>>96305246The answer depends on whether or not the dimension/universe where you travel actually looks like the way it is represented here. For example, one may consider that what we see on TV is not the true vision of the art itself but a mere representation (an imperfect copy). As Plato himself believed, art is imitation of a real and ultimate beauty that we have yet to see; it is merely a shadow of the ultimate truth for what is really being represented. Does that mean that the programs we watch, all of which are derived from a vision, become merely hollow replications of what this hypothetical dimension or universe (the "true" show, if you will) is? Or is the TV show actually the perfect representation of that reality. While one can argue that the show is indeed the more "truthful" iteration due to others responding to it more than the original truth of which it's birthed, we must also consider that may mean that what we DO like derived from the original truth brought to the show is part of the ultimate truth, thus potentially nullifying that argument. However, let us assume that this is correct --that everything shown of a show on TV is the definite, real, truthful universe. Then, let us go on to somehow breach into this universe with a lewd work of art depicting a character from the show we see of it from our world. The question of the picture being able to fool the character of which it is based on becomes more difficult. This universe is from a work of artistic expression -- we have, in our own realm, created expression based on expression of a world we either created or discovered by some ultimate truth. This makes it not quite true to the source, so the character might see it as false...but the style it is drawn might fool others. Therefore, something will be off about it, but it could potentially fool others for purposes of blackmail. Potentially, that is. Like
>>96305332 said, it may look real, but it could seem fake.
>>96305298Ha. You're offended.
