BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Sabre//Sabre VObject 4.6.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Zurich X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Zurich TZURL:http://tzurl.org/zoneinfo/Europe/Zurich BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:19810329T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:19961027T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:news305@kunstgeschichte.philhist.unibas.ch DTSTAMP;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20210308T181720 DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20210309T180000 SUMMARY:Images in Space (with Whitney Davis\, Berkeley) DESCRIPTION:Modern Western reflections on the nature of images have predomi nantly focused on pictures\, that is\, images on flat surfaces\, as paradi gmatic examples of depiction. Discussions of images with three-dimensional supports have thus often been derivative or completely sidestepped. The a im of this series of talks is to shift focus to three-dimensional images ‘in the round’ like sculptures\, figurines\, or models\, and to invest igate the specifics\, whatever they may be\, that issue from their 3D natu re. Of interest will be anthropological\, historical\, as well as philosop hical approaches. Some of the relevant questions include: In what aspects has a production/reception/circulation of spatial images differed from pic tures? Is thereanything specific about 3D image vehicles that a depiction theory should reflect? How have various histories and anthropologies of im ages succeeded or failed to recognize the difference?\\r\\nAbstract: Scul ptures and Pictoriality (from Whitney Davis) One of the most striking and extreme claims in contemporary analytic philosophy of art (analytic aesth etics) is that figurative sculptures in the round differ categorically fro m figurative paintings on flat surfaces in lacking an internal “depictio n point\,” a “perspective in” the sculpture-as-representation\, such as we find in a painted perspectival projection\, as distinct from a “p erspective on” the sculpture-as-artifact (R. Hopkins). In this well-defi ned sense figurative sculptures-in-the-round are not pictorial. It is true that many accounts of pictures\, such as Wollheim’s influential account of “two-foldness” and “seeing-in\,” elaborated by Dominic Lopes a nd others\, don’t fully deal with sculptures and/or don’t seem to acco mmodate sculptural representation. But it seems false to the phenomenology of sculpture to deny pictoriality to three-dimensional shapes representin g or referring to what the shapes resemble (as well as “figuring” or o therwise metaphorically denoting them)\; it certainly leaves the status of specifically sculptural “representation” up in the air. The paper exp lores this matter analytically and anthropologically\, looking especially at directions of thought and practice that would break down the abstract d ichotomy between pictures and sculptures. Setting aside the special issue of three-dimensional “tactile pictures” sensed and made exclusively by touch by blind people (J. Kennedy)\, many intermediate formats must be co nsidered that don’t fit the framework—perspective projections on conve x surfaces\, “reverspectives” (P. Hughes)\, low relief sculptures (A. Hildebrand)\, etc. In particular\, the semantically relevant many-sidednes s of traditional sculpture-in-the round\, stressed by J. Herder\, E. Löwy \, and others\, opens up quotients of sculptural pictoriality in virtue of the unequal configurational weight and coherence of the different views i n the synthetic image. In general\, “pictures” (which are never purely two-dimensional) shouldn’t be categorically contrasted with “three-di mensional” configurations: in imaging (natural visual perspective)\, man y kinds of configurations (which are always three-dimensional) accrue pict oriality at certain standpoints. Relevant examples are drawn from paleolit hic Europe\, ancient Egypt\, Classical Greece\, and modern experimental ar ts. X-ALT-DESC:

Modern Western reflections on the nature of images have predo minantly focused on pictures\, that is\, images on flat surfaces\, as para digmatic examples of depiction. Discussions of images with three-dimension al supports have thus often been derivative or completely sidestepped. The aim of this series of talks is to shift focus to three-dimensional images ‘in the round’ like sculptures\, figurines\, or models\, and to inves tigate the specifics\, whatever they may be\, that issue from their 3D nat ure. Of interest will be anthropological\, historical\, as well as philoso phical approaches. Some of the relevant questions include: In what aspects has a production/reception/circulation of spatial images differed from pi ctures? Is thereanything specific about 3D image vehicles that a depiction theory should reflect? How have various histories and anthropologies of i mages succeeded or failed to recognize the difference?

\n

Abs tract: \;Sculptures and Pictoriality \;(from Whitney Davi s)
One of the most striking and extreme claims in contemporary analy tic philosophy of art (analytic aesthetics) is that figurative sculptures in the round differ categorically from figurative paintings on flat surfac es in lacking an internal “depiction point\,” a “perspective in” t he sculpture-as-representation\, such as we find in a painted perspectival projection\, as distinct from a “perspective on” the sculpture-as-art ifact (R. Hopkins). In this well-defined sense figurative sculptures-in-th e-round are not pictorial. It is true that many accounts of pictures\, suc h as Wollheim’s influential account of “two-foldness” and “seeing- in\,” elaborated by Dominic Lopes and others\, don’t fully deal with s culptures and/or don’t seem to accommodate sculptural representation. Bu t it seems false to the phenomenology of sculpture to deny pictoriality to three-dimensional shapes representing or referring to what the shapes res emble (as well as “figuring” or otherwise metaphorically denoting them )\; it certainly leaves the status of specifically sculptural “represent ation” up in the air. The paper explores this matter analytically and an thropologically\, looking especially at directions of thought and practice that would break down the abstract dichotomy between pictures and sculptu res. Setting aside the special issue of three-dimensional “tactile pictu res” sensed and made exclusively by touch by blind people (J. Kennedy)\, many intermediate formats must be considered that don’t fit the framewo rk—perspective projections on convex surfaces\, “reverspectives” (P. Hughes)\, low relief sculptures (A. Hildebrand)\, etc. In particular\, th e semantically relevant many-sidedness of traditional sculpture-in-the rou nd\, stressed by J. Herder\, E. Löwy\, and others\, opens up quotients of sculptural pictoriality in virtue of the unequal configurational weight a nd coherence of the different views in the synthetic image. In general\, “pictures” (which are never purely two-dimensional) shouldn’t be cat egorically contrasted with “three-dimensional” configurations: in imag ing (natural visual perspective)\, many kinds of configurations (which are always three-dimensional) accrue pictoriality at certain standpoints. Rel evant examples are drawn from paleolithic Europe\, ancient Egypt\, Classic al Greece\, and modern experimental arts.

DTEND;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20210309T193000 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR