The Ambiguities of Representation and Illusion: An E. H. Gombrich Retrospective

Critical Inquiry 11 (2):181-194 (1984)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is difficult to overestimate the impact, beginning in the 1960s, which Gombrich’s discussion of visual representation made on a good number of theorists in an entire generation of thinking about art and—even more—about literary art. For literary theory and criticism were at least as affected by his work as were theory and criticism in the plastic arts. Art and Illusion radically undermined the terms which had controlled discussion of how art represented “reality”—or, rather, how viewers or members of the audience perceived that representation and related it to their versions of “reality.” And, for those who accompanied or followed him—from Rosalie Colie to Wolfgang Iser—Gombrich helped transform for good the meaning of a long revered term like “imitation” as it could be applied to both the visual and verbal arts. I believe he must, then, be seen as responsible for some of the most provocative turns that art theory, literary theory, and aesthetics have taken in the last two decades.In much of his work since the 1960s, however, Gombrich has appeared more and more anxious to dissociate himself from those who have treated his earlier books and essays as leading to the theoretical innovations which have claimed support from them. In The Image and the Eye, the statements which put distance between himself and such followers seem utterly unambiguous. And against the charge that his work has become more conservative with the passing years, I suspect Gombrich would argue that any claim of difference between, say, Art and Illusion and The Image and the Eye is a result of an original misreading, that the recent work is only more explicitly defending a traditional position which was quietly there all along, though supposedly friendly theorists wrongly saw him as subverting it in the earlier work. Thus Gombrich is now self-consciously committed to undoing what he sees as our errors of reading rather than his own errors of writing. Murray Krieger is University Professor of English at the University of California, Irvine. He is the author of, among other works, The Tragic Vision, The Classic Vision, Theory of Criticism: A Tradition and Its System, Poetic Presence and Illusion: Essays in Critical History and Theory, and, most recently, Arts on the Level. He is presently working on Ekphrasis: Space, Time, and Illusion in Literary Theory . His latest contribution to Critical Inquiry, “Poetic Presence and Illusion: Renaissance Theory and the Duplicity of Metaphor,” appeared in the Summer 1979 issue

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Pictorial perception as illusion.Katerina Bantinaki - 2007 - British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (3):268-279.
Truth and Stereotype: An Illusion Theory of Representation.E. H. Gombrich - 1992 - In Philip Alperson (ed.), The Philosophy of the visual arts. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 72--87.
Las meninas and the illusion of illusionism.Johan Veldeman & E. Myin - 2008 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 15 (9):124-130.
Representation and Misrepresentation.E. H. Gombrich - 1984 - Critical Inquiry 11 (2):195.
There is no stream of consciousness.Susan J. Blackmore - 2002 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (5-6):17-28.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-17

Downloads
20 (#767,424)

6 months
9 (#308,593)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Arnheim and Gombrich in social scientific perspective.Ian Verstegen - 2004 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34 (1):91–102.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references