How many ways can you tape a banana to a wall?

Hello everyone. Welcome back to Bye Amara. This is a weekly news show where we'll discuss some of the weird, strange, and downright odd things that have happened this week.

I'm your host and personal curator, Amara Andrew. This week, we're talking about how scientists have found the animal that maybe our collective common ancestor. Can your political ideologies be changed with art?

And just how many ways can you tape a banana to a wall? We have all that and more coming up on this episode of Bye Amara. Let's get to it.

I froze because I think I was thinking of how many ways you can actually tape a banana to a wall. Anyway, welcome to this very special episode. I guess they're all very special episodes of Bye Amara.

This is episode 37. I was talking to Jeff just this morning. I am on track to have

The 50th episode be on the exact one-year anniversary of when I first published the first episode of this podcast. I can't believe it's been this long. I'm delinquent.

I missed a couple weeks. However, it is beyond crazy that I have actually stuck with this that long and I'm very much enjoying it. It's like one of those things that I just look forward to every week, so I don't know.

I'm very excited to have this podcast. So this is the part of the show

Called updates where I sometimes update you about things we've talked about in the past. I don't currently have any updates for things, episodes passed. However, I also just talk about personal life things, which I know probably bores you to death, but you can zoom ahead if you don't give a fuck.

That is totally up to you. So, this week has been still a catch up client week. I'm finally caught up with client

Things just in time to shoot with more people. But that is totally fine. That is what I am here to do and I really love it.

Jeff and I actually started a new podcast this week. We were talking well, we talk a lot about business things because that is what both of us really love, really enjoy and that is what we are doing is growing my business MAVEN, which hence the shirt that I'm wearing right now. And it's just something that we're constantly talking about all these different ideas and then we were like, "We should just start recording these

Conversations that we're having with each other, and then maybe in the future, also with like clients that I have or just random other people that we know, like and trust, and all those different things." So, that is why we have started a brand new podcast called What is MAVEN. It is on my YouTube channel. You can also just find it wherever you get your podcasts.

Basically, the podcast is geared toward real estate professionals specifically, just because that's mostly who I am working with in my videography business, but

It could just be for any sort of small business owner or entrepreneur who's kind of looking for like a little kick in the pants. Mostly what we're going to talk about is, you know, how to get started in your business, how to keep going, how to stay motivated, how to create tons of social media content because that is like my bread and butter, how to find your brand, how to find this, how to find that, just all these various different ideas.

I think in our next episode we're going to be talking about how influencerships might be dead. So, that's a little teaser right there. But

Anyway, we posted our first episode and it was very fun. We have a whole, it's a very, very casual sort of set up. We literally sat I'm pointing if you are listening to this, I'm pointing in the video, we sat on the couch and just hit record right before I was about to go to bed.

So, I'm a little sleepy in that episode. It was It was very fun. We had a good time.

We also have a hotline for the episode, also. So, if you have any questions, I'm just cross-promoting right here,

But if you have any trouble with your business, or your social media, or you just have a general question, you can actually leave a numb a voicemail on our MAVEN hotline number. The number is 530 MAVEN 11. So, that's 530-628-3611 and you will You may or may not be featured on the show depending on what your voicemail and or question is.

So, I just figured I'd promote that in here just in case that's something that also interests you if you're listening to this podcast.

So, that is basically that. Oh, this past week, I don't know if you've ever done this. I've read posts where people, this is something totally separate, I'm done talking about What is MAVEN.

On to a new topic. I've never done this before, but I was outside. It was really nice here in Chicago, but now all of a sudden it's 60° and raining and it's just total shit weather right now.

It's almost the end of June. It should be nice by now. But anyway, I digress.

When I was laying outside, I was reading a book and normally I don't hold things above my face, but I have this app where I love reading books. I've always been a huge book nerd. My mom's a librarian, so I'm just I am a book nerd galore, but I love reading outside in the morning.

That's how I get started and I drink coffee and it's like a wonderful little ritual. But then I also have an app called Readwise where you can copy pages and passages from a book

Where you can either like take a photo or do the text, like type the text in or whatever. And then that the app will send you a notification every day and you can review your passages. It's really handy.

I love it. It's free for like maybe a month or something like that. And then afterward you have to pay for the trial.

Fabulous, definitely worth it. I really love it because then it kind of gets my creative juices flowing like, " okay. I forgot about this principle or I forgot about that," or whatever.

It's just really fun. I like it. Anyway,

When I'm reading, I always have my phone nearby so that I can put those passages in, even though everything is always on do not disturb because I don't like to have any disruption while I'm trying to like work. So, I was reading my book and I have a couple book recommendations, also, which I'm getting to. And I was just doing that.

Normally when I'm typing something into my phone, I sit up and I just type into it, type into it. Duh, what else are you going to do? But normally I sit up and then I type, but, you know, I was just already laying down and I was like, " whatever.

I'm just going to hold it up here." I dropped the phone

Square on my fucking nose. I heard a crack. It hurt so bad.

I thought I broke my nose. Thankfully, I didn't. Spoiler alert, but I sprang up and Jeff happened to be up at the same time as I was because normally he sleeps a little bit later than I do.

He's like, "What? What is it? Are you okay?" And I was like, "Jesus Christ, fucking shit!" And I was just screaming every obscenity I think I've ever heard and thought of just out loud because it hurt so bad.

I genuinely thought I broke my nose. I think it's fine. It still hurts and that was

Almost a week ago already, which is insane. But, yeah, it was like right here and or about here, and it dropped smack, so maybe like six or seven inches away from my face. So, anyway, that was a fun thing that has happened to me this week.

Besides that, oh, I teased I have a couple book recommendations. I love borrowing books from the library. The library is like one of the best resources out there, just F.Y.I.

If you ever need anything. But I

Always use our local library and I checked out the book Outlive by Peter Attia. Fabulous, really interesting book if you're curious about how to optimize your human your human animal, if you will, and it was just a really great book. I don't have a specific thing that I'm pointing to because also I had to return it before I was finished with it because it's it's a thick ass book.

It is filled with great knowledge, but if you're curious about anything at all, I highly recommend it. Of course, every most people know about him already, blah, blah, blah. And then another book I'm reading is called Influence by Robert, well, I say Cialdini,

But it's probably like Cialdini or something like that, but that is also a really great book, just to understand how people and things influence you and how you can also just use those mechanisms for yourself in your practice of whatever you do. So, two book recommendations right there, and also Jeff and I don't watch a lot of fictional TV.

It's just not really our thing. We mostly like documentaries and stuff, which actually, we did just watch one. This Is How We Work,

What's it called? So, the other documentary we started watching, we watch an episode at dinner just because it's like our little chill out practice, but it's called What We Do All Day and it basically tracks various levels of workers, so like kind of like low to high sort of worker things, but it just tracks how different people have different jobs and kind of what that encompasses.

It was a really interesting docuseries that

Was very good. So, we watched that, but what I'm getting to is, my god, I'm like all over the place right now, but what I'm getting to is that we started watching a fictional show, which I we're not very big fiction people personally. Like we like to learn things and like do more things, which there's nothing bad about fiction.

Like if you like it, you do it, but that is not where either of us thrive. Anyway, Jeff had read this book series, The Wool series. I forget who the author is, but there's a TV show on Apple,

Apple TV+ and it's called Silo. Really great show. I am absolutely addicted to it.

It's a very phenomenal sci-fi weird show. I like how it's breaking down class structures and hierarchies and all that kind of stuff, and just showing like you don't know what's going on and, I don't know, it's a very good TV show, so I would just recommend that, also. So, anyway, I don't know why I'm recommending things, but I just thought I should.

So, without further ado, you're probably like, "Can you just shut the hell up and get to the story?" So, let's just get into the show.

All animals on Earth share a common ancestor. Scientists may have just found the first animal that branched off from our collective common ancestor. So, for years, the debate has raged in the scientific community about whether the first to diverge from this shared ancestor were sea sponges or comb jellies.

Sea sponges are a family of animals and there are fossils of them dating back to over 600 million years ago. And I believe right now there are like between 5,000 and 10,000 known species of sponges.

Comb jellies, there are between 100 to 150 known species of these jellies, which is very funny because my best friend from high school, her last name is Jellies, so I keep just thinking of her. So, 100 to 150 known species of comb jellies and then they also have fossils dating back to over 600 million years ago. So, these were two top chicken contenders right there.

