We are glad to have Professor Gregory Sigwork with us. Dr. Gregory Sigwork is a professor of communication studies in the Department of Communication and Theater. He has published widely in journals such as Cultural Studies, Architectural Design, and Culture Machine.
Greg has distributed the chapters to various books, including Deleuze Key Concepts, Animations of Deleuze and Guattari, and New Cultural Studies. And most recently, he has published a book called The edited a collection of wonderful essays on affect and cultural theory in a book called The Affect Theory Reader, which you can see in the background, published by Duke University Press. And I guess to many people who want to venture into, wow, the book is there. Beside me at all times.
I'm working on something I had to refer to. Because it's like a Bible to anyone who wants to venture into affect theory, because it's a very carefully selected collection. So thank you for being with us, Greg.
Thank you for inviting me. It's great to meet you and have a little bit of a chat before we got started here. Thank you. So to start with, affect is a notoriously difficult and elusive concept to define and compartmentalize. And many people who are into theories are usually obsessed with an idea of a definition or framework.
And I guess that's something that... With affect, it's very difficult to achieve. So in layman's terms, how do you describe the affect to the uninitiated?
Well, I think one of the things that makes affect difficult is it's not one thing. In fact, it's not a thing, right? It's a process, it's an ongoingness. So that makes it hard in some ways to wrestle into language.
Though in the affect theory reader, we describe affect. most simply as the force of encounter or the encounter of forces. But I think that the thing that makes it difficult to talk about is that affect, for me at least, is at minimum three things at the same time. It's at once that encounter or that impingement, that point of contact in which some kind of intensity, some kind of feel, some kind of something shifts in the nature of your own understanding of the world, or we're typically in the... thing that you're encountering.
So there's this moment of contact. At the same time, though, there's also this moment of contact or this intensity arrives in the midst of an ongoingness. I mean, it's not as if the world just arrived in that moment of intensity or contact.
There's something that's already been happening before and will carry on after. And so that idea of a kind of a gradient of positive or negative kind of intensities that that encounter point locates itself within what Spinoza via Deleuze calls a continuous line of variation, I think is important to also hold on to so that this point of contact is not this isolated, you know, rupture, that in fact, affect is part of that kind of ongoingness or sexuality. And so in layman's terms, or in Spinoza terms, Spinoza actually had two words for affect in his ethics, affectio, which got translated as affectio.
affection, and sometimes get read as emotion, and then affectus, which is what Deleuze called this continuous line of variation by which these things, these encounters, these forces that impinge upon us are part of a wider field of relationships and a kind of contextual kind of, you know, moment of producibility that have the capacity to kind of gather those into one's own, if we talk about it in the human sense. one's own sense of how they're entering and going about their day around the world, around their world. And then the third level, which really has got to do with like the impersonal part of affect, which is hardest to get to, but the way in which there's a kind of field or a context in which this line that you're tracing, this line that you're following, this encounter that you're having is within a much bigger context of potential, right? a potentiality of possible things that could or could not have happened.
And so to think about affect is for me, one, to think about the point or moment of intensity, two, to think about the line of variation by which this intensity arrives, and three, the context or the kind of the capacious potential of what could happen in a wider set of relationships that that are right around that moment. And so to do affect studies, I think is to, in some ways, be able to hold all three of those kind of levels or modes or registers at once as you try to kind of unfold and and find your way through whatever kind of example context you're trying to do. Is that layman's terms?
I hope so. Well it's still very difficult but I guess no layman would ever venture into AFFIC. Let's use an example if you don't mind. So one of the examples I've written I've written about a little bit.
I don't think I've published this, but I have a dachshund, right? And dachshunds are notoriously, they're smell hounds, right? Their nose is at the ground at all times.
And so to walk my dog, the kind of intensities my dog encounters are very different, very close to the ground, very odiferous in ways that I don't either don't smell, or if I do smell, I don't want to be here close to, whereas she very much wants to either eat them, roll in them or something. And so when we walk, she's looking for these points of intensity that are very important to her. In fact, she spends all day on the sofa dreaming about the thing that she encountered this morning.
So we go back out this afternoon and she'll encounter those things again. So that's a kind of point of intensity. And again, it's a silly example, but as we walk, we compose a relationship.
She can't walk on her own because she would run off after every smell and squirrel. So I have to have her on a lead. And we try to compose a relationship.
as companion species that isn't just me dominating the walk. I gladly, for a great deal of time, let her take me where she wants to go until she arrives at the things she wants to roll on. Then I interrupt the walk. But we compose a line of variation. We walk very, you know, this kind of, the intensities that I feel, the things that I encounter and I see, because I'm more sight oriented, I can often see a dog coming in the distance and I want to swerve our dog away from that.
So we can. this line of variation around a set of intensities. At the same time, we're walking across a park or around my neighborhood that has a whole set of potentialities that neither one of us maybe has encountered quite yet or have encountered in some way that could open up new possibilities.
And so I always think of affect as being that point of intensity, a line of variation, and a plane of potential. So it's a point, a line, and a plane, all three of those at once, if you can account for those. And again, I think all affect theory, all affect studies work.
At least tackles, enters into one of those. Maybe it's a line of variation that gets you excited. Maybe it's a plan of potential. But one of those is where you begin. And eventually you work your way across those three modes of registering.
That's, for me, important. That's a great example. It actually reminded me a few years ago. I was in TA in a course. It was about the history of lines.
And one of the examples that somebody brought up. Sorry? Yeah, that's right. Yeah. And somebody brought up exactly the same example that I've tried to diagram the path that my dog takes in the morning, the path that I want to take.
And there's usually, not usually, there's always a conflict, but at the same time, I have to come to a kind of a consensus. Yeah. Otherwise, you compose, right?
You compose this, and an affect is often called a worlding, right? So Katie's word or others talk about. this idea of worldings.
But worldings are this composition of points of intensity, lines of variation, and the wider kind of context of capacious capacity or producibility that make those things possible. So again, it's simple, but that's the place to start. Very good example. Thank you very much.
And there's also this passage in your book, which I guess you have now kind of talked about, but I found it to be very poetic and lyrical, but at the same time It reminded me of Deleuze's idea of territorialization and deterritorialization. That's where we talk about Africa's unfortunate intensity. It's about bodies, bindings and unbindings, becomeings and unbecomings. And there seems to be this jar and disorientation, as you have put it in the book. So I guess if you would want to unpack that passage, maybe.
So how is it similar to the idea of territorialization and deterritorialization that Deleuze brings up? I think it is. Definitely, my orientation is very much through Spinoza and Deleuze. Though I want to be careful. One of the things where I'm working on a project now, a second volume of the Atheist Theory Reader, indeed, that is going off to at least the proposal and the abstracts are going off to Duke University Press later this month.
But one of the things we're working on is the idea that this bifurcation that I helped and Melissa, Greg, and I. kind of accidentally instantiated in cultural studies around Deleuze, Spinoza, Tompkins, Sedgwick, which was a kind of late addition to the intro. where the one of the reviewers said so why affect now like it's been around for a while why now and i said well there's these two essays that came out in i think 1995 uh masumi's um essay autonomy of affect and then you said and adam frank's um piece on on tompkins uh which really kind of were a watershed moment i think and but i don't i don't know if anyone i mean i read them in 1995 i'm not sure everybody else did um some people did obviously but that you That has become now this kind of split.
And I think that's a mistake. I think there's lots of overlap, in fact, in the book itself and the affect to your reader. But then the Australian context, especially the kind of affect theories of Sylvan Tompkins, were quite prominent. And we're often taught alongside Anna Gibbs and Elizabeth Proven and others there in Australia. Whereas, you know, Sedgwicky and Tompkins, as they were, and there's no reason for the split.
But what I was trying... What we're trying to do in that passage you're mentioning in the book was that at the time of the affect theory reader in 2010, there was this kind of sense that affect was always a kind of liberatory or positive force. There was always, in some ways, it was the hidden potential of the body to disrupt, right? Again, this bifurcation, which I think, again, is a mistake.
You know, that kind of mental, conceptual, conscious apparatus was always being undone by the more unruly. actions of sensations and bodies and if we could locate the ways in which affect was speaking to us um in ways that were beneath consciousness we would somehow be free of oppressions and the rest and it was a nice romantic story about affect but in fact and even the story i told about my dog any kind of encounter any kind of you know line of variation is also going to have at least some mixity of you know more negative more you know uh you So that movement, as you mentioned, of deterritorialization and re-territorialization, it's happening at the same time. It doesn't mean that APEC can't have moments where it's liberatory, but it also means just as often APEC can be an oppressive force.
