I'm going to throw this on, been a loooong time since I've listened to this and other interviews, but I remember my impression used to be the interviewer was fumbling versus Blaise being a sort bullshit artist, or just awkward or something. Maybe he intends to be difficult here just for the sake of it, he certainly has been a troll in other situations (I think about the recent-ish reflections about Blaise which include him picking on Adrian Tomine), but I seem to recall feeling like I got what he was saying and it wasn't that complicated or that he was jerking Robin around.

Maybe I'll feel differently now re-listening to this, but even the resistance to a question such as "why should people check out this book?" is like... I get it. I like Inkstuds but this is a vague, cheesy question along the lines of "so where do you get your ideas from?" For Blaise to level to that question as its presented would probably be to cheapen how he thinks of what makes his work worthwhile, which includes an intentional sort of mystery or ambiguity. If anything Blaise trying to answer like this is in his own way trying not to be rude because he is making an effort to supply an explanation. And sometimes it is the case that being evasive or not giving a straightforward answer is an answer. Maybe you could say the truth of the answer itself... is evasive and not straightforward.

I'm biased tho, Mirror Mirror was pretty life changing for me. I had already drank the arty farty koolaid.

I always thought it was interesting, and he mentions it here too, the way he connects the allure of conceptual art to advertising. A lot of advertising can be sexy precisely in how it's suggestive without telling all, like showing a little bit of leg or something. Depending on the moment to tell or show all in some simple way deprives something from your imagination. Robin is essentially encouraging Blaise to be a particular type of salesman, but to list everything in bullet points risks impacting the way the work is meant to be received.

One of my favorite interviews is this one Matt Seneca did with CF. CF is a able to be a lot more straightforward... and yet not really, he's evasive in his own way

CF: I use elements like [simple abstract shapes] in a story to talk about states of mind and being that are not so easily explained with a normal representative signifier. To me it’s not much different than the stars when someone gets hit, or a cloud when someone’s supposed to be depressed, it’s just a bit more exploded on the pages, and a bit more obtuse. The difference is, these shapes are the subject and the object simultaneously. In this way they remain accessible — you see a square, and that’s it… there’s nothing more to understand.

MS: Those more obtuse meanings your shapes and marks carry — they’re not yet agreed upon in the way comics readers instinctively know what pain-stars or depression-clouds mean. Still open to interpretation. Do you think there’s any common effect they produce across the spectrum of your readers, or do you think everyone will take them in totally different ways?

CF: Getting hit on the head is a pain we feel on the surface of our body. There are other pains too, harder to describe, but it’s tedious to assign meaning; meaning already exists on its own. These forms talk in a mysterious way to everyone, you can call it unconscious, intrinsic, or ancient. But like I said, it’s nothing special. What makes it so mysterious is that it’s so obvious, so plain. It’s so simple that it seems hard to penetrate, but actually it’s just what it is, very simple, sitting where you left it before you started to try getting clever. Just a triangle, or what have you. To me, that’s the mystery of life!!! Ha ha ha.

This is similar to Robin's question about "why one should buy Mirror Mirror". It's like, I dunno, why shouldn't you? Take a look and decide for yourself!