 Everybody back here to the Martin E. Stiegel Theater Center at the Graduate Center CUNY at the City University of New York. It's week 18, I think if I'm not right. And as part of our talk to artists and writers and thinkers, theater artists around the world in New York City, the US. And today we have with us a very great guest, a philosopher from France. It is the great Jacques Ronsier who is with us here. So thank you so much for joining us in this unprecedented time. And yeah, it is still complicated here in America, numbers of cases are up over four million people are infected. The Center for Disease Controls things, it's up to 50 million. That's the real number. Over 40 million people, 45 million filed for unemployment at a certain time. It's actually running out by the end of the months. And they are now thinking should it be continued or not, it's a disastrous time. Also eviction, the protection for eviction is running out. People will be forced to leave homes and it is just a recipe for disaster. As someone said, a disaster movie we are perhaps living in and ourselves and there's a big distrust in government. There's no real security for jobs or distrust in the workplace. It is extremely hot confinement. So of course this is a dangerous, dangerous time. There's lots of civil unrest for good reasons in the streets and Seattle and Portland. And there's paramilitary force used against protesters and all of it is just a stunning development and missing leaderships of a president who still kind of refuses to wear a mask. So we don't really know where it all will going. New York, everything is closed in Midtown where our university is. Every second store is closed. Every restaurant is closed just on the sidewalks. People are sitting. And so it's a bleak outlook even so it's a sunny, wonderful summer day. We have with us Jacques Bonsier today and most people do know him, who know him. Just make some very brief remarks. He is born in Algeria and philosophy is his field. Political philosophy, philosophy of education, the aesthetics, many think of him as one of the most influential philosophers of the times. We live in and I agree. And he worked a lot on the history and thought from below, from the people, the workers. He thinks about radical equality and equal intelligence of people. And when it comes to art, which he also comments on and we think of him as an artist in his writing, he thinks that art is a radical action against hierarchies in society or it makes visible that existing hierarchies. And he wrote the significant piece for the theater world, the emancipated spectator, where he looked at who looks and who acts. And he said, if I say it right, that looking actually is the opposite of knowledge. And perhaps we do a transmission of ignorance that we don't do a real service. We don't take the spectators for serious and that perhaps there's something that could be changed. But like all of us, Jacques also is living through the time of Corona. So where are you right now, Jacques? What time is it? So I am in the French provinces in Brittany, in Brittany near the sea. It's now, so 6 PM, you know, in my place, you know. But it's not hot at all. You know, it's rather windy and rainy. It's a great day, but I'm fine. Yeah, yeah. And are we just right today? I think that also in the Britannia, some small towns, sea towns, they had to close down again, even so France opened a bit the restrictions. Yes, yes, you know, it's a bit ambiguous because yes, you know, so there was in France, you know, the end of the confinement, the end of the lockdowns, you know. But at the same time, you know, there are new cases, you know. So it seems that the pandemic is coming back, you know. And especially in some regions, like for instance, Brittany, you know, regions where, so it's difficult to know exactly why, you know, of course, because there are also regions, you know, near the sea, near the sea, so regions for vacation, you know. And so of course, you know, people say, oh, it's because of the tourists, you know, who come, you know, et cetera, et cetera. But mostly it seems it is because, of course, people, you know, coming from all the country, you know, gathering, you know, the families, you know, are gathering, you know, and seeing again, you know, after some months of separation. So the fact is, you know, so that there is no more in the confinement, but at the same time, you know, I'm in the one region which is supposed to be a bit dangerous, you know. But not so much, not so much, you know. I'm not afraid. You're not afraid, that's good. I'm not afraid. And people are not afraid, but of course, they wear masks, you know. Of course, they take care. So well, it's rather, you know, peaceful situation, it's a region where there was absolutely nothing, you know, during the confinement, you know, you know, almost no case at all, you know, and it started just now. Really? Yeah. Hmm. So where were you when it all happened, when it started the confinement? Oh, I was, I was in Paris, you know, when it started, you know, and while I was doing the kind of things I always do, you know, I always do, meaning working, meaning some, I would say, but most of my life consists in reading, reading, writing, sometimes gardening. So it was impossible, of course, to do gardening during that moment, you know. But also it was impossible to go to the library. You know, of course, I used to go to the National Library almost every day, you know. And of course, I was at home so much. But you know, on the other hand, you know, I'm rather, you know, a quiet person, you know, spending much time, you know, just, you know, in front of my desk, just reading, writing, and also I could, I could go on, you know. And of course, all the more because, of course, there were no more seminars, no more talks, no more public events. So I was peacefully, you know, reading and writing at home. So in a way, a continuation of your normal days, except the teaching? I don't teach, I don't teach anymore, you know. I left university 20 years ago, you know. So I am a retired person, you know. But at the same time, of course, I was active. But during, you know, the last time I have decided, you know, now I will try, you know, to slow down all those activities of talking and seminars and so on. And of course, in a way, the pandemic helped me, you know, of course, to do so. Well, so, but, well, no, the point is at the same time, you know, I'm sorry, I spend more much time at home, but I'm not a metaphysician, you know. I don't work just in my mind, you know, with concepts, you know. I work with words, with the words written by other people, you know, with archives, with the images and so on. And of course, it was a lack for me, you know. Because of course, most, there were many texts, many images that I couldn't see during that period. And of course, it's kind of restriction, kind of restriction, you know, of my activity. So how did it feel for you that experience of confinement, of a lockdown? Of course, it is a strange experience. Of course, it is the first time in my life, you know, and it's a long life, you know. I know this kind of thing, you know. Well, in a way, you know, I was prepared by my way of life, of course. But at the same time, I think it's, well, for me, it was a kind of time of suspension, you know. At the same time, you know, I could go on, you know, doing mostly the same kind of things, you know, I'm doing all