This chapter considers John Haugeland’s original proposal for how bare-bones content should figure in an account of depiction. It argues that his account fails and identifies where the account fails, transparency, and the other conditions set forth in Chapters 2 and 3 step in to fill the gaps and explain Haugeland’s mistakes. The upshot is that Haugeland introduced an important (and neglected) tool for understanding pictures, but he did not use it to its fullest potential.
Keywords: bare-bones content, fleshed-out content, Haugeland, transparency, iconic, logical