Speaker 1: Meaning a live man like this man letting butterfly flapping
Speaker 1: and wing dig down in the forest. Man, it gonna
Speaker 1: cause a tree fall, letting five thousand miles away.
Speaker 2: Man, nobody see, nobody.
Speaker 1: See. You don't need to know.
Speaker 2: Many like you followed a little story and you got
Speaker 2: directed for like that. That's the way. Man, don't likely
Speaker 2: dag on the panel, man, Man, you don't matter.
Speaker 1: Man No ready, mister D welcome back to the Jay
Speaker 1: Burden Show.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you very much, mister j bur and I'm
Speaker 2: very very happy and please always to UH to see
Speaker 2: your handsome visage and to UH to be back kid
Speaker 2: talking to you.
Speaker 1: It's it's genuinely always a pleasure to have you on UH.
Speaker 1: In a previous era of streaming, you and I came
Speaker 1: into contact much more. But as things have changed, I've
Speaker 1: made a deliberate effort to UH to keep in contact
Speaker 1: with you because I always enjoy our conversations. You were
Speaker 1: speaking before we went live about your your new project
Speaker 1: of going over Twin Peaks and I have there's sort
Speaker 1: of a shameful admission, mister D that not only have
Speaker 1: I not seen Twin Peaks, but the only David Lynch
Speaker 1: film I have ever watched is Rabbits, which was very
Speaker 1: very odd.
Speaker 2: Wow, that's that's a bit unusual to have seen that
Speaker 2: and not same. I mean I've barely seen that, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean the Rabbits were, Yeah, the people don't know.
Speaker 2: The Rabbits were kind of a they were kind of
Speaker 2: an off shoot of David made. His final feature film
Speaker 2: was called Inland Empire, which was made in the mid
Speaker 2: two thousands, and it was shot on sort of low
Speaker 2: end digital video cameras. There's some very old things about it.
Speaker 2: I quite like that film, but yeah, the Rabbits were
Speaker 2: were kind of related to that, although the rabbit thing
Speaker 2: apparently has been around with him for a very long time.
Speaker 2: But the thing about Lynch is he's so there's just
Speaker 2: so many different projects that he's been involved in, you know,
Speaker 2: certainly like from you know, just big studio cinema, some
Speaker 2: of the things that he did in the you know,
Speaker 2: in the seventies and eighties obviously to you know, to
Speaker 2: some very small, very weird, obscure projects. But see, you
Speaker 2: get a pass because you're you're a zoomer and so
Speaker 2: you're not expected to have any cultural knowledge whatsoever. So
Speaker 2: you know, so you're all right.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your four barons. If nothing else, the I'm
Speaker 1: sort of fascinated by Lynch. And actually I've been meaning
Speaker 1: to go to go through Twin Peaks because my current house,
Speaker 1: we have a second unit, and the couple that rents
Speaker 1: from us, he's a massive fan of Lynch. And you know,
Speaker 1: once he he heard that I hadn't seen it, he
Speaker 1: insisted on it, so it's on the docket. And I
Speaker 1: really had gone through my entire life without knowing really
Speaker 1: almost anything about it. And till you know, Dave Green
Speaker 1: did a series of sort of essays where he mentioned,
Speaker 1: you know, mentioned Twin Peaks and particularly this is his analysis,
Speaker 1: not mine. Obviously I haven't seen it, but he was
Speaker 1: speaking about the sense that it is, you know, that
Speaker 1: the town is sort of a place that has has
Speaker 1: already died and no one has realized it yet. And
Speaker 1: you know, even just that that simple meme, that simple
Speaker 1: idea was very sort of powerful and profound, because mister
Speaker 1: d I know you're you're a fan of Americana, and
Speaker 1: I am too in a way because I've never lived
Speaker 1: in an era where Americana was alive, where it was real,
Speaker 1: where it was something that existed on its own right.
Speaker 1: It's always been the kind of you know, slightly run
Speaker 1: down gas station off the main road and not to
Speaker 1: get to Maudeline, you know what, three minutes in. But
Speaker 1: it has been something I've I've been thinking about quite
Speaker 1: a bit, you know, as we kind of watch this
Speaker 1: administration flounder and try and pull in a lot of
Speaker 1: this kind of classic Americana, classic symbols of the nation
Speaker 1: very ineptly, you know, after they already seem to have
Speaker 1: have died and sort of lost their power. Am I
Speaker 1: entirely pulling it?
Speaker 2: Straws there, mister d No, I certainly see what you're getting.
Speaker 2: I would say that that a very useful way to
Speaker 2: approach David Lynch is certainly actually in a way to
Speaker 2: contrast him with particularly Paul Titians, you know who, you
Speaker 2: who certainly use quote Americana in an almost entirely cynical way,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean generally when it is invoked. I
Speaker 2: mean Democrats now sort of try to do it. I mean,
Speaker 2: I remember Obama used to try to do it as well,
Speaker 2: you know, but usually when politicians do it, it's done cynically,
Speaker 2: It's done in a way to manipulate you for one
Speaker 2: reason or the other. With David Lynch, it's very important
Speaker 2: and I think a lot of people get this wrong
Speaker 2: about David Lynch. Is that I mean, if you're aware
Speaker 2: of him as a person, you know, if you watch
Speaker 2: interviews with him, certainly, but also just going through his work,
Speaker 2: is you must understand that he is never cynical about America,
Speaker 2: like his strange what a lot of certainly younger people
Speaker 2: read as you know, kind of slightly campy or you know,
Speaker 2: or ironic. It's not ironic at all, like he you
Speaker 2: know that whole you know, cherry pie and coffee, and
Speaker 2: you know, white picket fences and fire trucks and you know,
Speaker 2: and quirky characters. I mean, he genuinely loved and embrace that.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's what he was like, you know, and
Speaker 2: it's just so powerful and so strong, and he expressed
Speaker 2: it in such a strange way that I think a
Speaker 2: lot of people take take his sort of embrace of this,
Speaker 2: this sort of particularly mid century, you know, nineteen fifties
Speaker 2: era fascination as being as being again cynical or ironic,
Speaker 2: and it's not, you know, And certainly to contrast that
Speaker 2: with the way that's you. You know that the way
Speaker 2: those tropes are used by by politicians, by other people,
Speaker 2: it's it's just just absolutely opposite. And I think it
Speaker 2: helps people to understand David Lynche much better, just just
Speaker 2: to realize whatever you're watching. And of course there's all
Speaker 2: kinds of seediness and subversion and dark, terrible things and
Speaker 2: visions that he showed, you know, that he that he
Speaker 2: brings to light, but that the underlying sort of fascination
Speaker 2: with the character of America is absolutely pure, you know,
Speaker 2: and lovely, and he loved it, you know, there was
Speaker 2: not a drop of irony about it. So and I
Speaker 2: encourage you to watch some some sort of interviews with
Speaker 2: him because you know, he he of course had a
Speaker 2: very distinct way of speaking, you know, oh, well, very
Speaker 2: happy to see you today. Now we're going to look
Speaker 2: at at you know bugs, buddy. Yeah, I mean he
Speaker 2: that was not an act like that's really how he was.
Speaker 1: Well, and I sort of it kind of fell in
Speaker 1: love with the figure because the figure of David Lynch,
Speaker 1: because I don't know if you remember, during the pandemic
Speaker 1: and briefly afterwards, he had a YouTube channel where he
Speaker 1: just read the weather and At first, I was sort
Speaker 1: of anticipating the other shoe to drop right there, to
Speaker 1: be some sort of reveal, some sort of bit right
Speaker 1: where we were all at on the joke. But no,
Speaker 1: he was just reading the weather and he.
Speaker 2: Was doing it a fit months on end. Yes, yeah, And.