So, thanks to new chromosomal analysis techniques,

Scientists are now able to put the feud to rest and we do have an answer. First, a little bit of backstory and how we got to this specific answer. Scientists have pieced together the animal, quote, "tree of life" where you can see how certain animals branched off from each other and created new branches, but scientists have been trying to figure out, "Okay, when and where was this first branch off?" It's believed that this took place 600 million years ago, which is why comb jellies and sea sponges were the top contenders.

But everything else is has been a little bit fuzzy. Well, scientists analyzed the chromosomes of both sponges and comb jellies to look at not just what genes each animal had, but where those genes were located on the creature's chromosomes. So, as a creature evolves, the chromosomes will rearrange and genes will move around with time, but once they move, it's almost impossible for the genes to go back to the original position that is.

This means that the animal that showed the least amount of reshuffling on their genes on chromosomes

Must have evolved into existence first. So, first evolved equals first split. In both the comb jellies and the sea sponges, researchers found 14 groups of genes located in separate chromosomes, but they found in sea sponges that those 14 groups had been rearranged into seven groups, indicating that the split off from the original genome was later than the comb jellies, meaning that the comb jellies were the first to split off,

Making them the first to branch off from that tree of life. So, that is a really interesting, cool new find, mostly because it's been hotly contested between scientists in the community, but then also because this will allow us to have, you know, new information about human evolution and we can learn a little bit more about, you know, the mechanisms about evolution and different animals and things like that.

So, it's just really interesting to know. I personally am not a scientist, so I don't have all the proper language and

Thought around this specific thing. I just thought it was a really cool story just to be able to share it with people, so we have the comb jellies to thank, I suppose. I also am wondering now how this happened and what sort of led to this, which I guess hopefully with more time scientists will be able to answer that question, but yeah, so for now, we know that comb jellies may have been the first branch off of this tree of life.

So, on to our next story.

Can art change a person's political beliefs? Well, a new study is pointing to seemingly yes. A study was conducted to figure out whether art could ease and sort of lessen the political divide on the issue of climate change specifically.

This is a very, very, very interesting study, so bear with me. I promise there is a payoff because it is it is interesting. Researchers from the University of Wisconsin partnered with the non-profit EcoAgriculture Partners to deliver conduct their research.

They published their work in the journal Communications Earth & Environment.

The study began after one of the researchers heard artist Diane Burko speak about how her practice centers around climate change and then how she the artist herself pondered the real world impact of her work. So, one of the scientists was like, "Yeah, let's figure it out. Let's see where this goes." So, in the artist's work, in Burko's work, she specifically depicts the consequences of global warming or global warming, Earth's warming.

And so she uses imagery like melting glaciers and disappearing coral reefs and stuff like that, and then juxtaposes that or shows it in addition to various different graphs that are showing, you know, these are all these different levels that are rising, these are the ones that are lowering, and this is how we need to be, and all those fun, wonderful things, aka scientific maps and charts.

So, a researcher who kind of seems to have started this entire initiative decided to create a study using Burko's 2020 piece Summer Heat

To test how people do actually respond to this work. Within the piece, the blue supposedly, and I have an image up, if you are listening to this, go Google it because it is a really interesting looking piece. It's also very interesting that they're both red and blue in there because those are the primary political parties here in the United States.

I just thought that was an interesting part of this piece, I guess. The blue in this piece represents melting glaciers, while the red is Europe when it suffered an intense heat wave in 2020, I guess.

And this specific piece is to show, quote, "the causes and effects of climate change and how they're crashing into each other." In the bottom right corner of the piece, there's also a Keeling curve, and that is supposed to show the carbon dioxide the raise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958. So, back to this study.

In the study, 671 people were surveyed. They were shown four different images and they were all different from each other. So, each participant was shown

To start I believe in this study, they were shown these four images. The first one was just the art piece, completely original, unedited, nothing changed, just the literal art piece. And this original art piece had a less detailed Keeling graph on it, so it didn't have all numbers and things like that.

In the second piece, it was an edited version of the original artwork, but it had a more detailed Keeling graph at the bottom. The third image that these people were shown was an edited, simplified Keeling graph, so just the graph, no art, no anything, just literally rectangle, white, you know, you know what a graph looks like, it's just a very blah kind of image.

And then finally, the fourth image that they were shown that was part of this part of the study was the full detailed Keeling graph. After that, participants were also shown all of these images, but as an Instagram post, which was really interesting. So, they created a fake doctored version of these, so it looked like it came from Instagram, and then it had a little description beneath each image.

