Skip to main content

ahlect034

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">

<TEI.2><teiHeader>

<fileDesc>

<titleStmt>

<title>Theories of representation</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>

<idno>ahlct034</idno>

<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any

way</p>

<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>

</publicationStmt>

<sourceDesc>

<recordingStmt>

<recording dur="00:58:59" n="9302">

<date>06/02/2001</date><equipment><p>audio</p></equipment>

<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>

</respStmt></recording></recordingStmt></sourceDesc></fileDesc>

<profileDesc>

<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

</langUsage>

<particDesc>

<person id="nm0114" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm0114, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0115" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0115, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0116" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0116, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="om0117" role="observer" n="o" sex="m"><p>om0117, observer, observer, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0118" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0118, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0119" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0119, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0120" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0120, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0121" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0121, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0122" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0122, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0123" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0123, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0124" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0124, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0125" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0125, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0126" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0126, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0127" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0127, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0128" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0128, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0129" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0129, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0130" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0130, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0131" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0131, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0132" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0132, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0133" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0133, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0134" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0134, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0135" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0135, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0136" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0136, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0137" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0137, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0138" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0138, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0139" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0139, participant, student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="s"><p>ss, audience, small group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="s"><p>sl, all, small group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="28"><p>number of speakers: 28</p></personGrp>

</particDesc>

<textClass>

<keywords>

<list>

<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">Philosophy</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG3</item>

<item n="module">Aesthetics</item>

</list></keywords>

</textClass>

</profileDesc></teiHeader>

<text><body>

<u who="nm0114"> anyway okay what i want to do today is to <pause dur="0.3"/> try and <pause dur="0.2"/> bring together various other points that i was making last time <pause dur="0.8"/> if you remember what i did last time was to circulate a whole series of different # illustrations of one sort or another <pause dur="0.5"/> and just to make a number of comments about them but not in any particularly systematic way <pause dur="0.6"/> well other than one thing which kind of emerged i think from last week <pause dur="0.6"/> which was that we saw that in a <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> number of different cases in the cases of <pause dur="0.2"/> Roman <pause dur="0.3"/> portrait busts of the first century <pause dur="0.2"/> B-C first century A-D <pause dur="0.4"/> in the case of early photography <pause dur="0.5"/> in the case of caricature <pause dur="0.3"/> in all of those cases <pause dur="0.5"/> it's by <pause dur="0.2"/> a calculated departure <pause dur="0.2"/> from exact resemblance that a higher degree of realism <pause dur="0.4"/> was achieved <pause dur="0.7"/> okay so <pause dur="0.3"/> interesting <pause dur="0.3"/> kind of <pause dur="0.7"/> preliminary conclusion <pause dur="0.8"/> by actually exaggerating for example the <pause dur="0.5"/> # folds of the face in the Roman portrait busts a greater effect of realism was achieved than <pause dur="0.3"/> the actual literal <pause dur="0.5"/> same <pause dur="0.3"/> shape <pause dur="0.2"/> that you get for example in

Madame Tussaud's <pause dur="1.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.5"/> well now what i want to do then is to is to put together <pause dur="0.2"/> some of this into some sort of systematic set of ideas <pause dur="0.6"/> and what i'm going to do is i'm going to consider a number of theories which might be put forward <pause dur="0.5"/> in order to <pause dur="0.3"/> # explain what might be meant by realism in the visual arts <pause dur="0.5"/> so these are different theories which all address themselves to the question <pause dur="0.4"/> what is it for <pause dur="0.3"/> # a painting or a drawing <pause dur="0.5"/> or a visual representation <pause dur="0.3"/> to be <pause dur="0.3"/> realistic <pause dur="1.9"/> okay <pause dur="0.8"/> the <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> the first <pause dur="0.2"/> theory that i'm going to consider <pause dur="0.7"/> is as i said last week one that in fact <pause dur="1.3"/> <trunc>no</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> nobody has ever seriously put forward <pause dur="0.6"/> but an extraordinarily <pause dur="0.2"/> pervasive theory in the sense that remnants of it <pause dur="1.0"/> exist <pause dur="0.4"/> in a great deal of thinking <pause dur="0.4"/> about <pause dur="1.0"/> visual arts and about representation <pause dur="1.1"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> a great deal of it exists <pause dur="0.4"/> as <trunc>r</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> remnants in various theories <pause dur="0.2"/> about <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>wha</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> what it is <pause dur="0.3"/> to be realistic <pause dur="0.8"/> and this theory i'm going to call the resemblance theory or the copy theory <pause dur="1.4"/> <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="13.9"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="12"/> so the

resemblance theory or the copy theory says <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> a painting <pause dur="0.2"/> is realistic <pause dur="0.4"/> to the extent that it resembles <pause dur="0.2"/> what it's of <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> that's <pause dur="0.4"/> the extremely <pause dur="0.4"/> simple <pause dur="0.4"/> theory <pause dur="3.1"/> so we could say that A <pause dur="0.8"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="18"/> is <pause dur="0.5"/> a <pause dur="2.3"/> realistic <pause dur="2.7"/> representation <pause dur="1.2"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> B <pause dur="0.9"/> if <pause dur="1.2"/> A <pause dur="3.8"/> resembles B <pause dur="2.2"/> that's the theory <pause dur="1.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="7.2"/> now <pause dur="0.6"/> i've said that nobody has ever put this forward <pause dur="0.2"/> seriously as a theory <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>b</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> and that <pause dur="0.2"/> because as soon as we <pause dur="0.2"/> come to investigate it we find that there are a number of very significant <pause dur="0.5"/> drawbacks to the theory <pause dur="0.2"/> and it's these drawbacks which have prevented people from <pause dur="0.6"/> ever i think putting it forward seriously <pause dur="1.8"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> and i'm going to <pause dur="2.5"/> run through <pause dur="0.6"/> some of the <pause dur="0.7"/> difficulties <pause dur="1.0"/> okay and i'm going to sort of store up perhaps the <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> well <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> i was going to store up the main ones till the end but i think they're all important difficulties <pause dur="1.2"/> <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.6"/> the first thing is this <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="5.4"/> resemblance and representation <pause dur="6.4"/> resemblance and representation <pause dur="0.4"/> just seem to be two different sorts of things <pause dur="1.5"/> for

example <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> an object resembles itself <pause dur="0.4"/> to the maximum possible degree <pause dur="0.5"/> but very rarely resembles itself <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> resemblance <pause dur="0.3"/> unlike representation <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.2"/> reflexive <pause dur="1.2"/> and resemblance unlike representation is <pause dur="0.2"/> symmetric <pause dur="0.9"/> # in other words what i mean by that okay what do i mean by saying that they are reflexive and they're <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>s</trunc> symmetric <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="2.7"/> resemblance is reflexive <pause dur="0.3"/> a thing resembles itself <pause dur="0.7"/> but representation isn't necessarily reflexive a thing doesn't necessarily represent itself <pause dur="1.2"/> it's symmetric if A resembles B <pause dur="0.4"/> then B resembles A <pause dur="0.8"/> but if A represents B <pause dur="0.3"/> B doesn't necessarily represent A <pause dur="0.7"/> if you think of a painting which is what we're talking about painting or drawing if you think of a painting of the Duke of Wellington <pause dur="0.5"/> Goya's famous painting of the Duke of Wellington <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="3.0"/> how many of you have seen the James Bond film Dr No <pause dur="1.3"/> in when # Bond gets to Dr No's # you know hideout eventually on the wall <pause dur="0.4"/> in his hideout is Goya's portrait of the Duke of Wellington <pause dur="0.4"/> don't know <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>if

you if you realized <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>that that's what it was <pause dur="0.5"/> but at the time when the film was made which of course was quite a long time ago it's one was that the first </u><u who="sm0115" trans="latching"> yeah </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> one yeah </u><u who="sm0115" trans="overlap"> sixty-six <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nm0114" trans="latching"> # the # Goya's portrait of the Duke of Wellington had just been stolen from the National Gallery <pause dur="0.3"/> so it was a kind of in joke you know it was still missing at the time when the film was made it's subsequently been found so the joke was it was Dr No who had it <pause dur="0.4"/> <unclear>anyway</unclear> <pause dur="1.1"/> if we think of <trunc>o</trunc> a <pause dur="0.2"/> portrait <pause dur="0.5"/> but if you don't know the portrait you can imagine it okay <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>y</trunc> you can imagine a portrait <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.9"/> the the military hero the Duke of Wellington <pause dur="0.9"/> okay <pause dur="0.9"/> now it may be <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> the portrait <pause dur="0.2"/> resembles the Duke of Wellington <pause dur="0.3"/> if it's a good one <pause dur="0.7"/> maybe it does <pause dur="0.7"/> okay <pause dur="2.4"/> and it may be that the portrait <pause dur="0.3"/> represents the Duke of Wellington <pause dur="0.3"/> in fact it certainly does <pause dur="1.6"/> but the Duke of Wellington <pause dur="1.5"/> who if the portrait resembles him <pause dur="0.4"/> he resembles the portrait <pause dur="1.8"/> he doesn't represent the

portrait <pause dur="0.9"/> do you understand <pause dur="0.3"/> it's just not symmetrical <pause dur="0.6"/> we wouldn't want to say we wouldn't want to say we don't say <pause dur="0.4"/> that the Duke of Wellington is a good representation of his portrait <pause dur="1.1"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> now of course there are reasons why we don't say that which we're <pause dur="0.2"/> which we're going to come on to in a minute or two <pause dur="1.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.5"/> # <pause dur="5.1"/> the things which resemble each other closely <pause dur="0.6"/> don't necessarily represent each other <pause dur="0.9"/> # for instance <pause dur="0.6"/> twins identical twins <pause dur="0.2"/> resemble each other closely <pause dur="0.4"/> but they don't necessarily represent each other one could represent the other <pause dur="0.6"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> not necessarily <pause dur="0.7"/> or <pause dur="0.3"/> the cars off an assembly line might all resemble each other very much but one doesn't represent <pause dur="0.2"/> another <pause dur="0.6"/> so all of these are just thoughts about <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> you know that we haven't yet put our finger on exactly what it is <pause dur="0.3"/> but these are thoughts about the way in which resemblance and representation seem to be two different sorts of thing <pause dur="0.7"/> we're going to see what the difference is in just a second or two <pause dur="2.6"/> but

there's a further problem <pause dur="0.7"/> and the further problem is this <pause dur="0.7"/> this theory assumes that there is some way of kind of telling <pause dur="0.4"/> whether A resembles B <pause dur="0.6"/> some way of telling as it were <pause dur="0.4"/> objectively <pause dur="0.2"/> whether A resembles B <pause dur="0.5"/> A is a realistic representation of B if A resembles B <pause dur="0.4"/> that assumes that we can tell in some way <pause dur="0.3"/> whether A resembles B <pause dur="0.9"/> and the problem there <pause dur="0.4"/> the problem there is this <pause dur="1.1"/> that resemblance <pause dur="0.4"/> turns out to be rather a kind of squishy notion when we come to look at it <pause dur="0.8"/> because the fact is <pause dur="0.4"/> that as <pause dur="0.2"/> riddles constantly suggest to us <pause dur="0.6"/> anything can resemble anything else <pause dur="0.7"/> in some way or other <pause dur="0.4"/> you know in what way is a raven like a scrubbing brush or something like that those sort of questions that come up in Alice in <pause dur="0.5"/> Wonderland and so on <pause dur="0.5"/> and if you're ingenious enough <pause dur="0.2"/> you can think of <pause dur="0.4"/> ways <pause dur="0.9"/> you know in what <trunc>g</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> in what way does George W <pause dur="0.2"/> Bush resemble a and then you know <trunc>a</trunc> put in anything and you come up with some <pause dur="0.8"/> witty answer <pause dur="1.6"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/> we can think of ways in

which <pause dur="0.3"/> almost anything <pause dur="0.5"/> can resemble <pause dur="0.2"/> almost anything else <pause dur="1.7"/> and if that's true which i think it is <pause dur="0.4"/> in other words resemblance isn't as it were a single objective relationship that exists between two objects <pause dur="1.8"/> one object resembles another in some way or other <pause dur="1.1"/> if that's the case <pause dur="0.3"/> then <pause dur="0.5"/> it's not very good as a criterion <pause dur="0.2"/> of realistic representation <pause dur="1.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> that's <trunc>pr</trunc> some preliminary thoughts now we want to as i <pause dur="0.2"/> was indicating get on to perhaps the <pause dur="0.9"/> more <pause dur="1.4"/> serious points <pause dur="1.1"/> one reason why representation and resemblance aren't quite the same <pause dur="1.4"/> or aren't <pause dur="0.5"/> the same at all <pause dur="1.1"/> is that representation <pause dur="0.2"/> involves the notion of intention <pause dur="0.9"/> and that's what <pause dur="0.8"/> resemblance <pause dur="0.2"/> lacks <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> let's <pause dur="12.7"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="11"/> representation involves intention <pause dur="0.6"/> for one thing to represent <pause dur="0.2"/> another <pause dur="0.9"/> some sort of intention must be involved <pause dur="1.2"/> but resemblance as it were <pause dur="0.2"/> exists <pause dur="0.6"/> in the world <pause dur="0.2"/> as we might want to say <pause dur="0.2"/> quite apart from <pause dur="0.4"/> human <pause dur="0.2"/> thoughts <pause dur="0.5"/> whereas representation <pause dur="0.5"/> only exists via <pause dur="0.7"/> human intention <pause dur="1.5"/> so one thing represents another only if

there's some sort of human intention involved <pause dur="0.5"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> representation of course <pause dur="1.8"/> is a very very general <pause dur="0.4"/> term <pause dur="0.6"/> and representation can be involved in for instance parliamentary representation an M-P represents a constituency <pause dur="0.9"/> the M-P represents a constituency <pause dur="0.5"/> through <pause dur="0.4"/> a variety of different human intentions that isn't a natural relationship <pause dur="0.5"/> you understand what i'm trying to say there <pause dur="0.5"/> we don't <pause dur="0.2"/> pick somebody to be an M-P because they <pause dur="0.4"/> you know objectively represent their constituency <pause dur="0.7"/> you know oh they're they're <pause dur="1.1"/> really fat so they have the same shape as the South Riding of Yorkshire constituent it doesn't mean like that they don't it's not because there's some <pause dur="0.3"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> in nature existing <pause dur="1.5"/> resemblance between <pause dur="0.2"/> the M-P <pause dur="0.2"/> no <pause dur="0.5"/> that man represents the constituency because the constituents have chosen that man to represent the constituency <pause dur="0.8"/> okay <pause dur="0.6"/> and representation <pause dur="0.2"/> whether <pause dur="0.6"/> an M-P's representation or in language or in art <pause dur="0.4"/> is something that <pause dur="0.2"/> involves <pause dur="0.5"/> intention to some degree <pause dur="0.3"/>

whereas resembles <trunc>la</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> resemblance lacks that <pause dur="0.2"/> and that's one reason why <pause dur="0.4"/> this is not going to be a good account <pause dur="2.9"/> there's some <pause dur="0.5"/> further reasons why <pause dur="0.3"/> it won't be <pause dur="0.4"/> a good account as well <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> and one of these is the problem of fictions <pause dur="6.4"/>

<kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> the problem of fictions <pause dur="2.9"/> in giving any reasonable account of realistic representation <pause dur="0.9"/> we must take into account the fact that <pause dur="1.1"/> A can be a realistic representation of B <pause dur="0.4"/> where B is something that doesn't exist <pause dur="0.8"/> okay <pause dur="1.5"/> we can have <pause dur="0.6"/> you know a super-realistic drawing or painting of <pause dur="0.6"/> a unicorn <pause dur="0.6"/> for example <pause dur="2.3"/> or of <pause dur="0.4"/> Mr Pickwick <pause dur="1.9"/> or of <pause dur="0.5"/> a battle <pause dur="0.3"/> that never took place <pause dur="0.9"/> or of a landscape that never existed <pause dur="1.7"/> and i think that it's just straightforwardly true <pause dur="0.6"/> that we ascribe to various sorts of visual <pause dur="0.2"/> representation <pause dur="0.7"/> the label realistic <pause dur="0.3"/> even when <pause dur="2.2"/> what they are representations of <pause dur="0.5"/> never actually existed <pause dur="0.3"/> that's the problem of fictions <pause dur="0.7"/> and of course <pause dur="0.5"/> the resemblance or copy theory just can't account for that <pause dur="1.5"/> this painting is a realistic representation

of Mr Pickwick <pause dur="0.4"/> if the painting resembles Mr Pickwick well if Mr Pickwick never existed the painting can't <pause dur="0.2"/> resemble him <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> so the problem of fictions <pause dur="0.6"/> the copy theory just couldn't <pause dur="1.3"/> cope with <pause dur="2.2"/> # <pause dur="7.2"/> i think that's <pause dur="0.4"/> really <pause dur="1.2"/> enough <pause dur="0.3"/> on the resemblance theory <pause dur="0.6"/> # and i've given you enough reasons i think for supposing that it's not going to be <pause dur="0.7"/> # a good theory <pause dur="1.1"/> although of course as i say <pause dur="0.2"/> vestiges of it <pause dur="0.8"/> you know crop up all the time i mean it's the most obvious <pause dur="0.3"/> it's the most obvious explanation of realistic representation isn't it <pause dur="0.3"/> the painting <pause dur="0.5"/> is realistic 'cause it looks like the thing it resembles the thing you know it's the kind of the naive the obvious <pause dur="0.4"/> explanation <pause dur="0.5"/> but when we try and erect it into a theory <pause dur="0.5"/> it just <pause dur="0.5"/> doesn't seem to work <pause dur="1.0"/> okay so we've got to think of <pause dur="0.2"/> # some other theory <pause dur="1.2"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> one of the most <pause dur="0.2"/> powerful theories that has been put forward and one of the most influential theories <event desc="knocks off microphone" iterated="n"/><gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/><event desc="reattaches microphone" iterated="y" dur="26"/> i've knocked my microphone off <pause dur="3.0"/><gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> damaged your <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="om0117" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/> <pause dur="3.2"/> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nm0114" trans="latching"> yeah </u><pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="om0117" trans="pause"> and then </u><pause dur="1.9"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> must have got caught on something </u><pause dur="2.8"/> <u who="om0117" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/> </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> <pause dur="0.8"/> can you put that over there <pause dur="3.6"/> okay </u><pause dur="1.4"/> <u who="sf0116" trans="pause"> now when you take your glasses off it's going to go <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> ah

thank you <pause dur="0.2"/> yes <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="2"/> <vocal desc="laughter" n="sl" iterated="y" dur="2"/> kind of imposssible knot <pause dur="0.5"/> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/></u><u who="om0117" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> underneath the glasses then </u><u who="nm0114" trans="latching"> well that might be a help yeah <pause dur="5.0"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> thanks <pause dur="1.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.5"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> the theory i'm going to consider next <pause dur="0.2"/> i say <pause dur="0.4"/> one of the most influential theories in this area <pause dur="0.5"/> i'm going to call the deception theory <pause dur="9.7"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="5"/> and the deception theory <pause dur="0.9"/> says <pause dur="0.2"/> more or less <pause dur="0.5"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> to put it at its simplest <pause dur="0.8"/> that <pause dur="4.4"/> A is a realistic representation of B <pause dur="11.2"/> if <pause dur="2.6"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="25"/> the <pause dur="0.6"/> audience <pause dur="1.6"/> are <pause dur="2.4"/> deceived <pause dur="2.4"/> into <pause dur="2.8"/> thinking <pause dur="2.0"/> they <pause dur="0.5"/> are <pause dur="3.9"/> in the presence <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> B <pause dur="0.6"/> okay </u><pause dur="7.0"/> <u who="sm0118" trans="pause"> well yeah but surely somebody looking at a painting of # Mr Pickwick doesn't believe they're actually in the presence of him </u><pause dur="1.0"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> well <pause dur="0.2"/> <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sf0119" trans="pause"> well but <pause dur="0.2"/> if you <pause dur="0.3"/> have a painting of a window for example in a room <pause dur="0.8"/> # and there is another window a real window similar <pause dur="0.2"/> you can <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> you can confuse that painting of the real window </u><u who="sm0118" trans="overlap"> oh certainly i'm not saying it doesn't work for some things </u><u who="sf0119" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 word"/> </u><u who="sm0118" trans="overlap"> absolutely </u><u who="nm0114" trans="latching"> well let's <trunc>ju</trunc> let's let's look at it okay <pause dur="0.7"/> i mean there <trunc>m</trunc> there may be things wrong with this theory

but there may also be some <pause dur="0.3"/> advantages in this theory <pause dur="0.8"/> i think as a matter of fact that # <pause dur="0.2"/> there are <pause dur="0.3"/> some <pause dur="1.2"/> there are two at least big advantages of this theory <pause dur="1.1"/> the first is that <pause dur="0.2"/> actually just to <pause dur="0.3"/> deal with Ben's point directly <pause dur="0.4"/> i think that it <pause dur="0.7"/> it gets over <pause dur="0.5"/> the point of fictions <pause dur="1.0"/> because <pause dur="0.9"/> <trunc>f</trunc> for this reason <pause dur="0.5"/> that you can of course be deceived into thinking you're in the presence of a unicorn <pause dur="0.2"/> you could you could be <pause dur="0.4"/> okay it's possible <pause dur="0.9"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> the painting couldn't actually resemble a unicorn because there isn't actually a uncorn <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="1.2"/> the somebody somebody could be deceived into thinking they were in the presence of Mr Pickwick i mean you might not be <pause dur="0.3"/> okay </u><u who="sm0118" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> yeah it's okay so </u><u who="sm0118" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/></u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> yeah <pause dur="0.7"/> so whether or not <pause dur="0.2"/> whether or not B has ever actually existed is quite a separate point from whether people can be deceived into thinking <pause dur="0.5"/> that they're seeing them <pause dur="0.2"/> you remember <pause dur="0.2"/> you know that case that that in the early years of this century about the # <pause dur="0.5"/> the two

young girls who said that they met fairies at the bottom of the garden </u><u who="sf0120" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="sm0121" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> that's right remember those and </u><u who="sf0122" trans="overlap"> it was on T-V recently </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> and <trunc>m</trunc> and many people were as it were deceived into thinking that they were seeing representations of fairies okay <pause dur="0.3"/> # i mean this is this is a slightly different from here what i'm pointing out is <pause dur="0.3"/> that it's possible for people to be deceived into thinking that they're seeing things which actually didn't exist <pause dur="0.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.8"/> so it deals with the it deals with the problem of fictions <pause dur="0.5"/> and i think another thing that it does another thing that this theory does <pause dur="0.3"/> is that it brings in a reference to the audience <pause dur="0.6"/> and i think that's a very important and i see that as an advantage of the deception theory <pause dur="0.5"/> and i see it as an advantage of the deception theory for this reason <pause dur="0.7"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> notoriously <pause dur="0.2"/> standards of realism <pause dur="0.4"/> shift and change <pause dur="0.3"/> across time <pause dur="0.3"/> and across different societies <pause dur="0.7"/> and if we had a theory like the resemblance theory it seems to put forward as it were an absolute

criterion for realism <pause dur="0.8"/> it becomes difficult to explain how these shifting standards of realism over time <pause dur="0.3"/> or over societies could occur <pause dur="0.6"/> but if we bring in reference to the audience <pause dur="0.4"/> then we've got built into this theory a way in which we can <pause dur="0.4"/> account for that <pause dur="0.5"/> because <pause dur="0.9"/> it may be that some people are deceived into thinking that they're in the presence of B <pause dur="0.5"/> and other people are not <pause dur="0.3"/> so for some people <pause dur="0.3"/> this painting may be realistic <pause dur="0.5"/> and for other people it won't be <pause dur="0.4"/> and that simply accords with <pause dur="0.5"/> the facts of art history <pause dur="0.2"/> for example <pause dur="0.6"/> i mean # <pause dur="0.2"/> famously in art history there are paintings which were <pause dur="0.8"/> when they were first painted and put put on exhibition were greeted <pause dur="0.2"/> by people as being highly unrealistic <pause dur="0.3"/> and which later came to be accepted as realistic and Turner is the <pause dur="0.3"/> perhaps the best example of that but it happens again and again and again in the history of art <pause dur="0.7"/> and that <pause dur="0.2"/> shifting standard of realism <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> can be explained if we introduced into the definition of what realism is some <pause dur="0.2"/>

reference <pause dur="0.2"/> to <pause dur="0.4"/> the audience <pause dur="0.9"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.8"/> two advantages it deals with the problems of the fictions and it <pause dur="0.3"/> it brings in a reference to the audience so helps to explain the shift in standards <pause dur="1.9"/> however <pause dur="1.1"/> it's got one i think <trunc>obviou</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> oh i should say that this theory the deception theory <pause dur="0.5"/> has been most <pause dur="0.2"/> forcefully <pause dur="0.5"/> # argued for <pause dur="0.3"/> # by <pause dur="0.5"/> Ernst Gombrich <pause dur="2.0"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> in <pause dur="0.6"/> a large number of <pause dur="0.6"/> books <pause dur="2.1"/> from the nineteen-fifties onwards <pause dur="1.1"/> Ernst Gombrich one of the great <pause dur="0.2"/> writers on <pause dur="0.2"/> art and art criticism <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> and this is his theory that i'm essentially discussing <pause dur="0.2"/> now the deception theory <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="blows nose" iterated="n"/><pause dur="3.6"/> okay <pause dur="1.1"/> so it's got some advantages but it's got one <pause dur="0.2"/> principal disadvantage <pause dur="0.5"/> and that is that it's <pause dur="0.5"/> obviously false <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean it's just straightforwardly <pause dur="0.2"/> obviously false <pause dur="0.9"/> it's <pause dur="0.2"/> obviously false <pause dur="0.3"/> when a painting that you think is realistic deceives you into thinking you're in the presence of the <pause dur="0.6"/> thing that's represented <pause dur="0.6"/> i mean that just is straightforwardly false <pause dur="0.8"/> you may think <pause dur="0.2"/> i think <pause dur="0.3"/> for example that Constable is frequently

a highly realistic painter his painting of <pause dur="1.3"/> Salisbury Cathedral for example <pause dur="0.7"/> seems to me to be <pause dur="0.6"/> you know one of the masterpieces of <pause dur="0.9"/> of realism Jan van Eyck is a master of realism <pause dur="1.9"/> you know the painting of Salisbury Cathedral you looked at it </u><u who="sf0123" trans="overlap"> i'm sure we haven't </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> but we're not we're not for a moment look <pause dur="0.5"/> you know there's <pause dur="0.3"/> you know <pause dur="0.4"/> are you now thinking wow <pause dur="0.2"/> we didn't know Salisbury Cathedral was so close to <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="0.9"/> no you're not <pause dur="0.2"/> you're not <trunc>d</trunc> you're not at all deceived into thinking <pause dur="0.5"/> that you're in <pause dur="0.3"/> the presence of Salisbury Cathedral <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> it's <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> straightforward disadvantage of this theory is that it's obviously false <pause dur="0.2"/> okay so we'll have to see <pause dur="0.5"/> what Gombrich says to that <pause dur="0.2"/> yeah </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sf0124" trans="pause"> could you not <pause dur="0.3"/> instead of being in the presence of think that if i was standing at that particular point where it's drawn from <pause dur="0.2"/> that would be the same as the image that i would see <pause dur="0.7"/> on my retina </u><pause dur="1.5"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> yes <pause dur="1.0"/> we could say that <pause dur="0.4"/> and so that's <pause dur="0.5"/> that suggestion <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>i</trunc> leads on to something i'm

going to <pause dur="0.3"/> talk about <pause dur="0.8"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="11"/> in <pause dur="1.3"/> a minute <pause dur="0.2"/> which is the diaphanous plane <pause dur="0.2"/> experiment i'm going to explain that <pause dur="0.2"/> but i'm just writing it up to remind me <pause dur="1.6"/> to deal with that particular the particular point you've just <trunc>rai</trunc> the diaphanous plane experiment and that i will explain what that means <pause dur="1.8"/> okay <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> so first of all i should say having <pause dur="2.1"/> pointed out about a theory which has been so influentially argued in <pause dur="0.2"/> a number of very large books by a very famous art critic over many years <pause dur="0.8"/> having pointed out that it's just straightforwardly false you may think well goodness me <pause dur="0.4"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>i mean did this man devote his whole life to <pause dur="0.4"/> you know arguing for a theory that's just <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.2"/> so obviously wrong <pause dur="0.5"/> well what he does is that he <pause dur="1.0"/> tries to <pause dur="1.9"/> introduce a series of qualifiers into the theory in various ways <pause dur="0.6"/> you know A is a realistic representation of B <pause dur="0.4"/> if the audience <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.7"/> tend to be <pause dur="2.9"/> deceived into thinking <pause dur="0.2"/> that they're in the presence of B or phrases like that <pause dur="0.5"/> okay so what Gombrich

says is okay now of course of course i agree <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> the conditions of staging for example of a painting <pause dur="0.6"/> i'll explain that in a minute conditions of staging <pause dur="0.3"/> the conditions of staging of a painting <pause dur="0.6"/> mean that we are very rarely deceived into thinking that we're <trunc>ac</trunc> we're actually in the presence of the thing depicted <pause dur="0.6"/> but there's all the same as it were a tendency to be deceived and that given the right conditions of staging we would be deceived <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> the idea behind the conditions of staging is this <pause dur="0.4"/> of course you didn't think <pause dur="0.2"/> when i showed you that painting <pause dur="0.7"/> that you were in the presence of Salisbury Cathedral <pause dur="0.5"/> course you didn't think that <pause dur="1.0"/> for one reason <pause dur="1.7"/> we're in <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> for another reason <pause dur="1.0"/> you know i'm holding up this reproduction it's obviously a reproduction in a book and so on there are all sorts of things about the conditions of staging <pause dur="0.5"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> mean that you're <pause dur="0.7"/> unlikely <pause dur="0.5"/> unless unhinged to think you're in the presence of Salisbury Cathedral <pause dur="0.9"/> but suppose <pause dur="0.2"/>

if it this is a bit like your point <pause dur="0.3"/> little bit like it we're going to come <pause dur="0.4"/> more on more onto your point with the diaphanous plane experiment <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> suppose that we were <pause dur="0.5"/> in a house in Salisbury <pause dur="0.4"/> and suppose we got Constable's painting <pause dur="0.5"/> and suppose we put it at the end of a room <pause dur="0.4"/> and suppose we placed <pause dur="0.3"/> Constable's painting behind the leaded windows <pause dur="0.2"/> with curtains in front <pause dur="0.4"/> and suppose we arranged the lighting in the room <pause dur="0.4"/> such that you know when somebody came into the room <pause dur="0.4"/> and they looked down the end of the room they'll say oh i didn't realize you had a view of the cathedral from here <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> now there would be <pause dur="0.4"/> a situation where somebody was deceived into thinking they were in the presence of the object depicted <pause dur="0.3"/> the conditions of staging were <pause dur="0.2"/> were right <pause dur="0.2"/> a little bit <pause dur="0.3"/> like your point <pause dur="0.8"/>

okay <pause dur="1.1"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> this tendency to be deceived there's a tendency to <trunc>bes</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> be deceived you know given the <pause dur="0.2"/> appropriate <pause dur="0.3"/> staging or setting <pause dur="1.3"/> now <pause dur="0.8"/> before i get on to <pause dur="0.2"/> talking in more detail about <pause dur="0.2"/> what lies behind this and the and the diaphanous plane experiment <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.7"/> there's something that i want to point out that <pause dur="1.4"/><vocal desc="sigh" iterated="n"/> i <pause dur="0.2"/> i don't find that <pause dur="0.5"/> i don't find this qualification of the theory very satisfactory <pause dur="1.0"/> one reason is this that <pause dur="2.7"/> people can be deceived into thinking they're in the presence of <pause dur="0.2"/> an object <pause dur="0.7"/> in all sorts of different ways <pause dur="0.9"/> and all sorts of different ways that have nothing to do <pause dur="0.4"/> with the realism of the representation at all <pause dur="1.0"/> i mean for example <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> you wouldn't take <pause dur="0.7"/> you know that shape that i've just drawn on the board to be <pause dur="0.3"/> a realistic representation of a human being i take it <pause dur="0.2"/> i can't you know i <pause dur="0.2"/> i take i don't <pause dur="0.6"/> can't see how you could think that's a realistic representation of a human being <pause dur="0.6"/> but i can imagine conditions of staging such that you might be

deceived into thinking that it was a human being <pause dur="1.1"/> E-G you know <pause dur="0.2"/> after a late night at the union we decide to break in to the Language Resource Centre and we do that and we creep upstairs and we try and find the room where the lectures are and it's all in the dark and we come into this room and it's very very dark <pause dur="0.3"/> there's a slight bit of illumination which illuminates the board and we go aagh <pause dur="0.2"/> <vocal desc="gasp" iterated="n"/> somebody there okay <pause dur="0.5"/> we're deceived into thinking that that shape is a person it could could happen couldn't it <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean <pause dur="1.2"/> or the fact that people are deceived <pause dur="0.2"/> tells us it seems to me <pause dur="0.4"/> more about <pause dur="0.6"/> them and their state <pause dur="0.4"/> and the conditions of staging <pause dur="0.2"/> than about <pause dur="0.2"/> the thing it is that deceives them </u><u who="sm0125" trans="latching"> yeah as soon as you bring in a qualifier you've got two extremes of a totally unrealistic thing being able to be realistic <pause dur="0.2"/> okay </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> yeah </u><u who="sm0125" trans="overlap"> by this definition <pause dur="0.3"/> and a totally realistic thing being completely unrealistic by this definition </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> exactly it's the <pause dur="0.2"/> exactly </u><u who="sm0125" trans="overlap"> so it includes and excludes absolutely everything at the same time </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> that's

right <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> it's a death by a thousand qualifications as it were as soon in you put in the qualification <pause dur="0.4"/> well it's well <pause dur="0.2"/> that part of it i think yeah <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <pause dur="3.3"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="14.3"/> <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> okay the first thing <pause dur="0.2"/> i want to <pause dur="0.3"/> go on to is the diaphanous plane experiment <pause dur="9.3"/> this was an extraordinarily <pause dur="1.6"/> pervasive <pause dur="0.2"/> idea <pause dur="0.2"/> in the <pause dur="1.3"/> <trunc>fif</trunc> late fifteenth <pause dur="0.2"/> sixteenth seventeenth centuries <pause dur="3.4"/> in fact up to the eighteenth or nineteenth century as well but particularly at that time the diaphanous plane experiment <pause dur="1.0"/> the idea <pause dur="0.2"/> of the diaphanous plane experiment is this <pause dur="0.8"/> how can we <pause dur="0.4"/> produce a perfectly realistic painting <pause dur="0.8"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> that there's the question <pause dur="0.5"/> how can we produce a perfectly realistic painting <pause dur="1.1"/> and in the history of western art <pause dur="1.2"/> after <pause dur="0.6"/> the secularization of <pause dur="0.6"/> the subject matter of art and after the introduction of linear perspective as a mode of representation <pause dur="0.6"/> then the idea of realistic representation became <pause dur="0.9"/> very important in the minds of many artists and they wanted

to produce <pause dur="0.4"/> paintings that were as realistic as possible <pause dur="0.7"/> so what would be the means of producing the most realistic possible <pause dur="0.2"/> painting <pause dur="1.5"/> and the an idea which many of them had <pause dur="0.8"/> i think it's <pause dur="0.2"/> possible but i can't remember whether i handed round # <pause dur="0.9"/> i don't </u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="sm0126" trans="pause"> sorry did you say this was <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> this this is an idea which started in the <pause dur="0.2"/> in the fifteenth century for instance <trunc>albe</trunc> Albrecht Dürer </u><u who="sm0127" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> <pause dur="0.6"/> exact contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci <pause dur="0.2"/> Dürer <pause dur="0.7"/> # yeah <pause dur="0.8"/> # for example was taken by this idea as was Vermeer <pause dur="0.8"/> great <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> Flemish artist <pause dur="0.8"/> but it <trunc>w</trunc> it went through i mean the point then was it went right through in a way to # <pause dur="0.3"/> the early nineteenth century as well <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> here <pause dur="1.1"/> is <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> a woodcut <pause dur="0.2"/> of somebody carrying out <pause dur="0.2"/> the diaphanous plane experiment so you can pass that around and i'll talk about it <pause dur="0.7"/> now the idea of it is this <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.7"/> in order to produce a perfectly realistic representation what we do is we get the scene that we want to represent for example <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.6"/> if i <pause dur="0.2"/> take <pause dur="0.8"/> this <pause dur="0.4"/> building <pause dur="0.3"/> whatever that is what's that building is that is # <pause dur="1.4"/>

Animal and Microbial Sciences okay <pause dur="0.6"/> i want to produce a perfectly realistic representation of that building <pause dur="1.4"/> then what i do is i get between me and the building <pause dur="0.2"/> a diaphanous <pause dur="0.2"/> diaphanous meaning transparent <pause dur="0.6"/> diaphanous is a phrase which is a a word which is most often used now to apply to women's dresses <pause dur="0.5"/> a diaphanous dress meaning a kind of transparent you know <pause dur="0.6"/> Jennifer Lopez type dress or whatever <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="1"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> but it just means transparent <pause dur="0.3"/> so we get a transparent <pause dur="0.3"/> plane and by <pause dur="0.2"/> plane we just mean a a <pause dur="0.2"/> plane <pause dur="0.5"/> you know flat surface <pause dur="0.3"/> and okay so a very good example of a diaphanous plane is precisely <pause dur="0.4"/> a piece of glass <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> so there is a diaphanous plane <pause dur="0.2"/> so between us and the scene we want to represent is a diaphanous plane the piece of glass </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sm0127" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> and then what i do is this just listen to the technique involved in the diaphanous plane experiment <pause dur="1.0"/> what i do is i mix my paints <pause dur="1.1"/> and i take <pause dur="0.4"/> some <pause dur="0.3"/> point <pause dur="0.7"/> on <pause dur="0.2"/> the diaphanous plane <pause dur="0.7"/> and what i do is i put a

blob of paint we can imagine this being done <pause dur="0.3"/> you know blob of paint by blob of paint <pause dur="0.7"/> you know <pause dur="0.3"/> tiny little point like that <pause dur="0.4"/> i put a blob of paint <pause dur="0.5"/> which <pause dur="0.7"/> then exactly matches <pause dur="0.2"/> the colour <pause dur="0.5"/> of what lies behind it <pause dur="0.4"/> what i see behind it <pause dur="0.4"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> so i mix my paints in such a way that at each stage when i put <pause dur="0.4"/> a blob of paint on the piece of glass <pause dur="0.5"/> it <pause dur="0.3"/> then <pause dur="0.2"/> covers up what lies behind it <pause dur="0.5"/> I-E <pause dur="0.4"/> Animal and Microbial Sciences building <pause dur="0.4"/> but also is exactly the same colour as and i just make sure that i match all the colours <pause dur="0.6"/> and then when i've filled the diaphanous plane with paint <pause dur="0.6"/> what i have is something that <pause dur="0.2"/> conceals what lies behind it <pause dur="0.4"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> exactly matches what lies behind it <pause dur="0.3"/> such that if i've done this if i've performed this experiment successfully <pause dur="0.4"/> such that <pause dur="0.5"/> we can't tell <pause dur="0.3"/> the diaphanous plane as it were <pause dur="0.6"/> is is now <pause dur="0.2"/> metaphorically still diaphanous <pause dur="0.5"/> you know it it isn't any longer really transparent because i've put paint on it <pause dur="0.3"/> but it's as if it were still transparent <pause dur="0.5"/>

because <pause dur="0.6"/> we can't <pause dur="0.2"/> tell looking at it <pause dur="0.4"/> that it covers <pause dur="0.3"/> what it conceals because it <pause dur="0.2"/> it covers and exactly matches what it conceals <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.6"/> that's the idea of the diaphanous plane experiment <pause dur="0.6"/> and throughout <pause dur="0.2"/> i i've come back in a minute </u><u who="sm0127" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> and throughout the <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> # fifteenth century up to the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> this remained a kind of ideal <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.5"/> # the perfectly realistic painting <pause dur="0.8"/> and indeed <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> development of the camera <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> arose out of such a set of ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> i don't i haven't got time to go into this now but i mean it would be interesting to talk about this <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> the camera <pause dur="2.2"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> it's interesting this isn't it why why do we call an apparatus for taking photographs <pause dur="0.3"/> with the Italian or Latin name for a room because that's what camera is <pause dur="0.9"/> camera's Latin for room <pause dur="0.3"/> well <pause dur="0.6"/> the reason is this <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="1.0"/> in the <pause dur="0.7"/> sixteenth seventeenth eighteenth century <pause dur="0.7"/> art people very <pause dur="0.7"/> often had <pause dur="1.0"/> camera obscuras <pause dur="0.8"/> # there still are camera obscuras there's one in Edinburgh has anybody seen the camera obscura in

Edinburgh </u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="sf0128" trans="pause"> yeah </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> and a camera obscura is a darkened room and that's what it actually literally means camera obscura a darkened room <pause dur="0.7"/> and in within the darkened room you have thrown onto a wall or onto a table <trunc>depe</trunc> depending where the thing is <pause dur="0.3"/> you have thrown onto a wall or a table an image <pause dur="0.4"/> which comes into the room <pause dur="0.2"/> by means of a <pause dur="0.2"/> say a pinhole of light <pause dur="0.5"/> or perhaps a a lens <pause dur="0.4"/> which then casts an image of what lights lies outside the room <pause dur="0.3"/> onto the table <pause dur="0.4"/> and the camera obscura in Edinburgh is indeed a fascinating thing because you can go into that room and with the <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>powerf</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> powerful lens that they have they can <pause dur="0.3"/> show you in this darkened room the whole of Edinburgh the camera obscura is in a high point near the castle <pause dur="0.6"/> and they can rotate round at the top of this <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>r</trunc> room a <trunc>p</trunc> a powerful telescope and they can kind of home in on <pause dur="0.5"/> you know a couple who are sitting together a mile away from this room in a on a <pause dur="0.4"/> chair in Princes Street Gardens and you can read the

headlines on their papers and so on it's such a kind of fantastic thing there <pause dur="0.4"/> on the table in front of you are these people <pause dur="0.2"/> an amazing idea <pause dur="0.8"/> okay <pause dur="0.5"/> and artists wanted to use the camera obscura to help them produce paintings and so what they did was that they produced portable <pause dur="0.4"/> camera obscuras this one in Edinburgh is a large room <pause dur="0.4"/> but you produce a portable camera obscura <pause dur="0.5"/> my <pause dur="0.2"/> grandfather was an artist and he had a portable camera obscura <pause dur="0.4"/> and what it what it consisted of was a was a wooden <pause dur="0.2"/> box <pause dur="0.8"/> and that's about the <pause dur="0.3"/> actual size of one side of the wooden box <pause dur="0.5"/> in the front of which was <pause dur="0.6"/> a lens which you could rotate around <pause dur="0.9"/> and then <pause dur="0.9"/> there was a <pause dur="1.8"/> a lid that you could lift up <pause dur="0.3"/> and you'd put a sort of black <pause dur="0.6"/> cloak around you so you could then look in <pause dur="0.5"/> to this <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="4.6"/> # machine <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> you there's a piece of ground glass <pause dur="0.2"/> there <pause dur="0.6"/> and an image of what lay outside would be <pause dur="0.8"/> formed on this ground glass and you could then look down onto the ground glass and see you know <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> image of the scenes around you <pause dur="0.7"/> and

then if you wanted you could put a piece of <pause dur="0.8"/> # fairly thin paper on top of that and draw the outlines of objects <pause dur="0.3"/> and so you know <pause dur="0.2"/> produce a <pause dur="0.2"/> a good <pause dur="0.2"/> sketch of the <pause dur="0.3"/> scene that you were looking at <pause dur="0.7"/> and so that was were a portable camera obscura <pause dur="0.6"/> and because <pause dur="0.2"/> people in the early nineteenth century became interested in the idea of somehow other fixing this image <pause dur="0.2"/> that the camera started <pause dur="0.2"/> they started treating the <pause dur="0.6"/> you know the paper here with chemicals such that the images which <pause dur="0.4"/> were <pause dur="0.2"/> put onto the paper were <pause dur="0.6"/> kept <pause dur="0.4"/> permanent <pause dur="0.3"/> and that was how the camera started <pause dur="0.8"/> that's why the camera's called a camera that's why it's called a room 'cause it developed out of the camera obscura the portable camera obscura and that itself out of the darkened room <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <pause dur="0.7"/> and that's just <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>m</trunc> # by the way <pause dur="0.6"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <trunc>ba</trunc> Ben what was it what were you going to say </u><u who="sm0129" trans="overlap"> you'll probably get onto it </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> yeah </u><u who="sm0129" trans="overlap"> i'll leave you to go before i mention </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> all right okay all right </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="sm0129" trans="pause"> yeah </u><pause dur="2.7"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> but there's a problem <pause dur="0.8"/> there's a problem with the

diaphanous plane experiment <pause dur="0.5"/> in fact there are whole series of problems <pause dur="0.5"/> and interestingly enough it's a project <pause dur="0.5"/> which you can't actually succeed in carrying out <pause dur="0.8"/> i'm not <pause dur="0.2"/> i'm not saying it's very difficult to carry out i'm saying you can't carry it out it's actually <pause dur="0.4"/> impossible <pause dur="0.7"/> to produce <pause dur="0.4"/> by this means <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> a <pause dur="0.8"/> perfectly realistic representation of the scene which lies behind <pause dur="0.6"/> and i'm going to try to explain some of the difficulties <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.8"/> we're starting with some of the more obvious difficulties <pause dur="0.4"/> the first thing is this <pause dur="0.8"/> that of course if i actually put my finger on the glass which i am doing now <pause dur="0.6"/> and i <pause dur="0.2"/> put it such that it <pause dur="0.5"/> is trying to cover that window there <pause dur="0.6"/> what actually is happening is that i see <pause dur="0.2"/> two images of my finger when i concentrate on the on the window i see two images of my finger which lie either side of that window <pause dur="1.3"/> 'cause i've got two eyes <pause dur="0.5"/> and the finger which is near me when i then when i then focus <pause dur="0.6"/> on the thing which is further away i see <pause dur="0.2"/> two <pause dur="0.5"/> fingers <pause dur="0.3"/> you <trunc>under</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> you understand what i'm saying there <pause dur="2.0"/>

so <pause dur="1.8"/> when i put a blob of paint <pause dur="0.3"/> where my finger is <pause dur="0.7"/> which bit of what lies behind should it cover up <pause dur="0.5"/> there are two bits which it covers up <pause dur="0.8"/> oh well look <pause dur="0.2"/> you might say look <pause dur="1.3"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> it's not a problem <pause dur="0.6"/> close one eye <pause dur="1.7"/> okay so we've got to close one eye <pause dur="2.1"/> the next thing is <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.2"/> if i <pause dur="0.6"/> close one eye <pause dur="0.2"/> and cover up <pause dur="0.7"/> a spot there <pause dur="0.8"/> and then look up there <pause dur="0.8"/> okay if i look up at the corner of the building <pause dur="0.2"/> i can see in my peripheral vision <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> the spot which i put <pause dur="0.6"/> on <pause dur="0.3"/> the glass <pause dur="0.5"/> is now no longer covering <pause dur="0.2"/> what it previously covered in other words there's an effect of parallax <pause dur="1.0"/> which <trunc>e</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> which exists <pause dur="1.1"/> okay <pause dur="2.5"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> another problem <pause dur="1.9"/> when i <pause dur="1.6"/> when i look at <pause dur="0.4"/> the building <pause dur="0.7"/> A-M-S <pause dur="0.4"/> what i see is in focus <pause dur="0.5"/> when i look at my finger <pause dur="0.3"/> what i see is no longer in focus <pause dur="0.8"/> okay <pause dur="1.7"/> do i paint <pause dur="0.3"/> A-M-S in focus <pause dur="0.5"/> or not in focus <pause dur="2.3"/> you understand as i as i look <pause dur="0.3"/> now at that building <pause dur="0.9"/> as i look at the building itself <pause dur="0.3"/> i see something which is in focus 'cause my eye is adapting to this distant <pause dur="0.2"/> vision <pause dur="0.6"/> but then when i now focus on

the diaphanous plane on which i'm going to put paint <pause dur="0.5"/> what lies behind is now <pause dur="0.5"/> no longer <pause dur="0.9"/> in focus <pause dur="3.3"/> so do i paint what's in focus or what's not <trunc>s</trunc> not in focus <pause dur="4.4"/> # <pause dur="2.3"/> another <pause dur="0.3"/> another problem <pause dur="0.3"/> is this <pause dur="1.7"/> if you think what happens when you <pause dur="1.6"/> look <pause dur="0.2"/> at a scene <pause dur="0.6"/> if you look at a scene <pause dur="1.4"/> from <pause dur="0.3"/> a fixed position with one eye with just a <pause dur="0.4"/> fixed focus which is what we're now being required to do to perform this unusual experiment <pause dur="1.0"/> then <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean just <pause dur="0.5"/> think about this <pause dur="0.5"/> right i'm <pause dur="0.7"/> i'm looking i'm looking at the A-M-S building <pause dur="0.4"/> and let's suppose i'm actually focusing on part of the building the top right hand corner of one of the small <pause dur="0.4"/> slit-like windows there <pause dur="0.9"/> and i'm looking at that <pause dur="1.0"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> think of how one sees the rest of the building <pause dur="0.2"/> as you look at that <pause dur="1.0"/> do you understand what i'm getting at here <pause dur="0.4"/> a well known thing about vision about peripheral vision <pause dur="2.1"/> <trunc>d</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> a similar point is this <pause dur="0.6"/> if you <pause dur="0.3"/> if you focus on <pause dur="0.2"/> something that's in front of you like that <pause dur="0.4"/> and you hold up a hand here i'm aware of this hand <pause dur="0.7"/> but

i'm aware of it in a very kind of imprecise way <pause dur="1.0"/> yeah just try doing it i mean you all must know this you know i couldn't say for example how many fingers are being held up except for that is my hand so i know <vocal desc="laughter" n="sl" iterated="y" dur="2"/> okay <pause dur="0.7"/> in other words <pause dur="0.2"/> the nature of human vision is such that in the centre of the field of vision we have a detailed <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> piece which is in focus <pause dur="0.3"/> and as we get more and more towards the periphery <pause dur="0.3"/> we have <pause dur="0.3"/> less <pause dur="0.4"/> detail more as it were blurred <pause dur="0.3"/> vision </u><u who="sf0130" trans="latching"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> now should <pause dur="0.3"/> should the perfectly realistic <pause dur="0.3"/> diaphanous plane experiment <pause dur="0.5"/> should that result <pause dur="0.2"/> in a painting <pause dur="0.3"/> which is like that <pause dur="0.2"/> which is <pause dur="0.2"/> you know perfectly in focus in the middle <pause dur="0.4"/> but more and more blurred <pause dur="0.3"/> as we get towards the outside <pause dur="0.6"/> i did actually in the things i passed round to you <pause dur="0.4"/> i showed you but didn't comment on it <pause dur="0.5"/> # a <pause dur="0.2"/> picture which was like that using a particular kind of advertising <pause dur="0.5"/> technique <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="1.0"/> this <pause dur="1.0"/> picture here <pause dur="0.8"/> if you look at that you'll see <pause dur="0.5"/> that this area here <pause dur="0.5"/> is sharply in

focus <pause dur="0.3"/> and as we get more towards the <pause dur="0.3"/> outside of it for example the top of the woman's <pause dur="0.2"/> head <pause dur="0.3"/> and the outside of it it's less and less <pause dur="0.2"/> in focus <pause dur="0.6"/> quite a common technique for fashion photography in fact sometimes <pause dur="0.3"/> photographers actually smear the edge of the lens with Vaseline in order to get this kind of effect and sometimes can be done just with focusing and so on <pause dur="0.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> will our diaphanous plane experiment result in a picture like that <pause dur="0.7"/> because if it does here's the paradox if it does <pause dur="0.5"/> it won't actually <pause dur="0.3"/> look realistic <pause dur="0.4"/> because when we look at it just <pause dur="0.4"/> think about this a neat point <pause dur="0.6"/> when we look at it if you look at the centre of such a painting <pause dur="0.5"/> where it is in focus <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="1.3"/> then the periphery of the painting will be doubly <pause dur="0.2"/> out of focus <pause dur="1.3"/> once because it actually is out of focus and once because of the nature of your vision <pause dur="0.8"/> do you understand what i'm saying here <pause dur="0.2"/> if the whole of that picture <pause dur="0.5"/> were in focus <pause dur="0.3"/> then if you looked at the centre of it <pause dur="0.5"/> the bit in the centre would in your field of

vision be in focus and the <pause dur="0.6"/> surrounding bit of it would be <pause dur="0.7"/> blurred <pause dur="0.4"/> the peripheral vision would be blurred <pause dur="0.6"/> but in this we have that kind of squared <pause dur="1.1"/> so should a perfectly realistic painting be one that's in focus all over <pause dur="0.3"/> which our field of vision never is <pause dur="0.7"/> or should it be one which is like our field of vision in which case when we look at the perfectly realistic painting <pause dur="0.2"/> it doesn't look at all realistic <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <pause dur="0.6"/> now <pause dur="0.7"/> these are some of the reasons why the diaphanous plane experiment <pause dur="0.6"/> actually turns out to be a kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> you know impossible <pause dur="0.3"/> dream Ben were you going to <pause dur="0.6"/> kind of say something different </u><u who="sm0129" trans="overlap"> just think that we <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 word"/></u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> all right all right </u><u who="sm0129" trans="overlap"> and anyway i mean i was going to <pause dur="0.3"/> sort of comment about stereoscopy and </u><u who="nm0114" trans="latching"> mm </u><u who="sm0129" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> and stuff </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> mm </u><u who="sm0129" trans="overlap"> but but that's just an extrapolation of what you've said anyway so </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> right <pause dur="0.9"/> okay <pause dur="2.0"/> okay <pause dur="1.4"/> and there's an additional <pause dur="0.9"/> # so <pause dur="1.1"/> that's some thoughts for you <pause dur="0.4"/> but there's an additional extra reason of course <pause dur="0.8"/> that's worth commenting on i suppose <pause dur="0.7"/> which is that <pause dur="3.2"/> no <pause dur="1.6"/> realistic painting <pause dur="1.4"/> is going to deceive us <pause dur="1.0"/> for very long <pause dur="0.3"/> of course paintings can sometimes deceive us <pause dur="0.5"/> when paintings do

deceive us it's usually something <pause dur="0.4"/> to do <pause dur="0.5"/> more with our expectations and conditions of staging than it is to do with the realism of them <pause dur="0.5"/> # for example here here's a a <pause dur="0.9"/> a real example <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> in the # <pause dur="0.3"/> the Vatican <pause dur="1.9"/> there's a series of portraits of former popes <pause dur="1.4"/> and on one of these portraits of one of the former popes <pause dur="0.6"/> there is on <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> the pope's # <pause dur="0.3"/> robe <pause dur="0.9"/> there's a fly <pause dur="0.4"/> painted <pause dur="1.3"/> and so many people <pause dur="0.5"/> as they've walked along <pause dur="0.2"/> have seen the fly and have gone <pause dur="0.7"/><event desc="hits surface" iterated="n"/> onto the corner of the painting <pause dur="0.4"/> they've actually now put on the corner of the painting a piece of plastic <vocal desc="laughter" n="sf0131" iterated="y" dur="1"/> it doesn't have glass on it otherwise but they've put it on the corner of the painting a piece of plastic to prevent damage to the painting <pause dur="1.3"/> now the point i want to make about that is not is <pause dur="0.2"/> is this <pause dur="0.4"/> it's not that that painting of a fly is particularly realistic <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> it's just that the conditions of staging are such that people when they see the fly there think it's a real fly they just don't expect to see a fly

on the robe of a cardinal or a pope </u><u who="sf0132" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/></u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> yeah <pause dur="0.4"/> so </u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="sf0133" trans="pause"> i've got a trailer </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> mm </u><u who="sf0133" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> wasp on it <pause dur="0.3"/> and people keep going </u><u who="nm0114" trans="latching"> <vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="1"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> oh right yes yes <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> very similar <pause dur="1.0"/> so <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> <trunc>pic</trunc> the so right so people can sometimes be deceived by a painting when they are it's not so much to do with the realism of the painting more to do with some other set of expectations that they have <pause dur="0.4"/> but even when people are deceived by a painting <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/> they're not deceived for very long <pause dur="0.4"/> even if even if we were <pause dur="0.8"/> which i think is impossible to succeed in producing the diaphanous plane perfect representation <pause dur="0.6"/> it wouldn't deceive us for very long at all <pause dur="0.7"/> for as long as we stood <pause dur="0.2"/> in one position <pause dur="0.3"/> with one eye open with a fixed direction of gaze <pause dur="0.3"/> we might think gosh <pause dur="0.2"/> there's the A-M-S building <pause dur="0.5"/> but as soon as we waver slightly open the other eye change our direction of gaze move <pause dur="0.3"/> any of those things <pause dur="0.5"/> the illusion is destroyed <pause dur="0.2"/> it immediately becomes apparent <pause dur="0.2"/> that this is <pause dur="0.4"/> a painting <pause dur="0.3"/> and not the real thing <pause dur="0.3"/> you <trunc>unders</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> # and and that's just i

mean <pause dur="0.8"/> <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> that's just what people do people don't stand <pause dur="0.8"/> with a fixed focus <pause dur="0.2"/> with one direction of gaze with one eye open for hours on end so <pause dur="0.2"/> even realistic paintings </u><u who="sf0134" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/> </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> mm </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sf0134" trans="pause"> it's nothing but just the list sounds funny </u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> yes </u><u who="sf0134" trans="overlap"> you just imagine people standing with one leg </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> yeah <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/></u><u who="sf0134" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="1.5"/> <u who="nm0114" trans="pause"> okay <pause dur="0.9"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/> finally <pause dur="0.7"/> on <pause dur="0.3"/> the deception theory <pause dur="1.6"/> it seems to me that there's a <pause dur="0.2"/> there's another <pause dur="0.4"/> reason <pause dur="0.9"/> why the deception theory has to be rejected <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean all the reasons we've suggested so far are perfectly good reasons <pause dur="0.5"/> but there's another reason for the deception theory to be rejected <pause dur="1.1"/> it's simply as i've put here the wrong sort of explanation <pause dur="0.3"/> and i want to <pause dur="1.0"/> emphasize this <pause dur="0.5"/> the wrong sort of explanation <pause dur="0.6"/> it simply <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.2"/> untrue <pause dur="0.3"/> to our experience of art <pause dur="0.6"/> in this way <pause dur="2.2"/> what interests us and intrigues us about art <pause dur="0.6"/> in general <pause dur="0.8"/> and about realistic art in particular <pause dur="0.9"/> is the way in which one thing <pause dur="0.8"/> can <pause dur="1.4"/> be <pause dur="1.0"/> something else <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> when we look at a painting of a vase of flowers <pause dur="1.9"/> a a a say a <pause dur="0.3"/> late eighteenth century French <pause dur="0.5"/> painting <pause dur="1.3"/> a vase of flowers <pause dur="0.3"/> you can you imagine

i don't know if you think of <trunc>tho</trunc> if you know these paintings but the <pause dur="0.5"/> in the late eighteenth century France there was a whole # <pause dur="0.9"/> kind of a <pause dur="0.2"/> still still life type of thing we'd have a vase of flowers and maybe in front of the vase of flowers you might have a selection of fruit maybe some dead game or something like that as well that kind of thing a kind of still life <pause dur="0.6"/> idea <pause dur="1.1"/> when we when we look at one of those paintings <pause dur="0.6"/> one thing that <pause dur="0.3"/> interests us and and intrigues us is the way in which <pause dur="0.5"/> oil <pause dur="0.2"/> paint on canvas <pause dur="0.6"/> can be oil paint on canvas and be <pause dur="0.2"/> or represent <pause dur="1.1"/> you know <pause dur="0.4"/> flowers and <pause dur="0.2"/> fruit <pause dur="0.2"/> and the dead animal <pause dur="0.6"/> that's <pause dur="0.2"/> that's what's exciting about art <pause dur="0.9"/> if <pause dur="0.2"/> if the true explanation of realism was that we were being deceived it would remove the point of art <pause dur="0.3"/> the painting itself would as it were disappear from view <pause dur="0.8"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> the only the only reason then why we might be interested in the <pause dur="0.2"/> in the painting of a vase of flowers <pause dur="0.3"/> was if we were interested in the vase of flowers <pause dur="0.6"/> but i think

that we're interested in art because we're interested in one thing <pause dur="0.3"/> standing for another <pause dur="0.3"/> representing another <pause dur="0.5"/> that's what we find intriguing interesting about art <pause dur="0.6"/> so i think it's the wrong sort of explanation <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>i</trunc> as it were subverts the whole <pause dur="0.8"/> point <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="1.8"/> what <pause dur="0.4"/> interests us most <pause dur="0.5"/> about art <pause dur="13.2"/> so <pause dur="0.8"/> we have to <pause dur="0.4"/> reject <pause dur="0.6"/> i think the deception theory <pause dur="3.1"/> # <pause dur="2.3"/> i will mention just extremely briefly <pause dur="0.5"/> two further possible theories both of which have been <pause dur="0.8"/> fairly influential in <pause dur="0.6"/> last fifty years or so <pause dur="1.8"/> one of them we might call # <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> information theory <pause dur="26.4"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="13"/>

in this theory A is a realistic representation of B <pause dur="6.2"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="18"/> to the extent <pause dur="2.9"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> it <pause dur="2.0"/> gives us <pause dur="2.5"/> information <pause dur="3.3"/> about B <pause dur="1.0"/> or more information it gives <pause dur="1.5"/> the more realistic it is <pause dur="8.6"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.2"/> <vocal desc="blows nose" iterated="n"/><pause dur="6.5"/> now this can # this doesn't suffer from the problem of fictions because we could be given information about you know a unicorn <pause dur="0.4"/> even though a unicorn doesn't exist <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> it doesn't fall foul of the <pause dur="1.2"/> the way in which in the deception theory <pause dur="0.5"/> this could be a realistic representation of a human being because this gives us very little information <pause dur="0.2"/> about <pause dur="0.6"/> the person <pause dur="0.9"/> it it <pause dur="1.0"/> it accords with some of the ideas we might have about realism <pause dur="0.4"/> you know that a highly realistic painting <pause dur="0.5"/> you know <pause dur="0.4"/> does give us a lot of information a Jan van Eyck painting for example <pause dur="0.8"/> you know van Eyck's paintings very very realistic so realistic you can take a <pause dur="0.8"/> magnifying glass and look at them and you can see you know the individual <pause dur="0.7"/> blades of grass he often painted

with a single hair <pause dur="0.8"/> to get all the detail in </u><u who="sm0135" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> last week <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> yes <pause dur="0.2"/> mm-hmm <pause dur="1.8"/> so <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> it gets at that <pause dur="5.4"/> but it doesn't seem to be right <pause dur="0.5"/> at least <pause dur="0.3"/> as it is <pause dur="0.7"/> because <pause dur="0.6"/> giving us information well information can be given in all sorts of different ways <pause dur="8.2"/> this doesn't seem to get at <pause dur="1.7"/> the kind of pictorial nature of pictorial art <pause dur="0.6"/> when i say information can be given in all sorts of ways <pause dur="0.4"/> information could be given in in <pause dur="0.2"/> coded ways <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> for instance <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="2.9"/> a photograph <pause dur="1.0"/> and the negative of a photograph <pause dur="0.9"/> could each give us the same amount of information <pause dur="0.8"/> in fact as the positive is generated from the negative the positive can't give us <pause dur="0.4"/> more information it gives us just the same information the negative does <pause dur="0.6"/> we wouldn't be inclined to say that the negative <pause dur="0.3"/> was a realistic representation of the thing <pause dur="0.2"/> i <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> i'm just trying to get at an idea there <pause dur="0.5"/> or <pause dur="0.2"/> take another example <pause dur="1.3"/> suppose we have # <pause dur="0.8"/> <trunc>thi</trunc> think of think if you've got some super-duper computer and you've got some wonderful # <pause dur="0.5"/> you

know <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> photo editor type program and you've got a <pause dur="0.2"/> super new printer which prints out to high resolution <pause dur="0.6"/> and you you print out a high resolution copy of a painting <pause dur="0.2"/> say a <pause dur="0.2"/> a van Eyck <pause dur="0.2"/> or a Constable to take two examples we've been talking about okay <pause dur="1.0"/> now <pause dur="1.5"/> at some stage inside your computer <pause dur="0.5"/> in order <trunc>d</trunc> to do all of this the information which is contained in the thing that you <pause dur="0.4"/> print out <pause dur="0.5"/> has been encoded in some way in some digital way <pause dur="0.6"/> there could for example be a program <pause dur="0.2"/> we could produce a program <pause dur="0.2"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> printing out <pause dur="0.2"/> the van Eyck <pause dur="0.3"/> painting <pause dur="0.8"/> you know # just to <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>st</trunc> step back a stage <pause dur="0.7"/> i've been <pause dur="0.9"/> lecturing for so long at this university that <pause dur="0.3"/> # i <pause dur="0.2"/> thought of this same point even before computers were <pause dur="0.4"/> common <pause dur="0.8"/> # when i first came to this university nobody had ever seen a computer that's <pause dur="0.3"/> literally <pause dur="0.2"/> true there was a computer in the university and it was in Whiteknights House and people <pause dur="0.2"/> from all over the university used to carry kind of <pause dur="0.3"/> shoeboxes full of punched cards to <pause dur="0.5"/> give in

and then a week later they would get the <pause dur="0.4"/> the printout <pause dur="0.3"/> of what they were doing <pause dur="0.2"/> so that was just was incredible nobody had actually seen a computer at all <pause dur="1.1"/> anyway <pause dur="0.7"/> when i was talking about this sort of thing then i used a different example which was <pause dur="1.1"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> you know the way in which people <pause dur="0.4"/> with typewriters <trunc>th</trunc> those now as it <trunc>s</trunc> seemed rather kind of antique instruments <pause dur="0.3"/> some people used to be able to type <pause dur="0.5"/> and as the thing came out of the back of the typewriter you get a picture of the Mona Lisa </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="sm0136" trans="pause"> mm </u><u who="nm0114" trans="latching"> have you ever seen that <pause dur="0.4"/> and you know there's a way of giving a kind of program for that <pause dur="0.2"/> like rather like a knitting pattern <pause dur="0.2"/> you know <pause dur="0.5"/> type <pause dur="0.2"/> # twenty-one Ws followed by thirty-six Xs followed by fourteen Is followed by you know you could give a you could give a line by line program <pause dur="0.3"/> and if you type all those letters in the way that it said <pause dur="0.3"/> what would come out would be something rather like the Frank Zappa thing i showed last week <pause dur="0.3"/> or be something which when

you held it up would <pause dur="0.2"/> look like the Mona Lisa <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> you understand <pause dur="0.2"/> so that's the kind of precomputer example of the program <pause dur="0.4"/> okay in both cases what you have is a program <pause dur="0.4"/> which <pause dur="0.3"/> when <pause dur="0.2"/> this is <pause dur="0.5"/> carried out in some way or other results in an image <pause dur="0.8"/> now the point i'm making is this that the program <pause dur="0.4"/> contains <pause dur="0.8"/> it gives us <pause dur="0.2"/> in a certain way <pause dur="0.2"/> the same information as the picture does <pause dur="0.4"/> but we wouldn't call the program <pause dur="0.5"/> a realistic representation <pause dur="3.2"/> or <pause dur="1.0"/> would we <pause dur="0.3"/> and i'm just <pause dur="0.2"/> i'm going to actually take a break in just two or three minutes <pause dur="0.4"/> and i've <trunc>s</trunc> </u><pause dur="0.7"/> <u who="sf0137" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nm0114" trans="overlap"> but wait wait there's <pause dur="0.2"/> just just an idea <pause dur="1.1"/> or would we <pause dur="2.4"/> listen <pause dur="1.1"/> couldn't there be some <pause dur="1.3"/> nerdy people <pause dur="0.8"/> who are so used <pause dur="1.2"/> to dealing with <pause dur="1.2"/> computer programs <pause dur="1.3"/> that when they see <pause dur="0.7"/> a program a line by line program </u><u who="sf0138" trans="latching"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> program </u><u who="nm0114" trans="latching"> they'll they'll even one they've never seen before <pause dur="0.2"/> they'll say wow that's a fantastic <pause dur="0.4"/> image of so and so <pause dur="0.7"/> look if that seems extraordinary let me put two ideas to you if that seems an extraordinary idea <pause dur="0.8"/> to

somebody who was entirely unacquainted <pause dur="0.6"/> with the conventions of musical notation <pause dur="0.6"/> it would seem absolutely extraordinary <pause dur="0.6"/> that somebody could look at that and say <pause dur="0.2"/> as somebody who was musically competent <pause dur="0.3"/> and could read music sight read music well <pause dur="0.4"/> somebody could look at that and say <pause dur="0.2"/> gosh that's a beautiful tune <pause dur="0.9"/> i mean people do that don't they <pause dur="0.5"/> when <pause dur="0.2"/> they have <pause dur="0.2"/> composition <pause dur="0.8"/> competitions <pause dur="0.7"/> then <pause dur="0.5"/> people who are composers send in scores and the judges don't get all of these things performed by orchestras they sit and they look at the scores and they say ah it's wonderful and so on <pause dur="0.4"/> they can do that <pause dur="0.7"/> is that any more extraordinary what i'm <pause dur="0.2"/> than what i'm saying <pause dur="2.2"/> or take another example another even more bizarre <pause dur="0.2"/> example perhaps <pause dur="1.1"/> if we're thinking of the way in which information is <trunc>en</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> encoded and can be read <pause dur="0.5"/> here information about the sound is encoded in a certain sort of way <pause dur="0.5"/> and can be read by some people in <pause dur="0.2"/> such a way that they as it were <pause dur="0.4"/> are directly in contact with the sound <pause dur="0.4"/> i'm

supposing that there might be a way in which information could be encoded in a computer program so that people when they see the computer program <pause dur="0.5"/> as it were don't see the computer program they see the picture <pause dur="0.4"/> as it were through the computer program <pause dur="0.4"/> here's another example <pause dur="0.9"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.7"/> there was a guy who used to appear on television long time ago <pause dur="0.5"/> ninety-sixties round about then <pause dur="0.8"/> and he had this particular trick and what people would do would be to give him <pause dur="0.2"/> records vinyl records <pause dur="0.4"/> from which the label and the middle had been removed and he'd look at the vinyl record and he would say what the piece of music was <pause dur="0.8"/> okay <pause dur="1.0"/> you know from the kind of you know the the the ridges <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> you know how you know how a vinyl will look there's a certain kind of pattern of ridges on it <pause dur="0.7"/><vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="1"/> and what's more he would even i mean he would even get <pause dur="0.4"/> cocky as it were he'd say oh yes that's Beethoven's ninth symphony and it's in the Toscanini version nineteen-forty-seven

version and <trunc>wh</trunc> and so on you know <pause dur="0.3"/> this kind of thing <pause dur="1.9"/> # as in so many things it turned out in the end to <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>be kind of <vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="2"/> a fraud <vocal desc="laughter" n="sl" iterated="y" dur="1"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> but look there's no reason <pause dur="0.4"/> i mean there's certainly <trunc>n</trunc> no reason in principle why somebody couldn't do that is there <pause dur="0.7"/> there's no reason in principle why somebody couldn't get just so used to looking at vinyl records and so used to associating them with the sounds that they produced that they could do something like that <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean you could certainly come to recognize the records in your own collection like that <pause dur="0.5"/> and if the labels fell off you could probably without having to play them <pause dur="0.3"/> you know if if you really looked at them very often you could do that and i don't see any reason why somebody couldn't get an expert at that <pause dur="0.5"/> so what i'm thinking

of here is <pause dur="1.3"/> that information can be encoded in a variety of different ways <pause dur="0.4"/> but what matters <pause dur="0.5"/> is not so much <pause dur="0.7"/> the information but this <pause dur="0.2"/> little phrase here gives us <pause dur="0.6"/> there's something <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the information theory doesn't doesn't on its own quite get at something which is important <pause dur="0.5"/> it isn't just that a realistic representation <pause dur="0.6"/> contains information <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/> but that it gives us the information it yields that information easily <pause dur="2.3"/> for instance Turner's paintings people couldn't read Turner's paintings originally <pause dur="0.6"/> but they came to be able to read them they came to be able to understand that they were of a storm at sea and so on <pause dur="1.7"/> the same information was contained in the

painting before and after they were able to do it <pause dur="0.6"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> that little phrase gives us it needs needs some expansion here it's to do with how easily the information <pause dur="0.7"/> # yields itself <pause dur="2.9"/> so a kind of <pause dur="0.5"/> adaptation of the information theory <pause dur="0.3"/> might be <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> information theory plus <pause dur="0.5"/> i think <pause dur="0.3"/> can't think of a very good way to put it but <pause dur="1.2"/> # <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="9"/></u><pause dur="2.1"/> <u who="sm0139" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nm0114" trans="latching"> easily yielded <pause dur="1.5"/> okay and the person who who's most forcefully advocated <pause dur="0.2"/> that is Nelson Goodman <pause dur="0.2"/> a very <pause dur="1.3"/> important <pause dur="1.4"/> philosopher of art and philosopher in general <pause dur="1.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> i haven't got time to say much more about that so what we'll do is we'll take a break now <pause dur="0.3"/> for about ten minutes <pause dur="0.7"/> and then we'll come back and have <pause dur="0.2"/> questions and discussion <pause dur="0.9"/> okay

</u></body>

</text></TEI.2>