E.H.

Gombrich's 'Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial

Representation', 1960
Author(s): CHRISTOPHER S. WOOD
Source: The Burlington Magazine , December 2009, Vol. 151, No. 1281 (December 2009),
pp. 836-839
Published by: (PUB) Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40601264

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

(PUB) Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Burlington Magazine

This content downloaded from

170.140.142.252 on Sun, 01 Nov 2020 18:44:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Art History Reviewed VI:
E.H. Gombrich's 'Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of
Pictorial Representation', i960
by CHRISTOPHER S. WOOD

'making precedes matching': with this famous formula, decade later Keith Moxey presented Gombrich as 'the most
the epitome of his Art and Illusion (i960),1 Ernst Gombrich eloquent advocate' of the 'resemblance theory of representation',
proposed that artists, before they ever dream of copying what according to which 'representation has something to do with
they see before them, make pictures by manipulating inherited the imitation of nature'. Moxey then contrasted this view
'schemata' that designate reality by force of convention. At some with that of the philosopher Nelson Goodman, numbering
point an artist compares a pictorial schema to direct observationhim among 'Gombrich's critics', who 'pointed out that [. . .] a
of the world, and on that basis presumes to correct the schema.picture never resembles anything so much as another picture'.3
This then enters the stock of available formulae until some later A reader who turns to Goodman's book Languages of Art for
artist holds it up to the world and ventures a further adjustment. further elucidation, however, will be surprised to find that the
In this way art may come to have a history. Beholders, in turn, author mentions Gombrich not as his intellectual antagonist, but
make their own sense of pictures by collating what they see on rather as a principal witness in his own conventionalist cause:
the canvas with what they know about the world and with what 'Gombrich, in particular, has amassed overwhelming evidence to
they remember of other pictures. show how the way we see and depict depends on and varies with
Gombrich's account of the making of art as an experimental experience, practice, interests, and attitudes'.4
and even improvisational process impressed many readers In Art and Illusion Gombrich makes a powerful case against
beyond the academic discipline of art history. However, for two what Ruskin called the 'innocence of the eye' (p.296). Per-
decades or more, many art historians have considered his name ception, in Gombrich's account, is not a given but a learned
a byword for a rationalist, Eurocentric and naively naturalist practice, involving an active construction of the world. Resem-
approach to art with which they no longer would wish to be blance to reality is an effect generated by the interplay between
associated. A forceful blow to Gombrich's reputation was struck the expected and the unexpected. Pictures are 'relational
by Norman Bryson in his Vision and Painting: The Logic of the models' of reality (p.253). Pictorial realism was a historical and
Gaze (1983), an intricately reasoned critique of the quest for collective product, and hard-won. The artist is not free, but
an 'Essential Copy' that has supposedly driven Western art and faces a limited array of choices (p. 3 76). Cultures determine what
art theory since Antiquity. Bryson argued that the picture, as a is possible (p. 86).
conventional sign, delivers not reality but only a coded message Such propositions inverted the conventional wisdom about
about reality and that verisimilitude is nothing more than representation. Like his near-exact contemporary, Claude Lévi-
'rhetoric' that persuades the unwary viewer that he or she is see- Strauss, Gombrich was a 'reverse thinker'. Lévi-Strauss argued
ing things as they really are. Within the discipline of art history, that myths are made by combining bits and pieces of previous
for at least a decade, Bryson's polemic was highly influential. myths. Meaning does not precede, but rather follows, the
His anti-naturalism was embraced by art historians who wished myth-maker's bricolage. 'Mythical thought [. . .] is imprisoned in
to modernise their discipline, bringing it into step with the the events and experiences which it never tires of ordering and
development of critical theory and poststructuralism that by the re-ordering in its search to find them a meaning'.5 Gombrich
1980s had already profoundly reshaped literary studies. too solved problems by turning them inside out. For example,
The problem-solving model of the development of Western he pointed out that astrological associations do not explain
art that Art and Illusion proposed left Gombrich, in Bryson's view, character traits but create them: human nature adjusts itself, as it
aligned with an unacceptable classical theory of representation: were, to fit the signs.6
'so far from questioning the Whig optimism of that version, it Gombrich's paradoxical argument is also homologous with
in fact reinforces its evolutionary and ideological drive'.2 After that of Thomas S. Kuhn, who in his The Structure of Scientific
Bryson, one could almost be forgiven for thinking that the Revolutions (1962) described the paradigmatic, essentially social
phrase 'Essential Copy', implying an endpoint to the process of basis of scientific knowledge. Just as Kuhn's demonstration of the
experimentation, was Gombrich's, which it was not. Yet only a collective and conventional nature of scientific knowledge was a

