Advertisement

Erkenntnis

pp 1–22 | Cite as

Twofold Pictorial Experience

  • René JagnowEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

Richard Wollheim famously argued that figurative pictures depict their scenes, in part, in virtue of their ability to elicit a unique type of visual experience in their viewers, which he called seeing-in. According to Wollheim, experiences of seeing-in are necessarily twofold, that is, they involve two aspects of visual awareness: when a viewer sees a scene in a picture, she is simultaneously aware of certain visible features of the picture surface, the picture’s design, and the scene depicted by the picture. Even though Wollheim’s notion of twofoldness has been very influential, a number of philosophers have put forward powerful arguments against it. In this paper, I defend the claim that some pictorial experiences are twofold in Wollheim’s sense. My argument has two parts. In the first part, I provide a phenomenal contrast argument in favor of twofoldness. In the second part, I respond to what I take to be the most important objections against twofoldness. I believe that both parts together provide strong support for the claim that some pictorial experiences are twofold in Wollheim’s sense.

Notes

References

  1. Bantinaki, K. (2010). Picture perception as twofold experience. In C. Abell & K. Bantinaki (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on depiction (pp. 128–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayne, T., & Montague, M. (Eds.). (2011). The cognitive phenomenology debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boghossian, P. A. & Velleman, J. D. (1989). Color as a secondary quality. Mind, 98, 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourget, D. (2015). Representationalism, perceptual distortion and the limits of phenomenal concepts. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 45, 16–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, H. (2014). Reducing the space of seeing-in. British Journal of Aesthetics, 54(4), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briscoe, R. (2016). Depiction, pictorial experience, and vision science. Philosophical Topics, 44(2), 43–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briscoe, R. (2018). Gombrich and the Duck–Rabbit. In M. Beaney (Ed.), Aspect perception after Wittgenstein: Seeing-as and novelty (pp. 49–88). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavedon-Taylor, D. (2011). The space of seeing-in. British Journal of Aesthetics, 51(3), 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chasid, A. (2014a). Pictorial experience; Not so special after all. Philosophical Studies, 171(3), 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chasid, A. (2014b). Pictorial experience and intentionalism. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 72(4), 405–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutting, J. E., & Massironi, M. (1998). Pictures and their special status in cognitive inquiry. In J. Hochberg (Ed.), Perception and cognition at the end of the century (pp. 137–168). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutting, J., & Vishton, P. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The interaction, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), Perception of space and motion (pp. 69–177). Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Feagin, S. (1998). Presentation and representation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56(3), 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferretti, G. (2018). Are pictures peculiar objects of perception? Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 3(3), 372–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson, J. J. (1960). Pictures, perspective, and perception. Daedalus, 89, 216–227.Google Scholar
  16. Gombrich, E. H. (1960). Art and illusion. Phaidon.Google Scholar
  17. Hopkins, R. (1998). Picture, image, and experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hopkins, R. (2010). Inflected pictorial experience: Its treatment and significance. In C. Abell & K. Bantinaki (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on depiction (pp. 151–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hopkins, R. (2012). Seeing-in and seeming to see. Analysis, 72(4), 650–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hyman, J. (2006). The objective eye: Color, form, and reality in the theory of art. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jagnow, R. (2017). Depicting depictions. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 98, 453–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koendenrink, J. J., & van Doorn, A. J. (2003). Pictorial space. In H. Hecht, R. Schwartz, & M. Atherton (Eds.), Looking into pictures (pp. 239–300). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Kopfermann, H. (1930). Psychologische Untersuchungen über die Wirkung zweidimensionaler Darstellungen körperlicher Gebilde. Psychologische Forschung, 13(1), 293–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kulvicki, J. (2006). On images: Their structure and content. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kulvicki, J. (2009). Heavenly sight and the nature of seeing-in. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 67(4), 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levinson, J. (1998). Wollheim on pictorial representation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56(3), 226–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lopes, D. (1996). Understanding pictures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lopes, D. (2005). Sight and sensibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mausfeld, R. (2003). The dual coding of colour. In R. Mausfeld & D. Heyer (Eds.), Colour perception: Mind and the physical world (pp. 381–430). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nanay, B. (2005). Is twofoldness necessary for representational seeing? British Journal of Aesthetics, 45(3), 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nanay, B. (2010). Inflected and uninflected experience of picture. In C. Abell & K. Bantinaki (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on depiction (pp. 181–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nanay, B. (2011). Perceiving pictures. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nedirée, R., & Heyer, D. (2003). The dual nature of picture perception. In H. Hecht, R. Schwartz, & M. Atherton (Eds.), Looking into pictures (pp. 77–98). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  34. Newall, M. (2009). Pictorial experience and seeing. British Journal of Aesthetics, 49(2), 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newall, M. (2011). What is a picture?. Basignstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newall, M. (2015). Is seeing-in a transparency effect? British Journal of Aesthetics, 55(2), 131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peacocke, C. (1983). Sense and content: Experience, thought, and their relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rogers, S. (2003). Truth and meaning in pictorial space. In H. Hecht, R. Schwartz, & M. Atherton (Eds.), Looking into pictures (pp. 301–320). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  39. Sartwell, C. (1991). Natural generativity and imitation. British Journal of Aesthetics, 31(1), 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schier, F. (1986). Deeper into pictures: An essay on pictorial representation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Siegel, S. (2005). Which properties are represented in perception? In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience (pp. 481–503). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Siegel, S. (2010). The contents of visual experience. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, A. D. (2008). Translucent experiences. Philosophical Studies, 140(2), 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spinicci, P. (2012). Trompe l’oeil and the nature of pictures. In C. Calabi (Ed.), Perceptual illusions (pp. 145–163). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vishwanath, D. (2011). Visual information in surface and depth perception: Reconciling pictures and reality. In L. Albertazzi, G. van Tonder, & D. Vishwanath (Eds.), Perception beyond inference: The information content of visual processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wollheim, R. (1974). On art and the mind. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wollheim, R. (1980). Art and its objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wollheim, R. (1987). Painting as an art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Wollheim, R. (1998). On pictorial representation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 40(9), 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wollheim, R. (2003). In defense of seeing-In. In H. Hecht, R. Schwartz, & M. Atherton (Eds.), Looking into pictures (pp. 3–16). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  51. Zeimbekis, J. (2015). Seeing, visualizing, and believing: Pictures and cognitive penetration. In J. Zeimbekis & A. Raftopoulos (Eds.), The cognitive penetrability of perception: New philosophical perspectives (pp. 298–327). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations