One of the better-known theories of perception is Gestalt Psychology. It deals with the way we organize information (usually visuals, but not always) into wholes. While Gestalt Theory isn’t mentioned very often in discussions about composing good photos, I think that’s a mistake; these principles can clearly improve your compositions.
In this video, I dive into four of the most relevant components of Gestalt Theory for photographers: the Law of Closure, the Law of Similarity, the Law of Common Fate, and Figure-Ground Organization. Knowing how each one works can help you organize and structure your compositions to be as strong and effective as possible.
Here’s the video:
I do want to emphasize that Gestalt Theory is much broader than what I’ve covered here. I didn’t want to stretch any of the theory’s claims beyond recognition, so I only covered the topics that I think relate the most to photography. If you want to read more about Gestalt Theory, the Wikipedia page here has a very good overview.
If you found this video useful, you can subscribe to our channel to be notified when we post more like it. (Remember to click the bell icon under any video, or YouTube won’t send notifications properly.) We always appreciate likes and comments on YouTube as well, which help the algorithm know whether or not the video is interesting to potential viewers.
And, as always, if you have any questions or comments about anything I covered in the video, let me know, and I’ll get back as soon as possible!
A problem with Gestalt is that different people express different opinions as to what the principles mean and when they apply or apply more. This video, although inspiring, creates this kind of problems. For example, the flock of 4 birds is about movement because they are all flying in the same direction. Therefore, common fate applies, not similarity although it is the same species. This is obvious in the camel photo, although uniform connectedness also applies.
In the forest photo, there are white trees, and there are many “yellow trees” throughout that create the carpet pattern. This is more in line with the given example with red and blue dots being grouped by similarity rather than proximity.
As a human intellect product, composition can be bad, but there is no bad Gestalt. In this sense, I find it unnatural to think that the bug and flower photo is about common fate. The sole flying bird has a fate which appears not of a common kind. However, movement is not the only (similarity) factor that creates a common fate case.
I knew already Gestalt theory lerning psychology, but the way you related it with composition was really very interesting and important for a photographer. And congratulation for a so clear explanation, as usual !
Interesting video, but it would be better if you left the images on the screen LONGER while your narrative is playing in the background. Just my 2 cents!
Most useful video. This is a subtle subject, very difficult to explain. Thanks for doing this video.
Spencer, that is IMHO just too much rationalization. Here, photography has been given the guise of Gestalt theory. The big misunderstanding is that Gestalt theory expresses that the result is more than the sum of its parts. But that is not the essence of Gestalt theory. Let me
quote Max Wertheimer, a main founder of the Gestalt theory (from the German Wikipedia):
“There are contexts in which not what happens as a whole is derived from the way the individual pieces are and are composed, but the other way round, where – in a concise case – what happens to a part of the whole is determined by the inner structural laws of the whole. … Gestalt theory is this, nothing more and nothing less.”
That said, it is actually exactly the opposite of how you represent it. At least that is how I understood your video.
Hi Jan,
Gestalt theory certainly is more complex than its famous distillation – that the whole of something transcends its individual elements – but if you’re trying to say it’s the other way around, I think you are mistaken. Even Kurt Koffka, who helped develop Gestalt theory alongside Wertheimer, said word for word, “the whole is other than the sum of its parts.” Our famous saying that the whole is more than the sum of its parts directly comes from Gestalt theory. (Although it’s enough of a simplification that I deliberately didn’t say or write it in the video; “the whole is greater – in importance – than its individual elements” is closer to the meaning Gestalt theorists intend, as I understand it.)
In fact, your quote backs this up. It doesn’t say that the nature of the parts is what matters and influences the whole, but rather that the nature of the whole is what matters, and, in fact, influences its parts. This is precisely how I covered it in the video.
For example, take the case of the Law of Closure. The broken circle is the whole in this case (and we perceive it as such because of how we unconsciously group objects). That is what makes us consider the individual elements – the curved segments – as “part of a circle.”
I hope that makes sense. The fact that we consider “of a circle” to be innate to the nature of those segments is evidence of the quote you added, and of what I talked about in the video. Rather than the nature of the parts determining the nature of the whole, the nature of the whole is what matters, to the degree that it even determines the nature of the parts. (This is also what the melody example I gave at the beginning of the video discusses.)
Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the quote you mentioned in English. I’m curious what is written in place of the ellipsis. The closest translated quote I could find is this, which also backs up what I’m saying here and in the video. From Max Wertheimer:
“The fundamental ‘formula’ of Gestalt theory might be expressed in this way: There are wholes, the behavior 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.”
I recognize that writing about psychology outside of its usual context is very often done for sensationalist, clickbait, “pop sci” reasons. As someone who studied psychology, I find this kind of thing very frustrating, and I took care not to misrepresent or distort anything to the best of my abilities.
Granted, I spend more time on what Gestalt theory says about the process of grouping, rather than the way in which the whole influences the nature of the parts, but both are components of the theory.
Spencer, your video is good and inspiring. You certainly deliver the message.
Some long time ago, I thought it was a saying from Heisenberg: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Later I learned, that this is a misunderstanding and I think a bad one. Because it hides the real meaning of Gestalt Theory. There is another citation, from Wolfgang Metzger which should clarify it better:
“It is … not correct to say that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Rather, it must be said: The whole is something else than the sum of its parts. There are not only qualities of form added to the – unchanged – parts, but everything that becomes a part of a whole takes on new qualities itself.”
That is “the other way around”, just like in the statement of Wertheimer above.
That said: It is the composition of the objects that might give them a new quality. You said: “but rather that the nature of the whole is what matters, and, in fact, influences its parts. This is precisely how I covered it in the video.” And of course you are right! I meant with the other way round: Gestalt Theory is about perception and it established it around categories. It tries to explain “top down” what happens and how so. If one uses “bottom up” those categories to compose it does not necessarily mean the result, the whole will be “something else”.
Nevertheless it is very helpful to understand (and then train) these concepts. And that you showed well in your video. Thanks.
It is all a matter of replacing the judgmental words of “more” and “better” with the more accurate description of “different.” Nevertheless, talent wins games, but teamwork wins championships.
It is not about replacing a word. It is all about the understanding. Why otherwise would Wertheimer and Metzger explicitly stress this correction? Your example of talent and teamwork is the opposite of what they meant. There is not necessarily a relation between objects, in fact most of the time there is none at all. The only “connection” is the one which our perception produces. But this is within us and has nothing to do with the objects on an image.
Being more of a practical psychologist than theoretical one, I use the Gestalt Theory to keep myself from missing the trees from the forest…and what is even more interesting is that children are born with the fantastic ability of simultaneous reversability thinking–seeing steps going up and down at the same time–necessary to avoid getting caught up in figure-ground illusions as adults…but language takes this ability away at around age 3-4
For a professional photographer, you certainly know a lot about psychology. And the relationship of photography parts and parts of psychology certainly fit well into Gestalt Theory. At the end of the day if you believe in what you are doing and expect to get the right results, you most likely will and if you don’t you will always have the clues as to how to get it right the next time.
The tenants of Gestalt Theory are established principles that are applicable to most if not all situations. To disassemble them and claim the results to be true, you must revisit the scientific method first used to establish the principles to prove your “theory.” In that sense truth is just a theory until proven otherwise.
Here is an objective way to assess quality of a photograph:
1. Is the photo unique and different from what is already out there?
2. Was the photo difficult to take–timing, conditions, location, perspective, lighting, etc. so that it isn’t easily duplicatable.
3. Doe the photo clearly communicate an important problem and solution?
4. Is the formatting technically sound.
I don’t know if I would consider some of those objective, but I certainly agree that they all can be components of a successful photo! I am curious what you mean by the photo communicating a problem and solution – any examples of that?
I’m not disagreeing, I just hadn’t heard it expressed that way before. I certainly have heard it said that photos which clearly communicate an emotional message are more successful.
The emotional message–like a pending storm–is the problem, and the solution may be that this is the way the storm cleans the earth, or that an emotional storm or conflict may be brewing in your own life to study the parts that make it up for a better understanding and easier acceptance…Mayb e too deep for a Tuesday afternoon, so I will think of an easier explanation.
Shooting a high contrast light-dark scene is a problem, whereas an ND filter is the solution
That was interesting. Nice to see a video on composition that goes beyond the rule of thirds. :) Good job!
Much appreciated!
As usual, your video is well perceived, thought out and expressed. There are reasons some images are outstanding while others are mundane. You help us think through and understand these reasons without seeming too academic or arcane. Thank you.
Really appreciate it, thanks!
Hi Spencer. Thank you for this interesting video! Very simple but lots of practical and useful information for me as a beginner photographer :)
You’re quite welcome! Glad you liked it.
Just go out and take pic’s, full stop.
so why stop here and bother to comment as such?
Well, first of all, I read a lot on PL as well as wacth the videos on YT, and I find PL to be very informativ and educational. Actually, PL is one of my favourite channels concerning photography.
However, this specific article (with all my respect to Spencer), was a bit too much of theory behind composition. I think that sometimes you just have to go out and take pictures and find out what is working on locaton cause if you’re about to think of all the things that you’re (supposed) to think about while out shooting, you might just be blocked instead.
Go out, have fun and be creative, in the long run you’ll (hopefully) find out what is working and what isn’t.
Hopefully I made my point clear by this.
Regards;
// T.
Everyone has their own method here, and no worries either way if you found one that works for you! I like to put on my thinking cap when I’m figuring out a composition, but I know that the unconscious/spontaneous method works well, too.
I’m generally not spending time worrying about Gestalt theory specifically when I’m composing, but I will do things like figure out a shape to structure my composition around, or try to repeat an element/color throughout a photo. Taking a step back, the reason why these things often improve a photo is because of our innate ability to recognize patterns, and group various elements together.
A lot of “this photo just WORKS” examples work because of an underlying visual principle. It’s 100% possible to take good photos without knowing those principles, but having some familiarity with them, I think, improves one’s odds of capturing more good photos in the future. But that’s just me, and everyone’s style is different.
I think a very important part of anything, including photography, is to have the right perspective on purpose…like going out to nature to see a story you want to tell with your photograph vs. going out to nature to see what tells its own story through a photograph you are lucky and skilled enough to capture.