In Jerome Pelletier & Albert Voltolini (eds.), The Pleasure of Pictures: Pictorial Experience and Aesthetic Appreciation. Routledge. pp. 201-223 (2019)

Authors
Robert Hopkins
New York University
Abstract
We engage with all representational pictures by seeing things in them. Seeing-in is a distinctive form of visual experience, one in which we are aware of both the marks, projected lights, or whatever that make up the picture (its Design) and what the picture represents (Scene). Some seeing-in is inflected: what we then see in the picture is a scene the properties of which make essential reference to Design. Since cinema involves moving pictures, it too supports seeing-in. But can that seeing-in be inflected? Film is a relatively transparent pictorial medium: properties of the representation other than its content have a relatively low profile in our experience of it. This prevents film from exhibiting the sorts of inflection common in other pictorial media. However, film is certainly not completely transparent. Among the Design properties of which we are aware are temporal properties of the film. Is our experience of cinema inflected by these properties? And, if so, is this one source of the feature some take to constitute cinema’s distinctiveness as an artform, the special relation in which it stands to time? I argue that the answer to both these questions is Yes.
Keywords Cinema, aesthetics of  Depiction  Seeing-in  Inflection
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Inflected Pictorial Experience: Its Treatment and Significance.Robert Hopkins - 2010 - In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press. pp. 151.
What Do We See in Film?Robert Hopkins - 2008 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 66 (2):149–159.
Cinema as a Representational Art.Catharine Abell - 2010 - British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (3):273-286.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Inflected Pictorial Experience: Its Treatment and Significance.Robert Hopkins - 2010 - In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press. pp. 151.
Inflected and Uninflected Perception of Pictures.Bence Nanay - 2010 - In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press.
Why, as Responsible for Figurativity, Seeing-in Can Only Be Inflected Seeing-In.Alberto Voltolini - 2015 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (3):651-667.
The Moving Image.Nick Wiltsher & Aaron Meskin - 2019 - In Noël Carroll, Laura T. Di Summa & Shawn Loht (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 49-69.
Moving Because Pictures? Illusion and the Emotional Power of Film.Robert Hopkins - 2010 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 34 (1):200-218.
Cinema as a Representational Art.Catharine Abell - 2010 - British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (3):273-286.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-05-26

Total views
56 ( #204,646 of 2,518,001 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #42,508 of 2,518,001 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes