Logo

    Episode 16: Raffle-winner Destin: It Moves Us. We Call it "Art"

    en-usJanuary 19, 2020
    What was the main topic of the podcast episode?
    Summarise the key points discussed in the episode?
    Were there any notable quotes or insights from the speakers?
    Which popular books were mentioned in this episode?
    Were there any points particularly controversial or thought-provoking discussed in the episode?
    Were any current events or trending topics addressed in the episode?

    About this Episode

    Destin was the winner of our raffle at our fundraising event at Postmasters Gallery in October, 2019. It was a contest to raffle off a philosopher, and I, Dena Shottenkirk, ended up being the philosopher who was raffled and Destin won the slot of being the talkPOPc participant. He gives a definition of art as something that makes people feel something. He also argues that prestige items are such because they make us feel something. They move us. Something is expensive because it makes us feel something. Cars, jewelry, etc. I give this back to him and ask him if this is what he is saying: things are valued because they move us, and art is just a subcategory of that. It is the being dazzled that makes something valuable. He concurs.

    Support the show

    Twitter: @talkpopc
    Instagram: @talkpopc

    Recent Episodes from talkPOPc's Podcast

    R.P. Shottenkirk speak in Prague at Jilska 14 with Victoria about art, peacemaking, and God

    R.P. Shottenkirk speak in Prague at Jilska 14 with Victoria about art, peacemaking, and God

    Timestamps:

    • 00:10: Introductions with Victoria
    • 01:50: What does Art do for people? What's the point? Opening a door to philosophy/psychology. Sharing experiences between nations perhaps. 
    • 03:55: Art starts in a place, in a culture and is a representation of that. Art spreading allows movement from culture to culture. A transference of knowledge. But now, Art is different than it used to be
    • 07:25: American Art, German Art. Do nationalistic identities of Art still exist? Globalization's impact on Art. Peacemaking might not make so much sense if the Art is all the same. 
    • 09:45: Western Art and the use of non-Western cultures. Is Art universally communicative but in a not-so-good way?
    • 12:45: Rootless individuals, if that's true, what function does Art still have? Where do we go from here? Should we pivot inwards toward traditions?
    • 16:00: Art as a marketplace. Perhaps that shouldn't be the goal. Humanist over mercantile goals. 
    • 17:00: Religion/Art, do humans have the capacity/responsibility to create in an analogous way to God?
    Support the show

    Twitter: @talkpopc
    Instagram: @talkpopc

    talkPOPc's Podcast
    en-usJanuary 03, 2024

    Episode #109: Resident Philosopher Vincent Peluce talks with talkPOPc participant Levi about censorship

    Episode #109: Resident Philosopher Vincent Peluce talks with talkPOPc participant Levi about censorship

    00 - 6:55 Vincent and Levi debate whether there are kinds of speech that one should censor. Levi argued that censorship should be avoided in general, not just of government speech but of social speech. After all, people are too sensitive to censorship to ask questions. Vincent acknowledged that censorship is a hard topic these days, citing neo-Nazi rhetoric as an example.
    6:57 - 23:13 Vincent and Levi discuss the influence of social media. Vincent believes that social media is now international and even global, and everything happens very quickly. Levi agreed and believed that people in different social conditions would have different ideas, censorship cannot stop people from thinking but talking. He believes that what people need today is "the third space," a psychological term that means giving people space to change their minds and reject past ideas instead of always sticking to the ideas they had ten years ago. therefore, people need to slow down and focus, learn from real-life conversations rather than social media, and value feedback from real people rather than Twitter friends.
    23:15 - 32:05 Levi mentioned his favorite ship theory, which is to gradually replace parts of the old ship and combine the replaced parts of the old ship into a new ship, so the old ship and the new ship may be difficult to identify but are never the same. He compared people to ships, and thoughts are parts, "After traveling around the world, we are the original ship, but it does not mean that all parts are the same. The key is how to update your thoughts, and behavior gives people the opportunity to change ideas." He likes how old Disney movies are mentioned at the beginning as being "not representative of today's culture" because they respect the original and separate it from today's values.
    32:07 -61:40 Levi came up with the idea that people are reluctant to engage in conversation because it's unsafe to talk in some places, and humor is a great way to solve complex problems, just like Tom chasing Jerry can always make people laugh. Vincent agrees but thinks humor isn't the only way. Then they talked about why people like comedy characters, the possibility of the film Step Brothers remake, and why some comedy shows are so popular, all with unexpected parts and combinations in common.
    61: 45- 73:44 Vincent summarized the content of this conversation and expressed his personal reflections: Expanding into new conversations is difficult but always rewarding in the end, and personal conversations often turn into larger conversations.

    Support the show

    Twitter: @talkpopc
    Instagram: @talkpopc

    Episode #108: R.P. Shottenkirk and Brandl speak at the Galerie 5020 in Salzburg, Austria on art as a tool for individual cognition and social cooperation

    Episode #108: R.P. Shottenkirk and Brandl speak at the Galerie 5020 in Salzburg, Austria on art as a tool for individual cognition and social cooperation

    00-2:08: Brandl speaks of the general topic of art as epistemology. He asks: What does this mean? It depends on how one defines epistemology; if epistemology is gaining knowledge, you can't interpret art as the study of gaining knowledge - it is not a simple predicate-identity sentence. But why not say that art is a tool for the study of cognition?
    2:10- 2:47: Shottenkirk laughs and states that he's gotten to the soft underbelly of the problem quite fast! She notes, "I stole that phrase so long ago I forgot a long time ago...I stole it from Nelson Goodman...and I disagree with much that he said although I agree with this." I think it's a kind of epistemology.
    2:50 - 4:00: Brandl notes that saying it is a kind of epistemology is quite different from his statement that art is a tool for epistemology. Shottenkirk says it is a kind of way of gaining knowledge of the world. But she admits that the phrase "a tool" is probably a more correct way. But then she rethinks that and says: if it is "a kind" that means it is one kind of species among many kinds of epistemologies. But if it is a tool then it is a way one gets to epistemology itself, right?
    4:01 - 4:42:  Brandl says, "No, a tool is an instrument that helps to achieve certain goals." So, what are the goals of epistemology? Ways of gaining knowledge. Then it is how art can be used to achieve the goals of epistemology.
    4:44 - 5:25: Shottenkirk interjects that art is a kind of prybar - a tool that one uses to pry ourselves open and make ourselves vulnerable to other ways of looking at the world. Increasing our sensitivities,
    5:26 - 7:35: Brandl says, yes, increasing our sensibility, giving us different interpretations. Shottenkirk agrees and discusses the role of low-level information. Peripheral vision sets the context for what we focus on, for example. Art is a sensory onslaught that allows us to practice the editing of perception.
    7:38 - 11:35: But Brandl notes that we can also define epistemology as a tool. But now we have a tool for a tool! Here's a proposal: every tool you can use in different ways - put it to good use or bad use, etc. Shottenkirk agrees. She notes, as a way of socializing us, art makes us understand other people and work in consort with others, particularly within nationalities. This is culture. A way to build knowledge structures.
    11:40 - 18: 20: Brandl says he is interested in the sociology aspects of epistemology, too. He  Shottenkirk why she picked out  (in the paintings in the exhibition) those four ways of accessing reality in the paintings (Hobbes (violence), Hildegaard von Bingen (transcendence), C.S. Peirce (analysis), Langer (the unconscious)) and then linked them to the philosophers. He asks, the way Susanne Langer picks out how art accesses reality is perhaps closest to you? He discusses other classifications by other writers. He and Shottenkirk discuss it.
    18:27 - 24:00: Brandl switches to discuss Hobbes and states that he views Hobbes as "philosophical optimist". Hobbes was thinking, "we can fix it - we just need good institutions".  But haven't we all lost confidence in that? Shottenkirk responds and refers to the Hobbes painting and the reference to violence and notes examples in all the arts that refer to danger/excitement. Brandl says what's the message here? He answers, "that's how we are and it won't go away and we are going to have to live with it." Shottenkirk agrees, and notes that art can't get us out of this (cruelty) but maybe it can expiate some of these tendencies.
    24:01 - 30:57:  Brandl notes that Shottenkirk had mentioned Brandl's paper "The Purposes of Descriptive Psychology", European Journal of Philosophy

    Support the show

    Twitter: @talkpopc
    Instagram: @talkpopc

    Episode #109: Dena Shottenkirk speaks with Viennese gallerist Christine König about literature and art at Salzburg5020 Gallery

    Episode #109: Dena Shottenkirk speaks with Viennese gallerist Christine König about literature and art at Salzburg5020 Gallery