It could be something that is participating in regimes of domination. And so one of the things that we're doing in the second volume of the APEC 3 Reader is we're really trying to reckon with. in a much more open way.
Things like critical race theory and black studies and the idea of Afro-pessimism and some of the other things that I think are really important to account for in the study of affect that have to do with the ways in which affect is not a magical kind of element that will add to our theory mix and it'll lead us all to a brilliant, beautiful future. There are ways in which we have to reckon with the ways in which affect is very much about. you know, rising authoritarianisms and, you know, the climate catastrophes and all those things are also affective events and affective points of intensity that are not, you know, positive or on the upward gradient of intensity.
It's a very interesting point you brought up because I come into affect from mainly a literary background and literary criticism and you're sure you've heard of Rita Felski's book critique and post-critique. So when I read that book, and I'm sure she has been met with a lot of backlash as well, because she's trying to redirect the focus of cultural studies or literary studies to the text itself. And affect is one of the areas she's looking at. Affect and a revival of sentimentality, which has usually been, we've been usually brushed with a negative, with a negative connotation. And so when you read that book, or some people read that book, they might think that Africa is all about affection, as you mentioned, and love and nice things.
Let's celebrate the beauty of this or a stethism of this book. Whereas with a lot of thinkers such as Sarah Ahmed and Lauren Barlon, whom unfortunately passed away two weeks ago. When you read Africa, it's all about it's actually a very politically engaged theory, which is really not about like celebrating the beauties of emotions.
It's nothing like that. No, it's a good example. I appreciate what, I was excited when I first read Rita Felski's kind of, when she started down this path, the first book that I thought had moments that, but it's too, ultimately you describe it well, I won't say anything more. It's all positive kind of.
Yeah. And I guess she's looking at it from that perspective because she's a literary scholar anyway. And she has to go back to the text of a novel or a poem. But for a lot of other thinkers, mainly the ones who are mainly into cultural studies or political theory or feminist, like Sarah Ahmed, it's nothing like that.
And I was listening to one of the interviews about the book she wrote, The Promise of Happiness. And she said that my mother said, oh, finally, a book about happiness. I said, no, there's nothing happy about that book.
Yeah. Yeah. You actually kind of answered the next question that I had, which was kind of a trajectory of affect, because like I remember you also mentioned in one of your interviews that you don't agree with with with the term effective term because it's been around for a long time.
I personally first thought that Africa is a new thing, starting in 1990s, mid 1990s with with such Kosovsky's. our article, I think it was paranoid reading and cybernetic's fault, if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, but when you look at it, like you mentioned, Spinoza has talked about it, Freud and Tompkins, and I don't know much about Tompkins. So I was wondering if, how is, how is a Freudian idea or a psychoanalytic idea of affect different from what you or other thinkers in cultural studies have in mind when it comes to affect? Well, I guess, It's for me, and when I was writing my dissertation back in the 90s, which has never come out in pieces all over the place, but didn't make a kind of book project, it was too scattered.
But my longest chapter was on Freud, and my dissertation was on Athens. And what I find in Freud, especially the early Freud, the pre, everything up until his 1900 book, Interpretation of Dreams, where he's looking at aphasia, and he's looking at studies in hysteria, and especially his project for a scientific cycle. psychology, he was really trying to understand, and he's working with, you know, he's in these labs where he's dissecting frogs, and he's trying to understand the kind of material bases for what he sees as affect.
In fact, he has, in Project for Scientific Psychology, he has this moment where he believes he's kind of discovered what he calls an affect machine, but the problem was it kept breaking down. He couldn't make it, but of course, as Deleuze and Guthrie point out. the affect machine always breaks down, but he throws his book in the back of the drawer and hopes that the project, which is a massive book, Project for Scientific Psychology, hopes that we'll never see light of day when his students publish it and give it to him. It's a kind of honor. He gets quite angry.
He wants to destroy all the copies that are out there, but it's a fascinating book because he's trying to understand what I think we're still wrestling with in certain domains of affect studies. I mean, Kate Hales and her book, Unthought, and some other kind of work in neurology, I think. Tony Sampson is one of the best people here, Steve Shaviro, for trying to understand the relationship between conscious, unconscious, non-conscious, and how that works, not just as human, but as something that also connects us to the broader context and worlds in which we're a part. And Freud was doing that. I think Project for Scientific Psychology is not the flawed book he...
he thought it was in fact he goes back is it i'm trying to remember it's been a while since i've looked at this work but he actually goes back and tries to um change it's in um beyond the pleasure principle where he actually changes certain words they're much more material uh like a material location for these things which i think is really interesting to think about and it changes them to psyche like he just wants he wants to kind of escape that that model of a kind of materialist um model of the non-conscious which i think is worth pursuing still. And again, I think that people are trying to do that. I think affect is obviously one of the ways in which we can better understand, because even though Spinoza says, we don't yet know what a body can do, I'm not going to say we quite yet know what a conscious mind can do, and where it goes, like, what is it? So, you know, the kind of extended mind hypothesis of people like Andy Clark and others that say, whatever we consider the contents of our mental activities, we look at it in our head.
Chances are there are all kinds of scaffolds and proppings that we are using throughout the day, whether it's this pen that I use to write a note to myself on a piece of paper, whether it's that Google search I did, whether it's the notes I underline in a book, whether it's the walk I had with my dog and that thought I had that wouldn't have only happened because I was walking the dog. All those encounters aren't located here, right? They're as much in the space around us that we carry alongside of us. that is, that has to be accounted as effective.
And that is, those are material things, right? So the idea of even, I always like to use with my students, when I talk about affect, Burke Stone's idea of involuntary memory, right? That we have all these things we can do, and all these encounters we have, they get deposited somewhere in our, you know, and it's not just reflex, it's not just kind of gestural memory. I mean, if you could go back to the house you grew up in, and to look out a window, you could just like, you know, Proust, who was a student of Burke Stone's. the rights and remembers remembers some things better in search of lost time remembers some things past this encounter, right, which is there, but it's not located just in you.
It's you and the object world and the perceptual nature of that, that is part of your own kind of scaffolding. And so, and that to me is an affectively material relationship. That's, I think that's really important to try to get. I think Freud was one of the first to really try to do that in a scientific way.
And I think, again, one of the kind of bifurcations I've been affecting study sometimes is a kind of and often gets criticized. There's this great essay called Biology's Gift by two British researchers that's really good that says, you know, affect often relies on scientific research, but then doesn't quite, you know, and I think it's got some points it makes, but people like Lisa Blackman and others are saying there's work going on in the sciences that affect has a lot to say about, and there's ways in which the science, the different kind of brain sciences and other kinds of sciences are clearly doing things that are experimental. and are speculative and are verging into the kind of philosophical realm that ethics has often seemed to dwell in.
We need to find ways in which we can bring that together more and more. Thank you. I didn't know that story about Freud. I'm going to check the book as well.
So the book is published now, right? Yeah, Project for Scientific Psychology. Yeah, as much as Freud didn't want it to be published. Yeah, and this is a great moment.
I actually have an essay. It's in the Animations of the Losers and Got to Read book that you mentioned in the intro. on this moment in Freud.
So I can send it to you if you want. Yeah, that would be wonderful. Thank you very much. Now you've got some, you've given me something to read after the interview.
Interesting point you mentioned about Freud trying to work with this model of affect as a material entity, but you couldn't or you put it away. I think that's all what Brian Massoumi is putting a lot of emphasis on, which is affect is about skin. It's about our bodies and in cultural studies we don't have a vocabulary specific to that to describe that. He mentions in that book and autonomy of affect here and that's another question that I also had. Brian Massoumi is very careful to make a distinction between affect and emotion and he just mentioned that Spinoza has two words for affect and one of them is affection so it's sometimes African emotions are used synonymously.
Do you do consider this do you distinguish these two from one another or and if we think about those modes that i talked about there's three modes we have to kind of hold register together the point of intensity the line of variation the plane potential that i think that people who work most commonly in that kind of point of intensity that verges on something very close to emotion we can call it emotion i think when we talk about lines of variation we talk about planes of potential it's hard to think about those as emotion and those increasingly become less and less human. I think the problem with, and again, I can think about animal emotion. I think Franz de Waal's work on animals and emotion is really important work to think about. But I think if we reduce affect just to emotion, then that's a problem. But I want to say it's emotion and something more than emotion.