Speaker 1: I don't know why. I just found it incredibly amusic,
Speaker 1: like almost like the entire time, just the fact that,
Speaker 1: you know, everyone was sort of analyzing He's looking for
Speaker 1: some great hidden message and there simply wasn't one. It's interesting,
Speaker 1: the sort of lack of the lack of cynicism because
Speaker 1: in the same way that there is a hontology of
Speaker 1: Adeolf Hitler in the case, you know, Irving made the
Speaker 1: point that you know, there are two Hitlers. I write
Speaker 1: about the real man, you know, not the sort of
Speaker 1: Hollywood version. There's an equal sort of hontology of the
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties in a like the the American psyche. Because
Speaker 1: if you one of the things you've become aware of,
Speaker 1: if you're like genuinely interested in like the academic left,
Speaker 1: is that they haven't really had a new idea since
Speaker 1: roughly nineteen ninety four, and even that new idea is
Speaker 1: kind of just an idea that someone had, you know,
Speaker 1: thirty years prior. And this is a point that your
Speaker 1: former co host made right that almost you know, by
Speaker 1: and large, the entire academy exists to deconstruct and attack
Speaker 1: the kind of you know, rosy version of Pat Buchanan's childhood. Right,
Speaker 1: and every time you see some you know, historical photo
Speaker 1: of the sort of pre civil rights America, you have
Speaker 1: dozens and dozens of people saying, how how creepy it is, right,
Speaker 1: it's so it's so weird and off put it. And
Speaker 1: you know, I have every reason to believe a large
Speaker 1: portion of that is performative, but there is there seems
Speaker 1: to be a deliberate cultural push to make that associated
Speaker 1: with like the sinister, the uncomfortable, the threatening. And I
Speaker 1: wonder if at least part of that is the kind
Speaker 1: of what seems now kind of over the top, I
Speaker 1: guess lack of citizen like the genuine in nature, because
Speaker 1: you even see this in like advertising in music. Right
Speaker 1: by and large, it's not very complicated. It's very earnest
Speaker 1: on its face, especially to modern tastes. And weirdly enough,
Speaker 1: I was the thing that got me thinking about this
Speaker 1: was was Rodney Dangerfield of all people, right who you know, Okay,
Speaker 1: look like it's not perhaps the most sophisticated comic, but
Speaker 1: it's interesting the way that he has kind of burned
Speaker 1: in effigy as the like, oh that that horrible you know,
Speaker 1: kind of classless, you know, corny comedian and look like,
Speaker 1: I will admit, like my sense of humor has been
Speaker 1: absolutely ruined by being on the Internet and you know,
Speaker 1: being part of Generation Z. So i'll you know, I'll
Speaker 1: admit that it's not for me. But there is something much,
Speaker 1: very very just genuine and honest and kind of guileless
Speaker 1: about it that I think offends modern sensibilities. You see
Speaker 1: what I'm getting at.
Speaker 2: D Yeah, I see what you're getting at. I mean
Speaker 2: it's very interesting for use how you know, how we
Speaker 2: how we view things. I mean, for instance, Rodney Dangerfield,
Speaker 2: I mean he was sort of describing his comedy.
Speaker 1: And obviously he rose to prominence in the seventies and
Speaker 1: eighties almost as a callback act.
Speaker 2: But sorry, mister well so, but what he was actually,
Speaker 2: I mean you may not be aware of this, but
Speaker 2: of course he was not born Rodney Dangerfield. He was
Speaker 2: born Rodney Cohen, and he was of course Jewish. Like
Speaker 2: many of that generation of comedians, he was associated with
Speaker 2: what's called sort of cat Skills comedy. You know. So
Speaker 2: there is an area in upstate New York called the
Speaker 2: you know, called the Catskills, the Catskill Mountains that was
Speaker 2: once famous because there were all of these resort hotels
Speaker 2: in the mountains in the cats in and around the Catskills,
Speaker 2: and they were frequented almost entirely by Jews from New
Speaker 2: York City, you know, I mean, but the entire wave
Speaker 2: of Jewish immigration that came in the nineteenth century, I mean,
Speaker 2: all of those people who lived, who lived populated all,
Speaker 2: you know, all the traditional areas of the sort of
Speaker 2: Jewish ghettos, the Lower East lower East side of New York, Brooklyn.
Speaker 2: Many of those Jews were then holiday they were in
Speaker 2: the summer, they would go to these Catskill resorts and
Speaker 2: you know, it was Kosher food, and it was this
Speaker 2: very particular type of comedy, you know, which was just
Speaker 2: profound only sort of related to kind of Yiddish theater
Speaker 2: and Jewish culture. And so it's funny that you know
Speaker 2: that a lot of these a lot of these comedians,
Speaker 2: you know, who got their start early on the stage
Speaker 2: and you know performing on the stage, I mean broadly
Speaker 2: dangerful you know, did stand up you know, as you know,
Speaker 2: all through his life. And it was only in the
Speaker 2: really in the eighties that he became a very well
Speaker 2: known figure before appearing in you know, in those those films.
Speaker 2: But you know, he had a long career, as I said,
Speaker 2: in this other world, and a lot of American entertainment,
Speaker 2: particularly comedy, was was profoundly was profoundly influenced and populated
Speaker 2: by you know God. I mean, you think of mel Brooks,
Speaker 2: you know, a genius filmmaker who's still with us, who
Speaker 2: who also I mean again is employing that sensibility in
Speaker 2: a lot of his works. And so a lot of
Speaker 2: the comedians, particularly ones from that era, they end up
Speaker 2: being you know, from this particular cultural meeuse. So it's
Speaker 2: just sort of funny to hear you talk about about
Speaker 2: Rodney Dangerfield in that context when in a way it's
Speaker 2: it's not really America. You know, these were people who
Speaker 2: were you know, certainly that generation of Jews, you know,
Speaker 2: never they never saw themselves as part of that of
Speaker 2: the David Lynch nineteen fifties, you know, this sort of
Speaker 2: classic image of the nineteen fifties that, as you correctly say,
Speaker 2: is is now only seen as a kind of ironic parody.
Speaker 2: And weirdly enough, of course, you know, this is why
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people think David Lynch's love
Speaker 2: of the nineteen fifties and love of you know, this
Speaker 2: this sort of image of post war America and of
Speaker 2: plenty and of you know, and of beauty and happiness
Speaker 2: and you know, you know, all of you know, all
Speaker 2: of these things which now you can't talk about in
Speaker 2: intellectual circles without people. You know, there's that meme that says,
Speaker 2: no one was ever happy, no one had a good chide,
Speaker 2: no one you know, the father was was having homosexual affairs,
Speaker 2: and the mother was a drug addict, and the children
Speaker 2: were you know, were axe murderers whatever. You know. It's
Speaker 2: just like you have these simple, beautiful, wonderful images, mostly
Speaker 2: from the world of advertising from that period, you know,
Speaker 2: and and now of course we can you know, people
Speaker 2: can generally only see them as false and that that's
Speaker 2: just I'm afraid that's just a poison modern way of
Speaker 2: viewing them. But strangely enough, I think that part of
Speaker 2: the reason why that image of society however true or
Speaker 2: false it would have been. I think it was both.
