Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89811257179?pwd=oXsaw0f456mrGlT2ZJydjZS1FQP6YF.1

Hey everyone, right at that link I will be present talking about what I've been thinking about recently and taking some questions, in about 4 hours, for about 2.5 hours.

Hope to see you there, tends to be meaningful & useful.

If you have any questions or subjects you're interested in my lighting on feel free to drop them here too in advance. No this will not be recorded but it'll happen again each month.

see ya

x

Comments

Meep biscuit

alright i'll try to be there!-Meep Biscuit

caitybug

I am interested in the difference between artist approach and scientific approach. this explained a lot for me as to why sometimes the judging mindset is present and other times the flip side of that. Just curious as to how to research these topics more. Maybe just need a community to actualize and validate my experiences. anyways thank you for being you

annie liz

misread the last paragraph and thought you were asking us if we had any questions about your lighting setup. are those allowed too

RedFog

Hello ! This is my first zoom and comment so really please do forgive me if this is too “advice column” of a question, but I’ve noticed I am only able to know maybe 70% of my thoughts/opinions about something, and maybe verbalize 50% of it in the moment while having conversations. The on-time 20% I hold back for a multitude of reasons, and the rest never gets flushed out and I feel lackluster in conversations, like only half of me is present. I always say that I don’t truly know how I feel about something unless I write it down, but that doesn’t help with my communication. Have you experienced this, or have any knowledge on how to stop overthinking to the point I feel like I’m not, and to be more present and verbal in the moment ?

Macy Allen

What I've been pondering recently: Art does not owe it to us to be good ("good" meaning insofar as it pleases our own personal subjective taste). I watched your entitlement video and realized that the argument of trust/reliance can be extrapolated to not just relationships with other people, but experiences. Which then led me to think that we, as society in general, have developed a very warped idea of what is owed to us by an artistic experience. Clearly, if you spend money to go see a movie, you hope that the movie will be good. However, at the end of the day, not every movie will be good to you. People feel this sense of betrayal when a movie (continuing with movie as an example for simplicity sake) does not meet their expectations of quality, however in that instance is it the movie that is the issue, or your expectations? While all art, including film, is worked on by people who are (hopefully) extremely passionate, all you can actually hope for is that the art object meets the artists standard of quality for their own work. A movie for example, is made to be seen and make money. Even though we hope that the people working on the movie care about it and want it to be good, inevitably the movie would not be made by a studio and released without an expectation that it will make money for the people who made it. So when you pay to see a movie, you are literally doing just that: Paying to SEE a movie, nothing more nothing less. You are not paying for a promise that you will like the movie, you are paying to be allowed to sit in a seat with your overpriced popcorn and have a movie shown to you. People's level of upset over an art piece not meeting their expectations is inversely proportional to the level of trust they had in it to be "good" for them. Picking a random movie you have never heard of just to watch for fun and having it be kinda bad is going to make people feel much less upset typically than, say, a new entry in a major franchise they have been waiting for and have a personal investment in. That's human nature. Obviously, we want to see things we like. However, you aren't going to like everything, and at least SOMEONE *is* going to like just about everything. When you ignore the fact that other people do enjoy something you don't enjoy and then blaming your lack of enjoyment on the art instead of on the expectations you yourself projected onto it, you are missing the forest for the trees. Also, it harkens to the value of negative experiences. People have this vehement desire to avoid ever experiencing anything they don't like, not realizing that seeing things you don't like teaches you more about what you do like and why. The only thing that art owes you is to exist for you to see it, everything else is icing.

zooey

I wanted to add this during the town hall, but I couldnt really find an opening, so im just gonna paste it here so someone actually reads it: there was a thought experiment they made us think abt in school on whether or not fire is alive, and I find it to be a fucked up and really interesting question, cuz it technically checks all the boxes for life, but it deeply upsets me because fire has no discernable soul or directive for living, I have no idea how to even get to a satisfying conclusion to this line of thought, its genuinely vexing and nondual, its not provably a dead chemical reaction, but is it really a living thing? thoughts would be appreciated, this has been in my mind for a long time