Mimesis as Make-Believe is important reading for everyone interested in the workings of representational art.

It seems odd to say that photography is not a mode of representation. For a photograph has in common with a painting the property by which the painting represents the world, the property of sharing, in some sense, the appearance of its subject. Indeed, it is sometimes thought that since a photograph more effectively shares the appearance of its subject than a typical painting, photography is a better mode of representation. Photography might even be thought of as having replaced painting (...) as a mode of visual representation. Painters have felt that if the aim of painting is really to reproduce the appearances of things, then painting must give way to whatever means are available to reproduce an appearance more accurately. It has therefore been said that painting aims to record the appearances of things only so as to capture the experience of observing them and that the accurate copying of appearances will normally be at variance with this aim. Here we have the seeds of expressionism and the origin of the view that painting is somehow purer when it is abstract and closer to its essence as an art. Roger Scruton is the author of Art and Imagination, The Aesthetics of Architecture, The Meaning of Conservatism, From Descartes to Wittgenstein, and The Politics of Culture and Other Essays. (shrink)

According to Roger Scruton, it is not possible for photographs to be representational art. Most responses to Scruton’s scepticism are versions of the claim that Scruton disregards the extent to which intentionality features in photography; but these cannot force him to give up his notion of the ideal photograph. My approach is to argue that Scruton has misconstrued the role of causation in his discussion of photography. I claim that although Scruton insists that the ideal photograph is defined by its (...) ‘merely causal’ provenance, in fact he fails to take the causal provenance of photographs seriously enough. To replace Scruton’s notion of the ideal photograph, I offer a substantive account of the causal provenance of photographs, centred on the distinctive role of ‘the photographic event’. I conclude that, with a proper understanding of the photographic process, we have good reason to re-open the question of photography as a representational art. (shrink)

When we see an object, we also represent those parts of it that are not visible. The question is how we represent them: this is the problem of amodal perception. I will consider three possible accounts: (a) we see them, (b) we have non-perceptual beliefs about them and (c) we have immediate perceptual access to them, and point out that all of these views face both empirical and conceptual objections. I suggest and defend a fourth account, according to which we (...) represent the occluded parts of perceived objects by means of mental imagery. This conclusion could be thought of as a (weak) version of the Strawsonian dictum, according to which “imagination is a necessary ingredient of perception itself”. (shrink)

What is special about photographs? Traditional photography is, I argue, a system that sustains factive pictorial experience. Photographs sustain pictorial experience: we see things in them. Further, that experience is factive: if suchandsuch is seen in a photograph, then suchandsuch obtained when the photo was taken. More precisely, photographs are designed to sustain factive pictorial experience, and that experience is what we have when, in the photographic system as a whole, everything works as it is supposed to. In this respect (...) photographs differ from handmade pictures, and from other information-preserving tools, such as the readings on a geiger counter. This distinctive feature can be used to explain what is epistemically special about photographs, and also to give an account of the distinctive phenomenology of looking at a photograph rather than a handmade picture. All this provides the background against which to assess claims that digital photography differs from traditional in certain key ways. (shrink)

An account of depiction should explain its key features. I identify six: that depiction is from a point of view; that it represents its objects as having a visual appearance; that it depictive content is always reasonably detailed; that misrepresentation is possible, but only within limits; and that the ability to interpret depictions co-varies, given general competence with pictures, with knowledge of what the depicted objects look like. All this suggests that picturing works by capturing appearances, but how more precisely (...) does it operate? I show how to use the notion of experienced resemblance in outline shape to analyse depiction in such a way as to answer this question, and to explain the six key features above. (shrink)

This paper is about what counts as a photograph and what does not. One way in which this question arises stems from new technologies that keep changing our way of producing photographs, such as digital photography, which not only has now widely replaced traditional film photography but also challenges the very limits of what we count as a photograph. I shall discuss below at some length different aspects of digital photography, but also want to focus here on a new striking (...) type of photographic camera, announced in early 2012 by Lytro, Inc., namely, the so-called ?Light Field Camera?, which is said to represent a revolution in the photographic world. Indeed, unlike in the case of any previously available cameras, the photographs produced by a Light Field Camera can be re-focused after the photograph has been taken, which harbours many interesting consequences with regard to the resulting image and the way we interact with it. But of course, the initial question also arises in the case of traditional film photography as well as ?traditional? digital photography. The question amounts to asking about what the essential features of photographs are ? in short, what their nature is. (shrink)

The main task of this paper is to understand if and how static images like photographs can represent and/or depict temporal extension (duration). In order to do this, a detour will be necessary to understand some features of the nature of photographic representation and depiction in general. This important detour will enable us to see that photographs (can) have a narrative content, and that the skilled photographer can 'tell a story' in a very clear sense, as well as control and (...) guide the attention of the spectator of the photograph. The understanding and defence of this claim is a secondary aim of this paper, and it will then allow us to provide a good treatment of the particular case of photographic representation and depiction of temporal extension. (shrink)

unmittelbar wahr; sie ist zusammen, gleichzeitig mit uns und steht zu uns in der Beziehung des Gesehen-, Getastet-, Gehört werdens usw. Wirkliche Wahrnehmungen stehen dabei im Konnex mit Wahrnehmungsmöglichkeiten, mit vergegenwärti- 5 genden Anschauungen; in den Zusammenhängen der unmittel baren Wahrnehmung sind Leitfäden enthalten, die uns fortführen von Wahrnehmung zu Wahrnehmung, von einer ersten Um gebung zu immer neuen Umgebungen, und dabei trifft der wahr nehmende Blick die Dinge in der Ordnung der Räumlichkeit. Wir 10 haben auch eine zeitliche Umgebung, (...) eine nähere und fernere; eben gewesener Dinge und Vorgänge erinnern wir uns unmittel bar; sie waren nicht nur, sondern stehen jetzt in der Beziehung des Erinnertwerdens zu uns; worin auch beschlossen ist das Soeben-wahrgenommenworden-Sein. Die Erinnerung gleicht dabei 15 als fortgesetzte Wiedererinnerung einem Leitfaden; sie führt uns in der Zeit Schritt für Schritt zurück, und damit treten immer neue Linien der räumlich-zeitlichen Wirklichkeit, und zwar der vergangenen, zu uns in Beziehung, in diese eigentümliche Be ziehung der Erinnerung und des Wahrgenommenworden-Seins. 20 Die Zukunft der Welt tritt zu uns in Beziehung durch die voraus blickende Erwartung. über diesen niederen Akten bauen sich höhere auf, in denen wir uns denkend, schließend, theoretisierend zur Welt in Beziehung setzen; und wieder kommen dazu die sogenannten emotionalen Akte, in sich neue solche Be- 25 ziehungen konstituieren, obschon Beziehungen, die einer anderen Sphäre angehören. Wir schätzen als angenehm und unangenehm, als gut und schlecht, wir greifen handelnd in die Welt ein usw. (shrink)

_Philosophy of Motion Pictures_ is a first-of-its-kind, bottom-up introduction to this bourgeoning field of study. Topics include film as art, medium specificity, defining motion pictures, representation, editing, narrative, emotion and evaluation. Clearly written and supported with a wealth of examples Explores characterizations of key elements of motion pictures –the shot, the sequence, the erotetic narrative, and its modes of affective address.