BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Sabre//Sabre VObject 4.6.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Zurich X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Zurich TZURL:http://tzurl.org/zoneinfo/Europe/Zurich BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:19810329T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:19961027T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:news351@eikones.philhist.unibas.ch DTSTAMP;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260820T163720 DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260915T181500 SUMMARY:Naturalism and Camouflage DESCRIPTION:Many Greco-Roman anecdotes about encounters between images and their viewers explore the deceptive powers of naturalism. In Pliny’s fam ous account of the contest between Zeuxis and Parrhasius\, birds attempt t o peck at Zeuxis’s painted grapes\, mistaking the image for what it repr esents (Natural History 35.65-66). This moment of ontological oscillation \, in which the perceived distinction between representation and reality c ollapses\, is usually understood as a demonstration of the painter’s vir tuosity. Yet the anecdote also presupposes that animals possess the percep tual and semiotic capacities required to be deceived by an image.\\r\\nAni mals\, however\, are themselves producers of visual deception. Like the pa inted grapes\, an octopus camouflaging itself as its surroundings presents itself as something it is not. Ancient zoological texts frequently remark upon this capacity\, while vase paintings and mosaics turn animal camoufl age into an object of representation. Read in this context\, Pliny’s ane cdote suggests a continuity between animal and human practices of image-ma king and viewing.\\r\\nAn ethological perspective also complicates convent ional accounts of naturalism. Visual deception does not necessarily lead v iewers to recognize and admire pictorial illusion\, as in trompe-l’œil painting. Modelled on animal camouflage\, it may instead hold the viewer w ithin a state of perceptual ambiguity. Such deception is more than a repre sentational phenomenon: it is a form of adaptive and social behaviour\, em bedded in interactions between agents and observers and\, in the animal wo rld\, directed towards survival.\\r\\nThis lecture therefore considers hum an and animal image-making as part of a spectrum of mimetic behaviour grou nded in perceptual and cognitive capacities shared across species. Buildin g on Philippe Descola’s anthropological account of early modern naturali st painting\, it proposes an ethological foundation for naturalism in the arts. X-ALT-DESC:

Many Greco-Roman anecdotes about encounters between images an d their viewers explore the deceptive powers of naturalism. In Pliny’s f amous account of the contest between Zeuxis and Parrhasius\, birds attempt to peck at Zeuxis’s painted grapes\, mistaking the image for what it re presents (Natural History \;35.65-66). This moment of ontologic al oscillation\, in which the perceived distinction between representation and reality collapses\, is usually understood as a demonstration of the p ainter’s virtuosity. Yet the anecdote also presupposes that animals poss ess the perceptual and semiotic capacities required to be deceived by an i mage.

\n

Animals\, however\, are themselves producers of visual decep tion. Like the painted grapes\, an octopus camouflaging itself as its surr oundings presents itself as something it is not. Ancient zoological texts frequently remark upon this capacity\, while vase paintings and mosaics tu rn animal camouflage into an object of representation. Read in this contex t\, Pliny’s anecdote suggests a continuity between animal and human prac tices of image-making and viewing.

\n

An ethological perspective also complicates conventional accounts of naturalism. Visual deception does no t necessarily lead viewers to recognize and admire pictorial illusion\, as in trompe-l’œil painting. Modelled on animal camouflage\, it may inste ad hold the viewer within a state of perceptual ambiguity. Such deception is more than a representational phenomenon: it is a form of adaptive and s ocial behaviour\, embedded in interactions between agents and observers an d\, in the animal world\, directed towards survival.

\n

This lecture therefore considers human and animal image-making as part of a spectrum of mimetic behaviour grounded in perceptual and cognitive capacities shared across species. Building on Philippe Descola’s anthropological account o f early modern naturalist painting\, it proposes an ethological foundation for naturalism in the arts.

\n\n DTEND;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20260915T193000 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR