Dynamic Approach Rule The label dynamic approach indicates the necessity of discovering multiple forces at work in any

situation. This means that no matter where we enter an organisational development or change process we need to be prepared to use many levels of analysis to understand what is going on within the social system. What is affecting the people who are leading managing and e!isting in the midst of the change and development" #ewins dynamic approach rule states that the elements of any situation should be regarded as parts of a system. $n other words we find it useful as scholarly practitioners to assume that all component parts relate with each other forming a comple! whole. We find it useful to assume that all parts connect somehow in ways to be discovered through action and study. The dynamic approach rule challenges us to be concerned with multiple energi%ing or motive forces. At minimum this re&uires data to be collected and analysed at multiple levels of social analysis. As we consider the issues implicated in a particular change we discipline ourselves to describe separate components and to assert how they might be influencing each other. 'o matter which level we enter ( individual group inter)group organisational or inter)organisational ( we work to notice and hypothesi%e about connections across the boundaries of these levels. Within The Tavistock $nstitutes archive a study conducted by *ordon #awrence and +ric ,iller e!emplifies the dynamic approach rule. They were asked by a government department to study the psychic and political constraints on the growth of industrial democracy in the -.. Their theoretical formulation started with the societal level at which +uropean)wide legislation in favour of workers councils within all businesses was under debate. As they gathered and worked with data they noticed and made connections between societal forces and individual psychological forces. /articularly they were able to show that feelings of failed dependency towards both employer and employee representative organisations resulted in insufficient trust in industrial democracy to challenge corporate resistance. Another e!ample coming from the Third 0ector demonstrates the dynamic approach. 1ean 'eumann and 1ac&ueline ,c#emore consulted with a small charity organisation providing services to victims of se!ual assault and domestic violence. What started as an evaluation for local government funders evolved into a developmental process that left the charity better situated in its evolving regional environment. An initial theoretical formulation linked conflicts between the two sub)units 2a se!ual assault hotline and a domestic violence shelter3 to high an!iety about strategic debates threatening long)standing familiar ways of working. 4y mobilising the 5ointly shared volunteers interventions at 4oard inter)group and small group levels resulted in an improved hotline and a network of safe houses replacing the labour intensive e!pensive shelter. Thus .urt #ewins dynamic approach rule helps scholarly practitioners of organisational development and change to regard elements of any situation as parts of a system. $nstead of getting stuck at too narrow or too wide a level of intervention this principle guides actions within and across the relevant elements. 6ontribution becomes possible to the practical concerns of people in the immediate situation. The opportunity also e!ists to contribute more broadly to social science understanding about uni&ue issues within particular sectors

7ield Theory Rule Applying field theory for organisational change and consulting re&uires an acceptance of its central premise. /eople and their surroundings and conditions depend closely on each other. $n #ewins words to understand or to predict behaviour the person and his environment have to be considered as oneconstellation of interdependent factors 289:;<==>3. Thus the notion of field refers to< 2a3 all aspects of individuals in relationship with their surroundings and conditions? 2b3 that apparently influence the particular behaviours and developments of concern? 2c3 at a particular point in time.

#ewins field theory rule states that analysis starts with the situation as a whole. 4y gaining an overview as early as possible we intend to broaden the perspective from which we as scholarly practitioners engage with the general characteristics of the challenge or opportunity facing our organisational clients. #ewin highlighted the importance of characteri%ing the atmosphere 2e.g. emotional tone or climate3 and the amount of freedom e!isting in the situation. 0uch an overall perspective counteracts the pull to repeat the same unsuccessful attempts at change and development. 7ield theory leads us to conclude that such a pull to repetition comes from forces within the field. As outsiders we may be prone to believe that we wont succumb. Thus after starting with the total situation our analysis needs to focus on more specific variables that might be at play. We aim to represent everything in the field 2i.e. people and their environment3 that helps or hinders movement towards the goals for change and development. -sing the field theory rule often results in a figure or some other sort of data display to represent the psychological field and the inter)relation of its parts. #ewin and his colleagues 2including early social scientists at The Tavistock $nstitute3 favoured topological maps. These egg)shaped diagrams showed crucial inter)related areas arrows to indicate direction of force toward the goal or away from the goal and often mathematical e&uations to indicate possible solutions to problems. Today additional analytical methods 2e.g. visual and &ualitative ones3 are made possible with information technology. A specific criterion for ob5ectivity when using field theory can improve the &uality of organisational change practice. #ewin asserts that we should aim to represent the field correctly as it e!ists for the individual in &uestion at a particular time 289:;<==>3. +ven when working with collective phenomenon this discipline for analysis remains. We need to avoid offering pre)determined solutions or getting caught in the same field of forces as our clients. $nstead scholarly practitioners take the time and effort to study the idiosyncrasies of each total situation and make a representation of the forces being e!perienced by clients. 7rom that analysis we discuss working hypotheses with our clients to assist them in changing their field 2i.e. their behaviour and related surroundings and conditions3. We may also be able to cooperate with them on e!periments in moving towards their change goals. Within The Tavistock $nstitutes archive a study conducted by Don 4ryant and 1ean 'eumann e!emplifies the field theory rule. They were asked by a -. government department to study the organisational factors in shipping casualties 2e.g. accidents to ships fires groundings3. 4ased on an overall view of the 4ritish merchant navy they designed a study to ma!imi%e information about the people and their environments. They identified individuals in roles implicated in preventing shipping casualties 2e.g. captains and other officers company directors agencies for foreign workers employee associations and government agencies3. They also identified different types of companies to be represented 2e.g. container shipping gas and oil fleets ferry companies suppliers to drilling platforms3. 7rom analysis of over =@ interview notes they identified about >@ variables considered relevant by individuals in various roles and from different types of businesses. A large causal map was made to represent the inter)connected patterns. A notation system indicated the degree to which individuals thought the patterns helped hindered or were neutral in their efforts to avoid casualties at sea. Working hypotheses about types of organisational factors were identified from this causal map and offered to representatives from government the merchant navy and their staff groups. A pivotal interface became apparent between commercial departments and captains with their officers. Another e!ample coming from the Third 0ector demonstrates the field theory rule. The topic concerned how to increase the rate of -. government mandated innovation within small providers of health and social care services for aging. An analysis of the total situation showed that money was running out as most of it had been spent at the level of partnership committees and governance boards. $nvolving small providers was the goal. These included mom and pop nursing homes small advocacy groups and individual and small providers of personal services ( many of them geographically located in rural and seaside locations. 7or nearly of year everyone repeated the e!perience of being caught by the same forces and not moving toward the goal. 7inally it was possible to increase the pressure for a series of geographically situated workshops at which small providers came together to offer their e!periences in introducing innovations. Adrian Adams 1ean 'eumann and Antonio 0ama analy%ed this knowledge e!change pro5ect between a university and a social enterprise in such a way that a handful of inter)connected patterns emerged as influential in small providers abilities to innovate. A directly useful insight came from connecting and reframing particular interactions reported by small provider 0ervice ,anagers. When they met with 6are ,anagers and Assessors from government and regulatory agencies the atmosphere felt hierarchical and often challenging. 'onetheless these incidents of cross)boundary interface demonstrated key points for customi%ation of services for individual users.

Thus .urt #ewins field theory rule helps scholarly practitioners of organisational development and change to start the analysis with the situation as a whole. Doing so provides an overview to counteract the possibility of repetitive solutions that dont work. A thoughtful analysis represents the field of people and their environment as one constellation of mutually interdependent factors. /atterns of forces helping or hindering a goal illustrate promising points of intervention. Thus clients perspectives can be broadened and their freedom of movement increased.

Contemporaneity Rule
As the basis of action contemporaneity points to concentrating on elements of the current situation that motivate or otherwise influence people and their environment and thus shape change. #ewin asserted that only conditions in the present can e!plain e!perience and behaviour in the present 2*old 899A p. B@3. Therefore we concern ourselves primarily with systematic causes and not historical)geographical ones. The nature of the conditions of change means that effects can only be produced by that which is concrete something that e!ists within the same time)period 2#ewin 89=;3 of the situation being addressed. $n drawing a representation of a situation therefore we take account only of what is contemporary? that is e!isting at the same time or during the same time)period while we accept the necessity of e!cluding events which roughly speaking belong to past and future time 2#ewin 899Ab p. =:)=C3. The purpose of such a diagnosis for scholarly practitioners of organisational development and change is to e!plain or predict change in a certain situation. We do this by linking the change with the inter)connected concrete conditions of the field at that time 2#ewin 899Aa p. A883. $n designing interventions for change and development within the particular situation the contemporaneity rule helps us understand the underlying causality in action research. 4y setting up tests of the present it becomes possible to discern those concrete elements within the time and field that may be influencing people in their environment. #ewin clearly states that the total field includes time perspective at a given time 2899Aa p. A@B3 by which he includes psychological past and psychological future. De differentiates the actual past and future from that which e!ists in the present. 7or e!ample goals can e!ist in the present but their actual content cannot because they have not yet been realised. 6rucially the power of e!pectation ( #ewin terms this sub5ective probability ( can be very important as an influence on behaviour in the present. +!pectations tend to be affected by perception on the one hand and memory on the other 2899Ab p. A@>3. ,any staff members at The Tavistock $nstitute would consider that transference from the past needs to be recognised as an element of the present. This psychoanalytic provision cannot be credited to #ewin even though he insisted that systemic casuality does not imply a neglect or underestimation of historical problems 2#ewin 89=;<=A3. 4y definition transference means consciously or unconsciously repeating elements of the past in the present. 0uch enactments can emerge from individuals within a collective andEor evolve into a mutually constructed dynamic. Three common approaches for intervening are< 283 bringing the transference from the past to awareness in the present? 2A3 testing the degree to which the past is alive in the present? and 2=3 e!perimenting in the present by intentionally acting differently from the past. 0uch a practice rooted in the scholarship of psychoanalytic tradition resonates with the contemporaneity rule by treating the transference as something concrete e!erting influence in the current situation. Within The Tavistock $nstitutes archive a study conducted by Dugh ,urray and +. *regory e!emplifies the contemporaneity rule. They were asked by a -. government department to evaluate the effectiveness of policy on race relations within the 6ivil 0ervice. This re&uest was understood partly as a response to media coverage. As $nstitute staff gathered data from a wide range of stakeholders strong emotions were e!pressed and many stories told about incidents of unfairness and accusations of same within the workplace. As scholarly practitioners they used professional discipline to avoid favouring any one historical analysis of how the 6ivil 0ervice got itself into its circumstance. $ndeed they focussed e!plicitly on the contemporary concrete elements of fairness in personnel procedures and selection. They made a point of not addressing history. Dowever the fact that emotive stories and

interpretations were being e!pressed backstage in the present and across competing groups had to be understood as a part of the contemporary conditions for change. An e!ample from the Third 0ector also demonstrates a slightly different use of the contemporaneity rule. The 7ather 0uperior of a religious community re&uested consultancy about planning for retirement from his role and preparing for the selection of his successor. Dis presenting problem was the absence of an apparent heir waiting in the wings. Distorically his 6ommunity aimed to elect the most theologically brilliant monk with strong publications. This history was considered necessary given that the 6ommunity specialised in providing training development and spiritual direction to religious leaders. 7rom the initial diagnosis a working hypothesis emerged about the under)deployment of several worthy monks without the so)called brilliant track record. 1ean 'eumann and ,ichael Dwinell worked with the 6ommunity to identify what within the present situation worked for and against an apparent heir. 7rom this initial diagnosis it was possible to undertake an action research pro5ect with several iterations of tests in the present. The purpose being the discovery and evolution of shared leadership styles structures and processes that the 6ommunity considered appropriate to the contemporary situation. $t was possible to intervene in the e!pectation that no one would be good enough to be the new 0uperior by working with the inter)connected elements in the present that fed low self)esteem within the 6ommunity ( especially in those most likely to take up leadership. Thus the contemporaneity rule of .urt #ewin helps scholarly practitioners of organisational development and change to enact the idea that only conditions in the present can e!plain and predict e!perience and behaviour in the present. 4y linking the change with inter)connected concrete conditions of the field at that time 2#ewin 899Aa p. A883 a diagnosis can point out possible points for action. 4y crafting interventions within the conte!t of action research 2that is iterations of e!perimentation for the purpose of changing or developing3 tests of the present unfold elements of the situation that may not have been visible or understood as being influential before the attempt was made to change. +&ually something that was considered central and important can be understood as relevant but perhaps less amenable to action.

The Intelligence of Vision: An Interview with Rudolf Arnheim

UTA GRUNDMANN AND RUDOLF ARNHEIM

Professor Arnheim's obituary, June 14, 2007.

Rudolf Arnheim, who began in the 1 20s to a!!ly "estalt !sy#hology to art, was born in 1 04 in $erlin. %e studied !sy#hology, !hiloso!hy, art history, and musi# history at the &riedri#h 'ilhelm (ni)ersity in $erlin, where he re#ei)ed a do#torate in 1 2*. $eginning in the mid+20s he wrote arti#les and re)iews on film, art and literature, finally be#oming an editor at Die Weltbhne. ,n 1 - Arnheim emigrated )ia Rome and .ondon to the (nited /tates. 0hough little+1nown in "ermany, Arnheim has had a strong influen#e on art history and art !sy#hology in Ameri#a, where he taught at /arah .awren#e 2ollege, the 3ew /#hool for /o#ial Resear#h, %ar)ard (ni)ersity, and the (ni)ersity of 4i#higan. %is boo1s, in#luding Film as Art 51 -26, Art and Visual Perception 51 7481 746, Visual Thinking 51 9 6, Entropy and Art 51 716, The Dynamics of Architectural Form 51 776, and The Power of the of enter! A "tudy omposition in the Visual Arts 51 **6, as well as a great number of his essays, ha)e been

translated into many languages. Rudolf Arnheim #urrently li)es in Ann Arbor, where he s!o1e with (ta "rundmann.1