We are grateful to the Azam Foundation for sponsoring this article. played a similar role in Umberto Eco's Theory of Semiotics, Bloomington
1 E.H. Gombrich: Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, 1976, pp.204- 05, a classic treatise that makes the most extreme case possible for
New York i960. Originally delivered in 1956 as the A.W. Mellon Lectures in the the conventionality of signs. Even iconic signs, or pictures, which would seem
Fine Arts at the National Gallery of Art, Washington. to be related to what they signify in stronger than conventional ways, figure in
2 N. Bryson: Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze, Cambridge 1983, p.21. Eco's analysis as the products of cultural convention. In making his case, Eco
3 K. Moxey: The Pradice of Theory: Poststructuralism, Cultural Politics, and Art History, enlisted none other than Gombrich, citing his analysis of Constable's recoding of
Ithaca 1994, pp.30-31. the light effects in the English landscape in Wivenhoe Park (National Gallery of
4 N. Goodman: Languages of Art, Indianapolis and Cambridge 1976, p. 10. Gombrich Art, Washington; 18 16).

836 DECEMBER 2009 * CLI · THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE

This content downloaded from

170.140.142.252 on Sun, 01 Nov 2020 18:44:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 E.H. GOMBRICH

revelation for non-scientists, so too'bewildering',

were non-art historians
as 'conundrums' or 'experiments', as art that had
greatly impressed by Gombrich's arguments. Kuhn
'lost its bearings'. stripped
Cubism in Art and the
Illusion is dismissed as a 'last
scientific revolution of some of its auradesperate
by showing that
revolt against scientists
illusionism' (p.281).
were driven by ambition and limited But
byGombrich's
force of relation to modern
habit. Gom- art is more complicated
than this.of
brich, for his part, desanctified the contents He was
the a contrarian by nature and could not abide the
great museums
by showing how the painters, even as smug
they were
post- aiming
War consensus, at an
among ideal
educated elite, that abstrac-
tionalso
form or expounding arguments, were had vanquished
solving figuration
local, once and for all. By the 1950s
prac-
abstraction
tical, technical problems. Yet art historians, had lost familiar
already its revolutionary
with edge and had become
the conventions of pictorial representation,
universallywere not
palatable. taken
Critics across aby
wide ideological spectrum
agreed
surprise, for this is the basic premise of thethat abstraction discipline
modern held out the promise
of of a new spiritual-
ism, whether
art history, especially as it was formulated byaustere
the or pioneering
romantic, in the face of the brutal
theorists and historians Konrad Fiedler, Heinrich
literalisms and theWölfllin and
delusionary mythologies that had together
wrecked
Alois Riegl. 'People have at all times seen what the century.
they Thewantbourgeois amateur of art could con-
to see',
said Wölfflin.7 Art and Illusion echoes gratulate
and amplifies this
him- or herself for dictum.
apprehending a modern art which,
Further, Gombrich stands accused according to André art
of reducing Malraux,
to writing
merein 1949, 'has liberated
technology. Art, to an art historian, is self-evidently
painting something
which is now triumphantly a law unto itself.9 Even the
made. The art historian is interested inThomist
the waystheologian Etienne
artists Gilson,and
select who delivered the A.W.
Mellon Lectures
recombine, contrive and construct, perhaps even in addthe to
Finereality.
Arts in 1955, one year before
To speak of artists striving to match their
Gombrich,fabricated
proclaimed thatworlds
painters could
to never again indulge in
a real world is to render the making of 'theart less a of
easy pleasures poetic activity
imitational or representational art'. Since
and more a technology. Poesis or artistic creation,
Cézanne, Gilson affirmed with in satisfaction,
many painting had been
modern theories of art, is compromised forced
if to
itsubmit to a 'cureto
submits of abstractionism'.10
practical Gombrich did
imperatives. Art-making, an activity no not like the complacent
doubt less freetone than
of this, it
any more than did Leo
pretends to be, is nevertheless taken toSteinberg,
symbolisewho in the
1953 reminded
freedom readers
ofthat the ambitions
of the major
the imagination. Technology, by contrast, is a modern artists, including Manet, Van Gogh,
