. Dogmatism occurs if we assert that mind-independence is a defining feature of photographs. But dogmatism is flawed, not least because it rests on a vague conception of 'photograph'. A substantive account of the photographic process has clarified that mind-independence is a thesis that plausibly applies to photo-objects and photo-images. Dogmatism is the claim that 'photographs are mind-independent'. I propose to replace this with the more accurate claim: 'photo-images are mindindependent'. This helps us to avoid the problems associated with dogmatism. Every photograph is a photo-image, but not every photograph is just a photo-image. Some photographs are pictures. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 15 VI. PHOTOGRAPHS AS A DISTINCT CATEGORY OF IMAGE In this section I argue that we can understand the distinction between photographs and other images without appealing to mind-independence as the defining feature of photographs. Put considerations of photography to one side. Images can be created by a painting process and we can offer a substantive description of this process. Consider a painter who wishes to create a portrait of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. With Brunel sitting as a studio model, the painter can employ the painting process in order to create an image that will constitute a picture of Brunel. To achieve this, the painter will work with paints, brushes and canvas. When a brush loaded with paint makes contact with the canvas, it transfers paint to the canvas leaving a semi-permanent mark that corresponds to the movement of the brush. This phenomenon – a brush-stroke – consists of a mind-independent relation between the brush and the mark. It is a causal phenomenon that in its basic form can occur in nature: think of purple stains on the skin of someone eating blackberries. The mark caused by the occurrence of an individual brush-stroke does not, by itself, display a visual image. However, when the painter has applied many brush-strokes, the painted canvas can eventually display an image; an image that constitutes a picture. We understand the phenomenon of a brush-stroke well enough without mentioning that it is a'mind-independent' causal phenomenon. To draw attention to this fact, even though true, would be an unnecessary distraction. In the context of the painting process, what is most salient to us is that the final image – the painting – will not exist unless a painter is responsible. We are satisfied that the painted image would not have existed without
. Dogmatism occurs if we assert that mind - independence is a define feature of speech of photographs. But dogmatism is blemished, not least because it rests on a undefined conception of' photograph'. A substantial account of the photographic process has clarify that mind - independence is a thesis that credibly applies to photo - objects and photo - image. Dogmatism is the claim that' photographs are mind - independent'. I project to replace this with the more accurate claim:' photo - prototype are mindindependent'. This helps us to avoid the problems associated with bigotry. Every photograph is a photo - trope, but not every photograph is just a photo - image. Some photograph are pictures. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 15 VI. PHOTOGRAPHS AS A DISTINCT CATEGORY OF IMAGE In this section I argue that we can understand the distinction between photograph and early image without appealing to mind - independence as the defining feature of photographs. Put considerations of photography to one side. effigy can be created by a painting process and we can propose a substantial description of this process. Consider a painter who wish to make a portrait of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. With Brunel sitting as a studio apartment model, the painter can employ the painting process in order to create an image that will constitute a picture of Brunel. To achieve this, the painter will work with paints, brush and canvas tent. When a brush loaded with paint makes liaison with the canvas, it transfers paint to the canvas leaving a semi - permanent mark that corresponds to the movement of the brush. This phenomenon – a brush - stroke – consists of a thinker - independent relative between the brush and the mark. It is a causal phenomenon that in its basic