Inflected Pictorial Experience: Its Treatment and Significance

In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press. pp. 151 (2010)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Some (Podro, Lopes) think that sometimes our experience of pictures is ‘inflected’. What we see in these pictures involves, somehow, an awareness of features of their design. I clarify the idea of inflection, arguing that the thought must be that what is seen in the picture is something with properties which themselves need characterising by reference to that picture’s design, conceived as such. I argue that there is at least one case of inflection, so understood. Proponents of inflection have claimed great significance for the phenomenon. But what might that significance be? Inter alia, I consider Lopes’s proposal that inflection solves a central problem in pictorial aesthetics, the ‘puzzle of mimesis’. I argue that the puzzle, and the proposed solution, both turn on aspects of Lopes’s conception of seeing-in. Other accounts of seeing-in can make no sense of either. I further argue that the phenomenon of inflection itself puts pressure on the sort of account Lopes offers. Thus it is hard to offer a view which both holds that inflection occurs and is able to make clear sense of why it matters.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
HOPIPE
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-01-26
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
What Makes Representational Painting Truly Visual?Wollheim, Richard & Hopkins, Robert

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Threefoldness.Nanay, Bence

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2011-08-01

Total views
169 ( #17,704 of 40,755 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
29 ( #19,792 of 40,755 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.