 I will go live. Yeah, it's a nice little. I want to live. I want to live. Like tears in the rain. No, like tears in rain. There's no, not tears in the rain, like tears in rain. There's not, it's not a V. I'm pretty sure you're inaccurate if you say in the short is just tears and rain. Tears and rain. That's right. Even what the evangelist song is called for. We were talking about some of those best movie moments. That one's up there, man. Oh, dude, hell yeah. It's one of them ones. This is yelling at us. I don't know. Make sure we don't miss it, you know. But yeah, that's one of the greatest movie moments of all time because of the fact that people are very quick to understand it and yet consider it pretty darn deep. Think of it. It is. It is one of the best scenes like in any film ever. It is a it's a perfect match of music and payoffs for characters and acting and just in the writing. Oh, it's beautiful. It's visually. It's stunning. And name is Roy or say reference to the game of Roy in Rick and Roy is not around right? No, no, no. Rick and Morty was made before Blade Runner, actually. A lot of people don't know that. Oh, right. If you were a super man, you'd know that. Yeah. Roy, the game was actually inspired by by video game Roy, which was which is part of the the mythos of of Rick and Morty here. Rick and Morty takes place within the Blade Runner cinematic universe. Man, Mola, there's like a whole season of Rick and Morty that's happening right now that's slowly falling out and we've just ignored it pretty much. Yeah, but you could. Yeah, exactly. You could just not watch it. You could watch. Watch the premiere the first episode. Yes, we did. Yeah. And I yeah, I didn't like it. Doesn't that illustrate what it truly means to not care? Because if you had asked me, do you care about Rick and Morty? I'd be like, Yeah, yeah. It's like, have you watched new ones? I was like, Oh, it's it's it's odd because it's just it's yeah, every time there was a new season coming out. It's like, Oh, cool. New Rick and Morty. Now it's like, oh, Rick and Morty's there. Yeah. They it season five released the latter half of it like obliterated my investment in that show. Kind of incredible. Yeah, I didn't see that coming. I didn't see it coming. I didn't think it would be that cataclysmic in a sense in terms of destroying my investment in that show. And like, I just I recognize the fact that I don't know how many have come out. I don't know how many are even in the season. I'm not looking to find them as they do. And then I'm like, Oh, how many are out now? It's like there's three, right? I think there's four. Well, it's just like, Okay, that's fine. I don't know. Meanwhile, meanwhile, speaking of shows, speaking of science fiction, television, program, we watched ourselves a good old little Mr. Andor. It wasn't cringe. It wasn't cringe. It wasn't. Yeah, we watched the first three episodes. And not only was it not cringe. It was good. I like it. I was satisfied. And I probably gonna be careful with my judgment until possibly giving it a rewatch once the season's out or anything else because I want to make sure of what I've been provided by the mouse. I think it's pretty good. I'm definitely like it. It is weird. It's legitimately strange. I think the conclusion that we've all come to is that I don't know like what what the factors were that enabled it to exist. But it's like somebody managed to sneak a real story into a into the mix, you know, like of all of these other shows that are being made by Disney at the moment. Somebody's managed to sneak an actual story in. There was an idea informing the story that they want to tell. There was a mad deep. There was an idea. Yeah, I do. There is. Yeah, it's it's kind of pensive. It's restrained. It's artful. There seems to be some sort of like they actually want to tell a story here. There's a cast of characters that are interesting to listen to. They're distinct environments that it's it is refreshing after so long like to see a Star Wars story where you have characters with different viewpoints of perspectives that clash with one another in reasonable ways or even that like it just comes through subtly. Like there's subtext. Man, crazy thing that subtext like it's a really valuable tool. If you choose to use anybody in chat who watched our coverage of Rings of Power, you'll notice a common theme. At least one of them was the these people don't sound like humans when they talk to each other. They don't react to each other. They did that in Andor. They did a whole bunch. They would say things and then the other person would hear that thing and then say things that relate to that thing. It was incredible. Exactly. It was mind blowing. It's like the inverse of Rings of Power. It was even a time where they asked a question. They were given an evasive answer and then he said, you didn't answer my question. I was like, whoa. It was aroused by that. It's it's been so long since somebody hasn't made it a question in a story and it's been acknowledged by another character. They were not allowed to just evade the question. Yes. It's so wonderful. Andor like pretty evidently excels on a production standpoint like in terms of it looks more expensive than Boba Fett and it's not just that it looks more expensive. There's just some cool choices that are made in terms of cinematography and sound design. Like a lot of focus on people's faces and their reactions to events, which is nice to see because it's like that grounding element. It's very focused on people. That show, at least so far, focused on people and their perspectives and something that depending on where they go with it could end up being really cool is exploration of the bureaucracy of the empire and the sense that you get in those first three episodes, even though we don't see any stormtroopers, thankfully, or any of the immediately recognizable iconography of the empire, that the cloud of the empire looms over everything. Everybody's like kind of trying to look out for themselves. They don't want to get themselves in too much trouble. And it informs a lot of the ways that they interact with people, like how they conduct themselves. And then on the other side, we get to see the bureaucracy of the empire, that there's a level of complacency in the institutions that are part of the empire feed into private security companies, how they just don't want to get in too much trouble, want to fly on the radar so they can keep doing their own thing, or they're just indifferent to it. And then it's good to see these parts of the universe be explored more meaningfully rather than... Star Wars has never felt more like a real place. And I can't even... In a long time... Oh, and how nice it is that we haven't been on Tatooine, two new planets. It's incredible. It's incredible how much. Have we seen three or was it two? Well, you go the farthest. Oh, it's three. Yeah, you're right. That's true. There's three, yeah. There are three planets. Each are distinctly different from one another in terms of their aesthetics, not just to the planet itself, but the buildings and the people there. It's easy to tell them apart. And each of these planets, they don't all look the same. You go to different places on these planets, but you still feel like you're there just in another part. We get to see people going about their days, just going to work. We get to see people going to work. This is something we've asked for a while, by the way. Yeah, like people just going about their daily business, catching shuttles. We get to see more of what it looks like to live in this world, which is it's so... Man, what I thought Mando was going to be, what I thought that show was going to be, how foolish and naive I was, what I thought Mando was going to be was a story that was more disconnected from the main Star Wars saga, because this is a whole galaxy. There's so many stories you can tell that are going to have nothing to do with the strict main story. Mando wasn't that, as of course we later found out. Mando is very heavily tied into those main story lines. Mando is a boring asshole and his baby. That's what Mando is and it's shit. Yes, Mando has no character. It has no character and this show does. It has a character and it has characters. It has a cast of characters and... A lot of characters actually, and they're quite well realized in what time. By the end of episode three of Andor, you've got about one and a half episodes of The Rings of Power and think about how much was accomplished in those first three episodes of Andor compared to Rings of Power. Yeah, Rings of Power has had four, we've seen four hours of Rings of Power. Four hours. Wow, yeah. Five from Mahler, but the other was, we've seen four hours and we've covered four hours of it. I just want to let you guys know, the Numenor storyline after an additional hour is they conclude they will head to Middle Earth. All right, because I feel like that's what they did at the end of the last episode. Well, you'd be wrong, because... Oh, okay. Oh, it's just so dull. So dull. Such a dull joke. What's funny as well, this is a big discussion about whether Elron broke his vow to do it. Sorry. He did. I've only seen the teaser, I only saw the teaser. I don't understand how we could have a you did. Well, in the show, he talks about it for, you know what? We'll save it. We'll save it for the camera, because we'll get there. We'll get there. But yeah, I was trying to explain it on Friday Night tights that I'm very much a fan of just starting really foundational, setting up our little world first and then making things happen. And I can see a lot of people are very like, oh, fuck, how exciting, watching random normal people go to work. What the fuck is this? It's just like, okay. One of the things people compliment Alien for quite a bit is that it's opening like 20 minutes to 30 minutes is like, as it's referred to, space truckers. It is normal people doing a normal job, but in the setting of like however many years in the future, and it's believable because everything looks like it's been used and it looks run down, but at the same time way more advanced than we have, because they're literally in space. And a lot of it is just their interactions and you can gain a lot about the dynamics of the crew from that. So like, you know, spending, this TV show is going to be what, 12 episodes? Spending even two episodes just setting a baseline. We still get some action scenes and I think, like, I was always interested in all of the security guard stuff, all the lower level stuff. There were a lot of stuff that were interesting to follow. And I mean, you know what, like, I'm invested in seeing where Andor's story goes. Yeah. Him and all the other people, I want to see what happens to him. I want to see what happens next. For the first time, I'm not terrified. I guess it's always going to be, because the third episode I think is, I think we all agree that the third episode is probably the weakest of the bunch, and that's like when it's starting to escalate. So I guess I wonder like if we, the more that the plot begins to take place, if things start to, problems start to arise, but like even as the plot began to press onward, it's still got like less problems than what are typical in the Disney Star Wars shows. There's still stuff that's functioning and working. And in the midst of it, we have characters who are interesting and cool. Like, I mean, I'm super excited to see more of Stellan Skarsgard's character. Oh yeah. Super excited to see those two interact and go on their adventure. Interested to see what new characters are going to get brought into the fold, because like after episode three, that grouping of episodes tells a complete story in a sense, even though there's obviously more story to come. So I can imagine that like things will change in the next few episodes. New characters will get introduced. The scale might change. Maybe there's like a escalation and a de-escalation and then you know ramps up and down. Because like those first two episodes are very much taking their time before ramping up to the big explosive like conflict in episode three, which is refreshing compared to the two action scene mandate per episode that has infected all of the other Disney like IP shows. I'm subscribed to Flomento and he, I think I saw him tweeting about sometimes he wonders about because he always has to make a movie like failure or success. That's usually the thumbnail style. There's never a neutral film. I don't think so. But if he doesn't do that, he definitely should throw it in there. Like have a you know, this is a mixed bag movie. So Prey is his next one he's doing. He's decided to go with failure. What do you think his summary of what is wrong with that film is? Ooh, what would he say? In a sentence, if you can. He says that it it devolves in the end to schlocky action that undermines the build up of the first element aspects of the film. Maybe I should ask the question better. So let's say he's gonna, if he was making a video on, what's the go, you know, like Godzilla in 1999. A blurb? Yeah, his blurb would be like that's not Godzilla. That's Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Like that's what it would be. So what do you think the equivalent of that would be for Prey? Oh, he doesn't think that this predator honors the legacy of that character or culture. That's a guess. What do you got for me? I'm actually not sure. I don't know what he would say. So if you ask me, I wouldn't know either. I'm not sure what is so in a sentence would be for the bit. He said, when is a movie too simple? Simple. I don't know. I might check that video out because I'd love to know how Prey's problem was that it was too simple. I think we praise the fact that it didn't try to be complex, especially in a world where everyone wants to have a super complex and intricate plot that they just cannot write. Yeah, because there was plenty of issues to pick at and valid reasons to be put off by that film that had nothing to do with how complicated it was. It being too simple, yeah. I mean, there's a lot of stories that are really great, that are conceptually very straightforward. I mean, you could say that alien is pretty simple. And yet alien was, remember, he loved alien. He loved it so much. He hated underwater for not being more like it, but also being bad for ridding it off. Yeah. And have you guys seen Duel? I think that was Spielberg's first movie? Or maybe I haven't. Duel is from 1971. It is directed. Yeah, I think this was Steven Spielberg's first movie. It's a very, very simple plot, just about a guy driving down the road and this guy in a truck is like fucking with him. Like that's the entirety of the plot. That's the whole movie? Yeah, but I like Duel. I think it's a neat movie. It would be one that would be curious to watch. Is it called Duel for Duel Carriageway? Is that the idea? Oh, okay. Do they shoot at each other with the muskets? I couldn't possibly tell you that. I couldn't tell you. If I did, it would ruin the fact that they would. You wouldn't want to spoil Duel. Yeah, that's just the premise of Duel and it's really, it's a neat movie. Also, hi, Destiny. How are you doing? Hey, pretty good babe. What's up? Great, we're gearing up to check out this video. We're finally going to answer the question of what art is and whether or not it's good. Yeah, because I've seen whether or not art can be good or not. He's not going to get that, right? He's not going to get good right? He's got a four-year-old meme. That's still a beautiful meme. I wouldn't deny. It's a gorgeous meme. Wait, what's that a meme in reference to? In a video we covered once, someone wrote on the screen what is good art, but the font was very strange. So it looked like what is good rat? So that's just been a it's just been a little meme of ours. We like to, but you say that things are good rat. Or bad. You've been filled in. Yeah, thank you. Look, you had to be there. Okay. It's one of those. Act part for later. All right. Here's your link. So yeah, I don't know. Context for this. As time goes on, a lot of great figures in history are trying to answer the question of, you know, like, what even makes good art? What makes art meaningful? Philosophy team is actually Oh God, it's this person. Hey. You don't know. This could be insightful. You didn't tell him what you were doing. God, I forgot. If he did tell me, I was in a motion prepared. I did tell him. It's not my fault. I'm here for it. I'm sorry. Do this. Hey, you know what? Use it as a vehicle. Talk about what you think about art. I was actually going to say, we could probably, so the name of the video is art meaningless. I'm going to assume all four of us would say no, and then we'd be done, but you could probably go further than that. Okay. I don't want to warn you guys in advance for this conversation. Okay. I'm the worst person to have this with because I'm going to be autistically quibbling over every fucking word you use. That's what you say. Oh, that's it. We're on the right podcast. You're in good company. That's literally our podcast. Is art meaningless or is it good? I'm going to ask you, like, what do you mean by meaningless? What do you mean by good? Because that's an important thing. Yeah. Okay. All right. I got a good start. I didn't know this was a Christmas video. Christmas video. Yeah. Abigail Thorne presence. Oh, good one. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, now that we've got that out of the way. Well, I was going to say, do you want to start by we let Abigail take the conversation wherever she wants, or do you want to answer the question first in whatever way you would like to? I leave it to all of you. Hold on. I am so sorry. Can I ask you guys a question? Do it. You mean, can you ask this to her? Are there any other words like that in the English language? So present and present are spelled the exact same way, but the word has two different meanings based on where the accent goes, right? She presents her presentation, or I just got a present. Are there any other words like that? Live and live, right? They're both spelled the same way. Ear and tear. Yeah. There's a lot of words that are like that. Which word did you just say? Sorry. You were speaking Australian. Say that one more time. Tear. I live and live. Live and live is one. Oh, produce and produce. Yeah. Like I said, tear and tear, I think is one, right? Oh, content. Content and content. And yeah. Content and content. So the answer is that there are a lot of, because English is a very easy language. Oh my God. There's so many of these. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. I'm done. God. Well, I mean, yeah. So what do you reckon? The oddest meaning let's test today. That's the question that's being flooded. All right, base. Wait, did you want me to answer that? Or are we just going to the video? Well, yeah. We wanted to confront you on your position. We're cornering you. Art is definitely meaningless. You told us before and we didn't, we said we wouldn't tell everyone, but we did. That you totally thank arts meaningless. We all do. That's why we're here. True. Yeah. Any question about whether or not art is meaningless is probably going to quickly evolve into some like very cringy, like everything is meaningless. Bullshit would be my guess. Obviously everything can have meaning, right? Is that, is that step one? We go, it's all down to the individual, right? All wrong. Is there meaning that goes beyond the individual? What is meaning? What does it mean to mean? This is going to be a long fight. I would say meaning is in, is definitely a human concept. So without humans, meaning disappears, right? Meaning is it constructed idea that humans have so? That's an interesting, interesting to think about when a story is a concept as a human creation too. Well, like art in general, if we want it to go more broadly, like does art exist without anybody to perceive it? To perceive it? I think we talked a little bit about this. We talked about this before for sure, but maybe it's worth going to. Well, it depends. We could be here for a while. Is it less to do with perceiving? What to do with categorizing it? Like, because if no humans are left, then nothing is necessarily anything from anything's point of view. Well, I guess an example would be like, for instance, a star is a categorization that we've, like that's a category we've created that has, you know, this is what it means to be a star. But the thing that is the star, like the actual object, the celestial object exists, regardless of whether there are humans around to categorize it. I don't know if art is the same way, you know? Well, it is. We're going to go. Fringy guy. Bringy. Yes. Okay. I think that's the line of thought that you need to be on. I think that's true. When you talk about meaning, meaning to me is in this category of things called relationships. And I don't think relationships exist outside of human, like, perception. Like, whether or not something is related to something else. Like, where does the tree end and the dirt begin? These, like, boundaries and categories that we draw upon things, the relationships that things have to another. I think that meaning can probably be described as, like, a type of relationship. And without humans, like, meaning doesn't exist. That's what I would say. Yeah. But then, of course, we encounter that. I would say that. Go ahead. I'd say that about art. Yeah. If you create art, it's still art. Even if you made a statue and everyone just disappeared, wrapped your style, it would still be art. Because that was still an expression of some. I think that was part of the discussion we had was intentionality. Let's say that we've got a landscape that's beautiful. Is that landscape art because it exists and I was here to perceive it? Or would I need to do something to essentially. Take a photo of it. Turn it into art. Like, take a picture or paint the landscape. Like, can something just exist and be art? Or just, and I guess, what if you accidentally create something? Like, what if you, I don't know, you drop a glass and then it shatters and then, I don't know, the way that the light is cast down on the glass is like, visually stunning. And so it's like, that was not intentional. You didn't intend to create that. Can I, actually, because we did talk about it in one of the previous e-fabs, but one of the things to maybe throw in a curveball, it might not be, but I suppose I'll direct this at rags to make it quicker. Friend of mine is getting several photographs taken of their eye, the inner eye. And they would tell me about this because they had it on their phone and they were showing me. It was like a black and white screen once they got the photo and I was like, why do you have that? Like, did they find something horrible? And he was like, no. It was that they took the photo and both, there was like the technician and then their superior. They were both staring at it for a while and then the technician went, wow. And then I was like, oh God, what's wrong? And then they were like, no, nothing's wrong. It just looks really good. And they showed it to them and then they let them take a picture of it and they take it home. And it's just like, it does look really cool, right? Because it's like black and white, the big... I have to explain almost. It's like a pane of white and loads of the veins. Yeah, I'm off the phone, I had beautiful eyes. I know the feeling, yeah. Yeah. And it's just like that was a photo that was taken with the intention to be viewed for medical purposes. But it became art the second that they saw it and was like, oh, right. Like that would count as art, right? I would say that things can... You almost have like two different related but separate things in the sense that I think something can seem... It could have a lot of the criterias that we would generally assign to things being artistic, but it could be created incidentally. And if that's the case, I think that the key of what makes something art is that it is the expression of a, I guess, a sapient creature, some brain that's sufficiently able to express itself. So you can have something that you create incidentally that has artistic qualities, but it wasn't created in order to express any element of anything. So I wouldn't say that's art, but it can be pretty in much the same way that you can accidentally do something and then look at it afterwards and be like, oh, that's actually really lovely. What do we... If we're talking about incidentally, what does it say if you intend to create something and then you unwittingly create something that was totally different than what you envisioned? Or I guess a more mundane thing. You have an idea and then that idea changes. I think that would still... I'd still put that in the first category of you are trying to express yourself the way that that manifested wasn't the way you intended, but it was still through your attempt to express yourself. When you define expressing yourself as being incredibly broad to wear anything, like any action, deliberate action, like any action of any kind that creates something that you find aesthetically pleasing is essentially an incredible art. Any act of creation where you are putting in some level of your talent or focus or direction in a way that makes it your own or that... Even if it's to a very, very small degree, like you could be at a job doing a work thing and you could go that extra little... That extra little bitty step in order to put your yourself, quote, unquote, into the thing that you're doing, which I think would push it into that art category. Do we... We don't have any Ben Shapiro fans here, do we? No. Only when we talk about Star Wars. No, they will be in chat, but yeah. As long as all of us here are artistically sophisticated, I don't know if I've got a prerequisite to anything I say because obviously my opinions are just de facto correct. We all agree in here that almost anything can be music, right? No one here is going to be like rap is not music or something, right? Oh, no, no, no. No. I believe it goes far as saying noises, like I drop my keys, is that music? Theoretically, but like something that I would say to not get too hammered down on this is that art is going to be an unfathomably broad thing. And anytime you ever try to draw a box around it in terms of this is art and this is what it is, I'm going to... People are going to be able to find a million exceptions. Oh yeah, that's kind of what we're just doing, right? Yeah, so even if you're going to try to say that like, well, if there's some level of tension out, blah, blah, blah, blah, people can say that, wow, this looks like art to things that have zero intentionality of being art, you know? Sometimes a very, very elegant solution to a programming problem can be like, oh my god, this is artistic. Or people might say that it's kind of like math equations sometimes or other types of solutions and engineering that there's absolutely no desire here to create something artistic, but like a solution could be like so elegant and so on point, they're like, oh my god, yeah. So yeah, I feel like art is going to be like it's an incredibly subjective thing and it's almost an emotional experience being described by a perceiver rather than any absolute boundary that can be drawn around certain things. And if we say it's intentional or unintentional, we're always going to be able to find things that break literally any line you can draw around it immediately. So that would be mine. Presumably though, would you say art exists without humans? No. Even if, what about like gorillas and stuff, the paint? Um, well, I mean, it's theory. Okay, hold on. When you say can art exist without humans, what I'm hearing you say is can something like art, which is like a relational thing, exist without minds that can perceive relational things. Now, if you ask me, what about if gorillas draw? Well, I guess if a gorilla has a mind that's sophisticated enough such that it could perceive art, then I guess I would say the art does exist, but then the existence of that art is contingent on the existence of the gorilla. So if you show me a mind of like sufficient complexity, then I'll say, well, I guess, yeah, this mind can create art. That would be the answer. What if, um, what if like somebody made a painting and then, uh, well, what if all humans disappeared like today, like if all humans just disappeared and there's nothing left? Did the things that we create that we consider art, would it still be art? Or is it no longer art because there's nobody around anymore? I guess you'd be asking from the universe's point of view, in which case, no. Yeah, exactly. I think the question is deceptively challenging, but it's because of the phrasing of the question. When you ask, so I would argue, when you ask the question, is it art? I think that within that question, the answer is already baked in. The fact that there's a person around to even ask if something is art shows that there's a mind there to make the perception of it being art. So like, when you say like, could something be artistic or could something be considered art if nobody was around there to consider it? I would say no, because baked into the concept of art is the, is the perception of a person or mind perceiving it for it to be seen as such, right? Like if there was a painting floating through the universe with absolutely nobody to perceive it as such, like when I say that it is art, well, there's nobody there to perceive it as art, and art isn't even a thing that we can define. So how could a thing that exists without definition, say for a human perception, be something that exists without humans perceiving it? Yeah, like in a sense, that painting that was floating around in the universe, if there's nobody to perceive it, it is no different meaningfully from any other thing that exists in the universe that is like, I guess you would, you know. Yeah, categorically, we can still say it is there. It just wouldn't necessarily be referred to. What it means to the universe, these are all still, it's all stardust, I guess, to the degree. So I would disagree. I think that what makes something art is in its creation, not in its ability to be perceived by other people. I would say that if every sapient mind in the galaxy just disappeared, all of those, everything in the loo and all that stuff, it would still be art, even if there's no one to perceive it. Well, I guess, what does it mean if there's nobody left to perceive it? Well, nobody left to categorize it, or understand it that way. It's almost like you're saying that you in post-life would be looking at the planet and being like, that's still art over there, even if I'm not in that world to look at it. But it's like, well, yeah, but it's not art. It was, I think it's art once it's created. So it still is that thing, regardless if there's people to see it. In the same way that we say that art is one thing and a brick is one thing. Like the brick would still be a brick, even if there are no people around. I think, yeah. Without a tree, without a tree, without people. This is the issue is that I think that as humans we draw boundaries around matter and then we categorize it as such. But like, I guess if you want to look at like science, like here's a question, right? Does a hand exist? Somebody might say, well, no, technically hands aren't real. It's really like a collection of cells. Will cells exist? Well, not really. It's like a collection of organelles. Do organelles exist? Well, no. Okay. It's like atoms. Does an atom actually exist? Not really. Does an electron actually exist? But we say, well, not really, right? I think that's the issue is that you might look at it and say, oh, well, this thing exists. And it's like, well, there's matter there that definitely exists. But the way that we define that thing as being a coherent object is probably a human concept. And absent humans, I don't know if the universe distinctly recognizes a tree as being a thing that's separate from the ground that it sprungs from. That's what I would say. I actually think this question, I think you may have said something along the lines of this already, but by saying is meaningless, by using the word, we've already understood the world using the framework of humans, which means the answer has to be yes. Yeah, that's kind of the thing, right? Because if we never existed, would art ever exist? And it's like, because we were never around to say what art is even defined as. You know, but this question poses that that is already, we understand it is from a human perspective. In the same way, that's kind of how I look at storytelling. I'm like, there isn't when someone's like, story can mean anything if humans were all gone. It's like, yeah, but we're not. And we are having a conversation with the framework we all are working with, I assume we're not. You know, we don't want to devolve into absurdity just because of the fact that you can actually pick this apart, the atomic level or even further. But yeah, I guess we just differ on this because I'm, I just, I don't think that art requires someone to observe it to be what it is. Now the meaning, and like meaning and purpose are things that we, we imbue in or we take away from a thing that is separate from the thing itself. What are you curious to, what do you think the argument the three of us are making is that because it requires humans to categorize these things, they lose that designation when the categorizers are, don't exist anymore. Not even necessarily that they don't exist anymore. It's that there's no capacity for that categorization to take place whatsoever. There isn't, like where are you starting from when you continue to call it art? Oh, well, I wouldn't be calling it art in this situation if I didn't exist hypothetically, but that wouldn't change what the thing is and the intention behind its creation, which is what I think is what makes art art. It's in the creation of it. It's not in its continued existence. And the same way that if I, if I was to make, if I was to paint a painting and it was lovely and everything but it burned down and it was, it didn't exist, it still would have been art, even if it doesn't exist anymore. Not anymore because it's been. The thing is, we're not talking about whether the art doesn't exist anymore. I guess it's more so whether there's anybody to perceive it anymore. Well, that's, that's fine. I mean, if, if you had a, I mean, if we want to take this into the sense of there's, you don't even have to remove minds from the universe. You just have to put the art into place where it's never, ever discovered or known ever. So here's a question that I would ask you. Okay. So we have a thing called the electromagnetic spectrum, right? Which is just varying. I think it's just the wavelength of wavelength radiation or whatever, right? There is a certain spectrum of wavelengths that are visible to us, to our eyes that have colors, right? Yeah. So let's say that I paint a picture and my painting is just red. I just paint a whole bunch of shit that's just, it's red to us, right? Let's say that every single human being dies and let's say later on, some other alien creatures come by and they're capable of seeing things on the electromagnetic spectrum, but it's not the same wavelengths that we see. If they were there, could you still say that, oh, look, this painting is red? Is that still a red painting if nobody can perceive the color red? If that's just not a color they see? No, it's not a red painting if no one's around to perceive color, because color requires a mind in order to, with a brain that can interpret that wavelength. Yeah, so color here for me is, I'm using color as a shorthand for, this is an arbitrary boundary that we've drawn around something due to our ability to perceive things as humans and then we're going to call that a particular thing and in my mind, color would be the standard for art. Art, even if we make something with the intention of it having the color red with nobody to perceive the color red, the question is this red is a meaningless question because red in and of itself already assumes a perceiver that can perceive the color red and when I look at art, I would view art the same way. Do you think that this is art? It was made with the intention of being art just like the color red was painted with the intention of it being red, but the reality is, is that the intentional creation of something if those perceivers disappear, doesn't mean that it maintains those properties past those creators dying because the properties themselves are things that are like only held by or can only be perceived by the creators much like the color red, that's how I would view it. Yeah, I would see those as two different things. What's the difference? Whereas it's the fact that it was expressed at all is what makes it art, whereas color literally requires a perceiver, whereas I don't think that art requires a perceiver. Because art isn't... Okay, then I guess the other question would be what is art for you? What's the definition of art for you? I'm not... You don't have to say that again, that's difficult. That's fine. I would consider art as the expression of creative skill and imagination. It requires... Something becomes art in its creation, in its production. And then after that, it doesn't matter if there's anyone to perceive it. That is a different aspect of the thing that exists outside of the thing itself. If you make something as art and you don't tell anyone and no one ever figures out and you lock it in the box and you throw it into space and no one ever finds it, it's still art. That thing was an expression of someone who created it. Okay, I don't want to... I can argue more if anybody wants. Go for it. Why not? I'm curious. I'm curious if the rabbit hole goes better. Up to you. Up to you. Here we are. So I would agree with you that the creation of a particular thing, that when it was created, that it was art. When it was created. But for it to maintain that status, I think it still necessarily needs to be perceived. I think that the only statements you could make about it would be with relationship... They would have to be temporal statements. Like, there's a thing floating in space. Is it art? Well, I don't know. It was art. When it was created, it was art. And when there were people around to consider it as such, it was art. But now that those original perceivers are gone and the original creator is gone, I can only make statements about it in relation to the past. But presently, I can't say that it's art because there's nobody there to perceive it as such. In fact, the entire concept of art with minds disappearing from the universe would disappear. It would no longer be a concept that exists independent of humans. Or I guess like another question would be like, is do you think if no humans were ever in existence, do you think art would ever be in existence? Eventually, yes. If there were no... What, do you think insects create art? Like, could part of... No, I don't think... I don't think insects are sufficiently complex enough to express themselves in that kind of way. I think eventually, brains would come about that would be able to express themselves in the way that would be sufficient to make art. But even if humans didn't exist, it could happen. Like, I think a sufficiently advanced machine could be able to express itself personally. But even if there were no humans, I think it would eventually happen. Do you think that if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, do you think that the tree makes a sound? Yes. Why? Because sound waves are physical things that exist in the universe. I'm not asking if it creates sound waves, I'm asking if it makes a sound. Well, that's what... It's not, and that's the difference, right? Sound is the human perception of those sound waves, but it's definitely a different experience than just the description of the sound waves themselves, right? I think that's the difference. The experience of sound is unique rather than just the vibration of molecules next to each other in the air or through some other medium. All right, then I would agree. If sound is just what is perceived by things and sound waves are different, then I would agree it doesn't make a sound, but it makes sound waves. Sure, and I think that would be the argument that I would use for art. So somebody would say, is there... Like, what's in this box? And I would say, well, it's a collection of matter. I mean, we would define it as a painting, or we would define it as art, but those are all human concepts that are part of our perception and the relationships that we have with matter, but absent humans, sounds don't exist because sounds are things that are perceived by humans the same way that art doesn't exist because art is perceived by humans. If sound is defined as a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, that's acoustic wave, in that definition, then it would make a sound. I guess the interesting question is that it does a physical thing, but I think that there is a difference between a physical thing existing and the qualia of the experience of that physical thing. I think those are two different things. I think they're different as well, and I think that's what allows art to exist and keep existing after its creation as art, even if there's no one to identify it or to perceive it. But you still think that the color red will disappear if people can't see that color. Yeah, because that thing... That's because color literally is a brain's interpretation of wavelengths of light. Why is art not, though? Because art is art not because of how it's perceived, but in an element of its creation. That's the difference. By creating art with an intention or with some element of your personality to express yourself, that's what makes it art. Color is something that is literally defined by its perception. You have to perceive that wavelength as a concept. That's what the color is. Trying to think of other analogies that I could use. If we want to go with a video, and you just, whenever it comes to you, shoot it my way, or ours, we could talk about it, because we plan on being here for a long time. I don't care as to the intention of characterization. I guess this would be more so to Rags. If we were all to be wiped out, would you say Pluto is a planet? I guess Pluto is a category of celestial body. Nothing would change about Pluto, but would it be a planet? Well, you have to say yes. If you think art exists, planets and other groupings of matter must exist. I'm assuming Rags knows where I'm going with this. I think that's something that would it still be a planet? Also, chat. Chill out. This is going to be a slow-bin, EFAP, okay? You're all going nuts. As opposed to what? The normal EFAPs you guys do, we're going in like 30 minutes. Yeah, that can be faster paced. We've had short, four-hour-long EFAPs before. I don't know. Because of course, I'm thinking about the fact that if we all got wiped out at a particular base of a moment in time, it would change whether or not we, I assume whether or not you would say Pluto remains a planet, because technically speaking, it gets. Because it's not a planet now. Correct. Oh, actually. Fuck, can I ask? Here's another example on that train of thought. If I show you a video game, okay? And then all of humankind disappears. Is that thing that exists still a game? Like Tic-Tac-Toe will say. I might not know based off, because I don't know how I would truly consider what makes something a game. I assume that it would still be a game, even if there's no one to play it. Well, I guess what does that mean though, right? Like if you have a game that has a set of rules, what does that mean? If there's nobody there to perceive those rules. So let me make a distinction in a video game. I would probably say yes, but something like a chess board or a checker board, I guess they're the same thing, aren't they? Yeah, they would be, they would not be games, but I think the video game would be a game, because all of its rules are baked in in a hard sense to the, like it's coding. But I don't think that a checker board, like for instance for chess or checkers, I don't think that would be a game anymore, because it's not baked into, no, no, I don't, I legitimately don't know. I do not know, I'd have to think about it. These are not things I think about often. I don't think these are things many people think about often. Maybe the video will elucidate. Well, I do, oh my God. That's why I would say like this has been argued forever. I just find it amusing that so many people are like, I have the correct answer. Why can't we solve it an hour? There's four of us. Exactly. I find it all very interesting. The thing with the whole Pluto question is what makes me think about how humans evolve over time to maybe make their categorizations more accurate or just create new ones to define things that they've come up with. My standing on this is art, meaning this, we kind of went over it already, is that it's like, no, because you've already said art, so it's too late, you've already entered into the human framework. Meanwhile, like if someone made us from that, it's like, well, wait, what does that mean? What does it mean to not have entered into the human framework then? It's like, well, it's the, you know, what framework do you enter into when you say Pluto remains a planet or not when everyone's gone? It's like, well, it's going to now be restricted to a timeline or a date which gets even more weird and complicated. And it sort of reveals, I think, the truth, which is that, well, humans can be kind of arbitrary in everything that they do once you broaden it as far out as literally the universe. Not arbitrary, but subjective, I would say. Yeah, sorry. Because it's not arbitrary, it means a lot, but it's just, it's very subjective to say the human experience, yeah. And they could have ended up in all kinds of different ways. So when you like, you know, just Pluto remain a planet when no one's there to perceive it, it's like, well, it depends on what we last said it was. And it's like, that doesn't sound very definitive. And so it just, I'm more comfortable in saying that all the categories humans come up with, we all enter into it. I'm not sure if it would be considered an axiom, but that's kind of where I'm at with how I judge mostly everything. It's like, we all signed the contract on our way in. The conversations. Yeah. I think most challenging questions, that the reason why a lot of questions are very challenging is because they're deceptive, that as soon as you've uttered a question, there's already so much baked into the fact that we're even using language that questions can become deceptively complicated. So like the question of like, what is it like after death? Well, it's like the concept of death implies that there's nobody there to consider. And when you ask what is it like, the assumption by asking what it's like is there's something there to know what it is like to be something. And so the question you're actually asking is, if there's nothing there to perceive what it's like to be something, then what would that nothing perceive when nothing can't perceive, right? So like the questions themselves seem like, oh my God, this is like, it's so difficult to think about it. And the reason why is because the question itself is already like bringing in so much baggage that it makes it really, really hard to even consider what's being asked. Sorry, yeah. Just tell them it's just, death is just like it was before you were born. That's exactly true. The most, yeah, that's the answer I find most satisfying, which is not even necessarily an answer, but it is kind of, you'll get satisfaction out of that, I think, more than any other answer. But, well, I guess religious people wouldn't, but that's that's a whole other thing. I am more than happy to start this video. Let's do it. If everyone else is anyone else. Let's do it. Sure, go for it. Sure. Let's, let's learn a farts meaningless. Woohoo. I am the portrait of Madam X by John Singer Sargent. I was first exhibited in 1884, and I caused quite a stir in Paris because although my artist intended for me to be a study in light and shade, audiences and critics thought I was trying to be sexually provocative. So which is it? What does the artwork mean? And funnily enough, that's actually the tear up question because the first one we've done, I think we're fine now on the first one. What is art? And then does art mean stuff? If we've already said it's baked in, that it would. Is there a correct meaning, incorrect meaning, or is there anything close to those? Would be the next thing. In the sense of this example here, where the artist had, and we have to assume that the artist is being honest, which would think it's all right if we do that for this. If we assume the artist is being honest about their intentions, then that was, I think all we could say is that was the meaning they were trying to get across and someone accusing them otherwise. Well, I guess it's them trying to insist they know the mind of the artist better than the artist does. So if they say, if that's what they pull from it, that's fine. But to make a statement of this is what you were trying to do with it. Oh, right, right, right. That would be, like, horrible. I'm assuming, yeah, because if one was to say, I know what you were doing and you've been lying, I suppose there are scenarios where that could be true, right? You could prove that the artist lied about what their intentions were. You could maybe find leaked D.E.A.B.s. Prove pretty close, depending on the, depending on the individual. Right, you could never get inside their actual mind or anything. Yeah, it's okay to say, this is what it means to me, or this is what I think it means, and this is what you meant when you created it. Because I know my your mind better than you do. We might these be two totally different questions, like maybe they're not the same question. What did the artist intend versus what did the audience perceive? Oh yeah, these are two different things. Yeah, they often align, but they often don't. Well, and then can we, if we can throw a monkey wrench of just soundness of mind, is that necessary before taking any perception seriously? Like the artist has to be of sound mind to the audience. What about the audience? Yeah, and what if, Well, even if you're not a sound, some people at a certain point in time and then you use your time machine that totally exists to go back in time and show it to a different group of people in a different country at a different time. Yeah, if you change observers, you might get different, you know, perceptions of whatever it is they're observing. You know, I certainly will, right? Hey, Destiny, do you believe in death of the author? Yeah, I quite agree with him here. He's thinking about it, I'm sure. Were you asking me or were you asking the other guy? No, we already know these. That's three answers, I was asking your answer. Oh, artist complicated, okay? I'm not going to give you one answer on everything. In a way, death of the author is true. That like if I grow up and let's say that there was like a special like series of letters that my grandfather always drew and they meant a lot to me. And every time he drew them, it just was a way of him expressing love for me. And he drew them on trees in the forest where we grew up. He arranged flowers in these patterns and it meant it was like very special to me. And let's say that I grew up, I integrated into society and I want to create movies and I want to have my character share like these special combinations of letters and the special combinations of letters like ends up being the n-word, right? Well, I can share that message with society, but like obviously I can't share things in a vacuum. It's going to sit within the greater context of society and it's going to be perceived as such. So to some extent, when an author releases his art into society, he's lost control of that art and he has to be aware of how our society is going to perceive it. Like that is necessarily true. However, like part of the perception of the art could be learning the intention of the artist. So it's a little bit more complicated, right? It's so like the stupid response is saying like, well, only the intention matters. If you're a little bit smarter, you'll say, well, actually, intention is irrelevant. It has to be always perceived within a certain society. But then like on the next level, you could say, sure, a society could perceive something within the context of the society itself, but part of that context could be understanding the intention of the author. That's what I would say. Our position is... I'm sorry, like... Yeah, we... Somewhere in the middle. Wait, what? Yeah, we think that... Go for it, Fringy. Oh, just that it's... To some extent, your intention is not going to be factored into it, but to some extent, it will be or it might be. It's somewhere in the middle. It's usually case by case. Oftentimes, I will expect the author to have not necessarily the most insight, but more than likely the most insight. But sometimes they can fucking destroy their own work, unfortunately. You have to take it piece by piece, case by case. We... I'll... Previously, if I were talking with our guest about this, and I was saying that I would love to hear what Tolkien has to say about what his work means in Lord of the Rings. I would never want to hear anymore from Michael Waldron about what he meant when he wrote Loki or Doctor Strange 2. I'm more than happy to never hear that. So, like, what's the difference? Like, well, it's just the level of insight I believe I will get from these sources, even though they're both the author. Well, that... I guess that stems from, like, how much do you think that what they intended to do was achieved, maybe? Like, did they create something pretty close to what they wanted it to be, versus somebody who unwittingly created something terrible that doesn't realize it? And if there's, like, a really good piece of work, and then the author tells everybody in the world, like, by the way, you see this, this, this, that no one could possibly have known, this actually represents, like, this big old thing that happened in my life. And we would all share that fun fact with each other. You know, depending on how interesting it is. And probably be interested by it. Meanwhile, if it's, like, a really shitty piece of work that everyone hates, and then the author's like, oh, but, you know, and then, like, the thing you would suggest, like, like, I do not care what your thing is, it's horrible, that sort of thing. I don't know, that's kind of interesting to think about how it ends up. I think there's also, like, don't lock yourself into one way to read art, too. Like, you're depriving yourself a lot. Like, I think there are times where you can know fully the intention of an artist, and you can actually perceive something in a totally different way, and still get, like, really cool meaning out of it, and, like, really cool things to come out of it. Like, there's the joke, I say half-joke, whatever, of people perceiving, like, Top Gun as being, like, a thing about, like, being a closeted gay man. Or, like, Matrix as being, like, a story about, like, trans being gay. There were a lot of cockpits in that movie. Yeah, sure, yeah. And, like, I don't think it was the intention of either, like, creator of these pieces for it to be an allegory for, like, being trans or being gay or whatever. But you could still read it as such, and you could still get meaning out of it in doing that. So, yeah, I think there's tons of different ways to read it, yeah. Now, I feel like that opens it up. Can we lock it down at all? Is there ever a time where you would hear someone's assessment of what something means and say, no, that's incorrect? Yes. When it comes to analysis of art, I think that your statements need to be defended. But I think you can defend a lot of different types of statements. There's a lot of different statements you could make that have a lot of different defenses. So, if I wanted to say, I think the Matrix is actually an allegory for how Factorio is the best game on PC ever. It's like, well, how do you support that statement? Well, you know, they live in a computer world and Factorio is a computer game. Well, that's a shitty defense. That applies to so many different pieces. It doesn't make any sense, right? Yeah. But you can interpret things a lot of ways. It's just, it's going to depend on the arguments that you put forth to strengthen whatever your thesis is, right? Almost like a... But I mean it doesn't have any basis in reality. I guess ultimately though, like, you would, you always have to make appeals to what is in a piece of art. So, like, what does it mean to get that wrong? To say, like, yeah, man. Okay. Yeah? If... Yeah, relate to other things, yeah. Well, so, because I was going to say, maybe this moves it into a different conversation, but obviously, if, for me, it's like, oh, the meaning I draw out of Save and Private Ryan is like a really strong message about the repercussions of war and the cost of courage and bravery, because it's all stuff like that. I mean, while I say, like, I don't know, it just, I think it means a lot about, like, just, and I try and maybe more so appeal to personal feelings and what it means to me in terms of, like, let's say I'm, this is a really bad sound of mine, but if I said, like, it's kind of funny, a lot of it, because it's so absurd that the movies about how humans drove themselves into killing each other for no good reason at all, I was laughing throughout it. That's what it means to me. Is that invalid? Is it invalid? I mean it could... I think there's two things. You can either put forth an interpretation that other people could vibe with or you could just say, like, personally, this is how you view it, right? And I think those are gonna be two different things. If I'm trying to defend my interpretation, then the implication is, I think you could interpret it as such as well, but if my interpretation is something that's incredibly personal, well, then obviously, that's just gonna work for me, right? Like, if I watch a movie and I, like, you know, I've always associated the color red with a little bit of color, and I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I've always associated the color red with an ex-girlfriend, and I'm like, this is a romance movie, and they're like, wait, what's a romance movie? And it's like, oh, Kill Bill is, why? Well, because every time people die, there's like blood gushing out, and the color red reminds me of my ex, and so it's a romance movie. Well, okay, that's like personal to you, but you're not gonna be able to convince anybody else of that. That's a dog shit argument, right? Yeah, that almost gets into, like, definitions of... Well, that's just language, right? It would be appealing to your own, like, personal definition of maybe genre. I fucking hate genre discussions, but I think that's what we'd be aiming for at that point. Maybe, yeah. Yeah, personal meaning versus what we can all sort of agree was in the thing seems to be like, I guess, two conversations you could have at once, but there's probably blurry lines where you have them both at the same time. Yeah, oh, there's a really good conversation that directors have sometimes about using music that is external to the actual movie. So, for instance, if you have a movie and you decide to play, like, a popular song or something, or a romantic song... Non-dietetic music? Yeah, that when you play that music in a way, well, no. Because diagetic music, I think, just refers to whether or not it's occurring in a world or it's just playing, like, over the movie. But I'm specifically talking about, like, let's say that I want to play Taking Back Sunday song as part of my movie. Well, as soon as I play that song, I'm losing a lot of control over how the audience feels because somebody in the audience might associate that song with something that's way different than the message I'm trying to sell in the movie, you know? I'm not saying it's good or bad, but that's, like, a consideration you have to make. Yeah, versus, like, an original song where you have complete control, kind of. I guess you never have complete control, though, because they could associate the individual sounds in the song with something you never do. Well, you have more control about it, yeah. Yeah. Now, you might be sitting there thinking, well, it's subjective. There's no right or wrong answer. But I am willing to bet that you don't really... When you say it's subjective, there's no right or wrong answer. Is that what subjective necessarily means? No, and I hate it when people... I was going to say, like, watch this all the time. Someone will say, oh, it's arbitrary, it's arbitrary. There's a lot of arbitrary and subjective things. Just because something is subjective, or just because something is arbitrary, doesn't mean there's not a right or wrong answer. Most of the human experience is subjective, but we definitely have strong preferences for different answers within that subjective room of things, right? Or, like, the human experience is subjective, but that doesn't mean that, like, any answer goes for anything else, right? Yeah. Yeah, the... And plus, when she says it's subjective, to which thing is she asking that? Which part of that is supposed to be subjective? The fact that what the meaning actually is, what the intention was, what the takeaway was from other people, which part are you referring to as being this subjective part? This is the thing. When I saw the name of the video and I saw the length, I was like, no way you cracked this. In 38 minutes, no way. There's a big difference between saying that the quality of an artwork is subjective and the meaning is subjective. If you don't like the portrait of Madam X, then, fair enough, I guess I'm not to everyone's taste and... I actually think there's crossover with those two conversations in some ways, depending on if you can get two people to agree on what quality means, in the same way, kind of, that if you can get them to agree, kind of like what we just did with meaning, as best we could. If someone was to be able to do that, then you can start... Because, like, I don't know, if you had the two forms of quality, like, this is good from the perspective of craftsmanship, and you define that specifically versus this is good because it makes me feel good, like, you could have those two separated out, so, in the same way. Yeah, you have to have really into the weeds on this. Like, you're gonna do this on argument music. People are like, oh, music is subjective. I was like, sure, you can have intelligent conversations comparing piece of art. Like, this might be a song that is way more... Not sophisticated, but complex than this song, which is far more simple. That doesn't make it good or bad, but this song uses more instruments versus this song. This song is louder or has a greater range of whatever. Like, there are objectively true statements you can make about art itself, even if the ultimate perception or enjoyment of it is somewhat subjective, right? Right. And I suppose when I pose for it, it's more like the portrait of Madame XY. But is it really the case that I can be about anything? If somebody says to you, I just saw Doctor Strange 2, and you go, oh, yeah, what's it about? And they say it's about how love has an everlasting value, even between two people of different social classes on a doomed ocean liner. So, funnily enough, with that example, I was thinking you kind of screwed yourself over because you said what it's about, which isn't necessarily what it means, right? Yeah, something... When you say that something is about something, you're making a much more direct appeal to the thing itself with its content. Yeah, it's about this. It's almost like you could describe the plot or the characters in it, at least when you're referring to a movie. Like, what is Indiana Jones about? It's like, well, it's about what happens in the story, I guess, would be like a clearer... Yeah, it's not about a tortoise eating strawberry jam. Yeah, they're correct in that. Answers with that one. Well, yeah, you can be correct and incorrect. If you're like, Indiana Jones stars Peter Parker also known as Spider-Man, it's like, oh, wait, whoops. Like, you've gotten your references wrong. Like, what you've just said is just not true. Like, pretty categorically. And like, any claims that you make based on that, it's kind of like what it's about is like what you need to agree on first before you can even start to talk about what it means or like how good or bad it is. Well, yeah, although, again... God, fuck, somebody turned me out of this. I'm gonna just realize there's so many hard questions that are actually just like poorly phrased questions. When you ask what is something about... What do you mean by about? Are you asking like for very fundamental descriptive facts or do you mean like what is the overall theme or meaning? Like that question requires expansion. It's the same. I think it was the same for like when she said what does it mean versus what is its quality? Like, I feel like those questions have a lot of overlap if you're not very clear on what exactly you mean by meaning. Yeah. It's the cause after meaning. Is there any first question between what is meaning? That's probably all what is art. You've got to get those out of the way. What is art and what is meaning? And once we figure those out, we can agree. We can move on from there. We only took what? Half an hour? You know, you can do it sort of. Yeah. I make fun of like philosophers for legitimately just having dog shit writing skills because I think a lot of them do write poorly. But like part of the reason for that is because you have to be... When you're defining terms, you have to be so, so, so, so, so careful because it's so easy to like not be ultra crystal clear in what you're saying that you get like lost in this kind of dumb shit. Yeah. You'd be like, no, that's Titanic. It definitely... That could be Titanic. Uh-huh. Um, yes. Many others, I suppose. Yeah. Probably. You've already assigned it to the thing. You could be wrong. They could be... They could be completely different things. The other disaster ship film was Poseidon, right? Did anyone ever see those ones? Yeah. Yeah. I saw the original. I haven't... It's probably a romantic one, man. I saw the original. I haven't seen the remake. Poseidon was part of the era that I disliked where there was no consideration for people who were secondary characters. If you were secondary, nobody cared what happened to you. It's Gordon. Poseidon had a lot of Gordons. I remember that. Yeah, but people just suffering and knowing the story doesn't care about them sort of thing. Nobody cares. Yeah. Nobody cares. They just move on. It's like, well, our main characters are cool, so who cares about this guy who helped you? Who helped you escape and then you just let go? Oh, by the way, you know, my vision of your... I've already forgotten the name. My brain refuses to remember the name. Gordon, you said, right? Yeah, Gordon. Yeah, fuck. My Gordon is the one from Jurassic Park Lost World, right? I've told you about him before. They will never forgive the film for that. He, that actor, I found out today, he's the voice of Odin in Ragnarok, where he's going to be in God of War Ragnarok. I was like, what the fuck? What are the odds? Okay. Beal's Coison Edel probably isn't, but yeah. Seems like you can look at a work of art, think you know what it's about, and be wrong. Which means the meaning at least is not subjective. Well, wait. That is a different thing. Just because you can be wrong about something doesn't mean that it's not subjective, right? Well, yeah, because you could be wrong, but there could be plenty of arguments that somebody could make for totally different conclusions about what it means. Just because you got it wrong doesn't mean that there's like a absolute set, rigid one answer to the question of what it means. It's almost like there's a broad spectrum of what you could say is what you got from it, but it's still in a box, as in there are still limitations on the totality of the things you can say, because you can't just go out, like so far outside there's nothing to support it at all. We've talked about colors, right? Maybe it's like that. There is the color spectrum, and there is the visible color spectrum, which is like the boundary for, I guess, correctness vaguely. And once you get too far away from like, what is in the story, where like all of your references to what happens and all of who the characters are, what they say to each other is so wrong, that like it basically becomes impossible for you to slot into the correct conclusions, the many correct or like, you know, very incorrect claims you can make about a story. What's funny about that is that you could have a couple of people be like, so Doctor Strange 2 was about love transcending the multiverse, and someone else would be like, no, no, no, it was about trying to escape the worst version of yourself. Like that's what life is, and someone else goes, well, no. It's about that you should never think of like the best vision of your life in some of the multivitues. You should always think about what you have and how thankful you should be for it. And all three of those would be correct, I think. I think this is a... You could be exclusive either. They could be about all of them. It's not like this is a, like a dichotomous proposition where it has to be one thing or the other. But if you say that Interstellar is like about like the relationship between like, like friends in school and like a feeling of like loss and moving on when you like move from high school to college or big stages in life, it's going to be pretty hard to defend. Yeah, you'd be like, what are you referencing with that? Is it hard to defend moving? Yeah, so just because you're going to be wrong about something does not imply that a thing. Yeah. I feel like you could probably express this as really basic like Proplogic. She's, I hate this person. What's baked in, like we don't even say it because it's so baked into it, but when someone says what this art means, it's generally they're saying to me. Like when we say is a certain I don't know, is our vegetables good? Yeah, for humans generally, yeah, they are. You know, it's got that assumption that's kind of built into the statement that you're making. But since meaning is pulled from a thing based on individuals, you have to add more to that statement for me to know. Sure. We're also almost entering the language problem again there as well because of it's like, when you guys were talking about, it's like my brain immediately went to what happens in the film. Meanwhile, probably people will be like, as Destiny said, they'll go to what the theme was or something like that. So you have to be more clear because I actually think like, if I was to guess, what do you think the majority response to when you say what is a film about? Do you think people would more likely go for theme or they would more likely go for a plot summary? I think I'd go for plot summary. I think most people would go for it'd be like 80, 20. Yeah, I think so. Or maybe some movies where people, there might be some movies where people predominantly would talk about theme, but there's probably the exceptions. Yeah, no. I think it depends on kind of what circles you're running in, right? I think that if philosophy people were talking to like H-Bomber Guy and asked what a film is about, they were almost exclusively only ever talking about themes. Oh yeah, probably depends on where you're introduced to it as well. Like if you were to ask people, what is 1984 about? Nobody's probably actually, I don't even know how many people have read the book, but nobody's going to give you a plot summary. They're going to say, 1984 is about Big Brother. I like what the story is, if it's like some really culturally important story that like has spun off into, well, maybe not spun off, it's just like, yeah, like so culturally significant in terms of how it informs people's perception about a bunch of things in the world. Maybe at like, yeah, at that point, people are just going to gravitate to its impact more so than what even happened in the story. I wonder if you take, 1984 is a good example, because I wonder if the people who haven't read it and the people who have read it would give, one would focus on the plot and the other would focus on like the message more. There's a lot of people, but they don't know the plot. Most people haven't read that book. I bet a lot of people have heard of the book and they know the general concept of what it's trying to say. So that's what they would go to because they don't even know the plot at all. The meaning at least is not subjective. So assuming artworks do have objective meaning. That is a leap. Do we? We are not two minutes in. I was going to say, I don't know how we got here already. I'll play it again. The meaning at least is not subjective. So assuming artworks do have objective meaning. It's just, it's such a like, Oh, okay. I feel like we skipped the video there. Because I think she's gotten this from how you can say someone is wrong about what a film is about. Therefore there must be objective. It's like, Oh, I feel like we've, there's so many steps we didn't do there. But one minute and 39 seconds in, we have the conclusion art is objectively has an objective. To be fair, she's phrased it as a question. Because of course, I don't believe Abigail Thorn would say art or meaning is objective. But she's presenting. I hope not. How do we find out what the meaning is? If I don't get it, how do I get it? All right then. Okay. If you enjoyed today's episode and you want to help me make more free educational materials. Educational. Come on down. Consider signing up at patreon.com slash philosophy tube and pledging a couple of dollars a month to keep the show. Why can I just donate one? Oh, very rare. It's a fun Molyne reference. I appreciate it. Is that a, was that a Stefan Molyne reference? Oh, never mind. I thought it was. Oh, look, there we go. We got intention versus subject. Uh-oh. Oh my God. We did it. Right there. Oh my God. Oh my God. These paintings are some of the most famous examples of modern art in the world. And I have absolutely no idea what they mean. Is she doing something with her voice here? To make it sound like she's a big open echoey space? I think it's just echoey. Absolutely like whispering and everything. She should probably add a reverb and post. I think so. Yeah. Now, how, you know what? What do we think the meaning of these paintings are? Okay. Well, because we both got, we go the same origin story, I'm pretty sure. We both tell it every once in a while. We know. We do. It's a. You must promise me that art is shit and it could all be torn down. My origin story is I went to an art gallery and it was like for a school trip and they brought us to like, it was either a blank canvas or it was just red, like the example that we had. And we had to sit there and try to talk about what it meant. And I was just sitting there and I had no idea what I was supposed to say or make of any of this. Well, that's, yeah. You walk in and you're like, did we need a whole room for this? Well, she'll explain what these ones are, but I was going to say my word, at this point, because I used to tell it as sort of just like a funny story. I'm starting to think it was like fucking formative for me. It was because it was early on in school years and we went to the Tape Modern in London as a school trip thing. And yeah, there was a room filled with it was similar to this. It was splashes, big red splashes onto loads of these huge canvases. And the two teachers that had taken us, I don't remember their names, but one of them was a lady who was super friendly, super, super awesome, super encouraging. It wasn't great at all, but she was just, so she was very into the fun side of things and loved this room. Oh, good for her. The other one, the guy, he was exceptional at all. Always impressed everybody, everything he did, but he was a lot more harsh with all the students, right? Like if they fucked up, he'd be like, this is wrong. You need to do this, you need to do this, you need to do this. He went into the room and immediately left. And I was like, wait, wait, wait. Like, what am I supposed to do with all this? And he was just like, you look at it and then you think about stuff, I guess. That was just like. Hey, he's my new favorite person. Yeah, that's the thing. I, I ended up, like I did look at each of them, but I was just like, and then I try to find out where he was and you'd gone up to like, Renaissance paintings and stuff. And I was just like, oh shit, these look amazing. Like, and I was staring at them for ages. Yeah, fuck the red spots, man. I'm looking at this, around it was Bosch. And then we had, we get these little like papers at the end where it's just like, describe your feelings about these things. And I was like, it's a big red splash. And they're like, that's what it is. That's not how you felt. And I was like, I don't know. I felt like it was a big red splash. All right, let me alone now, please. Yeah, please let me alone. Because it's not just that. Because I know that anyone out there would be like, oh, you can't like, like how stifled are you? Just look at it and just try to feel. And I would be like, it's not even just that. It's the, whatever I am feeling, I don't even know that the paintings earned it. You know, it's, it's more so work as being done to evoke feelings rather than me doing all the legwork on that. Well, rather than what my day has been so far, who I'm with, how I am, how hungry I am, how tired I am, what I was thinking about just now, what I watched last night. Maybe that's the point. That's the point. Yeah. Is it really a good painting if I could do it? Well, so that's where we get into a complicated discussion as well. How much of like what we talk about when it comes to art and its meaning should stem from, I guess, like is art like a skill? I was paired with skill. Well, I was, I was just joking. But I guess, I mean, I wouldn't not call these red fucking boxes a little. I wouldn't call them art. You wouldn't. Or I wouldn't not call them art. Sorry. It is art. It's just boring art that I have no interest in. I think I am very tempted to call it shitty, but I probably wouldn't if we were in conversations that were incredibly like specific and detailed. And the irony there is that I think most people in the world say if the artist was in the room, you wouldn't call it that. Um, yeah, that's probably true. I'd be like, oh, this is great, man. I would, I would do it just to get them to defend this. What I would like to see is this is shit, mate. I'd want to see the creation of them. And if it's as simple as I imagine it is, that would be interesting to see. That cold, the secret. That's me. What, what are these names here? I need to know. Come on. Oh, fuck off. When you look at this, what does it mean to you? I need to know. Um, right now, it just looks fucking stupid. It would depend on the mood I was in, you know. By the way, this is a meme format for sure. Just said. Absolutely. The primary is pretty perfect. Yeah. Hold on, I'll be back one second. The good thing there's a security camera there, so someone doesn't fuck up the red box. Well, I mean, they've even got the line there. Make sure that you don't go. Yeah, don't get close. Don't ruin the red box. It is an endless void. It will swallow you. Do not touch. I don't know. Like when you go to an art gallery, I don't know. I'm just like, when I look at these amazing like paintings that were paid to like 500 years ago with way fewer like access to the resources that are available now to paint something similar. If I see this. If all of us were told to stand in front of it and just just experience it, I would probably start giggling because I just feel like this feels like I would start making shit up. Only humans are fucking capable of convincing themselves. Oh yes, the refuse. This is like a super meaningful thing to do. They resemble the way the artist has been through this picture. It's a and they are there is a tempest inside the artist, the red. Well, maybe I guess. Well, you know what? Why don't we actually try like for real to figure out? It's supposed to represent the vast nothingness of pain. Okay. It represents that they the artist was very upset and angsty, but it's not a bright. It's red, but it's not a bright one. So they're not like like I know, right? You could have a painting of things in there, but you need all this space for your one. Yeah, look at them hogging up all that real estate. Yep. And imagine you were the artist that like did this incredibly detailed like super long landscape is an enormous and beautiful. Just just portion of it's huge and you both submit. And this one is like number one at the gallery. Yours is number two. You're like, okay. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine. You want to take it on the chin, you know? Yeah, you do. Because that's just a reality of. What was it? This is a room filled with painting like this. You can see the one behind her just off on the right. And then there were other ones as well on the walls. It's a whole room filled with paintings like this. Maybe that's how I would rationalize my experience here. I'd be like, I'm going to rate them in terms of funniness. This one is number one. There's nothing beating it. It's great. This is a comedy. What is this painted comedy? I mean, I guess that's the thing though. How much does it factor into the meaning of this art? If I said that to the artist and they disagreed with me, they're like, it's not meant to be funny. It's like, well, like it or not. You got a good chuckle out of me. Item. Anyone who's drawing like this or rather anyone who's painting like this should surely be on team. You can interpret it as you wish. You know, you would think so because could you imagine having like a rigid meaning because there's so little to pull from it that you like what can you pull from it as it's like core meaning? I guess what this is trying to be as good faith as possible. It's like, what can you pull from it? And it's like. Well, it's supposed to be right. Whoever, whoever drew this as an asshole. Hey, look, all right. Maybe maybe there is something here that I'm not seeing. Maybe it's maybe it's hung on the wall the wrong way. The paintings on the back, they put it on backwards. The real paintings on the other side. What if like, could you imagine if if if like they flipped it upside down in a new exhibition that was like, oh, this changes every sit right. So that's that's like a skit. Because it's kind of that's kind of how I feel about this, like in terms of trying to have a conversation. It feels like we're performing, we're lapping, like we're doing a little play where we're sort of like pretending that we understand what this means. When in reality, we all kind of recognize it's just a big red canvas. And that's all we're looking at. You mentioned how big it was. It's literally too big to flip it into portrait orientation. And this room. Destroy the roof or destroy the canvas. It would just it goes straight through the roof as they turned it. It's your artistic presence would cut through. No, I guess she wait. No, we're being stupid. You could just put it on its flat and then on the floor. Let's put it on the floor and pretend it's a rug so people can walk all over it. I think people might feel for that. That would become its own art piece. See, it was how pain. Oh, yeah. You guys know about like interactive art. Yeah. Yeah, I was gonna say because like the the sort of motion of everyone walking across it eventually makes it interesting to look at which I'm not even I actually would defend that versus this experiment for sure. Yeah, that's an interesting experiment. But yeah, no, to what you were just saying, it does feel like that's what humanity did eventually. This is the lowest common denominator where we tricked ourselves into sort of everyone is telling each other that this is very meaningful. Right. Right. And everyone's just sort of you want to get inside everyone's heads and no, they perceive the color. They conclude that's all that's there. But now I'm just gonna go into deep thought like you're in a deprivation tank sort of thing. And you just start thinking about stuff and then you apply whatever that is to this. Like this did it. I guess. Yeah, I guess that's where it starts to what do we say about like the meaning of art in terms of what it evokes from you to if like we start to consider, you know, how are you feeling before you shut up today? What's on your mind at the moment? And you mentioned it before like even if we got like what did you eat for breakfast? Like how many of these things will filter into the way that you perceive it? And if so, how much of that should be attributable to the art itself? Rather than the natural experience of life? I kind of appreciate that we got this one specifically because I actually even with the simpler, you know, if it was like a stick man with a smiley face, I would I would actually probably defend that quite a bit compared to this. Because I'd be like, I probably would be maybe a lot of dimensions to be able to draw from it. But this is about as simple as is this the lowest person generally represents. That's already a huge step forward. I suppose a white canvas absolute zero, right? Or at least close. Well, it would be better if it was a white canvas because there would be the opportunity for someone to paint over it like an actual piece of art. And it's in a way like this is 333 by John Cage in art form I lost, right? What I know, I know that song. I know that quote unquote song. There's a song that a guy called John Cage makes where you just you sit in a auditorium being silent for three minutes and 33 seconds. I think the piano player sits down, he lifts the or it might be four minutes and 32 seconds. I remember. But you see he lifts it, he sits there, you wait. And then he closes the piano to let you know that the song is done. And the song is the experience that you have sitting there listening to everybody around you, right? That would be the equivalent. Yeah, I guess I remember I remember in grade school they did that. I was like, we're going to listen to the song. And I was just sitting there in my chair like this. You think about video games, wouldn't you? So I was thinking about anything else. That can be interesting for sure. And there's something to be spoken about there. I guess I wonder like when we what do we compare for what? 433 to, I don't know, like Moonlight Sonata or some like or just any any number of songs in terms of comparing like what they're trying to offer you. It seems like they're so different that it'd be hard to compare them, you know, like how do you compare this to like some elaborate baroque painting? What kind of comparison could you ever make in terms of like how they try to evoke meaning from somebody when one of them has things that are much more readily identifiable and easy to latch on to compared to, you know, this where like you're doing so much of the work. And I brought it up before but I just can't resist being at the end. It was Venice. My memory is falling apart at this point. There was a series of rooms and then in the corner there was a fire extinguisher and people were standing looking at it and it was not a piece but it is in the place it is to be viewed. That's going to bring us back to the whole definitions thing right because to all the people viewing it they're like, of course this is an art piece but then it would just be like, well, I wonder if it would change their mind if they found out it was just a fire extinguisher but the utility of extinguishing fires in emergencies. I don't know, like it because they would do the poster. I mean, when you say when you say something like that that in and of itself is an interesting question. Right? Yeah, this is the this thing it's funny but simultaneously it's like the fact that it's getting everyone to perceive differently because they believe it is here to be an influence into your perception beyond just being a fire extinguisher. Yeah, it's like that's kind of like that you've entered into this place and by being in this place like an art gallery it's just changed the way that you're going to view everything that you see in here. Yeah. Because you know where you are and you know what that means compared to if you just out in the open. Well, that's why I was walking around this place else. I was saying I feel like this has pushed it to the absolute limit and uh yes I suppose fine because this is the thing you know if thousands of people enjoy this I was like yeah okay fine go over it for sure. Well, I guess we're going to find out what Abigail thinks about this particular painting. They were painted in the 1950s by American artist Mark Rothko Originally, he was commissioned to make them for an upscale That looks like the pause. That is inspired by us for sure. Not in New York but when he actually visited the place he changed his mind and gave the money back. The paintings are still displayed in accordance with his intentions. Close to the ground. Yeah, you shouldn't have been paid. Yeah, fuck you. You're being too mean. I know I'm being mean. You know how it works if people want to pay for it they'll pay for it. Is it? Yeah. Which that's their own decision to make. Okay. Freedom, right? You're American. We're just having fun here. We're having fun here. We're just having fun in a small room with off-white walls in low, even lighting. Rothko said he wanted audiences to feel trapped. Which is funny because the first thing that came to my mind seeing this one was window. Oh, I was thinking about the number zero. I was thinking about the number zero. Look at what and isn't that interesting? It is. Isn't that? To be fair, I think this one at least this one has a fucking shape on it. I was going to say this one's more interesting than the other one. I'm just saying. It is objectively. Objectively more interesting. I don't think you can say that. I just did fring. Objectively. I know you did. I know you did. Get rekt defeated. Yeah. Wow. Art hater. If I want to get it, maybe those facts are a clue. If somebody tells me. When you say get it, do you mean understand what the artist meant by it? Or what you're trying to say? Or how you should interpret it? How well you should interpret it? I think she means the artist's intentions. I think because she just set it up with the whole like field trap thing. Because paintings are about being happy and having a nice time at the beach. I can point to his intentions and go no, you're wrong because I don't want to get it wrong. Sorry. Do we skip? Can we hear that again? I think we do we skip. If I want to get it, maybe those facts are a clue. If somebody tells me Rothko's paintings are about being happy and having a nice time at the beach, I can point to his intentions and go no, you're wrong because I don't want to. Well, you can say you're wrong about his intentions. Yeah, you're wrong about his intentions. You're not wrong about what it means to me. Get it wrong. I don't want to misinterpret something. That could be really awkward. Like when your friend who you thought was straight sends you a bunch of flirty messages and you're like, babe, is there something you need to tell me? And she goes, what? No, I'm definitely straight. Definitely interested in men. Everybody sends messages like that. Right? This is hilarious. Why? Oh, no. Some philosophers have said. This is really funny. I don't know. I think it was really funny. I don't even I'm not even sure what just happened. Yeah, you can tell it's a joke because of how funny it was. Is part of it, albeit not a part that you can see with your eyes. Take, for instance, Fountain, one of the most famous words. I was taught about this in school. I'm sure you guys know about this, right? The toilet. I do not know about Fountain. OK, I'll let her explain it. It is a urinal. It was presented in 1917 by Marcel Duchamp and it's what's called a ready-made, a sculpture that was already made because it's just an ordinary urinal. He bought it from a shop. To the eyes. Fountain. They say urinal or urinal? Urinal. Urinal. I can never tell one like British people are like kind of memeing and making words sound intentionally stupid. Yeah. I have the British to just say you. Wait, you guys say urinal? No, I said it as a joke, but apparently urinal is how it is. Well, that's how I. Well, it seems British, but I'm also British and I say urinal. Wait, I thought you were fucking Australian. Are you really British? What? Fringy is the Australian. Fringy is the Australian. I am the American. Where the fuck is Mahler from? Can my chat tell me? I don't know if I'm getting trolled now. He's from. What have they told you? Well, I thought you were fucking Australian. Am I wrong? Yeah, it's very. How do I sound Australian at all? Fringy should be offended. You all sound the fucking same to me. Jesus. Wow. What does that even mean? Wow. Fucking white. Wow. You're always mentioning like fucking like 6 a.m. and I figure, oh, this guy's Australian. He's up to the weirdest fucking hours of the day. He must be Australian. I just don't sleep. Yeah, clearly. Jesus. Australians can't sleep. Brails still get mauled by wild beasts. Kind of true. That's true. At the sleep with one I open they're like fish or sharks or something. Yeah, I don't care. I'll see rags. Does this create a monkey wrench for you? Definitely. Like if someone just grabs a thing and then says this is my aunt and puts it down. How does that like? I thought about that a little bit, but I'm not. I'm not sure. I suppose that the placement and the things they say about it are part of the expression of using it as art. I don't know though. It's pushing