Yianni Agisilaou interview

Yianni Agisilaou is delivering an of jokes on how humans and technology are changing each other in his latest Edinburgh show. He's also presenting the show Comedians Against Humanity at this year's Fringe too.

Will you be enforcing a tech ban in your show?

Yes. It's all about respect.

A ban on absolutely everything that is or ever was at any time technology. So no smartphones, pagers, digital watches, fob watches or grandfather clocks. Also, there will be no chairs, no amplification, no lighting that isn't the sun or moon. All promotion will be by word of mouth as the printing press is the tool of the devil.

And, if I'm being true to my word, buildings are technically technology so I refuse to do the show in one. It'll just be me and anyone who wants to see it talking around a campfire naked (clothes were caveman technology). Oh wait. Scratch the campfire.

On second thought, this all seems impractical, so let's say technology is allowed, just as long as you're respectful. Turn phones off, not even out of respect for me. Out of respect for yourselves. People watched and were immersed in shows for thousands of years before we all got phones in the late 90s. Do yourself a favour and allow your concentration to just be unbroken for an hour.

Is technology a force for good in comedy?

Technology is neutral. It's what we do with it that makes it good or bad. For every bit of received wisdom about comedy and technology there's a fairly stark flip side.

RECEIVED WISDOM: The internet and streaming technology has allowed comedians to propagate their content worldwide, building a fanbase to which they can tour to.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Most of this content is made and offered for free onto platforms that use our content to sell advertising and boost their bottom line. Only the biggest YouTube stars make any money at all and we all seem to have slid quite easily into an economic model where we value our creative exertions (monetarily at least) at essentially zero. But, fuelled by hope we have been sold this myth that we'll be able to parlay them into some 'potential' touring fanbase that in all but a small minority of cases won't ever exist.

Meanwhile, we pay digital giants like Facebook and Google for advertising to try to 'find an audience' meaning that rather than democratising the arts and building a sort of wealthy online middle class, we kind of have this sweatshop type situation where artists trade their hope and money for a lottery type chance at 'success'. All while undercutting the revenue model of print media and a strong fourth estate to keep government accountable.

We've been seduced into the idea online that we're 'getting everything for free' but everything has a price.

See? It's complex.

In the future of automation, what would your show look like?

Well, I do discuss in the show that jobs like mine will probably be the last ones to be replaced. Because comedy, as much as it's billed as being 'a joke', is very sophisticated. It requires an understanding of human emotions, fears, drives, hopes, ambitions, linguistic rules and how to break them, plus a wide variety of words for 'cock'.

And the jobs that they say are least at threat from being replaced by automation are creative jobs or jobs with an emotional component.

So in the future of automation, I reckon my show would look pretty much identical. Except instead of taxi drivers, truck drivers, telemarketers, legal secretaries, supermarket cashiers in the audience, there would be people doing whatever these obsolete jobs have been replaced with.

In your Comedians Against Humanity show, what is the worst card you have been dealt?

I think someone played the 'Madelaine McCann' card in Edinburgh during our second show! That brought a big 'Ooooooooooh!'

But one of the funniest stories we've ever had (which could have gone horribly wrong) was in Sydney. I'd booked three acts, one of whom (Tanyalee Davis) was going to be arriving late. So we started with the two acts that we had.

During the show, I asked for a suggestion and one guy yelled out one of the cards that he had, which was 'Two midgets shitting in a bucket!' People laughed, but I declined to choose it. About five minutes later, I asked for another suggestion and the same guy again yelled out 'TWO MIDGETS SHITTING IN A BUCKET!' obviously finding the card hilarious enough to yell out twice.

Now what he didn't know is that our yet-to-arrive third act Tanyalee Davis is in fact a little person. A VERY little person. When she finally arrived, I announced "Ladies and gentlemen our third act has arrived. Can we have a big round of applause for Tanyalee Davis!" at which point she walked on to stage along with her husband who brought on a little platform that he then lifted her up onto so that she could be seen when she performed.

Anyway, someone must have told her what happened with the guy in the audience because the minute she grabbed the mic she said "Sorry I'm late, a friend and I were busy shitting in a bucket" and the room just exploded with laughter. It was just perfect.

In a battle between comedians and humanity who would win?

Wait. Comedians AREN'T humanity?

Some might say that the ongoing battle about what you can joke at and what you can't is a proxy battle between comedy and humanity.

Which is not to say that comedy is inhuman. But the nature of the art form is that it is subversive. And sometimes, the best way to make a point is to make the opposite point and trust the audience to see the ludicrousness.

Similarly, sometimes to make a joke, we make a creative decision to be nasty, odious or say something we don't mean, to pretend to defend the indefensible. These are all comedic techniques.

This is not to say that some jokes don't deserve to be called out. Some jokes have ill intent, no higher hidden purpose or take pot shots at people who already can't defend themselves. In these situations, it's right and important that people call these jokes out.

But, as with everything, there is a line. And if the nature of comedy is that it is subversive, that sometimes in order to reveal the light, we choose to show the dark, this always relies on an audience's ability to discern this.

But if our insistence on humanity at all times means jokes that even allude at being nasty are criticised this is a very restrictive definition of humanity. Humanity is complex and nuanced, sometimes nested within anger, rage, scorn and all manner of other 'negative' emotions. To deny these is to deny parts of ourselves. And I think that the best way to resolve this is like most things, look deeper.

This was a bit of a weird response, but it was a bit of a strange question!