Send us a text

CHECK OUT THE VIDEOESSAY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3rGFoAMbKs&t=35s

What is Pop-Art? Why is it significant? 

What is all the rage about Andy Warhol? What separates and connects the artists of the era? What differentiates the masters and the present day modern artists?

Musings and analysis from the Pop-Masters Exhibition of New York, featuring Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Keith Haring.

-

I once was not a Pop Art appreciator. This podcast was inspired by my experience at a Pop Art exhibit featuring works by Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Keith Haring. Seeing their paintings in the flesh made me reevaluate everything I thought I knew about Pop Art. 

I went into this exhibition knowing relatively nothing about Pop Art. But during the exhibit, I found myself ignoring the descriptions about the art. For me, I got more out of just experiencing the paintings rather than reading the explanations of them. I believed that is how art is meant to be enjoyed: as an experience. I don't think art should require 'context' for it to be understood by the viewer. Art is, in itself, a mode of communication.

DISCLAIMER: This is just my personal experience and perspective on Pop Art and the Pop Artists. This is by no means fact. In this essay, I may be found to romanticise a lot about life and the ugly aspects of it. But I am not trying to delude or ignore ugliness, but find beauty in ugliness — because to me, that is the only way to survive. To find meaning and beauty in everything, even the meaningless and terrible, is not meant to disguise anything — it is to experience the full facets of life as a human. To accept everything as part of our intrinsic force here on earth.

*I am not speaking on the artist's personalities or personal lives.*

Art referenced in this episode:

Andy Warhol, 'Cross' (1981)
Basquiat and Warhol, 'Untitled' (1984)
Basquiat, 'New York, New York' (1981)
Keith Haring, 'Untitled' (1981)
Mark Rothko, 'Untitled, Red' (1961)

*NOTE: Mark Rothko was not part of the 'Pop-Art' movement, but the Abstract Expressionism movement. However, I wanted to talk about him anyway in regards to these topics.

Send us a text

On a remote island off the coast of Ireland, two lifelong friends find themselves at an impasse when one abruptly ends their relationship, with alarming consequences for both of them.

In this episode, Grace talks about the 2022 (9X Oscar Nom) tragicomedy, 'The Banshees of Inisherin' by Martin McDonagh, starring Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson.

Some of the topics covered include:
— Why does Colm cut off his fingers? 
— Symbolism of Images 
— The dichotomies of Colm and Pádraic 
— The cosmic indifference of the world and the subsequent mercy 
— The mutilation of religion and religion through mutilation 

Send us a text

In this episode, Grace shares her thoughts on the iconic classic novel 'Great Expectations' by Charles Dickens, which she just finished reading for the first time. Warning: SPOILERS AHEAD. 

Send us a text

In response to Grace's James Bond edit reaching 1.5M views,  Grace discusses (quite self-indulgently)  why Daniel Craig is the best James Bond by digging into the psychology behind his Bond, the becoming relationship between him and Vesper, and the qualities that makes him a TRUE "alpha male." Mainly talking about Casino Royale (the best Bond film of all time!)

SPOILERS AHEAD.

Follow the official Twitter: @tsornotpod

Send us a text

In part 1 of this episode of ‘To See or Not to See,’ Grace finally dives into her favourite films of all time: The Lord of the Rings series. The topics include:

• We are all the ‘lord of the ring’
• What does the One Ring symbolise?
• Why only Frodo can be the ring bearer, and why Sam cannot
• What do the main characters symbolise? — The Essence, The Shadow, The Self, and the Higher Self
• Why Frodo is the strongest character 
• The polarity of Frodo and Gollum
• How Frodo and Sam are two halves of a whole
• Why Frodo failed at the end
• Why only the One Spirit can defeat the One Ring 

Follow the twitter account: @tsornotpod

Send us a text

In Part 2 of this episode, Grace dives deep into the famous psychology of Carl Jung's 'Theory of Consciousness.' These archetypes include the Persona, Shadow, Anima/Animus, and The Self. Grace dissects how each character in Peter Pan represents a fragment of the Self, personified as these archetypes. Through this exploration, she also touches on the mass unconscious, forgotten youth and loss of belief, and false identity.

Follow the twitter account: @tsornotpod

Send us a text

In part 1 of this episode, Grace discusses her take on the multi-layered psychology of the childhood classic 'Peter Pan' by J.M Barrie: including concepts of the inner child, how youth is a state of mind, how the self becomes fragmented, leading to everyone becoming a 'lost boy', the irreplaceable love of the mother, and the contradictions of belief.

Follow the twitter account: @tsornotpod

Send us a text

In the 2nd part of the La Dolce Vita episode, Grace explores her interpretation of the film's symbolism through feminine archetypes, perpetuated by Marcello's narcissism and self-loathing; the biblical connotations of such archetypes; and the "Madonna-Whore" complex.

Follow the twitter account: @tsornotpod

Send us a text

WARNING: Spoilers Ahead
 

In Part 1 of this episode, Grace dissects one of the acclaimed 'greatest films ever made:' La Dolce Vita, directed by Federico Fellini. She discusses the recurring themes of the mockery of the sacred, the imitations of happiness, hypocrisy and futility, and the comparisons to Dante's Divine Comedy.


As this is one of the most complex and symbolic films of all time, she has decided to split this episode into two parts. The second part of this episode will be about Marcello's relationship with the women in this film, the projected feminine archetypes, and the biblical comparisons and interpretations.


Follow the twitter account: @tsornotpod

Send us a text

In this episode, Grace discusses her take on the controversial writer and philosopher Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and how it has been widely distorted and generalised. She discusses the virtue of selfishness and its misconception, what individualism means, free will, the selfish nature of love, and how all of these concepts have been hijacked, gentrified, and mass distributed by entitled, faux nihilistic yuppies.

Disclaimer: this is just my take and interpretation on the text and idea, obviously generalised because of condensing the time. No idea can or should be applied to everything, and definitely not in the extreme. I am merely clarifying and defending certain aspects of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. This is not the only way to see it, but this is what makes sense to me, and you are welcome to (and should) form your own opinion about it.

Follow the twitter account: @tsornotpod