Measure Pleasure–Ethics of Feminism in Art Podcasting

Host Joana P. R. Neves uncovers the richness of new perspectives on contemporary art through the ethos found in podcasting. Joana also shares insights from her attendance at the International Women Podcast Awards, highlighting the non-hierarchical nature of the podcasting community. Looking ahead, she teases new formats and changes for the upcoming season, while opening up about the need for engagement.

→ Stay connected to the Exhibitionistas flow, SIGN UP⁠ to the Newsletter–or to my Substack.

→ Do you want to support our third season? Donate HERE.

Exhibitionistas Podcast • June 27, 2025 • Episode 2x21 • 44:25

What You'll Learn from This Episode

Key Questions Explored:

- The podcast celebrates its two-season journey with 33 episodes.

- Joana reflects on the two origins and evolution of the podcast.

- Podcasting is transitioning into new formats and technologies–Joana reveals how this instills a new energy into art reviewing.

- Inclusivity and non-hierarchical structures as essential feminist values intersecting with podcasting.

- The role of the art critic is re-assessed and redefined.

- Biographical data should be used against the elitism plaguing art in a non-deterministic way.

- Museums contribue to elitism with the tools that should counter it.

- Engagement and feedback from listeners are learned but necessary behaviours.

- Joana sees podcasting as potentially extending the job market for art, provided there is financial sustainability.

Key Themes Explored in This EpisodeThe unexpected relation between art, podcasting and feminism. The importance of inclusivity within feminism for the host. How critical thinking can be accessible through artist biographies and avoiding myth-making through superlatives. Audience engagement is crucial for podcasting; there is a relation between the podcaster and their audience. Podcasting fosters connections and breaks the unilateral aspect of contemporary art experiences and discourse. The reasons why there is a difficulty in turning a podcast sustainable are varied: audience habits are analysed as well as the audience awareness of podcast work.

Major Themes: The Digital Format of Art Content, Ethics of Feminism in Podcasting, Museum Communication Strategies and Failures, Potential of Connectivity through the Accessibility of Podcasting, The Love and Respect for Art and Artist's time Dedication to Art, The State of Art Criticism Today, Contemporary Critical Thinking, Audience Engagement, How to Engage with a Podcast, The Importance of Paid Work in Podcasting. The importance of Understanding Podcasting with Critical Thinking and Writing, Art & Elitism, alienating audiences.

Measure Pleasure examines the love and dedication to contemporary art, by spectators, curators, critics and, conversely, its reputation of elitism.

Perfect for: Art students, gallery visitors, anyone curious about art discourse and critique, and fans of philosophy of art, contemporary art audience engagement strategies, podcasters and more specifically art podcasters.

Intro: 00:00:00

The feminism of podcasting: 00:03:24

Is the art critic obsolete?: 00:07:46

The value of biases: 00:08:48

Audience engagement: show your bias!: 00:12:24

Biography: 00:14:38

Do museums alienate audiences with declarations of greatness?: 00:20:06

Insights into art podcasting: 00:29:54

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:04

I'm Joanna Pieronevis, your host, and this is Exhibitionistus. I'm an independent writer and curator with a wide-ranging two-decade career in contemporary art, from commercial galleries to art fairs, from research to curating, from Lisbon to London, through Paris. But when I'm asked what I do outside the art world, the inevitable reaction is, oh, I don't know anything about contemporary art. Ouch. So call it a midlife crisis, call it arrogance. But I gave myself the task of trying to fill that gap with co-host conversation episodes centered around a genuine exchange of thoughts, feelings, and precious context around solo exhibitions, interviews, and special episodes based on a particular topic to keep you alert and on your toes. If you want to read further into some of the topics discussed in the episodes and more, you can also find me on Substack under my name Joanna Pierronevis. Alright, hello, hello, and welcome to the last episode of season two. Yes. This is the last episode, and it has a weird title. It's called Measure Pleasure, and I'll tell you why. So I'm going to look back into the reasons why I decided to do the podcasts. I'm going to share a few thoughts that I don't think I've ever shared with you, and to explain my thinking behind each format, behind the very idea of podcasting in this way and designing the content that I've designed. But I'm also going to look into the future. So two things. Firstly, the season's over, but I will be dropping a few special or summer special episodes where I will be testing some formats or also jumping on occasions, on opportunities that were too good to say no to. Secondly, I'm also going to introduce the third season. So we believe it or not, we're going into the third season, and I am really happy to share the first thing, which is that I counted all the episodes. There's 33 of them. So if you'll allow me, I am self-congratulating here. I am celebratory. I am celebrating this substantial amount of recording, of editing, of content, of sharing, of chatting, of conversing, exchanging ideas, and mostly of trying to deliver artistic experiences, information, feelings, critical thinking around art. And thanks to art, without exhibitions, without artists and their work, there wouldn't be exhibitionists. Right, so let's start this. The first thing I want to share with you is an event I went to. I think podcasting is in a transitional phase. Some people don't quite know how to handle it. It's not radio, it's not TV, but you can watch it because now there's video. And I don't think a lot of you, dear listeners, and apologies for saying this, realize the work that is behind it, the technological challenges, software's a changing, the format itself is changing. Now there's video, for example. I had to move from being a strictly audio experience to having video sound on offer. That's why I decided to go to the IWPA, the International Women Podcast Awards that took place last week. And dear listener, I'm going to be very, very candid with you and tell you that Samantha Baines was an amazing presenter, by the way. Just wanted to say that. Literally, I have had dreams that I had a producer. So I was really expecting at some point to think, okay, it's time to go home, you've done this, you know, congratulate yourself for having been to an event of the industry, but now it's time to grab some chips and go home and drown your sorrows. Well, no, it was not at all like that. These are the independent podcast awards, and of course, women, trans women, non-binary inclusive, that also contributed to warm my cold heart. In the UK, you never know. You never know what kind of feminism you're going to be interacting with, and this was right up my alley. I was very happy to see all that inclusivity. And that was really heartwarming, but the most important thing of the event was the non-hierarchical aspect of it. The values of feminism really correspond to podcasting. So podcasting is accessible, it is less formal than a TV show or then radio. It has its own rules, of course, and there are hierarchies everywhere, if not for the fact that some people have teams and others don't, some people have means, others don't. Some podcasts are much easier to fundraise for than others. Some podcasts are immediately supported by their listeners, others aren't. So of course there are hierarchies, but I would say they're organic. And so we were all talking to one another, and I was really blown away by the transparency of everyone. We were not hiding numbers, we were not