@@haroldjoseph8296 Oh he'll make a documentary about you alright. And if you don't want anyone to see it you'd better go along with what him and his handlers want.
There is a problem here, you are hiding behind JLGodard's opinion to double roast Allen. When in fact, Allen does a great job answering back. He said that JLG was creating hypothesis that were so abstract that demanded people to believe them, not actually seeing them or being able to reason with them. This is actually one of the major flaws in JLG work, and you are reading this from someone that loves many of his films. Orson Wells said it best about JLG, "He is without a shadow of a doubt a great director, he is just under the impression to be a great thinker." Please look at that. JLG was indeed amazing but he said and wrote many unfounded things. In here is a great proof of this!
Mr. Allen seemed more puzzled than 'ruffled' by Monsieur Godard's 'questions .' I saw no irritation nor frustration - as Allen continued to answer Godard [via his interpreter] as best he could, maintaining an even tone of voice heard on many interviews...it should not surprise anyone Allen and Godard would have different views of Cinema and Television and the use of words and images. Godard was raised by a wealthy family with right-wing leanings and spent World War II in Switzerland; while Allen was raised working or middle- class and spent World War II in Brooklyn. Godard has been described as prickly, hypercritical and solipsistic, while Allen can be described as an intellectual, insecure, nebbish. Godard hated Americans and Allen remains devoted to his New York Knicks - - one could make the case hating Americans and being a loyal Knicks fan are good things or equally bad things. It all depends on your POV. I perceive and admire both men as important, influential artists, whose views on the subject matter discussed are equally valid. But it was fun to watch Woody 'being Woody' and Godard, 'being Godard.'
I agree with most of this, but I wouldn't say Godard hated Americans. His views of America were ambivalent. On the one hand, he admired American cinema and literature (he revered Faulkner and classic Hollywood cinema). But on the flip side, he despised America's anti-intellectualism, the glorification of capitalism, and its military adventurism. He had a mix of awe and disgust for America, which remained up to his death.
@@jamals.8786 For sure, Godard, as a writer for Cahiers du Cinema, praised Classic American Movie Directors and he enjoyed American Literature . On the 'flip side' he knew many Americans did not know much about those great directors, nor much about William Faulkner -- even more so in 2023. I believe you have made a valid point about his 'ambivalence' - and I also believe Monsieur Godard probably didn't mind people thinking he was, 'anti--American.' If anyone reading this knew Monsieur Godard personally and knew he was wasn't Anti-American - let me state I meant no offense to Monsieur Godard , whom I admire very much as an Artist many more Americans should be curious enough to discover for themselves.
I have no comments on the Godard Hating Americans or the way they were raised, but I do agree about the fact that Woody was absolutely a gentleman and it showed how much admiration he had for Godard. Woody has always mentioned that he doesn't consider himself a great artist and he hates his own films and he loves films of other filmmakers who he considers far greater than him like Fellini, Truffaut, Kurosawa and it shows here too how humble he is when is talking to one of the most important filmmakers of the 20th Century and Godard is absolutely bullying him here and somehow, I am enjoying it. I love when artists do these to each other but in no way Woody seems irritated. I love what you said about Godard being Godard and Woody being Woody. Spot on!
If you actually watch "real interviews" of Woody you'll see that one thing he is not is pretentious, kind of humble and self-effacing. Godard on the other hand thinks rather highly of himself, which is on full display here with his belittling of a fellow filmmaker, just so that Godard himself can appear superior.
jesus, what a great remark u made there about Allen wanting to escape reality and Godard confronting it. I do believe that Allen's in movie references end up mixing it a little bit.
Typical Godard shade, using a film star to attract money to one of his projects and then roasting him in a sideshow little film. Same thing he did in the Seventies with Jane Fonda. He also used to sneer at new star directors like David Lynch in interviews. He just cannot stand to be seen as something of a has-been. BTW this film was made in 1986 so I guess the final "troll mix" of WA phrases with news about his fallout with then-wife Mia Farrow are a JLG homage done by Style is Substance ;)
Amazing that this happened. Allen is in a way the vulgar-american Godard: they look similar, both take a studious interest in the history of film, as well as the great literary works, and their most celebrated films play with the norms of narrative film. They both continue to make films in their old age. Imagine if Godard had gone more mainstream or Allen more experimental. Perhaps they could have made almost the same film. Seems they should be friends if not for the astronomical difference in world view, and that one of course so outclasses the other. Good vid by the way! you are very good at these!
Godard always put the medium of film first and foremost. There are messages communicated either in the image, sound or in editing- but he never takes any of these components for granted. Woody allen was more concerned with stories. He viewed the components of the medium as obstacles that get in the way of the story he wanted in his mind. An oversimplification would be Godard is an artist filmmaker, woody is a storyteller filmmaker. I think it's easy for critics of either director to lose sight of this. Does Godard roast Woody here- hell yes he does. Woody's answers /views served this one up. I think Woody comes off negatively here even more because of his overly sentimental view of cinema as well as his pretentious dismissal of television/video. Godard never stooped that low in his life. Woody had this coming and his supporters are probably too blind or anti-Godard to see it.
@@styleissubstance I was talking about you. To be clear I subscribe to your channel because I’ve enjoyed your work and commentary on your other videos. However, with this one I wanted to see the whole interview without commentary first. Then Afterwards I could go through it again With your commentary. I was interested in what you had to say. But I was also interested in hearing the Godard, Allen interview.
Good video but with all that roasting vibe I could not stop thinking what Godard would say about explaining to public in the beginning of a video that you’re going to talk about something they might feel uncomfortable confronting
Wenit Bewood has a good point: Woody Allen isn't that conceited, certainly not moreso than Goddard. What I think I watched in that interview was Goddard trying to make a short movie about art instead of doing an interview. Is it possible that he was frustrated by how things were going with King Lear and resented doing this publicity stunt interview, so he made some art instead of publicity?
I really love your film reviews, and have been lurking for a long time - you might remember my comments back in the days when I had this shitty dr. Who poster as my pfp lol. Anyways, doesn’t matter, my question is: have you considered a discord? I would love to discuss films with you, as would others, I’m sure. You have genuinely interesting tastes and have been a major catalyst in my checking out several movies that I’ve greatly enjoyed, thanks to your input.
Yeah, I remember you. Thanks for sticking around. I don't really plan on making a Discord relating to this channel anytime soon. Feel free to email me at styleissubstance1@gmail.com
I stumbled on this having just watched Crimes and Misdemeanors, which Allen made about three years after this interview. There's a sequence where Allen, playing a documentarian hired to profile someone he despises, proudly shows the subject the documentary he's made. He intentionally paints him in a terrible light through clever editing and even intercuts his subject's rants with clips of Mussolini. I wonder if this was the inspiration?
It's just two men roasting each other in the fiery heat of a passionate conversation. Nothing at all but two passionate artists sharing their souls here.
Yeah. It synthesizes details about the complicated case and articulates why people see him as innocent, while actually proving next to nothing. It's also full of fallacies most people are expected to grow out of in college. Regardless, I actually like some of Woody Allen's films, but as I articulate through Godard's "Meetin' WA," I believe his film-making philosophy is often shallow. I only reference the case here because of Allen's fall from grace in the media that he once had faith in.
@Mel On It's been a while, but from memory it frequently employs the "appeal to authority" fallacy, and fails to even consider that existing social/political/legal structures can be anything other than trustworthy. There is also the issue of obscuring relevant information in efforts to distract from alternative conclusions. For example, Allen was once quoted saying the following: "if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him." He was also sending letters at age 42 to 13-year-old Nancy Jo Sales, and in romantic (likely sexual) relationships with 16-year-old Babi Christina Engelhardt and 17-year-old Stacey Nelkin during the 1970s. While this in itself doesn't make Allen guilty, excluding this information is suspicious. If Worley did mention any of this, he definitely beat around the bush. Worley's goal is less to critically dissect the case as much as it is to rehabilitate Allen in the public eye. That's why there is so much attention to why the layman is wrong or doesn't know anything. It's just bad optics, even if the core argument were true.
