It's Dark,

hmm, unfortunately I can't see your face well enough to discern your perception functions I think you have Ti/Fe from the way you speak. I believe I'm detecting some momentum-halting, Fe pushes and Ti puppeteer hands. That's all I can say for now though. Do you think you can find a way to record another video with more light?

Yeah, I also see Ti/Fe. And the eyes seem to dart about a lot, so Ne/Si. I'm guessing NeTi, because there's a lot more enthusiasm coming through (Ne) and more "friendliness" - I can't think of another word right now - (Fe) than in TiNe.

Will pictures help? Here are a bunch of recent ones. I can try to make another brighter video as well.

Okay, I'll get to the new video as soon as I have time. : D

Linus, Well, I think art -is- being distributed to the general population. (Yes! I think Nicki Minaj is art!) I think what isn't being properly distributed is the wider oeuvre of art that encompasses "un-pop". But I think that things are changing quite a bit, and technology is really shattering the idea of compartmentalized markets with the academe in one place, the socialites in another place, the "masses" in another, and other subcultures other places. I mean, we now have recommendation engines (mostly for literature and music) that expose more obscure media to the people who seek them, and especially torrents of information and MOOC's that might help the "masses" appreciate things such as Pollock or Duchamp. The internet in general is a great equalizer and is really helping to connect the "experiencers" to the media they might enjoy. I think trend of market fragmentation and numerous niche audiences and subcultures is something that will just keep on unfolding in our world.

I used to be idealistic about the pursuit of "art for art's sake" and "not selling out" but if there's anything we've learned from the Modern Artists such as Jeff Koons, Christo and Jeanne Claude, or Warhol, it's the idea that art really is inseparable from economics. Even trying to be "authentic" might be an economic move, because it's a reaction to the economic situation. You were influenced by the economy before you even knew it. I don't think that's a bad thing, and I think what's important is to notice it and work with it. Because whether you're embracing the economics of art, criticizing it, working against it, working within it, we're all interacting with it one way or another. And well, doesn't it actually make art much more rich and meaningful when there's another layer to it?

I think the picture is more nuanced that what you paint. Many artists have incorporated this economic layer into their art in the past century especially with the postmodern schools of thought. These works are very much dependent within the framing of how much the work of art cost, what its impact was on the economy, and I think this economic layer enhances the piece of work. The past century has been trying to challenge what art is and expand what art can do, and artists such as John Cage and Robert Rauschenberg have challenged what it means to have factors that are "external" and "internal".

Well, I liked the last century! It speaks to me more than older art. I listen to Cage when I walk around my home. I think about the things around me. Even if you say it isn't art, it makes me happy, and so does Rauschenberg's work.