British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (3):279-288 (2003)
AbstractMy aim is to show that the accounts of depiction offered by Christopher Peacocke and Robert Hopkins assume rather than explain one of the central features of depiction. This feature is pictorial realism. It is a constraint upon any adequate theory of depiction that it be able to explain pictorial realism; however, Peacocke and Hopkins seek to meet this constraint by employing the notion of resemblance. I raise three problems with Peacocke's account and point out an error in Hopkins's use of solid angles (upon which his notion of resemblance rests). It is suggested that while these theories must be rejected, there are various non-resemblance theories, including that proposed by Gombrich, which might prove adequate.
Similar books and articles
Pictures, Pictorial Contents and Vision.Dominic Gregory - 2010 - British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (1):15-32.
Deeper Into Pictures: An Essay on Pictorial Representation.Flint Schier - 1986 - Cambridge University Press.
Pictorial Representation: When Cognitive Science Meets Aesthetics.Mark Rollins - 1999 - Philosophical Psychology 12 (4):387 – 413.
What Makes Representational Painting Truly Visual?Robert Hopkins - 2003 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):149–167.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Epistemic Misuse & Abuse of Pictorial Caricature.Christy Mag Uidhir - 2013 - American Philosophical Quarterly 50 (2):137-152.
References found in this work
No references found.