Speaker 2: But but you know, part of the reason that that
Speaker 2: became so coded as hidden darkness was because of the
Speaker 2: influence of this generation of not just Jewish, not just comedians,
Speaker 2: but certainly filmmakers whatever I mean, you know, they tell
Speaker 2: ended to always think of themselves as eternal outsiders that
Speaker 2: were never really included in this vision. I mean, you can,
Speaker 2: I mean Woody Allen is another great example of this,
Speaker 2: you know, And you can watch some of his films
Speaker 2: and you'll see in his famous movie Annie Hall from
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy I can't remember what year, late nineteen seventies,
Speaker 2: there's a little bit where, you know, the character Annie Hall,
Speaker 2: who was played by an actress who recently passed on
Speaker 2: Diane Keaton. But part of the joke of the movie
Speaker 2: was that, you know that the Woody Allen's character was this,
Speaker 2: you know Neber she little you know Brooklyn, New York too,
Speaker 2: and Annie Hall was, you know, a wholesome white Christian
Speaker 2: girl from Wisconsin, you know, and this sort of contrast
Speaker 2: between her life and her past and his, and there's
Speaker 2: a whole bit where he kind of compares, well, what
Speaker 2: were what were his family dinners like compared to what
Speaker 2: is her family dinner like? And you know, she said, oh,
Speaker 2: you know, there's also a bit where she's says, oh,
Speaker 2: you should have seen me then, I e back in
Speaker 2: the late fifties, early sixties, and he said, you know,
Speaker 2: and you should have seen what I look like. And
Speaker 2: he said, well, you probably look like the wife of
Speaker 2: an astronaut. And again that was a very particular trope
Speaker 2: that NASA and the US Space program was entirely coded
Speaker 2: as white Christian and therefore, you know, I mean, that's
Speaker 2: why the left didn't like it. That's why, you know,
Speaker 2: the kind of astronaut used to be a kind of
Speaker 2: trope of this inaccessible, you know, sort of monolithic American
Speaker 2: white culture to which excluded you know, the Jew or
Speaker 2: the black or whatever. So a lot of these kind
Speaker 2: of now would are just very common tropes of the
Speaker 2: left of whatever. You know, they were all formed in
Speaker 2: this period. But yeah, I'm sort of rambling, but there's
Speaker 2: this whole stew of things happen, and strangely, David Lynch,
Speaker 2: you know, becomes part of that. David Lynch not Jewish,
Speaker 2: but he did a very well known film one of
Speaker 2: his more well known big studio films was called Blue Velvet,
Speaker 2: which was made in nineteen eighty seven, and of part
Speaker 2: of the part of the narrative of Blue Velvet is
Speaker 2: the idea of that there's this kind of picture perfect
Speaker 2: American town, you know, which, you know, which, like many
Speaker 2: David Lynch things, exists in this strange liminal time space
Speaker 2: that could be nineteen fifty six or it could be
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty six, you know, it's both. And there's always
Speaker 2: this sort of sense of temporal slip with David Lynch,
Speaker 2: and there's always this sort of idea that you're constantly
Speaker 2: falling into this into this sort of echo of David
Speaker 2: Lynch's childhood of the nineteen fifties. But I think a
Speaker 2: lot of people misread Blue Velvet as being a savage
Speaker 2: attack on you know, white America, on the small town,
Speaker 2: on the idea of innocence, the idea of prosperity, when
Speaker 2: as I said, from the outset, it wasn't. I mean,
Speaker 2: David Lynch was painfully aware, and of course many of
Speaker 2: his works are about the kind of darkness, you know,
Speaker 2: but for him it was not like, oh, the dark
Speaker 2: underbelly is the true nature of America. It was that
Speaker 2: there are forces, there is good and evil, there's darkness
Speaker 2: and there's light, and they are constantly you know, as
Speaker 2: we often talk about that we're battling We're not just
Speaker 2: battling ideology. We're battling evil. It's good and evil. It's
Speaker 2: always good against evil. And I think that's what's happening
Speaker 2: as well. But a lot of people were unable to
Speaker 2: see that, and they saw Blue Velvet as a criticism,
Speaker 2: you know, let's unmask this false narrative of mid century
Speaker 2: America when it wasn't. But that's how Hollywood would, of
Speaker 2: course see it, because again a lot of Hollywood came
Speaker 2: with this outsider narrative which which just did not allow
Speaker 2: them to act the kind of you know, the sort
Speaker 2: of truth of of of of the good side, of
Speaker 2: the light side.
Speaker 1: Well, and I think that that's and I say this
Speaker 1: as someone who has seen exactly one David Lynch film,
Speaker 1: but I would be curious if that I was going
Speaker 1: to say relative moral absolutism, and I realized it's an
Speaker 1: absolute nonsense phrase, but the sort of morality you're speaking of,
Speaker 1: you know, where there there is this kind of you know,
Speaker 1: sharp divide between dark and light. Is why so many
Speaker 1: of our guys whatever that's constituted as are interested in
Speaker 1: lynch because you see this in other kind of recurring
Speaker 1: media figures and brands, if we can use that term,
Speaker 1: that you know, people like us tend to be interested
Speaker 1: in because it's one of those areas in the progress
Speaker 1: of mind that they're a little bit uncomfortable with, right,
Speaker 1: the idea of kind of you know, objective good and evil.
Speaker 1: And who knows, maybe there's a crossover with the conversation
Speaker 1: about you know, Anny Hall, but there's this there's this
Speaker 1: desire to psychologize evil, right where it's like, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: you're evil, or you did this thing because of you know,
Speaker 1: some Freudian reason or because of some sort of psychological
Speaker 1: problem with you. And one of the things that I noticed,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, you could even look at at Bowden's
Speaker 1: you know, pulp fascism, right, Why was he so interested
Speaker 1: in all of these kind of pulp figures, you know
Speaker 1: Howard and you know, the kind of Golden Age comics
Speaker 1: and others, And you know, I think part of that
Speaker 1: is that true kind of black and white morality, and
Speaker 1: I I think that's sort of an interesting question to
Speaker 1: poke at, you know, as we examine the kind of
Speaker 1: meta narrative surrounding fiction or surrounding art. If you see
Speaker 1: what I'm getting at, doctor Professor, mister.
Speaker 2: D yes, I see what you're getting at. I think,
Speaker 2: of course, also David Lynch is a notable figure and
Speaker 2: interesting ways. There's sort of lens through which we can
Speaker 2: look at this because you know, he was sort of
Speaker 2: the last of a kind. I think. I think one
Speaker 2: of the reasons why his death last year, which I
Speaker 2: think is part of the reason why there was this
Speaker 2: sort of sudden revival and interest in him, you know,
Speaker 2: was because we you know, he's sort of sort of
Speaker 2: tragically had lost him. Was that, you know, that he
Speaker 2: was the passing away of just another kind of you know,
Speaker 2: a kind of free vector of you know, a way
Speaker 2: of thinking about I mean, art, a way of thinking
Speaker 2: about culture, way of thinking about you know, philosophy, American philosophy,
Speaker 2: and all sorts of things. You know, because we you know,
Speaker 2: he came out of a very strange, you know, sort
Speaker 2: of cultural moment, and he was particularly informed, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean, he came from the world of painting. I
Speaker 2: don't know if if you were aware I mean, he
Speaker 2: began his career as a as a as a as
Speaker 2: a fine artist, as a painter. That's what he wanted
Speaker 2: to be, That's what he thought he was going to be,
Speaker 2: and of course he did remain a painter's entire life.
Speaker 2: He produced a you know, a very large corpus of
Speaker 2: paintings and drawings and sculpture mixed media pieces, and he
Speaker 2: worked on them with you know. One of the reasons
Speaker 2: why I'm so I feel so I've always felt so
Speaker 2: close to him and felt such kinship with him, is
Speaker 2: because he, I think, at heart always remained you know,
Speaker 2: a painter, someone who thought about images in the way
Speaker 2: that a kind of a kind of artist as a painter,
Speaker 2: which is for people that know what is what I do.
