Why is God Hiding in Plain Sight?| My Response | Your Comments |Episode 136

[@velDANTe]

im doing it for my daughter

[@StudioPractice1]

that's right... that's the ticket

[@Swamp_Donkey_]

When you hit like it helps me helps my daughtah

[@DobbyBogg]

Thanks for talking more about my question. I think I better understand your point of view now. Love your vids. As someone who never went to art school. It's really cool to he able to watch these vids and see how higher education approaches art.

[@ryhmic_pigeon2010]

I enjoy the Short videos with a abstract ideas behind them and following up with a comment response video, this is allows me to be greatly invested in both videos and enjoy hearing your descriptions later one through the comments. im tuned

[@StudioPractice1]

That's a great idea!

[@michaelstevens350]

This was a fantastic reflection. I am one of those strange artists who still holds to a theistic (and specifically Christian) worldview, so much of what you said about the Jesuit intellectual tradition resonates with me. I like what you said about God “hiding in plain sight.” I have often reflected on a similar thought. For me, the common theological conception of God as a kind of all-powerful creator-artist-as clichéd as it might be-offers insight into why such a being is necessarily hidden. As artists and makers, we understand intuitively that we cannot be located in the objects we make. We exist fully outside what we create, and can only hope to embed our output with secondary signals and clues.

[@StudioPractice1]

That's an interesting component of the picture I hadn't considered. When I was a child, I wrestled mightily with the impossibility of the proof of a God. I was filled with a profound dread when contemplating the issue. I was deeply disturbed by the impossibility of conclusive proof and of "Gods" elusive nature. To my current thinking, this is so far off base, and so wrong headed. When I contemplate how I understand the ways meaning is constructed, it seems to be an absolute;y essential component of the system. The story of our lives (the narrative) would lose all meaning in the face of conclusive proof. On this plane of existence things MEAN something ONLY if there is something valuable in the balance (what in storytelling we call "stakes"). Our existence is marked by contrasts between good and evil, light and dark, joy and sadness. This is one of the MANY reasons why in western technological culture the over prescription of psychotropic drugs and the self administering of alcohol and marijuana is so disastrous. Human's are not meant to live free of anxiety. Anxiety is the constant background process of all human life.

[@DaviRenania]

This entire topic immediatly brings to mind James Joyce. Educated by jesuits, his aesthetic theory stems from thomism and he talked of the artist to be 'like God in his creation'. Everything in line with Catholic theology, though a quite resentful man towards his former religion.

[@StudioPractice1]

@DiannaIvrea 🔥

[@Swamp_Donkey_]

Hey wise guy, what’s the big idea? Where the ice cream in this joint?

[@NerdilyDone]

Your comment on the afterlife around 7:30ish is interesting. Paul brings this up in the Bible, saying that to live is Christ and to die is gain -- meaning that living requires pain and sacrifice, and that's at an end when Heaven comes. Sacrifice is always for others. So, knowing Heaven is real doesn't eliminate tension, it just puts that tension on others instead of yourself.

[@wrongbuoy]

your video about the devil is the same length as the song Steroids by Death Grips (22min30sec) This band make clear references to the devil, and this song in particular was released on streaming platforms 22min30sec before the Ariana Grande Manchester Arena b*mbing on the 22nd June 2017, with many references in the song hinting at this very interesting

[@wrongbuoy]

for a long time before this, Ariana Grande was also the only account Death Grips was following on Facebook

[@StudioPractice1]

I’m going to have to look at this to see if you are pulling my leg. I believe you are pulling my leg. I like it nonetheless.

[@DissonanceEngineer]

@@StudioPractice1 Freakishly enough he's not, buckle in

[@wrongbuoy]

@@StudioPractice1 I believe there is a comprehensive post on Reddit showing all the evidence linking this song to the b*mbing, it's quite long

[@wrongbuoy]

​@@StudioPractice1I'm sorry I got the wrong date. the song was released on May 22nd, the same day as the b*mbing, 22min 30sec before the b*mbing

[@skwirl828]

the empirical rests on the metaphysical

[@anti-incognita]

big ups on responsibility, but we mustn’t forget our DUTY to others as well

[@StudioPractice1]

Duty? Tell me more…

[@anti-incognita]

@@StudioPractice1 the skinny is that alongside the responsibilities I have to others (i.e., to not be stupid, cultivate intelligent behavior) I also have the duty to act beyond my self interest on the other’s behalf (i.e., to refuse ignorance and cultivate wisdom, kindness, and understanding among my community). What is commonly discussed under the heading of altruism should be understood as the artist’s duty to act beyond themselves on the other’s behalf (or more precisely, on behalf of the other’s pain).

