talkPOPc's Podcast
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.
talkPOPc's Podcast
Episode #116: R.P. Shottenkirk and J. L. 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 Phil