Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T19:07:06.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Educating the design stance: Issues of coherence and transgression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Norman H. Freeman  and
Melissa L. Allen
Norman H. Freeman
Affiliation:
University of Bristol & Lancaster University, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TU, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.bristol.ac.uk/expsych/people/norman-h-freeman/overview.html
Melissa L. Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Fylde College, Lancaster, LA1 4YF, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/people/melissa-allen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bullot & Reber (B&R) put forth a design stance to fuse psychological and art historical accounts of visual thinking into a single theory. We argue that this aspect of their proposal needs further fine-tuning. Issues of transgression and coherence are necessary to provide stability to the design stance. We advocate looking to Art Education for such fundamentals of picture understanding.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 141 - 142
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

Freeman, N. H. (2004) Aesthetic judgement and reasoning. In: Handbook of research and policy in art education, ed. Eisner, E. W. & Day, M. D., pp. 359–78. A National Art Education Association (USA) project. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Freeman, N. H. (2011) Varieties of pictorial judgement: A functional account. In: The aesthetic mind: Philosophy and psychology, ed. Schellekens, E. & Goldie, P., pp. 414–26. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koenderink, J. J. & van Doorn, A. J. (2006) Pictorial space, a modern reappraisal of Adolf Hidebrand. In: Visual thought: The depictive space of depiction, ed. Albertazzi, L., pp. 135–54. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leonards, U., Baddeley, R., Gilchrist, I. D., Troscianko, T., Ledda, P. & Williamson, B. (2007) Mediaeval artists: Masters in directing the observer's gaze. Current Biology 17: R8–R9.Google Scholar
Pizlo, Z. (2008) 3D shape: Its unique place in visual perception. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggi, S. & Gilli, G. M. (2008) Dialogando sul bello. Scuola e didattica 15(63):34–38.Google Scholar
Turner, P. (1983) Children's responses to art: Interpretation and criticism. Journal of Art and Design Education 2:185–98.Google Scholar
Willats, J. (1997) Art and representation: New principles in the analysis of pictures. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Willats, J. (2005) Making sense of children's drawings. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Willats, J. (2006) Rudolph Arnhem's graphic equivalents in children's drawings and paintings by Paul Klee. In: Visual thought: The depictive space of depiction, ed. Albertazzi, L., pp. 195–20. John Benjamins.Google Scholar