It squares two rivais off against each other, Bougainville and Cook, Here. Il was but thirty paees awav. It was Like a kind of apotheosis for the viewer. This break is both the condition of possibiltty and the effect of a beginntng. Ai la a dream, this shade stalles the theatncaJ and novdistic stages of the tune Vigny, Hugo, Dumas.
Del a vigne, etc. Theater" transforma the muiti- form test, which nevertheless continues to dktate ils law. It tncks the past; il cornes up on U front behtad and tums it around. The sticcess of this operation is ne ver certain. It has to be that of the author in relation to hit double.
- R is for Rhode Island Red: A Rhode Island Alphabet (Discover America State by State).
- Aïe Aïe Aïe !.
- « Au pied du mur de la réalité » : Leiris et la peinture - Persée!
- Europe et religions : Les enjeux du XXIe siècle (« Les dieux dans la Cité ») (French Edition)?
- Table of contents.
- Montaigne and Brief Narrative Form?
Division which is here, as in Freud, Zweifel, douta, internai division dues mot jus! His theater is, precisely, the production of the no-place of the author, the comic or tragic confession of the property owner who is in fact only a renter, or someone in debt, livtag in a "borrowed home" that is— as the Title implies — metaphorical. Who masio. Dumas" stage is haunted by the other.
It links truth to a force-effect in the gap between the other and others; a medium mai mai ns the break beiween thon and assures the transmission, This is fundamentally the sa m e as the power of the historian. That is ihe question asked by Dumas' historical theater as a whole. The private is the secret space of drift. No public prohibition can stop them. His Urbain Grand ier suggests this with an adroit comparison: Time is a serpent which biles those who do not know how to use it, and caresses those who fcnow how to profit by it.
There are no gaps and tears but vmtten nnes. Fiction is the solitary machine which engmeers the Eros of death. Vertsm was on dre side of the simulacrum, a lheater of vcrisitn. After Zola came Jarry and Roussel and Duchamp and Kafka: theoretical fictions of the impossible other, of writing abandoned to its drcular movement, to its solitary erec tio n- c on structi dus.
Il deploys onJy the ironie. It challenges the prindple of Occidental ambition. Theoretkal fiction points to the site of writing. Which is what brought up the problem addressed by Duchamp: "The Precondi- tions of a Languagc. It thus marks in narrative in "fiction" the process by which narrative is construcied. They de fine its mode of produc- tion.
A mmim laquendi'. The only "authorities" are verbal. A writing machine. But the probability of an eyewitness k not enough. The inscription rem ai ns an unknown graph though it is known by its unknown author. Thus, pain is the onJy guaraniee of the good fort u iK of being written.
This genesis remakes the mystic in the image of God; the mon? Thanks to the lueky wound made by an unintelligible glyph. Fer the mystics, death is "effacement" in the "real" life. A fall into nothing- ness. Therefore death. He lends crcdibtIUy to no System of veri similitude. He is just there, as the condition of possibility for his other.
The bride the mystics expected in death will ne ver corne, iremenda et fascmenda, to reestablish or found an order or truth of life. This final torture is miss ing? The machine ceases to evangelize an al te ri :y whose witoess it daims to be, Its only end is an end in itself, It is a game. Time kills. Duration is thus repressed by celibatory machines, every bit as mue h as the subject or intuition. Not a speedract, but a sta cernent, a sentence without a referent. In effect.
Narrative rejects this iri descent multitude of the other, this phantasm woman. Rende red iinreaf—m other words laid bare— she becomes an excuse to produce without hcr. It jg the torture of language by language in the self-propeUing game of its own mockeiy and pro- duction. It is removed from lime, from the body and from the woman. U modifies the fteld of culture within which it moves, becoming the instru- ment of our analyses. Whai engine is hidden in its seeming transparence?
The pmblem of the institution. Thcre is nothing hidden because exteri- ority laites ils place. The celibatory machine keeps the other outside of ilself. It hehaves as such al ils place of production. It confesses or flaunts, whtchever y ou Like its relation to its limit, the limit of bon g masculine and nothing but. A cutting refusai,, made exact! Bave you read it? But there are chose who say that success, Jet alone faddishness, is a sure sigm of a superficia] or outmoded work.
First of ali. Heis amusing. Stiimm- lating. The limck Sun of Laugmte So what is it aboul? With a hurried step. No one can express in words that which gives everyone lhe power to speak. The Same the homogeneity of order appears as otherness the heterogeneity of the unconscious, or radier of the implicit. Order emerges from disorder only in the foim of tbe equi vocal. In FoucaulTs bocks, reason dies and is siimilta- neously rebom.
XI: Eng. So however new and cardi- nally important and arguable it may be, it does not curry within itself the mcans for its own justification, at leasi not now. For Foucault, unreason is no longer the outer limit of reason: it is ils truth. V; Eng. The historien of ideas seems capable of nothing else. XII; Eng. Not long ago. It is one of surprise. A hini. Heteronomy is at the same lime the stimulus and what is inadmissible. Et is a wound in rationalisai , There are thus iwo stages 10 ihe process: First.
This apphes cqually to the confinement of the insaoe and ihe sevcmeenth-cemury con- ception of gmuunar. A problem arises: what is the nature of this "level. The question of damg y long classified arnorig the givens of historical inquizy, becomes an episiemological problem. The sa me mental objecta "fonction" differently. Foucault demonstrates this in the case of psychoanalysis. It is the relation ofother to other.
None will ever succeed in halting ifs obscure work- ings, or in staving off its fatal venom. Internai fininide struggles against the stnicturings that try to overcome it, and provides lhe arena for the defense of tbe same. Alterity always reappears, and in a fondamental way. A truth is spolcen by the organisation of a culture, but it escapes its own collaborators. Such is the law the hLstorian discovers as soon as he is forced to distinguish language from unconscious intentions. Thus, it is in his discussions of literary works that Foucault tnost clearly reveals the radical absence that "lies beneath the sign it produces in order to enabk one to approach it as Lhough it were possible to rejoin it" PD, p.
In other words, he speaks of the death that fournis al language wfrhout really confronting the death within his own discourse; in fact t bis approach may be a way of avoiding it. We may thus ask ourselves two questions regard in g Foucault, First, what his- tory does he recount? Los Angeles. In a chararteristic strategy of indirec- tion. Rat hcr. This refunt of the past su gge sts a Freudian story.
From this point of view, then, a society would be composed of certain prac- tices which, selectivdy developed and extemalized , organize its normative insti- tutions aJongside mnumerable other practices. What new kind of relation does it maintain with the dispersed ensemble of other procedures when it has al length been insti- tutionalized as a penitentiary and scientific system? Fourth Question: Can we go still further? They now bdong to our ideology.
Beyond, oothing but the sea. But we may consider the micro-techniques as building the theory, instead of being its object. B y this way they receive an ethnoiogical form. Foucault' s theory ls also put of the art of "scoring. It is a narrative, a lheoretical narrative, which obeys rules analogous to chose panoplie procedures.