hiding or fudging our follower numbers on social media. It was with huge transparency that we had really interesting conversations and that we exchanged tips with each other. I wanted to share this with you because I asked myself, what is this profile that I have? The feminism, inclusivity, and the non-hierarchical aspect. And this has implications in the way I introduce the artists and also the way I think critically about an exhibition, about an artwork, about a particular context in which an exhibition is organized or a solo exhibition is delivered to audiences. And of course, I am going to check. I am going to see, okay, is someone excluded from this? Why is this person here? From what platform are they speaking? How comfortable are they in this platform? These are concerns I have. I don't think that the figure of the art critic is contemporary anymore. I think it's quite obsolete because the art critic supposedly is this persona, this neutral, unbiased entity giving an opinion nonetheless. Of course it is a specialist's opinion. But you know, critics had a lot of power back in the day. They don't anymore. So that is the first symptom, isn't it? Before critics could break someone's reputation, I do value critical thinking. Rather than saying from the get-go, I like it or I don't, which art critics don't do, of course, either, but underlyingly so they do. So for me, the positioning is very different. The difference being that, and this is really interesting, uh, I was listening to a podcast that spoke exactly about the same thing. So I'm going to draw a parallel here. We are bringing a bias, and I'm interested in what bias you bring, and I'm interested in making you aware of it. So, for example, in the Daido Moriama episodes in the first season, I had to explain right off the bat a very specific bias I have, which is that I have a hard time with photography. You know, he talks of himself as a hunter, which, you know, is an attitude. And so that turns the subject matter of his photographs praise. And in some ways, it talked about that poster of it's a diagonal of torsos, of male torsos bathing in the sun. It's a beautiful photograph. And I kind of think, what if it was me in that photo? It's but by talking about it and by having to research the artist, I was able to expand and to question and to kind of uh fight my bias a little bit and to be able to position myself again within it with the information that I brought into it. So I was listening to a show called Creators, which is specifically for podcasters, and for a specific kind of podcasting called 2.0. We'll not go into it. If you want to research it, do because it's really interesting and it might be, or at least some aspects of it, the future of the industry. And so this podcast is led by the lovely Claire Waite Brown, who interviewed me for it, and Sam Sethy in the TrueFans platform. And they were chatting with a podcaster. So the purpose of these interviews is to situate these new developments in podcasting, but also to ask podcasters about their struggles, um, their successes, and how they operate, you know, podcasting in general. And so they were interviewing Fareba Nawa, who's an investigative journalist, and she has a podcast that sounds incredible. I'm I'm following her now, called OnSpec. She's an investigative journalist, right? And nevertheless, she says that the specificity of OnSpec, her podcast, is that she's interested in working with people bringing topics, investigation topics, where they have or that they're part of. So they bring their bias, but they announce it. And I thought that was so interesting, and I'm wondering if that's specific to podcasting, but because podcasting kind of breaks the the the fourth wall, doesn't it? There's something about it that is very connected to you. We kind of interrogate our relationship as we go along. There is a lot of engagement, audience engagement in podcasting, which is something I want to talk to you about as well, by the way. It's in the notes. Um I found that very, very interesting. I think there is a relation there with podcasting and this idea of um biases. I want to share, you know, a bit of my thinking behind this because I think there's some engagement missing. I think it's also the content, perhaps it might be the field of contemporary art itself. So where can you engage with the podcasts? Um sorry, of course. I was forgetting the crucial bit of information. So I don't know how many of you know, but uh Spotify is changing quite a bit. They are trying to be a bit more like YouTube, host platform um competitions, overthrowing each other, each other's platforms. Um but Spotify is changing quite a bit, so they have added videos. You can leave comments under the episode. There's an area where you can leave suggestions, ideas, you can just react, you can congratulate the the podcasters, which is honestly the feedback I've been having, and thank you so much to those who leave comments and celebrate their joy and their pleasure in listening to the episode. That means a lot, I can tell you that. It may seem ridiculous to you on the other side of things, but when you put an episode out there, crickets. You don't know, you don't know how people are listening. It is incredibly meaningful when you leave a comment and when you just say that you loved it, or that you liked it, or that a certain angle was innovative, original, blew your brains out, you know, it just blew your mind. That not your brains out, sorry, blew your mind. That is gold, it is the biggest of joys. So measuring pleasure. So if you could leave comments on Spotify, Instagram, follow us on Instagram. I put a lot of little clips in there of exhibition visits and suggestions if you're too shy to leave you know public, you know, publicly read comments, you know, just DM us and and make some suggestions. That's that's also great. And in the show's notes, you have the email, so you can also write to us. So, what else is there? Biography. So, in academic circles, biography, particularly in visual arts, also in literature, very frowned upon. You you mustn't do it, you mustn't, which is very interesting in terms of position because it means that the artwork should speak for itself, but there are many reasons why I feel that it's not such a great idea. And one of the reasons is because there's um there's a problem with the visual arts sector, and that's one of the reasons why I started the podcast, which is the elitism that some people feel when they visit exhibitions, when they hear the discourse about arts. And presenting artists as if they lived in a sort of a crystal tower or in a sort of cloud, and they just produced these incredible cryptic objects or images placed in um incredibly uh grandiose sometimes art spaces or exhibition spaces, it it turns the artwork into something that is disconnected from an embodied experience, and I think strategically for me talking about the artist is really important. Secondly, because I love artists, it's as simple as that. I mean, I don't know why I'm looking for another way of saying it. That's that is it, you know. I love and I admire artists. Artists dedicate their whole lives to creating work, to communicating. It's their way of communicating, and they dedicate their time to that. And so, of course, embodying and naming artists is really important. It doesn't mean that it's deterministic. So, what do I mean by that? It doesn't mean that providing it context, storytelling is a direct explanation of the art through the life. A life isn't going to specifically produce that artwork. And I have an example. So going back into season one and season two, there were two Japanese artists that we focused on the first season, Yoko Ono, and in the second season, Onkawara. So two Japanese artists, one male, another female, both artists went through the horrendous experience of the atomic bomb in Japan. And I refer to that. But Onkawara had the reaction of suddenly retrieving himself from meaning. He went back to school and he would constantly say he didn't understand, and he was uh embracing of existentialism, even um more philosophies that would embrace, you know, the theatre of the absurd, you know, all these philosophies and art movements which were on the verge of using words to kind of strip them of their meaning, as opposed to using words to fill the experience or the story or the object with meaning. So for him it was really a kind of backing away from any possible explanation. Yoko Ono lived the same experience, had a completely different reaction to it. So she had to move away from where she lived, from the big city, went to the countryside and would spend hours and hours and hours on the ground, lying on the ground with her brother, looking at the clouds, trying to imagine and design menus. And so they would eat in their imagination, and she discovered the power of imagination as perhaps in the beginning as a form of escapism, but then as a form of empowerment and of living something through the sheer force and energy of the mind. And so, I mean, quickly, very quickly explained. And so here the biographic information is interesting because it does say something about the methods of each artist. So Onkawara kept to a repetitive practice that stripped everything of anecdote, or would use anecdote repeatedly as a way of conveying a sort of raw, energetic, existential feeling of presence and of being alive. Completely different reaction. So biographical data is interesting in as much as we use it in a non-deterministic way. This choice is also a bit strategic because I have a sense that when you visit exhibitions and the promotion of the exhibition, especially, I mean, you know, parenthesis, if you visit exhibitions and you're not used to going into art spaces, of