© Gary Kemp; penultimate version of a paper to appear in the British Journal of Aesthetics; do not quote or cite. 1 On Looking through Wollheim’s Bifocals: Depiction, Twofolded Seeing and the Trompe-l’œil Abstract: Richard Wollheim was hardly alone in supposing that his account of pictorial depiction implies that a trompe-l’œil is not a depiction. I recommend removing this apparent implication by inserting a Kant-style version of aspect- perception into his account. I characterize the result as Neo-Wollheimian, and retain the centrality of Wollheim’s notion of twofoldedness in the theory of depiction, but I demote it to a contingent feature of depictions, and I criticize his employment of it for determining the category of both the trompe-l’œil and depictions in general. According to Richard Wollheim, a marked surface pictorially depicts an item (object, state-of-affairs) just in case competent spectators can see the item in the surface when viewing it, and it was intended that they should be able to do so by the maker of the marked surface. 1 Wollheim’s use of ‘seeing-in’ was inspired partly by Wittgenstein’s famous discussion of seeing-as or aspect-perception. 2 I accept that Avner Baz has more or less demonstrated that 1 Richard Wollheim, ‘Seeing-as, seeing-in, and pictorial representation’, in his Art and its Objects: With Six Supplementary Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press 1980), 205-226; Painting as an Art, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1987), 43-59; ‘On Pictorial Representation’, i n Rob van Gerwen (ed.) Richard Wollheim on the Art of Painting: Art as Representation and Expression (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 13-27; ‘In Defense of Seeing-In’, in Heiko Hecht, Robert Schwartz, and Margaret Atherton (eds) Looking into Pictures: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Pictorial Space (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 2003), 131-167; Richard Wollheim and Robert Hopkins, ‘What Makes Representat ional Painting Truly Visual?’, Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society 77 (2003), 131-67. 2 The central discussion is at Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations, revised 4 th edition, ed. Peter Hacker and Joachim Schulte, trans Elizabeth Anscombe, Peter Hacker and Joachim Schulte (Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, 2009 [1953]), 203-240 [‘Philosophy of Psychology – a Fragment’ §§111-364].