Episode Transcript
Episode 13, Part Two: More Degenerate Art, Please
Host: Matthew Remski
Guest: Sarah Jaffray
[00:00:08] Matthew Remski: Welcome patreons, to part two of episode 13, more degenerate art, Please with Sarah Jaffrey. I'm really grateful for your support, and I hope this project brings some joy and hope and utility to your ears and to your works and days. And I'll just reiterate that my plan for these parts. Part two's is to review and reflect a little beforehand on what I learned in part one, and then I'll roll the rest of the conversation with my guest today, it's Sarah, but then I'll return with some further reflections.
So what I took from the first part of my conversation with Sarah is the axiom that all art is political. Not because it announces a position or endorses a party or a set of policies, but because it makes the invisible visible. And in the era of Trump, she suggested, what has become truly transgressive is empathy itself.
Art that asks us to slow down, to spend time and to inhabit another person's experience runs directly against a culture organized around speed, distraction, and affective manipulation.
Now, a central theme of the discussion was time.
Sarah emphasized that art requires time to make and time to see.
Process matters, and artists learn by experimenting, failing, and discovering what they are making only as they make it.
And this is where her critique of AI becomes really, really poignant.
AI generated images bypass process.
They eliminate surprise. They reduce art to an outcome to be accepted or deleted.
And without uncertainty or discovery, there is no learning, there's no empathy, there's no transformation. There's only empty products optimized for speed and consumption.
We then step back into European art history to trace how modern art became entangled with resistance to fascism. Because after World War I, many artists recognized that realism, narrative, and beauty had been thoroughly conscripted by church, state, empire, and in response, movements like Dadaism, Surrealism, and the New Objectivism explicitly rejected those forms. They embraced disorientation, subjectivity, and experimentation in order to make art that was useless to power and faithful instead to lived experience.
This refusal is precisely why modern art became a target of fascist regimes. Artists such as Otto Dix and George Grosch were condemned for depicting disabled veterans, social decay and moral responsibility, truths fascism could not tolerate. In contrast, Hitler's own attachment to nostalgic beautiful ruin aesthetics revealed a broader authoritarian longing for a mythic past that never existed.
The episode ultimately returned to art as witness. Not art that reassures or flatters people in power, but art that records what it feels like to live in a particular time and place, insists that empathy, patience, and attention are still at the heart of the artistic endeavor. Here's part two of my conversation with Sarah Jaffrey.
[00:03:42] Matthew Remski: The fascist movement builds itself in part out of a kind of triumphalist victim complex emerging out of the First World War that is about the heroism of having survived despite your wounds.
But I guess it can't admit any kind of vulnerability or even a sense of like, well, we had a role in doing this. It has to maintain a kind of, we survive despite persecution.
We survived the front and then, of course, the humiliation of Versailles, but we are still intact. You couldn't be disabled in this society, I suppose.
[00:04:26] Sarah Jaffray: Yeah, that was what it was. Well, they have their slogan called the Enemy Within. So it wasn't them who did it, it was someone from within. They tended to blame the Jews, but they also blamed other people, the communists or whoever the enemy within is who caused the damnation. And so they want to clean up all the, the. The degeneracy of society.
And the. On the other hand, going on in Germany, are these artists saying, we love this because this is real life, this new objectivity, you know, and, and. But also not pulling any punches. I mean, they're not sentimental images at all, but. Yes, exactly. That is like, you know, this fake nostalgia for heroism is, is what, it's what the Nazis and fascists are all. All based upon.
[00:05:15] Matthew Remski: I think we'd be remiss to ignore the fact that Hitler's trying to make it as a painter himself.
And my understanding is I don't think I've seen any of them. I don't know if they're extant or not, but my understanding is that he's doing watercolored landscapes primarily.
And that's not necessarily in the sort of heroic or triumphalist vein that I would expect to come from the guy who goes on to hire Leni Riefenstahl to. To make his sort of images for the Reich. But was he trying to, in his art, do you think, offer a sense of like, I don't know, pastoral peace or restoration for a wounded nation or something like that?
[00:06:03] Sarah Jaffray: Absolutely. I mean, there's a whole genre of 19th century painting that he picks up on. It's called the Beautiful Ruin.
[00:06:11] Matthew Remski: The Beautiful Ruin.
[00:06:12] Sarah Jaffray: The Beautiful Ruin.
[00:06:14] Matthew Remski: That's very fascist too.
[00:06:15] Sarah Jaffray: It is.
That's them. They invented it. They wanted their architecture.
So with Albert Schwier to ruin beautifully. And so what Hitler's. Many of his paintings are. Are sort of decayed, like a decayed arena.
[00:06:28] Matthew Remski: Okay.
[00:06:29] Sarah Jaffray: And then like next to a modern building, they're still extant and they're they're hard to find online to share with people, but they're just basically look like.
Yeah, exactly that. They're, they're, they're. Some of them are oil paintings, some of them are watercolors, but they're this very kind of nostalgic 19th century architecture, beautiful ruin kind of thing.
[00:06:55] Matthew Remski: There's always kind of a mistaken historical impulse to overly psychologize somebody like this. But it seems very pertinent that his response or the regime's response to degenerate art comes from a very personal place. That somehow what he poured his own attention into was exactly what was derided and mocked and, you know, really just sort of trashed by this generation of artists that was saying, no, we have to do something else. We actually have to show the world as it is.
[00:07:33] Sarah Jaffray: Yeah. And that's again, this going back to what art is for. Right. The art was for these kind of powerful old systems, ancien regime kind of things. And these artists are saying, no, that's, that's not the way the world is anymore, or that's not the way that we want to make the world.
And so I still see people holding on to this notion of there is a good kind of art and that is what is going to raise our society up. This kind of. There's a lot of it in architecture.
So much in architecture.
And yeah, Hitler, he writes about it in Mein Kampf, which is such a boring book. But it's, you know, again, I don't want to over. At least psychologize like, you know, too many documentaries about him make him seem more fascinating than he actually was. But he entered, tried to go into the Austrian Academy of Painting and he was rejected. At the same time you have people like Gustav Klimt and Egon Schiele making what is incredibly modern and provocative art. And that's kind of what was there and what people wanted and was very timely. And he's still locked in. And he's still locked in this 19th century beautiful ruin. And it's not very good painting either. He's not very technically skilled, so it's.
But I still think it's not simply just personal about him, but it's this bigger societal thing, like this nostalgia for a past that never existed and for him because he was an artist. That's where he puts it.
Rather than him having a bone to pick with artists, I think he just knew art, if that makes sense.
[00:09:29] Matthew Remski: Yeah, well, I think that the sort of psychological analysis of like, oh my God, they made fun of me can probably be scaled up to the fact that there are, you know, countless middle class living rooms and dining rooms throughout the major urban centers of Germany that are filled with the beautiful ruins paintings at that time. And the people who live there are wondering what the hell is happening at the gallery down the street when the modern exhibition rolls through and they feel the sort of aesthet basis of their reality shaking.
[00:10:06] Sarah Jaffray: Yeah, there's part of that. There's. It's, it's interesting because I often get how many people like this modern stuff and they really liked it. A lot of really successful art. I'm not saying that it wasn't because like people in the Bauhaus had a hard time, a lot of time they were heavily criticized. But I think, you know, Berlin was a place where people could go and really be successful because this is like, this is what it feels like to live right now. And I see that. But yes, there is also always those people who are having the beautiful ruins on their wall and are wondering what is all this sort of thing. But I also say that people had more time and more energy to go look at art.
[00:10:47] Matthew Remski: I think one of the things that I'm missing too probably is the regional characteristic of all of this too. Where of course, Berlin during the Weimar.
[00:10:57] Matthew Remski: Period is like, this is where Brecht.
[00:10:59] Matthew Remski: Is and this is where like people are doing incredibly transgressive stuff.
And that's not where Adolf is finding his cultural juice, is it?
[00:11:10] Sarah Jaffray: No, it's Bavaria. He's in Bavaria. And that's really where he's targeting. And that's kind of that region there which is more rural, where people don't have as much access to that sort of thing. So it's all.
Again, I don't want to give him too much credit for calculating. I think there's a lot of happy accidents for him, sure.
But yeah, Germany's a huge country at this point. Massive, massive. But many of the artists who were in the cities, like especially Cologne and Berlin were incredibly successful being transgressive as they were.
[00:11:46] Matthew Remski: So there are a bunch of very popular social accounts on X and Instagram and TikTok these days that pretty much agree with the beautiful ruins take on art. They pretty much agree with, with, with Adolph's whole sort of aesthetic imagination.