Foucault bas specified hitn- self as a "reader. He h as an aimost magic power for pointing at surpris! His m armer of usmg a panoptical discourse as a mask for tactical interventions wilhin our epistemologicaJ fie kl s is partkukrly rcmarkahle. But this the- ater of clarity is a ruse. The oprical space is the trame of an inter- na ] transformation due to its rhetorical reemployment. But on a second leveJ. And so, a Nietzschean laughter mean while runs through the historian's texl. Two short propositions ma y be an introduction to a debate, and may lake the place of a conclusion: 1 Procedures are not mcrely the objects of a theory.
They organize the very construction of theory itself. Far front being extern al to theory. In this hypothesis, a narrative theory would be indissociable from any theory of practices, for it would be its precondition as well as its production. What is your specialty? Where are you Corning ffom? A reader. When he discovered them he would rail with laughter. Nor has he prepared in advance a place to keep his finds.
It is his philosophical signature on the irony of history. Is this by chance? Or is it 10 solicit the reader? The y cadence it like successive solicitations of Foucault h lin self. Forgot- ten Systems of reason stir in these mirrors. On the level of the paragraph or phrase, quotes function in the wne way: each of them is embedded there like a fragment of a mirror, having the value not of a p roof but of an astonishmem— a sparkle of oTher, The entire discourse proceeds in this fashion from vision to vision.
In fact, the visible becomes for him the arena of the new stakes of power and knowledge, Already a major locus for Merleau-Ponty, lhe visible constitutes for Foucault the contemporary theater of our fondamental options. Mustered on this terrain of our episiemo- iogkd wars, lhe work of philosophy opposes lhe Systems that subject space to surveillance with paradoxes that chance encounters produce in it; it opposes the panoptic level ing with discontinuliies revealed in thought by chance.
None of the se maps defines a destiny or truth of thought. They answer to the laughs of history. Polit Seal activity has the same style. Now, value is assigned to every human bemg accord m g to his actions, bis fonction with in a histOrkaJ econorny Cop vnghi e Michel de Ceneui. The scientific establish- ment has been graduai! This m te mec me strife between history and storytelling is very old, Like an oki family quand, positions and opinions are often fixed. He hallows oui a place for his disci- pline in the terrain of neceived tradition, tn this way, installcd in the midst of a given society 's stralified and interconneded modes of narrative that is to sa y.
In this way. It m a mythic structure whose opaque presence haunts our scient! For Popper, the scicmific community corrects any effects of the researcher's suhjectivity. They conceal their relationship to this hierarchical, soctoeconomic apparatus. Scfiolar- ship is an integra! But the disavowal is in vain. In a reciprocal tkshion, such misfortunes generale tories; they authorke die hislo- rian's or newsmaker T s tireless production of them.
These informational discourses furnisb a common referent to ail those who are otherwise separated. In it everything happens as ihough the situation in Afghanistan merely display ed Jt- self through the medium of Dan Raiher, In fact, the situation is told to us in a story which is the prexiuct of a certain milieu, of a power structure, of contracta between a corporation and its clients, and of the logic of a certain technicaJity.
It is performative. I shall take as an example the functioning of thc computer in the field of professional historiography, The computer opens up the possibility of quantitative, serial analysis of variable relationships among stable units over an extended period of time. For the historian, il is tanlumount to discovering the i si and of the Blessed At last he will be able to se ver historiog- raphy from ils compromising relations with rhetoric.
Books are now fillcd with numerical figures, the gumrantors of a certain objectivity. Rut, ai as, it is rteeessary to disenchant him, though we need not go as far as Jack Douglas or Herbert Siroons. The re fore. The priee of the rigofous itovdty in his method is the transformation of its object of study into a Fiction. One must deftne the units to be treatcd in such a way that the statistical sign the numbered object must ne ver be identifiai with things or words, in which case historien!
On the otber, the computation of large num- bers will prohibit imerp rotations founded on particular cases or on received ideas. There is. In the field of history , the computer is used essentiel ly to build uew archives. He utilizes them, but he is not in command of them. Et plays the roie of the authoritative citation.
Among ail the authoriiies to which the his- tariographical discourse may refer, it is this one that lends it the utorost Jegiti- macy. Power today taises on the technocratie fbrm of the computer. Ils scieffiific pto- ceedings express once again sortie thing nnscientific: the ho mage rendered to die computer sustains an old hope of making historien! But whatever it has to give up in order to establish itself retums under the figure of the other, front which it continually awaits a guaramee agauist that lack that is at the origin of ail our knowledge.
The specter of a total- izing and ontological science reappeart in the form of a belief in the other. But I believe it can alzo be understood as the index of a peculiar eptstemoJogical status and, there- fore, of a fonction and a scientific ity to be reckoned with in its own right. Thb act of neutralizarion continues in rnany instances to be organszmg the ideology proclairocd in certain scientific conxmu- nittes. Time con- tinues to be expeiienced within the productive process; but. F rom the subject-object relationship, we pass to a plural ity of gndtors and con- iracting parties.
But this deba. For example. After having been central in analyses of society up untii the end of the eigjhteenth century through Spinoza. JT But unother logk tomes into play hcre, which is not that of the positive sciences. It began to re-emerge with Freud. But in this lentious position, hlsforiography seeks to maintain the possibility of a scientific expianition through the textua!
An affirmation of scientificity rules this discourse, which con- joins the explicable with the not y et explicable. What is recou rated there is a fiction of science itself. While place is dograatic, die coming back of tinte restores an ethics. Copyright c Michel de Ce n eau, Th. No longer ravaged by poverty, as they were whca krvev. Memory, or the Tortured Body The period of repression, however, is not yet over. The list of abuses that made it into the na- tional or international press would be long iirdeed.
In any case, ideoJogy is more often than not absent from their demands. In effect, a common language would only create for the Indian groups a snbstitute body. It would fmally replace the earth with doctrinal speech; it would efface the feder- ated ethnie groups by Lmposing a unitary, al l- encompassing discourse , As it stands, on the contrary. The law h the very fonction ing of the graup— an authority that k embedded in practical norms, not set above them. Western develop- ment. Lastly, cultural pturalism is also essentiai to the self-management perspec- tive.
It is accom- panied— is it an y surprise? Notes Otapter ]. VoL Freud, Marri and Manotheism, SE. Vol Il, p. SE, Val. Totem and Taboo. SE, Vol. SE, Vol 9. Il eonstitui. Education psychanalytique en Russie ; M. Soviet Psydmtry. BaJisirsorc Williams and Wilkins, , Nathan G. Huit, Jr. Norman O. Erik Erikson. Lloyd Demause. Sce alwf Recherches, no.
Im manuel Kant. J ' Inkompetrrrt ' 4 : cf. Standard Edition. Ca rrespondance. Rtriv Gallimard. Freud— Zweig. Doabt and D? Sigmund Freud, Murent and Dreams. Fncdnch vm Schiller. Vol- 64, , pp. New Vork; Randnni Haute, Philippe Lejeune, Le pacte autobiographique Paru: Seuil, Macalpmc and R. Schreber, p. In Gncck il is akatharnn. La folie dans in psychanalyse Paris: Payot, , pp. There is an ritaMant iilcrature on the subject, Cf.
Amncsiy International. Report on Torture London. Il, Cf, for cjtampte Stemm B. For cxanplc. Schreba, p, 75 German, p. Alan SterwJsn New York: tianoa. Sigmund Freud, The Case of Schreber. Cliapier 4. Alan She ridait New York, , pp. In the. Renaud et J. Srttdiesm Hysteria, tr. James, Strachcy New York. I97J , pp. See David Steel. Lacoue Laharte and l. Nancy, Le Titre de la lettre Paris.
In CMmaternter, 16 P Krilik der Urtedskrafl. Livre I Paris, , p. Ad IH, Stoene iv. J, Hulbert, Voie French Stmliet. Katerte jorwa New York, Encore, pp.
Shaping the Essay
Il See Lacan. L W Cannibris. On thls structure. Michel de Ccrteau. The playere loTm a cirele. J r mention mus be marie of ChauvreuMi's transposition of Beiuoni. Histoire naturelle dm nouveau mande , Osono's Histoire dm Portugal, etc. Soe note b above. Sec Marcel Bataillon. On tose un angi bief takeit up by Goethe. M ibid.. Kis Mouth. Louis Marin, Utopique?
Mystie Speech 1. Le Vice-Consul Paris: Gallimard, Over the ptaki and wayt of whkh so many mystic icxis sptai tnvels the wandencr. Cf, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Ludwig WitigensEein. Notebooks New York: Harper and ftow. SI Sec aise. Lucien Goldmaim. TheHubkn God, ir. Alphonse Duproni. Msny Leaguen irtra ilso o kl nobiliiy. U, Michel de Cericnn. I CL Jacques Le Brun. Cf, Marie du SauitSacrcment. IfTf , pp.
See Friedrich L linge. B Neveux. Btcvtfa E. U is found in M sineemh- and tevut- Lrentli-i:cntury icutnography and litersuee. Alberto Tenenti. PP- 1. In Ms cootext. MUT , p. Dialogus, in M. Francis Rapp. John G. Colin, John Wallis. Truth Tried , p. Qu the status d language, cf. Jeton ef the Cran, tf. Vide y ohms. I s pp. Emile Beuvenbte. Unguistict, Vol. The moM. Vida y Obrm.. Paris, fdt tr. Sae Paul Zurrnhor. If75 , pp. Sdiulie- Buimke, , Vol, IV. Le patte mtidhia-g ropkique Paris: Seuil, , pp.
Lejeune, pp. LHorwfat del Gutiito intenor, dup. I, Ofvtu, II. Conclusion, Momdas. Terem b Compote Works. Hfflli pnmi. The other is relatai to the dream, ot oightmare Lejeune, p. L 'Ecriture de! Mystique Paris: Gallimard. Tu the Source of thc Danube. Christiute Rdhaitt. Cantiques spintuek Bordeaux. Jigin of tbe Cross translates a verse from the Booi of Wiutixrt 8, Dinastittfigly original waj f. PP- Roman lakobm'n. Baudrillard , L change symbolique , p Palilogy: lhe npefition of the same word. KoWhamnwf, , Vol.
I AM that haih sent me unuo ym" iEiodui 3,14 , Cf. Vol, U, chip, 4. I92S , Vq. Sortis Kierkegaard. I un t peniisnt for wh. L97I , Vet. Lettres, p. York: Vintage. Cantique V, 12 WM CVmt,, pp. April , Curr. Sec Jacques Lacan. A sweet Wine br. Sec ehaplcr 5. Jacob Boehme, Mysterium Magwm, dups. Of, Pierre Deghatc. The CW of Vnhvnking, tr. Set chapter 3. Sunn, Qmliqwi spirilwlf. Cvdiqtc V. The Bwuty of lhe Msard I. Le Pelletier de Mor- fomaine. Sec Pierre Picmird. Gazier, Directive of fanuary 4, Archives nattonalea F lt , N isard. Histoire des livres populaires, 2 vols.
Georges Vicaire. WD- La Tradition nationale. In Jeu Poirier, ed. I2TW M. Robert Muidrou. Chartier, Reine historique. Jtm Pad Sartre. Bofitate Les 4lmonachs populaires. Henri Davcnson. Le Livre des cbmsom. De ta cithare populaire, p. Msndnou, De ta culture populaire, p. SoriaEiD, Lrs Coma. Part H. Soriano, Les Cornes. I May-June Nisajidr Histoire des livres populaires. Ibid , Vol. Mattel Magcl. Soriano, Les Contes. See Vladimir Propp. Jean-Jules Verne. Jules Verne Paris: Hachette.
I , pp, TtiU h the tcnn Freud usedio de fi rte Mates and Mimotheism. Michel de Cerneau. Nicolas San son Johannes van Keukn , the author of anotber kee-mim Amsterdam, ; Enjiiih version. History of Cartogmphy, tr, D. Mobile in the Mobile Etarum c. Paris: E, Leroux, , , for exwmpie. Vol, l P pp, On ihis " "Tour du monde' affair," ai Veux calicd il. Le Tour du Mande, riuji. In particulor, an ihr Second Pan.
JHerra-Jacques Onritet, Le temps des gmnds voiliers. OnJy Bougainville unknowingly emfearks with a woman on tmard, disgnteed as a "Mr. Alexandre Diimas. Ibid , Vd. I, pp. Alexandre Dumas Pans: Albin Michel. Couard, pp. Cf- Dumas and P. Hamiet, prime de Danemark Paris, Sec de Certeau, op. Ange Pitou , eic. U, Cf. Georges Dumdtil. Michel de Cerceau. L Ecriture de l'histoire Paris: Gallimard, Foord and R. Hepper Berkeley: University of California Press , Jean de la Croix Paris. The saine prucedure is followed in Duchamf. The "bride" is aiso the name of an insecl.
Symptoim and Ajiurty," in SE, Vol. Tibullus p. Pierre Legendre. L'amour du censeur [Paris: Seud. OT, 1. Jacques Roger. The Arvhaeototy cf Knowledge New Yack: Vintage, bdrvotcd io the methodnlngical proWerns posed by the "atebaeology! Sartreon criticism is tmaccepftsble whhout modification cf. L'A ne, ao. M A refusai of hiEtory'? I quoie Surveiller et punir. For au analysis of Foucudlk fini worits. Pierre Legendre, Liumir du censeur. Surveiller et punir, pp. L'usage des plaisirs. Robert Swyer.
Volume f: An toteodutrUm, ir. Kicheid Howard New York: Viniige. Gilles Deteuze, "Ecrivain non: un nouveau cartographe. Il, No. It'uuiir des plaisirs, p. Translation modifiai. Jean-Pkrre Paye. Les imgages wmUmires Paria: Heamann, Jack p. Ednftl A. Ettgeiw E. John Cmi , JheotogUx christimae pnmipm mahemotim f London: Lu langue des calants Pans: Charles Hovcl.
D Arlria. KevdL Une potitig tu? Paul Veyne, Comment on fis l'histoire Paris: Seuil. Albert O. Sec Marc Fumarnli. Smith Fussner. Kamsa: Indian groups, tribes. The paramo: a very raid m, lymg above aboui 9. Staftement of AN UC and. Jeun-Loup Herbert a. MAL Document do. SWay 4 aifljr the Stase, chap.
Society Against the State, p. These ''expLorafions" tn scifotuinogeoieHi refnain for the moai panmapian. Maurice Godeliar. Toacfc the Eanh, p. Cf, fer example, for Mexico. For BrariJ. For Paraguay. Index Abyis, Adler r Alfred. Il; and anal y rond. IL Alan, U Bettelhcim, Bruno. In art, politics is the visual and oral auction of pseudo-progressive trinkets through politically correct discourses, mere assertion of what the public wants to hear or see and identify, pure boring sanctimonious onanism; whereas the political is the interweaving of new form and content that dislodges public assumptions, avoiding clear.
So then, the political is a spiral of vertigo, it is the polis placed inside a centrifuge machine, it is an anti peacemaker mechanism. Ergo, art is not political because of its themes but because of its mode or formal procedure of action. It becomes political when it proposes a poetic interruption to rules and the law. It becomes political when it becomes a power to question and destabilize the spectator in the construction of his identity and reality, extending beyond the mimetic and Aristotelian system of representation and reproduction of existing and prevailing ideologies.
It becomes political when it proposes a clear subjectivation process to the audience, i. Assuming these artistic premises, we may also say that theatre, specifically, is transversal by nature. It is not constructed hierarchically the type of power often exercised by. Theatre is a dialogue in the form of a horizontal flow of different components.
Presence and not representation, shared experience and not a communicated one, process and not product, manifestation and not signification, impulse of energy and not information. A mix of genres: experimental conceptual performance, physical dance-theatre, multimedia theatre, new dramaturgies, classical dramas staged with an emphasis on deconstruction, happenings, scenic poems, site-specific works, theatrical installations, etc.
The impossibility for theater to be understood further deepens; it should be hardly examinable, and should not make the world manageable and reassuring as the world is hardly examinable, much less manageable and reassuring. This does not mean that one does not intend to recount world. The aim however is not to represent the world as a whole. To transform the audience into active spectators so that there are as many possible readings as there are spectators in the room. To break the comfort and reassurance of the audience. May the reality of the scene be autonomous, and and the poetic sought inexorably.
To create two, three, many gazes. To be amoral in creation. Neither moral nor immoral. Art is amoral by nature. Then will come the ethics, when the private gaze becomes public. To work with very fragile associations. May art not imitate life, but life imitate art. We need to seek a post-anthropocentric or post-humanistic utopia. A theatre made of textures, and not of texts, that experiments with synesthetic processes, i. Form as content and content as form. Just as a theatre text is never theatre, an idea is never scenic, it cannot be represented. To work with the obscene but not with obscenity.
The obscene is something that is out of the scene. The opposite of the obscene is decorum the decorative. To dismiss the decorated. Nothing but the essential. Cut to the quick with form. So that the sensation of obscenity is not in the scenic work but at all times, in the eye of the spectator. To work from images. The image is a representation which shows the appearance of an object. An image can be visual, but also sonorous, olfactive, gustative, tactile. Images do not come alone. One has to go out in the world to look for them.
To forget the romantic notion of. Absence of dominant paradigms, and no cathartic procedures. For catharsis is psychoanalysis or mass murder. I list: ambiguity, discontinuity, heterogeneity, pluralism, multiple codes, subversion, perversion, deconstruction, anti mimesis, resistance to interpretation, mediation, exposure, vicissitude, catastrophe, transition, correspondence, versatility, simultaneity, assembly, fragment.
The concept of genius in art relies heavily on the theological doctrines of divine creation. There are no artistic geniuses, there is just hard work. To be religiously atheist at work, i. So that the world-object constantly questions us, taking advantage of this airflow that comes from chaos.
These are the concerns of the so-called social networks. To recuperate the notion of entertainment. To wrest it from Hollywood blockbusters and to restore its profound meaning. And what is held between is the theatrical work which is constructed as an in-between. It is the synthesis of the gaze of the subjectivized spectator and the artist. To accept to jump into the void, to stick our head in darkness. The theatre as a profession with risk, recovering its atavistic nature. To reinstall the concept of circus death and mass transcendence.
The transversality of the elements that compose the theatrical is close to the notion of the rhizome. To establish, then, relationships of devenir becoming with theatrical materials relying on lignes de fuite convergence lines whereby intertextualities, quotations and derivations create a form of mutation in contemporary dramaturgy. To seek to create new problematics, always operating with formal concepts.
The shape is what narrates. To treat the causal as casual and the casual as causal. To be politically incorrect. To create an aesthetic that breaks with relief, to understand dissent as an affirmative negativity, establishing a relationship of antipathy with the audience, not of empathy nor apathy.
Let the pathos of aesthetic rhetoric remain canceled. Distancing naturalistic reality. Art is part of the world, but has its own identity. No need to resort to mimesis. To generate habitable experiences and not just visitable ou transitable ones. The audience is always smarter than we think, yet at the same time, the audience is always more stupid than we think. To establish all possible tensions text-image, image-sound, text-sound, etc. Only personal universes can become collective subjects of enunciation, private.
To break with scenic presuppositions. To always start a new contract with the audience and with oneself. To produce breaks in the sensitive structure of perception and in the dynamic of affectivity. To work in favor of dissentment, expanding the forms of enunciation by changing the frames, the scales or the rhythms. To build new relationships between appearance and reality, between the singular and the common, between the visible and its meaning. To be careful with empty signifiers, and even more careful with full signifiers. To understand that the problem of beauty and good taste no longer exists in aesthetics, it is an anachronism.
The problem of beauty today is a problem only for advertising people,. To never fall in love with proper forms or ideas. The artwork must produce in the artist and in the spectator, an effect of desire rather than enjoyment. Enjoyment is the ephemeral present, and soon finishes, like orgasm. Desire, however, is always about the future, utopic and not conclusive.
To think about the duration of a work as the natural intrinsic time of this piece, not as an externally imposed format. If a work has to last fifteen minutes, so be it. If it has to last six hours, ditto. To work at the edge of the accident, and when it happens, capitalize upon it. So Francis Bacon taught us long ago. The artwork is always smarter than the artist. And sometimes than the audience also. Nothing indicates whether or not a text is theatrical. There are no theatrical texts. Better said, there is no text other than theatrical ones.
