Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):149–167 (2003)
AbstractI 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
Similar books and articles
Projective Properties and Expression in Literary Appreciation.Elisa Galgut - 2010 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 68 (2):143-153.
Depiction unexplained: Peacocke and Hopkins on pictorial representation.Gavin McIntosh - 2003 - British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (3):279-288.
The Spectator in the Picture.Robert Hopkins - 2001 - In Rob Van Gerwen (ed.), Richard Wollheim on the Art of Painting. Art as Representation and Expression. Cambridge University Press. pp. 215-231.
Richard Wollheim on the Art of Painting: Art as Representation and Expression.Richard Wollheim (ed.) - 2001 - Cambridge University Press.
What makes representational painting truly visual?Richard Wollheim - 2003 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):131–147.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Seeing the Impossible.Andreas Elpidorou - 2016 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 74 (1):11-21.
Pictorial Representation and Abstract Pictures.Elisa Caldarola - 2011 - Dissertation, Università Degli Studi di Padova
References found in this work
No references found.