nm0114: anyway okay what i want to do today is to [0.3] try and [0.2] bring 
together various other points that i was making last time [0.8] if you remember 
what i did last time was to circulate a whole series of different er 
illustrations of one sort or another [0.5] and just to make a number of 
comments about them but not in any particularly systematic way [0.6] well other 
than one thing which kind of emerged i think from last week [0.6] which was 
that we saw that in a n-, [0.2] number of different cases in the cases of [0.2] 
Roman [0.3] portrait busts of the first century [0.2] B-C first century A-D [0.
4] in the case of early photography [0.5] in the case of caricature [0.3] in 
all of those cases [0.5] it's by [0.2] a calculated departure [0.2] from exact 
resemblance that a higher degree of realism [0.4] was achieved [0.7] okay so [0.
3] interesting [0.3] kind of [0.7] preliminary conclusion [0.8] by actually 
exaggerating for example the [0.5] er folds of the face in the Roman portrait 
busts a greater effect of realism was achieved than [0.3] the actual literal [0.
5] same [0.3] shape [0.2] that you get for example in 
Madame Tussaud's [1.3] okay [0.5] well now what i want to do then is to is to 
put together [0.2] some of this into some sort of systematic set of ideas [0.6] 
and what i'm going to do is i'm going to consider a number of theories which 
might be put forward [0.5] in order to [0.3] er explain what might be meant by 
realism in the visual arts [0.5] so these are different theories which all 
address themselves to the question [0.4] what is it for [0.3] er a painting or 
a drawing [0.5] or a visual representation [0.3] to be [0.3] realistic [1.9] 
okay [0.8] the f-, [0.3] the first [0.2] theory that i'm going to consider [0.
7] is as i said last week one that in fact [1.3] no-, [0.6] nobody has ever 
seriously put forward [0.6] but an extraordinarily [0.2] pervasive theory in 
the sense that remnants of it [1.0] exist [0.4] in a great deal of thinking [0.
4] about [1.0] visual arts and about representation [1.1] and [0.5] a great 
deal of it exists [0.4] as r-, [0.2] remnants in various theories [0.2] about 
[0.6] er [0.6] wha-, [0.2] what it is [0.3] to be realistic [0.8] and this 
theory i'm going to call the resemblance theory or the copy theory [1.4] [13.9] 
so the 
resemblance theory or the copy theory says [0.2] that [0.3] a painting [0.2] is 
realistic [0.4] to the extent that it resembles [0.2] what it's of [0.6] okay 
[0.2] that's [0.4] the extremely [0.4] simple [0.4] theory [3.1] so we could 
say that A [0.8] is [0.5] a [2.3] realistic [2.7] representation [1.2] of [0.2] 
B [0.9] if [1.2] A [3.8] resembles B [2.2] that's the theory [1.6] [7.2] now [0.
6] i've said that nobody has ever put this forward [0.2] seriously as a theory 
[0.6] b-, [0.4] and that [0.2] because as soon as we [0.2] come to investigate 
it we find that there are a number of very significant [0.5] drawbacks to the 
theory [0.2] and it's these drawbacks which have prevented people from [0.6] 
ever i think putting it forward seriously [1.8] er [0.5] and i'm going to [2.5] 
run through [0.6] some of the [0.7] difficulties [1.0] okay and i'm going to 
sort of store up perhaps the [0.4] er [0.4] well [0.3] er [0.6] i was going to 
store up the main ones till the end but i think they're all important 
difficulties [1.2] [1.6] the first thing is this [0.2] that [0.6] er [5.4] 
resemblance and representation [6.4] resemblance and representation [0.4] just 
seem to be two different sorts of things [1.5] for 
example [0.6] er [0.5] an object resembles itself [0.4] to the maximum possible 
degree [0.5] but very rarely resembles itself [1.3] er [1.2] resemblance [0.3] 
unlike representation [0.8] er [0.3] is [0.2] reflexive [1.2] and resemblance 
unlike representation is [0.2] symmetric [0.9] er in other words what i mean by 
that okay what do i mean by saying that they are reflexive and they're [0.2] s-,
symmetric [0.6] er [2.7] resemblance is reflexive [0.3] a thing resembles 
itself [0.7] but representation isn't necessarily reflexive a thing doesn't 
necessarily represent itself [1.2] it's symmetric if A resembles B [0.4] then B 
resembles A [0.8] but if A represents B [0.3] B doesn't necessarily represent A 
[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 [0.5] Goya's 
famous painting of the Duke of Wellington [1.1] er [3.0] how many of you have 
seen the James Bond film Dr No [1.3] in when er Bond gets to Dr No's er you 
know hideout eventually on the wall [0.4] in his hideout is Goya's portrait of 
the Duke of Wellington [0.4] don't know if 
you if you realized that that's what it was [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 
sm0115: yeah 
nm0114: one yeah 
sm0115: sixty-six 
nm0114: er the er Goya's portrait of the Duke of Wellington had just been 
stolen from the National Gallery [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 [0.4] anyway [1.1] if we think of 
o-, a [0.2] portrait [0.5] but if you don't know the portrait you can imagine 
it okay [0.4] y-, you can imagine a portrait [0.2] of [0.9] the the military 
hero the Duke of Wellington [0.9] okay [0.9] now it may be [0.5] that [0.3] the 
portrait [0.2] resembles the Duke of Wellington [0.3] if it's a good one [0.7] 
maybe it does [0.7] okay [2.4] and it may be that the portrait [0.3] represents 
the Duke of Wellington [0.3] in fact it certainly does [1.6] but the Duke of 
Wellington [1.5] who if the portrait resembles him [0.4] he resembles the 
portrait [1.8] he doesn't represent the 
portrait [0.9] do you understand [0.3] it's just not symmetrical [0.6] we 
wouldn't want to say we wouldn't want to say we don't say [0.4] that the Duke 
of Wellington is a good representation of his portrait [1.1] okay [0.3] now of 
course there are reasons why we don't say that which we're [0.2] which we're 
going to come on to in a minute or two [1.3] [1.5] er [5.1] the things which 
resemble each other closely [0.6] don't necessarily represent each other [0.9] 
er for instance [0.6] twins identical twins [0.2] resemble each other closely 
[0.4] but they don't necessarily represent each other one could represent the 
other [0.6] but [0.4] not necessarily [0.7] or [0.3] the cars off an assembly 
line might all resemble each other very much but one doesn't represent [0.2] 
another [0.6] so all of these are just thoughts about th-, [0.2] you know that 
we haven't yet put our finger on exactly what it is [0.3] but these are 
thoughts about the way in which resemblance and representation seem to be two 
different sorts of thing [0.7] we're going to see what the difference is in 
just a second or two [2.6] but 
there's a further problem [0.7] and the further problem is this [0.7] this 
theory assumes that there is some way of kind of telling [0.4] whether A 
resembles B [0.6] some way of telling as it were [0.4] objectively [0.2] 
whether A resembles B [0.5] A is a realistic representation of B if A resembles 
B [0.4] that assumes that we can tell in some way [0.3] whether A resembles B 
[0.9] and the problem there [0.4] the problem there is this [1.1] that 
resemblance [0.4] turns out to be rather a kind of squishy notion when we come 
to look at it [0.8] because the fact is [0.4] that as [0.2] riddles constantly 
suggest to us [0.6] anything can resemble anything else [0.7] in some way or 
other [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 [0.5] Wonderland and 
so on [0.5] and if you're ingenious enough [0.2] you can think of [0.4] ways [0.
9] you know in what g-, [0.2] in what way does George W [0.2] Bush resemble a 
and then you know a-, put in anything and you come up with some [0.8] witty 
answer [1.6] so [0.2] [0.6] we can think of ways in 
which [0.3] almost anything [0.5] can resemble [0.2] almost anything else [1.7] 
and if that's true which i think it is [0.4] in other words resemblance isn't 
as it were a single objective relationship that exists between two objects [1.
8] one object resembles another in some way or other [1.1] if that's the case 
[0.3] then [0.5] it's not very good as a criterion [0.2] of realistic 
representation [1.3] okay [0.4] that's pr-, some preliminary thoughts now we 
want to as i [0.2] was indicating get on to perhaps the [0.9] more [1.4] 
serious points [1.1] one reason why representation and resemblance aren't quite 
the same [1.4] or aren't [0.5] the same at all [1.1] is that representation [0.
2] involves the notion of intention [0.9] and that's what [0.8] resemblance [0.
2] lacks [0.7] so [0.2] let's [12.7] representation involves intention [0.6] 
for one thing to represent [0.2] another [0.9] some sort of intention must be 
involved [1.2] but resemblance as it were [0.2] exists [0.6] in the world [0.2] 
as we might want to say [0.2] quite apart from [0.4] human [0.2] thoughts [0.5] 
whereas representation [0.5] only exists via [0.7] human intention [1.5] so one 
thing represents another only if 
there's some sort of human intention involved [0.5] now [0.2] representation of 
course [1.8] is a very very general [0.4] term [0.6] and representation can be 
involved in for instance parliamentary representation an M-P represents a 
constituency [0.9] the M-P represents a constituency [0.5] through [0.4] a 
variety of different human intentions that isn't a natural relationship [0.5] 
you understand what i'm trying to say there [0.5] we don't [0.2] pick somebody 
to be an M-P because they [0.4] you know objectively represent their 
constituency [0.7] you know oh they're they're [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 [0.3] you know [0.2] in 
nature existing [1.5] resemblance between [0.2] the M-P [0.2] no [0.5] that man 
represents the constituency because the constituents have chosen that man to 
represent the constituency [0.8] okay [0.6] and representation [0.2] whether [0.
6] an M-P's representation or in language or in art [0.4] is something that [0.
2] involves [0.5] intention to some degree [0.3] 
whereas resembles la-, [0.3] resemblance lacks that [0.2] and that's one reason 
why [0.4] this is not going to be a good account [2.9] there's some [0.5] 
further reasons why [0.3] it won't be [0.4] a good account as well [1.3] er [0.
7] and one of these is the problem of fictions [6.4] 
the problem of fictions [2.9] in giving any reasonable account of realistic 
representation [0.9] we must take into account the fact that [1.1] A can be a 
realistic representation of B [0.4] where B is something that doesn't exist [0.
8] okay [1.5] we can have [0.6] you know a super-realistic drawing or painting 
of [0.6] a unicorn [0.6] for example [2.3] or of [0.4] Mr Pickwick [1.9] or of 
[0.5] a battle [0.3] that never took place [0.9] or of a landscape that never 
existed [1.7] and i think that it's just straightforwardly true [0.6] that we 
ascribe to various sorts of visual [0.2] representation [0.7] the label 
realistic [0.3] even when [2.2] what they are representations of [0.5] never 
actually existed [0.3] that's the problem of fictions [0.7] and of course [0.5] 
the resemblance or copy theory just can't account for that [1.5] this painting 
is a realistic representation 
of Mr Pickwick [0.4] if the painting resembles Mr Pickwick well if Mr Pickwick 
never existed the painting can't [0.2] resemble him [0.5] okay [0.2] so the 
problem of fictions [0.6] the copy theory just couldn't [1.3] cope with [2.2] 
er [7.2] i think that's [0.4] really [1.2] enough [0.3] on the resemblance 
theory [0.6] er and i've given you enough reasons i think for supposing that 
it's not going to be [0.7] er a good theory [1.1] although of course as i say 
[0.2] vestiges of it [0.8] you know crop up all the time i mean it's the most 
obvious [0.3] it's the most obvious explanation of realistic representation 
isn't it [0.3] the painting [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 [0.4] 
explanation [0.5] but when we try and erect it into a theory [0.5] it just [0.
5] doesn't seem to work [1.0] okay so we've got to think of [0.2] er some other 
theory [1.2] and [0.3] one of the most [0.2] powerful theories that has been 
put forward and one of the most influential theories i've knocked my microphone 
off [3.0] damaged your [0.5] 
om0117: [3.2] 
nm0114: yeah [0.9] 
om0117: and then [1.9] 
nm0114: must have got caught on something [2.8] 
om0117: [0.5] 
nm0114: [0.8] can you put that over there [3.6] okay [1.4] 
sf0116: now when you take your glasses off it's going to go [0.4] 
nm0114: ah 
thank you [0.2] yes [laughter] [laughter] kind of imposssible knot [0.5] 
[laugh] 
om0117: underneath the glasses then 
nm0114: well that might be a help yeah [5.0] okay [0.4] thanks [1.7] okay [0.5] 
this [0.2] the theory i'm going to consider next [0.2] i say [0.4] one of the 
most influential theories in this area [0.5] i'm going to call the deception 
theory [9.7] and the deception theory [0.9] says [0.2] more or less [0.5] you 
know [0.2] to put it at its simplest [0.8] that [4.4] A is a realistic 
representation of B [11.2] if [2.6] the [0.6] audience [1.6] are [2.4] deceived 
[2.4] into [2.8] thinking [2.0] they [0.5] are [3.9] in the presence [0.3] of 
[0.3] B [0.6] okay [7.0] 
sm0118: well yeah but surely somebody looking at a painting of er Mr Pickwick 
doesn't believe they're actually in the presence of him [1.0] 
nm0114: well [0.2] [0.5] 
sf0119: well but [0.2] if you [0.3] have a painting of a window for example in 
a room [0.8] er and there is another window a real window similar [0.2] you can 
you can confuse that painting of the real window 
sm0118: oh certainly i'm not saying it doesn't work for some things 
sf0119: 
sm0118: absolutely 
nm0114: well let's ju-, let's let's look at it okay [0.7] i mean there m-, 
there may be things wrong with this theory 
but there may also be some [0.3] advantages in this theory [0.8] i think as a 
matter of fact that er [0.2] there are [0.3] some [1.2] there are two at least 
big advantages of this theory [1.1] the first is that [0.2] actually just to [0.
