Depiction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Line 48:
Reversing orthodoxy, the philosopher [[Nelson Goodman]] (1968<ref>Goodman, Nelson (1968), Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis and New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.).</ref>) starts from reference and attempts to assimilate resemblance. He denies resemblance as either necessary or sufficient condition for depiction but surprisingly, allows that it arises and fluctuates as a matter of usage or familiarity (1988,<ref>Ibid: pp. 16-19.</ref> pp.&nbsp;16–19).
 
For Goodman, a picture denotes. Denotation is divided between description;, covering writing and extending to more discursive notation including music and dance scores, to depiction at greatest remove. However, a word does not grow to resemble its object, no matter how familiar or preferred. To explain how a pictorial notation does, Goodman proposes an analogue system, consisting of undifferentiated characters, a density of syntax and semantics and relative repleteness of syntax. These requirements taken in combination mean that a one-way reference running from picture to object encounters a problem. If its semantics is undifferentiated, then the relation flows back from object to picture. Depiction can acquire resemblance but must surrender reference. This is a point tacitly acknowledged by Goodman, conceding firstly that density is the antithesis of notation (1968,<ref>Ibid: p.160</ref> p.&nbsp;160) and later that lack of differentiation may actually permit resemblance (1988,<ref>Goodman, Nelson and Elgin, Catherine Z, (1988) Reconceptions in Philosophy (London and New York: Routledge) p.131.</ref> p.&nbsp;131) A denotation without notation lacks sense.
 
Nevertheless Goodman’s framework is revisited by philosopher John Kulvicki<ref>Kulvicki, John (2006), On Images: Their structure and content (Oxford: Oxford University Press).</ref> (2006) and interestingly applied by art historian James Elkins<ref>Elkins James (1999), The Domain of Images (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press).</ref> (1999) to an array of hybrid artefacts, combining picture, pattern and notation.