Baudrillard, Scorsese & Brecht

I was looking for something in Jean Baudrillard's Fragments and I landed on this: "Given that it is better to be killed by a bullet intended for you rather than a stray one, and given that there are many more stray bullets than ones which reach their target, is it better to be one of the terrorists or one of the victims?"

It immediately reminded me of Frank Costello's line in Scorsese's The Departed: “When I was your age, they would say you could become cops or criminals. What I'm saying is this: When you're facing a loaded gun, what's the difference?”

Just wonder, is Baudrillard thinking like a gangster mob or the gangsters (the "wise guys" as Lefty in Donnie Brasco called them) are actually acting on a more justifiable philosophical basis? What is crime when the authoritative body–state if you like–who draws the line between "legal" and "illegal" has blood on its hand up to elbow?

I hear Brecht shouting from behind: “What is the crime of robbing a bank compared with the crime of founding one.”

To Hell with Irrelevant Art!

"... not true requirements, but the requirements of Truth; not the interest of the pro*******t, but the interest of Human Nature, of man in general, who belongs to no c***s, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy."

–Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, p. 41

Over the years my interest in arts and in theatre particularly has changed. I am not interested in art as means of expression anymore. Today I am interested in art only if it is relevant to life in an im-mediate manner and only if it can better life even a tiny bit; even if it is a hopeless attempt as verbalized by Das Beckwerk's statement: "hopeless but necessary attempt to daily intervene in world history."

This notion has influenced the project, HamletZar in various ways and has expanded the field of research in the agenda of the project, most specifically a process where we endeavor to explore the possibilities of combining two principal notions of twentieth century's theatre practice, namely Theatre Anthropology and Theatre of the Oppressed.
This is an attempt to avoid the concentrated and largely isolated process of craft losing connection with our daily, real life and keep away from falling into the trap of "the misty realm of philosophical fantasy."

Otherwise what is the point? It is extremely difficult to make it possible to do theatre; it is so at least for me. If theatre doesn't make my life better, richer and more joyous, to hell with it.
As Malcolm X has said: "When you have a philosophy or a gospel–I don't care whether it's a religious gospel, a political gospel, an economic gospel or a social gospel–if it's not going to do something for you and me right here and right now–to hell with that gospel!"

NOTE: Pro*******t and c***s are of course "proletariat" and "class" respectively. I think it is extremely important, when we read Carl Marx today, that we demystify his terminology, which is the product of the period he lived in, in order to understand the profound humane and philosophical aspect of his though. In the above mentioned quote Carl Marx is criticizing the German socialists for being influenced by "completely emasculated" French communist literature without having experienced the real historical changes and thus indulging themselves in illusory rhetoric. However the essence of what he says goes beyond the specific problem he is addressing.

WMD

Just been looking at the The World Movement for Democracy's website whose URL is www.wmd.org. WMD, amm... wasn't that what some invaded Iraq for?

Explaining what I do

I spent some hours yesterday with a good friend of mine who's job is delivering water to business places. We drove around while he delivered huge bottles of water to various places. In one of the places, where it was inconvenient to park, he asked me if I could give him a hand and deliver the water to the designated office and get the receipts signed. I said "sure."
So up I went to the sixth floor of a business complex and knocked on the door. A young smiling lady opened the door and showed me the way to where the water should be placed. Except for greetings and few words of politeness, neither I nor the lady said anything. I then gave her the papers to sign and collected the empty bottles, came back down to the street, threw the empty bottles in the back of the van and we drove to the next place.
I really enjoyed doing this. For the first time I did not have to explain who I was and what I was doing. It was pretty evident what I was doing and who I was, was defined but what I was doing. Where as in my everyday life as a so-called "artist" I am sick and tired of explaining myself and what I do 24/7 to any fucking Mr. or Mrs. Nobody who just happened–through butt kissing–to get a job in a cultural organization, in a gallery, in a theatre, in a film distribution company etc.
Delivering water, a job with meaning. That's what art lacks: meaning. This question has been preoccupying my mind for a long time: "how can I make sure what I do has an actual meaning beyond the empty values and decedent routines of petit bourgeoisie?"

Extemporize Thoughts (2)

If the whole existence is mere transformation of matter from one shape to another, then the only thing that matters is our action and participation as individuals in events that direct and modify this transformation.

Extemporize Thoughts on Flow at ISTA

The text below has been written and published during the 13th session of ISTA (The International School of Theatre Anthropology) in La Rinconada, Spain.

Extemporize Thoughts on Flow
by Vahid

I can think of three types of flow: Flow, "flow" and flow. The first Flow with a capital F is that of the nature, like flow of a river or wind whose charm comes from its natural harmony. It gives a pleasant feeling when it is observed yet it does not have structure, meaning that it is unrepeatable and unpredictable in a haphazardly manner.
Second type of "flow"-which I put it between quotation marks-is related to the sensation of movement and rhythm, artificially generated by the works of art-example of which could be Marcle Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2 (1913) or the cinematic experience of the Russian film theoretician, Lev Kuleshove in which he filmed different parts of body of several different woman and cut them together in a way that they would appear as to present only one woman, walking down the stairs. Another example of this type of "flow" is the scene of Odessa Stairs in The Battleship Potemkin. In these examples not only the flow of a natural rhythm is apparent, but also we can notice in them a structured "flow" of artificial form which goes beyond the nature of the Flow of its details and components. In other words, we can distinguish two layers of flow in these examples, one is the Flow within and between the parts and their composition, the other is the "flow" made in the mind of the beholder which is the synthesis of juxtaposition of elements of the piece of the art work.
The third flow-which I write in italics-is of a different nature and quality; Although it maintains the characteristics of the other two types of flow, thus, that it has the natural and unpredictable nature of the first type (Flow), structure and artificiality of the second type ("flow") yet its functionality is neither natural nor artificial. It is more of an inner impulse that leaps from a natural harmony and lands beyond the artificiality. Furthermore it annihilates itself after its process. Example of this type of flow is that of a poet who suddenly wakes up in the middle of the night, forced by some incoherent natural impulse in his body and involuntarily moves towards his desk to write down the poem that has waked him up. In the best condition the poet is making his best poem in this very moment. In this case the poem conceals the flow and yet transmits a thirds types of flow to the reader, independent from what the poet meant inthe first place. it not only has the surprising natural harmony of a river and not only the artificiality of rhythmic flow of artifice, but also transmits the indescribable flow through which the poem has forced and commanded the poet to write it, to make it. Hence reader reads his own poet through the transmitted flow, rather than that of the poet.
Thus is the work of performer, that is that the spectator experiences his own personal experience through the transmission of that flow which is behind the performer's action.

Extemporize Thoughts (1)

I do things to get them done, to get rid of them. "Do I live to get rid of life?" I think to myself, "does anyone get rid of death when one dies?". Can die be considered as an Act? Isn't it passive to die? But- and a very important "But"- what about suicide then? Is suicide on an active deed? Or it is just as passive as death.
People normally kill themselves to get rid of life. Logically speaking it is a contrary to my first statement that an Act is to be acted to close a certain chapter of action in the extent of possibilities. If die and rather suicide are passive, no matter if one dies of a desire or kills oneself, what is it for that man ought to Act? How could life be worth to live between two extreme passivenesses? Is it not just ridiculous? But as I think of it deeper I realize that if there should be existing any meaning in life whatsoever, it would be more colorful as it is begun and ended by two vanities, birth and death. And here lies the secret of the creation. We create life out of two extreme nothingnesses. Don't we? It could be war; it could be peace. It could be love or it could be hate. It could be building or destroying. All in all life is ust what we make. We are what we create.