Classifying pictorial interpretation theories

The theory-ladenness of perception argument criterion

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34024/prometeica.2025.32.19603

Keywords:

image interpretation, cognitive penetration, theory-ladenness of perception, analytic aesthetics

Abstract

Analytic philosophy traditionally uses two classification criteria to distinguish theories of pictorial interpretation: mimetic or illusionistic, and natural or non-natural. In this paper, I propose an alternative and previously unconsidered criterion to classify these theories, based on the type of theory-ladenness argument they employ, whether it is strong or weak. I defend that this third criterion offers four advantages over traditional approaches: (i) it allows a clear distinction between theories of image interpretation that could not be differentiated using previous criteria; (ii) it enables the association of theories previously considered distinct; (iii) it facilitates the recognition of the epistemic and ontological commitments of the theories, allowing a more precise appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses; and (iv) it provides a basis for using literature on the architecture of the mind to argue for or against contemporary theories of image interpretation.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

  • Juan Pablo Aguilar Martínez, Ibero-American University Puebla

    Juan Pablo Aguilar Martínez

    Master in philosophy of science and doctorate in philosophy of science at the instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas  (UNAM) . Professor at the Ibero-American University of Puebla.

References

Aguilar, J. (2022) Tres versiones de argumentos de subdeterminación contrastiva para explicar la competencia pictórica. Revista Xipe Totek, Año 31, Vol. II, No. 118, 85–116.

Atencia-Linares, P. (2018). Why Grey is the New Black en The New Theory of Photography: Critical Examination and Responses. - Aisthesis: Pratiche, Linguaggi E Saperi Dell’Estetico 11 (2), 207–234.

Abell, C. (2009). Canny Resemblance. Philosophical Review, 118, (2009), 183-223.

Abell, C. (2005). Pictorial Implicature. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Winter, 2005), pp. 55-66.

Barceló, A. (2022), How to Visually Represent Structure, en Giardino, Valeria, Linker, Sven, Burns, Richard, et al. (Eds.), Diagrammatic Representation and Inference: 13th International Conference, Diagrams. Rome, September 14–16, 2022. Proceedings, Springer, pp. 218–225.

Bazin, A. (1960a). The ontology of photographic Image. En Whats Cinema? University of California Press. 2004, 9-17.

Bazin, A. (1960b). The Evolution of the Language of Cinema. En Whats Cinema? en University of California Press, 23-41.

Berger, J. (1972). Ways of Seeing, Londres, British Broadcasting Corporatoin and Penguin Books.

Block, N. (2023). The Border Between Seeing and Thinking. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Recuperado en https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-border-between-seeing-and-thinking-9780197622223?cc=mx&lang=en&

Carroll, N. (1999). Philosophy of Arts: A Contemporary Introduction, London, Routladge.

Carroll, N. (2003). Engaging the moving Image, New Haven, Yale University Press.

Caldarola, E. (2011). Pictorial Representation and abstract pictures, Scuola di dottorato di recerca in filosofia teoretica e practica. Ciclo XXII.. Direttore della Scuola: Ch.mo Prof. Giovanni Fiaschi, Padova, Università degli Studi di Padova.

Clark, A (2023). The Experience Machine: How Our Minds Predict and Shape Reality, New York, Pantheon.

Currie, G. (1999). Visible Traces: Documentary and the Contents of Photographs. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 57 (3), 285-297.

Dirks, J.R., & Gibson, E. (1977). Infants’ perception of similarity between live people and their photographs. Child Development, 48, 124–130.

Eisenstein, S. (1949). “A Dialectic Approach to Film”. En Film Form: Essays in Film Theory, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York. Recuperado en http://antigo.casaruibarbosa.gov.br/arquivos/file/A_Dialectic_Approach_to%20_Film_Form_SergeiEisenstein.pdf

Fagot, J. (2010). How to read a picture: Lessons from nonhuman primates. PNAS. January 8, 2010 107 (2) 519-520.

Fodor, J. (1984). Observation reconsidered. Philosophy of Science ,51 (March), 23-43.

Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral Brain Science. 22, 341-365.

Gombrich, E. (1960). Art and Illusion, Londres, Phaidon Press.

Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of Art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis. The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.

Gross, S. (2017). Cognitive penetration and Attention. Frontiers in Psychology. Hypotehesis and Theory. Doi: 10.3389/fosfató.2017.00221

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28275358/

Hyman, (2006). The Objective Eye, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Hanson, N. (1958). Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Hyman, J. & Bantinaki, K. (2021). Depiction. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/depiction/>.

Hume, D. (1909). The Standard of Taste. Modern History Sourcebook Harvard Classics 1909 David Hume (1711-1776) Of the Standard of Taste, 17601 Recuperado en https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/Taste%20Food%20&%20Wine/Aesthetics_of_Food_&_Drink/Hume%20-%20Of%20the%20Standard%20of%20Taste%201760.pdf

Kuhn, T. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Volumes I and II. Foundations of the Unity of Science Volume II. Number 2. Chicago. The University of Chicago.

Kuvicki, J. (2013). Pictorial Representation. Philosophy Compass 1/6 (2006): 535–546.

Kuleshov, (1974). “Montage as Foundation of Cinematography” en Kuleshov on Film. Film Writings by Lev Kuleshov. pp. 42-45. Recuperado en https://opencourses.ionio.gr/modules/document/file.php/DAVA108/kuleshov.pdf

Levin & Banaji (2006). Distortions in the Perceived Lightness of Faces: The Role of Race Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. American Psychological Association. 2006, Vol. 135, No. 4, 501–512.

MacPherson, F. (2012). Cognitive Penetration of Colour Experience: Rethinking the Issue in Light of an Indirect Mechanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 84, No. 1 January 2012, 24–62.

Nanay, B. (2015). Cognitive penetration and the gallery of indiscernibles. Front. Psychol., 08 January 2015 Sec. Consciousness Research Volume 5 - 2014 | Recuperado en https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01527/full

Perini, L. (2015). Convention, resemblance, and isomorphism. Studies in Multidisciplinarity, Volume 2 Elsevier B.V. p. 37-47.

Raftopoulos, A. (2019). Cognitive Penetrability and the Epistemic Role of Perception. London, Pallgrave Macmillan.

Sontag, S. (1966). Against Interpretation. En Against Interpetation and other Essays. Picador.

Scruton, R., (1981). Photography and Representation, Critical Inquiry. 7 (3), pp. 577-603.

Stokes, D. Cognitive Penetration and the Perception of Art. En Dialectica, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Nueva York, vol. 68, Nº 1, 5 de abril de 2014. 1–34.

Walton, K. (1970). Categories of Art. The Philosophical Review. Vol. 79. No. 3. pp. 334-367Duke University Press Philosophical Review https://philpapers.org/rec/WALCOA-2

Walton, K. (1984). Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism. Critical Inquiry. Vol. 11. No. 2. pp. 246-277.

Stanford, K. (2023). "Underdetermination of Scientific Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/scientific-underdetermination/>.

Voltolini, A. (2024). Is What We See in the Picture the Same as What the Picture Presents. 2024, Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics. Volume: 47. 145-155.

Walton, K. (1970). Categories of Art. The Philosophical Review. Vol. 79. No. 3. 334-367.

Walton, K. (1984). Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism. Critical Inquiry. Vol. 11, No. 2, 246-277

Wittgenstein, L. (2017). Investigaciones filosóficas, Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas. Ciudad de México,Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Wollheim, R. (2012). Danto's Gallery of Indiscernibles. In Ernest Lepore & Mark Rollins (eds.), Danto and his Critics. Oxford, UK: Wiley‐Blackwell. 30–39.

Prometeica v.32

Downloads

Published

2025-06-01

Issue

Vol. 32 (2025): Prometeica - v 32 (03/2025 - 12/2025)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Juan Pablo Aguilar Martínez

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright: Prometeica allows the author (s) to keep their copyrights unrestricted. Prometeica allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction. Authors should ensure that the article is an original work without fabrication, fraud or plagiarism; does not infringe any copyright or right of ownership of any third party. Authors should also ensure that each one complies with the authorship requirements as recommended by the ICMJE and understand that if the article or part of it is flawed or fraudulent, each author shares responsibility.

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Prometeica - Journal of Philosophy and Sciences is governed by the licencse CC-By-NC

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

 

Copyright maintenance

Prometeica allows the author (s) to keep their copyright without restrictions.

Prometeica allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction.

How to Cite

Aguilar Martínez, J. P. (2025). Classifying pictorial interpretation theories: The theory-ladenness of perception argument criterion. Prometeica - Journal of Philosophy and Science, 32, e19603 (1-17). https://doi.org/10.34024/prometeica.2025.32.19603
Received 2024-10-14
Accepted 2025-04-22
Published 2025-06-01