So, it just looked like it was an actual post. I believe I read in the study that was done because a lot of scientists, the way that they can communicate with the general public now is through social media. So, then I guess it was to see

If people trusted Instagram more than they trusted just these random images without like a lot of context, I guess, outside of just the image itself. For the study, researchers chose people from varying political backgrounds. The researchers stated within the study that they were pre- predominantly looking at how liberal Democrats versus conservative Republicans would interpret the data or the images that they were shown.

The researchers even quoted an earlier eye-tracking study, which is fascinating,

That found, when looking at a line graph featuring global temperature change, liberal Democrats paid more attention to the rising phase than the flat phase of the temperature curve, while the opposite was true for conservatives. So, already, there's a discrepancy in data. However, when the graph was framed as unrelated to climate change, liberals and conservatives saw exactly the same thing.

So, knowing the context behind something drastically changed the way that people looked at something and interpreted something

Versus not knowing any context to it and it was just like, "Oh, just look at this." So, what was inferred from that eye-tracking study was that political motivations drove selective attention to graphical evidence and the overuse of graphs that actually exacerbated political division. But that is a totally different study, we're not going to focus on that one too much.

We're only using that as the basis for this art study. It's just a very interesting phenomenon, I guess I'll call it. So, the researchers within the art study wanted to find

If the data was sort of decontextualized or abstracted, if that had a change on how political parties were able to view it. Like, all from race, religion, age, political ideologies, everything. How do people interpret all this data and why is there such a division when talking about these specific things?

And the findings of the research are very interesting and very surprising. A little bit surprising. I shouldn't build it up so much.

Researchers found, so they found a few different things, which we're going to talk about, but one of the main points was that they discovered that participants perceived Burko's artwork, so the red and the blue and then the graph that was not as detailed in the bottom right corner,

They found her artwork more credible than a standalone graph, which is very surprising to me. The artistic representations of data elicited stronger emotional responses than data graphs. However, this is where it gets swayed.

People with less art interest were more swayed by the data graphs than people with more art interest who had a stronger emotional response to artistic visualizations. In the study, they also outlined what questions they asked to figure out if somebody was actually into art. It was like, "I talk about visual art often with people," which is so funny because I would actually answer no, because I don't have a lot of people that I'm surrounded by who talk about visual art that often.

I mean, my boyfriend and I talk about visual art, but otherwise, in the greater community that I have, not really. It shows how imperfect most studies are, so I just I found this as a whole a very interesting idea,

But it's still very imperfect, which I guess is why you need so many different people in your study. So, like I said, there are even more interesting, surprising finds. The researchers also wondered if people would be less politically polarized by climate change when they looked at Burko's piece versus just the Keeling curve.

They did find that people moved

From along the entire political spectrum, they moved more toward the middle, but this was only observed once they had asked the participants directly to reflect on how Burko's artwork made them feel. So, just looking at the piece didn't change any of their ideologies about climate change, but when actually asked directly by people, "How do you feel?" it seemingly changed.

Like I said, a lot of imperfections within a study, because it is difficult, like you're you're asking people to be true and genuine and authentic in kind of like an inauthentic setting, so

There are some things that might not be totally accurate, I guess I'll say for lack of a better term, but I just thought it was a really interesting thought. Like, maybe we just need to be open and talk to each other and not think about like, " you're you're a this and you're a that," and just have an actual discussion.

So, anyway, I'm not going to stand on my little soapbox. So, at the end of their study, the researchers did caution that those who use their findings should aim to use this info to find, quote, "alternative visual discourses infused with hope, and community participatory creation of art,

May be more effective in mitigating political polarization in the US on the issue of climate change." So, TLDR, jury's still out. Maybe visuals will help people, because it's kind of like learning, where you have various different learning styles. Like I, personally, am way more of a visual learner, so I also would like the artwork a lot better than just seeing a graph, just because I have a natural aversion to that kind of cold, non-welldesigned look.

Like, I would prefer something much more visually appealing. But also, I had terrible experiences with science teachers growing up, so like I'm not going to be like, "Oh, yeah, I love science." Like, I hated most of my teachers because they were such dick bags. But anyway, that is my own personal problem.

So, I'm curious to see if there are any more studies that could be centered around this, just because it feels like it's almost kind of like incomplete in a way, but I don't know. So, on to our next and final story.

So, you may have heard the old adage, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." But is there more than one way to tape a banana to a wall and call it art? Well, a judge in Miami might say yes.

So, in episode 32, we talked about how a hungry student in Seoul in South Korea took Maurizio Cattelan's piece Comedian, took it off the wall, ate it, and glued taped the peel back up to the wall. In case you have no idea also what Comedian is, it is an art piece that is literally a slightly overripened banana that was duct taped to a wall with like silver duct tape.

Just that is the piece, that is it. It debuted at Art Basel Miami in 2019 and it sold for $120,000. So, back in episode 32, we talked about the student that ate it and this isn't the first person that's eaten that art piece either, but I digress, go listen to that episode.

In that episode though, we briefly talked about the artist who is suing Cattelan for stealing their idea for the artwork. Well, now we have an even more full, comprehensive story for that. So, a Miami federal judge ruled in favor of Cattelan this past week after another artist had sued him for copying his work.

The artist in question is Joe Morford, and when Comedian debuted at Art Basel in 2019, like I said, he claimed that he had actually pioneered duct taping fruit to walls and that he had done so as early as 2000. So, he then sued Cattelan, like I said, in 2020, claiming that Comedian was based on Morford's piece Orange and Banana, which featured plastic fruits affixed with duct tape to breakroom panels on a wall.

And when you look at these pieces, they are very similar, but once you hear and read the court document, it actually made a lot more sense how people came to this decision because at first I was like, "No, I mean, very clearly Cattelan was influenced by this guy's work because like it's the same fucking thing." But now reading through the court document, I'm actually understanding it a little bit more, so just bear with me and let me know your thoughts and comments in the comments below.

So, in the court document, they provide a very lovely formal analysis of both pieces. It's so funny. Like, I feel like we're in Idiocracy, the movie, and Jeff and I talk about this all the time.

It's a really silly movie, you should watch it, but it just feels so stupid that we have to go to court to talk about if someone if some guy taping a banana to a wall is drawing inspiration from another guy taping a banana and an orange to I don't know, it's so fucking stupid and I will be the first to admit that for sure, but I also find it very fascinating and very silly.

Anyway, I digress. So, in the court document, like I said, very lovely formal analysis of both, which I'll get into in a little bit. Further in the document, Cattelan needs to be like, "Hey, no, I didn't take it from you, this is where I got the in inspiration from." So, he states that he, quote, "drew his inspiration from an idea he had previously used in a work for New York Magazine in 2018 where he had depicted a banana hanging from a billboard with red duct tape." I can't believe I'm talking about this.

Quote, "Based on this inspiration, Cattelan made some changes to the New York Magazine banana piece and asked his employees in Italy to test out bananas taped to the wall of his studio at different heights and angles," end quote. Could you imagine also, just total side tangent, that's your job? Your boss is like, "Hey, I need you to get into work right now, tape a bunch of bananas to the wall, varying ripeness, varying sizes, maybe even throw a couple plantains in there, and then also various different types of tape, let me know what you find.

Bye." That is someone's job on this planet. If you don't even know what you want to do, maybe start taping bananas to the wall and you'll figure it out. Anyway, well, don't do that because this was a whole case.

Anyway, so Cattelan also after that, he claimed that he had never heard of Joe Morford or his work prior to the lawsuit. So, Morford was claiming copyright infringement, but to succeed on a claim of copyright infringement, quote, "A plaintiff must prove two elements: one, ownership of a valid copyright and two, copying of constituent elements of the work that are original," which is where we're getting into the formal analysis.

So, essentially Morford needed to prove that Cattelan had indeed seen his artwork at some point and copied it, like verbatim. To prove this, Morford stated that there was video evidence on YouTube of his piece from July 2008, but it was ruled that the mere availability on the internet was not sufficient enough to prove that Cattelan had seen it, which this is such a difficult thing to try to prove.

Like unless you had a gallery exhibition and somebody literally signed the guestbook that they were there or bought a ticket, you kind of can't prove this in a way. Like, it's a very difficult thing to prove. You can't just be like, "Hey, can I see your search history back to 2008 if you even had YouTube back then?" So, that is a very difficult thing to change prove.

So, then further in the court document, there's what's called an abstraction test, which is to basically reverse engineer the artworks at the heart of the issue. So, Comedian and Banana and Orange, or Orange and Banana, whatever it was called. This is where it gets even sillier, which this is what did change my mind, though.

So, allegedly there were enough differences between Morford's work and Cattelan's work to suggest that Cattelan did not copy him. Some of the elements they looked at So, essentially what they were doing is they were breaking down the artwork section by section, so every single specific piece that was part of it, what makes it different from each other.

So, in Morford's piece, it is a green rectangular panel where an orange and a banana are taped to it. There's also masking tape on the orange itself, I believe, is what I read. And then it had like a slight angle to it.

Like, they looked at every single piece of it. In Comedian though, it's literally just a banana taped to a wall. Some of the elements, this is from within the court document specifically, so some of the elements they looked at, background.

So, like I said, for Banana and Orange, it was a solid green rectangular panel. For Comedian, no specified background, any wall space may be used, white wall used in an example. Cool.

Border, which was if there was a border around either of the fruit, there was a plain masking tape border, like I said, around the orange specifically, I don't know if there was around the banana. For Comedian, no border. The placement, the banana was roughly centered in the bottom panel in Banana and Orange, and it was below the orange with the stalk placed to the left hand side.

In Comedian, the banana was placed at specified height above the floor with the stalk placed to the left hand side. So, bloop. And then finally, the last element was the angle.

So, in Banana and Orange, the banana was at a slight angle less than 45° from horizontal with the stalk of the banana raising and pointling pointing slightly towards the left. In Comedian, it had a strong angle, which is what it says in this court document, a strong angle greater than 45° from horizontal with the stalk of the banana rising and pointing back towards the right.

So, those were some of the elements that they actually legitimately looked at to see if this was indeed a copyrighted artwork. Further, they also discussed the ways that you can tape fruit to a wall. Like I said, I can't believe I'm talking about this.

They came to the conclusion that there is kind of only one way that you can tape a banana to the wall, because if you do it parallel to the banana, it completely covers it up, so it's a very it won't hold necessarily, so you kind of can't tape it that way. You also can't do an X over it, because then that would also change, it would obstruct the banana, is how they said.

So, they said to make sure that it doesn't obstruct the banana, they had to tape it at an non-parallel angle to hold it to the wall in the best way possible, and it had to be along the middle in order to make sure that it was a balanced piece. Looking at all this evidence, it actually did change my mind, where I was like, "Oh, okay.

Now I see it. They literally looked at every single piece and, I mean, it's hard though because there may be some inspiration there." Oh, and also the fruits in Morford's piece were fake fruit, while Cattelan used a real banana and you have to cycle it out every couple days. So, I don't know, I was a little bit more swayed with this specific argument when they broke down broke it down piece by piece, but it is still like, "Well, I don't know." So, anyway, the judge ruled that there wasn't enough en evidence to suggest that Cattelan had seen this work and copied it.

According to the judge, quote, "Affixing a banana to a vertical plane using duct tape isn't protected under copyright law." He also noted the significant differences between the works, specifically looking at the angle at which the banana was placed, and he further stated, quote, "To find otherwise would further limit the already finite number of ways in which a banana may be legally taped to a wall without infringing on Morford's work." Creativity and inspiration is really interesting, cuz also then we had the copyright infringement case that we talked about for Andy Warhol where it was very clearly like that was the photo of Prince.

It's weird when it comes to inspiration because then now we're getting into kind of like AI generated art territory where it's like, "Well, no, this piece was influenced by this piece, so then is that copyright? Is that just the creative practice?" It's it's also like the book by Austin Kleon, kind of like Steal Like an Artist, where it's, you know, how are you inspired by something and how much of that artwork comes through your work?

Because like in my illustration, you can very clearly tell who I am influenced by, but then is that copyright or is it just influence? I don't know. I digress, the creative practice is very interesting and sort of subjective, but also when it's a very clear copy, it's hard though, because it's a banana with tape!

I don't know. I'm glad I don't have to be the judge on that because that is a very subjective sort of argument, I will say. So, anyway, thank you so much for listening to Bye Amara.

I hope you enjoyed this episode. If you did, please like it and please subscribe. That really helps me and any other creator that you really like out there.

Make sure you are liking and subscribing to their work because that helps them raise up in the rankings, and it just is doing good for them and I know they will appreciate it. I will appreciate it. I love you.

And I hope you have a great rest of your week and I'll see you next episode. I'm Amara Andrew, never stop creating.

This shit is bananas. Oh, I'm going to get copyrighted. Sorry, Gwen.