What do you think?
Rate this book
Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation
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.
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.
402 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
About the author
E.H. Gombrich
77 books1,063 followersSir Ernst Hans Josef Gombrich, OM, CBE (30 March 1909 – 3 November 2001) was an Austrian-born art historian, who spent most of his working life in the United Kingdom.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
September 24, 2008
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.
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.
August 30, 2007
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.
November 19, 2018
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.
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.
January 11, 2021
“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.
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.
April 23, 2015
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
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
January 19, 2020
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.
October 12, 2018
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.
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.
January 1, 2016
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.
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.
January 3, 2017
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.
April 30, 2018
E H Gombrich on Art and illusion
This book could be defined as art criticism. It explores why there is such a thing as style and what Gombrich believes to be the extraordinarily complex riddle of style. It also explores the history and psychology of pictorial representation. In this book, one looks at the imitation of nature, the function of tradition, the problem of abstraction, the validity of perspective and the interpretation of expression. It covers theoretical issues as well as using science to find answers.
In this book you will also discover the limits of likeness, function and form, invention and discovery. It goes into depth about a field of inquiry that extends beyond the frontiers of art to the study of perception and optical illusion. Looking at mysterious ways in which shapes and marks can be made to suggest and signify other things. The difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘seeing’, which I would hasten to add that one should refer to Berger’s ‘ways of seeing’.
This book looks at the visible world and the language of art in relation to it.
“Art being a thing of the mind, it follows that any scientific study of art will be psychology” –Max J Friedländer, Von Kunst Und Kennerschaft
In this book one considers the question of what subjective imitations of nature tells us of truth. It looks at introspection, and how this relates to one’s imagination, interpretation, style and uniqueness. Art moves by innovation of technique rather than increase in ‘realism’, and this book explores what ‘tools’ the tradition enables the artist –in order to see changes.
Gombrich’s riddle of style is a common topic at university study for artists and writers alike, and so I would highly recommend reading this enlightening book.
This book could be defined as art criticism. It explores why there is such a thing as style and what Gombrich believes to be the extraordinarily complex riddle of style. It also explores the history and psychology of pictorial representation. In this book, one looks at the imitation of nature, the function of tradition, the problem of abstraction, the validity of perspective and the interpretation of expression. It covers theoretical issues as well as using science to find answers.
In this book you will also discover the limits of likeness, function and form, invention and discovery. It goes into depth about a field of inquiry that extends beyond the frontiers of art to the study of perception and optical illusion. Looking at mysterious ways in which shapes and marks can be made to suggest and signify other things. The difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘seeing’, which I would hasten to add that one should refer to Berger’s ‘ways of seeing’.
This book looks at the visible world and the language of art in relation to it.
“Art being a thing of the mind, it follows that any scientific study of art will be psychology” –Max J Friedländer, Von Kunst Und Kennerschaft
In this book one considers the question of what subjective imitations of nature tells us of truth. It looks at introspection, and how this relates to one’s imagination, interpretation, style and uniqueness. Art moves by innovation of technique rather than increase in ‘realism’, and this book explores what ‘tools’ the tradition enables the artist –in order to see changes.
Gombrich’s riddle of style is a common topic at university study for artists and writers alike, and so I would highly recommend reading this enlightening book.
June 10, 2022
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.
January 25, 2023
The book is now quite dated. The approach to realist art is historical and based around the thought of the high point of abstraction. In the main it is fine but few realist artist of today would relate to their work in the sense of what appears to be a poor interpretation of Ruskin that Gombrich has pinned his sail to for no apparent reason. Perhaps the dominance of the need to justify less realistic art forms dominated the author during the period. Things have moved on but the book can still be of value if not taken too literally, a bit like reading Ruskin and having to interpret the text into modern attitudes.
February 14, 2014
This was one of many books left behind when my girlfriend/roommate in Union Theological Seminary moved out. She had been a student at Barnard College and I imagine this was one of their texts. Likely, it constituted my introduction to theories of visual perception and may have been read in conjunction with Neale's course in psychology.
July 31, 2015
On every thinking person's bookshelf, or should be
December 13, 2018
It's a interestant book
July 8, 2017
"For Reynolds, Gainsborough's frequently unfinished and rather vague indications are little more than those schemata which serve as a support for our memory images; in other words, they are screens onto which the sitter’s relatives and friends could project a beloved image, but which remain blank to those who cannot contribute from their own experience. The role which projection plays, and is intended to play, in works of this kind could not be brought out more sharply.
