Ambiguity pertains not only to language but also to pictures. Pictorial ambiguity presents independent problems of interpretation, however, since the notion of replication, that is, sameness of spelling – which is useful in explicating linguistic ambiguity – is not applicable to pictures. Yet pictures often involve the sort of ambivalence associated with ambiguous expressions, and pictures are indeed frequently described as ambiguous. How, then, is pictorial ambiguity to be understood? That is our present problem.

WHAT AMBIGUITY IS NOT

The problem needs refinement, for ordinary attributions of ambiguity to pictures are too elastic to be of theoretical interest. A picture that represents something unfamiliar, improbable, fantastic, or impossible may surprise or take one aback but need not be ambiguous, strictly speaking, any more than a corresponding representation in words. Nor are mere generality or vagueness to be confused with ambiguity. A picture of a woodpecker in Peterson's Field Guide to the Birds East of the Rockies makes a general reference to woodpeckers but is not therefore ambiguous. Nor is a picture of a finch ambiguous in leaving one undecided as to whether the bird at the feeder is a finch or not.