What do these accounts do?
Why are they doing it and how can we spot them?
[00:12:14] Sarah Jaffray: The why are we doing it? Why are they doing it is a tricky one.
I'll have to think about that one. But how you spot them is quite easy. They usually have some sort of Classical statue as their profile pic.
[00:12:29] Matthew Remski: Right. Okay.
[00:12:30] Sarah Jaffray: Or like a Renaissance image.
And they bemoan the lack of artistic skill.
They will often put like an abstract painting, and then there might be someone, like a reel of someone just standing there looking at it, like, what is this? And it's just really, essentially, it's always talking about how there's one kind of great art.
[00:13:02] Matthew Remski: Yes.
[00:13:02] Sarah Jaffray: And that everything else is never going to meet that.
[00:13:06] Matthew Remski: Right.
[00:13:06] Sarah Jaffray: And it's always bemoaning, kind of the degenerating art world. Yeah. It's such similar language. And then it goes back to times that fascist love, which is classical Greece and Rome and the Italian Renaissance.
And then often, sometimes they'll put in some like 19th century orientalist paintings.
Because I can talk about the psychology of like this in the 19th century. Because fascism was rife in the 19th century as well.
[00:13:38] Matthew Remski: Sure.
[00:13:39] Sarah Jaffray: What is optically real is truer, more factual than something that is abstract. And when something's abstract, you're getting too much into chaos.
And so what we have is like this pretend that the world was organized, that we had strong leaders, that we had order because the art was more realistic.
And so when you get to a completely abstract painting, they. They like, there's no technical skill here. And it's completely not true. I have students who say this all the time.
Where's the skill?
And I say, what do you mean by skill?
And they always mean optical replication. That's what they all. And I'm. This is the why that I'm trying to figure out as a teacher. Why does that equal skill?
Because you have certain abstract painters, like Rothko, who are masters at making paint glow in different kinds of light. That's a skill.
[00:14:47] Matthew Remski: Yeah. And just for anybody who has ever tried to do anything like that, because you think that somehow that would be a nice way to start your art.
[00:14:56] Matthew Remski: Career or something like that.
[00:14:57] Matthew Remski: There is no way of faking that. There's no way of pretending to sort of. I'm going to do some color blocks and they'll be sort of like blurry at the edges and they'll be variegated or whatever. There's just. No. There's no way of doing that.
[00:15:15] Sarah Jaffray: No.
[00:15:15] Matthew Remski: Easily.
[00:15:16] Matthew Remski: No.
[00:15:16] Sarah Jaffray: Again, we have the sliding scale of, like, what is good and correct.
And I strongly believe it was formed in the 1930s. And I don't want to tell everyone they're a fascist because. But they honestly, this kind of obsession we have with optical reality trickles down into our education system. It's the way that artists are taught at school.
And it's. You're always telling people that this is like replicating what's in front of you is more truthful and therefore the art is more useful.
It's just this. That's what these accounts are often telling.
[00:15:53] Matthew Remski: Us, but it's never replicating what's in front of them. No, no, it's not about optical replication. It's usually about idealization.
I'm going to make a leap here, and I'm wondering whether the. Why they're doing it, why they're making this explicit argument that optical replication actually is truer, or it's more based in reality, is that it allows them to express essentialized values around things like what is the human form?
Maybe more specifically, what is the female human form?
How are women exactly supposed to look? How are men exactly supposed to look? And if they don't, then what has happened? Right.
[00:16:40] Matthew Remski: I have this sense.
[00:16:41] Matthew Remski: I don't know if this is too much of a leap, but I think the recent ridiculous controversy over Sydney Sweeney being sort of camera panned in her jeans advertisement is a kind of commentary on the sort of use of aesthetics to essentialize what women are or what a woman's body should be or something like that. And if those edges become fuzzy, if we don't exactly know what we're looking at, if we have to interpret or if there's some sort of engagement or dialogue with the image, then that falls away. We have to be told, or I guess the, you know, the Bronze Age X account or whatever has to tell you exactly what reality is or what an object is. And if they don't, then they don't really know whether you're living in the same world that they are. And then how would you actually. How would they actually politically control you?
[00:17:46] Sarah Jaffray: Yeah, no, I, I think there's a. That, that's exactly it. It's like it goes down to, you know, what is beautiful and, and, and, and what is beauty is goodness.
And that's kind of this very institutional control. Beauty is goodness. Set the standard. There is a type of beauty, and this is what it is. And that's what art history is based upon that. I mean, the very first art historian in the 1750s was writing about how classical Greece was. If we want to be great, we have to imitate the Greeks. And he made this massive essay on how beautiful Greek men's bodies were.
And he had no knowledge of, like, Greece itself. He just based what he knew on the beauty he saw.
[00:18:33] Matthew Remski: And he's assuming that they're making photorealistic.
[00:18:36] Matthew Remski: Sculptures of Greek people then.
[00:18:38] Matthew Remski: But that's.
[00:18:38] Matthew Remski: There's no evidence for that.
[00:18:39] Sarah Jaffray: No, none.
[00:18:40] Matthew Remski: Right.
[00:18:40] Sarah Jaffray: None. Well, we know that they were making idealized forms, because if you look at Greek vases, there's people with, you know, unidealized bodies and vomiting and doing many very, very bodily things in these. So the spaces of these. It's a space of control, essentially.
[00:19:02] Matthew Remski: The pottery, if you have some more sort of, you know, realistic representations of people.
We're also talking about the money and class differences involved in various types of art production and what gets preserved versus what doesn't. So the statues that hang around in the pantheon or whatever are going to be institutionally protected, and we come to somehow mistakenly feel that they represent human bodily forms of that period. But actually, the pots have all been broken where the paintings of, like, the regular dudes hanging around are in full display.
[00:19:46] Matthew Remski: Is that fair?
[00:19:47] Sarah Jaffray: Absolutely. That's what art history is. Art history is, again, holding power to account, you know. Yeah, exactly. That when you preserve something, you are deciding that is important for people to remember, and that usually the people who get to choose what is remembered are the people in power.
And so that's. Again, this kind of artists in the 20th century have more power than they did in previous centuries individually. So what the Nazis and the fascists trying to do is wrest power away from them and say, no, this is correct art.
This is. This is. This is our visual culture. This is our visual language. It's the same thing that Trump is doing with all the eagles.
And I've never seen so many eagles and flags. And I'm thinking.
I just. I mean, I know that's always been there, but I don't. I haven't seen them in so many numbers of it. Just. And so, yeah, you're taking control of the wider visual culture, and you're asserting that, yes, the Sydney Sweeney, the Eagles, all that, that's what we are going to do.
And when you visualize, you have power over people's memories.
You get to.
You have power over future memory. And so I think that that's the importance of art here, is that if you are trying to tell us what is good art, you are trying to erase people's memory of what art can be. I know that sounds quite fatalistic and, like, you know, very grand, but that's. As a historian, that's what I always think about.
[00:21:22] Matthew Remski: That's very profound, actually, because going back to the top of our conversation, you opened with, you know, artists make the invisible visible.
And if, let's say, the $200 million ballroom that, you know, Trump is building onto the White House right now is. Is a series of kind of visualizations of what the American future should be. According to him, then that is actually bringing something that is invisible into visibility, and it's kind of predicting the future through aesthetics. I hadn't really thought of, you know, style actually as being a way in which history can be pushed or channeled.
[00:22:10] Matthew Remski: Forward, but, yeah, I agree with you.
[00:22:12] Sarah Jaffray: Yeah, you have to. You have to always have to reckon with it. And so if historians begin to write about it, they're talking about what future memory will be. And so you. You make something, it's going to be talked about and thought about, and interestingly enough, and I've forgotten her name.
But the woman who's in charge of Project Esther, The Next Project 2025, is an art historian.
[00:22:33] Matthew Remski: Oh, my God.
[00:22:34] Sarah Jaffray: Who wrote a book. Yeah. Who wrote a book about the 10 most important things. And of course, you've got the David and you have, like the classical Greek. Yeah. So we artists, Art is very.
It's always served power. And, and one of the things is that modern artists don't serve power, which is why I think they're vulnerable. Like, you know, they're weak, they're. They're, they're too woke, they're too sensitive.
And people want to see the strong glorification, or at least these, These accounts do. I don't think most people do. I think most people respond to Rothko's in positive ways. But I still think that, you know, what we continually put out there, and if, you know, there's an attempt to say, no, that's bad, that's bad. This is good, this is eternal. It's not.
[00:23:31] Matthew Remski: You know, it makes me want to look on Mamdani's campaign and see if he's got a job opening for art historian and whether or not you want to apply.
[00:23:38] Sarah Jaffray: Yeah, I think it's really. I think people don't really realize how important art history is because, yeah, they think art is just like all. Just artists enjoying themselves, but it's serious historical documents.
[00:23:53] Matthew Remski: Yeah.
Rounding up and turning to young people again.
I think most baby anti fascists know a lot of stuff about art already. I think they know that it can reveal the world through new political lenses. I think they know that it can break patterns of cultural indoctrination. I think they know that it can offer the vision of a world apart from capitalism.
I want to know from you who you think young people should best learn from these days and how can they best nurture all of those values?
[00:24:31] Sarah Jaffray: I always go back to who inspired me, which are the surrealists.
In the 1920s, they were a group of artists, not perfect, not heroes, never want to glorify people. They're human beings. So they made mistakes, but they genuinely believed that the response to an insane world was to be insane, and that was not the wrong way to be.
And they experimented with materials. They created a community of people, hundreds, dozens of people that then became international, trying to dismantle power that they felt had.
They felt had stifled them.
And freedom, that's all they cared about. That was in their manifesto, freedom. So what does that mean? It means just play, experiment, make art. Don't worry about correctness, don't worry about who's going to purchase it. And so these are the people that really inspire me. And then where it goes from there are it goes to Mexico most profoundly. And a lot of women artists from the Surrealist movement who felt liberated by the gender norms that the Surrealists tried to dissolve.
So we see a lot of early feminism emerging out of the Surrealist movement and in the United States, particularly the Harlem Renaissance artists in particular, Elizabeth Catlett, I if you don't know, go look her up. She's incredible political. She wrote the very. She made the very first series of images about black women's lives in the United states in the 40s.
Jacob Lawrence as well.
Jacob Lawrence is a gift of an artist who tells us real American history, because, again, history is memory. So if they want to get rid of the memory, they can burn their books. It's really hard to burn an artwork.
And so in these places, we can really look at these artists who were living in this time of great transition and learn from them.
And for a contemporary artist, I think Kara Walker is extraordinary and does a lot of historical research.
And her works are dark, darkly funny, but also give us the scope of how we arrived at where we are today. So there's a lot of amazing artists who are very, very political, who are inspirational.
[00:27:02] Matthew Remski: Sarah Jaffrey, thank you so much for joining us here on Anti Fascist. Dad, it's been fantastic.
[00:27:08] Sarah Jaffray: Thank you very much, Matthew, for having.
[00:27:14] Matthew Remski: You know, I was really happy to finish that discussion with Sarah with her advice for young artists, because it got me thinking about whether I have any advice for young writers. And I think I might.
These first three bits come from mentors of mine.
Now, I reference the first in our discussion. This was when I was 17. I went to an alternative high school here in Toronto called Seed, which in the late 1980s was just packed full of punk and grunge and goth kids.
Many of us didn't fit into the mainstream school system because we were neurodivergent or we couldn't tolerate the rote learning.
And then there was also a cohort of kids who needed SEED to be a safe home away from home. And so alternative or radical ways of educating and learning merged with an awareness of neglect, poverty, institutional abuse, or just being rejected by family because you were queer.
One of my teachers there was named Luciano Iacobelli. He came from the Italian immigrant working class community here in Toronto and he arrived at fiction and poetry through the death of his mother and a stint with the Hari Krishnas.
He was an incredible teacher, but we also became friends and eventually lived in the same rooming house, staying up late, reading books and talking about poetry. He was always supportive of my work and his advice was always more psychological than technical. In that Jaffrey realm of making the invisible visible, he used to say, whatever you do, do not become a parody of yourself. If what you write does not surprise you, you should notice that now being willing to be surprised involves a loose or generous relationship to time. And I think this goes for all creative work, but also for journalism and theory and. And one of the great uninterrogated qualities of the TikTok age, I think, is that we're assessed and encouraged to judge each other on the first five seconds of a reel for its scroll stopping potential.
What that means, however, is that you have to come in hard with your hook or a visual hack. And while these can be very artful, if the driving force is assertiveness is please pay attention to me right now we're probably not dealing with the more tender strangenesses of our minds that are actually creative.
And I think if you listen carefully, you can hear that edge everywhere. There's a paradox too, because as social fragmentation has increased, the need for self certainty in that isolation has also increased.
