Getting the big picture: A question on composition and photography

Synthese 194 (3) (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Suppose we take a picture containing a full image of a duck and slice it right through, leaving some of the duck image on one slice and some of it on the other. How many duck images will we be left with? Received theories of pictorial representation presuppose that a surface cannot come to contain new images just by changing its physical relations with other surfaces, such as physical continuity. But as it turns out, this is in tension with received theories’ approach to incomplete images. I address three views with respect to the circumstances in which incomplete images of X represent X. 1. A liberal, non-restrictive view: ‘Iff they meet relevant requirements posed by received theory of pictorial representation.’ 2. Moderate restrictions of this view and 3. A fully restrictive view. After investigating challenges for the liberal view, I end up supporting it. The main challenges rest on the fact that only the fully restrictive view can plausibly accommodate some principles that seem inherent to our theory of representation. For instance: only this view accommodates received theories’ presupposition that the representational properties of a surface depend on its configurational properties such that new images may appear on a surface only if its configurational properties have changed. Since the liberal view is overall more plausible than the restrictive view, I reject this presupposition and bear the consequences

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What’s Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?John Beatty - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:397 - 426.
Mental Imagery and the Computational View of the Mind.Alireza Nurbakhsh - 1988 - Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin - Madison
How much work do scientific images do?Stephen Downes - 2012 - Spontaneous Generations 6 (1):115-130.
Resemblance, Restriction, and Content‐Bearing Features.John Dilworth - 2005 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63 (1):67–70.
On a Straw Man in the Philosophy of Science - A Defense of the Received View.Sebastian Lutz - 2012 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2 (1):77–120.
What Scientific Theories Could Not Be.Hans Halvorson - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
The Naturalism of Pictorial Representation.Douglas John Dempster - 1983 - Dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Art and Articulation.Crispin Gallagher Sartwell - 1989 - Dissertation, University of Virginia
Realism.Hilary Putnam - 2016 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 42 (2):117-131.
A Syncretistic Theory of Depiction.Alberto Voltolini - 2015 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Structure, Intention and Representation.Göran Hermeren - 1977 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 3 (1):89-106.
Anti-pornography.Bence Nanay - 2012 - In Hans Maes & Jerrold Levinson (eds.), Art and Pornography. Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-12-27

Downloads
52 (#299,008)

6 months
8 (#352,434)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Eli Pitcovski
Tel-Hai College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

On the Plurality of Worlds.David K. Lewis - 1986 - Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.
On the Plurality of Worlds.David Lewis - 1986 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 178 (3):388-390.
Material Beings.Peter Van Inwagen - 1990 - Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

View all 29 references / Add more references