But I have no problem. There's this really interesting writer named Daniel Stern, who wrote a book called The Interpersonal World of the Infant. It deals a lot with affect.
He talks about what he calls categorical and vitality affects and vitality affects are the idea that these things are always um passages of intensity they're always the hand that is moving towards the child to pick the child up it's always in it's always moving it's always this so it's hard to rope it off and say that's that's care or that's love i mean this is an action that is a material action but also um something we there's something more than emotion but he says you besides vitality effects, which are all the kind of joys and rushes and sadnesses that are, that we are hard to kind of give a discreet name to, he talks about categorical affects, which are the kind of describable affects that have the kind of easy terms that we can put on, not necessarily easy terms, but the terms that we can think about in more emotional context. But I always want to say that those things are always being preceded by in following in the wake of, you know, some other larger, you know. instead of something already in motion. So I don't want to lose track of the motion, the motions that attend to how emotions arrive, right?
And that's important, I think. But the big debate about, if it is a big debate about emotion and affect, I don't want to make it a big debate. Motion has a place in affect. It seems that some later thinkers like Sarah Ahmed tends to use them in some cases interchangeably. Yeah, I think about what Sarah does, the kind of phenomenology.
Yeah. That even though she queers phenomenology obviously. But I think that is again working in that that that register of intensities. and how things register on or across the skin of a body. And that is, I think it gets you really close to affections and emotions in that earlier mode.
Now that I mentioned Sarah Ahmed, I'd like to talk about her a little bit, because I was reading her books. I think it was called The Political Economy of Emotions, where she talks about emotions. And I think it's very relevant.
She wrote it, I guess, in 2003. if I'm not mistaken, a couple of years after 9-11. But I guess it's very relevant these days as well, because she talks about how emotions could serve as a basis for formation, for formation of groups, local groups or movements, emotions such as anger, hatred, love. And I guess with recent movements, anti-racist movements, such as Black Lives Matter, or even some... white supremacist supremacist groups also use those emotions as a basis of formation so i guess that's an important moment because then emotions are not something internal but they become i mean that that intensity that you just mentioned i mean that there are lines of movements again in society that we can see um so actually that's really important to say you've probably read it too i'm gonna blank on the name exactly but basically the circulation of affect you of the economies or values and the way in which you know the the way in which affect or emotion and the way in which sarah common understands it has to it's not this kind of it's kind of like a capital like capital doesn't work if it just sits capital has to move it has to kind of you know enter i got into the world and return with something a little extra easy i hope it's for your capitalist profit but she talks about the way in which affect or emotion um circulate you and the kind of value economies that accrue to the ways in which they're circulating, the communities in which they circulate, what Lauren Poulant calls the magnetization, right?
Like this idea of the kind of ways in which certain kinds of affective values create these magnets that draw people. And I think that again, even work like Tony Sampson's most recent book on Sleepwalker's Guide to Social Media, this looks at the rise of new authoritarianisms and the kind of new fascisms that are happening around the world. He looks at Bolsonaro and he looks at Trump obviously and looks there in England at the same time.
But that, the rise of those figures and what kind of emotions circulate and again the famous moment from Trump was the sign that a follower held up that said, fuck your feelings, right? Like this is, you know, and this is kind of, that's a kind of very intense statement about feelings that draw, that draw kind of you know, the way in which that affective value circulates and either drop people or repel just like a magnet does or, you know, the polar, the poles of something that send some particles over there and some over here and you can see this happening in the world increasingly as things get more and more, at least in the US especially, for Trump, more and more polarized. Yeah, I guess I think Sarah Altman's work is fantastic.
I think with the recent with the epidemic that we are in and again trying some people trying to scapegoat others for the for the outbreak of the epidemic that's again i guess very much relevant to the idea of affect and how it's used as a pull this intensity or emotion is used as a political weapon right you can see it happening not just you know at at the at the level of a population but the level of the at the ways in which what circulates around them whether it's the food they eat or whether it's the places they worship or the things that they hold as valuable, then also get sucked into that orbit of either things to be attracted to or repulsed by. So that is very much affective, right? That kind of transversality of different forms of how affect travels in ways that can link processes, objects, and environments.
Thank you very much. And just as a last question, in your book you lay out eight different approaches towards affect and you do talk about Bruno Latour as well and remember I read somewhere that I personally love the works of Bruno Latour but he has also been met with backlash and one of them is that he comes up with these esoteric ideas of giving vitality of life to objects but I do find his ideas very interesting because we it does break down it does collapse that Cartesian duality of subject object human non-human and it makes us think of of agency as a form of a distributed agency or a network of agencies, which is again very similar to the idea of affect those lines or points of intensities. So is it also something?
Yeah, I think there's a lot of Latour that I really appreciate. I think that you're exactly right. What I like most about his work is the idea of distributed agency, the idea of the non-human, and in his case, often the technological, as having its own kind of agency. But the way in which I have to talk about his work in my classes is it's a great book.
It's a really popular book. It sold pretty well. Michael Paul in a book called The Botany of Desire. He looks at four plants, the apple, marijuana, potato, and the tulip. But he wants to know how they are agents.
And so here in America, of course, we have this idea that it's as American as apple pie. But when you read his chapter on the apple, you find out there were no apples in America, right? They're from, you know, from the kind of, I forget the exact location, but somewhere like in the kind of corners of Russia in the mountains there.
And they traveled here. I mean, people like Johnny Appleseed and others spent all their time kind of redistributing apples to open up the American frontier. But apples don't grow sweet from the ground.
They need to be grafted. So the apple really kind of guides us in some ways, requires us to do the labor that produce, you know, the apple that we eat. But the idea that this American phenomenon was something that we just simply... you know, we're the agents of, when in fact, if anything, the apple had a great capacity that in some ways lead to its own kind of thriving.
That's, you know, and I think Latour does something similar when he looks at the ways in which the agency of non-human objects and processes have just as much capacity to affect as they have to be affected and remind humans that we are not kind of at the center of that world. And I think, you know, there is some dangers, you mentioned the kind of giving vitality, I think it's often a critique of Jane Bennett, and what Alexander Galloway has called in affect studies, nature's largesse, right? Like, there's this kind of idea that these things just are already vital, and we just kind of unlock that vitality.
And there's something very romantic about that. And there's something that's, you know, that is probably, again, we don't want to modulate any kind of, you know, full I think affect is always about mixities. It's never about being positive or wholly negative. It's always some kind of potential to affect and to be affected. It may not be reciprocal, it may not be equal, but it's hard to grant it all one or the other.
And I think Latour certainly makes you rethink the ways in which you center the human and build out from there. You can't, in Latour's work, you can't put the human at the middle. And so there's great work.
I think one of the best... books in the last 15 years or so is Natasha Dow Scholl's book on machine gambling in Las Vegas, which she really does, and she uses Latour amongst others, talk about the assemblage of the machine, the human, the algorithm, the architecture of the casino, the angle of light that all produce this kind of gambling aspect. And it's really sophisticated in terms of how the human is not the center of the story, right?
How it gets feathered out into technologies and other things. I think Latour's, you know, I certainly credit his work with making that available to critical vocabulary to think with. When I wanted to get my head around the idea of assemblers, I guess one of the best examples that I read was the famous blackout.
I think in New York that affected hundreds of thousands of people and the idea of distributed agency that nobody planned. a fault into the machine. It just it was a work of the machines and the cables, the humans and the computer and the codes and algorithms. So that's how I tend to think of the idea of an assemblage network and distributed agency. Yeah.
Just had enough time and will to continue this conversation. Thank you very much, Gregory. That was an excellent conversation and certainly giving me a long list of books to have a look at after the interview.
Great. Well, it was a pleasure to talk to you this morning, and I hope some of it connects and makes sense. And I know you're finishing up with some students that you're working with, or a community you're working with, so that's fantastic.
And if they have questions, anybody wants to follow up, I'm available. I'm busy, but I'm always willing to help. That's one of the things I try to do in APEC Studies is that through the journal Capacious and through events and seminars and workshops, I really do want to reach out to early career scholars, to non-academics, and to graduate students. That's really where I find the energy and the vitality of the academy and whatever kind of hopefulness I have, which there isn't a great deal of that anymore, for the academic futures.
is in the young people who are challenging the ways in which we think the theories and and the world operates and so I'm always happy to to have dialogue with people who are working and trying to figure things out. Thank you very much. With your permission then I'll pass your email to the students so if they have any questions they can just contact you directly. Thank you very much and I'll send you the video before uploading it on YouTube.
Thank you very much. Have a wonderful day. You too. Bye-bye.