Now, a few years after my classes with Luciano, I was struggling with my first novel and I interviewed the novelist and poet Lynne Crosby. She's here in Toronto for the midnight radio show I was running at the time at ciut, the University of Toronto radio station. So we met at a cafe before the show and I told her all my troubles with the blank page. And she looked at me and said, you know, sometimes I think it's when we're doing nothing that the deepest work happens.
You're bored, you're watching tv, but something is working itself out inside you.
Now by the way she wasn't giving depression a pass here, I think she was addressing the depressive aspects of wondering what comes next in a creative flow.
It also helped that she was part of an emerging community at that time, this is the 90s now, that was very open about mental health challenges.
There was a tendency to draw on depression and anxiety as a kind of aesthetic mine.
And as Sarah Jaffrey pointed out, that goes back as a popular movement to at least the end of the First World War. But there are liabilities to that, because I remember I had one very good writing friend who said, you know, if I go to therapy, I won't be interesting anymore.
Now, I'm going a little bit out of order here, but I want to go next to my second year at U of T, where I fell in with a creative writing that met at a little cafe every month. And at the time it was run by a guy named Steven Pender, who's now a literature Prof. At University of Windsor. He'd also been a TA of mine and not terribly impressed with my essays, I think. But he was the first serious Marxist thinker I had met and really talked to at any length. And he took me aside one evening at the cafe after I'd read some of my poems for the group, and he asked me whether I was writing for myself or for others.
And nobody had asked me that. I'd never thought of it.
And he went on to say that basically, in his opinion, the best use of poetry in fiction was to see and respond to power from the suffering it causes, to decrease alienation and to nurture solidarity amongst the readership.
And I think this was incredibly unique and provocative for me at the time because there were many postmodern influences floating around or in the water we were swimming in that held that type of explicit political intentionality with a kind of irony, or at least suspicion.
Now, the last one for now is that every writer or creator is going to go through some kind of seemingly insurmountable challenge.
Mental health issues, loss of employment, death in the family, childbirth, new parenthood, economic.
[00:33:04] Matthew Remski: Collapse in the broader culture.
[00:33:06] Matthew Remski: My version of this was a long period of depression in which I was socially vulnerable, and I got drawn into two successive cults.
Now, the religions involved gave me a kind of unstable relief from my own inner life.
But as with any heavy ideology that demands intellectual narrowness and fills your head up with jargon, it's very easy to lose contact with your inner voice. And what's weird is that you might not know that that's happened.
Unless you start listening for it again and you notice that there's nothing there.
And there was a paradox with the religious influences involved in these groups as well, because one of them was Buddhist. And a lot of the self regulation techniques were about making your mind quiet or attempting to empty it out and then rest in that emptiness.
Now this is definitely helpful if you need to slow things down internally, but it's not so good if you need to connect with your values and passions and with other people.
As I reintegrated into the non cult world, I wondered for a while whether my own internal music had just been scrubbed away.
There was something about the blank laptop screen that didn't help. It seemed to reinforce the blank sensation in my mind.
So I got a large blank notebook and a pack of black rollerball pens and I committed to one hour every day of writing by hand.
But it really took off when I gave myself the added challenge of writing in cursive and not letting my pen leave the page.
Now, I don't think that this was magic. I don't really believe in any kind of self help magic. I think all of these little kind of techniques do something while you're trying them, but that that activity interacts with your own renewed sense of effort or commitment and maybe a bunch of other positive things that you're turning towards, including new communities that are engaged with and mutually supportive of art or your creativity.
But there was something about it, even if it was just a metaphor about this material contact between my pen and the paper that helped restore a sense of contact within myself.
Now I think the access to that material experience might be a little less obvious as the digitization of the world is now almost complete. Maybe a little less accessible.
But you know what? There's an awful lot of maker culture.
[00:35:49] Matthew Remski: On the rise too.
[00:35:50] Matthew Remski: If you're hanging out on TikTok or Instagram, you're going to see knitting clubs and woodworking clubs and people doing beading projects and all kinds of handiwork.
I think the pen and paper will be available after the AI firms buy up all the RAM and we can't fix our computers anymore.
And while I think that trauma can silence some internal voices forever, I also think that the inner voice can be stubborn and in hiding and waiting, in silence to be called back out.
Thanks for listening, everybody. Do take care of each other.
[00:36:36] Sarah Jaffray: Sam.
