
blind and Arnheim's ideas illuminateone formationabout itself;and formentalists,
another. In particular, Iwill describe the when theworld needs to be understood.
mentalistic approach to perception to
My task in this paper is to present three
which we eventually will be led.
key ideas of Gestalt psychology and show
Gestalt is the German word for form how they firstwere transformed and
or shape. Gestalt psychology, born in the broadened by Arnheim and then rele
early decades of the twentieth century, gated to minor status by Gibsonians. I
was formulated largely by students of also will show how mentalist theory frees
perception and was devoted primarily to these ideas from some of the strictures
problems of perception. Because these imposed earlier and offers an entirely
problems are central to our understand new basis for Gestalt phenomena. My
ing of humankind, Gestalt psychology evidence is partly taken frompictures by
has been a profound intellectual force the blind.
VISUAL ARTS RESEARCH ? 1985 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 23
Perception lines, see a set of silhouetted lines as a
cube, and see a set of cubes as a frame
Perception is the gateway to the mind. It work for a building. Gestaltists believe
exposes us to what is formed in our that our brains can organize dots and
environment, what is expressive and im lines as structures because laws of struc
portant to us, and what iscommunicating ture operate on our bodies just as they
with us. To have a theory about percep do on buildings. The laws of form are
tion is to speculate about what puts us constant across different realms, and
incontact with our world and with other
everything has a shape. Therefore, many
human beings. Such a theory is signifi laws of formmust operate inphysics as
cant for all of psychology ? it tells us inphysiology, and inperception as well.
what can be seen and what is only in Inother words, Gestaltists hold that this
ferred,what can be perceived and what ? which means "same
isomorphism
is pure abstraction, what can exist and ? to different scientific
shape" applies
what can only be imagined, what is pos realms. Inanimate matter, animate bod
sible and what is impossible, what is
ies, and mental relationships are all sub
natural and what is artificial,what is itself
ject to the same laws, which tell us how
and what is a representation, what is
organized structures can exist. The im
inherentand what is added.
plication of an isomorphism for percep
Any theory of perception has at its tion is that a physical pattern can set off
heart a set of distinctions about what is
organizing physiological activity thatwill
physically possible, how one thing relates be paralleled by psychological experi
to another independently of people, how ences. The physiological experience will
things affect us, how theyphysically make have the same form as the perceptual
themselves perceivable, and what we
experience. This view is held today by
must do to be perceivers. Inother words, those who explore the "mapping" of the
How do we see the world accurately? visible world onto the retina and the visual
For some, the answer is thatwe see cortex.
by guessing. Think of the early astron For Gibsonians, the answer is thatwe
omers peering through their telescopes see by registering.When we walk through
at Saturn, the ringed planet. At first it theworld we create an optical flow,which
looked as though ithad ears! The vague, tells us where we are headed and how
shifting,odd shape seen through a low long itwill take to reach our destination
power instrumentwas difficultto resolve at our present rate. The flow is precise.
properly, until the arrival of more sophis The patterns in terrestrial lightare spe
ticated equipment. The moral here, some cific to their sources. The perceiver reg
scholars argue, is thatwe must have a isters these specific, informative pat
theory of perception ingeneral. Physics terns? a task that requires sensitivity
makes itdifficult,often impossible, to see and skill but needs no additions from
the world accurately because physical outside perception. This view is held to
messages are imperfect. Accuracy can day by those who study the patterns
only be obtained by supplementing the formed by moving bodies and the pat
message, and memory, guesswork, and terned transformations of the array, tell
special sensory processes must be added ingus what is rigid,what ismoving, what
to the incoming signals. Such was the is accelerating, and what is coming to a
pre-Gestaltist position. It is also the view stop.
held by today's "information proces For mentalists, the answer is that we
sors." see by understanding. Imagine a drawing
Advocates of gestalt theory answer of a businessman in a three-piece suit,
thatwe see by organizing. We can look in an assertive pose. Look closely and
at a set of dots and organize them into notice that inside his head is a rabbit,
24 JohnM. Kennedy
peering out. This is a picture of a man and publicized by the Gestaltists (Koffka,
who isoutwardly bold but inwardlytimid. 1935). Rubin (1915) noted that lines and
We recognize the forms, and we also get contours could be seen as boundaries
the message. We learn not only from of near objects, against a background,
Gibson's specific, informative patterns and the side of the line that seemed
but from clever presentations. We are nearer could move, with surprising
intelligentperceivers. We notice that there changes inthe appearance of the display.
is a track leftby natural forces, and we Prior to Rubin, the effectwas well known
also appreciate the intentof imitations but was considered an ambiguous-figure
made by others. Inpictures we use phys trick,the resultof attention and familiarity.
ical attributes to create impressions of Itwas thought that the side we become
absent scenes. We develop different familiarwith and attend to becomes the
geometries for perceiving objects and foreground. Rubin cast aside this expla
panoramas. Even children know they are nation by showing that we could direct
communicating with people, not just being our attention to the background and it
geometers or cameras. They know they would remain the background. Early Ges
can make anomalies and break conven taltists considered the figure-ground ef
tions to send messages to theiraudience. fect to be very significant, and they noted
They can joke with theirdrawings, create the importance of Rubin's demonstration
surprises, comment or ridicule, blow out that the effect came prior to attention.
of proportion or minify and minimize ? Arnheim (1969, 1974, 1980) noted that
in a word, make a metaphor (Kennedy, descriptions of figure and ground are
1982; Kennedy & Simpson, 1982). usually too static: one component infront,
These are at best capsule versions of the other in back. These components
major theories. Their lesson isclear, how actually influence each other in that the
ever? that perception theory is not just space around a foreground object affects
about nuts and bolts, minor effects, and the appearance of thatobject. The object
lotsof undirected machinery. There is an appears unstable if placed asymmetri
overall goal to perception: to know the cally ina framework;when placed at an
world. Any general theory in perception angle, itmay appear like a curtain held
must incorporate a way of reaching that back froma window by a steady breeze ?
goal. itsown weight pulling down, itsposition
As part of their theory's general stand, maintained only by constant pressure
Gestaltists emphasize figure-ground as (Figure 1).
the starting point forperception, patterns This description is quintessential Arn
found in drawings as evidence for per heim. His special contribution to Gestalt
ceptual structure, and the place of human psychology has been to describe the
significance or meaning in a world of contents of perception as fullof forces,
otherwise rather empty geometrical pat tensions, pulls, and pushes: in a word,
terns. Inother words, elements, patterns, dynamics. Every major school of thought
and significance. Ifwe can understand about perception eventually brought its
these three terms,we indeed will under theories to bear on motion, weight, and
stand how perception allows us to know force. And so Arnheim began there. He
theworld. For what else is there beyond claimed that static perception isa special
details, shapes, and semantics? case of motion and force perception, a
claim that Gibson championed with fer
vor. Instead of arguing that static per
The Figure-Ground Effect cepts are produced by a force-filledphys
iological medium, Arnheim described
Figure-ground was firstdefined by Edgar perception itselfas fullof apparent weight,
Rubin, and itseffectwas swiftlyadopted strain, movement, and stability. He also
Arnheim,Gestalt Theory 25
may look likecloth blown ina breeze. They are seen
Figure 1. The foregroundobjects or figures
as having a force applied to them.
said, rather airily, that somewhere there formpattern. (Clearly, at times the incom
must be a hypothetical equivalent for all ingmaterial could be deemed fully ca
this in physiology. He believes in phys pable of forcing us to perceive; at other
iological isomorphism, but the details do times the percept could be theorized to
not concern him? and quite reasonably, be largely the product of imagination.)
too, for it is the job of the perceptionist Arnheim suggested that perceivers see
to define the phenomena to be explained. structures that use components of the
Physiology is a second-order discipline incomingmaterial. To see curvature there
whose job is to explain but not set limits must be a curve present insome fashion;
on perception. to see straightness there must be some
Arnheim also described perception as thing straight.Whether a straight line, a
using relationships, as grasping and cre contour, an axis of a figure,or a direction
ating structure. Indeed, we can deliber set by markers, the component must be
ately reverse a figure-ground relation. At present in some form. These compo
timeswe can create formby applying the nents are anchors for percepts, though
form patterns to which we are geared; percepts involveconnections across wide
then, ifthe form patterns fitthe incoming gaps spanned by the perceiver and by
material, we see what we are looking for. nothing but space.
Of course, there are limitsto be set both Note the applicability to figure-ground
by the ingenuityof our search and the effect. Arnheim claimed that to see a
suitability of the incomingmaterial. round foreground object, we need a
With this second contribution Arnheim curved line or contour; to see rectilin
has offered insights into the most prob earity,we need a straight line.When the
lematic of Gestaltist notions: the tricky set of curved and plane surfaces of the
job of saying what is "suitable" for a perceived foreground objects are simpli
26 JohnM. Kennedy
fied,we see indepth, much as a simple, figure rather than figure-ground). Itcan
uniform ribbon with twists is easier to depict a wire, likea loop or web (inwhich
see than two lines curving irregularly case there isbackground [ground-ground]
across one another on a flat surface. on either side of the line).The surfaces
Gibson's response to the figure-ground depicted on either side of a line can be
effect was brief and brutal. He referred planar likea cube's faces or rounded like
to itas a pictorial effect. No one really a tree's branches; they can be behind
sees ? the ground, as occurs when we see an
figure-ground depth they only
think they do. What they see is a lineon object through a mist or drapery or win
a page that they take to represent an dow. Thus, the figure-ground case stud
edge. Gibson relegated gestalt theory to ied by Rubin was simply one of many.
the study of lines and contours on flat The mentalist approach allows us to
surfaces, to the study of maps and sche accept Gibson's view that figure-ground
matic pictures. isa pictorial effect.The set of possibilities
How might a mentalist capitalize on becomes clear, given this analysis. Fig
Gibson's point yet also transform it to ure-ground is a pictorial power of a line
enable gestalt theory to be vital again, or contour, one of several possibilities
should the latteraccept some strictures, that were discovered by cave artists,
some clipping of itswings? The mentalist possibilities that are universal to human
asks what a linedepicts and why. Is there kind.
anythingmore than figure-ground? A line These possibilities of line are redis

can depict any number of possible fore covered every generation when children
ground-background relations (Figure 2), draw and find that lines really look like
not just Rubin's edge. It can depict a edges of objects. The mentalist notes,
corner, whether it be concave like the however, that preschoolers also discover
corner of a room or convex likethe corner that lines do not look like just any of the
of a building (in this case there are two things theymight liketo tryto "romance"
foreground surfaces meeting as figure into their pictures. We can tryto suggest
Figure 2. Shown here are examples of figure-figure (corners), ground-ground (wires), and figure
ground (occluding edges of flat surfaces and occluding bounds of rounded surfaces). Lines stand
?
for color or illumination change chiaroscuro. We can recognize the chiaroscuro referents, but
we do not see the colors and brightness or shading.
Arnheim, Gestalt Theory 27
the pattern formed by color-patches, I propose what might be termed a uni
?
highlights, or shadows by chiar versal or amodal hypothesis: Relief is
? but we fail ina very significant
oscuro perceived by more than one sense; it is
way. Pertiaps we can identifythe pattern, tangible as well as visual. Presumably, a
butwe cannot see the colors, brightness, universal, genetically programmed ca
or shading. pacity inour brains receives information
We can see depth and slant in the about relief fromvision or touch, via any
preschooler's outline drawing of geo number of modalities (Figure 3). In the
graphical or relief features. We can even amodal, relief-perception capacity, lines
"reverse" the bumps and hollows and are accepted as representations of fore
edges, leading to surprising effects. As ground-background relationships; they
Rubin noted, depiction of relief is so can depict corners, edges, and wires.
strong, so vivid, that reversals produce Whatever is purely visual (or tactile)
unexpected comparisons, quite unpre never reaches this reliefanalyzer. Shadow,
dictable from a naive view. Ifa display is highlights, and color markings simply
seen as reversed on its second appear never get there. The analyzer can be
ance, the viewer often fails to recognize reached via touch, and tangible lines act
that ithas been shown before. as depictions without any special training
In short, lines vividly depict relief and or tuition inconventions. One interesting
do not vividly depict chiaroscuro. Why? prediction from this theory is that blind
Figure 3. Both vision and touch feed information to amodal relief-perception. What is purely visual
(chiaroscuro) does not reach the relief-perception analyzer.
28 JohnM. Kennedy
people should understand raised-line figure-ground style depends on what
drawings without training. Indeed, this might be called "formal" properties. To
was confirmed by recent research (Ken see a flat surface, a straight line will
nedy, 1983a; see Figure 4). suffice, since both the flat surface and
What are the key properties thatenable the straight linehave rectilinearity incom
us to see one kind of edge rather than mon. Similarly, a circle can depict a ball
another? Gibson argued that figure because both have roundness in com
ground arises in pictures ifthere is dis mon. Arnheim's reasoning is equally un
tinctive informationfordepth on one side persuasive, because a straight line can
of a dividing line.This is clearly not so, show roundness even though itdoes not
however. Rubin's figure-ground sketches have roundness. For example, a straight
were not detailed enough to give such line can show the curved horizon; the
distinctive information. roundness of a pipe can be seen even
Arnheim argued that seeing a line in though we draw the pipe with straight
Figure 4. Two drawings by a congenitally blind person unfamiliar with drawings. These were
made with a relief-drawing kit, which leaves a raised line behind a ball-point pen. One drawing
shows a snowman and the other a dog.
edges; a pencil with a sharp point can be Arnheim was right in thatwe can see
drawn as two parallel linesand a V-shaped, the surround influencing the figure. Its
straight-sided tip;an arm can be shown in surfaces are at times suspended, at other
a sleeve, with a portion of the cuff and a times trapped, and occasionally caught
wrist with a rectangular watch. All these ina momentary puff of air. Ifthe breeze
lines can be straight, but we still can see is light, then the cloth that moves from
the rounded, occluding bounds. We can rest is also light; if the cloth is heavy
draw triangularChristmas treeswith straight velvet, then the breeze that makes it
littletrunks, sitting in littlestraight-sided move must be quite stiff.The relationship
tubs, yet we see rounded trees, rounded of figure-to-surround is a constant, but
trunks, and rounded tubs (see Figure 5). the terms of the equality are often un
Note that the capacities being aroused do known and can be set at various levels.
not purely involve distinctive patterns of It is evident that Arnheim's dynamics
? become based firmlyin the properties of
any kind they have to do with a few
lines that allow the perception of surfaces theworld of solid objects when we realize
and edges. that figure-ground is a pictorial effect,
Let us return to Arnheim's emphasis part of a universal human ability to see
on dynamics inperception. When we see lines as depicting features of relief. Fig
surfaces and edges, what we really are ure-ground is the depiction of surface,
seeing is the location of masses and and surface is the location of mass. But
solids, things of substance, things with is themass bending under itsown weight
weight. In allowing a line to show the or in the wind? Is itvaguely plastic or
boundary of a mass, we also notice its rigid?These questions of dynamics make
weight. Little wonder that dynamics are perfect sense when we ask them about
evident in line sketches. real surfaces; and they are just as sen
im ?\
H ^a\\
Figure 5. Drawings of rounded objects, where straight lines stand for the occluding bounds of
rounded surfaces. The show an arm, Christmas trees, and a pipe.
drawings
30 JohnM. Kennedy
sible when we ask them about depicted tendency to see objects as basic forms,
surfaces. As Arnheim might say, dynam as primarily circular or rectangular or
ics is as evident to the perceiver as is triangular,and so on.
figure-ground, because both are aspects Gibson thoroughlydenounced the view
? thatwe tend to construct objects out of
of an unlearned perception perceiving
depicted surfaces. geometric building blocks, thatwe see in
terms of visual concepts such as squares,
circles, or triangles. He called these geo
Patterns and Drawings metrical fictions,phantoms, ghostly ideal
izations. While it is hard to make sense
Foreground-background impressions of his wrath over simple forms, Ibelieve
given by a lineor contour are fundamen there is a strong reason for stating that
tal depth effects. All surfaces inthisworld geometric forms are not privileged in
are flat or curved and have sharp oc perception. Iwill argue here that no form
cluding edges or rounded occluding whatsoever is simple, and I will reject
bounds. The surfaces make up shapes holus-bolus the notion of simplicity.
by means of theiredges and theirmold Consider an analogy. Imagine thatwe
ing.How, then, do we come to use shape are testing a computer to findout how it
inour drawings? works. We start by sticking something
Arnheim(1974) ineffect likenedthe simple into it, like a livewire. Unfortu
child to a carpenter using the simplest nately, the idea that the simplest thing is
tools at hand. A lineand a circle are early privileged will not pass for this computer.
forms the child can draw. When a rough What works best has to be phrased in
circle is the only closed form the child the computer's own language, which is
can draw, itcan stand foranything. Later, inmany ways quite sophisticated. The
?
when the child can control various im eye is like a computer put in some
plements and make ellipses, rectangles, thing simple, likea stationary light intotal
and triangles at will, each shape takes darkness, and you get a strange output,
on itsown significance. A circle is grad like random movement; put in a single
ually used only for things itclosely re line or contour and you get alternation
sembles (Golomb 1974, 1981). In short, from one foreground-background per
the differences between the forms be cept to another; put in a movie of a cat
come important.We can call this a theory or a dog and you get a precise, unam
of differentiation (Winner, 1982; Gibson, biguous, stable perception. What is priv
1966). ileged for the eye, to have itwork con
Arnheim's theory contrasts with others sistently and stably, isquite sophisticated.
who stress memory and informationpro Far from being overloaded by animated
cessing. Some theorists (e.g., Gombrich, organic forms, and reducing them to Eu
1960; Wilson & Wilson, 1982) argue that clidean forms, the eye works naturally
we have pictorial schemata for objects with Nature's objects.
in our memory. They propose that we Since there is no privileged bank of
learn a schema for a nose, one for a Euclidean forms,we should not be sur
face, one for a person, one for a house, prised by Margaret H?gen s (in press)
one for a scene or an arrangement of recent radical extensions of Gibsonian
items in a picture. We learn as children theory into the study of drawing devel
by asking our neighbors how to draw an opment: Since there are no privileged
eye, and we copy from others. By con forms, neither is there drawing devel
trast, Arnheim contended that there are opment. There is a scale of options in
basic forms indrawing we all use without drawing, but none of the options are
learning or copying. He based his argu favored by optics or the perception of
ment on classic Gestalt theory, on the the situation. Convergent perspective is
as available In lightas parallel projection,
or any other of the set of options we find
indrawing. Finally, no option is superior.
From schemata to basic forms to a
free-range of equally privileged op
tions? it seems that there are strong
advocates forevery position. What might
thementalist add to dispel the brouhaha?
In his work with the sighted, John
Willats (1977,1981) has argued (as Ihave
inmy work with the blind) that there is a
developmental sequence, using the ap
pearance of the picture and the object
as helpful guides. A key part of the se
quence is froma kind of "foldout" system
to various kinds of "vantage-point" sys
tems. Inmany ways Iconcur withWillats,
Figure 6. Drawing of a table with four legs, by
but Ibelieve we need to go further.Thus, an early, totally blind child, six years old at the
Iwill discuss systems of geometry used time of testing. Notice that the lines for the
indrawing, and then Iwill turn to systems
legs are not connected to the circular line. The
of geometry that apply to real-world ob latter does not indicate the edge of the table;
jects. rather, it is the boundary of a region on the