it, right? It's pushing it. I think we can all agree this is pushing it. But yeah, I don't know how I feel like if they did this and put it in a thing and said this is art, I'm like. I still remember when they told us about this the whole class thought they were trolling like our teacher. She was like they just took a toilet and said it was art and then we're just like and she was like no, no, that happened. That was a thing. And it's like. I mean is it could be if the person who made the toilet really wanted to have the slopes and curves of the urinal to. Well, no, no, wait, hold on. This was trolling. That's what this art piece is, right? It was to challenge the, I believe, the perception of what is. But the thing is, is it? That's an expression. I was about to get into intention versus meaning, I guess, because I was like, is it a troll if it is only perceived as well if it is accepted? Do you know what I mean? Like, is it is a troll based only on it? Because people were saying that those red images. Rolling. That's like as far as we can tell. No, I was just saying that this guy intentionally, the goal of this was to be a challenging piece to challenge you and what your perceptions of art were. That was the goal of the artists. I believe for this. Sure. But I guess it is it didn't really did it do its job if it like only just proved that it still counts? Well, yeah, that's. Yeah. The job was a challenge when they succeed. It was thought provoking. Yeah, I guess. Okay. Yeah. We've thought a little bit about it. Yeah. We're taking it right now about it, aren't you? I guess I am. I still find it funny. Well, yeah. That's part of what you're posting all about. The trolling did be funny a little bit, right? Fountain is identical to other urinals that are not art. So the argument goes what makes it the opposite of a fountain in that because generally fountains produce like a liquid and spread it out. But actually generally you pee into a urinal urinal. So it's like an inverse fountain. Oh, it was the name of this the fountain. Fountain, yeah. Okay. I guess even the name of it is spawned about what it means for something to be art. There you go. Oh, I thought it was like ironic. I thought it objectively. I figured I don't know. I think that calling it a fountain was part of the intention to challenge it by naming it something that's like the inverse of. Matt, I feel like you just a real good example of the opposite troll of this of doing the exact opposite of what this particular piece is doing is this is shit. This is just posting a fucking toilet in a museum and challenging like well is it art because it's in a fucking museum. And obviously an opposite example of this was a world famous world-class violinist went and he played solos in a New York subway for a while and nobody stopped to care. Nobody stopped to listen. This guy charges thousands of dollars when he does performances with orchestras and shit. But outside of a concert hall nobody really seemed to give a fuck. And that's part of the it's like the opposite example of this like oh so I guess it's only art when it's in a concert hall. Location, location, location. Yeah. Is it's meaning? If you don't get that meaning you have in a sense failed to experience the artwork that is fountain. You've just seen your vinyl. Funnily enough. No, I just that's that those are not the same. I can fail to see the original intention of the artist but I can come up with a or I it could have a particular meaning to me. I wouldn't. I don't know if I'd call that a failure overall. A failure only a very specific element of the viewing. Why does you just see a urinal? Why is that like wrong or bad or worse? Yeah. Why is it worth? Yeah. Why is it worth drawing that from having described as failure as opposed to just different meaning? Yeah, exactly. Well, hold on. Wait, wait. Play that part again. All right. To other urinals that are not art. So the argument goes what makes it different is its meaning. If you don't get that meaning you have in a sense failed to experience the artwork that is fountain. You've just seen your vinyl. Funnily enough. Look, yeah, I might have failed to have that particular specific experience but I had my own experience. If that's the point being made by philosophy then I guess it counts. It's just strange to put it that way, I think. Yeah, this whole discussion about the fountain thing. I mean that was our experience. That was fun. That was really fun. We enjoyed that. Had a great time. I have some artwork with me today that is about this very question. Oh my god. Interpreting art, not whether your friend is flirting with you. Although actually kind of both. I forgot about that. This is Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov. One of the most famous novels of the 20th century. I've never heard of it. Damn, I've never heard of it, yeah. I've never heard of it. Well, that could just be because. I wonder, yeah, I wonder if it's really, I don't know, I don't know. Yes, I'm not into well versed in Russian literature. Not very well read, that's my excuse. Yeah. That the poet John Shade has been murdered on the night that he completed his greatest work. So the poem has been published posthumously by his good friend Charles with notes explaining its meaning. But as we read on, Charles's notes get weirder and weirder. He starts claiming that certain words in the poem are really a coded message. She is describing what the book is about. Yeah, a summary of what actually takes place as opposed to what it necessarily means, but maybe she's getting to the meaning part in this. Maybe. The poem are really a coded message about how John was in love with him, but his wife wouldn't let him say it. And really, the poem is all about Charles until he's talking about things that are completely unconnected and we're like, hang on a minute. Did he murder John? A lot of the humor comes from the fact that Charles has interpreted- Spoiler alert. I guess potentially spoilers. I don't know. Reputation of the poem is wrong. He says it's about one thing, it obviously isn't, and that's why it's funny. But how do we know he's wrong? Well, it would be very helpful if we could just ask John what his poem is about. And indeed, some- That doesn't necessarily answer the question. I'm assuming we'll get there. And he's being- Yeah, of being like, we've got to have a basic understanding of what actually the words mean. I don't know. That is kind of the basis for how we decide if someone's right or wrong about any particular interpretation of a piece of artwork, right? It's just like, you're not being reasonable with what is there, at least with how we understand language to work. I don't know. I guess the funny thing about that is what if a simultaneous human civilization developed that just had a completely different set of parameters for everything and then they both- they watch a film while we watch a film and then I don't know if that- Does that make sense? Would they come to different conclusions or would it just be different ways to describe the same conclusions? Assuming they could- Is this assuming they could understand it, but all of their symbolism and stuff is different than ours? If we were to duplicate Earth right before, I don't know, advanced humans came along and I don't know, move everyone around a bit, shake things up and then just let them both progress. I imagine they'd have different languages, different- pretty much everything, right, butterfly flag style. And then take a human from both of those planets, make them watch the movie. They're going to- I was just trying to think would it be fair to say that whatever they come up with, both of them, you could still bridge the gap between them because they're probably still going to have to adhere to whatever is actually present in the film. Doesn't really matter. Probably, and plus the fact that they are the same species will probably give them links to the way that they perceive reality. Like cool effects? Well, maybe. I think we'd have to- Yeah, we perceive music differently across our same planets, like the exact same planet, right? Like, so- Yeah, yeah, I mean- They're right. I might be totally who knows, right? But in terms of stuff like cause and effect and this thing happens to another and being able to have a perception of what's actually being done and, you know, elements of just human psychology and, you know, the very, very intrinsic things that humans have, it'll probably create some connections that they'd be able to both come away from it, but I don't know what those might necessarily be, but I imagine there'd be some. Maybe. Maybe. But what some of us have said, the way you find out an artwork's meaning is you look at the artist's intention. If it seems like your friend is flirting with you, but it's kind of ambiguous, just ask her how she feels. But it doesn't really help us with pale f- Well, that's not a really good example, because if they're being really ambiguous and you ask them a very direct question, then they might be very evasive and they might lie to you on purpose. Gets you even further away from the truth. Yeah, that gets you further from the truth. We're gonna death of the author, the person who's interested in you. I imagine an author's probably gonna lie about the meaning of their art, though, right? Yeah, in that sense. But that would be like, that would be the example to use, not the one that she used as an example of it. Yeah, because you do relationship advice, right? If you ask, I meant destiny. But sure, you do. I'm like Hitch, man. Yeah, if you think someone might be interested in you, or that it's like heavy implications from all the things that you can see, but then you ask them and they're just like, no, not really. You're like, that could mean a hell of a lot of things. Yeah, it could mean. Maya, because the whole setup is that John Shade has been murdered. We don't know what he intended. Maybe Charles is right, and the poem really is about him. And this problem comes up a lot in art history. We have evidence of what artists like Rothko and Duchamp intended for their works, but often that isn't the case, especially if the art is very old. And even if we could, go back and reconstruct an artist's intention. All right, is that square on the wall distracting anybody else? Because it's distracting me. No. I don't know, maybe. All right, that's fine. That's fine. It's just, it's just distracted me, that square on the wall. It might not be a very secure foundation on which to base an interpretation of their work. The French philosopher Michel Foucault pointed out that the author of a text is sometimes a bit of a vague construct, even a brand. Basically, our reconstruction would kind of be an interpretation as well. Was that a YouTube video? It was a citation there. Lindsay Ellis, the death of the author. I guess she can do that. It's kind of interesting. She's still, she's still not come back, right? I'm assuming she may actually not come back at this point. I don't know. As Charles shows us, it's perfectly possible to imagine an idea of somebody in your head who supports your interpretation of their work, but who isn't that close to the real thing. Maybe your friend is flirting with you, but maybe you're just projecting, because secretly, you kind of want that too. Thanks, Joe. This is really hilarious. What do we conclude yet? Have we gone anywhere or? It's not, it's not dead. There's an audience around like the, like asking how much is it worth what the author says about their work and what do you do if you can't ask them because they're, you know, they're dead, like death of the author, right? Um, but I mean, what are we going to factor into this discussion at any point? What if you, like, just fundamentally disagree with the way that the author explains the meaning of their work? Like if they, if they were something as, yeah. Was that what the citation for death of the author was? Is it sort of like, you are supposed to go consume that quickly so that you understand that part of the argument? Or is that going to come up with this? Which no one is. Well, no. Well, watch the whole video. I don't know. Well, we'd have to read like seven books, four articles and three YouTube videos in the span of two minutes to get through this video. I'm assuming she'll go into death of the author. I think you have to for a conversation like that. Yeah, I hope so. I sure hope so. The risk is that we just end up repeating what other people have told us about the artist's intentions, regurgitating the marketing rather than actually engaging with what they made. That's why the philosopher Roland Barth said we should forget about the author and just focus on the text. Okay, there we go. This famous essay, death of the author, which, yeah, John is dead. So I guess you got what you wanted there. Roland Barth, where were you on the night that John Shade was murdered? Just to make things even staggeringly unfunny. Hey, wow, that's true. But someone out there interprets it as very funny, right? Who's correct? Yes. No, they're wrong. I draw a hard line. The universe considers this unfunny. This is not funny. It's baked into the fabric of reality that this is not funny. Or hazy. The British art historian Michael Baxendall said that artists don't really have intentions for their work the same way that an architect has an intention for a bridge. When you design a bridge, you plan it all out beforehand and you have a very clear goal in mind. But that's far more... That's based off of just the physical reality of having a bridge. I don't even know that it's true. You're implying that architecture is hard. Architecture, as both of my parents are architects, there is a very huge art component in that field. Yeah. So when you're building a bridge, of course, like I live in Little Rock and we got a new bridge a number of years back and there was a big deal in the city there's a new bridge to span the river. And there are all these designs that were presented and they showed them, they put them up and I don't know how they eventually chose but everyone assumes that the bridge will work, of course. So people were judging it and looking at these bridge designs based off of their aesthetics. She probably wouldn't agree with us, right? She's probably just talking in general like the function of a thing like something being designed functionally versus just like a... There are so many exceptions to this I feel like you have to acknowledge that even still trying to draw a distinction between these two is really awkward because a bridge being designed I think that it's like is there ever a bridge that's designed it's going to be rare for a bridge to design strictly for utility it's never considered to be what it looks like when it's done like in terms of how aesthetically pleasing it is to the eye or whatever Well, sure, but it's a functional design though that's the most important part generally when we're talking about bridges so they're functional, right? Yeah, but couldn't you say the same about like if you write a book that it needs to be legible like that there's a functionality that it must be accounted for? I don't think that's the same thing though Why? Why is it not the same as saying that a book needs to needs to be written in English or legible to read as opposed to a bridge needing to be designed to cross as the same as art or can you function? I guess there's a separation being drawn between like architecture and I guess what we would broadly consider like regular art forms like paintings and books and movies and stuff The impression I as I understand it is the architecture like aesthetics are a big part of architecture the like architecture that that's like a huge focus of it and of course it needs to be something that's functional but if we're talking about the functionality of like art you could apply that to a lot of things, right? Like a film needs to function in a certain way I mean when we say that Yeah, when we say that there are there are aesthetic considerations to architecture but the function of the architecture is the most important part that's the foundation on which it's built Sure, but I mean you could say that that I guess it's something that we don't talk about but yeah like a book needs to be legible like if nobody can read it that kind of gets in the way of anything else It almost stops being a book at that point, right? I feel like we're having I feel like it's a fundamentally different consideration like art is created to be perceived and enjoyed as art a bridge can have art as part of it but it forms the function of like us crossing the bridge I think those are too Yeah, sure That's like saying like well everything is art because in order for it to be designed it has to be seen and we see art like I don't think that's a meaningful distinction like there's clearly something is different happening when we create something like a knife to cut something could also be art you could put art on the knife there's a function there that is independent from any artistic consideration as opposed to like a piece of art that's meant to be perceived like primarily as an artistic thing that doesn't have like a function Doesn't this come back to you though? Because I don't disagree by the way that we could have bridge building or knife building that's strictly utility they have no interest in the aesthetic at all there's going to be instances where that takes place but at the same time with how we're defining art would it not still be as a result of the person designing it like it would still qualify that's pretty much where I'm getting lost at this point I don't see at the fundamental level we can actually split them that efficiently you know like how cars are made a lot of people we've covered this sort of subject before a lot of people bring up cars and be like sorry Sort of yeah Sort of what? Like I sort of know how they're made Don't ask me any in-depth questions though because I will not be able to help I think the point more Viking is that there was a clear functionality to cars in terms of like there's a lot of people who bring up cars as an example of C that is function not artistic work and it's like what do you mean? That's wrong That's absolutely right Even though theoretically and you know it wouldn't even need to say three I'm sure it's happened there's someone out there who built the car strictly for its ability to drive there no interest in the way it looked but like as a form of expression and engineering I think because you brought this up right Destiny in terms of even coding like when it's created strictly for utility or that photo of the eye that we brought up like well it's still is it not like just as expressive necessarily as any of the other category because I appreciate the intuitive sort of distinction between these two I just think that if you're going to make a video about this you have to acknowledge that there's a huge amount of crossover with the industries that are tied to these two things Yeah there's obviously going to be crossover but it's fundamentally different creating something where function comes before form is going to be important or it's going to be an important distinction between it like just a piece of art right there might be some crossover but we're not we're not truly saying these are the same thing they're different categories of things right fun is it fundamentally different yes it is fundamentally different I will concede it is fundamentally different though I think there's still a bit to dig into with how when we cut you know like a life drawing like what comes first like just your expression and how you want to make it or whatever or is it like it still has to comport to a couple of things first function now it's like functionally as in it has to whatever materials you're using or the ability to be perceived structurally it has to actually follow a couple of rules and then you can do whatever you want Sure you can say there's a function but the function is to be art right it's not like functionally like it's serving some of the functions to be art the function of a bridge is not to be art there can be an artistic component to it but it's not supposed to be art or there might be some bridges that are in art yeah what if someone got like the contract to make a bridge and first and foremost they want it to be artistic and it's also able to support cars and everything well hold on then first and foremost it's not to be artistic that would be art that would be art before architecture would you say maybe here would be a better one what if you had a car that was never going to be driven but it totally works and it's going to be displayed in the museum forever but it's never going to be driven what is it sure you can argue that that's art even though it is even though like as a requisite for it being what it needs to be artistically it fundamentally has to be a vehicle that works it's a trick question because you're making it like it's total logical you're saying it's being created as artwork but part of the qualification of it being art is to make it functional well by definition then it'll be art but if you find the artist having the function of doing a thing right we can remove that component then it is a function in car but the purpose is for it to be displayed in a museum like forever or a gallery well sure but if part of the part of the art is to make it functional it's still art but it's not like it was made as a functional car and then it became art the part it was initially like that's it's well so are we are we defining like when are we determining like at what point does something become art at that point I guess if we're talking about like a why that's a different conversation I'm just saying that there are things that are created that with a function initially is the important part and that's something where the initial thing is just being art I think what I'm saying is that there is that actually applies to art as well but it's way less a degree and I think it should be acknowledged the function of art is but the function of art is just to be art when you say that like oh you have to make a book legible well that you're just making it art like the function of it though the legibility of it is the function art to be art or is I thought the function of it was to I mean you could have art with different functions right if you want to you know express something or get an idea across or make people think a certain way what do you mean like not everyone makes art for the same reasons so even though so couldn't you have like art that doesn't necessarily fulfill the same function um I theoretically I guess or some things become art that weren't originally intended to be art I guess because I doubt I doubt that when people make art they well I mean maybe some do in their own way but the function isn't to be what it is right the function isn't oh I'm making this art because I want it to be art what the I mean if we're talking about like painters or musicians I mean that kind of is no oh I mean I don't know it's that almost seems like I'm building a car so it can be a car or I'm building a car so that it can transport people maybe here's a hypothetical what if um what if you have like a fire alarm that's going off the purpose of the fire alarm is to alert people that there is a fire they know that this specific rhythm means that it's a fire as opposed to some other thing and get them out of the building and I don't know one guy stops he's like man the rhythm of that fire alarm like oh that's that's beautiful it's like so what and of course it's it's all auditorium right it's like so what what is that do we say that that is like function before the art or that like now it has become art strictly or like which category would it fall under like if we had this dichotomy between art and in this case well I mean like any I mean we've already I think we've all kind of said that like anything could be perceived as art but like it was originally created as a fire alarm not originally created as an art project right yeah sure but like I guess um oh sorry I'm trying to that's what we're trying to think about where I'm where I want to go with that thought I will say that John Cage's 3 minutes 30 seconds would be a terrible fire alarm song probably why it's not going to work out very well because of the absolute silence for a while at least yeah yeah I don't know I don't I don't I'm actually not sure like what the conclusion on the drawing is you design a bridge you plan it all out beforehand and you have a very clear goal in mind but art doesn't really work that way every brush stroke you add to a canvas by the way yeah so this I still think she's wrong even if I went with what you've said that's because like you can build art that way too you can plan your artwork ahead of time entirely and then go forward with that you don't necessarily it's not necessary for changes you make it is the planning process that just strict and rigid is like I don't think it is I think I'd have to back up and listen to the whole statement again or what is the planning goal then work the same way that an architect has an intention for a bridge when you design a bridge you plan it all out beforehand and you have a very clear goal in mind but art doesn't really work that way every brush stroke you add to a canvas every line to script every note to a score changes the relationships between everything else and changes the whole yeah I don't I I don't agree especially if you're making like if you're making a bridge and you plan it all out beforehand like what that that's what large sculptures are there's plenty of very large installations we can at least agree it goes both ways sometimes you can plan out your art in a very rigid way and never deviate from that plan but also you can build things that need to be functional and your plans will change based on new variables that come into play and plus why is the planning stage not counted as part of the artistic process here well because we are drawing a distinction right between the way that these things are created that because something has a functionality in the way that it's planned like it must work in a certain way but I mean of course you can have breakthroughs when you're creating something that is like utilitarian if this is why the distinction is being drawn I'm not really seeing like where that line is being drawn I think she could have done better drawing this distinction as is because now I'm like if I just plan out to like make a smiley face made of like five buttons and I draw out exactly where they're gonna go and then I do it execute it as exactly the plan which she still argues like well that changed as you were putting the buttons down I'd be like I don't think so at least not in any meaningful way or like no not in any significant way I gave myself an objective standard to follow in fact and then flipping it over when they're making the bridge I mean yeah it may go exactly to plan but obviously there's gonna be plenty of times where it wouldn't for several possible reasons it feels like a really weird distinction is what I'm saying I'm guessing that the point that's getting ramped up to here is that the intentions of a creator will change over the course of their of their making something and what does that say about its meaning it's like could that could that not be applied to a lot of things like including if we were talking about architecture you know if you were if you wanted to make something in a certain type of way and then I don't know you got feedback that like no this building looks kind of crappy can you change it's like I guess if we're if we're trying to I'm curious as to why architecture or like I guess utilitarian like building things is being used to emphasize this point in terms of informing like the meaning could you say that ultimately the meaning of like when you set out to build a bridge regardless of what it looks like is to build a bridge and alternatively well okay hold on let's pick up yeah I don't like philosophy too but let's try to extract more generally what I think she's trying to say here so when you're trying to build a bridge okay but we're almost getting like like platonic forms what she's saying is that the construction of the bridge is serving a particular functional purpose right that when you're trying to build a bridge you're not discovering the bridge as the bridge is being created you're not going to change up the bridge in relationship to something you discover along the way of creating the bridge in an artistic manner whereas like as you're creating a particular piece of art because art is like all relational and there's not necessarily a final product in mind you're not mass producing like one art piece that the creation of the art itself might change the final product since there isn't a rigid final product in mind the same way there might be with like the form of a bridge does that make sense my whole point was that you've made her point better than she made it yeah I understand I'm just trying to read yeah the way that she's phrasing everything is very sloppy very stupid but I'm trying to extract like what do I think she's trying to get at in the more generalized way I think that's I think that's in general what she's saying the way that she's expressing is stupid obviously because in the process of creating a bridge or anything else things might change along the way or some people might set out very rigidly like if I want to do a portrait of somebody I'm literally drawing a portrait I have an end vision in mind in a strict way maybe even more strict than in an engineering sense for like a bridge but I'm just saying in general I think this is what she's getting at I think she's trying to make the point that a bridge has there is an idealized version of a bridge but there isn't like an idealized version of a piece of art generally you're trying to create something that's a little bit more expressive and not as functional it's just like a bridge I think is what she's ultimately getting at you know I got it it's just the it's super sloppy to say like artwork never artwork necessarily changes as it's created I think that's really like in a in a video called is our meme weird that's one that's a big slip yeah yeah as you work your intention develops so if we try to reconstruct the artist's intention where do we start there isn't really one intention there's an infinite sequence of them John Singer Sargent okay I don't know about that that's is there see that seems like we broadened it out to the point where because it's okay to say there's a lot I don't even think there can there can be it can be a lot yeah that can be because so the word infinite is a worthless word because there are many different types of infinity and I think you can actually say that that's expressed right here there are bounded infinities right there's an infinite number of numbers from the set of zero to infinity there's also an infinite amount of space between one and two so you can say that like well let's say I'm doing a portrait of somebody well even within that bounded confines of a portrait even in that bounded thing there's an infinite amount of expression within the bounds of that so saying anything is infinite is generally just like a pointless thing to say because there's an infinite amount of space between one and two and an infinite number of numbers what does it mean to say something's infinite yeah and I was going to say that it's like it's damaged the weird intention of this point so now it's kind of useless you had well we were just talking about that red square on the wall and she and she said it was about feeling trapped it's like I don't I mean if that was literally all that the artist wanted to get across then that's just one thing well I guess maybe it ends up what you're creating and then you sample right like what they said that they wanted it to mean versus anything else that they might have said at any point in time and of course what happens if after it's created the author changes their mind and they're like you know what with some introspection I now start to realize that that wasn't really what I meant when I was creating it what I actually was expressing was this like who do you default to I think that's interesting but when you say like well to be fair he kind of has infinite intentions if you consider the human existence it's like okay yeah I'm just so what are we doing what are we doing yeah that's what I mean it's like you just made it pointless why would you do that it took almost a whole year to finish the portrait of Madame Axe and he tried a lot of different poses before he settled on the final thing Rothko took years to finish the Seagram murals and he changed his mind about what he wanted to do with them ask somebody who is I would have loved to know and then he settled on what the thought process was I would see I would find that part way more interesting than the outcome like what was he thinking about before he did all that if I don't know how what format I would want to call it it's also like her example breaks so much because this happens in engineering all the time how many different times were the F-35s like redesigned over and over again like how many times is the building like it's kind of a bad example of what she's doing but but we can go after her and we can extract more of what her general argument is right well we can it's a working art huge brains here oh yeah gigantic I can tell you from experience that intentions absolutely change I recently finished writing okay play it's going to be on in London I bet it's really funny that was a smooth ad because you know like I can I can confirm it myself because I've made things where I've changed it it's like come on none of us needed convincing yes intentions can change it's all good but I'm I'm happy for her that she's got a play that's pretty nice yeah sure really excited for it tickets available in the doobly-doo if you're interested when I started it I intended to write something about the monarchy but the more I worked the more I realized it actually needs to be about something completely different and the final product has almost nothing to do with that so if we try to reconstruct my original intention to decide what the play is about how is that going to work it definitely I was just asking you right I feel like what helps lead to the conclusion though is maybe we should predominantly focus on what is actually in the story rather than trying to do this game of reconstructing what people thought when they were creating something with what it says where you start and then you include like perspectives including and the authors you know one could argue has maybe is first in the queue but not necessarily the most meaningful because that's going to be pretty much figured out once you find out what everyone's saying and how it reflects on the actual stuff and when it comes to being able to remember the things you think and as years go by and it becomes more and more unreliable and that's just very very messy I'm going to be wrong about art but I'm still not clear on how you can make sure you're right I am the author of One Max by John Singer Sargent Am I a study in light and shade or am I a sexual scandal I have a suggestion Yeah I was going to say I'm happy to say that you can validate both of those pretty easily Yeah it depends on how you ask because those are relative to the people who either made it or are observing it observing it Maybe you need a different angle on things Did you dress up for that? All right Yeah I don't know I am a sexual effect or something like yeah it's interesting wow those paintings I'm more interested in this than the red painting okay wow all of them viewed at the same time from different angles because that's cute isn't it maybe Some people think that I am the greatest artist of the 20th century a lot of people look at me and they go I don't get it and my suggestion is don't focus too much on the intellectual stuff or you might miss out on what the art really has to offer The philosopher Susan Sontag so that's that stuff isn't intellectual well I just that's a statement that's huge right like don't focus on the intellectual stuff that sounds like a that does sound like that I think she's offering different points of view I don't think she's actually saying like you have to look at it this way I think she's just no I I was from no no that's not what we're saying yeah this is the intro obviously to this section it's just like this is going to be complicated I'm curious how she's going to define like what the intellectual stuff would be and obviously this point of view of ignoring it this is probably going to be the feel the artwork point of view trying to interpret art stop trying to get it and just experience it yeah like Duchamp's Fountain everybody says oh he's making a statement about the art world and Picasso's paintings everyone says oh he's asking the big questions like what if there was a really f***ed up looking woman but art isn't a statement or a question if it was Ken is that something that you could do just stop trying to understand things like there is or is that that almost feels like it's just a is that something you could just like flick off like a switch like I'm not going to try and understand it is that something you could suppress like consciousness I think there's two different ways to perceive art one is through sense and the other is to try to intellectualize it sometimes we get so caught on our heads it inhibits our ability to accurately perceive the emotional thing or the qualia the experience of the art itself if you have a good music teacher this will be something commonly taught when you're trying to analyze like a particular piece of music sometimes students will get really in their head and they'll start like analyzing really crazy things and you've got a good teacher he'll tell you put your pencil down stop thinking about it and just listen to what you hear when you take a moment you listen you're like oh shit okay I understand now what's going on but I was too caught up in intellectualizing before you just like take a step back and experience the art for what it is to try to figure out later what it what they're trying to do with it is essentially it's like mindfulness applied to looking at art pretty much like trying to observe things without judgments as best you can to just like observe the feelings that you have while looking at something or listening to something so we're like we're defining intellectualizing then to be like you take the sense in and then you almost like analyze it versus like you don't want to let your intellectualize and get in the way of the feelings of it like you can if you think too much about a particular thing you might miss out on a lot and then you're not able to actually enjoy that particular thing because you over intellectualize it and that this relates to like a form of drawing meaning out of art I suppose would be the because it seems like section one is trying to cover whose intention would and how valid that can be and it seems like she's deconstructed it to the point where we couldn't find an answer now we've moved on to just experience it I'm not actually denigrating that I'm just trying to establish I think that's the structure we're going for so far yeah it seems like we're floating basically different ways to try and get to the question of what the meaning of art is like different methodologies for figuring it out because the artist would just write it down art isn't philosophy with pictures it's art so turn off brain and tune in to the aesthetic experience I sometimes feel a little bit like that with my videos sometimes people comment and they're like can you just make a list of all your major points and read them out without all of the extra stuff and I'm like yeah you should communicate better hey I actually would prefer that she do this not bullet points like actually treat making videos as I interpret those comments as I didn't understand what you were saying could you no they just said they didn't they don't want the fluff as well the the comments were right they don't want the that's what they're saying that the one thing I'll agree with you on though I'm assuming they mean cut out the jokes which would be nice I think you make the video I would be pro that but yeah yeah I guess I just misunderstood what the commenter was saying there alleged commenter sometimes art is supposed to be difficult to get for example I have another novel here what it feels like for a girl by Paris Lees full disclosure Paris is one of my best friends but I liked her novel before we met it's about a kid called Byron who grows up on a council estate in the Midlands and has a really rough time and the whole thing is written in the dialect of that region if you're not from that specific geographic and socioeconomic place it is sometimes hard to interpret and that's a good thing because spoilers Byron is trans which is also never explained there's never a scene where like a doctor turns up and explains to the audience what trans people are and confirms that Byron is one the readers struggle to interpret the text parallels Byron's own struggle to just live free of the interpretations other people push on them the challenge to the reader is even if you don't 100% understand this person can you still feel for them so in a way if you 100% got it you don't must be missing out so I understand the spirit of the argument however what do you do with people who are literally like no no no I don't know what is happening I don't even like I can't get because I was actually thinking like when this argument started when are you supposed to have subtitles and you might be like what are you talking about and it's like well I guess snatch would be my go-to right the um there's a selection of people in that that speaks so fast and with an accent I think this the film puts subtitles in for you I can't remember anymore point being when do you put subtitles in versus enjoy the uh I don't know the fact that it's supposed to come across as I guess that's down to the intention of creating it it did that yeah and that was a recent example all right yeah I had this experience in high school this is really interesting to me um I actually didn't think back on this until past college but it was more profound than I realized in high school I was an edgy internet atheist obviously like I'm hyper-autistically analyzing everything because I have all the answers because I'm a fucking edgy high school kid I remember that we read this book and this book was was really interesting in that it was it in some parts it was written in like a third person novel perspective like John walks over to is blah blah blah he does that and then in other parts it's written in John's first person perspective but when it's the guy's name wasn't John but when he's writing himself um when he's writing himself the writing is like a little bit sloppy and um the writing was so sloppy that in some parts it was almost like obnoxiously so like some sentences could be interpreted in different ways and I remember that we were gonna bring the author to the school and I was gonna debate the author and say like why would you make so many grammar mistakes like this is like illegible like whatever point you're trying to get across is lost and blah blah blah blah blah and I'd I'd actually written in the back of the book like a handful of like things I want to bring because I was I was an edgy fucking dipshit kid and um the um it was it was a book about World War One and it was a book about like the personal story of the guy I think like trying to find his son on the battlefield that was eventually dead or whatever and um I fuck I wish I could remember exactly what this guy said but I remember that I went to raise my hand but somebody beat me to it where they asked why did you decide to make this decision between writing like in a first person perspective and in a third person perspective like it seemed like such a stupid idea and like some of these parts are illegible and like why did you even do this and I think the author asked the students the author asked he said there was a clear difference between my writing and the writing of the father that was looking for his son and the students everybody obviously we all agreed and the author asked the audience he asked all of us he was like can anybody tell me for the final passages where the father finally finds his son and he finds that he's dead does anybody remember if it was written from the father's perspective or if it was written in the third person perspective and nobody knew the answer to that and he said the reason why he did the two totally different writing styles the reason why he presented the book as is was because something that he wanted to get across is when he'd written about history people have a very detached third person perspective of it even though we experience it in the first person all the stories are incredibly important and that even if there's like this jarring distinction between a first person perspective and a third person perspective at the end of the day we all interpret things as humans and that it's important to realize that and that was why he went between the actual two different writings he gave that answer and I thought it was a little bit pretentious at the time but I remember thinking about that later past college I was like that's actually a really interesting perspective so I don't know that's just one example of how you can present something in a way that's like kind of stupid or a little bit silly but there might be like a greater intention behind it that maybe gives you pause so I think yeah definitely um there's interesting ways of leveraging like the medium that you have to convey things like in an unconventional way like that would be one example I imagine there are examples in video games right of like how much do you empower or disempower the player so like emphasize a certain point or maybe even permadeath as a feature would be another like there's definitely a lot of these tools I guess it's um that's the point of the conversation I guess though right like um to figure out if these tools have been employed effectively or if um there's a point where it becomes very difficult for most people to engage with the meaning of the story or to like really latch on to that meaning uh or the way that they use those tools yeah because um I was gonna say like the the example we would just bring up in in and or and I'm still not fully convinced that we it was like a file or no I'm not sure but there's like a yeah I don't know people that live on like a forest planet and they seem indigenous and um everything they do in each of these scenes there's no subtitles but they talk to each other and so you have to rely on you know movements expressions and what they're handing to each other where they where they go and we we were like really liking that compared to having subtitles because we were like we have to just we have to pay even more attention because now we have to figure out you know they're making noises that we don't recognize at all but from everything else context clues we can actually pick up communication to an extent which is an interesting uh format I could I could totally imagine the people who made that were like oh we did that on purpose to help feel like these people are um very distant from your civilization in terms of the years yeah uh or it could be that we just didn't have subtitles I don't know uh either way it's there's an interesting difference but um I suppose you run the risk right this is kind of like the hand holding of writing where you can explain to the viewer with a character looking at the screen telling them what the theme is or something or you can give all the clues as to what it is and hope they pick it up or you could even go as far as making it so that you're deliberately making it hard to understand and you're just like well if you got it you got it if you didn't you didn't I can think of um I can think of a really good example of this in media and I can think of a really bad example of this in media um do you remember the end of whiplash yes yes you don't even see his full face I don't think I think you only see the director's eyes at the end but you know exactly the director's eyes yeah you know that he's smiling a little bit of a there's yeah like it's visible in the cheeks kind of yeah and you know that so much is communicated there yeah I can't think of an example of a bad way of doing this I think I hope I'm not remembering this incorrectly but um in I think an interstellar the daughter is learning that the time formula was already solved by the old guy and that he'd solved it and it was fucked it did there was no way off the planet but I think while he's explaining that in his death better something the music is cranked up really really really loud and Nolan's Nolan's explanation of this is I want to weave dialogue and music together and sometimes you can't and that's okay but it doesn't work if you're communicating dialogue that the audience needs to understand the plot right that's not like if you want to crank some really romantic tune up while two people are saying that they love each other and that's communicated on a screen do you see you don't necessarily need to hear that's fine but when um when a not disposition when a exposition is being given and it's really important to the plot and music is cranked up that's really obnoxious you know and I think Nolan has a problem with that with cranking the music too much we actually need to hear the dialogue he's almost famous at this point for his mix being fucked in a lot of his movies is really weird considering how like beloved and talented he is it's so weird that that would be a problem he has it's almost consistent I think that all of this highlights that when it comes to this like using more unconventional means of conveying your story that it really is like a blurry line here of what point does the way that you've chosen to convey this completely off you skate the average person's ability to understand what you're trying to say or like understand what the story is trying to say if they view it you know it's its own thing interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art even more it is the revenge of the intellect upon the world to interpret is to impoverish to deplete the world in order to set up a shadow world of meanings real art has the capacity to make us nervous interpretation makes art manageable conformable what do we think of that I don't have positive opinions of this I do not have positive opinions of this quote no I think there's I think there's a lot of really good stuff to dig into with this quote like I think that this is the I think this is one of the big issues you have in high school English classes where when you're reading you get into this hyper autistic fixation where teachers are telling you like well this means this and this means that and this means that and this means that and I think it's possible to pick intellectually pick something to death until like you don't really have that emotional meaning out of it at all anymore I understand what they're saying here in terms of interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art where art is supposed to be this qualia this experience of seeing something and when you go through it's almost like explaining a joke like it's not as funny after the explanation it's not as artistic after the hyper nitpickiness somebody might have that feeling I think not to say that like you should never intellectualize art like so I would agree that that is a possibility that comes from that way of discussing but I would also say that sometimes having discussions with people that I guess you could say is like intellectualizing the art can help explain why it was so meaningful or valuable to you yeah like why things were working from cinematography the way that the music complements the scene like intellectualizing can absolutely ruin your ability to enjoy something but it can also enhance your ability to enjoy something yeah I want to go with because you know she's got um has the capacity to make us nervous with real art what I find interesting is though have you seen blind manna holding a blind manna destiny I'd imagine nope so that's a show about as ghosts are in it it's be nice and simple we were very fond of it a lot of people weren't and one of the big criticisms of the show got was that it's not scary it's marketed as a horror but it's just not scary at all and we found that there's a chance so at least with the many of the people that I was showing it like I watched it with a couple of people just to try and understand what's not working what is working the mechanics themselves for how the ghosts work and what what happens to them in there can be a little bit difficult to to sort of put everything together in terms of all the events and how the mechanics work when you understand them fully I think they're horrifying like existentially once you understand what the show is saying what it means to be a ghost in this world yeah so it's almost like the show isn't as scary until you understand how it all works and how it all comes together and then it becomes incredibly scary at least understanding it makes it turns it into something else that's even more intense and gives you even more of a reaction to it and a response to it which is why ending the quote with interpretation makes art comfortable or manageable I should be like I mean it can but it also does the opposite depending on I don't think understanding soma makes soma something like safe and comfy the more you learn it seems the better sure probably but when they're talking about intellectualizing in here they're probably not talking about giving you an explanation that's like expanding upon the art they're probably talking about the type of like hyperanalyzation that might happen within the confines of an art class where like if you learn that well this art is incredibly beautiful because of the 90 degree angle and blah blah blah blah when you get hyperfixing on it you might not be able to take a step back and just let the art and see it as beautiful which is odd because a lot of the times those are called art appreciation classes and they get into a lot of nitty gritty yeah because why this is why this this is why this and so now you have a more more of an understanding of it and you can appreciate it in a way that you might not have before this quote again but there are also like really good examples of people being in my opinion I think sometimes people get robbed of their appreciation of stuff by being too analytical a lot of my examples are music and spinoff sorry because that's what I went to school for but I'll use this film students can do this too when film students say things like I can't enjoy superhero movies they're just far too simplistic for me it's like how can you not enjoy superhero movies? you just watch people beat things up it's just like my own entertainment but it's fun right like masturbation can be fun there's not something like very sophisticated happening there like there are some people that become so intellectualized with their engagement of art that they lose the ability to actually enjoy some piece of art I've heard music music people think I can't listen to modern pop music there's nowhere near the level of sophistication I've grown accustomed to after analyzing Baroquean pieces and classical pieces and romantic pieces I was like bro you're literally robbing yourself of the ability to enjoy art because you're over intellectualizing it so much like what's happened to you I think that's what this quote is speaking to I don't disagree I just um it feels really bitter this uh well of course it is it sounds like it's written by a person who's arguing literally against the over intellectualization of art but I mean like a lot of artistic movements are pushes like postmodernism is a push against the modern uh rational man's obsession with trying to organize and catalog all of events in human history and some uneasily digestible understandable pattern so of course the postmodernist mocks the modernist and they mock the ability to try to create narratives to explain all society and of course it's gonna come off as bitter but like what is art and and and academia if not like a bitter response to the era that came before well so I go on to say that it's caused them to have the almost equal and opposite bad perspective like that they've managed to conclude now that it's the opposite which is still like I feel like both sides would be just as wrong as each other well I mean there's going to be some form in every academic and in every art sense there's going to be some form of of of synthesis and analysis or analysis and synthesis where I'm sure that like some people come out and in response they make like hyperscading critiques and probably from these critiques there's going to be a new form of academia or a new form of art that's born that will not only resemble things of the past but it'll incorporate like critiques of the of the current art forms as well that'd be my guess right I'm sure that that's probably happens in all art forms I certainly disagree with the the element of in this quote I guess I'll roll it back just a moment but to interpret is to impoverish and deplete the world when I think interpretation I mean it necessarily almost adds like it adds more than I think it really would I guess it would just be that a lot of these I would just say interpretation can be the revenge of the intellect upon art to interpret to me it seems so strange to like the world interpretation can make art manageable because right what you're they would tell you an interpretation is boxing and then while you'd be like no it's offering one more viewpoint on top of the base viewpoint of just experiencing it and then you can have you I imagine that's what you'd say right you every time someone says how long those lines yeah this means this it's like yeah they're adding to the conversation rather than taking away you don't want to ask all right go for it is you don't you almost want to ask like do you want your art to be like it does need to be understood for a lot of its effects to probably take hold right if you're if you're trying to get across a message or a feeling or something there has to be some level of interpretation and understanding for us to draw out what you'd like us to draw out hey it probably depends on the art yeah of course it depends on the art yeah but I would imagine that's really broadly true to me I guess it comes across as people should give more thought to like squaring away how something made them feel versus like the conversation that they will have about it in terms of explaining what they think works and doesn't work on a craft perspective like that these are things that you can insulate from one another like you can reckon I mean it's the clear example is yeah that movie is bad but I like it or I recognize that film is great but it just doesn't do anything for me that's essentially just squaring away your emotional response is one thing and then you having a discussion about its merits from a craft perspective is another thing that like they don't need to be competing or like one comes the expense of the other that you can try to have two separate conversations because of course if you talk about a film that covers some event that is really meaningful to you personally because of your life history that's not necessarily something that it's going to be difficult to map the feelings that you had from that on to somebody else but I mean you can still talk about it and that's still like valuable in and of itself even if it's not like a meaning that you would like that you would create this is the meaning that must be stemming from it that you can separate those two discussions rather than I guess making it seem like they're both competing and only one can prevail over the other that's nervous interpretation makes art manageable conformable I think we can really get to grips with this idea by looking at the work of modern American playwright David Mammet who is a little bit of a problematic fave of mine in 2009 Mammet wrote a play Do you have an opinion? Race the story is content warning a wealthy white man has been accused of raping a young black woman the whole thing is set in the offices of his defense lawyers as they try to invent some way of getting him off the hook the witnesses say that they heard sex noises and racial slurs being shouted so the defense they concoct is that she was into that the whole thing was actually consensual and she's just lying to get his money the slimiest possible thing but I can think of some worse things there's probably worse things but I mean it's only slimy as long as it's not true I'm assuming it's not the point of the story as in the lawyers she said the lawyers are concocting it so yeah yeah I guess it's baked into the thing of the like the book wants you to know that that isn't actually how events took place or maybe we don't know and that's an element of the book like we don't actually know all right maybe we're about to find as the play goes on it starts to emerge that maybe that really is what's happening maybe there really is some kind of reverse racism reverse me too thing happening here and mammoth loves to write these kinds of stories he did another play called Olyana which is about a female student who falsely accuses her professor of sexually assaulting her but then he really does he loves to write these Tim Pool ass thought experiments if um I would just be curious because I'm Tim Pool ass thought experiments I've seen some people say that they're familiar with that play I'd be curious how that works narratively because how would it become a surprise that that was the truth when the defense lawyers presumably would have his input and he would be able to suggest that as a truth right not a lie I mean she described it as not a contrasting all right no no of course but like I thought it I thought the story was presenting it as though the defense lawyers came up with it as if because that may be valid not that that was literally his defense because she says like oh that's disgusting right and it's like well it would be disgusting if it were a lie but if in the story it's presented as his story versus his story I don't know why we would side with hers yeah I have no clue what the actual truth is yeah you know like do I have the perspective of a jury member or something or does the book tell me what's actually the case yeah because this isn't I'm sure what she's saying is completely true I'm curious how that would work in how they tell the story that that would be a surprise to us that eventually it becomes true or is it that the film frames it so that we oh sorry the story frames it so that we more likely believe her but then maybe her story starts to have holes in it or something I imagine there's a ton of ways I could go right I suppose so he does he loves to write these timpul ass thought experiments if you tried to take race I think they're interesting and translate it into a political statement the statement that you get would probably be a little bit incoherent and I'm not just saying that because I personally disagree with Mamet's politics in his book theater he occasionally talks about his political views and it contradicts itself from chapter to chapter the stuff about theater is really interesting the stuff about politics kind of reads a little bit like discount Jordan Peterson and fair enough sounds a playwright not a political scientist but I saw race on Broadway in 2010 and it was electric the performance was so good that when I came out of the theater I was like that's it I have to be an actress and years later I did a monologue from race at my drama school auditions and I got in Mamet says that if you are writing a play creating a work of art for the stage forget about politics forget about interpretations and meaning and getting it and all of that is it entertaining do the audience want to know what happens next I feel like that was leading to a different place I always feel like this is square one which is not a problem by the way like as a perspective it's just like is it entertaining it's like I mean yeah we've all got that in our head about like making a story making a film making any piece of art you're hoping that people will be engaged by it but like I think some people I think some people will create art to serve a political that will arguably actually we could argue that this is the meat of the woke art problem where people think you're not creating art to be entertaining you're just creating art to share your political perspective I think that it's really fascinating maybe one of the most fascinating things is there are some people that managed to create incredibly thought-provoking art and their goal is to just make something literally entertaining and not thought-provoking at all I somebody quote me or somebody correct me I'm wrong but I think I read in an interview with the the guy that did the manga for a death note I don't think he gave a fuck at all about whether it was right or wrong for L to be killing people based on whether or not he thought they were good or bad that's like an issue a theme that he didn't care about he didn't explore he only wrote the back and forth between L and light I'm sorry light was one of those which he mixed he only wrote the back forth between L and light and I thought it was interesting that because the quality of the writing and because the quality of the stream everything was so high that's a theme that almost unintentionally gets a little bit explored and people come away thinking like oh well you know was light in the wrong was it okay to do that is it not okay to do that but his goal when creating that I don't believe it was to explore that question at all he didn't even care about it he was like I largely don't leave this address I just want to make something that's very entertaining but by making it so good you end up inadvertently exploring those types of ideas well it's it reminds me of like talking talking about how he doesn't care for allegory despite Lord D'Ring's being you know everybody draws allegory from Lord D'Ring's though there's more to that quote I would want anyone to think that I'm like limiting him to when you have said that it's just that it's yeah it does come up I what I guess I mean is just that if someone tells me to be insightful about the nature of art just ask yourself was it entertaining I'm just like I already I knew that part I don't know I was hoping for more I don't think I'm not just saying just entertaining but they're saying that like it should be created in service of being an entertainment thing first and then if you want to work political stuff in that's cool but don't just try to make a piece of political art like it has to be art it's got to be cool and entertaining and it's got to serve like the purpose of art which is to be entertaining and a cool experience before anything else what do you think about that I don't think it's very fun is that does that have the does art have to be with the purpose of being entertaining well no I was going well not entertaining entertaining is a stand in for like serve it like so if it's music is something that pleasant to listen to if it's a movie something that's pleasant to watch I think that's what maybe well I guess like sad music is we like to listen to it but maybe like it depends on what we mean by entertaining do we mean engaged or compelled like it's um if you get what I mean yeah yeah because I think I'm told basically come across this he was like he wouldn't want to describe was it spec off the line as entertaining yeah he said like for his top 10 games of the year that spec off the line is a valuable game like it's a game that's worth playing but he wouldn't call it a fun game or like an entertaining game he wasn't he wasn't having fun while playing it but it was obviously captivating and so exactly because I imagine that people who are uncomfortable describing chindler's list as entertaining they be there's going to be people who are like I wouldn't call that you know um but it is entertaining right it feels like a demeaning thing to say it right what I usually say is engaging very entertaining well sure uncut it's very entertaining but many would describe it as like it's very stressful or good times yeah it's like very very stressful right but it's still like a form of entertainment you want you choose to watch it right it's not that kind of stress is like for getting a college assignment right it's clearly a different type of stress well it's it's um with a lot of art with a lot of art a lot of it is indulging and what would otherwise be negative emotions for some level of um yeah engagement essentially like why do you play like it's not fun to be scared yet when you're playing a horror game it can be engaging or entertaining to be scared yeah or you know make sad or angry like a lot of a lot of the negative emotions are like a big part of artistic expression because so I guess a lot of people's theory on like what makes bad art is not negative experience it's nothing right like when it does nothing for you yeah difference yeah and a negative emotion explored in a safe context can be a lot of fun oh yeah yeah that's that's what art helps us do I mean what is what is a lot of video games of not being able to participate in simulated danger rather than you know actually murdering scores of people like an action adventure thing or you know going up against zombies or monsters do you remember the member no Russians I was just about to say I know that I cut you off what if I could it was just that shit was edgy bad I'm thinking about like looking back about warfare 2 that game had plenty of edge of it do they how are the new cards doing for for edge I because I didn't even play the campaign on the the new modern warfare was I would say that it was somewhat gutsy at parts I'm not sure about modern warfare 2 though I get the impression from the trailers that it's leading more into being like an action like just a bombastic action movie which is kind of it's kind of the trajectory that modern warfare originally took right like as the modern warfare series went on it became more and more insane like yeah instead of fighting it by like any even plausible scenarios was out the window oh wait was that yeah is that called for a modern warfare 2 I'm mixing them up maybe call it modern warfare 2 was no Russian the call of duty 4 had like the appropriate missions and stuff like that yeah and willed war felt really raw was the game as well well yeah well war is a confronting game that's for sure work of art and you're trying to get it then you're a fool the play the story that's the thing that we're here for I wonder if you would have never got it so to speak where we you know that I feel like that was very valuable to you that you sort of intellectualized it in a way and it led you on this journey and got you to where you are you know if you hadn't have ever had any of those thoughts in your head would you have been here you know it kind of seems like it's really important to do if anything I don't know if this is similar to where you were heading but what does it look like for the person who expresses this perspective to talk about the play to someone else who shares that perspective when they didn't intellectualize it but they talk about the play I feel like if they were to express like how they felt watching it fair enough but as soon as they start looking at what it means you have to intellectualize to communicate it yeah I'd be curious I want to know what a whole conversation looks like where you haven't intellectualized a piece of art at all not saying it's impossible okay intellectualizing when you talk about like intellectualizing art right you're going to be talking more about like the actual descriptive things that are happening rather than like the way a thing made you feel right so like for example like if somebody talks to me about like why do you like why do you like the interstellar soundtrack right in terms of how that made me feel I loved all of the all of the repeated themes I liked how haunting it sounded I love the organ which is a great choice it's like a big breathing instrument it feels very human like that's like one way to say it or another way to say it is how did you like interstellar well the repetition of ostinato is throughout a lot of the songs which is an incredibly effective way to convey both stress and whatever I think that the utilization of simplistic instrument patterns painted a certain type of tonal like there's a way you can like that's like a highly intellectualized version but you're not really why does it make you feel how did you feel about listening to that right I think that's an interesting like what's an intellectualized take on art it's like a very like discreet description of all of the individual aspects or building blocks of the art versus the overall impression that it made on you and the way that it made you feel would you agree that there was a blurry line in terms of like intellectualizing versus explaining how it made you feel with reference to the things that were in it I mean you can combine you can mix the two right so well I guess like an example recently is in Andor in the first episode there's a part where Andor has been chased down by like these security guard cop type characters and the camera like hangs on his face for a good minute just like hanging on his reaction as they're coming closer they're totally out of focus like obviously like the the intent there or the the point the feeling that they're getting across is we want to be like really focused in on how he's feeling like how you know the stress is ratcheting up and if you're talking about like yeah that made me feel stressed and then you start talking about like well because of the fact that like they're so out of focus so it's kind of hard to tell what they're doing like just like him we don't know what his intentions are because they're out of focus and worry yeah you're hitting us on this really important okay and this is the the number one thing I wish I could convey to every art student you have to understand this all forms of art study the only thing you should be trying to do there is figuring out why art makes us feel the way that it does it's not it doesn't tell us how art makes us feel it describes how art makes us feel so like and like if you look at something called music theory music theory exists not to tell us how to write music it tells us why things sound the way they do to us that's the whole point the whole point of any art is to do that so or the whole point of any art studies to do that so when you're talking about like intellectualizing things it's good to intellectualize things such that like I want to understand this so that I understand why it made me feel the way that it does just don't disconnect the description from the feeling that's the important part as long as you're doing that you can like intellectualize and talk about the feeling at the same time but don't disconnect the two yeah I mean I would agree that I think that um I do think that uh like when it comes to people trying to figure out I guess how to be good at creating art that like you can very easily fall into there you can fuck yourself over like what what are the rules that I'm supposed to use like three act structure and um and like passive versus active characters like these are the tools that I'm meant to use to like and then you start doing that while being totally disconnected from like the fundamental drive that is behind the story that you want to create like yeah because I mean ultimately everybody's gonna have like if you have an idea that arises for a story that you want to tell it's gonna be hard to like intellectualize why you had that feeling or why you ought to pursue that or like how to best do it but yeah it really is a matter of like pairing an understanding of things that will generally work or the tools that are at your disposal with the ultimate I guess fundamental yearning to tell that story and yeah I think people can get totally lost in like the tools rather than we actually we covered a video that had described they they knew the exact time code in which the inciting incident should take place that 11 minutes was it at what what should take place inciting incident in a story has to take place at 11 minutes in I don't know how exactly they figured that out but that's the kind of shit I'm talking about where it's like you've just you're fucking yourself over with reference some book or something like that I forget the specifics some but but so what's that feel that though no it wasn't feel that though was a look no it was close to what do need it to have it's like what first act break at a certain point and they didn't do that and so he was very critical of Dune you liked Dune didn't you destiny I fucking hated Dune what a god off no no hold on it's not that I hated Dune as a Dune is objectively dog shit fucking art whether you're intellectualizing it or not it's just bad and the people that liked it their subjective feelings are wrong they're actually wrong objectively about their experience what a boring dog shit if you like that movie you should talk to a therapist immediately there's shit in your life and you get sorted out because your brain is broken well I love sand I just love it I just love sandy places it's soft it gets all over you it's soft and it's not irritating yeah doesn't get anywhere yeah objective statement all three of the last Star Wars movies were all better than Dune oof oh my god that's that's a that's a that's a that's a statement that's a statement that's a statement what do you what do you you're gonna talk about I'm just trying to I'm just trying to as soon as as soon as you rewatches the sequels we'll talk about them yeah Adam and Sitch are still trying to sort that out they want they want us to fight over Star Wars I mean one day I'll rewatch all those movies so and then you'll realize how wrong you are there we those movies are remember you'll always have the opportunity to bow out of that discussion when you see the light oh yeah as somebody who's just finished writing a play and is going to be in it soon there have been times where I've found that to be really useful advice in fairness I'm white so when I watch race I can turn off the bit of my brain that worries about the politics stuff maybe someday David Mamut will write a play about trans people and I won't have the luxury of being entertained anymore but for now let's take this idea and run with it forget about trying to interpret the art just how do you feel when I look at Rothko I feel uh big uh it's black sorry I'm a little lost here with the where we are at and what's happening did it so did the video just so she's concluded in section two the meaning of art just comes from you experiencing it and so now she's just trying to tell you how she felt when looking at the Rothko paintings which again like this we kind of went over this I don't know I don't know what I would draw from this I just it's not it's like simultaneously like meaningful and meaningless to me I don't um feels like we bring all of it to to the work but it's fine whatever she's about to say uh I wouldn't necessarily find much to to draw from it but um that's okay to I guess this is the conclusion I don't know it's maroon it's red it's uh I feel humbled uh I feel you do by that I don't this is the thing right someone could say anything I don't I don't think there's any literally yeah it's just like I I would be curious why that thing on the wall humbles you it does the opposite for me um sad I don't know it's very inspiring that somebody can yeah it kind of makes you feel like anyone could be an artist you know I think it's very very inspiring that you too you too regardless you could have your stuff hanging up in a gallery one day hundreds of millions to write hundreds of absolutely these people they're they're terrible writers and look at them you know you could do it look at that ladder you can climb it too don't stop believing very inviting you know that feeling where where something bad happens but you kind of knew it was going to like when somebody tells you they don't love you anymore and you kind of saw it coming or you're at a funeral and the person's died but they've been ill for a really long time and it's like well it's sad but at least it's done now that's kind of how Rothko makes me feel all right he makes me bored out of my fucking mind both perspectives would be valid this is this is the thing though like I just don't know what to do with any of it yeah I don't know what to do with this either I'm just like okay good for you I suppose which almost denotes that my interest maybe when I hear someone's interpretation of the art is to see how they got it from it but to also take the that would be far more interesting that would be something I feel far more you know what I'm saying is that that's clearly something that I do anyway and so that seemingly not seeing any connection at all I'm not interested in the analysis it seems that's where my brain is which I think reflects a lot of people but simultaneously some people don't care they just be like whatever I just want to hear whatever you felt especially the artist I'd imagine or at least that is part of it but there might be a bit of a problem here truth be told whenever I'm in an art gallery I always feel low-key anxious because I used to date an art historian and we would sometimes go to galleries together we're talking ancient history now so years and years ago but that relationship ended pretty badly for reasons that were my fault so now whenever I'm in an art gallery I'm always like what if she's here my point is people feel all sorts of things when they look at art sometimes I look at Rothko and I feel anxious about my ex sometimes I look at Rothko and I feel like suddenly I have to pee so which feelings are the right ones even if I'm just focusing on my emotional reactions I don't think anybody's going to be saying right or wrong right it's so fundamental at this point I saw us tiring kind of I'm just sort of waiting for the things to be said that I could really sink my teeth into yeah how do I know that I've got it we can probably narrow it down a little bit boy that wait when you say how do you know you got it that means that you're you're implying that there is a correct thing to take away from it wait we're still using the metric that you're trying to get getting the intention because I thought we were onto the getting it at this point format-wise is to just experience right right experience and not to intellectualize or over interpret but now we're talking about how do I know if I did get it which seems almost like not the thing you want to do if you're trying to avoid interpreting and intellectualizing because this one is just you schooled the victory by experiencing which is fine if that was your point of view about how artworks and stuff it's just the as far as it goes like we could say that your feelings should be caused by the particular artwork you're looking at yes I might look actually that was something I forgot to sort of counter my own argument with when we like watch a film or whatever we still bring with us all of our daily experiences and life experience and stuff right but technically that still happens even though I'm saying that that's the would have been more so I guess I just feel like the ratio is increased when you look at someone at the Rothko paintings or whatever but there's no way I can really prove anything like that it's just that it feels intuitive to point it out I guess look at Rothko and feel anxious about my X but that's not caused by Rothko any painting in any gallery would do that I might look at it and feel that I have to pee but again that's not caused by the Rothko that's just coincidence but even well if you recognize it as coincidence I guess I was trying to walk through this was there talking about like how um well remember in the Simpsons how like when Harma was sitting there and like the bus said flushing meadows and that just made him want to go to the bathroom maybe sometimes art can evoke well I think she's that's what she was saying exploring the idea right now that this is a thing that happens so there might be some meaning that's totally outside of the control of the artist kind of like what I said I thought you were gonna reference the the the sculpture you accidentally made with the barbecue oh yeah yeah that's right yeah that's great yeah that's well that's a great example of death of the other isn't it I guess so yeah and then that might not be enough whenever I look at the Seagram murals I think about Spider-Man too oh the story of how Rothko made them was adapted into a play called Red which starred Alfred Molina they adapted the paintings into a play the red painting that feels like taking some creative liberties to adapt to all these reds we saw these red squares and we made a whole movie about them all right man all right I don't know about you guys but I find out what this plays like just a series of red rooms unless we're referring to red with Bruce Willis which is probably not what they're referring to but maybe it is I don't know red dog starring red dog prove your true fan what does red stand for in that movie or huh I said prove your true fan what does red stand for in that movie John L. Roy Stanford no red retired extremely dangerous did you type that I know did you know I'm curious no I knew it it's in the it's in the thing yeah no I thought you hadn't seen it you're just referencing but yeah true I don't know why I remember that as well it and this I saw the sequel too I remember having fun with those I remember them being fun isn't Anthony Hopkins in it as well and it's a bunch of old people right yeah that sounds like it could be really cool like you got a bunch of a bunch of old old prestigious assets and and and and action which is kind of what Expand and they're they're designated red yeah they're retired and extremely dangerous don't fuck around with them just let them be is the but isn't the plot is they don't just let them be yeah they're retired assassins but they need to be killed because they're too dangerous to exist or whatever is not like I gotta be honest I don't remember the plot at all about that movie I was just about to say like God that's retarded isn't it like they're so dangerous we need to kill them it's like that might cause an issue I don't know they might kill you I might not like the idea of that you know they might not be on board is what you're saying to them see that's why we need the looper universe where you kill yourself to make sure you close your loop that was clever wasn't it that's the you you really like looper don't you he's not there that's a really good one ah well we just have to wow you tab with that discussion for another time close this loop you know Knives Out 2 is coming out real soon like in a moment oh you probably I'm pretty sure Desi likes knives out as well oh boy cool guy I wonder if they're gonna have a character you just vomit whenever lies told around her that can be man this one also has a really great cast it's like man just all of these actors that you get access to yeah then it's gonna be written that's Ryan Johnson he has so many resources look what he does all right maybe this one will be really cool I'm sure it will be Dr. Octopus and Spider-Man 2 I really liked Alfred Molina's performance in red so now whenever I look at those particular paintings there's a part of me that feels happy because I'm like oh yeah Alfred Molina there's a huge amount of input and a whole new vibe really my feelings are caused by that specific painting don't seem relevant to its meaning but then we are right back where we started it really seems like the artwork has a correct meaning that determines whether or not I get it and you might be like I guess I'm curious like maybe if we took a lesser I guess extravagant example like the Alfred Molina Spider-Man 2 thing like if you looked at a painting and it evoked a feeling of sadness even though I guess like the surface level reading would be oh but look it's like a bright sunny day and there's all these people out in the park having a great day and that makes you really sad because of I don't know like my wife was murdered in a park in a bright sunny day well you know I mean you could have that or like maybe like oh yeah I used to go to the park with my family as a kid but we've all grown so far apart and like I guess you could look at that feeling and most other people look at and they're happy and you're not I don't know that you could say to that person ah see you've you misunderstood or like you're the feeling that you've projected onto this painting is misplaced or like not part of the original intent either that's visible from what is on the paint you know what is the painting or what the the artist said about it it's kind of I don't know that it's a good idea to just dismiss that it's kind of what we talked about before right the there's almost two kinds of meaning the one you're drawing out because of all your personal life experiences and what these individual pieces of sensory data can do because like that's still a thing that is happening within you or whatever but then there's the meaning of a huge draw from what is actually there I guess because I guess it's just a huge part of what art does when it comes to speaking to you personally is appealing to to some extent almost necessarily your past experiences like one of the big one of the big strengths of storytelling is like a thing that we have as human beings is that it's a really fast track to empathy to to creating a scenario where you could like explore a certain topic and then you can through like POV characters or just POV in general leveraging that POV you can fast track the reader into understanding that experience empathizing with it maybe learning something from it like that's a part of it like your your experience feeding into it is is is an almost inescapable component of a of like any art ever because anything that you look at you're always bringing your eyes and your brain and your and you know consequently your life experiences and perspectives and be part of it and you could recognize things like like you could use the example of the the sunny day you know and be like yeah I know what this is supposed to make no I get it I know what they're trying to get me to feel or want me to get me to feel like I recognize that and I just don't feel it it's not even necessary a lack of understanding it's just I like I know what you're trying I mean that happens with movies all the time when we watch him we get what they're trying to say we either don't agree or we recognize how poorly that idea was put across so we can also recognize that it's done very well but it's just not doing much for you yeah yeah exactly yeah I guess what I'm wondering here is it seems like the conclusion that's being drawn from this discussion is um let's say that I have a feeling that comes up in relation to a piece of art that I can pretty easily identify as being tethered to something that would be well beyond the scope of what the artist intended um that's wrong or maybe that's wrong uh I'm not sure how I feel about that I guess well we just what we said before we just go back to like how do they connect it or is it just completely out of thin air which I don't know it just seems like we've all decided kind of that like that's that's how we just define whether or not it's valid even though right could not necessarily be fair right because if I just that there's a character that's the same name as like a grandparent who died that's it evokes all that for me it's like nobody's taken that away from me it's kind of impossible and it would still be referred to as meaning yeah right what did Rothko feel he probably wasn't feeling anything to do with Alfred Milena or my ex-girlfriend probably but the despair the sadness the trappedness yeah maybe I mean he did say that he felt those things when he wrote about the painting so maybe that's it maybe if I stand in front of him but you see that's the thing like could you know you're trying to not that was how we felt when he wrote about it which itself is another type of artistic expression a different medium of artistic expression at a different time how much should we read into maybe he felt trapped like or maybe that was the feeling that he had while talking about his own piece because of a whole bunch of other reasons that are going to be difficult for us to it's kind of the problem here to some extent we are trying to do a little bit of mind reading when it comes to the orial intent it's tough being to be asked we always go wait does the author's intent matter well so that's the part that I guess you're trying to align what we're running through now like the reason why I brought that up is because she's talking about he felt like he was trapped while writing about making or while writing about the art piece I think that that might be I think that you could argue that that is different from the feeling that he may well have had while painting it or even the feeling that he had while conceiving it which I guess we covered in part one anyway right like the you know over the course of the creation of something I guess that's what I'm saying is like I would I think that all of these things kind of crystallize why it's probably better to try to minimize how much you're relying on what the creator says and try to focus as much as you can on what it is and like we're running through the material in it yeah here's a question mm-hmm if Tolkien came out and he gave some statements about Lord of the Rings it wasn't explicitly like written in the book would you consider