Luca Marchetti

This publication originates from and develops the author’s doctoral thesis. The topic it addresses – the depiction of motion in static images – implicitly runs through the entire tradition of aesthetics and the psychology of art, yet it has never been subjected to a systematic and rigorous analysis. This work aims to fill that gap. Across its three chapters, the author examines the nature of various static images that are commonly regarded as effective in suggesting motion: are these truly pictorial representations – that is, depictions – of such a property? The analysis of these images – from photographs capturing people in the midst of dynamic actions to Futurist paintings, from long-exposure photography to optical illusions of movement – not only allows this question to be addressed but also provides insights into the possibilities and limits of depiction, as well as the theories that attempt to account for it.

This paper addresses the issue of whether other animals’ minds can be legitimate objects of aesthetic appreciation. It argues that (a) we can appreciate other minds; (b) that the object of appreciation in these cases is twofold: on the one hand, we appreciate the fitness, peculiarities, differences, and subtleties of the workings of other minds and, on the other, we appreciate the imaginative activity of trying to put ourselves in the animal’s perspective; and (c) that, as a consequence of (b), the nature of our appreciation is also twofold: on the one hand, it is an experience of the aesthetic qualities that emerge from what we know about the workings of other minds and, on the other, we derive pleasure from the challenging imaginative effort involved in trying to put ourselves in the animal’s perspective.

ABSTRACT Can static pictures depict motion and temporal properties? This is an open question that is becoming increasingly discussed in both aesthetics and the philosophy of mind. Theorists working on this issue have mainly focused on static pictures of dynamic scenes and streaky images—such as futurists’ paintings or long-exposure photographs. And yet, we could ask: if there is some success in creating an illusory impression of movement in a static image—as is the case in optical illusions of movement, such as Bridget Riley’s Fall (1963: Tate, London), or Kitaoka’s Rotating Snakes Illusion—is this to say that such static images depict movement? As far as I know, no one working on the depiction of motion has specifically and systematically tackled motion-based illusions nor tried to answer this question. This paper considers two cases of optical illusions of movement and concludes that one of them is involved in the depiction of movement. While the declared goal of my analysis is to answer a quite circumscribed question, it is also the occasion to tackle motion-based illusions tout court—to account for the complex visual experiences they elicit and related phenomenology. Moreover, this account has interesting consequences for theorizing depiction and pictorial experience in general. In particular, it constitutes a counterexample to resemblance theories of depiction.

Questo articolo si confronta con la seguente domanda: possono le menti degli altri animali essere oggetti legittimi di apprezzamento estetico? Nel rispondere, sostengo (a) che la mente di altre specie animali è qualcosa che possiamo effettivamente apprezzare; (b) che oggetto dell’apprezzamento in questi casi è duplice: da un lato, apprezziamo l’idoneità alla funzione (fitness for function), le peculiarità, le differenze e le sottigliezze del funzionamento delle altre menti e, dall’altro, apprezziamo l’attività immaginativa attraverso la quale cerchiamo di metterci nella prospettiva dell’altro animale; e (c) che, come conseguenza di (b), la natura del nostro apprezzamento è anch’essa duplice: da un lato, è un’esperienza delle qualità estetiche che emergono da ciò che sappiamo sul funzionamento delle altre menti e, dall’altro, traiamo piacere dallo sforzo immaginativo in cui ci impegniamo nel cercare di metterci nella prospettiva dell’altro animale.

Alberto Voltolini (2021) has recently claimed that mirrors are bona fide pictures, for they are grasped via what he identifies as the defining characteristic of a picture: a certain seeing-in experience. Voltolini refines the somewhat elusive concept of seeing-in, originally described by Wollheim, and then demonstrates its applicability to mirror experience. However, in this paper, I contend that Voltolini's improved version of seeing-in does not aptly describe the experience of viewing mirrors. In fact, according to the first aspect of Voltolini’s reconceived seeing-in, the configurational fold of a seeing-in experience must be an enriched perception of the picture’s vehicle that grasps how the vehicle’s elements are perceptually arranged. But, contra Voltolini, I argue that this does not hold true for the experience of looking at mirrors. Indeed, when looking at mirrors, we don't perceive the configuration as an organizational structure; our visual system does not represent, even unconsciously, the properties of the mirror’s configuration as such. Mirror experience does not include an enriched perception of the picture’s vehicle; it does not grasp how the vehicle’s elements are perceptually arranged. My argument proceeds in two directions: firstly, through a phenomenological analysis of mirror experience and secondly, by corroborating these phenomenological observations with evidence from perceptual psychology. Thus, I conclude that if mirrors are to be considered bona fide pictures, it is not because they elicit a (reconceived) seeing-in experience.

In The Aesthetics of Virtual Reality (2022), Grant Tavinor claims that VR is a technologically fancy kind of picturing and, more specifically, that VR headsets elicit proper seeing-in experiences. According to Tavinor, seeing a virtual environment through a stereoscopic headset elicits the same twofold experience as ordinary pictures: users simultaneously perceive the three-dimensional depicted scene – the virtual environment – and the bidimensional surface responsible for displaying such a scene. In this critical note, I argue that this is a wrong characterization of the visual experience VR stereoscopic headsets elicit. I maintain that VR visual experiences are not twofold, but onefold. When using a VR headset, we do not perceive the configuration as an organizational structure; our visual system does not represent, even unconsciously, the properties of the configuration as such. My argument proceeds in two directions: first, through a phenomenological analysis of VR experience, and, second, by corroborating these phenomenological observations with evidence from perceptual psychology. I conclude that, if VR environments are to be considered bona fide pictures, it is not because they elicit a twofold seeing-in experience.

Evolutionary aesthetics (EA) investigates the origins and evolution of aesthetic preferences and artistic behaviors, along with the underlying capacities that support these preferences and behaviors. EA is a multidisciplinary approach that intersects various disciplines – e.g. evolutionary psychology, biology, neurosciences, art history, archeology, anthropology, philosophical aesthetics – providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the deep-rooted biological and evolutionary underpinnings of human aesthetic preferences and artistic expressions. Central to EA, in fact, is the exploration of when, how and why aesthetic preferences and artistic behaviors originated in human history, as well as understanding whether these behaviors are evolutionary adaptations, by-products of evolutionary processes, or nonbiological cultural products (Killin 2021; Richards 2022).

Pictures are created objects that have the function of generating a perceptual experience. In this sense, they are “experiential artifacts” (Terrone forthcoming). The experience elicited by pictures – usually visual (but for non-visual pictorial experience see e.g. Lopes 1997) – is a composite perceptual experience, in which the “perception” of the depicted scene (which is not in front of us) is generated by and experienced along the perception of the marked surface (the object that is actually in front of us). This experience is usually called a “pictorial experience”. A philosophical analysis of such an experience amounts to answering the following questions: How should we describe the phenomenology of pictorial experience? What is it like to experience pictures? How should the “perception” of the depicted scene be characterized? Is it really a form of perception? How does it relate to the perception of the marked surface?

This paper focuses on whether static images can depict motion. It is natural to say that pictures depicting objects caught in the middle of a dynamic action—such as Henri Cartier-Bresson’s (1932) Behind the Gare St. Lazare—are pictures of movement, but, given that pictures themselves do not move, can we make sense of such an idea? Drawing on results from experimental psychology and cognitive sciences, I show that we can. Psychological studies on implicit motion and representational momentum indicate that motion is really perceived in some static images: our visual system is built in order to detect motion, even where it is only implied, and to anticipate the probable outcomes of others’ actions—even when the ‘others’ are only the subject matters of pictures’. I argue that, consequently, a range of popular depiction theories—perceptualist theories of depiction—can accommodate depicted motion.