WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.980 I want you to start off today by just picturing 00:00:01.980 --> 00:00:06.700 a formal portrait of a world leader. Oh, right. 00:00:07.019 --> 00:00:08.980 Yeah, you know the drill. It's the dignified 00:00:08.980 --> 00:00:12.359 stiff suit. Maybe a flag pin on the lapel. A 00:00:12.359 --> 00:00:15.179 very serious, very concerned look. Exactly. The 00:00:15.179 --> 00:00:17.539 bookshelf in the background. It is all visual 00:00:17.539 --> 00:00:20.420 shorthand for stability and authority. Right. 00:00:20.519 --> 00:00:23.219 But today... We're going to strip all of that 00:00:23.219 --> 00:00:25.219 away. Yeah. Literally. Because we are talking 00:00:25.219 --> 00:00:27.379 about a time when a Canadian artist took that 00:00:27.379 --> 00:00:29.679 traditional prime ministerial image and just, 00:00:29.699 --> 00:00:31.699 well, she removed the suit. She removed the suit, 00:00:31.780 --> 00:00:36.640 the tie, the shirt, all of it. Welcome to today's 00:00:36.640 --> 00:00:39.619 deep dive. We're looking at a 2011 oil painting 00:00:39.619 --> 00:00:42.200 called Emperor Haute Couture. Created by the 00:00:42.200 --> 00:00:43.960 Canadian artist Margaret Sutherland. And the 00:00:43.960 --> 00:00:46.259 subject of this painting is the 22nd Prime Minister 00:00:46.259 --> 00:00:49.780 of Canada, Stephen Harper. Nude. Very nude. Yeah. 00:00:50.060 --> 00:00:52.320 And I want to be clear right up front about our 00:00:52.320 --> 00:00:54.460 mission for this deep dive, because it would 00:00:54.460 --> 00:00:57.000 be really easy to just giggle at a naked politician 00:00:57.000 --> 00:00:59.579 and move on. But this isn't just a political 00:00:59.579 --> 00:01:02.340 cartoon in a daily newspaper. We have sources 00:01:02.340 --> 00:01:05.500 detailing the incredibly strange, fascinating 00:01:05.500 --> 00:01:07.959 journey of this physical object. Because it caused 00:01:07.959 --> 00:01:11.790 an absolute national stir. It really did. This 00:01:11.790 --> 00:01:14.370 canvas went from a quiet gallery salon to the 00:01:14.370 --> 00:01:16.930 center of a human rights tribunal. Which is wild. 00:01:17.609 --> 00:01:20.090 And then eventually ended up in the most unlikely 00:01:20.090 --> 00:01:23.030 place imaginable for fine art, an online classified 00:01:23.030 --> 00:01:26.489 site. Right next to used snow tires. Exactly. 00:01:26.909 --> 00:01:29.150 So we're going to look at the intersection of 00:01:29.150 --> 00:01:32.209 high art, political satire, public censorship, 00:01:32.409 --> 00:01:35.349 and how a controversial painting turns into a 00:01:35.349 --> 00:01:37.890 historical artifact. It's a great story. Let's 00:01:37.890 --> 00:01:39.730 start with the what. Because if you haven't seen 00:01:39.730 --> 00:01:41.609 this painting you might be imagining, I don't 00:01:41.609 --> 00:01:43.810 know, a quick little sketch. Right, but Emperor 00:01:43.810 --> 00:01:47.310 Haute Couture is a massive, serious piece of 00:01:47.310 --> 00:01:50.310 work. It's a large -scale, oil -on -canvas painting. 00:01:50.569 --> 00:01:53.590 How big are we talking? It's 91 .44 centimeters 00:01:53.590 --> 00:01:58.549 by 152 .4 centimeters. So, roughly 3 by 5 feet. 00:01:58.670 --> 00:02:00.469 Yeah, 3 by 5 feet. When you stand in front of 00:02:00.469 --> 00:02:02.670 it, it completely imposes itself on the space. 