As a matter of fact by the time Reynolds wrote, the pleasure in this game of reading brushstrokes had become so popular that J. E. Liotard wrote his treatise on painting mainly to combat the prejudice according to which 'all good painting must be facile, freely painted and with fine touches.' He is prepared to admit that such a painting will look better from afar, but better, he thinks, is in this case only 'less ugly.' To read his polemics against the loaded brush, written as it was in 1781, one wonders why the technique of the impressionists struck the public as such a daring innovation.
But impressionism demanded more than a reading of brushstrokes. It demanded, if one may so put it, a reading across brushstrokes. There were a good many painters among the fashionable virtuosos of the nineteenth century, men like Boldini and Sargent, who drew more or less with a loaded brush and made the game of projecting sufficiently easy to be attractive. Among the great masters, Daumier’s technique is of this kind [29], the brush following the form firmly and boldly. It is the point of
impressionist painting that the direction of the brushstroke is no longer an aid to the reading of forms. It is without any support from structure that the beholder must mobilize his memory of the visible world and project it into the mosaic of strokes and dabs on the canvas before him. It is here, therefore, that the principle of guided projection reaches its climax. The image, it might be said, has no firm anchorage left on the canvas [25] -it is only 'conjured up' in our minds. The willing beholder
responds to the artist’s suggestion because he enjoys the transformation that occurs in front of his eyes. It was in this enjoyment that a new function of art emerged gradually and all but unnoticed during the period we have discussed. The artist gives the beholder increasingly 'more to
do,' he draws him into the magic circle of creation and allows him to experience something of the thrill of “making” which had once been the privilege of the artist. It is the turning point which leads to those visual conundrums of twentieth-century art that challenge our ingenuity and make us search our own minds for the unexpressed and inarticulate.
It may seem paradoxical to link impressionism with this appeal to subjectivity, for the advocates of impressionism talked otherwise. Impressionism was to them the triumph of objective truth. The implications of this claim will engage our attention in a subsequent chapter."
As a matter of fact by the time Reynolds wrote, the pleasure in this game of reading brushstrokes had become so popular that J. E. Liotard wrote his treatise on painting mainly to combat the prejudice according to which 'all good painting must be facile, freely painted and with fine touches.' He is prepared to admit that such a painting will look better from afar, but better, he thinks, is in this case only 'less ugly.' To read his polemics against the loaded brush, written as it was in 1781, one wonders why the technique of the impressionists struck the public as such a daring innovation.
But impressionism demanded more than a reading of brushstrokes. It demanded, if one may so put it, a reading across brushstrokes. There were a good many painters among the fashionable virtuosos of the nineteenth century, men like Boldini and Sargent, who drew more or less with a loaded brush and made the game of projecting sufficiently easy to be attractive. Among the great masters, Daumier’s technique is of this kind [29], the brush following the form firmly and boldly. It is the point of
impressionist painting that the direction of the brushstroke is no longer an aid to the reading of forms. It is without any support from structure that the beholder must mobilize his memory of the visible world and project it into the mosaic of strokes and dabs on the canvas before him. It is here, therefore, that the principle of guided projection reaches its climax. The image, it might be said, has no firm anchorage left on the canvas [25] -it is only 'conjured up' in our minds. The willing beholder
responds to the artist’s suggestion because he enjoys the transformation that occurs in front of his eyes. It was in this enjoyment that a new function of art emerged gradually and all but unnoticed during the period we have discussed. The artist gives the beholder increasingly 'more to
do,' he draws him into the magic circle of creation and allows him to experience something of the thrill of “making” which had once been the privilege of the artist. It is the turning point which leads to those visual conundrums of twentieth-century art that challenge our ingenuity and make us search our own minds for the unexpressed and inarticulate.
It may seem paradoxical to link impressionism with this appeal to subjectivity, for the advocates of impressionism talked otherwise. Impressionism was to them the triumph of objective truth. The implications of this claim will engage our attention in a subsequent chapter."
September 1, 2022
Gombrich si pokládá otázku percepce umění a důvodech odlišností v zobrazování. Iluze - nutnost pátrat po tvaru a ne jeho interpretaci. Zdůrazňuje, že umělecká díla nejsou zrcadla. Dnes již vítězství a vulgarizace kreslířské dovednosti. Vývoj umění podněcuje stále více psychologii percepce. Řeč umění však znaji pouze umělci. "Co se jeví jako pokrok z hlediska zvládnutí vyjadřovacího prostředku, je i sestup do prázdné virtuozity."
Je těžké oprostit se od toho co víme a vnímat jen to, co vidíme. Ruskin pro to nastolil termín "nevinné oko". Avšak nelze vyloučit ostatní smysly, jsou součástí vnímání světa. Vyzdvihuje další termín, Wölfflin ustanoval tzv. "dějiny vědění".
Gombrich prohlašuje, že změna stylu znamená změnu záměru (čímž se shoduje nadále i s Kitzingrem). Jako příklad uvádí egyptské umění a jeho tendenci zobrazovat pouze stálé hodnoty. Primitivní umění interpretuje jako tendenci zobrazit ne vnější svět, ale ten mentální.
Tradičně umění jako věda. Znázornění není replikou, ale motivu se podobají. Návrat renesance ke klasickému ideálu zdůvodnil přísnějšími kritérii pro znázorňování. Malířství vlastně kompenzuje ztrátu pohybu a prostoru reliéfní povahou tvarů. Vizuální představivost je na místě, doplňuje nutně dílo, aby mu bylo rozuměno.
Zvykly jsme si na fotografie, víceznačnost obrazu ničí tuto vizuální představivost, tvrdí Gombrich. Estetický požitek máme, pokud můžeme oscilovat mezi asociacemi reality a uměním.
Je těžké oprostit se od toho co víme a vnímat jen to, co vidíme. Ruskin pro to nastolil termín "nevinné oko". Avšak nelze vyloučit ostatní smysly, jsou součástí vnímání světa. Vyzdvihuje další termín, Wölfflin ustanoval tzv. "dějiny vědění".
Gombrich prohlašuje, že změna stylu znamená změnu záměru (čímž se shoduje nadále i s Kitzingrem). Jako příklad uvádí egyptské umění a jeho tendenci zobrazovat pouze stálé hodnoty. Primitivní umění interpretuje jako tendenci zobrazit ne vnější svět, ale ten mentální.
Tradičně umění jako věda. Znázornění není replikou, ale motivu se podobají. Návrat renesance ke klasickému ideálu zdůvodnil přísnějšími kritérii pro znázorňování. Malířství vlastně kompenzuje ztrátu pohybu a prostoru reliéfní povahou tvarů. Vizuální představivost je na místě, doplňuje nutně dílo, aby mu bylo rozuměno.
Zvykly jsme si na fotografie, víceznačnost obrazu ničí tuto vizuální představivost, tvrdí Gombrich. Estetický požitek máme, pokud můžeme oscilovat mezi asociacemi reality a uměním.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 1, 2021
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.
December 20, 2021
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. The useful information in this text is inextricably bound to the myopic views of the author.
I am enormously disappointed that this book comes so highly rated and I desperately hope that more serious students of psychology *and* more will rounded art historians can make something better in the near future.
I am enormously disappointed that this book comes so highly rated and I desperately hope that more serious students of psychology *and* more will rounded art historians can make something better in the near future.
May 11, 2022
Taai om te lezen en saai om door te ploegen; desondanks zeer de moeite waard door de inzichten in stijl en in kunstgeschiedenis die dit de lezer oplevert. Stijl is een ordeningsmiddel, maar die gedachte bevat in Gombrich’s uitwerking verrassend meer diepgang dan gedacht! Veel van wat ik weet en waardeer uit de ( vooral schilder)kunst valt door dit boek op zn plaats. Het wachten is nu op een psycholoog die de actuele stand van zijn wetenschap (denk aan iemand van het kaliber Kahneman) verbindt met de theorie van Gombrich.
July 11, 2021
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).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 27, 2017
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.
January 31, 2024
Es un libro grannnnde. Pero entretenido y fácil de leer. Mi único problema es que no se separaban los temas unos con otros. La lectura es muy lineal, casi sin puntos apartes. Pero fuera de eso, es un gran libro sobre análisis y psicología del arte en concreto.
September 15, 2017
This text gave me a solid foundation in understanding the psychology of art
February 28, 2019
Bit long-winded and I'm not sure if it was too groundbreaking or enlightening
But as far as I know it's pretty correct
Liked the bits on perspective/illusions and the math behind drawing 3d into 2d
But as far as I know it's pretty correct
Liked the bits on perspective/illusions and the math behind drawing 3d into 2d
April 25, 2019
essential reading for any production designer, painter, photographer, and museum cats
January 11, 2020
Jeden se stavebních kamenů znalostí dějin a teorie výtvarného umění. Spousta vodítek pro vlastní práci, rozhodně to není text, který stačí přečíst jednou.
April 21, 2020
Neni to Gombrich ve své nejlepší formě. Příliš dlouhé a jen některé pasáže opravdu objevné. Ale i pro těch pár stránek to stojí přečíst.
May 7, 2020
ترجمۀ فارسی کتاب غیر قابل استفاده است، مثل بقیه ترجمه های شرم آوری که نویسنده بخت برگشته را خرج رزومه شخصی می کنند.
December 6, 2020
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.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews