talkPOPc or the Philosophers' Ontological Party club, is a public philosophy + socially engaged art practice non-profit founded by Dr. Dena Shottenkirk, who is both a philosopher and an artist. talkPOPc sponsors one-to-one conversations between a participant and a philosopher (who always dons our amazing gold African king hat!) Various philosophers participate and these conversations happen in various places. For example, we go into bars and have one-to-one conversations. Various bars, both dives and fancy. We go to Grand Central Station in New York City. We set up shop on the sidewalk outside of City Hall in Philly. We go into bodegas all over Brooklyn. We sit down next to the deli counter and hold a conversation with someone who has walked in to get a ham sandwich and walked out knowing so much more about their own thoughts. We go into city parks or down dead end streets and set up the talkPOPc's tent. We listen. Here are some of those conversations.
Timestamps:
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
00:10 Introductions
01:00 Thoughts on Philosophy, ethics as a branch of Philosophy
02:05 Concern over monetary power, the world our children will inherit
03:05 Meritocracy, intelligence, and kindness. The Republic and the philosopher kings and access to virtuous rearing
04:15 Exploring old ideas, but leaving room for criticism. We don't live in Ancient Greece
05:30 What happens to those without power? In an ideal society, we don't have folks without power
06:15 Defining power, thinking about money and the physical world // UBI, housing as a basic right and the power to live freely
08:25 Access to new technologies for a just society, but how do we enforce equity we write into law? A central court system?
09:35 Suspicion of life-time appointments. Engaged citizenry requires the free-time and space to own our citizenship
11:40 Strengthening power by taking it from others. Is power an infinite resource, or is it a zero-sum game?
14:30 Elie Wiesel and refusal. We can refuse to grant power to others
17:50 Willpower as an internally derived force vs social power
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
00:10 Introductions
01:10 Philosophy and the Lives and Legacies of 20 Unsung Women Who Contributed to Philosophy
02:30 What is the nature of power? How does it work in society? Power exists in every interaction
03:45 How is power operating in marriage vs the workplace vs government? Consent and systemic control
04:55 Leading and following, a natural start to power vs a social invention
06:25 How should we think of power in the world? Idealistically, we have a say in it
08:20 Have we consented to the constitution by being born into this country? Citizenship and consent, purely by existing here
09:45 Institutional power gives us the freedom to fight against it, the right to rebel and its link to ego
12:20 "I didn't ask to be born!" and the obligations to live up to your role in society
14:30 If power pops up inevitably, should the goal be libertarian freedom?
16:15 Retaining the feeling of freedom, ultimate freedom, the power to stop people
19:45 What if everyone stopped jobs they didn't like? Waste management as an exploration of freedom
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
00:10 Intros
01:10 What do we think when we hear "Philosophy? // Interested bystanders
02:00 The nature of power in society // The power of common connection
03:00 Power dynamics as an inevitability, how is power negotiated? Power can be taken away or moved around
04:00 Should we want power to be a stationary concept, should it remain dynamic?
05:05 What would count as the optimal form of power? How should power be distributed in society?
06:35 Small scale: Figuring out how to balance power in individualistic relationships. Can we distribute power evenly?
07:50 Family, can we make the power dynamics explicit? Leveraging power underneath the surface
09:25 Do we explicitly name power in order to deal with it and navigate?
10:55 Explicit power structure, feeling empowered when power is tangible
13:20 What kinds of structures do we want to make? We don't have to replicate what we already know
15:30 The necessity of will and means for power
16:45 Summoning forth the will to enact power over the world, or the right place, right time
18:50 The will to fight all the time. Allowing yourself to play a role in the structure of power
22:00 Changing society is changing our understanding of loving each other
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
00:10 intros
01:20 setting the stage and outfit talk
01:55 What is philosophy? The thought about thought // Power is ability, the ability to do things and influence
03:15 Power and influence, the connection to trust. Influence is capital
04:40 The power that worries us, the things out of our control. But is power control, or is it influence?
05:55 Social power and raw radical power, the power of ideas
08:00 Policy vs culture as they relate to power
09:10 Dictatorial influence and cult of personality
11:25 Tapping into conservative rage, the idea of America and change
12:40 Confidence that shifts towards hatred as an example of power
13:40 Positive power in the community, bodega comedy that brings Atlantic Avenue together
15:15 How should we measure power? Is it based on the end effects?
16:10 Negative power as a "what could happen?" vs Positive power and seeing the beauty
17:00 Does everyone have access to power as influence? If you have a role in society, you have power
18:20 The power of infants, powerful and tiny tyrants, intention is not 100% necessary
19:20 Power vs Obligation. Do others have power over us, or are we obligated to care for someone?
21:30 When power is deemed unworthy, we decide to fight against it
22:45 Babies are the in-between of influence and nature, but is intention necessary?
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
1:00 They discuss how government censorship, particularly in banning books, restricts access to knowledge and different perspectives, questioning why the government has the authority to control what information people can access or contemplate.
5:00 Noor reflects on her opinion about the situation in the Middle East, acknowledging that her views are largely shaped by her upbringing in a Muslim household. They emphasize the impact of one's upbringing and environment on their perspective.
8:00 They express admiration for opinionated individuals, highlighting the unique aspect of freedom of speech that allows people to express opinions even if they are poorly informed.
12:00 They reflect on the importance of approaching discussions with a rational yet empathetic mindset, suggesting that emotions can be channeled into empathy.
15:00 They discuss the importance of free speech in society, emphasizing how it allows for collective interpretation and the exploration of diverse ideas. They draw parallels to dystopian novels like "1984," where control over speech leads to control over truth.
18:00 They discuss the issue of generalization and its impact on hate crimes and highlight how generalizations about certain groups lead to unfair blame and prejudice against entire communities.
20:00 They emphasize the importance of courage in freely expressing ideas and opinions, even if they may be wrong, and encourage a willingness to change one's mind. Alex suggests that being wrong is acceptable and that the goal is to reach a consensus or understanding, echoing themes of philosophical inquiry into truth.
Support the Show.
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
2:00 They reflect on the notion of free speech in their personal life, noting that as Americans, they feel relatively unrestricted in their ability to express themselves. While they believe in the importance of free speech, they emphasize the need for understanding the potential repercussions of one's words.
5:00 They highlight the issue of entitlement regarding free speech, particularly noting that disenfranchised communities and working-class individuals, especially people of color, often understand the consequences of their speech.
7:00 They discuss John Stuart Mill's perspective on free speech, highlighting its virtues as outlined in Professor Schaun-Kirk's book. Alex questions whether these virtues of free speech remain intact when negative consequences, whether legal or social, are imposed on individuals expressing their opinions.
10:00 They discuss how anti-capitalist sentiments may face legal repercussions, citing historical examples like the Red Scare. While acknowledging the potential harm of hate speech, they differentiate between harmful speech aimed at individuals and discourse challenging societal systems.
12:00 They the permanence of statements made on the internet, using Kanye West as an example of someone whose controversial remarks, particularly those deemed anti-Semitic, have lasting consequences on his reputation.
15:00 They discuss the complexities of social consequences resulting from freedom of speech, particularly in political discourse. While acknowledging the straightforward cases where individuals may choose to leave relationships due to racist beliefs or behavior, they express interest in instances where political disagreements lead to exclusion or shunning.
18:00 They discuss the disparity between individuals' abilities to express themselves freely based on their social context. They suggest that while legal consequences for hate speech may be minimal, social repercussions can be significant, raising questions about the balance between allowing free expression and preventing harm caused by bullying or hate speech.
22:00 They discuss the limitations of physical spaces for exchanging ideas, noting that public places like libraries often have restrictions. Also, they emphasize how individuals' exposure to different viewpoints online is influenced by algorithms, leading to a skewed understanding of free speech.
26:00 Alex introduces philosopher Miranda Fricker's concept of epistemic injustice, which focuses on instances where injustices occur in how individuals are perceived as credible knowers or sources of knowledge. They explain that biases, whether conscious or unconscious, can lead people to view others as not credible sources of information based on their opposing viewpoints.
30:00 They discuss the impact of social media and the internet on the dynamics of free speech, particularly among younger people. They highlight the potential limitations of free speech in online environments, questioning whether it fosters the same virtues as face-to-face conversations.
33:00 They express concern about the divisive nature of American society, where individuals are often pitted against each other rather than working together to solve common problems. They advocate for a shift in societal mindset towards collaboration and problem-solving as a team, rather than viewing others as adversaries.
Support the Show.
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
1:00 The conversation begins with a focus on free speech and censorship, prompting them to share their thoughts on whether these concepts are prevalent in society.
5:00 They discuss the potential social consequences of expressing differing political views, particularly in the context of the 2016 presidential election.
8:00 They discuss the concept of echo chambers in politics and social media, where individuals tend to surround themselves with like-minded individuals, reinforcing their own beliefs and ignoring opposing viewpoints.
12:00 They explore the multifaceted nature of the conversation surrounding free speech, suggesting that it extends beyond just legal and moral rights to encompass social dynamics as well.
14:00 They discuss how differing opinions, regardless of political affiliation, can lead to further division among people, and how this can inhibit open communication of ideas.
16:00 They raise questions about whether our conception of free speech should adapt to different social contexts, noting that discussions about free speech often yield varied conclusions depending on the specific examples and social contexts considered.
20:00 They discuss the limitations of the Socratic method in addressing the persistence of falsehoods and misconceptions over time. Alex suggests that societal beliefs may evolve through ongoing discourse and debate, leading to collective agreement on certain truths over time.
24:00 They discuss the consequences of censorship -- the phenomenon of cancel culture, noting its evolution from holding individuals accountable to resembling the Salem witch trials, where minor actions could lead to a disproportionate backlash on social media.
28:00 They explore the peculiar phenomenon of cancel culture, highlighting its dual nature. Alex questions the ethical implications of cancel culture and reflects on its damaging effects despite its origins in free speech.
30:00 They discuss the concept of cancel culture as a form of social censorship rather than a legal one. Alex argues that cancel culture often denies individuals the opportunity to defend themselves or redeem their actions, thus hindering their ability to speak freely and engage in meaningful dialogue.
Support the Show.
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
2:00 They explore the uncertainty surrounding censorship and the understanding of the First Amendment.
5:00 They acknowledge that artists often express political views through their work and note differences in how art is supported in different countries, such as Germany's grants for techno clubs. The conversation touches on the challenges faced by artists in discussing sensitive topics like Palestine and Israel within certain cultural contexts.
8:00 They discuss the distinction between government actions that limit speech and actual censorship. The conversation contrasts the situation in the United States, where artists have more independence from state support, with that in Germany, where state support plays a larger role.
12:00 They discuss the complexities surrounding free speech in private establishments, particularly in the context of DJs expressing political views regarding Palestine and Israel. The conversation raises questions about the boundaries of free speech in private spaces versus public areas, with a specific focus on where the First Amendment applies.
15:00 They discuss the nuanced nature of free speech and the distinction between protected speech and speech that incites violence. While speech is generally considered a safe exchange of ideas, there are instances where speech can transition into action and potentially lead to violence, which is when it becomes criminalized.
18:00 They discuss the level of respect for free speech and diverse viewpoints at Brooklyn College. While there's room for improvement in considering opposing viewpoints, they believe that people generally maintain politeness and refrain from being confrontational, though there's a call for a deeper understanding of the other side's perspectives.
22:00 Dena emphasizes the importance of actively listening to opposing viewpoints, drawing on John Stuart Mill's perspective. Mill suggests that when engaging with the other side, three outcomes are possible: realizing one's own mistake, finding a compromise, or affirming one's own beliefs.
25:00 They reflect on the changing nature of libraries, expressing nostalgia for the days when they were spaces of focused learning and discovery. They lament the shift towards digital devices, noting how people are now absorbed in their own worlds rather than engaging with the richness of books.
28:00 The conversation reflects on the importance of understanding and engaging with people from different perspectives, even if they hold opposing political beliefs. They highlight the significance of focused listening and practicing conversations as essential skills for fostering understanding and unity in society.
30:00 They suggest that engaging in conversations with others could be more beneficial than protesting or organizing, as it allows for meaningful dialogue rather than feeling like shouting into the void. And they express hope that their conversation may lead to further discussions and exchanges of ideas.
Support the Show.
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
1:00 They discuss a recent revisitation of a censorship project in light of challenges faced on American campuses. Malka encounters a family member who mentioned students leaving Brooklyn College due to feeling attacked during Palestinian demonstrations, highlighting the diversity of perspectives and experiences among students.
5:00 They discuss the lack of genuine listening and the prevalence of posturing and defensiveness in conversations, both among students and faculty.
10:00 They discuss the issue of feeling unsafe in discussions, particularly regarding tensions between different perspectives.
14:00 They discuss the balance between academic freedom and maintaining a safe learning environment. There's a consideration of where the line is drawn between free expression and feeling unsafe on campus, concerning CUNY's Henderson Rules.
16:00 They discuss the discomfort often associated with new ideas and the challenge of fostering open-mindedness in students. While acknowledging the importance of broadening perspectives and encouraging students to articulate diverse viewpoints, there's concern about the prevalence of self-censorship and entrenched beliefs.
19:00 There's recognition of the complexity of discussing sensitive topics, such as Israel and Gaza, in the classroom, which can trigger emotions and open discussions about other traumas, such as those experienced by black women. The conversation highlights the challenge of navigating discussions around various social issues and the need for sensitivity and inclusivity in classroom dialogue.
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
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
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 Phil
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
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
The podcast highlights the presence of numerous philosophical questions within the medical field. R.P. Brandl and participant Bruendl vegh emphasize their interest in this intersection, noting their journey from contemplating medicine-related philosophical inquiries to their current involvement with the Philosopher's Anthology in Salzburg.
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
1:00 The conversation touches on the connection between philosophy and aesthetics, particularly how philosophers discuss art and define what constitutes a work of art.
4:00 They delve into the nuanced ways art and philosophy intersect and diverge in their approaches to reflection and understanding society.
6:30 They reference the work of philosopher Thomas Hobbes, known for his exploration of conflicts in society, to prompt a discussion on the role of art in addressing societal tensions.
8:00 Brandl suggests that while art can help some people overcome conflicts, others may find solace in different activities, such as sports. He provides background information on philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who believed that humans could find solutions to conflicts through societal arrangements but acknowledged that this optimistic view may not hold in contemporary society.
9:20 The conversation shifts to the application of philosophical ideas to music and whether music serves as an exception in addressing conflicts and discomfort.
11:30 They highlight the debate within musicology regarding the extent to which music reflects society but assert their belief that societal influences are present in all genres of music, including songs, symphonies, and chamber music.
14:00 They discuss the role of art in expressing feelings, particularly feelings about the state of society. Brandl posits that expressing feelings is a key means through which art contributes to philosophy and our comprehension of the world.
16:00 They discuss the subjectivity of interpreting artwork and the uniqueness of individual experiences. Ophia highlights Bingen's contribution to music, emphasizing her perspective as a woman, which brought a new dimension to the field.
Support the show
Twitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
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, i.e. the patterns, the causation. She asks him if that seems plausible.
4:50 - 9:48: Gauker 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 showTwitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
Support the showTwitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
Support the showTwitter: @talkpopc
Instagram: @talkpopc
Timestamps:
Support the show
talkPOPc Resident Philosopher Dr. Dena Shottenkirk speaks with Danielle at the Center for Fiction in Downtown Brooklyn
Timestamps:
Support the show
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?
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
In Episode 99, talkPOPc Particpant Estafania Soto Reyes speaks with Resident Philosopher Dr. Dena Shottenkirk about the Theatre of the Oppressed outside of the Center for Fiction and Theatre for a New Audience at Polonsky Shakespeare Center in Downtown Brooklyn.
Timestamps:
Support the show
0 - 2:09: Shottenkirk's introduction of talkPOPc's radical reforming of both art and philosophy in order to emphasize the communal role of conversation.
2:10 - 3:39: making a bridge between analytic and continental philosophy
3:40 - 5:49: discusses the importance of conversation in making this bridge
5:50 - 9:38: Shottenkirk asks Martin Nitsche about his book "Methodical Precedence of Intertwining: An Introduction to a Transitive-topological Phenomenology", where Nitsche is writing on Husserl's refusal to have a clear divide between the subject and the object. Nitsche explains it is Husserl's argument against Brentano's reliance on Descartes. Husserl wanted to do a philosophy of holistic experience.
9:39 -10:11: Shottenkirk asks if anyone connects Husserl to William James? Nitsche says Husserl himself did. Shottenkirk notes that the connection is obvious.
10:12 - 12:00: Shottenkirk discusses gist perception which gives both objective and subjective information, arguing that the error of empiricism is a model of the object coming to the passive subject.
12:05 -12:59: Nitsche talks about using the Merleau-Ponty notion of intertwining where there is no division of subject and object; even though we can speak of us being here and being separate from the world, it is secondary and not the root of perception.
13:00 -13:48: Shottenkirk notes that perception has, at its root, the marriage of object and subject. The problem is how we explain experience and perception with these two married things at the beginning. There has to be a fluidity. That is also talkPOPc: a fluidity of things.
13:50 -15:21: Nitsche talks about Husserl's notion of phenomenological reduction; it is not solipsistic. It is re-transiting the attention to a new domain; it focuses on the intertwining of subject and object; refocusing on the gist. (Here we have a merging of the analytic philosophy notion of gist perception with the continental notion of topological intertwining)
15:25 -19:40: They discusses the notion of reduction, with Nitsche introducing the notion of orientation - it is in favor of a more layered notion of experience, which is closer to the artist's experience.
19:15 - 21:59: Nitsche, by using the example of touch, talks about avoiding the solipsism of orientation: when we touch our finger to our other hand we are not just subject/object.
22:00 - 24:00: Shottenkirk notes that "restriction" is not "elimination". In vision science, semantic/high-level features are strictly different from low-level features. But that view tracks the objects out there, which is a problem. But if you don't completely divide low-level from high-level, then you can experience those low-level things as not part of a strict object/subject divide. So, when we have the experience of finger going into the hand, it is an experience even though it's not named. The range of things experienced are way larger than the things that are named. Nitsche agrees.
24:01 - 28:00: Shottenkirk defines topology in general, with Nitsche then talking about topology in phenomenology. A picture of the world that is transforming. Philosophy is topology. Meaning is that thing that is always being constructed on the fly.
28:10 - 29:53: Shottenkirk says, Let's bring it back to art. Once function that art is the way we understand the world - it provides for those topological transitions: this thing can suddenly mean that thing. I'm doing the same thing, but I'm thinking about it in terms of low-level and high-level features, and the ontological construction of objects. Artists' re-structure reality.
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
In conversation with Resident Philosopher Dr. Shottenkirk, Chelsea, a documentary producer, talks about making space for people to be creative
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
Resident Philosopher Dr. Martin Nitsche of the Institute of Philosophy at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague peaks with participant Edward about empathy, psychedelics, theater and how "Art is a Vitamin of Consciousness"
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
talkPOPc Participant Levi talks about how understanding art is social and cognitive with Resident Philosopher Carolina Flores at our spring Gallery Conversation Event outside of Postmaster's Gallery.
Timestamps
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Episode #82: talkPOPc Resident Philosophers Ian Olasov + Carolina Flores discuss narratives of group-identity, beliefs, racism, colonization and how to restructure the future.
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
"From Recording to Speaking" - talkPOPc's Audio Engineer Andrey, the wizard behind the talkPOPc Podcast, joins us to continue our explorations into talkPOPc Topic #3 Art as Cognition
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Artist Laura Kaplan in conversation with talkPOPc Resident Philosopher Carolina Flores on talkPOPc Topic #3 Art as Cognition: "Art as non-linguistic, unconscious thought"
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
talkPOPc Participant Sam explores humor, emotions, and art with talkPOPc Resident Philosopher Nicholas Whittaker
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Marta, Philosophy graduate student at CUNY + Resident Philosopher Nicholas Whittaker explore talkPOPc Topic #3 "Art as Cognition"
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Frank, a computer scientist working in military intelligence, speaks to Resident Philosopher Nicholas Whittaker about French stucturalist philosophers, ancient Asian philosophy, and compassion.
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
talkPOPc Participant Oralie in conversation with Resident Philosopher Nicholas Whittaker on Biology and the limits of Observation and Meaning-making.
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Timestamps:
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Jacob, a pre-med student, talks about how visual gist (in the first 300 ms) is something similar to an interpersonal immediate impression - how we like something or want something or we are repelled by it. The brain has to filter out information, Jacob notes, and so evolution has allowed us to do that. He also wants to tie this to moral revulsion and brings in Jonathan Haidt's writings on the problems of people with damage to the ventral medial prefrontal cortex, who seem to have no sense of revulsion to the most basic things, like "bashing in your mother's head". There is no barrier around right or wrong. Shottenkirk points out that yes, our brain has to edit, and in those brain damage cases it points to what parts are not there.
Jacob then refers to a book by Shottenkirk's (Perception, Cognition, and Aesthetics), and her writings on gist. He notes an additional point: the fragmentation of the mind is seen in the basic biology of cone (color) cells and rod cells (black and white) - where the periphery of our vision is black and white, and the color is the centralized and foveated part of the retina. We are not conscious that the periphery is black and white. The conversation then builds on the distinction between knowing something consciously and unconsciously, and shifts to the process of naming - we name things we are concerned about owning, or things we fear and want to avoid. But there are things that are not named; we edit out reality and many things we don't name. Jacob agrees that much of that editing is socially constructed, and further argues that we need to see things as others see the world, and to perceive things in different ways. important thing is talking to one another.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
In a rich and complex conversation, John Palmer, a software engineer and recently influenced by James Gibson's writing, discusses virtual worlds in game design and computer environments. Shottenkirk, who has noted that this relies on perception and thus is right up the alley of issues of art and cognition, listens as John discusses the important notion of affordances, a term coined by Gibson in the 50s. They exchange thoughts back and forth about the differences between affordances and symbols: symbols refer to objects, but affordances, such as in John's example of a virtual reality experience of sitting in a chair, rely on one's subjective experience. This distinction, Shottenkirk points out, parallels the differences in memory systems: there is conscious, semantic memory found in the midline diecephalon (I know the word for "glasses"), and procedural memory - how we move around, etc. Think also of objective and subjective experiences. But affordances, Shottenkirk argues, must rely on procedural memories, and not just symbol /semantics. John agrees, and brings in the notion of low-level features in aesthetic experience and Gibson's discussion about the inter-dependent notions of "animal" and "environment" - animals exist only in environments, and environments can only exist in relation to the animals in them.
John's main interest is the emotional feel that one has in games - for instance the frantic feeling of being trapped by two ghosts in pac-man - and how profoundly we can identify with the character, which John argues comes from having a body in the game: The virtual body becomes an extension of your own body. Shottenkirk adds that again it is procedural memory that is allowing this to happen. John adds that the visual and audio feedback on a screen can make someone feel like "I" am moving in this game. The body, and how we identify with it, and how we related to one another with our bodies is discussed, with John contrasting the communicative abilities that come with in-person interactions and the impossibility of having similar interactions over zoom.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Nicholas starts the conversation by saying that he has recently experienced a renewed interest in making art himself, which he hadn't done since a child. He is also a regular meditator, and argues that art "is one of the best forms of meditation."
As someone who is in the film industry, he says (& RP Flores agrees) that David Lynch is a great filmmaker, with Nicholas pointing out that Lynch also a meditator. They agree that the mediation practice is evident in Lynch's films. How does meditation then relate to filmmaking and to art in general?
Film is a more powerful art form to Nicholas because of the added dimensions of sound, motion, story, visual, etc. - what Flores calls "the experience of flow". The person who makes the art, Flores argues, must access this part of the cognitive process. She turns the conversation and asks Nicholas about what happens in the role of audience member, and he answers by talking about a recent inspirational visit to a gallery on 29th street in Chelsea, NYC, but he also says that aesthetic inspiration can come from anywhere including the trees right in front of them: "Appreciation, being grateful, being thankful" plays an essential part. Flores then sums up the conversation by encapsulating his underlying philosophical point: "You can be properly inspired by the world because you are approaching it with this open-minded and open-eyed perspective and then that allows you to take it all in and your cognitive engines can crank out, and then in turn you can produce something of genuine value because it's bringing in this attentive, focused perspective on the world."
Nicholas agrees: "Being thankful. Focus on the present."
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
RP Shottenkirk and participant Nicola Johnson discuss fashion: what makes it good or bad, and why we care. "It goes back to the mind" Nicola says at the beginning of the conversation and she expounds on that point in several different ways. "It tells something about me - my financial status, my taste, my social status. " Shottenkirk notes that Nicola's shoes are amazing, well-designed boots, and points out that the designer expressed themselves and you as the wearer take on the designer's vision. Nicola partially agrees but states, "I go with the designer about 60% but then I add 40% of myself. "
As someone who has made fashion, Nicola argues that everyone - people with money and people without - both know when something is good. "Art attracts you whether you can afford it or not." Shottenkirk then asks: What are the traits that make something good? Nicola answers that there are three things: "Detail, quality in material, and organization of your thoughts." In describing why detail is important, she explains - speaking from the point of view of the buyer - "They want to see that you've cared, and when you've cared they feel worthy." In other words, "They want to pay for mind...What you're looking at is somebody else's mind." She summarizes by stating the conclusion: you're not buying a thing you are buying a part of the mind of the person behind the clothing.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
talkPOPc participant Mark Friedman begins the conversation with Resident Philosopher Carolina Flores by talking about the Italian Renaissance, in particular the Ghiberti doors n Florence, which is where he spent his study-abroad year as a college student. Flores points out that when you see something in person and study it in person it is so different than seeing it also; noting that perhaps it's that one is paying attention to the thing in a different way, and thus understanding it better as you've also added in the cultural context. He then transition to Duchamp's "Urinal," and readymades, and states that sometimes you see art hanging on a museum wall and wonder "really, that??" intimating that you can be puzzled but then move beyond that. Flores sums up the conversation by addressing issues of attention/focus, and the process of learning about things, and asks Mark if art can really expand one's perspective. He responds that film can obviously do that, but music can do that, too. Flores discusses how music encompasses certain attitudes to the world, similarly to Duchamp's fuck-you gesture. Mark agrees and uses the example of punk, or that disco vibe of everything's-all-right. So, he asks, has a piece of music literally changed the way one thinks?
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Ian Olasov begins the conversation with the point that philosophy can play a role in how we get out of the pandemic by building community. Alex brings in the problematic issue of mask-wearing, and how though he has self-identified as "not that courteous or respectful of others" he does see the general case for masks at least indoor. The conversation ranges widely and wildly, with Alex asking Resident Philosopher Olasov if Seneca was the basis for the Bible. Olasov notes that the Bible is complex with even varying definitions of God, and while he also admits he is not an expert in the Stoics, he asks Alex why he is thinking that, but preliminarily states that the Bible, like the Stoics, argue that acting out of control is being emotionally out of control. They agree that the notion of what is emotionally inappropriate does correspond to inappropriate behavior. The conversation then jumps to Alex recounting an experience with a Japanese artist who is known for eating people, and the bizarreness of some art and the unforgettableness of that art, for better or worse. RP Olasov summarizes beautifully: "Art is getting you to see things from other's point of view".
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Resident Philosopher Ian Olasov and talkPOPc Participant Eva Pilay discuss how art and philosophy can both allow people to re-emerge from the pandemic, allowing people to be united and socialized: objects of shared attention. But Eva points out that propaganda does the same thing; Olasov agrees and then says if it's attention to something good then it's good socializing but not so much is fascist propaganda! Sometimes, he points out, people are fans of someone just as a short-cut for communication, like saying that "I'm a fan of Drake", and then that is a pretext for conversation. They agree that Drake has cool street style, an emotional style - his displayed feelings of vulnerability - and that people agree on that. They then switch into a discussion of how much music unites us, and how often people listen to music from other cultures. Olasov discusses friends of his who live in Trinidad, and the fact that they listen to music from Venezuela, and how that overlays the political issues of migration of people fleeing the chaos of Venezuela and the xenophobia that rears its head with any refugee situation. The last part of the conversation switches to issues of cognition, with RP Olasov wondering how different art media do philosophy - whether it's just "solving the problem" of previous styles or in some other way. Philosophy is often about redefining terms, and art really often does the same thing.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
In answer to Flores' question, "What's the latest art piece that spoke to you?" Botti answers Robert Altman's Three Women, which is about conveying emotions instead of telling a story. Flores asks if movies can express pure emotion as well as music? Botti answers that movies rely so much on music, pictures, etc., that are borrowed from other art forms, and it brings up the question whether the movie creates that emotion or is it just a conglomerate from other sources? This question elicits Flores' (smiling) response: can the movie be expressing something over and above the components of the movie? to which Botti makes the metaphysical joke that the "whole is the same thing as the parts", but then explains more seriously that it would either be that the music, the images, the text, are parts of the movie or that they are general sources on which the movie is going to be grounded, but not related as parts to the whole. But Flores points out that the meaning of an image depends on the context of the other images around it. The conversation then introduces the contrast with novels, and they discuss the difference in narratives usage in a film versus a novel, agreeing that the camera forces a perspective on the viewer, with Flores stating that movies can force us "into complicity with perspectives we don't want to take", and then asks Botti if that is really different from novels? After some discussion they agree that first-person narration in novels gives the "inner chatter" version of subjectivity, whereas movies give subjectivity through "a take on the outer world".
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Nayanci Lopez, who hosts the philosophy/comedy podcast "But Why Not? A philosophy themed comedy podcast!" discusses with RP Olasov why we make art - do we do it for a purpose or is it just something that we have to do? If it's about beauty that's a bit of a problem because our notion of beauty changes over time. They agreed that although our notions of concepts are built over time in our lives, and you gradually acquire the ability to use the words, different languages do use their word for "beautiful" differently.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Resident Philosopher Ian Olasov makes the point that even though the usual media you use to do philosophy - writing journal articles, etc., could be extended and one could also do philosophy through sculpture or other media. Joshua thinks of Picasso's Guernica and the reference to war - "what man can do to man". But also when we talk about "art" the term becomes expansive, but he thinks that photography can most easily be philosophical; it's trying to capture the zeitgeist of a moment.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Shannon starts with the belief that everyone is creative and able to make art in some kind of way, which she discovered when she first took a drawing and painting class in high school. Her new desire is to act, but feels apprehensive about it because, in RP Flores' words "you're on the line". They discuss the difficulties of performance and the line between one's art and what one is doing - and one's self. They agree that making art though always opens one to not just different perspectives of life, but by forcing oneself to focus it also allows one to know life and to be expressive. Shannon states that conversations too are a form of art. They finish by discussing the differences between philosophy and art - whereas philosophy is trying to make true statements about the world, with both philosophy and art you have a vague idea of where you're going when you start a piece but the real idea emerges much later on. Shannon points out that art depends on trust in yourself; "art is a verb not a noun".
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Gaston discusses the effects of Covid on people and on art. For him, covid has made people rethink what they value and what they want in their lives. People have purged their homes, and rethought what they wanted. But covid has also had the effect on artists - lots of small producers have not been able to produce, and people now buy from ebay instead of CD Baby. The larger corporations are just taking over more. People have had to go online and the economic forces are just pilling up: a "nail-biting picture". People just buy one song at a time, or go through spotify. Musicians don't get attention for their whole body of work.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Summer of 2020: talkPOPc sets up next to the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn and speechwriter Marjorie Sweeney talks about social role of art. She agrees to the obvious fact that there is great individualism in art, but her point is that there are also great social and political functions. Wanting to create is a natural human urge & all children show this, but adults are far more inhibited - we would look askance at some adult dancing down the street, whereas if a child does it we say "how cute". But public dancing and public singing is incredibly important for a society and one of the real problems with contemporary American culture is the highly individualistic mode, and so we don't understand our physicality with relation to one another. She points out there's a lot of money in individualizing everything - your own streaming service, etc. Instead, public dancing would be an antidote: "a pro-dance platform could take us somewhere".
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Joan, a lawyer in NYC, got her undergraduate degree in art history, and here in the talkPOPc tent discusses the political role of art, comparing today's world to the art of the medieval world. Using Bronzino's chapel of Eleonora in the Palazzo Vecchio, Joan refers to the sociology of that world and how art reinforced power relations. Bronzino, who came right after Michelangelo, was like other artists of the time: driven by the politics, literature, philosophy, and religion. Art is just part of a larger system. Joan, who dislikes modern non-representative art but likes graffiti, thinks Medieval art, in her view, "dehumanized" the human form in that it wasn't realistic, but this was precisely their intention: the image was about the after-life, not this life. And the emphasis was on that as a way to keep the serfs and impoverished in line - their attention was kept on the afterlife instead of the political problems of this life. Renaissance, with all its sensuousness and body depiction, was then a repudiation of the church's power dominance of the medieval period.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Justin points out that we find ourselves through thinking and we find ourselves through thinking about art. Everyone has a different interpretation - a different fingerprint. Ergo cogito sum. Subjectivity is everything here: Justin uses the examples of basketball and being black. The subjective experience is hard to hand over to someone else so that they might know what we experience. We know things by being shown things; Wittgenstein talks about this. The external activity becomes an internally known thing. It is different from representation. It's the transferring of experience.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
A software engineer and a mathematician, Aaron argues that empathy is a central part of art, both on the part of the artist and on the part of the viewer. In order for the artist to be able to convey something they have to have empathy for how other people experience the world. But he also says that sometimes "art doesn't have to conform to well-described experiences" and that the viewer can experience something over and above what the artist intended. RP Flores says that it now looks like, from their conversation, that sometimes an artwork can exceed the expectations or intentions of the artist. He agrees, and states that most of the art that he sees is art made by friends of his; he reads the artist's statement, and thinks of the intentions. She points out that Aaron seems to see art as a communicative process, which is the way that philosophers have traditionally thought of how language works. He agrees: art requires active collaboration of the audience. Art is this active thing we take up, it requires communication to understand what someone is trying to convey, and it requires empathy. The nearby church bells drown out the end of the fascinating conversation.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Ali, who is an amateur boxer, and a recent college graduate who wants to go into nursing, thinks of boxing as an art form. When Resident Philosopher Carolina Flores asks him why he thinks boxing is art, he says because "you can fall in love with it". And it must involve a practice. It is a skill-based practice. Cooking, video-games, etc., are all art forms. RP points out that his notion means that art is everywhere, and he says "yes, anything can be art." So she asks if cleaning the house can be an art, and he says, "yes, if you're really passionate about it". She asks about creativity and how is it involved in boxing. He answers that it is in the person you're fighting - "someone who is slick and they know how to maneuver their head", you got to know your response. "You have to be creative in that situation...There is creativity in everything you do." RP Flores sums up Ali's point of view: Any activity can be an art, and it becomes an art because of the attitude you are in..it has to be done out of love." Ali agrees completely, and says that if you don't love it anymore you will loose your ambition. And then you loose the art.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Stephen, who worked until recently at David Zwirner Gallery, discusses the differences in the audience experiences in a gallery as opposed to a museum, arguing that museums give people a greater diversity of experiences. RP Flores asks the fundamental question: why should people go to museums? Stephen points out that they are re-designing themselves and that there is a thought-shift in museums about what to give audiences, but there is the fact that when you see something in front of you on the wall it is a different sensory experience than when you see it online. They both agree that the notion of Art as Cognition requires an embodied experience. But, as RP Flores points out, perhaps in the future it might shift how we engage in art, and perhaps people might want less information. Stephen points out that even now, with VR tours, that already cuts down on information and also cuts out certain demographics.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
The fashion designed Hoover Chung speaks to Resident Philosopher Carolina Flores about his interest in gender-fluid fashion. He points out that it's not just feminine clothing on men's body, but it is something that "we are all experimenting with". RP Flores asks Hoover if he thinks that because fashion is consumed and worn by people, is it the case that clothing and garments have a special potential to transgress our notions of gender? He agrees, but continues by commenting on the anti-individual conservatism that is at the heart of fashion today because marketing teams and business teams are running things. What then, PR Flores asks, is the distinctions between art and design? Hoover states that art is often, much like design, a commodity.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Arion references the book The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study, by Stefano Harney and Fred Moten, which criticizes and tries to reform one's relation to the state and avoid being categorized specifically for the ends for state power. Identity is important, and Arion draws on his love of free-form jazz to make the point that we can be in the state of "being unresolved", and by staying in that unresolved state we can thus resist being categorized. He argues that the art he responds to the most is art that allows one to stay in that open-ended way. The idea of being open to possibilities has radical implications. He refers to his experience in spending time in DIY and artists communes, and urges people to make some changes "throw some concerts in your living room, have a bunch of strangers into your house, and use your house into a space for community..." Stay unresolved.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
The artist Bogyi Banovich explains creativity as where the body is trying to "catch up" to what the mind has wanted and designed. Bogyi discusses how art is setting up a goal and then the body tries to make the goal real, but with each physical step we re-imagine the mental goal and the two get merged: now we want this version. The important part is the material fact of trying, of making it better. He agrees that art is a kind of cognition: "it is how we think: it is constant evolution, constant progress, we are always moving forward." Art is the main way that we "make our minds manifest".
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
In a fascinating conversation about theatre and acting, the actor Kaya Simmons explains both why people act and why people go to see others act. "We act to tell stories, and we act to tell other people's stories, and to live those stories, and to live those truths and to tell those truths." The distinct quality is the actor's willingness to be vulnerable, to try things that might work or might not work. This allows the actor to bring to the audience a full-blown experience that makes sense of something in the audience-member that is already in "the back of my mind": Hamlet and other classic plays are these fundamental stories that we can all relate to and explain things that we are already a bit aware of. He gives a further example of how he, as a black man, can understand the experience he sees in A Raisin in the Sun, even though he was never in Chicago in the 1950s.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
As an urban planner, Beth notes how the city is now reclaiming the public arena: the visual experience of the urban experience during the times of COVID show the nature of the social dimensions that have happened: the protests, the demands to give over some of the streets back to the public both for bikes and restaurants, etc. She explains how the
Barclay center protests forced the corporate entity that is the Barclay center to take down the ads and put up a MLK quote. This is interesting as Barclay is not at all like Grand Central Station where the size of the pavers are over-sized blocks so people don't get too close and bump into each other. Barclay is not at all designed in this way - "it's not meant to be friendly", and so the fact that it has become a place of protests is interesting.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Will, another one of our Participants who just happened to be wandering by and kindly stopped into the tent and had a conversation, is from South Carolina and likes both country and rap music because they talk about their pain and pleasures, and because they can tell you about how you were already feeling, but just couldn't really talk about it. "Music puts you in the mood you already want to be in."
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Charles gives an extremely interesting viewpoint on the naturalness of aesthetics, drawing from the way ants build symmetrical ant piles, birds flying in perfect symmetry and order, and the great cognitive powers of octopus, making the argument that perhaps our divide between instinct and consciousness of behavior is false. He discusses how much is inherited, including the African aesthetic, which he argues is part of his aesthetic unconscious, something that he naturally responds to - just like he responds to our talkPOPc hat: that African king's hat!
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
As a life-long practitioner in theatre, Steven articulates how it is that we use the journey as described by the playwright: we "exercise" our empathy, sympathy, ability to see things from another's point of view. He also discusses the interesting phenomenon of how it is a group exercise in viewing, as we respond to - either in agreement or not - the fellow audience-member's response. Theatre is practice for the "emotional work of life".
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Art makes people do this introspective work. He discusses the civil war monuments in the south (in Richmond, VA) that glorify the confederate side, and notes the emotion that the pieces evoke in people. What does that art do the people who see it and how does it resonate to the collective? Richard and RP Shottenkirk discuss how the original subjective experience of the individual, which is both derived from social constructs and further translates into other social constructs, comes into being.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Robert discusses the relationship of looking at art, listening to music, and eating: saying yes to those things that we like, figuring out why, and the essential part of enjoyment. As a language teacher, Robert thinks that understanding art is much like learning a language, and (as the ancients said) how similar painting and poetry are, as they are more "cryptic" than the literary arts of theatre and novels.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
George gives an architect's view on the relationship between the social function of buildings and how it is that we aesthetically experience them as a result of their social functions.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Ulysses discusses looking at art without the preconceptions of gallery owners or museum directors; he and Resident Philosopher Shottenkirk explore the value of bewilderment in art, feeling vulnerable in initially not knowing and the pleasure found in figuring it out.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Dan Durso, artist and PhD student at the University of Illinois, talks about art as evolutionarily adapting, how it helped early humans to bond and work together as a unit, and how it allows us access into others' minds. He also discusses why it's a problem that contemporary art is without philosophical theory.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Jeremy Barker, a performance critic, joins Resident Philosopher Carolina Flores for the seventh and final installment of our Postmasters Gallery series. Jeremy engages in art differently from the layman. He speaks of immediate entertainment value versus the long term process of art. You either grow with the work and evolve, or you engage with art for hedonistic pleasure. Nothing wrong with either, but do you want to be entertained, or open yourself up to something else?
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Beth Evans joins Resident Philosopher Carolina Flores for the sixth part of our postmasters series. They discuss visual art, in particular performance art as it gives more room for thought. There's a feeling in the moment that's not found in two dimensional art. You become a part of the environment and it changes the way you see the non art world. Ordinary things can become objects of art. Just requires a different gaze/pattern of attention.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
John McCarten joins Resident Philosopher Vincent Peluce for the fifth part of our postmasters series. John discusses photography as seeing through the viewfinder rather than seeing an artistic picture. He sees good light, a silhouette and composition rather than a creative energy. It's a mechanical process of capturing an image rather than expressing emotion.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Caron Shapiro joins Resident Philosopher Vincent Peluce for the fourth part of our postmasters series. They discuss Hebrew music and the spirituality behind it. Nigunim are spiritual songs that don't necessarily involve cognition. It's a "direct shot to your soul" and the more spiritual a song, the less melody and lyrics it contains. Caron also discusses how art differs from the visual to musical mediums. Visual art reflects a particular point in time and engages the senses, while musical art has something a little different.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Jesi Taylor Cruz joins Resident Philosopher Vincent Peluce for the third part of our postmasters series. As they discuss art as cognition, Jesi points to the restrictive nature of creating art for others/an audience. We make choices more carefully when others will see what we do. This raises a question of authenticity. Are we more willing to take risks and artistic liberties without an audience? Is our material limited by the audience?
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Nicholas Accetura joins Resident Philosopher Vincent Peluce for the second part of our postmasters series. When discussing art, Nicholas denotes a significant difference in our minds. When we create art, at least for Nicholas, we are free. We don't think about things and instead engage the body to materialize art. When we consume art, we are actively thinking about what's in front of us and thus engage the mind rather than the body.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
João Enxuto joins Resident Philosopher Vincent Peluce as they kick off the first part of our Postmasters series. They discuss art as cognition, and João thinks of it as a medium for cognitive faculties, yet art is a text one reads. Art represents exceptionality, it doesn't just communicate raw facts, it goes beyond. But we still have to operate within the constraints of our world. We live in a capitalist society, and art's exceptionality is linked to perceived financial value.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Keith Moss, a management consultant from the UK, and is speaking to the Resident Philosopher Martina Botti. Keith, on a business trip, is visiting the bar and having a drink; he steps over to have a philosophical conversation. They discuss what makes something art, and after Keith suggests it is when a reaction is triggered, Martina suggests that maybe our brain doesn’t have a general definition of art and then apply that case by case. Maybe our brain sees it more in terms of having a paradigmatic case and then the new cases are compared to that. So, for example, she asks him, if he went to MoMA and saw these dada examples, what would he think? Would that fit in with the paradigmatic case that is in his head?
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
The art historian and art critic Gilles Heno-Coe, who was the former Associate Director of Matthew Marks Gallery, speaks with Resident Philosopher Martina Botti. The conversation ranges between issues of meaning in art to the role of the market in determining that meaning. Repeatedly in their conversation, Charles Sanders Pierce appears. A nineteenth century American philosopher, Pierce was seminal in the development of pragmatism: the view that what matters is that which has actual affects. Truth is counted as truth because it is in the realm of practical effects, is what we count as real.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
The choreographer and performance artist Patrice Miller’s conversation with RP Martina Botti (phd candidate from Columbia University) starts out with Patrice asking Martina a definition of ontology and metaphysics. What is real. And how we define the real. This sets the stage for the very interesting exchange between this artist and this philosopher, as they find common ground between art and philosophy.
Patrice makes the point that art talks about itself and talks about the subject also. It sets the boundaries of the space and of the artistic practice and is a kind of “world-building”. At a slightly later point, Martina brings in Nelson Goodman and his "world-making".
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
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 (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Kunning posits that the function of art is to give yourself a different kind of life-style. He says it’s a way of spending time that is not very “cost effective” - You are not thinking about how one can make money. But I then ask him: What are they getting, knowledge? He says no, novelty. But how does novelty, I ask, distinguish itself from distraction? Kunning says that art is just the way we deal with excessive time and boredom.
But we can’t just kill time. That’s not, Kunning feels, acceptable in our world anymore.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
In this episode from our talkPOPc event, held in our tent at Lincoln Terrace Park in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, we invite two philosophers to converse about and explore the third and current topic "Art and Cognition." Resident Philosopher Andrew Rubner from Rutgers University and Professor of Neurophilosophy, Dr. Sascha Benjamin Fink from Otto-von-Guericke University in Magdeburg, Germany tackle the distinction between something being art and something not being art—they discuss issues of intentionality, whether art can be created by accident, if the role of the artist involves the “intention to guide your attention”, and, to what degree the viewer participates in the construction of art. Realist versus anti-realist debates finish the fruitful conversation.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
As a lover and maker of fashion, Crystal talks about what makes both fashion and art in general meaningful to her. The conversation at first seems to hint at her thinking that something is art because it is emotional and makes her feel a certain way, and Resident Philosopher Rubner comments on that: he points out that she seems to think art is art because it is emotional, and not cognitive. At the end, Andrew stops and reflects on the general point that the divide between thinking and feeling is perhaps artificial and the two are not mutually exclusive. Summarizing a point he saw repeated in all the conversations of the day, he finishes by saying that in the imaginative process, you first see things in the world, you think about it, and then you create art about it afterward. It involves both thinking and feeling.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
After weaving in a discussion of writing and what happens in writing, Jasmine relates a story about the astounding experience of sitting with a friend outside, and between them there suddenly appeared a butterfly. And that was like art. She says, “We are not really aware until we are aware.” In art you are caught up in that moment, and everything stops and stands still. It brings us into the phenomenal moment and all else drops away. Those moments are unforgettable.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Mr. Raul Walcott, who is from Guyana and works as a landscaper, talks to Resident Philosopher Andrew Rubner about how the process of making something beautiful is a kind of art. The conversation in many ways is about the definition of art, but it also becomes a conversation about the function of art. Interestingly, it returns several times to the point, evident in landscape architecture, but perhaps more hidden in other kinds of that, that art is taking chaos and making order out of it. In Raul’s words, “You come into a situation that is not good, and then make it good.”
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Erline, a seamstress from St. Vincent, discusses the importance of clothes in her life: the personal associations with clothes. As a child living in a country where most parents couldn't afford to buy dolls, she instead dressed up a stick from the Breadfruit tree and called it "breadfruit baby". It would become real. Clothes do that: they make certain realities apparant and they participate in constructing meaning. She thinks this is particularly true with uniforms.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Flora, a performance art scholar, talks about the politics of the artworld's elitism (driven in large part by its role as a leisure activity), and also about the vulnerability of the artist in the moment of being public - the artist's vulnerability to the audience. It is an original and profound view on the role of voyeurism in art. She also addresses the shifting meaning in an artwork, and how over time it is the artwork itself that changes as the audience changes how it views that artwork.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Mark, an investment banker (and wanderer through Lincoln Terrace Park, where this talkPOPc was held), knows about math, and he knows about the aesthetic qualities in a well-formed formula. And he likes surrealism particularly the oddity of puzzle-teasing in surrealism: what is this thing I’m looking at?
For him, art is personal kind of time-travel, where someone from before is now whispering in your ear (or eye, as the case may be). And meanings shift with time.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
Charlexia connects the amazement she feels in nature – parks – and the emotion that she experiences when in front of a street mural. Nature is in her view something that allows us the freedom to let our minds wander, not going in a particular direction. It is meditation through that freedom. It can be anything you want it to be, and yet it directs you in no direction at all. In her words it is “grand and encompassing and vague”. You feel enveloped by it. She contrasts that with the “strategic” quality of murals.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
This conversation started out as a query about art and turned into a conversation about decision theory. Or more specifically about how creativity is just decision-making, much like science is. Angelie, an epidemiologist, begins with a quote from Nietzsche – that art is just leaving your mark. She talks about how children naturally want to do this. This conversation started out as a query about art and turned into a conversation about decision theory. Or more specifically about how creativity is just decision-making, much like science is. Angelie, an epidemiologist, begins with a quote from Nietzsche – that art is just leaving your mark. She talks about how children naturally want to do this.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
This conversation tackles head-on what art is meant to do. Jake takes issue with the recent 75 years or so of visual art, particularly since Conceptual art of the 60s or 70s. Traditionally art is, according to Jake’s view, soteriological. Now, literally, this means to give us comfort, to make us feel better. One often thinks of this in traditional kinds of religion, particularly ancient Hindu or Buddhism. The release from pain, release from anxiety, release from the wheel of life. The problem, for Jake, was that art has abandoned this goal and become part of a secular, consumer world doesn’t satisfy those natural instincts to go to another world. Consumerism doesn’t do anything but give a sugar rush.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
This is part of talkPOPc's #3 project: Art as Cognition
Marcus speaks about his love of diverse kinds of music- Indian, Chinese, Sukka. This is interesting because he has looked for a common thread in music and he sees it in certain kinds as a force for good and in other kinds of music as a force for bad. This bad kind he calls "Poisoning for the mind."
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
This is part of talkPOPc's #3 project: Art as Cognition
Marina has deep feelings about the kind of visual art she encounters in churches, particularly stained glass. She seems to have a dislike for the experience involved in perspectival vision where one separates the object from the background. It is an experience of the whole of the scene as a whole, and not a systematic identification of object-recognition. It is the experience of the gist.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
This is part of talkPOPc's #3 project: Art as Cognition
As a kindergarten teacher, Tom, in his conversation with Resident Philosopher Agule, is giving his experimental account of incorporating art into the education of children. The conversation yields a point: Art meets people where you are, instead of -- like testing -- meeting you where you should be.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)
This is part of talkPOPc's #2 project: Censorship
Pessy is a woman who broke out from a religious fundamentalist community, and she insisted on her right to gain her own education. She had the bravery to look back on that fundamentalist world, and analyze the censorship within that world.
Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/talkpopc)