Page 440 [440]
438
Liudmila Limanskaya
of the species, to the development of the individual and, in humans, to the history
of culture” (Lorenz 1998: 5).
The methods of structural anthropology applied by Lévi-Strauss and those of
historical ethology applied by Lorentz, as well as Sigmund Freud’s experiments of
psychoanalytical reconstruction of a creative personality, attracted the attention of
Ernst Gombrich during his study of the grotesque and caricature. In his examina¬
tion of the history of art as an evolutionary process, Gombrich drew on the experi¬
ence of ethological anthropology and applied its methods to the history of art. In
his fundamental works (1960, 1963, 1979, 1982) he used, as a method of studying
the psychology of graphical perception, the experience of observing the develop¬
ment of the individual in a cultural environment and examined the role of cultural
standards and rituals in forming genres and artistic styles. He analysed the psycho¬
logical mechanisms and specifics of nonverbal communication, proceeding from
the history of physiognomy, studying the semiotic aspects of masks, mimicry and
gestures in the history of caricature. Following Levis-Strauss, Gombrich affirmed
that masks, gestures and movements are plastically modelled signs expressing a psy¬
chical symptomology of emotions and cultural mechanisms at the same time.
Thus, referring to the works of Lévi-Strauss, Lorenz and Freud, Gombrich
studied the semiotics of the body using materials from the history of physiognomy
and caricature.
Based on his research into the history of caricature, Gombrich demonstrated
that body language is an iconic sign, i.e. a visual code of a culture. This visual code
is a perceptual schema based on the apparatus of the central nervous system and
is manifested in various forms of mimicry. Mimicry is a physical need shared by
humans and living organisms to adapt to the surrounding world, both natural and
social. Body language plays an important role in the development of the ability of
the nervous system to adapt to the external environment. Gombrich studied the
role of movement, mimicry and gesture in the history of physiognomics and cari¬
cature and showed that the semantic field of body signs is multidimensional. In his
research into caricature, he focused on the functioning of comic genres and showed
that they reflect the nature of the human beings as a creature of conflict, drama
and anxiety in constant need of psychological release. Caricatures reflect the primal
experience of pre-verbal communication. Similar to the images of night dreams,
metaphors, jokes, and anecdotes, the iconic images of caricature contain a play
of arbitrary associations that help transfer concealed thinking into overt content.
The result is an emotional release in laughter and a release of suppressed emotions,
similar to an expression of thought in night dreams (Limanskaya & Shvets 2014).
Today’s critics of Gombrich’s ideas point out that mental images induced by
iconic signs suppress imagination by calling to memory the momentary image of
what was seen (Bryson 1983; Mitchell 1994, 2005). However, we should bear in
mind that the objective likeness to the denoted is not the only reason for iconic
likeness. In our interpretation of the iconic conception, we transfer emphasis from