 Now, welcome back to this final installment of our series of conversations around the aesthetics of resistance. So this is the final day of the School of Resistance. So hopefully we will all be graduating tonight. I'm not entirely sure, but we'll see. I'm joined again by the director Milo Hau, as well as the French writer and actor, Edouard Louis, and the French philosopher and sociologist, Geoffroy Delagheny. Now, so far we've already covered a lot of ground over the past two days. But this session was, we wanted to focus on the aesthetics of socially engaged arts. So our purpose today will be to explore the ways in which arts may be defined as socially engaged today. Now, perhaps we could start with you, Geoffroy, because we ended the conversation with you yesterday. And I wanted to ask you, you've written about this, about what the principles of socially engaged art might be today, what qualifies or does not qualify, in your opinion, as political arts. Could you perhaps give us, perhaps, say a few words about what those principles might be for you today in the 21st century? Yes, hello. Thank you very much. Yes, it's true, but first, perhaps I want to, as you say, I want to say that every art is engaged. Every art is politically engaged, is engaged in the conservation or in the transformation of cultural structures, social structures, economic structures, I don't know. So it's very hard for me to say what is the aesthetics of a politically engaged art, because every art has to be seen as political. And it's true that in the social world, we have a tendency to depoliticize the right or depoliticize the conservative forces and always say that the left is politics, but the right is politics too, the right is engaged too, the right is committed too, and everything is politics when you do art. But I think perhaps one question we can ask too and perhaps to be more radical. So we can elaborate on some principles for an art that would be ethics, as I call it in my book, La Rint Possible. But one of the question I ask is when we think about politics, perhaps we can too address the idea that is art necessary if we want to do politics? Why art is necessary? And isn't there, can't we sometimes identify an antagonism between artistic project and politically engaged project when you want to change the society? You know, I quote in my book La Rint Possible, the very important idea by Herbert Marcuse, when he says that artists are people who tend to adhere to the idea that we want another society, they want to negate the real in order to produce something different, in order to produce another idea of the world. But differently with the activists or theoreticians, they don't do that in the reality. They don't do that in the real world. They do that in the real, the realm of the imaginary. And so he says that in fact, there is a kind of grief of the political ambition at stake in the artistic impulse. And when you want to do art, in fact, sometimes you can say you renounce to do revolution. And Marcuse says doing art is in fact, not doing revolution, is maintaining the project of a utopian society but without acting really to transform the society. And so you can argue that in fact, there is a contradiction between the logic of political action and the logic of aesthetics. And that's why for me, I would say that my question would be, is there a pre-value in art when you want to do politics? Or is it possible to legitimate an artistic practice by a political goal? And on the contrary, can't you always argue that when you want to do politics, you can always do it better without art or you can do it without with coursing to aesthetics. And so perhaps for me, it is implicit of our three discussions that we need art, that we have to articulate art and politics, that we have to do art politically engaged. And perhaps the question we can ask is, is it real? Is it true? And do we really need art to do politics? Now, perhaps Edouard wants to react because the floor mentions that there's a grief that might come with the act of making art, of writing in your case, of perhaps being on stage. Is that something that you recognize or would you put it differently? Something true in what Joffo says and something I completely disagree with. There is obviously this feeling of mourning and of grief when you write, when you write a book, when you write a piece of art, because you know that you are not achieving the transformations that you could achieve in like going to the streets, helping homeless people, demonstrating, taking a boat and helping migrants who are dying in the Mediterranean, like Cedric who did and this kind of thing. So it's true that there is this constant feeling of shame when you don't like the world you live in. At the moment you are writing, you know that you could do something more and something more efficient right now. And this is true that for me it's important to write with this feeling of shame and to use this shame as a tool in order to be constantly confronted by the world and by the society as an artist and not try to get rid of this shame, but really to use it in order to make the least unethical art possible. But at the same time, at the same time I disagree with you because as we said we were discussing yesterday and before yesterday there are several levels of an individual and several levels of transformation. And as a political subject, I want the ability to be transformed at all those levels, you know. And clearly there are some transformations that a book will never achieve. I don't think a novel will destroy the class society, for example, right? I don't think a novel will do it. Le Manifesto du Parti du Communisme from Karl Marx almost did it, but I don't think a novel will do it. But at the same time, you know, there are things that a social movement will never achieve either, you know. This feeling of, for example, as I was saying before yesterday, this feeling of building yourself as a gay person when you watch a movie of Gozvan Saint or when you watch a movie of Pedro Almodovar or when you watch a movie that is like portraying the life and the desire and the happiness and the suffering of the person you want to become, of the person you are and that you want to become. And, you know, I've been kind of challenged by the time we have been going through with the pandemic on what is transformative, what is necessary, what is important for an individual, you know. During this pandemic, that we will probably talk one day into the books of history, there were supermarkets that were open, for example. And you have government saying to the people, you can buy food there, but you cannot buy, I don't know, like lipstick in the supermarket, you know. And so how could the state define for us what is more important for us, what is more transformative for us, what is more essential for us. And sometimes heart is bringing this possibility of transformation that is not, you know, socially considered as something important, but that can be at an individual level, something extremely important. And they are like this possibility of creating yourself and of self reinventing yourself that you encounter in front of a piece of art that the social movements will not necessarily bring you. And I want this, I want those two possibilities to happen at the same time. And a world in which you can only change the social gender justice or the social class justice or the racial justice, but a world in which you cannot recognize your melancholy in someone else, in which you cannot recognize your lost of a loved one, in which you cannot recognize your urge to dance, for example. It's not a society that I want to live in. So clearly there are a transformation that art and literature will never, once again, we'll never bring, we'll never create. And this is a problem for her. This is a missing part of art. But there are also all these things that we can change and that are part of an individual too. And I think that it's like different fragments of a being. You know, a book will not give you what love give you. Love will not give you what politics give you. Sexuality will not give you what music will give you. But I wonder if it's possible to create a kind of a cartography of the possibility of changing in which art would be a part and politics would be a part also, but without dismissing each other in using the other. And, but I know there is a tension here. There is a tension because it's also the way that bourgeois arts define itself, you know, define itself and defend itself in saying, we can talk about wherever you want. And at the end it justifies a bourgeoisie writing books for decades again and again about the little bourgeois life in the center getting divorced and losing their bicycle and being traumatized by that. And they say, this is the right I have because I have multiplicity within me. So I know there is a tension here. I know it's not easy, but I don't think that it's something that we can dismiss like I think Jofa was doing in a way. I think there is something in between that is what we can find in, things that we can find in talking together today, but clearly. But Mido, I'm sure there's a lot in there that you want to react to, but there has just one question to start. Edouard mentioned the time that we're going through and of course we're still very much in the middle of it. But has the pandemic affected your way of thinking about your work in some ways or are you at least considering some ways in which to move forward based on what we've been going through? Yeah, I mean, that's a question we, I think we all answered many, many times in the last weeks and months. And I think new things came to us, new medias became important. For example, this discussion became possible and we just do it. So as I joined many, many, and everybody of us, many discussions like this that were somehow impossible before even if the technology was there. So we kind of found out that we can do that at any moment. And I think these kind of relations are quite interesting. And it's also how the School of Resistance is based when we said, okay, why don't we meet in the virtual space, people from different continents, from different fields, et cetera, to talk about. And that's the point where perhaps I would slightly contradict to Eduard to somehow totalize the act we can do together. Because I think one big problem and somehow we went further in it and we somehow overcame it with new strategies is the fragmentation of our work we do. That if we are a teacher or a soldier or I don't know, a scientist or a writer or a theater maker, we are working in different fields. And I think what we should do, and I'm talking now as an artist, is trying to totalize the act of art. And here I come back to, I think, what you said in the very beginning of the discussions when you said not engaged art is impossible. And we should highlight again everything what in bourgeois art is not very well seen. For example, the concrete, the clear, and I would even say the ideological, that you say I do this work for this aim. I want to highlight this and I do it to change this. I think it's very important when you want to be political in a real sense, to be very explicit. So I would say that's for me the first point, how to be activist in art is to be ideological and very concrete what your aims are. The second thing is for me, against the fragmentation, I think collective work is really the way out of it. To focus on the process, on your network of knowledge, how you produce a work, more than on a product, that you say fuck the product. I'm not interested in this kind of premiers and critiques and so on. Of course, you're somehow depending in the economic value of the work you do, that you have more this than that in the critique, but that you find ways and institutions and solidarities that the premier is not valued anymore. That is about the process and you would value the process you have, the power of the process. And the last thing is, I think, against the isolation that we should really try to do popular art. We should really try to have the biggest impact possible. I think that was one question you asked at us in your email, preparing this discussion. What is about a kind of repertoire of resistance? Is there a kind of... And because this is called, I think, Aesthetics of Resistance, and it's not by accident that it is called like this, these discussions, because it's the title of a book by Peter Weiss. I don't even know if this book is known. It's very known here in Germany as a book, and it's a very interesting book, because actually it's a book, a description of the struggle of the working class through the description and the confrontation with big artworks from, I don't know, Delacrade, Liberty Guiding the People, or Jericho, or Dante, or and so on, a kind of a re-appropriation of the classics by the working class or by the people that is only depicted in these images and by watching them, giving them a new interpretation and a new practice, it would become, again, a part of their real hidden history and forgotten history. And I think this, for me, is one outcome, because I was always asking myself, why do I go back to the classics, the Bible, and Eishilos and so on since some years now? Why am I interested in not creating kind of completely new stories? And I think this is also something we should start to focus on, and it's perhaps a kind of a repetition of the social Israelism to revisit somehow the classics in a new way and under the perspective of new collectives. Now, perhaps, what would you make of the notion of the repertoire in this sense, because to many people it is inherently conservative to have a repertoire of works that perhaps requires prior knowledge, often or prior, let's say, artistic practice, or at least the practice to go as an audience member in order to know the finer points of the stories of how it came to be. How do you relate to that notion? Well, it's hard for me to have the same position like Milo or Edward, because I'm not an artist and I don't have a real important relation with art and with creation. I don't have a huge culture, to be honest. I don't read a lot of literature or theater. I own you with theory and philosophy and sociology. So this is my world and this is my environment. For me, when I know about the notion of repertoire of the classic, for me, it would be the point of departure of an interrogation about the world of culture as a world of terrorism, of terror. You always have to accept the importance of piece of art, you always have to recognize that I don't know Molière, Racine, Corneille, I don't know, Dante, and so on is important. And the Bourdieu has a very, very important idea. It says it's very hard in the world of art to distinguish between what people really think of a piece of art and the fact that when they speak about art, they voice the opinion they think is legitimate or they think will make them look pretty or smart or intelligent. And in the world of art, there is no such thing as a real taste. It is a world where you always anticipate are people going to see me as a clever or barbarian, am I going to be seen as ignorant or with a huge culture? And so the anticipation of the reception of what you say is so important in the world of art and nothing is more shameful in this world that to be with no culture to say I don't know this artist, I don't know this writer, I don't know this piece that in fact the repertoire is for me the repetition of acts of terror by which we think we have to recognize the importance of the world, of the piece of art of the past, you know. And so I don't have any, I don't fetishize what has been done. And so if, for example, when people would say we will never show any piece of theater by corneille now, I would not have any problem with that. I would just do a small thing about what Milo said because you have the first question about what art would be the challenge of leftist art today. And he spoke about, I remember the notion of the process, you know, that is most important that the first of the premiere, you know. And to put the process of the core of the production of the theater play. And I think indeed what on the tension of a politically motivated and ethical art today is a tension between it's impossible to do art without taking into account the apparatus into which you are inscribed when you produce art. And if you don't interrogate the form of the museum, of the form of the theater play, of the form of, I don't know, a gallery, you will be the victim of a system you don't address. And so you will be part of this reproduction of this system which is part of the system of cultural domination. So you have to interrogate in your play or your art the apparatus of art. But the problem with that is when you do that sometimes art becomes more and more about art, you know. And the challenge for artists is not to transform art as an art about art, an art about the process of art which will in fact forget the world, forget the big questions, you know. And so I think one of the most important tensions or challenges in fact for artists today is how to interrogate art in the process of projecting art without doing an art that is about art, you know. And I think that's one of the most important issues. Now, Eduard, please feel free to react to other questions here and including the repertoire. But I was wondering in your case because you have experience of two very different artistic processes from writing on the one hand which is to an extent quite solitary. And more recently working as part of an artistic team for a play and playing yourself in Who Killed My Father directed by Thomas-Ostomayo. How did you experience the difference between those two processes and did that shift your perspective on what we've been discussing? Yeah, clearly those two exercises were extremely different being alone every day for two years or three years and writing your book or being every day with a team and discussing with people and also being confronted then when the show starts to the people every day is something really, it's two completely different experience. And from that point, there is something that theater has that literature don't have because theater is, as we were talking about confrontation theater has a huge confrontational power, you know, because you are here in front of the people, in front of the people you are talking to and they have their bodies in front of you and they have to be confronted to what you say. They can escape, they can, you know, like stand up and walk out the room but it's much more difficult than just like closing the book and forgetting about it. And for me, this is what is beautiful in theater. It's like this suspension of liberty for a few minutes for one hour, for one hour 30 that pushes you to really see what you are confronted to, to really see what the artist is confronting you to. And, you know, I was very, very often quote this scene of when I was a teenager, I was a gay boy in the closet and one day I went to see Angels in America in the theater. And since my birth, I knew that I had desire for men that I was gay, that I was attracted to men but I was ashamed of it and I hated myself for that. And so I was trying to bury it like inside me as deep as I could and one day I went to see with high school Angels in America and I saw those men like kissing, touching each other and like having sex on stage. And suddenly it was impossible to not see what was going on. And I eventually stood up and walked out the room and I said, I don't want to see that faggot things because I was closeted because I had interiorist the homophobia of my father, of my milieu, of the hate of myself. But the fact that I walked out was the evidence that it was already too late. And for me, the theater really opens this possibility of if we, as I was saying before yesterday, if we consider that people already know how ugly the world is, they know how bad the world is, they know how violent the world is, but they don't want to see it and the bourgeoisie is constantly building like physical strategies in order to turn their eyes, to turn their head, to never see it. Zen theater is a particular place of confrontation and it really makes people mad and I felt that power that I had on the stage that I didn't necessarily have in the process of writing. So this is once again the opposite of what Sartre calls the arrangager, the committed art because Sartre was saying, we call the liberty of the reader. But I don't want to call the liberty of the reader or of the person in front of me because I know that if I give them this liberty, they will turn their head and escape what I'm saying and try to deny what I'm saying and to deny the reality we are presenting. The project is precisely the opposite, a suspension of liberty and not a suspension of liberty forever or not like a dictatorial moment, but like facing people to what they don't want to see exactly like the boy that I was didn't want to see what it was. But the fact that it was suddenly uncomfortable, the fact that I didn't feel good, the fact that I didn't feel safe, that led me to liberation. And that's why also in the current American situation, political American situation in the side of the liberal where everything, all the conversation is around like the idea of like feeling safe, safe space, feeling comfortable. There are no revolutionary art possible because you of course achieve transformation only if you make people uncomfortable and only if you don't make people feel safe. And this is what the theater offers. If you just want people to be safe, it means that the bourgeoisie will be safe in its ugliness and in its reproduction of the ugly world. And this is why I want to continue acting now and continue being on stage. And that's why I'm going to build this project with Milo that we started to work on and like this video is a little bit part of it, but we will try to find ways of confrontation of more and more confrontation. That was going to be my next question because of course you two are working together at the moment. Do you want to tell us a little more about first of all, what brought you together perhaps for a project and what you're working on at the moment? It's a love story. No, go Milo. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I'm also searching. We have now a kind of, I have the impression, huge complexes of discussion and of meetings and of ideas. And we met from Berenice until I think making a film together with Isabelle Hubert. And we had many ideas what we could do. And of course one idea for me always is the necessity why exactly would you be at that moment on stage? So that's my big question I have, of course. And I think it came from that necessity. I remember from our, not first discussion when we said we want to do a project, but one of the first ones and it couldn't write because it was wrong what he was writing and he didn't know why. And I think even Choffois was saying it's a great text, but he felt it's wrong. You know, and that you have somehow the feeling and I think the theater is the best place to feel it. That you really feel in every moment if it's right or wrong, unnecessary what you're doing. And I think it's very much linked to what we discussed now about freedom and safety and purity and all this kind of neoliberal mythology where the theater is of course one of the main spaces of it. When you think about theater, you think, ah, I will be free and I will be safe and it will be tolerant and all antagonisms will be outside and everybody will love everybody. And to find a place of complete exposure, losing your own mythology, how you want to perhaps present you kind of, because I mean listening to Choffois and I understood that I think in this very moment the myth of freedom in art and the myth of safety in art is completely linked to avoid revolution and change in any way. So that's what is, and that's why it's interesting for me, it was interesting to read this Rassin-like Mozart libretto in the last weeks when I was doing this opera where you had kind of this really closed space of the elitist rhetorics about tolerance that exists since hundreds of years in the very same way. I would even not link it to the bourgeoisie, it would just link it to the ruling class, actually. So there were always good leaders with open spaces and safe spaces and so on. So, and I think to destroy these spaces of freedom, you can't leave. I call it sometimes a Stalinist space, the theater. You can't leave, you have to stay until the end. I remember I was in a play by Luc Perceval, a director who is working in my place next again too. 10 years ago when he became famous, I was in the first row and I made the mistake that I was drinking two big beers before going to the premiere. And after 10 minutes I had to go to toilet, but because it's theater, it's impossible, you can't leave. I was in the middle of the row and I was suffering like a dog for three hours. And I was thinking I will die. But this for me, it seems a bit absurd and it's of course a coincidence, but for me this is what I want to achieve somehow, that you would be physically completely present. You can't escape the situation. You're confronted to whatever. Many times I start to, when I'm listening to somebody, I start to think parallely. It's not that the myth of intention is also very wrong. Even boredom, even that you have the possibility to think something else while you are watching, for me in theater it's very important that you have this space where you are still kind of free but you are locked. And I think exploring this space, we also call it a bit istrade theater. Of course it will be also an investigation on what role plays theater in our lives. In Edouard's life he mentioned his Angels of America moment, for example. In my life, what are the different values of these methods to be together in one room. And so on. But much more we don't know. I think over next week we really start and we write this text. To be continued for perhaps, to see that either in the coming seasons. But I'd be curious to know how you create the conditions for that practice to happen, for that process to happen. Because of course there is what happens in the creation process itself, but there is also the working conditions behind for the people you're working with, the collective. Is that something that you consider, that you considered, for instance, when you took over an institution like Entegent, how to create the conditions for people to do their best work. And hopefully make the place you're working in as fair as possible. And as representative of what you'd like to see in society as possible. I will, because you are mentioning Entegent, I will just, I will add. For me, again, being explicit is very important. I mean, you can tell whatever you want, but politics means that you have, for example, a manifesto and there are written the rules. And everybody who enters that space will know the rules and you can be measured. You can say, but you did this and you said you want this and here it's written. I think this is very, again, it's a bit Stalinist, but it's very important that everybody for me knows what are these conditions you describe. And what we try to do, and now we are reformulating the manifesto, of course, again and again, to make this rule known to everybody. Another point for me important is we can discuss this and say, well, but normally all my rehearsals are open to public. There is always somebody present. Now it's a bit difficult because of COVID, but for example, this discussion is open to everybody who wants to try and perhaps 50 people or 200 people or 5,000 people, but everybody who wants can listen and can even leave a comment. And I think this is, I mean, it seems superficial. And of course then you have all the regulations that you would give to a project and that you would learn step by step and every project is quite different. For example, I have many rules I normally use. I don't adapt to the project with it. Wow, because it's a monologue. So different languages or non-professionals or et cetera makes not so much sense. If not, it's already mixed in it while himself. But I mean, it's, yeah, it's for me being explicit is the point, actually. That was your point if you want to comment on that. But I was thinking that you write about the ways in which institutions by their very existence in many ways sort of keep reproducing kind of exclusivity for the audience. Do you think what are the conditions under which you think institutions, public institutions can actually stop creating more the conditions for popular arts to thrive and reach its audience? Well, indeed it's a very hard question because the problem with art is that there is always a very big difference because what people think they are doing and what they objectively do, you know. And the problem with art is that very often, for example, people think they're doing a piece of art that is open because there will be no guide because there will be no explanation because it will be spontaneous. And in fact, when you are a sociologist, you know it's the art that is the most intimidated in the social world because popular classes need the code to understand, they need to feel guided, you know, because they know nothing. And so at the end, when you think you will do something which is open, it's free, there is no rule, you can do whatever you want in the space of the museum. In fact, you have the most elite bourgeoisie inside the exposition and the popular classes that feel completely excluded by it. So in fact, and I think that's true, if you want to transform art into popular art, if you want to do an art that would be able to circulate into a different kind of public sphere, in fact, you have to change the school system too. You have to change the habitus and the way people see art, how they learn, how to behave. And the simple fact to sit in a theater and to see something and to wait two hours requires years and years of domestication of your body in order just to be able to sit and to shut and not to move, which is already a selective process. When Miro was talking about his experience with beer and the urge to pee inside of a piece of art, I was thinking in the political theory, we have exactly the opposite idea that the possibility for a government to be good is when it opens the possibility for people to flee or to go away, you know? You have this theory, liberal theory of libertarian theory that the possibility to exit the society is the most powerful tool to force government to be good because either not good people will leave and they will have nobody to submit to their power. For me, for example, when I go to a theater play, I always dream of the system where you could escape the play by going under your seat and disappear in the... You hate the piece, you know? And I think the people in the theater would do much better play if they knew everybody could disappear about 10 minutes after it began because it's too awful, you know? And when you write a book, this question is a very, very good question because you know that people can close your book and say, okay, it's boring, I don't read it anymore. And so there is this right to exit. Yes, there is this right to exit, which is, in fact, a question that you should... You have to address when you are a writer. And sometimes people in opera or dance or theater, they know they are taking people towards stage and they are too violent with the public, violent in the sense that they are too bad because they don't have this fear that people will leave. And so I think that for me, in fact, I don't agree with your ethics of a stage and I prefer an ethics of letting people free to go. But yeah, I don't know if I answered the question, but I think just to address the question of the school system is very important to transform culture, you know? You cannot transform culture with an autonomous cultural practice, you know? It's too linked to class society, to school system, to the people who are the possibility to just take a distance from the daily life and people who are immersed in necessity, you know? And so you cannot change art if you don't change the society, economic structure on the school system. Now, I thought I was going to ask you that, but we're going to flee when you stepped on stage last year. But perhaps more generally as well. I know that suppose the tour of the production was not as extensive as it was planned because of the pandemic, but from your experience of being on stage so far, do you find that the reactions that you get from people, whether it's in writing or just after performance, the discussions that you have are different in nature from the reactions that you get after publishing a book? No, not really. I would say that the conversations that I have after performing on stage or after like a public discussion about the book are pretty much the same. And it's mostly about making people talk, making people talk about them, making people talk about themselves, making people understand that they are part of a society with its violent mechanisms that we don't necessarily and always see that they are part of groups that endure certain social mechanism that makes them fragile or precarious and everything. And this is for me really, this is the goal of what I do and I do art. It's to make people speak, it's to make people talk. And as Joffre said, even if I disagree with him also a little bit, and I saw what he just said, he's also framed by the fact that he doesn't like art, so he always wants to escape. And he's my closer friend, so I know I offered him so many novels that I love so much like Claude Simo or James Baldwin or Simone de Beauvoir that he never wants to read because he reads so much philosophy all the time and it takes all the space in his life. But the thing is, what is true in what Joffre says that of course, and we know it, the system of art is based on a system of exclusion and who have access to it and who don't have access to it and who can talk about it and who can feel silent, who is silent by the art. You don't understand, you are not able to understand, you will not understand, like is most of the, a huge part of the contemporary art of the modern art, which when working class people go, they don't understand anything, they don't have any keys to understand, they don't have the frame to understand, and then they feel completely excluded. So in terms of explicit what would be a note that don't reduce people to silent, but that would make them talk, you know. And when Simone de Beauvoir published the second sex about women, she says in a memoirs that suddenly she got hundreds of letters from women saying, I had this experience with my husband, I had this experience in my life, I was subjected to a certain role during my whole life, and in the past I didn't know it. People were living next to their life and they didn't have even the ability to say I, you know. And for me, also a radical piece of art is a piece of art that gives this possibility to the people to say I. I never understand the people who say that we live in a two individualist society where everyone wants to say I, where everyone wants to talk about themselves, where everyone, I don't see it anywhere. I just see people who, for whom it's so difficult to say hi, to say I am a person I had suffered through, like all the working class in people in my childhood, for them it was almost impossible to say, I am someone, I experienced something. And so it's a problem of the bourgeoisie once again to think that too many people say hi. And also that's why I think that the autobiographical art is also an art of resistance today in the present because it's suddenly so many people who didn't have access to this first person speech, who make it and suddenly give the possibility to other people to make it. And that's why, for example, the rap music is a deeply autobiographical art because it's mostly people who are excluded from the legitimate field of art who suddenly take a speech, take the power and they say hi and it gives the possibility to other people to understand that they are also hi, that they are subjects that they... And so this is really the experience that I'm trying to create if I'm clear. It's never easy to be clear on Zoom. Right? Or I don't know, what's the app? It was very clear. I think we're nearing the end of our time together. So it wasn't possible to leave it here, but I just wanna say thank you to anyone who followed whether you followed over the past three days or you just tuned in today. I hope you got something out of this conversation that you'll keep following along for. Thank you, have a conversation around the revolt of dignity at 5 p.m. as well and the new gospel, film inspired by the Bible, that we discussed briefly in our conversations by Milo Rao. You, thank you to Edouard-Louis Touchefroid de la Gainerie and of course to Milo Rao for being with me and allowing me to talk to you about three days. Thank you so much, thank you so much. Thank you very much. And see all of you very soon. Thank you. Or the next days. Thank you, exactly. And right confrontational arts. Yes, next week it starts. So I have to go to pee actually.