Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
8 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
two senses of realism: |
realism as accuracy of representational content (does not include fiction) realism as a matter of how pictures represent their objects to depict an object something must be such that the object is identifiable in it, and meet a standard of correctness What it is for a pictorial representation to be realistic may depend on what kind of relation “being identifiable in” is, e.g. degree of resemblance |
|
|
realism as detail |
realism could be a measure of how detailed something is, i.e. the more detailed the more realistic not necessary or sufficient detail difficult to quantify, would one count individual details or simply judge how detailed a work is overall? not easily comparable |
|
|
Schier |
three ways a picture can treat its features: explicitly committal: depicts the picture as having that feature explicitly non-committal: depicts the picture as having some feature which makes it impossible to tell whether or not the object has that feature inexplicitly non-committal: does not go in to the issue of whether the object has that feature more realistic depending on how many features are explicitly committal or explicitly non-committal |
|
|
problems |
Schier's account allows that all pictures are to some degree realistic which goes against our intuitions that some pictures are inherently unrealistic, e.g. cubist paintings is not clear how we determine the degree of realism any picture has, how do we count the features with regards to which it is explicitly committal and explicitly non-commmittal |
|
|
Lopes |
how realistic a picture is depends on how informative its style is in the context in which it is used Different styles are characterised by different forms of commitment to different kinds of features. On this account, realism is context-relative. In a different context, a cubist painting might be realistic. However, we don’t consider all pictures that are informative in our context of use realistic. |
|
|
Kulvicki |
pictorial representation is realistic to the extent that the way it represents things conform to our perceptual conception of that thing this allows him to accommodate fiction as it is not comparing to the objects themselves but our conception of them different styles or systems of representation require different interpretation Kulvicki thinks realism is an intra-systemic notion:we can compare the realism of different works in a single system, butinter-systemic comparisons are not possible we appear to make inter-systemic comparisons of realism, but this involves interpreting works in different systems as if they were all works in our dominant system: linear perspective This results in erroneous ascriptions of content, and thus incorrect judgements of realism. |
|
|
problems |
people may have different perceptual conceptions, making realism relative surely having perceptual conceptions of fiction comes from pictures not vice versa? our perceptual conceptions of things can be inaccurate judgements of realism seem to track actual appearances rather than our perceptual conceptions |
|
|
Abell |
a pictorial representation's realism is a measure of how much depictive information it provides about its object, were one to see it framing the claim conditionally allows for realistic fictions distinguish between realism qua a particular and realism qua an object type realism requires the provision of relevant information about appearances Information is relevant only if it produces positive cognitive effects that warrant the processing effort required to obtain them. Cognitiveeffects are positive if they increase one’s true beliefs or decrease one’sfalse beliefs. realism relative to individual perceiver This notion of pictorial realism captures the sense in which, although they’re not accurate, cinematic fictions are often especially realistic representations. |
