We are told by philosophers that photographs are a distinct category of image because the photographic process is mind-independent. Furthermore, that the experience of viewing a photograph has a special status, justified by a viewer’s knowledge that the photographic process is mind-independent. Versions of these ideas are central to discussions of photography in both the philosophy of art and epistemology and have far-reaching implications for science, forensics and documentary journalism. Mind-independence (sometimes ‘belief independence’) is a term employed to highlight what is important in the idea that photographs can be produced naturally, mechanically, accidentally or automatically. Insofar as the process is physical, natural, mechanical or causal it can occur without human agency or intervention, entirely in the absence of intentional states. Presented innocuously, the idea is that although photographs are dependent on natural or mechanical processes, they can be produced independently of human agency – particularly human beliefs. Presented in a stronger form, the claim is that even if human agency is heavily involved in the production process, the definitive features that make the photograph a photograph and determine its salient properties are nonetheless independent of human minds. In epistemic debates, mind-independence is viewed as essential for explaining why photographs occupy a distinct category among images and justifying a variety of claims about their privileged epistemic and affective status in science, forensics, popular culture and journalism. But, in the philosophy of art, claims about mind-
Keywords Photograph  Aesthetic scepticism  Mind-independence  Image  Picture  Photographic process
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
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

Photography and Representation.Roger Scruton - 1981 - Critical Inquiry 7 (3):577-603.
On the Epistemic Value of Photographs.Jonathan Cohen & Aaron Meskin - 2004 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62 (2):197–210.
Photography and Causation: Responding to Scruton's Scepticism.Dawn M. Phillips - 2009 - British Journal of Aesthetics 49 (4):327-340.
Photography, Painting and Perception.Gregory Currie - 1991 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49 (1):23-29.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Aesthetic Opacity.Emanuele Arielli - 2017 - Proceedings of the European Society for Aesthetics.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

'Pickman's Model': Horror and the Objective Purport of Photographs.Aaron Smuts - 2010 - Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4:487-509.
Depictive Traces: On the Phenomenology of Photography.Mikael Pettersson - 2011 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 69 (2):185-196.
Three Kinds of Realism About Photographs.Jiri Benovsky - 2011 - Journal of Speculative Philosophy 25 (4):375-395.
The Epistemic Value of Photographs.Catharine Abell - 2010 - In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press.
Photographic Representation and Depiction of Temporal Extension.Jiri Benovsky - 2012 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 55 (2):194-213.
Photography and Causation: Responding to Scruton's Scepticism.Dawn M. Phillips - 2009 - British Journal of Aesthetics 49 (4):327-340.


Added to PP index

Total views
149 ( #74,023 of 2,462,859 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #65,193 of 2,462,859 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes