Purpose of my YouTube Shorts

This is a blog post in response to a comment I got which reads; “This has got to be the least instructional video I’ve seen all day, at least tell us what you’re doing.”. To which I answer- my YouTube shorts do not have “recipe” or “how-to” in their titles, they simply preview processes for my website’s recipes. There are recipe links in the description of them and of course- the average YouTube viewer who makes a comment does not look for themselves to form an opinion. But instead instantaneously believes they are right without any form or basis of research.

What did I do? I simply just blocked them from my channel as I don’t want that form of stupidity on my account on that platform. I know some of you reading this will be annoyed that I did that and I know that YouTube as a platform does not have an intellectual demographic. But I don’t want someone to inform or criticise my content when they haven’t read into it a little more. It’s as if you were to make research something and say it’s true when you haven’t cited your sources or even looked at sources.

Purpose of my YouTube Shorts
At least check the description before you comment otherwise you look uninformed and well… stupid. In fact! The link in the description brings you to my ghee recipe post! Who knew!
Not only that, but it’s also quite difficult to fit a whole recipe into a short 30-second video without detracting from the video content.

Purpose of my YouTube Shorts

Again, it begs the question; “What is the purpose of my shorts?”. Answering this, these shorts are a way to visualise content on my website while promoting it to outside viewers. Preferably the viewers which my content targets demographically are viewers who read content- not watch. Which of course; using YouTube would be counter-initiative, right? No- it’s simply a way to promote. Therefore at least out of one thousand viewers, I will have had one viewer come to my website and possibly be transformed into a regular viewer depending on whether they liked the site or not.

For me, unlike the bottomless content pit of useless content on YouTube, quality viewers matter- not quantity. Purposefully, the shorts will hopefully deliver at least some conversions to viewers on my website.

Well, I hope I briefly and directly explained the purpose of my YouTube shorts. Just for anyone out there- before you comment on something; do some research on it- even if it’s a little bit so you don’t look absolutely stupid and look like you pull words out of your ass.

Before you say I can’t take criticism- I can. I just can’t take it when it’s from someone who doesn’t know what they’re saying.

Ignorance: The art of the uninformed in the Internet age.

I make this post only after seeing someone make a judgement about my post on a Twitter post. Then I checked the analytics- they had not visited the link. Only reading the headline is an act of lack of intellect.

How many of you judge an article only on its headline? Now let’s count how much of you will post a comment of the article only from the headline itself? What if the article was the opposite of the headline? You have just proven your ignorance and ignorance to learn.

This seems to be a common occurrence in the world of social media. With bite-size media and lower attention rates, people jump to conclusions without reason. Context has been lost and unfortunately, we seem to be entering an age of ignorance.

Now we can question- how many of people’s opinions come from only headlines? How much of it comes from actually reading articles? Perhaps we must fight back against ignorance and call them out with “faux” articles containing information opposite of the headline.

Age of ignorance, headed by social media.

I argue that we can call the Neo-information age, an age of “ignorance”. People claim they don’t have time to read the article but they browse social media for hours. It is simply an excuse for their laziness and lack of wanting to think for themselves. There’s also the idea that some bend the headlines to agree with their own viewpoints and opinions.

Not only does this backfire once one points them out but they often become defensive once called out. Therefore, I believe that the ignorants who use this tactic only want to strengthen their opinion. Perhaps it is the lack of focus or begs the question that intelligence is on the decline

View more of my opinion pieces here and make sure to tell me your opinions too!

Ethics is dead? Perhaps we can argue that it is going that way.

This is an opinion piece. therefore, I am free to change my mind if one brings forth a good argument against this post. Please keep arguments civil.

Ukraine flag- ethics
I am in solidarity with Ukraine- but I don’t believe in dehumanizing Russians like some people have expressed on social media.

The dehumanization of Russians because of what their government is undertaking is a dire attack on ethics. How can we fight for human rights in Ukraine if we have people blaming the Russians- not only their government but the people too. I argue that ethics is dying- that we must cure it.

It’s easy to blame others for your problems or other problems. That’s what Hitler did to mobilize Germany. It’s their fault why we’re in this mess- not ours! That type of mentality. The mentality we’re seeing with some masses blaming Russian people.

Yes, I don’t agree with the war with Ukraine. But I won’t blame Russians. I don’t want you to, either. It’s clear that the people don’t have power over the government. It has been like that in almost every country on this planet. Russians are just like us- trying to live their lives. Grow businesses, be a part of their families and just being human.

If we dehumanize groups, we’re no better than the murderer. Ethics is key.

Humans are complicated- I think we can all agree. Therefore we can be brainwashed, especially in the case of North Korea. How do you not know you’ve consumed propaganda? Without questioning the status quo, how do you make your own mind up? Question everything. We must not take the easy way and blame others. We’re all responsible for our problems in this world.

Collectively, humans can make changes. Henceforth only censorship can stop that change- especially the case of Putin’s war on information. If you limit the people to only propaganda- I argue that it will kill the possibility of questioning or critical thought.

By destroying intellectualism- we kill ethics and humanism.

I end this section by saying; that if we dehumanize people- then are we better?

Are other wars worth less than Ukraine? Why is it Ukraine gets media coverage, not Yemen? Is this ethical?

I could mention numerous other wars. Though, we must look at other perspectives when covering Ukraine. Why did we ignore the war in Yemen, Palestine, and the Tigray war? Should we ignore those because they’re not developed countries? All humanity deserves equal treatment and coverage. It’s only now that a war is being propagated through media only because Ukraine involves a Great Power.

Do we not want to stop wars, but only when it involves us- the “first world“? Looking around the globe- we must adopt an ethical perspective. Involve ourselves in other conflicts- not with conflict but with communication. We conflict when we don’t understand each other or converse about our problems and how to fix them.

When arguing war, we forget the other side is also- human and requires ethics too.

We can stop attacking whataboutism- it does help. Despite the fact that it deflects an argument- it can also bring new conversations to the table. It’s a fallacy, yes- but it can be used justly when the other party only acknowledges the other. Does this not highlight that we all have problems that we all should equally fix?

When arguing, however, one side will almost certainly bring up an insult. Humans don’t like being wrong. I observe this often- it’s rather dehumanising and derails an argument. Instead of arguing war; we must agree that all war is bad and give equal coverage to all wars.

Only then, can we say that we have finally evolved civilly as humanity.

View more of my opinion pieces here and make sure to tell me your opinions too!

At The Install- How I Learnt to Reject the White Cube.

The white cube, the museum room where is simply white. The background- where the painting is unframed- looks modern- doesn’t it? Is it really modern? Have we evolved past minimalism? Is there a point where we say, “no more white cube?”. This is also for one of my assignments; it wasn’t explained during the assignment module but is still contemporary and the white cube was explored by another module. I believe that it still fits into the assignment neatly.

Before starting off this post I would like to say that this is my opinion and thoughts and nothing should be taken as fact.

Open Eye, has literally opened my eyes. I volunteered there in October and since volunteering, I have gained new ideas about what makes a “post-modern” gallery. Questioning the status quo, decolonising the gallery and last of all giving the unheard a voice.

White Cube- it’s bland. It’s a concept- devoid of life.

It’s just a white room- which does minimalize distraction. But why do we remove distractions? Why do we remove the original frames (the white cube is the frame in a white cube gallery)? It’s ugly and doesn’t fit the 21st century. We fight for the climate yet this cube denies the natural light. It uses electricity to fuel its light; which in turn burns our planet. Is this modern?

There are merits of this “cube”, however, abstract work looks amazing on it. Go spill forth onto the walls and imagine yourself in the painting. Then stretch it out, say- “the painting doesn’t end it lives forever”. Therefore you can just extend a painting- the white cube is perhaps a canvas!

I’ve witnessed art becoming more politicized and figurative and less abstract in galleries. Hence I put my believe that this system- is becoming more outdated. We put the stories of countless people and groups going through problems in this world in white cubes. But we must frame them! You must enter the frame and try and understand their concept in a new world. Perhaps, we’re at a point where- the frame is back. Now the white cube has an alternative.

It’s not galvanising!

Okay. Let’s put a group in a white cube and one in a black room. Both have shocking content inside- we record their reactions. I believe that the black room would have much more of an effect on the audience- it is a colour for the mood. Do we do colour theory only to have our work put into a gallery that is plain white? Why can’t the artist take over the background? The gallery can be their canvas- the world that transports the audience.

The construct of the white cube, I believe, is too sterilising. Can art not be for the normal person? Putting it on a pretentious wall makes it inhuman- almost as if we can say it’s higher than us. Art is human. We should treat it like that. Humans can be shocking. A white wall is not. It’s too normal now- we need to galvanise and challenge the status quo.

The white cube is boring.

We look at art- some of us think of art as art for art’s sake. It’s beautiful- can we not admire something of beauty? The white wall is ugly. It’s like a prison- paired with the concrete flooring. It’s man-made and inhumane; this is the environment you would factory farm chickens. That says a statement of art in a white cube; it’s a commercial product. The more art in a white cube; the more its value will possibly increase due to exposure.

Put the human back into art. Life into art. I argue that we humans are locked up in cages. Our skyscrapers are living prisons while we slave away at a job. In the white cube- art has been slaved to be an asset of the collector. If we look at a beautiful wall- whether contemporary decoration or traditional- it’s beautiful. It has humanity inside of it; it was made by a human. We appreciate that.

Human appreciation of manual labour and beauty,

For the “Africa Show” that I helped install. I had to paint a lot of walls, not white but multiple colours. It was a lot of effort but not one wall was one static colour- there were more. It required effort on the volunteer part and acquires appreciation. A human did that- not a machine. It’s not perfect as the white cube- it has a human error.

Those mistakes- make us human.

How do we understand another’s problems if we cannot enter their world?

If the white cube becomes the canvas for the painting but doesn’t limit the painting. How can we enter their worlds? This is especially the case for non-abstract work. If there’s an art piece of real-life trouble- how can we relate if we expand it. We must be limited to be allowed into the artist’s personal life. Confined to their space. The frame is necessary, again.

The white prison, it has its purposes- but it must evolve to survive. Minimalism won’t die- but the prison that cages art- hopefully, will.

Note

Along with this as we enter the meta-modern period we are seeing the active removal of the white cube. The meta-verse and meta-space have created many opportunities for a non-white-cube space. It’s about time this happened and let’s embrace it!

This is an opinion piece and therefore definitely something up to debate! Please if you have anything to question me on my opinion- send it in the comments and I will reply! I want you to try and change my opinion! It’s all about looking at different perspectives!

(HA) The Idea of the Separation of Artist and Art Institutions with the Idea of Contemporary Art Criticism

This blog post is about a discussion lecture (an assignment task) given in the History of Art and Museum Studies at LJMU. I will reflect on what was lectured in this post. The subject of this one is art criticism.

Art in contemporary times is presently an exchange of artist and the audience; therefore, due to the individualist characteristics of us humans- we will all perceive an artwork differently, whether it is an emotional reaction or literal reaction. I believe this depends on the context of the work and the idea of the audience who views it, especially in a political context. For example, for a climate change work of art, one may have similar views of the work with another audience member if they both believe the same political ideas, unlike one who denies that climate change exists.

Art, however, which has a political undertone that has not been highlighted in popular culture, will likely have a much more varied reaction. I have observed a linear political belief that some have – especially on social media (Twitter). In-depth, we can observe that if an idea does not align with something one individual does not simply see as ideal- it serves as something they would reject. I see it as a possibility of a sign of audiences not being educated on a topic to look at both perspectives and sides and simply absorbing information that they singularly only want to see.

Relating to my practice

I want to use one of my works as an example, especially the more “politically-inclined” work, “The Suffocation Tee“. Suffocation Tee received varied responses, mostly in approval of climate change being a problem plaguing this world. We had received a negative response which shows that audiences are more varied and not linear- though it was a response that I was disappointed to receive. It was a barrage of “facts” (quoted “fact” also known as opinions 😝) that have not been verified by sources, possibly using conspiracy theories and unverified information.

I see this as a problem due to the possibility of disinformation to create uninformed opinions about artworks – especially if there are racist (or any of the nasty isms) undertones—the exchange of artist and audience, based on the audience type with which the work is exchanged.

Coming back to my project, we can see racist undertones in the comment I had received, which I shall highlight; “cheap masks that were manufactured in [a certain country] that were supposed to protect people from the [same country’s] virus are now littered all over the place”. I will admit; that this is now on the Suffocation Tee- but that it is because the work is socially engaging, and I wished to showcase everyone’s view. We should separate the reaction from the artist- sometimes misinformed artwork ideas could help encourage new audiences to share ideas about an artist’s work.

Excerpt of this and how one can use art criticism

In the lecture, what was also discussed was how we write art criticism, we must simply ask; “is it good art or bad art? who is the artist?”. We must ask these questions while understanding who our audience is before writing. We must be descriptive and then proceed to put our personal opinion into it after the audience knows what we’re talking about. That we must also cut blubber and filter out unneeded information and proofread our text.

From this discussion session, I believe this can help validate art critiques – especially in the digital age when anyone can be a critique. But who is a good critique and this develops how we can differentiate between those who sprout blubber and those who don’t.