Speaker 2: So I feel always felt a deep connection to him
Speaker 2: for that. But the problem is that we're you know,
Speaker 2: we're not making people like like that so much anymore,
Speaker 2: you know. I mean, obviously there's still many very talented
Speaker 2: artists and you know, young, younger people who are getting
Speaker 2: into all areas of cultural production. But you know, this
Speaker 2: is this particular sort of brand of you know of
Speaker 2: and particularly an artist who could rise to his level
Speaker 2: of commercial success and recognition. It's just it's it's it's
Speaker 2: a it's a kind of cultural moment that's just gone away,
Speaker 2: and it's just it's no longer even thinkable that someone
Speaker 2: like David Lynch, with his again very very particular and
Speaker 2: deep and complex vision of morality, and you know, even
Speaker 2: you know, just even his aesthetic sense, I mean, his
Speaker 2: sense of composition, his sense of color. You know, it's
Speaker 2: just unthinkable that someone like that would be able to
Speaker 2: navigate their way into you know, sort of large cultural
Speaker 2: recognition because because in a way, we don't even have
Speaker 2: a we don't there is no culture anymore, There is
Speaker 2: no monoculture anymore, as it was called, you know, and
Speaker 2: I think that there are good things to that, but
Speaker 2: there's also a lot of negative qualities to that, because
Speaker 2: it is one of those things that holds a society together,
Speaker 2: that holds of people together. You know, David Lynch was
Speaker 2: not really making I mean, David Lynch just was making
Speaker 2: work to satisfy himself, but he wasn't making work for
Speaker 2: this sort of one small, kind of very separate, very
Speaker 2: defined online niche community, you know, which is how we
Speaker 2: tend to view each other and how we tend to
Speaker 2: view everything now, you know. And of course if you
Speaker 2: look at what's left of the wider world of monoculture,
Speaker 2: like if you look at the sort of quote big
Speaker 2: music acts, I mean it's you know, or films. You
Speaker 2: know that. I mean almost no one makes sexual films anymore.
Speaker 2: You know. It's just frankly embarrassing, you know. And and
Speaker 2: it's and to me, it's just absolutely tragic because you know,
Speaker 2: in losing this this this character, this kind of creator,
Speaker 2: and and the and the culture that spawn spawn him,
Speaker 2: you know, I think it's just an ill portend for
Speaker 2: things to come, I think for me, you know, and
Speaker 2: this is something that comes up all the time, you know,
Speaker 2: every I don't know month, every month or so. There's
Speaker 2: a big online right argument about culture. Ooh, what's culture?
Speaker 2: Oh you know, it's publishing something by Curtis Yarvin at
Speaker 2: Passage Press. Well that's you know, or you know, look,
Speaker 2: isn't art deco cool? We need more art deco?
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: That's the extent pretty much of the kind of cultural
Speaker 2: discussion on the right. And it's it's just sad. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's not that's not really what we're talking about. I mean,
Speaker 2: for me, I honestly think you know that we tend
Speaker 2: to think of problems, you know, in political problems as oh, okay,
Speaker 2: we need to fix them. What are the what are
Speaker 2: the mechanics, how do we fix this? You know? But
Speaker 2: what really needs fixed, the thing that you know is
Speaker 2: really upstream of all of these other problems, is this
Speaker 2: sort of degradation and disintegration of cultural and national and
Speaker 2: racial sort of unity and understanding. I think so, I
Speaker 2: do think it's important, but I think that again, the
Speaker 2: way we well, we need to fix culture, we just
Speaker 2: have this strange mechanical idea of how that works, and
Speaker 2: it doesn't. You know, it's a it's a synergistic thing
Speaker 2: with the health of a civilization, and a civilization is
Speaker 2: sick and unhealthy, then it's going to be nearly impossible
Speaker 2: for kind of the sort of true of truth and
Speaker 2: beauty productions of culture to even manifest themselves. So it's
Speaker 2: a it's a problem again. Sorry for this is a
Speaker 2: topic that invites me to wander into the weeds.
Speaker 1: So oh, look look what I gave you. No plan
Speaker 1: other than we're recording on Thursday.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I don't know that's good. I like it, Yeah,
Speaker 2: I like it. Well, this reminds me. You know, there's
Speaker 2: an there's an interview with Lynch where the interviewer says, well,
Speaker 2: they're talking about erase Ahead, which was David Lynch's first
Speaker 2: feature film, and probably not the well we can talk
Speaker 2: about that at the moment trying I was trying to
Speaker 2: think of where the best place to start if you're
Speaker 2: interested in David Lynch but have never seen his works.
Speaker 2: Eraserhead may not be the best place to start, but
Speaker 2: it also may be the perfect place to start. Anyway,
Speaker 2: his first feature film was called Eraserhead, and it's a
Speaker 2: fascinating story about how that was made and the circumstances
Speaker 2: of how David Lynch became a kind of film you know,
Speaker 2: a kind of Hollywood filmmaker. But he was being asked
Speaker 2: about it, and he was talking about it and he said,
Speaker 2: you know, a rasorhead is my is my most spiritual film.
Speaker 2: And then the interviewer said, well, can you explain that?
Speaker 2: And David Lynch said no, and that was it, And
Speaker 2: that's the way to do it. That is how how
Speaker 2: you work. You know, whether we're in the weeds or not.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, we have to learn also, you know,
Speaker 2: people who consider themselves intellectual types. You know, you've got
Speaker 2: to learn that things don't always proceed in a you know,
Speaker 2: in a linear fashion. You know, sometimes you have to
Speaker 2: wonder into into dreams, you have to wander into the weeds,
Speaker 2: you have to wander into the into the dark woods,
Speaker 2: you know, where the straight way is lost, as Dante
Speaker 2: so eloquently put it, to find truth, you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: part of speaking Dante. You know, this is something we
Speaker 2: all know that that you know, the hero's journey, but
Speaker 2: also the idea of a man descending into darkness, descending
Speaker 2: into hell, and then coming back with his perceptions change,
Speaker 2: you know, you know, and that is something that you
Speaker 2: you know, almost every David Lynch film you know, deals
Speaker 2: with this, I mean, and in a larger way, so
Speaker 2: many things that we you know, the great works of
Speaker 2: our civilization also do the same thing. You know. It
Speaker 2: is a person or a situation that is plunged into
Speaker 2: darkness that you know, that goes from you know, Blue
Speaker 2: Velvet is a great example. You know, it's a character,
Speaker 2: you know, a kind of naive, you know, a character
Speaker 2: who's living in this sort of ostensibly beautiful, perfect small
Speaker 2: town who descends into this river of darkness which was
Speaker 2: always there and again evil is always with us on
Speaker 2: earth and so and you know, the character was unaware
Speaker 2: of it, you know. And this is this is so
Speaker 2: many David Lynch films like this is. This is almost
Speaker 2: entirely what Twin Peaks is about.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It is these various characters who who live in this
Speaker 2: surface of beauty and then discover, of course that there
Speaker 2: is always this dark well spring and they descend into it.
Speaker 2: And sometimes they come back. They come back changed, often wiser,
Speaker 2: battle hardened. Sometimes they don't come back. You know. Again,
Speaker 2: sometimes when you face evil, sadly you lose, you know,
Speaker 2: you don't survive that encounter. So this is I think
Speaker 2: they're just the key, you know, the key sort of
Speaker 2: broad idea that flows through all David Lynch's work and
Speaker 2: throw it blows through so much of great literature and art.
Speaker 2: So you know again you will you you you know,
Speaker 2: it's it's easy to get lost in the quirky, you
Speaker 2: know details, but you know we're dealing with very conventional,
Speaker 2: sort of very conventional sort of literary journeys.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean that that descent, right, the Nikia, the
Speaker 1: descent to the underworld is a trope throughout Western literature.
Speaker 1: I was actually just speaking to my wife about this.
Speaker 1: One of the interesting things in Anna Karnina is that
Speaker 1: Tolstoy sort of he plays with this right because and
Speaker 1: obviously broader context, right, there's this sort of inverse relationship
Speaker 1: between Anna Krenaa and oh shoot, I cannot remember the
Speaker 1: other man's name, who'd sort of go on alternate arcs
Speaker 1: right on this kind of core the question of chastity
Speaker 1: in constraint, which is very funny because there's a movie
Speaker 1: made of Ana Krenaa that's absolutely awful. It's actually almost
Speaker 1: awful enough to be interesting from maybe ten or fifteen
Speaker 1: years ago. But clearly the modern progresses are very uncomfortable
Speaker 1: with the actual thrust of that. But the reason I
Speaker 1: bring it up is because she has this this affair,
Speaker 1: and while going through labor to produce this bastard son,
Speaker 1: she nearly dies, right she's she's sick, she's at Death's store.
