The Opticality of Pictorial Representation

Abstract

In Art and Knowledge James Young explores the visual arts of the past hundred years and notes that the most striking development has been the emergence of the avant‐garde style, adopted by artists such as Marcel Duchamp, Mark Rothko, and Andy Warhol.1 All works employing the avant‐garde style, Young argues, are discourse‐dependent representations: they represent what they do via an associated body of discourse, which is usually the theory of art or the ideology of the artist. Young regards such representations as being more akin to language rather than to traditional works of visual art, as all typical instances of the latter are thought to represent in a direct manner: traditional works, according to Young, are illustrative, that is, they just show what they represent. According to Young, the discontinuity between traditional and avant‐garde visual art rests on the fact that the latter has ceased to be visual. And it has ceased to be visual in a twofold sense. On the one hand, the artwork is not autonomous anymore: rather it is inherently linked to a body of discourse, a theory, on which it draws and which it is intended to illustrate. On the other hand, and as an effect, the artwork cannot be understood simply on the basis of its manifest properties: one cannot make sense of the work unless one knows the theory to which it appeals for its meaning. Think, for instance, of a painting such as Warhol's 200 Campbell Soup Cans: the painting shows soup cans; but what the painting shows, Young argues, has nothing to do with what it represents: The painting is intended to represent something besides soup cans. In particular it is intended as a representation of facts about images and quotidian life in the modern world. The painting is, however, unable to represent these facts by itself. It can do so only in conjunction with a body of discourse. …[It] cannot be understood and does not represent except in conjunction with what is said about [it].2 In sharp contrast, a traditional painting, such as Canaleto's painting of San Marco, is thought to give way naturally to what it represents: the painting, Young argues, represents San Marco because the viewer—that is, any viewer familiar with the appearance of San Marco—can recognize the Venetian cathedral in the painting. The viewer is visually aware of what the painting represents, and this is for Young the essence of visual art. Avant‐garde visual art seems to work against this trait; it works against visuality or illustrativeness. My concern in this article is not the relation between traditional and avant‐garde works of visual art. Rather I want to focus on the conception of the visual character of especially pictorial works that Young seems to endorse and extend to all visual art. In particular I want to examine a conception of visuality that rests on two presumptions: (a) that a picture represents (in Young's words) by itself, that is, without appealing to contexts of information external to the picture; and (b) that, thereby, to make sense of a picture one simply needs to look at it, provided that one has a recognitional ability for the object represented. It is this conception of the visual character of pictorial works that forces the idea of a sharp discontinuity between traditional and avant‐garde works of visual art. But the conception is, I will argue, erroneous to the extent that pictures always depend for their meaning on (and thus have to be supplemented by) information that artists had good reasons to regard as shared knowledge among the anticipated audience; it is therefore a misleading guide toward a right appreciation of the character of pictorial representation across different traditions. I will argue further that the popular belief, reflected in Young's analysis, that one can be visually aware of what a picture represents, corresponds not so much to the process of pictorial understanding (as it is not unqualifiedly true of this process) as to the character of pictorial understanding: pictorial understanding is distinctively visual to the extent that—regardless of the way in which it has been accomplished—it informs and, at the same time, is informed by what can be seen in a picture. A note needs to be made here on the significance of the project that I wish to undertake: it can be objected that, ever since the publication of Nelson Goodman's Languages of Art at least, it has been widely acknowledged that pictorial representations do not function as autonomous entities, in which case it could seem as if my analysis, if successful, would just reiterate a widely acknowledged fact. I believe, however, that there are good reasons to engage in the proposed analysis: (a) as Young's claim attests (and one could cite here also the anti‐intentionalist claim, most famously stated by Monroe Beardsley, according to which the interpretation of visual works should be based on internal evidence alone), not all theorists acknowledge the nonautonomy of pictorial representation; (b) even theorists who do acknowledge that in some cases pictures depend for their meaning on external contexts of information implicitly or explicitly accept (as I want to deny) that this is not so in paradigmatic cases—Dominic McIver Lopes's conception of basic picturing (discussed in Section II) being a good case in point; (c) even if it is acknowledged that pictures always depend on external contexts of information in order to represent what they do, it is still worth explaining (1) why this is the case and, accordingly, on what sorts of information they depend; and (2) why, despite the nonautonomy of pictorial representation, the common insight that pictorial representation is a visual phenomenon does not lose its force. It is these reasons that merit the proposed analysis. For reasons of coherence and simplicity in my discussion, I focus mainly on pictorial representation as practiced in the arts; however, I take it that my analysis applies to all instances of pictorial representation, for instance, pictures used to illustrate scientific data or pictures used in advertisement—although it has to be acknowledged that in this latter case (unlike the case of pictures that are works of art and the case of scientific illustrations), the external information on which a picture depends for its meaning is ready‐to‐hand for the targeted audience. Further, given that my interest is in the way that pictures represent or assume their meaning, I focus only on issues that are relevant to interpretation. On the basis of the fact that representational pictures generate visual experiences with a certain and the that this is relevant to the way they in what I will an claim, an analysis of which I will the that I take to be in the of pictorial representation and that, I believe, a of this In my I will with Young that an the of a pictorial representation is an what the representation intended to I acknowledge that the of the in the project of interpretation is a rather however, for the of the I will just accept that in a picture usually to the intended representational of the picture and, in effect, that the the representational usually one among The as a picture represents something there will be an of it that that it does so this will be or visual of the The claim the a certain is to pictorial representation, and this is such that it to the visual that the viewer has in to a picture. is to pictorial representation to the extent that there is a between the representational of a picture and the of the visual that the viewer has in to the picture. should be in understanding of the that the claim it does not the claim that the visual that any viewer have in to a picture what the picture the between the representational of a picture and the of the visual that the viewer has in to the picture has to be to the visual of particular why the needs to be thus it be to the case of a picture that in The external to the of art, the of in pictorial the to the in they on a with pictures and The picture on the a of a and a with the right in The idea this that the it would be by some And these to that are It seems to that there is something about this But what is about this is that, even if the by to the meaning of the these (a) would have to that the not that their function to represent and (b) they would have to have the ability to recognize the on the basis of visual information about that the But the most about this is the of a that has in about pictorial representation, on the of pictures across and the that a picture has a representational to which with different have and such a belief, the picture on the But this is not the there is nothing about the of the that it a not to a and there is nothing about the picture that or one of all representational for instance, in the that a of the picture would have to the intended who is familiar with pictorial representation aware of the should that if is to represent an object has to make has to the in such a way that the viewer will be to in the is also a to make will on conception of is, conception of what is and relevant instance, the in which or the different of however, can between and to the extent that they depend on a and, also on the way that the that experiences It that the intended representational of the picture will be visually manifest the and The appreciation and interpretation of a on the other hand, depend on way of this with to the that is, a of in that, a particular of an such an has and in the of of the do a of that would the would always the that had the familiar in of the a picture of the would thus be by relevant is so different But there is nothing about the picture is, its internal that it represents an or a of the picture is so it could be used in different contexts to different representational that the that artists make are by their of and their and given that these are not across and with a in order to what a picture represents, the viewer needs to have recognitional an effect, the claim will not be true of any with a but only of to be had by particular for the fact that pictorial representation a certain way of can the claim as a picture represents it represents what a viewer could in the a viewer is one who the recognitional of the artist. to the visual of a viewer are facts about pictorial representation the that in pictorial representation meaning has to be visually with the that artists are that the meaning of a pictorial representation will be visually manifest the and that the (and the with this however, the claim is not does not a for pictorial this is so to the extent that, by itself, that is, without the of relevant external contexts of a picture is it is with more than one interpretation. for instance, painting The to The work is and knowledge common in my I can in the picture a toward a a on a in a in a and so In all that, in a certain of in the do I therefore what it I have to what the picture represents and I have to on my visual and the understanding that only it can I will in the of more or The most interpretation I could give is that the is the of the in the of a but I could not be about the relation between the and the the of a or why the is And I could not be about these of because the picture or does not with it, an that would give the in the picture a a that would the intended the claim, even as it has been is not the recognitional cannot the representational of a as the same will be with different painting represents the in which the the to I had to on my visual in order to the representation, I would have to the in the picture as the and the as I familiar with the the of the in the picture would be for I the way of In this and other the picture does not just give what it represents: by itself, that is, without the of relevant external contexts of the picture is it is with more than one a pictorial representation does not evidence as to what it represents, it is not an autonomous it depends for its representational and thus has to be supplemented information external to the picture. painting, for instance, is on its the to the picture; it the information for interpretation that the viewer will not with the picture Further, in the a is the of representations on or they are as or is the case in painting, and this is the for instance, in all painting. the representation draws on a understanding of the representation knowledge of that Further, pictures on other with regard to or with regard to meaning. For instance, painting The of draws on painting The of an that the than the character of the it to of style, on the other hand, with the that the picture should the viewer to which have representational for instance, that of the painting the have does not represent the as a it shows a with a But it has to be acknowledged (as does that there is nothing about the or of the to that it it is rather knowledge of the that the work that will the viewer to which have representational significance and which are intended as The the pictorial works, style, and are all contexts of information on which pictures depend for their representational all for that is, the viewer needs in order to the representational of a And there are more such interpretation of a picture for instance, knowledge of the that have been by the or knowledge of the that the picture for instance, of the relevant and or knowledge about the of or even about the past or In that and to that pictorial representations are not what a conception of the visual character of pictorial representation a picture does not represent by itself. It rather for its representational on external contexts of which the viewer would have to in order to what the picture is to relevant facts about pictorial (1) the fact that a pictorial in itself, is so to any it needs to be by an by the (2) the fact that pictorial representation is an art is, a has a and a of a of a of and a of that on the representational of a picture the fact that pictorial representations are of and, as are the by which artists on their and that they with their in such cases the representation sense in relation to the of toward which it is A to the claim that pictorial representations are not is that representations by pictures that are in are not paradigmatic cases of pictorial the claim could be true of paradigmatic cases of pictorial representation and relevant to all pictures that can be as pictorial for instance, in analysis of pictorial meaning, as paradigmatic of familiar that only engage recognitional in the process of interpretation instance, in a further that, basic picturing is at work in pictorial representation, there are different of pictorial representation on the of information the viewer has to in order to the object of different of pictorial representation are thought to to different of or and the is that the recognitional of the viewer are in all cases of pictorial if accept this analysis of pictorial representation, it is still the case that the claim does not an of the way that pictorial representation I not in of this analysis for the (1) It the of pictorial representation there is other instances of pictorial representation, more than recognitional as it knowledge of the of pictorial representation of the of pictorial representation and of facts relevant to the for instance, the in that is not to be The between basic picturing and other instances of pictorial representation thus seems to be a of in the of external information for rather as a in of Further, (2) the idea that in basic picturing the viewer needs only to recognitional in order to what the picture represents the that such pictures at the of do, but in the case of pictures that should regard as basic the that the picture is to something more than its instance, it an interpretation of the or make a on what more the picture about its the viewer needs to more than recognitional and on knowledge of different For instance, of have a that the appearance of their such are of and but this of their is manifest the are seen the of information relevant to the and of the and, in relation to other but instances of one cannot a picture is a case of basic picturing unless one has to that it is a basic picture. are being given by information external to the for instance, information relevant to the of or information provided by the it is that the same in a and in a in the one case is and in the other case is not a case of basic I would with that different pictures different sorts of information in order to be I that (a) there is in the of pictorial representation, and (b) pictures depend for their meaning on relevant external contexts of so they are not A picture is an it has been by an in order to some The function of a picture is to to or something about an object or a of or the viewer is aware of this function will the picture as an object and will to the intended representational is it however, that an can or a picture in such a way that the intended representational is the take against a of shared knowledge about the and about the relevant of has with regard to works that can or there is to or to about the is depends the to in a and that in is an of what it is to and to a It is for this that the an that can to the among other what is not in The work with an about the knowledge that anticipated will to the with knowledge of the will toward the I that it is on the same that pictorial pictures are with an about the knowledge relevant to different that anticipated will to a instance, knowledge of and the of art or about the of pictorial representation and the and relevant to that The on which artists thus contexts of information the representational of a picture is and which would have to and do in order to a picture. in to pictorial representations on and are by artists to on contexts of information the representational of a picture is as in and for at artists on shared knowledge relevant to such contexts in the process of But if artists can and on the way that an will to a pictorial representation and the to pictorial representations in and it seems that what pictorial is the fact that artists and are in a they to what they regard as of and to pictorial In notes on the interpretation of in is always in that the that the will to a what the can be to to in the and the is not to have to by way of information or to interpretation. that the has made these and these is the basis of the of The here is that there is a the way a of representation is to be since the of a representation is between an and an the on the that the will to the and the on the that the has to the in the I assume that the same of pictorial an who to be understood by the would to the that the of pictorial representation; for instance, an who to would have to to the of in order to to the picture as a of Further, the with the of pictorial representation to to the picture in an manner: it to on contexts of information the representational of a picture is and thus to the representational of the picture. I thus with that to a representation is to it in certain which are and by the representation is not just a visual it is also a it a its is that extent a picture does not represent by itself, because picture is and thus the and of the of pictorial representation that have been in the does this all the it still to claim that the viewer is visually aware of what a picture represents, that this is so across different of pictorial The claim is if it is as a picture represents it represents what an informed viewer could in the an informed viewer being one who is familiar with the of pictorial one who knows that the object is used to to something knows that there is that one among and, most is one who knows that the intended meaning is and can be of information that would have to in order to visual A viewer to what a picture represents is thus one who knows what the contexts are which the right way of the picture c

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.