Initially posted on LinkedIn group discussion "Art free for all" in the Thread Original "Art Free-for all" started by Fry Karins and Original "Art-Free-for-All V.3 started by Daniel Elster.
Christine. About the political.
In its narrow sense "political" relates to the organization of societies and the code of conduct the individuals within that society have to follow in order to stay out of trouble. But such a narrow interpretation of the "political" is useless in terms of is explanatory power about human behavior. We have to expand its realm to a more all encompassing interpretation in order to make sense about human behavior.
The societal organization and the code of individual conduct that accompany it are human constructions that are based on human thinking and human thinking is not something that individual humans have much of a mastery over. Individuals believe that what they think is of their own creation; that they are the creators of their original thinking. But in reality what we individuals are thinking or believing is no more than the amalgamation in our minds of ideas and beliefs that were transmitted to us, mostly out of our being conscious about it, through the following:
1. culture: the totality of our ways of doing and behaving in any society at a particular time. That includes the arts and the belief systems, for sure, but it also includes the way we handle the relationships and the productions/consumptions in social, politic, economic and all other fields within our society. Generally speaking the individuals are relatively conscious about those realities covered by culture; but this is a very relative consciousness indeed.
2. worldviews: those are heavy systems of belief that were shaped down our history: animism, religions and the last being Modernity that imposed on all of us individualism, the reason of capital and later rationalism, private property and ultimately consumerism and its spectacle. Most individuals are absolutely unconscious about how their beliefs and thinking are shaped by the prevailing worldview. Now worldviews evolve under the impact of cultural traits that stick and they can thus possibly start to diverge. As in biological evolution what counts is the replicability of a mutation. The only difference between biology and worldviews is that the replicability in worldviews relates to cultural memes. Once a cultural meme sticks for a few generations it is integrated in the worldview. That's how from a same Christian worldview societies have evolved, over the centuries, onto separate paths when Modernity separated the people in different nation states. Look at how France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain diverged ...and then the US. But, all in all, we still share the same worldview. Only small traits diverged between those societies that for many, nevertheless, appear as insurmountable differences (the French in Americans' eyes and Americans in French eyes).
3. the axioms of our civilizations: rare are those who even know such a thing exists at all. But those civilizational axioms are nevertheless what shapes the rough contour of our thinking (totally or mostly out of our consciousness) and they explain the utter mis-understanding that is being observed between individuals from different civilizational backgrounds. Those axioms are the foundations, hidden deep in the ground, upon which walls and roofs have been built that represent the house of our shared worldviews. Culture is then no more than the tiles or the paint that covers those walls and roofs.
The understanding, of how culture worldviews and the axioms of civilization operate, is what is called knowledge that renders us conscious of how our ideas are forming into our minds. Knowledge is thus like the dirt in which our consciousness is taking root and that consciousness is then what shapes our minds (knowledge assimilated by the brain).
What I just tried to show, till now, is how the narrow sense of the "political" is being shaped for the most part out of our control. In this sense there is no alternative. We have to accept that the political expands to what conditions us to think what we think. So the political has now expanded to:
- the societal organization and the code of individual conduct
- the axioms of civilizations
But let's go further.
In earlier discussions with Paul, after much back and forth, we came to a common understanding that "the whole of our reality" is unattainable to humanity and that the best we could hope for is to share stories (narratives) that make sense. Now stories that make sense are based on the discovery of valid "knowings" or "knowledge of small parts of reality". To be valid those knowings have to be reproducible by others (just a question of trust in the validity of the knowings we accumulate otherwise we might as well give all our money to the first charlatan we encounter).
This is where science enters the picture. Science is not a worldview or a foundational story like religions are. Science is the accumulation of knowings that have been validated by the "scientific method" and the scientific method is no more than a convention between scientists about how to ensure the reproducibility of a hypothesis. Once a hypothesis has been successfully reproduced by others it is deposited as one more knowing in the scientific repository till it is eventually disproved in further reproduction trials. But science has a major drawback. It needs to be financed and those finances are considered as investments by those who give the cash (corporations or governments). This is where real world science is being imposed its road-map. The scientific method is just that: a codified method. But its financing by corporations or governments is not something neutral. The choice of what to research is being decided by capital after analyzing the potential returns on investment. At first glance the scientists might seem to be free to chose what they work on but once the holders of the invested capital discover research paths they believe will never generate returns for them they will cut the funding. This just shows that science is guided along a path imposed by power.
