Inflected Pictorial Experience: Its Treatment and Significance
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Picturing. Oxford University Press (2010)
Some (Podro, Lopes) think that sometimes our experience of pictures is ‘inflected’. What we see in these pictures involves, somehow, an awareness of features of their design. I clarify the idea of inflection, arguing that the thought must be that what is seen in the picture is something with properties which themselves need characterising by reference to that picture’s design, conceived as such. I argue that there is at least one case of inflection, so understood. Proponents of inflection have claimed great significance for the phenomenon. But what might that significance be? Inter alia, I consider Lopes’s proposal that inflection solves a central problem in pictorial aesthetics, the ‘puzzle of mimesis’. I argue that the puzzle, and the proposed solution, both turn on aspects of Lopes’s conception of seeing-in. Other accounts of seeing-in can make no sense of either. I further argue that the phenomenon of inflection itself puts pressure on the sort of account Lopes offers. Thus it is hard to offer a view which both holds that inflection occurs and is able to make clear sense of why it matters.
|Keywords||Painting Pictorial aesthetics Seeing-in D.M.Lopes M.Podro Inflection|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Alon Chasid (2014). Pictorial Experience: Not so Special After All. Philosophical Studies:1-21.
Similar books and articles
Robert Hopkins (2008). Reasons for Looking: Lopes on the Value of Pictures. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (2):556-569.
Robert Hopkins (2000). Touching Pictures. British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (1):149-167.
Bence Nanay (2010). Inflected and Uninflected Perception of Pictures. In C. Abell & K. Bantilaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press.
M. Pettersson (2011). Seeing What Is Not There: Pictorial Experience, Imagination and Non-Localization. British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (3):279-294.
Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy (1999). The Tension Between “Combinatorial” and “Class-Default” Regularity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1017-1018.
Dominic Lopes (1996). Understanding Pictures. Oxford University Press.
Alberto Voltolini (2009). How Demonstrative Pictorial Reference Grounds Contextualism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90 (3):402-418.
Robert Hopkins (2003). Pictures, Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. The Monist 86 (4):653-675.
Dominic Lopes (1995). Pictorial Realism. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53 (3):277-285.
Robert Hopkins (2012). Factive Pictorial Experience: What's Special About Photographs? Noûs 46 (4):709-731.
Peter Indefrey (1999). Some Problems with the Lexical Status of Nondefault Inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1025-1025.
Etta Drews (1999). Pitfalls in Tracking the Psychological Reality of Lexically Based and Rule-Based Inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1022-1023.
Catharine Abell (2007). Pictorial Realism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (1):1 – 17.
Alon Chasid (2004). Why the Pictorial Relation is Not Reference. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (3):226-247.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-08-01
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?