00:02:02.750 --> 00:02:05.030 You can't just walk past it and ignore it. And 00:02:05.030 --> 00:02:07.269 the actual composition of the painting is very 00:02:07.269 --> 00:02:10.689 specific. Sutherland didn't just paint a generic 00:02:10.689 --> 00:02:13.360 naked man on a chair. No, she was doing something 00:02:13.360 --> 00:02:15.860 much more deliberate. She was actually paying 00:02:15.860 --> 00:02:18.979 homage to a very famous piece of art history 00:02:19.530 --> 00:02:21.710 Which is Edouard Manet's Olympia. Exactly. From 00:02:21.710 --> 00:02:24.090 1863. And for the art history buffs listening, 00:02:24.250 --> 00:02:26.870 that is a huge reference. Oh, yeah. Because when 00:02:26.870 --> 00:02:30.210 Manet painted Olympia, it was notoriously scandalous. 00:02:30.289 --> 00:02:32.789 Not just because the subject was nude, but because 00:02:32.789 --> 00:02:35.189 of how she looked at the viewer. She was a courtesan. 00:02:35.370 --> 00:02:37.490 Right. And she was staring directly out of the 00:02:37.490 --> 00:02:40.530 canvas. Confrontational. She wasn't demure or 00:02:40.530 --> 00:02:43.490 submissive. She was completely in control of 00:02:43.490 --> 00:02:46.469 the gaze. And what Sutherland did here is so 00:02:46.469 --> 00:02:48.949 clever. because she flips that entire gender 00:02:48.949 --> 00:02:51.669 dynamic upside down. She does. Instead of a woman 00:02:51.669 --> 00:02:54.629 on display for the male gaze, she takes the most 00:02:54.629 --> 00:02:56.590 powerful man in the country, Stephen Harper, 00:02:56.770 --> 00:02:59.490 and puts him in that exact reclining pose. It 00:02:59.490 --> 00:03:02.069 completely subverts the traditional power dynamic 00:03:02.069 --> 00:03:04.310 of a political portrait. You have the head of 00:03:04.310 --> 00:03:06.449 government in this incredibly vulnerable, exposed 00:03:06.449 --> 00:03:09.689 position, but he still has this sort of imperial, 00:03:09.969 --> 00:03:12.629 confident air about him. Which brings us to the 00:03:12.629 --> 00:03:16.439 title. Emperor Haute Couture. Yes. That is a 00:03:16.439 --> 00:03:19.620 direct line straight to Hans Christian Andersen, 00:03:19.639 --> 00:03:23.219 isn't it? It is. The Emperor's New Clothes, the 00:03:23.219 --> 00:03:26.439 classic fairy tale about vanity, and a whole 00:03:26.439 --> 00:03:29.379 court of people who absolutely refuse to speak 00:03:29.379 --> 00:03:31.759 the truth to the person in power. Because they're 00:03:31.759 --> 00:03:34.659 terrified of looking stupid. Exactly. And Sutherland 00:03:34.659 --> 00:03:37.139 was very open about this. In her interviews, 00:03:37.199 --> 00:03:39.199 she confirmed the title was a deliberate nod 00:03:39.199 --> 00:03:42.590 to that story. She was imparting a specific political 00:03:42.590 --> 00:03:45.389 critique. Right. It suggests a level of self 00:03:45.389 --> 00:03:47.949 -deception within that specific government. But 00:03:47.949 --> 00:03:50.129 there's another detail in the painting that really 00:03:50.129 --> 00:03:53.069 grounds it in the politics of 2011. You mean 00:03:53.069 --> 00:03:55.090 the figure in the background? Yes. Because in 00:03:55.090 --> 00:03:57.849 Manet's original Olympia, there's a black servant 00:03:57.849 --> 00:03:59.990 bringing the courtesan a bouquet of flowers. 00:04:00.289 --> 00:04:02.469 Right. But in Sutherland's painting, Emperor 00:04:02.469 --> 00:04:04.909 Haute Couture, there is a woman standing in the 00:04:04.909 --> 00:04:06.930 background wearing a purple business suit. And 00:04:06.930 --> 00:04:09.530 that woman represents Bev Oda. She was a former 00:04:09.530 --> 00:04:11.590 minister in the Harper government. And according 00:04:11.590 --> 00:04:14.210 to Sutherland, this wasn't just a general critique 00:04:14.210 --> 00:04:18.430 of vanity. She specifically painted this to highlight 00:04:18.430 --> 00:04:21.550 the lack of female cabinet ministers in the Harper 00:04:21.550 --> 00:04:24.149 government at the time. It's a very sharp, specific 00:04:24.149 --> 00:04:26.949 commentary. The figure of Oda in the background 00:04:26.949 --> 00:04:30.089 really forces you to ask who is serving whom 00:04:30.089 --> 00:04:33.029 and who gets to hold the actual power. So it's 00:04:33.029 --> 00:04:36.050 this fascinating blend. classical art composition, 00:04:36.370 --> 00:04:39.269 high -level technical skill, and extremely contemporary 00:04:39.269 --> 00:04:41.730 political satire. And then she submits it to 00:04:41.730 --> 00:04:44.329 an art show. As you do. As you do. She enters 00:04:44.329 --> 00:04:46.810 it into the Kingston Arts Council's annual juried 00:04:46.810 --> 00:04:49.980 salon. And it gets selected. Ah. Which makes 00:04:49.980 --> 00:04:52.180 sense. It's a compelling piece. But the venue 00:04:52.180 --> 00:04:54.699 for this salon is where the trouble really starts. 00:04:54.800 --> 00:04:57.040 Oh, absolutely. Because the venue was the Kingston 00:04:57.040 --> 00:04:59.800 -Torontenac Public Library. Right. And displaying 00:04:59.800 --> 00:05:02.519 a three by five foot painting of a nude prime 00:05:02.519 --> 00:05:05.560 minister in a public library that is poking the 00:05:05.560 --> 00:05:08.279 bear. It is a massive provocation because a library 00:05:08.279 --> 00:05:10.639 is a multi -use public space. You've got kids, 00:05:10.660 --> 00:05:13.480 families, seniors. It is not a secluded adults 00:05:13.480 --> 00:05:16.470 only fine art gallery. And that public nature 00:05:16.470 --> 00:05:18.810 is exactly what sparked the legal controversy. 00:05:19.129 --> 00:05:21.730 Enter Curtis Stewart. Yes, Curtis Stewart. And 00:05:21.730 --> 00:05:24.069 what's interesting is he wasn't even from Kingston. 00:05:24.430 --> 00:05:27.189 He was from St. Albert, Alberta. But he became 00:05:27.189 --> 00:05:29.430 aware of the painting, likely through the news 00:05:29.430 --> 00:05:32.620 coverage. And he took immense offense to it. 00:05:32.720 --> 00:05:34.600 He didn't just write a grumpy letter to the editor 00:05:34.600 --> 00:05:37.139 either. No, he escalated it to the highest possible 00:05:37.139 --> 00:05:40.639 level for this kind of thing. He lodged a formal 00:05:40.639 --> 00:05:43.439 human rights complaint against the library. With 00:05:43.439 --> 00:05:46.240 the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Exactly. Which, 00:05:46.319 --> 00:05:48.120 when I was reading the sources, just blew my 00:05:48.120 --> 00:05:50.699 mind. Because usually you think of human rights 00:05:50.699 --> 00:05:52.980 tribunals dealing with severe discrimination, 00:05:53.139 --> 00:05:56.519 housing, employment, access to basic services. 00:05:56.699 --> 00:05:59.100 Right. How does someone argue that looking at 00:05:59.100 --> 00:06:01.990 a painting... infringes on their human rights. 00:06:02.209 --> 00:06:04.230 His argument was essentially that the library, 00:06:04.509 --> 00:06:06.990 by choosing to display what he called risk art, 00:06:07.310 --> 00:06:09.910 was infringing on his rights. He felt it created 00:06:09.910 --> 00:06:12.370 an inappropriate or hostile environment in a 00:06:12.370 --> 00:06:14.569 public service building. He tried to frame the 00:06:14.569 --> 00:06:17.410 sheer act of encountering challenging art as 00:06:17.410 --> 00:06:20.050 a rights violation. Exactly. It wasn't just, 00:06:20.069 --> 00:06:22.250 I don't like this picture. It was a legal dispute 00:06:22.250 --> 00:06:24.290 over what is deemed appropriate for the public 00:06:24.290 --> 00:06:26.649 eye and whether a public institution has the 00:06:26.649 --> 00:06:29.529 right to display it. And if he had won that case, 00:06:30.110 --> 00:06:31.990 I mean, the precedent that would have set for 00:06:31.990 --> 00:06:35.029 public art in Canada is terrifying. It would 00:06:35.029 --> 00:06:37.509 have been incredibly chilling. Any controversial 00:06:37.509 --> 00:06:40.250 book, any provocative image could theoretically 00:06:40.250 --> 00:06:43.250 be challenged as a human rights violation just 00:06:43.250 --> 00:06:45.569 for being in a library. But it wasn't a quick 00:06:45.569 --> 00:06:48.550 dismissal, right? This dragged on. It took seven 00:06:48.550 --> 00:06:51.529 months. Seven months of legal limbo. Seven months 00:06:51.529 --> 00:06:54.189 where the library had to rigorously defend its 00:06:54.189 --> 00:06:57.310 right to host a juried art salon. But ultimately, 00:06:57.529 --> 00:07:00.250 the tribunal dismissed the complaint. They found 00:07:00.250 --> 00:07:02.610 that displaying the painting did not infringe 00:07:02.610 --> 00:07:05.250 on Stewart's human rights. Which is a huge victory 00:07:05.250 --> 00:07:08.089 for freedom of expression. It is. But honestly, 00:07:08.370 --> 00:07:11.259 for the artist Margaret Sutherland. This whole 00:07:11.259 --> 00:07:13.899 ordeal was basically the greatest marketing campaign 00:07:13.899 --> 00:07:16.600 money couldn't buy. Oh, it's the ultimate stray 00:07:16.600 --> 00:07:19.180 sand effect. Right. By trying to ban the painting, 00:07:19.459 --> 00:07:22.100 Stewart guaranteed that every major news outlet 00:07:22.100 --> 00:07:25.259 in Canada ran a story about the Harper nude. 00:07:25.769 --> 00:07:28.790 It went from being a local art piece in Kingston 00:07:28.790 --> 00:07:31.910 to a national talking point. Everyone had an 00:07:31.910 --> 00:07:34.490 opinion on it. And that level of infamy changes 00:07:34.490 --> 00:07:37.389 the physical object. It's no longer just oil 00:07:37.389 --> 00:07:40.509 on canvas. It has an aura now. It has a reputation. 00:07:40.829 --> 00:07:44.439 So after the salon closes. What happens to it? 00:07:44.480 --> 00:07:47.720 It goes up for sale. Yes. In June 2012, it sold 00:07:47.720 --> 00:07:50.500 through a traditional, respectable route. The 00:07:50.500 --> 00:07:52.899 Edward Day Gallery in Toronto. Right. It sold 00:07:52.899 --> 00:07:56.560 to a buyer named Daniel Potvin for $5 ,000. Which 00:07:56.560 --> 00:07:58.899 seems quite reasonable for a large, famous original 00:07:58.899 --> 00:08:01.459 piece. Definitely. But Potvin doesn't hold on 00:08:01.459 --> 00:08:03.759 to it forever. And this brings us to my absolute 00:08:03.759 --> 00:08:06.100 favorite part of the story. The Kijiji twist. 00:08:06.399 --> 00:08:09.540 It is so good. So, fast forward to the fall of 00:08:09.540 --> 00:08:12.199 2015. Stephen Harper's time as prime minister 00:08:12.199 --> 00:08:14.939 is winding down. The political landscape is shifting. 00:08:15.120 --> 00:08:17.439 And Danielle Potvin needs some extra money for 00:08:17.439 --> 00:08:19.480 home renovations. Such a beautifully mundane 00:08:19.480 --> 00:08:22.399 reason to sell a national scandal. Right. She's 00:08:22.399 --> 00:08:24.079 not trying to curate a museum collection. She 00:08:24.079 --> 00:08:26.439 just needs to fix up her house. Yeah. But she 00:08:26.439 --> 00:08:28.720 doesn't go back to a high -end gallery in Toronto. 00:08:29.480 --> 00:08:32.679 She doesn't call Sotheby's. She lists it on Kijiji. 00:08:32.840 --> 00:08:35.480 Kijiji. And for anyone listening outside of Canada, 00:08:35.720 --> 00:08:38.840 Kijiji is basically the standard online classified 00:08:38.840 --> 00:08:42.789 site. It's where you go to buy... A used lawnmower 00:08:42.789 --> 00:08:46.190 or like a gently used futon. It is the least 00:08:46.190 --> 00:08:48.250 pretentious marketplace on the internet. And 00:08:48.250 --> 00:08:52.370 she lists Emperor Haute Couture for $8 ,800? 00:08:52.909 --> 00:08:55.009 But she was very strategic about it. She didn't 00:08:55.009 --> 00:08:57.350 just post it in one local area. She listed it 00:08:57.350 --> 00:09:00.830 across major Canadian cities. Oh, she blanketed 00:09:00.830 --> 00:09:04.090 the country. Chicoutimi, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, 00:09:04.389 --> 00:09:07.610 Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver. She knew 00:09:07.610 --> 00:09:09.669 exactly what she had. She knew the controversy 00:09:09.669 --> 00:09:13.009 was baked into the value. And it worked. Because 00:09:13.009 --> 00:09:15.509 it didn't just sit there. A journalist named 00:09:15.509 --> 00:09:18.009 Janet G. Pruden wrote an article for the Edmonton 00:09:18.009 --> 00:09:20.889 Journal in November 2015. Highlighting the fact 00:09:20.889 --> 00:09:23.870 that this infamous nude portrait was just sitting 00:09:23.870 --> 00:09:26.309 there on Kijiji. And that media coverage sets 00:09:26.309 --> 00:09:28.629 off an actual bidding war. People suddenly realized 00:09:28.629 --> 00:09:30.509 they could own this piece of Canadian political 00:09:30.509 --> 00:09:32.820 history. So who ends up winning? Who buys the 00:09:32.820 --> 00:09:35.320 Gijiji Harper? The winner was a Vancouver -based 00:09:35.320 --> 00:09:37.960 technology entrepreneur named Frederick Garamani. 00:09:38.120 --> 00:09:41.279 A tech CEO in Vancouver. Yeah. Now, you might 00:09:41.279 --> 00:09:43.120 think a tech entrepreneur buying a controversial 00:09:43.120 --> 00:09:46.039 nude painting. He's just doing it for a laugh, 00:09:46.159 --> 00:09:48.940 like a weird trophy for the office. But his motivation 00:09:48.940 --> 00:09:51.659 was actually entirely different. He didn't buy 00:09:51.659 --> 00:09:54.320 it to hide it away or just to mock the former 00:09:54.320 --> 00:09:56.820 prime minister. He bought it with a specific 00:09:56.820 --> 00:09:59.879 mission. He wanted to share it. Yes. He stated 00:09:59.879 --> 00:10:02.080 he intended to share the painting with Canadian 00:10:02.080 --> 00:10:04.759 high schools and universities completely free 00:10:04.759 --> 00:10:06.539 of charge. He wanted it to be an educational 00:10:06.539 --> 00:10:09.399 tool. Exactly. He referred to Sutherland's work 00:10:09.399 --> 00:10:12.440 as a Canadian artifact. See, that's a really 00:10:12.440 --> 00:10:15.559 powerful word, artifact. It moves the painting 00:10:15.559 --> 00:10:19.399 out of the realm of is this good or bad art and 00:10:19.399 --> 00:10:22.759 into this is a historical document. Right. And 00:10:22.759 --> 00:10:24.620 his reasoning for why it's a historical document 00:10:24.620 --> 00:10:27.220 is fascinating. He felt the painting did a brilliant 00:10:27.220 --> 00:10:30.120 job capturing a very specific national mood. 00:10:30.320 --> 00:10:32.799 What did he say? He said it captured the mood 00:10:32.799 --> 00:10:35.179 of over 60 percent of Canadians who felt that 00:10:35.179 --> 00:10:36.799 the prime minister didn't want to listen to his 00:10:36.799 --> 00:10:39.940 own experts. Wow. So he is connecting the metaphor. 00:10:40.799 --> 00:10:43.980 of the painting The Emperor's New Clothes, the 00:10:43.980 --> 00:10:46.960 isolation, the vanity, directly to the political 00:10:46.960 --> 00:10:49.460 frustrations of that era. He's saying that this 00:10:49.460 --> 00:10:52.200 painting, despite being satirical and absurd, 00:10:52.559 --> 00:10:55.279 was actually a more accurate reflection of how 00:10:55.279 --> 00:10:58.120 the electorate felt than any official dignified 00:10:58.120 --> 00:11:01.039 photograph ever could be. That is such a profound 00:11:01.039 --> 00:11:03.700 way to look at it. To Margaret Sutherland, the 00:11:03.700 --> 00:11:06.399 artist, it was a critique. of gender representation 00:11:06.399 --> 00:11:08.519 in the cabinet. Right. But Curtis Stewart, the 00:11:08.519 --> 00:11:10.820 guy who filed the complaint, it was a scandalous, 00:11:10.820 --> 00:11:13.419 inappropriate image that threatened public spaces. 00:11:13.600 --> 00:11:15.940 And to Frederick Garamani, it's a historical 00:11:15.940 --> 00:11:19.259 artifact symbolizing a government ignoring expert 00:11:19.259 --> 00:11:22.179 advice. The painting just absorbs whatever the 00:11:22.179 --> 00:11:24.240 viewer brings to it. Which is the hallmark of 00:11:24.240 --> 00:11:26.779 truly effective art. It evolves. It really does. 00:11:26.960 --> 00:11:29.080 And I mean, just think about the sheer physical 00:11:29.080 --> 00:11:31.940 journey of this canvas. It starts in a studio. 00:11:32.720 --> 00:11:35.440 It hangs in a public library in Kingston. It 00:11:35.440 --> 00:11:37.620 gets dragged into a human rights tribunal. It 00:11:37.620 --> 00:11:39.700 gets sold at a fine art gallery. Then it probably 00:11:39.700 --> 00:11:41.980 hangs in a living room for a few years. Right. 00:11:42.259 --> 00:11:45.139 Then it gets listed online next to used snowboards 00:11:45.139 --> 00:11:48.399 on Kijiji. And finally, it gets shipped across 00:11:48.399 --> 00:11:51.159 the country to Vancouver to be an educational 00:11:51.159 --> 00:11:54.200 artifact. It's the ultimate modern Canadian story. 00:11:54.440 --> 00:11:57.519 It touches on high art, the legal limits of free 00:11:57.519 --> 00:12:00.100 speech, the internet marketplace, and political 00:12:00.100 --> 00:12:03.519 legacy. And the legal aspect really shouldn't 00:12:03.519 --> 00:12:06.200 be understated. No, not at all. That human rights 00:12:06.200 --> 00:12:10.279 tribunal decision is a serious footnote. Because 00:12:10.279 --> 00:12:12.759 if it had gone the other way, our public spaces 00:12:12.759 --> 00:12:15.659 would be so much more restricted. Libraries would 00:12:15.659 --> 00:12:17.919 have to second guess every single exhibition, 00:12:18.139 --> 00:12:21.139 terrified of offending one person. The painting 00:12:21.139 --> 00:12:23.480 actually helped solidify the protection of challenging 00:12:23.480 --> 00:12:26.179 discourse in public spaces. So a nude painting 00:12:26.179 --> 00:12:28.840 on a chaise lounge basically did heavy lifting 00:12:28.840 --> 00:12:30.700 for Canadian free expression. It really did. 00:12:31.129 --> 00:12:33.590 So as we wrap up this deep dive, I want to leave 00:12:33.590 --> 00:12:36.409 you with a thought to mull over. OK. We've spent 00:12:36.409 --> 00:12:38.269 this whole time talking about a physical object, 00:12:38.450 --> 00:12:41.490 a big, heavy three by five oil painting that 00:12:41.490 --> 00:12:43.669 you have to physically move from a gallery to 00:12:43.669 --> 00:12:46.649 a living room to a tech office. And it gained 00:12:46.649 --> 00:12:50.389 its value and its status as an artifact precisely 00:12:50.389 --> 00:12:52.889 because it existed in the physical world. It 00:12:52.889 --> 00:12:55.269 caused a stir in a real brick and mortar library. 00:12:55.490 --> 00:12:58.070 It confronted people in physical space. Exactly. 00:12:58.070 --> 00:13:01.039 But think about how political satire works. today. 00:13:01.080 --> 00:13:03.500 It's barely been over a decade, but the landscape 00:13:03.500 --> 00:13:05.679 has completely shifted. Oh, it's entirely digital 00:13:05.679 --> 00:13:08.039 now. Right. We don't really have oil paintings 00:13:08.039 --> 00:13:10.419 causing national scandals anymore. We have memes. 00:13:10.720 --> 00:13:14.139 Yeah. We have viral TikToks. We have AI generated 00:13:14.139 --> 00:13:17.299 images that flood our feeds for 24 hours and 00:13:17.299 --> 00:13:19.919 then just vanish. The cycle is infinitely faster 00:13:19.919 --> 00:13:22.460 and there's no physical canvas to buy on Kijiji. 00:13:22.559 --> 00:13:25.519 So here's the question. If a nude porn bit from 00:13:25.519 --> 00:13:29.259 2011 can evolve into a historical artifact worthy 00:13:29.259 --> 00:13:32.399 of being studied in universities, what happens 00:13:32.399 --> 00:13:35.659 to the digital satire of today? That is a fascinating 00:13:35.659 --> 00:13:39.100 point. Which internet meme or controversial Photoshop 00:13:39.100 --> 00:13:41.620 from right now is going to be viewed as the Emperor 00:13:41.620 --> 00:13:44.299 Who couture of the 2050s? Will future historians 00:13:44.299 --> 00:13:46.940 be analyzing a viral tweet with the same gravity 00:13:46.940 --> 00:13:49.460 that we analyze Margaret Sutherland's brushstrokes? 00:13:49.600 --> 00:13:51.759 Or does it all just disappear because it wasn't 00:13:51.759 --> 00:13:55.559 painted on canvas? Will we have virtual museums 00:13:55.559 --> 00:13:59.460 for controversial memes? Or is this era of satire 00:13:59.460 --> 00:14:02.779 just too ephemeral to survive? It really makes 00:14:02.779 --> 00:14:05.179 you rethink what constitutes a permanent historical 00:14:05.179 --> 00:14:08.320 document in the digital age. It definitely does. 00:14:08.399 --> 00:14:10.039 It's something to think about the next time you 00:14:10.039 --> 00:14:12.399 scroll past a political meme. Thank you so much 00:14:12.399 --> 00:14:14.379 for taking this deep dive with us today. It was 00:14:14.379 --> 00:14:15.679 a pleasure. We'll see you next time.