course you're gonna go to the Tate, you're gonna go to the Haywood Gallery, you're gonna go to the big museums. And these big museums have a way of promoting their exhibitions, which is always to say, major exhibition, major artist, pioneer in whatever, most influential of their generation, first female Asian artist to, etc. etc. So you're presented with grandeur, you're presented with greatness, and suddenly you see, you know, one or two exhibitions, or maybe you're a tourist and you decide to go to the Tate, and you think, okay, I'm I was so lucky. I came to an exhibition of a really important artist. You visit the exhibition, you don't agree, you don't understand. You can read the texts, you look at the art, there's no connection. And suddenly you feel rejected, you feel removed from that space because you don't get why that person is so influential, why that person is the major artist of their generation, or the major exhibition from that specific angle. And that's why art feels elitist, in my opinion. It's that way of presenting things. I mean, the Tate will always have visitors. And it's funny because I was told in a masterclass I did again, you know, about podcasting and specific aspects of podcasting, which was promoting podcasts and doing clips. For social media to attract new listeners. And this person said something really interesting, which is don't be too seductive, don't be too um savvy in in your marketing, because then you're going to bring people into your podcast and your field or your particular angle who have been seduced by something that they will not find there. And she said, you can bring the horse to the river, but you can't make it drink. And it's true, you don't want people to go and see something, but then not deliver what you've promised. And that's why I think again, biographic data just shows you the artist is just a person. And the artist is a person who communicates through that language. That's where they're comfortable. Anyway, so in the third season, we will continue having exhibition discussions with different guests. So again, this time going back to this um idea and this interaction between an art insider, myself, who will have done the research and the art outsider. Unless the art outsider wants to do the research, why not? And so I have a few people lined up, quite a few new people actually, uh, with different backgrounds, with different profiles, um, different age groups. Biases. You're supposed to say biases, that's the idea. Then of course, I have guest interviews. So why do I do those? Because no one really knows what the heck people do in the art industry, in the visual art industry. You vaguely know what a curator does, obviously an artist, gallerists, okay, that makes sense. But even so, you know, what are the new challenges of galleries? Go back to the last episode, listen to Sarah Lacang sang, talk about her gallery, which has a very specific goal of promoting, showcasing queer and female artists. So that's a novelty, you know. In history in the UK, I don't know of any galleries that have done that, and so there is a response to current times and to the modern world and the contemporary world. So you see the artwork reflects topics, and I think that's one of the things also that this format allows you to do, which is to perhaps you know interpret the artwork, but also send it back to real life, to real topics, real subjects, and and see what the art is allowing you to navigate that it you didn't before. What does it mean to write for um a newspaper or a magazine about art? What does it mean nowadays to be an art critic? I did touch upon that in the beginning of the episode. What does it mean to be a curator? What is an art advisor? Another episode that you can listen to with Libertine Uti, um, who explains what she does. You know, I am an art fair uh artistic director and still had questions for her. I think we would also profit from and benefit from sharing more things about our challenges. Because mainly one of the things that really, really, I mean, it it's a thought that I have almost every week is the the amazement, especially if you go on TikTok, you know, people making fun of performance art or abstract art, there's a lot of accounts there, but also on Instagram, and the comment you hear is, oh, and these people are millionaires. That's what the media is saying about visual arts, is that we're all millionaires and we're all selling and being paid in the millions, which is just a very, very small part. And you dear listeners who are in the art industry and who are listening, you know what I'm talking about. It's a very small part of us, and and there's always also the instability of jobs, even in art organizations. You know, art organizations depend on funding, they in some a lot of countries depend on politics and local politics, and they depend also on government money. So, you know, sponsors as well, you know. Um, so that's an added difficulty. Nothing is guaranteed. Who would have thought that Trump would go after universities and museums? He did, and he fired the director of the National Gallery in Washington, DC. There was a whole thing, and then she ended up quitting. It was actually the National Portrait Gallery in DC. Okay, so guest interviews, and I don't do artist interviews, and kudos to the people who do that. Ben Luke is an amazing interviewer from the podcast A Brush With. You know, if you want to listen to artist interviews, that's I think for me is one of the most engaging ones. They don't make for a sonic experience, for an audio experience that is compelling as sometimes you know listening to these serial episodes about a particular topic, but most of all, also because that's a tapped market. I mean, there are so many great artist interviews out there. This is not to say that I'm not interested in collaborating with artists, but I so one of the things to come probably in the third season, I'm still working with three artists to see where that leads me. So a specific format where there's a collaboration. So there may be an epistolary relationship with the artist where I read my letter, they read their letter, some sound suggestions, texts to read, stories to tell. I don't know, you know, a creative format maybe that will allow the artist to expand creatively and to also talk, to also have a voice, but maybe framed in a way where they're not they don't have that feeling of being pinned down suddenly. So that's one of the other formats that I want to bring in. I will continue with the shorter episodes where I share parts of my lectures or text that I'm working on and that I adapt to an audio format. So what else is there? What haven't I said? And then I'm going to do another type of episode, which is a focus on a theme and an angle, again in conversational form, but this time with specialists. So specifically on purpose, bringing people who are specialized in this in a specific topic and trying to bring it home. For example, the history of exhibitions. Exhibitions are a very recent thing. You know, we complain that people are not into it, you know, they think it's you have to be knowledgeable to go, but in some ways, you know, this is there there isn't a huge tradition of exhibition going and exhibition visiting and exhibition making. Of course, the counterexample would be the prehistoric caves. First exhibitions, who knows? Alright, so I think we're coming to the end of the episode, and what else can I tell you? So perhaps what do you what did I write in my notes? Yeah, maybe letting you know how this podcast works. The first thing to know is that as I said before, this is an independent podcast. So I don't belong to any platform of any kind, um radio or any uh distributing and paying platform, obviously. Um not affiliated to a magazine or a newspaper, I'm absolutely completely independent. I started it on my own, and the first season was a sort of a test pilot. I wanted to know if it was a pleasure that I would measure positively, and it was, and also if you would be engaging with it, if you know, if if I would have an audience basically, and I did. So all good, continued doing it, continued really doing the work, and so one of the things that I think I've talked across this episode, and that I really want to bring home is the Marshall McLuhan, uh, not um theorists uh of last century, famous for saying the medium is the message, the medium really is the message, and what does he mean by that? He means that the podcast, as it is, as a format, the way it's delivered, the way it's listened to, and the way it's produced, so the whole technology makes it what it is, and so the message delivered is in the technology itself, and that's what I really loved about it because there is this exchange and there is this malleability of the format. So you will have noticed that in some episodes maybe I forgot the break, maybe the episode was too long to go for a break and to even use those three minutes, but that's fine, you know, that we are not contained by a very rigid structure, and I think that that's the and I thought at the time when I thought of doing the podcast that that was the best medium to demystify the art field and exhibitions and art and visual arts and contemporary art and artists, because this informal relationship that we have, myself with you, dear, dear, dearest listener, is that we understand each other, we're here for each other, you support me, I support you, you understand the challenges, and I deliver the best content that I can deliver. And on that note, what I want to share with you is how I work. The recording is about two hours, very often, much more than that. So editing takes at least eight hours. So if you're a huge yes. I mean the Italians do. Your body could your body uh sorry.

SPEAKER_00 33:20

I'm gonna come back.

SPEAKER_01 33:21

Knowing that to get to the episode, I will have done uh a good four hours of research. It's the specific information that you need to get when you're preparing an episode on an artist on or on a specific topic, or on the artist that brings specific movements, specific theories that I also have to investigate or revisit. So another thing that I would love you to pay attention to, if you're still listening, because I'm not sure this episode is gonna get through to a lot of people, but the ones who are interested, I think you know, if you're a bit geeky like I am, a bit nerdy, I think you're a bit curious, right? So for those who are still here, another thing that is really time-consuming in podcasting is all the information that goes with the episode. So you don't just drop an episode. There's hours and hours of writing show notes, correcting the thankfully AI-produced uh transcript of the of each episode, but you have to correct it. I've been having a conversation with one of my sons about the dangers of AI, the menacing presence of AI, and the menacing um successful and highly performative capacity of AI that will replace people in several industries. But when it comes to certain more contained users of AI, it is so helpful. The argument against AI, it's that it's learning and it will surpass our capacities very, very quickly. In here, it's impossible because the way we pronounce words, not everyone is has English as their first language, as is my case. In my co-hosts, guest co-hosts, my in the people I interview, and also there's different accents. Sometimes we speak quickly, sometimes we are a bit muffly and mumbly, and so the AI cannot understand everything, as your ear can't understand everything. So you need to go over the transcript, you know, regardless of how perfect the AI is going to become. Closing parentheses. I need to go over the captions. The captions, you know, confuse creating with curating, curating with creating, so I need to correct all the time. And so that's the first time, a very long time. Can you imagine an hour and a half of episode correcting every sentence of the transcript? So that's a lot of time. Then you have to produce the show's notes. The show's notes are really interesting because you have the situation of the algorithm, which works with keywords, so you have to use keywords. Basically, you have to speak, computer speak, algorithms speak. And so you have to write show notes that are interesting for people to read, but that are identifiable by the um the browsers and the algorithms. It's hard to write them. You're so tired of editing, you're so tired of correcting the transcript, thinking what clips you're gonna do, and then you have to write that damn horrible text that now is also problematic if you're want to be discovered through your website, because you also have a website for the podcast. And so now chatbots are being used incrementally. So very soon Google is going to be set aside and we will be asking questions to an AI that will deliver us content. You can just say what are the independent podcasts about visual arts, and the AI is gonna tell you, oh, there's this, and then describe what they do, and then you'll see, oh, but these are I don't know, what single-person episodes, and I want conversation. So you say, Oh, but can you find the ones that are conversational? And then you can say, Oh, but can you find the ones that are more experimental? And then it will deliver. So it is a conversation that you have, and you have to adapt your show's notes for your website with chatbot speak and no longer algorithmic speak. So we're already on two different texts, but then you have YouTube, but then the show's notes cannot be the same. So third time writing your show's notes, and so on, and so on. Instagram, blue sky, whatever, TikTok, whatever. Such a huge time-consuming enterprise to drop one single episode. It's at least 20 hours of work per week. So in the US, uh quite a few research-based independent podcasters earn quite a substantial amount of money and part of their income through podcasting, and that's because in the US there is this mentality of paying for what you consume. It's a very simple mentality that we do not have in Europe. So here, podcasting is a bit frowned upon, confused with social media, confused with influencing, which honestly I don't know why, but some people have told me that. And so when you say that you're podcasting, people presume that you're either doing it because it's a hobby, and again, the visual art sector is plagued with people thinking that what you do is a hobby. You have no idea. And uh the mentality here, and I have the same, I'm again not extracting myself from the conversation, I'm not leaving the chat, I'm firmly in it. We will more willingly pay for an exceptional pleasure, then we will pay for the things that we use every day, such as online newspapers, such as available content out there in archives. So the idea is that probably it's because it's not a direct thing, you don't click on a button and that's it, you've paid for it. You have to go to the show's notes, you have to go to the website, and then decide how much you want to give and understand what it means to have a membership, and so paying every month. It's not something that is yet understood as something that makes sense, that is called for, that is deserved by the person who's putting the content out there, and also accessible. It might be in the future, so the whole podcasting 2.0 that I'm not going to talk about is creating platforms. One of them is called TrueFans. You can go there, you can either use Bitcoin or um your currency, and you can define how much you want to pay per minute of your listens. And so it's a bit like Spotify used to be for musicians, which was that as soon as you played something, they would earn 0.001p per minute. Um, apparently now it has changed for musicians as well. But you must know that on Spotify, which is my host platform, I'm not um entitled to ads and to monetization because I don't have enough listeners. And that's normal. You know, niche podcasts like mine, young podcasts, I don't I haven't had time to gather a huge audience. There's a bunch of you, but not like the 10,000 an episode that I would need to monetize through ads. And second thing, I don't want to have ads on my podcast. If I do, and when I do, which I will probably have to, I want them to make sense for the industry and I want them to be helpful and to choose the right people to place their ads in the podcast, in exhibitionistas. Let's imagine if a hundred people paid one pound per episode, so amongst the people who listen to the episodes, each time I would have a hundred pounds per episode. I have two episodes in the month, so two hundred pounds. Imagine if you paid two pounds, double that. Imagine a thousand people paid. And the idea is not only to earn money, obviously, this is hard work. This is what I studied for, what I paid university for, what I paid my PhD. Well, then I had a scholarship, but I did pay for a substantial amount of my PhD. There's a Latin saying in caudave, so the poison comes in the tail, as in the scorpion's tale, but also at the end of a letter, or at the end of an episode. I'm not being negative here. I'm really being open and sharing how the industry works, what we're talking about in the background, and just letting you know that apart from a few of you who are who have been really nice and kind and I've had donations, thank you so much to those who have donated. Um, one or two memberships. I don't want to have to pay to work. I don't. You the the people who contribute um have allowed me to not pay to do a podcast, which is I think the minimum. But what I would love to do, more than earn a living from this, which of course is amazing. If I can get some of my income from the podcast, great. But I would love to create jobs. I would love to hire someone, I would love to make it possible in the industry to have independent initiatives that have enough support from the consumer. Um, sorry, we're we are in a capitalist society, from the listener, from the audience, so that this industry can thrive and can create work. All right, so measured the pleasure, haven't we? Stay tuned, don't forget summer episodes and the next brand new season in September of 2025 until June 2026. That's gonna be the new season, season three. Take care, bye bye. Thank you.