It is natural to describe many pictures as of movement. We might for example say that a painting is of a horse rearing up, or a dog scurry along the pavement. The topic of this paper is how this “of” should be understood. Can a static picture depict movement, or is movement merely represented by, or suggested by, pictures, in some non-pictorial way? We argue that movement can be depicted and not merely represented. We examine three different views put forward by Le Poidevin, and use his third as…
Read moreIt is natural to describe many pictures as of movement. We might for example say that a painting is of a horse rearing up, or a dog scurry along the pavement. The topic of this paper is how this “of” should be understood. Can a static picture depict movement, or is movement merely represented by, or suggested by, pictures, in some non-pictorial way? We argue that movement can be depicted and not merely represented. We examine three different views put forward by Le Poidevin, and use his third as a basis for our own view of movement depiction, which is a version of Hopkins’s experienced resemblance theory of depiction.