월하임과 월튼의 묘사론 비교 : seeing-as, seeing-in을 중심으로

Abstract

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.