Touching pictures

British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (1):149-167 (2000)
Congenitally blind people can make and understand ‘tactile pictures’ – representations form of raised ridges on flat surfaces. If made visible, these representations can serve as pictures for the sighted. Does it follow that we should take at face value the idea that they are pictures made for touch? I explore this question, and the related issue of the aesthetics of ‘tactile pictures’ by considering the role in both depiction and pictorial aesthetics of experience, and by asking how far the experience of those engaging with representations through touch can approximate to that of those engaging with them through sight.
Keywords Pictorial representation  Pictorial aesthetics  Touch  Sight  The senses  D.M.Lopes
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/bjaesthetics/40.1.149
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,904
External links
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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
John Kulvicki (2006). Pictorial Representation. Philosophy Compass 1 (6):535–546.
Erik Koed (2005). Sculpture and the Sculptural. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63 (2):147 - 154.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

73 ( #43,082 of 1,725,417 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

46 ( #25,809 of 1,725,417 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.