Episode #113 R. P. Shottenkirk speaks with Philosopher Christopher Gauker @ 5020 Gallery, Salzburg, Austria

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