Lady @Lady@cat.family

yamp

this is not a shitpost https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2022/22002-n5170-multiocular-o.pdf

CYRILLIC LETTER MULTIOCULAR O should have more eyes

*walks up to Pyra and Mythra* okay which one of you is the sheik and which is the zelda

i didn't play ocarina of time as a kid but i did play super smash bros. melee

@SportsGoblin i want to support them as a team, i’ve always liked them conceptually, i just always hate their quarterbacks!!

@SportsGoblin loved watching rogers lose yesterday

GB get another quarterback

@SportsGoblin fuck brady man

there are a lot of bad things that you don’t know about which have been happening for a long time

you’re allowed to be surprised when you learn new information but perhaps you should check if that new information is an actual recent development before declaring that everything is going to shit

nothing wrong with gay men; let's all love them more; they don't get enough

interesting how this take which purports to criticize queer people is actually just a criticism of lesbians

i am very dog in this respect

humans learned anxiety from dogs

@Owlor well, allow me to ask questions, then:

- “Art requires the permission of an audience to function.” What do you consider the “function” of art? When is art “functioning”?

- “it can be discussed as something the audience gives you” Who is “you” in this sentence? A dead person? An algorithm? A chimpanzee? A piece of paper? (These are all things which have made or conveyed art.) What qualities do these things have which give them the ability to “receive” this permission?

- “the audience need to agree that what I am doing is in fact that what I am doing is telling a story” Agree? or assert? Same question above regarding who they are agreeing “with”.

- is what you are saying as simple as “art becomes art through the act of interpretation?”

@Satsuma i worry that if i go all-in on this i will find myself clicking through a lot of pages with zero results 😩

@Owlor @astraluma the concept which is focused on and discussed is “death of the author”, which is kind of this

(it is also widely misunderstood)

framing it as permission is a very internet way of thinking about it, where audiences and authors are in real-time constant contact with one another and that communication goes both ways. it also implies a sort of agreement and understanding, like an audience gets what you are trying to convey and says “yeah i’ll follow you there” or says “no i won’t”.

in fact, most audiences do not care what you are trying to convey, or about you at all. they care about what “your” work can do for themselves (which is actually “what they can make it do”). sometimes, they might force your story into doing things which you never imagined or intended (queer/perverse readings). it is only a very small subset which might say “what is this author trying to convey”, much less ask the further question of “do i want to allow that?”

for this reason, i tend to view art less as a contract or social creation and more like building materials. artists create building materials that audiences use to construct their worlds. of course, artists try to make materials which are enjoyable or useful, and maybe enjoyable or useful in specific ways or for specific things. but you wouldn't say a person gives a paperclip manufacturer permission when they use a paperclip for clipping paper, or that they revoke that permission when they use it for something else. they bought the paperclip (they read the book). they can use it for whatever they want.