Consider the geometric systems we page that stands for the table top.
use to make drawings, the systems that
help us decide what goes where on the blind teenagers and adults (Figure 7). In
picture surface and what in the drawing all of these the lines seem to stand for
stands forwhat in the object. How does edges of the table surfaces. One drawing
drawing skill develop and what are the shows the legs radiating from the cor
firstsystems used by the child? Ibelieve ners, forming a star of sorts. A second
that Arnheim was correct in that initially shows all the legs coming down the page,
the child's firstdrawing system is cap albeit at a slight angle to the table. A
tured by rules such as "a circle can be third shows two legs coming down the
any object." Consider a drawing by a page and two going up. A fourthshows
blind child who is just beginning to use each side having two legs, so that eight
shapes in parts of his or her drawings. lines are drawn. The person who drew
Figure 6 shows a table, the top repre this said that he is aware of two legs as
sented by a circle and the legs drawn as he approaches any side of the table, so
straight lines. For the child, the curved this is "a blind man's table." The fifth
linedoes not signify the edge of the table drawing has two legs coming down and
top.When asked what the linestood for, two legs going leftand right. In short,
this child ran his hand over an actual angle, orientation, and number of lines
table top, incircular fashion, but without are all subject to the purposes of the
touching the edge. Older blind people, moment. What each of these share is the
by contrast, might put their fingers on accuracy of the connections. The draw
the edge of the table surface to show ings choose aspects of the object to re
what the line stood for. Notice that the peat in the drawing and ignore others.
table legs in the child's drawing are not Occasionally, some aspects of connec
attached to the table-top line; the shapes tionswill be passed over; a legmay "slide
match the legs, but attachment is ig along" a line to preserve symmetryor to
nored. show some parts are opposite one an
Consider several drawings of tables by other (Kennedy, 1980).
32 John M. Kennedy
fx -rr
3?^ L-A
'
1
I-q
Figure 7. Drawings of tables by blind adults and children. Notice that one drawing includes two
lines on each side of the table. The adult who drew this table said that for a blind person
approaching the table, there are two legs on each side.
Once shape and connections can be that all of these systems involve repeat
drawn correctly, vantage-point systems ing aspects of the object. The earliest
are often considered. Figure 8 is a draw stage repeats the closed formof a table,
ing of a table from above (a rectangle), showing it to be an object by means of
from the side (a rectangle with two legs an area. The second phase involves rep
?
coming down), and from below (a rec licatingshape a straight leg is shown
tangle with four legs, radiating from the as a straight line.The next phase involves
corners, forming a star of sorts). Notice connections. And the last stage repeats
space and shape, and second, the
achievement of recognition. Like a double
helix, drawing development has two
strands. One involves shifting the basis
fordrawing any object to show the form
of thatobject. This strand of development
follows from the fact that all objects are
made of flatand curved surfaces. A sec
ond strand consists of methods fordraw
ing recognizable forms. This strand of
development follows from the fact that
objects fall into categories of distinctive
forms.One strand uses general systems;
the other uses handy schemata, a vo
cabulary of forms.When we say that a
scheme has been modified to better suit
the object, we mean that some of the
general systems have been brought to
bear on the schemata. When we say the
shape of unfamiliar objects has been
drawn instylized fashion, we often mean
that standard schemata have been em
ployed to show the unfamiliar.
To the extent that we concede that
schemata are useful, we raise new ques
tions. Are they useful because they are
familiar and standard, or because they
Figure 8. Drawing of a table from three vantage repeat key distinctive features of objects?
points, including below the table, by a blind What are the shapes of objects? Are
adult. there systematic geometries for shapes
of objects, just as there are systematic
the direction of parts from a vantage geometries for drawing? How do the
point. At no stage are three dimensions systematic geometries of real objects re
collapsed intotwo, nor are two translated late to perception?
into three. The drawings repeat shape, The early Gestaltists approached per
or shape and connections, or directions ception in terms of simplicity.They had
of shape and connections. an a priori notion of what is simple, and
Any system of drawing can produce a their tools for analyzing simplicitywere
simple or complex drawing. In the first borrowed largely from Euclidean geom
phase we produce abstract lists; in the etry. But what happens to our notions
second, we draw "exploded" diagrams; about shapes and perception if we reject
in the third,we produce architectural Euclidean geometry and its shapes as
drawings; and in the fourth,we find the the basis for perception? We certainly
basis for perspective. These systems all would have to reconsider the kinds of
can be brought to bear on any object, ?
shapes that exist in theworld the nat
the unfamiliar as well as the familiar. In ural shapes versus the artificial ones.
principle, the world of round and flat This becomes an endless task, for there
surfaces can be drawn using these sys are infinitevarieties of shapes.
tems. There need not be anything rec At this point, then,we must turn to the
ognizable in the scene. sciences. Physical forms, and physical
Drawing involves, first,the drawing of kinds of changes, are described by phys
34 John M. Kennedy
ics and geomorphology. Inphysics, noth mathematics of forms, not all of which is
ingreproduces or dies, and nothing grows based on Euclidean geometry.
by digestion. Biological forms are dis Clearly, Gestalt psychologists are cor
tinctive and are affected by transforma rect in asserting that perception re
tions such as growth, reproduction, and sponds to form. But the kinds of form
death. What are the physical shapes, the we now have inmind are far greater in
shapes of inanimate matter? What are number and more diverse in kind than
the biological shapes, the shapes of an the early Gestaltists imagined. Their
imatematter? mathematics emphasized field forces and
Consider these questions as they are field mathematical structure. Today we
see this as just one among many kinds
posed in real life.For example, computer
of structure.
programmers want to know how to em
ulate many kinds of objects, so they can This grander conception of form and
use computers inplace of trial-and-error, perception is shared inpart by Arnheim.
handmade animated films.Much has been I have discussed modern computer
learned in the past two decades along graphics with him, and fractals inpartic
ular. He is as excited by the possibilities
these lines. To create real scenes, vistas
as Iam. He too believes thatwe need to
of natural-looking geographical land
rethink our conception of the types of
forms, a new branch of mathematics
form perception to which vision re
known as "fractals" is proving very use
ful to computer programmers. sponds.
Let us go one step furtherand consider
Fractals are forms that indetail resem
mental forms and the distinctive patterns
ble large-scale forms.Consider a natural
of mental structure. "Knowing" is a psy
coastline. A continent has large bays and
chological state, not one forpurely phys
peninsulas; a coastal state has smaller ical or biological analysis. We can know
Inlets and promontories. A promontory
about an object and about another know
is itselfmade up of protuberances and
ing entity. John knows Jeanne. Jeanne
indentations, and each protuberance is knows John. And John knows Jeanne
made up of jutting rocks and cavities.
knows John. The mental structure in
And so on. We describe this mathemat volves A inside B and B insideA, a form
ically by taking any stretch of the coast that is not possible for physical objects,
line and dividing it intosections, allowing where inside signifies enclosure. A phys
a reasonable number of concavities and
ical object cannot be inside another and
convexities per section. Further, each
yet contain the other. The closest physics
concavity or convexity isallowed a similar can come is something likemirror reflec
number of insand outs. The mathematics
tions,or two snakes devouring each other.
of a coastline is thus the mathematics of Our laws of form thus go beyond frac
a line.We can apply similar methods to tals and cellular organisms. The laws in
mountains, hills, and hillocks. Or to banks one domain are vetoed in another do
of clouds, individual clouds, and patches main; the shapes of one domain can only
of mist. be represented imperfectly in the other.
We need a mathematics of landforms, Littlewonder, then, that some perceptual
and one of animate forms and cellular forms occur again and again. Yet what
organisms, too. In principle, perception does the snake devouring itselfsuggest?
is simply a means of grasping the un What might the center of focus of a
derlying mathematics of forms. Surely, perspective drawing mean? What do re
we can often tell by just looking that a flections of reflections mean?
particular form is a natural landformand It is impossible forphysical patterns to
another is a plant and another is an fullydescribe the mental structures we
animal. Presumably, we are grasping the use daily. Ibelieve thatArnheim has tried
to tell us which physical patterns may be and a moving wheel with curved spokes
especially promising in showing us ab (Figure 11).
stract structures that cannot ever be fully There are many kinds of tropes, or
realized inany physical patterns. Let us figurative uses of language. I propose
therefore consider a helpful analogy in that all major tropes can occur indepic
language. We can say "20 sail, ahoy," tion (Kennedy, 1982; Kennedy & Simp
meaning 20 ships; that is,we give a part son, 1982). Are these pictorial metaphors
to indicate a greater whole. In language, understood only by sophisticates? Arn
this is called a metaphor. We turn now, heim (1954, p. 369) wrote: "Features of
formally and explicitly, to the study of primitive language remind us that the
perceptual metaphors. poetical habit of uniting practically dis
parate objects by metaphor is not a so
phisticated invention of artists, but de
Expression and Metaphor rives fromand relies on the universal and
spontaneous way of approaching the
"Twenty sail, ahoy" is a synecdoche, a world of experience." This isArnheim at
part that stands for the whole. The use his best.
of synecdoches is crucial for expression In a beautiful examination of Ingres s
inmany contexts. For example, when we "La Source," Arnheim wrote of "prom
draw stick figures, we use postures ised but withheld femininity" (1974, pp.
shown in severely abbreviated form to 144-148). Such interpretations are often
?
convey mood or significance, even to the risky certainly, they are easy to do
untrained blind person (Figure 9). ? but we must try,for art should
badly
Ifwe glance through photographs of aim at profound statements and pictures
textures (e.g., Brodatz, 1966), we can must make statements with concrete ob
see immediatelywhat is rough, what is jects, with particulars. As Umberto Eco
smooth, what iswet, what is dry,what is writes in The Name of the Rose (1980/
soft, and what is hard. Consider here line 1983, p. 544): "The language of [objects]
sketches forming textures (Figure 10). is multiform; each expresses several
Which one represents a hard, unyielding truths, according to the sense of the
surface? a soft, yielding surface? A ma selected interpretation,according to the
jorityof people pick the more angular context inwhich they appear. And who
texture as the unyieldingone, even though decides what is the level of interpretation
the line thickness and density do not and what is the proper context?"
differ fromone texture to another. How How do Gibsonians approach expres
ever, to use angular forhard and rounded sion, meaning, and the language of ob
for soft is to ignore some of the variety jects? Gibson (1979) pointed out thatwe
of actual hard and soft objects. can perceive what he called "afford
In language, metonymy is the repre ances." Cups affordcontaining; solid sur
sentation of one thingby indicatingsome faces afford walking on; doors afford
alternative that suggests the basic refer entrance or exit. I thinkGibson was ab
ent. For example, we can refer to a solutely correct. The light from the en
textbook by mentioning its author vironment provides excellent information
("Please pass me Tolstoy"). Perhaps we about the possible uses or dangers in
should think of the use of angular and herent in objects or scenes. Ultimately,
curved to mean hard and soft, respec however, while this Gibsonian analysis
tively, as metonymy. A clear case of a was important and useful, itdid not go
pictorial metaphor with metonymic prop far enough. It examined what objects
erties is a device invented by the blind are ? inGibson's own terms, a physical
forshowing movement. Blind people often analysis, an ecological optics that es
draw a static wheel with straight spokes chews mentalism. But metaphors cannot
36 JohnM. Kennedy
Figure 9. "Twig figs," or highly abbreviated stick figures. In a forced-choice task, the blind,
untrained indrawing,concur with the sighted in identifying the pairs of twig figsas talking(top
left),arguing (fopright),old (middle left),sad (middleright),proud (bottomleft)and polite (bottom
right).Given these figures,15 blind subjects concurredwith themajorityof the sighted subjects
on 82% of theirjudgments.
3
Figure 11. Drawing of a spinning wheel by a

blind adult. Curvature is used metaphorically,
to suggest spin.
be understood by an approach that re

duces meaning to physics and fails to
consider intention.While we need Gib
son's optics, we also need ideas about
perceptual experience, beliefs of individ
uals, and the intentions of the people
who are trying to communicate with us.
Imagine a picture of a businessman
with as many arms as an octopus, each
hand holding a telephone. Or imagine a
picture of a bride looking into a mirror
and seeing a harried housewife. These
pictures violate the laws of physics; they
break the very rules that Gibson called
on to develop ecological optics. And they
do so precisely because the artistwants
Figure 10. Line sketch forming textures. Asked
which is the soft,yieldingsurface and which to put across ideas: that businessmen
is the hard, unyielding surface, 85 of 87 un are overworked; that present bliss gives
dergraduate subjects picked the rounded lines rise to future stress.
as soft and the straight lines as hard. Hard Arnheim wrote confidently and insight
to hard or soft objects
fully about the ideas communicated to
textures can be applied
(and vice versa) by a painter to give the overall us by pictures, ideas that are more pro
picture a hard or soft expression. Textures
found than affordances. But we also need
applied across the overall picture can also
a frank analysis of the limitsof pictures
create expressive impressions such as shiny,
of objects and scenes, and we must posit
matte, wet, dry, smooth, rough, dense, open,
even a clear role for our understanding of
sharp, blunt, satiny, leathery, furry, etc.,
ifsilhouettes (ofobjects or body postures) are intention.Pictures of objects and scenes
totally absent. Such textures are self-evident can only display the relations present in
to the most naive observer. physics and the geometry of things. If
38 JohnM. Kennedy
we tryto claim that all mental states have to adult newspapers and articles, how
parallels inphysics and geometry,we run ever. Children also can draw pictures that
the risks of reductionist thinking.There make a point, not just show scenes. For
are regresses in John knowing Jeanne example, a child often caricatures adults
knowing John that cannot be shown ex or draws unpleasant people looking like
plicitlywith physical objects but can be dentists. Or they make fun of someone
hinted at ina picture via a physical state with drawings that suggest these people
that is at best a component of a regress, pretend to be one thing but inside are
such as the Ring of Oroborus, a snake another. Children show cars as person
devouring a snake which devours it.Le alities and personalities as automata; they
gal ownership can be suggested by a draw feelings of belittlement or fear. I
prideful pose, which we can take to be can envision a serious, well-designed
pride of ownership. drawing course inwhich pictorial tropes
Metaphor involves intentionat itscore. are invited from children on a variety of
The multiple arms of the businessman topics that lend themselves tometaphor:
and the impossible reflectionof the bride war is hell; pollution is the fault of the
are not improbable concatenations or uncaring and short-sighted; to swim in
errors. Instead they are puzzles, for the lakes full of acid rain is to become a
laws of Nature are defied. When we say skeleton; JohnWayne is the patron saint
"I know what is meant," the puzzle is of violence. Such topics would lend them
solved. When we say "I know what is selves to pictorial tropes that children
intended" of a complex picture of many could understand. As Arnheim noted
objects in a sophisticated setting, the (1969), pictures are full of intelligence.
reason for selecting the objects or the Let us therefore ask our children to put
setting is uppermost inour minds. intellectand ideas intopictures. A men
There is no way we can list all the talist approach to Arnheim's analyses
profound ideas that pictures might con suggests how we might proceed.
vey, even granting the limits of the
suggestive power of physical objects. But
we can hope that a systematic approach Conclusion
to pictures and intentionsmight be delin
eated. We can pass over the particular There is a story about travelers in the
ideas as infinite,as uncountable, much Himalayas who cannot see themountains
as the possible ideas for novels are un for the mist. All they can make out is the
countable, yet still hope to give an ac gravel at their feet and then blank white
count of the kinds of tropes the pictures ness. They confess theirdisappointment
may constitute. The study of rhetoric to the guide. "Oh," he says, "no problem.
reveals the many kinds of tropes in lit Look higher!" Arnheim has shown psy
erature: synecdoche and metonymy, al chologists how to connect the gravel
legory,anticlimax, catachresis, cliche, eu beneath their feet to the pinnacles of
phemism, hendiadys, hyperbole, litotes, human achievement. He realized thatwe
meiosis, oxymoron, paranomasia, persi perceive force and tension, not just shape.
flage, personification, and prolepsis. He pointed out how representation in
These are not arcane concepts, foreign volves widespread and intelligentuse of
to everyday use. Illustrations on the po the few devices at the child's disposal.
litical/editorialpages of newspapers are He showed how concrete objects can be
fullof pictorial tropes. Articles inpopular used to make profound, psychological
magazines often contain illustrations that statements. These themes deserve scru
attempt to summarize arguments by pic pulous and careful attention. If all we
torial tropes. know are shapes and tools, the purposes
Pictorial tropes need not be restricted and aims of the human enterprise are
lost. Ifall we know are the grand ideas with the connection between the mark
and ethical values, we have no method and the component being established by
of checking which vivid claims are sen fiat.Any mark inany location can stand
sible and which are illconsidered. for any component. (See Figure A.)
Arnheim has been a model forpercep
tion and the arts done right.Well aware
of both the bright and dark sides of
human nature, well acquainted with the
kinds of ideas pictures are dealing with,
he has made a sincere and often suc
cessful attempt to linkthe nuts and bolts
of perception to the transport we can
achieve inperception. He has dealt with
individual items inperception while never
forgetting the ranges of intelligence that
perception undertakes. This is his con
tribution, over many decades; it is our
groundwork for the future. Indeed, Arn
heim's work is timeless for it is about
the endless task of knowing the world,
as we must do, not only in detail but
wisely, thoughtfully,and in communica
tionwith our fellow perceivers.
Appendix
In the section on Patterns and Drawings,
reference is made to drawing develop
ment. It is conjectured that the child gen
erally acquires increasingly sophisticated
principles for making representational
patterns. Courtesy of Visual Arts Re
search, this appendix describes the
stages inwhich these principles are likely
to be acquired. It should be noted that
the stages may be "open" in the sense
that they can be entered from "the side,"
that is, from general developmental ad
vances. An adult who draws for the first
Figure A. These three raised-line drawings by
time is likelyto skip the early stages. blind people can be classified as Stage 1 in
The possible set of stages involves six that the relationship between features of the
principles, illustrated here by raised-line objects and the lines in the drawing are estab
lished by fiat. Top: a hexagonal
drawings from the blind. Note that to box; the artist
describes the center line as standing for the
classify a drawing one must know the
referentand what aspects of the referent length of the box and the arcs as the sides.
Middle: a T-shaped block; the closed curve is
the lines stand for.The appearance of
one face of the block and the lines are the
the drawings is not sufficient, nor is a other faces, one face per line. Bottom: a cubic
caption; detailed knowledge of the cor box; each line stands for one face. (Italicized
respondence is vital. phrases are the captions for the drawings in
Stage 1: List drawings. Individualmarks the experiment reported here. See also Fig
stand forcomponents of the environment ures B-F.)
40 John M. Kennedy
Stage 2: Separate features outlined. shape, but the outlines are not connected
Each feature is shown by outlining its (Figure B).
Figure B. These three raised-line drawings by blind people can be classified as Stage 2 in that
each feature is drawn on its own, with its shape replicated. Left: a coathanger; hook, neck, and
parts of the base are drawn individually. Middle: a table; its top surface is the closed curve and
its four legs are drawn as independent lines. Right: a table; its top surface is the large arc
and two legs are drawn as smaller arcs.
Stage 3: Connected features. The fea the object, as though the object is "folded
tures are not only outlined but are con out" (Kennedy, 1982). (See Figure C.)
nected by lines that stand for edges of
Figure C. These three raised-line drawings by blind people can be classified as Stage 3. Left: a
glass; the lip to the top with the sides, front, and back of the glass indicated by vertical lines.
Middle: a table; four legs connected to the top. Right: a cubic object; an L-shaped block drawn
as though its sides are folded out.
Stage 4: Vantage point. Only features outlined (cf. Luquet's "visual" realism).
that face toward a vantage point are (See Figure D.)
by blind people use a vantage-point (Stage 4). Left: a

Figure D. These three raised-line drawings
cubic object shown from above; an L-shaped block that has one extra block at the center
protruding toward the observer. Middle: a drop-leaf table shown from the side, with the legs
having rubber fittings at their ends. Right: a cubic object; an L-shaped block shown at a slant.
Stage 5: Metaphorical drawings. Rules wheel is shown by drawing the spokes

in Stage 4 are violated intentionally to curved to suggest the movement). (See
suggest a referent indirectly(e.g., inKen Figure E.)
nedy, 1982, 1983a, 1983b, a spinning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
Figure E. These three raised-linedrawings by blind people are metaphorical (Stage 5). Left: a
a wheel spinning with extra
wheel spinning with imaginary curves to the spokes. Middle:
circumferences. Right: a wheel spinning with extra circumferences and hubs (dots).
Stage 6: Diagrammatic drawings. Lines protrusion, edge of line indicates a diffuse

not only depict edges but, as inStage 1, boundary, thickness of line indicates
have properties that are intended to in force). (See Figure F.)
dicate by fiat (e.g., focus of line indicates
42 John M. Kennedy
can produce one small brick on top of a
larger brick, or a huge pyramid, but a
more sophisticated principle is needed
to produce a single archway.
References
Amheim, R. (1954). Art and visual perception.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception
(rev. ed.). Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Arnheim, R. (1980). Dynamics and invariants.
In J. Fisher (Ed.), Perceiving artworks (Philo
sophicalMonographs, 3rd sen) Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Brodatz, P. (1966). Textures. New York: Dover.
Eco, U. (1983). The Name of the Rose. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (Italian
edition published in 1980 by Fabbri-Bom
piani, Sonzogno.)
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered
as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach
to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mif
flin.
Golomb, C. (1974). Young children's sculpture
and drawing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni
versity Press.
Figure F. These three raised-line drawings by Golomb, C. (1981). Representation and reality.
blind people are diagrammatic Visual Arts Research, 14, 36-48.
(Stage 6). Top:
a cubic object; an L-shaped block with indi Gombrich, E. H. (1960). Art and illusion. Prince
cator lines radiating from one corner to show ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
that is the nearest edge. Middle: the wind, Hagen, M. A. Varieties of realism: the geome
with the lines standing for the boundary of the tries of pictorial art. In prep.
wind. Bottom: the wind, with the central line Kennedy, J. M. (1980). The blind can recognize
and make In M. A. Hagen
indicating its path, gusts to the side shown by pictures. (Ed.),
The perception of pictures. New York: Aca
distributory lines, and the strength of the gusts
indicated by the thickness of the lines. demic Press.
Kennedy, J. M. (1982). Metaphor in pictures.

Perception, 11, 582-605.
In general, each stage is founded on Kennedy, J. M. (1983a). Haptic pictures, inW.
Schiff & E. Foulke (Eds.), Tactual perception.
a different principle, which increases in
University Press.
sophistication fromone stage to the next.
Cambridge: Cambridge
Kennedy, J. M. (1983b). What can we learn
It should be noted carefully that both
about pictures from the blind? American
sparse (simple) drawings and ornate Scientist, 71, 19-26.
(complex) drawings can be produced at Kennedy, J. M., & Simpson, W. A. (1982). For
any stage by incorporating progressively each kind of figure of speech there is a
more facets of a referent in the drawing. pictorial metaphor, a figure of depiction.
An unsophisticated architectural principle Visual Arts Research, 8(2), 1-11.
Koffka,K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psy Willats, J. (1977). How children learnto draw
chology.New York: Liveright. realistic pictures. Quarterly Journal of Ex
Rubin, E. (1915). Synsoplevede figurer.Co perimentalPsychology,29, 367-382.
penhagen: Gyldendals. Willats, J. (1981). What do the marks in a
Wilson, M., & Wilson, B. (1982). The case of picturestand for?VisualArtsResearch, 7(13),
the disappearing two-eyed profile:Or, how 18-33.
children influencethe drawings of little
little
children. Visual Arts Research, 8(1), 19-32.
Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1984). Children's
John M. Kennedy
drawings inEgypt:Cultural styleacquisition
as graphic development. Visual Arts Re Scarborough College
search, 70(19), 13-26. University of Toronto
Winner, E. (1982). Invented Worlds. Cambridge, Toronto, Ontario
MA: Harvard University Press. CANADAM1C 1A4
44 John M. Kennedy

Kennedy, John - Arnheim, Gestalt Theory and Pictures

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Kennedy, John - Arnheim, Gestalt Theory and Pictures

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Arnheim, Gestalt Theory and Pictures

Author(s): John M. Kennedy

anythingmore than figure-ground? A line These possibilities of line are redis

Arnheim, Gestalt Theory 27

jects. rather, it is the boundary of a region on the

Arnheim, Gestalt Theory 33

Figure 11. Drawing of a spinning wheel by a

be understood by an approach that re

Arnheim, Gestalt Theory 41

by blind people use a vantage-point (Stage 4). Left: a

Stage 5: Metaphorical drawings. Rules wheel is shown by drawing the spokes

Stage 6: Diagrammatic drawings. Lines protrusion, edge of line indicates a diffuse

Amheim, R. (1954). Art and visual perception.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kennedy, J. M. (1982). Metaphor in pictures.

Arnheim, Gestalt Theory 43

Potrebbero piacerti anche