his statements canon no uh wait what if Tolkien came out and made some statements about what happened in the same way like an actual event the actual events I think that the difficulty was actually in love with Gandalf you had a secret love for him I think that it's um it's it's uh it's complicated when it comes to like if there's stuff that isn't in the story and then the author comes out and says these are things that happen that like weren't in the story that happen at a different time or in a different place um I'm not I don't know because canon is kind of like canon is determined by the creator or the very least like the person who owns the story I never would have guessed us your argument for any ever I don't know I feel like you're not even fringing right now who are you who are you I'm trying to well I'm trying to so ultimately like I need references that exist within the material to start to figure out like whether or not I agree well okay so in the case of Dumbledore is gay from JK where it's just she hasn't got a single reference right I was going fuck you I tried to bake it I got you back this time but yeah yeah that's what I was going back to though versus like Sam disappears for five seconds during a scene and then Tolkien is asked where did he go during that scene he goes he went off for a piece like I guess we can yeah you could you could think that's what happened we we don't know whatever but it's something like no it is canon that he peed because he just said it in interviews like no that's not how that works and I'm pretty sure that's your position as well I've never heard you say like oh yeah maybe I guess like maybe the distinction is whether or not it's contradictory or supplementary I don't even think that I just well I mean from Fringy I mean like in terms of what Fringy might have been thinking well I guess I'm I'm trying it because because when we're talking about like events that happen um like if you were if you had a story that I don't know begins in like our I don't know like 10 pm or something that's when the story begins and then the author says yeah at 9 pm like I don't know Bill the main character brushed his teeth like what like would that be something like how would we interpret that as as like whether or not that is canon if it's not simple it's not canon you can imagine that may have happened right as long as we're appealing to stuff that is beyond any because yeah I don't why this would even be thought about is like you're going to destroy the meaning of canon at this point if it's any women right it has in interviews and stuff I guess I'll try to like throw it away with um like external texts right like if like if you have a lore book for for like a story lore book is different because it's been that's art that's been brought into the world right so oh you're gonna say that's a part of canon at that point yeah that is something okay okay right yeah what are there something ambiguous in the medium and then later on the person provides clarification what if Nolan came out and he told you that at the end of inception it does spend forever would you consider that to be valid nope that it does that that's canon now or nope he doesn't get to decide because in his movie left it ambiguous yeah this is this is Hanshaw first yeah this is uh this is Hanshaw first at the end of the day when it comes to figuring out what happens in a story basically all that you have ultimately is what is in the story like because it because if you know like if the writer says well this was what I was thinking of doing before but then I changed my mind and left it out it's like well you left it out like you left it out of the story so now whether or not it happened is I have nothing to like what I guess um if we have the hypothetical what happens if um I don't know like that the author somehow just like forgets totally forgets like some the the story that they've written and it's impossible for them to like scroll it away some crazy amnesia and then they start laying out a list of things that happened that didn't exist in the story it's like is that legitimate like at the end of the day what's the format for them doing this like an interview or another book maybe like yeah maybe an interview I don't know they have some like with amnesia and then the first thing they get out of the hospital they have like a fundamentally different understanding of the sequence of events in their own story and then they give an interview where they say that's that's pretty much the purpose of death of the author at this point is to be like that's nice that they have that interpretation well yeah I I guess that's I guess that's the point right if they set it in an interview that's like okay whatever but then if they wrote it down it's like well now you've contradicted yeah now she's contradicted in your uh yeah yeah I mean I basically squares it away you've got to be referencing what's in the story like first and foremost but um yeah I think Hanshott first is like the one that sums this up the best like did George decide or did we decide have to sing the story yeah Hanshott Hanshott first yes he did I guess it well I guess I guess the reason why when we're talking about the nature of canon maybe this is why I was getting my wires crossed like when it comes to Star Wars what is canon now it's like well the sequel trilogy is canon as defined by like the people who own it what the meaningful definition of canon it is yeah well I guess that's the thing right canon versus uh continuity maybe maybe that's a distinction without a difference though or maybe that's what we need right like continuity versus I don't know well you um I mean people will sometimes go the whole route of like I you know canon to me is whatever I consider and I don't even think that's necessarily invalid I just don't know that there's much we can do with that versus you know like IP licensing and owning it that seems to be the best way we can have a meaningful definition that goes beyond whatever we like out of all the stories well because um if we don't do that things start to become incongruent like imagine if you said yeah you know like a new hope and and return to the Jedi or uh canon but empire strikes back as non-canons like wait what the like what what's happened now like this story is very different their own world will start to fall apart yeah exactly if they liked you know what comes after the sequels but they didn't like the sequels and so they said the sequels aren't canon but you know fucking Mando is also wait when does Mando take place again let's post sequels right now before sequels uh yeah it's it's sure sequels right right right it's in between uh okay but let's just say let's just say this person like Rise of Skywalker and they're like that's canon but the other two aren't you'll be like oh all right well you've got your foot in the door to have a discussion with us then made it that means I've got it but hang on a minute we've already tried this remember a minute ago we learned about how the artist's intention can be a tricky concept because intentions change over time and the artists themselves might be just another interpretation how do I know I'm not doing the same thing with Rothko's feeling well I think I think the difference is you're trying to understand their intentions if your goal is to do something that's very difficult to do then yeah this is what's gonna happen if you're trying to learn something that isn't so hard and rigidly defined like the intentions of someone that can change over time whereas the thing might stay the same and remain as it is you're kind of chasing something that's a bit more ambiguous and amorphous amorphous sorry so that's why while it can be very interesting to get those intentions and it can have a lot of explanatory power as to why things are the way they are in a in a in any creation and you can't always rely on those things being available even if the artist is alive or not or even if they recorded supposedly recorded all their thoughts someone's just asked me how would like how have you gone to the point where you're saying like Tolkien's words wouldn't be canon but what Amazon because they have the license they're allowed to dictate canon like yes it sucks but if you want to do it the reverse we're only token Tolkien can make the canon and that everyone else is not because they're not him you can do it that way that can be how you define what the canon is well the the other example would be George Lucas is the only one who gets to say what Star Wars canon even though Disney's making all the movies and they're the only people who can make the merchandise so yeah like what does it even mean at this point to say what is and isn't canon when like one entity has total control over the stories that will be getting created at this point you still get the problems and can you sell that ability you still get the problem with like Ridley Scott where it's like he is the only one who can define what happens in the alien franchise and then you're like oh well now means we lose aliens and then we gain Prometheus and alien covenants like yay well the interesting thing too is that is it the is it youthy fro how do you pronounce this guy's name youthy fro dilemma yeah the is something moral because God says it or does God say it because it's moral you run into a very interesting thing that's akin to that what if we say what if we grant okay well if the author says that it's canon what if the author begins to speak a bunch of like contradictory stuff how do you deal with that let's say that let's say that J.K. Rowling comes out and she says Hermione was actually like a 12 foot tall giant who is actually quite stupid intellectual giant yeah well no stupid a dumb giant what do we say oh no well it's gonna say totally in general with everything in the in the in the in the well essentially well this problem comes in because in the real world you can't have plot holes and so we're trying to make sense of things that just don't like they physically don't make sense within a world like a fictitious world can have these problems when a real one can't so how do you how do you deal with that yeah I was gonna say the an even more difficult question then she says in an interview and it contradicts what she's done in the books would be that she actually has these facts in both books like there's two books and they just describe something and those two things can't be true at the same time obviously you can go with interpretations of individual characters if there's a narrator or something but if it's as is as cut and dry as two things that literally just couldn't take place at the same time then you probably go for the one that happened first in the timeline if they happen at the same time then you could say that the artist's health is like a lack of continuity or that they actually make mistakes but I just think it's interesting that like it seems like we intuitively want to say that well if the author speaks something then that it must be true but it seems like that can only be the case if the art itself hasn't made a statement on that particular thing so only in ambiguous parts because if the author said something that was clearly contradictory to the art I think what most of us would consider that the art supersedes whatever the original person says yes yeah I think that's generally the way that it's gone I mean what is the point of like creating the artwork if not for the artwork to stand on its own regardless of your further input on it Insofar as the licensing goes I think it's just a matter of what question should we ask or answer right so when somebody's like well what if the IP sold to somebody they do something way different with the art the last three Star Wars movies are a really good example is Rae supposed to be the most important person in the universe or is she just supposed to be an average person and anybody can be really important if they try hard enough right the book the all three movies well the first and the third have a different opinion than the second because they're changing directors I think the question is what's the right answer there well or what would George Lucas have wanted these are all different questions then like what does the canon of Star Wars say right like there's a different question of like what would George Lucas have done or what would George Lucas is Star Wars have said or what would whoever Ryan the fucking name of the director Ryan Johnson yeah what would Ryan Johnson have said these are all different questions then like what is Star Wars say because if you ask what is Star Wars saying they say well George Lucas would say that Well, those are fundamentally different questions that are being asked or answered there. It would also present an issue as well, when the IP sort of runs out, as in like it becomes public. How do we define Canon at that point? No, I don't actually have an answer for that question. Yeah, the answer would be different people's Canon, right? Well, at that point, yeah, you kind of just have to choose, I don't think we can have anything. I mean, that's why we distinct, well, that's why we make a distinction between head Canon and Canon. Well, yeah, that's what I'm saying. We don't have Canon necessarily any more as a distinction once it becomes a public IP, right? Well, yeah, it's just you take each story as its own thing. And if you have like a sequel, a direct sequel to one of those stories, it's like, well, you got to take those together as well, like if they connect to each other. But like, you're not going to compare the Wizard of Oz and the continuity of like Oz the Great and powerful, because like these are two different things. Wait, did Disney make the original, did they? Disney didn't exist yet? Ah, whatever. Yeah, I think it is in the end, right? Well, just look at, the best example here is just look at our fan fiction. Like we wouldn't say fan fiction is Canon, but we could speak about fan fictions, right? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. It's its own internal thing, yeah. Well, I guess an example though with like fan fiction is the stuff that's not included in that story, like would you appeal to the existing like the actual official, you know, like Canon story to fill in the blanks? Yeah, because the reason is more likely. The reason it's more likely to break down Canon is because it's likely from the same person who created it, but even then if it's not, it's the one that people are going to be more likely to be consuming. So it's like more, ears and eyes will reach the discussion, but there are plenty of people who break down fan fictions of particular IPs as well, yeah. Happens. Yeah, fan fictions are just like forks of like the original. So you'd assume that most things are the same unless they explicitly state otherwise, right? Yeah. I think that's the- Yeah, fan fictions are just enough a foundation, yeah. In Pale Fire, John Shade obviously felt a lot of things, but how do we know whether or not Charles picked up on the right ones? In my play, there are like nine characters, some of whom feel things that I've never felt in real life. So what is the audience supposed to feel? I am Pablo Picasso's paintings. How do you feel about me? Here's an idea. Who gives a s**t? Cashmoney, all right. I am Salvatore Mundi by Leonardo Verbegdok Da Vinci. In 2017, I was bought by Saudi Arabian ruler Mohamed bin Salman for $450,312,500, which makes me, oh my gosh, I guess that makes me the most valuable painting in the world. Who cares what art- The most expensive painting ever sold. I was going to say, why wouldn't you phrase it that way? Would you say the most valuable? I don't know how you fucked up on this. You're a philosopher and you use that word that way. Stop. You're not getting it. Oh, I guess she is very successful. Yeah. Art means or what it's about or how people feel, not the art world. That's for sure. Salvatore Mundi is a portrait of Jesus, a man who famously did not have a high opinion of rich people. I get it. Not the best image to use to relay that, but. It didn't matter because art is what economists call an asset or in poor people language, it's a way to avoid paying taxes. Let me give you some advice, okay? This section is going to be great. This is now Salvatore's business influencer tips. Buy cheap paintings. And when I say cheap, I mean like rich people cheap, like $25,000, there's nothing. Take those cheap paintings to an appraiser, one that you trust and say, hey Jimmy, how much would you say this painting is worth? And Jimmy goes, oh, I don't know. Maybe a million dollars. And then what you do is donate that work of art to a charitable foundation, preferably one that you control. Oh, but Salvi, I hear you say, why am I giving it away? Why am I not selling it? Bro, I hope this loops back into the meaninglessness. I was actually going to say, I'm actually not sure how this is going to be. Like the prism I assume this time is just how expensive it is, is how meaningful it is, but obviously no one's going to. Oh, I thought this was just the, I thought this is going to, the bitching about capitalism, that's what we're leading into. Yeah, but at the same time, the point of view will likely be to include the money people who are like, the best painting is the one that people will pay the most money for, which you can get done instantly and dismiss. Like nobody really cares about us. Well, I mean, it's a transformous thing, isn't it? Oh yeah, the best movie has made the most money, right? This is a totally valid critique because I think a lot of people will say like, oh, well like, what's the best song? Ah, Kanye West, look how much, you know, the triple platinum, blah, blah, blah. Who's the best, whatever, blah, blah, blah. Oh, my superhero movies, highest grossing we've all time. Like, who's the best director? James Cameron, obviously. Look at the grossing of the films. Like, I think people will do these types of evaluations. How popular is there, how much money does it make? I'm not even sure, like, I wanna believe you believe that, but like, how many people would they stand by that once you ask them just a couple of questions? Like, once you reflect on different industries and then you find the transformers are gone, that's why it was referenced that way. It's like, nobody believes transformers are amazing, but they did make a shit ton of money. Have you stepped outside of the internet companies and talked to Normies? I think Normies would always cite how popular something is for how good it is. I've talked to plenty of movies about movies that I don't think that's true. I don't think so, yeah. I think most people are able to recognize that. I do believe that people will make appeals to popularity and success to justify their positions, but it's like crumbling seconds. Like, yeah, like, you just ask them about a thing that they liked that isn't very popular. I don't even believe it. Yeah, I don't even need a debate format. I mean, you just ask them to apply that to other things and then they'll be like, well, no, not that, because that's bad. And you'll be like, right, okay. Or they'll be like, oh yeah, you're right. I really mean da-da-da. There's something deeper. Yeah, you're correct. People on the internet still appeal. Right now, people are like, rings of power is better than House of the Dragon because it is getting more viewership. And then other people are like, well, no, it's not. The viewership's going up for House of the Dragon. I'm, you know, we're sitting here like, the fucking viewership doesn't, that's not, I'm talking about that. I mean, it's important in terms of Amazon astaking a lot on rings of power to be successful. So there's still a conversation to be had, of course. I just mean that, I don't know, you can bring this up. I just don't know that you should spend much time on this perspective because I just don't know how long it's gonna last. Not gonna be much of a, like the more money it's worth, the better of, more meaningful it is. Just like, sure, but yeah. I can't remember anyone making this argument. I'm sure they're out there. Well, yeah. No, so I would say that the common configuration of this argument is like, well, yeah, you say that's bad, but look at all these people who like it. I often, that's, I've heard that plenty of times. Well, see, but that's a different argument. Yeah, I suppose you could say, well, I guess they'd be appealing to the popular, like, you know, people would say, well, yeah, but who cares what you think they've made for all this money? I actually think that's a much stronger argument than this one. To talk about what people in the world find to be most meaningful collectively is a much better way of trying to categorize out than which one was sold for the most money. Yeah, I guess I'd say that there can be some level of blurriness or conflation between those two times arguments, making appeals ultimately to things that are beyond the material. Which is interesting, right? Because like, Transformers made all that money, but there's like nobody defending it. Like, I don't know. Well, I mean, I think that was an interesting example. A lot of people talk about it. How many people could tell you anything about that film? How many people could tell you the name of the main character? Yay. Was it Jake? Oh my God. Yeah, it is Jake Sully. See, I remember. I'm actually surprised I got that right. I don't know why I know that. I don't know why I know that. Yeah, what the fuck? As Jake Sully, there was, of course, Niterri, he had, it was Quarrix, was Stephen Lange's character. I don't know any of these other names. Grace. Look, I mean, I remember more about Avatar evidently than most people do. The world, than James Cameron. Oh, he loves it. He's very into it. He does love it. This is a work of passion. You know what? The fact that he really likes Avatar makes me wonder if Avatar 2 might be like really worthwhile. Maybe. Of course. Maybe. Maybe. He will give it a shot. Why not? I think everybody will. Well, because as far as the tax collectors are concerned, you just donated a million dollars to charity, my friend. You're practically a saint. So use it for clout. And more importantly, it's a tax writer. Or try it this way around. Let's say you already own a painting and it's very valuable. Like me, but not me, obviously. You couldn't afford me. I'm Jesus Christ superstar. Take that valuable painting to your appraiser and say, hey, Jimmy, how much would you say this one is worth? And Jimmy says, oh, I don't know. Not much, I reckon. Then what you do is you die. The method is up to you there. But when you go, donate that valuable painting to your spoiled rich kids, to Ferdinand and Jemima and Armancio, they then sell it. And oh, wouldn't you know it? It's actually worth loads of money now. But by that point, they've already avoided inheritance tax. Boom. You can look down proudly from heaven, where rich people definitely go. The art market. Okay. We're just waiting for points about art to come up. We're getting there, I'm sure. It's pretty unregulated, pretty opaque and very concentrated. And if you have the millions it takes to buy in, there are millions of ways you can stack the deck. Whilst the plebs are standing in front of the work, trying to figure out what it means, you already know what it means. It means you never have to work again. Huge five. Except, well, it's hard to be completely cynical. Even in the ritziest of ritzy art circles, people do still talk about the meaning. In the early noughties, a new art movement developed that came to be known as zombie formalism. Pretty quickly, people started to suspect that zombie formalism was just trying to make a quick buck. A lot of the paintings themselves were pretty visually neutral. So you could hang them in a CEO's office or a fancy lobby and they take a space. I'm guessing that where we're heading here is like, what does it look like when the, I guess the economic side of art creation filters into the process itself? Presumably, yeah. Which is like that's a topic that's worthwhile, right? Like if you look at a lot of mainstream films, how do standards or like expectations about what the audience want alter whenever you're creating in an adverse way, like mandatory action scenes or like a love triangle because that's what you're meant to do with some like romance. Even just when someone's critical of anything about it and it's like, to be fair, their budget was XYZ and it's like, could that be factored in? That's what the meaning is about and does that, like for instance, if a developer's like, yeah, we couldn't, you know, we had a deadline so we couldn't fix all the bugs. It's like, cool, bro. You know, that's the last, the last, this is a problem. Yeah, like how much? Is cyberpunk in a working condition? Has anyone checked? Is that like, I loved game now? Well, it's played by over 100,000. I think it's because of the anime. It's now like 100,000 current players on Steam. I think when we covered it, we were like, it's going to need a No Man's Sky story and I'm guessing it's getting there, is it? No, I have no idea what the state of the game is. I don't know. I have no clue. Well, I mean, I'm pretty sure that the concurrent player count for Cyberpunk 2077 is higher than it ever was for the Witcher 3 right now. She is. Okay. So, handing out, and I think it's the edge runners like anime on Netflix. That's hilarious. I really want to know how many players were added to League of Legends from Arcane. Not that there's a way to figure that out, but it would be neat to know. That would be interesting. That would be interesting, for now I'm sorry. Without pulling too much focus. I'm going to actually get an answer for you really quick on the player count numbers. So, this is for Steam, that was going to be my Steam charts. The all-time peak players for the Witcher 3 was 103,000. Cyberpunk today had 121,600 players. Yeah, so it's- The all-time peak of 830,000. That would have been a lot, I think. You have an all-time valley for 2777. He just said it was like, the lowest it got. The lowest it got? I can- What I can do is there's a chart here that shows the gain in percentage game in average players month by month. It looks like the lowest- I'm curious how low it got before it climbed back up. The lowest average player count for Cyberpunk 2077 was in October of 2021. It was only 8,000 players. Only, that's not bad compared to some other games. With the scale of this game, that's- Wow, true. That's true, because- Yeah, it was in context. Yeah, see, that was one of the most hyped. It just happens, man. When the game gets really hyped up so often- No, it's not because it was hyped up. It's because it was dog shit. Or there were a lot of- No, what I mean is that we often see- What we often see is that the game will get really hyped up to the point that a critical eye on something just kind of gets lost in the promise of the concept. No Man's Sky was an example. That game was super hyped up so much so that I'm pretty sure Total Biscuit, even before that came out, was talking like, I'm not sure that I see this game being what people think it will be or something along those lines. Well, even so, I think the issue was that- It's not just that it was over-hyped, it was that the developers actually lied. They over-promised hard. They were over-promising and under-delivering. That's true. Yeah, and I mean it was the same for City Project Red with Cyberpunk. I guess what I'm saying is that we have these examples of these games that were super hyped up, high-profile, and then they came out and there were massive disappointments. Like, well... Didn't um... I think the reason why I'm thinking that was Cyberpunk is because when that game came out, one of the conditions for the reviews for that game, I believe, was that they couldn't use any of their own captured footage. There was like a set amount of footage that they had access to. Oh yeah. And they couldn't... Yeah, and so like... Was there a console as well? Because the PC one was running way worse. They only... I think it was that... No, the console ones were dog shit. So I think it was only PC reviews and OPS4. These are all massive red flags that should have been... Yes, there were many, many red flags before that game actually released to the public. It never came about. Like a lot of people glossed aside and like didn't really think about that. I guess what I mean is that we see this where like a game gets so hyped up that pretty clear warnings that something is wrong just get overlooked. It's like, oh, we're City Project Red. They're awesome. Like, they made the Witcher 3. So, you know, it'll be... Destiny as well, right? Not You Destiny, the game Destiny. Like, that was a game... You didn't name the girl's name. Well, you predate Destiny the game, right? Yeah, that fuckers murdered my SEO. Wow. I was actually about to ask, yeah. That must have been a fucking nightmare when that came out in terms of like, oh, great, that's going to fuck with people searching for me forever now. Yeah, except now I benefit, because fuck them. Yeah, you've managed to outlast Destiny as an IP. Good for you. I don't know. I think it's still going. It is still going, but... Destiny the Streamer is a 10-year project. I wonder which gets more engagement, especially with your last few weeks. I thought, like, isn't Destiny 2 doing, like, because PlayStation bought Bungie for, like, three billion dollars? So, like, I'm pretty sure Destiny's in a competition of which Destiny is doing well. I guess it's hard to say. It's neck and neck. Pretty sure the Destiny game is doing far, far, far better than I am. I'm pretty sure it's still pretty... I don't think I'm going to fight at all. How many people are watching Destiny 2 on Twitch versus watching Destiny right now? I can tell you how many people are watching Destiny right now. Yeah, I can tell you how many people are watching Destiny right now. Right now, on Steam, Destiny 2... Twice as many. Damn. Destiny 2, today on Steam, had 107,450... OK, OK, so close. Close, right? We're getting close. I know, I'm pretty close. Yeah, we'll get there. It's almost there, yeah. Apparently, I guess that game also got a whole lot of work done to it. Much like Cyberpunk. And... It's an MMO, right? It's like ongoing updated shit, right? I'm not going to call that game an MMO. It's like... It's like the most watered-down an MMO can be, I feel. With it being technically like an MMO, but no one's like, oh, yeah, I need an MMO to play. You should play Destiny 2. I don't know if that's what you're going to say. It's kind of the era of the division, whether with these sort of... They were trying to bridge the gap between, I guess, conventional PvP multiplayer stuff on consoles and like these sort of shared worlds that were like kind of... There were other people around and you could kind of interact with them, but like, yeah. Yeah, it's distinct from the other worlds of Warcraft and the Guild Wars stuff. I imagine that Destiny 2 is probably like really fun now if you've been immersed in it and engaged with it. But yeah, when that game came out, that was... It was pretty darn mediocre. Yeah, that's one of those games I know nothing about, but I watched several people review it. I don't know why. I remember being fun. Well, I got really hyped for the first one because it was like, oh, Bungie's new thing after Halo, that's going to be really exciting. And I think at this point, it's basically all but confirmed that something happened during development. There were like big changes that happened where the story was changed pretty drastically because like the game as it came out barely had one. Certain locations were removed or placed at different points in the game. I think there was an interview where the developer said, you could go to Saturn, but you can only go to Saturn after the Taken King DLC came out a year later and 40 bucks. Something happened, something happened at Bungie, something happened with that game. Yeah, I mean, that should be one of those reminders that when it comes to, I think that we can really easily, it's like, oh, that's, you know, we talk about Naughty Dog or Bungie or City Project Red, it's like these studios and kind of forget that it's like, well, it's the people who are in these studios who do come and go, who like make the games at the end of the day. The Bungie that existed in 2006 or seven is very different from the Bungie that exists now in 2022. Same goes for Bioware. City Project Red is now like a massive publicly traded company like in Poland. Like it just changes and it's, I don't know, the company that makes the game like 10 or 15 years ago, it's just not invariably not gonna be the same company that makes it in the future. Just something to keep in mind, I guess. Somebody asked, was there any chance of you suing them for using the word destiny? But I don't think you could take ownership on a weird destiny. Not getting a trademark? Yeah. Not Candy Crush, like didn't they want to trademark the word candy? Wasn't that a thing that happens? Geez, wow. That's like the reaction. I think they swung out on that as well, I think. I can't remember if it ever, I'm pretty sure it didn't pan out, but I remember reading about that. The one thing about it, because I don't know if I'm gonna find out this from Better Call Soul of All Things, is it if someone started up a stream and they relied on your SEO and used a lot of things that were similar, but not the same as your stuff and called themselves destiny, would you then have a case of being like they're trying to? All right, rather than on the level of similarities. Yeah. It's like a auto-copyright for like likeness or whatever, so it would just depend. Some of them pushed boundaries, but in ways that didn't always seem significant, like, oh, it's the first painting ever to be done with a fire extinguisher. Great. That was pretty cool. With a fire extinguisher. I guess, well, I mean, like, it's not interesting. This is the character that likes money, right? I think that's the point that's happening here. I guess it is interesting, because I mean, there's always a first, right? Snow White was the first theatrical animated film, and I guess you could be like, oh, that's a gimmick. It's like, well, like, you know? Like, don't do that. Don't say it's such things. Some got flipped, bought cheap first time round, sold very expensive on the secondary market. These examples are the Seven Rain Paintings by Lucian Smith, one of the most prominent zombie formalists, and they made him very rich. When they were exhibited in LA, they were accompanied by this description. Smith's work acts as a tangible moment, a chronicle of exploration as he negotiates with existence. And he reminds us that an artist should... I feel like this is you with the red brick, the red squares. I'm lost now as to whether or not this is the character. The character or... Yeah, I'm not sure. I think, is this meant to be, because I thought the whole point of this particular movement was kind of like cynically tapping into like, you know, like art as a commercial sector. Yeah, that's what I thought. In this case, there's something that was created cynically that is still somebody looked at it and like had all of these meanings that they... I was gonna say, how do you tell the difference? So this is her making fun of this reviewer of that work. I assume that that's what I'm getting from this. I am yet to decide. I was gonna wait for more context clues. Yeah. Well, well, do you think that statement is being modified? No, I don't... It's not that. I don't know from what POV that's happening. Is it philosophy tubes, or is it the character philosophy tube is playing, or is it a commentary on that cynical approach from that artist? I don't know about that. There's paintings, yeah. Okay. That's fine with me. I was just gonna say, I was a little bit confused. I don't even remember what that said. Those words just slid off my brain. That was pure bullsh**t. And yeah, a lot of philosophers and art critics actually said that at the time, or words to that effect. Interestingly, Lucian Smith himself has since come forward and kind of admitted it. The model that was... Well, that doesn't matter though, right? What if that's what people take away from that piece? Yeah, that's why I say, I think this is... This seems really weird, considering what you said about the red square. Like how come it's a valid... I think it's just different. I don't think she has made a statement of what her personal feelings are yet, right? I think these are all, yeah. Like I think that the format of this video is she's presenting like different frameworks that can be used to figure out what the meaning of art is. So we had the first one, what the author intended, second one. It's like, how does it make you feel? And then this is the third one, monetary. Like what happens when the monetary factor is... So she does represent the... She's referencing the money in... I thought she was actually saying in that moment because she knew this was bullshit and they were doing that to be bullshit. And so she's criticizing it on that format. I think that's what she's doing now, yeah. And what I was gonna say is like, well, even if, say for example, I provide an interpretation of a film and then I was like, hee hee hee, I only said all that to be trolley and stuff, but everyone found it to be incredibly meaningful. It's kind of evolved past me at that point, isn't it? I mean, that's... Yeah, like you can create something. I mean, imagine like, yeah, like some guy is like, hey, you got to write a book, there's part of your contract, like for your multi-book deal or something. And it's like, ah, not in spite. It's like, well, that's a deal, figure it out. And he's like, ah, whatever, I'm just pumped out and throw out this crappy thing. And then he throws it out and everyone is like, wow, this is like your greatest work, you know, this is your finest creation. What does it matter if he's like, yeah, but I didn't care, I was so cynical. I just like wrote it in a week and threw it out. That's like Thor Ragn. Not Thor Ragnarok, Love and Thunder. Love and Thunder, yeah. If someone said, Tika, that's your greatest artwork of all time, you'd probably be like, yeah, great. How depressing that would be if that was the thing that you had the most. It's like, yeah, Georgia Rabbit was like, that was, yeah, but like Thor, Love and Thunder. Top tier. Except for me, when I was younger, it wasn't a healthy model. It was about sucking up to collectors and trying to sell for the highest prices. That stuff isn't real, that's not art. According to his website, Smith is now living in New York, making NFTs for a company called Lobus, which, I mean, if somebody had accused me of making worthless art just so that it could be sold to fools to make a lot of money, I probably wouldn't get into crypto, man. But even at its most cynical, people still had to act like the art had meaning. Part of the person- So that's the problem. Were they acting? Maybe some of them were, but some of them might have genuinely, like it might have prompted some- No, it sounds like they're saying they acted because it was for a tax scheme. That's what she's arguing. All right. That's the whole- That everybody around them all had to act like it was worth something, otherwise they'd get exposed for a tax fraud. All right, right. I say, you have to at least perform that this is art so that people treat it as art rather than like a means of avoiding tax. I just like the idea that there's that one guy who's like, I do think it's good though. They're all like, yes, yes, yes, good, yes. They're like, no, no, no, seriously, I do. So do we, boy, that's what I'm getting at. Surely in the discussion, there has to be some recognition that some of the people who are these high-rollers buying these expensive artworks are in it for like genuine reasons. It's just like, yeah, I really like art and I got the means to access it. Like I like appraising art and being able to have it, own it, do stuff with it. Is that weird thing? So I was just thinking about, I don't know, my mind's gone nuts with the whole like, when you provide an interpretation, does it have death of the author applied to it too? Like you've got the source and then you talk about what you think it means and then someone takes that and then you go, what I meant by that was this and they go, no, I'm taking it for whatever I think it means now. I guess if you write an essay like a book report on a book and then you publish it and then somebody takes that, yeah, I guess there would be death of the author in terms of your communication of that idea. It just keeps going. Death of the author is a mobius trip, I guess. A rough just keeps. A building hype around a new artist is convincing people that their work has something interesting to say and zombie formalism didn't last in part because audiences and critics saw through it. Other trends took its place, including a trend for what you might. And people can't see through Marvel. Gosh. I watched a video similar to this concept that had to deal with, it was Carl Yobst, I think is his name. He, maybe it's Jobster Yobst, I don't know. But he did one on like retro games in that there was a whole essentially fake BS market behind appraisals and this sort of thing. But instead of like paintings and stuff, there is a, it's like retro collectible gaming stuff. You make me think of the comic book crash because that was in part- Exactly, that too. Yeah, yeah. Because of their perceived future value, everybody wanted their action comics, wait, damn it. They wanted their detective comics number one or action comics one or like Amazing Fantasy 13, I think it was for Spider-Man. I like they wanted that. But then the problem is that you get X-Force one and five million people bought it. It's just never gonna appreciate that. Like people were in it more so for like trying to make money off of selling comic books rather than just participating and reading comic books. And that part, you know, it's like an unsustainable market. At the end of the day, like people need to be engaged with the work and interest in it. Otherwise it kind of can't support itself anymore. I call woke art or art with social and political meaning. Yes, it's a financial asset, but people still want to stand in front of a painting and feel like they get it. And I still do. I feel like they get it. And that's kind of been the running through line. Seriously, what the answer is gonna be if we're gonna get one. I think it's more fundamental is like people still want to feel something about art even if they recognize it as like, I mean, I guess right, like it's not on the same level but if you're like creating a collection of Blu-rays or something or like you're getting box sets and things like that, like you may recognize, oh man, this is a cool thing that I have this collection that I'm building up and hey, maybe I might sell a couple of these eventually if I need some money or like, sell the whole set if I need it. But at the end of the day, I still would like to enjoy whatever it is that I own. Like people who collect, who have a huge collection of retro games, of course the collection itself is a value to them. Like the collection itself rather than the individual game. But the individual games can still be meaningful to them. But it seems like you're right. I think what she's talking about getting it or go ahead and finish. No, no, go for it. So I think what she's talking about getting it, she's meaning like standing in front of something and having a feeling evoked. I think that's what I mean when she says gets it or like trying to understand what the other's trying to convey. I think a big problem with this, there's a really good Ted talk by old piano player guy who was talking about how classical music, the vocabulary of classical music is kind of lost on modern day people because we just don't listen to a lot of it. And there's a phenomenon that happens where you listen to a piece of classical music and this happens with 99% of people even though they want to admit it. You listen to a piece of classical music and it sounds okay, but you don't really get it. Like, I guess, like it's not amazing. It's just you hear it and it's whatever. And I think people start to feel bad about it. Like, fuck, I don't really get this. You know, they're like, there's people who watch Blade Runner five times before they are. Oh yeah. It's a film that you're supposed to, like there's definitely that. That's what I'm saying. I think FOMO explains a lot of it. Like it's- I don't know if it's you FOMO. It's just more like you're watching something. Yeah, that one was FOMO. He does not want to, he was like explicit. We are referencing a specific example of the Blade Runner one. Yeah, where it's like, there's a perception of this is of high quality. This is like, you know, this is like a great work of this medium. And if you look at it, it doesn't really do anything for me. It's kind of like an unacceptable answer for some, like you feel like it's an unacceptable answer so you've got to keep watching it and trying to figure out like whether you get it rather than just accepting, yeah, it's not for me. Like just being a little bit more confident in your preferences. I still think that's applicable to a lot of people as well. Just you don't want to watch them and everyone's enjoying it and having fun and getting all this meaning out of it. And you're like, I didn't get anything. What the fuck, what's going on? What's wrong with me? I'm not getting part of the conversation. Yeah. It's kind of how this has been framed this whole video is the solution to when you don't get it. What is it? It's tricky because there is kind of a cultural pressure with art, especially modern art. See, there it is. And I know that there are some people who respond to that pressure by just denying that modern art can have meaning. They're like, oh, nobody really gets it. Nobody really gets it. Nobody really gets it. Nobody really gets it. I don't get it. I don't know why. It's totally unnecessary. But we decided it's definitely not a part of the just the room she's in on. It's absolutely artificial. Really? You could even get the distortion in her voice too. It's not even well done. Why would you do that? So weird is like I've been in rooms before. I know how rooms work. If you're whispering to me and I'm right in front of you, it's not going to echo for the whole all around us ambient way. And it's even worse here. You're right. Because if you were talking like this in an art gallery and it echoed like this, how fucking annoying would that be? Like if you were just like, I guess you're supposed to shut the fuck up in this art gallery. OK, no one's allowed to talk. I mean, I know how rooms work. You know what? You've convinced me. I do think that this is artificial now because if it wasn't, my God. What a strange choice. They just pretend to. And that's always seemed kind of cynical to me. Well, and it applied to somebody else talking in the background too. They didn't see. So someone someone else is talking. It gets hit with the same reverb. Oh, Rags. Do you remember that Batwoman episode where they'd applied the Batwoman filter to a voice and then some random person talked between her sayings of it, the filter and it applied to his voice. They didn't cut out the filter for that other person. I do remember that. Yeah. We're not going to get any more seasons of that show. No, we've got a saver. We have to enjoy every second we have now. We've got to squeeze as much blood from that. This is no way that we can. We will finish it eventually. We will. At the same time, I do feel that pressure. Like I feel like I should have a opinion about Mark I should be that kind of cultured person. But I guess if that's how I'm approaching it, then I'm not really engaging. Yeah, I'm just worried about the kind of person that I feel I should be. Yeah, like, oh, what if I get invited to a party and I say the wrong thing about Mark Roscoe and I make a fool of myself? I was just like a really lame way to engage with with. But is it a reality? Damn. Well, it's a reality of your own making, which maybe that's the revelation at the end here. It's like, yeah, I don't need to say. Well, you're describing like the FOMO, right? The idea that like everybody enjoys some particular piece of art, but you don't get it. And now you feel you're missing something, right? Yeah, pretty much. Yeah, we're saying that maybe the conclusion of the video at this point is that's what it's all about. Not necessarily strictly about FOMO, just that it says something about you. That's what it's all is for all of us. When you go to a gallery and you get presented with these paintings that just seem like pointless, be bold enough to say, yeah, I don't like it. Fuck yeah, I would have bolded those people, do it. I wonder what it means that this painting, this whole blank, this red canvas, just be brave enough to say like, ah, and then go walk off and go for something else that you like more. Open up Twitter and be like, this is a better way to spend my time than an art gallery and complain about Star Wars. Mm-hmm. A silly way to approach it because even if I got everything that was to get about Rothko, there's thousands of other artists here that would confront me with that same anxiety. If you come to art looking for a stick to beat yourself with, then you're probably gonna find it. So maybe we should ask a different question, which is, what is the point of trying to get it? I hope you have a good answer, because it seems... When I was a child, we studied Macbeth in English class. If you don't know it, it's about a guy who murders the king and steals the throne. And there's a running theme in the play about... Is this a dagger I see before me? People say that Macbeth is wearing somebody else's clothes as a metaphor for him stealing the crown. They say that his new title doesn't fit him. It hangs loose about him like a giant's robe upon a dwarfish thief. Macbeth is all about to be driven. Wow, racist. And I, being a little wise ass, put up my hand and said, Miss, did Shakespeare really intend to put that in there? And there's two ways of asking that question. The first is, did the actual man, William Shakespeare, actually sit down in 1606 and have the thought, I am going to use a clothing metaphor in my new play? And then I'm going to send a bunch of flirty sonnets to someone and make them wonder whether I'm bisexual. No, we haven't done one of them in a while. Yeah, this is really, they're real bangers. There's no way we can know whether he thought that without a time machine and a mind reader. But the second way of asking the question is, do we get more out of the play if we assume that the clothing metaphor is intended? Do we enjoy it more? Does it prompt us to some interesting reflections if we assume that we are meant to notice it? If we just go, nah, that's just a coincidence. Don't worry about it. Then are we missing it? Well, wait, you're on the other option because like, ah, it's a coincidence. Don't worry about it. It's like, ah, it's a coincidence. Let's talk about it though, you know? Yeah, that's what you, I guess we usually, we usually, if we have like an interpretation like that on some movie or whatever, we'll usually be like, this probably wasn't intended, but who cares? It's there. Yeah, if we often say, if we watch something really, really bad and the writer is clearly not talented at writing and we see something like this, like, oh, that might be intentional, but it's probably a coincidence. But it's still there, the thing's still there, but I don't know how much credit to assign to you, but that's a different thing. The philosopher, Alan Goldman, says that the point of interpreting art is to maximize its artistic value. Now, what exactly is artistic value? Well, maybe that's another story for another time, but his point. Oh, I feel like it's really important though. This is the video for it, you know? I feel like this is not a story for another time. This is it, man. The definition of it for this video right at the beginning is like, right. So here's some definitions. If you agree with this, we can progress and we can talk about it rather than. You don't, well. Yeah, when we're interpreting art, we need to maximize its artistic value. I'll talk about that, it's not now. Yeah, we'll do that later. Not in this video on the meaninglessness of art. It's kind of one anyway. Oh! A story for another time. Well, so this is the thing, I mean, with this far, so I feel like you can make some conclusions. This is like okay for pop philosophy, but it's terrible to actually explore the topic in any meaningful way, I think. Yeah, I'd be curious to ask, you know, if we got a hundred people who watch this and we asked them, you know, tell me about it. What we've said in it? I don't know if we'd really get a concise through line of what was pulled from this. I mean, the vague thing would be it was presenting a couple of perspectives, but a lot of them were very quick and they presented more things to dig into, but they didn't really go any further than the surface, which, you know, I just would have thought if your focus is philosophy, you're gonna wanna do your best to be boxing it down. And then I suppose there isn't a strict answer to this one and that's part of the point, but so many things were left unanswered and uncompaired. At least so far, maybe they'll fit it all in in the last, how long we got? It's like seven minutes, maybe. I think our discussion is far more helpful. It's not a competition. It's not about being right, but then how do we know that Charles is wrong about pale fire? Because if he's right, then the poem isn't good. Whoa. Oh. Well, that's, I do not know if that's as weighty as you think it is. I suppose we'll find out. Well, it's how loaded that is, right? This is so much more terrifying. That's very loaded, yeah. Especially after the sentence before it was, it's not a competition about figuring who's right or wrong, but if he's wrong, it's not good. It's like, oh, that seems consequential. Dude, throwing the word good into this video is a nightmare. Yeah. Well, I don't think we've had the word good at all, like any, like good or bad. We've only ever had correct or incorrect readings of it, but yeah, like good. Whoa, what does that mean when we're talking about the meaning of art? Fundamentally. John Shade leaves behind this amazing work. He writes about being an old man at the end of his life and what it was like to lose his daughter and it's really, really moving. If we assume as Charles does that, oh, that stuff doesn't matter. It's really all about him. Well, then it's kind of a waste. Oh, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm really sorry that that's how you view these things. That must be awful. This character is philosophy to know, right? It's not like a... I think so. I think this is a perspective on this. Yeah, I mean, it's dodgy to be like, the interpretation is worse if it's to be taken this direction versus this direction, especially if you consider the power. It almost seems like if it isn't, like if you know the answer, then it's a waste. Okay, wait, can you back up like 35 seconds and play this whole segment? Yeah, this is... The competition, it's not about being right. But then how do we know that Charles is wrong about pale fire? Because if he's right, then the poem isn't good. John Shade leaves behind this amazing work. He writes about being an old man at the end of his life and what it was like to lose his daughter and it's really, really moving. If we assume, as Charles does, that, oh, that stuff doesn't matter. It's really all about him. Well, then it's kind of a waste. That's what makes Charles a tragic character. He's so lost in his own mess that he can't see the true value of what John has made. As for me... Well, so I don't see how that answer changes anything. Like how do we, because the claim was, if the author's perspective on what the story is about is correct, then it's not good. It's like, that doesn't change anything about what is in the story, though. Like the story with these characters. Or that which he meant to be focused on. I think it feels like one of those things where it's like, I could be wrong because I don't remember now because it was a long time ago when this video was brought up. Or when we've listened to it, but like, it's almost like if you make it to the end of a story or whatever, or maybe you finish a story and then the author's just like, oh yeah, that story, it was all a dream. And that's why it was the way it was. You can kind of feel like it cheapens it. Or it's like, oh, well, if that's the case, this is dog shit. Or like, this isn't interesting anymore. Or if Nolan actually came out and he said, like, oh yeah, when that spinning top wobbled, we ran out of money to film the last five seconds, but it falls over. Like, yeah, he's in the real world. Like, if that's the case, oh, well, that's actually kind of shitty. That's actually not that cool. Or do you remember actually at the end of Shutter Island, do you remember the quote that Leo noted to Caprio says to the other guy? About the- Can I remember what he said? He says, like, is it better to die a good man or to live a monster? Yeah. Imagine if the guy comes out and he says, oh, if you look really early at the beginning, he actually just sees that quote in a book or whatever and he just like says it because his character's just kind of like wandering it. But he's actually crazy again. Oh, well, okay. Well, that makes the ending really dog shit if that's actually the case, right? But I guess the thing is you can always just disagree with that and say like, well, I think- Because it's not- Well, you could disagree with that and try to draw other meaning out of it. But like, if it's true and if you take that to be the case and oh, well, it does kind of cheat around. I think- Yeah, but I guess that's the thing is you don't have to take it to be the case because it is beyond the material. Like if he says, well, it fell over. It's like, I didn't see that. Like you said that, but I didn't see that in the film. So- Yeah, sure. I mean, you could read it differently, but like, if it was the case that that was true and then you believed it, that would kind of cheapen the thing. It sounds like it's kind of what he's saying. The interpretation is just better than the other one. Are we going with like, it's more detailed or deeper for full? It sounds like, I don't remember the beginning of what this was explaining, but it almost sounds like, let's say that my child dies and I write like a very touching story about the death of my child and all the parents and everybody reads it and even people that don't have children relate to it and like, wow, this is so beautiful. And then later on, I come out and I say like, holy shit. This was actually just about a game of League of Legends where I fed super hard. And I like, all the things are an analogy for the different stages of League of Legends game that I lose. Well, somebody might look back at the story and they're like, oh, fuck. Well, this is like fucking dog shit now. Hold on. I didn't know this is an allegory for a fucking game of League. I thought this was like a beautiful story. It sounds like that's the argument that she's kind of made. Well, we should tie it back to the statement which preceded it though, which is it's not a competition about who's right. And then the response was, but what about if this interpretation then, like what if we don't fight about it? And then she says, well, then it's not good. It's like, oh, so there is a reason to fight for like what you believe to be the correct reading of the story then. Oh sure, but that's kind of what the whole video is exploring, right? What is meaning? Or what is the correct way to interpret things? I guess what I'm saying is, if the claim is it's not a competition, but you shouldn't, but like it's not about who's right. But if this is the conclusion we come to, then it's not good. It's like, so it is about like trying to ascertain some truth, I guess. Or at the very least like fight to nudge interpretation of stories in a direction that we want. So there is a point to having these discussions and fighting about whether you think you're right or wrong. I mean, I imagine there's some part, she made a video on it, right? It's a 40 minute video. I mean, I imagine she thinks there's some point to both talk along with someone. Well, sure, that's the case. But like, what is the conclusion that we've seen to arrive at? Yeah, I was gonna say, do you really feel like everything we've seen so far supports that position? Cause I don't. Supports which position? The position that there are interpretations that are superior to others. I don't know if she's given a conclusion on it yet. It seems like so far she's spent exploring all these things. She just said it. Yeah, she just made the statement. If there's an interpretation then the story isn't good. Therefore, the other interpretation means the story. This is like the whole issue we're taking. It's weird to hear from Philosophy Tube that there could be two people with interpretations of a story and that one of them is just better than the other. Yeah. Even though they both. Yeah, I might be misinterpreting but it still sounds like it's all like an exploration of different ways of looking at it. I don't know if she's given like, this is the answer. I don't see it different ways on being wrong. I believe on this statement where she says, if this interpretation is correct, the book isn't good, that that isn't like her perspective on that story. Like her definitive perspective on that story. I mean, it sounds like she's saying that like, if there was a different interpretation, that interpretation makes it sound far more hollow, shallow and less meaningful. Oh, not that it doesn't. Because it's wrong and it hasn't made it sound that it is less good. It is not as, it's not good is what she said. Yeah. So I think that's, I think it would be worth saying that. If it was a story just about herself as opposed to like the meaningful touching story of his grandfather dying, then it sounds like that's, one is like way more self aggrandizing and not as interesting whereas the other is way more interesting. That's totally fine. It's like a perspective that she's sharing, but it's more so that I thought, I thought we just said that we're not meant to be fighting about like which perspective is correct or not. And I also thought that the conclusion that we were drawing from this is that it's actually incredibly difficult to like ascertain the meaning of anything when it comes to like this art and how do we factor in what somebody intended versus how it makes us feel personally? Like, it seems incongruent with the whole tone of this video so far to make any definitive statements on like the quality of a story. This was a plot twist to me. I never expected her to say this. Exactly. This is an unexpected statement given everything that's been in the video so far. Yeah. These are very strongly worded that it's bad, that it's a waste. Especially after talking about how emotional it was. Yeah, it's a waste. What does that mean? That a story is a waste. Like based on everything we've talked about so far, that seems like a conclusion that you wouldn't... That a story can be a waste if the author's interpretation is correct even though we're not meant to be fighting about whether or not any of these perspectives are right or wrong, but you think that if you're right that it's a waste. Like, hmm. It's a very definitive statement to make given that this whole video has been like about not really coming to any sound strong conclusions on any given, you know, argument. That's why I was looking to clarify to make sure this wasn't a character again. I'm pretty sure this is conclusion time, like this is philosophy too, rather than, you know, a POV character. And Rothko, I can try to put together all the different ideas that we've looked at today. I can bear in mind what Susan Sontag said about not intellectualizing things too much. I can remember that the process by which art gets exhibited is often a financial thing rather than an arbiter of its meaning, so I don't have to feel pressured by that. And I can also try to think about what Rothko himself might have intended or felt, not so I... That's not even a really good explanation for the art gallery thing, like it can be for this reason, so I shouldn't care about it. It's like, no, there are other reasons that we talked about the whole pressure thing. Like, it's weird that you, in your recap of that, went with the cynical art zombie stuff instead of the more personal feelings that had not to be pressured. What, being pressured into like stuff. Odd way to recap out that whole point, but... I can reconstruct his brain, but so I can see whether I can also feel those things. I'm looking for new experiences when I go to his art. I'm trying to grow and develop as a person rather than trying to get it. Seems like a... Wait, wait, wait, so you're not... How are these two distinct things? Is that not part of what getting it is is learning the interpretation of the piece and... Does this answer the question or even come close to being like the question, is art meaningless? That statement just there about like, I'm not, it's not about, I'm not trying to intellectualize it. I'm just going to experience it. It's like, what does that have to do with whether it has meaning or not? I thought that was the, why we're here. Presumably, does art... That is art's meaning to experience it. Art's meaning is to experience... So that's the answer. Art's meaning is to experience it. Art's meaning is to experience it. I can believe that's the point, at least part of the point she wants to... I mean, you know, you kind of summarize that like a lot of this, all these different metrics have loads of issues that poke holes in them to the point of throw it, not necessarily throw it all out, maybe even keep it all in and thus... Maybe there are parts of each one that have something, you know, valuable to offer. Or just like prisms, I guess. As I've been writing my play, I've had to deal with a lot of these questions and be in the room with actors as they try to interpret the characters that I have written. By the time you're watching this, rehearsals will already have started. I know that a lot of you already have tickets and I cannot wait to share the prints with you. I am so, so excited. It is a dream come true to be able to make art. And I just wanted to say thank you to all of you, basically, because without Philosophy Tube, I'd never have been able to do this. And I also wanted to make sure that even if you can't come to London and see it live, you can still experience it. So there's a streaming service called Nebula where you'll be able to watch a professional... It sounds like we're going into an ad. I was actually about to say I don't know if the video had a little dot. I guess we'll keep going. We'll give her a chance. I was wondering, in order to... So would she want us to know how she intends for the art to be interpreted or to know her intentions of the play? You know, is that what we should know? It was mentioned at one point in the video, right? It was going to be about the royal family, but it ended up being a person. So should we... That would be an interesting question to ask her, is like, do you think that I should factor in anything you said in this video all about your play? Like what I think about your play? I think she would say factor in whatever the hell you want. Right, thank you. This whole video sounds more like an exploratory. Like, here are things to think about than anything else. Of the play. Unlike YouTube, Nebula doesn't have ads or algorithms or demonetization. It's owned by the creators who work on it, like me. So it's a place where we can put the experimental unusual stuff that wouldn't work here on YouTube like my play. It might be, give her a second. And also like the behind-the-scenes documentary that the Blossom YouTube crew made last year about how this show comes together. Fans of Philosophy Tube can get a special deal on Nebula. If you sign up to Curiosity 3 using my special link, Curiosity Tube. All of our stuff is kind of pop philosophy. Well, I was gonna say, I think it even suffers from being pop philosophy. Not a month. That's kind of how pop philosophy works. It always does suffer. Well, do you think it could be done well, or at least better? Well, I don't know. A lot of philosophy people on YouTube and in the world argue that. It's why people don't like, they don't like pop scientists. And pop scientists don't like normal scientists because they're dog shit communicators, which is true. Normal scientists are dog shit communicators. Well, I would say that this video has not been the greatest example of communicating your thoughts and ideas. No, let us- Or effectively. Well, surely by the fact you're saying- Sure, the problem with pop stuff is it's usually like, it sacrifices a lot of intellectual integrity for curiosity or entertainment. So I would say that this purpose accomplishes its goals insofar as it's entertaining. And maybe it'll provoke some people to dig further, hopefully. But I mean, like, if you come away from this thing, you've got a good understanding of meaning of art, probably not a good thing. Well, because that's the thing. I'd be curious to poll your audience as to the, what if they could write a paragraph would be what they concluded from the video. I'd be interested to see what kind of answers you get. And everything on CuriosityStream, including this little documentary about what happened to Picasso's estate after he died. It's a fascinating little insight into the finances of the art world. Considering that you can get both Nebula and CuriosityStream for a year for like less than what Netflix costs a month. I think that's a pretty sweet deal. And you'll also be helping me bring my dream to life on a professional London stage. So go to curiositystream.com slash philosophy tube and sign up for the bundle today. And I will see you very, very soon at the theater. Okay, so. Oh, that's good. Oh, that was the end. Oh, all right. Well, that was a bad video. Yeah, I mean, I just, I don't know. I think that my biggest issue would just be throwing a few too many words in without defining them. Cause it makes me. Yeah, the bomb at the end about something being a waste and not good is like, whoa, that's like, you can't just drop that without an explanation. Like if things bad, if it doesn't match a particular interpretation or I still feel like the reason why is because the other interpretation was gonna be dog shit, right? That like, without the context of it, this is what it's really about is like his relationship with his grandfather. It just whatever was, if you interpreted the other way just becomes like this incoherent schizo rambling bullshit that doesn't really have as much meaning. Well, it was that the guy was interpreting that the poems were about him and that the guy was possibly in love with him or whatever. I thought it was the one with the relationship with his grandfather or something is how it was being interpreted. Well, whichever the, when you have two interpretations, cause like my concern, I thought we were sort of on the same page with this was the, as long as the references match, it's like valid and how interesting it's gonna be at that point. I just, I find that really difficult to like put on a scale. If we're gonna just be like, I don't know, is Star Wars more interesting than Lord of the Rings? It's like, I don't know. Maybe how are we ranking these? And if you want to be like, yeah, but we can tell when it's, you know, what's more interesting, I don't know, the ball rolling down a hell versus Star Wars. Like Star Wars, obviously, right? And it's like, we're going by like the individual. And then, I don't know, like it just feels really weird to say that one interpretation is just definitively better because it's more interesting. Well, I guess like, so did you guys, we all, everyone in here liked that everything ever all at once movie, right? Yeah. Yes. If you come away from that movie and you are like, it was, it was kind of like an okay superhero movie. I would say you have a dog shit interpretation in the movie, right? You kind of missed the whole point, right? Now that is a valid interpretation. Not only is it a valid interpretation, a direct reading of the movie actually gives you that. That's what it is. It's a kind of like a superhero multiverse movie. But like if that, if you walk away and that's your ultimate interpretation, man, what a bodice to them. Well, so that's kind of the point now is that, I guess is like, we would fight over what people say about movies. It seems like the conclusion that we've drawn here at the end of the video though was that like, anything can be anything, you know? Was that, I thought that was, I thought there were a lot of different things presented that like either anything and anything or like the author's intent is important or intellectualizing things are bad. I don't think this, again, I could be wrong, but I don't think the video went on to make strong statements about how you should interpret things, just that there are like a ton of different ways theoretically that you've interpreted it. The strongest part was when she said that there's some interpretations that are just good and some are bad. I don't think it was that some are bad. I think it was in reference to that particular piece of media. I think that if you're gonna- It sounded like that particular piece of media was really weird. You're gonna use that as well. If you agree that if you're gonna declare that one interpretation of even a singular piece of media is good by comparison to another, then that opens up the floodgates. There is good and bad ways to interpret media. Well, I mean, I- Anybody could agree there's probably good and bad ways to interpret media. You know, I completely agree. She did that at the end and didn't elaborate. Yeah. In a video called, Is Art Meaningless? That's absurd. Yeah. You just dropped that at the end and that's the video's over. And I feel like, no, you've just opened this up. Maybe to help you out like actually- Maybe she was doing all of this just to provoke thought in you. Well, that's my- That's the meta. This is a Rothko painting of a video. There you go. Or maybe it was the Atlas version. She just did this because she knew it would make the most money. That's probably true to some degree. Because yeah, if a lot of people can interpret their own conclusions, then it's gonna be better than if you told them too many things in stone. Well, yeah. You've given everybody something to where they can walk away. I learned something. Whereas you didn't make any like real definitive statements. And so it's the least offensive thing ever because you didn't say anybody was wrong except right at the end when you said that that interpretation was bad or like that it's worse than the other one. Yeah, just to clarify, if you pulled apart your own statement about that person having a dog shit interpretation of everything ever all at once, if they said, what do you mean by that? That like objectively I do, you'd be like, no, I just think that my point of view of the film and what it's about is way more interesting than yours. And then they go to you and then you'd be like, yeah. Then they go, oh, well, I don't care. I think what I would say is there is a plethora of media to choose from that would give you that interpretation and that if you are going into a movie like that and that's what you're walking out with, you've wasted your time watching that movie. There are a lot of other movies made for people like you that you could appreciate probably more because as a superhero movie, it kind of sucked their way better superhero movies. If you're only watching a superhero movie, you're missing like 95% of the subtext of the film or maybe an actual. I think it does better as a superhero movie than a lot of the stuff that comes out these days as well, even on that track. But I understand what you're saying. I mean, in terms of like, if I just want to watch like epic superhero shit, I'm not getting like, yeah, it's a way different type of experience, right? Yeah, that's why I would say that like, if that's your interpretation of the movie, then like, damn, what a waste of like, you just, there are a lot of... Well, I guess, watch. But like that kind of wasn't like, we didn't really talk about that much in terms of like thinking about what it is that you want to get out of something. Like we focus on, do I get it? It's like, but what about what do you want to get out of it personally? Yeah, I think that's the same question is like, do I get it? What am I getting out of this? Like, am I understanding and am I engaging with them the way that it's meant to be supposed to be? Yeah, actually, yeah, true. All right then. Is it all right? Destiny, if you want to... No, fail. If you want to get out of here, I don't blame you. Okay. Well, we do super chats next, but we usually offer that the guest can jump out. Wait, what? Fuck you, I said, but I love you. Okay, thanks for having me on, it's been fun. Stay safe, be careful, guys. You too. Yeah, you bet. Good luck with whatever it is you get up to next in life. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Be careful, man. Bye-bye. Toodaloo, see you. Bye-bye, bye. See you later. There he goes. And then there were three. Yes. And I know that even our audience would be much more interested in watching us break down Rings of Power or She-Hulk or covering a video that maybe is from MovieBob where he references me. And don't you worry, all of those are on the way, but I think it's good to get almost what you could call these like 101 videos every once in a while. We've done streams like this before, where we talk, try and talk a bit about the fundamentals. But I think we do get asked about this in the form of super chats every once in a while. We can refer to these if there are people out there who really want to know, because that was several hours of us trying to tear apart every last fundamental word that relates to all of like, well, everything's to do with art and meaning, right? Like, there's not much more we can do that, especially being laymen, because I am not a philosopher. I don't know about you guys. Thank God I'm not. Last thing. Not exactly a profession I was looking to become, but at the same time, not impressed by this philosophy, I'm assuming philosophy too, identifies as a philosopher. I don't know. Well, I think it's kind of a philosophy too, maybe. I don't know. Presumably. I expect better. Yes. The video was a little bit incoherent for me, but... Yeah, very... A lot of it was very empty. A lot of things were said, but you couldn't really pull anything useful out of it. Very unhelpful, I would say. What I find bizarre, almost, is that we end up feeling like we are kinder to the interpretation side of things than some of the videos we cover that I would expect to have even more lenient perspectives than us. Like, I don't know. It's so weird to categorize interpretations as good or bad on a scale when you're not referring to accuracy of references, just how interesting your thought is. Yeah, yeah, that's exactly. Like what are we appealing to with that core framework? I don't know. But, hey, can't be said that we never covered a video like that. I find comfort in the intellectualizing of art, but at the same time, I'm always happy to entertain... We do this every once in a while, I think. We're a scene or even a line of dialogue. It'll give off a feeling, and we're still trying to figure out what it is. That's, like, step one in the whole experience, and it's like if someone says, yeah, you don't have to intellectualize it. It's like, oh, but I won't. A lot of the time anyway. What if that's just your, you know, personal... What if that's the meaning that you pulled from it, is intellectualizing it? I suppose I consider that a positive. Are you guys ready to do some chaps? Yeah. Yeah, that sounds fun. Let me grab a drink here, actually. I don't want to hear any clanging of pots and pans. I will make sure to. I will make sure to clang and cling and flunk all the pots and pans. Watch Lost Chronologically and do a critique. That's, like, seven seasons or six. It's one of those two. My critique was it made me feel really something. Oh wait, so am I starting up, or are you still getting a drink? I'm guessing... I think that... What? No, I'm here. I'm here, I'm talking. Did you get it? People thought you were getting a drink. No, no, I was... Well, I was thinking about it, and then I checked, and you're like, oh, then you said the whole pots and pans thing, and then we got swept up in that, and now here we are. So, yep. Does this mean you are getting a drink still, or does it mean you are not getting a drink? This means that, you know what, I'm going to go ahead and do it. Well, there is another interpretation, but that would make this entire conversation a waste and bad. I will not explain to you any details regarding those very strong statements I just made. So, I'll be back in a moment. Oh my God, there's so much clanging. Don't go doing it on purpose, because we pointed it out, okay? I was going to say it doesn't really feel the same way if it's done on purpose, does it? No, it's kind of like, what's like when someone accidentally makes a bad movie, and then they kind of like, when they make their little sequel, they try to make it bad, and it's like, oh man, the beauty was in it being shit accidentally. That probably should have come up at some point. A lot of the time it's because you can tell, it's not even knowing the intentions of skidding over to trying to be bad, it's that you can just, there's something about it in the execution, because it was that, do you ever see that TV show that Tommy Wiseau made, called Neighbors, I think? I think CJ Review, that's how I know about it, but it's a different kind of awful, because I don't know if you remember right, but the room, there are production values in the room that are kind of like shocking, in terms of how inept the script and the performances are, they're still like, it's like shot on film, right? And it looks like there were people he hired who knew at least some things about how to make a movie. He spent a shit ton of money on it, as far as I remember too. Right. But yeah, that TV show is like, horrible. Yeah, you start to wonder if it was done on purpose to try and relive the glory days of people hating your work, I guess. Well, having fun with it. Yeah. Still getting his current, well, maybe we should just begin, commence. Well, yeah, okay. He hulks feet, never ceases to amaze me. All right. What do you think of Adam Driver in talks for being Dr. Doom? He's a great actor, but I don't know what it's marvellous. Adam Driver is Dr. Doom. Do you not see it? I don't know. That's one of those ones where I'm not sure. How do we feel about that? Does an idea too young? That's probably true. Then again, how old is Adam Driver now? I think he's in his late 30s, right? He's kind of older than you might expect. He has the voice for it. Yeah, I wonder if it would evoke too much Kylo Ren though, you know. Why are you right? Is this another masked villain? I don't know. I mean, you've got a lot of great choices for a lot of characters, but, you know, who knows. Mola, I want to get your thoughts down on this quickly, but what did you think of King Kong 2005 and what would you cite its main writing problem if it has any? Been way too long since I've seen it to be able to give a strong answer to that. I know obviously everyone's complaints back in the day when they were watching it was like too long or too slow. I remember the meme was just, it takes like an hour to get to Skull Island. That fact alone seemed to be enough to criticize it. But obviously now I'm thinking like if I go and watch it, I wonder if that build up to Skull Island is really good or not. I can't remember. Is it necessary? But I remember like in the film, so you got that much. Has a film ever made you weep? i.e. Shindler's List? Weep, meaning like drop a few tears but not quite cry. Is that what we would define for that? Probably like a good number of things actually. Yeah, it's not exactly an impossibility to think about what that would be. I mean, I think we've been over it before but when you get several amazingly funny jokes in a row, I can be brought to that position again as well. I've been at that point on garlic film before. Weep is a cry? I don't think this is the thing I think we've talked about before. As far as I understand how crying would be perceived I don't think I've ever cried from a movie or from a piece of entertainment. But tears popping out of them eye holes? Yes, it can happen. Yeah, definitely. I'm back. Are you looking forward to the new God of War coming out in November? Yes. I'm going to be streaming it too. Fun on the bun. I'm going to meet up with Odin, Thor, Eir, and a whole bunch of other Norse fleems. That will be good. One of the 200 Superchats is going to be ready. Love ya. So, as has been notable from the EFAP audience we've had a bit of difficulty with covering everything and we've already doubled up EFAP episodes a couple of times and then there was the thing that happened with my PC so we're just trying to find the very next slot possible we will sort them out because we didn't even manage. Last EFAPs got added on to the backlog because we ended up spending nearly 12 hours on two episodes of TV. You know how it goes but Wednesdays are going to start being catch-ups again as soon as we don't kill them because the thing is we got an EFAP episode for next Wednesday not a regular catch-up. We'll do what we can as fast as we can but when it releases on the Moogler channel it will be labeled. You'll be able to find it once it's done. I think I know what's going to happen. Illumination is not going to use the original designs they're going to use completely different characters and say it's the Mario characters. Wait, could you say that again? The Chris Pratt movie? Illumination is not going to use the original designs they're going to use completely different characters and say it's the Mario characters. Really? I don't see that. I would imagine that if you were going to make a Mario movie you would want to retain a lot of the iconography of the games. Mario at this point for the last 20 years has had a very well-defined look. Sam with Peach, Luigi, the world. I will say, if they do actually make changes like that that will probably make me hate that movie less because I can see myself despising it. Something I've realized the more that I think about it is I know that we all like to meme about Mario and everything. It's a really easy memeable because of its place in pop culture but Mario is really great and actually fairly important to me I think is something that I've been realizing more and more. A lot of my favorite games are Mario games. That's like a series that I value and I think if this film is going to be what I think it will be given who's making it I guess given the climate that we're in I could I don't know I could see myself really hating that movie if it's like trying to impart leverage more of the recognizable like Mario things they should have just it would never happen but goddamn they should have just made they should have just made a Mario movie with no dialogue or the only dialogue is like and stuff like that and actually done something unconventional like a pantomime like Mario movie or Chris Pratt No but you need your celebrity voices you need your celebrity voices you couldn't get you couldn't get Charles to reprise the character that he's been playing and who he helped define for like 35 years how long how many years 20 years no more than at least 25 26 years like a goddamn quarter of a century this man has been the voice behind Mario I guess it's a little cameos though he doesn't get to play because we can't put his name on the poster to attract people to watch a Mario movie like as if there wouldn't be a broad appeal for that I think that's what I find surprising that like there must be like this perception um that like a Mario a Mario movie wouldn't have enough broad appeal um I mean I wasn't interested until I found out Seth Rogen is Donkey Kong okay that was like the main draw for me uh Seth Rogen is Donkey Kong Jack Black is Bowser Key and Michael Key is Toad that's such a it's I still feel so parody-ish to me just so rancid that was about a year ago as well that that got announced and hey the film's coming out in April and we're getting our first trailer in like a week or two weeks I think can you imagine I'm kind of dreading it morbidly curious what they're gonna do I'm not I'm upset I think no matter what I'm gonna be upset about it it's like if someone said hey you know over over in that closet or not even over in that closet like hey you know if you open the blinds there's a dead body out there you'd be like like hmm I kind of want to see it's not something you get to see every day dead body you know they made movies about going to see dead bodies yeah might want to go check it out not because I think it'll be amazing I just feel like I have to know in that that sort of macabre sort of way that's how I feel about the trailer for this Mario movie like I'm like looking at a corpse through a window though I thought Andal had been fighting the empire since he was six years old is he six in that flashback he looks all in six he looks like he's at least ten double that age yeah in which case maybe they're referring to the fact that the empire are the ones that have colonized the planet yeah maybe who knows I have to see what they mean by all of it go on I mean like I'm happy to I'm happy to discard that rogue one stuff in service of whatever they're trying to do with the show based on what we've got at the moment you can't there would be the I'm just saying like yeah maybe it was a lie if this is going to be in the story I guess we'll see who knows I'm assuming they mean the Martian but they said the Martin is a stupid movie please watch with YMS I liked it I don't know how like much sense it makes I have not seen it so I guess yeah I was about to say what happens at the end so yeah well film's like seven years old books older than that alright I would never spoil I wouldn't spoil things just because they're seven years old you know film is kind of old I would never I would never ever never do it Han Solo is killed by his son Kylo Ren not every story has to be huge the Expanse one of the best modern shows starts on an ice hauler ship with working dudes talking working stuff these characters are beloved because they're normal people agreed I was happy that we started just real low level we'll see how it all rolls out but I'm just more interested in good characters than anything grand happening I had a grand shit happening all the time in Star Wars you know give me a janitor he's late for work I'll watch that then suddenly a Death Star laser hits him and you're like that could be a funny season if I know him really well but he eventually discover enough context if he's just a janitor on the Death Star and you're like oh no he's gonna die maybe that wouldn't be funny is DNA art can it be or was it always DNA is not art yeah we would go as far as taking a photo of it or representing it visually oh yeah if you want to make a double helix sculpture or a picture or something like that yeah that would be art but that's not DNA that's a representation of it so I guess it depends on what they're asking I mean if you're coming at this with a theistic perspective that some supernatural creature created DNA as an expression of blah blah blah blah then yeah it would be art but since there's no good evidence for that I wouldn't worry about it so yeah MGR answers the question by cutting people manually answers what question oh well next up cutting people manually do you mean when you chop people up in that game you have to do the you know hit the stick well it answers like the yeah it answers like a a mode where you like you are manually controlling the directions of the cuts maybe they're suggesting this is me really really into it but there's a response to DNA question that if you chop people up are you expressing yourself the resulting pieces of DNA would count as pieces of art I mean maybe in like the video game right like if you're doing it in a certain way because you think that it'll look cool or whatever like while you're slicing through the bad guys but I mean we can talk to many about like the ways that people express themselves right like what is the style system in a lot of our action games like Devil May Cry if not a way of expressing yourself like in taunts and things that's expressing you within a work that is itself the expression of somebody else as when you get to get in the real crazy exploration this one just says that's kind of the plot for joyride as well and this context is so in green goblin voice please say riddle me this spider-man what is 13 but also 50 wow edgy wouldn't that be some of the riddle that sounds like a riddle I didn't know that the green guy I guess he's sort of a riddle guy does he do riddles? nah yeah I don't think so that sounds like something the riddler might say philosopher of the day I've heard the name before I don't typically look into philosophers look up the video of a baby elephant painting a picture of a house it's a painting but it was trained to make those specific brush strokes would that still be art well if the requirement is self-expression as opposed to do we talk about this with like a robot if you program it to just paint the house is the robot creating art or is it your art at that point I don't know I don't think so if we're talking about something like a Roomba-esque machine I think it would you'd have to look into the way that it goes about fulfilling