Paloma Atencia Linares

This paper explores the category of fiction (as opposed to nonfiction) in photography. Philosophical work about fiction in this medium has been restricted to discussing whether photographs can or cannot represent fictional entities, but there is virtually no debate on the fiction/nonfiction distinction in photography. This distinction has been theorized with respect to literature or film where classificatory practices are well established. In photography, however, intuitions regarding what counts as a fictional work—as opposed to, say, what counts as a photograph that represents fictional objects—are messier. This chapter, therefore, poses these questions: (1) does the distinction between fiction and nonfiction apply to photography in any informative sense? If it does, (2) do these categories behave in a similar way as they do in other media? Following the Genre Theory of Fiction (GTF), the chapter proposes that fiction is an active genre in photography, but its extension is not what many readers might expect. Moreover, these categories display peculiarities derived from the nature of the medium which makes it more accurate to talk about factual and non-factual photography. The analysis provided shows that the GTF better explains the case of fictional photography than competing theories of fiction.

Philosophers sometimes discuss cases of forgery and appropriation in art as similar but contrasting examples to understand issues relevant to the artistic value of artworks (Irvin 2005, Hick 2010). Something interesting about these cases is that both in forgeries and in ‘appropriation art’, we find works that can look very similar, and yet, deserve different value judgements or are actually evaluated differently. Moreover, despite the similarity of the cases, the philosophical analysis of what justifies different evaluations in the case of forgeries and appropriation art provides different conclusions in each case. I propose a third contrasting example: a case of cultural (mis)appropriation exemplified by what I will call the Chiapas tote bag and a questionably fancier doppelgänger.

Kendall Walton has recently claimed that the notion of fictionality is more fundamental and philosophically relevant than the distinction between (works of) fiction and (works of) non-fiction. In this chapter, I argue that one of the reasons why the latter distinction is important is precisely that it affects what turns out to be fictional or true in a representational work. This is specifically relevant for Walton’s view – many of the examples he uses to show that his (former) notion of fictionality is flawed – those that are photographic in nature – depend on an implicit classification of those works as fiction or non-fiction. This being the case, even if it is true that the notion of fictionality is more fundamental than categorizing a work as fiction or non-fiction, the former depends partly on the latter. My second aim in this chapter is to clarify the consequences that Walton’s reconsidered view of fictionality has for his theory of pictorial representation. Paying attention to the examples he uses to argue for his new view on fictionality makes it clear that his account of depiction, despite being modelled on his notion of fictionality, is relevantly different from it.

Walton has controversially claimed that all pictures are fiction because, in seeing a picture one imagines that one is seeing the depicted content in the flesh; and that in seeing a photograph one _literally – _although indirectly – _sees_ the photographed object. Philosophers have found these claims implausible for various reasons: it is not the case that all pictures are fiction; explaining depiction does not require an imaginative engagement and seeing objects in photographs is not tantamount to seeing the object. I agree with Walton’s critics in all of these claims. However, I try to give some plausibility to Walton’s view. Firstly, I claim that is a misunderstanding. Second, I try to clarify Walton’s view of depiction by contrasting pictorial experience with perceptual experience more generally. Finally, I focus on the case of photographs and I l claim that although Walton is not right in claiming that _seeing_ objects _in_ photographs is a case of literally perceiving the objects, photographs share an important feature with perceptual experience: the content of photographs, like the content of pictorial experience, is particular in character, and that explains their peculiar phenomenology. I content, however, that the experience of photographs is closer to memory than to perception.

Some stories generate in us a peculiar experience of intense narrative engagement. This common experience, which we call narrative immersion, has been the object of a vast literature in psychology and other disciplines. Philosophers, however, have only recently engaged with this topic and the tendency has been to explain it by postulating specific kinds of mental states. We propose a different approach, explaining narrative immersion by means of a particular distribution of attention over the content of ordinary mental states. First, we provide a characterization of narrative immersion based on studies by psychologists and other theorists. Then, we discuss alternative views and develop our own proposal. We articulate how attention works as we engage with the narrative, and how the adequate distribution of attention over the mental states involved in understanding the storyworld can offer the resources to explain the characteristic features of narrative immersion. Unlike alternative proposals, ours avoids the need to postulate controversial mental states.

We often encounter heated disputes about what constitutes good eating or the correct ways to cook particular meals or dishes. These disagreements presuppose that some methods of preparing and appreciating food, as well as the judgments about these activities, are better or worse, or more or less appropriate. This paper offers an exploratory analysis of such culinary disputes, focusing on the underlying reasons for these disagreements and their normative implications. We argue that while these disputes are aesthetic in nature, they are rarely about taste alone. Instead, we propose that they may be addressed by appealing to the internal norms at play within specific culinary aesthetic practices. However, we identify two significant challenges to this approach. First, these internal norms often conflict, and their interdependence complicates attempts to resolve disputes by assigning varying degrees of justification to different norms. Second, many collective behaviors and attitudes within culinary practices may not qualify as full-fledged social norms, thereby weakening their normative force.

Dominic McIver Lopes’ Four Arts of Photography and Diarmuid Costello’s On Photography: A Philosophical Inquiry examine the state of the art in analytic philosophy of photography and present a new approach to the study of the medium. As opposed to the orthodox and prevalent view, which emphasizes its epistemic capacities, the new theory reconsiders the nature of photography, and redirects focus towards the aesthetic potential of the medium. This symposium comprises two papers that critically examine central questions addressed in the two books, with responses by the two authors in defence of their respective positions.

The relation between art and morality is one of the vexed issues of aesthetics; it has a history at least from Plato and has been written about, or commented on, by most if not all the luminaries in aesthetics—it is not coincidence that one of the most influential papers on these debates is also one of the most cited papers of this journal. Also, the (im)pertinence of moral concerns for the assessment of artworks is arguably one of the most discussed philosophical issues in the public opinion (albeit not always informed by philosophical insights). The prompt for this Special Issue was the publication, over a short space of time, of four books in the area: James Harold’s Dangerous Art: On Moral Criticisms of Artwork (2020), Erich Hatala Matthes’s Drawing the Line: What to Do with the Work of Immoral Artists from Museums to Movies (2022), Ted Nannicelli’s Artistic Creation and Ethical Criticism (2020), and Mary Beth Willard’s Why It’s OK to Enjoy the Art of Immoral Artists (2021). In this issue, each of these authors provides a précis of their own book, a criticism of one of the other books, and then a defence of their own work against this criticism. Although each book is, obviously, very different, there are some overlapping concerns that make for an especially productive interaction. In particular, one thread that runs through is the current vexed issue of what attitude an audience should take on a work of art in the light of facts about the moral character of its creator. With the wars over ‘cancel culture’ raging in the popular discourse, it is important to subject this issue to detailed philosophical examination.

The recent proliferation of deepfakes and other digitally produced deceptive representations has revived the debate on the epistemic robustness of photography and other mechanically produced images. Authors such as Rini (2020) and Fallis (2021) claim that the proliferation of deepfakes pose a serious threat to the reliability and the epistemic value of photographs and videos. In particular, Fallis adopts a Skyrmsian account of how signals carry information (Skyrms, 2010) to argue that the existence of deepfakes significantly reduces the information that images carry about the world, which undermines their reliability as a source of evidence. In this paper, we focus on Fallis’ version of the challenge, but our results can be generalized to address similar pessimistic views such as Rini’s. More generally, we offer an account of the epistemic robustness of photography and videos that allows us to understand these systems of representation as continuous with other means of information transmission we find in nature. This account will then give us the necessary tools to put Fallis’ claims into perspective: using a richer approach to animal signaling based on the signaling model of communication (Maynard-Smith and Harper, 2003), we will claim that, while it might be true that deepfake technology increases the probability of obtaining false positives, the dimension of the epistemic threat involved might still be negligible.

Dominic McIver Lopes’ Four Arts of Photography and Diarmuid Costello’s On Photography: A Philosophical Inquiry examine the state of the art in analytic philosophy of photography and present a new approach to the study of the medium. As opposed to the orthodox and prevalent view, which emphasizes its epistemic capacities, the new theory reconsiders the nature of photography, and redirects focus towards the aesthetic potential of the medium. This symposium comprises two papers that critically examine central questions addressed in the two books, with responses by the two authors in defence of their respective positions.

Diarmuid Costello ha defendido recientemente una versión fuerte de lo que él llama, siguiendo a Dominic Lopes, La nueva teoría de la fotografía y ha criticado una versión anterior de esta nueva teoría, que él considera más débil y restringida. Ambas posiciones —radical y restringida— se oponen a la visión tradicional en filosofía analítica de la fotografía. Sin embargo, Costello sostiene que la posición débil está aún demasiado cerca de esta tradición. Este artículo defiende la posición débil y argumenta que la supuesta versión fuerte es más prescriptiva, restrictiva e inadecuada.

This chapter is focused on the philosophy of film sound in the analytic tradition and its limitations; drawing from current literature in other fields, it aims to complement some philosophical discussions typically centered on the image with their aural counterparts. Firstly, it provides an overview of early skeptical views on the contribution of sound to the artistic status of films and critically questions the status of sound in contemporary philosophical conceptions of film suggesting a revision that takes seriously the idea of film as an audio-visual medium. Secondly, it discusses a central topic in the philosophy of film, the idea of film realism, showing how the discussion of sound may open new directions along three different dimensions: illusion, likeness, and transparency.