    00- 1:30: Shottenkirk introduces the project. 
    1:30 - 3:05: König clarifies the definition of art to be broadly construed to mean culture at large, and Shottenkirk agrees. König then states that she doesn't really know why other people care about art though she personally cares for literature and for her specific gallery program. Art is like food: we need but we do not ask "do you care about food?" This is just part of our life.
    3:05 - 4:28: Shottenkirk notes that every species care about food but we are the only species that cares about art. König says, "Yes, I think so, too, animals don't care about art." But people consume art. We like it and we need it like food. Shottenkirk agrees that there is a need, and then wonders what it is that we get out of it. König states that before she goes to bed she reads literature. "I live everything behind and enter another universe."
    4:29 - 10:30: Shottenkirk says, "ok, let's go down that road". We are able to enter into someone else's perspective and that it is empathetic. She uses the example of a book by the Jamaican writer Claude McKay. König agrees that it is the goal of literature. And that brings us into others' worlds more than art. Shottenkirk asks why, and König says it's because it is something one does it alone, and that is something we need. 
    10:33 - 14:35: An audience member interjects and says, "Chekov says, 'art is the pain, not the doctor.' It means that Art doesn't have to bring solutions, it has to describe the problem." Other audience members add to this thought. Shottenkirk uses the example of McKay's description of having Trotsky say something racist and how that pain that McKay is, on a small scale, inside Shottenkirk's head now. But König disagrees, and says, "But maybe that not as pain but as knowledge." Shottenkirk agrees. And König says, "but it is a pleasure." 
    14:36 - 23:40: König notes that people do not read as much now. She notes an amazing book by Tolstoy "Aufverstehung". Shottenkirk then states that visual art does the same thing that you can get inside someone else's head. But König says, "I'm not so sure if you can compare them...you start reading...but you can start looking at the painting but you look at another painting, but with the book you must stay in the book for some time." She also notes that contemporary art requires prior knowledge of art. Shottenkirk agrees and asks if it true of literature. König says no. Shottenkirk says she has never heard anyone say that but it seems true, and sad. But König disagrees a bit stating that everything requires knowledge. 
    23:45 - : König shares a little about the origin of her daughter's name (whose birthday is today) and the literary origins of her names.  König notes that music is a bit like literature as it is easy to "open the door" and enter in to. Yet, still, it requires some knowledge. For music and opera, "you have to tell them the story" and Shottenkirk questions whether that is in art. But König notes that there is in fact a story as it is how the artist came to this point. Shottenkirk agrees, and König states that she always challenges young artists how they are "adding a little piece to art history". It is important that "they all know what has been before." Shottenkirk adds that it is because we are building "social knowledge".  This is why humans like art. We need to empathize in order to build knowledge. König agrees. 

    Support the show

    Twitter: @talkpopc
    Instagram: @talkpopc

    Episode #108 R. P. Shottenkirk speaks with Philosopher Christopher Gauker @ 5020 Gallery, Salzburg, Austria

    Episode #108 R. P. Shottenkirk speaks with Philosopher Christopher Gauker @ 5020 Gallery, Salzburg, Austria

    00 -1:38: At the talkPOPc exhibition at the 5020 Gallery in Salzburg, Austria, August 2023, Shottenkirk asks Gauker about his theory of imagistic data and arguments against propositional content.
    1:40 - 3:30: Gauker begins by saying that he is interested in imagistic content. People's capacity to solve  problems by mental imagery has been neglected in philosophy. Philosophers have tended to think of cognition on the model of reasoning from propositions. But we often solves problems by means of mental imagery. He gives a example of this in solving a plumbing problem, and then the example of putting on one's jacket. But he's not sure if that fact can be used as a tool for understanding art.
    3:50 - 4:52: Shottenkirk notes that in the plumbing example, we don't need words for these things but we understand it in context. In art, so much of what we experience is of low-level features and we don't have to have words for those low-level features. We understand things things contextually; is that plausible?
    4:50 - 9:48: Gauker (who prefers the phrase “Gradable qualities” to low-level) gives several examples of how real-world and geometrical knowledge goes into understanding the data that is stimulating the retina, and we don't have words for many of those things. It may be that the appreciation of some kinds of arts that they induce this kind of mental activity and that we find this pleasurable. But he's still not sure if this kind of thinking introduces anything to understanding the visual arts. Often he is just finding interesting the geometrical shapes, etc. Or appreciating a battle scene, etc.
    9:50 - 11:30: Shottenkirk notes that Gauker has named three different ways one can process work: 1) low-level, 2) depiction or the reference function 3) the narrative. Gauker responds that many people are interested in having an emotional reaction elicited, but he is not in it for that. Shottenkirk refers to problems with the word "emotion".  
    11:33 - 14:38: Gauker makes the important point that emotion can't be the point to art as that would mean that "we are always interested in ourselves". Shottenkirk adamantly agrees and says that what art does is pull someone else into our world as art gives a first person perspective of the artist. Guaker worries that this commits the viewer to understanding the intention of the artist. Shottenkirk partially disagrees; the meaning of the artwork is only partially constituted by the artist's intentions.
    14:40 - 16:47: Gauker notes that much of meaning is today dependent on the larger artworld. There follows a back and forth debate about context and meaning and intention in art.
    16:50 - 45:00: Gauker takes the conversation back to the idea of emotion. Something is tragic because it represents a scene that is tragic; the viewer doesn't have to experience that emotion...just recognize the emotion. Shottenkirk asks him if he can put together that example with the former example of the plumbing problem.  He answer as follows: It's only because you've seen horses and horses move that allows you to understand what's going on in a battle scene picture. Shottenkirk then pushes again, and asks "to bring emotion into the plumbing  example", and then says, "yes, I was watching for that expression that says 'there's no emotion in plumbing'!" She notes that there is pleasure knowing how plumbing is put together - the tactile pleasure. Texture is an important part of peripheral vision. Gauker hesitates, and says that a plumber can do it quite dispassionately. Shottenkirk retorts that there are little micro seconds of good/bad - it is never completely neutral. The conversation continues with them trying to locate the role of emotion in art.

