@rglover702: On the attribution of terms that you don't understand.

I’m watching Marina Abramović talking
when she says

state of mind is everything.

I press pause
and I write

creating a state of mind
is a mental exercise.

I press play to continue.
Moments later Mum steps out.
I press pause,
and I go ‘ha!’

Mum looks at me as if to say
what?

Me: I’m watching Marina Abramović talking
about the difference between theatre and performance.
I’ve just taken a…
what do you call it?
Dictation!
A dictation of what she is saying,
so that I can see it.

She stumbles a bit when she gets to the part about what a performance is, and she laughs a bit, but I just want to read it to you without the stumbling bits.

Mum: Ok.

Me: “Theatre is very simple.
The knife is not the knife,
and the blood is ketchup.

In a thea… in a performance,
blood is real, and ketchup is blood,
and the ketchup is real blood”.

Don’t you think that’s just perfect, considering what she is stumbling over?

Mum: I’m missing what you’re seeing,
but if the stumbling was a mistake
then… yeah… yeah… um…
I’m missing what you’re seeing.
I’ve just got to go to the loo.
Sorry…

Me: No worries. That’s ok.

Ok. So with the time I have to myself, I get all the above written down and make a few minor edits. I’m happy to publish it now, but for some reason or other I feel like I should say something to justify it. So I rifle through my memory and the first thing that comes up is Richard Glover.

Let me explain
in terms I can understand.
http://www.facebook.com/officialwilanderson/posts/10150912184445382

Premise 1: The understanding of terms comes at the end of the performance.
Premise 2: The title must reflect the content.
Conclusion: “So as you see,
this is the enormous contradiction…”
that creates my life.

* Any implied or expressed similarity to my Mum is purely performative. That is my right as an artist.

About these ads