That descriptive pictures urge us to look at them, and to become involved with them, is amply demonstrated by the essays in this issue through their exploration of how material forms and content impinge upon each other. This invitation from naturalistic pictures to interpret them, as Larry Silver observes in his response, is not limited to Netherlandish examples, and the following comments turn to some late sixteenth-century Italian cases to explore further the interplay of realism and ambiguity. All of the essays consider how a mode of representation, form, or a genre can be pushed to its limits, and the ensuing effects: the profane usurping the sacred parable and transforming it (Bret Rothstein); perspectives that force viewers to look in unexpected ways (Celeste Brusati); etching materializing as landscape (Christopher Heuer); the reanimation of the skeleton (Rose Marie San Juan); the table becoming still life (Joanna Woodall); and the demands for attentive looking leading to boredom (Angela Vanhaelen). Importantly the interplay of form and content and the involvement this engenders open up ethical and political considerations by fostering thinking and debate. These are implications of what we are describing as the erotics of looking reconsidered below by pursuing how genres interfere with each other and the dynamic role of realism in that process.Before taking up some Italian paintings, this response turns briefl y to some methodological interests and lines of inquiry brought forward in the issue. As Rothstein notes, Susan Sontag called for an 'erotics of art' in her essay, 'Against Interpretation', fi rst published in 1966. There she insists that '[a] work of art encountered as a work of art is an experience, not a statement or an answer to a question. Art is not only about something; it is something.' 1 Sontag's 'erotics of art' resonates with methodological attention to experimentation, invention and material forms by the authors in this issue. By retaining erotics, we mean to emphasize the viewer's involvement with phenomena and thus how the approach stands apart from methodologies concerned with perception and cognition. Shifting the focus to looking, however, highlights how these pictures challenge expectations of viewers and thereby activate interpretation. Looking at art occurred in social spaces: upper middle-class burghers and aristocrats could imagine themselves carousing with prostitutes and drinking beer in taverns (Rothstein); amateurs were viewing still lifes in artists' studios (Woodall); Hercules Segers' prints were studied in scientifi c collections (Heuer); and perspectives engaged visitors in conversation in fashionable homes (Brusati). Looking at art was a social enterprise, and provocative and ambiguous pictures encouraged thinking and interaction.