Dictionary Definition
depiction
Noun
1 a graphic or vivid verbal description; "too
often the narrative was interrupted by long word pictures"; "the
author gives a depressing picture of life in Poland"; "the pamphlet
contained brief characterizations of famous Vermonters" [syn:
word
picture, word-painting,
delineation,
picture, characterization,
characterisation]
4 representation by drawing or painting etc [syn:
delineation,
portrayal]
User Contributed Dictionary
English
Translations
lifelike image
- Danish: afbildning
- German: Darstellung
Related terms
Extensive Definition
Depiction is a distinctive kind of
representation. Figurative pictures are the paradigm example. Other
examples are contested but may include photography, sculpture,
maps, some kinds of diagram, audio recordings and the like.
Abstract paintings are usually not included as examples of
depiction, since abstract paintings intuitively don't belong to the
same kind of representation as figurative paintings do. This entry
is an introduction and overview of contemporary debates in analytic
philosophy over the nature of depiction.
Resemblance
According to common sense, depiction is mediated
by resemblance. The Mona Lisa, for example, is supposed to depict
Lisa because the Mona Lisa resembles Lisa. The current debate over
the nature of depiction has its origins in Nelson Goodman's (1968)
arguments against this naive position.
The main difficulty is that resemblance is
insufficient for depiction: everything resembles itself, for
example, but not everything is a depiction of itself. Similarly,
resemblance is a symmetric relation, but depiction is not. The Duke
of Wellington resembles his portrait, for example, in exactly the
respects that his portrait resembles him, but although the portrait
represents the duke, the duke does not represent the portrait
(Goodman, 1968).
Symbol Systems
Alternative analyses hold that depiction is a
kind of symbol system which is syntactically dense, semantically
dense and relatively replete (Goodman 1968, Kulvicki 2006).
Seeing-In
Another alternative holds that depiction should
be defined in terms of a perceptual effect such as illusion,
seeing-in (Wollheim, 1987), imaginary seeing (Walton, 1990) or
experienced resemblance (Hopkins, 1998).
Recognition Theories
Another approach is to define depictive
representation in terms of recognitional abilities (Schier, 1986;
Lopes, 1996).
Schier’s analysis of depiction is based on the
thought that depictive representation does not share the
arbitrariness of verbal representation: depictive representation,
according to Schier, is natural in a way that descriptive
representation is not. Schier develops this thought by suggesting
that understanding depictions does not require the same learning
required by understanding language. Although, for example, I have
to learn Chinese to interpret Chinese speech, I do not need to
learn anything of the kind to understand Chinese images.
Schier motivates his analysis of depiction with a
number of counterexamples to this claim. First, imagine a person
who has never seen a picture, never heard an explanation of
pictorial representation nor had any other opportunity to learn
about or gain knowledge of pictures. Schier admits that is unlikely
that this person would be able to interpret a depiction without
assistance on encountering if for the first time. So Schier accepts
that the capacity to interpret pictures is not innate, but requires
learning.
Nevertheless, Schier suggests that once that
person had understood his or her first depiction, they would then
have the ability to interpret further pictures without further
learning. A person who has understood only one sentence, in
contrast, will not be able to understand further sentences without
further learning. So Schier suggests that the important difference
between depiction and language is that someone who has the ability
to understand some depictions can understand all depictions,
whereas someone who can understand some sentences cannot
necessarily understand all sentences.
But this revision is still incorrect, because
people who have successfully understood many pictures may still
fail to understand pictures in new and unfamiliar styles. Audiences
of the first impressionist paintings were confused by them, even
though they were familiar with other styles of painting. Similarly,
a person may be able to understand simple sketches without thereby
having the ability to understanding complex architectural plans.
Unfamiliar styles or systems of depiction seem to require learning
in just the same way as unfamiliar languages and dialects.