that task in terms of the complexity of its thought processes and I just don't know how we can do that yet well no instead of the brush stroke I tell it to make a brush stroke it's my piece of art at that point the machine is just a tool I would say so yeah if it has no will of its owner real thought process of its own and it's literally just a more complicated brush then yeah it would be your art for Destiny and Rags is there a spider web an expression of the spider could a beautiful web be art regardless of an existence of a sapien a web can be beautiful but I don't think a spider is mentally advanced enough to be able to express itself in that web the spider is purely utilitarian yeah though we can find them beautiful we recognize a sort of that can have a symmetry to them and the way they can catch the light and the dew in the morning things of that nature but as I said things can be beautiful but not art well yeah like just nature the environment a planet of star I'm not sure how this relates to anything we were talking about why MS makes a good point in this video if an artist paints a picture that is so photorealistic it doesn't make that painting a photograph Rue I mean sure but that has nothing to do with this topic I'd say I don't know how that relates to a photograph is a a specific thing and how it's made and between we compare that to a painting though the photograph and the painting can be art but they're completely different processes by definition art evokes interpretation like lyrics that resonates good art to you is something that you interpret and relate to in a positive way bad art would be you interpreting in a way that resonates badly like food that's too spicy I suppose that is one way to do that I'd be curious to that point to the person who has this sort of setup if if a piece of art reminds you of maybe the loss of a loved one is that bad or good that was kind of where I was going with this I mean are they talking about it just because you get a sensation or a feeling from something that might be unpleasant or not just not pleasant that doesn't mean it isn't art because it makes you feel a particular way on the spectrum of good to bad or pleasant to unpleasant yeah because there's plenty of art that's meant to make you feel uncomfortable plenty of art that makes you cringe or is just distasteful there's plenty of that that doesn't mean it's not art art can be defined pursuit of beauty via skill what if I do something accidentally and take a picture of it can you say that super chat one more time their definition of art is pursuit of beauty via skill I don't agree with that I don't agree it's the pursuit of beauty you can make things you might not want to express beauty yeah actual definition is like I'm not happy with what if I want to make something ugly exactly I want to the expression part sure I'm good with that's the part I generally go with but you don't have to express things that are beautiful it just so happens by the nature of what we call beauty things are much more appealing when they're beautiful so we tend to want to make beautiful things with our art it's not the norm for pretty clear and understandable reasons why we don't make things that are distasteful and disgusting and that turn you off from them but you can if you want and that doesn't make it less art art isn't just creation or beauty it requires intent and expertise at the medium ooh expertise yeah I don't agree with the expertise because without going too deep into a discussion of expertise I think we'll use it generally just to mean a high level of skill or knowledge what does that mean expertise a child just crayon drawing is art and a child doesn't have expertise in anything they haven't had the time to have expertise in anything so they don't need expertise but it's again it's like the beauty thing where a lot of the times people will pick up expertise because they have an interest or a goal and so they become better and better as they practice and they do it more and more or they have a natural talent that they you know will use in their expression and that comes across as expertise but it's like you don't have to have a high level of skill but often of course if you have a high level of skill or something with that relevant skill it will be to a lot of people more impressive or more impactful yeah is beauty the same as art? like would natural beauty be considered art or just a natural beauty? I would argue it's art but only because God created it with intention well so that you say that so nature is art because God created it I guess we kind of covered that already with what you said earlier so if we pause it for if we assume that there is a deity of some kind that created the universe is everything art then? yes it would be every single thing it would depend on the theology of it but if you believe that for instance if you're a deistic if you're a deist and you think that a god like kick started everything and then fucked off the things that they created are the art once you start introducing other minds into it unless they're unless they're predetermined to do certain things that's the thing predeterminism actually comes in to play here because if you are a god and you have everything planned you have your will everything will happen according to your will there's no way for anything to happen otherwise and you create the world knowing everything that will happen beforehand then literally everything is going to be essentially your fault and so it will be your art and your expression of whatever it is however if you don't have a predeterministic universe under this theology then once you introduce minds sufficiently capable minds into the picture then the art is theirs it's not yours at that point yeah because at a certain point depending on your viewpoint it would be that if I painted something it's like that's god's work not mine yeah if you think a lot of people credit god for all kinds of different things but again it depends on how you view your particular theology yeah which is a complex question for a lot of people who especially who don't particularly think that deeply about it but yeah if you don't think that you know it depends on the theology and the framework of it how much you can give credit to this deity for or deities this might be covered but have you looked into aestheticism there are naturally occurring structures that are universally preferred like symmetry however it is the human mind that attributes any metaphysical value well I mean of course right it's always going to be a human's perception yeah we're a fan of symmetry yeah it's not universally though no sorry I I mean I think you would have played in a lot of these universally in like enough that it gets real close to being basically everybody I'm just commenting on the fact that like it comes in with like when we rate beauty oftentimes symmetry is like a big ol boy with that yeah and like the kind of symmetry and architecture beautiful one of the things yeah but no I haven't looked into aestheticism is art a noun for a physical object or a concept is art the expression of the artist or the interpretation of the viewer I think is art a what or a what can you say the last bits well I think you've answered this before your take is the art is the in the creation not in the in the viewing yeah that's basically the question which I I believe you can consider this a part two of our discussion that we had with John and Dumar this is like a further down the road still absent humans can the universe still create art your response as long as this is some kind is absent of humans can there still be art yeah which you said yes if there is a being was absence humans can the universe create art or can art be created the universe creating art I wouldn't I created that's what I'm saying I thought we already we already kind of yeah yeah eventually if it wasn't us it would be something else that evolved this to this level if yeah because that must be what they mean otherwise because can the universe create art they must be referring to just that's a whole lot of questions yeah because the universe isn't an agent so like no at least yeah that's from our point of view yeah it can produce agents though so that's interesting to think about usually just finished breaking bad could you do mics all you have to do is cook speech but make it about ryan johnson making Star Wars I could I don't know that I want to well all right I'm so sorry I would rather your folks rather I'm rather comfy talking about art right sorry what if you paint a painting but store it in a room that has no light you can't perceive what the painting is because color requires light assuming that there's no texture to the painting yeah color doesn't exist if there's not someone perceiving it which for humans and requires photons we have to have light to perceive color as far as I know so that point black room then there is there is no color it's just not it's not happening right colorism yeah it's an interpretation of wavelengths as of light as they bounce off of objects so you need those things what if the only person around the tree was deaf and the vibrations would still yeah yeah that's why I check the definitions because sound isn't you can have sound of course without people to hear it it is you know it's the definition that I gave which I which I'm going to be going with this unless someone you handle that really well because you said that if we defining sound as yeah the humans perception of sound waves or whatever then I suppose the conclusion it's how I've always understood the difference between light and sound sounds a physical thing in the world but light isn't it's an interpretation of a brain or a brain's interpretation of yeah okay of wavelengths hitting retinas and that whole process isn't like don't we take everything in back upside down and the brain flips it yes that is my understanding it's crazy that is pretty crazy exactly the same as sound rack no I literally color is not a physical thing color is an interpretation that our brains make because humans are very very similar in terms of their brains that's why the vast majority of humans could agree on what colors are what that's why we have some people are color blind color blind people are the odd ones out yeah well that's what I'm saying it's like even among similarities that's why we're able to tell color blind people what colors they can't see right because there's so much like it's you can you don't have to experience color to be able to know the differences between colors that you can't see we can prove to people who are color blind that there are colors they cannot see there are ways to do it you could bring someone into a room who is color blind and you can convince them that there are different color like the walls are different colors by bringing in a whole bunch of people and getting them to make independent observations and then pulling all of their observations together and then telling the color blind person and you can prove to them that colors are real and they're just missing out on them or they're having different colors like it's different than it's different than sound right what colors do you see right go name them all well start with blue I see all I see many colors it is a misconception that I cannot see many colors because it's a racial stereotype but you know it's fine it's no it's no big deal I see many colors light and sound are both physical no no no no no light is not color light is not color sound is a physical thing it's physical vibrations in the air that's caused by energy and all that stuff light is not color you're wrong to think that color is a shared hallucination sort of it's a shared phenomenon and interpretation I wouldn't say it's not a hallucination well I mean if we're gonna say that it's a hallucination at some point yeah because you know what do we because we link the colors with what we're looking at it's it's not a hallucination because we know like we have if you want to make something of a certain color then you mix particular things together you're not hallucinating the color as the light bounces off of them and enters your your eye and then to your brain you are specifically linking this thing to this thing there's a grounding in reality that it has that can't really that that can't be dismissed like yeah it's subjective in a way but it's based off of something that's very real this entire intro is just softism I disagree let me double check like evil yeah depends not ours our conversation wasn't softism you'd have to you'd have to be specific as to what was Sophistic I wouldn't even claim that about anything philosophy to have said so I just disagree entirely there's a difference between Sophistry and being wrong or being vague or being yeah it was just a bad video it wasn't I don't think it was meant to deceive it just I think incidentally confused the way that described that video is just that it's um the reality is if you really want to have the conversation about whether art is meaningless it's gonna take a lot longer than that you need to define your terms very clearly and you need to try and run all of the topics that you're going to to their real logical conclusions rather than just kind of abruptly stopping before we conclude anything yeah because I think that there's probably some conclusions that are worth drawing because just seems like everybody does operate with some sort of system qualitatively for art and pretending that you that that isn't happening doesn't seem uh productive because because at the end of the day like if at the end of the video it's like oh you know maybe just feel it out it's like yes but as you say that you will fight with people over your perspective on art you will you you inevitably will there's a lot of people who think art is like purely subjective and then they may well fight about it yeah yeah absolutely throw out without even thinking it that the room is a bad movie and it's not it doesn't even need to be discussed I know you know we all know but art's totally subjective just jumped in you discussed the new art generating AI that's really good popping up recently in its implications for our going forward um uh no we haven't I don't think we did no and it's complicated that one because I think intuitively if you like it's not art when it's made by robot but then again it's like all of the stuff that went into creating the code behind the thing that's generating the art might be able to make it qualify right you think so yeah maybe maybe but what if it is done by algorithm of well what the the dali mini thing was is where it'll like it's just like a learning algorithm in terms of what words connect to what imagery and then it just creates approximations based on like all the entries put together and whether or not people are approving or disproving until it just starts generating all the people like holy shit that's like accurate is that art or is that someone else not sure we someone says that if basically if um if someone doesn't have functioning eyes then you can't convince them of the reality of sight that's an incredibly dumb do you think all blind people in the world don't think anyone else can see either just because you can't fully appreciate something doesn't mean that you can't understand like the existence of something like a phenomenon well i can't well it's it you can't see just because you don't have a just because you don't have that sense that doesn't mean that you can't convince those people that you have that sense that's a line to you or something that we just go back to the whole like how do i know anybody is real but me it exists yes you know are they talking about conceptualizing it like when you haven't experienced something like that it's almost impossible to translate what it's like to you they say if one does not have the necessary receivers for the data of light and sound functioning eyes and ears and there's nothing you can do to convince them of the reality of sight and sound which is just flat out insane because the implication is that no blind person can be convinced that normal people can see and people who are colorblind i've been convinced i mean yeah well i mean we can talk about light i can't see ultra violet i can't see it the only way that i can see it is when it's represented in the visible color spectrum but it exactly and i know it exists same with infrared because i can understand the effects of these things even if i can't see it i mean yeah um yeah i guess yeah i don't know if it's applicable but you know like oxygen particles like i'm pretty sure they're real i can't see them i guess if i had a microscope whatever you have an angular size is way too small yeah well i mean the uv light in the infrared that's the example for i guess for us as quote-unquote normal humans yeah like i don't know what humans i don't know what it would look like to see an ultraviolet light like i don't know what that in in much the same way that i don't know what it means to be like to hear in the same way that a dog does with the frequencies they can perceive but i know that they can do that yeah because i could prove to you that i could hear those if you did a test where you arrange these things to be given to me and i could identify them then you'd be like oh clearly this this dog can hear these frequencies even though we can't it's responding to them in a 100 accurate way and it seems to be able to hear them um i was just thinking of how i would even try and approach that like if someone was blind they had no concept of seeing well how would i begin trying to explain what the phenomenon of seeing is yes so is it how go ahead just every every sentence i think to start i'm like i'd have to explain what it is like you know you currently see nothing right like what do you mean i see nothing i i would explain sight to a blind person as the ability to perceive objects and details at a distance because they can still imagine and picture things in their head imagine you were touching it with really really long invisible arms kind of that might be the way i i i've never had to do this yeah but i would imagine that would be a way to explain to the like and that we have we have like an invisible we have like a million invisible arms that are constantly touching everything from a long way away and we could perceive those things far before they are close to us that's kind of i suppose how i would put it into a perspective they could understand assuming that it was a creepy bastard yeah kind of it's like a tilde so how the guy said how the fuck is that insane what's insane is believing things because people tell you to trust me bro well as i said it's not it's not a trust me bro thing you can do it's not like we tell people who are disabled in terms of their blindness or color blindness or deafness trust us there's just all of these things it's like we we can show them that we have a civilization that's based around these senses and that you are an outlier from that norm and we're making affordances for you it's like i said with a colorblind thing if you brought someone in to a room who was colorblind and then you could bring in a whole bunch of other people and they could come to an agreement on what color is what independently and then let that colorblind person know so the colorblind person would know that there is some detail that they're just not privy to because of that disability that everyone else seems to be able to grasp and the same thing the blindness part like obviously there are people it's not just a trust me i could see and you can't it's like do you feel these organs on your thing yeah they you notice how for us it does this and like we built a whole civilization around it you think we did all the all the stuff that you're touching feeling experiencing like we did this because we have you know sight we can perceive objects distances it's not a just trust me bro it's an incredible it's an incredible method with you that you can use experiments for by the way my current avatar is from an AI generation how suitable that is very that's that's quite a that's quite an image it's it's kind of spooky hmm he's scary he's gonna you look like you remind me of Jinzo but rags is it art the AI generated one no Jinzo is though I would have thought you'd want to always a card I wanted qualifying question rather than saying no oh because I don't think that I don't think we have an AI that's sufficiently advanced enough to do more than like more I don't think it's at that level yet but if say for example I fed 10,000 pictures into a machine and then told it to will them all up and create something out of it on my end code wise and then it comes out with that is the machine still not just a tool in which that I'm using to create a piece of art if it's literally just following the code that you made for it then it wouldn't be art there would have to be some sort of sufficiently um capable input from it that was personal to it in a way that I don't think we have developed yet I could be wrong I could see how you're out you're out it's the AI's artwork I agree with that but how you're ruling out that it's the person who made the AI's artwork oh that's it oh I didn't know that's what you're talking about I probably think so in a way like it sort of makes this autonomous process that uses this code to create art how now how how much do I give credit to the original creator for the art that comes out as a result to result of it I don't know if I'd give them the much artistic credit so much as like expertise credit if that makes sense like if um someone who made an algorithm that could produce this image or code that would produce this image I'd say wow I would be I would not be impressed with their artistic skill I would be impressed with their like coding and technical skills I think that's fair whereas if we go back to the God example right God knows the the output of every single thing that will ever happen and knows it beforehand and does it so you could you know that would be a little bit different than that sort of a throw it to the wolves kind of element to the coding aspect of you know whatever you put in you might get out something crazy it'll abide by this code structure and formula but there's so many different combinations of objects and things that you know who knows are virtually uncountable fun fact mantis shrimp can see 12 channels of light by rags hello hey almost missed the show found out that don't hug me I'm scared released and had to binge hello more hello rags good day for me and guest hello to you hey well I'm surprised they actually did get a full on show for don't hug me I'm curious what the season would be about in totality but hey I'll wait for someone to recommend at fist I'm at the gym while listening to this getting gains both physical and mental I love conversations like this well I'm super glad that anybody would have found it engaging or enjoyable it's very outside of what we usually do I find these episodes but it's still kind of important and a lot of this stuff is running in the background of everything we end up saying on breakdown things it's nice to know that everyone so well we just know throw it out and see if the three of us less guests or not no fishing around in this see if there's anything else we can poke at it goes rags how would you prove to a blind person that you were a dog I mean if they were if they were close by they could feel me and they could be like oh you are clearly a different creature than I am you are you're clearly a much higher evolved form of life but if they weren't with me I don't know that that's interesting if I had to if I had to to my best of my abilities proved to someone who wasn't here how am I a dog if they couldn't see I assume I could you could arrange a test if I had some other people but alone it might be pretty pretty difficult for me to do that devil fruit of the week the barabara fruit which allows the user to split their body into pieces and control them users also immune to slashing attacks would you eat the fruit you can no longer swim if you do these um yes I would if I could split my body into other smaller like like the two smaller rags pops out of me because if I had to give up swimming for that I think I would I think I could put that meant like you could have your hand come off and it'll float around do whatever you want that will oh that could still be really useful it's definitely useful like if you wanted to if you wanted to eavesdrop you could leave your ear somewhere I call come back and get to see you later no one knows what I'll hear over there in that room I could be really sneaky I could leave it you know or maybe you could take an eye right take your eye and you could put it someplace angle it right and you could you could have a you know you could be looking at some something going on over there somewhere a little spy I a little spy ball so to speak I could be nifty I know I don't know why I went instantly to like methods of espionage for this power however I it would be fun like I need to I want to get up but I don't want to get up I'll just have my arm float around over there and grab it real quick for me yeah could be fun so the problem with the role of these is that I don't go swimming that often so it's never that much of a sacrifice I'm just like okay oh yeah I haven't I can't remember the last time I actually swum it's been ages oh what you could do maybe if you were tired right you could put you could take your head off and you could put your head in bed tuck your head in to that capacity that was possible and you could just you could sleep while your body was maybe like exercising and stuff maybe you could do that yeah I think so I could wear yeah you could be holding on to something so you don't lose your balance or you know something like that because you're sleeping but you're you could like do you know push-ups and sit-ups and some stuff like that or you know oh if you if you wanted to keep no no let's just carry on AI generated images art they sure look the part I don't think in their current form though I could be wrong based off of you know I'm no I'm no big it's gonna depend on the on the form right because there's all different kinds if if from Star Trek when he makes a painting I'm like that's art that's data expressing himself right but if I see an AI generated you know Elmo with the Nuremberg trials then like that's not I wouldn't consider that art even it could be if it can be super funny and it potentially beautiful I don't think that's art for me it's just about the form of creation in it is this something a little a little weird about like how if it was like if it is a billion drawings are thrown into a machine you ask it to blend them up and poop something out I don't even know what that is exactly yeah it's I mean is is a smoothie art if you throw all of the if you throw all the ingredients in a blender and you blend it and they take it out is that art is like well you're an agent you created it but is it you know how you know now if you use that smoothie to make a painting with it right you use your paint smoothie or something like that's where it gets really complicated that's the kind of stuff you get into where it gets really really complicated but I don't know it's I don't know it's strange yeah something like that is it's that weird sort of well you did make it you are a sufficiently capable agent did you make it for the purpose of you know expression or is there anything about you that you put into it subconsciously or even consciously that would make it an expression of who you are or is it just you put it in a machine hit the button and then oh it's because some smoothies look lovely they have a texture of them and they look delicious and appetizing and might have a good color but it's its own thing I remember Shelley D uses the tree to make sorry uses the tree makes a sound analogy to prove that criticism is not objective he talked about how he hated your TFA video I don't care he hates the TFA videos I don't know man that's already like a red flag it wouldn't I've never understood this whole like completely dismissing everything I do in all of those videos based solely on the fact that it's like you could never call any of this objective I'd be like even still remove that and as far as I'm concerned like 99.99999 of the craft is still in there and the usefulness of what's discussed in the video all you need to do is think of it as a video that breaks it down in terms of causing effect the film approach don't watch it or actually do something to disprove it yeah that would be neat too if the process is happening in the video and you say well that process doesn't exist it's like I don't know man I'm going to believe the video that shows the process happening and I've always been bored by people who are like it's not objective because they've never been able to replicate my argument for it anyway I say mine as if it's not like I'm pretty sure you guys would share it's like you've never even known what's being said they'll just go as far as treating it as though it's me saying my opinions are better than yours that's it yeah that happens all the time that's what they all do they never actually watch it and engage with arguments the closest we get we're lucky to get them taking a quote out of context because like well at least you got the quote that's further than for the most people get I hear the guy from Iron Giant it's art which guy has a lot of guys from Iron Giant I guess the guy called art right is that his first name is that the joke the protagonist damn he's got a Hogarth is the name of the protagonist yeah Hogarth exactly well I didn't they said the guy I don't know if the like the good uh I don't know was anyone in Iron Giant called art because art is a name right it is a name um they call him art for short his full name is Hogarth maybe I don't remember I haven't seen him so Hogarth Hogarth right or is it Hogarth wait oh no now I don't know Hogarth H-O-G-A-R-T-H yeah I won't say Hogarth Hughes hmmm how would you differentiate art that is designed by groups of people expensive movies, video games or even books that are proofed by other people from individual artworks I would group it it's just a collaborative process doesn't necessarily take away from the fact it's little bits of expression from all kinds of different people I mean still I guess you'd say like the film has a shit ton of artists working collectively but then if you the more you break it down and figure out who's responsible for individual parts until you get down to like the literal individual pieces yeah I wouldn't say that the the CGI you know artists you know that their art is the same as the art of the script and the you know the costume stuff like that's everyone's responsible for their own parts one could say that life itself is art the fact that atoms could organize themselves in a way to react to their surroundings is amazing um so one of the issues is that we're not as far as we know it's very likely that it couldn't have possibly happened to any other way that it's an inevitability of the processes that seem to be reality and again if these are natural processes then there's not an agent that's involved it's not an expression from any thing from any agent so it wouldn't be art considering destiny is here do you guys have any takes on starcraft 2's story I don't I've played through wings of liberty and I've played mostly through heart of the swarm I need to go back finish it and then do legacy of the void it's on my to-do list I don't remember too much about the story it seems to be just here's some reasons why you go on all these missions it's I think it's that kind of a story I never felt really strongly or deeply about any of the characters um I just am a casual player of it here and there um that never grabbed me it was it it felt like just one of those video game plots of here's why you're here now here's why you're here now here's why you're here and there's some general sort of thread that goes through it but um I'm not gonna speak strongly about it either way Lord Longbong of Mutlington Abbey is there any good chance for Kongfab Peter Jackson's Longkong there's less going on movie fap for the ages p.s. hello wagsies creatures with a good oh thank you very much we would just not this month we're busy that Kong Kong boy recently and there's another suit which I mentioned it yeah not gonna be this month not gonna be the following month but who knows maybe in the future at some point it's just a lot of who knows would Kong be be related to Halloween in any way the monsters universe I'm assuming it's more when is it when is the time of year for Kong is there is he all year is that Kong he's just a maybe kind of guy as far as we know a couple hundred years ago the earth was flat no we've known that we've known that earth was a sphere for a hundred like like cheese that I think the ancient I I don't because this loads of ways to discover the earth is not flat it was required and lost and it dependent on which societies what's talking about as well it's been let's see how long have humans you know the earth is it's a bit round for Google I mean we have the Aristoteles and that was ages ago ancient Greek let's see third century BC Hellenistic astronomy established the roughly spherical shape of the earth as a physical fact and calculated the earth's circumference and I think they did it within like 10% accuracy they were pretty damn close considering their knowledge levels and ability to you know make calculations and stuff that's pretty fucking impressive let's see yeah we've known for a long ass time I mean in 1492 when Columbus was sailing he knew the earth was round he was trying to find a way to India that's true of Columbus right as he was getting on the boat and one more thing the world isn't flat right we're not going to fall off the edge like no no no no keep going around the edge you'll get to India you see if you keep going around you'll circle back you'll have someone in the front of the boat keeping an eye and the second you see the edge you'll be like whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa go back go back yeah we've absolutely known for a long time to say Eddie Carr gave his life to save his team is an understatement so much heroism only gets his throwaway line what an upset this is the lost world guy that's true very true very upsetting sad just got home from a wedding my youtube app randomly decided to start playing efap200 during the speech portion of the evening screw me i guess oh so your phone started playing efap200 while there was a speech happening at a wedding how does your phone do that it just randomly starts opening of how does that happen that's weird that's a that's a dick phone right there that phone's fucking with you it's a strange phone was a dick it would have played far worse it would have started playing some weird shit i guess we're weird shit i suppose we're just used to our weirdness mm-hmm um british lindsay alley over there british lindsay alice over here calling me a lesbo i wasn't clear on the lesbian jokes really um it was like yeah something lesbian every time just like alrighty we could definitely work a bit harder on our humor if i were alone in a room with a red painting i would add a green dot in the middle of the painting to mess with people oh dude you can't do that that would be vandalism that would be vandalism and i do not support it even if i think the painting is funny in terms of whatever the hell is going on there i don't like the idea of destroying it or changing it in any way you know you know it is what it is which is something i don't like to say but i just said this just has a thumbs up thank you oh thumbs up to you right back at ya which would you guys rather have telekinesis you can only lift one ton or teleportation but you only get six charges a day telekinesis teleportation scares me we talked about that before yeah we did if teleportation is portals yeah if it's like portals then i'll take the teleportation if it's like i have to cease existing something that like scatters my atoms or something like that and then reforms them so i like die i don't want it yeah it depends on the method of the teleportation so i would actually opt for the portals out of a i don't think i'd be able to live with myself if i went with telekinesis because i'd be like i can really make this world a better place with the portals i would actually you'd have to decide if you let the government know about this power of yours it's unclear what will happen to you but you will be able to change this world for the better significantly by in all kinds of ways by opening portals and stuff we talked about it before this is doctor strangest problem portals are incredible as a power imagine introducing portals and then saying you can open as many as you want any size you want you can move them when they're opened you can open more than one at once and also have basically anybody do it like wow just the portal alone was bad enough in terms of having us control it but you just added all of that too oh yeah by the way you can also accidentally open a portal to a demon world and destroy the earth afternoon okay great art is objective the difference between art vs propaganda is one is done for its own sake the other holy for the sake of others prop must be propaganda must be artful but has no definition propaganda does have a definition well it says def dot I'm not sure what def what else would that be fine or if it's categorized as art um I'm not sure what to make of that entirely I'm gonna be honest with you the problem is a lot of things get cold propaganda well people fight over whether something should be categorized as propaganda the let's see Oxford definition is information especially of a biased or misleading nature used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or a point of view so yeah that definitely there's nothing about that that insist that that would lead to believe that they're different than art we've seen some people call rings of power propaganda so it's like it's something that's what for that it has well as you just read out like it'll have it'll have a point of view and it's trying to push it but the thing is like a lot of stories do you know is is bio shock propaganda guess someone could say that it is but not under the I mean it might technically be going under the definition we read but there's that especially you know misleading or biased aspect of it that typically is what people focus in on and what comes to mind when they hear propaganda we think about posters that you know I mean especially about World War I World War II and even before then you know portraying your enemies in a certain way that you know that every country did to you know drum up people to enlist and to buy war bonds and you know freedom gardens and things of that nature I mean like you could say that you could say that you know Rosie the Riveter is propaganda but I don't think anyone thinks negatively of that I certainly don't but it's not no one would call it propaganda really it just doesn't seem to fit that the semi malicious stuff the especially you know biased or by the way that tied in nicely with bio shock because the big daddy's holding rivet guns are called rosies yes that's right absolutely it's a good yeah I never yeah I never put that together it's interesting I like it could a function of an object add to the artistic value of the object if the functionality was exceptionally desirable say that one more time I want to make sure I get it could a function of an object add to the artistic value of the object if the functionality was exceptionally desirable um so sometimes this might have been about the bridge conversation probably it can be an emergent property of a particular functions efficiency that it is aesthetically appealing or matches with a sort of expression that the artist wants to give if you were to tell if you took a classroom full of preschoolers and told them to draw a bridge over a over a gap then it's very very possible that some of the preschoolers would it just so happens build a very efficient kind of bridge that also was just because they don't know anything about engineering or physics they'll just sort of draw bridges and whatnot and to their liking aesthetically and they happen to match and just because of the functionality it's not like it's a zero some you know bar where as the functionality goes one way the art has to go the opposite way like a mesh just fine um but a lot of the times it does seem that the most aesthetically pleasing thing is not necessarily the thing that conforms to the reality of the world in terms of physics and structure I was thinking when they said this that take like I'm gonna bring in my really really sharp sword I've designed it to look really cool but the main thing is that it's really really sharp and then you have like a little steel cube and you just go and it slices right through it the fact that it does that to everyone they just like whoa and it like almost makes them appreciate it more as a piece of artwork that it's so impressive on its functionality I assume that's what it was referencing kind of um maybe maybe I will hopefully both of our answers has given them something to consider or has given them a sufficient you know response um why can't function be the art I get way more for sorry I get way more feeling seeing a telescope looking at the stars for watching a crazy chemical process than I do from looking at only red paint on a canvas can natural process be art like clouds now now that I'm thinking actually like food could have been an interesting example of something that has a utility right which is that it provides you like nutrients and sustenance but like is that really the primary like when somebody's making food is at the forefront of their mind necessarily it's nutritional value or might it be like how it looks and what it's going to taste like is that artistic expression as a chef and artist I feel like the answer has an interesting point is improving taste but not changing the nutritional value is that an expression of exactly I guess it's the difference of raw food like a banana as you pull it off of a tree well I guess a banana is not the best example but like if you pick a berry off of a bush like that berry isn't art but the way that you make it into a food in a dish that is art I mean the presentation of dishes is very important it's a very important thing you can have it's a whole massive industry for our civilization is restaurants and you know you're presenting food as something that's to be savored and it's in its aesthetic before you get to eat it some foods are so darn good looking that they almost it's almost a shame that you have to destroy it in order to turn it into poo that is weird it's like that was such a delicious incredible meal and it looked absolutely gorgeous I'm going to turn it into a sticky brown gross smelling thing I'm actually going to turn it into my toilet later when you run up to that red canvas and vandalize it it's like the true vandalization is when we take a beautiful meal and turn it into shit that is the literal turning something into shit but yeah the thing I was saying why banana isn't the best example is because bananas as we know them are engineered to be the way that they are if you went out into the woods and you found a banana tree and you pulled the banana off that sucker that would not be what you would probably recognize as a typical banana the big the big old yellow bananas that we've got they are not natural form many fruits many of the things we eat yeah it applies to lots of fruits when you pluck a potato from a tree it's like oh that's not looking quite right no scenario actually doesn't see broccoli is a human invention there's plenty of foods that are cross breeds and you know like corn is essentially one of them too or maize you know are beauty and art the same thing if you can find beauty in the function of something can that also be considered art finding beauty in the function of something doesn't make it art it's just it's one of those things that we can recognize as being something that we typically call artistic in general well the sake of frags like when you give these answers the main intention with trying to get here's the art remains a meaningful category because if there's an unraveling that happens if you say that anything because we did talked about this we were like there's this intuitive thing that a lot of people feel when they look at a really long big old landscape in real life and you go ah gorgeous I think people are very tempted to be like this is art and it's like what you what you mean to say is that man that's really pretty because art needs to remain yeah a little bit more specific and categorized than that otherwise everything pretty much everything is art at that point yeah I guess what I'm trying to argue is you're not gatekeeping for any other reason than trying to maintain functionality this is what I was saying about intention or interpretation philosophy to like opened it up so hard that I was like we've just killed that word it's not worth anything anymore oh so we're good Disney movies are made only to make money so they're not art we can critique them without destroying art I think you could say that those films are made only because it's probably people there's so many people are part of it yeah we're making it yeah yeah who value it I was actually almost the saddest part of looking at the behind the scenes stuff is whenever they were like oh here's the stunt guys and then they talk forever about all the work they're putting in and yeah like are you guys you're doing great you're doing great it's not in service of this garbage the last bridge I saw with form was prioritized over function collapsed because it before it was finished yeah I don't know of any bridge building that prioritizes form over function I imagine you need to nail function otherwise yeah you're in trouble but it's just I just I hate it when people are like unlike a painting when you make a car it's to make sure it works there's no artistry and she's like it's even like you know like making a watch or something it's like that's to tell time that this was obviously explicitly function this is artistry watchmakers want pretty that's another good example as well right the watch has to work but like how it looks damn gotta wish these came to mind when the topic came up I think we brought up a lot of honorable ones I'm an engineer and an artist and she is wrong you draft engineering in the same way you draft a novel thumbnail sketch and painting good art and good engineering are both planned then execute on I really feel like we were we were more on point than and there's it was on that particular subject I really feel like when tried to draw the distinction between architecture architecture versus art architecture in particular seems like a bad choice because I understand architecture emphasizes pretty