David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics 6 (2):1-22 (2009)
We are told by philosophers that photographs are a distinct category of image because the photographic process is mind-independent. Furthermore, that the experience of viewing a photograph has a special status, justified by a viewer’s knowledge that the photographic process is mind-independent. Versions of these ideas are central to discussions of photography in both the philosophy of art and epistemology and have far-reaching implications for science, forensics and documentary journalism. Mind-independence (sometimes ‘belief independence’) is a term employed to highlight what is important in the idea that photographs can be produced naturally, mechanically, accidentally or automatically. Insofar as the process is physical, natural, mechanical or causal it can occur without human agency or intervention, entirely in the absence of intentional states. Presented innocuously, the idea is that although photographs are dependent on natural or mechanical processes, they can be produced independently of human agency – particularly human beliefs. Presented in a stronger form, the claim is that even if human agency is heavily involved in the production process, the definitive features that make the photograph a photograph and determine its salient properties are nonetheless independent of human minds. In epistemic debates, mind-independence is viewed as essential for explaining why photographs occupy a distinct category among images and justifying a variety of claims about their privileged epistemic and affective status in science, forensics, popular culture and journalism. But, in the philosophy of art, claims about mind-
|Keywords||Photograph Aesthetic scepticism Mind-independence Image Picture Photographic process|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Aaron Smuts (2010). 'Pickman's Model': Horror and the Objective Purport of Photographs. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4:487-509.
Mikael Pettersson (2011). Depictive Traces: On the Phenomenology of Photography. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 69 (2):185-196.
Dominic McIver Lopes (2003). The Aesthetics of Photographic Transparency. Mind 112 (447):434--48.
Robert Hopkins (2012). Factive Pictorial Experience: What's Special About Photographs? Noûs 46 (4):709-731.
Jiri Benovsky (2011). Three Kinds of Realism About Photographs. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 25 (4):375-395.
Jiri Benovsky (2011). What Photographs Are (and What They Are Not). Disputatio 4 (31):239 - 254.
Catharine Abell (2010). The Epistemic Value of Photographs. In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press.
Jiri Benovsky (2012). Photographic Representation and Depiction of Temporal Extension. Inquiry 55 (2):194-213.
Peter Osborne (2010). Infinite Exchange: The Social Ontology of the Photographic Image. Philosophy of Photography 1 (1):59-68.
Dawn M. Phillips (2009). Photography and Causation: Responding to Scruton's Scepticism. British Journal of Aesthetics 49 (4):327-340.
Added to index2010-03-12
Total downloads40 ( #43,388 of 1,102,846 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,987 of 1,102,846 )
How can I increase my downloads?