@@styleissubstance As someone who has researched the allegation and that whole situation to death, I have to say Worley covers the subject in great detail, and I'm sure the details you mentioned are in the documentary. Regardless, the facts around the allegation points in the direction of innocence. I know that is radioactive to say, but the day I'm starting to alter my views because of public pressure, that would be the day I died inside. I don't understand how an intelligent human can read all of the facts and come to the conclusion that he is guilty. To make that conclusion you'd have to make so many irrational leaps. I mean just the fact that he was currently in a public turmoil, the drama around him, Mia and Soon-Yi... the idea that he is going to drive up to the country house where there are other adults present, to then inappropriate touch his underage daughter, and then go home. I mean... you can call Woody a lot of things, a complete imbecile Woody is not. And I don't know what Mia has said or done to her own children, but Jesus Christ... whatever she did to make her own son publicly speak up against her, with allegations of abuse and fantasies being repeated to be morphed into reality, without any motive and knowing its radioactive to go against Mia... wow.
The Un-Ending Fascination of Creating WAR for Clicks or Fame. There is No fight here, Godard is not "Roasting" Allen. He's just got A Different Take, and That's Probably why he sat down to do this; not to just have someone to agree with him. Your view that his Arty edits and montages are based on disgust for Allen, is Ridiculous. What if he's just Making art? But, I wouldn't know as I've not seen the Whole interview...The way in which this youtube video edits the source material, it can fit into any narrative - but, it does not give the Viewer the Complete story to decide for themselves. *The Fact that Godard is using an interpreter when he speaks English is some kind of power play and a sign of weakness.
I find post 60s Goddard as a bore. Way too intellectual, saying all these profound sounding thoughts that don't mean a thing to real life. Yes, TV back then and now was pretty superficial but what's the solution? Goddard will drone on and on about what an image means (see Letter to Jane where one image is broken down for an hour). His Histories du cinema was pointless. Make the cinema you day we need, rather than talk it to death. I'll take Allen any day in spite of him being a nostalgist and repetitive (putting aside his personal life and potential moral short comings).
One of the most interesting things that I realized when I tried to research any type of art that I have been interested in is that there are always trans nerd weirdos who always have the most analytical and countercultural notes on every topic discussed. It is as if social isolation triggered cynicism but dysphoria prevented them from having the misogyny that often comes with it. And that they really like bodily fluid representations in art. I guess it is what it is.
I think that Woody Allen is a much better artist than Godard. Godard's movies were ambitious and inovative at the time, but they have aged very poorly. Godard is an artist that youy like when you're a young and pretentoioous film student, but evenatually, as Tarantino said; you outgrow him. That doesn't happen with Woody Allen. Woody is a director that you also love when you're a pretentious young film student, but his movies stay with you and yo still love them when you get older.
Godard's films aged much better than Allen's. Also, Woody became more and more conventional and conservative with time, while Godard looked for a radical form and content until the last day of his life. I never understood why people see so much arrogance in Godard's films. I personally find them - especially his early work - hilarious, sarcastic and exciting. Woody, in my point of view, is very pretentious in his text full of mental masturbation and obsession with himself.
I definitely "outgrew" Woody Allen whereas Godard still remains as one of the greatest filmmakers for me. What you've said is not at all something universal, and frankly, "outgrowing" and artist is a foolish idea.
How does that saying go? _“Never meet your heroes because they might make an entire documentary dedicated to roasting you,”_ or something like that.
My hero is Jeffrey Epstein
@@haroldjoseph8296 Oh he'll make a documentary about you alright. And if you don't want anyone to see it you'd better go along with what him and his handlers want.
The UA-cam Poop was invented in 1986 by Jean-Luc Godard
There is a problem here, you are hiding behind JLGodard's opinion to double roast Allen. When in fact, Allen does a great job answering back. He said that JLG was creating hypothesis that were so abstract that demanded people to believe them, not actually seeing them or being able to reason with them.
This is actually one of the major flaws in JLG work, and you are reading this from someone that loves many of his films. Orson Wells said it best about JLG, "He is without a shadow of a doubt a great director, he is just under the impression to be a great thinker."
Please look at that. JLG was indeed amazing but he said and wrote many unfounded things. In here is a great proof of this!
Woody Allen makes movies for people who haven't seen Malcolm In The Middle yet
Mr. Allen seemed more puzzled than 'ruffled' by Monsieur Godard's 'questions .' I saw no irritation nor frustration - as Allen continued to answer Godard [via his interpreter] as best he could, maintaining an even tone of voice heard on many interviews...it should not surprise anyone Allen and Godard would have different views of Cinema and Television and the use of words and images. Godard was raised by a wealthy family with right-wing leanings and spent World War II in Switzerland; while Allen was raised working or middle- class and spent World War II in Brooklyn. Godard has been described as prickly, hypercritical and solipsistic, while Allen can be described as an intellectual, insecure, nebbish. Godard hated Americans and Allen remains devoted to his New York Knicks - - one could make the case hating Americans and being a loyal Knicks fan are good things or equally bad things. It all depends on your POV. I perceive and admire both men as important, influential artists, whose views on the subject matter discussed are equally valid. But it was fun to watch Woody 'being Woody' and Godard, 'being Godard.'
I agree with most of this, but I wouldn't say Godard hated Americans. His views of America were ambivalent. On the one hand, he admired American cinema and literature (he revered Faulkner and classic Hollywood cinema). But on the flip side, he despised America's anti-intellectualism, the glorification of capitalism, and its military adventurism. He had a mix of awe and disgust for America, which remained up to his death.
@@jamals.8786 For sure, Godard, as a writer for Cahiers du Cinema, praised Classic American Movie Directors and he enjoyed American Literature . On the 'flip side' he knew many Americans did not know much about those great directors, nor much about William Faulkner -- even more so in 2023. I believe you have made a valid point about his 'ambivalence' - and I also believe Monsieur Godard probably didn't mind people thinking he was, 'anti--American.' If anyone reading this knew Monsieur Godard personally and knew he was wasn't Anti-American - let me state I meant no offense to Monsieur Godard , whom I admire very much as an Artist many more Americans should be curious enough to discover for themselves.
I have no comments on the Godard Hating Americans or the way they were raised, but I do agree about the fact that Woody was absolutely a gentleman and it showed how much admiration he had for Godard. Woody has always mentioned that he doesn't consider himself a great artist and he hates his own films and he loves films of other filmmakers who he considers far greater than him like Fellini, Truffaut, Kurosawa and it shows here too how humble he is when is talking to one of the most important filmmakers of the 20th Century and Godard is absolutely bullying him here and somehow, I am enjoying it. I love when artists do these to each other but in no way Woody seems irritated. I love what you said about Godard being Godard and Woody being Woody. Spot on!
What are you talking about? Oh god, internet is full of idiots.
Godard, a contentious ass of the ages. Always amusing.
Holy shit! This is amazing! Just found this channel and can tell it’s going to take up a bit of my time. Thank you!
Thanks for watching. I have a new video going up by Friday btw.
If you actually watch "real interviews" of Woody you'll see that one thing he is not is pretentious, kind of humble and self-effacing. Godard on the other hand thinks rather highly of himself, which is on full display here with his belittling of a fellow filmmaker, just so that Godard himself can appear superior.
@The Eye Creature Agreed about Goddard, but please post which Woody Allen films you think don't have a point.
@The Eye Creature Are you in grade school? Please leave this comment thread to the adults. Thank you.
The reason Woody is looking away throughout this interview is because he's looking at the interpreter who's translating for him.
Even though Godard may seem arrogant, I felt vice versa of your opinion.
@@MyplayLists4Y2Y Well how about the adults not willfully misinterpret what somebody is saying to try and make a cringey gotcha towards them?
jesus, what a great remark u made there about Allen wanting to escape reality and Godard confronting it. I do believe that Allen's in movie references end up mixing it a little bit.
Typical Godard shade, using a film star to attract money to one of his projects and then roasting him in a sideshow little film. Same thing he did in the Seventies with Jane Fonda. He also used to sneer at new star directors like David Lynch in interviews. He just cannot stand to be seen as something of a has-been.
BTW this film was made in 1986 so I guess the final "troll mix" of WA phrases with news about his fallout with then-wife Mia Farrow are a JLG homage done by Style is Substance ;)
Very interesting. Can you share the original video? Thank you.
Amazing that this happened. Allen is in a way the vulgar-american Godard: they look similar, both take a studious interest in the history of film, as well as the great literary works, and their most celebrated films play with the norms of narrative film. They both continue to make films in their old age. Imagine if Godard had gone more mainstream or Allen more experimental. Perhaps they could have made almost the same film. Seems they should be friends if not for the astronomical difference in world view, and that one of course so outclasses the other. Good vid by the way! you are very good at these!
