월하임과 월튼의 묘사론 비교: “seeing-as”, “seeing-in”을 중심으로 (A Comparison of Wollheim and Walton on the Theory of Depiction: Centering around “seeing-as” and “seeing-in”)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울대학교 인문학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 인문논총 / 59호 / 409 ~ 450페이지
· 저자명 : 오종환

초록

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.

영어초록

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.

참고자료

· 없음