the time. But well, it was a time of suspension, meaning, you know, you are no more, you know, in the normal course of things, you know, in the normal course of time, you know. And for me, it's important, you know, also from an intellectual point of view, because there are many people, you know, who want to explain everything, you know. Something unexpected, you know, happens. But they can turn the things, you know, so that it was expected, you know. There are reasons for this. And of course, since the beginning of the pandemic, there were a lot of texts written by intellectuals saying, oh, well, of course, it was inevitable. It is the consequence of capitalism, of capitalism, of the anthropocene, et cetera, et cetera, of our way of dealing with nature, of the technical mastery of the world, et cetera, et cetera, you know. I don't like this kind of attitude, I think, but when something unexpected comes, you know, you must leave it unexpected, you know. So this could not have happened, you know. I think for me it's important because most of my thinking, you know, is about contingency, you know. So I decided, well, it happens. It happens. I have no mastery, you know, over this event, you know. I don't know what happens in the hospitals, you know. I know that there are people dying in France, you know. The fact is that most of them, you know, live in suburbs that are not, you know, the same place, you know. Of course, I cannot go into the hospital. So I'm far from everything. So let us, really, you know, well, you know, be honest, let us be honest, you know. We have no mastery. We don't know what happens. We don't see what happens, you know. So I think we should not try, you know, to explain what happens and to say this is the result of a long trend of civilization, et cetera, of a long history. Yes, so that's my way of thinking, which means that, you know, after a few days, you know, or I stopped reading anything of the pandemic. So I decided, oh, I don't know, I don't know, you know. I must act, you know, as a person who doesn't know, you know. And don't, and not, you know, not really get trapped in this kind of constant discussion and explanation and debate, you know, about things that you don't know. Yeah, I think that's quite a significant thought that we do not know. And so that's so many people try to explain or and may perhaps reflecting more their own thoughts and what reality is. So but for you, do you feel that this is a completely new time? If you say, I do not know, can you see connections to history, to times that were perhaps connected to the moment we live through now? Well, of course, it's true, but at the same time, it's a moment of suspension. This is a moment when people cannot really gather, gather and discuss and act together, you know. And of course, it is in this kind of moment, you know, what happens, I would say, is a kind of enforcement, you know, of consensus, because of what consensus means, you know, is the idea that there is only one reality and one way of thinking, of reality and dealing with that reality, you know. And it is of course, the ideology of our government, you know, there is only one reality, there is only one thing to do. And of course, you know, in normal times, we can say, no, no, there are a lot. We can perceive differently, we can name the things differently, the situations differently, we can put, we can really put the case differently. Well, in this case, it's quite difficult, but it's quite impossible, you know. So of course, there were some people saying, you know, no, no, it's nothing, just, you know, just a small flu, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And it's horrible for governments, you know, to decide, you know, confinement and so on. But at the same time, you know, there was no action against the government, you know. In fact, we agreed, you know, we agreed, in fact, you know. So I think it's a very interesting and of course, dangerous time, because it is a time when we are obliged, you know, to abide to the law of consensus, to the idea that, well, of course, and of course, we know that the government was wrong, we know, for instance, but in France, you know, in France, you know, the situation is a consequence, you know, of the shortage, you know, of shortage, you know, of course, of equipment, of research, et cetera, et cetera, you know, it's a result of a lot of cutbacks, you know, et cetera. But at the same time, you know, when the government says, you know, you have to stay at home, you know, if you don't want to be infected or infect other persons, what can we say, you know, what can we say, you know, what else can we say, and what else can we do? So we can say, of course, government is responsible for the situation, but we can do anything, you know. And I think for me, it's significant because, you know, many people, you know, in these kind of situations say, oh, it's really the proof, you know, that we are in a kind of totalitarian, you know, form of bio power, you know, societal surveillance, et cetera, so I'm kind of a big brother. But obviously not, precisely, it's not big brother, you know, the government is not really surveying us, you know, it doesn't sort of anything in a way, you know. But at the same time, you know, well, we obey, we obey, in a way, we obey not because the government is strong, but because it is weak. Yeah, I think a German director from the Volksmanit Frank Astor said, I don't like that. Our chancellor is telling me I have to wash my hands, you know, he said, I'm a grown-up person, but on the other hand, he has to, you know, so, and it is not an easy adjustment. For you in that time, as you said, also in your life, for instance, the first period of such a long confinement, did it produce some thoughts, some thinking, did something materialize or interest that you didn't have before? I would not say so, you know, as I said, you know, I went on, you know, working, you know, working on the same kind of things, you know, I was working before, you know, mainly on aesthetics and working on images, you know, from, so writing about films, about photographs, about installations and so on. Well, but I would say it made me perhaps perceive more than any time, you know, a certain, you know, fertility, you know, of this constant, you know, explanation and comment, you know, the comment, you know, of the event. So I think with multiplicity, you know, of articles, every day there were a lot of articles explaining the situation, and what, and I had, well, it's a feeling, but it's not the same as the first time in my life, but more than a feeling that there is a kind of complicity, you know, between those governments, you know, that are managing, you know, things, you know, on a day-by-day basis, you know, and those intellectuals, you know, trying to put everything, you know. Well, within the scope, you know, of history, of a long, of many centuries, the history of human kinds, history of capitalism, et cetera, et cetera. So I had really, well, there was a kind of, of course, of perception that was stronger than ever, you know, of, but it is really, it is really useless, you know, and there is a kind of illusion, you know, of people thinking that they are commenting, explaining, denouncing things, but at the same time, I think they're just a compiner, you know, what is done by our governments, you know. But of course, it's, well, it's a negative lesson, of course, but one, what I think understood better, you know, better than ever, you know, is that, well, there is a kind of normal order of things, you know, and those denounce this order of things also are part of this order of things, you know. And so it, of course, it's a challenge, you know, but what can we do, what can we do else, you know, but praying, well, feeling, you know, feeling, better feeling our importance, you know, in some circumstances, you know, or the limits of our power, you know. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's true, that there are the limits and especially I think in America, where which has a view of exceptionalism, things will not happen here and everything is the best and the perfect, it is perhaps the first time that there are the feeling of insecurity, that the certain future is uncertain for really, really happen here. So you said you're looking at images and installations. What were you looking at in this time? What were the images you worked on? So if I try to remember, you know, first I was, I had to write a text, you know, for a catalog, you know, for an exhibition of the Chilean artist Alfredo Jarre, you know, because Alfredo, because he was given, he was given a prize recently and there will be an exhibition, you know. And Alfredo Jarre spent a lot of time trying to make political images and especially, you know, of course, images of the slaughter in Rwanda, you know, in Rwanda, you know. And so there will be an exhibition. So, and of course, it is an opportunity to think what exactly does it mean, does it mean to make photography, in a political way, you know, how to manage, you know, with all those corpses, all those dead bodies, you know, for instance, Alfredo Jarre, you know, precisely, never showed any dead body, any corpse, you know, or in a massacre, for instance. So I spent a time, you know, looking at the image of his work for some dozens of years now, you know, and trying to think, you know, about each, you know, about what kind of an artist, what kind of an artist exactly do, you know. And after a while, after that, you know, I, for instance, you know, but I will not, you know, tell my whole life, you know. But I wrote an article, you know, about a film by the Portuguese filmmaker Pedro Costa. You know, Pedro Costa made a lot of films, you know, with, not about, but really with, you know, a group of migrant workers, you know, you know, coming from Cape Verde, you know, near Lisbon. And what is interesting, it is not, you know, documentary work, you know. It worked with them, you know. And made them, and helped them, or made them, you know, become really not simply people telling their life, but people playing their life again, you know, and becoming actors, you know, playing their own life, you know. And of course, what interests me, you know, is this kind of image, this kind of image also, you know, is an interesting way of raising the whole issue, you know, of political art and political theme, especially, you know, because we all know that there is this old slogan that you should not aestheticize, you know, you know, people living in this, in those conditions. And the fact is, you know, that Pedro Costa makes beautiful, really beautiful images, you know, beautiful images with, with these people, you know, really, well, living in a kind of underworld, you know, in the suburbs of Lisbon. And, well, so, so, so I had also to, I had to write on his last film, you know, with about, you know, so, a woman, a woman coming, you know, coming from Cape Verde after the death of her husband, you know. And, well, I'm testifying not only, you know, the situation of those workers, but also testifying to the situation of those women, you know, who are left alone, you know. So in Africa, and of course, you know, their husbands, their husbands, their companions, you know, tell them, okay, I come, I come, I take a job, I have to have a house, and next year you come, you know. But no, no, no. In fact, they lose their jobs. They don't build houses, except, you know, some kind of barracks in shanty towns, you know. And, well, and the women never come, they never come. You know, they stay at home. With the children, et cetera, et cetera. And so, and the film is about this woman, you know, arriving, you know, arriving in this shanty town in Lisbon, you know, where is, well, his husband, you know, spent many, many, many, many, many years, you know, living her, you know, in Africa, you know. Well, and it's about, you know, at the same time, you know, kind of giving a voice, you know, to both women, you know, because they are not only, they are not only, you know, the poor people, the poor migrants, but also, you know, well, poor ones, the poor migrants, you know, their wives, you know, left at home. So at the same time, it's about her, you know, really leaving, trying, leaving, you know, inhabiting, you know, the house of the dead, you know, and so with this kind of, you know, at the same time, it's a trial and also a form of reconciliation, you know. Well, so I wrote, you know, so I wrote about this and after, you know, I had to write about a, about a collection of photographs, you know, made about, you know, the so-called jungle, you know, in Calais, meaning the place, you know, where migrants, you know, so, where in camps, you know, trying to go to, trying to go to England, to cross a channel, so, and it was also the same thing, you know. How do you, how do you, we present, you know, the situation, and that simply has a situation, you know, of poor migrants, but also are testifying with a certain form of life, you know. So, this is the kind of things, you know, I did, you know, during both times. Yeah, it's interesting what you said about the photographer not showing the dead bodies, and we also had artists here, African American black artists who said the showing of the body of the killing of George Floyd, you know, the endless repeating of that video, you know, whether that is really the right choice, you know, of representing that reality. Well, yes, no, no, there are, of course, there are many things, you know, there are many things, you know, well, in the case of George Floyd, you know, well, there is, you know, the issue, whether, you know, it's the right thing, you know, to represent the corpse, and also, of course, the same question, you know, whether white people, you know, can represent, you know, the body, the body of a dead black man, you know, which is another issue. Well, but yes, but certainly, you know, well, unfortunately, you know, you know, there is a time of massacres, you know, and it's not over, and this kind of issue, of course, is coming and coming again. From your experience in life, from your research, your writing, thinking and observing, the time that we in the U.S. are experiencing, do you feel from what you can tell, this is a moment of change in the history of a country? You mean in the U.S.? Yes. Well, of course, I see it from a flower, you know, one, of course, what is striking, you know, in the history of the U.S., you know, that there was this time, this time of the 60s, this time of the civil rights, et cetera, et cetera, where one had this impression, you know, that really a time was over, that there was a kind of democratic movement, you know, that could not be stopped, you know, and that in a step, you know, backward was impossible, you know. But there has been so many steps backward, you know, since that time, you know. Well, and sometimes, but of course, I don't live in the United States, you know, I think the longest period, you know, was in the United States, because it was never more than two months, you know, so I cannot say, I know the country, you know. But at the same time, you know, we have the impression, you know, sometimes, that we see in the United States some kind of movement back, back, you know, to some dark times, you know, sometimes. So I was waiting, you know, some books by Jack London, you know, so recently, you know, and at some moment, you know, I think, yes, we are, you know, we are again, or we are still perhaps, you know, in those times, you know, where, you know, what's the life, precisely the life of a person doesn't matter so much, you know. So of course, black lives matter, you know, is very important. But at the same time, you know, there was a time in the United States where even white lives, you know, did not matter when they were the lives of people struggling for their rights, you know. And of course, in this situation, I always remember, you know, those trade unionists who were killed, who were killed, you know, for a long time in the United States, it was a way of dealing with the social question, you know, just killing, you know, just killing, you know, those who rebelled. So sometimes, you know, we have this feeling, you know, that, you know, the land of progress, the land of civil rights, you know, et cetera. And at the same time, it's also still, it still has something, you know, of a land of brutality, you know. And, well, but I see, I see, I see it from a far, but of course, certainly, of course, presidents like Trump, you know, of course, encourage, you know, of course, the revival, you know, of his atmosphere of violence in which, after all, life doesn't matter so much. And of course, he, of course, most particularly, black life. Well, so, that's why I go again, you know, I see it from a far. Of course, I feel very important, you know, the movement, you know, of course, against this state of things, at the same time. Well, there is something a bit terrifying, you know, in the idea of a history that is repeating, you know, and not moving forward. But I hope that, well, better days will come. But certainly they will come only because of the struggle of the struggle, you know, of movements like Black Lives Matter and the movement that happened today, you know, like in Portland, for instance. When it comes to art and in a way, of course, it's always political. What do you think from your, as a perspective, from your thinking in the time you live in? How should art, or what could art do? And how should it react? What is the effective way? Well, first, I would say that, right, from my point of view, you know, it's not a good way, you know, to raise the question, you know, to ask what art should do or must do, you know, because art really covers so many different, so many different things, you know. So I'd rather say this is the first point, you know. And the question is not to what art must do, art must not do anything special, you know. But of course, there are artists, you know, there are artists who are, you know, engaged, you know, in a egalitarian perspective, you know. And of course, for me, you know, the problem is not to what art, what they must do, but what they can do, you know. And what they can do first, I would say, I'm not at ease with the idea, you know, that you must, you know, really give an answer to an immediate situation. And of course, if artists, you know, are required, you know, are required to help, you know, for instance, you know, the doctors to help, you know, say, okay, okay, to help the doctors in North, et cetera, et cetera, but okay, you know. But I don't think, you know, because art, you know, art, it takes time, it takes time, you cannot say, oh, there is a pandemic, and we have to do something, you know, to write a play, to make some kind of performance, and of course a performance, you know, a performance online, you know, it's always something a bit bizarre. But I think, well, it always takes time, you know, to really become aware of what the situation is, you know, bells in each, you know, bells in each, and to construct a form of response, you know. So my idea is, one, artists, you know, are interested, you know, in the egalitarian struggle, you know, or are committed to the equality of intelligence, you know, one, and also know, you know, that you don't really answer, you know, immediately a situation. So you try, you try to construct, you know, to construct some form, some form, some form of word, you know, some form, some kind of egalitarian connection, you know, between words, words and images, and movements, you know. Well, it's a research, you know, you try, you know, to go against the consensus, meaning against, you know, the way, you know, things are normally perceived, you know, are named, you know, the way, you know, the way, you know, people, you know, people make sense of things, give an interpretation of events, et cetera. So there is, you know, a normal order, which is the order of consensus, meaning, you know, everybody is in his or her place, you know, we know what things are, what they mean, you know, what are the causes, you know, of what happens, you know, and so, and there is a kind of, well, there is a set of notions, you know, a set of arguments, you know, to describe the situation, et cetera, et cetera. And of course, if you are an artist, you know, interested in intelligence, you try, of course, to counter it, to counter, you know, the consensual way of describing the situation, of staging situations, and, well, so, which means to, to invent some kind of, I don't know if it's alternative or parallel words, but at the same time that are words for everybody, you know, and for me, really, when it comes to the idea of community, I think really, the thing really starts with the very way we put words, we put words in common, you know, we put words, and we put in common words, and images, words, and words, and movements, et cetera, et cetera. So we try, we try, and I think of myself as an artist, you know, because for me, an artist means a researcher, you know, a researcher, somebody who tries, you know, to restrain, to restate, you know, the way we perceive things and situations, you know, and create some kind of new possible words. And so, I think I'm also an artist in that sense, too, you know, and I would say artists have to, artists committed to greater intelligence, they have to go on, you know, they try to create something new, they try to counter the normal order of things, the normal way of explaining things, of describing them, and they go on, and for me, really, it's important, you know, because I think, I'm always trying to say there are two things that artists should not do, you know, the first thing, you know, is trying to anticipate the effects of their work, you know, and the second is trying to answer immediate claims to situations. No, no, I think, for me, art is a process, it's a process of research, and well, there are moments when we show to an audience, we show to people in various ways, you know, the results of our research, and after that, you know, one, they can grasp it in their way and polish it in their way, you know. So, of course, I think it's a kind of disappointing answer, saying there's nothing specific to do now, but just going on, just