DOI: 10.4324/9780415249126-M017-1
Version: v1,  Published online: 1998
Retrieved July 23, 2024, from

References and further reading

  • Gombrich, E.H. (1977) Art and Illusion, 5th edn, Oxford: Phaidon.

    (An influential and seminal work, deploying immense knowledge of art history, philosophy and psychology.)

  • Goodman, N. (1969) Languages of Art, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    (Difficult, technical, but brilliant treatment of this and several other problems concerning the arts.)

  • Goodman, N. and Elgin, C.Z. (1988) Reconceptions in Philosophy, London: Routledge.

    (Goodman’s later thoughts on the matter – and some useful replies to criticism.)

  • Hopkins, R. (1995) ’Explaining Depiction’, Philosophical Review 104 (3): 425–55.

    (For more on the notion of outline shape, and its relevance to depiction; and for some sense of what other ingredients a complete account of the latter requires. Moderately difficult.)

  • Peacocke, C. (1987) ‘Depiction’, Philosophical Review 96: 383–410.

    (A difficult attempt to put forward something very close to a resemblance view, and the source of the original gas example of §3.)

  • Schier, F. (1986) Deeper Into Pictures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    (A fascinating full-length exploration of pictures, although sometimes moderately difficult.)

  • Walton, K. (1990) Mimesis as Make-Believe, London: Harvard University Press.

    (A highly influential and readable account, rooted in a grand theory of representation.)

  • Wollheim, R. (1977) ‘Representation: The Philosophical Contribution to Psychology’ Critical Inquiry 3 (4): 709–23.

    (A useful and non-technical introduction to the range of views available – although it has its axe to grind.)

  • Wollheim, R. (1987) Painting As An Art, London: Thames & Hudson.

Citing this article:
Hopkins, Robert. Bibliography. Depiction, 1998, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-M017-1. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis,
Copyright © 1998-2024 Routledge.

Related Articles