barebones communication

“It has long seemed obvious - and is, in fact, the characteristic tone of European science - that “science” means breaking up complexes into their component elements. Isolate the elements, discover their laws, then reassemble them, and the problem is solved. All wholes are reduced to pieces and piecewise relations between pieces.

The fundamental “formula” of the Gestalt theory might be expressed in this way: There are wholes, the behaviour of which is not determined by that of their individual elements, but where the part-processes are themselves determined by the intrinsic nature of the whole. It is the hope of Gestalt theory to determine the nature of such wholes. 

With a formula such as this, one might close, for Gestalt theory is neither more nor less than this”.

Max Wertheimer: ”General Problems, Selection 1, Gestalt Theory” in A Sourcebook of Gestalt Psychology, prepared by Willis D. Ellis,  Routledge & Kegan Paul, Great Britain 1974, page 2. (Library Thing).

More on barebones pitstops. 

So, let’s move on then.

Coming up is the third gestalt factor (my order): the factor, or law, of closure. Described by Max Wertheimer in the 1920’s and more potent than ever. You’ll see.

If the two first factors: proximity and similarity are need-to-know for communicators, the factor of closure is the holy grail. It’s adds the opportunity of involving your reader. Or viewer. Or whoever.

There are different interpretations of what the meaning of closure, is. Is it a reference to the process of closure, or is it the end result?  On this blog closure will refer to both, depending on the context. Leaving out the rest of possible interpretations.

Commenting upon experiments with some very basic visual objects Wertheimer says: “From an inspection of Figs. 20-22 we are led to the discovery of still another principle: The Factor of Closure. If A, B, C, D are given and AB/CD constitute two self-enclosed units, then this arrangement rather then AC/BD will be apprehended”. (A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1974, page 83).

How do I understand this? Well, in two ways:

1) That which is “closed” (self-enclosed units) are more easily, and rapidly understood then that which is not “closed”. A finished story is more easily understood than an open ended one.

2) There is an inherent strive, in perception, towards “closing” of units. If they are not closed from the outset perception will do its work to close them. Gaps missing will be filled in.

Do you find this a bit cryptic. Don’t despair. I am sure that your interpretation of Wertheimer’s wording is as good as mine.

Anyway here comes an example of how visual closure works. That might bring us s bit closer.

What is that you see in this picture? Is it a spread of black and white dots? Do you find closure working for you? Do you see the dog? (I am sorry, that I don’t know who owns the copyright to this picture). 

Let’s move this factor one step up. Let’s introduce a distinction between the physical closure and the the mental closure. Does closure work on both levels? I think so. Look at these pictures:

Physical Closure vs Non-Closure: 

A pretty easy picture to apprehend to use Wertheimers notion. Not much fuzz and possible deviations here. On the other hand, you may say that this is a bit boring and not that an imaginative picture. I would say that the image has physical closure. (Copenhagen, Denmark 2003).

What happens here? Same lady, but a man added. More like half a man. Some would dismiss this image because it is not physically closed, and blaming the photographer for not being in his right mind. Others might say, that this is a much more interesting image just because physical closure is lacking. Gives you an opportunity to close it yourself. Addresses you in another way then the first image. More demanding. (Copenhagen, Denmark 2003).

Mental Closure vs Non-Closure:  

This image has closure, in my opinion. Both physically and mentally. Like the first picture it is self-contained. The young couple (please remark the effect of both proximity and similarity) don’t need anybody else. There are no elements apparently reaching out of the image. You don’t need to fill any gaps. Mental closure is in place. (Paris, France 2003).

As opposed to this image where self-containment is lacking. Puts a bit of a strain on you to close this one. Do you want to close it, or can you live with this kind of open ended solutions? You might say that this photograph lacks mental closure. I do. (London, UK, 2003). 

How to use:  

How to use the gestalt factor: closure?  

Go for closure, or go for non-closure. Depending on your communication objectives.

I use pictures to illustrate, but it could as well be texts. News articles would typically be closed acts while fiction could be non-closed acts (this could be argued). Political statements, some might say, would better be acts with an apparent closure (so that people will understand them rapidly). Poetry can live with non-closure demanding your engagement and phantasy.

What about advertizing?  If your objectives are product or consumer information, then keep messages closed. If your objectives are image, then non-closure might do better. 

By the way, did you know:

“The need for closure varies across individuals, situations, and cultures. A person with a high need for closure prefers order and predictability and is decisive and close minded. This person also feels discomfort from ambiguity (Hiel & Mervielde 2003). Someone rating low on need for closure will express more ideational fluidity and emit more creative acts (Chirumbolo et al., 2004)”.

For more on this, go here. 

Happy Holiday .

Ok then, let’s move on to the next gestalt factor; the factor of similarity.

This one is really easy: things that are similar tends to be grouped together. Not physically grouped, as with proximity, but mentally grouped. They band together.

In the article by Wertheimer already mentioned, he says:  ”Thus we are led to the discovery of a second principle - viz. the tendency of like parts to band together - which we may call The Factor of Similarity“. 

He states that this factor, as with proximity, is both visual and auditory, it works for sounds as well as for form and colour. I can think of many more areas, but let’s leave it at that for the moment.

What does the word similarity mean. You all have answers to that, but let’s go for the official versions by quoting a dictionary. Just to be on the safe side.

Wikipedia says: “Similarity is some degree of symmetry in either analogy and resemblance between two or more concepts or objects. The notion of similarity rests either on exact or approximate repetitions of patterns in the compared items”.

You might have noticed, that I already touched upon similarity in the post on proximity, where I suggested that the two elderly people not only were sitting close to each other, but also had similar traits. Let me expand on that a bit: They both wear straw hats as protection against the sun, they both sit in the same type of chairs; they both wear casual summer clothing; etcetera. Similar could be says about the younger standing at the right hand side.

I could go on, as I am sure you could. Let’s have a look at one of the pictures once more.

Remember what happened, when I suggested that you substitute the standing man for a standing bottle of Bacarci? Well, you don’t break the proximity. You ungroup the couple, so to speak, because the two objects are no longer similar.

And what happens when substituting both men for bottles of Bacardi? You break the illusion of a quite beach scene, and moves the picture into a surreal world. Right?

You don’t have to agree with me in this interpretation, as long as we can agree that the picture takes on a different set of denotations, as well as connotations. See former post.

If you, in your imagination, substitute the two gentlemen with bottles of Bacardi, other things happens as well. The proximity is still intact, but the original similarity is not. Now we have (in the imagined Bacardi picture) two different sets of similarities. All of a sudden the two women band together. As does the bottles of Bacardi. We have suddenly got one group of people, and one group if Bacardis. This is the factor of similarity working. 

I don’t want to linger on this much longer. It’s pretty obvious what happens, and how similarity dismantle proximity, and regroups the content of the picture.

Another shot coming up. What would I have done without them .

The people proximity isn’t that strong in this shot. The two guys are at separate ends of the glass cylinder. Why are they still grouped? Well, for one reason they are both black; they are both looking into the glass cylinder, they both have bended bodies. They are both standing up. There are lots of reasons. I am sure that you can think of some, as well.

So, let’s end it here. This is, after all, a blog, and not a lecture . Let me suggest some areas of use, as with proximity.

Areas of Use: 

Lots of I would say. Here are a few ones on the fly.

Combining striking colour and striking mood; combining product form and overall visual form; combining black coffee with black panther; combining Red Label with Red Fire; combining colour content with business image content, combining text structure with visual content structure; combining music with mood,  combining woman’s body with sand dunes, combining young child with young tree, combining text with context, combining, combining, combining, combining .. this it getting really boring. You come up with some examples - in any context of communication you can possibly think of.

Or do the opposite: chose dissimilarity, and get striking never-heard-of-effects.  As with the Bacardis.

The gestalt factors works both ways: use them straight to group, or use them faked to ungroup. 

Question: 

Do you see the young girl at the far end of the glass cylinder? Do you really? Or do you see a random structure of black dots?

Coming up soon is another gestalt factor; the factor of closure .

All for now. Thanks. 

I did already mention gestalt psychology in the Lady in Red post.

Gestalt psychology goes back to the beginning of the last century, and is normally recognized as being an effort of the gentlemen Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Kohler and Kurt Koffka.

The good thing is, that they found, that people have a tendency to make things as easy as possible for themselves, when perceiving. No big news you may say, but early last century is was.

In an article by Max Wertheimer written in 1923, he speaks about certain Gestalt factors. The name of the article, by the way, is “Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms”. Well, in English that is.

Wertheimer says:

“When we are presented with a number of stimuli we do not as a rule experience “a number” of individual things, this one and that and that. Instead larger wholes separated from and related to one another are given in experience; their arrangement and division are concrete and definite“.

In other words; a filtering take place both related to the individual’s experience (as we all know) , but in the this context the most important thing might be, that some of this filtering is “objectively governed”.

Wertheimer, talks about a number of factors, or laws governing human perception They are right here:

1) The factor of Proximity 

2) The factor of Similarity

3) Tha factor of Uniform Destiny or Common Faith

4) The factor of Objective set

5) The factor of Direction

6) The factor of Closure 

7) The factor of Experience or Habit 

8) The factor of The Good Curve 

I have found a couple of good links on the net, that will take you a bit further, even if the phrasing is a little different from mine. Here is one of these links. The overview is written by psychologist Kendra van Wagner.

Use it, unless you are already on your way to the nearest library.

In forthcoming posts, I will try to show how the Gestalt basics, and the factors mentioned, are useful when dealing with communication. Both when constructing communicative acts, like and ad or a picture for an ad, and in deconstructing them e.g. for purposes of analysis and evaluation.