British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (3):268-279 (2007)
AbstractThe focus of this paper is on E. H. Gombrich's claim that pictorial perception is a case of illusion. My aim is to point out that, on the one hand, the interpretation of this claim that is widely accepted in pictorial theory is not supported by Gombrich's analysis of pictorial perception; and, on the other hand, that the interpretation of the claim that I see as more compatible with Gombrich's analysis is not consistent with relevant facts about our relation to pictures. However, I will argue, Gombrich's elaboration of the claim of illusion is significant to the extent that it highlights important aspects of the system of pictorial representation.
Similar books and articles
Las meninas and the illusion of illusionism.Johan Veldeman & E. Myin - 2008 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 15 (9):124-130.
Is twofoldness necessary for representational seeing?Bence Nanay - 2005 - British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (3):248-257.
Depiction unexplained: Peacocke and Hopkins on pictorial representation.Gavin McIntosh - 2003 - British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (3):279-288.
Deeper Into Pictures: An Essay on Pictorial Representation.Flint Schier - 1986 - Cambridge University Press.
Pictorial space and the possibility of art.Paul Crowther - 2008 - British Journal of Aesthetics 48 (2):175-192.
Pictorial representation: When cognitive science meets aesthetics.Mark Rollins - 1999 - Philosophical Psychology 12 (4):387 – 413.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Pictorial experience: not so special after all.Alon Chasid - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 171 (3):471-491.
Varieties of Pictorial Illusion.Katherine Tullmann - 2016 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 74 (3):265-278.
Artworks as dichotomous objects: implications for the scientific study of aesthetic experience.Robert Pepperell - 2015 - Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9.
References found in this work
No references found.