David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (3):279-294 (2011)
Pictures let us see what is not there. Or rather, since what pictures depict is not really there, we do not really see the things they are pictures of. Ever since Richard Wollheim introduced the notion of seeing-in into philosophical aesthetics, as part of his theory of depiction, there has been a lively debate about how, precisely, to understand this experience. However, one (alleged) feature of seeing-in that Wollheim pointed to has been almost completely absent in the subsequent discussion, namely that seeing-in allows for non-localization. When looking at a picture, Wollheim says, there is not always an answer to the question of where one sees a certain thing in a picture. If Wollheim is right in this, pictures indeed let us see what is not there: we see things in pictures, but there is no ‘there’ where we see those things. In this paper I argue against Wollheim's claim that object-seeing-in allows for non-localization. But there is, I argue, a pictorial experience, which is closely tied to seeing-in and which is non-localized, namely (what I call) pictorial perceptual presence
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Avery Archer (forthcoming). Do Desires Provide Reasons? An Argument Against the Cognitivist Strategy. Philosophical Studies:1-17.
Similar books and articles
Bence Nanay (2005). Is Twofoldness Necessary for Representational Seeing? British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (3):248-257.
Robert Hopkins (2001). The Spectator in the Picture. In Rob Van Gerwen (ed.), Richard Wollheim on the Art of Painting. Art as Representation and Expression. CUP 215-231.
Elisa Caldarola (2012). Representation without background? A critical reading of Wollheim and Greenberg on the representational character of abstract pictures. Aisthesis. Pratiche, Linguaggi E Saperi Dell’Estetico 5 (2).
Robert Hopkins (2000). Touching Pictures. British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (1):149-167.
Robert Hopkins (2012). Factive Pictorial Experience: What's Special About Photographs? Noûs 46 (4):709-731.
Bence Nanay (2012). Anti-Pornography. In Hans Maes & Jerrold Levinson (eds.), Art and Pornography. Oxford University Press
Dominic Gregory (2010). Pictures, Pictorial Contents and Vision. British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (1):15-32.
Richard Wollheim (2003). What Makes Representational Painting Truly Visual? Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):131–147.
Alon Chasid (2004). Why the Pictorial Relation is Not Reference. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (3):226-247.
Robert Hopkins (2010). Inflected Pictorial Experience: Its Treatment and Significance. In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Picturing. Oxford University Press
Robert Hopkins (2003). Perspective, Convention and Compromise. In Heiko Hecht, Margaret Atherton & Robert Schwartz (eds.), Looking Into Pictures: an interdisciplinary approach to pictorial space. MIT Press 145-165.
John Michael McGuire (1999). Pictorial Metaphors: A Reply to Sedivy. Metaphor and Symbol 14 (4):293-302.
Dominic Lopes (1996). Understanding Pictures. Oxford University Press.
J. Dokic (2012). Pictures in the Flesh Presence and Appearance in Pictorial Experience. British Journal of Aesthetics 52 (4):391-405.
Richard Wollheim (2001). Richard Wollheim on the Art of Painting: Art as Representation and Expression. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2011-07-13
Total downloads49 ( #74,519 of 1,780,078 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #291,056 of 1,780,078 )
How can I increase my downloads?