>What matters still has to do with the language or the image: these are logically articulated, which needn’t mean reducible to language. What it does mean is: properly interpreted, it is responsive to true or false propositions about it.

I notice the art historian qua philosopher, throughout the interview, is routinely inconsistent with whether language should be categorized with logic (computation) or images (art). I find this ambiguity revealing, both in terms of his philosophy and what might be considered a more accurate one.

I quote this passage to clarify the issue, as I see his proposition as being utterly backwards. Art (whether text or painting) is linguistically (concretely for text, metaphorically for painting) articulated, which needn't mean reducible to logic. The need for something to be "properly" interpreted in order to be "responsive to true or false propositions about it" is assuming a conclusion, and arrogantly so.