The Pictorial Narrator

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.