    Support the show

    Twitter: @talkpopc
    Instagram: @talkpopc

    Episode #102: Resident Philosopher Dr. Sascha Benjamin Fink speaks (in German / auf Deutsch!) with Pauline Simon in Magdeburg, Germany

    Episode #102: Resident Philosopher Dr. Sascha Benjamin Fink speaks (in German / auf Deutsch!) with Pauline Simon in Magdeburg, Germany

    talkPOPc auf Deutsch! talkPOPc "Art as Cognition" / Kunst als Denkform von Forum Gestaltung in Magdeburg. 

    0:08 Intro: "Hallo und herzlichen Willkommen hier in talkPOPC tent ich bin Sasha Fink und talkPOPc ist ein allgemeines talk und Performanz format von Dena Shottenkirk" / "Hi and welcome to the talkPOPc [tent] i am Sasha Fink and talkPOPc is a performance-talk format from Dena Shottenkirk" 

    Thema: "Kunst als Denkform" Dr. Sascha Benjamin Fink im gespräch mit Pauline Simon:  / Theme: Art as a Form of Thinking (Cogniton) Dr. Fink speaks in depth with Pauline Simon about this.

    Anstatt punkt: 

    Thema: Ist Kunst ein Form zu denken? / Dr. Fink: So! Is Art then a form of thinking/cognition 

    Ja-ein  / Yes and no?

    1. Kunst für ein verknüpftes: Emotionen - wie man definiert mann emotion und das Kognitive? / Art as a link: emotion. How does one define emotion in a cognitive sense...

    2:06: Welche Rolle spielt Emotion in Kunst und künstlerisches Praxis? ...super abstrakte minimal arte Sachen - lasst dich auch emotional kalt? / What role does emotion play in art and in the artistic practice? ...super abstract minimal art stuff feels emotionally cold to me. How about you?

    ... 

    Support the show

    Twitter: @talkpopc
    Instagram: @talkpopc

    talkPOPc's Podcast
    en-usSeptember 04, 2023

    In Magdeburg, Germany: R.P. Fink talks about how cognitive processes of art with Chiara Lindloff & Ioannis Armoutis

    In Magdeburg, Germany: R.P. Fink talks about how cognitive processes of art with Chiara Lindloff & Ioannis Armoutis

    Timestamps:

    • 00:10: Introductions
    • 01:40: Does Art require cognitive processes? Can't do Art without cognition. Is it a trivial matter, or is it worth discussion?
    • 03:00: Cognition is an active process, it doesn't just happen to you. Why do we start to express something? Why is the observer separated from the creator?
    • 05:30: The artist vs perceiver. Sometimes they coincide, but can we create without actively perceiving?
    • 06:45: Do we think about what we want to communicate with art? Can we create and perceive only after rather than during?
    • 09:05: Is there an art "area" in the brain? Has our brain developed a sensitivity to art?
    • 12:00: Art in Nature? But that depends on your understanding of Art. Art vs Aesthetic experiences
    • 15:15: Do artful experiences need to be beautiful? Perhaps for institutional art, the answer is no. But art in nature might just need it. 
    Support the show

    Twitter: @talkpopc
    Instagram: @talkpopc

    Episode #107: In Prague, Alicia speaks about the social, communicative, and spiritual experience of art

    Episode #107: In Prague, Alicia speaks about the social, communicative, and spiritual experience of art

    Timestamps:

    • 00:10: Introductions with Alicia
    • 01:05: Art for Alicia, Art influences everywhere. In your soul, in your blood, it's a daily thing, it feeds us
    • 02:40: Cinema vs home-viewing during COVID. The atmosphere, the aura is different. The perspective differs.
    • 05:00: The majesty of a bigger than life experience. But what does the majesty do for us? Perhaps it's a spark. Transformation through the context of the presentation.
    • 08:00: The social experience as a part of consuming Art. Do we need that social exchange to understand what we perceive? The conversation can inform and change perspectives. 
    • 10:30: Is Art the product itself? Or is it the product and the institutional presentation of the product? There are lessons to be had. 
    • 12:00: A flower in the pot, perfectly ordinary. But in a different context, it's elevated and part of Art. 
    • 14:20: Nourishment through Art. Seeing more, feeling more, experiencing something higher. 
    Support the show

    Twitter: @talkpopc
    Instagram: @talkpopc

    Logo

    © 2024 Podcastworld. All rights reserved

    Stay up to date

    For any inquiries, please email us at hello@podcastworld.io