Subjectivity is not the same as arbitrariness. To perform is not the same as to preform. To address the contradiction of being an iconoclast worshiper of images, blasphemous and pagan at the same time. Baudelaire says: To be the wound and the knife. The artist has to be invisible in his artwork. Flaubert says: Just as God is invisible in the nature.
To try bringing together the sophisticated and the wild. Artaud says: Theatre, like dreams,. To avoid falling into the temptation of success. People often speak of theatre as empty space another canonical truth from the past century. Nothing more banal and more distant from the truth than this. The theatre is not empty space any more than the the canvas or sheet are blank at the start of a painting or a written work. They are full of what other artists have produced before one starts.
Bacon says: To create a form is to delete those that already exist. What is new is the devaluation of the old sacred in order to reassess the profane. But the new runs the risk of being just fashion, market strategy, and thus of stabilizing the system. As in madness. Artaud says: Because only a fool has his conscience in peace. In this perpetual nomadism maybe there is the secret of the ephemeral, the flower of the theatrical. Deleuze says: The strange meeting between the wasp and the orchid. Releasing the imagination, which is not the unreal but the possible, what is to come.
Godard says: Culture is the rule, art the exception. He is all at once performer, actor, visual artist, teacher and stage director. More information: emiliogarciawehbi. To decide and make a leap from the stuffy naturalist-psychological-realist of the nineteenth century, which also dominated the twentieth century, to a twenty-first century theatre whose form, luckily, we still cannot define.
Art has surpassed these issues, since Duchamp and even before. Ils sont nombreux, les figurants, dans ce spectacle. Une cinquantaine. Sarrazac, C. Naugrette et G. Puissance de la sensation : Artaud. Logique de la sensation, dira Deleuze6. Textes et entretiens, Paris, Minuit, , p. Puis le noir. Theater is the memory of a forgotten ice age or the heralding of a coming ice age, a message in a bottle at sea, from before or after the history. Heidi and Rolf Abderhalden, Scharfenberg inquired of the playwright: Is theater dying? How long will it last? It was in a prison which mainly held people sentenced to death, murderers And it was a fantastic experience for everyone because Mauser is about killing; so the real boundary became clear to me In the play someone will be executed, fictitiously, naturally.
Theater is fiction: the person executed in the play can later walk to the front of the stage for a curtain call. Now suppose this performance were to become a ritual: someone is sentenced to death and that someone plays the part of who will be executed in the end What does. Without this treading in absolute darkness, in the unknown, theater can no longer exist. And that was actually so. In May , two years before H.
On December 10, and April 22, , in the middle and at the end of this laboratory, eight of the nine inmates were allowed out of jail for a few hours to re present The Horatio in a downtown Bogota theater. We refer to the period when we Colombians, particularly those dwelling in big cities, felt more challenged — in our own bodies — in the war of and against drug trafficking in Colombia. Despite his difficulty speaking, he wished to record his voice. He intended that it take the place of his body in a lecture where he would not be present due to his illness: he died on December 30, , just two months after this interview.
He speaks of people sentenced to death, and although legally speaking they were not so, many of them certainly felt so. He mentions a social worker, myself, acting with inmates on stage, while Heidi directed. Actually, are barely. His message reached our hands almost fifteen years after commencing its journey,7 firstly through a transcription into French and, more recently, in its original version8, recorded on video — as a gift from the afterlife: a video-oracle transferred in digital form, with his image, his voice, his words.
In turn, it seeks not to illustrate or represent the violent acts from the point of view of a play and, in the case I analyze today Horatio , distant from social work. Along with an invitation to see the staging, the inmates sent a video letter. We never heard back from him, until this much later point. Ute Scharfenberg searched her files, found the interview and kindly sent it to us, thanks to Mara Martinez, who contacted her in Berlin. Going out to the street, heading across town; crossing the borders and limits of our imaginary cartography of this city — Bogota — to reach a totally different9 space — a prison — and enter, guided merely by an intuition, to whisper two questions: What does it mean to kill and be a hero?
What does it mean to kill and be a murderer? What does it mean for each of the people there, in this place and at that specific time in our history, and how to translate their answers in a gesture? A first explicit gesture of an expanded field, of. The same voices that modestly or rebelliously recited the words eventually blurred the boundaries of the body until a gesture appeared, in the interval between two words, in a breath, a pause, a silence.
There were no characters or situations to represent, there were no objects either — being prohibited in jail — with which to represent them; they were only presences, spokesmen. After six months of work on this temporary experimental community,13 we tore down, in the other direction — from the inside out — the prison walls the limits of the law and we were able to secure probation a few hours , for eight of the nine inmates14, after negotiations that took us on a course from the prison management to the office of the Minister of Defense of the time.
We were not left alone: over two hundred guards and police officers escorted the bus that. The leery, mistrustful bodies did not yet touch each other, not even graze, but the voices, clumsy, battered, gently embraced the listening ears. It is necessary to abandon the categories. I feel closer to J. They were to be on stage, to be there with the whole group, and watch the inmates from behind. Although I was on stage, my intention was not to represent something.
And yet, I was not another inmate, I represented someone: the artist who deploys the medium that has brokered the translation of the work. The overwhelming value of this experience is that it allowed prisoners to be something other than murderers. They suddenly became worthy of the gaze of others and perhaps, also, of their own eyes. Perhaps, as the critic positively noted, this has been an effect of the event, but it never was the intent of our laboratory.
The direct relationship between cause and effect is problematic and, in our view, susceptible of instrumentalization in art. An unresolved paradox which we will have to face, in different ways, with each new creation process. This is the victor. His name: Horatio Here is the murderer. His name: Horatio. Many men are in a man. One conquered for Rome in a sword fight. The other murdered his sister needlessly. To each his due.
Laurel to the victor. Ax to the murderer. Kill me instead. And the people answered with one voice: No man is another man. And Horatio was executed with the ax And blood fell to the ground. And one of the Romans asked: What should happen with the corpse of the winner? Because words must remain pure. What is unknowable is mortal for man. Above all, it is about trying to transgress the most archaic and painful limits of my own representation: the words, images, gestures, all the forms, of what I ought to be.
My fear of freedom. How do you re-update the memoire? How do you re-power its strength? Suely Rolnik. Concerned, we verified that the matter-memory of important events of our practice is limited by a lack of an articulating idea; of a file technique and mainly, by the absence of a file policy. The problems in developing a file-work capable of transmitting the experiences of Mapa Teatro in with a group of inmates of the Central Penitentiary of Colombia, La Picota, and between and in the Santa Ines neighborhood, El Cartucho, are the most recent and specific antecedents of this question about the tension between work and file and our idea of a live-file Heidi and Rolf Abderhalden.
Translation is mine. This gesture has led us, in turn, to the question of the artist as witness. While the audience in the auditorium read, heeded the gestures and saw the words spoken by the eight inmates, now penned with my handwriting, in the dimness, the stage light illumined the silhouette of this army of two hundred men, outlining the position of their bodies, the contour of their uniforms, the shape of their weapons.
Those who patrolled now occupied the stage, behind the enclosure; those penalized and I occupied the opposite side, on this side, the side of the spectator, who together with us observed a play, no, a reality, backwards: what was real appeared as a great fiction, fiction was reality. The dual Swiss and Colombian origin of Rolf Abderhalden is undoubtedly not foreign to the fact that he considers the theatre as a living territory, with porous borders, in which cultures and communities as well as artistic disciplines cross each other.
During his years of training in Europe, he developed his personal approach through corporeal techniques Rolf was notably a student of Jacques Lecoq in Paris , as well as through the plastic arts. In , he founded with his two sisters Mapa Teatro in Paris. Decidedly transdisciplinary, their creations take various forms — urban interventions, visual installations — whose echo we perceive in their shows.
He now plans to open a Ph. More information: www. Comment fait-on, alors? Mais il faut la renouveler, la remettre en jeu. Pas du tout. En ce qui me concerne, voici ce qui se passe. Un acteur doit parler. Dans ce projet, une grande partie du spectacle les deux premiers tiers? Donc, le plus souvent, un acteur doit parler.
Mais ce sont des pauses. Or, pour un certain nombre de ces spectacles ne figurent pas un mais plusieurs pictogrammes. Comment faire? On peut le souhaiter. Pourquoi cette distinction? Diable non. La transcendance est le. Ceci me pose deux questions, que je ne fais que soulever ici. En ce sens exact, je pourrais dire que la transcendance est le mouvement de la vie. Par compensation? Cela semble sophistique, je le vois.
Que se passe-t-il alors? Au sens platonicien. Tu me diras. En fait de dissentiment, je ne sais trop que. Permets-moi de ne pas y revenir. Le local est le global. Le public est un assemblement de gens. Le public est un acte. I, Chap. Et encore cet acte est-il sans sujet. Tout ceci est assez simple, comme tout ce qui importe, au fond.
A set of public assemblies and staged conversations is the core of these works, gathering a collection of quotations and first-person interventions, later staged by amateur actors. This is a speculative report about Impossible Tasks The Servant of the Cenacle : a performance by Musa paradisiaca gathering a group of volunteers in public sessions at the Palais de Tokyo, Paris, How can a temporary meeting become really temporary? Well, that truly depends on what you do with time: a timetable? As long as time is unsure of itself — matched by our inability to envision its flowing boundaries — how may one get so sure about when something happened or who have been somewhere at a precise moment?
That is to say, could any possibility of agreement exist. Imagine a group of people, freely gathered around a table, certainly temporary, as temporary as the precarious connection between feet and the flat surface of a wooden floor during a walk. All seats are occupied by this group of people, so there are no free spaces between them, even though this is a very heterogeneous family. As far as the eye may see, it looks. Now, if you took part IN any of these meetings, the following words could match an eyewitness report by one of the participants.
The Cenacle had a servant. He was strong, stocky and athletic. This was said to him: A hard, violent, but glorious work awaits you. With a great ancient integrity, he answered: I am ready. Presented as a collective challenge with no further information beside the necessity of your presence and availability to participate, this convocation was as open as possible. As a result, any action or pre-decision to prepare yourself, anticipating the results or even the nature of this meeting would be dismantled.
Thus, imagine yourself already at the table: facing 8 or 9 other participants during two sessions, one per day, a couple of hours each day. First, you are introduced, an action is given to you to perform, then, two questions are asked: 1 — Is it possible to create a map of our lives a cosmology? The first question was very strictly related to firsthand experience and, at the same time, during the following discussion, it would represent a major opportunity to project the present in the form of an impossible analysis of everything.
There is no strangeness in this, people are just gathered and some of those who arrive late or later may not even notice their presence as something to be observed, or even something to participate in. Circulating around this scenario is another group of people — to whom we belong until the moment when we bow our heads to the actual surface of the table.
Only then is it possible to perceive an action alongside the discussion — people are drawing on blank sheets of paper with thick black markers, and this is affecting their speech organization, their ability to observe their own thoughts and their body language. This large table is not particularly well-lit and the set appears quite regular. As far as the ear may hear, the sound of their voices is also not exactly loud, due to the amplification system set for the occasion, spread around the table to capture only bits of the discussion taking place.
Their words are precise and the situation seems to be tense but, somehow, they are enjoying themselves. Part of this talking group maintains its silence, breaking it only to agree or disagree here or there with a detail, an image or an idea. Behind the table a wooden house appears to be abandoned, with its front door closed by roughly nailed wooden boards2. As long as he stayed, no one would leave and when finally he decided to quit, everything broke apart. The second question had much to do with a relational organization of procedures and happenings. It represented an effort to convince the group that the collective could be abandoned at any time, although it could never exist as a triumph of dissidents.
From the moment an idea emerges as a collective idea, is it possible to arrive at an agreement about ourselves? Questions were made, answers were given and during this process a group of figures materialized in the conversation. Reference to one of the drawings made and discussed during the performance Impossible Tasks The Servant of the Cenacle on June 13, , at the Palais de Tokyo.
Have you seated, mysterious and sinister, by the great deep river of humanity? What did the great historical flows answer? Have you, by any chance, surprised the great genesetic phenomenon? Some of them asked permission to reveal details of their lives, others demanded more time to even live their own lives, as any truly sincere report could only be presented in the after-life situation — life as a fact needs time to be learned. The second question — concerning the possibility of an accord among all — was interpreted as a decision to perform a. All accord is temporary, mostly because any kind of meeting may only occur within particular, following specific terms and, as such, what really kept those people gathered around that table?
Here, I am thinking about responsibility. How about you? The situation was very simple, and much more precise than it might have looked from the outside. As long as people are united by a specific circumstance, everyone feels ready to take responsibility for the person in the neighboring chair, or even for those here represented by their absence — i. As we said at the beginning, the Cenacle is no longer gathered. Milky Way forced them to separate.
This was the impossible task to be performed. Since , he has been running Musa paradisiaca with Eduardo Guerra. Gilles Deleuze, Pourparlers, Born in Algeria in the s, he presently lives in Lausanne, Switzerland. For more information: henribarande. Moving to London in , she returned to her home country in with a Master's degree in fine arts in hand. She now lives between England and Ecuador, exhibiting in both countries as well as in Spain and the United States.
The photographs reproduced here are taken from the video 7. For more information: www. Les photographies ici reproduites sont extraites de la video 7. He was born in Paris in to an Indian father and a French mother. There is a painting by Klee called Angelus Novus. An angel is depicted there who looks as though he were about to distance himself from something which he is staring at. His eyes are opened wide, his mouth stands open and his wings are outstretched. The Angel of History must look just so. His face is turned towards the past.
Where we see the appearance of a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe, which unceasingly piles rubble on top of rubble and hurls it before his feet. He would like to pause for a moment so fair, to awaken the dead and to piece together what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise, it has caught itself up in his wings and is so strong that the Angel can no longer close them.
The storm drives him irresistibly into the future, to which his back is turned, while the rubble-heap before him grows sky-high. That which we call progress, is this storm. He was born in in Mexico, where he began his political science studies. With this collective he has produced most of his works: performances, installations, post-situationist drift and theatrical set-ups.
The visual work he offers here is commissioned by Trimukhi Platform for this first issue of Fabricate Fabric of Art. A Christmas gift to the world. I am bewildered by the fact that highereducation institutions in India have given so little attention to the movie 3 idiots. If professors and students of media studies have nothing interesting and useful to say. The matter is all the more disturbing if we consider that the film is a harsh satire about the present educational system. As for the people who wrote about the film, on the one hand, in most cases their praises for that Indian film were not articulated in terms of the Indian dramatic tradition.
On the other hand, negative comments often sank into illmannered vituperations.
International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers
That message of hope is most welcome at a time when a breeze of despair blows over the world. As Vandana Shiva has put it: we are in danger of forgetting that we are humans and what it means be a human. Then you must be clear about what you want to be and firmly determined to be such. In order to achieve that difficult goal, you must be prepared to change your direction when required.
That is what the opening scene of the movie depicts. Farhan is taking a plane, but flying does not suit him. At great risk, he manages to get down from the airplane, and he takes a car that will carry him where he wants to go. And what he wants to do is not prompted by a selfish desire to achieve some financial gain but by a common desire to love. In fact, all the main characters of 3 idiots change their direction under the influence of Rancho.
I saw no mention of ICE except at the gate. The film projects images of some highly objectionable characteristics of the present educational system. For instance a man like ViruS as the director of a college, and a boy like Chatur as one of its model students. We then see two students committing suicide. Another time, Rancho tells ViruS that grades divide the students and create classes among them. ViruS, of course, knows this only too well and what is worse, he fully approves of it. Already in , Austrian Ivan Illich b. You cannot change the educational system unless you change society.
Our society has been schooled by the educational system. On the other hand, the educational system has been created by our society to produce people fit to live and function in that same society. While the need of deschooling society remains, Rancho demonstrates that you can be in an educational institution that does not help you to develop without turning away from what you are and want to be. Let him be one. Was it sufficient to say that the characters are fictional and yet show the fiction of a Director and of some students and say that they belong to an existing college called ICE?
I submit that it was an excellent idea. Joy Lobo also shows the same. Just before committing suicide because he was thrown out of the college, he beautifully sings:. A third aspect of the Indian quality of the film is fantasy. Fantasy stimulates the imagination and shows freedom from the constraints of the narrative. I lived as another Let me live as I Give me some sunshine Give me some rain I wanna grow up once again. Raju too attempts to commit suicide. Fortunately he does not succeed.
Rancho tells ViruS that India has the greatest number of college students who commit suicide. A folk movie like 3 idiots is made in line with the Indian dramatic tradition. That can be seen in at least three aspects. First, the film triggers very strong emotions, mostly love. In the Indian tradition, the joy of watching a movie is not derived primarily from the perfection of its plot development, but from its power to trigger in the audience an arousal of emotion.
From that experience one gets light and strength to tackle the problems of daily life. Second, the film alludes to and exemplifies social problems. However, the film does not go into an analysis of these problems. The film is not instructional but educational through the projection of images that are models of what one should be Rancho, Farhan and Raju.
From these three aspects it appears that the Indian film is more emotional and less rational than many a non-Indian movie. Of course, that does not mean that the film is irrational. It means that its priority is the arousal of emotion not the perfection of its logical development. The distinction I make between these two modes of film presentation is not a value judgement, asserting that one approach is better than the other.
It only emphasizes the difference between the two. The Indian viewer of the film is free to opt for one type or the other. While doing so, however, the viewer should know the difference. That theory is that of the traditional drama in India. Most viewers deeply enjoy the movie but remain unconscious of the theory that informs it. Hence, they cannot analyse their own experience. In other words, a life experience that really enchanted them remains unexplored and mostly unconscious.
Personally I see in Rancho an image of Jesus. On the contrary,. Aal izz well. No doubt about it. Follow excellence and success will follow you. In that earlier movie the sublime teaching is not communicated directly as in the case of Rancho. Munna receives his spiritual direction from the late Mahatma Gandhi who appears to him whenever Munna needs him. In both the movies the spiritual vision and action are inspired by a superior being. When people ask Gaston Roberge SJ.
At the age of 26, thus in , after five years in the Jesuit Order, he volunteered to go to India and he was sent to Kolkata. Why India? Maybe because when he was a kid a maternal uncle who had served in Ceylon, talked to him with such admiration and love about the Indians he had lived with, that Gaston Roberge felt like coming over and seeing it for himself.
But in reality, he does not know if he speaks beautifully the beautiful Bengali. He does not deny his Canadian origin, but today, whatever he is, he feels he is an Indian, and is proud of this. A well-known scholar involved in many film institutions and academies in India, he has, since , published more than 25 books, about film analysis, Indian cinema, media influence, the relationship between religions and theology. Even Pia asks them to add a few blows on her behalf. Rancho does not retaliate and falls on the ground.
When they stop and help him get up he smiles at them. Immediately the harsh beating becomes the prelude to a loving embrace. Ingeniously, he brings light in the room. And with the birth of the child he also brings life. It was a Sunday afternoon and I was with a friend preparing a Mathematics presentation. We stopped our homework and when we reached the cine-club, I told my friend what I had heard the week before. I suggested that we lay down comfortably in our seats and take the film as it would come, in a relaxed manner. In a sense, the lady was quite right: there was no such thing as a story to follow.
In the next image, white-grey clouds were passing through a beautiful blue sky. And then the famous Rita Mitsuko electrorock band was rehearsing a new song. But that lady was completely wrong also.
Neither did I feel angry about the lack of story, nor did I get bored. In fact, I felt extremely joyful, as if invited in an amazing manner to participate in life. Being only a class 9 student by that time, I did not look for any better philosophical explanations. I was satisfied with the effect the film had produced on me. Also we had not finished preparing our presentation on sinusoidal curbs. We ran back home and. You try to discover what is the cooking secret in it. How is a Godard film built? How to pass from one image Godard on the floor with a book in his hand to another a blue sky with white-grey clouds?
What for? Why do that in such a way? Even more: there is precisely a double break: in logicalnarrative links as well as in sensory-motor links. In Pierrot the fool for instance, the escape sequence should follow a strong logicalnarrative line, as it is a matter of escaping death. But nothing of the sort happens.
First we see the two actors Anna Karina and Jean-Paul Belmondo running out of a Paris flat, then getting into a car and then again inside the same flat, then again in the car, etc. A little later, they stop in a pump station and, as they say to each other that they have no money to pay for the petrol, they attack the pump station worker.
They drive a while and go to a bar-restaurant to enact a drama about. Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2. The Time-Image, tr. I was fourteen years old when I first heard about Jean-Luc Godard. In the south suburbs of Paris where I lived, there was a very good cine-club. Before the film we came to see started, people were talking. One said that it would be the new Jean-Luc Godard film.
There is no story to follow at all, nothing. It makes me feel quite angry! I was curious and excited. She informed me that he was a great filmmaker. Vietnam War in order to get money while they did not need it because they could easily steal petrol again. Back on the road, they burn the car and the audience discovers that the vehicle contained a huge amount of cash that could have been used from the beginning to pay for the petrol or even to escape by plane. The story line is completely weak — so weak that it cannot explain anything regarding the images succession order.
The Movement-Image, tr. There is a fabulous sequence where a group of young people attacks a bank. While the attack is taking place, the bullets fired here and there, the customers continue their normal activity: one reads the newspaper peacefully and another makes complicates mathematic calculations. A bank employee carefully cleans the blood on the floor between two dead bodies. A policeman fires at an assailant but the latter continues running out as if no bullet had been fired. There are no pre-established relations between images. There are no preestablished rules to go from one to another.
Apparently there is not even reason for it. But on the other hand, it would be hard to believe that Godard had chosen image 1 the policeman catching the woman attacker and then image 2 they kissed at random. In the passage from one to another, something very powerfully works. But what? In the seventh chapter of Cinema 2, he explains:. Given one image, another image has to be chosen which will induce an interstice between the two. This is not an operation of association, but of differentiation: given one potential, another one has to be chosen, not any whatever, but in such a way that a difference of potential is established between the two, which will be productive of a third or of something new.
The fissure has become primary, and as such grows larger. To the question of how to put in relation two images incommensurably far from one another, Deleuze answers: by keeping incommensurable the distance between them. Think about it. You would have searched for common points. You would have inscribed all the images in a single topic frame: the body of a woman, the animals in India, etc. You would have managed to limit the difference between the images.
Published in The Court Historian January 2003 - June 2007
You would have worked on reducing the gap between them. You would even have intended to fill this gap. And Deleuze proposes us to think about such a strange strategy because he believes that it is inside the gap itself that what is important in contemporary cinema is found. The difference that separates two images is the place where the whole thing happens.
Actually I understood it thanks to a food experience. Take a small piece of cheese and then sip a bit of wine. What happens? For a little while, three flavours will be coexisting in your palate: a bitter and strong one from the cheese, a dry and acid one from the wine, and a third one, the fruit of their encounter. This third flavour is close to hazelnut, rising in the back part of the mouth while the wine aroma spreads along the tongue and the cheese smell sits in the lower part of the palate.
At least one part of this old Sanskrit treaty seems to apply perfectly for our study:. In a very concrete manner, first, there are two different elements: a cheese and a wine; second, there is an empty space: the mouth; and third, there is an attempt to put the two different elements in relation — by chewing and sipping — in this empty space.
Australian TV Guide - All TV Show times, All Channels - 9Entertainment
And by doing so a third element — a third flavour — is produced. It is important to notice that this third flavour is not a mix of cheese with wine. It is really a third flavour different from the two other ones, and present at the time. The third flavour of hazelnut induces a new appreciation of the cheese and the wine: I enjoyed both more because their encounter produces a third flavour; they are more.
For example, just as when various condiments and sauces and herbs and other materials are mixed, a taste different from the individual tastes of the components is felt. Because it is enjoyably tasted, it is called rasa. Persons who eat prepared food mixed with different condiments and sauces, etc. And there is not only a joy but also an awakened desire when getting this third flavour of hazelnut in the palate.
In this film, the gap between images is even huger: we see an old Russian film extract. The Movement-Image, it was so important for Deleuze to give a list of the different kind of images. In his first volume about films, he spent most of his time describing one by one different kind of images, how they were built and how they worked to produce effects on the spectator. It was indispensable to see first what were the different singularities present here, before analysing what happens when they are put together. The starting point of Cinema 2. The time-image is: if we now enjoy pure optical and sound situations, if we take pleasure with autonomous images, why should we need to connect again?
Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1. The Movement-Image, op. My underligning. Experiencing the emergence of a third image, I give to this first and that second much more importance now than before. And it happens exactly the same: something was not here and suddenly is here, another flavour, another image, another sensation. The borders of our immanent existences are shaken up and displaced: here and now, there is more than what there is. Something also happens in the continuity of the process, in the whole succession of images. The approximate translation is mine. If there were logical-narrative links, the purpose would be to tell a story, to make the spectator understand through a succession of images what happened to the hero and the heroine.
For instance, they were in love but could not get married because of dissimilar social backgrounds, so they decided to kill themselves but their parents felt too sad with the idea and finally stood up against the gossiping of their own communities — as in Bobby by Raj Kapoor. In both cases, the film-director would have something to say to the audience: a story to tell, an ideology to implement. But Jean-Luc Godard has nothing to say. He believes a filmmaker should not pretend to convey any. What a film author wants to say has no relevance.
Instead, what is important is the film itself. Now no one speaks about what there is on the screen but only about what the author meant. The author… we did not bother about him. I got on well with him and with his dog, he liked me very much but found me unbearable. After watching the film India, Godard wrote an interview where he invented what Rossellini would have told if asked.
But Rossellini was not there and Godard played both parts: the interviewer and the interviewee, the one who asks and the one who answers. The purpose was not to understand what the author wanted to say but to share what one — as spectator — wanted to express after watching the film. First, we are sensitively touched. If later we think about it, that is because the diversity of relations, the multiplicity of links we have.
We are discovering that there are other links than pre-established ones: there are singular ones different from these before and different from those to come after. To help us to be producers of relations, to remember that we never stop to be hyphens. Deleuze suggests that is what makes us able to believe again in our present world. We observe the erasure of the unity of the man and the world. We do not believe in the events which happen to us, love, death, as if they only half concerned us. It is not we who make cinema; it is the world which looks to us a bad film.
The reaction of which man has been dispossessed can be replaced only by belief. Only belief in the world can reconnect man to what he sees and hears. The cinema must film, not the world, but the belief in this world, our only link. Restoring our belief in the world — this is the power of modern cinema when it stops being bad. Whether we are believers or atheists, in our universal schizophrenia, we need reasons to believe in this world.
Jesus shows him the wounds in his hands. And then Thomas believes. He believes that something else is possible — in this case: resurrection. And we are all the more convinced because we experience it sensorily first, and personally too: we see it happens to us and we enjoy it. My grand parents had a big property with five houses in front of the lake. My paternal family was not so rich but comfortable; they had only one house on the other side of the lake, in France.
Related LENIGME DES MENINES texte intégral (ENIGMES DE LART: LES MENINES t. 1) (French Edition)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved