Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Concerns about Goodman treating depiction as an ambiguous... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Aesthetics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Concerns about Goodman treating depiction as an ambiguous concept are misplaced.

    Aesthetics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The phrase 'picture of' admits two different interpretations: a relational sense (what a picture refers to) and a non-relational sense (what kind of picture it is).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Goodman is correct that with any picture there are always two distinct questions: what the picture represents, and what kind of picture it is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Schier's 'natural generativity' account shows depiction is unified by a single recognitional capacity, not two distinct semantic functions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If depiction is grounded in a unified perceptual-recognitional mechanism, Goodman's two-question framework conflates semantic and taxonomic relations rather than resolving ambiguity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wollheim's 'seeing-in' theory treats depiction as a single intentional relation whose object is intrinsically typed, making the relational/non-relational distinction artificially imposed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When the phenomenology of pictorial experience already encodes what kind of thing is depicted, splitting 'picture of' into two senses multiplies distinctions beyond what the underlying phenomenon requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    AestheticsPhilosophy of Language

    Related

    Goodman is correct that with any picture there are always two distinct questions...If depiction is grounded in a unified perceptual-recognitional mechanism, Goodma...Schier's 'natural generativity' account shows depiction is unified by a single r...The phrase 'picture of' admits two different interpretations: a relational sense...
    +2 moreShow less
    When the phenomenology of pictorial experience already encodes what kind of thin...Wollheim's 'seeing-in' theory treats depiction as a single intentional relation ...

    Similar

    Goodman's theory of depiction has a significant gap in not explaining ...85%Goodman's account of depiction fails to explain pictorial meaning for ...81%There is little or no room for the idea that S misunderstands a concep...80%Obscurity in representation is distinct from misrepresentation, since ...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: goodman-aesthetics
    View source passageHide passage
    Hence, Goodman appears to analyze pictorial representation as an ambiguous concept, ambiguous, that is, between a denotational sense (“is a picture of a so-and-so”) and a non-denotational sense (“is a so-and-so-picture”). This may be seen as a disadvantage vis-à-vis “perceptual” theories of depiction such as those proposed, for instance, by Richard Wollheim (1987) and Kendall Walton (1990) (cf. Robinson 2000). Yet concerns on Goodman’s treating the concept of depiction as ambiguous are misplaced
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit