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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 471-491 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Philosophical Studies |
| Volume | 171 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 31 Oct 2014 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2014, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
Keywords
- Cognitive penetrability
- Indeterminacy
- Intentionalism
- Perceptual experience
- Pictorial experience
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Pictorial experience: not so special after all'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver