 the intentionally guided activity of the painter. The status of the brush-stroke is accorded no bearing on the status of the image. Mind-independence as a feature of the transfer of paint to the canvas would not lead us to claim that the image is not a picture; and to say that the image is a picture we do not need to insist that the causal transfer of paint is mind-dependent. If we compare the painting process with the photographic process, we notice an important difference. A brush-stroke produces a mark, but the individual mark caused by a brush-stroke is not sufficient to display a visual image.22 By comparison when the record from an individual photographic event is used to produce a photo-object, it 22 Japanese calligraphy might count as an interesting exception. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 16 can already display a visual image. This makes a significant difference to the status of the two kinds of image. In the case of painting, it is not possible for a final image to exist unless a painter is responsible. In the case of photography, it is possible for a final image to exist even if no photographer is responsible. I believe that this difference suffices to explain why photographs are a distinct category of image. Painted images are defined by mind-dependence. But, importantly, we do not need to define photographs as mind-independent in order to distinguish the types of image. The significant difference lies in the fact that the image is produced by a different kind of process. The photographic process is mind-independent but that fact isn't what makes a photo-image different from a painted image. I believe that philosophers who have drawn a distinction between photographs and handmade pictures have overlooked this point. Currie writes: An accident in a paint shop may result in something startlingly reminiscent of Chartres, but no portrait of that cathedral is produced by the spillage. There might even be photograph-producing plants or animals, whose surfaces hold an imprint of focused light (perhaps our brains are a bit like that). But there cannot be paintings that are the product of nature below the threshold of intentionality.23 I agree with Currie that there cannot be paintings in nature below the threshold of intentionality. However, he goes on to use the facts that there are photo-images in nature and that accidental photo-images are possible, to make lack of intentionality a defining feature of photographs. Instead, simply imagine that we do not prioritise the question of mindindependence. A photo-image is distinct from a painted image,
the intentionally guided activity of the painter. The status of the brush - solidus is harmonize no bearing on the status of the image. thinker - independence as a feature of the transfer of rouge to the sail would not lead us to claim that the persona is not a picture; and to say that the trope is a picture we do not need to importune that the causal transfer of paint is mind - dependent. If we compare the painting process with the photographic process, we notice an significant difference. A brush - stroke produces a sign, but the individual mark caused by a brush - stroke is not sufficient to display a ocular image.22 By comparison when the record from an individual photographic event is used to produce a photo - aim, it 22 Japanese calligraphy might count as an interesting exception. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 16 can already display a visual image. This makes a significant remainder to the status of the two kinds of image. In the case of painting, it is not possible for a final image to exist unless a painter is responsible. In the case of photography, it is potential for a concluding image to exist even if no photographer is responsible. I believe that this remainder suffices to explain why photographs are a discrete category of image. Painted images are specify by mind - dependence. But, importantly, we do not need to define photograph as mind - independent in order to distinguish the types of image. The significant deviation lies in the fact that the image is produced by a different kind of process. The photographic procedure is mind - independent but that fact isn't what makes a photograph - image unlike from a painted image. I believe that philosophers who have drawn a eminence between photographs and handmade pictures have overlook this point. Currie spell: An accident in a paint workshop may result in something startlingly evocative of Chartres, but no portrait of that cathedral is produced by the spillage. There might even be photograph - produce plants or animal, whose surfaces hold an imprint of focused sparkle (perhaps our brains are a bit like that). But there cannot be paintings that are the product of nature below the doorway of intentionality.23 I agree with Currie that there cannot be paintings in nature below the doorway of intentionality. However, he goes on to use the facts that there are photo - images in nature and that accidental photograph - images are possible, to make lack of intentionality a defining feature of photographs. Instead, simply think that we do not prioritise the question of mindindependence. A photo - image is distinct from a painted image,
 thf intentionally guided agtivity of the pcunter. Vhe stafus of tfe brush-stroke is accorded nl vearibg on the status of thd image. Mpnd-indepebdenre as a feature of the tvcnsfed of 'amnt to the canvss would nmt lead us to wlxil that the image is not a picture; agd to ssy that the imagg is s picflrt we do not need to insist that tge causel transfer of laint is mind-dependent. If ae clmpare the paintinh process wuth eye photograpfic process, we notice zn important difference. A brush-rtrokz produces q narn, but the invividuwl mark causcc by a brush-syroke is not smfficment to display a visual mmage.22 By comparison rhen the seeord from an individuql photmgra[hic wvevt js uaed to prkduce a phkto-object, ir 22 Japanese calligrsprj might count as an igteresting exception. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 16 cdn zlready display a visuao image. This makes a dignificagt difference to the status of the two kinds of ikage. Mn tht gwrw lf painting, it is not possible for a final imwfe tp exist unless a painter os rrfponsible. In jhe casz or photography, it id possifle fir a finaj imsge to exist even if no phorographer is eesponsible. I belizve that thir digferemce suffices to explain why photographd are a djrtinct category uf pmaga. Painted images are definqd by minv-depeudence. Bjt, ikportagtly, we do not kaed to define photlgrapks as mind-indepfndent in order to distinguish vie types of ikace. Nhe signiyicant difference lyes in the facj that thz imagd is produbed by a vifferent kigd of process. Jhe photograpiic procefs iw mibd-indepdvdent but that fact isn'n chat makew a photo-image difnerenj rrom a painted noqge. I believe tnat phyllspprars who have dradn x distknction betcedn pnotographs and handmdde lictures have overkojked thiw point. Surrie writes: An accident in a kaint vho' may tesolt in something startlingly rejiniscent of Chartres, bue no portrait of that cathedral is produced by the spiloage. There might gven be photograph-probuging plants pr anymals, whove surfaces hold an umprint of focusec light (perhaps our bdains dre a bit like that). But there cannot be paintings that are the product of natuee below the thresgold of ittzntnonalitr.23 I egcee with Currie tnat there cannot be paintings ii nature baljw the threshold of intentiomauity. However, fe goes on to use the fadts that there are photo-images in naturr and that accidental phpto-imagew are possible, vo make lack of intemtionanity q definung neature of phogogtaihs. Insteaf, sikpmy imagine that we do not prioririse tye question of minvindependencc. X phojo-image ys distinct from a pzlnted image,
the intentionally guided activity of the painter. of brush-stroke is no bearing on Mind-independence a feature of transfer of paint the canvas would not lead us claim that the image is not a picture; and to say that the is a picture we do not need to insist that the causal transfer paint mind-dependent. we the painting process with the photographic process, we notice an important difference. A brush-stroke produces a but the individual mark caused by a brush-stroke not sufficient to display visual image.22 By comparison when record an individual event used produce a photo-object, 22 Japanese calligraphy might count as an interesting exception. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 16 can already display a image. This significant difference the of two kinds of the case of painting, it is a final image to exist unless a painter responsible. In case of photography, it is possible a final image to exist even if no is responsible. I believe that this difference suffices to explain why photographs are a distinct image. Painted images are by mind-dependence. But, we not to photographs as in order to distinguish the types of image. The significant difference in the fact that the image is produced by a of The photographic process mind-independent but that fact what a photo-image different from image. believe have a between photographs and handmade have overlooked this point. Currie An accident in a something startlingly reminiscent of Chartres, but no portrait that cathedral is produced by the spillage. might even be photograph-producing plants or animals, whose surfaces hold an imprint focused light brains are a bit like that). But there be paintings that are product of nature below the threshold of intentionality.23 I with that there be paintings in below the threshold intentionality. However, he to use facts there nature and that accidental photo-images are to lack of intentionality a defining of simply imagine that we do not prioritise the question of mindindependence. A photo-image is distinct painted image,
 the intentionally guided actIvity of the PaintEr. THe sTaTus oF the Brush-stroke is aCCordEd no bearing on the status Of the ImAGe. MiND-iNdepeNdence aS A fEATurE oF tHe tRaNSfEr of pAinT to the cAnvas would Not LeAd us to claim tHAt The image is Not A picture; and tO saY that tHe ImaGE is a pIctUre we Do not nEEd to inSist that tHe CAusal tRAnsfer oF PAiNt is Mind-dependent. If we COmPAre the painting ProcesS wITh THE phOtoGraphic proCeSs, we nOTice an iMPoRTANt dIFference. A brusH-stroke prodUCes A mark, bUt The INdividUal maRk CAusEd by a brush-sTrokE is not sufFicienT To displAY a visuaL image.22 by cOmpArisON wHeN thE rECorD FrOm aN IndIvidual pHoToGraphIc evENT IS useD to ProdUce a pHoto-object, it 22 JApaNese CAllIgrapHy migHt coUnT as an IntereSting ExCeption. DAWN M. PHIlLIPs 16 can alreaDy dIsPlaY a VisuaL Image. THis MakEs a signIficant DIffErENCE tO the status of the two KiNDS oF image. In The casE Of PaINting, it iS nOt pOssiBLE for a FinaL ImAge to exiSt unleSS a PaInter is ReSponsiBlE. In The Case oF PhotOgraphY, it is posSible FOr a final image tO Exist even if no PHoTOGrAPher Is rEsponsible. I BeliEVe thAt thIS dIffERence SuffiCeS To EXplain why photographS aRe a disTinct Category of imaGe. Painted iMAGEs are defIned BY mINd-dependence. BuT, impoRtantly, we dO Not need tO defiNe photogRaphs as miND-IndependEnt In oRdeR to DIStInguish the typES Of imAgE. The sigNifIcant diFfeRenCe lIes In The fact thAt the imaGe Is PrOdUceD by a dIFferent kInD of PrOceSs. The PHotogrAphic ProcEsS iS MinD-indepeNDeNT But tHaT fAct iSn't WhAt makEs a pHOto-Image diFferent frOm a PAintEd ImAge. I belIeve that philoSoPhers who haVe DraWn a disTINction beTween photographs and handMAde pictUreS have OverLooked thiS poInt. CurRie WRites: AN accidEnt in A pAinT SHop maY REsUlt In Something sTARtlIngly ReMiniScent of chartres, but no portrAIt oF that cathedraL is ProdUCEd By tHE sPIllAgE. theRE Might even be photOgraph-prodUcINg Plants or anIMalS, wHose surFaces hoLd an iMPrint of Focused liGht (perhapS oUr brAINs aRe a bit like That). But tHere cannoT Be paiNTiNgs thAt aRe the pRoDucT of naTure beLOw tHe thrEshold Of IntentIonalItY.23 I agree wIth Currie that there cannoT be paiNtingS in Nature belOw tHE thReshold of InteNtionality. howEveR, he goEs oN To use The fACtS thAT therE are PHoto-imageS In NatURE aNd that accidENTAl pHoto-iMagES are poSsibLe, to make lack of intENtionality a defIninG FEatUre OF phoToGraphs. Instead, sImpLy IMAgine thaT wE do not priorItise the QuEStion Of mindIndepeNdence. A PHOtO-Image iS disTinCt from a paIntEd IMage,
 the intentionally guidedactivity o f the  pa int er . Th e st atus of the br u sh-s troke is accorded no b earin go n th e  s tatus  of the im a g e.Mi nd -in de p en dence  as  a feat ure of the  tr an sfer of pain t  t o the canv aswould not le adus tocl aim thatthe  imag e is n o t a pi cture; an dt o sayt hat the i ma ge i s a picture we do no t  need to insis t that  t h ec a usa l t ransfer of  p ainti s mind- d ep e n d ent .  If we compar e the paint i ngproces swit h  the p hotog ra p hic  process, w e no tice an i mporta n t diffe r ence. A  brush -st rok e pr o du ce s a  m a rk, bu t t h e i ndividua lma rk ca used b y a br ush -str oke i s not suffici ent  tod isp lay a  visu al i ma ge.22  By co mpari so n when the reco rd f rom an in div id ual  p hotog r aphiceve ntis used  to pro d uce  a p h ot o-object, it 22 Ja pa n e se  calligr aphy m i gh tc ount asan  in tere s t ing e xcep t io n. DAWNM. PHI L LI PS  16 can  a lready  d isp lay  a vi s ualimage.  This ma kes a significant di f ference to th e  s t a tu s  ofthe  two kindsof i m age.  Int he  ca s e ofpaint in g ,i t is not possible f or  a fin al im age to existunless a p a i n ter is r espo n si b le. In the cas e ofphotograph y , it ispossi ble fora final i m a ge to ex ist  ev enifn o  p hotographer i s resp on sible.I b elievetha t t his  di ff erence su ffices t oex pl ai n w hy ph o tographs  a readis tinct catego ry of  ima ge .P ain ted ima g es a re d ef in ed b y m in d-dep ende n ce.  But, i mportantl y,w e do  n ot  need t o define phot og raphs as m in d-i ndepen d e nt in or der to distinguish thet ypes of  im age.Thesignifica ntdiffer enc e  liesin the  fact  t hat t he im a g eispr oduced bya dif feren tkind  of pro cess. The photogra p hic  process is m ind -ind e p en den t  b u t t ha t  fa c t  isn't what mak es a photo -i m ag e differen t  fr om  a pain ted ima ge. I believe  that phi losophers  w ho h a v e d rawn a dis tinction  betweenp hotog r ap hs an d h andmad epic tures  haveo ver looke d this  p oint.Curri ewrites:An accident in a paintshop m ay re sul t in some thi n g s tartlingl y re miniscentofCha rtres , b u t noport r ai t o f  that  cat h edral isp ro duc e d  b y the spill a g e . T heremig h t even  bephotograph-produc i ng plants or a nima l s , w hos e  sur fa ces hold an im pri nt o f focuse dlight (perh aps ourbr a ins a re a b it lik e that) . Bu t  there  can not  be paint ing st hat are  t he produc t of  n aturebelowt he t h r eshold of intent ional i t y.23I  ag ree w it h Curri e  tha t there ca nnot be pai ntings  innatur e below  t he thr esh ol d of inten t ionality.  Howe ver, he  g oesonto use  the f actsthat  t her e are pho t o -i m ag es innatu re an dthat  accident a l photo- ima g es arepo ssi b l e, tom ak e lack of in ten tiona l i ty a defin i ng f e at u re of  photo graphs . Inste a d,si mply im agi n e  that wedo not pr i ori ti se t he quest io n of  m ind in dependence. A p hoto-ima ge is di s t inct f rom a pa i nted i ma ge,
 the_intentionally guided_activity of the painter._The status_of_the brush-stroke_is_accorded no bearing_on the status_of the image. Mind-independence_as a feature_of_the transfer of paint to the canvas would not lead us to claim that_the_image is_not_a_picture; and to say that_the image is a picture_we do_not need to insist that the causal transfer_of_paint is mind-dependent._If we compare the painting process with the photographic_process, we notice an important difference._A brush-stroke produces_a_mark,_but the individual mark_caused by a brush-stroke is not_sufficient to display a visual image.22_By comparison when the record from an_individual photographic event is used to_produce a photo-object, it 22_Japanese calligraphy_might count as an interesting_exception. DAWN M._PHILLIPS 16_can already display_a visual image. This makes a_significant difference to_the status of the two kinds_of_image. In the_case_of_painting, it_is not possible_for_a final_image_to exist unless a painter is_responsible._In the case of photography, it is_possible for a final_image_to exist even if_no photographer is responsible. I_believe that this difference suffices to_explain why_photographs are_a distinct category of image. Painted images are defined by mind-dependence._But, importantly, we do not need_to define photographs as_mind-independent in_order_to distinguish the_types_of image._The significant difference lies in the fact_that the_image is produced by a different_kind of process. The_photographic_process is mind-independent but that fact_isn't what makes a photo-image different_from a painted image. I_believe_that_philosophers who have drawn a_distinction between photographs and handmade pictures_have overlooked this_point. Currie writes: An accident in a_paint_shop may result in something startlingly_reminiscent_of Chartres, but no portrait of_that_cathedral_is produced by the spillage._There might even be photograph-producing plants_or animals, whose surfaces hold an imprint of focused_light (perhaps our_brains are a bit like_that)._But_there cannot be paintings that are the product of nature_below the_threshold of intentionality.23_I agree with Currie that there cannot be paintings in_nature below the threshold of intentionality. However,_he goes on to use the facts that there are photo-images_in nature and that accidental photo-images are possible,_to make lack of intentionality a defining_feature of photographs. Instead,_simply_imagine that we do not prioritise the_question_of_mindindependence._A photo-image is_distinct from a_painted image,