Speaker 1: And what's interesting is that you're sort of led to
Speaker 1: expect that this is that Nikea that descent, right, that
Speaker 1: she will have her eyes opened. And what Tolstoi does
Speaker 1: is that her husband, who rightfully hates her, for this,
Speaker 1: the narrative sort of switches where we find out it
Speaker 1: is not her descent. She, once she's healed, is unchanged
Speaker 1: completely and totally unrepentant. He is, in fact the one
Speaker 1: who is transformed.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: He becomes incredibly religiously devout. He decides to you know,
Speaker 1: raise the sun as his own, despite to sort of
Speaker 1: protect him from his you know, his estranged wife. And
Speaker 1: it's such an interesting moment in so many in so
Speaker 1: many narratives, right, like even but effectively, right, we see
Speaker 1: on one hand, a subversion of that trope, right that
Speaker 1: sort of you know, descent to rebirth, which of course
Speaker 1: obviously you see in the narrative of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.
Speaker 1: Right that, Like deeply it's kind of like deep structure
Speaker 1: bearing myth in the West. And it's sort of one
Speaker 1: of those I, as you could say, one of those
Speaker 1: memes that I'm deeply fascinated by, because you know, once
Speaker 1: you've seen it, once you begin to pick it out.
Speaker 1: And I particularly found Tolstoy fascinating to you both subvert
Speaker 1: and reinforce in the same work. But I'm sorry, I
Speaker 1: slightly lost my train of thought. I'll edit that out
Speaker 1: as well. So, mister d one of the things that
Speaker 1: I wanted to bring up in response to kind of
Speaker 1: your last comment was about you mentioned the kind of
Speaker 1: death of monoculture, and this is something I think about
Speaker 1: quite a lot. I had a conversation with a woman
Speaker 1: in her late fifties, very intelligent, she's a literary scholar,
Speaker 1: and she asked me a very basic question older people
Speaker 1: often ask younger people, which is, what are people your
Speaker 1: rage into? You know, what music do they listen to?
Speaker 1: And you know, earlier, of course, you were making fun
Speaker 1: of me for having no cultural context whatsoever, which is
Speaker 1: quite apt because as that monoculture is completely and totally splintered,
Speaker 1: that actually becomes a very difficult question to answer, because
Speaker 1: there isn't a sort of you know, twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: equivalent to like, I don't know, like the monkeys or
Speaker 1: you know, pick your kind of top forty trash of
Speaker 1: whatever year you want, right, Like, sure, yeah, the chop
Speaker 1: charts still exist. But one of the interesting things, and
Speaker 1: I think one of the reasons why there's so much
Speaker 1: outcry as we see these figures like you know, Lynch,
Speaker 1: but even other kind of less serious people like you
Speaker 1: know Assie dying or you know, Carrie Fisher dying. Is
Speaker 1: that more and more people are not indexing with new culture, right, Like,
Speaker 1: if you look into the data on both streaming for
Speaker 1: movies and streaming for you know, music, the share occupied
Speaker 1: by new music is getting smaller and smaller with each year,
Speaker 1: right that, you know, because that centralized node that was
Speaker 1: you know, the radio or the theater system, right actually
Speaker 1: going to see a movie has kind of broken. It
Speaker 1: is also seemingly broken a lot of people out of
Speaker 1: any sort of new culture. And so you know, you
Speaker 1: have people who are listening to effectively the same songs
Speaker 1: that their parents were, you know, they're listening to the
Speaker 1: top forty of nineteen seventy six fifty years later. And
Speaker 1: I think that's sort of an interesting thing because you know,
Speaker 1: you look at these sort of celebrity deaths, and I
Speaker 1: think one of the things that's notable about it is
Speaker 1: that not only have so many of these figures been
Speaker 1: famous for a lifetime, right, incredibly long career, but also
Speaker 1: with each one there seems the feeling of there is
Speaker 1: no one to replace them, right, There's no one really
Speaker 1: waiting in the wings. And I noticed this as well
Speaker 1: with kind of the death of the leading man, right,
Speaker 1: the the kind of you know, the kind of a
Speaker 1: list Hollywood actor. And sure there are still famous people around,
Speaker 1: but that that institution, if we can call it, that
Speaker 1: has changed, and I think it is very much a
Speaker 1: symptom of that death of monoculture, which certainly has problems
Speaker 1: to it. But I mean, to be perfectly honest, like
Speaker 1: if you look at this, the country genuinely doesn't have
Speaker 1: a singular culture anymore. I mean, like just look at
Speaker 1: the number of you know, language languages spoken, you know,
Speaker 1: the the large amount of people who were not born here.
Speaker 1: Setting aside kind of any political consideration, there really is
Speaker 1: no common culture.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, it's the tower. It's it's the Tower
Speaker 2: of Babel, you know, obviously, I mean, and it's sort
Speaker 2: of you know, if they're if there were cinemas and
Speaker 2: in the Tower of Babel, I mean, how are they
Speaker 2: how would they handle that? You know, they'd have to
Speaker 2: have a screen for each one of the languages and
Speaker 2: each one of the kind of quick cultures represented. Now
Speaker 2: when I use the word monoco culture and all that,
Speaker 2: and when we talk about this, I mean, obviously that's
Speaker 2: simplification because there were always, you know, all sorts of
Speaker 2: pockets of different things. In fact, it was weirdly enough
Speaker 2: that there was probably more diversity in so called culture
Speaker 2: in previous eras, you know, because of course there was
Speaker 2: also a very local sort of culture. It depended on
Speaker 2: where you lived, you know, just as if there used
Speaker 2: to be America and Britain, both of them notably, used
Speaker 2: to be a home of hundreds of regional accents, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean you could tell in some cases where where
Speaker 2: you know, where people were from. I mean, in the
Speaker 2: case of England, you know, the accent would very village
Speaker 2: by village. You could you could walk half a mile
Speaker 2: to the next village and there would be a very
Speaker 2: subtle but very distinct change in the way that the
Speaker 2: dialectical and you know, even pronunciation of aspects of the language.
Speaker 2: And of course that's been flattened and raised. And the
Speaker 2: same thing in America, you know, I mean, even with
Speaker 2: these things that we think, you know, we're lamenting, you know,
Speaker 2: the passing away of kind of Hollywood. But it was
Speaker 2: also Hollywood which dissolved a lot of this, you know,
Speaker 2: cultural diversity in the good sense of the word diversity.
Speaker 2: It's hard to use that word now without the negative connotations.
Speaker 2: But you know, I mean, Hollywood erased almost every accent
Speaker 2: in America, and now everyone in America, you know, with
Speaker 2: some variations, still speaks. You know, you speak this sort
Speaker 2: of received pronunciation that comes from California. Whereas you know,
Speaker 2: you even you watch old films, you hear the precious
Speaker 2: moments when you hear, like quote, actual people in old
Speaker 2: newsreels and things talking, you know you will hear you
Speaker 2: know this, this this great sort of collection of cultures.
Speaker 2: So I use Monoco culture, you know, just as a
Speaker 2: kind of concept. But there's never really been such a thing.
Speaker 2: I mean, there was a sort of cultural main cultural
Speaker 2: force that went through things. And and you know, of
Speaker 2: course I don't know, I don't I don't know with
Speaker 2: the passing away of this, I don't know anything else.
