How, then, are we to 
interpret the data accumulated 
by anthropologists and 
psychologists that are said to 
show that people in 
technologically backward 
societies, who have no 
experience viewing pictures, 
are incapable of, or extremely 
poor at, perceiving pictures as 
representations? The answer is 
that the data available simply 
do not justify that conclusion. 
It is undoubtedly true that, on 
being shown pictures or even 
photographs for the first time, 
individuals in certain societies 
express puzzlement and often 
seem not to recognize what is 
represented. But is this 
surprising? A picture is itself an 
object, a two-dimensional 
object at that, with certain 
markings on it. Observers must 
adopt the pictorial attitude, one 
in which they are prepared to 
perceive a picture in two 
different ways simultaneously. 
We are used to doing this, but 
the people tested were not. Only 
when observers understand 
that they must adopt this 
attitude can we ask whether or 
not they are capable of 
recognizing what is depicted. 
The evidence available is 
unequivocal on this question. 
They do recognize people, 
animals, and other familiar 
objects depicted in drawings 
and photographs. Their 
interpretation of what is 
happening in a picture may 
vary from our own--as, for 
example, whether a group of 
people are dancing or fighting--
but this fact should hardly 
surprise us either. 
Interpretation on this level 
ought to be a function of 
cultural background.