Nexus Network Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 51–62 | Cite as

Nelson Goodman’s Arguments Against Perspective: A Geometrical Analysis

  • Branko Mitrović


Nelson Goodman’s highly influential book Languages of Art argued that that all visual experience is merely a cultural construct. In presenting his thesis Goodman relied on a series of geometrical arguments intended to show that the geometrical construction of perspective does not rely on the geometry of light rays. In this article I analyze the geometrical validity of Goodman’s arguments.


Nelson Goodman perspective theory geometry of perspective Ernst Gombrich Erwin Panofsky 


  1. 1.
    Carrier., David. (1980) Perspective as a Convention: On the Views of Nelson Goodman and Ernst Gombrich. Leonardo 13: 283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Doesschate, Genesius Ten. 1964. Perspective, Fundamentals, Controversials, History Nieuwkoop: B de Graaf, 1964, 46–56.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gombrich, Ernst. 1960. Art and Illusion. A Study of Psychology of Pictorial Representation. London: Phaidon.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gombrich, Ernst. 1987. Western Art and the Perception of Space. Pp. 16–28 in Space in European Art, Council of Europe Exhibition, Kokuritsu Seiyo Bijutsukan (ed.) Tokyo: Yomiuri Shinbunsha.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodman., Nelson. (1968) Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodman. (1978) Ways of Worldmaking. Hassocks: The Harvester PressGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoffman., Donald. (1998) Visual Intelligence. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ittelson., William H. (1952) The Ames Demonstrations in Perception. Hafner Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kubovy., Michael. (1986) The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mcconkie, George. 1979. On the role of and control of eye movements in reading. Pp. 37–48 in Processing of Visual Language, Paul Kolers, Ernst Merald and Herman Bouma, eds. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mcconkie George., David Zola. (1979) Is visual information integrated across successive fixations in reading? Perception and Psychophysics 25: 221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitrović, Branko. 2010. A Defence of Light. Ernst Gombrich, the Innocent Eye and Seeing in Perspective. Journal of Art Historiography 3. Last accessed 20 September 2012.
  13. 13.
    Panofsky Erwin. 1927. Die Perspektive als symbolische Form. In Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 1924–1925, Fritz Saxl, ed. Leipzig and Berlin 1927; rpt. in Erwin Panofsky, Deutschsprachige Aufsätze, Karen Michels and Martin Warnke, eds. Berlin: Akademie Verlag 1998, vol. 2, 664–757.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pirenne., Maurice Henri. Léonard. (1970) Optics, Painting & Photography. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pylyshyn., Zenon. (1999) Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 22: 341–423Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pylyshyn, Zenon. 2006. Seeing and Visualizing. It’s not what you think. Cambridge, MA.: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Todorović. Dejan. (2009) The effect of the observer vantage point on perceived distortions in linear perspective images. Attention, Perception, Psychophysics 71: 183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Todorović., Dejan. (2008) Is pictorial perception robust? The effect of the observer vantage point on the perceived depth structure of linear perspective images. Perception 37: 106–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Todorović., Dejan. (2005) Geometric and perceptual effects of the location of the observer vantage point for linear-perspective images. Perception 34: 521–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Topper., David. (1984) On the Fidelity of Pictures: A Critique of Goodman’s Disjunction of Perspective and Realism. Philosophia 14: 187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureUnitec Institute of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations