Everything is a commodity; a commodity is everything. This huge system of life is exchanged and graded on the basis of the product, and the logic of the usefulness of technology dominates. Sometimes you try hard to get out of the way somehow. But again you think of the existence of such a small crack or finding it as nonsense, giving up your life, hiding it, or humbling in perpetual anguish. But you do not complain about society or transfer responsibility to others. Without any reasons, you only contemplate and study about the door steadily and silently. Then, one day you will find a friendly manual about the small crack. Now, you put down what you were making crazy without consciousness for a while, and now you are quietly observing the world. In deep meditation, you find a small hole. Slowly you get out through the hole and keep walking forward through the small trail that extends in the future. You find a large tree with a great distance. You slowly sit under the tree and close your eyes, thinking of the nourishment that makes the tree so green. You have a dream. You have a dream that you never dreamed of in that the huge system, and you get the comfort of life and find hope in that dream. Someone tried very hard to find a morality there. A morally pure and innocent soul, 'a beautiful soul.' What can you dream under this tree that grows with an infinite imagination? – X








18. Advertisements have them chasing cars and clothes, working jobs they hate

                 so they can buy shit they don't need.

                 We are the middle children of

                 history, with no purpose or place.

                 We have no great war, or great

                 depression.  The great war is a

                 spiritual war.  The great depression

                 is our lives.  We were raised by

                 television to believe that we'd be

                 millionaires and movie gods and rock

                 stars -- but we won't.  And we're

                 learning that fact.  And we're very,

                 very pissed-off. – BP













As children we have all played with the little man who springs out of his box. You squeeze him flat, he jumps up again. Push him lower, and he shoots up still higher. Crush him down beneath the lid, and often he will send everything flying. It is hard to tell whether or no the toy itself is very ancient, but the kind of amusement it affords belongs to all time. It is a struggle between two stubborn elements, one of which, being simply mechanical, generally ends by giving in to the other, which treats it as a plaything. A cat playing with a mouse, which from time to time she releases like a spring, only to pull it up short with a stroke of her paw, indulges in the same kind of amusement.


We will now pass on to the theatre, beginning with a Punch and Judy show. No sooner does the policeman put in an appearance on the stage than, naturally enough, he receives a blow which fells him. He springs to his feet, a second blow lays him flat. A repetition of the offence is followed by a repetition of the punishment. Up and down the constable flops and hops with the uniform rhythm of the bending and release of a spring, whilst the spectators laugh louder and louder. Now, let us think of a spring that is rather of a moral type, an idea that is first expressed, then repressed, and then expressed again; a stream of words that bursts forth, is checked, and keeps on starting afresh. Once more we have the vision of one stubborn force, counteracted by another, equally pertinacious. This vision, however, will have discarded a portion of its materiality. No longer is it Punch and Judy that we are watching, but rather a real comedy. Many a comic scene may indeed be referred to this simple type. For instance, in the scene of the Mariage force between Sganarelle and Pancrace, the entire vis comica lies in the conflict set up between the idea of Sganarelle, who wishes to make the philosopher listen to him, and the obstinacy of the philosopher, a regular talking-machine working automatically. As the scene progresses, the image of the Jack-in-the-box becomes more apparent, so that at last the characters themselves adopt its movements,--Sganarelle pushing Pancrace, each time he shows himself, back into the wings, Pancrace returning to the stage after each repulse to continue his patter. And when Sganarelle finally drives Pancrace back and shuts him up inside the house--inside the box, one is tempted to say--a window suddenly flies open, and the head of the philosopher again appears as though it had burst open the lid of a box.


The same by-play occurs in the Malade Imaginaire. Through the mouth of Monsieur Purgon the outraged medical profession pours out its vials of wrath upon Argan, threatening him with every disease that flesh is heir to. And every time Argan rises from his seat, as though to silence Purgon, the latter disappears for a moment, being, as it were, thrust back into the wings; then, as though Impelled by a spring, he rebounds on to the stage with a fresh curse on his lips. The self-same exclamation: "Monsieur Purgon!" recurs at regular beats, and, as it were, marks the TEMPO of this little scene. Let us scrutinise more closely the image of the spring which is bent, released, and bent again. Let us disentangle its central element, and we shall hit upon one of the usual processes of classic comedy,--REPETITION. Why is it there is something comic in the repetition of a word on the stage? No theory of the ludicrous seems to offer a satisfactory answer to this very simple question. Nor can an answer be found so long as we look for the explanation of an amusing word or phrase in the phrase or word itself, apart from all it suggests to us. Nowhere will the usual method prove to be so inadequate as here. With the exception, however, of a few special instances to which we shall recur later, the repetition of a word is never laughable in itself. It makes us laugh only because it symbolises a special play of moral elements, this play itself being the symbol of an altogether material diversion. It is the diversion of the cat with the mouse, the diversion of the child pushing back the Jack-in-the-box, time after time, to the bottom of his box,--but in a refined and spiritualised form, transferred to the realm of feelings and ideas. Let us then state the law which, we think, defines the main comic varieties of word-repetition on the stage: IN A COMIC REPETITION OF WORDS WE GENERALLY FIND TWO TERMS: A REPRESSED FEELING WHICH GOES OFF LIKE A SPRING, AND AN IDEA THAT DELIGHTS IN REPRESSING THE FEELING ANEW. – B





Buber uses an example of a tree and presents five separate relations:


1-Looking at the tree as a picture with the color and detail through the aesthetic perception.

2-Identifying the tree as movement. The movement includes the flow of the juices through the veins of the tree, the breathing of the leaves, the roots sucking the water, the never-ending activities between the tree and earth and air, and the growth of the tree.

3-Categorizing the tree by its type; in other words, studying it.

4-Exercising the ability to look at something from a different perspective. “I can subdue its actual presence and form so sternly that I recognize it only as an expression of law”.

5-Interpreting the experience of the tree in mathematical terms.


Through all of these relations, the tree is still an object that occupies time and space and still has the characteristics that make it what it is.





I am Jin’s imaginary friend.

He talks to me and asks me questions.

I talk to him and ask him why he asks me those questions.

We laugh with each other and at each other.

Without Jin I would be sad.

Without me Jin would be sad.

I am Jin’s imaginary friend.

In a way I am Jin,

and Jin is me.


– Q





What things makes Gutenberg and Minkoff happy?? Heidegger points out, technological objects are means for ends, and are built and operated by human beings, but the essence of technology is something else entirely. Just as the essence of a tree is not itself a tree, he points out, so the essence of technology is not anything technological.

H.M는 반 문명적이며 아니키스틱한 태도를 보이고 있음에도 불구하고, 그 태도를 적극적인 아나키즘으로 전환 시키지는 않았다. 그의 특별한 점은 그가 현대의 문제를 현대적 척도에 의해 해결하려 하지 않고, 반대로 문제 자체를 초 시대적인 척도 속으로 해소 시키려하는데 있다. 그의 여인은 ‘우리의 세계에서 신성시되고 터부시되고 있는 모든것이 무의미 하게만 보이는 파다고니아 인의 눈을 가지고 삼라만상을 보는 일이다’ 라고 했다. 독일 선생님들은 그들의 선배의 ‘아름다운 영혼’ 이라는 사유에 관하여 어떤 수동적으로 우리의 의지를 잠재우는 진정제라고 비난하며 우리는 더욱 우리의 자유의지를 폭팔적으로 표출해야 한다고 주장한다. 사회에 대한 불만과 고통 그리고 화는 눈덩이 처럼 점점 더 커저만 간다. 사회에서 만들어놓은 모든 X같은것들을 너는 ‘대지의 번제’의 큰 불타는 컨테이너속으로 모두 던저버리고 또한 S.G가 말하는 someone을 버리고 (너는 절대로 인간주체 개념을 중요시 하지않으며 M.S의 준개체개념과 B.L의 ANT개념, 또한 V.F의 Projekt개념을 추구한다) Anyone이 되어서 군중속으로 끼어들어서 목소리를 높이고 대리만족감을 바라고 있는가? 과연, 자기자신에 대한 충분한 이해없이 남을 위해 그리고 이사회를 위해 목소리를 높이는것, 즉 너의 안에서 들끓고 있는 이 자유의지를 마음껏 표출해야하는 것일까? 독일선생님의 ‘미친말’을 그냥 밖으로 뛰어나가도록 채찍질을 하는 자학행위를 해야하는것일까? 현대의 많은 이들처럼 순간적인 자위행위 그리고 자학행위를 반복하며 순간적으로 느끼는 Nobody의 짜릿함을 느끼며 살다가 조용히 사라져야 하는것일까? 수단은 수단일뿐 목적을 대신할수는 없다는 체코선생님의 사상을 제대로 이해해야한다. 새로운 것을 배우고 경험하여 인식수준을 넓히는것은 꼭 필요한 일이지만, 그것이 목적을 대신하여 그것으로 자동 산출되어지는 결과물이 너 자신을 대신한다고 믿지않기를 바라면서...– X

Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby schooled to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new. His imagination is schooled to accept service in place of value. Medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for the improvement of community life, police protection for safety, military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work. Health, learning, dignity, independence, and creative endeavor are defined as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends, and their improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question. – I









And the stone. what is stone: stone is monad; and what is monad: monad is wholeness; and what is wholeness: wholeness is universe; and what is universe: universe is mind; and what is mind: mind is emptiness; and what is emptiness: emptiness is potential; and what is potential: potential is darkness; and what is darkness: darkness is truth; and what is truth: truth is reality; and what is reality: reality is nature; and what is nature: nature is life; and what is life: life is white; and what is white: white is mourning; and what is mourning: mourning is silence; and what is silence: silence is eternity; and what is eternity: eternity is dream; and what is dream: dream is encounter; and what is encounter: encounter is violence; and what is violence(hailstone): violence is opportunity; and what is opportunity: opportunity is becoming; and what is becoming: becoming is annihilation; and what is annihilation: annihilation is sorrow; and what is sorrow: sorrow is power; and what is power: power is shadow; and what is shadow: shadow is desire; and what is desire: desire is karma; and what is karma: karma is ghost; and what is ghost: ghost is loss; and what is loss: loss is gain; and what is gain: gain is paradox; and what is paradox: paradox is possession; and what is possession: possession is vanity; and what is vanity: vanity is satisfaction; and what is satisfaction: satisfaction is loneliness; and what is loneliness: loneliness is star... – X




사람이 직업을 선택하는 데 있어 좀더 신중을 기한다면 어느 누구라도 모두 연구자와 관찰자가 될 것은 틀림없는 사실이다. 그런 사람들의 성질과 운명은 누구에게나 흥미있을 테니까 말이다. 자기 자신이나 후손을 위하여 축재를 한다거나, 한 국가나 한 가문을 창설한다거나, 혹은 명성을 얻어 본다 할지라도 우리 인간은 결국 죽고 마는 것이다. 그러나 진리를 다루면 우리는 영원불명하게 되며, 변화나 우연을 두려워할 필요가 없게 된다. 고대 이집트나 인도의 철인들은 신의 조상으로부터 베일 한구석을 걷어 올렸다. 그래서 그 떨고 있는 베일은 아직도 걷어올린 채로 있는 까닭으로 나는 고대 철인이 했던 것과 마찬가지로 신의 생생한 영광을 우러러볼 수 있다. 그 까닭은 그 당시 그토록 대담한 행위를 했던 자는 철인 내부에 있는 나였고, 지금 다시 그 신상을 보는 자는 나의 내부에 있는 철인이기 때문이다. 그 베일 위에는 티끌 하나 앉지 않았다. 신의 조상에서 그 신성이 드러난 후 시간은 조금도 경과하지 않았다. 우리가 실제로 활용하는 그 시간 혹은 활용할 수 있는 그 시간이란 과거도 현재도 미래도 아니다.  - T,p.242





An essential and immediate value of education is that it can provide access to different ways of thinking about the world. In this sense it is also a useful model for ideas about contemplation. Part of my work is concerned with thinking about objects, situations and contextual values in order to respond more open-endedly, to think of thing as part of continuum that I am also a part of. Contemplation also interests me because I am a practitioner of meditation, which I believe has an active dimension. Reading, studying images, listening to music or simply watching the world go by, are highly active meditative processes that also allow us to engage with the world through little more than the act of contemplating it. “Everything is possible. "I am God, I am Buddha, I am imperfect Ray Smith, all at the same time, I am empty space, I am all things. I have all the time in the world from life to life to do what is to do, to do what is done, to do the timeless doing, infinitely perfect within, why cry, why worry, perfect like mind essence and the minds of banana peels." There was nothing here to hide the fact of gravity holding us all intact upside-down against a surface globe of earth in infinite empty space. And suddenly I realized I was truly alone and had nothing to do but feed myself and rest and amuse myself, and nobody could criticize. The little flowers grew everywhere around the rocks, and no one had asked them to grow, or me to grow...

The ferret, the ball and the Ptolemaic revolution... "It shows that we are capable of ecstasy, of difference from our equilibrium, that we can put our center outside ourselves." The decentering and the annihilations of the principle of individuation...........  – X





Always a problem is to decide how to begin. What will be the first text, the landing page, the cover… Sometimes we want it to be very straightforward but the contrary might also be suitable… Aren’t the beginning and the end arbitrary? Where do we start? From the beginning the end is a factor. It is not arbitrary, it is fated. But the beginning we don’t alway know, if you enter the room only now you don’t know how much you have missed. Sometimes, it starts as if it had always started. When you start in the middle, the beginning comes right after the end. And in this case, between the end and the beginning is a moment of air, like in double glass. It seems like nothing is happening anymore, but soon it starts again. It’s a moment out of context. – X





Georg Simmel_The metropolis and mental life





My method is different. I do not rush into actual work. When I get an idea I start at once building it up in my imagination. I change the construction, make improvements and operate the device in my mind. It is absolutely immaterial to me whether I run my turbine in thought or test it in my shop. I even note if it is out of balance. There is no difference whatever, the results are the same. In this way I am able to rapidly develop and perfect a conception without touching anything. When I have gone so far as to embody in the invention every possible improvement I can think of and see no fault anywhere, I put into concrete form this final product of my brain. Invariably my device works as I conceived that it should, and the experiment comes out exactly as I planned it. In twenty years there has not been a single exception. Why should it be otherwise? Engineering, electrical and mechanical, is positive in results. There is scarcely a subject that cannot be mathematically treated and the effects calculated or the results determined beforehand from the available theoretical and practical data. The carrying out into practise of a crude idea as is being generally done is, I hold, nothing but a waste of energy, money and time. - from My Inventions by NT





Being an onlooker can be the moment of experiencing a freedom that can be indifferent to any purposiveness. This indifference allows the onlooker to observe this current life and the world through one’s personal emotions and thoughts and contemplate meanings and values of existing things, rather than creating something fit into the cultural values or the taste of the mainstream. Things are culturally formed through their encounter with people, which happens in a language that is formed through our encounter with things. Also, things are capable of controlling our own time and place by shaping our thoughts and organizing our language. Although the meaning possibly formed through encounter could be ubiquitous in this material world, they are like a ghost that do not easily appear but never disappear neither. However, I would believe that new discoveries can happen when both the onlooker and things encounter from each others’ own realm of a now moment and place in time. Therefore, what the onlooker discovers can be a possible medium for the alternative paths through the imposed structures of our so-called modernity. Human beings can be considered an empty shell composed of anonymous masses. A guide is a communicator connecting us with the outside of the shell to the anonymous masses, who are constantly summoned to the present from the past and the future, and afterwards the guide disappears. Through this guide, the anonymous masses enlighten the others and direct them to a new place. An interesting part of this process in communication is the characteristics of the anonymous masses, which has no definitive shape; appearing as a human, a spirit, an angelic being or even more abstract phenomena, a cloud or smoke or a field of electromagnetic energy, a musical muse. The relationship of these masses and the guide is like a space divided by a very thin layer. Thus, the ethical role of the guide is very important at this point of the communication process. In other words, for the anonymous masses, the guide disappears after giving his/her position to the message itself, also the guide should not outflow nor distort the message for one’s own benefit. Finally, the existence of the guide communicates as a message itself and fulfills an important core of development phenomena like a shepherd in Jean Giono’s story, The man who planted trees. The role of this guide is my important subject matter that will be the cornerstone of my design education in the future. X





Harry Frankfurt_On Bullshit

앞과 뒤가 다르다. 너는 너의 강력함을 어필 할수있지만 묵묵히 고통을 견딘다. 너를 더욱 깊숙한 곳으로 인도한다. 너는 뾰족하고 날카로우며 평평하면서도 단단하다. 고통 속에서 강인해지지만, 고통을 대하는 방향성이 매우 중요하다. 그것이 잘못된다면, 너는 옆길로 새거나 아에 튕겨져 나가 영원히 너의 본질을 찾지 못한다. 어떤 것을 하나로 연결해주는 너, 매개자. 너는 두 개의 서로 다른 성질을 하나로 묶어주며 너의 임무를 다하는가? 항상 다른 것들에 가려져 너의 모습을 보이지 않는다. 너의 모습이 보이지 않을 때 너의 가치를 다하리라. 그대는 구원자인가? 너는 그런 면에서 천사에 등가한다. 너는 너의 자리를 기꺼이 내어줄 것이다. 보다 정당한 소통을 위하여… 평평하며 매끈해야 할 부드러운 살갗들이 맘 놓고 다니는 그런 곳에서 너의 모습이 드러난다면 얼마나 끔찍한 일인가? 너의 존재를 최대한 숨겨라. 너를 봐달라고 외치지 말아라! 그렇지 않다면, 너의 존재는 위험하리라! 너는 보았다. 언제 너의 진정한 가치가 발현되는지를… 묵묵히 진정으로 성실한 낙타만이 너의 고통에 대하여 불만을 표할 자격이 있다. 너는 과연 진정한 성실함을 묵묵히 느껴보았는가? 너는 매개자이다. 너는 너의 본질을 가지고 생겨났다. 본질은 실존에 앞서는가? 아니면 실존이 본질에 앞서는가? 이제 더는 상관없지 않은가 너의 프랑스 선생은 침묵한다. 활자로서, 책으로 된 나비로서 죽음의 고통을 떨쳐 버리려했다.. 진정 죽음을 극복하셨어요? 대답은 없고 고요만이 흐른다. 너의 프랑스 선생님 말씀대로 너는 ‘본질은 절대 실존에 앞서지 않는다’고 믿는다. 하지만 너는 너의 본질에 온 힘을 다해야만 너의 존재를 깨닫게 되느니… 두 가지의 결합, 뒤섞임, 혼재된 세상…. 어떤 하나 또는 그것들 개개의 가치를 묻지 말고 그 자체로 바라본다. 특정 개체는 비어있다. 네가 너 자체가 되려면 텅 빈 무언가를 알아채야 한다. 텅 빈 무엇. 여기서 넌 코페르니쿠스 혁명을 떠올릴 것이다. 너를 중심으로 세상이 돌아가는가? 그렇게 믿고 살아왔는가? 너의 또 다른 프랑스 선생님의 쿼시오브젝.  너는 프톨레마이오스 우주체계로, 태양이 지구를 돈다고 믿었던 시절로 다시 돌아 가야 할 필요가 있다. 세상은 너를 중심으로 돌지 않는다. 너는 열심히 중심을 위해 돌아야 한다. 불공평하다고? 차별화는 전제되어 있다고 너의 독일 선생님은 말했다. 평등은 모두가 머릿속에서 ‘절대 가능하지 않다’ 라고 이미 전제된 어떤 것이다. 하지만 입으로는 필요 상황에 따라서 우리는 ‘모두가 평등합니다.’ 하고 개소리를 지껄인다. (여기서 개소리는 미국인 철학자의 글을 연상하며…) 세상이 불공평한 이유는 간단하다. 즉, 너는 너 자신이 타자들보다 우월하다는 자기 우월, 자기 사랑을 전제로 살아가고 있다. 그렇다면, 뭔가 숨기고 있는 진실이 있다는 소리가 된다. 이제 이것은 더이상 개소리가 아니다. 이것은 사실 개소리보단 위험하지않은 거짓말이다. 너는 거짓말을 밥 먹듯이 하고 연극을 한다. 자아 연출을 해야 한다고? 그게 사회학이라고? 맞다 이죽일놈의 ’자아 연출의 사회학’. 그놈의 잘난 우월과 자기애를 꺼내어 특별함을 부여받으려고 연기를 한다. 너는그 부여함의 행위 자체로부터 파생되는 어떤 별개(개개의) 목적과 이익을 추구하려 한다. 이것은 윤리적 측면에서 다루어져야 한다. 중간에서 소통을 왜곡하여 얻어지는 자기를 향한 힘을 위한 행위이다. 그것을 행함이 이제는 무의식적으로 일어난다는 사실과 그것을 지극히 깨닫지 못하고 계속 이어가는 어떤 힘. ‘잘못된 최선은 최악이다’ 라고 했던 너의 유대인 선생님의 말씀을 떠올린다. 그런데 과연 무엇이 잘못된것이고 무엇이 잘된것인가? 라고 너는 너자신에게 질문한다.  – X





Georges Perec_Species of spaces and other pieces





Bandpass #3; ongoing research projects

Introduction from The Voice of the Dancing Body – Bojana Kunst

In The Book of the City of Ladies, Christine de Pizan tells the legend of St. Christine of Tyre, who refused to yield to her father’s demands and venerate pagan idols. For this reason, her father had her tongue cut out after many torments, but this did not stop St. Christine from »speaking more and more clearly of divine matters« (Pizan, 1999, 287). When hearing her speak, her father reproached the executioners for not having cut out her tongue enough. “So they pulled at her tongue and cut it out at the very root but Christine threw the tongue into the tyrant’s face and gorged out one of his eyes. Then, she said to him more clearly than ever before: ‘What good is it to you, tyrant, to have my tongue cut out in order for me to bless the Lord no more, for my soul will bless him forever and yours will forever be damned! You are rightly blinded by my tongue because you did not believe my words’” (Pizan, 1999, 287). St. Christine’s is one of a number of stories where the birth of a woman’s voice coincides with her having her tongue cut out (Philomel, Lavinia). As Carla Mazzio finds, classical literature usually depicts the loss of man’s tongue as the loss of his ego whereas women are also able to speak without their tongues because, oftentimes, a voice speaks through them (Mazzio, 1997, 53–80). The female body seems to resist the concept that various functions or actions should be located in individual, static parts of the body. This is why the female body is able to talk even without the tongue. On the one hand, this brings up the old phantasm of the uncontrollable fluidity of woman’s body, of the displacement of her body as characterized by incapturability and fluidity. On the other hand, the moment when St. Christine speaks out also testifies to her voice being subordinate to the power of the Other. Her voice is namely that of witness, who, moments before her death, testifies to the power of the One she represents – that of God, in whom she believes. Therefore, the voice of her insides represents both autonomous power and pure automatism; it stands for the power of the resisting body and at the same time, for the “recorded” voice of the Other. The philosopher Mladen Dolar claims that every birth of voice is marked by ambivalence because “the one who transmits the voice is not only the ruler, but as a transmitter, also a serf/subject”.1 According to Dolar, not only does the voice influence the insides of the listener (St. Christine literally blinds her father) but also itself comes from the insides of the body and exposes those insides to the Other. The Self actually yields to the Other and gives him power over him/herself (before her death, St. Christine speaks only as a witness of history; the power of her voice testifies to the power of the One she believes in).


It is not coincidental that our reflection on the relationship between the dancing body and its voice is prefaced by the legend of woman speaking with her voice without her tongue. The discovery of the voice of the body and the listening to the insides of the body, which is no longer in harmonious relationship to the regulated and textually placed hierarchy, represents one of the essential discoveries of 20th century contemporary dance. It is at the very centre of the forming of this new artistic genre and its breaking up with the traditional ballet conventions of the dancing body. As we know, one of the most important conventions of the ballet body is its dancing voicelessly, gliding along and challenging the limitations of gravity without any sound. The breathing of the body must be silent, its physical efforts inaudible. The body dances as if it did not produce any sounds at all, gliding along the dance floor, flying in the air and touching its dance partner in silence. This kind of absence of voice, the paradoxical silence of the active body, is not only a consequence of the strict disciplining of the body, but is also forms part of the complex technique of subjectivisation and establishment of the early modern body. In ballet, the dancing body suppresses its chaotic and unforeseeable voice in order to be able to become speech. As is well-known, it is precisely through the dancing body of ballet that the material power and rule of language (speech) is established – in other words, the rule of the (speaking) authority and the (linguistic) visibility of the modern subject.2 Paradoxically, when dancing as language – that is, articulate and civilized language – the body actually goes silent. It no longer listnes but becomes sheer obedience; it becomes alive because it is woken to life by the vocality of language. To put it differently: when ballet dance establishes itself as speech, the body shuts its mouth. More even, the absence of spoken text or its fragments and essential components (e.g. breathing, sighs, the sound of the words), becomes the main code of the representation of the dancing body. The body goes silent because it is hit by the sound of language from the outside. It is language that represents the basic dispositif through which the dancing body is observed, and is also the basic matrix of reading the body. It is not coincidental that many early modern ballet textbooks describe the birth of the body as the awakening, revival of the inactive body, where the chaos of nature gives way to the spiritual nature of listening. This revival or awakening is connected with the voice that comes from the outside – the voice of the sonorous power of language, which literally ‘sets the subject straight’ and furnishes it with the strength and self-discipline necessary for the cultivated, civilized and obedient life of the modern subject.




Franz Kafka_Hunger Artist














– Web development by Doy