Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation by E.H. Gombrich


Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation
Title : Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 0714842087
ISBN-10 : 9780714842080
Language : English
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 412
Publication : First published January 1, 1960

Described by Kenneth Clark as 'one of the most brilliant books of art criticism that I have ever read', Art and Illusion is a classic study of image-making. It seeks to answer a simple question: why is there such a thing as style? The question may be simple but there is no easy answer, and Professor Gombrich's brilliant and wide-ranging exploration of the history and psychology of pictorial representation leads him into countless crucial areas. Gombrich examines, questions and re-evaluates old and new ideas on such matters as the imitation of nature, the function of tradition, the problem of abstraction, the validity of perspective and the interpretation of expression: all of which reveal that pictorial representation is far from being a straightforward matter. First published more than 40 years ago, Art and Illusion has lost none of its vitality and importance. In applying the findings of experimental science to a nuanced understanding of art and in tackling complex ideas and theoretical issues, Gombrich is rigorous.

Yet he always retains a sense of wonder at the inexhaustible capacity of the human brain, and at the subtlety of the relationships involved in seeing the world and in making and seeing art. With profound knowledge and his exceptional gift for clear exposition, he advances each argument as an hypothesis to be tested. The problems of representation are forever fundamental to the history of art: Art and Illusion remains an essential text for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of art. For the sixth edition Professor Gombrich has written an entirely new 12-page preface, in which he makes use of the distinction between an image and a sign, so as to clarify his intentions in writing the book in the first place.


Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation Reviews


  • Jessica

    This book attempts to answer the question, if artists throughout time have attempted to portray the world 'realistically', why are there so many different styles? Why, for example, did the Egyptians portray people as partially sideways and partially frontward? Must we assume that they literally saw people like that?
    Gombrich argues that the Greeks fundamentally changed the course of art. Under them, it became more casual, art for art's sake, instead of magical images filled with power. Over time, with each new generation, experiments with art allowed artists to discover new tricks to make us believe in the 'reality' of what they painted. This does not mean that artists are painting what they literally see; instead, they have a repertoire of conventions that we as viewers have learned to interpret as a real represenation of the thing painted. Gombrich emphasizes both the role of the artist as the presenter of a painting, and even more, the role of the beholder in interpreting what is painted.
    This is primarily based on Western art, though Gombrich does also investigate Asian art and it's differing philosophy. Both add to his hypothesis that seeing is interpreting; that there is no way to portray exactly what is seen with no interpretation; and that art has developed the way it has to give us a possible interpretation that a paintin is realistic, and it does so through a series of tricks.
    An excellent book for someone interested in the theory of visual images, and it is pretty accessible, though a knowledge of art history is certainly helpful.

  • Sarah

    There's no way I can do this book justice in a synopsis. But here goes...

    It's art history examined through the lens of cognitive science: what we see, how we process what we see, how we engage with what we see, and how that engagement becomes a language. Gombrich doesn't discuss every single art movement. (That book would go on forever.) But I really wish he had! His insights are fascinating and—more often than not—hit upon much deeper truths. One of those rare instances of a book that's both enlightening and a lot of fun to read.

  • Afshi

    Really interesting, and easy to read (although a little too wordy at times). Also kind of fun. The book spans through the history of art, and even though the author highlights some of the major artists in each period and analyzes their art using different theories in visual psychology, he also does an in depth analysis of the viewer. I was especially interested in the sections about Klee and Durer. Kind of brings new insight to traditional ideas about looking at art.

  • James Foster

    “Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation,” publishes the 1956 Mellon Lecture by E. H. Gombrich, the eminent art historian. I read a couple chapters of this for my Art 101 course in college, and I’ve held onto the book for years (ok, decades) intending to someday read it from cover to cover. I finally finished that.

    And I’m glad I did.

    Gombrich begins with a penetrating question which seems, as so many great questions do, overly simple-minded at first glance: “why does art history exist”? We might be tempted to answer that of course art changes, since societies change. But if human psychology is basically the same as it has always been, and if (pictorial) art is about representing the world, then why wouldn’t art always look the same, like amateur photographs for example? Why would Egyptian Art be so instantly recognizable? What led to Impressionism? Why, to be a bit art-wonky, did Constable start using green paint, rather than blue or brown? Did the Egyptians really see flat people? Were they incapable of realistic depictions? Did people’s eyes go bad in the 1800s? Did the world suddenly turn yellow in the 1700s? Clearly the history of changing styles in art needs an explanation.

