ABSTRACT
What kind of thing is a film? What kind of thing is a photograph? Philosophers who have pondered such matters have generally been moved by the following sorts of considerations. To appreciate an artwork or cultural artifact requires at least an experiential engagement of some kind with an instance of that work or artifact, whereby some or all of the properties bearing upon its appreciation are made manifest to the receiver. In the case of a painting, what is required is an experiential encounter with a particular physical object which is located at any given time in a particular gallery or museum, and this makes it plausible to identify the work itself with that object. In the case of a film or photograph, however, there seem to be many different locations where, at a given time, we might experientially encounter the work or artifact in the manner necessary for its appreciation. You may be watching Citizen Kane, or looking at a photograph by Diane Arbus, in Los Angeles at the same moment that I am watching the same film or viewing the same photograph in London. In this respect, films and photographs seem to resemble musical and literary works. Appreciating a musical work requires hearing it performed, and appreciating a literary work requires reading it, but people in different locations engaging with different objects or events can simultaneously have the necessary experiential encounter with a given musical or literary work.
