Art historian Paul Rhoads is back, questioning if Creeps is self-conscious nontent or merely a circle jerk. Watch as he contemplates whether the series offers a profound societal critique or just a brain-dead display of self-referential irony.
Hey Paul, Your review of Creeps 4 has some solid points. Right off the bat, you make a personal connection by talking about your UA-cam rep, even if it’s small. That makes your take relatable and gives us a sense of why your opinion matters. And it makes you humble. That‘s something I can learn from you. Your deep dive into "Synergy" is sharp. You explain how mutual promotion works and why your reaction could be a big deal for my show. It’s a smart observation that helps people understand the behind-the-scenes mechanics of content creation and promotion. The analogies you use are intriguing. Is "Creeps from the Middle East" a wannabe hype or if there's real substance there? Who knows? It‘s not for me to judge. The connection you make to KIRAC feels random and confusing. I‘m not as influenced by them as much as you think I am. It‘s a parallel universe with completely different ambitions. Stefan Ruitenbeek tries to please his sponsors. I want to revolutionise comedy. That’s a totally different ballgame. This innovation will take a little longer. But we‘re getting closer. Bear with us.
The desire to revolutionize comedy means nothing. The only thing that counts is what you actually do. I don't know where KIRAC will go, but imo Creeps is trying to use the KIRAC form...
Why can’t it be funny to poke fun at things that are actually creepy? To play with scary subject matters? Houellebecq plays with the main character being a sexist and a racist, with dark feelings. Tarik does the same from the perspective of his background. It’s art. It’s about how people can perceive Muslims, but it’s also about real creepiness. This is one of the things that gives it more meaning without being just about art, or selling yourself, or nothingness. So I think it’s a dumb point you make in the end.
@@Paul-talk I think a lot of good art has the feeling of being dangerous. If you know Tarik personally he’s probably the furthest away of a extremist Muslim you can think of. What do you actually think is the danger? And do you also think there is a danger in Houellebecq’s main character in his first novel (who has a lot of similarities with himself) wanting to kill a black person, out of jealousy for being young and good looking? Why can’t you seperate art from the real world? I think that’s a pretty bad take for an art critic. I don’t think it’s socially irresponsible at all. I think ambiguous art has the power to canalise anger and resentment, however irrational (which human beings are) in a way that makes it less dangerous. Art that isn’t propaganda I mean.
From my brief look at the guys stuff (episode 1) its pure unadulterated nontent. Tarick brought in some glimmers of content but only when he was passive aggressively pressing/trashing that Sina guy.
Art historian Paul Rhoads is back, questioning if Creeps is self-conscious nontent or merely a circle jerk. Watch as he contemplates whether the series offers a profound societal critique or just a brain-dead display of self-referential irony.
what do you think? nontent or synergistic social critique?
Hey Paul,
Your review of Creeps 4 has some solid points. Right off the bat, you make a personal connection by talking about your UA-cam rep, even if it’s small. That makes your take relatable and gives us a sense of why your opinion matters. And it makes you humble. That‘s something I can learn from you.
Your deep dive into "Synergy" is sharp. You explain how mutual promotion works and why your reaction could be a big deal for my show. It’s a smart observation that helps people understand the behind-the-scenes mechanics of content creation and promotion.
The analogies you use are intriguing. Is "Creeps from the Middle East" a wannabe hype or if there's real substance there? Who knows? It‘s not for me to judge.
The connection you make to KIRAC feels random and confusing. I‘m not as influenced by them as much as you think I am. It‘s a parallel universe with completely different ambitions. Stefan Ruitenbeek tries to please his sponsors. I want to revolutionise comedy. That’s a totally different ballgame.
This innovation will take a little longer. But we‘re getting closer. Bear with us.
The desire to revolutionize comedy means nothing. The only thing that counts is what you actually do.
I don't know where KIRAC will go, but imo Creeps is trying to use the KIRAC form...
That is a legitimate move. Once again, what counts is what you actully do.
@@pr44pr44 What‘s the Kirac form?
@@pr44pr44 Yes but it takes time. And I won‘t make a fuss before I am fully satisfied with the product.
@@SinaKhaniOfficial ...I think I'll reply to this question with a video...
SINArgy
SIN-energy?
@@Paul-talk 👌🏼
Why can’t it be funny to poke fun at things that are actually creepy? To play with scary subject matters? Houellebecq plays with the main character being a sexist and a racist, with dark feelings. Tarik does the same from the perspective of his background. It’s art. It’s about how people can perceive Muslims, but it’s also about real creepiness. This is one of the things that gives it more meaning without being just about art, or selling yourself, or nothingness. So I think it’s a dumb point you make in the end.
I think your attitude is socially irresponsible and artistically frivolous.
@@Paul-talk I think a lot of good art has the feeling of being dangerous. If you know Tarik personally he’s probably the furthest away of a extremist Muslim you can think of. What do you actually think is the danger? And do you also think there is a danger in Houellebecq’s main character in his first novel (who has a lot of similarities with himself) wanting to kill a black person, out of jealousy for being young and good looking? Why can’t you seperate art from the real world? I think that’s a pretty bad take for an art critic. I don’t think it’s socially irresponsible at all. I think ambiguous art has the power to canalise anger and resentment, however irrational (which human beings are) in a way that makes it less dangerous. Art that isn’t propaganda I mean.
From my brief look at the guys stuff (episode 1) its pure unadulterated nontent. Tarick brought in some glimmers of content but only when he was passive aggressively pressing/trashing that Sina guy.
Exactly: nontent. But self-conscious nontent.