Savaş Sonrası Amerikan Estetik Kuramında Gestalt’tan Örüntüye Geçiş: Rudolf Arnheim ve György Kepes’in Çalışmaları

Öz

Bu makale örüntü olarak bilinen kavramın ortaya çıkardığı estetik sorunları tanımlamaya çalışıyor ve bu projede karşısında iki rakip kavram çerçevesi ya da kuram buluyor: Gestalt psikolojisi ve enformasyon teorisi. İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası Amerikan sanat kuramı ve teknoloji kültürünü bağlam olarak alarak, Rudolf Arnheim ve György Kepes’in metinleriyle eleştirel bir diyaloğa girişiyor. Makale iki kuramcının da tanığı oldukları bilişim alanındaki ve veri temelli bilgi kuramlarındaki ilerlemelerle (makine öğrenmesi dâhil olmak üzere) ciddi bir hesaplaşmaya girdiklerini gösteriyor. Felsefi sorunlara vurgu yaparak örüntünün temelinde yatan soyutlama meselesinin, zamansallığın ve öznellik boyutunun üzerine eğilirken, temel karşıtlıklar olan ayrık ve bütünsel kodlama ile nitelik ve niceliğin oyununa da dikkat çekiyor. Son olarak, Kepes’in sanat ve bilim arasındaki ilişkilere müdahalesinden yola çıkarak, örüntü sorununu bilim tarihi alanında yürütülen nesnellik tartışmaları bağlamına yerleştiriyor, bu noktada da Lorraine Daston ve Peter Galison’ın; ama özellikle de Donna Haraway gibi yazarların önemli çalışmalarından yararlanıyor.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• örüntü
• örüntü tanıma
• algı
• görsellik
• izomorfizm

FROM GESTALT TO PATTERN IN POST-WAR AMERICAN AESTHETIC THEORY: THE WORKS OF RUDOLF ARNHEIM AND GYÖRGY KEPES

Öz

The following article is an inquiry into the aesthetic valences of the concept of pattern as informed both by Gestalt theory and information theoretical tendencies toward quantification. In the trail of its object, it evokes the historical context of the second half of the 20th century American artistic and technological culture and offers critical engagements with texts by its main interlocutors Rudolf Arnheim and György Kepes. While Arnheim is a second-generation Gestalt theorist whose responses to the rise of a digital paradigm are instructive, Kepes stands out for the way he seeks a rapprochement between science and art through visuality. The article demonstrates that both theorists grapple with the challenges issued by advances in computation and the epistemological implications of visions of data processing (even machine learning research) ascendant in their time. The article has a philosophical orientation in paying particular attention to matters of abstraction underlying patterns, the contrasts between analog and digital coding, quality and quantity, the temporality of pattern formation, and the dimension of subjectivity. Finally, in its departure from the interface Kepes’ work offers between science and art, the article contextualizes the question of pattern with reference to the history of science, by putting it in contact with influential treatments of objectivity in the discourse of Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, but more critically, in the work of Donna Haraway.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• pattern
• pattern recognition
• perception
• visuality
• isomorphism

Kaynakça

1. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. University of California Press.
2. Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception. University of California Press.
3. Beck, J. & Bishop, R. (2020). Technocrats of the imagination: Art, technology and the military-industrial avant-garde. Duke University Press Books.
4. Bowker, G. (1993). How to be universal: some cybernetic strategies, 1943-70. Social Studies of Science, 23(1), 107-127.
5. Busbea, L. (2020). The responsive environment: Design aesthetics and the human in the 1970s. University of Minnesota Press.
6. Çelik Alexander, Z. (2020). Scanning: A technical history of form. In Z. Çelik Alexander, J. May (Eds.), Design Technics: Archaeologies of Architectural Practice. University of Minnesota Press.
7. Daston, L. & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. Zone Books.
8. Gombrich, E. H. (1978). Meditations on a hobby horse and others essays on the theory of art. Phaidon.

9. Halpern, O. (2014). Beautiful data: A history of vision and reason since 1945. Duke University Press.
10. Haraway, D. (2004). The persistence of vision. In N. Mirzoeff (Ed.), The Visual Culture Reader. Routledge.
11. Heims, S. J. (1991). The cybernetics group. MIT Press.
12. Helmling, S. (2003). Constellation and critique: Adorno’s constellation, Benjamin’s dialectical image. Postmodern Culture, 14(1).
13. Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason. (Trans: P. Guyer, A. Wood), Cambridge University Press.
14. Kepes, G. (1956). The new landscape in art and science. Paul Theobald and Co.
15. Köhler, W. (1950). Physical Gestalten. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, Routledge.
16. Mackenzie, A. & Munster, A. (2019). Platform seeing: Image ensembles and their invisualities. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(5), 3-22.
17. Martin, R. (2005). The organizational complex: Architecture media and corporate space. MIT Press.
18. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.
19. McLuhan, M. (1967). The invisible environment: Future of an erosion. Perspecta, (11), 161-167.
20. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1971). Sense and non-sense. Northwestern University Press.
21. Mungan, E. (2023). Geştalt kuramı: İnsana dair başka bir bilim mümkün mü? Metis.
22. Selfridge, O. (1955). Pattern recognition and modern computers. Proceedings of the March 1-3, Western Joint Computer Conference, Association of Computing Machinery, 51-93.
23. Selfridge, O. & Neisser, U. (1960). Pattern recognition by the machine. Scientific American, 203(2), 60-69.
24. Selfridge, P. (1996). Oliver Selfridge- In from the start. IEEE Expert, 11(5), 15-17.
25. Simon, H. A. & Newell, A. (1958). Heuristic problem solving. Operations Research, 6(1), 1-10.
26. Simon, H. A. (1986). The information processing explanation of Gestalt phenomena. Computers in Human Behavior, 2(4), 241-255.
27. Simondon, G. (2017). On the mode of existence of technical objects. Univocal Publishing.
28. Spuybroek, L. (2020). The sympathy of things: Ruskin and the ecology of design. Bloomsbury Academic.
29. Strate, L. (2017). The effects that give cause, and the pattern that directs. Taking up McLuhan’s Cause: Perspectives on Media and Formal Causality. Intellect/The University of Chicago Press.
30. Tavakoli-Far, N. (2019). Intuition: Why should we trust it? [Radio Broadcast]. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csyv04
31. Vallye, A. (2013). The Middleman: Kepes’s instruments. A Second Modernism: MIT Architecture and the ‘Techno-Social’ Moment. MIT Press.
32. Verstegen, I. (2005). Arnheim, Gestalt and art: A psychological theory. Springer.
33. Volk, T. (1996). Metapatterns: Across space time and mind. Columbia University Press.
34. Wertheimer, M. (1950). Gestalt theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, Routledge.
35. Wiener, N. (1950). The human use of human beings. Houghton Mifflin Company.