Speaker 2: It's how I understand the world, and you know, I
Speaker 2: don't know what's going to replace it. And now it's
Speaker 2: important to remember that even the things that we're lamenting
Speaker 2: as sort of the loss of tradition, they're not really
Speaker 2: that old. I mean, you know, this, this whole idea
Speaker 2: that we have of kind of mass culture is is
Speaker 2: entirely a phenomenon of modernity, you know, I mean it's
Speaker 2: something that was enabled by mass communication. It was enabled
Speaker 2: by you know, the things that we understand that you know,
Speaker 2: the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, you know, prior
Speaker 2: to that, you know, culture was the kind of taste
Speaker 2: and vicissitudes of a very small layer of people at
Speaker 2: the very top of societal hierarchies. You know, what was
Speaker 2: in style was the province of you know, ladies at
Speaker 2: the court, you know, or you know, the whims of
Speaker 2: the monarch who who you know, who gave their imprimatura
Speaker 2: to various playwrights or whatever.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: But so even what we think of is sort of
Speaker 2: this this great loss is something that's not not terribly old,
Speaker 2: but I just think it was so it produced so
Speaker 2: much sort of very powerful artwork, and you know, and
Speaker 2: sort of I hate the word cultural products. It sounds
Speaker 2: like some sort of cheese. But you know, but but yes,
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, its responsible for all these things.
Speaker 2: And you know, I mean, could you could call me,
Speaker 2: you know, but you mentioned you know, the seventies, you know,
Speaker 2: the top forty of the seventies. Well I can say
Speaker 2: unequivo equivocally even the you know, and there was a
Speaker 2: lot of shit, a lot of terrible things, but one
Speaker 2: hundred percent there was more talent and skill and thoughtfulness
Speaker 2: represented in just scooping up an average of nineteen seventies
Speaker 2: culture than there is scooping up twenty twenty six culture.
Speaker 2: Whatever that even means. You know, not to say that
Speaker 2: everything in the past was good and things are bad.
Speaker 2: There's wonderful things being produced now, but you know, they're
Speaker 2: not rewarded in the way that I mean. This is
Speaker 2: part of that perennial argument that bubbles up in the
Speaker 2: right wing sphere online. You know, part of the problem
Speaker 2: is to have this to have to have the incentive
Speaker 2: for talented people to give their time and effort and
Speaker 2: inspiration to the world in the form of art. There
Speaker 2: needs to be an incentive structure for it. And you know,
Speaker 2: however bad Hollywood was, or however bad the recording industry was,
Speaker 2: or you know, or the West End in theater or Broadway,
Speaker 2: however however bad and blinkered and awful those systems were,
Speaker 2: they were still vectors of patronage for artists of all sorts,
Speaker 2: you know, and it was a sort of you know,
Speaker 2: you know, it provided the support needed you know, to
Speaker 2: do this stuff. I mean, there are other ways of
Speaker 2: producing things. Now. Of course, you can have micro funding,
Speaker 2: as we all do. You can have your sponsors and
Speaker 2: your patreons Patreon, and you can have vessel that buy
Speaker 2: me a coffee. You know, all of these little ways
Speaker 2: that your kind of micro audience can help you. But
Speaker 2: you know, in order for like big things, in order
Speaker 2: for like David Lynch's vision to go from you know,
Speaker 2: his early kind of independent art films to making you know,
Speaker 2: the Elephant Man or Erase Ahead, or you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: I mean these other things. Is it. You know, you
Speaker 2: need patronage, you need support, and you know, in order
Speaker 2: to produce you would never have had Michelangelo Buneratti, you
Speaker 2: would never have Leonardo, you know, you would never have
Speaker 2: insert artists that you like without you know, powerful rich
Speaker 2: people subsidizing them and and and allowing them to produce
Speaker 2: these things. Because it's as I said, it's it's it's
Speaker 2: like a vital sign. It's it's a it's like having
Speaker 2: a complete blood count. Every one of those things is important,
Speaker 2: is an important indicator of the health of the body,
Speaker 2: health of the organism. And as I say, I mean
Speaker 2: each one of these aspects of you know, law and order,
Speaker 2: you know, art and culture. Each one of these things
Speaker 2: is the kind of vital sign of the body of civilization.
Speaker 2: And you know, when one of them starts to fail,
Speaker 2: then they all go, you know, I mean that they
Speaker 2: rely on each other, and that you know, we're in
Speaker 2: this strange moment of flux. Something better come out of this,
Speaker 2: I don't know, but certainly for the people living within it,
Speaker 2: and people like me who are you know, older and
Speaker 2: and sort of now hopelessly wedded to you know, to
Speaker 2: these older ideas. I mean, it's it's terrifying and I
Speaker 2: I don't want to see these these things pass away,
Speaker 2: but I'm afraid they already have. So you know, in
Speaker 2: a way, we also, I mean, we can try to
Speaker 2: keep things alive. We can try to keep some of
Speaker 2: these systems and some of these these aspects of creation alive,
Speaker 2: but we also have to understand that they're necessarily going
Speaker 2: to change. And but you know, I think we're moving
Speaker 2: into a period of darkness. And of course, in such periods,
Speaker 2: you know, art is not known to flourish. You know,
Speaker 2: you you don't have the comfortable conditions needed to produce
Speaker 2: your David Lynch, David Lynch came out of a kind
Speaker 2: of a nation in flux, but there was an underlying
Speaker 2: system of support without which you know, you would never
Speaker 2: you would never get a vision like that. You would
Speaker 2: never get a sort of strange, quirky, you know, unique.
Speaker 2: And I was going to say iconoclastic, but he's absolutely
Speaker 2: the opposite. You know, you can't you can't accuse of
Speaker 2: someone of creating astoundingly resonant images of being an iconoclass.
Speaker 2: But you sort of know what I mean.
Speaker 1: Well, and I think that it's in this point has
Speaker 1: been made you know many times before, right that you're
Speaker 1: entirely correct to say that the system we are looking
Speaker 1: back to, the one that is sort of passing away,
Speaker 1: is in the grand scheme of things quite new and novel.
Speaker 1: There's a great video searching for it, and was able
Speaker 1: to find it by long term friend of mine, vingal
Speaker 1: b I n g u L. You can find him
Speaker 1: on YouTube and he has a great channel, mostly of
Speaker 1: archival footage, and he has a series of captured of
Speaker 1: Cajun life in the late sixties and seventies when Louisiana
Speaker 1: was even more of a backwater than it is now.
Speaker 1: And one of them is a great clip of accordion
Speaker 1: maker Mark Savoy. You guys should be able to find
Speaker 1: it from that vingle is the channel. And it's interesting
Speaker 1: because one of the things that kept that culture, kept
Speaker 1: that music alive, was effectively the fact that it was
Speaker 1: laboring in almost complete and total obscurity. Right. There was
Speaker 1: no system of dispersion for that music. You know, there
Speaker 1: was no Nashville, there was no standardization, and so, you know,
Speaker 1: as I found out from watching these sort of little
Speaker 1: mini documentaries, because it's sort of organically just kind of
Speaker 1: sat there, it developed a completely separate set of one
Speaker 1: local institutions, you know, whether that how that that sort
Speaker 1: of art that culture was practiced, but also a kind
Speaker 1: of you could say, kind of cottage industry surrounding it. Right,
Speaker 1: The accordions had to be made in a certain way,
Speaker 1: and so someone arose to make them. And I think
Speaker 1: a lot about the fact that you know, you and I,
Speaker 1: mister D and our friends are very much in sort
Speaker 1: of an internet ghetto, you know, whether we want it
Speaker 1: to be or not, And there are certain downsides to that,
Speaker 1: but I do think that that creates an interesting opportunity
Speaker 1: to sort of crystallize something not sure what it is,
Speaker 1: but I've been really encouraged over the last year because
Speaker 1: you know, for a long time I've heard and you know,
Speaker 1: heard people a pine on the need for right wing art,
Speaker 1: and I sort of disagree with that formulation on its face.
Speaker 1: Maybe a discussion for another time, but nonetheless, people I
Speaker 1: met through this circle have started to produce very, very
Speaker 1: good But in my case it's mostly literature because the
Speaker 1: only thing I know anything about whatsoever they there might
Speaker 1: be good painters, I just have no ability to identify it.
