Martin Austwick  🎸 🎼 🎤

(anyway that's an aside, this should be a cool session)

(as a massive aside, I think it would be really useful if podcasts adopted a "director" title, because both producer and editor could refer to more technical, practical or creative roles [editor like in newspapers, or editor like in movies? Producer like in movies, or music?])

A great session for fiction podcasters, and aspiring creators. And it'll be really interesting even for nonfiction creators! You still have to tell hosts what to do with their voices and producers what to do with their comic sound effects. Congrats, you're a director!https://twitter.com/podmakerweekend/status/1429734610905223172 …

I woke up too early and I'm sharing my thoughts and feelings on a topic I have not read much about

I think the same argument applies to commercial (pop) music, film, etc. I think if you say that it can't be art, you're a snob. But I think often it isn't - often it's the functional object that capitalism demands. But not everything in a genre, or medium, has to be art.

*instrumental as in "to serve a purpose" - to keep the cold out or put a drink in. But I also think a house or a coffee table can kind of be art - when people think they're getting functional object but its personality sneaks in, and it is for itself despite its function.

I was trying to work out what I thought was "art" a while back and I came to the amorphous idea that it's something that exists for itself - it tells its own story and doesn't exist for instrumental* purposes. In that way, it's like life, when life is wonderful.

In my book, that's a hell of an accomplishment

So my initial reaction was "You're choosing Robin Williams over Richie Valens/X wasn't a creative force for the last Y years of their life" - but it's sort of blossomed into an appreciation of the way our favourite artists make us want more - not stuff, but of living. More life!

I might be totally wrong about this, but there are a lot of Prince albums and Discworld novels - I think people more want their favourite creative spirits alive in the world, creating, surprising, inspiring - more than they want more stuff.

With some of these, people are picking prolific artists who died, say, in their 50s and 60s. I think that points to no amount of art being enough - their aliveness, their acts of creation, of surprise, is what matters.

Lots of votes in the original thread for Amy Winehouse, Prince, Satoshi Kon, Tupac.

This is a bit ghoulish because of the whole death thing. Obv I don’t wish Sam Cooke, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Billie Holliday etc died at the age or way they did. Let’s say they all died peacefully at 90, but only one continued to make stuff…

Hendrix is the obvious one, to me? Or Jeff Buckley. But honestly it’s just really hard to know whether an artist had their best work behind them. Lots peak early, and that’s fine I think. Nick Drake seems like he had a lot ahead of him.https://twitter.com/rebeccamakkai/status/1428925599914016769 …

Because either the government sticking its dick into things, or fewer lefties going to uni, or both, is desirable to them.

Hard to unpick whether the author thinks the academy is biased and so the gov should do more sticking its dick into things, secretly knows lots of *already* left wing ppl go to uni and would rather they didn’t, or doesn’t care which is true.https://twitter.com/lottelydia/status/1429070639726530568 …