>>95662025The first one was, according to the creators, about how not to teach a lesson. In representing that, it didn't differentiate between the often positive-associations of creativity (the arts, ingenuity) and that it could also arguably manifest with a focus on morbidity or straight up insanity--you can be creative with a story, or with how you smear blood across your body.
The second was more of the same. A lesson on time turned into a reminder of mortality and the impermanence of history.
The third, easy, it was about love. Specifically, the romanticization and ideation of love, presenting it as a highest goal and one of which everyone both deserves to partake in and will inevitably get to experience (the ideal notwithstanding, life doesn't always work out that way). In doing so it opens the gate for unhealthy fixations on the concept of love, such as cult-like behavior and being easily preyed-upon.
4-6 though are mired more in metanarrative than in subverting traditional lessons, peppering scenes with even more oddness and off-putting imagery and situation which don't seem to be readily clear in terms of what they're subverting, and ultimately leading to a conclusion which is entirely subjective and up to the viewer to determine the meaning of. This might be a commentary on the nature of art, or simply the creators wanting to leave something open for interpretation.
I'm not a fan of the direction the series took in its latter half, but it was still memorable and interesting.
