When we try to understand what a picture represents, how we experience the picture, I argue, plays a key role in determining the content the picture represents. More specifically, I argue that understanding pictorially represented content requires two tasks—visually grasping the picture’s design (an image) and interpreting what the design represents (what it is an image of). Neither task is done without the other, meaning that the viewer’s success in the former—visually identifying the image—depends on their success in the latter—determining (...) what the image is of. Because of this interdependence, I argue, when the viewer succeeds in understanding the picture, they find their interpretation of the picture perceptually convincing. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that pictorial styles are individuated in terms of different degrees of determinacy. For example, Morandi’s still-life etchings and Monet’s cathedral paintings embody different styles in that in the former, shape properties are differentiated in a fine-grained manner, and in the latter, coarse grained. I develop this view by critically examining John Kulvicki’s analysis of how we interpret pictures. According to Kulvicki, we rarely interpret pictures as differing in terms of features that belong to the vehicle (...) of representation—that is, the design-content relation. Rather, he thinks that we individuate pictorial styles in terms of the content that each picture represents. Contra Kulvicki, I argue that we interpret the vehicular features of pictures in light of our knowledge of picture production, and that the diversity of pictorial styles involves both content and vehicle. (shrink)