BRYAN MUTIYA R164968S

TINOMUTENDA NYENGERA R164939Z

BANGUZA SHINGIRAI R164969Q

THEMBILE GOLA R165922T

TANAKA NGOSHI R164935E

NATASHA MADZVIVANYIKA R164954A

SHINGIRAI MAKURUMIDZE R164954Y

Question : outline and evaluate gestalt’s position on perception.

The concept of perception is defined by Goldstein (2007) as conscious sensory experience. In
a similar definition by Myers (2013), perception is a process by which the brain organizes
and interprets sensory input. Various theories have been conceived as touching the concept of
perception. The Gestalt theorists were the first group of psychologists to systematically study
perceptual organisation around the 1920’s, in Germany. According to this school of thought,
perception in not only about detecting, but organising visual information. According to
Kasschau(2003),“Gestalt means when parts identified individually have different
characteristics to the whole or simply an organised whole.”Gestalt Theory is one of the
popular theories of perception and is closely associated with the work of three men: Max
Wertheimer (1880–1943), Wolfgang Köhler (1887–1967), and Kurt Koffka (1886–1941),
(Gordon, 2005). Gestalt psychologists developed a number of laws that organised perception
and explained how our phenomenological or perceptual experiences were organised. Having
rejected the idea that perception is built up of sensations, the Gestalt psychologists proposed a
number of principles, which they called laws of perceptual organization. It argues that people
view the world in terms of general patterns and well organised structures rather than
separable individual elements. These laws include the laws of similarity, common fate
proximity, continuation, closure, figure ground rule, area and symmetry. The Gestalt theorists
have been applauded for stressing the role played by ratios between stimuli as determinants
of how things will appear (Gordon, 2005). However, the theory has been widely criticized for
its lack of empiricism, use of 2 dimensional images and its phenomenological nature hence
insufficient enough to qualify as laws but instead heuristics. The purpose of this paper is to
evaluate, assess and consider the strength and weaknesses of the Gestaltian approach to
perception

The principle of common fate suggests that people perceive objects as belonging to the same
group when the same changes are happening to them and that groups of objects are seen as
lines moving along the smoothest path. An example is when you see a flock of hundreds of
birds all flying in the same direction, the flock of birds that are moving in the same direction
are seen as grouped together. When a portion of the flock changes direction, their movement
creates a new group. This principle is used by painters especially when inducing a sense of
movement in their art. In addition, Gordon (2005) asserts that the principle of common fate is
spontaneous tendency to organize the stimuli into wholes or Gestalten. Common fate is one
of the laws of grouping and Gestalt theorists have been applauded for the practicality of their
assertion that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Without this principle, one may
fail to recognize an object as a whole but perceive them as only parts. For example the
curious case of Dr P, a patient described by neurologist Oliver Sacks, who had a problem
which was diagnosed as visual form agnosia – an inability to recognize objects – that was
caused by a brain tumor (Goldstein, 2007). Therefore the Gestalt theory may be viewed as an
essential theory of perception especially paying attention to the laws of grouping.
In continuation, it is fundamental for one to note that the Gestalt academic recognised school
of thought specifically along the margins of perception, champions the findings centred on
human perceptual groupings as sensory wholes. For over a decade, however, the number of
Gestalt publications has significantly increased, resulting in more widespread and uniform
theory development and application (Lewin, 1935; McConville & Wheeler, 2001). In this
context therefore one can acknowledge that Gestalt school of thought in light of the closure
principle thrives on the findings that we mentally close in gaps of perceived shapes thereby
facilitating a possible interesting design that interplays with positive and negative space.
Roos (2007) asserts that when an object is incomplete or not completely enclosed, the eye
perceives the whole by filling in the missing information. The Gestalt ideology that powers
this practical point is that nothing is fully comprehensible out of context thus cognition may
also assist in mapping the perceiving of the object as maybe a shape even though the parts do
not meet. One can therefore take for example, a circle drawn using broken lines is still
perceived by the brain as a circle. Through this example, we can infer the brain's tendency to
ignore the gaps and see the figure as a circle. Previous experience with the figure or form
facilitates our natural tendency to perceive an incomplete or partially hidden object as the
same object that's stored in our memory. It is also apparent for one to note that the closure
principle inspired great art works from as early as the times of Edgar Degas (1834 – 1917)
and still stands with innovations which are seen through logo and graphical designs in
branding.

The law of similarity is yet another principle of the Gestalt laws of perceptual organisation.
This holds that a person can normally recognize stimuli that has physical resemblance at
some degree as part of the same object (Sincero, 2013).The human eye tends to perceive
similar elements in a design as a complete picture, shape, or group, even if those elements are
separated. The brain seems to craft a link between elements of a similar nature. We then
perceive them in a relationship with each other, separating them from other elements in a
design. Naturally, the Human eyes are good at filling in “gaps” or connecting “dots” as we
are constantly trying to perceive the world around us in the best way we can (Peterhans et
al,1989). Similarity is influenced by the shape, size and colour of the elements. When you
mix objects with high degrees of similarity to each other with a group of dissimilar objects,
the brain then devotes time and energy to creating a link between them so that it can try to
understand their relationship with each other. An application of this law and how it affects
perception is in putting flowers of varying colours by row in a large flower bed. The brain
then utilizes this principle to determine which flowers may be planted adjacent to each other
or be placed in the same row based on their colours (Heider,1959). As such, this validates the
practicality of this particular law of the Gestalt principle in influencing our everyday
perception.

Fundamentally, the Gestalt’s position as further supported and made manifest through the law
of continuity which suggests that, people are more likely to perceive continuous, smooth
flowing line rather than jagged broken line. Once an observer’s eye begins following the line
or sequence it will continue doing so until something else catches his/her attention [ CITATION
Sau08 \l 1033 ]. Quite dissimilar objects may be perceived as belonging together by virtue of a
good fate. Good continuation maybe considered the spatial analogue of fate. The Gestalt
Psychologists used dots arranged in a line which were considered to be related elements and
also used an image with dots represented in different color wavelengths. They suggested that
we perceive a long line created from lighter dots .On the other hand, the line created from the
darker dots is perceived interrupted .Despite the credibility of this law in explaining how
humans perceive and make sense of the world it lacks ecological validity that is; stimulus
present in the real world is considerable more complex than mere 2D images and line.

Gestalt’s position is further elaborated by the law of similarity which captures the idea that
when we perceive objects we tend to perceive them as symmetrical shapes that form around
their center .Most objects can be divided in two or more less symmetrical halves for example
when we see two unconnected elements that are symmetrical we unconsciously integrate
them into one coherent or percept. The more alike objects are the more they tend to be
grouped[ CITATION Chr03 \l 1033 ] . Symmetrical forms stand out more readily as figures
against their backgrounds than do asymmetrical ones .Butterflies with dramatic markings on
their wings become highly salient symmetrical figures when their wings are spread. Although
psychologists who subscribed to this law of symmetrical tried to convince other scholars by
using examples of butterflies, this law is less empirical in nature which in turn reduces its
validity
Moreover they proposed the principle of pragnanz or good figure which is the law of
simplicity. When confronted with complex shapes, we tend to reorganize them into simpler
components or into a simpler whole. We tend to prefer and recognize things which are simple
and clear, rather than complex and awkward. That which is distinct stands out, whilst that
which is less clear may not be noticed. Simple and familiar shapes will be seen first. Primary
shapes such as triangles, circles, squares will stand out, even if they overlap. One of the
simplest ways of organizing a set of shapes is to put them along a straight line, equidistant
from one another. In this way there is an overall design that controls the positioning, creating
an organizing rule that leads to a familiar pattern. Simplicity is also created through
separation, avoiding confusion caused by overlap. Larger blocks of strong primary colours
also make an image seem powerful. According to Goldstein (2010), “Artists are often taught
to draw by starting with the basic shapes as circles and rectangles, and the hidden strength of
such shapes can be found in many paintings.” For example where there are three noticeable
items, they form a triangle, which is the basic stable structure. To avoid a proliferation of
“laws,” the law of pragnanz was proposed as the fundamental law encompassing all the
others but however its formulation was left intentionally vague

Furthermore gestalt psychologists proposed the figure ground rule in visual perception. It
states that we perceive a scene as objects against a background. The figure is typically a
small, complex and symmetrical object or person. The ground is generally plainer rather than
patterned, larger and often disorganised. We have a tendency to organize our precepts in a
certain manner during all perceiving: we effortlessly distinguish between the figure in a field
of view and the ground against which it is seen. According to Wagemans (2012) “Figure–
ground separation occurs in all sensory modalities, for example when we abstract the voice of
a speaker from the background sounds of a noisy party, or when we feel an insect crawling
over our skin. Perception does not only involve organization and grouping, it also involves
distinguishing an object from its surroundings. The contour separating the figure from the
ground appears to belong to the figure. This property of figure, which is called border
ownership, means that, although figure and ground share a contour, the border is associated
with the figure. Once an object is perceived, the area around that object becomes the
background, hence the gestalt psychologists have gone further to use ambiguous figure-
ground relationships that is, drawings in which the figure and ground can be reversed to
illustrate their point that the whole is different from the sum of its parts.
However the theory has attracted criticism due to their use of two dimensional images.
According to Gordon (2004),“Because they wished to convince their readers through
dramatic illustrations and presumably because drawings are simpler to make than three
dimensional objects, the gestalt theorists obtained many of their effects from flat patterns”.
Under these conditions Weithimer’s laws of organisation have not been seriously challenged
but however the two dimensional drawings that have been most commonly used to
investigate these phenomena are not characteristics of our daily experiences. They are not
what are eyes have evolved to see. Henceforth it is not surprising that when three dimensional
arrays have been studied, the results have sometimes cast doubt upon the adequacy of the
gestalt laws.

More so although the Gestalt psychologists called their principles laws of perceptual
organization, most perceptual psychologists call them the Gestalt “principles” or “heuristics.”
The reason for rejecting the term laws is that the rules of perceptual organization and
segregation proposed by the Gestalt psychologists don’t make strong enough predictions to
qualify as laws. Instead, the Gestalt principles are more accurately described as heuristics or
the rules of thumb that provides best-guess solution to a problem . The Gestalt principles are
heuristics because, like heuristics, they are best-guess rules that work most of the time, but
not necessarily all of the time.

To sum up the above discussion, the gestalt psychologists hold a firm position on perceptual
experiences and organisation as they suggest that perception in not only about detecting, but
organising visual information. They proposed laws laws that organised perception and
explained how our phenomenological or perceptual experiences were organised. These laws
include the law of similarity, common fate proximity, pragnanz , continuation, closure, figure
ground rule, area and symmetry. The discussion has also outlined the various strengths and
criticism the school of thought has attracted such as its lack of empiricism, use of 2
dimensional images and its phenomenological nature hence insufficient enough to qualify as
laws but instead heuristics
References
Faust C. (2003). Gestalt Laws And Principles Of Perception.

Goldstein, B. E. (2007). Sensation and Perception. California: Wadsworth.

Gordon, I. E. (2005). Theories of Visual Perception 3rd Edition. Hove and New York: Psychology Press
Tylor and Francis group.

http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/mjodonnell/cojo232/pdf/gestalt.pdf

Heider, F. (1959): On perception and event structure, and the psychological environment:
Selected papers. New York: International Universities Press.

Kasschau, R. A (2003). UNDERSTANDING PSYCHOLOGY ;Glencoe bookfo,org

Lewin, K. (1935), Toward a Dynamic Theory of Personality. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

McConville, M., & Wheeler, G., eds. (2001), The Heart of Development: General

Mcleod S. (2008). Visual Perception Theory.

Approaches to Working with Children, Adolescents, and Their Worlds.

Adolescence, vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: The Gestalt Press.

Myers, D. G. (2013). Psychology 10th Edition. Michigan: Worth Publishers.

Peterhans, E. and von der Heydt, R., 1989. Mechanisms of contour perception in monkey
visual cortex. II. Contours bridging gaps. Journal of Neuroscience, 9(5), pp.1749-1763.

Sarah Mae Sincero (Jul 27, 2013). Gestalt Laws: Similarity, Proximity and Closure.
Retrieved Mar 27, 2017 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/gestalt-laws-
similarity-proximity-and-closure

Wagens J, (2012). A century of gestalt theory ,the good, the bad, and the ugly.