Print
REVISED
|

Depiction

DOI
10.4324/9780415249126-M017-2
Versions
Published
2011
DOI: 10.4324/9780415249126-M017-2
Version: v2,  Published online: 2011
Retrieved April 27, 2024, from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/depiction/v-2

References and further reading

  • Gombrich, E. H. (1960) Art and Illusion, 5th edn, Oxford: Phaidon,1977.

    (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. (1998) Picture, Image and Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    (An attempt to use the notion of outline shape to give a comprehensive account of depiction, and in particular to explain its key features, including those listed above.)

  • Hopkins, R. (2003) ‘Pictures, Phenomenology and Cognitive Science’, Monist 86: 653–675.

    (Examines the prospects for an account of depiction as engaging our visual recognitional abilities, as well as the wider methodological issue of how a philosophical account of picture perception relates to psychological investigations into the matter.)

  • Hyman, J. (2006) The Objective Eye: Colour, Form and Reality in the Theory of Art, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    (A defence of the view that pictorial representation exploits objective resemblances in colour and shape between pictures and what they represent.)

  • Kulvicki, J. (2006) On Images: Their Structure and Content, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    (A sophisticated reworking of some of Goodman’s central ideas to produce a distinctive view that attempts to address some of the intuitions that Goodman himself did not discuss.)

  • Lopes, D. M. (1996) Understanding Pictures, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    (Applies ideas similar to Schier’s to a wide range of questions raised by pictures.)

  • Lopes, D. M. (2006) Sight and Sensibility, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    (Chapter 1 involves a very interesting discussion of the various forms seeing-in can take.)

  • 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.)

  • Reid, Thomas (1764) An Inquiry into the Human Mind, ed. D. R. Brookes, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,2000.

    (An important work in the history of empiricism containing a short but groundbreaking discussion (ch. 6, §7) of the notion of ‘visible figure’.)

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

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

  • Walton, K. (1990) Mimesis as Make-Believe, Cambridge, MA: 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): 709–723.

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

  • Wollheim, R. (1987) Painting as an Art, London: Thames & Hudson.

    (An impressive and elegant exploration of depiction and many issues more directly related to the appreciation of pictorial art.)

Print
Citing this article:
Hopkins, Robert. Bibliography. Depiction, 2011, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-M017-2. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/depiction/v-2/bibliography/depiction-bib.
Copyright © 1998-2024 Routledge.

Related Articles