form can happen in nature: think of purple stains on the skin of someone consume blackberries. The chump caused by the occurrence of an individual brush - solidus does not, by itself, expose a visual image. However, when the painter has apply many brush - strokes, the painted canvas can eventually display an persona; an image that constitutes a painting. We understand the phenomenon of a brush - stroke well enough without mentioning that it is a'mind - independent' causal phenomenon. To draw attention to this fact, even though on-key, would be an unnecessary distraction. In the context of the painting process, what is most salient to us is that the final image – the painting – will not exist unless a painter is creditworthy. We are satisfied that the painted double would not have existed without
. Dohmatism occurs if we asstrt that mind-indekebdence is a sefining feature of photographs. But vogmqtism is flawed, not least bdcause it rests ob a tague conception of 'photograph'. W suysvantive account of the phmtographic prowers has clarified that mind-independencq is a yhfsis that plaufiblj wppljvs to photo-objects and photo-imafes. Dogkatism is the claim that 'photographs arf mijd-independent'. I prlpose to rekmacq this with tfe more acbbrate claim: 'photo-images are mindindependeng'. Thix helps us ti agmid the proulems wssociated wlnh dogmdtism. Efery photograpm is e phito-image, but not everb photograph is just a photo-ikaye. Some photographs aee pictores. GAWN N. PFILMI'S 15 VI. PHLTOJRAPHS AS A DISTINCT CQTEGORY OF IMAGE In trpx section I zrgue ehwt we can understand the distinction beuween photographs and other umages without appeallng to migd-independence as the defining feature of photogrdphs. 'ug cinfkeegations of photography to one side. Images can ge cgeated by a paintlng process and we cwn jffer a substxntive deacription of this orocess. Consuder a payntet who wishes to create a poetrait of Iscmbqrd Kingdom Brunel. With Bruneu sijting ss a studio model, the pcinter can employ the painfkng process in ofdeg to create an image that will constituve a 'icture uf Btunel. Tj achieve hhis, bve painter will wogk wijh paitts, brushed and canvas. When a brush loadev with paint kanes contact with the canvas, ie transfers pannt to tke canxas leavinf a semm-permanent mwrk that corradponds to thx movemene of the brush. Gfis phenomenon – a brush-stroke – cobsists of a mind-invepevsent relation bzuwetn the brush and thd mwrn. Mt is d causal phetomevon yhat kn its basig furm van occur in nature: dhini of purple stains ok the skib of somqone eating bkackberries. The magk cansed bb the pccorrence of an individual brush-sfroke doed njt, by itself, disilay a visual nmage. However, when the painter has applixd many brush-strokes, thw painted canvas cau tventually dixplay an image; an image that constututes a picture. Ee understand the phehomenot of w brush-stroke well enough without mentioning that it is a'mind-independent' xausal phenomenon. Fo dtaw anteutipn to ehis hact, even though nrue, would be an unnecessary disvraction. It che context of the painting ptozess, what is oost salient to us is thzt the fonal image – the painting – will mot exist unless a paintcr is responsigle. We are satisfied that thr painced imqge wouod nlt have existdd eibhout
. Dogmatism occurs if we assert that a feature of But dogmatism is rests a vague conception 'photograph'. A substantive of the photographic process has clarified mind-independence is a thesis that plausibly applies to photo-objects and photo-images. Dogmatism is claim that 'photographs are mind-independent'. I propose to replace this with the more claim: are This us to avoid the problems associated with dogmatism. Every photograph is a photo-image, but not every is just a photo-image. Some photographs are pictures. M. PHILLIPS 15 VI. AS A DISTINCT CATEGORY OF In section I that can the distinction between and other images without appealing to mind-independence as the defining feature of photographs. Put considerations of photography one side. be created a process we can offer description of this process. Consider a to create a portrait of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Brunel sitting a studio model, the painter can the painting process in order to create an that will constitute a picture of Brunel. To achieve this, the painter will work with and canvas. When a loaded with paint contact the it paint to canvas leaving a semi-permanent mark that corresponds to the movement of brush. This phenomenon – a brush-stroke – consists of a between brush and the It is a causal that its basic form can nature: of the of eating blackberries. The mark by the occurrence of an brush-stroke does not, by However, when the painter has applied many brush-strokes, painted canvas can eventually display an image; image that constitutes a picture. We understand the phenomenon of a brush-stroke enough without it is a'mind-independent' causal phenomenon. To draw attention this fact, even though would be an unnecessary distraction. In the context of painting what is salient to us that the final – the painting not exist a is satisfied that the painted image would have without
. Dogmatism occurs if we assert That mind-inDepenDenCe iS a DefiNing Feature of photoGRaphS. But dogmatism is flawed, nOt leaSt BEcauSE iT restS on a vagUE cONCepTiOn Of 'pHoTOgRaph'. A SubStantivE account of The PhOtographic prOCeSs has clariFieD that mind-indEpeNdence Is A thESis thAt pLausiBly appLIes to pHoto-objecTs ANd photO-Images. DOGMaTism Is the claim that 'phoTOgRAphs are mind-indEpendeNt'. i PrOPOse To rEplace this WiTh the MOre accuRAtE CLAim: 'PHoto-images are MindindepenDEnt'. this heLpS us TO avoid The prObLEms Associated wIth dOgmatism. EVery phOTograph IS a photo-Image, bUt nOt eVery PHoToGraPh IS juST a PhoTO-imAge. Some pHoToGraphS are PICTUres. dAWn M. PHiLLIPs 15 VI. PHOTOGRAPHs AS a DIStiNCt CATEgORY Of IMAgE in thiS sectiOn I arGuE that we can underStanD the distiNctIoN beTwEen phOTograpHs aNd oTher imaGes withOUt aPpEALInG to mind-independencE aS THe Defining FeaturE Of PhOTographs. puT coNsidERAtionS of pHOtOgraphy tO one siDE. IMaGes can bE cReated By A paIntIng prOCess And we cAn offer a SubstANtive descriptiON of this procesS. coNSIdER a paIntEr who wishes To crEAte a PortRAiT of iSambaRd KinGdOM BRUnel. With Brunel sittiNg As a stuDio moDel, the painter Can employ tHE PAinting pRoceSS iN Order to create aN imagE that will cONstitute A pictUre of BruNel. To achiEVE this, the PaiNteR wiLl wORK wIth paints, brusHES and CaNvas. WheN a bRush loaDed WitH paInt MaKes contacT with the CaNvAs, It TraNsferS Paint to tHe CanVaS leAving A Semi-peRmaneNt maRk ThAT coRresponDS tO THe moVeMeNt of The BrUsh. ThIs phENomEnon – a brUsh-stroke – ConSIsts Of A mInd-indePendent relatiOn Between the BrUsh And the MARk. It is a cAusal phenomenon that in itS Basic foRm cAn occUr in Nature: thiNk oF purplE stAIns on tHe skin Of somEoNe eATIng blACKbErrIeS. The mark caUSEd bY the oCcUrreNce of an Individual brush-strOKe dOes not, by itselF, diSplaY A ViSuaL ImAGe. HOwEVer, WHEn the painter has Applied manY bRUsH-strokes, thE PaiNtEd canvaS can eveNtualLY displaY an image; aN image thaT cOnstITUteS a picture. WE understAnd the pheNOmenoN Of A brusH-stRoke weLl EnoUgh wiThout mENtiOning That it Is A'mind-iNdepeNdEnt' causaL phenomenon. To draw attentIon to tHis faCt, eVen though TruE, WouLd be an unnEcesSary distraCtiOn. IN the cOntEXt of tHe paINtIng PRocesS, whaT Is most salIEnT to US Is That the finaL IMAge – The paIntINg – will Not eXist unless a painteR Is responsible. WE are SATisFieD That ThE painted image wOulD nOT Have exisTeD without
. Dogmatism occurs if we a ssert that  mind -in dep en denc e is  a defining fe a ture  of photographs. But d ogmat is m  isf la wed,not lea s tb e cau se  i t r es t son avag ue conc eption of'ph ot ograph'. A s u bs tantive ac cou nt of the ph oto graphi cpro c ess h asclari fied t h at min d-indepen de n ce isa  thesis t ha t pl ausibly applies t o  p h oto-objects an d phot o- i ma g e s.Dog matism isth e cla i m that' ph o t o gra p hs are mind-i ndependent' .  Ipropos etor eplace  this  w i ththe more ac cura te claim:  'phot o -images are min dindep end ent '. T h is  h elp su s t o  a voi d  th e proble ms  a ssoci ated w i t h do gma tism . Eve ry photograph  is  a p h oto -imag e, bu t no tevery  photo graph  i s just a photo- imag e. Some p hot og rap hs  arep icture s.DAW N M. PH ILLIPS1 5 V I. P H OT OGRAPHS AS A DISTI NC T CA TEGORY O F IMAG E  I nt his sect io n I  arg u e  that  wec an  underst and th e  d is tinctio nbetwee npho tog raphs andotherimages w ithou t  appealing tom ind-independe n ce a st he d efi ning featur e of phot ogra p hs . P u t con sider at i on s  of photography toon e side . Ima ges can be cr eated by a p a inting p roce s sa nd we can offe r a s ubstantive descript ion o f this p rocess. C o n sider apai nte r w how i sh es to createa port ra it of I sam bard Ki ngd omBru nel .With Brun el sitti ng  a sastu dio m o del, the  p ain te r c an em p loy th e pai ntin gpr o ces s in or d er t o cr ea te  anima ge  that  wil l  co nstitut e a pictu reo f Br un el . To ac hieve this, t he  painter w il l w ork wi t h  paints,  brushes and canvas. Wh e n a bru shloade d wi th paintmak es con tac t  withthe ca nvas,  i t t r a nsfer s pa int  t o the canv a s  le aving  a  sem i-perma nent mark that cor r esp onds to the m ove ment o fthe br u sh.  T h isp h enomenon – a br ush-stroke  – co nsists ofa  mi nd -indepe ndent r elati o n betwe en the br ush and t he  mar k .  It  is a caus al pheno menon tha t  in i t sbasic  fo rm can  o ccu r innature :  th ink o f purp le  stain s onth e skin o f someone eating blackb erries . The  ma rk caused  by the  occurren ce o f an indiv idu albrush -st r oke d oesn ot , b y  itse lf,d isplay av is ual i ma ge. However , w hen  thepai n ter ha s ap plied many brush- s trokes, the pa inte d can vas canev entually displ ayan i mage; an  i mage that c onstitut es a pic ture.We und erstand t he phenom enon  of  a brush- str ok e  well e no ug h  witho ut m en tionin g that it i s a'mind-independe nt' c a u sal p h eno menon .To draw atte ntion to t his fact, e ven th ough  true , would  b e an u nne ce ssary dist r action. I n the  contex tof t hepainti ng p r o cess,  wha tismost sali e n tt ous isthat  thefi nalimage – t h e painti ng–  will n ot  ex i s t unle s sa painter is  re spons i b le. We are sati s fi e d tha t thepainte d image wou ld  not ha vee x isted wit hout
. Dogmatism_occurs if_we assert that mind-independence_is a_defining_feature of_photographs._But dogmatism is_flawed, not least_because it rests on_a vague conception_of_'photograph'. A substantive account of the photographic process has clarified that mind-independence is a_thesis_that plausibly_applies_to_photo-objects and photo-images. Dogmatism is_the claim that 'photographs are_mind-independent'. I_propose to replace this with the more accurate_claim:_'photo-images are mindindependent'._This helps us to avoid the problems associated with_dogmatism. Every photograph is a photo-image,_but not every_photograph_is_just a photo-image. Some_photographs are pictures. DAWN M. PHILLIPS_15 VI. PHOTOGRAPHS AS A DISTINCT_CATEGORY OF IMAGE In this section I_argue that we can understand the_distinction between photographs and other_images without_appealing to mind-independence as the_defining feature of_photographs. Put_considerations of photography_to one side. Images can be_created by a_painting process and we can offer_a_substantive description of_this_process._Consider a_painter who wishes_to_create a_portrait_of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. With Brunel_sitting_as a studio model, the painter can_employ the painting process_in_order to create an_image that will constitute a_picture of Brunel. To achieve this,_the painter_will work_with paints, brushes and canvas. When a brush loaded with paint_makes contact with the canvas, it_transfers paint to the_canvas leaving_a_semi-permanent mark that_corresponds_to the_movement of the brush. This phenomenon –_a brush-stroke_– consists of a mind-independent relation_between the brush and_the_mark. It is a causal phenomenon_that in its basic form can_occur in nature: think of_purple_stains_on the skin of someone_eating blackberries. The mark caused by_the occurrence of_an individual brush-stroke does not, by itself,_display_a visual image. However, when the_painter_has applied many brush-strokes, the painted_canvas_can_eventually display an image; an_image that constitutes a picture. We_understand the phenomenon of a brush-stroke well enough without_mentioning that it_is a'mind-independent' causal phenomenon. To_draw_attention_to this fact, even though true, would be an unnecessary_distraction. In_the context of_the painting process, what is most salient to us is_that the final image – the painting_– will not exist unless a painter is responsible. We are_satisfied that the painted image would not have_existed without