Mr. Arnheim, you were born in Berlin. In texts about Berlin written during the years in which you lived there, a great deal is mentioned about Berlin's vitality and radiance. Heinrich Mann described it as the "future of civili!ation." "hat do you remember about Berlin# $erlin was definitely an e:#iting #ity in the 20s. A 1ind of #reati)e #haos dominated, a )ery !rodu#ti)e di)ersity. , was born dire#tly on Ale:ander!lat;, in the middle of $erlin. ,t was where the $erolina stood< this was a large statue li1e the /tatue of .iberty, a symbol of the #ity of $erlin. $ut after a short time my !arents mo)ed to =aiserdamm in 2harlottenburg, near .iet;ensee. 'e li)ed there through the years leading u! to the 3a;i !eriod, until the beginning of the -0s. 4y father had a small !iano fa#tory< of #ourse he wanted me to ta1e it o)er. $ut , >ust distra#ted the em!loyees from their wor1 be#ause , wanted to 1now how su#h a !iano was built. 4y father didn't li1e that. And then there was the uni)ersity. $ou studied %sychology and art history at &riedrich "ilhelm 'niversity. "asn't this combination unusual at the time# ,f you wanted to study !sy#hology in the 20s, you had two main sub>e#ts, !hiloso!hy and !sy#hology, be#ause !sy#hology was not yet #onsidered a single sub>e#t. 0o that , added art history and musi# history as minor sub>e#ts. , was )ery interested in both art and !sy#hology, but , was a#tually first !rom!ted by my tea#hers, the "estalt !sy#hologists 4a: 'ertheimer and 'olfgang =?hler, to really ta1e a good loo1 at these sub>e#ts. $erlin (ni)ersity was the birth!la#e of "estalt !sy#hology, whi#h dealt !rimarily with sensory !sy#hology and the !er#e!tion of form, as well as with art. , re#ei)ed my do#torate in 1 2* with a wor1 on e:!ression in fa#es and handwriting, a theory of )isual e:!ression. And that established my art !sy#hology. (he conce%t of %sychology# "estalt !sy#hology was basi#ally a rea#tion to the traditional s#ien#es. A s#ientifi# e:!eriment was based !rimarily on brea1ing down its ob>e#t into single !arts and defining them. 0he sum of the defin+itions then #orres!onded to the ob>e#t. $y #ontrast, the "estalt !sy#hologists, referring among other things to the arts, em!hasi;ed that there are #ommon #onne#tions in human nature, in nature generally, in whi#h the whole is made u! of an interrelationshi! of its !arts and no sum of the !arts e@uals the whole. A)ery s#ien#e has to wor1 with the whole stru#ture. "estalt theory also says that the fa#tual world is not sim!ly understood through !er#e!tion as a random #olle#tion of sensory data, but rather as a stru#tured whole. Per#e!tion itself is stru#tured, is ordered. 0his also #on#erns art. 0he wor1 of art was a !rime e:am!le of a "estalt for my !sy#hology tea#hers. +igmund &reud was one of the first %sychologists who a%%lied his theory to art. $ou have said yourself that "art is an attem%t to understand the meaning of our existence," and that it is im%ortant to %ay attention to the elementary things that are at the root of the artistic %rocess. (his connects you with &reud's intention. estalt is extremely im%ortant for your wor) on art and %erce%tion. estalt ermany" and the "hearth of

*an you tell me something about the most im%ortant %rinci%les of

However, you harbor a fundamental s)e%ticism toward the a%%lication of %sychoanalysis in ,sthetic investigations. "hy# 0hat's what , want to tell you. , was already buying the first editions of &reud as a s#hoolboy. Psy#hoanalysis interested me tremendously as a theory, and &reud was a wonderful writer. &or e:am!le, his boo1 on >o1es is )ery interesting< it un#o)ers a lot about the bases of !rodu#ti)e thought. $ut &reud's insisten#e on se:uality as the moti)ation for art was ne)er #lear to me. , a#tually related more to Adler, and in #ertain res!e#ts to Jung, although , ha)e had my ma>or ob>e#tions to Jung. A!art from that, , had no great interest in indi)idual things. , was more interested in general !rin#i!les. In -./0 you 1oined the editorshi% of Die Weltbhne, %ublished at the time by *arl von 2ssiet!)y and 3urt (uchols)y, as a film critic and editor of the cultural section. How did you arrive at 4ie "eltb5hne# , began writing film #riti#ism in the mid+20s for the "tachelschwein, whi#h was !ublished by %ans Reimann. At the same time, , ner)ously sent my first wor1s to the famous B/iegfriedC Ja#obsohn, who was still #hief editor at Die Weltbhne at the time. %e a##e!ted them. Ja#obsohn died in 1 2*, the same year , re#ei)ed my do#torate, and Dssiet;1y be#ame #hief editor. %e #arried the entire res!onsibility, sin#e 0u#hols1y li)ed almost e:#lusi)ely outside of the #ountry. Dssiet;1y had to answer to e)erything that 0u#hols1y #aused through his radi#alism. %e e)en went to !rison for it. /o , be#ame a steady em!loyee of the #ultural se#tion ofDie Weltbhne, and Dssiet;1y wor1ed on the !oliti#al se#tion. 0his went on until 1 --< until the 3a;is #ame. Berlin was )nown in the /6s as the center of %olitical 1ournalism7 this re%utation was based in large %art on the existence of the Die Weltbhne, which, more than other news%a%ers, functioned as a sort of "wanted list" of the "eimar 8e%ublic. (o what extent were you affected by the %olitical events surrounding Die Weltbhne# After the burning of the 8eichstag in -.99, the em%loyees of the news%a%er would no longer be safe. , must #onfess that , ne)er had mu#h to do with !oliti#s myself. /ure, Die Weltbhne was a )ery im!ortant !oliti#al news!a!er. At the same time, we weren't aligned with any !arty, rather with human rights in general, with the efforts toward freedom and >usti#e, with truth. , had !ublished a short essay in the fall of 1 -2 in the #erliner Tagesblatt, a satire of %itler. %ans Reimann, who had some 1ind of relationshi! with the 3a;is, #alled me one day and saidE F,t's better if you disa!!ear from here.F , did that< at first , sim!ly didn't let myself be seen. , li)ed at the time in /!andau. And in August 1 -- , went to Rome. (o Italy# A)erything wasn't as bad there as in "ermany. And you 1now, our #on#e!tion of the danger that #ame from the 3a;is was @uite naG)e. 'e had one go)ernment after the other and

thought it would be o)er within half a year. After that you emigrated to America through :ondon. , no longer 1now e:a#tly when that was, !robably 1 -7 or 1 -*, sin#e %itler )isited 4ussolini in Rome and 4ussolini de#lared his su!!ort of the ra#e laws. 3ow, , #ame from a Jewish family and , had to lea)e ,taly. 0he writer and art #riti# %erbert Read, who with his wife had translated my boo1 on radio into Anglish, )ou#hed for me so that , #ould go to Angland. 0here , wor1ed as a translator at the $$2 for two or three years and waited for my entry )isa for Ameri#a. ,n 1 40 , finally arri)ed in 3ew Hor1. $our first film criticism a%%eared in -./;. Already at that time you defended %hotogra%hy and film against the accusation that they are nothing more than mechanical re%roductions of nature. In your boo) Film as Art from -.9/ you wor)ed out the ex%ressive means of film in terms of the difference between the images that form our view of the %hysical world and the images on the movie screen, and you inter%reted them as a source of artistic ex%ression. How would you define the artistic basis of film# 4y interest in film originated with an interest in the e:!ressi)e #a!abilities of the )isual. &or this film offered a wealth of new e:am!les. , was o##u!ied with the @uestion of how one #ould re!resent the world through a mo)ing image, whi#h is, howe)er, limited by the s#reen. 0his )ery limitation allowed me to #on#lude that film #an ne)er be a sim!le re!rodu#tion of reality. Dn the #ontrary, filmi# images ha)e the ability to sha!e reality and !rodu#e meaning. &ilm inter!rets the )isible world through authenti# !henomena from this world and thus ta1es hold of e:!erien#e. &ilm is not a dire#t re!resentation in #ontrast to the indire#tness of art< rather, it is a form of artisti# e:!ression. $our interest in the formal conditions and ex%ressive %ossibilities of film was above all a%%lied to the visual as%ects of the blac)<and<white silent film. "hy# &or me the silent film !ossessed great artisti# !urity of e:!ression. 0herefore, , assumed that sound and dialogue are not suitable for !romoting the image formation on the film s#reen< rather, they signifi#antly limit the e:!ression of the image. %owe)er, as , re#ently wrote in an essay, this negle#ts the basi# !rin#i!le of "estalt !sy#hology, in whi#h all elements belong together in a whole. By now it is common%lace to say that film is the visual medium of the twentieth century. (here is also little disagreement that film can be art. But the old %re1udice that film is a mechanical re%roduction of reality, and is thus not art, is still alive. It seems to me that your boo) on film could be a model for an art history of film. But art history is still hardly willing to ta)e a good loo) at film. "hy do you thin) this is the case# $e#ause film has be#ome a )i#tim of the entertainment industry, whi#h #onsiders telling stories more im!ortant than form or e:!ression. ,n the early years, when the great films were

being made, the film industry still had )ery little influen#e, e)en after the (&A Bfilm studios in "ermanyC had been founded. 0he filmma1ers had mu#h more artisti# freedom, and one #ould see this. Dnly the best wor1s are >ust good enough for art history. ,n this res!e#t, film is not an art+histori#al !roblem today, but rather a to!i# for the so#ial s#ien#es. (here have been times when the =uestion, ""hat is an image#", has %roduced ex%losive situations. It hasn't been answered yet, and it is still %ursued in countless articles and boo)s, seminars, and sym%osia. As late as the >nlightenment, images, as well as language, were understood as trans%arent media that re%resent reality and give access to reason. In the modern age, images turned into riddles, into %henomena which re=uire ex%lanation, since they se%arate reason from reality. Many wor)s today assume that images must be understood as a )ind of language, as signs behind which is hidden an arbitrary mechanism of re%resentation and ideological mystification. "hat do you consider to be the essence of %ictures# How do we master images# 0he essen#e of an image is its ability to #on)ey meaning through sensory e:!erien#e. /igns and language are established #on#e!tual modifiers< they are the outer shells of a#tual meaning. 'e ha)e to reali;e that !er#e!tion organi;es the forms that it re#ei)es as o!ti#al !ro>e#tions in the eye. 'ithout form an image #annot #arry a )isual message into #ons#iousness. 0hus it is the organi;ed forms that deli)er the )isual #on#e!t that ma1es an image legible, not #on)entionally established signs. In all of your wor)s on visuality and art, certain conce%ts are es%ecially im%ortant? structure and tension, order and disorder. *an one say that images are the basic %rinci%le of "the order of things," as Michel &oucault would call it, that holds the world together with "figures of )nowledge#" Hes, that is definitely im!ortant. Hou see, this is the fundamental differen#e between me and /iegfried =ra#auer. &or =ra#auer the world was raw material< from this #on#e!t he, in his Theory of Film, deri)ed the definition of the !hotogra!hi# and filmi# image as #ontributing to the Fres#ue of outer realityF and introdu#ing !hysi#al nature in its original state. $ut images do not imitate reality, they hint at it. 0hey ha)e the ability to ma1e the essential !art )isible, and are thereby a fundamental !rin#i!le for understanding the world. Iision and !er#e!tion are not !ro#esses that !assi)ely register or re!rodu#e what ha!!ens in reality. Iision and !er#e!tion are a#ti)e, #reati)e understanding. Hou ha)e to imagine the followingE 'hen we obser)e something, then we rea#h for it< we mo)e through s!a#e, tou#h things, feel their surfa#es and #ontours. And our !er#e!tion stru#tures and orders the information gi)en by things into determinable forms. 'e understand be#ause this stru#turing and ordering is a !art of our relationshi! with reality. 'ithout order we #ouldn't understand at all. 0hus in my o!inion the world is not raw material< it is already ordered merely by being obser)ed. (o this day we do not see %hotogra%hic images as inventions, but rather as authentic co%ies of %hysical reality. 2ur mode of seeing and the way in which we deal with these images are influenced by the fact that these images are mechanically %roduced by a camera. How do we )now how to treat images that loo) as if they

were mechanically re%roduced, yet which were mathematically mani%ulated on the com%uter or were somehow constructed# "ill our relationshi% to reality change through the ever more ra%id develo%ment of technology and the concomitant shift in conditions of %erce%tion# , hardly thin1 that the form of re#ording, whether through !hotogra!hy, film, or e)en through the #om!uter, has a ma>or influen#e on the )isual @ualities of images. 0he formal @ualities of images e:ist inde!endently of the means by whi#h they were !rodu#ed. 0he main !roblem #onne#ted with digital images is that of authenti#ity. 0he news!a!er, the media in general, are full of images that one #an ob)iously no longer belie)e. All information must be mistrusted, in#luding, of #ourse, film and !hotogra!hy as information resour#es. And that is less an Jstheti# than a so#ial !roblem.

Arnheim in Palm $ea#h, &lorida. PhotoE JosK /Ln#he;+%.

In your boo), Art and Visual Perception, you a%%ly ex%ression#

estalt theory to art. Is there a

general visual com%osition %rinci%le in art# "hich elements constitute artistic

Art, >ust li1e !er#e!tion in general, is de!endent on the stru#ture of forms and #olor. 2onse@uently Art and Visual Perception deals with the relationshi! between !er#e!tion and art. 'e had already said that )ision orders reality, and it does so in its !rimary, !ro>e#ting stru#tural features. A good image #an only be one that informs us about the obser)ed Fthing.F

0his means that it must lea)e out unne#essary details, #on#entrate on meaningful #hara#teristi#s and #on)ey them unambiguously to #ons#iousness. &urthermore, it is #om!letely essential for !er#e!tion, and also for art, that that whi#h is seen !ossesses dynami# #hara#ter. Dne has to understand !er#e!tion and artisti# e:!ression as a dynami# relationshi!. A)erything that a!!ears in a wor1 is effe#ti)e due to for#es that are manifested in form and #olor. 0he dynami# between the for#es, between the elements, #on)eys the e:!ression. $ou refer in this context to the meaning of an artistic view of reality, which ma)es it %ossible to recogni!e the world. "hat do you thin) is the essence and function of art# , #onsider art to be a means of !er#e!tion, a means of #ognition. Per#e!tion ma1es it !ossible to stru#ture reality and thus to attain 1nowledge. Art re)eals to us the essen#e of things, the essen#e of our e:isten#e< that is its fun#tion. Again and again you have been %reoccu%ied with the %roblem of central %ers%ective and realism. It could well be that there are many other re%resentational %ossibilities for de%icting what we "really" see. (he conviction that %ers%ectival images are at least in certain res%ects identical with natural human sight and ob1ective external s%ace is intact. +ince the invention of %hotogra%hy and film this conviction has been further strengthened. *learly the mechanical a%%aratus vouches for the naturalness and authenticity of its images. (his suggests the conclusion that our senses %rescribe certain %rivileged re%resentational forms. , wouldn't say that. Pers!e#ti)e, and es!e#ially Renaissan#e !ers!e#ti)e, is only one way of inter!reting the world. ,t is the result of the sear#h for an ob>e#ti)ely a##urate des#ri!tion of !hysi#al nature. $ut also, e)ery other mode of )isual re!resentation is a legitimate attem!t to do >usti#e to reality. A)ery other mode of )isual re!resentation #an bring about the natural #hara#ter of re!resented ob>e#ts and #on)ey an image of reality. 0he #laim to authenti#ity of naturalisti#, #entral+!ers!e#ti)al re!resentation !arado:i#ally originates with the fa#t that it a!!ears to be the most realisti# be#ause it e)o1es the illusion of life itself. 0hat only !ro)es, howe)er, its !ro:imity to o!ti#al !ro>e#tion. 0he s!e#ifi# and highly #om!li#ated style of )isual re!resentation is not at all dete#ted. %ere , differentiate myself from what "ombri#h thought about this matter. ombrich thin)s that there is no vision without assum%tions, no innocent eye. In relation to the "truth" of our %erce%tions, or images, we are always faced with the %roblem that there is no unmediated "visual world" against which we can com%are our %erce%tions. If vision is as much a %roduct of ex%erience and cultural determination as the ma)ing of images, then what we com<%are %ictorial re%resentation with is not reality7 rather, it is a world already clothed in our re%resentational systems. "hat essential connection is there between %ictorial re%resentation and the re%resented ob1ect if the mode of re%resentation is not based on established conventions# Is there an ob1ectivity of %erce%tion#

Hou 1now, "ombri#h was trained by the #yni#s. And , ha)e always been an o!timist. , ha)e always belie)ed in the great !ossibilities of !eo!le to gras! the truth. &or me e)erything #reati)e de!ends on ob>e#ti)e truth. And !er#e!tions are ob>e#ti)e fa#ts, although no one has e)er been in !ossession of ob>e#ti)e truth and !robably ne)er will be. , want to e:!lain this to you. A)eryone must at least ha)e similar !er#e!tions when they loo1 at the same thing, be#ause otherwise no #ommuni#ation #ould ta1e !la#e. ,mages must also be #om!atible with one another so that a !erson re#ei)es one and the same thing at different times. 0hat different obser)ers of one and the same thing see different things has to do with the fa#t that !er#e!tion is indeed not me#hani#al re#e!tion of sensory data< rather, it is the #reation of stru#tured images that naturally de!end on the !ersonal e:!erien#e of the obser)er. 0he obser)ation of the world demands an intera#tion between the ob>e#ti)e #hara#teristi#s su!!lied by the obser)ed thing and the nature of the obser)ing sub>e#t. ,n addition, , don't argue against the idea that there is a histori#ity of !er#e!tion and that #ultural determinations !lay a role in )ision. ,n !arti#ular, the !roblem of realism #larified that the naturalisti# style of re!resentation is a #ultural a!!earan#e. A loo1 at history shows that the dominant standard of !i#torial re!resentation in different times and in different #ultural #ir#les is not the same and that #ertain forms and !atterns re!eat themsel)es. 0his is es!e#ially )alid for style. 0hat is what , wanted to demonstrate with my in)estigationsE for e)ery age there is an affinity for forms. 0his doesn't mean, howe)er, that a #ertain 1ind of re!resentation is based e:#lusi)ely on established #on)entions or the e:ternal #onditions of a tradition. I thin) it has become clear that your interest has basically always been directed toward the theory of )nowledge7 in other words, the investigation of cognitive %rocesses in the relationshi% of consciousness to the real, existent world. In your boo), Visual Thinking, you su%%ort the thesis that thought can only be %roductive if it disregards the boundaries between visual %erce%tion and the intellect. As a rule, however, when you are tal)ing about thought you mean vision and %erce%tion, that is, the ability to visuali!e things. But )nowledge is also connected with the nature of language? (he re%resentation of the world is made vivid and com%lete by means of language. (hrough its ability to name things, it can recreate the world of which it forms a %art. (hus )nowledge does not a%%ear to be %ossible without linguistic conce%ts. How do you define )nowledge# Is )nowledge %ossible without language# 4y essential assertion in the boo1 you mentioned is that language is not the formal !rototy!e of 1nowledge< rather, that sensory 1nowledge, u!on whi#h all our e:!erien#e is based, #reates the !ossibilities of language. Dur only a##ess to reality is sensory e:!erien#e, that is, sight or hearing or tou#h. And sensory e:!erien#e is always more than mere seeing or tou#hing. ,t also in#ludes mental images and 1nowledge based on e:!erien#e. All of that ma1es u! our )iew of the world. ,n my o!inion, F)isual thin1ingF means that )isual !er#e!tion #onsists abo)e all in the de)elo!ment of forms, of F!er#e!tual terms,F and thereby fulfills the #onditions of the intelle#tual formation of #on#e!ts< it has the ability, by means of these forms, to gi)e a )alid inter!retation of e:!erien#e. .an guage, on the other hand, is in itself without form< one #annot thin1 in words, sin#e words #annot #ontain an ob>e#t. .anguage is instru#ted by sensory !er#e!tion. ,t #odifies the gi)en 1nowledge through sensory e:!erien#e. 0his doesn't

mean that language isn't tremendously signifi#ant for thought, for all of human de)elo!ment. %uman e:isten#e is unimaginable without language. , am only stressing that language is an instrument of that whi#h we ha)e gained through !er#e!tion, in that it #onfirms and !reser)es the #on#e!ts it forms. In your art theory you constantly have architecture in mind7 you wrote a boo) about the dynamics of architecture. If I understand you correctly, you also consider architecture to be a way of visuali!ing the world. "hat a%%eals to you about architecture# , got in)ol)ed with ar#hite#ture mainly be#ause with it , #ould get away from naturalism. ,n ar#hite#ture , a#tually had to deal with mere form. And otherwise that is the #ase only with musi#. 4y affinity for ar#hite#ture is also due to the fa#t that ar#hite#ture is an abstra#t medium, whi#h means that it doesn't wor1 with indi)idual #hara#teristi#s, but rather with general !rin#i!les. And , already said that the !rimary !er#e!tual feature of )ision, and not only of )ision, is the dynami# among the elements. 0his is @uite ob)ious in ar#hite#ture. $eyond that, , found it )ery essential that ar#hite#ture treats mere form as an artisti# means, and at the same time it has !ra#ti#al meaning. , had already been o##u!ied for a long time with the relationshi! between fun#tion and Jstheti#s, and for me they are dire#tly #onne#ted. 0he fun#tion of ar#hite#ture is an indis!ensable !art of its )isible #ondition, and Jstheti#s is a !art of the fun#tion. 0hey #annot be se!arated. $ou have certainly heard about the fight over the conce%tion of the @ewish Museum in Berlin. $ou must at least be familiar with the %lans as well as the %hotos of 4aniel :ibes)ind's building. "hat are your thoughts on the meaning of this building and its status as a museum# , thin1 the meaning of a building lies in its )isible #om!osition< you were #om!letely right when you mentioned that before. $y way of the ar#hite#tural form the meaning has to be understood by the eye. $ut in general one #an only >udge ar#hite#ture on site. And , ha)e merely seen !hotogra!hs of .ibes1ind's building. 0his ;ig;ag form seems to me to be )ery substantial< it re!resents a histori#al su##ession and at the same time maintains its indi)iduality. 0his was )ery #lear to me. , am also @uite mo)ed by the em!ty s!a#e in the #enter of the ar#hite#ture. 0here was a #ommunity there that was enormously influential during the 'eimar Re!ubli#, a #ommunity from whi#h hardly anything is left. 0he museum is thus addressed to someone who is no longer there.
Translated by $regory Williams