problem-solving
process and does not claim autonomy. Cézanne and Matisse, had been 'adequately summarized in
To a certain extent Gombrich invited this
Constable's reading
dictum ofthe
which defines his
goal of painting as "the
work by distancing himself, in repeated comments
pure apprehension throughout
of natural fact'".11
the 1960s and 1970s, from the radicalUnlike
constructionist
Steinberg, Gombrichreading
in 1956 could not foresee the
of Art and Illusion - from Umberto Eco and
return Nelson
to figuration, to Goodman,
iconography and to the plenitude of con-
in effect. Gombrich felt that their positions were unreasonable.
temporary experience that was just on the horizon, the rejection
He also courted the naturalist reading of
ofthehis
dogmawork by appearing
of abstraction. Gombrich's reaction to the crisis of
to say that European painters got better and culture
art in a modern better at of
- the loss repre-
confidence in any transcen-
senting the ways things looked between the
dental fifteenth
reference and tothe
point - was simply set aside the concept of art,
nineteenth centuries. at least provisionally. He mistrusted all the modern philosophical
This raised the possibility that Gombrich might believe that guides, metaphysicians and anti-metaphysicians alike, who might
European art was better than non-European art. Emerging inhave offered him a glimpse of a new concept of art, suited to
the early nineteenth century, at a moment when medieval art modern experience: Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger,
was recovered for scholarship and when academic prejudices in but also his own near-contemporaries, Theodor Adorno and
favour of ideal beauty and measured proportions were under Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Instead he envisioned a comprehensive
attack, the discipline has deep roots in a relativist mindset. The 'science of the image'. Here he went far beyond Steinberg. After
eye of the modern academic art historian, whether in search ofthe War, Gombrich actually submitted to a publisher the project
the underlying principles of form that reveal the shape of history of an 'ambitious book of which actually Art and Illusion and the
itself, or in search of the concrete links that connect the artefact
Sense of Order (1979) are only fragments: a general book on
with historical life, is officially neutral. Riegl, whose pupil Juliusimages and the different functions of images', for example, illus-
von Schlosser was Gombrich's teacher, is alleged to have said that tration, symbolism, emblems and decoration, to be called The
'the best art historian is the one who has no personal taste'.8 Realm and Range of the Image. In his mistrust both of idealism (the
Other art historians dismissed Gombrich as a reactionary whohope that images might guide us to a truth beyond experience)
failed to grasp the power and significance of the dominant modesand of hermeneutics (the hope that the truth might be embed-
of the making of art in his own lifetime. Gombrich did notded somewhere deep inside the image), Gombrich is the ally of
disguise his lack of sympathy for the twentieth-century avant-such disparate but influential figures as John Berger, Horst Bre-
gardes and appeared to pander to the ill-informed opinion of the dekamp and Jonathan Crary. For Art and Illusion, with its many
man on the street when he described works of modern art as reproductions and analyses of posters, advertisements, popular

5 C. Lévi-Strauss: The Savage Mind, Chicago 1966, p. 22. end up producing four quite different-looking works - that Wölfllin had retold on
6 R. Woodfield: 'Warburg's "Method"', in idem, ed.: Art History as Cultural the first page of his Principles.
History: Warburg's Projects, Amsterdam 2001, p.285, citing a little-read essay by 8 Cited by O. Pacht in idem: The Practice of Art History, London 1999, p.29.
Gombrich published in a Belgian journal in i0S4· 9 Cited by L. Steinberg: 'The Eye is a Part of the Mind', in idem: Other Criteria, New
7 H. Wölfllin: Principles of Art History (191 5), New York 1950, p. 17. Gombrich even York 1972, p. 290.
began his second chapter with the very anecdote from Ludwig Richter - involving 10 E. Gilson: Painting and Reality, New York 1957, pp.259 and 265, note 25.
four draughtsmen who strive to render a natural motif with perfect objectivity and 11 Steinberg, op. cit. (note 9), p. 292.

THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE ♦ CLI · DECEMBER 2009 $37

This content downloaded from

170.140.142.252 on Sun, 01 Nov 2020 18:44:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
E.H. GOMBRICH

prints, optical illusions and scientific optical

illustrations,
mode is shadowed indisputably
by the threat of a collapse back into the
prophesied the field of study that would later
corporeal; be of
the power called
the drivesBilduHs-
and the senses to confound the
senschaft in Germany, and in Britain and America
reflective ambitions of'visual culture'.
art becomes the very theme of modern
The student of visual culture, who may well
art. But harbour
in the ambitions
end it is always the asymmetry between body and
mind
to liquidate the discipline of art history that gives thebelieves
outright, narrative itsthat
shape. the
This is the account of
the discipline, more
study of images has been impeded by outmoded or less,for
tastes offered
the by Michael
fine Podro's Critical
arts, aesthetic experiences and the art Historians
of interpretation.
of Art (1982), a book that expressly excludes Gombrich.
By identifying a problem-solving dynamic Gombrich lost faith in reasonwithin
embedded as the basis for this narrative, and
the history of the fine arts, Gombrich
so turned drew fire
to technology. from
Problem two
solving, as explicated in Art
constituencies: on the one hand, those whois believe
and Illusion, that reason.
a kind of externalised art Technology makes
measurable
historians should never tell the story of art as progress
a storyand yetof
doesprogress,
not depend on human virtue,
and on the other hand, those convinced that modern
only competence. art
Gombrich was not does
saying that art, in the end,
turnsbecause
represent an advance on earlier art - not out to be nothing other than
it better a technology. He was only
renders
how things appear, but because it proposes a new
saying that if you social
are interested order,
in telling the story of art as a story,
captures the invisible structure of the cosmos
with or
a plot, and if youreflects
are interestedon the that art registers
in showing
nature of art itself. the progressive domination of mind over matter, then you had
better
To the latter charge, Gombrich pleaded narrow your
guilty: he field
wasofsceptical
vision and focus only on those
of all avant-gardisms. He reveals the sources
episodes in theof this
history view
of art in his
when artists were trying to render
book-length interview with Didier Eribon,
the look ofwhere
things. he describes a
Although
lengthy unpublished manuscript on the he was averse
subject to avant-garde art, Gombrich's
of caricature,
which he wrote together with Ernst Kris.
theories ofThe two authors
the production saw
and reception of art developed in Art
caricature, which first appeared in European art
and Illusion can easilyonly in the
be extended beyond late
representational art to
abstract
sixteenth century, as a successor to the art and indeed
magical image, any art. Podro, in
which inhis book Depiction
pre-modern times had been credited with the
(1998), saw power
no barrier to defame
to extending Gombrich's account of the
or even injure its subject. Caricatureart ofwas
paintingonly possible
as a reflection once of perception -
on the conditions
people stopped believing that the image could
on the work
realisation real through
of the subject harm. recognition, in Podro's
When the interviewer asked Gombrich whether he still held this terms - beyond the horizon of illusionistic painting. 'It would
theory, the art historian answered: 'No, certainly not'. For Kris, be hard to conceive of a practice of this kind [Mondrian's
like so many other modern thinkers, including Freud as well as abstractions] - this play of variations - without the cultivation of
Riegl and Aby Warburg, was 'under the spell of an evolutionist formal relations in earlier depiction, without familiarity with the
interpretation of human history, imagined as a slow advance consistencies of morphology that run through discrete objects
from primitive irrationality to the triumph of reason'. After and the re- vision of one feature through another'. The process
the Second World War Gombrich felt it was simply no longer is structured as a feedback loop: 'recognition sustained and
possible to believe optimistically in the inevitable refinement of developed itself through recruitment of its own material and
the human spirit.12 psychological conditions to make itself more replete'.13 The
Art historians, in Gombrich's view, were simply unable to 'depiction' phase of art history, which has the merit of revealing
resist telling the story of art as a progressive dominance of spirit clearly the structure of the game, now appears to have been
over matter. He associated this model with Hegel, but it has a limited episode. Not only the 'look of things', but also the
much older Christian roots. Gombrich was right that the dema- hidden essence of things, can be modelled, schematised,
terialisation of art is the basic plot structure of virtually all ambi- corrected. Some artists seem to do nothing but make and
tious art history written since the nineteenth century, whether make, never bothering to match. In fact, they are comparing
formalist, humanist, Marxist or poststructuralist in flavour; from what they make to a conception of reality they find somewhere
Riegl, Wölfflin and Meyer Schapiro to TJ. Clark, Hubert inside themselves.
Damisch and Rosalind Krauss. In this narrative, art begins by We are not dealing with 'progress' here, but rather with an
restaging a primal tactile or bodily relation to the world. At a later emergent process that seems, from the inside, to have a structure
point art puts its trust in the sense of sight, offering the world as even if it is not at first clear where it is headed. It is like learning -
a picture. In this way the beholder is stabilised and put face to face not mastery of a skill, but learning as the growth of a deep
with the work of art, preparing him or her either to enter into a familiarity with a subject or a problem. Learning is a convergent
virtual relation with the work, or to reflect on the work's reflec- process that nevertheless has no endpoint. We may feel that we
tions on the conditions of its own possibility, including the are learning more and more and yet, paradoxically, have no idea
beholder's perceptual and cognitive participation; and so on ad what it might be like to have learned everything, to have
infinitum. The story is retold with many nuanced variations. In nothing more to learn. And this, I believe, is the nature of the
Wölfflin's scheme, the linear or tactile mode is succeeded by process that Gombrich was describing. European art has at times
the painterly or optical mode; but the sequence of linear to appeared - even and especially to the artists themselves - to be a
painterly can also be repeated, as a kind of sub-routine, inside an convergent process and yet no one has ever imagined that art
overall painterly regime. In the twentieth century of Krauss, the would one day achieve its ends and cease to change.

12 ifciW., pp.51-53. Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary Anthropology, Baltimore and London 1993,
13 M. Podro: Depiction, New Haven 1998, p. 26. Bryson, op. cit. (note 2), pp.284-89.
p. 30, allowed as much. W. Iser: How to Do Theory, Oxford 2006, pp.52- 55, makes a 14 E.H. Gombrich: 'Raphael s "Stanza della Segnatura , in idem: Symbolic Images,
similar argument. See the more extended discussion of Gombrich in W. Iser: The London 1972, p.ioi. See also the final words of 'Meditations on a Hobby Horse', in

838 DECEMBER 2009 * CLI ' THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE

This content downloaded from

170.140.142.252 on Sun, 01 Nov 2020 18:44:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 E.H. GOMBRICH

In the last chapter of Art and Illusion, Gombrich

life out of non-life. wonders
At that point, art would come to an end
how art, if it is just a technology forbecause simulating
man becomes nature. optical
Art never impres-
quite lost sight ofthat
sions, manages to amount to anything at all.
self-annihilating In Sculpture
goal.15 fact, andhe never
painting tried to capture
once lost his sense of what art is and and why deliveritlife.is
When in the nineteenth century
significant, even mechanical
as he denied himself any facile satisfaction inimmeasurably
and electric technologies, art. Like his than the
more powerful
teacher, Schlosser, who held an ineffable Crocean
traditional media, conception
took up the challenge of animation, the idea
of art, Gombrich, in his scholarship, tends
that one might stillto evade
be able the
to fabricate livingques-
images by hand
tion. He gives us glimpses of his view came to of art More
seem quaint. only lifelikein gnomic
than any oil painting were the
comments, typically in the closing pages
images of his
of photography essays,
and cinema. for believed
But not everyone
instance at the end of 'Raphael's "Stanza della
that these marvels belongedSegnatura'",
to a history of art. When Gombrich
where the painter is credited with delivered transforming
his Mellon Lectures at humanistic
the National Gallery of Art in
commonplaces into a beautiful and 1956, complex composition
many in his audience surely believed thatthat
the ambitions of
gives the impression of 'an inexhaustible plenitude'.
serious art Gombrich
and the largely commercial motivations of cinema,
adds, and one wishes he had said just including a little animated
more films,on had parted
the company
topic: forever. The
'This plenitude is no illusion'. ** caprices of Disney Hollywood Studios, it seemed, were a puerile,
Such comments, which hint at a positive trivialised aesthetic,
extension of the dream areofrare.
a 'second life' that had once
Gombrich understood that under the altered conditions of sustained the great tradition of the making of art.
modernity, any theory of art has to be routed through a theory Many artists in the late 1950s and early 1960s, impatient with
of the image, a Bildwissenschaft. Nevertheless his dramatic the pieties surrounding painterly abstraction, were emboldened
account of the dialectical honing of representational algorithms
to turn to the illusion-generating technologies. These were the
across time conjures up brief, mirage-like visions of an art thatof video art, multimedia performances, Fluxus, Structural
years
finally shows us what life is like. The possibility of such an film;
art hadthe years of the introduction of photography into concep-
been explained away by a century of art-historical scholarship -
tual practice; not to mention photorealism in painting. Like the
a secular science. Gombrich, true to his Viennese training, old masters, whose obsessions with perspective or light effects
demonstrated once more the paradoxical dependence of Gombrich
the chronicled, these artists found no contradiction
image on formulae and improvised solutions. Yet in the end control over representational technologies and the
between
Gombrich cannot disguise his excitement about the image project that of delivering the world a second time in order to make
manages somehow to seize the real. That image shines through it strange; to make art, in other words. Art and Illusion is more
Art and Illusion's screen of explanations. Non-art historians easily contextualised within a history of modern art than within
did not perceive this shining through of reality, for theya were history of modern art history.
more interested in the argument about the conventionality of half a century after the book's publication, the moving
Today,
pictorial representation, which was new to them. But some art the animated image, the interactive image, the moving
image,
historians did, and that is why they held Gombrich' s book body,
at the machine, the flow of information itself have all
arm's length. Norman Bryson, when he called for a systematic become basic components of artistic production. The stagings
semiotics of the image, was only telling art historians whatand theyrestagings that have structured art since the late 1950s, from
already wanted to hear: that the image of the true image Fluxus is too to Happenings, from performance art and installation art
threatening, that it must be exorcised, that it will drag us back to thetoart of relation and participation, might well be understood
religion. as reinsertions of creativity into 'contexts of action', rituals
In the third chapter of Art and Illusion, 'Pygmalion's Power', and games, with the aim of collapsing reflective distance and
Gombrich places his story within the long-term context of the reinvesting the work of art with life. This project looms once
myth of the image or artefact that comes to life. He assigned the again as the vanishing point of art. Illusion reaffirms the body as
dream of 'rivalling creation itself (p.93) to an 'archaic' phase the central preoccupation of art. The body generates perceptions
when images were thought by virtue of their lifelikeness to wield and memories which it then imitates by fabricating images
magical power. The impression of lifelikeness was created, not beyond its own boundaries, such as paintings or films. The
strictly by resemblance, but by efficacy within a 'context of illusion is nothing other than an external image that has come
action', a ritual or a game. But the threats to orthodox religion to resemble very closely an internal image, thus seemingly
and to reason posed by magic and by ritual are worries that Gom- abolishing the boundary of the body. The body merges with its
brich inherited from 'Christianity' and the 'Enlightenment', environment and so postpones annihilation.
respectively. In assigning the confusion of art and life to a prim- The fusion of techne with life as envisaged by the artist is less
itive stage in human history, he accepted the very evolutionary sensational but no less real than the artificial life hypothesised
model of human nature that he had reproached Freud and today in the robotics or the biology laboratory. Gombrich
Warburg for holding. In fact, art's possessive relationship to life seemed aware in 1956 that he was standing at the brink of a
has by no means diminished in ardour. In modernity it simply completely new era, in art as much as in science, but was unable
takes different forms. to peer over the edge. In Art and Illusion he found nevertheless a
Techne, the Greek word for art, is what man adds to nature. way to remind us that art is most art-like when it imagines what
The ultimate aim of techne - the challenge - is the generation of it would be like not to be art.

the volume of the same name (London 1963); or Art and Illusion, p. 396, the penul- conception of the image as the resurrection of Life'; Bryson: op. at. (note 2),
timate sentence of the book, on our habitual reluctance 'to recognize ambiguityp. 3. I am not sure that common sense does conceive of the image in this way,
behind the veil of illusion'. but if it does, then this is the most interesting remark Bryson makes in Vision and
15 Compare the reference by Bryson to a 'generally held, vague, common-sensePainting.

THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE · CLI · DECEMBER 2OO9 839

This content downloaded from

170.140.142.252 on Sun, 01 Nov 2020 18:44:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms