In the history of art, Ernst Gombrich’s groundbreaking Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (1960) was influential in arguing against the traditional view of representation of reality in art as imitation. In the philosophy of science, notably Karl Popper and then Thomas Kuhn challenged the concept of progress as the cumulation of factual observations.
This paper wants to approach the larger issue of progress within the framework of Art and Illusion by asking: in how far do concepts of progress as derived from the philosophy of science relate to the notion of arts? More specifically, how did Gombrich challenge the traditional idea of representation as imitation? In following, it will be shown that Gombrich’s methodology and main concepts are greatly indebted to Popper’s theory of falsification. In a second step, Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution, which opposes Popper’s writings, will be outlined in relation to Gombrich and his ideas of perception and classification.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Progress in Art & Science
2.1 “Making Precedes Matching” – Progress through Falsification
2.2 Kuhnian Paradigms & Progress
3. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines Ernst Gombrich’s seminal work "Art and Illusion" through the lens of philosophy of science, specifically investigating how concepts of progress, as articulated by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, can be applied to the history of art and the evolution of pictorial representation.
- Comparison of Gombrich’s "making and matching" concept with Popper’s falsificationism.
- Analysis of the "mental set" in relation to Kuhnian scientific paradigms.
- Critique of the traditional view of art as mimesis or mere imitation.
- Discussion on the historical contingency of perception and classification in the arts.
- Evaluation of whether progress remains a valid conceptual framework for contemporary art.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 “Making Precedes Matching” – Progress through Falsification
With Art and Illusion, Gombrich puts forward a comprehensive revision of the story of visual discoveries to answer the question why stylistic difference exists in different periods of time. He argues against the idea of mimesis as imitation, which goes back to Antiquity and continues well into the 19th century (Gombrich, 1960). Rejecting Ruskin’s notion of the ‘innocence of the eye’ and the idea that stylistic change in art is the result of changes in straightforward modes of seeing and sense impressions, Gombrich draws on the psychology of representation to show how stylistic change is rather dependent on the conceptual framework, the models and traditions in which the artist lives (ibid.).
The ‘mental set’ provides the artists with schemata, which determines what aspects of reality are perceived. The artist thus does not begin with some sense impressions, but with a hypothesis – a horizon of expectation. As Gombrich explains, “Without some starting point, some initial schema, we could never get hold of the flux of experience. Without categories, we could not sort our impressions.” (1960, p. 76)
Yet an existing ‘mental set’ cannot be simply rejected and replaced by a new visual language. Only by subjecting it to a continuous process of ‘making and matching’ between the mental schemata and the natural world can man extend his awareness of the visible world (Jones, 2000; Gombrich, 1960).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the core problem of progress in art and science, setting the stage for an analysis of Gombrich’s work against the philosophical frameworks of Popper and Kuhn.
2. Progress in Art & Science: This section explores how Gombrich’s theories align with or diverge from Popper’s falsificationism and Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts to explain artistic and scientific change.
3. Conclusion: The concluding chapter synthesizes the findings, suggesting that while Gombrich’s model faces limitations in the postmodern era, it remains a useful framework for understanding the complex relationship between contemporary art and tradition.
Keywords
Art and Illusion, Ernst Gombrich, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Philosophy of Science, Progress, Making and Matching, Mimesis, Mental Set, Falsification, Scientific Revolution, Paradigm Shift, Pictorial Representation, Perception, Artistic Innovation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper explores Ernst Gombrich’s "Art and Illusion" by examining his theories on artistic progress through the perspective of philosophy of science, specifically comparing them to the ideas of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.
What are the central themes discussed?
The core themes include the rejection of art as mere imitation, the role of conceptual frameworks or "mental sets" in perception, and the application of scientific theories of progress to the history of art.
What is the central research question?
The research asks to what extent concepts of progress derived from the philosophy of science can explain stylistic evolution in art, and specifically how Gombrich’s methodology relates to Popper’s falsification and Kuhn’s paradigms.
Which scientific methodologies are applied in the analysis?
The author uses Karl Popper's theory of falsification (trial and error) and Thomas Kuhn’s concepts of normal science and paradigm shifts to analyze Gombrich's model of "making and matching."
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body treats the psychology of representation, the shift from synchronic to diachronic perspectives on progress, the structural parallels between artistic schemata and scientific paradigms, and the limits of these models regarding postmodern art.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include "making and matching," falsification, paradigm, mental set, pictorial representation, and mimesis.
How does Gombrich’s "mental set" relate to Kuhn’s "paradigm"?
The paper argues that both concepts function as frameworks that structure perception, guide research or artistic practice, and dictate how observations are interpreted based on previous training and experience.
Does the author conclude that art progresses in the same way as science?
The author concludes that while Gombrich’s "making and matching" provides a useful framework, there are limitations; art does not always follow the "radical overthrow" model of Kuhnian revolutions, as contemporary art often maintains a complex relationship with the past.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Patrizia Koenig (Autor:in), 2012, Exploring Gombrich’s "Art and Illusion" in Relation to the Philosophy of Science, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/214769