To accommodate this, Schier suggests restricting
his claim to depictions within the same symbol system. According to
the revision, if a person has the ability to understand some of the
depictions in a symbol system, then a person can understand all
depictions in that symbol system without further learning. Once one
has understood some impressionist paintings, according to Schier,
one then has the ability to understand all impressionist paintings.
Understanding a few sentences in Chinese, in contrast, is not
sufficient for understanding every sentence in Chinese.
But this revision is still incorrect, because
even people with the ability to understand most pictures in a
symbol system won’t thereby have the ability to understand
depictions in that symbol system which represent things that they
are unable to recognise. Imagine a person who has never seen an
armadillo or a picture of an armadillo and never heard or read a
description of an armadillo. Upon seeing a depiction of an
armadillo for the first time, even if they had successfully
interpreted many other depictions in the same symbol system, that
person would be unable to understand that the picture depicts an
armadillo.
To accommodate this, Schier adds a proviso that
the viewer must have the ability to recognise the object which the
depiction represents, which results in the following analysis of
depiction: A system of representation is depictive if and only if
once someone has interpreted any arbitrary member of it, they can
proceed to interpret any other member of the system, provided only
they are able to recognise the object represented. So, for example,
botanical drawings are supposed to be depictive because once you
have understand some botanical drawings, you can understand any
other botanical drawing provided it represents a plant you have the
ability to recognise.
Other Issues
Other debates about the nature of depiction
include the relationship between seeing something in a picture and
seeing face to face, whether depictive representation is conventional,
how understanding novel depictions is possible, the aesthetic and ethical value of depiction and
the nature of realism
in pictorial art.
Books on Depiction
Some important books on depiction are:
Goodman, Nelson (1968), Languages of Art: An
Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis and New York: The
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.).
Hopkins, Robert (1998), Picture, Image, and
Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Hyman, John (2006), The Objective Eye: Colour,
Form and Reality in the Theory of Art (Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press).
Kulvicki, John (2006), On Images: Their structure
and content (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Lopes, Dominic (1996), Understanding Pictures
(Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Lopes, Dominic (2005), Sight and Sensibility:
Evaluating Pictures (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Maynard, Patrick (1997), The Engine of
Visualization: Thinking Through Photography (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press).
Maynard, Patrick (2005), Drawing Distinctions:
The Varieties of Graphic Expression (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press).
Novitz, David (1977), Pictures and their Use in
Communication (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff).
Schier, Flint (1986), Deeper Into Pictures
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Walton, Kendall (1990), Mimesis as Make-believe
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Wollheim, Richard (1987), Painting as an Art
(London: Thames and Hudson).
Articles on Depiction
An incomplete list of articles on
depiction:
Abell, Catharine (2005a), ‘Pictorial
Implicature’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 63(1):
55-66.
Abell, Catharine (2005b), ‘Against Depictive
Conventionalism’, The American Philosophical Quarterly, 42(3):
185-197.
Abell, Catharine (2005), ‘On Outlining the Shape
of Depiction’, Ratio, 18(1): 27-38.
Abell, Catharine (2005), ‘McIntosh's Unrealistic
Picture of Peacocke and Hopkins on Realistic Pictures’, British
Journal of Aesthetics, 45(1): 64-68.
Bennett, John (1971), ‘Depiction and
Convention?’, The Monist 58: 255-68.
Budd, Malcolm (1992), ‘On Looking at a Picture’,
in Robert Hopkins and Anthony Savile (eds.), Psychoanalysis, Mind,
and Art (Oxford: Blackwell).
Budd, Malcolm (1993), ‘How Pictures Look’ in
Dudley Knowles and John Skorupski (eds.), Virtue and Taste (Oxford:
Blackwell).
Bach, Kent (1970), ‘Part of What a Picture Is’,
British Journal of Aesthetics, 10: 119-137.
Black, M. (1972), ‘How Do Pictures Represent’, in
Black, Gombrich and Hochburg, Art, Perception, and Reality
(Baltimore, Md.).
Carrier, David (1971), ‘A Reading of Goodman on
Representation?’, The Monist 58: 269-84.
Carrol, Noel (1994), ‘Visual Metaphor’ in Jaakko
Hintikka (ed.), Aspects of Metaphor (Kluwer Publishers), 189-218;
reprinted in Noel Carrol (2001), Beyond Aesthetics (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Dilworth, John (2002), ‘Three Depictive Views
Defended’, The British Journal of Aesthetics, 42(3): 259-278.
Dilworth, John (2002), ‘Varieties of Visual
Representation’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 32(2):
183-205.
Dilworth, John (2003), ‘Medium, Subject Matter
and Representation’, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 41(1):
45-62.
Dilworth, John (2003), ‘Pictorial Orientation
Matters’, The British Journal of Aesthetics 43(1): 39-56.
Dilworth, John (2005), ‘Resemblance, Restriction
and Content-Bearing Features’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism 63(1): 67-70.
Dilworth, John (2005), ‘The Perception of
Representational Content’, British Journal of Aesthetics, 45(4):
388-411.
Hopkins, Robert (1994), 'Resemblance and
Misrepresentation', Mind, 103(412): 421-238.
Hopkins, Robert (1995), ‘Explaining Depiction’,
Philosophical Review, 104(3):
Hopkins, Robert (1997), ‘Pictures and Beauty’,
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, XCVII: 177-194.
Hopkins, Robert (1997), 'El Greco's Eyesight:
Interpreting Pictures and the Psychology of Vision', Philosophical
Quarterly, 47(189): 441-458.
Hopkins, Robert (2000), ‘Touching Pictures’
British Journal of Aesthetics 40: 149-67.
Hopkins, Robert (2003), 'What Makes
Representational Painting Truly Visual? Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society Supplementary, LXXVII: 149-167.
Hopkins, Robert (2003), 'Pictures, Phenomenology
and Cognitive Science', The Monist, 86.
Hopkins, Robert (2005), ‘What Is Pictorial
Representation’, in Mathew Kieran (ed.), Contemporary Debates in
the Philosophy of Art (Oxford: Blackwell).
Howell, R. (1974), ‘The Logical Structure of
Pictorial Representation’, Theoria 2: 76-109.
Hyman, John (2000), ‘Pictorial Art and Visual
Experience’, British Journal of Aesthetics 40:2 1-45.
Kjorup, Soren (1971), ‘George Inness and the
Battle at Hastings or Doing Things With Pictures’, The Monist 58:
217-36.
Kulvicki, John (2003), ‘Image Structure’, The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 61(4): 323-39.
Lehrer, Keith (2004), ‘Representation in Painting
and Consciousness’, Philosophical Studies, 117(1); 1-14.
Lopes, Dominic (1997), ‘Art Media and the Sense
Modalities: Tactile Pictures’, Philosophical Quarterly, 47(189):
425-440.
Lopes, Dominic (2004), ‘Directive Pictures’, The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 62(2): 189-96.
Lopes, Dominic (2005), Sight and Sensibility:
Evaluating Pictures (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Malinas, Gary (1991), ‘A Semantics for Pictures’,
Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 21(3): 275-298.
Manns, James W (1971), ‘Representation,
Relativism and Resemblance’, British Journal of Aesthetics 11:
281-7).
Maynard, Patrick (1972), ‘Depiction, Vision and
Convention’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 9: 243-50.
McIntosh, Gavin (2003), ‘Depiction Unexplained:
Peacocke and Hopkins on Pictorial Representation’, The British
Journal of Aesthetics, 43(3):279-288.
Nanay, Bence (2004), ‘Taking Twofoldness
Seriously: Walton on Imagination and Depiction’, Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 62(3): 285-9.
Nanay, Bence (2005), ‘Is Twofoldness Necessary
for Representational Seeing?’, British Journal of Aesthetics 45(3):
263-272.
Neander, Karen (1987), ‘Pictorial Representation:
A Matter of Resemblance’, British Journal of Aesthetics, 27(3):
213-26.
Newall, Michael (2003), ‘A Restriction for
Pictures and Some Consequences for a Theory of Depiction’, Journal
of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 61: 381-94.
Novitz, David (1975), ‘Picturing’, Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 34: 144-55.
Pateman, Trevor (1980), ‘How to do Things with
Images: An Essay on the Pragmatics of Advertising’, Theory and
Society, 9(4): 603-622.
Pateman, Trevor (1983), ‘How is Understanding an
Advertisement Possible?’ in Howard Davis and Paul Walton (eds.),
Language, Image, Media (London: Blackwell).
Pateman, Trevor (1986), ‘Translucent and
Transparent Icons’, British Journal of Aesthetics, 26: 380-2.
Peacocke, Christopher (1987), Depiction, The
Philosophical Review, 96: 383-410.
Ross, Stephanie (1971), ‘Caricature’, The Monist
58: 285-93.
Savile, Anthony (1986) ‘Imagination and Pictorial
Understanding’, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 60:
19-44.
Sartwell, Crispin (1991), ‘Natural Generativity
and Imitation’, British Journal of Aesthetics, 31: 58-67.
Schier, Flint (1993) ‘Van Gogh’s Boots: The
Claims of Representation’ in Dudley Knowles and John Skorupski
(eds.) Virtue and Taste (Oxford: Blackwell).
Scholz, Oliver (2000), ‘A Solid Sense of Syntax’,
Erkenntnis, 52: 199-212.
Sorenson, Roy (2002), ‘The Art of the Impossible’
in Tamar Szabo Gendler and John Hawthorne (eds.), Conceivability
and Possibility (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Walton, Kendall (1971), ‘Are Representations
Symbols?’, The Monist 58: 236-254.
Walton, Kendall (1974), ‘Transparent Pictures: On
the Nature of Photographic Realism’, Critical Inquiry, 11(2):
246-277.
Walton, Kendall (1992), ‘Seeing-In and Seeing
Fictionally’, in James Hopkins and Anthony Savile (eds.), Mind,
Psychoanalysis, and Art: Essays for Richard Wollheim, (Oxford:
Blackwell), 281–291.
Walton, Kendall (1993), ‘Make-Believe, and its
Role in Pictorial Representation and the Acquisition of Knowledge’,
Philosophic Exchange 23: 81–95.
Walton, Kendall (1997), ‘On Pictures and
Photographs: Objections Answered’, in Richard Allen and Murray
Smith (eds.), Film Theory and Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University
Press) 60-75.
Walton, Kendall (2002), ‘Depiction, Perception,
and Imagination: Responses to Richard Wollheim’, Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60(1): 27-35.
Wilkerson, T. E. (1991), ‘Pictorial
Representation: A defense of the Aspect Theory’, Midwest Studies in
Philosophy, 16: 152-166.
Wollheim, Richard (1990), ‘A Note on Mimesis as
Make-Believe’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 51(2):
401-6.
Wollheim, Richard (1998), ‘Pictorial
Representation’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56:
217-26.
Wolsterstorff, Nicholas (1991a), ‘Two Approaches
to Representation – And Then a Third’, Midwest Studies in
Philosophy, 16: 167-199.
See also
depiction in German: Darstellung
Synonyms, Antonyms and Related Words
alphabet, art, blueprint, cameo, catalog, cataloging, character, character sketch,
charactering,
characterization,
chart, choreography, conventional
representation, dance notation, delineation, demonstration, depictment, description, details, diagram, drama, drawing, evocation, exemplification,
figuration, graphic
account, hieroglyphic, iconography, ideogram, illustration, image, imagery, imaging, impression, itemization, letter, limning, logogram, logograph, map, musical notation, notation, particularization,
photograph, pictogram, picture, picturization, plan, portrait, portraiture, portrayal, prefigurement, presentment, printing, profile, projection, realization, rendering, rendition, representation, schema, score, script, sketch, specification, syllabary, symbol, tablature, vignette, vivid description,
word painting, writing