| Abstract: | Argues that there are fundamental discrepancies between the principles of gestalt theory as laid out in the writings of its leading proponents and their presentation in much of the current literature. When attention is limited to rules for the combination of shapes and purely morphological differences between levels of formal complexity, the importance of dynamic processes in field situations is unduly neglected. A one-sided emphasis on minimization fails to acknowledge the countertendency that effects articulation and meets tension reduction with tension enhancement. A more adequate characterization of the term pr?gnant is proposed. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
