Thứ Ba, 24 tháng 4, 2018

Waching daily Apr 24 2018

Hey guys, it's me Quick Richard Laverne aka Richard FireMancer!

Today, I'm going to be doing the Band-Aid challenge!

First, I have got all the Band-Aids, I'm going to use 3 Band-Aids, and I'm going to apply them on my hairy leg!

And I'm going to take them off without even grunting!

Let's put on the Band-Aids!

There's the first band-aid, the second band-aid, and the third band-aid.

Let's put them on!

I'm back guys, I have all the band-aids!

I just applied them on my leg with a lot of pressure.

Now I'm going to peel them off, without even grunting or reacting so much.

Let's peel it off!

In 3, 2, 1!

Let's do it!

Ahh, peeled one off, 2 more to go!

Woah, that spot's really hairy!

I'm going to still peel it off.

Almost there...

Ahh, one more to go, and this is the end of the challenge!

Ahh!

Didn't even grunt, and we're finished!

I think we'll end the challenge right now.

This is the end.

So guys, this was me Quick Richard Laverne aka Richard FireMancer.

Don't forget to give this video a like, subscribe to my channel, comment, share this video with your friends, and turn on the notification bell!

I had a great challenge guys, thanks for watching!

Peace!

For more infomation >> BAND AID TAKE OFF CHALLENGE! - Duration: 2:27.

-------------------------------------------

Primitive Technology: Furnace and Mud Bricks - Duration: 7:19.

Taking land from termite nests

Select four flat stones in the stream to make bricks

Set stone to rectangular shape

Forming a brick

Use water to rub bricks to create smoothness

200 brick were made

wait 3 days for dry brick

Brick has dried but seems unlikely

need to make a furnace to burn bricks

assembling bricks into a kiln

Fire box level

Ware chamber level

Plastering kiln with mud

Making fire

Bring the bricks to the furnace for 3 hours

Brick is harder and can withstand water

For more infomation >> Primitive Technology: Furnace and Mud Bricks - Duration: 7:19.

-------------------------------------------

QUANDO SEU AMIGO NÃO TE CHAMA PRA SAIR - Duration: 5:41.

For more infomation >> QUANDO SEU AMIGO NÃO TE CHAMA PRA SAIR - Duration: 5:41.

-------------------------------------------

The Importance of Storytelling & Good Coverage: "Two Wrongs" - Duration: 7:52.

Is it wrong to be right?

Is it right to be wrong?

Does Simon Cade's "Two Wrongs" make a right?

All I know is three rights make a left.

Hey, I'm Jessie and this is Video Tempest.

Welcome to Video Tempest, where we plow through the storm of YouTube content, bringing you

reviews, critique, and analysis, and today we're reviewing Simon Cade's "Two Wrongs".

Spoilers ahead, so watch the short first if you want to avoid them!

You probably already know Simon Cade from his YouTube channel "DSLRGuide", where

he talks about filmmaking basics, gear, and low-budget filmmaker philosophy.

He's made a real niche for himself with his videos that are part philosophical musings,

part education, and part storytelling of his personal experiences, and I've been a huge

fan of his work for a while.

Which is why I really wanted to like this movie-- I really, really did.

But there's so many things that I think could've been improved upon, and they all

boil down to two major issues: lazy story, and lazy cinematography--

the two wrongs of "Two Wrongs", if you will.

The story doesn't give us any room for character development or much information on character

motivation... it's pretty much just four minutes of immediate plot:

Man has brother, brother gets killed, man buys gun and retaliates, and man gets killed

for his efforts.

The relationship between Mark and Pete is only briefly shown at the beginning of the

film, and only consists of Mark being angry at Pete for smoking weed.

This is a scene that also suffers from lazy cinematography-- there's only two shots

within 38 seconds-- a close-up of the blunt, and a master shot of the scene.

We could've used some close-up shots, and perhaps gone more in-depth with the emotion,

or the motivations of these characters.

All we get is this:

"What would mum say?

Yeah?

Think about it."

We don't really know if their mom is still alive or not, but let's just say she isn't--

imagine instead we cut in to Mark and he says something like,

"C'mon Pete, I miss mum too, but you can't just piss your life away smoking weed in an ally!"

And Pete responds,

"Piss off!

What do you want me to do, just ignore everything like you do?"

"Yeah, I try to ignore it, I try to move past it, and I keep working and putting money

away for college, like what she would want for us!"

"Great, well, not everyone can be as perfect as you, Mark.

Not all of us can just move on!"

Now I'm not saying this is excellent dialogue, but something like this would establish their

names and who they are as people, the relationship between them, help us as an audience connect

with them and their situation, and give Mark something to think about after his brother

is killed-- "Not all of us can just move on."

And most of all, it'll make us care more when the pothead brother is killed.

Speaking of which, the very next scene is where Pete gets killed by a random street

thug and his gang for apparently no reason.

This scene was shot much better-- consisting of a tracking shot, a master, two over-the-shoulders,

and a cut-in of the knife.

There's good coverage for this scene, and it gives the editor a lot more to work with.

The very next scene after that is two guys talking about the "kid who got stabbed up

nineteen times" while Mark takes their order.

There's not really any indication of what Mark is thinking here, or why he appears so

calm if the victim was his brother… he does take note of the name of the thug, and we

get a beautifully-shot cut-in of the name-- "Connor".

However, without any development of how he finds this guy, or how he knows who Connor

is, the very next scene is him confronting the guy who murdered his brother-- and just

running up to him and telling him off immediately.

The actors really tried here, but it just falls flat.

We hardly know anything about Mark and his relationship with his brother… we don't

know how it's affected him… we don't know how he found Connor so easily, or what

their prior relationship is, if any, or why Mark is so bold when confronting a murderer…

there's no build-up, and we just don't have an emotional connection.

The very next scene, we have Mark buying a gun in a back alley-- again, this feels rushed.

There's no insight into how the character is processing things, there's no emotional

connection-- it's almost like the film is simply documenting the circumstances that

lead to the final outcome.

And again in this scene, we have a loooong master shot that never breaks for a cut-in--

which could REALLY be used at this moment:

"Look kid, I need this money, so you're not getting it back.

But you want a word of advice?

Don't use it.

Don't even bother loading it."

The second half of this scene, focusing on the dealer's advice would be played really,

really well, if we had a moment where after he says, "Look kid", the camera cuts in

to an extreme close-up of his grim face, with a musical cue that signifies the conflicting

emotions within Mark, intercut with a close-up of Mark's emotionally torn expression…

But instead, we hold that master shot, then cut to an even wider shot, before jumping

straight into the finale.

He takes one shot, that isn't even aimed at his target, and the slide locks back.

Then in the next shot, the gun is magically in battery again, and is picked up by Connor,

who ultimately takes one final, fatal shot at Mark.

It's worth saying that, if you're going to use firearms or any kind of weapon in your

film, knowing how they operate and correctly portraying them should be as important as

the rest of the continuity.

Now, don't get me wrong-- this scene is shot nicely, and the lighting on the final

shot of the film is simple and beautiful.

Simon did a wonderful job in this aspect-- but as with the rest of the film, there's

an emotional aspect missing from the story.

As Mark lies dead in the street, I found that I didn't really have a strong connection

to him as a character-- more just a solemn acknowledgement that irrational behaviour

leads to terrible outcomes…

I wish there was a push in on Mark's body here, or an extreme high angle looking down

on him, or something-- anything-- to make me feel this loss emotionally.

Overall, the tragedy of this film is rooted in a lack of story development, character

development, and not taking enough time to fully shoot and cover the scenes with all

needed camera angles-- resulting in a film that felt underdeveloped and rushed.

I don't like to be overtly negative, and while there's a lot of critique in this

review, I can absolutely acknowledge that creating a short film is no small task, and

there are several moments in this film that are excellently lit and shot.

As I said at the beginning of this review, I am very much a fan of Simon Cade and his

channel DSLRGuide, and I would really like to emphasize that my critique is not personal

by any means-- I just think we can all learn something by honestly reviewing the art that

we create.

In fact, I created a "Whirlwind"-- a playlist where we explore a topic a little more deeply.

In it, I highlight a couple of my favorite videos from Simon, exploring the concept of haters

as well as learning from our failures.

Go ahead and click on the Whirlwind link to join me.

For more infomation >> The Importance of Storytelling & Good Coverage: "Two Wrongs" - Duration: 7:52.

-------------------------------------------

RETO CON MI AMIGO COREANO (SUBTITULOS ESP) - Duration: 6:10.

For more infomation >> RETO CON MI AMIGO COREANO (SUBTITULOS ESP) - Duration: 6:10.

-------------------------------------------

(JAILBREAK) FAST How to get FREE MONEY - Duration: 1:49.

YO guys to Get money fast you are going to have to be police

YO guys to Get money fast you are going to have to be police

You are going to have to wait for people to come into the police station and when they are in arrest them quick

You are going to have to wait for people to come into the police station and when they are in arrest them quick

So then keep doing this process and you will get a lot of money

So then keep doing this process and you will get a lot of money

So then keep doing this process and you will get a lot of money

So then keep doing this process and you will get a lot of money

So then keep doing this process and you will get a lot of money

LIKE AND SUB FOR MORE

For more infomation >> (JAILBREAK) FAST How to get FREE MONEY - Duration: 1:49.

-------------------------------------------

Training AI to understand how people think Google's DeepMind is one step closer to "thinking" - Duration: 4:51.

Training AI to understand how people think Google�s DeepMind is one step closer to

�thinking� like humans� what could possibly go wrong

by: Vicki Batts

AI machines or programs capable of understanding and executing human thought patterns have

been a popular theme in sci-fi for decades.

Countless movies and books have explored the possibilities of future AI � and most of

it looks pretty darn grim for humans � and now Google�s DeepMind firm could be bringing

what was once considered fiction to life.

The ushering in of new AI advancements could come at a steep price, as DeepMind trains

their AI bot, named Theory of Mind-net, or ToM-net, to understand how humans think.

Indeed, the advent of a more human-like generation of AI is upon us � but how long will it

take for these new machines to surpass their creators?

Reports indicate that DeepMind�s new ToM-net bot is capable of passing a psychological

test that �most children only develop the skills for at around age four.� It is this

capacity to grasp the �theory of mind� test that may drive us towards a future of

robots that are nearly as human as we are.

The new artificial intelligence out of Google-owned DeepMind is even capable of predicting what

other AI bots will do.

According to the DailyMail, DeepMind�s project can also understand whether or not other AIs

hold �false beliefs� about their surroundings.

Has the stuff of sci-fi nightmares become reality?

As sources explain, the �theory of mind� ability is what will truly drive the more-human

AI home, and ToM-net seems to have that down pat.

DeepMind engineer Neil Rabinowitz reportedly explained in a recent interview, �It can

learn the differences between agents, predict how they might behave differently, and figure

out when agents will have false beliefs about the world.�

Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices.

Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more.

Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

Get your daily news and videos directly from the source!

Download here.

�The more our machines can learn to understand others, the better they can interpret requests,

help find information, explain what they�re doing, teach us new things and tailor their

responses to individuals,� he continued.

While some, like the DeepMind hive, tout their new AI as a godsend, not everyone believes

that highly intelligent bots are so benign.

Some of the world�s most renowned minds have concerned about what more intelligent

machines will spell out for humans.

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has said that AI of this caliber is the human race�s

�biggest existential threat,� and also stated the development of this technology

was akin to �summoning the demon.�

Musk reportedly believes that one day, super-intelligent bots might be keeping people as pets.

He�s also estimated that there is a 95 percent chance that one day, our own technology advances

will exterminate us.

According to the Daily Mail, late Stephen Hawking also declared it was a �near certainty�

humanity would be threatened by a technological �disaster� (or perhaps an uprising?) within

the next 1,000 to 10,000 years.

But with Google�s new tech, it seems that day could be here a lot sooner than anticipated.

It�s not just Google that we have to be worried about, unfortunately.

Around the world, over-zealous scientists and engineers are working overtime to bring

machines to a deeper state of understanding, without even truly considering the consequences.

One might posit that perhaps these pursuits are more ego-driven than anything else; what

species actually goes out of its way to create its own successor?

With some of the world�s greatest minds cautioning against the advent of AI and warning

of their dangers, you might even say these so-called experts are downright foolish.

If we�ve learned anything over the years, it�s that no one ever knows as much as they

think they do.

Fifty years ago, smoking cigarettes was thought to be safe � and now, we know it causes

cancer.

For more infomation >> Training AI to understand how people think Google's DeepMind is one step closer to "thinking" - Duration: 4:51.

-------------------------------------------

The Untold Truth Of Thanos - Duration: 8:21.

There's no supervillain quite like Thanos, the Mad Titan.

He's been a menace to the Marvel Universe since 1973, when he made his debut in Iron

Man #55 — and few villains have proven as formidable.

Despite his long history in Marvel Comics, Thanos has never been as high-profile as he

is now.

You probably already know that he's a nihilistic cosmic warlord who's set on assembling the

Infinity Gauntlet, allowing him to wipe out life as we know it.

Set that aside, though, and you'll find a ton of fascinating components to the character

that are slightly lesser known.

This is the untold truth of Thanos.

"Tell me his name again."

Aesthetic inspiration

Thanos is far from the most unique creation in the history of comics.

Created by writer and artist Jim Starlin, Thanos shares many similarities with characters

created by another comics luminary, Jack Kirby — specifically Kirby's work on DC's New

Gods series.

Starlin initially based Thanos on the New Gods character Metron, a genius celestial

observer to the events of the DC universe.

Many have thought Thanos' inspiration to be the DC character Darkseid, but according to

Starlin, that wasn't initially the case.

Speaking in a 1998 interview with Comic Book Artist, Starlin said,

"You'd think that Thanos was inspired by Darkseid, but that was not the case when I

showed up.

In my first Thanos drawings, if he looked like anybody, it was Metron.

[...] Roy took one look at the guy in the Metron-like chair and said: 'Beef him up!

If you're going to steal one of the New Gods, at least rip off Darkseid, the really

good one!'"

Fortunately, the resemblance is only skin deep.

The two characters have vastly different motivations and levels of empathy, and Thanos has fleetingly

fought alongside heroes before.

We think it's safe to say that's not really Darkseid's style.

"I grant you a quick death."

My name is...

This may come as a shock from the looks of him, but Thanos descends from a race of aliens

that actually look more or less human.

Thanos is a carrier of the Deviant gene, sort of the equivalent of a mutant in his race.

His mother, father, and the rest of his family are members of a superpowered alien race called

the Eternals, living on Titan, one of Saturn's moons.

They look human, and when his mother Sui-San became pregnant, they expected him to look

the same.

When Thanos was born, however, one look at him sent all expectations went out the window

— including the name his mother intended to give him.

Before she realized Thanos was a Deviant, his mother intended to name him Dione.

However, when her child was born, she was horrified by his mutation — and upon looking

into his eyes, she realized he was the harbinger of the universe's ultimate destruction.

"I've made a huge mistake."

There's a lot more messing up this mother-son relationship than just unfulfilled expectations

and a gross chin — Sui-San tried to execute Thanos as a child, and Thanos successfully

returned the favor later in life.

Their complex, tumultuous relationship began with a simple name change.

"The short-hand is the the butterfly effect.

A butterfly can flap its wings in Peking and in central park you get rain instead of sunshine."

Collecting the gems

The Marvel Cinematic Universe spent more than ten years building up Thanos' search for the

powerful six Infinity Stones — or Gems, as they used to be known.

But it only took him two comic books to accomplish a goal that's taken a decade to get done on

screen, with the Mad Titan snatching up the gems one-by-one in a 1990 comic called The

Thanos Quest.

The two-part story saw Thanos travelling the universe and liberating the six gems from

their owners, and they were all in very different hands compared to their cinematic counterparts.

First, Thanos attacked the imprisoned In-Betweener, stealing the green soul gem from his head.

Next, he liberated the red power gem from the Champion in a physical contest, and stole

the time gem from the Gardener, an ageless Elder of the Universe.

The yellow reality gem he pilfered from the Collector, who you may remember from Guardians

of the Galaxy.

The purple space gem was taken from the Runner, and the blue mind gem was nabbed from the

Grandmaster — yes, that Grandmaster, from Thor: Ragnarok.

"it's my birthday!

It's my birthday!"

All of these foes fell with a surprising quickness when challenged, clearing the way for Thanos

to assume the powers of a god in the titanic 1991 event series The Infinity Gauntlet.

Courting Death

Many of Thanos' stories chronicle the titan's obsessive passion for the living personification

of Death.

It's a relationship that was foreshadowed by his very name.

Jim Starlin originally came up with the character of Thanos while taking a college psychology

class.

He based Thanos' personality off of the Freudian concept of the death drive — in other words,

the psychological impulse to end one's own existence.

His name is reminiscent of Thanatos, the Greek mythological figure who was said to represent

death.

In Marvel Comics canon, Death is an actual person, a skeletal female entity who is sometimes

referred to as Lady or Mistress Death.

While Thanos is completely in love with her, Death often refuses to entertain his advances,

or even acknowledge his existence, leading Thanos to lash out and seek attention through

his universe-destroying scheme.

While Death does eventually entertain a romance with Thanos, to say "it's complicated" would

be putting it lightly.

It certainly wasn't worth all of the destruction.

In the end, Thanos' battle against the universe's strongest heroes was all done for the sake

of impressing a girl.

She's not even all that good-looking.

My own worst enemy

All of Thanos' bluster covers up a lot of insecurity.

As both The Infinity Gauntlet and the characters' solo outings have shown, Thanos is surprisingly

something of a self-defeating sad-sack.

On the surface, his goals would seem to be the same as any other supervillain: world

domination and destruction.

However, Thanos' motivations transcend typical villainy.

He believes in oblivion like a religion, and all-but-worships Death itself.

In his own twisted way, he believes he's doing the right thing.

The universe is unworthy of existence, therefore it falls on him to give it what it deserves.

The nihilism doesn't stop with his view towards all other life — it applies to him as well.

Not even Thanos is worthy.

This is why Thanos, despite his power, never manages to stay on top for too long.

It's firmly established in Infinity Gauntlet that he ultimately fails because he allows

himself to.

He will always subconsciously leave a hole in his plans that the heroes can exploit to

bring about his defeat.

As much as he believes that the universe deserves to die, he doesn't believe himself worthy

of the task at hand.

For such a formidable, otherworldly figure, that's a pretty human flaw.

Thanoseid

Amalgam Comics is a pretty interesting corner of comics lore.

A joint venture between Marvel and DC, it featured characters that were, you guessed

it, amalgamations of Marvel and DC characters.

The world of Amalgam is populated by heroes like Bruce Wayne: Agent of SHIELD and Doctor

StrangeFate, and it didn't stop with heroes.

The universe also featured amalgamations of villains from both publishers — and you

can probably guess who Thanos was paired with.

Thanos and Darkseid combined to form Thanoseid.

Like Darkseid, Thanoseid rules the planet of Apokalips, and like Thanos, he has an ambition

to wipe out the universe.

In the events that led to their combining in the Amalgam universe, Darkseid actually

insulted Thanos, calling Thanos just a pale imitation of him — a funny nod to Thanos'

origins.

Amalgam's comics weren't exactly classics, but they were a whole lot of fun.

Kicking it with the boys

One might reasonably assume the Marvel Universe only had room for one nihilistic death titan.

That would be incorrect.

One of the more interesting corners of Thanos' history involves a personal army of clones

he made of himself.

These clones are known as the Thanosi, and are formed by Thanos splicing his DNA with

that of other Marvel heroes and villains.

There's Omega, a cross between Thanos and Galactus, for instance.

Thanos creates the Thanosi to test the abilities of enemies and allies alike.

Eventually he considers them failures and abandons them.

Shockingly, the Thanosi don't take this betrayal particularly well.

They band together and, being an army of Thanos clones, attempt to bring about the ultimate

end of the universe.

Luckily, they fail.

Given Thanos' general tendencies, an army of Thanos clones ending up trying to destroy

the universe isn't any kind of surprise.

My brother, the lover

No matter how many times he impressively destroys the universe or allies himself with the good

guys, Thanos will never be as loved as his brother Starfox.

No, not that Starfox.

The Starfox of the Marvel Universe, also called Eros, is a carefree, easygoing flirt.

His charming personality is only amplified by his superpowers, which include a sort of

pheromone effect.

He can make people within 25 feet of him feel joy, effectively drawing them to him.

When cranked up, it can provoke romantic feelings — he's basically a sentient Marvin Gaye

record, which is pretty tough to compete with when you're a lumpy, purple death titan.

Starfox couldn't be any more different from his brother Thanos, and that's probably a

good thing — can you imagine if those parents had to put up with not just one, but two lousy

kids?

Thanks for watching!

Click the Looper icon to subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Plus check out all this cool stuff we know you'll love, too!

For more infomation >> The Untold Truth Of Thanos - Duration: 8:21.

-------------------------------------------

Blood drive will honor the memory of a 10-year-old girl - Duration: 1:51.

For more infomation >> Blood drive will honor the memory of a 10-year-old girl - Duration: 1:51.

-------------------------------------------

Ugly Location Photoshoot Challenge! - Target - Duration: 3:32.

hey guys it's Hashtag Zoe, welcome back to my channel. so for today's video we're going

to be doing the ugly location photoshoot challenge.

target okay guys I found this mug, well my mom found the mug it says no drama

touched I can't really and related... I can relate and it has a llama on it and I

found this chair my mom found this year and we're gonna put this and we're gonna

get an Instagram pic. let's go

okay guys the next one is with the purses so have one right here that kind

of matches my like look right now so we're gonna do it okay okay guys we got

it looking good

okay guys next photo is with the bikes we can't take them out I don't know why

but I'm just gonna like sit on it and hopefully it's keep oh that's cute

okay okay guys the next one is the book area so let's do that we got it okay

guys whoa

right I guess we got it alright let's go okay guys now we are outside in the

outdoor decor section

and that's the teat ladies you've done you got it I think I'll have to say for

this one is when your mom needs to take you to a trip to target but Fortnight is life

you get me I don't even know how to play for tonight okay guys the next photo is

by this lacrosse this is the most la photo I'm gonna take in this entire

video so let's do it

I got it

alright guys next location is Starbucks we are here in a target so it's kind of

two birds in one stone you feel me I have my drink here and now we're gonna

take some photos

okay the quick honor guys think we caught him

at least one hopefully

I can't be the only snack in this video

Ugly location photoshoot challenge

Hashtag Zoe

For more infomation >> Ugly Location Photoshoot Challenge! - Target - Duration: 3:32.

-------------------------------------------

Avengers: Infinity War - Infinity Stones Symbolism - Duration: 13:36.

[Beautiful.]

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is tied together

through its characters, stories and themes --

but underlying all that,

there are six mysterious objects

driving all this crossover --

the infinity stones.

[Before creation itself,

there were six singularities.

Then the universe exploded into existence,

and the remnants of these systems

were forged into concentrated ingots.

Infinity Stones.]

In the Marvel comics, they're called

Infinity Gems,

and the first appeared in 1972

in Marvel Premiere #1.

The plot of Avengers: Infinity War

revolves around the stones

to an unprecedented degree,

the movie is about the threat of

supervillain Thanos capturing all the stones

and putting them in the Infinity Gauntlet

to achieve limitless power.

So apart from their centrality in the plot,

what's the larger significance

of the infinity stones,

and why are they so central

to so many movies in the MCU?

[Do you know, I don't know what this is?

Not really.

I know it's not of this world,

that it powered Loki's staff,

gave you your abilities.

But its true nature is a mystery.]

Before we go on, if you're new here

be sure to subscribe and click the bell

to get notified about all of our new videos.

Infinity Stones essentially represent

different kinds of power and control --

over time, over space, and more.

All of the stones have powers

that seem very attractive,

but they're usually associated

with the potential to do enormous harm.

[This is the Tesseract.

It has the potential energy

to wipe out the planet.]

The characters who care most

about the stones

and actively seek them out

tend to be villains.

So there's an implication

that the quest for power itself

is innately destructive.

The mere existence of the Infinity Stones

causes problems in the MCU --

that's why Captain America seems to think

that no one should have the Tesseract.

[Is there anything you can tell us

about the Tesseract that we ought to know now?]

[You should have left it in the ocean.]

And it's the same reason Thor

wants to destroy the Aether.

[When Malekith pulls the Aether from Jane,

it will be exposed and vulnerable,

and I will destroy it and him.]

The stones raise questions about whether

a huge amount of concentrated cosmic power

is ever a good thing,

no matter whose hands it's in.

[The Tesseract is where it belongs:

out of our reach.]

This is symbolized in the way

that a normal person can't take

touching the Infinity Stones --

as if they're not meant to be held at all,

certainly not by us mortals.

[These stones, it seems, can only be

brandished by beings of extraordinary strength.]

Still, the stones aren't intrinsically evil.

[The Tesseract could be the key

to unlimited sustainable energy.

That's something the world sorely needs.]

In Guardians of the Galaxy, Peter Quill

uses the Power Stone or Orb to destroy Ronan --

obviously it's a destructive action,

but it's a very positive one

because he's saving innocent people from Ronan.

[If Ronan gets this stone,

he'll kill us all.]

So what really matters

is the true nature of the person

wielding the stone,

and how they choose to use its raw power

Now let's look at the deeper meaning

of each Infinity Stone's name,

history, and function.

The Space Stone is better known

as the Tesseract.

[The Tesseract was the jewel

of Odin's treasure room.]

In Captain America: The First Avenger,

Red Skull and Dr. Zola use the Tesseract

to create weapons.

[The energy we have just collected

could power my design, all my designs.

This will change the war.]

Then in The Avengers, S.H.I.E.L.D wants

to use it to build weapons of their own,

and despite their good intentions,

they do harm.

[Your work with the Tesseract

is what drew Loki to it, and his allies.

It is the signal to all the realms

that the earth is ready

for a higher form of war.]

This recurring association with weapons

links the Space Stone to war,

which is inherently about negotiating

the spatial boundaries between

different nations or realms.

Nick Fury's impulse to use the Tesseract

comes from seeing too many superheroes

and supervillains clashing,

taking over the space of the world,

and making regular people their casualties --

so this suggests that the Space Stone

could be thematically related to the way

that big players monopolize space

to the detriment of everyone else.

[The world's filling up with people

who can't be matched,

they can't be controlled.]

The name of "the Space Stone" becomes literal

when Loki uses it to open a portal to space.

The event makes us think about

just how much dangerous power

the Tesseract bestows by giving control

over infinite space.

So the message of the Space Stone may be

that there's a reason we have

boundaries and limitations in space.

Certain boundaries shouldn't be crossed.

The Reality Stone is also called the Aether.

[While the other relics often appeared as stones,

the Aether is fluid and ever changing.]

The Aether's fluid form plays on its similarity

to a virus that feeds on life.

[It changes matter into dark matter

and seeks out host bodies,

drawing strength from their life force.

Malekith sought to use the Aether's power

to return the universe to one of darkness.]

This virus quality is made explicit

when the Aether infects Jane.

The Aether's power over Jane reveals

that these magical things from the superhero universe

have physical effects in our regular world.

The situation reminds us of something

Thor says to Jane in the first Thor.

[Your ancestors called it magic,

and you call it science.

Well, I come from a place where

they're one and the same thing.]

Jane is an astrophysicist and an academic,

a very realistic person,

so it's significant that she has to

make sense of this supernatural force overtaking her.

The Reality Stone symbolically gets at

how our reality is shaped by bigger,

cosmic unknowable forces --

even if we can only parse that reality

through scientific or practical means.

Reality isn't just the things

we understand --

there's a lot more out there

than we can ever really grasp.

We can also read into

the Reality Stone's fluidity

as implying that reality is ever-changing,

not as solid or fixed as we tend to think.

The Power Stone is also called the Orb,

because of the Orb-like container

that holds it.

The Orb is essentially raw power

that can exploding all organic matter.

[The stone reacts to anything organic.

The bigger the target,

the bigger the power surge.]

Villains lust after this stone

because they want power over others,

power to obliterate others --

Ronan is determined to annihilate Xandar

because he hates Xandarians.

[You Xandarians and your culture are a disease.]

But the symbolism at the end of

the first Guardians of the Galaxy

speaks to what true power is --

Peter can hold the stone

while holding hands with his friends.

[You're mortal!

How?]

So the scene suggests

the real "power" in the MCU

is a collective of friends working together

for the good of the people.

Of course, in the sequel it's revealed

that Peter is only half human,

so that may be the more literal reason

why he can touch the stone without dying.

The Mind Stone is associated

with, of course, the mind and intelligence.

We see it used both for good and evil,

so it embodies the duality

of these Infinity Stones --

how they can be used either for destructive

or constructive purposes.

The Mind Stone specifically represents the way

that we can use our intelligence to do bad,

self-serving things,

or to create something positive and beautiful.

So intelligence itself is amoral.

The stone actually appeared in The Avengers

without viewers knowing it --

it was in Loki's sceptre all along.

Loki uses the sceptre to control people's minds

and get what he wants.

Once Tony Stark gets a hold of it,

he tries to use the stone

to create the A.I.

Ultron

which backfires spectacularly.

But later on the stone is used

to create the new Avenger Vision,

and the stone is even implanted

in Vision's forehead.

[It's one of the six Infinity Stones,

the greatest power in the universe,

unparalleled in its destructive capabilities.]

So throughout the MCU we see the power

of applied intellect fighting for

both the good and evil sides.

Intelligence doesn't about the motives

or intentions of the players who wield it.

The Time Stone is inside the Eye of Agamotto,

and its function is to control time.

Thematically, the stone ties

into Dr. Strange's feeling

that he's running out of time.

In the larger MCU context,

the Time Stone also represents

the race against time.

It's a trope of most superhero movies,

but Marvel heroes especially grapple with this

in their personal lives.

[Where in the world am I not a threat?]

[You're not a threat to me.]

[You sure?

Even if I didn't just...

there's no future with me.]

Strange uses the Time Stone to trap

the villain Dormammu in a time loop,

even though he has to sacrifice himself.

[Then you will spend eternity dying.]

[Yes, but everyone on earth will live.]

And this selfless action shows how far

he's evolved from the arrogant,

legacy-obsessed character he was

at the beginning of the film.

In the end, Dr. Strange has to stop trying to fight

or go back in time to become his previous self --

the lesson is we must look forward

and learn how to use our time well.

Infinity War debuts the final infinity stone:

the Soul Stone.

Leading up to the release of Infinity War,

many theories circulated around the Soul Stone --

like the idea that to get it

you'd have to kill someone you love,

that the stone has been in Wakanda,

or that it was in Thanos' homewolrd of Titan.

These theories speak to

the mystery surrounding the Soul Stone

and how fans have created

a mythology around it.

The first decade of the MCU culminates

with finally revealing the Soul Stone,

implying that it's the most important stone of all.

The Soul Stone being the most significant

symbolizes that,

in this world of superheroes,

humanity, or the human soul,

is still the most powerful magic.

In the comics, the Soul Stone is sentient

and has the power to possess a person's soul,

living or dead;

and it hungers for more souls.

So the Soul Stone is also incredibly dangerous

because it can take away

the most important thing we have,

which is our souls, our very selves --

again demonstrating that these stones

represent a cosmic power

no individual should really have.

The infinity stones are classic MacGuffins --

Guardians of the Galaxy actually

jokingly acknowledges this.

[So, this orb has a real shiny blue suitcase,

Ark of the Covenant, Maltese Falcon

sort of vibe.

What is it?]

MacGuffin is a term coined by Alfred Hitchcock

that refers to an object or objective

that drives the plot,

but could ultimately be replaced

by anything else

and it wouldn't make much difference

to the audience.

So the Infinity Stones are MacGuffins

in the sense that,

in most of the plots,

the stone could be replaced

by some other object

everyone is trying to get,

and the story wouldn't

really change significantly.

What's really interesting and innovative

about the Infinity Stones as MacGuffins

is the fact that they aren't

just plot devices within one story --

they're objects that tie together

many stories.

They bring multiple stories into

one interconnected universe,

through these objects that embody

a shared purpose and conflict

for the characters of different movies.

So the infinity stones are actually

a kind of mega-Macguffin.

They structure the overarching story of the MCU

in a way that has never been done before,

at least not with such scale.

In Hitchcock's view, the audience

shouldn't care at all about the MacGuffin.

[It's always called the thing that

the characters on the screen worry about

but the audience doesn't care.]

But in our MacGuffin video we talked about

how George Lucas reimagined the MacGuffin

as something viewers actually do care about

and invest in --

like the Ark of the Covenant

in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

So the Infinity Stones are more of

a Lucas MacGuffin in that --

as we've seen --

they do have deeper symbolic meaning,

and fans clearly care about what

the stones intrinsically are.

Even though there's a lot we don't know

about the Infinity Stones,

they matter to us because they get at

the overarching themes and challenges

of this universe

and they tie the characters together

through a common purpose.

And they've successfully driven

the Marvel story forward for years,

culminating in Infinity War's

marking the close of the first decade of the MCU.

[You have never seen this, have you?]

[It's not for the eyes of ordinary men.]

[Exactly.]

It's Debra.

And Susannah.

You're watching ScreenPrism.

Thank you guys so much for watching.

If you like this video, please subscribe

for more insights

about all of your favorite movies and shows.

Down here.

For more infomation >> Avengers: Infinity War - Infinity Stones Symbolism - Duration: 13:36.

-------------------------------------------

Wrong Wooden Slots with Smiley Fruits for Kids - Coloring Pages for Kids - Duration: 2:35.

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

Magic

Coloring Pages

For more infomation >> Wrong Wooden Slots with Smiley Fruits for Kids - Coloring Pages for Kids - Duration: 2:35.

-------------------------------------------

Olivia Gatwood - "Jordan Convinced Me That Pads Are Disgusting" @WANPOETRY - Duration: 1:33.

I'm gonna start off with a true story about the time Jordan convinced me that pads are disgusting.

"They make your panties smell like dirty bike chains," she said.

We were sitting on her mother's plastic-coated floral couch.

One of us in a swimsuit.

The other sworn to layers.

The water was her selling point and I was terrified of tampons.

Or rather, terrified of the undiscovered crater.

The muscle that holds and pulls and keeps and sheds.

She said, I'll do it for you.

And yes, we had seen each other naked many times.

We had showered together and compared nipples.

Wished to trade the smalls and bigs of our respective bodies.

So it wasn't unnatural, really, when I squatted on the toilet seat and she laid down on the

floor like a mechanic investigating the underbelly of a car.

With plastic syringe in hand, she wedged the packed cotton into me.

This is what I saw last before blacking out and collapsing on to the tile.

Jordan, blood scholar in a turquoise bikini saying, "Now, you are ready to swim."

For more infomation >> Olivia Gatwood - "Jordan Convinced Me That Pads Are Disgusting" @WANPOETRY - Duration: 1:33.

-------------------------------------------

Billie Eilish - Lovely (Lyrics) ft. Khalid - Duration: 3:19.

Hey! Type <3 if you see this :P

For more infomation >> Billie Eilish - Lovely (Lyrics) ft. Khalid - Duration: 3:19.

-------------------------------------------

[VP Gamer] Bất ngờ Airi được tăng sức mạnh trong phiên bản clan đại chiến - Duration: 10:24.

Hello everyone. Welcome to my channel

I'm VP Gamer

Today I will play a hero named Airi

about the equipment for Airi, I put on the top of the screen

superman want to steal a MP buff

haha thanks nakroth

I was steal a MP buff

On the new version

Airi don't have any change

but Garena add some magic armor for Airi

It helps Airi very hard to death

ok I was have a first blood for my team

Airi was a WARRIOR that very powerful

with 3 skills to run

and 2 skills stunning

OK superman, where do you go?

ok I have a second kill

haha I was steal again

no go back superman

when late game Airi will not easy to die

Because the third skill will recovery very fast

about 10 secs

ok I have a ultimate kill

On the next couple days

Airi will have a new skin

It is about 599 vouchers

It is not on lucky draw

because a ryoma's skin will on a lucky draw

oh, moren destroy our tower

Kill them

ok Zanis, where you going?

ok I have a sixth kill

Remenber

try to use a third skill

to hit more people as much as possible

So Airi will have a very thick armor

OK I will destroy this tower

OK let solo

Come on man

HAHA, Superman can't solo vs Airi

Ok, their team was surrender

OK this is the end of my video

Don't forget like and subscribe

OK see you on my next video

bye bye

For more infomation >> [VP Gamer] Bất ngờ Airi được tăng sức mạnh trong phiên bản clan đại chiến - Duration: 10:24.

-------------------------------------------

Anki & October Child feat. NEAVV - All Or Nothing [Official Audio] - Duration: 4:45.

don't want to know you're wanting somebody else

If I can't have you every way

All or nothing

don't want to know you're wanting somebody else

If I can't have you every way

All or nothing

I need to hear it, hear it

If I can't have you every way

All or nothing

don't want to know you're wanting somebody else

If I can't have you every way

Tonight it's all or nothing

Want you to take me home

Can't put out this fire

Because I'm done being one of your boys

Don't wanna play this part

Don't wanna stay this way

Had a change of heart

Cause something's changed

You know it's now or never

Ripped jeans and tattooed hearts

And let's be young forever

Meet me underneath the stars

If you're lying next to someone else

I'm done with late night calls

And giving you the answers

So sick of breaking your falls

don't want to know you're wanting somebody else

If I can't have you every way

All or nothing

don't want to know you're wanting somebody else

If I can't have you every way

All or nothing

I need to hear it, hear it

If I can't have you every way

All or nothing

don't want to know you're wanting somebody else

If I can't have you every way

All or nothing

Tonight it's all or nothing

Want you to take me home

Want you to get me higher

Because I'm done being one of your boys

Don't wanna play this part

Don't wanna play it safe

Had a change of heart

But somethings changed

We'll be everything we both need

Until the next one comes

Laughing till we can't breathe

Late nights drinking in the park

Left you sleeping in your beat up truck

The way she broke your heart

Telling all your stories

So used to hearing you talk

For more infomation >> Anki & October Child feat. NEAVV - All Or Nothing [Official Audio] - Duration: 4:45.

-------------------------------------------

1 killed, 1 injured in York shooting - Duration: 0:49.

For more infomation >> 1 killed, 1 injured in York shooting - Duration: 0:49.

-------------------------------------------

In Progress: Omar Kholeif with Paul Heyer - Duration: 1:03:21.

Tonight's event is part of a new MCA series of public programs that we're doing called

"In Progress," which is meant to give visitors a glimpse into the working practices

of artists in all different kinds of ways.

We're thrilled tonight to focus on the work of Paul Heyer, whose Chicago Works exhibition

is currently on display upstairs.

Heyer's exhibition, which was organized by cocurators Omar Kholeif and Erin Toale

is his first solo museum exhibition and his most immersive to date, creating a multisensory,

dream-like experience for visitors, and I encourage you all to head up there after this

talk if you haven't been already.

How many have been already?

This is your test.

Yes, you win.

So tonight, Paul will discuss his work and process with Omar Kholeif, my colleague, who

is Manilow Senior Curator and Director of Global Initiatives here at the MCA.

So help me in welcoming Paul and Omar.

So I forgot I was giving a talk today, so I didn't put on my nice shoes, and so Paul

looks much spiffier than I do.

And also there is the—just want to clarify, we're not in a fight with each other, a

big expanse.

We just wanted you to be able to see the projector.

So, putting together Paul's exhibition was a very gratifying and emotionally rich experience.

I first encountered Paul Heyer's work in a gallery in Los Angeles circa 2014 without

actually knowing that it was his work.

And was very captured by its dreamlike qualities, and when I moved to Chicago, a mutual friend

called Kevin McGary said, "You need to meet this artist, Paul Heyer."

And I hadn't actually put two and two together.

And we had a drink, we got to know each other, and it's kind of weird when you know someone

socially, you don't necessarily do a studio visit with them, but I started to Google his

work without him knowing and said, "I would really like that studio visit, if you don't

mind."

And when I went, my breath was taken away particularly by these flower paintings that

had these kind of vortex-like portals in them which to me spoke to kind of very interior

darkness that just resonated with me on a phenomenological level.

So first, I invited Paul to be part of a group show we staged here called "Eternal Youth."

And he made two incredible paintings for that, and then quickly after invited him to do a

Chicago Works exhibition here.

And for this evening, "In Progress," I asked Paul to really dig in deep and to think

about what are some of the inspirations and things that have moved him and shaped him

as an artist.

It's one of the things I'm most excited about is the lives of artists, but also how

they come to be those artists.

So, I'm going to hand it over to Paul in a second and ask him to kind of take us through

this journey, and I might interject with some questions, and of course there'll be room

for you to talk, too.

So over to you, my friend.

Thank you, and thank you everybody for coming.

This is so nice.

So yeah, like Omar said, I want to start off by showing you some things that have been

sort of in the background of my mind or influence me either recently or when I was a kid.

First is this poem I found on Twitter maybe a week ago.

But I was like, "This is the best poem I've ever read."

Because it's so simple.

It's written by this six-year-old kid, I guess he lives in DC, for some sort of first

grader anthology, but it works on so many levels.

You know, on the personal level, maybe it's talking about the literal.

Maybe it's talking about some kind of like social justice things.

It works on all these levels, but as you read it, you just can't help but be excited.

So it's this sort of notion of absolute simplicity and contagious excitement.

So kind of like keep this in mind as I talk because this is sort of the ultimate like,

goal of mine is to keep things as simple as they can and sort of keep in touch with this

childlike sense of wonder or naïveté, but also find in that wonder ways to kind of like,

detonate it, if that makes sense.

Do you want to read it out for us?

Yeah.

So this is called "The Tiger" by Nael, age six.

"The tiger / He destroyed his cage / Yes / YES / The tiger is out."

So.

I love that.

And so sort of keeping with this theme of childlike wonder, the next thing I want to

show you is this—I'll just play it for you.

It's short.

[Mr. Rogers is speaking.]

Hi neighbor, welcome again to this neighborhood.

I'd like to show you something.

Do you know what this is?

Maybe if I press this button.

[A rhythmic beat begins to play] This is a cassette player with a little cassette in

here, and there's nothing written on it, so we'll have to play it to see what it is.

[He starts singing a song in an auto-tuned voice]

Do you ever imagine things?

Are they scary things?

Do you ever imagine things?

The things you'd like to have?

Do you ever see a cat's eyes in the dark and wonder what they were?

Did you ever pretend about things like that before?

Did you ever grow anything in the garden of your mind?

You can grow ideas in the garden of your mind.

It's good to be curious about many things.

You can think about things and make believe, all you have to do is think, and they'll

grow.

So it's really cheesy, I know that.

I think it's great.

I think it's really great because first of all, he starts off by calling you neighbor,

which is like, immediately setting the stage of total inclusivity.

He's not judging you, no matter who you are, watching wherever you are.

You're part of his sort of like, neighborly tribe.

I think that's kind of radical in a way.

And the other thing is what I like about this video is it's him sort of talking about

imagination as kind of like an elemental building block and elemental option or tool for change.

And he's talking about how that can be scary, how that can make things grow.

He's comparing imagination to a garden, and that's another theme in my work is imagination

as sort of like primal goo of creation and kind of trying to enact that in the viewer

as well.

And so then I want to show some pieces I grew up seeing as a kid, as a teenager here in

Chicago, and the first one is the Kiki Smith piece, which is a terrifying prone waxen figure.

But I remember when I first saw this piece I was like, "How is this art?

Why would anybody want to look at this?"

But that's why it's amazing.

It really stuck with me as a kid.

Later on, I actually had Kiki Smith as a teacher, and she was surprisingly super nice and like,

very spacey and super generous.

She didn't talk about dead things that looked weird.

No, I mean she was into sort of dreamy stuff and like, flowers and antlers and just do

whatever you want.

So it makes sense that some of that dreamy so I can go in this direction.

But I just remember being maybe nine years old or I guess I must have been ten years

old, being like, "What is this?"

And it's called "Blood Pool."

It sounds like a slasher movie, you know?

And the next one is a piece by Eva Hesse.

Again, I was like, "What is this?

Why would you want to look at this?"

I sort of, on some level, recognized it was meant to be like a painting, but sort of this

Beetlejuiced, mutant painting, obviously very violent.

Entering your space, and I just hated it.

And I hated the last piece too.

I hated it so much.

I'm like, "Why is this art?

I hate this so much.

I just want a real painting.

I'm a little kid painter.

I like painting.

Why are you doing this?"

But now when I go back to the museum, I'm like, "This is the best."

And we just went back to see it together on Sunday.

Yeah.

And it's—I wish I had—you have to sort of—it's . . . big is what I'm trying

to say.

I never saw Beetlejuice in it before, but okay.

Yeah, because remember when she's making all those sculptures that are kind of these

surrealisty sculptures, and they come alive because the house is haunted.

So this painting is sort of like the wire support is like coming alive to strangle the

viewer.And sort of like— and it also seems to me talking about the history of violence

in this male-dominated world of painting and like, revenge, in a way.

And the paint—the support around it is kind of bandaged up like some kind of Frankenstein

or something.

I don't know, I think I was right to be scared by it, but I think it's really cool.

I like how you're blurring your pop cultural references with your art historical references.

Well I mean in a way, I think art is entertainment for a lot of people, and I think it's useful

to think about it in those terms.

Let's keep going.

Here is this Polke painting, which again, I thought was terrifying.

I didn't really understand historical references, but it's this huge watch tower, even with

these geese in the bottom.

I was like, "This is spooky.

This is too weird.

I don't like this."

Again, now it's my favorite paintings there.

So fear seemed to drive you a lot.

Yeah, those are the ones that really stuck with me, the ones that scared me.

This one, this Franz Kline, I just thought it was cool.

I no longer think it's cool, but you'll see why it's sort of influenced my work

a lot.

This sort of Japanese calligraphy influence AbEx stuff.

There's one outside very similar.

There's one over there, but you actually like Franz Kline.

I don't know.

I think in the '50s, I'd have been like yeah, he's cool, but now I think he's

kind of a—I don't know.

But you—it's like you can have influences that you can still feel ambivalent about,

right?

Yeah, that's definitely what he is.

I'm not proud that he's an influence, but he is.

That's a fact.

I'm not a fan, just letting you know.

That's fine.

Then this Picabia painting, which I always loved as a kid, too, and I actually only recently

realized the story behind this painting was he was on some transatlantic voyage going

to the Armory Show in New York in 19—probably—12, and there was this Dominican priest who kept

watching this Polish dancer do her dances.

And so this painting is kind of about, you know, the clashing together of the spiritual

and body and desire and temptation.

And now, if you see it in the painting, like oh yeah, that makes sense.

It's kind of luscious and waving back and forth, like this boat, and but what you'll

see as I get to my work is that sort of clashing of the spiritual and bodily is a theme in

my work as well.

Do you know what material that was made out of?

I think it's just oil paint.

Super 3-D.

Yeah, but it's just like glossy oil paint.

And this Vija Celmins piece, which actually I had mostly seen in a book because I had

a book of work from The Art Institute.

And what I found out recently when I was doing the slideshow was that a guard in Philadelphia

was on loan, took a key and slashed through it because he hated it so much.

So I don't know, somebody hates it.

But that I love.

Yeah, it's beautiful.

So obviously, it's like a night sky, and I used to always wonder, "How did they make

that?"

But this kind of like field of dots is something that obviously got deep in my work as you'll

see.

And then I think this is last, is this Gober piece which again, I thought was terrifying.

It's got this sort of like hole running through it that seemed just so violent and

terrifying, and it is.

And I feel like that has a real link to the flower painting.

Exactly.

And then so this was my first show in LA called "Young and Full of Cum."

And I was like I work on this show, I knew the sort of vibe of the show was me kind of

like earthy, sultry, sweaty, stinky, and I was listening to some song, and the phrase

came out.

I was like, "That would be a good title for a show.

That's catchy."

I remember my dealer was like, "I don't know if we should do that, Paul.

That's not a good idea."

I was like, "No, no, we have to do it."

I'm glad we did it.

I'm glad you did it, too, even though it's been used before.

Yeah, but that's also why it's kind of fun.

Again, it's like pop culture reference, it's kind of like cheeky and fun.

So here is a view of the show.

This is when Night Gallery started off as a nighttime only gallery that was open from

10 until 2 in the morning.

And all the walls were painted black.

So this show, keep in mind, was sort of viewed at like a nighttime—not only environment,

but like mindset—and so what we see here is this chair that I had designed, that I

had built that was designed to take the weight off of the viewer.

So you sort of like lean into this leather pad kind of, and you're sort of lean at

an angle, and you sort of relax.

And the idea was to sort of give the viewer relief, that's it.

And like unbeknownst to me, apparently, it had a lot of formal similarities to like these

sort of sex slings.

And I was like, "Oh, I guess."

Like I didn't know about these.

So that came after you made that piece?

Yeah, I didn't know about this device, actually.

You don't view that every day?

Yeah, so what's interesting is this device also is about letting go of control, obviously,

and so you're sort of at the whim of whoever you're with.

But like the chair that I made, you get to let go of your control, and it's like, give

into gravity and take it off of your body.

So that's a fun parallel.

And here is one of the centerpiece paintings, a sort of transparent stainglassy net thing.

So how did you get to this kind of style?

You know, I don't know.

I just had always loved Polke and his resin pieces, I'd always wanted to make one of

my own.

What actually happened was I saw—I heard about somebody making resin net pieces, and

I was like, "But I wanted to do that.

I had that idea already."

So I was so mad that I went out and made one, and I love this idea of transparent things,

of the sort of luminal border space, this line, this surface that you can sort of pass

through.

This has a lot of that.

It has like, the net, it has the stained glass, it has the shelves that live below that luminal

space.

And so this one is called "Truffle B.O.", and you can kind of—

What's the truffle bit?

It's just like smellness, sort of amber colors seemed very truffle B.O.-y to me.

Am I seeing sea shells on there?

Yeah, so these are all shells I collected in Malibu.

So you were living in LA at that point.

Yeah.

You didn't give a biographical note.

So, you were born in Chicago in the suburbs, and then when did you move to—you moved

to New York for school, right?

Yeah, for college.

I went to New York in 2000 and I was there for about ten years.

After grad school, I was like, "I've got to get out of here!

I've been at this party too long."

So I moved to LA, helped my friend Davida start Night Gallery, and then that was in

2009, late 2009.

Then this show came about a year later.

And then the allure of Chicago and its beautiful winters just—he's serious.

He loves snow, this guy.

I love all the seasons.

So you moved back here in 2014, '15?

End of '14.

Yeah.

Just a case of "I want to move."

So here is the same piece from a different angle.

And this piece is sort of situated on the ground, so it becomes like a door, it becomes

like a fellow figure in this space.

Then shortly after—I was still in this transparent idea and started making these cowboys.

So this is the first cowboy, "Bandit", because the cross bar kind of becomes like

a mask across his eyes.

But yeah, I just wanted to make paintings you could see through.

Because I just felt like it's how reality operates.

Nothing is as firm as we think it is.

Were you also thinking about issues of gender and sexuality or iconography around gender

and sexuality with these or not?

I think there was a little bit of like, the cowboys, like classic American figure, like

pinup figure in a way.

There's a lot of repressed sexuality, this like man alone on the range.

You know?

Also like the Marlboro man maybe?

Yeah, this classic icon of American masculinity, sure.

But I also was thinking of them as sensitive creatures, these sort of zen monks of the

prairie by themselves with the stars and their thoughts, kind of cut off from society.

I like the portraits on that level, too.

But shortly after that, I started making this series of figurative paintings as my grandmother

was dying.

As I went back to Chicago to visit her, I'd make these drawings when I wasn't by her

bed.

I'd draw things around her house or around her property, and so she died, but I eventually

made these drawings into paintings.

And so this new series is all sort of with that in mind.

And so this is sort of hole by her house.

You can light the shelves and light the sort of markings on the sort of like dashes, things,

sort of littering the surface, things you have to look through.

And later on, I kind of put two and two together, realized it's a lot like ash, which is very

deathly.

This is a sort of lamp post outside of her house, has a sort of dystopian feel to it,

the red lighting, the American flag, the ash swirling around.

This was kind of a dark show.

This was like a two-person show I did in New York at Rachel Uffner.

It was all about death apparently.

But there's also kind of—if a kind of cartoon-like quality to something very dark.

Yeah, for sure.

The drawings were just made as kind of simple line drawings, but it even has a kind of like

Kippenberger-y and Disney-like, animated coming to life quality, very cartoony.

Which I always kind of—I'm not sure why, but I just kind of like it.

Maybe it's the thing with the childhood, Mr. Rogers thing, but it's a language everybody

can find access to.

Here is a sort of Egyptian one.

She had a postcard that I found from the Met.

But again, very deathly artifact in the tomb.

These lily pads above.

That wasn't an homage to me?

I didn't know you yet.

My Egyptian self.

This kind of Egyptian faience blue, which is the chalice.

Not the same postcard obviously, but you get the idea of the influences.

So that was a kind of different—these are different kinds of influences that penetrated

the work as well.

Yeah, these are all sort of taken directly from my grandmother's home.

So she had this postcard that I kind of like copied in my hands, and some were from drawings

and things I had seen around her house.

So in that sense, the everyday plays an important role as well in terms of what you're thinking

about subject-wise.

Yeah, for sure.

But also when I was making this body of work, I also wasn't really thinking about like

death as a subject matter.

It's only in retrospect that I see how heavily it's imbued in these images.

Here is these sort of Etruscan birds flying through these rings, kind of Monet-esque background.

She had a big Monet poster in her house.

And is that history of like French painting, the Monet-era painting?

You've talked to me about how it kind of bears a weight on you, and I'm curious just

like where—how do you negotiate the entire—history is—painting is the most canonical art historical

subject or medium, excuse me, but it's also one of the most, perhaps, undertheorized in

the academy.

So how do you negotiate that whole expanse?

That's a good question.

I kind of had a freak out for a while in grad school.

I was like, "I'm going to go to grad school.

It's going to be like a party.

We're going to drink a lot and talk about art and do interventions," and then everyone

expects me to have some kind of critical theory about what I was doing, and I was like, "I

am not prepared for this.

I do not know what I'm doing."

It was a real mind-bleh because I had so many ideas and painting is so rife with stuff to

address and stuff to do that I didn't know what to do.

I was paralyzed.

Only by kind of deciding to move in a more instinctual way was I able to get through

that.

Because there is such a huge weight to it, and there's so many things that should be

addressed or should be corrected or so many avenues to explore.

I do have a set of ideas—and in all the shows that I show you, there's too much

going on, and this is like the reduced version of that, but there's too many ideas.

So I just kind of try to see what is—seems most urgent to me at the time.

But another like art historical kind of reference, you know, we've never talked about this,

but when you talk about the kind of cartoon-like quality when we think of the everyday, I just

go to Warhol as a figure and think, you know, his relationship to popular culture must have

played or had some influence on you, even if he wasn't necessarily painting in this

particular way that you've—

Well Warhol is so great because he's the one who is like, "It doesn't matter.

Nothing matters."

And that's a huge weight off your shoulder if you're twenty-six years old in grad school

and feeling the pressure, having to make something important, and you're in so much debt.

"Why am I doing this?

This isn't fun anymore."

You didn't remember Warhol coming in and being like, "It doesn't matter, just like

make thirty of them and sell them."

It kind of was a nice relief.

You know what I mean?

Are you a fast painter then?

Yeah, I'm a fast painter.

How long does it take you to make—I mean you shouldn't tell people this.

I shouldn't say, honestly.

It depends on the piece, but yeah, I'm a fast painter.

Lynette Yiadom-Boakye makes—she makes—she takes a day to make a painting, and she destroys

them.

Who?

You know Lynette Yiadom-Boakye?

There's a painting of hers over there in the second-floor gallery.

And she makes a painting a day and she started to destroy them because she was like, "I

don't want to ruin my market.

But also, I just don't want everyone to have one."

So just letting you know you can also destroy your paintings if you want, or you can just

give them all to me and I'll keep them safe.

Yeah, no, I work really fast.

This was also a way for me to work through ideas.

I can't—I need to work through them physically.

That helps a lot, so it's good to make fast—

This was still from around the time of your grandmother's passing.

Yeah, so this is 2012.

Here is the sort of influence behind it.

Here is the last piece from that show, this sort of Etruscan tree shape.

And then living in LA, I saw this painting at LACMA of this—called "Jellyfish Like

the Moon" from the 1700s.

And I was just like, "Oh my God, what is this?"

You know?

It's figurative, it's abstract, it's like this analogy between this living creature

and cosmic entity, this like sublime object in the sky.

It's so old.

It also has a kind of cartoony element to it, this sort of playful, childlike analogy.

And so, from here, I was like, "I've got to live here for a while."

So for my next show in LA, it's called "The Sun Can't Compare."

That's a song by Larry Heard, who is like a big Chicago house DJ.

And it goes like, "You are my light, the sun can't compare, you are my beam, the

moon can't compare."

You can't sing it?

Something like that.

I'm not going to sing it.

So you have here these sort of—I'll show you guys.

So these three big diptychs that show snow falling.

And these are made on silk like a Japanese painting using Sumi ink like a Japanese painting.

And I like that it can kind of be like doors, they can kind of be like—sorry, like windows.

They're portals in a way.

They're also like set pieces like in a theater, and so you have these two burnt chairs in

front that suggests some kind of drama, and the chairs become props in this staged drama.

And you're also with these ones here, like do you—really think about the dematerialization

of painting I would say.

Yeah, because they're transparent again, in a different way than the resin.

So you have these millions of dots.

Not literally millions, but these dots are the real like subject matter floating in this

kind of painted, constructed ether, and breaking down this what is a painting, what is the

structure, where does it lie.

It's these two pieces, and is it snow, is it stars, is it bubbles?

Equating all those things together, too.

Then I came across this statue at the same time.

He was—this statue of somebody chanting, and so each of those little figures coming

out of his mouth is a syllable and this chant, this Buddhist chant, take you to the paradise

place.

And I was just like, "This is so beautiful."

You know?

Here is these chairs in front of the one that's called "Snow Dawn."

You can't see in the color very well, but this is sort of peach-colored silk with silver-leaf

dots in a black structure.

Can you tell us why you choose—because the material often instead of say—I'm lost,

but you know what I mean.

Yeah, it started off with that jellyfish painting.

I was like, "I need to do this, whatever this is."

And I think part of it was like you said before, this weight of the history of painting, had

become like materially embedded in canvas.

So working on silk was a way to sort of get away from that.

Also obviously, I love the transparency and sort of like tactile quality.

It's actually one of the most fire-resistant and strongest of all natural fibers.

This is secretly super strong fiber, which I liked conceptually.

But just also in-person has this sort of sheen to it, kind of like shines a little bit, and

that's really nice.

So this one is the nighttime one.

These are all made, like I said, with Sumi ink, which is made from burning wood.

Here is the lightest one.

You can't really see the dots, but in person you can.

Here is a blue one, which seems more like bubbles.

Then I made this one like night and day.

This obviously felt to me like a yin yang thing, which is not just like chaos and order.

That swirl in-between those two, but it's traditionally thought of—Like the masculine

and feminine energies, and like the idea of these paintings also being a swirl of those

two, like a constantly renegotiating weather system instead of a spectrum or something.

It's a swirl that's constantly changing.

I like that idea a lot.

Are you also thinking about history's obstruction when you made these particular works?

I thought a lot about Ellsworth Kelly, and that actually—that was in the slideshow

earlier, that piece at the Art Institute that is sort of like these multicolored panels,

and they're kind of like vibrating the colors back and forth.

But thinking about his shape panels a lot.

It's a colored object sitting on the wall and that's it.

So I like the sort of muteness of that.

And so I have these chairs, which were first models of the universes, like the brooms from

upstairs.

But these are chairs from my house that I just burned with a blowtorch and then glued

these shells on.

I like the idea of saying we don't know the real shape of the universe.

Let's pretend that it's whatever we want it to be.

Let's pretend that it's a chair, and so the shells become planets or stars, and the

burned black becomes the depth of space.

Is the act of violence of burning the chair something special to you?

Yeah, it's really fun, and it's really fun to light a chair on fire, you know?

It's really satisfying.

And you put the brooms upstairs on fire, too, right?

Yeah.

So we should be aware that you put—set things on fire?

Yeah, I come from a long line of pyromaniacs actually.

My mom is in the audience and she loves fires.

That's a fact.

Arsonists.

Yeah.

And so I saw this picture online, and I guess it's a classic brain buster.

It's like, both shadows are true, but neither one shows truth—that's my typo—but we

don't really know what's true about what we can perceive.

And so that's why I am making these universe models because I want to challenge the viewer

to be reminded of that.

But they can like create their own image of how things actually work because we should

all be participating in that.

Also there's a sort of—this is an oarfish as a banner, and I don't know how I got

the idea to make this thing, but then shortly after I started construction, all these ore

fish, which are these deep deep deep sea dwelling fish that no one had seen alive before, started

washing up on the coast of California.

And I was like, "It's not a coincidence."

And so I made this.

It's sort of like a beautiful French metallic silk with Sumi ink spots and this fiber optic

glowing fin, because it had this beautiful red fin.

Just kind of like hanging there, like centering the show.

So the show is very much about like sea and sky and snow.

I'm always picturing the coasts of Alaska.

You're alone on this like rugged coast and it's snowing, and you're like, "Should

I jump in?"

That's kind of the vibe of the show.

You sound like you want to be a star of "Brokeback Mountain" or something.

I don't know.

But colder.

Just ice cold and snow, deep sea.

So here is a fish alive.

Somebody finally got a video of this one, I think in the Gulf of Mexico.

You can see how cool they are.

Right?

So they're extinct?

No, they just live like 2,000 miles below the surface.

So you rarely see them.

Yeah.

That's why I was like this gesture of pulling this thing up from the depths and find the

metaphor that you want, but it's like the subconscious, pull it up and hang it there.

Can you eat it?

I don't know.

I'm sure you could, why not?

You should try eating it.

I'm sure it's not delicious.

I'm sure it's fine.

So here you can see the fin kind of glowing.

I was told the ceilings were a lot taller than they were.

Was not supposed to hit the floor.

I have to say that.

Bad galleries.

Bad galleries.

It was a mistake.

So there's also this mic stand there because we had hired the Lesbian and Gay Teen Center

in LA this kid to sort of sing the song, what the show is titled after, at the opening,

which is really beautiful.

And then lastly from the show, I made this ring of glowing shells in the floor.

So this is like about six feet across.

These shells laying on the floor with this glowing liquid filling each one.

And this was sort of hidden behind a wall so you would come across it in this sort of

secret zone, this secret garden of shells.

And you know, thinking about these magic earth archives, like Richard Long, Andy Goldsworthy,

both of whom are British.

There's a strong Druid, magical—

You love the Brits.

I can't help it.

He has a really funny British accent that he tries to pull off.

It's really bad.

I'm not going to do it now.

Try out—

[In a British accent] Andy Goldsworthy, pebbles broken and scraped.

[Without accent] But I like that it's not straight minimalism.

It's like magical minimalism.

You know what I mean?

Everybody's days are rough enough.

Let's make it fun.

So there's like glowing liquid, it's like burning different colored fire, like lava.

It's like alchemical wizard stuff.

And it's cool because you don't know as a viewer what it's made of.

What is that?

Is it lit from below?

You get really close, you're like, "No, it's glowing.

What is it?"

It's cool.

And so like it's secretly the most toxic stuff, and I had rashes for three weeks afterwards.

But it looks like magical ectoplasm.

You're like, "Is this like what life is made of?

What is this?"

Again, I like that sense what Mr. Rogers, this sort of magical childlike sense of wonder

and giving that to the viewer.

That's the piece on the floor, glows kind of blue obviously.

And these were paintings that were hung in a small gallery.

These sort of collage shell pieces in various colors.

It's kind of like, again, collecting shells on the beach for your collection, being casual

about it, and like just doodling on the painting and rubbing sand into it.

Are you a hoarder at all?

No, but I'm a collector.

I like the idea of, you know, it's fun to walk the beach and get stuff and glue it onto

stuff.

And then this is after I got to Chicago, I was like "I need to start painting stuff

again," but this was on silk, and I came at a point where I was in a transition in

my life, so I didn't know what to paint anymore.

I was like, "I'll just paint flowers."

It's a forever go-to, I'm sure it'll be fine.

And so I just started painting these flowers and started putting these weird chromosome

patterns on top, sort of floating Matisse-y, leafblown chromosomes, and I wanted to make

them super washy, super fresh, keep it fast, keep it luscious.

This is big.

This is about six feet tall.

But like super breezy.

That was important to me for some reason.

And what triggered that transition?

It was just that you moved?

That you wanted to go back to the elements?

Just like, ADD.

Because I can't live off of just painting dots for the rest of my life.

I need to like—I'm a kid that grew up drawing all the time.

I like to draw stuff.

And so I think I need to itch that impulse a little bit.

So your days as an abstract minimalist artist are over?

We'll see.

Never say never.

These ones are sort of inspired by acid house posters and that color palette of yellow,

black, and white, and that crazy smiley face they'd always use on their posters.

So putting that in the flowers.

This one is called "Spectrum," a little bit of a rainbow there on one of the petals.

"Acid."

And this one has the little butterfly with this lightning bolt in the wings.

In making this show, I'm like, "Oh my God, that's like the jellyfish becoming

the moon.

It's like a butterfly becoming a storm.

I was like, "Oh my God, that makes so much sense.

It's all here together."

But obviously you're also thinking even from the titles like "Forever," "Acid,"

you're thinking of this heightened state of euphoria that comes from drug culture,

rave culture.

I mean is that meant to be explicit in the work, or is it not?

I think it's pretty explicit.

It's like the power trio, like spirituality, drugs, and sex as these like well-worn avenues

towards like leaving your body or towards the sublime.

I'd say that is kind of the theme of everything that runs through my work in those.

One of those three ways.

So yeah, for sure.

Other cowboy.

I fell in love with this one.

This one moved me.

This one's really small.

It was actually part of a large painting that kind of got repurposed and restretched as

a kind of fragment, but I think this is one of the more actually intimate more poignant

ones.

And some of them were just sort of like—this is a smaller one, an evening primrose which

was an Illinois native flower, chromosomes almost choking it out, which was weird.

But these chromosomes are like the state of absolute possibility.

Like they haven't like melded together yet.

They're not going to make an embryo.

It's just like the cosmic goo of possibilities.

It's also the dematerialization or deconstruction of the body as like a—

Yeah, into a million teeny microscopic components, like blowing it out.

Or before it comes together.

After or before like where in that cycle.

So it's like birth or death.

It's between birth and death I guess.

Not to get too new-agey.

But then I was like, "I can't do this anymore.

These are too pretty.

I'm getting a cavity, I can't do it."

So one day, I was like, "I'm doing it.

I'm going to mark it up.

I'm going to do it."

So this is the first one.

But I put this in here because I don't think it's the best painting but it does sort

of call back those fronts Franz Klines that I loved.

I mean I had a Franz Kline poster as a kid.

That's how much I liked—I was like, "It's so cool."

It's not cool.

It's embarrassing.

It's bad.

But it's just us friends here, so I'll let you know it's fine.

But you can see how it comes in here, like and this is a sort of nonsense Japanese character,

these kind of stains or burns on the canvas, and I was like, "Yeah, that feels good,

I like that, this is good."

So I started making these.

Oh, this is a sort of comic book still that I came across from the same time, and this

is supposed to be like Bacchus.

He's saying, "Welcome to the party at the end of the world," which is again, so

cheesy, but I like the idea of these flowers juxtaposed—these voids, and how like this

kind of Bacchus end of the world vibe plays into that.

So here you have—this one is called "Four Suns," and they kind of are arranged like

dominoes or braille, and they're kind of vibrating around back and forth.

But that's kind of when I got really interested because I felt like they were also heroin

addicts, you know, holes— Track marks.

They were—

Yeah, or holes in your brain.

Holes in your brain, but they were also like when people talk about depression, they talk

about this complete darkness that washes over you.

You've taken something of beauty, and you've literally engulfed it and put it in darkness.

Well my whole thing—what I realized was not that I was marring these with these darknesses,

but I was more exposing the darkness.

that was like already coexisting.

And so I was kind of like having eyes on both sides of your head with these paintings, and

like showing you both at once, which is normally impossible.

If that makes sense.

Here is one with these apples that I picked from near my studio.

Obviously very charged symbolism in the apple of both fertility and forbidden fruit—ahhh!

So you're always thinking in metaphor.

Not on purpose, though.

This is all kind of in retrospect.

But I do kind of like—as you'll see, I do kind of like that it can operate on those

levels.

I think it's a juicy extra.

Here is a detail.

So let's move up a bit more quickly to your current show.

This is context for the current show.

Yeah, I wanted to go a little bit lighter, so I made these sort of huge sky paintings

for the show in LA.

I was like, "I just want to do a show that's like—woooosh."

And that was the only grounds for the starting point.

So I just made these huge skies, which I thought were like is it going to be the most upbeat,

fun show, just like skies.

That actually was quite depressing for you.

People were like, "Wow, Paul, this show was really sad."

I was like, "What?"

I was kind of like "I guess," and people who really love my work and knew me well.

So it was like, maybe you're right.

Just so depressing, the sky.

They thought it was really depressing.

I was like, "Okay."

Here is a sort of figure out in the sky that's sort of androgynous posthuman angel guy at

the bar.

But you wanted it to be euphoric and utopic, but then people read it as sad.

Yeah, like I wanted to be kind of like you're like breathing in too much oxygen.

So you're kind of like, "Okay, yeah."

That can be really sad.

Yeah, apparently.

Hard for people physically, to do.

Yeah, it's hard in the long run.

So then I also made this piece called "I Am The Sky," which is kind of this—like

I was kind of asking the viewer to imagine themselves as the sky, this impossible task

to try and imagine.

It was really small, kind of—I think I have a piece.

It's really small.

But it's kind of like a dare or invitation, and I made a little buddy.

This one is wrapped in lining, so it becomes sort of wrapped like a ballet dancer.

Skull, after El Greco.

You skipped a couple slides of David Robilliard.

Yeah, I just—

Was he influential to you, or is that something that came later for our conversation?

That's something I saw a little bit later, but there is this tradition of these kind

of queer text paintings, kind of humble and small, him and Paul Thek, which is the next

one.

And they're just these kind of like nice reminders, I guess in a way, and I think that's

actually a really generous thing.

I'm grateful for these artists to have done that.

Here's one.

This is "Compassion."

Again, these dots you know.

And then this painting was at a group show.

This painting was called "Painting of Magic."

And the reason I'm showing this is because— Like this is an important painting to me personally

because it's asking the viewer to imagine that this painting really is a painting of

magic.

It actually is sort of like sequined transparent material, but I'm like, "I want you to

pretend."

And so it's sort of a different kind of dare than the "I Am the Sky" piece.

Let's jump forward to—those were "Eternal Youth."

Yeah, this is a show that I did here in Chicago at Bar 4000 with some more of these glowing

shell stuff.

Here is a fish that can see upwards, also in the deep sea.

And then—

What was that image we skipped?

This is a little video of that last show, but this is—so I wanted to inverse the black

hole and make it sort of white orb pieces.

This is like a large diptych, thinking about this like a still from "Sleeping Beauty"

and the toxic apple.

And so I made these sort of radioactive blue apples for the show here.

And I also like started filling up all the space around the objects, like every single

micro-globe of space is somehow charged.

Like there's no such thing as empty space, and thinking about painters, like American

painters like Charles Birch where everything is sort of throbbing with energy, and then

you had these sort of almost violent energy orbs which were the ultimate manifestation

of that idea just sort of floating there, haunting you.

Here is the cowboy again, like alone, drinking his water.

But this one was displayed particularly uniquely in that you actually painted out the back

of it white, and then you spot lit it in a very particular way in this kind of sequence,

which it's kind of a strange—I guess you have these two vortex paintings, and then

you have this figure who is kind of—we're not sure, is he begging, is he receiving some

piss— Is someone pissing in his hand?

Is that ambiguity intentional?

What about the theatricality of that as well?

I'd love to hear more about that.

Yes, so the theatricality is definitely on purpose.

I'm one of those kids who grew up like I was in plays in high school, so that kind

of formal set up is definitely in my bones.

But as far as a cowboy painting, I wanted it to become this vessel the way the shells

and ground—this frame is holding this, and both in a physical and conceptual way.

It's got these sort of sparkly orbs, and he's sort of holding this water the way

the painting is kind of like holding him.

And he—the painting is transparent the way the water is transparent, and he's kind

of like—what is he doing?

Is he looking for tadpoles?

Is he like you said, receiving someone's piss?

Is he drinking water?

It's confusing.

And I like that kind of ambiguity.

The power structure, whether he's in control of his own destiny or not, is something that

is—that is pivoted on the viewer's—what perception they want to bring to it.

Exactly, exactly.

And then there's a soundtrack that's in this space.

Can you talk to that?

Yeah, so I wrote this poem, and it's read by my six-year-old nephew.

Maybe he's five actually.

He's almost six.

And paired with a kind of nature-y soundtrack, a mechanical drone sound, and also these sort

of ambient '90s rave snippets, and he's sort of talking about how he created this

world sort of like this little kid talking about building something as if he's a god

or as if he's an artist.

And so this sort of ambiguous, kind of spooky, kind of optimistic soundscape while you're

looking at these paintings.

And then what's the blanket?

The blanket.

So the blanket is a bed, it's a comforter, and so I like the—I always like this idea

of taking these humble household objects and blowing them into these sort of cosmic, sublime

things.

So this ten foot by ten foot comforter that looks like it belongs in a spaceship, and

this silver that is sort of suggesting these cosmic waves of infinity traveling through

space.

And this one you'd mentioned is very much a kind of Disney-inspired, this apple painting.

Yeah, absolutely.

I just like the idea the cartoon is a language we all can speak and allows people to sort

of enter the conversation without being intimidated.

You know what I mean?

Anybody can look at cartoons and be like, "Oh yeah, it's an apple.

Cool."

And then next these brooms, which is obviously a continuation of the chairs, a rethinking

of the chairs.

These sort of subjective models of universes, everyone in their own universe or making their

own universe.

And are they brooms because you love cleaning?

I do love cleaning, but they're brooms because the broom is like the most humble object there

is.

Like I also conflate with this idea of this like Midwest angst, this cleanliness and work

is godliness, and they become worn by the body.

They become stand-ins and traces of the body, and so a lot of these brooms are used by my

extended family or people we know.

So they're kind of meaningful in that way, too.

There's little shells put on in case you can't tell.

These burnt brooms.

And these paintings.

"10,000 Years."

Just asking the viewer to imagine this expanse of time or become the expanse of time.

"Every Day Is Halloween" again, just sort of reminding you of the importance of reimagining

yourself and your environment every day.

And that's also a song by Ministry.

Yeah, which is sort of about kind of like it was designed to be a freak anthem, like

"We can do whatever we want, whenever we want.

People look at us weird, but it's who we are."

It's a great song.

And then these chromosomes again show up, and you can't tell but—within the blackness

is the night sky.

And then lastly, it's the video I made the other day.

I just made this for Instagram, but I like the idea of Instagram becoming this very casual

place to make artistic sketches of different kinds if that makes sense.

But I also like the idea that this sort of shows how the work can become theatrical.

That's it.

I don't know.

I didn't watch that.

I didn't see that.

You hadn't seen that?

I'm really confused.

I'm so confused right now.

It's just a weird—I just like the idea that you can now use like YouTube and the

internet to make these weird collages.

I don't know, it's just fun, kind of like high school theater, like these like Disney

monks who have got this sort of celestial bubble space, it's like morphing through

time.

It's cheesy early '90s trance music.

You know what I mean?

But one thing that brings me to, my last question before I open up to you guys to ask whatever

you'd like to say—ask of Paul is you know, you obviously are really using the space of

social media and the web as a resource for mining thinking.

But your practice is, I'm not going to say traditional, but your practice is, as I mentioned

before, weighted by this historical tradition of painting.

How are you negotiating those spaces?

How do you think about those things?

How are those experiences for you?

Going between those two spaces.

I just think that more than half of the images are what we see day to day is from social

media, so that's going to be a source of subject matter no matter what.

But I'm a painter, so I'm not going to paint pictures of my phone or something, you

know what I mean?

But these kind of images inevitably end up in my paintings.

This will probably become a series of paintings of some kind.

This is not like a finished piece and be like, "Paul makes these video collages for Instagram.

That's what he does."

But I want to show you guys this is one of my ways of sort of like playing around at

home or in the studio as sort of fodder down the line.

I don't know what will happen with this one, but yeah, the show I did here, that a

lot comes from stuff that I've seen online.

Online research and looking at old clips of like dance parties and Disney movies and witches

and stuff.

It's just like a research tool, and it's a place where all of us live half the time.

Do you do that late at night?

Yeah, just late at night, on the couch.

I should be brushing my teeth, you know what I mean.

So you don't brush your teeth at night?

I do.

I do.

Good.

So who has questions for Paul or anything to say?

We have a mic here that's roving.

We've got one up there.

Hi, so I was interested in some of the language you used to talk about your work, words like

"fun" and "euphoria" and talking about art as entertainment.

We have this sort of long tradition that argues that art should be the opposite of those things

coming from Adorno, Horkheimer, that there should be kind of this Duchampian shock that

happens and that this is what art should—art should be trying to provoke in an audience.

And Adorno, Horkheimer, are old and dead, but I think this is a problem that kind of

continues within art and art history.

So you think about people like Claire Bishop at CUNY who is an art historian who critiques

the practices of those like Liam Gillick and Rirkrit Tiravanija that oh, they kind of introduce

these pleasant spaces and people hang out and they like it because they like talking

to their friends and eating Thai food, whereas Bishop is trying to argue we should be looking

more towards artists like Santiago Sierra, others who kind of have more confrontational

practices that are more reminiscent of the historical avant-garde.

So I was just being interested in hearing thoughts about that.

You kind of addressed it a little bit at the beginning when you were talking about these

works you saw as a child that were very impactful for you, but also very kind of frightening,

producing precisely the sort of response these people like Bishop and Horkheimer and company

would want.

Yeah, so I'm kind of interested in how you see those sort of negative influences coming

in, or why you've chosen to go different ways.

I think to be honest it actually is a direct reaction against people like Rirkrit and Liam

because those were my teachers when I was in grad school.

And I remember just thinking to myself—no offense to them, they're great people, but

I was like, "What are you talking about" They're like, "We're making this relational

aesthetic space where people come together."

I'm like this is an awning made of stainless steel that hangs in a museum that costs $30

to get into.

You're not creating a space at all, even like a propositional or conceptual space.

And quite honestly, I talked about how in grad school I was overwhelmed by the endless

possibilities that painting provided, but I was also very angry because a lot of the

stuff that we were reading was high philosophy of the moment, and didn't really have a

bearing on the way people actually lived their lives.

And like I don't believe that I can make a direct difference in a political way, like,

"I'm going to make this painting, and I'm going to change Donald Trump's mind."

I don't believe in that, but I do believe there is a real fertile ground for opportunity

to sort of like remind the general public of things.

Or soften them or do certain things.

And I actually really do like the work of Santiago Sierra, and the Kiki Smith piece

that haunted me.

I think that is a very legitimate way to make work.

It's just not my personality.

And so, given that, the question is what do you want to do.

I'm like here at the museum, a lot of people who come here, they didn't go to grad school.

They don't have a PhD.

They don't know what relational aesthetics is, you know what I mean?

So I do think a lot about what is the viewer—how do I be generous to the viewer?

And that's my job.

And also, I will say that I think a lot of the meaning of the production of the artwork

lies—and I'm like—lies less in me as like singular subjective figure making this

object for the market of ideas, and more in the in-between space between me like as the

object and the viewer.

Like what happens between the viewer and the object.

That's what interests me the most.

So that's a space that I want to occupy, and if I just—if they have no way in, I

think it's a wasted opportunity.

And so that's why a lot of the language of cartoons or the likability, the material

likability of the yummy silver fabric is a way to sort of draw you in and try to open

up the space to a more subconscious level, if that makes sense.

Any other questions . . . here?

Hi.

I was wondering if you could speak to the chromosomes and the like when they begin to

emerge in the work as sort of figures.

To me, I feel like there's some thread in the snow pieces you're talking about.

It was the one diptych that you're referring to as a ying yang and the masculine-feminine

energy.

And I'm curious can you talk about the thread from those snow paintings and flurries of

snow to flurries of chromosomes and kind of these like signifiers for potential embodied

gender that haven't come to place like existing as flurries over landscapes and standing in

the sky, like in happening spaces of the night, but then like resolve.

Yeah, can you paint that thread a little more freely?

Like when did you become interested in those chromosomes and what are they doing for you

I guess?

Yeah, I would say that like I have sort of a natural—I'm naturally drawn to this

formal setup of little teeny floaty things.

Like I just like that on some kind of weird innate level.

I just like it.

It's like Christmas lights, little bubbles.

I just like that stuff.

But I also think in a way as a model or as a metaphor or even in a more cosmically literal

way, they're all the same thing.

They become these million points of light just because you see it in so many places.

It's like the stars, the bubbles, the snow, the cells.

It's everywhere.

So I'm interested in why is it everywhere and let's look at that and bring it closer.

And that's sort of one to apply directly onto these chromosomes and remind people that's

everywhere too, and it's even inside the chromosomes and we have little dots.

Like I said before, it's like making a painting of like everybody or a painting of everything,

and within that is inherent this possibility that anything could happen because this painting

contains everything, if that makes sense.

And like, I like to sort of cheekily use the chromosomes like XX or XY to say like there's

still within that a possibility for anything.

It is like a swirl, it is like a universe in and of itself if that makes sense.

Okay, so we've been here an hour and like we're getting tired.

So I want the last question, and I want this last question to be amazing.

So the pressure is on you to come up with this amazing—Mickey, are you going to go

for it?

Let's go for this.

Good luck, Mickey.

So you once told me that Kiki Smith asked you, "What gives you the right to paint?"

Given this whole conversation here, what answer would you give her now?

It was actually Kara Walker, which makes the question a lot scarier and a lot more complicated.

And that was ten years ago, almost, that she asked me that, and I would—nothing gives

me the right to paint.

Her question was what makes you—what gives you, as a white male artist, the right to

make paintings?

And the answer is nothing.

The answer is that it's a human thing to do, and so given the privilege and opportunity

that they get to do this with, just don't waste it.

I think that's my answer.

Nothing, but just don't waste it.

Don't waste it.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul.

You're amazing.

It's been a wonderful pleasure to talk to you this evening.

We recorded this, which means you can tell your friends that this will be available somewhere

at some point to engage with, and people can laugh at our jokes again and again.

And thank you to our public programs team for organizing this event.

And yeah, please, if you haven't seen the show, go upstairs to the third floor and see

it.

We also recently opened, if you like painting, that we also recently opened—Howardena Pindell

show on the fourth floor which is a kind of painting, some of it.

It's a kind of painting, and the museum is open until 9:00 PM, good night, good bye,

go drink something.

Have fun.

For more infomation >> In Progress: Omar Kholeif with Paul Heyer - Duration: 1:03:21.

-------------------------------------------

The Evolution Of Human Design - Duration: 5:21.

The Evolution Of Human Design

by Hara Katsiki,

All humans are hybrids, designed and created over thousands of years.Human like us appeared

on our planet 200.000 years ago and that�s not very long compared to the vastness of

life in the cosmos.We are the new kids on the block in our galaxy!

Genetic material from our native ape was combined with extraterrestrial genetic material to

create what we are now.

We, humans on planet Earth, are the result of creation through combining genetics and

seeding our DNA.

We are the result of Ape, Pleiadians, Sirius, Grey, and a few other �humanoid� neighbor

civilizations.

Our DNA reeks with messages that it�s not from here and some of our scientists can now

see it.

They can see that something happened that it�s not through normal evolutionary process,

it�s counter intuitive.

The creators of �humanoid� beings, whom their job concerns the creation, design and

evolution of the human specie, are behind this operation, this grand experiment.

This operation is being done with the help of many different celestial civilizations

and races.

Their work involves genetic engineering, an amalgamation of combing and seeding different

genetic codes to create new species that we call hybrids.

There are many types of hybridization programs, there is not just one in particular.

And there are many of us who are a part of it and have given permission because we had

decided to do so before we incarnate.

Most of the children who are coming on Earth the last several years, are already a �new�

species.

They are being called starseeds, indigo, crystal, and rainbow children.

They all carry altered genetics, which are enhanced in order to carry more information

and more light.

Their DNA consists of more activated codons.

They are a new species and many have the ability to re-member who they are and where they come

from in a society that, for many thousands of years, we have forgotten our origins and

interconnectedness as One.

There are also other hybridization programs between Earth humans and other species, running

on laboratories on other planets and dimensions.

The hybrid children that are being designed there and are not yet on Earth and they function

and vibrate at a higher frequency than the humans who are currently on Earth.

Yet, they carry an amount of human biology, enough to be able to co-exist and acclimate

with us.

When these children come to adjust and integrated with us, they are going to speed up our progress

and transformation by inspiring and assisting us to create the next step in the evolution

of humanity.

When will they arrive?

When we are ready.

When we raise our frequency enough to a level where it can be easier and closer for them

to resonate with.

When we will live from a space of love, compassion for each other and the planet.

This time is approaching and accelerating on Earth and we are now evolving to the point

where we will soon be making contact with our galactic family!

We are all part of the same galactic family.

Our brothers and sisters have been with us and visiting us everyday.

They care about us and Earth.

And how do we know that?

Because otherwise they wouldn�t appear in our skies for many thousands of years without

trying to harm us.

They are peaceful, kind, and evolved spiritual beings They are here to help us with our evolution

as they have been helped too in their past.

The joy of creating and experimenting is an art and it is not going to stop anytime soon.

There are new planets forming constantly that are getting ready for life.

It is a continuous, eternal process as much as the evolution of life.

Personal information I have hybrid children in many laboratories

associated with several different kinds of hybridization programs.

I work with the YahYel as a liaison, a mediator, an integrator, a facilitator, and an overseer.

I do take care of these children even though I am not their mother.

I am more of a teacher and a guide to them, assisting them in learning in order to adjust

smoothly on Earth when they arrive.

So, I visit their dimension in my astral body while I am asleep to assist the children with

different kinds of lessons so that they can acclimate and adapt to our society.

I�m also associated with the program from the Zetas (Greys) but more as a supervisor.

I don�t have hybrid children with them yet I do oversee their programs as I have a lot

of genetic engineering knowledge and background from other lives.

Hara Katsiki

For more infomation >> The Evolution Of Human Design - Duration: 5:21.

-------------------------------------------

Media Policy & You: Crash Course Media Literacy #9 - Duration: 11:34.

Have you ever shared a GIF from your favorite movie or Instagrammed some meme you found online?

In that moment, did you ever think about where that content came from and if you were allowed to use it?

Did you consider that it may actually be illegal to share it?

Or at least in some legal no man's land?

Probably not, and it's ok, we're not calling the cops on you.

A lot of what we consider everyday internet culture – retweets and memes and viral videos – is built on this kind of casual, everyday sharing.

We forward links and remix photos and songs...

But what happens when what we're sharing is someone else's property?

Or could harm somebody?

The internet gave tons of people access to tools for communication and media creation.

But it also opened up many legal loopholes and muddied the waters of rights and regulations.

In our last episode, I talked all about the big, macro companies that rule our media world.

Today we're focusing on how new media is changing our real world lived experiences, down to the letter of the law.

[Theme Music]

The media economy is ruled by profits, yes, but also by the governments and industry organizations who set out to regulate it.

Just as the big media companies need to follow certain rules, so do media consumers (that's you).

Over the past few years many media-related laws have had to adapt dramatically to changing times and incredible leaps in technology.

One such law you've probably heard a lot about is copyright.

Copyright gives creators of media the exclusive rights to their creations.

They can copy, modify, distribute, or show off their works however they want.

Others need to get permission to use them.

This helps creators make money from and get credit for their work.

But a copyright isn't a total monopoly on a work.

Thanks to the notion of fair use, the public can exercise its first amendment rights by using others' work without permission.

That is, as long as it transforms the work in some way.

In fact, there are four factors courts use to determine whether a use is fair.

First is the purpose and character of the work.

Many educational uses of media, like showing a film in class, are protected under fair use because they're not for commercial purposes.

Other protected uses are criticism, commentary (like parody), research and scholarship.

Second is the nature of the copyrighted work.

Copyright law is meant to encourage creative expression.

You can't copyright facts, but you can copyright something you imagined.

Creative media like a movie or a song, something that takes imagination, is more difficult to use fairly.

But with fact-based media, like news articles or a documentary, there are more options for fair use, like education or parody.

Third is the amount of the piece used from the copyrighted work.

If the use employs a tiny proportion of the copyrighted work, it's more likely to be deemed fair.

Fourth is the effect of the use on the market for the copyrighted work.

So, streaming a bootleg version of Titanic isn't fair, because it directly competes with lawful streaming services.

But your version of Titanic that replaces all the characters' voices with chipmunk sounds –

that's unlikely to "compete" for the attention of people looking to watch the original.

But, Fair Use isn't the only way that media is allowed to be adapted by the public.

There's an expanse of media works that are available in the public domain.

This is the set of all works whose copyright has expired and are free to use by anyone.

Characters like Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes are in the public domain.

So between Copyright, Fair Use, and Public Domain – you have the three pillars of Intellectual Property in everyday media.

Seems pretty cut and dry, right?

Well, it kinda was before the internet.

Before many more people had the ability to use copyrighted material at the speed of light.

During the 1990s, established media corporations, like the music industry, began to get real upset about the way the internet was challenging the status quo.

Media was getting copied and shared and moved around faster than ever before – and they wanted to stop it.

This all culminated in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA.

You might have heard of the DMCA.

It does a LOT of things, but one obvious thing it does is give copyright holders the ability to make claims against content on digital platforms.

In fact, once it was enacted, The Record Industry Association of America even targeted young internet users who downloaded copyrighted materials with lawsuits.

And if you've ever seen a YouTube video vanish beneath an "infringing content claim" – that's thanks to the DMCA.

So in this brave new world of digital media and pop music anime lip sync mashups, how DO you know if your use is fair?

Let's head into the Thought Bubble to find out.

Let's say you want to make a montage video of your two favorite characters from your favorite TV show: Archie and Veronica from Riverdale.

(Apologies to Barchie or Beronica shippers.)

You pull together cute clips from the show and pop on your favorite Taylor Swift song – Love Story, obvs – in the background.

Now is it fair use?

First step: what's the purpose and character of your work?

Your purpose is to get all the likes, but also to prove that Varchie is the OTP.

You're not in it for the money and the video itself is commentary on Riverdale.

Ok, that could pass.

Second: what's the nature of the copyrighted work?

The TV show and the song are definitely creative and not fact-based, so yeah, that's a strike.

Like I said, it's harder to use an imaginative work like a movie or a song.

Third: How much did you use of the show and the song?

You definitely only used clips of the show, a couple of seconds each of a whole season of TV.

That would probably get a pass.

But you did use the whole song – that's not cool.

Strike two.

Finally: what effect would your work have on the market for the works you used?

Since someone couldn't reasonably watch your clip video instead of watching the full Riverdale series on TV, that's probably fair use.

But someone could just listen to your video instead of buying that Taylor Swift song.

Sorry, no matter how perfectly "Love Story" encapsulates Archie and Veronica's relationship, you're not transforming the song.

In fact, you're using it in a pretty normal way, like in a movie – except movies pay to use a song on the soundtrack.

So while the montage of clips you made may be transformative, the use of the song wouldn't be considered fair use.

As you can see, the notion of "fair use" isn't cut and dry.

It's like a puzzle that changes for every person who tries to solve it.

Thanks Thought Bubble!

The thing that makes the DMCA, and intellectual property generally, interesting is that it shows laws trying to play catch up with how media has changed due to technology.

And many of the old definitions and approaches start to grind when used in this new media ecosystem.

Some challenges to media laws are more high-stakes than Taylor Swift montages.

Get your giggles out now, kids, cause I'm about to talk to you about "sexting."

So. Urban Dictionary defines "sexting" as...oh. Oh my. Ah.

Let's just say that sexting is like...when two people really like each other, and so one of them draws the other naked.

Now they have that drawing, and when they look at it...they uh – you get what I'm saying.

It's no surprise that nowadays, young people might use their phones to "communicate" in relationships, rather than paper and charcoal.

The only problem is: what about the law?

First. Most states in the US define the age of consent.

If two teenagers above the age of consent want to meet up in the back of a car – there's nothing illegal about that.

BUT in the US there are also laws against the production, possession, or distribution of child pornography –

ANY visual depiction of explicit content involving someone under 18.

Good laws. Important laws. Super important and good laws.

The problem comes from figuring out what happens when the legal sexual relationships between two teenagers –

over the age of consent, but still under 18 – when those relationships start to involve, you know, sexy pictures.

Because technically – according to U.S. law – that can be classified as child pornography,

and there are already many examples where young people have been charged as such.

And these laws are meant to protect children from sexual abuse.

Federal laws carry mandatory minimum sentencing of five years in prison and registry as a sex offender for related charges.

These are huge consequences!

Because of this, some states have recognized sexting as a widespread practice and have reduced charges accordingly.

But there's still a grey area, however, between federal and state laws and local jurisdictions

– including whether police are allowed to search a teen's phone.

The point is, these are laws that were made before our current media moment, colliding with what has become everyday practice.

And the outcome often comes down to a discussion or a judgement call – often by people who are, let's say, not the most plugged in with "kids these days."

It might not be the most fun to talk about.

But these gaps – between current media practices and traditional laws – are already impacting people's lives.

From copyright laws to sexting and cyberbullying, our online lives have posed some serious challenges to our legal system.

And many of these questions are still up for debate.

But maybe none of these have been as tough to deal with as the issue of online privacy.

Privacy refers to the access, collection and sharing of personally identifiable information.

Online that includes our browsing habits and history, plus the personal information we share with all the websites and apps we use.

Traditionally, privacy has determined what information was allowed to be used in court cases.

Some private information was protected from unlawful search and seizure.

But of course, the internet threw a wrench in that, too.

If you use a social media in the public setting, where anyone can access your posts, is that public or private?

What about if you use the app in a private setting, for just your friends and family?

What if you share your private thoughts on an anonymous, public blog?

On top of these shifting notions about what constitutes privacy online, protections for accessing that data are even less clear.

When and where law enforcement can request or demand access to phones, computers and social media accounts is often a grey area.

And when they do, what are their rights to privacy?

Gen Z will be the first generation to live their lives on smartphones from such a young age.

Think of all the data they're sharing about themselves before they're able to walk home alone, let alone drive or vote.

Will that data follow them around, forever?

How would you feel if your first AIM screen name or all the Snapchats from your awkward years followed you around forever?

One response to this problem will take effect in Europe in May 2018.

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (or the GDPR for short) is a big, big deal.

This legislation will impact all of the European Union, affording a stricter right to protect yourself online.

Part of this law, the Right to be Forgotten, will make it easier to get rid of personal information that's been collected about you and make clear what that data is, too.

But since this legislation affects multinational corporations like Google and Facebook, the ramifications won't be stuck on the other side of the pond.

The industry titans are expected to follow suit across the globe to ensure they remain compliant.

Clearly, we've entered a new paradigm where our technology is outpacing legislation.

As laws and regulations continue to develop around our fast-paced digital world, the only solution is to stay vigilant.

Know what data you're sharing.

Be careful of downloading or sharing others' work online.

And remember that your words and your images have meaning, and can be used against you.

Next time on Crash Course: Media Literacy we'll talk all about how bad actors can use those vulnerabilities against us through propaganda and misinformation.

You'll need the skills we learned today to dive into the dark side of media.

Until then, I'm Jay Smooth. See you next time.

Crash Course Media Literacy is filmed in the Dr. Cheryl C. Kinney Studio in Missoula, MT,

and it's made with the help of all of these nice people and our animation team is Thought Cafe.

Crash Course is a Complexly production.

If you wanna keep imagining the world complexly with us, check out some of our other channels like SciShow, Animal Wonders, and The Art Assignment.

If you'd like to keep Crash Course free for everyone, forever, you can support the series at Patreon, a crowdfunding platform that allows you to support the content you love.

Thank you to all of our patrons for making Crash Course possible with their continued support.

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét