Seeing what is not there : pictorial experience, imagination and nonlocalization

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Pictures let us see what is not there. Or rather, since what pictures depict is not really there, we do not really see the things they are pictures of. Ever since Richard Wollheim introduced the notion of seeing-in into philosophical aesthetics, as part of his theory of depiction, there has been a lively debate about how, precisely, to understand this experience. However, one (alleged) feature of seeing-in that Wollheim pointed to has been almost completely absent in the subsequent discussion, namely that seeing-in allows for non-localization. When looking at a picture, Wollheim says, there is not always an answer to the question of where one sees a certain thing in a picture. If Wollheim is right in this, pictures indeed let us see what is not there: we see things in pictures, but there is no ‘there’ where we see those things. In this paper I argue against Wollheim's claim that object-seeing-in allows for non-localization. But there is, I argue, a pictorial experience, which is closely tied to seeing-in and which is non-localized, namely (what I call) pictorial perceptual presence.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)279-294
Number of pages16
JournalBritish Journal of Aesthetics
Volume51
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Richard Wollheim
Aesthetics

Cite this

@article{2841a9cc97404c0ea853791e50f28e16,
title = "Seeing what is not there : pictorial experience, imagination and nonlocalization",
abstract = "Pictures let us see what is not there. Or rather, since what pictures depict is not really there, we do not really see the things they are pictures of. Ever since Richard Wollheim introduced the notion of seeing-in into philosophical aesthetics, as part of his theory of depiction, there has been a lively debate about how, precisely, to understand this experience. However, one (alleged) feature of seeing-in that Wollheim pointed to has been almost completely absent in the subsequent discussion, namely that seeing-in allows for non-localization. When looking at a picture, Wollheim says, there is not always an answer to the question of where one sees a certain thing in a picture. If Wollheim is right in this, pictures indeed let us see what is not there: we see things in pictures, but there is no ‘there’ where we see those things. In this paper I argue against Wollheim's claim that object-seeing-in allows for non-localization. But there is, I argue, a pictorial experience, which is closely tied to seeing-in and which is non-localized, namely (what I call) pictorial perceptual presence.",
author = "PETTERSSON, {Carl Mikael}",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/aesthj/ayr014",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "279--294",
journal = "British Journal of Aesthetics",
issn = "0007-0904",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "3",

}

Seeing what is not there : pictorial experience, imagination and nonlocalization. / PETTERSSON, Carl Mikael.

In: British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 51, No. 3, 01.07.2011, p. 279-294.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Seeing what is not there : pictorial experience, imagination and nonlocalization

AU - PETTERSSON, Carl Mikael

PY - 2011/7/1

Y1 - 2011/7/1

N2 - Pictures let us see what is not there. Or rather, since what pictures depict is not really there, we do not really see the things they are pictures of. Ever since Richard Wollheim introduced the notion of seeing-in into philosophical aesthetics, as part of his theory of depiction, there has been a lively debate about how, precisely, to understand this experience. However, one (alleged) feature of seeing-in that Wollheim pointed to has been almost completely absent in the subsequent discussion, namely that seeing-in allows for non-localization. When looking at a picture, Wollheim says, there is not always an answer to the question of where one sees a certain thing in a picture. If Wollheim is right in this, pictures indeed let us see what is not there: we see things in pictures, but there is no ‘there’ where we see those things. In this paper I argue against Wollheim's claim that object-seeing-in allows for non-localization. But there is, I argue, a pictorial experience, which is closely tied to seeing-in and which is non-localized, namely (what I call) pictorial perceptual presence.

AB - Pictures let us see what is not there. Or rather, since what pictures depict is not really there, we do not really see the things they are pictures of. Ever since Richard Wollheim introduced the notion of seeing-in into philosophical aesthetics, as part of his theory of depiction, there has been a lively debate about how, precisely, to understand this experience. However, one (alleged) feature of seeing-in that Wollheim pointed to has been almost completely absent in the subsequent discussion, namely that seeing-in allows for non-localization. When looking at a picture, Wollheim says, there is not always an answer to the question of where one sees a certain thing in a picture. If Wollheim is right in this, pictures indeed let us see what is not there: we see things in pictures, but there is no ‘there’ where we see those things. In this paper I argue against Wollheim's claim that object-seeing-in allows for non-localization. But there is, I argue, a pictorial experience, which is closely tied to seeing-in and which is non-localized, namely (what I call) pictorial perceptual presence.

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/3110

U2 - 10.1093/aesthj/ayr014

DO - 10.1093/aesthj/ayr014

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 51

SP - 279

EP - 294

JO - British Journal of Aesthetics

JF - British Journal of Aesthetics

SN - 0007-0904

IS - 3

ER -