On two distinct and quintessential kinds of pictorial representation

  • Jan B. Deregowski
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine data from two entirely separate academic traditions and to consider whether such combined pool of data offers an opportunity for an expiscation of better understanding of the ancient problem of pictorial perception. The traditions in question are those concerned with the development of pictorial representation through history, they are usually the province of the disciplines of Archeology and History of Art and I shall call them “historical”, and those concerned with the contemporaneous comparisons of perception and execution of pictures in several societies, either by deliberate design or by tacit assumption; these are usually the concern of Psychology and to a lesser extent of Anthropology. Such an examination is also likely to reveal lacunae in these data and therefore show what further work would be profitable.

Keywords

Coherence Posit Straw Nomad 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartel, K. (1958) Perspektywa Maraska. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydownictwo NankoweGoogle Scholar
  2. Brislin, R.W. & Keating, C.F. (1976) Cultural differences in perception of the threedimensional Ponzo illusion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 7: 397–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyen, H.G. (1938/1960) Die Pompejanische Wanddekoration. The Hague: Matinus NijhofGoogle Scholar
  4. Chwistek, Leon (1960) Plurality of reality. WarzawaGoogle Scholar
  5. Deregowski, J.B. (1980) Illusions, patterns and pictures. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Deregowski, J.B. (1983) A nineteenth century Scottish missionary in Africa, and some psychological speculations. In: R.C. Bridges (Ed.) An African Miscellany for John Hargreaves. Aberdeen University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Deregowski, J.B. (1986) Kazimierz Bartel’s observations on drawings of children and illiterate adults. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 4: 331–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deregowski, J.B. & Bentley, A.M. (1987) Seeing the impossible and building the likely. British Journal of Psychology 78: 91–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deregowski, J.B. & Bentley, A.M. (1986) Perception of pictorial space by Bushmen. International Journal of Psychology 21: 743–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deregowski, J.B., Muldrow, E.S. & Muldrow, W.F. (1972) Pictorial recognition in a remote Ethiopian population. Perception 1: 417–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ernst, B. (1986) Het Begoochlede Oog: Onmogelijke en Meersinninge Figuren. Amsterdam: MeulenhoffGoogle Scholar
  12. Fortes, M. (1940) Children’s drawings among the Tallensi. Africa 13: 293–295Google Scholar
  13. Fortes, M. (1981) Tallensi children s drawings. In: B. Lloyd & J. Gay (Eds.) Universals of human thought. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman, N.H. (1980) Strategies of representation in young children. London: Aademic PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeman, N.H. & Cox, M.V. (1985) Visual order. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson, J.J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-MifflinGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodman, N. (1969) Languages of art. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregory, R.L. (1965) Seeing in depth. Proceedings of the Royal Institution 40: 311Google Scholar
  19. Gregory, R.L. ( 1968 ) Eye and brain. London: World University LibraryGoogle Scholar
  20. Gregory, R.L. (1970) The intelligent eye. London: Weidenfeld-NicolsonGoogle Scholar
  21. Gregory, R.L. (1973) The confounded eye. In: R.L. Gregory & E.H. Gombrich (Eds.) Illusion in nature and art. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
  22. Halverson, J. (1987) Art for art’s sake in the Paleolithic. Current Anthropology 28: 63–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hudson, W. (1960) Pictorial depth perception in sub-cultural groups in Africa. Journal of Social Psychology 52: 183–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kulpa, Z,(1983) Are impossible figures possible? Signal Processing 5: 201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marr, D. (1982) Vision: Computational investigations into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: FreemanGoogle Scholar
  26. Perkins, D.N. (1972) Visual discrimination between rectangular and non-rectangular parallelepipeds. Perception and Psychophysics 12: 396–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perkins, D.N. & Deregowski, J.B. (1982) A cross-cultural comparison of the use of Gestalt perceptual strategy. Perception 11: 279–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robinson, J.O. (1972) The psychology of visual illusions. London: HutchinsonGoogle Scholar
  29. Young, A.W. & Deregowski, J.B. (1981) Seeing the impossible. Perception 10: 91–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan B. Deregowski

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations