Advertisement

Art and Science in the Thinking of Rudolf Arnheim

  • Ian VerstegenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The Frontiers Collection book series (FRONTCOLL)

Abstract

In Rudolf Arnheim’s thinking, art and science are two different but complementary modes of knowing the world. In a review of Nelson Goodman’s Languages of Art, he wrote: “science employs and consumes sensory data in order to arrive at the principles governing the operations of physical and mental forces. In art, the sensory data themselves are the ultimate statement because what we are made to see and hear lets us experience the play of forces that govern our existence.” I wish to review Arnheim’s discussions of art and science and reinforce his intuitions with some ontological principles derived from his contemporary Roman Ingarden, in order to flesh out a truly “symmetrical” account of art and science. I will argue that science builds systems of thought to coordinate the determinacies of the world whereas art coordinates a few determinacies of the world to suggest alternative, possible and aspirational worlds. Both serve an orienting role for human cognition.

References

  1. Arnheim, R.: Anti-Fascist Satire. Films: A Quarterly of Discussion and Analysis, Vol. 1, p. 30 (1940) [reprinted in Film Essays and Criticism…]Google Scholar
  2. Arnheim, R.: The Gestalt Theory of Expression. Toward a Psychology of Art. University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles (1966)Google Scholar
  3. Arnheim, R.: Visual Thinking. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles (1969a)Google Scholar
  4. Arnheim, R.: The genesis of a painting: Picasso’s Guernica. University of California Press, Berkeley (1969b)Google Scholar
  5. Arnheim, R.: Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles (1974)Google Scholar
  6. Arnheim, R.: Consciousness: an island of images. J. Theor. Philos. Psychol. 14, 121–127 (1994) [reprinted in The Split and the Structure, pp. 144–150]Google Scholar
  7. Bredekamp, H.: Darwins Korallen: Frühe Evolutionsmodelle und di Tradition der Naturgeschichte, pp. 75–76. Wagenbach, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  8. Brereton, D.: Preface for a critical realist ethnology, part II. J. Crit. Realism 3, 270–304 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. Duhem, P.: The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1991 [1914])Google Scholar
  10. Einstein, A.: In: Nathan, O., Norden, H. (eds.) Einstein on Peace, p. 397. Simon and Schuster, New York (1960)Google Scholar
  11. Epstein, W., Hatfield, G.: Gestalt psychology and the philosophy of mind. Philos. Psychol. 7, 163–181 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feyerabend, P.: Science as art: an attempt to apply Riegl’s theory of art to the sciences. Art Text 12–13 (1983)Google Scholar
  13. Gruber, H.E.: Darwin on Man. A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity. Wildwood House, London (1974)Google Scholar
  14. Gruber, H.E.: Darwin’s tree of nature and other images of wide scope. In: Wechsler, J. (ed.) Aesthetics in Science, pp. 121–142. Birkhäuser, Boston (1981)Google Scholar
  15. Halliwell, S.: Aristotle Poetics, Loeb Classical Library, p. 59. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  16. Hatfield, G.: The brain’s new science: psychology, neurophysiology, and constraint. Philos. Sci. 67, 388–403 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hatfield, G.: Sense-data and the mind-body problem. In: Schumacher, R. (ed.) Perception and Reality: From Descartes to the Present, pp. 305–331. Mentis Verlag, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  18. Heider, F.: The description of the psychological environment in the work of Marcel Proust. Charact. Pers. 9, 295–314 (1941) [reprinted in Psychological Issues, Vol. 1, pp. 85–107 (1959)]Google Scholar
  19. Henle, M. (ed.) The Selected Papers of Wolfgang Köhler, pp. 62–82. Liveright, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  20. Henle, M.: Isomorphism: setting the record straight. Psychol. Res. 46, 317–327 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingarden, R.: Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt, I, Existentialontologie, pp. 87, 261. Niemeyer, Tübingen (1964)Google Scholar
  22. Iser, W.: The Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary Anthropology, p. 301. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1993)Google Scholar
  23. Johansson, I.: Roman Ingarden and the problem of universals. In: Lapointe, S., Wolenski, J., Marion, M., Miskiewicz, W. (eds.) The Golden Age of Polish Philosophy. Kazimierz Twardowski’s Philosophical Legacy. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  24. Köhler, W.: The Place of Value in a World of Facts. Liveright, New York (1938)Google Scholar
  25. Köhler, W.: The mind-body problem. In: Hook, S. (ed.) Dimensions of Mind, pp. 3–23. New York University Press, New York (1960)Google Scholar
  26. Kuhn, T.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1970)Google Scholar
  27. Manzoni, A.: Promessi sposi (1842)Google Scholar
  28. Metzger, W.: Das Leib-Seele-Problem. In: Psychologie, 2nd edn., pp. 276–308 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quine, W.: Two dogmas of empiricism. In: From a Logical Point of View, 2nd edn., pp. 20–46. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass (1961)Google Scholar
  30. Rampley, M.: Bildwissenschaft: theories of the image in German-language scholarship. In: Rampley, M., et al. (ed.) Art History and Visual Studies in Europe. Brill, Leiden (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richer, P.: The concepts of subjectivity and objectivity in gestalt psychology. J. Phenomenological Psychol. 10, 33–55 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seifert, J., Smith, B.: The truth about fiction. In: Galewicz, W., Ströker, E., Strozewski, W. (eds.) Kunst und Ontologie. Für Roman Ingarden zum 100. Geburtstag, pp. 97–118. Rodopi, Amsterdam/Atlanta (1994)Google Scholar
  33. Solzhenitsyn, A.: Gulag Archipelago. Perennial Library, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  34. Verstegen, I.: Arnheim, Gestalt and Art: A Psychological Theory. Springer, Vienna (2005)Google Scholar
  35. Verstegen, I.: Arnheim Gestalt and Media: An Ontological Theory. Springer, Berlin (2019)Google Scholar
  36. von Wachter, D.: Roman ingarden’s ontology: existential dependence, substances, ideas, and other things empiricists do not like. In: Existence, Culture, and Persons: The Ontology of Roman Ingarden, pp. 55–82. Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations