David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):131–147 (2003)
[Richard Wollheim] Any experiential view of pictorial meaning will assign to each painting an appropriate experience through which its mean can be recovered. When the meaning is representational, what is the nature of the appropriate experience? If there is agreement that the experience is to be described as seeing-in, disagreement breaks out about how seeing-in is to be understood. This paper challenges two recent interpretations: one in terms of perceived resemblance, the other in terms of imagining seeing. Neither view gives a correct account of how the spectator distributes his attention between the marked surface and the represented object. /// [Robert Hopkins] I offer two, complementary, accounts of the visual nature of representational picturing. One, in terms of six features of depiction, sets an explanatory task. The other, in terms of the experience to which depiction gives rise, promises to meet that need. Elsewhere I have offered an account of this experience that allows this promise to be fulfilled. I sketch that view, and defend it against Wollheim's claim that it cannot meet certain demands on a satisfactory account. I then turn to Wollheim's own view, arguing that it suffers from crucial obscurities. These prevent it from meeting the explanatory commitments I describe, and are only exacerbated by the demands Wollheim himself imposes.
|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
Clare Mac Cumhaill (2011). Specular Space. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111 (3pt3):487-495.
Similar books and articles
Elizabeth Schier (2007). The Represented Object of Color Experience. Philosophical Psychology 20 (1):1 – 27.
Hannah Ginsborg (2011). Perception, Generality, and Reasons. In Andrew Reisner & Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (eds.), Reasons for Belief. Cambridge University Press. 131--57.
Ned Block (2005). Bodily Sensations as an Obstacle for Representationism. In Murat Aydede (ed.), Pain: New Essays on its Nature and the Methodology of its Study. Cambridge Ma: Bradford Book/Mit Press. 137-142.
Bence Nanay (2005). Is Twofoldness Necessary for Representational Seeing? British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (3):248-257.
Clare Batty (2010). A Representational Account of Olfactory Experience. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40 (4):511-538.
Richard Wollheim (2001). Richard Wollheim on the Art of Painting: Art as Representation and Expression. Cambridge University Press.
M. Pettersson (2011). Seeing What Is Not There: Pictorial Experience, Imagination and Non-Localization. British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (3):279-294.
Robert Hopkins (2006). Painting, History, and Experience. Philosophical Studies 127 (1):19 - 35.
Robert Hopkins (2003). What Makes Representational Painting Truly Visual? Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):149–167.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads86 ( #15,815 of 1,099,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #27,810 of 1,099,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?