This book is a gem to be treasured by all elementary teachers for their Art library. Molly Bang demonstrates the use color and shape to inspire creativity and emotions in the minds of young students. I had the privlege of attending her demonstration lecture some years ago at a Children's Literature Conference. There I was delighted to discover the subtle simplicity of her ideas; I even put them into practice with my preschool class. This book will open a new world of enjoyment and enrichment activities--especially in the study of fairy tales--while introducing basic artistic principles. I highly recommend it!

I am a professional graphic designer and I learned many things from this book. I purchased a copy at the Cooper/Hewitt Design Mueseum store in New York City, then left it on the plane, after reading all but the last pages. Now, I have to buy a new copy! It is one of my all-time favorite design books, and I have many. Among other ideas, she has an original way of describing gravity's influence on our perceptions in a picture plane. That alone is worth the money and time for this wonderful book

Simon Dinnerstein: Paintings And Drawings showcases the impressive and original work (1967-1999) of a significant contemporary American realist. Dinnerstein's style reflects a thoroughly modern eye for abstract design combined with social commentary. This 126-page compendium of his work features 81 color plates (including 3 gatefolds), and 20 black-and-white reproductions on permanent alkaline paper. Of particular interest for the students and connoisseurs studying the man and his work are the brief, informative essays by Guy Davenport (The Art of Simon Dinnerstein); Miller Williams (Coming to Know Simon Dinnerstein: The Art and the Artist); John Russell (In Dinnerstein's Painting, an Echo Chamber); Robert L. McGrath To See and Be Seen: The Fulbright Triptych of Simon Dinnerstein); Rudolf Arnheim (Pictures of the Lasting World); and Edward J. Sullivan (The Urban View in the Art of Simon Dinnerstein. Very highly recommended for personal, professional, and art history collections, Simon Dinnerstein's images are further enhanced by his brief text about his work, a list of his awards, one-man and group exhibitions, public and corporate collections, and selected publications for further study.

With this essays in this book, Arnheim discusses art as art, or rather what makes art. One of his theses is that much of the blame for the current decline of art and of art and literary criticism lies with the fin de siecle mood of the general culture, but much of it lies with those who are supposed to be critics.

Many critics, and unfortunately teachers, subscribe to the belief that the criteria by which a work of art deserves to be held in aesthetic and social esteem no longer exist. Thus, one can hardly blame people for arguing that art is anything they chooses to call it if the very people who are supposed to supply the standards by which to judge what is and is not art assert that any kind of objective criteria no longer exist.

On the other hand, artists are always exploring and innovating. But exactly for this reason, critics should discuss what makes art art. It is too easy to indulge in the easy pleasures of relativism just as it is too easy to answer with smug, superior expressions when people ask what is meant by art.

The solution to rescuing the arts consists in discrimination, once the penultimate critical faculty, in pointing out the common core of sensory expression in all its manifestations-what William James calls the "sifting of human creations." What critics need to do is revive and explore the principles of which all productive functioning of the arts is based. As Arnheim states: "If art is indispensable as a psychological, and possibly a biological, requirement of existence, it must be assumed to grow from the very depths of our being. And if so, these roots must be traceable. Therefore, critics must be heralds of the principles they are retrieving."

But, do not be put off by the political nature of this review. Arnheim is not a polemicist. The majority of the book is devoted to what he states critics need do: discuss art as art, not art as politics. And he does that very well.

Although the book isn't quite the easiest to read, the information within is crucial for photographers and painters.

As a beginning painter I have found this book quite useful.

Rudolf Arnheim is one of those rare and exceptional thinkers gifted in both the arts and science, in this case the science of psychology. This book is about the relation between psychology and art. Its value will be immediately recognized by artists, as well as by those who are interested in how the mind makes sense of the visual world. But the most interesting and valuable aspect of this book is its implications for psychology. The Gestalt theory on which Arnheim's approach is based is a minority view in contemporary psychology, but it is a theoretical viewpoint that is destined for a renaissance. For Gestalt theory recognizes the holistic, emergent aspects of perception, which are so difficult to account for in terms of contemporary neuroscience, but are so clearly evident in the laws of artistic composition. Although this book was originally published in 1954, I believe it is only a matter of time before it receives the recognition it deserves as an invaluable contribution to psychology, as soon as psychology has the wisdom to recognize it as such.

Rudolf Arnheim's "Film as Art" is an important work of the cannon of cinematic theory. It should continue to be read, if for that reason alone; its influence on subsequent film scholarship is unquestionable and profound. It provides great insight into the aesthetics of the silent era, opening a window on the intellectual climate of the Weimar Republic. Paradoxically, it is, at once, both Comtian and Kantian. On one hand, it invites us in: Film is photography in motion and, as such, exists in the realm of the visual sense. On the other hand, it shuts us out: Film ART is a whole greater than the sum of its parts. The shot is greater than the sum of its frames. Montage is greater than the sum of its shots. The finished opus, production of the auteur's complete intellectual and emotional capabilities in perfect harmony, is greater than the sum of all of its episodes. In other words, to be considered art, film must demonstrate not only the perfection of each element, but the perfection of those elements in relation to each other... melody, harmony and overall composition. Each frame must serve the whole; one frame more or one frame less and the work would be irreparably damaged.

And yet... how odd it is that the vast majority of "Film as Art" focuses on filmic techniques, the very idiosyncratic building blocks upon which the 19th century artist-photographer once mused. In a desperate attempt to justify the medium as capable of high art, Arnheim descends into a technical-scientific argument that, in effect, nullifies his efforts to establish its end product. That is to say: If film art is truly the production of the heart and mind in concert, such devices would merely be means to an end, the bridges crossed on a journey deep into the soul. Still, Arnheim time and again returns to the theme of the mechanical: "Three dimensional images projected onto a two dimensional plane," distortions in time-space via cutting, lenses, filters, emulsions, etc. Vainly, he struggles with the idea of art in opposition to the mechanical reproduction of reality by enumerating the mechanical tools employed in dodging it.

I find Arnheim thoroughly unconvincing, not only for the aforementioned reasons, but, more importantly, on a purely intuitive level. To Arnheim, the spectator is reduced to recepticle, the end-user of artistic production. Both the Kantian and Comtian in him should have provided the viewer with a more active role. He should have realized where the perception of light sensation resides; he should have understood that it is the mind that receives such perceptions that fashions them into complete images, actions, episodes and so on. Instead, he focuses intensely on cinematic tricks and devices which, by present standards, are part of the cinematographer's toolbelt. He is captivated by the means to the end rather than the end in itself. For example, he explains montage in terms of its formal aspects, failing even once to discuss what "montage" actually is (in the manner of Kuleshov, Eisenstein, Pudovkin, etc.) Curiously, the cinematic end becomes more of an afterthought than anything.

I also find Arnheim's assertion of the universality symbolism (much like Eisenstein's artistic notion of ideograms as fundamentally monadic) rather silly, at best. Black is bad; white is good. For some reason, Arnheim never stopped to think of other paradigms or the very possibility of their existence. At worst, the book is downright dangerous. The blond-haired, fair skinned matinee idol is inherently striking whereas the brunette begins with a decided disadvantage. And this from a man of Jewish heritage amid a rising tide of Nazism! Can we forgive this the product of a "pre-semiotics" Eurocentric modernism? Or would such forgiveness, in itself, give substance to the insidious zeitgeits, serving as yet another relativist apology for the brilliant-yet-flawed?

As a Jew, I sense "Film as Art" as the product of self-hatred. I sense that Arnheim was part of an intellectual community and yet APART. The pain derived, in that sense, from reading the book is interesting. Ultimately, however, it is another universalist blind alley: An attempt to speak in immutable terms about an ever-shifting medium of motion pictures. It argues for the preservation of the already-gone (e.g., black and white, silent film, etc.) It is illiberal, ill-conceived, unsatisfactory and unsatisfying. It can only read as yet another volley in the ongoing (and futile) battle between the formative and realistic schools.

This book must be read by anyone with interests in film critiques and in Cinema in general.Arnheim argued that film comes from limitations , and ideed, I believe that he was absolutely right. Because film is not an unique art, but is builded up from other fields. The first thing that an artist must know is that you always have to leave something to be interpreted, you have to send a message. And how can you do that if you show everything?How can you possibly consider art something that does not need interptretation? Because like Arnheim said "what does not have a meaning has no place in art" Indeed, in his book , he explains that the composition of the film must be intermetiated between the margins of the screen. Also, that the black and white image is far superior to the coloured one.And here you can ask yourselves that how it is possible that the black & white photography is still used even nowadays? I believe that anyone interested in film should read this book.

An amazing analysis of the perceptual principles involved in film viewing. Arnheim provides a fascinating and scholarly look at the psychological and physiological aspects of cinema. A profound and thought-provoking work.

The book is fairly complex, and definitely needs reflexion for every sentence. The author explains some psychological and philosophical theories. This is personally not what I expected. I would have liked more examples and applications.

Arnheim always sheds some new light on his subjects, and this book might be his most enlightening. Whether you care about art, education, perception, or simply living a full human life, this book will make you think about the subject in a new way. Grounded in careful analysis of specific objects and experiences, Arnheim nonetheless manages to convey the importance of his ideas to the wider subject of human consciousness.

Radio by Rudolf Arnheim.

The book run out of print after being published for the first time in 1936, in London. The Radio that Arnheim makes reference to no longer exists. The main reason for the nonexistence of such radio relays on the fact, that the radio resources are no longer just purelly mechanics but also electronic. However the mecanisms on wich the Arnheim's radio was based it is also the basis of its actual existence, and did contribute for its study and sound aesthetics. Besides Arnheim's Radio was of great value for the development of the thecnical and economical conditions at that time. His piece of work about radio aesthetics is of great importance has it resulted from a reflection about the sound of the mute cinema and it constituted a classic of the artistical and sound perception both theories. To him in the musical sound works no instrument should be used as a simple sound complement. Art is different from reality because it requires and makes use of all and each single element, as stated on the central chapter of this fundamental book on Praise of Blindness.

This is the first book I've read by Arheim, but surely not the last. These 28 clearly written non-technical essays are a delight to read and contemplate. Arheim's wide-ranging intellect covers a lot of ground, from painting, photography and literature to science and philosophy. But this is erudition with a light touch, and the author knows how to balance abstraction with concrete analysis, inviting us to use all our senses to experience the parts and the whole.

The book reads like a complicated mathematical college text book. The author either tries to impress you with his knowledge of the english language or confuse you with the ideology behind his observations in artistic composition. I found the book to be very confusing and at times boring enough to put it aside and read something else. The author does relate some good input when critiquing paintings but you need pay complete attention to the beginning of the book in order to understand his complicated formulas. It is definetely not an easy read, and not for the artist. This book is for the art critic who tries to find scientific formulas for the study of composition.

This book offers an in-depth analysis of the visual dynamics in a piece of art according to the sizes, positions, orientations and the balancing centers of its components. Paintings, sculptures and architectures are the subjects of discussions in the book. In addition to the balance between the components of a piece of art, the shape of a picture frame, the environment, the perspective prescribed by the artist and the viewer all play an important role in the interpretation of a piece art. The author takes an step-by-step approach to explain how the understanding of the roles of all these elements would help us to appreciate a piece of art. Many examples, modern and classical, are provided to demonstrate his points. I find his approach to understanding a piece of art interesting and revealing. This is one of the best books I ever read about arts. I think this book would benefit aspiring artists and art enthusiasts alike. I would hane given it five stars instead of four and a half if the pictures in the book were in color.