heavily the aesthetics of the things you're creating compared to I guess engineering um yeah they both go together that's like the whole that's the whole craft of architecture you have to make something that stands up and looks nice like you that there is a prioritization on something that is aesthetically pleasing whereas I imagine that for certain fields of engineering the most important thing is like does this work you can figure out what's pretty or not like later on and I think that's what kept happening was like yes but you understand what she's saying is that there's when you have things that focus more so on function versus the expression it's like yeah but this is a really bad example and a really bad way of saying it there was a lot of bad examples used in that if I could say I just I think if you got a hundred people who watched that video and asked them what they felt it'd just be like you just I just I think I think you've got so many different answers yeah it's not a well put together video it's not communicated well unless of course if it was only designed to make people think for themselves which is like I feel like even then you could have made people think more effectively yeah there was never this element of why do you like certain poems or plays or movies more than others have you ever thought about that because a lot of people probably haven't you know it's just they just know that they like things more but they never really think about the why what are the elements that you really like to see how come a character death in one film you like in a character death in another film you don't like really legitimately think about that take a moment there was never that sort of I never got that encouragement to be pensive no what are you two's figure coming soon that's the like little plastic figurine ones that a lot of youtubers get done I'm not sure there's no plans but I mean it sounds like it could be neat should you guys EFAT movies transform as one through five here's a drinking game take a shot every time Sheila Booth screams Optimus or Bumblebee dead that would sound like a wee kind of fun because I know that he says it a whole budge but I don't know how much he does actually do it so he screams a lot Optimus Bumblebee Bumblebee he does a lot of screaming in general does he um get like an exit in that franchise I think his story just ends and then it's Mark Wahlberg shows up for the next one concept cars really look like the production car well yeah I mean the reality is that even in these places where your form is more important than where your form comes first the the this is why it's such a terrible example because there's change in the process I know what you intended to mean but your example sucks it would be like if someone said you know um you can't really say narrative is the same in games and books because books get planned out ahead while games are going to be changing because of the mechanics involved with the gameplay I'd be like why would you say that it's not even true it's so it sounds like something someone might say but it's just like you didn't think about that for five seconds did you exactly I know what you're probably trying to get at but again it's on you to communicate this effectively to me especially in the video right especially if you're a philosopher too like what good is being a philosopher like you have to do so much leg work to understand what what they're trying to say is the onus on the artist to communicate coherently or on the audience to discern meaning I would argue both in a way to some extent I think naturally inevitably you know so if we say coherent communication is two parts it's the delivery of the message and the understanding of the message then yeah I guess like we can't really say anything else isn't it that that is what it is well I mean as an example right if people don't understand play matter that's that's their problem or so then that shows I would say based on what the show is about and how it communicates its message right that was really difficult to prove because yeah I know I know a metric we've off the rule of thumb we've often gone by is like so a recent example would be you must accept that you failed in the last of us to write because and TLJ these are two projects that had a very specific idea but the fan base is exploded there's a huge split and half of the fan bases on both of those either didn't understand the point you're trying to make or felt you had failed miserably at it the fact that that many people exist on earth who feel that way fully means something and then of course if I am to maintain that then I'd have to maintain that the amount of people who came away from play matter being like what the fuck was that that wasn't even scary does that mean it was my clan against fucked up in some way I don't know I'm not sure it's because of course they should be like there's going to be a lot of people who maybe watch Lord the Rings and thought like I didn't understand what the point of that was like a mess and I just be like you know I don't think it's Lord the Rings is fault though I don't think yeah I think we would have to go case by case because obviously with TLJ and the last of us to we would argue very hardcore that it's the incoherent writing that caused the communication problem meanwhile in Bly Manor it could be that it was marketing that did it don't know because we got the experience I think my clan was hoping for the audience to have so it's hard to think about the POV of not having that happen but yeah that's a whole subject on its own philosophy tubes videos always come across as excuses for her to dress up needlessly in needlessly expensive sets 12 grand a month minimum for this long little bit that the production yeah I just didn't add really anything meaningful whatsoever to have all the costumes and all the art stuff in there he's like you need to focus on writing better before you start playing dress up maybe I would appreciate the dressing up more if I felt that it was better accentuating the script choices instead of sort of yeah because like when you think the script is terrible you might just see those clothing choices and just be like this is just to distract me from the fact that the video's got nothing substantive to say isn't it or something like that I've always, isn't it just like she copied Contra points as well at least a lot of people have that as a theory I'm pretty sure the timeline fits but you know inspiration versus rip off it's a whole thing that's a whole other subject I'm doing some redrafting I need a bit of general advice if you want to significantly expand on some events and character developments that take place prior to your current story would you prefer a splitting the current project into two and writing the new stuff as its own project or by adding the new stuff into the beginning of the current project and reworking the plot to avoid pacing issues surely will depend on how much there is of this thing that is big enough to be its own project then I suppose that might be the the correct choice but if it's enough to be a flashback slash prolog then I suppose that'll work really going to be on you to see how coherently it can mesh if you can test both and see what you think works better does anything else you guys have anything to add to that yeah that's my sorted please watch cyberpunk edge runners not perfect but above any other show of 2022 subjectively I liked edge runners more than arcane I can't believe I just wrote that interesting I keep hearing about it not quite as much as I heard about arcane but it's getting there Mola what have you been using to make clips infinitely loop recently on stream that is VLC player and then there's the A B repeat option just hit A let it play hit B and then it'll go boom boom boom forever that sentence involving tim pools answers the question what is a leftist dog whistle one thing I'm here for the art stuff not the tim I don't even know what it meant really it was like a hypothetical that tim pool would come up with or something a story that where you I'm fine at entertaining that hypothetical I don't well so am I I'm totally fine with that idea I think it's interesting it feels weird when it's like I'm still in the back of my mind thinking about the whole like you know isn't it disgusting they came up with that defense but then as the thing goes on it sounds like it could actually been valid and it's like well then what was the guy doing the whole time wouldn't he have said it was and then we would have looked at it was it his word against hers and if that's the case in the story it sounds weird that everyone agreed that it was just wrong like he was wrong what was the evidence like it all get flipped what was happening in this story I don't know I'm curious because I saw some people were just like well why don't you just go read it then I was like well I can't right now I've only just found out about it I've got shit to do I was just curious, debit great art is horses by tacos Bukowski alright stop saying intellectual it's interlocutal that's true I should say that more often I've changed the question choose either teleportation but limited to how much you can sprint or telekinesis but limited to how much you can lift this is going to get tougher to answer now because if we try and switch it to portals limited to how much you can sprint I don't even know what that means yeah I don't know I can't put really something to the relationship between the two things maybe it means I just don't know how to answer that's the distance limitation for the portal how far you can sprint before you need to stop to take a breath that's how far your portal abilities can go what do you think then oh yeah I understand in terms of the faster you are the more I take you farther or the stronger you are the more you can lift telekinetically I think for this one it really will come down to how much the intensity of that relationship what is the exchange rate essentially not portal teleportation yet we know if it's teleportation now we're not even going to engage with teleportation in a portal system too scary I'll be dead if it's Star Trek teleportation no that kills you it de-atomizes you and puts you back together it's not like you stay together and skip in space time or you go through a portal or a magic hole or something like that however if it is portals and my choice is I can go as far as I can sprint in portal form or I can lift with telekinesis anything that my own weight can lift I'm not sure actually yeah I'd have to know how much how much strength equals weight and how much speed means distance I would also have to know yeah there's a couple of variables there so what I think is going on is that she's going on to going to an art museum in the same way a dad goes to the bathroom it becomes a place of reflection hi rags the Rothko paintings and all those who like it are purely self reflection it seems quick someone put a mirror in an art gallery yes and someone could be like isn't that good enough on its own and I'd be like yeah but I'm a how much is Rothko responsible for any of that and how much is that you know what I mean like it just we went over it it's just just lame I think but I guess it needs to exist the extremes on either end right that's kind of why the toilet is there it's like at least we have our yeah there you go our all advertisements art I think so yeah yeah they generally will have an artistic component to them I mean you have people that's their job their job is to design the ad not to come up with the information in it like the company decides what they're going to have on the ad and it's the the advertising the the ad artist that comes up with how to present that in a way that is you know digestible to people this is the James gun polka dot man thing again yeah it keeps coming up that was on my mind while this topic was going on I mean that one's great because it actually happened it's so absurd but I think it doesn't quite address the root I think exactly why like it was on my mind in relation to the I guess statements about like actual events in the story you know like like if the author says yeah this happened compared to him having like a different perception of the character that he created it doesn't be relevant for a different part of the discussion though yeah I mean because I was going to say the Han shot first is one I'm just going to try and reference more whenever death the author comes up because it's the most palatable I think good one everybody agrees the Han shot first which is so funny to me because it's like so you all agree with death of the author and I think a lot of them will be like yeah sure fine and then you go anything Tolkien said outside of his work is not like not true like it's not canon right and I think a lot of people will be like whoa hang on yeah I mean you're I think you're right about that and yeah it's just it's denoting that you have a preference for the input of an author depending on how much it matches or doesn't match the artwork or how much you appreciate their input how much insightful things you think they have to say like if Tolkien said something that did kind of contradict some of his work but you liked it a lot I think people will be okay with it right you know the when you just announced that a random character is gay like Dumbledore and with JK that it's just funny as opposed to anything else or that she's made a canon that they magic their poop into a poop dimension or something was that am I making that up or does that happen I know what you're talking about something about that because we've made those jokes before because we've made those jokes before I think this was from I can't believe I'm typing in Harry Potter poop dimension this isn't a fetish the poop dimension whoa oh my god oh my god oh my god I need to show you this is it an image no no no no no no this is even more amazing I typed it into Google this is exactly what popped up what the fuck I know I this is insane the poop dimension was first hypothesized to exist on EFAP order 66 when it was brought up that according to JK Rowling it was canon that wizards and witches in the wizarding world of Harry Potter used to defecate used to defecate themselves and then magic the feces away promising rags to ask where all the poop goes the poop dimension more importantly if people could be sent to this poop dimension yeah I remember that there's nothing more torturous than that abandoned in the poop dimension look at that headline by the way there yes harry potter wizards shit their pants it's canon can you about the whole wizard poop thing harry potter slash harry potter oh no and uh trungos can be accessed at the edge of the known poop dimension it is the only area safe from the poop creatures from the poop dimension have no rights in our world no rights oh this wiki is amazing all you guys who contribute to it this is fucking hilarious oh my god if you were to tell me I just here we all assume there's bathrooms and hogwarts like there's girls bathrooms and boys bathrooms and yeah but they use it in the book or maybe they go there because to be secret because no one uses it it's just it's just a hold over from a bygone era before the poop dimension was discovered I'm covered by hogwarts they haven't uh they haven't converted the bathrooms into something else you know the closets or classrooms or whatever that's right because normal people I don't know shit about harry potter normal people can't like go to hogwarts right so there's no need to accommodate I wouldn't I wouldn't shit myself because like you'd have to you'd have to make like a doctor strange portal right on your butthole fuck that, yeah dude I'll just go in the woods yeah you'd have to poop through the portal you why don't why don't you just take it out of the spell to make the poop go away inside of you oh I don't want to risk that I don't know I'm getting scared by the idea like didn't they there's a joke about that with uh oh yeah it's in breaking bad kind of when they they're like they're portaling out the pie that scotty's eating or whatever and then it pulls out his gut by accident and it uh it seems like a recipe for disaster yeah I just I'd rather avoid that I'll poop in the woods it's fine I don't want to risk losing my like world-building wise why don't you poop away like enemies why can't you just why can't you transport Voldemort's heart into the truth dimension I have a feeling maybe harry potter's not very well written right yeah we watch harry potter we may find a couple of inconsistencies I think maybe just one or two uh wings quarter of the day oh yes here we go look just because kyle said this shit stains on my seats doesn't mean this shit stains on my seats oh bonus uh bad anyone referring to my Mustang is the v6 I don't get it v6 v6 oh yeah because you people go out and they they buy a Mustang sports car and it's a v6 fucking automatic is like oh well all right oh is that like the lame Mustang or something yeah it's you know it's it's not automatic car right yeah canonically I don't drive so I don't know it's not a pro it's not a big v8 it's not even a manual transmission it's just like I don't know I mean it's it's harder and harder to get a manual car now now those um um I don't know how hard it is is it harder I still I think they still make they do make them it's just that they make a lot more uh automatic so it can be difficult to get a manual car maybe if you specifically want a certain car as a manual that's what I'm saying like yeah it can be tricky like not every model will be manual but if you want a manual car you won't have any problem I get I think that a lot I think it's actually that a lot of cars do have a manual it's just they don't make a lot of them so like maybe because I don't like have manuals they're actually kind of fun to drive but and especially I don't know if it's improved but I'm pretty sure that they're still like shortages like if you want to get a new car or even a used car it's kind of hard at the moment just because of our supply chain issues Moeller please play that clip of Tyrion vomiting once you're done with the video I mean honestly the video wasn't like the worst thing we've seen on really wasn't no it's just that it was just disappointing and that it didn't seem to want to put the effort in the exploring well I guess um I don't know like it would have been nice to get at least a few more like definitive conclusions even if we don't have like a full-on conclusion to the answer to the question like a definitive answer it would have been nice to get a few concrete statements instead of just like floating an idea kind of exploring it only half way and then stopping and then forming a totally like separate conclusion right at the end I wouldn't say that it was a well-organized video that's for sure no no it wasn't watch cyberpunk edge runners it's better than arcane man I don't believe you well I say everybody a couple of people are saying that two people yeah I don't believe you that's like literally a couple of people I mean I can recommend about a couple if Drinker recommends it then I'll be like alright maybe there's something to this I think Disperu recommended it so it's getting around more people will see it, has Shad seen it I wonder if everyone's stunned we'll see hey there EFAP, loving the content recently bought a Fringy Plush keep up the detail discussion and the hours of fun we'll do yeah thanks brother thanks for getting the plush that campaign is over by the way guys we told you on Wednesday we tried I told you multiple times do not procrastinate multiple times I told you that little Fringy Plush and that little Mewpush those versions anyway that's it you were warned many times you were told many times you got your warnings I guess yours is soon I'm actually surprised they haven't told me that it's like ready as far as I know well soon anyway yes as far as I know it's done like it's ready to be but we'll see boop boop thoughts on donkey's video game studio he said and I'm paraphrasing I play games so I know good games but he likes loss of us too I mean I'm excuse that you need I'm like a video game publisher not necessarily contingent on your ability to like I I mean best to block to him right that's a pretty as I understand he's like forming a little video game publisher that's cool you better be ready for everything that comes with that like a lot of challenges but hey yeah like that's cool to take a bit of a more active role I guess in like trying to help the games that he likes get out there yeah that's cool Wally works so a mostly sent Mario movie works Wally is an example there are plenty I mean silent films predated films with sound you don't need dialogue to tell a story technically reproductions of paintings are art yeah yeah I guess discussion I guess it depends on the I mean it's it depends on what angle they're looking at it from the if we're talking about cause almost every picture we see is not the original one but we still call it art if it's a you know if that thing's been copied so if you make you know obviously like DVDs right that the story is you know it's done over and over and over to sell as a product if that's the angle they're going for or is it by copying something is that art is it art to take copy it the nature of reproducing something right there was one Mona Lisa that is the original one that was created by Leonardo da Vinci like that he created and then there are going to be copies of that I think it gets more I guess the only whether I would say that would be comparable as like the original what do they call it the like the film like the film reel for the original what's that called what's what called sorry you know like the original reel like for the film like the film when a film is done the film negatives the master is it the master reel master copy I mean something along those lines right there is that and then there's always going to be like the duplicates I guess of that master copy right like any DVD that you buy is a duplicate of the master copy in a sense which itself is the product of a bunch of different you know bits cut together and then with video games it's quite well like if you open an art book and it's just a picture of the Mona Lisa like you know what they mean I think the difference is that a lot of what you would appreciate in the Mona Lisa will stem from like the actual original work that a copy kind of can't like you would have to do like a one to one with all the same brush strokes to have the same in the same way that like when you know my copy of a video game is the same as somebody else's copy of a video game it's fundamentally the same code same assets compared to a copy of the Mona Lisa which is not going to have the same brush strokes it will have a copy of them but it's not going to have like the text or anything like that or maybe it does maybe I don't know shit about how these things are copied I don't know philosophy really embodies the role of woman since she's so thoroughly unfunny oh I know plenty of funny women Jay Longbone I don't need a name more than that one is an example that's just one yeah that's right Alison Bray is a really she's a funny actress community good art provides the mind sorry provokes the mind making one think about the reality by providing a unique representation of reality for instance Cubism makes me think about how some art is shit I like a lot of kids I'm a member of the church of Cubism we praise the cube can you give me an example of a Cubist like it was in the video right the I think the way philosophy described it was Cubism is like doing a piece of art from multiple angles at the same time is that how it's alright okay yeah I get sure yeah I think I'm just looking at some examples a lot of cool images here is that what makes it good cool stuff I don't want to be seeing any of this cringe sort of thing where it's like ah yeah like minimalism or Cubism or abstract yeah like that's some bullshit like I get annoyed when people just like dismiss like dismiss the fucking red square don't dismiss Cubism okay I'm not even dismissing the red square I'm not I'm not being yeah I don't I know it is silly but I mean the fucking red square man some of the Cubism is pretty neat rags has forgotten Green Goblin is canonically racist in the gulf with friends lore spider man canonically racist last week my dad found a phasma cardboard cut out I didn't have the heart to tell him I hate those movies captain phasma now watches me sleep oh my god well at least you know she'll be entirely ineffectual that's not true if she could betray you the most the most impactful thing she ever does is lower the shields the Starkler Bay maybe she'll stab you in the back and then die I'm drunk right now and I'm jumping on to say I love you guys fist felt sane when I discovered EFAP because at least you guys take the time to talk through your points very few do that let's do that that sorry very few that do the same we are quite niche in how just just how much we will explain the point we are unusual we are not glad for people to be able to find us you're like oh my god I do that too yay uh I missed the mall plush when is rags plush also high soon it is soon also hello but it is soon in rings of power doing Bronwyn's speech in the tower for what they reuse the same six or seven actors to fill out the crowd don't even change their clothes or hats really I'll keep an eye on that when we cover it doesn't surprise me at all that would be episode five is that one oh five oh yeah that's right five is out yeah color a label that is color sorry color a label that describes the properties of an object to absorb light you can literally measure it you can measure the wavelengths but you can have multiple people look at the same wavelengths and come out with different colors because their brains work differently currently working on an 11 hour plus video about alien releasing in chapters and honestly more of a ringy rags you're an inspiration in getting me through the editing phase keep doing what you're doing well continue I will it'll be done we shall do an adventure an 11 hour video about alien oh yeah do for it I do like I do like alien alien is pretty neat I give it a big thumbs up maybe even two thumbs I'm pro I'm pro alien the movie not that aliens they're pretty bad yeah yeah they should probably be exterminated pretty terrible is art the process of where we imbue the physical world with the solar essence of the artists like with the chef but some of yourself into your work bring life to it in a way sounds like a flowery way to say it but yeah kind of it's kind of fundamental like what you are doing with art is essentially taking something that is within you and making it real in the world um because again it's like it's what's that something within you make it real in the world like taking a poop I mean you can make something that's like poop when we're talking about art sure I guess it would be that's abstract and doesn't exist tangibly and you're making it tangible right like an idea for a story is like I mean I guess it's kind of complicated right because like at the end of the day it only exists in the way that people perceive it wow I mean we had that discussion but like that's how I'd imagine anyway well the meanings in there the meanings in everything interpretations that they pull is you know reliant on them perceiving it in some way but I guess I guess the way that I think about it is like if I've got a novel the novel exists but like the story itself is the product of my ability to comprehend it if I don't exist like yeah the book exists and the matter exists and the words exist on the page but the material itself is um you know like it doesn't exist without that without me to interpret it or anybody I mean not just me specifically I'm the most important person in the world Disney movie related and the thing where many people collaborate to make art stop being art because of outside interventions such as profit seeking behavior I mean it's still a lot right it would just be added as an addition especially if you're dealing with a project that large you can guarantee there's at least one person there who's doing like for artistic reasons but um I'm trying to think of like if someone said I am solely creating this thing for it to make me money uh that would still count as all right yeah of course um if the way that yeah if the way that it manifested was yeah had had that expressive quality to it which it's almost certainly would in most cases I'd imagine then yeah I'd say so absolutely especially if you're aware of its artistic qualities and how it relates to their ultimate goal much like it's kind of like the bridge in a way is like even if your ultimate goal is just to make a bridge it's really good the I mean even the things that you don't put in specifically because of whatever reasons could be you know artistic how about teleporting that deatomizes everything except you I don't think I wait everything else in the universe except for me it doesn't instantly but I guess they're saying I was gonna say that kills all of my loved ones every time I do that yeah I don't want to do that this is this is um this is very closely related to one of my favorite SCPs SCP-1970 I was about to say this feels like it could be a really good Twilight Zone thing I want the power to teleport everywhere and then at first he believes that he's killing himself like he starts to consider that but then he realizes no well shit this sounds a bit like that Rick and Morty that Rick and Morty joke in the vat of acid it prestige yourself it's the prestige you prestige yourself take it in what do you say I think you said something like that double check the number this is similar to one of my favorite SCPs 1968 if you would like to look at that I've said it it's out there go and take a look to clarify you will tell okay okay so I'll just ask the question again because so you have a choice you have telekinesis your limitation can only lift as much as you are can only lift as yourself right now but obviously it would be the distance versus the power to teleport at the distance that it would be at your maximum sprint before you have to give up because you ran out of energy I wouldn't get very far I don't think maximum sprint before you had to give up I'm pretty sure that like a maximum sprint no matter how athletic you are like you can only do that for a very short amount of time your maximum sprint you can only do that for maybe 20 seconds 30 seconds tops yeah it's tough and as far as the lifting goes do I have to exert myself in order to use the telekinesis because if I do then I'm just potentially saving time going up there and moving it personally and then coming back you can stack the teleports can you is that baked into that question because if you can then maybe that's not so bad if it's still applying the six a day then oh I mean that could be useful but I don't know how many places I want to go I think I'm going to find more use casually for the telekinesis than I am the teleporting at that point I want to reach my phone oh I can just telekinesis it's over to me I will teleport to the other side of my room to grab it's like that seems really unnecessary that seems unnecessary compared to just telekinetically if I yeah taking the distance that I can maximum sprint multiplying that by you know three or whatever and if you want to use it all in one go you can only do five times the distances because you have to save one to get back well no you can't it's cut in half because you can only teleport back that distance so you have to teleport three times there then three times back for a trip that would only probably take you not long at all to just travel regularly normally because it's it's limited by your sprint distance if we be super charitable and assume that you can full blend sprint for 200 meters oh wow I think that's that's crazy if you can sprint at full sprint like yeah for 200 meters that's you know getting very far like yeah that's an extreme example and that's even then well because I'm pretty sure that like really the most that anybody could expect to do is 100 really as I understand it unless I totally don't know what I'm talking about here but I'm pretty sure that I learned about this that like there's different modes at which like the human operates when it comes to running you've got like a full blown sprint that doesn't last for very long and then after that's done you move into like a second phase where your body's like is just processing I guess all of this at the different rate I think one element though that we should remember to keep in consideration here is not just the distance aspect it's the fact that you can bypass obstacles right how that would factor into it certainly helps because not only does it make things truly as the crow flies in terms of distance but being able to go in and out of buildings around objects into like if if every day you could teleport into your vehicle and then drive off that's something depending on where you live not having like I just don't know how worth it I think that is not as much as a telekinesis unless I could come up with some real advantage to yeah I just yeah I take the telekinesis I think there's way too many examples where that's going to be useful in regular life and also like how often do I need to lift something that isn't something I can lift normally right like the answer seems I mean the whole world is designed to be usable by humans with regular pretty much how often do you have to pick up something that's heavier than you can lift yeah probably like when you move houses you get a friend to help but how often does that happen in your life a couple times maybe four depends but yeah it just it it's just almost it just incredibly useful in your daily normal life you'll get so much more ironically you'll get more mileage out of telekinesis than telekinesis mileage got him got him I finally finished my first draft of my arcane act one episodes one through three video I'm to redraft vigorously and finish this five hour extravaganza you're all a huge inspiration to me been watching since episode one also high rags hello good to hear good luck very glad to hear that everything about the production it can be a nightmare but also very rewarding and I thought arcane was pretty neat maybe you do too maybe you don't who knows anything though I hope it's going well and I look forward to season two give me I'm not getting it for a while you know you don't want to force it out too early that is true that's good that is true yeah that's that's just that is really good general advice for your life you don't want to force it out too early whether you're whether you're in the loo or pregnant there's just it's so applicable if you could have eye frames in real life what action would you tie it to going up and down the stairs opening doors driving sleeping etc eye frames so I assume when you say eye frames you mean that yeah yeah it's it's so I would be able to do some sort of like click on and off for a certain amount of time giving myself invulnerability to all essentially damage and then maybe some moderate quote unquote clipping through the world probably answers itself it's whatever the most dangerous thing I'm doing in my day-to-day life I guess which is like driving I think it would be driving for most people yeah for it yeah for most people the most dangerous thing that they might do in their lives is drive mind crossing the road I mean you could make a really cool trick out of it and freak people out like you could shoot yourself during your eye frames or it's something like that you know but even then like I'd have to think of how you could apply that you'd make a hell of a magician being able to consume stuff depending on what it is or like hot food or touching yeah I'm just trying to think of what can do that's useful what do you need I bet some people could get a lot of use out of it like bomb disposal technicians maybe you should but anytime you're all surgeries all medical related things so that you you know it's like we got to give you a heart transplant you're like no problem if I high frames while you're swapping about yeah risky surgery yeah I guess it also would depend on it during your eye frames can you get positive something I was thinking about was games if you're playing a game and you're using a dodge where you have eye frames you can still be given boons and healing by like allies and what not so I assume it would apply to medical operations something I was thinking was I like have eye frames when I cross the road and so when the car hits me it like crashes into me as though I'm just like this absolutely titanium block that cannot nothing can be done to me at all so it just goes explodes right next to me I'm just like oh wow whoops and then the people in there just boxing someone asked what eye frames are invincibility frames it's generally whenever you whenever you're doing something in a video game where your character cannot be on harm whether this is a dark skull dodge or like Resident Evil 4 is a great example eye frames are very much a part of the gameplay when you're climbing up and down ladders when you're doing kicks when you're vaulting over objects you have eye frames so nothing can hurt you while you're doing this action. You would be surprised how many little invisible things are at play in a game to make it feel better even though you should technically be getting hurt or because it's a coyote time in platformers I talked about in the crash video you do that's right when you there's a I remember I learned about this when I was dabbling a bit like a game maker like you could have it to where like you programmed a character to you know if they've stepped off of the platform they're going to fall the problem is that you need to when it comes to reaction times of players people can feel like wait what the fuck I hit the button it's like well the computer doesn't lie you did not but that feels shit so what you do is like when people step on the platform they you give them a little bit of extra wiggle room like you you can actually start falling and then make a jump most platforms it's like aim assist for platforms pretty much yeah I think that's a way to think about it and what I found in the crash video is they were incredibly forgiving in crash 4 more so than in 3 and 2 like super duper forgiving to a degree that's kind of insane when you think about it insane in the membrane yeah insane oh no you don't get the reference or damn well crash insanity well because in sanity like in the in sanity the uh fuck in abbreviation well yeah like it'd be in sanity and in in dot sanity so like in sanity is the norman sanity well it's just in sanity that's what it's called in sanity beach and you've got like lots of characters because you've got like entropy doctor entropy entropy or entropy oh okay n brio nitrous brio m m brio n n brio n n brio okay yeah okay and then of course dr neo cortex dr neo cortex and yeah there's a lot n eo cortex well no his name is just neo cortex so his first name is neo oh neo he's the real neo before neo well i the real neo sucks now so yeah well could you imagine if you like re-edited the matrix but instead of neo you had cortex so smith runs up to him and you got the little cortex there blocking all of his punches just super chill doing all of the bullet time imagine that with dr cortex with his giant head doing the bullet time thing on the rooftop this is he's the he's the yellow skin doctor with a big n on his forehead right okay that's that's a conversation starter please the big n on your forehead please watch succession it's got all the family drama of hot d in game of thrones it's set in the modern day it's very funny with a great cast well i've heard that recommended quite a few heroes really good yeah what was it on is it like apple tv i think it's uh hbr oh okay i'm not letting you leave dance monkeys well only two more after this one and then the dancing shall cease rags look up scp 3000 for some existential horror i love me some existential horror scp 3000 i will bring up a um i'll bring up a picture not a picture but i'll bring up the article here and um yeah i'll i'll read that later i've got it pulled up on another tab would you clone yourself well i don't know it depends we're gonna need a lot more context yeah but uh i think i would be too spooked by the things that would happen next theoretically i don't know a lot that comes with that it's a lot of baggage you know yeah but the thing is if i'm in a world where it's incredibly normal and incredibly beneficial like you know it's like drawing a hypothetical of like would i do it if i wanted to do it it's like i guess i would uh but it as it stands right now in my life it's like you have the chance to clone yourself will you do it it's like probably not i don't want to deal with that like thanks it's called insanity spider-man short for doorman or maybe the end is short for something else who knows crash bandicoot the end word is subjective spider-man i don't think there's a single one because it's neo nitrous i actually god damn it oh nefarious that's right entropy isn't it his first name is nefarious man oh his parents nailed it with i was about to say it's like thanks guys you basically boxed him into being evil wow you forced his hand here's a wacky you go card the suppression Pluto i saw that one pop up and i looked it up so i'll paste it here for you and i'll read this uh i'll read this here alright once per turn you can declare one card name look at your opponent's hand then if they have the declared card in their hand apply one of these effects take control of one monster your opponent controls or destroy one spell or trap card your opponent controls then you can set the destroyed spell trap on your field that's interesting um obviously this is a pretty darn good effect if i guess an older you especially but yeah if you know what the opponent has or they use an effect where they get to draw a card specifically so you know it's in their hand and you use this um it's it's pretty useful especially because this effect is once per turn so as long as you have this monster out on the field face up of course you get to activate that every you can do this once per turn so it's a consistent like opportunity for you to use it and uh yeah getting set it says set here set means face down right if you set a card on the field it's face down which is important because setting means that a flip effect can be activated or like a trap card can be effected can be used right um so yeah that's a neat card that's a neat card he's a two summon 2600 attack so that's not bad this one just says fleams oh fleams yeah that's pretty good and that means we caught up on super chats for this episode and uh since we're at six hours we are going to pull it there hold up that how come the fleam super chat has all the the stars on it they're a member my god it's full of stars members ones get to feel starry i guess youtube at it it would be so cool if they let you customize the thing that would show up on there it would just be a picture of trungos hell yeah do the way to do it and also six hours week hey that you had a 12 hour just now it wasn't even that long it was like two days me and rags remember and free to a lesser extent um yeah was there anything you guys wanted to mention about things this that and the other thing all this i guess uh i am i mean i'm the video i'm working on um my goal was to have it done by the end of september that's a maybe it might be pushed into early october i am working on it though um and you yeah like i it's uh yeah it's it's it's close is uh all i got for you so i've got something for you soon what about you rules um i do have things in the works absolutely in fact i'm sort of waiting on a um of course we have the plushie that should be coming out very soon like i'm expecting any i'm checking my email all the time because i'm expecting it any moment to for them to be like yeah it's all done and we're ready to get that uh underway so like expect an announcement any day but in terms of video stuff uh i absolutely have things in the works a couple videos um but i'm trying to get some new assets lined up with something else so that it all kind of comes together uh so that will help be happening soonish i think in fact i should be talking to someone maybe maybe tonight about it because i'm not too tired we only went for about six and a half hours so yes yes um we're saying short i think this is a middle all right guys you're not gonna let me get lower on that yeah um yeah but but oh we gotta uh you have a series of movies in mind for next year's halloween anyways take care good night hold hold more heart thank you very much um yes it's already been chosen yes we do no spoilers even though i may have mentioned it already i don't remember but no spoilers in fact we're recording for it not too long from now i'm like oh i can't remember which date we agreed on i'll go find out soon um purple flip or vanilla fleam so i um i'm aware of purple flirt in the um jimmy neutron universe i don't know i generally don't like purple flavored drinks i'm not big on grape grape is fine i'm not big on grape i love vanilla coke though it's one of my favorite beverages i like what so i don't know what a fleam is but i'm gonna take my chances with vanilla fleam over purple flirt um i wouldn't mind trying both i've really got not got a preference i like to experiment so what to do with this i guess i just flip a coin okay we're both what are you free uh what are the two choices again purple flip or vanilla fleam i think yeah i'd go with vanilla fleam i think i i like vanilla you know at this point i'll go with the flip just so that i can let you guys know makes it up what it yeah what it turned out to be hopefully i'm not getting myself too bad with this i hope it's edible assume we're not trying to poison us or anything um yeah alright that about sums it up i uh like i said you've got uh a wednesday e-fap and then a saturday e-fap and my god g hulk rings of power house the dragon we code on nadrodex channel we've got andor minis i'd say minis tv it's uh it's in the pipeline so to speak um if you wanted to know what we thought of andor so the beginning of this stream just rewind it by six hours and eighteen minutes um other than that thank you all so much for joining us what a what a fun ride we had through the world of philosophy i guess definitely that's that's definitely what happened today yes other than that you guys take care thank you for the kind donations uh that's another thing of course we will be catching up on the superchats where we find grand opportunities to do so you'll see them coming in on the uh the moola channel you got your halloween arc is starting up the trailer is out you can go check that out on the moola channel see what you're in for um yeah and just more stuff more stuff's coming thanks again for keeping us company lads and good night see you next time bye bye see you later