Dialectica 62 (3):335-348 (2008)
AbstractBy defining both depictive and linguistic representation as kinds of symbol system, Nelson Goodman attempts to undermine the platitude that, whereas linguistic representation is mediated by convention, depiction is mediated by resemblance. I argue that Goodman is right to draw a strong analogy between the two kinds of representation, but wrong to draw the counterintuitive conclusion that depiction is not mediated by resemblance.
Similar books and articles
Deeper Into Pictures: An Essay on Pictorial Representation.Flint Schier - 1986 - Cambridge University Press.
Images, intentionality and inexistence.Ben Blumson - 2009 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (3):522-538.
What is a Picture?: Depiction, Realism, Abstraction.Michael Newall - 2011 - Palgrave-Macmillan.
Depiction unexplained: Peacocke and Hopkins on pictorial representation.Gavin McIntosh - 2003 - British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (3):279-288.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Interpreting Images.Ben Blumson - 2014 - In Resemblance and Representation. Open Book Publishers. pp. 118-138.
References found in this work
Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols.Nelson Goodman - 1968 - Bobbs-Merrill.
Languages and language.David K. Lewis - 1975 - In Keith Gunderson (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 3-35.
Picture, Image and Experience: A Philosophical Inquiry.Robert Hopkins - 1998 - Cambridge University Press.