The power of corporations and governments is economic and financial but in the end that power is being used to reshape the political in the interest of the establishment. This is a general rule that applies under whatever political system.
When we look at it from a philosophic perspective we also have to conclude that, since our minds are captive of the culture, worldview and axioms of civilization of our societies, our thinking autonomy is largely a myth and this is valid whatever is our search path for knowledge: science, initiation, or other. We perceive indeed the universe and whatever it contains through the lenses of our conditioning and the only path to escape that conditioning is through knowledge accumulation and the increase in consciousness it ensures.
In that sense I agree with Christine. We are largely being manipulated to think as we are by our political context that has to be understood in a more all encompassing interpretation of the "political". Having said that I feel that Titus' remark makes plenty of sense: "To say that everything is political, in my view it is quite similar to saying that everything is art... the label looses all meaning. If everything is political, then we don't need the label of political any longer... "
This all encompassing usage of the concept "political" is first and foremost being imposed on us by the sheer poverty of our language. There are simply no words to precisely characterize this more all encompassing interpretation of the "political".
Political in its narrow sense of "the societal organization and the code of individual conduct" is one segment of culture while in its more all encompassing interpretation it results from the vaster ensemble regrouping culture, worldviews, and axioms of civilization that impose their conditioning on the individuals. So since most people identify with the narrow interpretation of the word political we should reserve it for that specific understanding and the all encompassing usage of the concept should then receive a new appellation. I'll baptize it "policult" or "policultal"; a term that I'll use in my further writing.
Before answering Christine about "Scientia" let me first rant a little.
I think that having a strong opinion about something isn't the same as knowing something. We are often confronted with strong opinions on this thread and the question that arises is how to answer them in a valid way.
The death of expertise (men of knowledge) results in a rejection not only of knowledge, but of the ways in which we gain knowledge and learn about things. The perverse effect of the death of expertise is that without real experts, everyone starts truly to believe she/he is an expert on everything. The only thing this succeeds to generate is noise, a gargantuan cloud of noise, that covers all there is but more particularly knowledge.
I'm firmly convinced that every discussion has to take place within certain limits (no logical fallacies please) and above a certain baseline of competence (no need to talk about something one knows nothing about) otherwise each participant ends up talking to himself and a real conversation is doomed to stay stucked in the mud of gratuitous affirmations.
I find it simply exhausting sometimes to have to start from the very root of every argument and establish the baseline of knowledge that will lead the conversation forward and then further... to constantly have to negotiate the rules of logical argument.
An example in point is Daniel's gratuitous affirmations about China.
Answering his nonsense would imply bringing knowledge to the table, which I'm not opposed to, but this can only take place when there is respect for knowledge which I doubt there is seen the accusatory tone with which his gratuitous affirmations are being spewed out. By the way I'm no apologist of China. I'm an observer of the world who happens to spend a lot of time thinking and dreaming.
It is in this context of frustration that I linked, rather opportunistically I must add, to Massimo Pigliucci's manifesto. I think it touches on things that could be put to good use in our conversation:
- intellectual Self Defense against political and corporate propaganda
- the need of knowledge and understanding — scientia — in order to make sense of the world we live in and the "whole reality" in which the world we live in fits.
Having said that I feel quieter now and think I can answer Chritine's invitation to comment on Massimo Pigliucci's manifesto.
Christine. About Massimo Pigliucci's manifesto
As you I found Massimo Pigliucci's manifesto to be a shining pearl in the ocean of noise that submerges us all.
1. Massimo's diagnostic (in his own words):
- we are so fraught with cognitive biases and so prone to rationalization that it is a miracle anything gets done around the world.
- The problem, to put it plainly, is that many of our fellow citizens have not taken any intellectual course in self-defense (literally or more broadly speaking), and that they are bombarded by the best political and — let’s not forget it — corporate propaganda money (a lot of money) can buy.
2. Massimo's remedy:
- ...knowledge and understanding — scientia — of what goes on in the world gives everyone more power over their lives, more ability to influence events, and ultimately more meaning to their existence.
- Scientia is a Latin word that means knowledge (and understanding) in the broadest possible terms. It has wider implications than the English term “science,” as it includes natural and social sciences, philosophy, logic, and mathematics, to say the least. It reflects the idea that knowledge draws from multiple sources, some empirical (science), some conceptual (philosophy, math and logic), and it cannot be reduced to or constrained by just one of these sources.
3. My take.
- Massimo's diagnostic:
I think the diagnostic is correct: cognitive biases + manipulation through propaganda lead us to rationalize (justify) instead of reasoning that puts us on the path of knowing and understanding.
- Massimo's remedy:
Knowledge and understanding in the "scientia" concept are given as the absolute winning strategy in our specie's game of life. In reality that implied absolute is a fake. Knowledge and understanding, in scientia, are indeed focused on knowing and understanding the working of parcels of reality, in other words they are "knowings", that give us access to actioning principles in the short term. They don't attain the larger level of knowledge and understanding, at the strategic level of our species' further reproduction, which is situated at the level of the whole of our reality. Such an understanding and knowledge at the level of the whole of our reality is determinant for the survival and reproduction of our species. It is called sapience or wisdom and it is encoded in the societal worldview. Starting with High Modernity we and our Western societies unfortunately became "worldview orphans".
I find the remedy should gain in strength if "scientia", empirical and conceptual "knowings", were integrated and subjugated to the dimension of sapience or wisdom which is the dimension where "knowings" are confronted to the strategy of our species' further reproduction whence the successfully retained knowings transform into real knowledge.
4. The implications for art.
As I wrote earlier:
Good visual art distinguishes itself from bad visual art in its capacity to transmit its meaning to the mind of the viewer (consciously or unconsciously).
This implies that the creator of a visual work have:
- technical mastery in his craft (initial condition).
- intellectual mastery of the content matter (ultimate necessity)
Rare today; indeed.
Even if technical mastery is present, most often artists don't master a firm vision about "what reality is all about". The men of knowledge of yesteryear are gone and artists are now struggling to build up their own knowledge in order to affirm the content of their work.
But... as Duchamp was saying this is most often a very amateurish enterprise and as a consequence " ... modern art, caught without a sublime content, was incapable of creating a new sublime image... " (Newman).
The sublime content that Newman writes about, that I call "ultimate necessity", can only be one thing: sapience because it defines the strategy of our species' further reproduction.
But the artist's problem is that he does't know what sapience is all about and so he searches... We have been searching for more than a century now and we still don't know anything more than the Avant-Garde when it started the search.
No Daniel you are not Brian. You are on this difficult road of searching for the sublime content Newman wrote about. Without it you and all of us feel like we were lost in a thick fog. Only sapience or real wisdom has the power to dissipate that fog.
Daniel. On China and Tibet.
- "Of course my "take" on China reflects my intellectual biases, as does your".
This is called a fallacy of the middle ground.
- "But I take umbrage at the implication that I am speaking from the standpoint of opinion alone. It is simply that my sources of information are different than yours".
This one is also a fallacy of the middle ground.
- "...speaking at length with Tibetans and Nepalese and Chinese people directly".
Speaking in New York. Makes me think that there is also a Chinese cuisine in NYC but why is it that it is nothing like the Chinese cuisine I experience in China?
- "Amnesty International and other human rights group reports".
Well read this: http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2014-03-24-lebaron-en.html
- "...to semi-official and official Chinese denials of those reports".
The Chinese do not try to impose an ideology on the citizens of any other country. They are pragmatists who, momentarily at least, care only about one thing and that is to make their country strong enough to resist the ideological, corporate, and military pressions from outside. Remember that not so long ago they were forced to open their borders to the opium the British forced on their population... One does not forget something like that so easily.
The Chinese authorities have no trouble recognizing their historical errors and present mishandling of some situations. Tibet is no exception. They apologized for the large scale temple destruction that happened during the cultural revolution and since the eighties embarked on a program of temple reconstruction and maintenance that cost them the equivalent of billions of dollars. Religious rights have been enshrined in the Chinese constitution and, contrarily to what is being said in Western Media, people are free to practice. What the government does not allow is the control of the religious practice of its citizens by foreign authorities (Dalai Lama, Pope). The British have basically the same position as the Chinese (hands off Rome). But in China's case this is being turned by the West into a spectacle of so called Chinese religious oppression...
The problem is that Tibet, like Xinjiang by the way, is used as an ideological punching ball that a pugilistic West regularly knocks on for Western media consumption and ideological manipulation of its own people. Tibet is a matter geo-strategists are too happy to use to push the interests of their own nations. We should always remain conscious that the interests at stake are huge economically and militarily. We should thus be careful not to fall for this kind of manipulation which is not always easy I recognize but, I sense that, we should never let go the honesty and sheer guts to question ourselves and challenge the information which has contributed to our beliefs.
“The confidence that people have in their beliefs is not a measure of the quality of their evidence, [...] it is a judgment of the coherence of the story that their mind has managed to construct.” (Kahneman)
That story can flow very far from the reality it pretends to depicts as I will try to show in what follows.
What is the reality of Tibet?
- Tibet was integrated in the Chinese empire by Kubilai Kahn around 1260 when he beat the Han armies, took over China, and imposed his Mongolian dynasty over the country. Not only did Kubilai integrate Tibet, he also integrated Xinjiang and his own Mongolia (including present day Outer-Mongolia). Those 3 areas still represent nearly 60% of the total Chinese territory today (not including Outer-Mongolia).
- Kubilai put at the helm of Tibet the "Red Sect of Tibetan Buddism" that acted under the supervision of an imperial envoy
- by mid 18th century Tibet was invaded for the second time by marauding gangs from Bhutan. Tired by the expenses in silver, that the dispatch of his armies to free Tibet cost him, Emperor Tianlong decided to replace the "red Sect" with the "Yellow Sect of Tibetan Buddhism" and he created the title "Dalai Lama" as the holder of political power over the region who acted under the supervision of an imperial envoy and the title "Panchen Lama" as the holder of religious power. The documents creating those titles also contain the procedures of the designation of both those leaders and the end of the nomination process has to be confirmed by the affixing of the imperial stamp.
- with the revolution of 1911 China entered a period of anarchy that the British put at profit to try to annex Tibet to the Indian Empire. For many reasons that did not turn out as planned. That period of anarchy corresponded to a loss of direct control that the West till today uses as proof that China did not control Tibet (same goes for the Diayutai Islands).
- after its revolution of 1949 the Chinese re-entered Tibet and declared that the region would continue to be governed as earlier. But its education and anti-slavery campaigns did not sit well with the Landlord class. Yes Tibet was a slave country where people were slaving to tilt a third of the land mass owned by the Landlord Class, a third by the monasteries and a third by the "Kashack" or the government under the authority of the Dalai Lama. Museums are keeping fresh the memory about the torture instruments being used against slaves and serfs. Asked publicly about Tibet's governance in that period the Dalai Lama avoids to answer the question merely recognizing that the situation was dire indeed.
- fearing to gradually lose its grip on a system that served its interests well, in 1959, the landlord class initiated an attack on China's military and agricultural development teams that were present in the region. Defeated the representatives of the landlord class ran to the Southern border...
One question that is not resolved as of today is what was the Dalai Lama's real position during those 1959 events.
On one side the Communists affirm that the Dalai Lama was kidnapped by the Landlords and forcefully carried to India (some troubling documents, from the time, indicate that the Dalai Lama did not side with the landlords during these events of 1959). Unfortunately the Dalai Lama, who was very young at the time, stays mum on what really happened.
Seen that the answers, from the Chinese authorities to Western propaganda and the Tibetan government in exile, are simply not helpful it should not come as a surprise that Tibet is being made a Chinese ideological punching ball by the West. The Chinese have inherited a theoretical and practical knowledge, about the management of a huge bureaucracy in chaos conditions, that developed over thousands of years. They are excellent at that management (for proof their present economic success) but they are nowhere in terms of PR which is typically a modern culture speciality.
I think that, in such a complex and largely hidden reality, one should refrain from gratuitous affirmations. The reality is that:
- China does not occupy Tibet. Tibet has been a part of China for the last 750 years.
- There is no cultural genocide happening presently in Tibet. The fact is that China is entering Modernity at an accelerated pace that is responsible for a tsunami like cultural shock in Tibet as everywhere else in the country and that cultural shock is hurting.
- Education in Tibet is realized in Tibetan and Chinese. The Tibetan language is not vanishing. Tibetan religious practice is free and the other pillar of Tibetan traditional culture, I mean Tibetan Traditional Medicine, is alive and flourishing. Most pharmacies around the country are distributing the products of that traditional pharmacopoeia.
- Tibetans are free to roam the country and many of them engage in the trade of Tibetan traditional goods. You can see them in Beijing and all over the country (jewelry, metal and stone crafts, carpets, etc.)
- The economic development of Tibet has enriched many families and the price for that enrichment is creeping materialism that is abhorred by the religious authorities. Modernity attracts the younger generations who vote with their feet for pop music, motorcycles and cars... Sure this threatens the future of Buddhism but to my knowledge this is not the same as a cultural genocide.
Fry. On Collapse and the artists' indifference.
" In 90 years, we have come nowhere and are losing ground. Long live Surrealism, a movement killed for the need of critics to have the "new!" And you are wondering why the Whitney show sucks? It is reduced to the lowest common denominator or it loses its impact. Go back and look at the last few and you will see a pattern of mediocrity and it's not a result of cultural diversity, etc., but one of ignorance and, dare I say, power for the art careerists".
Not only Surrealism.
The entirety of Modernism has failed.
The questions of the Avant-Garde remain valid today but they remain unanswered (" ... modern art, caught without a sublime content, was incapable of creating a new sublime image... ". Newman). Worse I feel that the art world, including artists, are acting like zombies. But hey it's easier, from a zombie's vintage point, to escape the consciousness that, in the real world, artists and intellectuals have responsibilities towards society at large.
The indifference expressed nowadays by artists simply baffles me.
Is the consciousness that we are a parcel of humanity suddenly becoming too painful to wear for our minds? I fear we artists are acting as if we had already abandoned the ship of civilization and entered barbarity. If my fear is at all reflecting our present state of mind I would have to conclude that we have already engaged the free-fall water-slide of societal collapse (something which, once it starts going (figuratively) downhill, is unstoppable until it reaches the bottom).
Are we stuck here waiting till we reach the bottom to rediscover the meaning of our humanity? Is that it?
From an intellectual perspective I can understand that this is what it is but my humanity rebels against that intellectual perspective!
Krista. On being responsible for the Future
" 'Future generations' always puts it out of any immediate understanding and allows people to justify inaction in the present".
I understand your point. I'm afraid we are not in normal times any longer. What we see in the art world is merely the canary in the mine of our societies. Faced with the immensity of what comes at us societally a "Pick a topic" tactical move is, I'm afraid, not more productive than the kid trying to empty the ocean with a spoon...
'Future generations...' at least has the merit to stir some uneasiness in the heart of grand-parents. They control the remaining savings. Perhaps stirring uneasiness about the future of their grand-children will awaken them to bet all their money on things (economic or political projects) that could alleviate their grand-children's coming and amplifying miseries. But hey what do I know?
All. On some excellent recent comments.
Until now I avoided talking about art from the perspective of its creator the artist. There is a good reason for that. In the present state of general confusion I think we have, first and foremost, to clear things up from an analytical perspective in order to remove all the bullshit that infects our sanity.
In that line of thought I find some recent comments have been touching the core of what art is all about:
"I have also held that the main event in an artwork is [what Daniel would call] the syntax, rather than the content – but the problem with such a position is that the fruits of that main event are inarticulable..."
As a painter this is ultimately what makes me feel uncomfortable. You are immersed in the material and your mind is buzzing around and questioning yourself about "what's that all about?" and you try to make sense of what you do and you fall back on words and... what Paul mentions:
"it requires attaching language of some kind to it, and that would take it from its main arena of feelings (aka aesthetics) to its secondary arena of idea (aka analytics or thoughts)."
Yes that's exactly how I feel.
Kandinsky articulated this in another way that also works fine for me: "The form is the outer expression of the inner content. Therefore, one should not make a deity of form. Therefore, one should not seek salvation in one form. ... Since the form is only an expression of the content and the content is different with different artists, it is then clear that there can be many different forms at the same time which are equally good. Necessity creates the form. ... Thus, the spirit of the individual artist is mirrored in the form. The form bears the stamp of his personality. ... Full freedom shall prevail: one shall consider valid every form, deem correct (= artistic) every form which represent an inner content. ... The form (material substance) in general is not the most important, but rather the content (spirit). ... One must approach a work in such a way that the form has an effect on the soul. Otherwise one elevates the relative to the absolute."
In "On the problem of form" by Kandinsky. 1912. This view fits also perfectly with Tolstoi's approach as developed in his book "What is art?".
"Medium and content (as technical achievements and implemented possible 'narrative' matter) are already always the result of the field of possibilities opened by a historically determined worldview... ".
Yes this is one part of what I mean. Your expansion of the worldview to "the field of possibilities" that the worldview opens is a smart move indeed.
But I go further than that. I posit that art is a projection of knowledge or meaning about that "field of possibilities opened by a historically determined worldview" to the mind of the observer (there are very strong societal reasons for that) and I further state that this is the real function of art (I develop this at length in my books and my blogs).
Now this analytical view says nothing about what Daniel calls the syntax which as Paul accurately describes is "the main event in an artwork" from the individual perspective of its creator. The reason I don't speak about the perspective of the creator is because it is not really determining what the finished artwork projects to the mind of the observer (consciously or unconsciously the artist reproduces what GianCarlo calls "the field of possibilities opened by a historically determined worldview" or a mechanism that Paul calls "the structure in the mind").
What Daniel calls the "syntax" only facilitates such a projection of knowledge and meaning to the mind of the observer.
Remember the whole discussion about "brain, mind, consciousness, wisdom and sapience" that went on lately in the group managed by Fry. What we reached as conclusions there was that GianCarlo's "the field of possibilities opened by a historically determined worldview" results in the mind as a transformation of all the stimuli the eyes had previously transferred to the brain. The syntax of the creator unconsciously integrates that meaning that has crystallized in his mind.
Now, I submit that, the capacity of persuasion of the meaning in a work of art is directly related to the level of consciousness of the creator. In other words the more consciousness the higher impact in the observer's mind and when the creators consciousness transforms into wisdom the impact reaches the level of the evidence.
- "Confusing as it might be, this is, in my view, better than the monopoly of the 'One Truth everybody must follow' situation from before."
I'm with you. High Modernity has unleashed the individual potential while destroying "the monopoly of the 'One Truth everybody must follow'". For a time this looked all very well. But once faced with the reality this has unleashed questions start assailing the mind. Societal fragmentation has reached societal atomization proportions nowadays. What that means is that societal cohesion is gone and at a certain threshold of economic pain societies enter a cycle of violence that the establishment answers with authoritarianism. Open your eyes we are already on that path...
Yes there are exciting possibilities in the air (science and tech) but our societies are very complex systems that are very fragile. They need a lot of energy and resources to possibly help those possibilities unfold and don't forget that suddenly the rest of the world wants to play with. From 10% of the world population that played the Modern game 100% now want to share in (I'm well placed here in China to observe the real meaning of this expansion). There is just no way that's going to work out. Not enough energy, not enough resources. Soon enough the big fight between nations will erupt to capture what remains...
So, yes I also crave the individual potential, but I'm just not convinced any longer that what I observe coming at us is going to be any more pleasant than what existed in the past. I'm afraid that this individualistic mold has been an illusion that is now ending and soon there will be many tears.
- "Once we accept the fact that we cannot see ultimate reality, the desire for a unified world view seems quite unreasonable, to me..."
Yes the whole of our reality, or the ultimate reality as you say, is unattainable. This is the fundamental reason why worldviews emerged in the first place. We are like children wanting answers we can share with those around us. That sharing makes us feel good (watch this group...). It quietens our minds and eliminates our anxiety. Ultimately it is what glues us together and it is also what allows societies to reproduce.
The fact is that history does not give us one single example of a society that survived one century whose citizens in their large majority were not glued in sharing a common worldview.
The unfortunate reality we observe nowadays in Western countries is that our societies have by and large atomized over the last 30-40 years; meaning that everyone thinks he knows better than anyone else and the web has certainly closed the loop. This does not bode well in the context of what I wrote higher "...at a certain threshold of economic pain societies enter a cycle of violence that the establishment answers with authoritarianism". There is no escape here. Atomization + economic pain end in barbarity.
- "We have glimpses of what the world might be about, and this is what art reflects".
Yes I agree with that.
Just one observation. The only art that will succeed to survive in the future unmistakably is the art whose glimpses of what the world might be about in the future will help explain to the future citizens how their world came about. That just shows that what is recognized today by the market has not one iota of a chance to attract eyeballs in the future.