RESEARCH
ARTICLE
ABSTRACT
In ou e e yday discou se we make equen e e ence o pic o ial
na a i es. We exclaim on he hun scene in he ca e pain ing, he
enzy un olding in he g a i i, he ad en u e o he baby in he
book illus a ion, and he disin eg a ion o a ma iage in he oil
pain ing. Ye a mo e p ecise ques ion conce ning na a o s and hei
ela ion o hese so-called pic o ial na a i es emains o e looked.
Theo e ical deba es in na a ology a e s ill p ima ily ocused on
li e a y na a i es and so pic u es emain ela i ely neglec ed as a
class. Kendall Wal on is an excep ion. He a gues ha he li e a y
na a o is necessa y o p o ide access o he s o y as ‘he media es
he eade ’s access o he es o he ic ional wo ld’. He says
ha pic o ial na a i es canno sus ain na a o s akin o li e a y
coun e pa s. Bu his seems o be a odds wi h how we unde s and
pain ings such as Ma iage A-la-Mode, whe e e en s a e a guably
ecoun ed o he iewe wi h wicked humou . This pape has wo
main aims. The i s is o se ou wha is mean by ‘pic o ial na a o s’
by p o iding a succinc and up- o-da e guide o he discussions ha
ha e ouched on his issue. The second is o explo e he possibili y
ha pic o ial na a i es imply pic o ial na a o s.
The Pic o ial
Na a o
Vanessa B assey
King’s College, UK
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Vanessa B assey
King’s College, UK
Vanessa.1.b [email protected]
KEYWORDS:
na a o ; na a i e;
pic u es; pe spec i e;
ic ion; s o y
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
B assey, Vanessa. ‘The
Pic o ial Na a o .’ Es e ika:
The Eu opean Jou nal o
Aes he ics LX/XVI, no 1
(2023): pp. 55–70. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.33134/
eeja.316
56B assey
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.316
In ou e e yday discou se we make equen e e ence o pic o ial na a i es. We
exclaim on he hun scene in he ca e pain ing, men ion he enzy un olding amids a
human ca as ophe in he g a i i, discuss he ad en u e o he baby in he illus a ion,
and whispe abou he humo ous endi ion o a de as a ed a ma iage in he oil
pain ing.
Ye a mo e p ecise ques ion conce ning pic o ial na a o s emains almos en i ely
igno ed. Na a ologis s a e s ill p ima ily ocused on li e a y a he han pic o ial
na a i es, he la e emaining ela i ely neglec ed along wi h he pu a i e class o
pic o ial na a o s.1
The philosophe Kendall Wal on is an excep ion. In his pape ‘Poin s o View in
Na a i e and Depic i e Rep esen a ion’ he compa es li e a y o pic o ial na a i es
and concludes, scep ically, ha pic u es do no ins an ia e na a o s. He a gues
ha pic u e iewe s di ec ly access depic ed con en . By con as , eade s can only
ep esen li e a y na a i es along wi h a na a o . The li e a y na a o is c ucial
because he o she ‘media es he eade ’s access o he es o he ic ional wo ld’. As
a esul , ‘we know wha happens in he ic ional wo ld only om his epo s abou i ’.2
Since pic u es a e accessed di ec ly, hey canno sus ain na a o s, no do we equi e
hem o app ehend he con en .
Howe e , his is a odds wi h ou expe ience o , say, William Hoga h’s celeb a ed
pain ings o ailing ma iages and impecunious ools. In app ehending hese pic u es
adequa ely, i seems ap o say he iewe is old a s o y. Bu wha ells he iewe he
s o y? Why hink ha he iewe spon aneously chooses o ‘ ell i o he sel ’? And why
would she ell he sel a s o y when looking a hese pic u es and no o he s?
This pape has wo main aims. The i s is o cla i y wha is mean by ‘pic o ial
na a o s’ by poin ing o and discussing some posi ions in he li e a u e. Since he
issue has ga ne ed almos no a en ion, he g oundwo k needs o be laid down in his
explo a o y pape . The second is o a gue in a ou o he claim ha he e a e pic o ial
na a o s.
I will p oceed as ollows. In Sec ion I, he s anda d iew o na a i e is e isi ed and
ou lined along wi h an accoun o he na a o amilia om no els. The li e a y case
is hen oughly mapped on o pic o ial cases. This se es o es ablish he s eng h o
he p elimina y claim ha pic u es mani es some hing akin o li e a y na a i es. The
exe cise p oduces a udimen a y bu es able de ini ion o a ‘na a o ’. In Sec ion II, I
e iew scep ical and iendly esponses o he exis en ial claim, ha is, ha pic u es
can o may mani es na a o s (akin o li e a y ones). In Sec ion III, I unde mine a key
p emise in he scep ics’ a gumen by p o iding a p ecise a icula ion o he ole ha
pe spec i es play in ou engagemen wi h pic u es, speci ically a ising om he way
pic u es ix hei an age poin s. The analysis shows ha , despi e ob ious di e ences
in he ep esen a ional mechanisms used o access pic o ial and li e a y na a i es,
he e a e impo an simila i ies. In he inal Sec ion IV, he claim abou pic o ial
pe spec i es is de eloped o p o ide independen g ounds o a claim abou pic o ial
na a o s. This is shown o be esilien o a ange o objec ions.
1 Michael Ran a, ‘S o ies in Pic u es (and Non-pic o ial Objec s): A Na a ological and
Cogni i e Psychological App oach’, Con empo a y Aes he ics 9 (2011), h p://hdl.handle.
ne /2027/spo.7523862.0009.006.
2 Kendall Wal on, ‘Poin s o View in Na a i e and Depic i e Rep esen a ion’, Noûs 10
(1976): 50.
57B assey
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.316
I. NARRATIVES AND NARRATORS
The s anda d e sion o na a i e is a icula ed by Ge ald P ince, who says ha
‘na a i e is he ep esen a ion o a leas wo eal o ic i e e en s o si ua ions in a
ime sequence, nei he o which p esupposes each o he ’.3
No e ha , al hough P ince uses he e m ‘ ic i e e en s’ o desc ibe a necessa y
componen o na a i e, we could equally well use he mo e gene al e ms ‘e en s’
o ‘depic ed e en s’. B oad consensus on P ince’s o mula ion has no p e en ed
u he discussion and a emp s a e inemen by philosophe s and na a ologis s,
o example ha na a i e is a pa icula o m o explana ion o ha na a i es s ing
oge he e en s in a way ha ecoun s and ende s hem in elligible. O cou se,
imp o ed in elligibili y and unde s anding a e no su icien o u ning da a in o
na a i e. A e all, an an igen es con eys in o ma ion wi h unde s anding.
Emma Ka alenos, a con empo a y na a ologis , has a gued ha hey a e cons uc ions
o ch onologically and causally o de ed sequences o e en s.4 This compo s well
wi h wo k by philosophe J. D. Velleman5 and he linguis ic his o ian Tze an Todo o ,6
who a gue ha na a i e eme ges om a ep esen ed ajec o y o equilib ium o
imbalance, o new equilib ium. In o he wo ds, na a i e amoun s o he p esence
o an o ganizing p inciple ha p o ides he sense o e en s mo ing o wa d o an
ending o closu e.7 Velleman has a gued ha hese e en s can be p esen ed o an
audience as p ose, o in o he o ma s, such as h ough musical e ains. Whe he
o no unde s anding na a i es in ol es a dis inc i e ole o he imagina ion is
con o e sial. Wal on has a gued ha imagina ion plays a dis inc i e ole.8 Desc ibing
imagina ion’s ole in pic u e-seeing, he says ha in he ac ual wo ld a pe son looks
a a la piece o can as co e ed wi h pigmen , while ‘one imagines o one’s seeing o
he can as o be a seeing o a mill’.9 I pick up on his la e in he pape and explo e an
al e na i e cons ual o he way imagina ion is implica ed in depic i e seeing.
The e is in e disciplina y ag eemen ha all li e a y na a i es a e c ea ed by someone,
ha is, a lesh-and-blood au ho .10 Call his he ‘ac ual au ho ’. Some heo is s hold
ha , while ac ual au ho s a e me aphysically unp oblema ic, hey a e i ele an o he
way eade s access he na a i e.11 These heo is s posi a u he implied au ho o
3 Ge ald P ince, Na a ology: The Fo m and Func ion o Na a i e (Be lin: De G uy e ,
1982), 4.
4 Emma Ka alenos, ‘Implica ions o Na a i e in Pain ing and Pho og aphy’, New No el
Re iew 3 (1996): 54.
5 John Da id Velleman, ‘Na a i e Explana ion’, Philosophical Re iew 112 (2003): 1–25.
6 Tze an Todo o , ‘La g ammai e du éci ’, Langages 3 (1968): 94–102.
7 Velleman, ‘Na a i e Explana ion’, 19.
8 Kendall Wal on, Mimesis as Make-Belie e: On he Founda ions o he Rep esen a ional
A s (Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1990).
9 Ibid., 301.
10 Wal on main ains ha some hing can be a ep esen a ion ega dless o he in en ions
o i s make , bu his iew is an excep ion (ibid., 52).
11 See, o example, Jene e Robinson, Deepe han Reason: Emo ion and I s Role in
Li e a u e, Music, and A (Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2005) and o c i icisms see
Vanessa B assey, ‘The Implied Pain e ’, Deba es in Aes he ics 14 (2019): 15–29; ‘The
Exp ession o Emo ions in Pic u es’, Philosophy Compass 16 (2021), h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/
phc3.12767.
58B assey
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.316
na a o who p o ides access o he na a i e. As ea ly as Book Th ee o The Republic,12
Pla o a gues ha any na a i e equi es an in e media y o p o ide access o he
s o y. Mo e ecen ly, his in e media y has been iden i ied as he na a ing i s -pe son
‘I’. The eade is a second-pe son ‘you’ and he being o objec na a ed abou a hi d-
pe son ‘ hey’ o ‘i ’.13 The na a o ‘ ecoun s’ he abula o s o y ( he ch onologically
o de ed sequences o e en s)14 wi h an emo ional lean ha in ima es he causes o
he un olding sequence.15 In o he wo ds, he abula is he empo al o de in which
e en s occu , and he sjuzhe o e sion is he speci ic way in which he sequence is
old o he eade . Tha abula and sjuzhe can di e conside ably is exempli ied by
no els such as Time’s A ow and ilms such as Memen o, whe e he na a i e un olds
o is old backwa ds, ye ime is unde s ood o mo e o wa ds wi hin he na a i e
wo ld as i does in he eal wo ld. Jus as wo wi nesses may ecoun wo di e en
e sions o e en s, so di e en na a o s may elici di e en e sions o a abula.16
Li e a y na a o s a e iden i ied using deic ic e ms (‘now’, ‘he e’, ‘yes e day’,
‘ omo ow’, and so on) ha ix hei spa io- empo al loca ion. Meanwhile, modal
e ms (‘pe haps’, ‘un o una ely’, ‘clea ly’, and so o h) indica e hei psychological
ou look. This psychologically in used spa io- empo al acking o he na a o ensu es
he e sion’s in elligibili y. The ele ance o his o he pic o ial case is made clea in
Sec ions III and IV.
Al hough many na a i es suppo mul iple na a o s, as i is in O man Pamuk’s no el
Red, he e can be jus one who ells us he ale om beginning o end, as i is wi h
D Wa son na a ing he Holmes mys e ies. When he e is no explici e e ence o a
na a o , expe s end o ag ee ha he na a o pe sis s as an ‘e aced’ o implica ed
‘I’.17 Philosophe s deba e whe he e aced na a o s a e (1) implied by he na u e o
ou engagemen wi h ic ional na a i es,18 (2) equi ed o dis inguish na a ed wo lds
om he ac ual wo ld,19 o (3) o b idge an on ological gap be ween pe cei e and
na a ed wo ld by p o iding access o he o me o he la e .20 We can emain
neu al ega ding hese ine -g ained wo ies. Noël Ca oll, unusually, has ejec ed
he no ion o he explici na a o , p e e ing o a gue ha he eade simply ollows
ins uc ions econs uc ed om he in en ions o he ac ual au ho .21 This solu ion
does no en i ely e adica e a consciousness o na a o ial oice. Ins ead, ac ual o
implied au ho s s and as e aced na a o s when he e a e no explici cha ac e
12 Pla o, Republic, 392c–98b.
13 P ince, Na a ology, 7.
14 Gi en he con o e sy o e he de ini ion o ‘s o y’ I will use he e m ‘ abula’
h oughou .
15 Man ed Jahn, Na a ology 2.3: A Guide o he Theo y o Na a i e Na a ology
(Cologne: Uni e si y o Cologne, 2021), h p://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/pppn.pd .
16 Ka alenos, ‘Implica ions o Na a i e’.
17 P ince, Na a ology, 7.
18 G ego y Cu ie, Na a i es and Na a o s: A Philosophy o S o ies (Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess, 2010).
19 Da id Lewis, ‘T u h in Fic ion’, Ame ican Philosophical Qua e ly 15 (1978): 37–46.
20 See Je old Le inson, Con empla ing A : Essays in Aes he ics (Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess, 1996); Seymou Cha man, Coming o Te ms: The Rhe o ic o Na a i e in
Fic ion and Film (I haca, NY: Co nell Uni e si y P ess, 1990).
21 Noël Ca oll, ‘In oduc ion’, Jou nal o Aes he ics and A C i icism 67 (2009): 1–3.
59B assey
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.316
na a o s. In Sec ion II, I conside an a gumen om Robinson o pic o ial na a o s
along simila lines.
The in e ac ion be ween na a o s and cha ac e s is ele an o he ensuing discussion
and so wo h men ioning he e. In Mimesis and Make Belie e, Wal on analyses he
complex way in which a cha ac e ’s oice and mood a e ep esen ed in andem wi h
a na a o ’s.22 His analysis speaks o Gé a d Gene e’s dis inc ion be ween a cha ac e
who is causally e icacious in he e sion and he na a o ’s me a-ou look, which
accommoda es and ele a es cha ac e so ha i empo a ily appea s o domina e
he ecoun ing. They ag ee ha he na a o ’s poin o iew is always dominan ,
whe he o no i appea s o be so.23 Geo ge Wilson ag ees bu pu s hings his way:
e sions always sub end o he na a o ’s loca ion since we mus go h ough ha in
o de o access he na a i e.24 F om his we can say ha when he e is no explici
na a o he ques ion as o he na a o ’s pa icula iden i y will simply no a ise o
he eade . All his is pe inen o he a gumen s gi en in Sec ion IV.
Wi h he li e a y model in place, we can now ask: does his model smoo hly ex end
o pic u es? Expe s deny ha his is sel -e iden . Na a i es equi e sequence and
du a ion, and s a ic pic u es a e no ob ious candida es o mani es ing such
empo ali y. I shall no aim o gi e a comp ehensi e su ey o ecen wo k on he
me aphysics o he deba e. Ins ead, I will ske ch ou he wo main posi ions so
ha hose ideas ha I ake o be o undamen al impo ance o he a gumen o e
na a o s can be in oduced. This will allow us o b ie ly conside , and hen pu o one
side, he ela ed ques ion o empo ali y in pic u es.
Compa ibilis s hold ha depic ions a e compa ible wi h na a i es. This is he
p e ailing iew among na a ologis s, bu disag eemen s a ise ega ding he s eng h
o he claim.25 S ong compa ibilis s hold ha a single (monoch onic) pic u e can
imply a na a i e by a single depic ion o a scene.26 Roughly, he depic ed con en is
unde s ood in he ligh o a p ocession o e en s. Fo example, in Jan an Eyck’s The
A nol ini Po ai , he iewe unde s ands he man o be aising his hand o g ee he
couple en e ing he oom, ha is, as a du a ion o expe ience. Bu weak compa ibilis s
complain ha only single pic u es depic ing dispa a e e en s and pe sons in he same
composi ion can mani es con inuous na a i es, such as in Sand o Bo icelli’s Th ee
Mi acles o Sain Zenobius.27 Some heo is s emain uncon inced ha single pic u es
can imply du a ion, and insis ha na a i e is mani es ed om a se ies o connec ed
22 Wal on, Mimesis, 346.
23 Gé a d Gene e, Na a i e Discou se: An Essay in Me hod, ans. Jane E. Lewin (I haca,
NY: Co nell Uni e si y P ess, 1983), 146.
24 Geo ge Wilson, Seeing Fic ions in Film: The Epis emology o Mo ies (Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess, 2011).
25 See Ka alenos, ‘Implica ions o Na a i e’; Wendy S eine , Pic u es o Romance: Fo m
agains Con ex in Pain ing and Li e a u e (Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess, 1988);
‘Pic o ial Na a i i y’, in Na a i e ac oss Media: The Languages o S o y elling, ed. Ma ie-
Lau e Ryan (Lincoln: Uni e si y o Neb aska P ess, 2004), 145–77; Michael Ran a, ‘(Re-)
C ea ing O de : Na a i i y and Implied Wo ld Views in Pic u es’, S o ywo lds 5 (2013):
1–30; Klaus Speidel, ’Can a Single S ill Pic u e Tell a S o y? De ini ions o Na a i e and he
Alleged P oblem o Time wi h Single S ill Pic u es’, Diegesis 2 (2013): 173–94.
26 See Ka alenos, ‘Implica ions o Na a i i y’, Ran a, ‘(Re-)C ea ing O de ’, and Speidel,
‘Can a Single S ill Pic u e Tell a S o y?’
27 We ne Wol , ‘Na a i e and Na a i i y: A Na a ological Reconcep ualiza ion and I s
Applicabili y o he Visual A s’, Wo d and Image 19 (2003): 180–97.

60B assey
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.316
composi ions, as i is wi h Hoga h’s Ma iage A-la-Mode.28 The ou igh ejec ion o
pic o ial na a i e is ela i ely a e, al hough no en i ely unknown.29 Paul Ba olsky’s
scep icism is in o med by his belie ha , since pic u es lack empo al o de ing, any
sugges ed simili ude wi h li e a y na a i es is misleading.30 A con incing ebu al
o Ba olsky’s adical iew is ound in Ka alenos’s Implica ions o Na a i e in Pain ing
and Pho og aphy. In he ligh o his, I will b acke ou u he deba e on he issue o
empo al o de ing in pic u es o discussion elsewhe e.
Ob iously, he accoun o compa ibilism used as a sp ingboa d o he in es iga ion
in his pape mus be p ope ly neu al ega ding he exis ence o a ‘pic o ial na a o ’.
Un o una ely, his makes he sugges ion om Bence Nanay, one o only a hand ul o
philosophe s o add ess he poin in p in , p oblema ic. He a gues ha ‘[a] pic u e is
a na a i e pic u e i and only i a sui ably in o med spec a o is supposed o unde go
an expe ience o “engaging wi h na a i e”’.31 Relying on a symme y claim along
he lines Nanay sugges s will do mo e han co e bo h pic o ial and li e a y cases. By
explaining away he appa en asymme y in he way he e bal and isual mediums
a e ime-sliced and ime-sequenced, we end up ge ing pic o ial na a o s ‘ o ee’.
Fo his eason, we should p e e Klaus Speidel’s o dina y language a gumen , which
compo s well wi h he pa adigma ic li e a y o mula ion and makes no assump ions
abou he on ology o pic o ial na a o s.32 Speidel akes o dina y language o be a
aluable indica o o he ex ension o concep s and use ul o dissol ing philosophical
p oblems, speci ically in si ua ions when ‘use in he language’ is essen ial o he
meaning o a wo d. Since he e m ‘na a i e’ is no used in p ima ily heo e ical
domains (such as ‘qua k’ is in pa icle physics), we should be con iden ha he wo d
e e s o wha e e i picks ou in o dina y discou se. This mo e neu al p esen a ion
o he case o pic o ial na a i es enables us o con iden ly adjudica e be ween
compa ibilism and incompa ibilism. We can assume he p emise ha he e a e
pic o ial na a i es and u n ou a en ion o he claim abou pic o ial na a o s.
II. THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST AND FOR PICTORIAL
NARRATORS
A e he e pic o ial na a o s akin o li e a y na a o s? Kendall Wal on denies ha
he e is a ‘coun e pa o a na a o in depic ion’ since ‘one’s access o he ic ional
wo ld is no media ed by ano he ( ic ional) pe son’.33 Fo example, when pain ings
con ey he demen ing o souls in he bowels o hell (Hie onymus Bosch), o a igh
be ween wo sui o s (Hoga h), he iewe does no go h ough a na a o ial ‘ oice’
o see e en s as un u ling. The pain ing hangs he e, we gaze in o i , and na a i e
implica u es ollow.
28 Cha man, Coming o Te ms.
29 See Paul Ba olsky, ‘The e Is No Such Thing as Na a i e A ’, A ion 18 (2010): 49–62,
and Paul Ha ison, ‘The Limi s o Two oldness’ in Richa d Wollheim on he A o Pain ing:
A as Rep esen a ion and Exp ession, ed. Rob an Ge wen (Camb idge: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess, 2000), 39–59.
30 Ba olsky, ‘The e Is No Such Thing’, 62.
31 Bence Nanay, ‘Na a i e Pic u es’, Jou nal o Aes he ics and A C i icism 67 (2009):
127.
32 Speidel, ‘Can a Single S ill Pic u e Tell a S o y?’
33 Wal on, ‘Poin s o View’, 50.
61B assey
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.316
Wal on’s scep icism is double- ace ed. The i s ace is phenomenal: we do no ha e
a sense o going h ough ano he ic ional pe son in o de o see o example, he
chao ic and endless demen ing o souls. The second ace is epis emic: he e is no
logical need o posi a na a o o ‘media e’ and enable access o he pic o ial wo ld,
and h ough whose pe spec i e he chao ic and endless demen ing o souls is (in a
sense o be wo ked ou ) ecoun ed o epo ed o us he iewe . Recons uc ed, he
a gumen is as ollows:
Scep icism
1. The only eason o posi ing a na a o is i i would be impossible o access he
na a i e di ec ly, ha is, wi hou a na a o .
2. In he case o depic ion, i is always possible o access he na a i e di ec ly,
ha is, wi hou a na a o .
3. The e o e, he e is no eason o posi pic o ial na a o s.
Some heo is s a e iendlie o he possibili y o pic o ial na a o s. E ie Wa kins has
poin ed ou ha he e is a sus ained pic o ial adi ion o depic ing cha ac e s in
na a i e pic u es who ‘b eak he ou h wall’.34 Wa kins con inues o say ha hese
depic ed cha ac e s unc ion in simila and signi ican ways o an explici li e a y
na a o . Fo example, in Pie e B uegel’s The Peasan and he Bi dnes e a igu e is
placed be ween he scene and he iewe . This igu e es ablishes eye con ac wi h,
and di ec s, he iewe ’s a en ion owa d a human igu e climbing he ee in he
backg ound. Fu he examples o ou h-wall-b eake na a o s include Nicolaes
Maes’s An Ea esd oppe wi h a Woman Scolding and he ank gaze o Mane ’s
i ula igu e in Olympia, who has a glin o amusemen in he eyes a he iewe ’s
p esupposed discom o .35
Wal on can espond o his by poin ing ou ha we do no ‘go h ough’ hese
depic ed na a o ’s eyes o see he ac ion. Ra he , hese cha ac e s unc ion like
a ows in a Powe Poin p esen a ion, ensu ing he iewe a ends o he ele an pa
o he pic u e. So, we should ea hese as depic ed cha ac e s whose ‘ oices’ a e
empo a ily dominan .
Wa kins can insis ha hese depic ed igu es do quali y as pic o ial na a o s since we
miss elemen s o he s o y when we do no pay a en ion o wha hese cha ac e s
endea ou o show us. Fu he mo e, while we may no see he pic o ial wo ld ‘ h ough
he eyes’ o he depic ed igu e, we do see he pic o ial wo ld a esh by he depic ed
cha ac e indica ing wha we should p io i ize o make salien in ou g asp o he wo k.
The p oblem is ha Wa kins o e claims on his poin by saying ha ‘ he loca ion o
hose pe sons seems o coincide wi h ou own [and so] we a e le wi h he illusion
ha we see he depic ed wo ld om hei poin o iew’.36
The phenomenology as desc ibed by Wa kins is alse i he sugges ion is ha we ha e
a ompe-l’oeil kind o expe ience wi h hese ou h wall b eake s. We do no see
he B uegel pain ing o Édoua d Mane ’s Olympia om he spa ial pe spec i e o he
peasan o he cou esan. This lea es his claim ulne able o he accusa ion ha he
has me ely iden i ied ele a ed and dominan cha ac e s.
34 E ic Wa kins, ‘Poin o View in Depic i e Rep esen a ion’, Noûs 13 (1979): 379–84.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid., 383.
62B assey
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.316
To jus i y he claim abou na a o s, wha needs o be shown is ha pic u es can and
do ins an ia e he ‘na a ing I’ ecalled om he ea lie sec ion. These a e dis inguished
om ele a ed cha ac e s and belong, howe e pe iphe ally, o he wo ld o he abula,
ega dless o how in equen he ins ances o sel - e e ence.
Jene e Robinson’s app oach shows mo e p omise in his espec , al hough we
need o econs uc he iew since i si s p ima ily in he deba e conce ning pic o ial
exp essi eness a he han na a ion. Robinson has a gued o a class o implied a is s
one s ep emo ed om he ac ual a is psychologically and concep ually.37 Implied
a is s a e said o cohe e and uni y wha a pic u e con eys, lea ing a psychological
ace o he ac ual a is who c ea ed hem in he pic o ial wo ld.38 Viewe s a e said o
expe ience he pic u e om hei poin o iew o pe spec i e.
The e ha e been se e al c i icisms o Robinson’s no ion in p in and Robinson
has conceded he poin on se e al o hem.39 These c i icisms damage he model
independen ly, bu a u he conce n is ha Robinson’s implied pain e ends up in he
w ong loca ion, ha is, in he ac ual wo ld a he han he pic u e wo ld. This means
ha he pic o ial na a o qua implied pain e is me ely augmen ing a he han
p o iding access o he na a i e. I would equi e u he a gumen a ion o secu e
he claim ha he exp ession o pe sonali y, mood, o psychological pe spec i e in a
pic u e is su icien o he p esence o a na a o , and i is no possible o econs uc
his om Robinson’s pape s.
One way o ad ance he cen al claim is o challenge p emise h ee o Scep icism, and
o show ha i is no possible o access pic o ial con en di ec ly. This will es ablish
he possibili y o a media ing ga eway o objec ha enables a iewe o adequa ely
app ehend a pic u e. This is he wo k o he inal wo sec ions.
III. PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVES
In his sec ion I cla i y how pe spec i es play hei ole in depic i e seeing. This
cla i ica ion is pu o wo k in he inal sec ion o de end he claim abou pic o ial
na a o s. So a , we ha e compa ed li e a y na a i e o pic o ial na a i e o
elucida e he ep esen a ional s uc u e o he la e . He e I begin by asking a mo e
basic ques ion: how do we see?
Suppose I look ou o he window and see my neighbou s in he s ee . I is
uncon o e sial ha wha e e x I am seeing, I am seeing x om my ac ual
pe spec i e. This is because, when I see, wha I see is seen om he spa io- empo al
loca ion I cu en ly occupy. Pe spec i es, while con en less in hemsel es, s uc u e
he way con en (x) is ep esen ed. My ac ual pe spec i e is om ‘he e and now’ and
i conduces o ep esen he neighbou s as ‘o e he e, now’ in ela ion o ‘me’. A
pe spec i e de e mines wha aspec o which bi o x is mos p ominen o salien
wi hin he isual ield. Fo ins ance, I only see he acing pa s o he neighbou s no
37 Robinson, Deepe han Reason.
38 I am con la ing a concep ual ques ion conce ning pic o ial na a o s wi h he deba e
in espec o implied o hypo he ical pain e s he e. Robinson’s model has been ex ensi ely
c i icized; see Dominic McI e Lopes, ‘The “Ai ” o Pic u es’, in Sigh and Sensibili y:
E alua ing Pic u es (Ox o d: Cla endon, 2005), 49–90; B assey, ‘Implied Pain e ’.
39 See Lopes, ‘“Ai ” o Pic u es’; , ‘Implied Pain e ’; and Jene e Robinson, ‘Response
o C i ics’, Deba es in Aes he ics 14 (2018), h ps://deba esinaes he ics.o g/ esponse- o-
c i ics.
63B assey
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.316
cu en ly obscu ed by o he pa s o hem, o o he objec s in he s ee . And, unless
he neighbou s mo e, I will need o change my ac ual pe spec i e on hem, pe haps
by mo ing o ano he window, o see di e en bi s o hem. In summa y, when we
see, we do so om he ac ual pe spec i e ha we occupy.
Bu , when we see depic ions, wha we see is seen om a spa io- empo al loca ion
implied by he acing pa s o he objec s-as-depic ed. We see he people om
abo e, he chai om he igh , and he ca é om he s ee o he le . One migh
say ha seeing he depic ed con en s in pic o ial space is like pee ing h ough a hole
o a box, which ac s as a iny window on o he depic ed scena io. Bu his misses
ou a signi ican ac abou he way he pe spec i e plays i s ole. Typically, we a e
looking a he pain ing abou a me e o so back om i . We a e no pee ing h ough
a pinhole o see he pic u e. How hen do we align he ac ual pe spec i e we ha e
on he pain ing (qua can as hanging on he wall) wi h he pic o ial pe spec i e on
he depic ed con en ? We mus be simul aneously co-o dina ing he wo ypes o
pe spec i es, ac ual and imagined. Because, unlike he ac ual pe spec i e, which
is spa ial (he e) and empo al (now) and sensi i e o changes in one’s loca ion, he
pic o ial pe spec i e can be om he le , he igh , abo e, o below, as implied by
he acing pa s o he depic ed objec s. I is insensi i e o small changes in he
iewing subjec ’s loca ion and o en u ns ou o be non-coinciden wi h hei ac ual
pe spec i e. How does he iewe ‘see’ om his pe spec i e? The answe is ha hey
mus ep esen he pe spec i e in hei imagina ions. They imagine a spa io- empo al
pe spec i e om which he ma ks hey see on he can as makes sense.