[@StudioPractice1]

I’m going to have to sit with this for a moment, in order to make sure I understand your point. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. It’s my belief that responsibility works like concentric circles. At the center - lies those closest to you - let’s call them “family..” You have a profound responsibility to them. As people move further from the center, your responsibility decreases. (You can define “family” however you’d like). It’s my belief that your “duty” to the larger culture is infinitesimally small compared to your responsibility to your family. It seems that if everyone felt a deep responsibility to those closest to them, there would be no need for a duty to the larger culture. No? What am I missing?

[@anti-incognita]

@@StudioPractice1 I think if family were all living creatures then there would be no need for duty, as it stands, insofar that family is understood in relationship to selfhood, duty is needed to transcend it. If anything duty is as important if not MORE important than one’s responsibilities. But I don’t think yr missing anything, it could just be as simple as a difference of opinion (“variety is the spice of life”).

[@jakobhammer3038]

I find your specific critique of video games de-centering the individual really interesting. Couldn't an argument be made that any art that puts you inside a different perspective de-centers you? Even if that's not the intention of the art, cinema will often be praised for "immersing" the viewer or a book might construct a main character as to allow the reader to project into them. I have a definite bias here, being someone who grew up playing video games, still plays video games, and intends to go to school to study "games" as art in general. What is your perspective on games as art? For example, board games, or tabletop roleplaying games. Are games performance art? Do we perform the rules and language of the game for ourselves and others? If there is value in the tradition of game-making and playing how might video games incorporate some of the more compelling aspects of the form, and what new possibilities could they offer?

[@StudioPractice1]

That’s a fair question. To my mind it’s the malleability of the avatar and its first person control by the player (user) that is extremely problematic psychologically. When building and selecting a character, the capacity to rifle through a nearly limitless selection of physical traits (hair, color, size, shape, clothes, gender, species, traits), coupled with the unparalleled capacity to “control” the avatar establishes an inherently anti-natural (anti-nature) understanding of the individual. “Why shouldn’t *real* life mirror the infinite possibilities that are presented to me in the virtual world?” Right… as an exceedingly simple example. When i was MUCH younger, I wanted desperately to have thick, long hair. There was a point where I was almost in denial that I neither had thick hair, nor the capacity for it to be long (without it looking like an absolute ridiculous rats nest). The real point is that in MY world, there is a reality that exists OUTSIDE of and INDEPENDENT of my perception. This reality is not dependent upon my perception of it in order to exist. It has knowable characteristics that in some very important ways are not changed by my perception of it. Video games ENCOURAGE a willing denial of this cold hard fact. They encourage it by a very simple logic. “I spend 14 hours a day in a virtual world, and in that world I possess the capacity to fundamentally alter the *rules of engagement* with my controller - nearly effortlessly. The *real world should be similar!” (Uh…… but it. Is. Not similar. Not)

[@jakobhammer3038]

