Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63 (1):67–70 (2005)
|Abstract||In "A Restriction for Pictures and Some Consequences for a Theory of Depiction", Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 61, 4 (2003): 381-394, Michael Newall defended a resemblance view of depiction. He concentrated on pictures X involving a perpendicular view of the physical surface of another picture Y, and argued that the actual restrictions on what picture X can depict of Y's physical surface are best explained by a strict resemblance or similarity view. But I show that there are many problems with his approach, so that overall it is no more successful than more standard resemblance views of depiction.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Flint Schier (1986). Deeper Into Pictures: An Essay on Pictorial Representation. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Pelczar (2000). Wittgensteinian Semantics. Noûs 34 (4):483–516.
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (2004). Paradigms and Russell's Resemblance Regress. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (4):644 – 651.
Robert Hopkins (2003). Pictures, Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. The Monist 86 (4):653-675.
Ben Blumson (2009). Defining Depiction. British Journal of Aesthetics 49 (2):143-157.
Michael Newall (2003). A Restriction for Pictures and Some Consequences for a Theory of Depiction. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 61 (4):381–394.
Catharine Abell (2009). Canny Resemblance. Philosophical Review 118 (2):183-223.
Gavin McIntosh (2003). Depiction Unexplained: Peacocke and Hopkins on Pictorial Representation. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (3):279-288.
Michael Newall (2006). Pictures, Colour and Resemblance. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (225):587–595.
Michael Newall (2011). What is a Picture?: Depiction, Realism, Abstraction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #51,675 of 549,119 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,390 of 549,119 )
How can I increase my downloads?