Abstract
This article examines the compatibility of intentionalism (also called 'representationalism') in the philosophy of perception with the thesis that we can visually experience an object by looking at a picture of that object (the pictorial experience thesis, or PET). I begin by presenting three theses associated with intentionalism and various accounts of depiction that uphold PET. Next, I show that pictures sometimes depict an object indeterminately, thereby rendering the alleged visual experience of the depicted object partly nonintentional. I then argue that if PET is true, explaining pictorial indeterminacy on intentionalist premises is problematic. I conclude that PET is incompatible with intentionalism.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 405-416 |
Number of pages | 12 |
Journal | Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism |
Volume | 72 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 1 Sep 2014 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2014 The American Society for Aesthetics.