Talk:Depiction

Gerry Bell (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC) I've added inline citation according to the article's apparent Harvard citation. The extensive reference seems to exceed analytical philosophy - art history? --Gerry Bell (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have amended the introduction to eliminate the confusion of attributing substitution as a function of pictures (from the preceding edit). Substitution is distinct from reference and is dealt with under the section Illusion. When we change tyres, the new one does not point or refer to the flattened one. It simply functions as a tyre. Only under special circumstances can a picture be a substitute for its object, in which case it is no longer reference but delusion. I have also qualified ‘non-verbal’ since many non-verbal actions such as miming, dancing and music are not strictly pictures either. More accurately, I have emphasised the distinction between non-linguistic two-dimensional reference – writing and other notation – with depiction, although this is also indicated in the fifth sentence of the preceding version (where ‘depiction is taken to include all reference that is non linguistic or notation’. I have also expanded a little on picture planes to indication standard categories (with due in-citation to descriptive geometry)

Since the second paragraph details the kinds of object referred to in greater detail, I have also dropped the initial of ‘things seen, remembered or imaged’ as too narrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Bell (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)