In China, E. H. Gombrich is known for his classic work The Story of Art, at the same time he is one of the leading scholars in the field of Western art theory and art history. As the most famous art historians and art theorists of the twentieth century, Gombrich’s research focused on the field of fine art based on visual art. His theories of visual image are a major part of his art research, including “Visual Perception Psychology”, “Iconology” and “The Sociology of Art”. Therefore, this paper divides his theory of visual images into “Perception Theory”, “Interpretation Theory” and “Style Theory”, and on these three levels, sorts out its basic lineage, elaborates and analyzes its main contents, and conducts a comparative study in conjunction with related art theories.
Chapter One focuses on Gombrich’s conception of art and research methods, which is an important basis for the study of his theory of visual images. In general, Gombrich opposed an abstract concept of art and believed that art had no essence. He criticized the Hegelian tradition and based on the Popper’s doctrine, took Visual Perception Psychology as an important theoretical basis, and combined the relevant results of modern linguistics and semiotics and other multidisciplinary achievements to conduct the research of visual image. Thus, he took Art not only as a language that expresses the creator’s vision, but also as an image-making activity that creates “substitutes”. Gombrich criticized the traditional conception of mimesis and representation, arguing that the basis of “representation” is not “likenesses” but “equivalence”. In this respect, he was in dialogue with modern symbolic theory, in the meanwhile rejecting an extreme conventionalism.
Chapter Two focuses on Gombrich’s Perception Theory of visual image. It was Gombrich’s main research achievement to address issues relating to image viewing and production from the perspective of visual perception psychology. He emphasized that the special feature of the human visual perceptual mechanism is its actively exploratory dynamism, rather than passive direct recording of information from the external world. In the process of human visual perception, not only does “knowing” inevitably affect “seeing”, but also this effect is influenced and produced by the action of “mental set”. The “mental set” refers to the selective form of perceptual adjustment, which is the starting point for human visual perception to explore the external world dynamically. Thus, human visual perception receives and processes information from the external world in a process of anticipation and correction. In this way, Gombrich discussed the mechanism of representation of visual images, arguing that the objects represented in images are not copies of the real world, but are usually recognizable as real things. Moreover, since human “knowing” includes not only acquired knowledge and experience, but also innate natural mechanisms, Gombrich didn’t fully accept the notion of conventionalist image representation. In addition, Gombrich used Schema Theory to discuss the principles of visual image production, stating that the creator needs a “schema” as a starting point to make images in the process of matching and correction. The “schema” is not only for conceptual images, but also for basic techniques.
Chapter Three focuses on Gombrich’s Interpretation Theory of visual image. This aspect of his theory is embodied in his Iconology, which is based on the study of “symbol”. Gombrich’s research of Iconology has two main focuses, one of which is the study of symbolic images of the Renaissance, and the other is his focus on the methodological aspects of Iconology in the course of his research, establishing his own Iconology program which challenges Panofsky’s Iconology model. Gombrich’s research on “symbol” is an important achievement of his Iconology. These results fully demonstrate that “symbol” is an important concept in Western art and is closely related to the phenomenon of “personification”. “The personification of abstract concept” is an important symbolic tradition in the West, which has evolved into two symbolic systems, namely the “Aristotelian tradition” and the “Neo-Platonism tradition”. The former is understanding of “symbol” within the realm of language, while the latter treats “symbols” as something ineffable beyond language. Both reveal the scope of meaning of visual images and their complexity. So, his response is to reconstruct historical and social contexts as a basic principle, and to focus on “intended meaning” and institution traditions in order to interpret the content and meaning of visual images more rationally. Therefore, Gombrich didn’t fully endorse Panofsky’s Iconology model because the latter overemphasizes the cultural unity inherent in the work of art, thus making the Zeitgeist the final interpretation of the content and meaning of the work of art. For Gombrich, this approach is the very embodiment of Hegelianism and where their theoretical differences lie.
Chapter Four focuses on Gombrich’s Style Theory of visual image. First, this aspect of his theory has an important relationship to his Sociology of Art, as he ultimately discusses the formation and development of pictorial style in the context of the relationship between art and society. Gombrich explicitly rejects the Hegelian view of art history, which is psychologically a “physiognomic fallacy” and forms a “historical determinism”. At the same time, he treated Arnold Hauser’s Sociology of Art as a determinist theory. Gombrich himself described the interaction between Art and Society in terms of an “Ecological niche”. His focus is on the individual creator, arguing that while the social environment has an important impact on the individual, the final outcome depends on the individual’s own choices and responses. He proposed “the logic of vanity fair” to discuss the situation of the individual creator and his choices. Second, his theory of style contains a criticism of the history of style associated with visual theory since Konrad Fiedler. Gombrich mainly criticized the Style studies of Heinrich Wolfflin and Alois Riegl. Because they related “style” to visual forms on different levels, they understood art history as the “history of seeing” but attributed the essential characteristics and development of these visual forms to abstract concepts such as the Zeitgeist or the “artistic volition”, Therefore, their theories have Hegelian elements. But Gombrich took “style” as a recognizable approach based on technique and institution, rejecting the notion that there is a necessary connection between style and a particular cultural stage. He emphasized that individual creators drive the formation and development of style, that they make choices and respond to social influences in specific social contexts, and that they bring about new changes and developments through inheritance and innovation.
谷歌
