![]() The occlusion shape of an object is, roughly, the shape optically projected from an object to an intersecting plane along a given “light of sight.” The Principle is then formulated as follows: if a part P of a picture depicts an object O, then “the occlusion shape of O and the shape of P must be identical” (Hyman 2006, 81). (ii) Hyman: the Projection Principle is comparable to the Occlusion Shape Principle proposed in Hyman 2006, ch. Here I believe the Projection Principle captures intuitive distinctions in content that Kulvicki’s principle misses see footnote 33 and the Appendix for a detailed discussion. However, in order to preserve the property of “transparency,” Kulvicki takes a non-standard view of pictorial structure, with the result that Kulvicki’s principal is logically weaker than the Projection Principle. The result is equivalent to the Projection Principle for content. He further holds that bare bones content constrains a picture’s overall content. (i) Kulvicki: Kulvicki posits a basic layer of pictorial content, called bare bones content: “whatever scenes could have resulted in a particular via a perspective projection count as parts of the content of the picture” (Kulvicki 2006, 59). With some translation, the Projection Principle is comparable to the various projection-based proposals in the literature. Since the composition of pictorial space is itself the basis for all other aspects of pictorial content, the proposal provides a natural foundation for further pictorial semantics. In this essay, I will argue that, for a central class of pictures, the projection-based theory of depiction provides the best explanation for how pictures express pictorial spaces, while rival perceptual and resemblance theories fall short. Inspiration here comes from recent proposals that analyze depiction in terms of geometrical projection. A basic challenge is to explain how pictures are associated with the particular pictorial spaces they express. ![]() ![]() Pictures themselves are two-dimensional artifacts, and their contents take the form of pictorial spaces, perspectival arrangements of objects and properties in three dimensions. Unlike the familiar semantics of spoken languages, this problem has a distinctively spatial cast for depiction. A semantics of pictorial representation should provide an account of how pictorial signs are associated with the contents they express.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |