월하임과 월튼의 묘사론 비교: “seeing-as”, “seeing-in”을 중심으로

오종환

추천

검색

자료유형: 학술저널

저자정보: 오종환

저널정보: 서울대학교 인문학연구원 인문논총 인문논총 제59호

발행연도: 2008.1

수록면: 409 - 450 (42page)

이용수

📌

연구주제

📖

연구배경

🔬

연구방법

🏆

연구결과

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기

In this paper Wollheim’s and Walton’s theory of pictorial representation are scrutinized and compared with each other. Wollheim holds that the perception of pictorial representation can be explained through seeing-in, a special visual capacity contrasted with seeing-as, which is a development of ordinary vision of “straightforward perception.” The characteristic features of seeing-in are as follows: 1) with seeing-in we may see not only objects but also states of affairs, while with seeing-as we can see only objects, 2) there is the requirement of localization to seeing-as, while it is contingent to seeing-in, 3) seeing-in can see both the medium and the represented, while seeing-as cannot. The last feature is called “twofold- ness.” And this feature is crucial for us to see representations as representations. For example, trompe l’oeil painting is not a representation, since we cannot see it as a picture. Walton explains the pictorial representation as imagining seeing. He distinguishes depiction from description. In the case of pictorial depiction the perception of the represented is one and the same as that of the medium, while in the case of description this does not hold. According to Walton, to see an object in the picture is to see the relevant portion of the canvas through the imagination. while Wollheim holds that we can actually see the represented through seeing-in. Since, for Wollheim, seeing-in is a special visual capacity, which is different from ordinary seeing, pictures can represent several things which ordinary vision cannot see, for example states of affairs and universals. Walton objects to such a claim that we imagine seeing ordinary particular objects in the picture. On the basic claims of the two scholars and the related several topics, we examine the views of Alec Hyslop, Jerrold Levinson, and Susan Feagin. Basically Wollheim’s theory of pictorial representation is perceptual, while that of Walton’s is imagining. But both need a complementary explanation of how the configurational can make it possible or constitute the recognitional aspect of the experience of pictorial representation.

In this paper Wollheim’s and Walton’s theory of pictorial representation are scrutinized and compared with each other. Wollheim holds that the perception of pictorial representation can be explained through seeing-in, a special visual capacity contrasted with seeing-as, which is a development of ordinary vision of “straightforward perception.” The characteristic features of seeing-in are as follows: 1) with seeing-in we may see not only objects but also states of affairs, while with seeing-as we can see only objects, 2) there is the requirement of localization to seeing-as, while it is contingent to seeing-in, 3) seeing-in can see both the medium and the represented, while seeing-as cannot. The last feature is called “twofold- ness.” And this feature is crucial for us to see representations as representations. For example, trompe l’oeil painting is not a representation, since we cannot see it as a picture. Walton explains the pictorial representation as imagining seeing. He distinguishes depiction from description. In the case of pictorial depiction the perception of the represented is one and the same as that of the medium, while in the case of description this does not hold. According to Walton, to see an object in the picture is to see the relevant portion of the canvas through the imagination. while Wollheim holds that we can actually see the represented through seeing-in. Since, for Wollheim, seeing-in is a special visual capacity, which is different from ordinary seeing, pictures can represent several things which ordinary vision cannot see, for example states of affairs and universals. Walton objects to such a claim that we imagine seeing ordinary particular objects in the picture. On the basic claims of the two scholars and the related several topics, we examine the views of Alec Hyslop, Jerrold Levinson, and Susan Feagin. Basically Wollheim’s theory of pictorial representation is perceptual, while that of Walton’s is imagining. But both need a complementary explanation of how the configurational can make it possible or constitute the recognitional aspect of the experience of pictorial representation.

#본다고 상상하기 #이중성 #회화적 재현 #seeing-as #seeing-in #imagining seeing #twofoldness #pictorial representation

참고문헌 (11)

참고문헌 신청

Feagin, Susan L. / 1998 / Presentation and Representation / JAAC 56 (3) : 234 ~ 245

Hyslop, Ale / 1983 / On ‘Seeing-As’ / Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 43 (4) : 533 ~ 540

Hyslop, Alec / 1986 / Seeing through seeing-in / British Journal of Aesthetics 26 (4) : 371 ~ 379

Levinson, Jerrold / 1998 / Wollheim on Pictorial Representation / JAAC 56 (3) : 227 ~ 233

Walton, Kendall L / 1990 / Mimesis as Make-Believe : On the Foundations of the Representational Arts(Cambridge / Harvard University Press

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

오종환

소속기관 서울대학교 인문학연구원

주요연구분야 인문학 > 인문학 일반

논문수 4 이용수 201

최근 본 자료

전체보기

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
AI 학습용 데이터	원문	원문 PDF 파일
AI 학습용 데이터	원문 + 메타 (기본/상세)	원문 PDF 파일 및 서지정보 CSV
대량 구매용 데이터	B2B 구독 방식	특정 자료 한정으로 원문 접근 권한 부여
대량 구매용 데이터	URL 전달 방식	바로 PDF 뷰어를 열람할 수 있는 URL 제공

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
AI 학습용 데이터	기본 메타	발행기관명, 간행물명, 권호명, 권(vol), 호(issue), 통권, 발행연도, 발행월, 논문명, 저자명, 시작페이지, 종료페이지, 전체페이지, 상세페이지URL
상세 메타 데이터	발행기관 메타	발행기관 이명, 영문명, 창립연도, 홈페이지URL, 발행기관 소개
	간행물 메타	부제목, 간행물 유형, ISSN, ISBN, 최초발행연도, 폐간연도, 간행빈도, 발행주기, 등재사항, 이용수, 피인용수, 권호수, 논문수, 표지이미지
	논문 메타	작성 언어, 부제목, 대등제목, 목차, 키워드, 초록, 이미지, 참고문헌, 이용수, 피인용수, 논문활용도, DBpia통합주제분류, KDC분류, DDC분류, 한국연구재단분류, UCI, DOI
	저자 메타	소속기관, 소속부서, 직급, 연구분야, 연구키워드, 이용수, 피인용수, 저자 논문활용도

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
※ 결합형/맞춤형 메타 데이터는 신청 내용에 따라 다양하게 제공 가능
이용순위 정보	주제분야별 많이 이용된 논문	“인문학”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	이용기관별 많이 이용된 논문	“중고등학교”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	세부기관별 많이 이용된 논문	“서울대학교”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	키워드별 많이 이용된 논문	“Chat GPT”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
키워드 정보	많이 이용된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 이용된 키워드
	많이 발행된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 발행된 키워드
	많이 검색된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 검색된 키워드
	연구 트렌드 키워드	특정 키워드 연관 연구동향 분석 데이터 키워드

논문 기본 정보

초록· 키워드

AI 요약

연구주제

연구배경

연구방법

연구결과

주요내용

목차

참고문헌 (11)

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

댓글(0)