Graduate studies at Western
British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (2):191-201 (2002)
|Abstract||Since blind people can draw and interpret raised-line drawings, depiction is not an essentially visual medium. Neither is the art of pictures an essentially visual art form. The reasons given for evaluating a picture aesthetically may advert to its tactile qualities insteadof its visual qualities.In particular, a raised-line picture canbe valued for the tactile experience it elicits of the scene it depicts, just as a visual picture is sometimes valuedfor eliciting a visual experience of its subject. The argument for this claim responds to some objections recently put forward by Robert Hopkins.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Dilworth (2002). Varieties of Visual Representation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32 (2):183-206.
Robert A. Wilson (2010). Extended Vision. In Nivedita Gangopadhyay, Michael Madary & Finn Spicer (eds.), Perception, Action and Consciousness. Oxford University Press..
Wayne Wright (2006). Visual Stuff and Active Vision. Philosophical Psychology 19 (2):129-149.
Fay Zika (2005). Tactile Relief: Reconsidering Medium and Modality Specificity. British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (4):426-437.
Dominic Lopes (1996). Understanding Pictures. Oxford University Press.
Bence Nanay (2011). Perceiving Pictures. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (4):461-480.
Dominic Gregory (2010). Pictures, Pictorial Contents and Vision. British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (1):15-32.
Robert Hopkins (2000). Touching Pictures. British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (1):149-167.
Michael Newall (2006). Pictures, Colour and Resemblance. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (225):587–595.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #78,361 of 757,546 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,427 of 757,546 )
How can I increase my downloads?