British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (1):149-167 (2000)
AbstractCongenitally blind people can make and understand ‘tactile pictures’ – representations form of raised ridges on flat surfaces. If made visible, these representations can serve as pictures for the sighted. Does it follow that we should take at face value the idea that they are pictures made for touch? I explore this question, and the related issue of the aesthetics of ‘tactile pictures’ by considering the role in both depiction and pictorial aesthetics of experience, and by asking how far the experience of those engaging with representations through touch can approximate to that of those engaging with them through sight.
Similar books and articles
Pictures, pictorial contents and vision.Dominic Gregory - 2010 - British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (1):15-32.
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.
Directive Pictures.Dominic Mciver Lopes - 2004 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62 (2):189–196.
Vision, Touch, and the Value of Pictures.Dominic M. McIver Lopes - 2002 - British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (2):191-201.
Is twofoldness necessary for representational seeing?Bence Nanay - 2005 - British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (3):248-257.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Image Consciousness and the Horizonal Structure of Perception.Walter Hopp - 2017 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 41 (1):130-153.
Pictorial Representation and Abstract Pictures.Elisa Caldarola - 2011 - Dissertation, Università Degli Studi di Padova
References found in this work
No references found.