Skip to main content

Pictorial experience: not so special after all

Abstract

The central thesis (CT) that this paper upholds is that a picture depicts an object by generating in those who view the picture a visual experience of that object. I begin by presenting a brief sketch of intentionalism, the theory of perception in terms of which I propose to account for pictorial experience. I then discuss Richard Wollheim’s twofoldness thesis and explain why it should be rejected. Next, I show that the socalled unique phenomenology of pictorial experience is simply an instance of perceptual indeterminacy. Lastly, I discuss a phenomenon associated with pictures that could be considered a problem for CT, and account for it by invoking the thesis that visual experience is cognitively penetrable.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. See, e.g., Abell (2009), Goodman (1976), Gombrich (1984), Hopkins (1998, 2003), Hyman (2006), Kulvicki (2006), Lopes (1996, 2003, 2005, Chap. 1), Nanay (2010), Newall (2009, 2011), Peacocke (1987), Walton (1984, 1990), Wollheim (1973, 1980, 1987, 1998) and Zemach (1999).

  2. This is true even if the proposed accounts of depiction are compatible with CT, e.g., Gombrich (1984), Newall (2009, 2011), Walton (1984), Wollheim (1973, 1980, 1987, 1998), Zemach (1999). Newall, whose motivation is, like my own, deflationary, argues, adducing research in cognitive science and psychology, that “pictures occasion non-veridical seeing of their subject matter” (2011, p. 42). The differences between my approach and Newall’s will be clarified in Sect. 3.

  3. See, e.g., Crane (2011, §3.4) and Fish (2010, Chap. 6).

  4. The phenomenal properties of experience include “what it is like” to have the experience, or its “immediate subjective feel” (Tye 2002, p. 137). For characterizations of intentionalism, see Fish (2010, Chaps. 1, 5), Crane (2011, §3.3), Siegel (2006, 2011b) and Tye (2002).

  5. See, e.g., Goodman (1976, pp. 34–35), Wollheim (1973, p. 23, 1980, 212ff.) and Lopes (1996, §2.1). The claim that pictures depict by causing the proper illusion is commonly ascribed to Gombrich (1984), although it is unclear whether Gombrich really refers to an illusion; see Bantinaki (2007).

  6. See Fish (2010, 56ff.) and Crane (2011, §3.3.1).

  7. See Crane (2011), Siegel (2011b) and Fish (2010, Chaps. 4–5).

  8. This is the gist of Goodman’s critique of imitation theories (Goodman 1976, Chap. 1), and a motivation for ‘experienced-resemblance’ theories of depiction; see Hopkins (2003, p. 657, 2010) and Abell (2009, p. 218). This also led Wollheim to argue that in experiencing a depicted object, we simultaneously experience the picture’s marked surface; see, e.g., Wollheim (1973, 22ff., 1987, p. 62). See also Walton (2002, 28ff.), Lopes (2005, 30ff.), Nanay (2010), Kulvicki (2009), Bantinaki (2010), Newall (2011, Chap. 2).

  9. The view I will defend, i.e., that the experiences of the depictum and of the marked surface are mutually exclusive, is often ascribed to Gombrich (1984), but it is unclear whether Gombrich had in mind the reasons I mention here for the rejection of twofoldness; see Bantinaki (2007); cf. Newall (2011, p. 23).

  10. As Walton (2002, p. 33) and Kulvicki (2009, p. 395) note, the difference between Wollheim’s early view and later view is unclear. His various accounts of twofoldness, however, have no bearing on my argument.

  11. Wollheim (1987, p. 62); cf. Lopes (1996, §2.4, 2005, Chap. 1).

  12. See, e.g., Walton (2002), Lopes (2005, Chap. 1), Hopkins (2010, 2012), Nanay (2010), Bantinaki (2010), see also other contributions in Abell and Bantinaki (2010). The thesis is also mentioned in a discussion of “proximal qualities” (Hellie 2006). Hellie argues that in experiencing a tilted penny, we experience a circular shape (a distal quality) “in,” as Hellie puts it, an elliptical shape (a proximal quality). That is, we don’t have twofold experiences only when looking at pictures, but every visual experience is twofold. However, Hellie’s argument is clearly independent of Wollheim’s thesis, as he uses Wollheim’s idea merely to illustrate seeing-in. Note that if Hellie is right, then in looking at a picture, we have, on Wollheim’s view, a fourfold (or at least threefold) experience: we experience the stain’s shape in its proximal quality, and we experience the depicted saucer’s shape in its proximal quality. This view is problematic for the reasons I mentioned, regardless of whether Hellie’s general thesis is upheld.

  13. Kulvicki’s understanding of this paragraph might be influenced by later characterizations of inflection. Unlike these later characterizations, the phenomenon of inflection described in the quoted paragraph does not encompass the relation between experiencing the surface and experiencing the depictum, but only the relation between looking at the surface and experiencing the depictum. The later characterizations of inflection assume, as Kulvicki does here, that the experiences themselves are inflected. See, e.g., Lopes (2005, p. 192), Hopkins (2010) and Nanay (2010).

  14. Cf. The case of ‘veridical hallucination,’ i.e., hallucination that represents the world correctly, though it may be caused by, say, an evil scientist.

  15. Walton (1984) might be an exception: he holds that we can indirectly see objects by looking at photographs of them.

  16. See Kulvicki (2009, p. 394).

  17. Note that the objects he speaks of here are not necessarily opaque.

  18. The indeterminacy at issue in the present paper differs from other kinds of visual indeterminacy. Indeed, in a wider sense, every experience is indeterminate: e.g., we can scarcely experience determinate actual hues (e.g., red27), since we cannot visually distinguish them from similar tones. The kind of indeterminacy relevant to my discussion, however, is indeterminacy generated by phenomenal change that does not entail change in representational content. Acknowledging that visual experience can have such a structure seems necessary to the argument, unless the general solutions suggested by Tye or Dretske (see text below near footnote 23) are adequate, in which case these solutions apply to pictorial experience too.

  19. The next three paragraphs summarize my argument in Chasid (2007).

  20. The meaning of “design” as Beardsley uses the term seems wider than that of Lopes’s “design properties”: Lopes refers to depictive configurational features only, whereas Beardsley refers to any configurational feature; see Lopes (2005, Chap. 1).

  21. Note that there are many sorts of indeterminate experiences, each generated by particular conditions, and therefore possibly possessing its own unique phenomenology. Looking at something through fog, under poor lighting conditions, etc., may generate different kinds of indeterminacy. The indeterminacy typical of pictorial experience is not necessarily the same as that of other indeterminate experiences. Looking at a supremely realistic photograph that was taken in the fog may generate an indeterminate experience of the photographed object, but would not be indeterminate in the way pictures typically are; experiencing people by looking at black-and-white pictures of them usually generates an indeterminate experience that is not typical of other, non-pictorial, indeterminate experiences.

  22. See Tye (2002) and Smith (2008).

  23. See Boghossian and Velleman (1989), Pace (2007), Schroer (2002) and Smith (2008).

  24. Dretske’s claim has been roundly criticized; see Tye (2002) and the articles mentioned in footnote 23.

  25. The fact that the depictum is not “deformated” while we are moving was adduced by Wollheim (1980, pp. 215–216) to support his twofoldness thesis. His argument, however, is weak: the depictum does stay the same while we change our vantage point, but the correct conclusion is that at that time, we are not experiencing the depictum at all. And clearly, it might be the case that after we change our vantage point, the depictum can again be visually experienced. (Recall that CT does not imply that we experience the depictum veridically, or that we believe that the experience is veridical). Hopkins (2012, 656ff.) similarly adduces this phenomenon to argue against “transparency accounts” such as Newall (2011) and Kulvicki (2009). Yet in my view Hopkins misses the point behind any account that upholds visual experience of the depictum: the question is not whether the depictum is experienced during the shift in perspective, but whether it can be experienced again after the shift.

  26. See Siegel (2011a), Lyons (2011) and Deroy (2013).

  27. For a comprehensive treatment of the sources of cognitive impenetrability, with emphasis on the views of Fodor and Pylyshyn, see Robbins (2009), see also Deroy (2013).

References

  • Abell, C. (2009). Canny resemblance. Philosophical Review, 118, 183–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abell, C., & Bantinaki, K. (2010). Philosophical perspectives on depiction. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bantinaki, K. (2007). Pictorial perception as illusion. British Journal of Aesthetics, 47, 268–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantinaki, K. (2010). Picture perception as twofold experience. In C. Abell & K. Bantinaki (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on depiction (pp. 128–150) New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Beardsley, M. (1958). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boghossian, P. A., & Velleman, J. D. (1989). Color as a secondary quality. Mind, 98, 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chasid, A. (2007). Content-free pictorial realism. Philosophical Studies, 135, 375–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chasid, A. (2013). Visual experience: Cognitive penetrability and indeterminacy. Acta Analytica. doi:10.1007/s12136-013-0201-9.

  • Crane, T. (2011). The problem of perception. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2011 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/perception-problem/.

  • Deroy, O. (2013). Object-sensitivity versus cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophical Studies, 82, 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F. (2003). Experience as representation. Philosophical Issues, 13, 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fish, W. (2010). Philosophy of perception. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gombrich, E. H. (1984). Art and illusion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellie, B. (2006). Beyond phenomenal naivete. Philosophers’ Imprint, 6(2), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, R. (1998). Picture, image and experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, R. (2003). Pictures, phenomenology and cognitive science. Monist, 86, 653–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, R. (2010). Inflected pictorial experience: Its treatment and significance. In C. Abell & K. Bantinaki (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on depiction (pp. 151–180). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Hopkins, R. (2012). Seeing-in and seeming to see. Analysis, 72(4), 650–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, J. (2006). The objective eye: Color, form and reality in the theory of art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kulvicki, J. (2006). On images. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kulvicki, J. (2009). Heavenly sight and the nature of seeing-in. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 67, 387–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, D. (1996). Understanding pictures. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, D. (2003). Pictures and the representational mind. Monist, 86, 632–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, D. (2005). Sight and sensibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lynos, J. (2011). Circularity, reliability, and the cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophical Issues, 21, 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, F. (2011). Cognitive penetration of colour experience: Rethinking the issue in light of an indirect mechanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (early view), 1–38.

  • Nanay, B. (2010). Inflected and uninflected experience of pictures. In C. Abell & K. Bantinaki (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on depiction (pp. 181–207). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newall, M. (2009). Pictorial experience and seeing. British Journal of Aesthetics, 49, 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newall, M. (2011). What is a picture?. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pace, M. (2007). Blurred vision and the transparency of experience. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88(3), 328–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peacocke, C. (1987). Depiction. Philosophical Review, 96, 383–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, P. (2009). Modularity of mind. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modularity-mind/.

  • Schroer, R. (2002). Seeing it all clearly: The real story on blurry vision. American Philosophical Quarterly, 39(3), 297–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. (2006). Which properties are represented in perception? In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience (pp. 481–503). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. (2011a). Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification. Nous (early view), 1–22.

  • Siegel, S. (2011b). The contents of perception. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2011 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/perception-contents/.

  • Smith, A. D. (2008). Translucent experiences. Philosophical Studies, 140, 197–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tye, M. (2002). Representationalism and the transparency of experience. Noûs, 36(1), 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, K. (1984). Transparent pictures: On the nature of photographic realism. Critical Inquiry, 11, 246–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, K. (2002). Depiction, perception and imagination: Responses to Richard Wollheim. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60, 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wollheim, R. (1973). On drawing an object. In R. Wollheim (Ed.), On art and the mind (pp. 3–30). London: Allen Lane.

  • Wollheim, R. (1980). Art and its objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollheim, R. (1987). Painting as an Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollheim, R. (1998). On pictorial representation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56, 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemach, E. (1999). Look, This is Zeus! In M. Krausz & R. Shusterman (Eds.), Interpretation, relativism, and the metaphysics of culture (pp. 311–333). Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alon Chasid.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chasid, A. Pictorial experience: not so special after all. Philos Stud 171, 471–491 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0279-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0279-y

Keywords

  • Pictorial experience
  • Perceptual experience
  • Intentionalism
  • Indeterminacy
  • Cognitive penetrability