tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206373238418288113.post4877452589126344666..comments2023-08-19T10:04:08.922+01:00Comments on Thought • Art • Representation: What’s So Wrong With The Selfie?Jim Hamlynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16488331333061422244noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206373238418288113.post-2860661832280125342014-08-05T18:36:25.194+01:002014-08-05T18:36:25.194+01:00The question of whether Van Gogh's most famous...The question of whether Van Gogh's most famous self portrait is a depiction of a man with his left ear bandaged or his right ear bandaged does put some heavy strain on the of/about distinction that I have been toying with recently and which I have discussed most fully in a previous post (<a href="http://thoughtsonartandteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/prepositions-of-representation-some.html#aselfies" rel="nofollow">here</a>). I'd like to insist that Van Gogh's depiction is <i>of</i> a man with his right ear bandaged whilst being <i>about</i> a man with his left ear bandaged but I think my stipulation would be contested by some. I might then add that the image depicts a man with his right ear bandaged and in that specific respect is indiscriminable from any other depiction of a man with his right ear bandaged. The historical fact that a mirror was used is not a visible part of the depiction and can only be inferred or ascertained through supplementary information or knowledge. Further to this I would also contend that anyone claiming the depiction is <i>of</i> a man with his left ear bandaged is using the preposition "of" in a manner more consistent with the use of the preposition "from", i.e. in the sense of being derived like a cast <i>from</i> its source. When we use the preposition "of" in relation to depictions the "of" usually designates what the depiction represents, not necessarily what it is <i>from</i> — so Van Gogh's self portrait is not derived <i>from</i> a man who had his right ear bandaged. It is derived <i>from</i> a man who had his left ear bandaged.<br /><br />Perhaps a more straightforward way to make the point is this. If we took a photograph of the word "mood" in a mirror, the depiction would be <i>of</i> the word "boom". If some form of supplementary information stated that the depiction was made using a mirror we might deduce that the original word was "mood", but it would be unreasonable to insist that the picture was <i>of</i> the word "mood" in spite of the obvious fact that "boom" is represented (notwithstanding the telltale sign of the ascender on the "m").<br /><br />So, to answer your question, I take depicting X to be fundamentally illusionistic—that is to say sensorily indiscriminable from the thing represented in certain circumstances and certain respects—AND (although not fundamentally) allusive (by dint of our conceptual powers).Jim Hamlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16488331333061422244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206373238418288113.post-57543857830216504452014-08-05T15:55:41.242+01:002014-08-05T15:55:41.242+01:00You make use of the word 'depict' rather c...You make use of the word 'depict' rather casually, as if it were a bit of trouble-free ordinary language. But alas it is also a term of art among the theorists of pictorial representation. Could you clarify your position about whether you take depicting X to be illusionistically attributed to a picture, or to be allusively attributed to it. Or both. Does van Gogh's "self portrait with a bandaged ear" depict a person with his right ear bandaged, or a person with his left ear bandaged?Felix Khttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Mountainnoreply@blogger.com