This cla i ica ion abou he seeing app op ia e o pic u es (and pain ings in pa icula )
is consis en wi h he phenomenon o so-called ‘ wo oldness’.40 Tha is, o a ending
o bo h he con igu a ion o he su ace ( om he ac ual pe spec i e) and he
ecogni ion o objec s ( om he pic o ial pe spec i e). These wo aspec s, o olds,
a e said o pe mi simul aneous pe cep ion.41 The iewe manages o sus ain seeing
he b ushs okes as b ushs okes, while a once ha ing a sense o he pic o ial dep h
hey c ea e.42
All his p o ides g ounds o challenging he consensus in he li e a u e ha we
‘di ec ly’ see depic ions, ha is, ha we clap eyes on depic ed objec s jus as we clap
eyes on he objec s hey depic . The consensus igno es how he pe spec i es in ol ed
in seeing and pic o ial seeing play hei oles di e en ly, and ha , while depic i e
seeing is pe spec i al, i is also essen ially indi ec . In o he wo ds, all depic i e seeing
equi es he iewe o ep esen an imagined pe spec i e ha media es access o he
depic ed objec .
In e es ingly, Wal on has also commen ed on his:
Wha is i o a depic ion o depic hings om a ce ain poin o iew?
One sense is ob ious. The poin o iew consis s in he pe spec i e om
which, ic ionally, we pe cei e when we examine he depic ion. Fic ionally
we see Hobbema’s ed- oo ed mill om a poin a couple o hund ed ya ds
downs eam on he le bank o he i e .43
40 ‘Two oldness’ is a e m o a due o Richa d Wollheim, A and I s Objec s: Wi h Six
Supplemen a y Essays (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1980).
41 Ibid., 213.
42 Richa d Wollheim, Pain ing as an A (London: Thames and Hudson, 1987), 62.
43 Wal on, Mimesis, 337.
70B assey
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.316
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
B assey, Vanessa. ‘The
Pic o ial Na a o .’ Es e ika:
The Eu opean Jou nal o
Aes he ics LX/XVI, no 1
(2023): pp. 55–70. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.33134/
eeja.316
Submi ed: 04 Janua y
2022
Accep ed: 03 Feb ua y
2023
Published: 15 Ma ch 2023
COPYRIGHT:
© 2023 The Au ho (s).
This is an open-access
a icle dis ibu ed unde
he e ms o he C ea i e
Commons A ibu ion
4.0 In e na ional License
(CC-BY 4.0), which
pe mi s un es ic ed
use, dis ibu ion, and
ep oduc ion in any
medium, p o ided he
o iginal au ho and sou ce
a e c edi ed. See h p://
c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Es e ika: The Eu opean
Jou nal o Aes he ics is
a pee - e iewed open
access jou nal published by
Helsinki Uni e si y P ess in
coope a ion wi h he Facul y
o A s, Cha les Uni e si y in
P ague.
S eine , Wendy. ‘Pic o ial Na a i i y.’ In Na a i e ac oss Media: The Languages o
S o y elling, edi ed by Ma ie-Lau e Ryan, 145–77. Lincoln: Uni e si y o Neb aska
P ess, 2004.
––––––. Pic u es o Romance: Fo m agains Con ex in Pain ing and Li e a u e. Chicago:
Uni e si y o Chicago P ess, 1988.
Todo o Tze an. ‘La g ammai e du éci .’ Langages 3 (1968): 94–102. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.3406/lgge.1968.2355
Velleman, John Da id. ‘Na a i e Explana ion.’ Philosophical Re iew 112 (2003): 1–25.
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1215/00318108-112-1-1
Wal on, Kendall. Mimesis as Make-Belie e: On he Founda ions o he Rep esen a ional
A s. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1990. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.2307/2108134
––––––. ‘Poin s o View in Na a i e and Depic i e Rep esen a ion.’ Noûs 10 (1976):
49–61. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2214475
Wa kins, E ie. ‘Poin o View in Depic i e Rep esen a ion.’ Noûs 13 (1979): 379–84.
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2215106
Wilson, Geo ge. M. Seeing Fic ions in Film: The Epis emology o Mo ies. Ox o d:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2011. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/acp o :o
so/9780199594894.001.0001
Wol , We ne . ‘Na a i e and Na a i i y: A Na a ological Reconcep ualiza ion and
I s Applicabili y o he Visual A s.’ Wo d and Image 19 (2003): 180–97. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/02666286.2003.10406232
Wollheim, Richa d. A and I s Objec s: Wi h Six Supplemen a y Essays. Camb idge:
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1980.
––––––. Pain ing as an A . London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.