Abstract

Kendall Walton has recently claimed that the notion of fictionality is more fundamental and philosophically relevant than the distinction between (works of) fiction and (works of) non-fiction. In this chapter, I argue that one of the reasons why the latter distinction is important is precisely that it affects what turns out to be fictional or true in a representational work. This is specifically relevant for Walton’s view – many of the examples he uses to show that his (former) notion of fictionality is flawed – those that are photographic in nature – depend on an implicit classification of those works as fiction or non-fiction. This being the case, even if it is true that the notion of fictionality is more fundamental than categorizing a work as fiction or non-fiction, the former depends partly on the latter. My second aim in this chapter is to clarify the consequences that Walton’s reconsidered view of fictionality has for his theory of pictorial representation. Paying attention to the examples he uses to argue for his new view on fictionality makes it clear that his account of depiction, despite being modelled on his notion of fictionality, is relevantly different from it.