@@StudioPractice1 ​ @StudioPractice1 That's interesting that you describe the allure of the character creator as being the ability to create an idealized version of yourself or just another version of yourself. One of the main complaints that I hear directed at character creators (not all games have them of course, in fact, in-depth character creation is usually associated with AA or AAA productions focused on roleplaying elements) is that they very specifically cater to average-bodied white people in terms of your ability to recreate yourself in-game. Only now is it becoming a more standard practice to allow for fat bodies, like actually FAT bodies, and options for non-white characters are starting to catch up. That obviously doesn't refute your point but I do think it complicates it. Mostly though I want to comment on your point about the rules of engagement. That's the game. Games have rules. Video games have LAWS. Video games have a collection of hard-coded mechanics. Even in the realm of immersive sims, games that use nested simulations to mimic how you might actually interact with something physically, it is always painfully obvious how limited your potential choices are. The actual limitations of hardware also play into this, I really recommend this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/pp2ceGespLyZerM by Mathew Mitosis for an absolutely delicious deep dive into the subject of how we physically interact with video games. My point is that the art happens at the intersection of the laws and the player's interpretation of those laws, that's the unique potential of video games in my opinion. In this video essay written by Jacob Geller kzbin.info/www/bejne/iJiXmpZ7l55qiLs he analyses a game called Perfect Vermin. In this game, you run through a massive office complex destroying objects with a big sledgehammer. Your only way to interact with the world is through BIG SLEDGEHAMMER. The office is overrun with stuff, normal office stuff and too much of it, but some of the stuff is evil flesh. Your job is to destroy the evil flesh before time runs out. It is a harrowing depiction of cancer and its treatment and the brutality of the metaphor is reinforced through the laws of engagement. Curiously enough I think your point about altering the rules of engagement is more applicable to social games like Dungeons and Dragons or, you know, kicking a ball around with your friends, inventing games. To me, video games present a possibility space as it is, laws implemented by the artist to create their specific vision. Novel interpretations emerge as with any art but these interpretations are limited by the reality of the hardware and software. Social games, especially roleplaying games, give the players a language (the rules) to use to discuss how they would like the game to be. There is a lot to dive into here and I am not an expert, just curious. We should all go outside more :)

[@sergez6172]

Along with being a great content creator kinda reminds me of Daniel day lewis

[@VelmaTheID]

I enjoy watching your videos with the sound down because you look like a slimmed-down Malkovich.

[@yancowles]

Ha ha, a thing is intangible and this, therefore, is evidence for its existence. Or maybe, the inability to perceive a thing might be, just might be because it's not actually there at all. Hmm, food for thought.

[@facilegoose9347]

20:20 _Parsimonious Syntax:_ Are you well spoken, urbane? Probably not-- _your prose should not subvocalize or proxy spoken word then, but Thought itself._ Whatever you've produced for a first draft, at least one fifth of the word count can be butchered on the next pass. Don't bury the Lead or put the cart before the horse: _respect the reader's time._ There are many prose equivalents of speech impediments and they are all the product of defective thought; you have many grammatical and punctuation tools and options. If it reads and flows effortlessly for the eye you will instantly and subconsciously win the favor of the reader.

[@pak5385]

Loved that. Thank you 🙏

[@StudioPractice1]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@michaelstevens350]

I’m going to sound like a preacher and proselytizer here, but humor me for just a moment! I offer this comment/question in a spirit of sincere curiosity and a desire to further the intellectual discussion: I challenge you to look deeply at two specific works of art that are firmly rooted in the Catholic worldview. The first is Fra Angelico’s Deposition of Christ. The second is Michelangelo’s Pietà. The more I contemplate these two particular works (both on a formal and conceptual level) the more I am convinced that what they are expressing is not merely true in a distant, archetypal, abstract way, but in a unique and metaphysically robust way. In other words, that they are “true” works of art *because* of the supernatural claims they are making, not in spite of those claims. It makes me think about what you said about the full range of human experience. When I look at those two works, I see images that deal with the full scope. My question is whether you (especially in light of your Jesuit education) sense anything remotely similar when you look at Catholic masterworks like these? If not, is there any coherent philosophy of art-making that you think captures the depths of human suffering, longing, joy, self-sacrificing love, etc. better than the Christian old masters? Keep up the fascinating videos. I’ve been a fan for a few years now and I’m really glad you took on the topic of religion. It’s not often that people to do that in contemporary art discourse! I sometimes wonder why-the whole history of art across the millennia attests to the connection between religious impulse and image-making.

[@StudioPractice1]

When I look at the works you mention, I'm filled with a deep sense of awe at human genius. I'm nearly speechless in the face of the towering achievement's of the human animal. The capacity for the human animal to encapsulate the beauty of the human body, the depth of the mystery of human existence, the power of sadness and loss in the face of death, the ability to mold and bend reality (marble and paint) to human will. I'm also left at a loss for how far off track can be in art practice in post-modern culture.

[@curiositycloset2359]

Not much you can do with strip lights.

[@StudioPractice1]

I know. Harry roasts me mercilessly about how much he hates how “Blown out” my lighting is. I’m like “huh??? Really?”””

[@austinarizk8413]

'PromoSM' 😴

[@StudioPractice1]

Yea. That’s fair