in this context, depicting reality and representing reality are exactly the same thing. You are heading in the direction of arguing about the difference in meaning between depiction and representation, rather than addressing the real issue.
You may think that no one could believe the world exists in shades of grey, but it ain't necessarily so. An enormous amount of what we assume is universal in the way we see pictures, is not. People who have different cultures of the image see pictures in an entirely different way from us, and sometimes have to be taught to recognise things that we take for granted. For instance, in some isolated Muslim cultures, people didn't recognise the humans in pictures that we would consider highly realistic and representational. People from other cultures have had difficulty mapping the 2D representation to the 3D reality. Similarly, we have had to be taught certain ways of seeing. Consider, for example, how medieval Europeans depicted the world before Brunelleschi taught us about single viewpoint linear perspective, then consider how Picasso has (re)taught us about multiple viewpoint perspective. -- Cheers, Bob > Children aren't allowed to see BW photography? No one could > possibly believe that the world exists in shades of gray. > Photos don't depict reality. Photos are representations of > reality that differ from what the eye sees in a variety of ways. > > > >