3] deal with Ben's point directly [0.4] i think that it [0.7] it gets over [0.
5] the point of fictions [1.0] because [0.9] f-, for this reason [0.5] that you 
can of course be deceived into thinking you're in the presence of a unicorn [0.
2] you could you could be [0.4] okay it's possible [0.9] but [0.3] the painting 
couldn't actually resemble a unicorn because there isn't actually a uncorn [0.
6] so [1.2] the somebody somebody could be deceived into thinking they were in 
the presence of Mr Pickwick i mean you might not be [0.3] okay 
sm0118: 
nm0114: yeah it's okay so 
sm0118: 
nm0114: yeah [0.7] so whether or not [0.2] whether or not B has ever actually 
existed is quite a separate point from whether people can be deceived into 
thinking [0.5] that they're seeing them [0.2] you remember [0.2] you know that 
case that that in the early years of this century about the er [0.5] the two 
young girls who said that they met fairies at the bottom of the garden 
sf0120: 
sm0121: 
nm0114: that's right remember those and 
sf0122: it was on T-V recently 
nm0114: and m-, and many people were as it were deceived into thinking that 
they were seeing representations of fairies okay [0.3] er i mean this is this 
is a slightly different from here what i'm pointing out is [0.3] that it's 
possible for people to be deceived into thinking that they're seeing things 
which actually didn't exist [0.7] okay [0.8] so it deals with the it deals with 
the problem of fictions [0.5] and i think another thing that it does another 
thing that this theory does [0.3] is that it brings in a reference to the 
audience [0.6] and i think that's a very important and i see that as an 
advantage of the deception theory [0.5] and i see it as an advantage of the 
deception theory for this reason [0.7] that [0.3] notoriously [0.2] standards 
of realism [0.4] shift and change [0.3] across time [0.3] and across different 
societies [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 [0.8] it becomes difficult to explain how these shifting 
standards of realism over time [0.3] or over societies could occur [0.6] but if 
we bring in reference to the audience [0.4] then we've got built into this 
theory a way in which we can [0.4] account for that [0.5] because [0.9] it may 
be that some people are deceived into thinking that they're in the presence of 
B [0.5] and other people are not [0.3] so for some people [0.3] this painting 
may be realistic [0.5] and for other people it won't be [0.4] and that simply 
accords with [0.5] the facts of art history [0.2] for example [0.6] i mean er 
[0.2] famously in art history there are paintings which were [0.8] when they 
were first painted and put put on exhibition were greeted [0.2] by people as 
being highly unrealistic [0.3] and which later came to be accepted as realistic 
and Turner is the [0.3] perhaps the best example of that but it happens again 
and again and again in the history of art [0.7] and that [0.2] shifting 
standard of realism [0.8] er [0.2] can be explained if we introduced into the 
definition of what realism is some [0.2] 
reference [0.2] to [0.4] the audience [0.9] okay [0.3] so [0.8] two advantages 
it deals with the problems of the fictions and it [0.3] it brings in a 
reference to the audience so helps to explain the shift in standards [1.9] 
however [1.1] it's got one i think obviou-, [0.2] oh i should say that this 
theory the deception theory [0.5] has been most [0.2] forcefully [0.5] er 
argued for [0.3] er by [0.5] Ernst Gombrich [2.0] in [0.6] a large number of [0.
6] books [2.1] from the nineteen-fifties onwards [1.1] Ernst Gombrich one of 
the great [0.2] writers on [0.2] art and art criticism [1.0] er [1.0] and this 
is his theory that i'm essentially discussing [0.2] now the deception theory [0.
8] [3.6] okay [1.1] so it's got some advantages but it's got one [0.2] 
principal disadvantage [0.5] and that is that it's [0.5] obviously false [0.4] 
i mean it's just straightforwardly [0.2] obviously false [0.9] it's [0.2] 
obviously false [0.3] when a painting that you think is realistic deceives you 
into thinking you're in the presence of the [0.6] thing that's represented [0.
6] i mean that just is straightforwardly false [0.8] you may think [0.2] i 
think [0.3] for example that Constable is frequently 
a highly realistic painter his painting of [1.3] Salisbury Cathedral for 
example [0.7] seems to me to be [0.6] you know one of the masterpieces of [0.9] 
of realism Jan van Eyck is a master of realism [1.9] you know the painting of 
Salisbury Cathedral you looked at it 
sf0123: i'm sure we haven't 
nm0114: but we're not we're not for a moment look [0.5] you know there's [0.3] 
you know [0.4] are you now thinking wow [0.2] we didn't know Salisbury 
Cathedral was so close to namex [0.9] no you're not [0.2] you're not d-, you're 
not at all deceived into thinking [0.5] that you're in [0.3] the presence of 
Salisbury Cathedral [0.5] so [0.4] it's i-, [0.2] so [0.5] the [0.2] 
straightforward disadvantage of this theory is that it's obviously false [0.2] 
okay so we'll have to see [0.5] what Gombrich says to that [0.2] yeah [0.4] 
sf0124: could you not [0.3] instead of being in the presence of think that if i 
was standing at that particular point where it's drawn from [0.2] that would be 
the same as the image that i would see [0.7] on my retina [1.5] 
nm0114: yes [1.0] we could say that [0.4] and so that's [0.5] that suggestion 
[0.6] i-, leads on to something i'm 
going to [0.3] talk about [0.8] in [1.3] a minute [0.2] which is the diaphanous 
plane [0.2] experiment i'm going to explain that [0.2] but i'm just writing it 
up to remind me [1.6] to deal with that particular the particular point you've 
just rai-, the diaphanous plane experiment and that i will explain what that 
means [1.8] okay [0.8] er [0.2] so first of all i should say having [2.1] 
pointed out about a theory which has been so influentially argued in [0.2] a 
number of very large books by a very famous art critic over many years [0.8] 
having pointed out that it's just straightforwardly false you may think well 
goodness me [0.4] i mean did this man devote his whole life to [0.4] you know 
arguing for a theory that's just [0.2] so obviously wrong [0.5] well what he 
does is that he [1.0] tries to [1.9] introduce a series of qualifiers into the 
theory in various ways [0.6] you know A is a realistic representation of B [0.
4] if the audience [0.3] er [0.9] er [1.7] tend to be [2.9] deceived into 
thinking [0.2] that they're in the presence of B or phrases like that [0.5] 
okay so what Gombrich 
says is okay now of course of course i agree [0.5] that [0.5] the conditions of 
staging for example of a painting [0.6] i'll explain that in a minute 
conditions of staging [0.3] the conditions of staging of a painting [0.6] mean 
that we are very rarely deceived into thinking that we're ac-, we're actually 
in the presence of the thing depicted [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 [0.3] so [0.3] the idea behind the conditions of staging is 
this [0.4] of course you didn't think [0.2] when i showed you that painting [0.
7] that you were in the presence of Salisbury Cathedral [0.5] course you didn't 
think that [1.0] for one reason [1.7] we're in namex [0.3] for another reason 
[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 [0.5] which [0.2] you know [0.2] mean that you're [0.7] unlikely [0.5] 
unless unhinged to think you're in the presence of Salisbury Cathedral [0.9] 
but suppose [0.2] 
if it this is a bit like your point [0.3] little bit like it we're going to 
come [0.4] more on more onto your point with the diaphanous plane experiment [0.
3] but [0.3] suppose that we were [0.5] in a house in Salisbury [0.4] and 
suppose we got Constable's painting [0.5] and suppose we put it at the end of a 
room [0.4] and suppose we placed [0.3] Constable's painting behind the leaded 
windows [0.2] with curtains in front [0.4] and suppose we arranged the lighting 
in the room [0.4] such that you know when somebody came into the room [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 [0.3] okay [0.3] now there would be [0.4] a 
situation where somebody was deceived into thinking they were in the presence 
of the object depicted [0.3] the conditions of staging were [0.2] were right [0.
2] a little bit [0.3] like your point [0.8] 
okay [1.1] so [0.3] this tendency to be deceived there's a tendency to bes-, [0.
2] be deceived you know given the [0.2] appropriate [0.3] staging or setting [1.
3] now [0.8] before i get on to [0.2] talking in more detail about [0.2] what 
lies behind this and the and the diaphanous plane experiment [0.9] er [0.3] [1.
7] there's something that i want to point out that [1.4] [sigh] i [0.2] i don't 
find that [0.5] i don't find this qualification of the theory very satisfactory 
[1.0] one reason is this that [2.7] people can be deceived into thinking 
they're in the presence of [0.2] an object [0.7] in all sorts of different ways 
[0.9] and all sorts of different ways that have nothing to do [0.4] with the 
realism of the representation at all [1.0] i mean for example [0.3] er [0.5] 
you wouldn't take [0.7] you know that shape that i've just drawn on the board 
to be [0.3] a realistic representation of a human being i take it [0.2] i can't 
you know i [0.2] i take i don't [0.6] can't see how you could think that's a 
realistic representation of a human being [0.6] but i can imagine conditions of 
staging such that you might be 
deceived into thinking that it was a human being [1.1] E-G you know [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 [0.3] there's a slight bit of illumination which illuminates the 
board and we go aagh [0.2] [gasp] somebody there okay [0.5] we're deceived into 
thinking that that shape is a person it could could happen couldn't it [0.3] i 
mean [1.2] or the fact that people are deceived [0.2] tells us it seems to me 
[0.4] more about [0.6] them and their state [0.4] and the conditions of staging 
[0.2] than about [0.2] the thing it is that deceives them 
sm0125: yeah as soon as you bring in a qualifier you've got two extremes of a 
totally unrealistic thing being able to be realistic [0.2] okay 
nm0114: yeah 
sm0125: by this definition [0.3] and a totally realistic thing being completely 
unrealistic by this definition 
nm0114: exactly it's the [0.2] exactly 
sm0125: so it includes and excludes absolutely everything at the same time 
nm0114: that's 
right [0.2] er [0.2] it's a death by a thousand qualifications as it were as 
soon in you put in the qualification [0.4] well it's well [0.2] that part of it 
i think yeah [0.5] okay [3.3] now [0.2] [14.3] okay the first thing [0.2] i 
want to [0.3] go on to is the diaphanous plane experiment [9.3] this was an 
extraordinarily [1.6] pervasive [0.2] idea [0.2] in the [1.3] fif-, late 
fifteenth [0.2] sixteenth seventeenth centuries [3.4] in fact up to the 
eighteenth or nineteenth century as well but particularly at that time the 
diaphanous plane experiment [1.0] the idea [0.2] of the diaphanous plane 
experiment is this [0.8] how can we [0.4] produce a perfectly realistic 
painting [0.8] okay [0.2] that there's the question [0.5] how can we produce a 
perfectly realistic painting [1.1] and in the history of western art [1.2] 
after [0.6] the secularization of [0.6] the subject matter of art and after the 
introduction of linear perspective as a mode of representation [0.6] then the 
idea of realistic representation became [0.9] very important in the minds of 
many artists and they wanted 
to produce [0.4] paintings that were as realistic as possible [0.7] so what 
would be the means of producing the most realistic possible [0.2] painting [1.
5] and the an idea which many of them had [0.8] i think it's [0.2] possible but 
i can't remember whether i handed round er [0.9] i don't [0.6] 
sm0126: sorry did you say this was [0.8] 
nm0114: this this is an idea which started in the [0.2] in the fifteenth 
century for instance albe-, Albrecht Dürer 
sm0127: 
nm0114: [0.6] exact contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci [0.2] Dürer [0.7] er 
yeah [0.8] er for example was taken by this idea as was Vermeer [0.8] great [0.
2] er [1.2] Flemish artist [0.8] but it w-, it went through i mean the point 
then was it went right through in a way to er [0.3] the early nineteenth 
century as well [1.3] er [0.3] here [1.1] is [0.6] er [0.8] a woodcut [0.2] of 
somebody carrying out [0.2] the diaphanous plane experiment so you can pass 
that around and i'll talk about it [0.7] now the idea of it is this [0.2] okay 
[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 [0.6] er [1.6] if i [0.2] 
take [0.8] this [0.4] building [0.3] whatever that is what's that building is 
that is er [1.4] 
Animal and Microbial Sciences okay [0.6] i want to produce a perfectly 
realistic representation of that building [1.4] then what i do is i get between 
me and the building [0.2] a diaphanous [0.2] diaphanous meaning transparent [0.
6] diaphanous is a phrase which is a a word which is most often used now to 
apply to women's dresses [0.5] a diaphanous dress meaning a kind of transparent 
you know [0.6] Jennifer Lopez type dress or whatever [0.8] [laughter] er [0.7] 
but it just means transparent [0.3] so we get a transparent [0.3] plane and by 
[0.2] plane we just mean a a [0.2] plane [0.5] you know flat surface [0.3] and 
okay so a very good example of a diaphanous plane is precisely [0.4] a piece of 
glass [0.2] okay [0.4] so there is a diaphanous plane [0.2] so between us and 
the scene we want to represent is a diaphanous plane the piece of glass [0.2] 
sm0127: [0.2] 
nm0114: and then what i do is this just listen to the technique involved in the 
diaphanous plane experiment [1.0] what i do is i mix my paints [1.1] and i take 
[0.4] some [0.3] point [0.7] on [0.2] the diaphanous plane [0.7] and what i do 
is i put a 
blob of paint we can imagine this being done [0.3] you know blob of paint by 
blob of paint [0.7] you know [0.3] tiny little point like that [0.4] i put a 
blob of paint [0.5] which [0.7] then exactly matches [0.2] the colour [0.5] of 
what lies behind it [0.4] what i see behind it [0.4] okay [0.3] so i mix my 
paints in such a way that at each stage when i put [0.4] a blob of paint on the 
piece of glass [0.5] it [0.3] then [0.2] covers up what lies behind it [0.5] I-
E [0.4] Animal and Microbial Sciences building [0.4] but also is exactly the 
same colour as and i just make sure that i match all the colours [0.6] and then 
when i've filled the diaphanous plane with paint [0.6] what i have is something 
that [0.2] conceals what lies behind it [0.4] but [0.2] exactly matches what 
lies behind it [0.3] such that if i've done this if i've performed this 
experiment successfully [0.4] such that [0.5] we can't tell [0.3] the 
diaphanous plane as it were [0.6] is is now [0.2] metaphorically still 
diaphanous [0.5] you know it it isn't any longer really transparent because 
i've put paint on it [0.3] but it's as if it were still transparent [0.5] 
because [0.6] we can't [0.2] tell looking at it [0.4] that it covers [0.3] what 
it conceals because it [0.2] it covers and exactly matches what it conceals [0.
3] okay [0.6] that's the idea of the diaphanous plane experiment [0.6] and 
throughout [0.2] i i've come back in a minute 
sm0127: [0.9] 
nm0114: and throughout the [1.0] er [0.7] er fifteenth century up to the 
nineteenth century [0.4] this remained a kind of ideal [0.3] of [0.5] er the 
perfectly realistic painting [0.8] and indeed [0.4] the [0.4] er [1.2] 
development of the camera [0.8] er [0.8] arose out of such a set of ideas [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 [0.5] but [0.2] the [0.4] the camera [2.2] yeah 
[0.2] it's interesting this isn't it why why do we call an apparatus for taking 
photographs [0.3] with the Italian or Latin name for a room because that's what 
camera is [0.9] camera's Latin for room [0.3] well [0.6] the reason is this [0.
3] that [1.0] in the [0.7] sixteenth seventeenth eighteenth century [0.7] art 
people very [0.7] often had [1.0] camera obscuras [0.8] er there still are 
camera obscuras there's one in Edinburgh has anybody seen the camera obscura in 
Edinburgh [0.6] 
sf0128: yeah [0.3] 
nm0114: and a camera obscura is a darkened room and that's what it actually 
literally means camera obscura a darkened room [0.7] and in within the darkened 
room you have thrown onto a wall or onto a table depe-, depending where the 
thing is [0.3] you have thrown onto a wall or a table an image [0.4] which 
comes into the room [0.2] by means of a [0.2] say a pinhole of light [0.5] or 
perhaps a a lens [0.4] which then casts an image of what lights lies outside 
the room [0.3] onto the table [0.4] and the camera obscura in Edinburgh is 
indeed a fascinating thing because you can go into that room and with the [0.5] 
powerf-, [0.3] powerful lens that they have they can [0.3] show you in this 
darkened room the whole of Edinburgh the camera obscura is in a high point near 
the castle [0.6] and they can rotate round at the top of this [0.3] r-, room a 
p-, a powerful telescope and they can kind of home in on [0.5] you know a 
couple who are sitting together a mile away from this room in a on a [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 
[0.4] on the table in front of you are these people [0.2] an amazing idea [0.8] 
okay [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 [0.4] camera 
obscuras this one in Edinburgh is a large room [0.4] but you produce a portable 
camera obscura [0.5] my [0.2] grandfather was an artist and he had a portable 
camera obscura [0.4] and what it what it consisted of was a was a wooden [0.2] 
box [0.8] and that's about the [0.3] actual size of one side of the wooden box 
[0.5] in the front of which was [0.6] a lens which you could rotate around [0.
9] and then [0.9] there was a [1.8] a lid that you could lift up [0.3] and 
you'd put a sort of black [0.6] cloak around you so you could then look in [0.
5] to this [0.2] er [4.6] er machine [0.8] and [0.3] you there's a piece of 
ground glass [0.2] there [0.6] and an image of what lay outside would be [0.8] 
formed on this ground glass and you could then look down onto the ground glass 
and see you know [0.2] the [0.2] image of the scenes around you [0.7] and 
then if you wanted you could put a piece of [0.8] er fairly thin paper on top 
of that and draw the outlines of objects [0.3] and so you know [0.2] produce a 
[0.2] a good [0.2] sketch of the [0.3] scene that you were looking at [0.7] and 
so that was were a portable camera obscura [0.6] and because [0.2] people in 
the early nineteenth century became interested in the idea of somehow other 
fixing this image [0.2] that the camera started [0.2] they started treating the 
[0.6] you know the paper here with chemicals such that the images which [0.4] 
were [0.2] put onto the paper were [0.6] kept [0.4] permanent [0.3] and that 
was how the camera started [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 [0.5] okay [0.
7] and that's just [0.2] m-, er by the way [0.6] now [0.3] okay ba-, Ben what 
was it what were you going to say 
sm0129: you'll probably get onto it 
nm0114: yeah 
sm0129: i'll leave you to go before i mention 
nm0114: all right okay all right [0.3] 
sm0129: yeah [2.7] 
nm0114: but there's a problem [0.8] there's a problem with the 
diaphanous plane experiment [0.5] in fact there are whole series of problems [0.
5] and interestingly enough it's a project [0.5] which you can't actually 
succeed in carrying out [0.8] i'm not [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 [0.4] impossible 
[0.7] to produce [0.4] by this means [0.7] er [0.5] a [0.8] perfectly realistic 
representation of the scene which lies behind [0.6] and i'm going to try to 
explain some of the difficulties [0.3] okay [0.8] we're starting with some of 
the more obvious difficulties [0.4] the first thing is this [0.8] that of 
course if i actually put my finger on the glass which i am doing now [0.6] and 
i [0.2] put it such that it [0.5] is trying to cover that window there [0.6] 
what actually is happening is that i see [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 [1.3] 'cause i've got two eyes [0.5] and the finger which 
is near me when i then when i then focus [0.6] on the thing which is further 
away i see [0.2] two [0.5] fingers [0.3] you under-, [0.4] you understand what 
i'm saying there [2.0] 
so [1.8] when i put a blob of paint [0.3] where my finger is [0.7] which bit of 
what lies behind should it cover up [0.5] there are two bits which it covers up 
[0.8] oh well look [0.2] you might say look [1.3] [laugh] it's not a problem [0.
6] close one eye [1.7] okay so we've got to close one eye [2.1] the next thing 
is [0.4] [1.2] if i [0.6] close one eye [0.2] and cover up [0.7] a spot there 
[0.8] and then look up there [0.8] okay if i look up at the corner of the 
building [0.2] i can see in my peripheral vision [0.6] that [0.2] the spot 
which i put [0.6] on [0.3] the glass [0.5] is now no longer covering [0.2] what 
it previously covered in other words there's an effect of parallax [1.0] which 
e-, [0.2] which exists [1.1] okay [2.5] er [1.1] another problem [1.9] when i 
[1.6] when i look at [0.4] the building [0.7] A-M-S [0.4] what i see is in 
focus [0.5] when i look at my finger [0.3] what i see is no longer in focus [0.
8] okay [1.7] do i paint [0.3] A-M-S in focus [0.5] or not in focus [2.3] you 
understand as i as i look [0.3] now at that building [0.9] as i look at the 
building itself [0.3] i see something which is in focus 'cause my eye is 
adapting to this distant [0.2] vision [0.6] but then when i now focus on 
the diaphanous plane on which i'm going to put paint [0.5] what lies behind is 
now [0.5] no longer [0.9] in focus [3.3] so do i paint what's in focus or 
what's not s-, not in focus [4.4] er [2.3] another [0.3] another problem [0.3] 
is this [1.7] if you think what happens when you [1.6] look [0.2] at a scene [0.
6] if you look at a scene [1.4] from [0.3] a fixed position with one eye with 
just a [0.4] fixed focus which is what we're now being required to do to 
perform this unusual experiment [1.0] then [0.3] i mean just [0.5] think about 
this [0.5] right i'm [0.7] i'm looking i'm looking at the A-M-S building [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 [0.4] slit-like windows there [0.9] and i'm 
looking at that [1.0] now [0.4] th-, [0.2] think of how one sees the rest of 
the building [0.2] as you look at that [1.0] do you understand what i'm getting 
at here [0.4] a well known thing about vision about peripheral vision [2.1] d-, 
[0.6] a similar point is this [0.6] if you [0.3] if you focus on [0.2] 
something that's in front of you like that [0.4] and you hold up a hand here 
i'm aware of this hand [0.7] but 
i'm aware of it in a very kind of imprecise way [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 [laughter] okay 
[0.7] in other words [0.2] the nature of human vision is such that in the 
centre of the field of vision we have a detailed [0.3] er [0.2] piece which is 
in focus [0.3] and as we get more and more towards the periphery [0.3] we have 
[0.3] less [0.4] detail more as it were blurred [0.3] vision 
sf0130: [0.5] 
nm0114: now should [0.3] should the perfectly realistic [0.3] diaphanous plane 
experiment [0.5] should that result [0.2] in a painting [0.3] which is like 
that [0.2] which is [0.2] you know perfectly in focus in the middle [0.4] but 
more and more blurred [0.3] as we get towards the outside [0.6] i did actually 
in the things i passed round to you [0.4] i showed you but didn't comment on it 
[0.5] er a [0.2] picture which was like that using a particular kind of 
advertising [0.5] technique [0.2] okay [1.0] this [1.0] picture here [0.8] if 
you look at that you'll see [0.5] that this area here [0.5] is sharply in 
focus [0.3] and as we get more towards the [0.3] outside of it for example the 
top of the woman's [0.2] head [0.3] and the outside of it it's less and less [0.
2] in focus [0.6] quite a common technique for fashion photography in fact 
sometimes [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 [0.7] okay [0.4] will our diaphanous plane experiment result 
in a picture like that [0.7] because if it does here's the paradox if it does 
[0.5] it won't actually [0.3] look realistic [0.4] because when we look at it 
just [0.4] think about this a neat point [0.6] when we look at it if you look 
at the centre of such a painting [0.5] where it is in focus [0.3] okay [1.3] 
then the periphery of the painting will be doubly [0.2] out of focus [1.3] once 
because it actually is out of focus and once because of the nature of your 
vision [0.8] do you understand what i'm saying here [0.2] if the whole of that 
picture [0.5] were in focus [0.3] then if you looked at the centre of it [0.5] 
the bit in the centre would in your field of 
vision be in focus and the [0.6] surrounding bit of it would be [0.7] blurred 
[0.4] the peripheral vision would be blurred [0.6] but in this we have that 
kind of squared [1.1] so should a perfectly realistic painting be one that's in 
focus all over [0.3] which our field of vision never is [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 [0.2] it doesn't look at all realistic [0.6] okay 
[0.6] now [0.7] these are some of the reasons why the diaphanous plane 
experiment [0.6] actually turns out to be a kind of [0.2] you know impossible 
[0.3] dream Ben were you going to [0.6] kind of say something different 
sm0129: just think that we 
nm0114: all right all right 
sm0129: and anyway i mean i was going to [0.3] sort of comment about 
stereoscopy and 
nm0114: mm 
sm0129: and stuff 
nm0114: mm 
sm0129: but but that's just an extrapolation of what you've said anyway so 
nm0114: right [0.9] okay [2.0] okay [1.4] and there's an additional [0.9] er so 
[1.1] that's some thoughts for you [0.4] but there's an additional extra reason 
of course [0.8] that's worth commenting on i suppose [0.7] which is that [3.2] 
no [1.6] realistic painting [1.4] is going to deceive us [1.0] for very long [0.
3] of course paintings can sometimes deceive us [0.5] when paintings do 
deceive us it's usually something [0.4] to do [0.5] more with our expectations 
and conditions of staging than it is to do with the realism of them [0.5] er 
for example here here's a a [0.9] a real example [0.5] [cough] [0.8] in the er 
[0.3] the Vatican [1.9] there's a series of portraits of former popes [1.4] and 
on one of these portraits of one of the former popes [0.6] there is on [0.2] 
the [0.4] the pope's er [0.3] robe [0.9] there's a fly [0.4] painted [1.3] and 
so many people [0.5] as they've walked along [0.2] have seen the fly and have 
gone [0.7] onto the corner of the painting [0.4] they've actually now put on 
the corner of the painting a piece of plastic [laughter] 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 [1.3] now the point i want to make 
about that is not is [0.2] is this [0.4] it's not that that painting of a fly 
is particularly realistic [0.5] okay [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 
sf0132: [0.5] 
nm0114: yeah [0.4] so [0.6] 
sf0133: i've got a trailer 
nm0114: mm 
sf0133: wasp on it [0.3] and people keep going 
nm0114: [laughter] oh right yes yes [laughter] very similar [1.0] so [1.3] er 
[1.0] pic-, 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 [0.4] but even when people 
are deceived by a painting [0.4] [cough] they're not deceived for very long [0.
4] even if even if we were [0.8] which i think is impossible to succeed in 
producing the diaphanous plane perfect representation [0.6] it wouldn't deceive 
us for very long at all [0.7] for as long as we stood [0.2] in one position [0.
3] with one eye open with a fixed direction of gaze [0.3] we might think gosh 
[0.2] there's the A-M-S building [0.5] but as soon as we waver slightly open 
the other eye change our direction of gaze move [0.3] any of those things [0.5] 
the illusion is destroyed [0.2] it immediately becomes apparent [0.2] that this 
is [0.4] a painting [0.3] and not the real thing [0.3] you unders-, [0.2] so [0.
3] er and and that's just i 
mean [0.8] that's just what people do people don't stand [0.8] with a fixed 
focus [0.2] with one direction of gaze with one eye open for hours on end so [0.
2] even realistic paintings 
sf0134: [0.4] 
nm0114: mm [0.4] 
sf0134: it's nothing but just the list sounds funny 
nm0114: yes 
sf0134: you just imagine people standing with one leg [0.2] 
nm0114: yeah [laughter] 
sf0134: [1.5] 
nm0114: okay [0.9] now [0.4] finally [0.7] on [0.3] the deception theory [1.6] 
it seems to me that there's a [0.2] there's another [0.4] reason [0.9] why the 
deception theory has to be rejected [0.4] i mean all the reasons we've 
suggested so far are perfectly good reasons [0.5] but there's another reason 
for the deception theory to be rejected [1.1] it's simply as i've put here the 
wrong sort of explanation [0.3] and i want to [1.0] emphasize this [0.5] the 
wrong sort of explanation [0.6] it simply [0.3] is [0.2] untrue [0.3] to our 
experience of art [0.6] in this way [2.2] what interests us and intrigues us 
about art [0.6] in general [0.8] and about realistic art in particular [0.9] is 
the way in which one thing [0.8] can [1.4] be [1.0] something else [0.8] er [1.
3] when we look at a painting of a vase of flowers [1.9] a a a say a [0.3] late 
eighteenth century French [0.5] painting [1.3] a vase of flowers [0.3] you can 
you imagine 
i don't know if you think of tho-, if you know these paintings but the [0.5] in 
the late eighteenth century France there was a whole er [0.9] kind of a [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 [0.6] 
idea [1.1] when we when we look at one of those paintings [0.6] one thing that 
[0.3] interests us and and intrigues us is the way in which [0.5] oil [0.2] 
paint on canvas [0.6] can be oil paint on canvas and be [0.2] or represent [1.
1] you know [0.4] flowers and [0.2] fruit [0.2] and the dead animal [0.6] 
that's [0.2] that's what's exciting about art [0.9] if [0.2] if the true 
explanation of realism was that we were being deceived it would remove the 
point of art [0.3] the painting itself would as it were disappear from view [0.
8] you know [0.2] the only the only reason then why we might be interested in 
the [0.2] in the painting of a vase of flowers [0.3] was if we were interested 
in the vase of flowers [0.6] but i think 
that we're interested in art because we're interested in one thing [0.3] 
standing for another [0.3] representing another [0.5] that's what we find 
intriguing interesting about art [0.6] so i think it's the wrong sort of 
explanation [0.5] i-, as it were subverts the whole [0.8] point [0.3] of [1.8] 
what [0.4] interests us most [0.5] about art [13.2] so [0.8] we have to [0.4] 
reject [0.6] i think the deception theory [3.1] er [2.3] i will mention just 
extremely briefly [0.5] two further possible theories both of which have been 
[0.8] fairly influential in [0.6] last fifty years or so [1.8] one of them we 
might call er [0.6] er [0.2] information theory [26.4] 
in this theory A is a realistic representation of B [6.2] to the extent [2.9] 
that [0.2] it [2.0] gives us [2.5] information [3.3] about B [1.0] or more 
information it gives [1.5] the more realistic it is [8.6] [cough] [1.2] [6.5] 
now this can er this doesn't suffer from the problem of fictions because we 
could be given information about you know a unicorn [0.4] even though a unicorn 
doesn't exist [0.8] er [1.0] it doesn't fall foul of the [1.2] the way in which 
in the deception theory [0.5] this could be a realistic representation of a 
human being because this gives us very little information [0.2] about [0.6] the 
person [0.9] it it [1.0] it accords with some of the ideas we might have about 
realism [0.4] you know that a highly realistic painting [0.5] you know [0.4] 
does give us a lot of information a Jan van Eyck painting for example [0.8] you 
know van Eyck's paintings very very realistic so realistic you can take a [0.8] 
magnifying glass and look at them and you can see you know the individual [0.7] 
blades of grass he often painted 
with a single hair [0.8] to get all the detail in 
sm0135: last week 
nm0114: yes [0.2] mm-hmm [1.8] so [0.9] er [1.4] it gets at that [5.4] but it 
doesn't seem to be right [0.5] at least [0.3] as it is [0.7] because [0.6] 
giving us information well information can be given in all sorts of different 
ways [8.2] this doesn't seem to get at [1.7] the kind of pictorial nature of 
pictorial art [0.6] when i say information can be given in all sorts of ways [0.
4] information could be given in in [0.2] coded ways [0.4] er [0.8] for 
instance [0.2] er [2.9] a photograph [1.0] and the negative of a photograph [0.
9] could each give us the same amount of information [0.8] in fact as the 
positive is generated from the negative the positive can't give us [0.4] more 
information it gives us just the same information the negative does [0.6] we 
wouldn't be inclined to say that the negative [0.3] was a realistic 
representation of the thing [0.2] i th-, [0.3] i'm just trying to get at an 
idea there [0.5] or [0.2] take another example [1.3] suppose we have er [0.8] 
thi-, think of think if you've got some super-duper computer and you've got 
some wonderful er [0.5] you 
know f-, [0.5] photo editor type program and you've got a [0.2] super new 
printer which prints out to high resolution [0.6] and you you print out a high 
resolution copy of a painting [0.2] say a [0.2] a van Eyck [0.2] or a Constable 
to take two examples we've been talking about okay [1.0] now [1.5] at some 
stage inside your computer [0.5] in order d-, to do all of this the information 
which is contained in the thing that you [0.4] print out [0.5] has been encoded 
in some way in some digital way [0.6] there could for example be a program [0.
2] we could produce a program [0.2] for [0.2] printing out [0.2] the van Eyck 
[0.3] painting [0.8] you know er just to [0.5] st-, step back a stage [0.7] 
i've been [0.9] lecturing for so long at this university that [0.3] er i [0.2] 
thought of this same point even before computers were [0.4] common [0.8] er 
when i first came to this university nobody had ever seen a computer that's [0.
3] literally [0.2] true there was a computer in the university and it was in 
Whiteknights House and people [0.2] from all over the university used to carry 
kind of [0.3] shoeboxes full of punched cards to [0.5] give in 
and then a week later they would get the [0.4] the printout [0.3] of what they 
were doing [0.2] so that was just was incredible nobody had actually seen a 
computer at all [1.1] anyway [0.7] when i was talking about this sort of thing 
then i used a different example which was [1.1] of [0.2] n-, [0.2] you know the 
way in which people [0.4] with typewriters th-, those now as it s-, seemed 
rather kind of antique instruments [0.3] some people used to be able to type [0.
5] and as the thing came out of the back of the typewriter you get a picture of 
the Mona Lisa [0.3] 
sm0136: mm 
nm0114: have you ever seen that [0.4] and you know there's a way of giving a 
kind of program for that [0.2] like rather like a knitting pattern [0.2] you 
know [0.5] type [0.2] er 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 [0.3] and if you type all those letters in the way that it said [0.3] 
what would come out would be something rather like the Frank Zappa thing i 
showed last week [0.3] or be something which when 
you held it up would [0.2] look like the Mona Lisa [0.6] okay [0.2] you 
understand [0.2] so that's the kind of precomputer example of the program [0.4] 
okay in both cases what you have is a program [0.4] which [0.3] when [0.2] this 
is [0.5] carried out in some way or other results in an image [0.8] now the 
point i'm making is this that the program [0.4] contains [0.8] it gives us [0.
2] in a certain way [0.2] the same information as the picture does [0.4] but we 
wouldn't call the program [0.5] a realistic representation [3.2] or [1.0] would 
we [0.3] and i'm just [0.2] i'm going to actually take a break in just two or 
three minutes [0.4] and i've s-, [0.7] 
sf0137: 
nm0114: but wait wait there's [0.2] just just an idea [1.1] or would we [2.4] 
listen [1.1] couldn't there be some [1.3] nerdy people [0.8] who are so used [1.
2] to dealing with [1.2] computer programs [1.3] that when they see [0.7] a 
program a line by line program 
sf0138: program 
nm0114: they'll they'll even one they've never seen before [0.2] they'll say 
wow that's a fantastic [0.4] image of so and so [0.7] look if that seems 
extraordinary let me put two ideas to you if that seems an extraordinary idea 
[0.8] to 
somebody who was entirely unacquainted [0.6] with the conventions of musical 
notation [0.6] it would seem absolutely extraordinary [0.6] that somebody could 
look at that and say [0.2] as somebody who was musically competent [0.3] and 
could read music sight read music well [0.4] somebody could look at that and 
say [0.2] gosh that's a beautiful tune [0.9] i mean people do that don't they 
[0.5] when [0.2] they have [0.2] composition [0.8] competitions [0.7] then [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 [0.4] they can do that [0.7] is that any 
more extraordinary what i'm [0.2] than what i'm saying [2.2] or take another 
example another even more bizarre [0.2] example perhaps [1.1] if we're thinking 
of the way in which information is en-, [0.2] encoded and can be read [0.5] 
here information about the sound is encoded in a certain sort of way [0.5] and 
can be read by some people in [0.2] such a way that they as it were [0.4] are 
directly in contact with the sound [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 [0.5] as it 
were don't see the computer program they see the picture [0.4] as it were 
through the computer program [0.4] here's another example [0.9] [cough] [0.7] 
there was a guy who used to appear on television long time ago [0.5] ninety-
sixties round about then [0.8] and he had this particular trick and what people 
would do would be to give him [0.2] records vinyl records [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 [0.8] okay [1.0] you know from the kind 
of you know the the the ridges [0.8] er [0.4] you know how you know how a vinyl 
will look there's a certain kind of pattern of ridges on it [0.7] [laughter] 
and what's more he would even i mean he would even get [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 wh-, and so on you know [0.3] this kind of thing [1.9] er as in so 
many things it turned out in the end to be kind of [laughter] a fraud 
[laughter] but look there's no reason [0.4] i mean there's certainly n-, no 
reason in principle why somebody couldn't do that is there [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 [0.5] i mean you could certainly come to 
recognize the records in your own collection like that [0.5] and if the labels 
fell off you could probably without having to play them [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 [0.5] so what i'm thinking 
of here is [1.3] that information can be encoded in a variety of different ways 
[0.4] but what matters [0.5] is not so much [0.7] the information but this [0.
2] little phrase here gives us [0.6] there's something [0.2] i-, [0.2] the 
information theory doesn't doesn't on its own quite get at something which is 
important [0.5] it isn't just that a realistic representation [0.6] contains 
information [0.6] [cough] but that it gives us the information it yields that 
information easily [2.3] for instance Turner's paintings people couldn't read 
Turner's paintings originally [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 [1.7] 
the same information was contained in the 
painting before and after they were able to do it [0.6] but [0.3] that little 
phrase gives us it needs needs some expansion here it's to do with how easily 
the information [0.7] er yields itself [2.9] so a kind of [0.5] adaptation of 
the information theory [0.3] might be [0.7] er [0.9] information theory plus [0.
5] i think [0.3] can't think of a very good way to put it but [1.2] er [2.1] 
sm0139: 
nm0114: easily yielded [1.5] okay and the person who who's most forcefully 
advocated [0.2] that is Nelson Goodman [0.2] a very [1.3] important [1.4] 
philosopher of art and philosopher in general [1.3] okay [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 [0.
3] for about ten minutes [0.7] and then we'll come back and have [0.2] 
questions and discussion [0.9] okay