Robert Hopkins (2003) suggests that Wollheim’s view, in its broad outlines, is as
plausible for sculpture as for painting. But seeing‐in must function differently for
sculpture than for painting: in standard sculptural cases, it will not involve
ascertaining a three‐dimensional object based on marks on a two‐dimensional
surface. H
...
However, we should not conclude that the sculpture simply represents an
object that shares its three‐dimensional form (perhaps adjusted for scale). As
Hopkins (1994) notes, particular objects can be misrepresented in sculpture: a
sculpture may present a caricature of a person, or may present some of her features
erroneously, while still representing her. The sculptural form may be abstract
enough that its material features don’t resemble those of its subject to the exclusion
of every other person. Moreover, it may possess stylistic elements (such as a rough
surface) that we clearly are not meant to attribute to the person.
plausible for sculpture as for painting. But seeing‐in must function differently for
sculpture than for painting: in standard sculptural cases, it will not involve
ascertaining a three‐dimensional object based on marks on a two‐dimensional
surface. H
...
However, we should not conclude that the sculpture simply represents an
object that shares its three‐dimensional form (perhaps adjusted for scale). As
Hopkins (1994) notes, particular objects can be misrepresented in sculpture: a
sculpture may present a caricature of a person, or may present some of her features
erroneously, while still representing her. The sculptural form may be abstract
enough that its material features don’t resemble those of its subject to the exclusion
of every other person. Moreover, it may possess stylistic elements (such as a rough
surface) that we clearly are not meant to attribute to the person.