Godard always put the medium of film first and foremost. There are messages communicated either in the image, sound or in editing- but he never takes any of these components for granted. Woody allen was more concerned with stories. He viewed the components of the medium as obstacles that get in the way of the story he wanted in his mind. An oversimplification would be Godard is an artist filmmaker, woody is a storyteller filmmaker. I think it's easy for critics of either director to lose sight of this. Does Godard roast Woody here- hell yes he does. Woody's answers /views served this one up. I think Woody comes off negatively here even more because of his overly sentimental view of cinema as well as his pretentious dismissal of television/video. Godard never stooped that low in his life. Woody had this coming and his supporters are probably too blind or anti-Godard to see it.
Why not let the interview play out without the commentary which is just someone’s personal perspective that becomes intrusive and annoying.
Are you talking about me or Godard? lol
@@styleissubstance I was talking about you. To be clear I subscribe to your channel because I’ve enjoyed your work and commentary on your other videos.
However, with this one I wanted to see the whole interview without commentary first. Then Afterwards I could go through it again With your commentary. I was interested in what you had to say. But I was also interested in hearing the Godard, Allen interview.
@@firewithfire848 Oh, well you should be able to find it on Vimeo and Daily Motion. It's called "Meetin' WA."
@@styleissubstance Thank you
I think the problem here is cinephilia, & the cure isn't more cinema.
You should watch "your cult boyfriend"
The cure is knowing why am I watching at it
keep in mind that in "Carmen" Godard drinks from WA, he doesn't despises his content.
Godard is basically the pretentious people Woody make fun of in most of his movies.
Good video but with all that roasting vibe I could not stop thinking what Godard would say about explaining to public in the beginning of a video that you’re going to talk about something they might feel uncomfortable confronting
Wenit Bewood has a good point: Woody Allen isn't that conceited, certainly not moreso than Goddard. What I think I watched in that interview was Goddard trying to make a short movie about art instead of doing an interview. Is it possible that he was frustrated by how things were going with King Lear and resented doing this publicity stunt interview, so he made some art instead of publicity?
Allen is genius. Godard is just trolling cinema :)
I really love your film reviews, and have been lurking for a long time - you might remember my comments back in the days when I had this shitty dr. Who poster as my pfp lol. Anyways, doesn’t matter, my question is: have you considered a discord? I would love to discuss films with you, as would others, I’m sure. You have genuinely interesting tastes and have been a major catalyst in my checking out several movies that I’ve greatly enjoyed, thanks to your input.
Yeah, I remember you. Thanks for sticking around. I don't really plan on making a Discord relating to this channel anytime soon. Feel free to email me at styleissubstance1@gmail.com
@@styleissubstance ah, that’s a shame. I understand nonetheless. I’ll definitely hit you up on Gmail.
I stumbled on this having just watched Crimes and Misdemeanors, which Allen made about three years after this interview. There's a sequence where Allen, playing a documentarian hired to profile someone he despises, proudly shows the subject the documentary he's made. He intentionally paints him in a terrible light through clever editing and even intercuts his subject's rants with clips of Mussolini. I wonder if this was the inspiration?
Roasted is an exaggeration both are in their personas
Godard is a mind f'er
this sounds 'gay'.
It's just two men roasting each other in the fiery heat of a passionate conversation. Nothing at all but two passionate artists sharing their souls here.
Have you seen Rick Worley's video on Woody Allen?
Yeah. It synthesizes details about the complicated case and articulates why people see him as innocent, while actually proving next to nothing. It's also full of fallacies most people are expected to grow out of in college.
Regardless, I actually like some of Woody Allen's films, but as I articulate through Godard's "Meetin' WA," I believe his film-making philosophy is often shallow. I only reference the case here because of Allen's fall from grace in the media that he once had faith in.
@@styleissubstance Sounds interesting. I wish you two had more debates with each other. I feel like that would be amazing to follow.
@@styleissubstance can you explain cause I didn't see any logical fallacies unless im still in college.
@Mel On It's been a while, but from memory it frequently employs the "appeal to authority" fallacy, and fails to even consider that existing social/political/legal structures can be anything other than trustworthy.
There is also the issue of obscuring relevant information in efforts to distract from alternative conclusions. For example, Allen was once quoted saying the following: "if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him." He was also sending letters at age 42 to 13-year-old Nancy Jo Sales, and in romantic (likely sexual) relationships with 16-year-old Babi Christina Engelhardt and 17-year-old Stacey Nelkin during the 1970s. While this in itself doesn't make Allen guilty, excluding this information is suspicious. If Worley did mention any of this, he definitely beat around the bush. Worley's goal is less to critically dissect the case as much as it is to rehabilitate Allen in the public eye. That's why there is so much attention to why the layman is wrong or doesn't know anything. It's just bad optics, even if the core argument were true.
@@styleissubstance As someone who has researched the allegation and that whole situation to death, I have to say Worley covers the subject in great detail, and I'm sure the details you mentioned are in the documentary. Regardless, the facts around the allegation points in the direction of innocence. I know that is radioactive to say, but the day I'm starting to alter my views because of public pressure, that would be the day I died inside. I don't understand how an intelligent human can read all of the facts and come to the conclusion that he is guilty. To make that conclusion you'd have to make so many irrational leaps. I mean just the fact that he was currently in a public turmoil, the drama around him, Mia and Soon-Yi... the idea that he is going to drive up to the country house where there are other adults present, to then inappropriate touch his underage daughter, and then go home. I mean... you can call Woody a lot of things, a complete imbecile Woody is not. And I don't know what Mia has said or done to her own children, but Jesus Christ... whatever she did to make her own son publicly speak up against her, with allegations of abuse and fantasies being repeated to be morphed into reality, without any motive and knowing its radioactive to go against Mia... wow.
The Un-Ending Fascination of Creating WAR for Clicks or Fame. There is No fight here, Godard is not "Roasting" Allen. He's just got A Different Take, and That's Probably why he sat down to do this; not to just have someone to agree with him. Your view that his Arty edits and montages are based on disgust for Allen, is Ridiculous. What if he's just Making art? But, I wouldn't know as I've not seen the Whole interview...The way in which this youtube video edits the source material, it can fit into any narrative - but, it does not give the Viewer the Complete story to decide for themselves. *The Fact that Godard is using an interpreter when he speaks English is some kind of power play and a sign of weakness.
@@opinionsforsale no lol
@@styleissubstance Oh well You certainly Won That Argument Pshh 😂
Yeah
Woody is right
When people can't face the truth they try to hide it. As proven in this video
I find post 60s Goddard as a bore. Way too intellectual, saying all these profound sounding thoughts that don't mean a thing to real life. Yes, TV back then and now was pretty superficial but what's the solution? Goddard will drone on and on about what an image means (see Letter to Jane where one image is broken down for an hour). His Histories du cinema was pointless. Make the cinema you day we need, rather than talk it to death. I'll take Allen any day in spite of him being a nostalgist and repetitive (putting aside his personal life and potential moral short comings).
One of the most interesting things that I realized when I tried to research any type of art that I have been interested in is that there are always trans nerd weirdos who always have the most analytical and countercultural notes on every topic discussed. It is as if social isolation triggered cynicism but dysphoria prevented them from having the misogyny that often comes with it. And that they really like bodily fluid representations in art. I guess it is what it is.
Alot of trans people are just creative tbf
Never heard of "trans nerds", were they jocks before that?
jeje
Never meet the people you admire & inspire you.
AWFUL RAPID STUTTERING AMERICAN VOICEOVER . Please RE-DO
pour one out for our boy
🍻
I think that Woody Allen is a much better artist than Godard. Godard's movies were ambitious and inovative at the time, but they have aged very poorly. Godard is an artist that youy like when you're a young and pretentoioous film student, but evenatually, as Tarantino said; you outgrow him. That doesn't happen with Woody Allen. Woody is a director that you also love when you're a pretentious young film student, but his movies stay with you and yo still love them when you get older.
why'd you like your own comment lol
Godard's films aged much better than Allen's. Also, Woody became more and more conventional and conservative with time, while Godard looked for a radical form and content until the last day of his life. I never understood why people see so much arrogance in Godard's films. I personally find them - especially his early work - hilarious, sarcastic and exciting. Woody, in my point of view, is very pretentious in his text full of mental masturbation and obsession with himself.
Preach!!
I definitely "outgrew" Woody Allen whereas Godard still remains as one of the greatest filmmakers for me. What you've said is not at all something universal, and frankly, "outgrowing" and artist is a foolish idea.
What a load of BS
Idubbbz tried to pull a jean luc godard on Sam Hyde.
How so xD