Speaker 1: And to me that is interesting and one of the things,
Speaker 1: because I interview a great number of these people, that
Speaker 1: is sort of universally part of that story or part
Speaker 1: of the artist statement, I guess you could say, is
Speaker 1: effectively the fact that like the system for selecting talent
Speaker 1: in culture broke, and it broke a long time ago,
Speaker 1: and so you have guys who you know, are not
Speaker 1: young men right there in the they're in their middle
Speaker 1: aged years. You know, they're who are You've been sort
Speaker 1: of forced to continue to labor away, continue to create
Speaker 1: in obscurity because that selection mechanism is broken. And I
Speaker 1: sort of find the you know, bi monthly conversations about
Speaker 1: right wing art again just on its face irritating, but
Speaker 1: that was a very encouraging sign for me, Like, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: like we have gathered at least a couple of creatives
Speaker 1: around who are actually worth having, who don't just have
Speaker 1: potential like one day you could be good, but like,
Speaker 1: are actually producing really good work. And I think of
Speaker 1: my buddy Andrew Edwards and others, and I'm curious, what
Speaker 1: do you make of that? Right, Because on one hand,
Speaker 1: you know, you have this kind of desire to treat
Speaker 1: art and cultural product. Right, You're right, just sort of
Speaker 1: sound like craft cheese or something. It's almost like a
Speaker 1: tech tree in a video game. Right, Well, you at
Speaker 1: this number of points and you get one art, you know,
Speaker 1: you get a culture, which I think is wrong. But
Speaker 1: at the same time, right, if we accept that, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a certain number who have that genius gift from
Speaker 1: God whatever, who are not able to advance in the
Speaker 1: traditional way, well we would assume that they will end
Speaker 1: up here nowhere else. So kick it to you, mister d.
Speaker 2: Oh. Yeah, there's a lot, a lot a lot there.
Speaker 2: I mean, first of all, if you are touched by
Speaker 2: that particularly genius I'm not going to be so sort
Speaker 2: of sort of self grandizing to say that myself, but
Speaker 2: in a way I do, I mean, you know, in
Speaker 2: a way if you are I mean, if you have
Speaker 2: dedicated that I have my life to you know, to art,
Speaker 2: and one way or the other, and then then you know,
Speaker 2: you are familiar with going to this great well spreen
Speaker 2: stream of inspiration and drawing from it and being very
Speaker 2: lucky when you are able to reach it. When when
Speaker 2: when that, when you are able to extract a bucket
Speaker 2: of water from from this great stream of creativity, whether
Speaker 2: you call it genius or whatever, you know, And of
Speaker 2: course it's not, it does not always. Your thirst is
Speaker 2: not always quenched when you go to that spring to drink.
Speaker 2: In fact, often it isn't, you know. And often, you know,
Speaker 2: even great artists you know, I know, I know several
Speaker 2: quick you know, famous artists and have known, and you
Speaker 2: know it's a universal thing that, of course, sometimes that inspiration,
Speaker 2: you know, that well is dry, and it remains that
Speaker 2: way sometimes for years for people. The thing about this
Speaker 2: I think is very important is that fundamentally, the things
Speaker 2: I consider great transcendent art you do not go to
Speaker 2: that stream with any other intention, but to receive something
Speaker 2: that is greater than us, some some some flow, some
Speaker 2: access to you know, the kind of cosmic shared universal mind,
Speaker 2: whatever you call it. You don't go there with conditions.
Speaker 2: In other words, you don't get there and say, okay,
Speaker 2: well I like to dip my toe in the waters.
Speaker 2: But I want, I want, I want right wing art.
Speaker 2: I want I want whatever you give me to be
Speaker 2: right wing whatever that means. I mean, it's the most idiotic,
Speaker 2: stupid formulation. There is no right wing art, just like
Speaker 2: there's no left wing art. I mean, there are are
Speaker 2: certainly plenty of examples. I and I talked earlier about
Speaker 2: how things are used cynically, and they're used, you know,
Speaker 2: but by some people, and they use in a pure sense.
Speaker 2: It's it's anyone can take anything, you know, uh and
Speaker 2: use it in a in a dark way. They you know,
Speaker 2: you can. You can you can pollute something pure and beautiful,
Speaker 2: or you can exalt it. And so I mean, this
Speaker 2: is the problem with trying to categorize art. I mean,
Speaker 2: art is like so many other things that we talk
Speaker 2: of as components of civilization, components of culture, components of
Speaker 2: a healthy you know, healthy people, and healthy nation. They're not.
Speaker 2: They don't have qualifiers. You know again, you don't. You
Speaker 2: don't produce a great civilization with right wing art. You
Speaker 2: produce it with art. You don't produce it with right
Speaker 2: wing truth. You produce it with truth. You know, you
Speaker 2: date produce it with this or that. I mean these
Speaker 2: political categorizations of these large and I use the word
Speaker 2: again deliberately transcendent things. They do not come with these
Speaker 2: puny political qualifiers now and and so I think one
Speaker 2: of the problems of existing in a kind of space,
Speaker 2: and I say the online right wing space, is that
Speaker 2: it's inherently everything is given this political prefix. And that
Speaker 2: is important when you're talking about politics, but it is
Speaker 2: absolutely poisonous when you start talking about these larger things.
Speaker 2: You know, and you can take it to an absurd example,
Speaker 2: and it's an easy maybe easy to see. You know, well,
Speaker 2: I want to have right wing you know, I want
Speaker 2: to have a right wing marriage and right wing babies.
Speaker 2: And what you mean when you say that is that
Speaker 2: you want, you know again, you want to adhere to
Speaker 2: a kind of traditional model model that we know works,
Speaker 2: a model that you know that worked for your parents
Speaker 2: and your grandparents and your ancestors, whatever. But again you
Speaker 2: make the mistake when you assume that that is political.
Speaker 2: I mean it's political in the kind of lowest sense,
Speaker 2: but you know, in the larger sense, these are these
Speaker 2: are things that are bigger, the bigger than kind of
Speaker 2: these these sort of you know, these sort of ideas
Speaker 2: that flow around the kind of way that we consume
Speaker 2: we consume things well.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that I've taken from are
Speaker 1: in McIntyre's book, which is quite good, you should all
Speaker 1: read it, is he describes this process by which things
Speaker 1: that were sort of pre political when they're dragged into
Speaker 1: the realm of politics. I not only does it a
Speaker 1: miserate people, but that is what grows the power of
Speaker 1: the state. So we'll take you know, marriage and child rearing.
Speaker 1: Once that becomes I guess the appropriate venue for politics
Speaker 1: due to you know, the pill, the sexual revolution, the suffragettes.
Speaker 1: Wherever you pick as the objectionable point, well, that becomes
Speaker 1: an arena for power to play it. Like you know,
Speaker 1: pick your favorite pre modern just evil man, right that
Speaker 1: whichever guy that is, Like, can you imagine him dictating
Speaker 1: the terms of a divorce? Like can you imagine Genghis
Speaker 1: Khan writing in and saying, oh, well, you know you
Speaker 1: you need to treat your wife in such a way
Speaker 1: either the most kind of you know, comedically evil, you know,
Speaker 1: despot in the world. No, it was just not considered
Speaker 1: to be within the realm of politics, right, It was
Speaker 1: just what people do. And I think that is as
Speaker 1: the state has grown, right, as more and more of
Speaker 1: those bonds have been broken, you know, bonds that were
Speaker 1: a political outside of the realm of the polis, well,
Speaker 1: the state, whatever you want to say, power politics, it
Speaker 1: enters in. It takes up that slack and it grows
Speaker 1: from it. Like this is part of the reason why
Speaker 1: it is so interested in breaking social bonds, because that
Speaker 1: becomes an opportunity for a decision to be made, right,
Speaker 1: it becomes a place to put your senecures, all of
Speaker 1: these things. And so I understand using political analysis to
Speaker 1: look at these issues. But of course, you know, as
Speaker 1: as another you know friend and influence of mine often says, right,
Speaker 1: the solution is not political, And of course you could
Speaker 1: look at that and say, well, obviously the solution to
Speaker 1: politics is politics, Yes, clearly, But to your point, mister
Speaker 1: d that in and of itself, the fact that all
Speaker 1: of these things have been subsumed into the political process.
Speaker 1: Is very much that is at the core of the problem, right,
Speaker 1: That is sort of the project product of modernity. Right
Speaker 1: is taking all of these these institutions, these relationships, which were,
Speaker 1: if not fixed, at the very least non political per se,
Speaker 1: and bringing them into that realm. So I understand why
Speaker 1: someone would say, well, I want a right wing marriage,
Speaker 1: or I want, you know, a right wing relationship with
Speaker 1: my father. And I sort of get what they mean
Speaker 1: when they say that, but at the same time, it's
Speaker 1: sort of missing the forest through the trees. Hopefully not
Speaker 1: too poorly made a point there.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, you know, and and of course it's
Speaker 2: a justifiable thing. I just I just think people they
Speaker 2: give it the wrong name. You know, you don't you
Speaker 2: don't want a right wing marriage, you want a moral marriage,
Speaker 2: you know. I think sometimes we you know, I just
Speaker 2: think the whole idea of the right wing, you know,
Speaker 2: it's just it's no longer useful again. It's an ancient
Speaker 2: you know, it's a metaphor, it's a it's a kind
Speaker 2: of a system of categorization that comes from the French Revolution,
Speaker 2: you know, and it just I don't know what use
Speaker 2: it has anymore, you know. I mean I look at
Speaker 2: you know, I look at if you if you want
Speaker 2: to do it with political parties. You know, there's nothing
Speaker 2: that you know, the Republican Party, which is where the
Speaker 2: right wing o sensibly if politics lives in America. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's nothing that particularly that they're doing in a broader
Speaker 2: sense that I won't have anything to do with and
Speaker 2: has any sort of bearing on my vision of a
Speaker 2: functional civilization. And certainly it grows more distant every day,
Speaker 2: you know, just just as of course, I mean Donald
Speaker 2: Trump he's done, you know, some things that are wonderful
Speaker 2: and certainly in the direction that we want to go,
Speaker 2: you know, effectively stopping border crossings. But you know, in
Speaker 2: another sense, I don't look to Donald Trump, you know,
Speaker 2: as someone who's a model of my sort of ideal, healthy,
Speaker 2: healthy civilization. You know, I mean, certainly on the esthetic front,
Speaker 2: he must have some of the worst instincts towards esthetics
Speaker 2: of anyone I've ever seen. Just look at what he's
Speaker 2: done to the White House. Fortunately I don't I'm not
Speaker 2: terribly bothered by that, because all that can be stripped away,
Speaker 2: and that's just the case all the time. I mean,
Speaker 2: you you know, you could look at the White House
Speaker 2: during the Victorian era when you know it's sort of
Speaker 2: plagued by potted plants and dark drapes and whatever. I mean,
Speaker 2: all that stuff can be stripped off, all those plastic
Speaker 2: gilded things, hope fortunately can be taken away. You know, fine,
Speaker 2: but you know it's a problem when you you sort
Speaker 2: of you sort of mix sure your larger goals up
Speaker 2: with smaller kind of political political spaces or movements or whatever,
Speaker 2: and a lot of you know, really sort of blinkered people.
Speaker 2: Will you know what is right wing art? Well, you
Speaker 2: know it's sort of pastly colored paintings of women with
Speaker 2: garlands of flowers around their hair carrying baskets of wheat.
Speaker 2: You know, well that can be good, but generally you
Speaker 2: know that. Or you know, yeah, what's right wing architecture,
Speaker 2: Well it looks like it's sort of a variation on
Speaker 2: Art Deco, or it looks like it looks like Georgian
Speaker 2: and you know it's Georgian facades. I mean, it's just
Speaker 2: a very narrow way to look at to look at
Speaker 2: these these sort of huge issues.
Speaker 1: Mister d I think that optimal right wing art. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know it's sort of like the you know, the
Speaker 1: the Assyrian tablets in the met right, just just a
Speaker 1: picture of you with the the skate, the flayed skin
Speaker 1: of you know, someone you don't like, and then just
Speaker 1: a description of how you you killed him and all
Speaker 1: of his friends.
Speaker 2: Ah.
Speaker 1: But no, I take your point there, mister d Unfortunately
Speaker 1: we're at time. It's been a Honestly, it's been a
Speaker 1: very interesting conversation for me, which is why I have
Speaker 1: you on, to be perfectly honest, because I enjoy speaking
Speaker 1: to you. We mentioned your YouTube channel. I know we
Speaker 1: can find you on Twitter's there anywhere else people can
Speaker 1: look for you.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, you know, it's certainly well. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, if I can make one a sort of
Speaker 2: final wait, you know I don't ever share my artwork,
Speaker 2: you know, it is it is a side of my
Speaker 2: that isn't you know that that is not part of
Speaker 2: my online you know, my my online presence. And there's
Speaker 2: many reasons for that, and of course a lot of
Speaker 2: them are kind of again trying to keep because I
Speaker 2: view it as very fragile, as I said earlier, my
Speaker 2: relationship to of course inspiration whatever that may be I
Speaker 2: think of it as a kind of metaphysical and mysterious
Speaker 2: and spiritual connection, and I don't want to profane it
Speaker 2: or sully it with these kind of against what I
Speaker 2: consider kind of low questions. So I just I sort
Speaker 2: of keep my own work out of it because I
Speaker 2: don't know. I mean, honestly, I think that. And if
Speaker 2: you ask any artist, certainly if you would ask David Lynch,
Speaker 2: you know, he was you know, I relate a little
Speaker 2: anecdote where someone said, well, well, he said, Eraise Ahead
Speaker 2: is my most spiritual film, and they said, well, please explain,
Speaker 2: and he said no, and in a way, of course
Speaker 2: he couldn't. I mean, you know, and I think that's
Speaker 2: what happens with a lot of artists, is that, you know,
Speaker 2: it's a fragile connection to this, to inspiration and to meaning,
Speaker 2: you know, and it's almost out of our leagues, you know.
Speaker 2: We know, to sort of define it is to kind
Speaker 2: of to grasp at that ghost is to watch it
Speaker 2: disappear in your fingers. So it's a complex question, and
Speaker 2: we certainly talk about it at a future time. Also,
Speaker 2: to tie up the beginning in the end, I mentioned
Speaker 2: mel Brooks earlier. Well, it was actually mel Brooks who
Speaker 2: allowed David Lynch to make Eras Ahead it. Mel Brooks
Speaker 2: partially funded it and partially funded David Ditch's early filmmaking career,
Speaker 2: so weirdly enough, but you know, I mean, this is
Speaker 2: the system of kind of influence and patronage that is
Speaker 2: very important to artists. And if you want to patronize
Speaker 2: me you can certainly, yes, visit my YouTube channel. I
Speaker 2: will be having new content on there, including a review
Speaker 2: of Twin Peaks Season three, Twin Peaks Return, which I've
Speaker 2: been an ongoing project I've been doing with my friends
Speaker 2: Matthew Williams aka the Prudentialist and Christopher Sandbatch. And on Twitter,
Speaker 2: I do Twitter spaces all the time, which are free
Speaker 2: form discussions of things high and though and mister Burton,
Speaker 2: well it very occasionally pops up as well, and I'm always
Speaker 2: happy to see him, and I'm always happy to speak
Speaker 2: with you, and thank you for inviting me on your show.
Speaker 1: Well definitely it's been too long, mister d We'll have
Speaker 1: you on again soon. Thank you,