    At the risk of oversimplifying, Gombrich’s answer is that artists chose to represent different things, and to literally experiment with how they did it. Egyptian pictures of farmers, for example, all wore the same clothing, held the same posture, and wore the same hairstyle. Gombrich argues that this is because they are depictions of a “farmer”, not an individual person who farms. Given that goal, the particularities that would make one farmer look different from another are irrelevant. This art shows a “what”, not a “who” or a “how”, as Gombrich puts it. The Egyptian artist begins with a template or stereotype of what features make a “farmer”, then uses that to depict how this particular harvest was a good one, or to assure a spirit in the afterlife that they are surrounded by many “farmers” so that they need not fear starving. This is consistent with the psychology of the intended Egyptian viewer, to whom irrelevant details would be noise.

    These building blocks change as the role of the artist changes. The portraitist’s job is to depict individuals, showing a “who” rather than just a “what”. Greek statues depict recognizably different persons, so we can tell Greek art apart from Egyptian art. Still, a statue of Hermes, say, is somewhere between a “what” and a “who”. A particular statue will have a recognizably individual face, but he will also have a winged helmet and caduceus so you know who it is. Still, as the job of the artist moves from exposition to representation it becomes necessary to change not just what is depicted, but how it is depicted.

    Gombrich posits that artists follow a hypothetico-deductive method. It is no coincidence that Gombrich was a friend of Karl Popper. The artist posits that such-and-such a thing is what really matters, and hypothesizes that such-and-such a process will realize that objective. Then he or she uses that process, adjusting as necessary to get closer to the objective. For example, the first Greek sculptors who decided that individuation of subject mattered hypothesized that what mattered was the face. This is why the bodies of their sculptures were rigid, almost formulaic, at first, while the faces became more differentiated. Later Greek sculptures wanted to depict movement, not just likeness, so they showed twisted poses that seem ready to unwind, and folds and creases in clothing that hint at a breeze.

    Constable hypothesized that color mattered, so that merely depicting perspective by varying blues and browns was insufficient. He further hypothesized that what mattered more than the actual color was the contrast between different patches of color. A field of grass is not a uniform green, nor is a field of daffodils uniformly yellow. The challenge of showing the difference between light and shadow was particularly acute. His purpose was to depict nature in full color. So he broke with most of his predecessors, covering the canvass with broadly contrasting shades of green and yellow. The fact that humans respond to contrasts rather than to hues is also based in our psychology.

    Another hypothesis is that shape matters more than depiction, so that vague or indistinct blotches of paint can communicate subject matter more effectively than precise harmony of marks on the canvas with the topology of the subject. Look closely at a gold chain in a Rembrandt and you will see dabs of bright paint, not links. Clouds are notoriously difficult to “get right” if one tries to be precise. Turner and Constable eventually experimented with blotches and dabs, which more effectively evoked the idea of the outdoors for the viewer.

    More generally, the details that matter are those relevant to why the art is being made. A renaissance portrayal of a gothic cathedral will be more symmetric than the reality, since the purpose is to show “a gothic cathedral” rather than a particular construction that was built over the course of many decades, rather than from the blueprint of an individual architect. Therefore, sketches of Chartres, for example, will be instantly recognizable from artist to artist over time. But they will not look alike. Each will reflect the style of the day rather than the pedantic similarity with the building itself.

    The Impressionists were particularly dissatisfied with the way light was depicted. For them the task was to show light, so that the viewer would experience the actual luminosity of the scene, rather than to merely use a depiction of light to show depth or contrast. Their hypothesis was that one could portray the light directly, and build up an image of a scene from that. Some tried smudges of color (Monet), some points of color (Seurat), and some streaks (Van Gough). The new style arose from a new hypothesis about what mattered in the depiction, and about how it could be expressed. This, too, stems from the psychology of gestalt perception.

    I was disappointed that Gombrich didn’t talk more about modern art. There is some of that here. It was particularly interesting to see graphic art poked and prodded from the psychological perspective. But so much more could be said.

    This book is full of plates, many in full color, illustrating the point being made. I looked through the pictures before reading the book—that’s what we all do with an art book, right?. Some were interesting, but not many screamed “LOOK AT ME!”. Referring to the plates as examples of the argument Gombrich was making, however, was a totally different experience. The artwork here is excellent. It isn’t as good as visiting an art gallery with an excellent tour guide. But it may be even better, since you can explore, and really experience, the art on your own.

    I loved this book. It changes the experience of viewing art to continually ask “what were they trying to do? How is that different from what came before? What new technique did they invent to do it?” and “did it work?”. This active viewing is much more rewarding than settling for “what is this a scene of?”, or “who was this artist?”, or “do I like this?”. The first approach is a dialogue with the artist, exploring our own psychology, raising the question of how we might perceive the world differently. The latter is mere voyeurism.

  • E. G.

    Preface
    Preface to the Second Edition
    Preface to the Third Edition
    Preface to the Fourth Edition
    Preface to the Fifth Edition


    --Art and Illusion

    Retrospect
    Notes
    List of Illustrations
    Index

  • Leandro Oliveira

    One of the most courageous and intellectually exploratory art study I had the opportunity to read. Written on 1960's, is a groundbreaking publication on a very intriguing subject. Don't think psychology and visual art could find a more rigorous and charming writer.

  • Tiago Filipe Clariano

    O problema que Gombrich expõe é que a arte representativa nunca deixou de ser conceptual. Surge de um processo de "making" e "matching", da mesma forma como projectamos imagens para construções nas nuvens, assim o fazemos com quadros. Daí que um retrato seja mais semelhante a outro retrato do que à pessoa a que refere, como o diz Nelson Goodman.

    A conceptualidade de toda a arte não parte de si mesma, mas do olhar: o nosso olhar não é inocente, contém configurações interpretativas determinadas por hábitos de visão, por exemplo, quando chegamos a uma casa onde nunca estivémos antes, a primeira impressão é diferente daquela que é gerada pelo hábito de lá viver. O que se deve fazer para educar o olhar e libertá-lo do hábito é justamente olhar mais, aprender a particularizar, a articular e a distinguir, de modo a não subsumir tudo a uma mesma descrição. Por exemplo, em «Le Musée Imaginaire» há um passo em que André Malraux afirma que os rascunhos de Michelangelo quase parecem pintura abstraccionista, pois, com certeza, são rascunhos e, portanto, abstracções que caminham em direcção à particularização. Os rascunhos de Michelangelo não são arte abstraccionista à maneira dos abstraccionistas, são desenhos abstractos porque o têm de ser enquanto rascunhos, mas é o hábito de ver arte abstracta que projecta a visão de Malraux.

    Para além deste interessante ponto, faz-se uma história dos desenvolvimentos técnicos das artes pictóricas, por exemplo, quando os gregos e os romanos introduzem a capacidade de justapor cenas na representação, conseguindo uma ilusão de narratividade, de modo a representar as narrativas mitológicas. Estes desenvolvimentos técnicos tendem a basear-se num esquema de (perdoe-se a repetição) esquema e correcção: cada novo desenvolvimento técnico torna-se o esquema a que posteriormente são aplicadas correcções de modo a conseguir uma mais aperfeiçoada representação do objecto em vista.

    Esta valsa entre o esquema e a correcção ocorre a vários níveis (do nível técnico geral ao nível particular do rascunho) e Gombrich é exímio a notar que os acidentes neste vai-e-vem geram outros esquemas, como é caso da caricatura. A caricatura surge do modo como as correcções no rascunho podem acidentalmente forjar uma semelhança superior a uma que fosse deliberadamente desenhada: assim se conseguem detalhes fisionómicos que, por acaso, conseguem uma melhor representação de características exageradas e com efeito cómico. Outro dos problemas da caricatura era a seriedade do modelo académico artístico que se reportava a bustos da antiguidade cuja expressão facial só mostrava impassividade, pelo que o surgimento de uma arte cómica também foi postergado.

    Ao nível do conhecimento produzido por «Mimesis» de Erich Auerbach quanto aos desenvolvimentos técnicos na arte da literatura, mas com uma muito maior facilidade de leitura e uma perspectiva estética muito mais terra-a-terra do que a filosofia ocidental tende a apresentar, demarcada pelo carácter psicológico do estudo, o que mais justifica os meios e as teses que apresenta.

  • Eleanor

    I cannot say enough good about this book. Think of sitting down with a learned but accessible expert, someone who is both eloquent and down-to-earth. That feeling, and the knowledge shared, is this book. EH Gombrich must have been an amazing and mesmerizing lecturer. I am now seeking his other classic, The Story of Art. This book is for anyone, artist or not, who has ever contemplated a great painting or sculpture and wondered if art imitates life or vice versa or even found themselves curious as to the compulsion man has to create art.
    A favorite quote (p. 310), "That power of holding on to an image that Ruskin describes so admirably is not the power of the eidetic; it is that faculty of keeping a large number of relationships present in one's mind that distinguishes all mental achievement, be it that of the chess player, the composer, or the great artist."
    As low key and "all hail, well met" as it is, this book is hard. It requires attention and thought, and it pulls from every category of learning: history, anthropology, science, math, language, even politics. Well worth the effort.

  • GONE HU I-Mael

    This book is difficult to take seriously as a work of art philosophy or scholarly work. It shows a deep misunderstanding of child cognitive development, it homogenizes thousands of years of human history, and completely fails to provide any context of art which is not squarely centered on the European.

  • Jimmy Ele

    An erudite journey through the history of artistic representation. The focus is on how artists have perceived the world and how they have strode to embody their perceptions. Deeply philosophical when elaborating on the illusory nature of art. It argues that the representation of the artist of the world will never match the infinite amount of information actually reaching the artist. It touches on many subjects and time periods ranging from the art of Ancient Egypt to the Renaissance to Escher and Severini. I highly recommend it for students of perception and illusion and the psychology behind art and how humans "see" the world.

  • Mogg Morgan

    On every thinking person's bookshelf, or should be

  • Yair Martinez

    It's a interestant book

  • yakup duran

    Gombrichin cümleleri yalın ama yapısı genel olarak (özellikle varolan bir görüşü eleştirdiğinde) o kadar karmaşıklaşıyoki bazı durumlarda bikaç kere okumak bile fayda etmeyebiliyor. Kitabın çevirisi bu karmaşaya rağmen mükemmel. Yalnızca bazı kavramların inglizcelerine bakılması belki faydalı olabilir. Bu karmaşanın bir sebebi muhtemelen okuyucunun kavramlara ve geçmişteki tartışmaların ana hatlarına hakim olduğunu varsayıp konuya devam etmesi. Bir diğer sebebi (orjinalinden ve diğer kitaplarından anlaşıldığı üzre) adamın düşünce yapısının genel olarak böyle olması. Bu durum daha önsözde farkediliyor. Kitaba önsözle başlamak kitabın genel yapısı hakkında filir edinmek için (hem bi anlamda ideal) hemde değil. Kitap genel olarak okunması çok kolay değil anlaşılması zor yerleri var ama ele aldığı sorunları tarihsel bağlamarıyla o kadar aklı başında ele alıyoki gösterilen çabaya değeceğini düşünüyorum. Constableın tablolara uzun uzun bakın başlamadan önce.

  • Charles

    This was a study book for my Art Degree course. Useful and interesting but quite heavy going thus I've not read through every page; it's one of those useful reference books that is handy to keep on your bookshelf to dip into when you need to reference something. I also have his more well known "The Story of Art" (another useful book to keep on the shelf).

  • Victoria Zabuzova

    Profound humanitarian work on painted art. Wordy, repeating, urges to dig out the meaning. In a way like classical German philosophy. I personally cannot say I enjoyed it, although no doubt it is a must read for people talking about art and painting.

  • R.A. Bentinck

    This text gave me a solid foundation in understanding the psychology of art

  • Jonathan Clement

    essential reading for any production designer, painter, photographer, and museum cats

  • Lenka Benešová

    Jeden se stavebních kamenů znalostí dějin a teorie výtvarného umění. Spousta vodítek pro vlastní práci, rozhodně to není text, který stačí přečíst jednou.

  • Mehdi Habibzade

    ترجمۀ فارسی کتاب غیر قابل استفاده است، مثل بقیه ترجمه های شرم آوری که نویسنده بخت برگشته را خرج رزومه شخصی می کنند.

  • Will Schumer

    Gombrich's A.W. Mellon lectures. Some of his most interesting work on form and psychologically-motivated art that the Warburg Institute trained him for.

  • Evelyn

    Fascinating explanation of the way art has evolved from the times of Ancient Egyptians to today complete with many illustrations.

  • 翰林院编修

    艺术与错觉
    9.1 (859人评价) [英] E.H.贡布里希 / 杨成凯 / 广西美术出版社 / 2012
    被肯尼思•克拉克描述为“我所读过的最才华横溢的艺术批评著作之一”的《艺术与错觉》,是一部有关制像的经典研究。它试图回答一个简单的问题:何以会有被称作风格的...

  • Veerlibros Jeaque Vargas R.

    Me encantó. Sin ser artista ni historiadora de arte, mucho menos crítica, me encontré con una lectura muy placentera, bien argumentada, fácil de leer, para nada ladrilluda a pesar de su extensión.