As a Marxist deconstruction is a bit silly. Analysis is great and all but thought should be targeted toward constructivist philosophy. Deconstructionist thought is an inherently liberal concept.
Gosh, you make so much sense. I guess that's probably why I dislike deconstruction, because it only tears down without building up. Fantastic take here
I hate to tell you this but art is a dialogue. And sometimes dialogue veers into criticism. For example: deconstruction is a synonym for critique. Which means this is a critique about how critiques are stupid... There's also a censorship and marketing issue. Early Batman reflects a history of pulp and dime novels. Many if not all artists working on those stories in a modern context (generally free from censorship social or otherwise) prefer to take a grittier more nuanced approach to the material, maybe for marketing purposes, but probably because that's the subject matter. It's like pointing out that people in very serious movies, made for mature adults, used to not swear so much, and claiming it's done now purely for shock value, when we know the real world to be far more "gratuitous" than anything you can put in a rated R movie: it's as if to say it's more childish to create art that actually reflects the world we live in, in some way. Just want to point out: Visual language is obviously the same across mediums. The same way narrative language is the same across mediums. And the point of a deconstruction is to provoke critical thought by questioning why you would accept anything at face value. It's not meant to defeat itself, it's meant to empower you. But if you only recognize it as self abuse what you're actually saying is "I'd like to think less, thanks" and it's funny that despite being "self defeating" it sort of inherently has more respect for you than you have for yourself by rejecting it merely for its existence.
Early Batman reflects far more than pulp novels, if you actually take the time to read it, you notice a very clear shift in the zeitgeist away from The Green Hornet or Shadow, both of whom I also have immense respect for, perhaps even moreso than for Batman. Regardless, if you actually take the time to read them, you'll find that Kane and Finger integrated deep psychological ideas and Jungian archetypes into the work to make it appealing on a deep, subconscious level, hence why Batman remains a popular character after 75 years. It's that original formula- that key idea- which readers actually find appealing. The closer a comic adheres to that formula, the more appealing it'll be. This is why, for instance, many Batman fans enjoy the stories such as the Robert Pattinson one where Batman actually applies his detective skills instead of just beating people up- because he's branded as the World's Greatest Detective, that's an intrinsic part of his character, and when it's missing, he feels empty. If you actually bothered to read the original Batman comics, you'd find that they're not at all afraid of tackling mature subject matter- Batman kills people, people fall off cliffs and get riddled with bullets and the Joker is a merciless, nameless psychopath, every bit as vile and irredeemable as every great subsequent depiction makes him out to be- however, in those original comics, he's in his purest, most archetypal form, and is therefore the iteration of the character I respect unconditionally. Older comics are nowhere near as censored as you probably think, in fact the best ones are full of guts and viscera- the difference being that they have great writing and tact, which I don't think is something Alan Moore could ever pull off. Ultimately, comics don't need to critique themselves, the same way movies don't need to critique themselves. That's what critics are for. It's like a restaurant where you cook your own food, it's wholly redundant. I don't need media to engage in self-loathing and pity, I'll arrive at my own conclusions on it. Hence how I dislike Watchmen- I actually have the capacity to think with a critical mindset and notice all the mountains of seething cringe it offers up, and respond accordingly by chewing it out.
@@NicolasSequeira Futueteller gave you an educated and valid answer to your mindless vid, and you reply with pointless word-vomit nonsense...lol...holy crap you need to stop being this intellectually lazy. What a mental-hobo panhandling for validation. Booooooooo
You just set fire to his entire video by using basic logic, exposing him as a fraud...and he just doubled down and replied to you with the same pointless nonsense. This youtuber is possibly the worst I've ever seen.
It's OK to be that guy, and thank you for your correction. I think it says something about the dull style of both that I could mistake the two for each other
Every time you describe the Watchmen comics I only get further and further the sense that you're actually describing the likes of Garth Ennis' The Boys or other works that claim to be inspired by the Watchmen (many of which Alan Moore himself has claimed to have a disdain for himself). I can only imagine your entire impression of the Watchmen series comes from hearing about it as being the inspiration for these worse works and so you associate the qualities of works like The Boys and its seething contempt for superheroes with the original Watchmen. The original Watchmen does not see superheroes with contempt. Alan Moore himself considers it a celebration of superhero storytelling. If you actually cared to read the Watchmen having shed all preconceptions you had about it being "edgy" or whatever you would see that it's a tragic tale that seeks to humanise superheroes and approach their backstories and actions from a different perspective than traditional media. Your conception of what comics "should be" is so close-minded that you miss all the nuance that one who would perhaps go into these works with a more open mind would actually appreciate. You place the peak of comic books at the Golden Age of comics in the 1940s (which is an understandable take but quite milquetoast) and see any deviation from that "normal" format of storytelling that you shut it off entirely. Have you considered perhaps that Watchmen isn't trying to tell a traditional Golden Age-esque story because it has its own artistic intentions and not that its just trying to be edgy or whatever? Because the Watchmen does have actual well developed themes about using violence to cope with trauma, about how we see authority figures in the real world, about the politics of war, about femininity and masculinity, about determinism and ultimately whether it is good to cede your individual freedom to authority figures in exchange for their "protection". The Watchmen does not merely seek to deconstruct superheroes as you imply. Rather, it uses the deconstruction as a tool to examine these ideas further, as great deconstructionist works do. I'd suggest having a more open mind the next time you comsume any of these works.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like The Boys at all- I've said as much many times- but I would never lay as much responsibility for the destruction of superhero stories on Garth Ennis as I would on Alan Moore. His repugnant behavior serves as the genesis point for the slow decline of comics. "Humanizing superheroes" is an oxymoron, superheroes are meant to serve as Platonic ideals and exemplary specimens humanity can strive towards. If Alan Moore wanted to tell a story about a bunch of whiny emos who beat each other up and hit on each other, he should have written a sappy drama rather than stealing the intellectual property of Charlton Comics under the corrupt supervision of DC, who drove Charlton Comics into bankruptcy through underhanded business tactics which would make Bernie Madoff blush. Furthermore, I don't like British guys drawing superhero comics set in America, considering that superheroes are an American invention. It reeks of cultural appropriation to me, the theft of lived American stories and experiences by someone like Alan Moore who clearly has no understanding of basic American politics (hence why in the Watchmen universe Nixon revokes term limits and becomes president for life, which is way more unrealistic than Lex Luthor being president or whatever happens in the main DC continuity, despite how Watchmen fans typically love to paint Watchmen as being more realistic for some reason). I guess I don't mind if Irish people steal superheroes from us, admittedly the idea of an IRA-type superhero fighting back the forces of British Imperialism during The Troubles sounds pretty badass- but Garth Ennis is from Northern Ireland, and as such I don't think his capacity for telling a thrilling Irish story is all that palpable. Next time you read an junk food comic like Watchmen, I'd suggest having a much more closed mind- considering who writes your comics and the sorts of lousy themes they can infuse said comics with
The kid never read Watchmen,.,he never read anything. All his veiws are seeking attention and trying to sound like "thoughts" but hes just a clueless lazy boy making noise with no attachment to debate or logic. He's just blabbing on and on and on, with zero understanding of the subjects he talks about. HE ACTUALLY SAID- You don't use cinematic art in comics cus comics are comics no film, and Alan Moore don't know that". WHAT AN IDIOT!!!! lol...what a total fool. ps- he thinks Alan Moore can't write, and he thinks Kane is god....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...idiot
"plagues it´s way into comics, but has also gone into other media such as tv shows" bro, literature does not exist in your world? It was literary criticism way before mixed media, somewhere Derrida is throwing a lit cigarette at you
I focus mostly on comics as a medium, considering comics are my medium of choice. I think it started with Watchmen, before Watchmen there wasn't a work in any medium which was as angry or full of itself
I have a great deal of respect for Bill Finger, considering he was born in Denver and is therefore one of the only legitimately Coloradan celebrities, however I do feel it's reductive to understate Bob Kane's role in the character's creation. I feel the contemporary representation of Bob Kane as some kind of corrupt plagiarist is the exact sort of revisionist comics history which leads to people avoiding the golden age. WHile I have a great deal of admiration for Bill Finger, he ultimately introduced the elements of the character which were subsequently mishandled by the newer writers- the darker tone, the costume, etc.- and while the original run of Batman is great, I would probably even like the character if it was just Bob Kane's red version. In fact, I'd be really interested to see how that could have turned out.
Its because he knows zero about every subject he rants about while maintaining no connection to the subject. Its like hearing a slow child whine about astrophysics.
@@CampKillCommentary Maybe you should stop using slurs against autistic people, it might make you more popular and likable in the real world outside of your video games
I honestly didn't convinced it. but to give some justice, this is more like a Rant than actually the real critique of methodology in writing. but I think you go to far to say that this thing is suck and should be discard (as you said in 27:40 - 27:50). 1. from what I understand. you lean into something like comic purism in which the older comic is better because it didn't have to analyzing the 'Psyche' and just have fun cool thing (19:20 - 19:32) I really didn't have problem with people who just like something cool and fun. but you just talk shit and say to discard it if it can like it isn't important to literary history. we can have opinion but you just talk down to other liking and I didn't like it. 2. when you talk about Watchmen and Marvel Ruins. I think you misunderstood between deconstruction and Darker and Edgier. even someone like me who don't know jackshit about comic in-depth know that 90's are get title name of dark age. because it just full load of Dark and Edgy thing that get set trend by Alan Moore "Watchmen" or "Killing's Joke". and that suck because I think novice writer even understand rule of thumb that Deconstruction doesn't imply to be more darker and edgier. (Everything Everywhere all at once, Undertale) Nicky-Picky : I actually don't want to nickpick something that much but whoahhhh. that's really racist! 12:34 - 12:47 25:39 - 25:47 honestly. I don't even know why algorithm get me here.
@@NicolasSequeira and just like in the video this kid mistakes "I don't understand" with "universally meaningless". even uses the %current_year% "argument".
@@NicolasSequeira and again u mistake "personally" with "universally". it's like ur opinion, man. and ur _personal_ opinion's worth is 1 / 8.100.000.000. and it's dropping.
whats the point of talking about what u dont like? some things are just meant for kids to read, same with marvel movies they suck but no use in complaining about it to people who dont understand why theyre bad
The point of talking about why something is bad is to explain to people who might otherwise like it why and how it's awful, and to try to get them to see things your way
It's a good start and a good video, but imho you really need to substantiate what you're saying more. I think you had a point, but anytime you say "you're to supposed to...", it is a kind of elitist claim to art, that is simply as conceited as deconstructing is. There isn't anything that you're "supposed" or "not supposed" doing. Don't pretend to decide what is "real art" or "good art", that isn't very nice, or kind, or really, tenable. Additionally, being anti post modernist is no less conceited and arbitrary and elitist than only liking postmodern art. You can like or dislike either, but if you just make a generic claim that "it's bad", you're no better than artsy fartsy people who think Killing Joke is super smart. Making hyperbolic claims like "the worst" or categorizing things in "bad" or "good" without nuance also undermines your point. On the other hand, if you want to just have a rant, then that's fine too, but then you need to be more entertaining/funny/absurd. Even a rant monologue also probably should be subtly insightful, even if it doesn't make substantiated claims. The jokes should have some depth that gets people thinking. Currently you're kind of in-between a funny rant and a philosophical critic, but I think you aren't really finding your voice. Great energy though, still watched all of it. Wish you the best!
A good start...? I've posted 698 videos to this website over the last 5 years. If I haven't found my voice at this point, I don't know where I could possibly find it. Also, I don't attack postmodernism in this video. It's deconstruction I take issue with. I have no qualms with postmodernism, in fact I operate within it. Why do you conflate postmodernism and deconstruction?
@@NicolasSequeira Ah, if you're not starting then my bad, I just assumed too fast. I mean post-modernism to mean everything from post modernism and up, but also as a shortcut for any art that aims to a higher pretense than just telling a fun story, or art that observes itself. I don't tend to be very accurate with definitions, so it may not be very correct. For the purposes of my criticism, you can swap it with deconstruction. Not that it matters much, if you've been doing this for a while and you enjoy it, then dismiss everything I've said, it's worthless (I thought I was helping out someone testing the waters, so it clearly doesn't apply). Good continuation!
As a Marxist deconstruction is a bit silly. Analysis is great and all but thought should be targeted toward constructivist philosophy. Deconstructionist thought is an inherently liberal concept.
why deconstruction is consider liberal concept to you?
@@Kitsu_Worm tearing things down without building back up is counter revolutionary.
@@Kitsu_Worm look up "combat liberalism" for more info.
@@nicoruppert4207 what the heck is that. can you explain more in-depth?
Gosh, you make so much sense. I guess that's probably why I dislike deconstruction, because it only tears down without building up. Fantastic take here
Idk bro Deconstruction is absolute banger of a concept album. One of Devin Townsends best!
I'm big into "Magnification" by Yes
I hate to tell you this but art is a dialogue. And sometimes dialogue veers into criticism.
For example: deconstruction is a synonym for critique. Which means this is a critique about how critiques are stupid...
There's also a censorship and marketing issue. Early Batman reflects a history of pulp and dime novels. Many if not all artists working on those stories in a modern context (generally free from censorship social or otherwise) prefer to take a grittier more nuanced approach to the material, maybe for marketing purposes, but probably because that's the subject matter.
It's like pointing out that people in very serious movies, made for mature adults, used to not swear so much, and claiming it's done now purely for shock value, when we know the real world to be far more "gratuitous" than anything you can put in a rated R movie: it's as if to say it's more childish to create art that actually reflects the world we live in, in some way.
Just want to point out: Visual language is obviously the same across mediums. The same way narrative language is the same across mediums.
And the point of a deconstruction is to provoke critical thought by questioning why you would accept anything at face value. It's not meant to defeat itself, it's meant to empower you. But if you only recognize it as self abuse what you're actually saying is "I'd like to think less, thanks" and it's funny that despite being "self defeating" it sort of inherently has more respect for you than you have for yourself by rejecting it merely for its existence.
Early Batman reflects far more than pulp novels, if you actually take the time to read it, you notice a very clear shift in the zeitgeist away from The Green Hornet or Shadow, both of whom I also have immense respect for, perhaps even moreso than for Batman. Regardless, if you actually take the time to read them, you'll find that Kane and Finger integrated deep psychological ideas and Jungian archetypes into the work to make it appealing on a deep, subconscious level, hence why Batman remains a popular character after 75 years. It's that original formula- that key idea- which readers actually find appealing. The closer a comic adheres to that formula, the more appealing it'll be. This is why, for instance, many Batman fans enjoy the stories such as the Robert Pattinson one where Batman actually applies his detective skills instead of just beating people up- because he's branded as the World's Greatest Detective, that's an intrinsic part of his character, and when it's missing, he feels empty. If you actually bothered to read the original Batman comics, you'd find that they're not at all afraid of tackling mature subject matter- Batman kills people, people fall off cliffs and get riddled with bullets and the Joker is a merciless, nameless psychopath, every bit as vile and irredeemable as every great subsequent depiction makes him out to be- however, in those original comics, he's in his purest, most archetypal form, and is therefore the iteration of the character I respect unconditionally. Older comics are nowhere near as censored as you probably think, in fact the best ones are full of guts and viscera- the difference being that they have great writing and tact, which I don't think is something Alan Moore could ever pull off. Ultimately, comics don't need to critique themselves, the same way movies don't need to critique themselves. That's what critics are for. It's like a restaurant where you cook your own food, it's wholly redundant. I don't need media to engage in self-loathing and pity, I'll arrive at my own conclusions on it. Hence how I dislike Watchmen- I actually have the capacity to think with a critical mindset and notice all the mountains of seething cringe it offers up, and respond accordingly by chewing it out.
@@NicolasSequeira Futueteller gave you an educated and valid answer to your mindless vid, and you reply with pointless word-vomit nonsense...lol...holy crap you need to stop being this intellectually lazy. What a mental-hobo panhandling for validation. Booooooooo
You just set fire to his entire video by using basic logic, exposing him as a fraud...and he just doubled down and replied to you with the same pointless nonsense. This youtuber is possibly the worst I've ever seen.
@@CampKillCommentary Pretty much anybody who complains about "the woke" is worse than this guy.
@@CampKillCommentary Nobody sets fire to me, I'm gypsum
This guy is cooking
I just wanta grill
I hate to be that guy, but it was actually Dave Gibbons, Brian Bolland did the equally frustrating Killing Joke.
It's OK to be that guy, and thank you for your correction. I think it says something about the dull style of both that I could mistake the two for each other
@@NicolasSequeira Gibbons’s watchmen work was much more flattened and “realistic”.
Every time you describe the Watchmen comics I only get further and further the sense that you're actually describing the likes of Garth Ennis' The Boys or other works that claim to be inspired by the Watchmen (many of which Alan Moore himself has claimed to have a disdain for himself). I can only imagine your entire impression of the Watchmen series comes from hearing about it as being the inspiration for these worse works and so you associate the qualities of works like The Boys and its seething contempt for superheroes with the original Watchmen.
The original Watchmen does not see superheroes with contempt. Alan Moore himself considers it a celebration of superhero storytelling. If you actually cared to read the Watchmen having shed all preconceptions you had about it being "edgy" or whatever you would see that it's a tragic tale that seeks to humanise superheroes and approach their backstories and actions from a different perspective than traditional media. Your conception of what comics "should be" is so close-minded that you miss all the nuance that one who would perhaps go into these works with a more open mind would actually appreciate. You place the peak of comic books at the Golden Age of comics in the 1940s (which is an understandable take but quite milquetoast) and see any deviation from that "normal" format of storytelling that you shut it off entirely. Have you considered perhaps that Watchmen isn't trying to tell a traditional Golden Age-esque story because it has its own artistic intentions and not that its just trying to be edgy or whatever? Because the Watchmen does have actual well developed themes about using violence to cope with trauma, about how we see authority figures in the real world, about the politics of war, about femininity and masculinity, about determinism and ultimately whether it is good to cede your individual freedom to authority figures in exchange for their "protection". The Watchmen does not merely seek to deconstruct superheroes as you imply. Rather, it uses the deconstruction as a tool to examine these ideas further, as great deconstructionist works do. I'd suggest having a more open mind the next time you comsume any of these works.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like The Boys at all- I've said as much many times- but I would never lay as much responsibility for the destruction of superhero stories on Garth Ennis as I would on Alan Moore. His repugnant behavior serves as the genesis point for the slow decline of comics. "Humanizing superheroes" is an oxymoron, superheroes are meant to serve as Platonic ideals and exemplary specimens humanity can strive towards. If Alan Moore wanted to tell a story about a bunch of whiny emos who beat each other up and hit on each other, he should have written a sappy drama rather than stealing the intellectual property of Charlton Comics under the corrupt supervision of DC, who drove Charlton Comics into bankruptcy through underhanded business tactics which would make Bernie Madoff blush. Furthermore, I don't like British guys drawing superhero comics set in America, considering that superheroes are an American invention. It reeks of cultural appropriation to me, the theft of lived American stories and experiences by someone like Alan Moore who clearly has no understanding of basic American politics (hence why in the Watchmen universe Nixon revokes term limits and becomes president for life, which is way more unrealistic than Lex Luthor being president or whatever happens in the main DC continuity, despite how Watchmen fans typically love to paint Watchmen as being more realistic for some reason). I guess I don't mind if Irish people steal superheroes from us, admittedly the idea of an IRA-type superhero fighting back the forces of British Imperialism during The Troubles sounds pretty badass- but Garth Ennis is from Northern Ireland, and as such I don't think his capacity for telling a thrilling Irish story is all that palpable. Next time you read an junk food comic like Watchmen, I'd suggest having a much more closed mind- considering who writes your comics and the sorts of lousy themes they can infuse said comics with
The kid never read Watchmen,.,he never read anything. All his veiws are seeking attention and trying to sound like "thoughts" but hes just a clueless lazy boy making noise with no attachment to debate or logic. He's just blabbing on and on and on, with zero understanding of the subjects he talks about. HE ACTUALLY SAID- You don't use cinematic art in comics cus comics are comics no film, and Alan Moore don't know that". WHAT AN IDIOT!!!! lol...what a total fool. ps- he thinks Alan Moore can't write, and he thinks Kane is god....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...idiot
You missed April Fools Day by a couple days fyi. This pretty funny though!
This isn't an April Fool's joke. I don't generally do those because I'm not the Joker, baby
"plagues it´s way into comics, but has also gone into other media such as tv shows" bro, literature does not exist in your world? It was literary criticism way before mixed media, somewhere Derrida is throwing a lit cigarette at you
I focus mostly on comics as a medium, considering comics are my medium of choice. I think it started with Watchmen, before Watchmen there wasn't a work in any medium which was as angry or full of itself
It's very funny you keep crediting Bob Kane for all the work on 1940s batman and only mention bill finger once
I have a great deal of respect for Bill Finger, considering he was born in Denver and is therefore one of the only legitimately Coloradan celebrities, however I do feel it's reductive to understate Bob Kane's role in the character's creation. I feel the contemporary representation of Bob Kane as some kind of corrupt plagiarist is the exact sort of revisionist comics history which leads to people avoiding the golden age. WHile I have a great deal of admiration for Bill Finger, he ultimately introduced the elements of the character which were subsequently mishandled by the newer writers- the darker tone, the costume, etc.- and while the original run of Batman is great, I would probably even like the character if it was just Bob Kane's red version. In fact, I'd be really interested to see how that could have turned out.
Its because he knows zero about every subject he rants about while maintaining no connection to the subject. Its like hearing a slow child whine about astrophysics.
@@CampKillCommentary Maybe you should stop using slurs against autistic people, it might make you more popular and likable in the real world outside of your video games
I honestly didn't convinced it.
but to give some justice, this is more like a Rant than actually the real critique of methodology in writing. but I think you go to far to say that this thing is suck and should be discard (as you said in 27:40 - 27:50).
1. from what I understand. you lean into something like comic purism in which the older comic is better because it didn't have to analyzing the 'Psyche' and just have fun cool thing (19:20 - 19:32)
I really didn't have problem with people who just like something cool and fun. but you just talk shit and say to discard it if it can like it isn't important to literary history. we can have opinion but you just talk down to other liking and I didn't like it.
2. when you talk about Watchmen and Marvel Ruins. I think you misunderstood between deconstruction and Darker and Edgier. even someone like me who don't know jackshit about comic in-depth know that 90's are get title name of dark age. because it just full load of Dark and Edgy thing that get set trend by Alan Moore "Watchmen" or "Killing's Joke". and that suck because I think novice writer even understand rule of thumb that Deconstruction doesn't imply to be more darker and edgier. (Everything Everywhere all at once, Undertale)
Nicky-Picky : I actually don't want to nickpick something that much but whoahhhh. that's really racist!
12:34 - 12:47
25:39 - 25:47
honestly. I don't even know why algorithm get me here.
EEAAO and undertale are great examples
How is it racist for me to do a cowboy accent? I don't think you understand what racism is, buddy
@@NicolasSequeira it's not cowboy. it's Old "Jewish"
@@NicolasSequeira maybe you don't intended it. but wish you careful next time.
@@Kitsu_Worm It's racist for me to say that Mel Brooks is an old Jewish man? That's not racist, that's just who he is
behold: a talking Dunning-Kruger effect.
Behold: Someone who uses a meaningless pseudointellectual buzzword in the year 2024 unironically
@@NicolasSequeira and just like in the video this kid mistakes "I don't understand" with "universally meaningless". even uses the %current_year% "argument".
@@baburik I know what it means- however I simultaneously find it universally inapplicable. It's pop science.
@@NicolasSequeira and again u mistake "personally" with "universally". it's like ur opinion, man. and ur _personal_ opinion's worth is 1 / 8.100.000.000. and it's dropping.
@@baburik I value my opinion a lot more than yours
Agree
Thank you for agreeing with me
whats the point of talking about what u dont like? some things are just meant for kids to read, same with marvel movies they suck but no use in complaining about it to people who dont understand why theyre bad
The point of talking about why something is bad is to explain to people who might otherwise like it why and how it's awful, and to try to get them to see things your way
@@NicolasSequeira people dont change their minds dont overestimate the average person's ability to reason
@@Criteon I've seen it happen, so even if it's rare, it can happen
Chamber of Secrets!
These videos are all entirely separate chambers of interesting secrets
It's a good start and a good video, but imho you really need to substantiate what you're saying more.
I think you had a point, but anytime you say "you're to supposed to...", it is a kind of elitist claim to art, that is simply as conceited as deconstructing is.
There isn't anything that you're "supposed" or "not supposed" doing. Don't pretend to decide what is "real art" or "good art", that isn't very nice, or kind, or really, tenable.
Additionally, being anti post modernist is no less conceited and arbitrary and elitist than only liking postmodern art. You can like or dislike either, but if you just make a generic claim that "it's bad", you're no better than artsy fartsy people who think Killing Joke is super smart.
Making hyperbolic claims like "the worst" or categorizing things in "bad" or "good" without nuance also undermines your point.
On the other hand, if you want to just have a rant, then that's fine too, but then you need to be more entertaining/funny/absurd. Even a rant monologue also probably should be subtly insightful, even if it doesn't make substantiated claims. The jokes should have some depth that gets people thinking.
Currently you're kind of in-between a funny rant and a philosophical critic, but I think you aren't really finding your voice. Great energy though, still watched all of it. Wish you the best!
A good start...? I've posted 698 videos to this website over the last 5 years. If I haven't found my voice at this point, I don't know where I could possibly find it.
Also, I don't attack postmodernism in this video. It's deconstruction I take issue with. I have no qualms with postmodernism, in fact I operate within it. Why do you conflate postmodernism and deconstruction?
@@NicolasSequeira Ah, if you're not starting then my bad, I just assumed too fast.
I mean post-modernism to mean everything from post modernism and up, but also as a shortcut for any art that aims to a higher pretense than just telling a fun story, or art that observes itself. I don't tend to be very accurate with definitions, so it may not be very correct. For the purposes of my criticism, you can swap it with deconstruction.
Not that it matters much, if you've been doing this for a while and you enjoy it, then dismiss everything I've said, it's worthless (I thought I was helping out someone testing the waters, so it clearly doesn't apply). Good continuation!
Get a proper mike and I'll subscribe, anything, even a headphone mike will work
No thanks, I like my nice little Olympus Tough F2.0 camera, which as far as I'm aware doesn't have mic-syncing capabilities
@@NicolasSequeira how about a live mike
This is such an elitist, purist take 5:00
It's elitist for me to suggest that Batman becoming a BDSM dominatrix would dilute the impact of the character? Explain.