Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T11:18:43.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extending the psycho-historical framework to understand artistic production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Aaron Kozbelt  and
Justin Ostrofsky
Aaron Kozbelt
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City, University of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889. AaronK@brooklyn.cuny.eduJOstrofsky@brooklyn.cuny.eduhttp://www.brooklyn.edu/web/academics/faculty/faculty_profile.jsp?faculty=437
Justin Ostrofsky
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City, University of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889. AaronK@brooklyn.cuny.eduJOstrofsky@brooklyn.cuny.eduhttp://www.brooklyn.edu/web/academics/faculty/faculty_profile.jsp?faculty=437
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We discuss how the psycho-historical framework can be profitably applied to artistic production, facilitating a synthesis of perception-based and knowledge-based perspectives on realistic observational drawing. We note that artists' technical knowledge itself constitutes a major component of an artwork's historical context, and that links between artistic practice and psychological theory may yet yield conclusions in line with universalist perspectives.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 148 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biederman, I. (1987) Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review 94:115–47.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. J. & Jones, H. E. (2008) How shape constancy relates to drawing accuracy. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2:8–19.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. H. (1960) Art and illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kozbelt, A. & Seeley, W. P. (2007) Integrating art historical, psychological, and neuroscientific explanations of artists' advantages in drawing and perception. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity, and the Arts 1:80–90.Google Scholar
Kozbelt, A., Seidel, A., ElBassiouny, A., Mark, Y. & Owen, D. R. (2010) Visual selection contributes to artists' advantages in representational drawing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 4:93–102.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P., Ropar, D., Ackroyd, K. & Rajendran, G. (2005) How perception impacts on drawings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31:996–1003.Google Scholar
Ostrofsky, J. & Kozbelt, A. (2011) A multi-stage attention hypothesis of drawing ability. In: Thinking through drawing: Practice into knowledge: Proceedings of an interdisciplinary symposium on drawing, cognition and education, ed. Kantrowitz, A., Brew, A. & Fava, M., pp. 61–66. Teachers College, Columbia University, Art and Art Education Department.Google Scholar
Ostrofsky, J., Kozbelt, A. & Seidel, A. (2012) Perceptual constancies and visual selection as predictors of realistic drawing skill. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 5:124–36.Google Scholar