going on as researchers, it is very important, you know, because of course, we can imagine but perhaps, you know, of course, you live in the United States, I live in France, and of course in France there are more subsidies, you know, for art, you know, from the government, but I can imagine, you know, that there will be, there can be programs, you know, asking precisely artists, you know, to engage with the situation, to engage with the health, to engage with the pandemic, et cetera, et cetera. Well, and I think that, well, artists, artists, as I think of them, as I like them, you know, precisely should avoid this kind of trouble. Yeah, no, no, no. I don't think it's disappointing answer at all. I think it's a very, very significant one and something we all have to really listen to and perhaps we don't do it enough. What you said to, that you share research, you share the experience of the research and that it is that struggle for equal intelligence. And I think theater and especially theater in the United States, a lot of it, is still, as you will say, done by the experts or by the elite, you know something, you teach something, you bring salvation, you pre-think everything, you do not leave it open. It is not distancing, as you would say, or it is not a neutral open space for reflection and interpretation. I think what your article said and your work is to say that theater artists have to take spectators as equals, that you share that moment but they are as important and it is no longer good enough to watch because looking itself is not knowledge, is not participating in knowledge but you have to find ways to also be engaged in that. And I do think our training in theater is that we are experts and we know more but you say no, you don't know more, right? You share or do I understand that right? Yes, but at the same time, I think there is something that I would correct. Precisely, I say there is not, there is not on the one side action and on the other side people looking and looking is not acting. What I try to say is looking is also acting but we must get rid of the old opposition. The idea that a spectator is passive. No, really spectators are not passive but spectators are passive. Nothing happens. I think that theater is not only made by people who are on the stage, they are in front of an audience. Theater is also made by people, people at any time make connections. I would say not simply receive what is said or what is shown but also translate it in their own experience. Connect what they see, what they hear. One, with their experience, with their souvenirs, et cetera, their memories, et cetera. This is the thing on which perhaps I may dive from you. But really, you know, we must try to suspend all the oppositions like ignorance, ignorance, knowledge, activity, activity, acting, looking. Precisely, I would say the egalitarian way of understanding intelligence and egalitarian common sense is based on such opposition. I always try to say, no, there is no knowledge on one side, ignorance on the other side. There are people going from one form of knowledge to another form of knowledge. There is no theory on one side, practice on another side. But there are different intellectual acts because practice is also made of intellectual acts, just as what is called a theory. In the same way, there is no activity and passivity and people being passive because they just sit in front of a spectacle. For me, it's very important to get trade of all of these oppositions. All of those oppositions are also forms of hierarchy. And of course, it's difficult, but really I think for people working in the theater, for me, it's the same as somebody like me who is supposed to work in the theater. We are researchers, but we try to know to make sense of situations, to understand what happens around us. And we are artists, but we try to create something, to create something solid, something resistant, something existing outside of us. Because what I think is important for me, this idea, what we say, what we say, what we stage, must really become external. We are not the masters, not the masters of our plays, etc. For me, it is something very important. Try to work without mastery. Yeah, and I think it sounds easily, but it's a radical concept. It's a radical sharing, it's kind of a radical equality. And that he really says that the master director and the writer or the philosopher is the same level as the audience member. And they have shared knowledge and perhaps had different experiences and different opportunities, but we only will achieve, as you said, if I understand right, a sensory experience of the common world, together, if we find forms, that are not hierarchical. And I think we in the theater world forgot that perhaps the theater itself is already an institution, is already a hierarchy. We have this Black Lives Matter movement, and the D.L. White Theater, there's a big letter written by artists of color and indigenous artists that, you know, we are not part of it. Your institution is already not open. It's hierarchical. You don't even see it. You don't understand it. They are demanding an access, an inequality, and I think an art always has been on the right side of social progress, but I think what you could learn from you or what you said is that really that we have to understand that the way things are produced and the way things are artistically done already also represent a hierarchy. So the question is laws or changing an institution, does that change an aesthetic outcome or do you think it has to be an aesthetic practice that changes or creates a new experience? No, I think really it's a matter of practice, you know. But I don't know. I don't know, of course, the history of the theater in the United States, but of course I know better. I know better in France, you know, and in France there were several moments where there were attempts, you know, to create a new institution, a new institution really oriented, you know, to low people or common people or the people of the lower classes, the people of the suburbs, et cetera, et cetera. And of course it's important, but most of the time it failed, most of the time it failed, you know, and of course there are many reasons, but first you cannot oblige people to like theater. In the same way you can oblige people to like art, you cannot oblige people, you know, to like philosophy, you know, so of course if people don't like it, don't enjoy it, you know. Well, okay, I think the problem is, you know, we must try to think always only in sociological terms, you know, saying that there are people, there are people, you know, but excluded, you know, and we must try to include them. No, but there are people who simply don't want to be included. But of course that's the point, but we must respect this, you know, and not think, of course, we think that it would be wonderful if we better, you know, if everybody, you know, could enjoy theater, you know, enjoy art, do art, et cetera, but we cannot oblige people. You have to oblige people, so we cannot really, you know, I would say identify our perspective as artists, you know, with, you know, cultural, governmental problems, you know, governmental programs, you know, governmental programs, you know. Well, obviously, people must go to the theater, but people must go to the libraries, et cetera, and that's fine, you know. But I think what we do, if I consider myself as an artist, you know, what we do is to make some proposals, some proposals, you know, and people may, well, people may get there, may adhere to them, or they, and well, and we try, you know, to, I would say to invent, you know, to invent our own way of practicing equality, you know, and it's really a job of everyday, I would say a job of, also of any gesture of any, of any words, you know, because at every moment, you know, you know, there is a question, there is a question, you know, of how we conceive of equality. I give you a very simple example, and well, you know, when people like me are supposed to be philosophers, you know, are so invited, you know, to, for instance, to speak on radio and TV, you know, the first thing, you know, that of course, a person who invites us says, oh, please take care, you know, take care, you know, you must be simple, you know, you must be understood by everybody, et cetera, et cetera. Well, but I think it is supposed to be, you know, kind of respect for people, but not to the contrary. In fact, in fact, it's a form, it's a form of despise, you know, when they say us, you know, no words to complicate, to complicate, to be simple, et cetera, no. So, for instance, you know, usually I answer, you know, I see what I have to say, you know, I'm not making distinction, you know, between people who are, between learned audience, you know, and ignorant audience, you know, who trust in people, you know, like me, you know, who try to know a little more, to know different things, that's all. So, this is an example, but at every moment, you know, there is a conflict, not only simply a conflict, there is a conflict of equality and inequality, but a conflict, you know, but also what is played, you know, under the guise, you know, of a conflict between ways of understanding equality, you know, that's the problem, you know. And so, and so, well, yes, I think it's mostly, you know, a question of practice, and it is a question, really, that really reappears, you know, at every moment, you know. No, I, and I think it's, as you say, it's a practice, and one has to find ways to practice that equality in a radical and serious way. I mean, for your example, what you did when it was about the history of capitalism or communism, and instead of just looking, what you're also a master of theoretical text, if I understand right, you went and researched letters written by workers in the 19th century. It almost sounds, in our terms, it's almost like documentary theater or as Carol marked as the theater of the real, but so you went and said, I'll find an equality of thoughts if I understand that right, you know, of Marxist writing or writing of a French researcher in the Shabani, in the letters of a worker. He said, do I understand it right? Yes, yes, yes, yes, I think so, you know, because when you are working on, you know, history of working class, you are supposed, you know, to find some kind of documentary material, you know, and then, you know, normally, you know, if you are a normal person or normal, normal academic, you know. So this is the material and you have to explain the material, you know, to say, OK, they say this, but we have to understand, you know, to understand, you know, why they say this, you know, what is the reality, you know, which is behind what they say, et cetera. And so, which means that normally, well, when we deal with this kind of documents, which are supposed to be popular, you know, documents, you know, you make a kind of dividing line, a dividing line, you know, between two kinds of words, you know, the words that are your material and your own words, you know, the words of the scientists, you know, well, who explains the material, you know, and what I thought, what was for me important, you know, what I was, I read both letters, you know, and so we turn in the 1930s, by workers, you know, joiner, mess, et cetera. And I got the impression, you know, but they speak, you know, the same way as the students, you know, rebel students, you know, of the 68th time, you know, they think, you know, in the same way, they have the same kind of aspirations, the same kind of aesthetic capacity, you know, they also like philosophies, they also like landscapes, landscapes and beauty, et cetera, et cetera. Well, okay, so this is the testimony of equality and I must, you know, in a way, you know, do the same thing, you know, so no more being, you know, the commentator, you know, says, oh, I find with material, it's so exciting, you know, and now I will try to tell you, you know, what is the truth, you know, but again, no, I tried really to, what to create a level of equality, level of equality by mingling, you know, my own voice, you know, with the voices of those workers, you know. Well, and this is also what art, what art means to me, you know, in a way that we are all researchers, you know, they were researchers, you know, they were researchers, you know, in search of a kind of a new form of life, of a new way, you know, a new way of being, you know, in this world, you know, I am a researcher trying, you know, to make sense of this, or rather, you know, to make it perceptible, you know, because equality, precisely, it's not something sensitive, you know, you have to show it, which means that we have to invent a form, to invent a form, you know, to make it perceptible. Of course, this is what I try to say about theater, you know, the problem is not, you know, how can we speak to everybody in a simple language, right? No, it is how can we create our own form of practice, of equality. Yeah. And that we all share in a way a new perspective of the world, a new interpretation, or perhaps more just one, a more truthful one. I know that in that 68 time in France, that you were on the side of the people on the street, meanwhile, some people said, no, there needs to be a altruiserie, others said, no, there needs to be an elite that develops theories and then something happens. Meanwhile, I'm from Germany, you know, in Germany, we had all these thinkers, you know, but we had no real, no real revolution, except as Thomas Oberhunder, who says, you know, perhaps a street demonstration before the opening of the wall in Leipzig and Dresden, and it's not being appreciated by the official history writing. They said, no, you know, we helped and saved your eastern Germany, but actually there were the people on the street who did it. But you said that it is actually, you have to be on the side of the movement, or you have to be on the side, not of theory. Do I see that right? Well, I think when we were trying, I think that we must try, you know, really to see, you know, every situation, I would say, from the angle of equality, from this angle, you know, and also in 1968, there was, of course, the altruiserie and ideologies, you know, we were equipped to be saying, whoa, these students, they are a petit bourgeois, you know, a petit bourgeois ideology for, of course, you know, serves the interests of the bourgeoisie and capitalism, et cetera, so it's bad. Well, so we had to learn from what happened, to learn from the practice, from the practices, from the words, from the kind of events and the kind of situations, the kind of links that were created at that moment. So, well, the point is trying to find what is new in the situation, at the same time in the situation, you know, what is the egalitarian, you know, the egalitarian aspect of the situation. That's why, well, I was interested by, well, all that happened, you know, during the last ten years, you know, from the Arab, from the Arab Spring, to occupy movements, et cetera, squares, squares, movements, and the yellow vests in France, et cetera, because, of course, many theorists say, but, well, that is just spontane, spontaneity, petit bourgeois, it has no future, et cetera. Well, I always say, you know, a future is not created by your kind of strategy. A future is created by your presence, you know, and the future is created by your presence, you know, and the point is what happens in this presence? That is significant, yeah, to also say that the black-like movement, what happens in the present, you know, if we would read the emails of the Black Lives Matter, perhaps we'll, you know, under years from now, or in five or in ten, to understand the moment, they will be the most significant, the most significant contribution in that the presence changes are not the theory. So you think a theory comes later? No, I'm not saying, you know, there should be no theory, et cetera, no. I just, well, I just say what the whole history of the 20th century, you know, taught us, you know, as well as vanity, you know, of all this idea, you know, that, you know, the future is created by strategies founded by the knowledge of society. Well, the knowledge of society is always a certain knowledge of society, a specific knowledge of society, you know, and what ever happens, the moment where the knowledge of society, even the critical knowledge of society is part of the normal life of the society, you know, it is the same kind of things, you know, I said at the beginning in terms of denunciation. So, well, we have a critical knowledge of our society, why it is bad, why, of course, there should be a revolution, you know, and, of course, but revolution needs an avant-garde and a strategy, et cetera. Okay, but, you know, I think we have really experienced, you know, but what it doesn't lead anywhere but it has no interest and what is interesting is there are so many moments when equality actually happens. Yeah, I remember from your talk on the archaeology of modernity where you said the great invention of 20th century art was the collage first by Russian filmmakers who put a street worker next to a pilot, next to farmers, next to people who connect telephone lines and then the idea of collaging would you say that perhaps now in that 21st century that they strive away from the center, from the master artist to turn towards what you might say the real, be no longer half religious structures in that sense, aristocratic structures, what art was concerned with a lot. The idea of the reality, the workers' letters, the filmmaker from Portugal, the photographs, do you think that the real concentration and research shared on the real about the people and not from experts is that a tendency of our new century? Well, I cannot really make any serious diagnosis about our century. I don't think that I said that the collage was a great invention of the 20th century but I try of course to think about the multiple encounters of art and life during that century which means for me encounter between various forms of art because in a way for me this idea of art meeting life means that artistic forms are specific forms specific activity well meets the artistic capacity that belongs to everybody so well when I spoke also about the films made by Pedro Costa with those migrant workers I think with this meeting between a filmmaker who is a great model of American filmmakers like John Ford and those migrants who have the ability to tell their story to re-stage it to replay it too so I think perhaps some very important moments in art was momentarily of meeting of forms of art that are supposed to be so far from each other the moment when people because what is interesting is not the fact that art gets into the streets art gets out of the museums out of the theaters that's not the most important the most important is this moment when really forms of canonical art meet this capacity of art that belongs to everybody for me this is what I think interesting I don't say this is what artists must do artists do just what they like they do what they like of course it's different but yes the same thing I think we must get out of this kind of voluntary conception that we must go there we must make this conjunction etc etc we must look everywhere and try to see what is interesting what is new and for me what is new is always a new way of staging equality yeah and I think this is a very serious reminder our motto a little bit is from the Brecht quote that new times need new forms of theater and I think your your thought that to stage equality to really intellectual equality artistic equality and should be at the very center and it was not in many forms especially the commercial the highly commercial theater in America it is not a good production 2000 runs something in Berlin after 20 shows artists are already tired but do you go to this theater do you enjoy going to the theater well I enjoyed when I was younger for personal reasons it became harder for me to go to the theater and unfortunately now most of art most of art I see on the screen but perhaps there will be there will be a new time when I am able to go back to the theater so well also at certain moments I was a bit perhaps a bit angry against people in the theaters because precisely they always wanted they wanted too much they wanted too much to to achieve some kind of a sense of a sense of theater a sense of theater as a ritual as a religion I don't know exactly but as I told I live in France it is a country where there are some subsidies for theater artists have to show that they are concerned concerned with real life concerned with the community etc of course it creates some kind of attitudes of people telling but theater is so important people cannot live without theaters so please give us money because people will not live will not live anymore if you don't give us money of course it's a caricature it's not it's just a joke but at the same time there is a kind of tradition of friends of considering a theater a public theater or something what's so important as being religious in itself or political in itself no I think I don't want to repeat you to myself too many well we have to invent we have not to think what is the essence of theater of the theater what is the kind of service the theater gives to society and how can we can we achieve it we have the idea of how we can combine we can combine words and images and movements and sounds et cetera to create a line of equality and let us try to create those lines of equality what's theater did you like is there a theater when you saw something what did you like did you well it's it's very it's very difficult you know I cannot say I like this or that form of theater you know well I like I like theater when it surprises me when it surprises me and of course many many times I think okay I know this is a kind of new version of the art of theater of western theater or theater of cruelty okay or theater of death I don't know yes I cannot say really I like well I'm very often asked what artists do you like what theater do you like what usually I say no I don't like to give awards to give crisis it's really it's really you know the surprise and the emotion of the events you know that counts sometimes I see something I was not I was not expecting I was not expecting you know something was not predictable and I'm happy so I can say yeah so is there like a question did you see the question plays or what you say these are no I think now but that way I don't want to pronounce judgments about this or that this or that play your theater or or play write drama no but I have always a sense that there are some there are some models and people trying more more or less you know to mix so little little coming from the art tradition little coming little coming from from the brechen tradition little coming from the great tradition of theater or coming from the theater some other some other lines so I as I said I don't want to say I like this I like this I hate that so we are also coming closer to the end of the talk and I remember you also said traditional art form meets new technology you know and I think you spoke about Louis Fuller who was the dancer and then she had invented the lighting system and the patterns right now we have what we use now the zoom there is Facebook there is the internet and all of it do you do you think this is going to be there will be a new digital art or is it already there or will it is it it's it's very it's very difficult you know because by I'm not of course I know there are many artists you know seeing and I'm doing digital art and etc but at the same time you know also you know well you know the internet you know in fact it also serves as a kind of surface on which art is not digital art it's shown so and of course now you know in this situation you know so many things that normally happen you know in in theaters or in universities or in museums just happen screens you know I don't think that this is the beginning of a new form of art of course there is digital art I would say which works as a kind of specific form of art I would say but I don't think you know that the future of art you know is is possible a new digital art I don't think so did you watch digital performances or do you right now in the time of the well so sometimes yes sometimes you know but well for me I would say but it is still still art we only to really adhere to this kind of distancing you know if I take my own case you know when I am alone of course I write when I speak I like to speak with people who are really present in the same space and so we have these forms of speaking you know well it's for me it's it's a kind of I don't think for me it is a communication of the future it is the way we are of course I think there are people who think but it is the future especially in education because of course if you can do this kind of teaching from afar of course education would cost much less and certainly I think our government thought that it was really nice you know teaching from afar and certainly they will try of course to increase this kind of thing as for me as I said you know if you are alone but or you are with other people you know I'm not really happy in situations like the situations today I'm speaking with very nice people certainly but at the same time it's not my normal way of speaking and so for me I hope it is not the communication of the future well that is interesting and I think the research on equality most probably within communities and will be within people by definition and maybe towards the end is the last question that I wanted to send also Amanda Gan who is with us who is here to help me in case I don't find the right words and she had to translate it into French DM in Boston at Harvard so thank you for being with us but Jack for that time and you are also an artist you say you know how do you use the time now the time that perhaps is even more confinement than ever for you and for young artists or viewers what do you think is of importance to keep in mind or what is important to focus on I don't understand there is a question you ask me what a young artist what do you think as an artist is of importance for this time of the confinement or corona how do you use it you say perhaps later on something will come out but for our viewers or for artists in general how do you think this time of this catastrophe we are going through what can one do to use it I think one can use it to go on doing art I said I am an artist too but I have a son who is a musician and of course the concerts were cancelled but at the same time the musicians went on working they worked of course trying to better their own performances they try to communicate they try to make projects so you cannot make a concert but you can try to record you can try to invent a new program to make a record you can make research research find new works I said my son you know he is mostly playing music from the 16th 17th century so you can always find new works experiment with new instruments so I think there is a possibility a possibility to try to to go on and of course it should be different certainly for a theater of course you can play you can play the violin at home ok it's more difficult for an actor stage designer etc but it's also a time for them to invent and of course what is lacking now is a moment of verification so we are so you can be a researcher all the time but sure and certainly there is a lack from the point of view of verification well it's very difficult but there are ways perhaps not the same at this moment in the United States but artists try to make some little meetings and of course with less of course less people etc but it's also an opportunity to try to find new things new ways of doing yeah there is also a significant significant direction who you wrote about schoolmaster who basically found out that you don't need to know anything to teach something and then in order to learn something also you don't need to know what you normally are taught by someone who is a master so it's a significant mostly really important book especially for our field and that he said you can teach anything you can teach painting but you're not a painter you can teach language if you know two parts of it that famous book part was famous you could learn from each other so I think it is a time where you said if I understand right one could try out things because the verification it also doesn't matter I did not say you can teach you can teach what you don't know I said it with very specific meaning but you don't know what you teach it is not simply the fact you can teach everything even not knowing it even when you know you know when you know I know philosophy you know art but you don't know the effect but you create which is very very important for me which is one thing the other thing is you are always an ignorant in some sense it's not the fact that if anybody can teach anything anybody can learn anything it is that the master is always at the same time an ignorant at the same time somebody who knows a lot of things and the meeting happens precisely at this point of conjunction that's a very important correction, thank you but still it's a time perhaps to reflect Jacques thank you so much for joining us and I know it is not your favorite way of communicating but for us of real importance also to hear from you and see you and see that we share as human beings the same the moment of existence right now and it really gives us an insight in your experience and how you connect it and we at the Siegel Center will have tomorrow here with us Morgan Jeunesse who is a dramaturg who early on worked with Joel Pap and the public theater and talk about her work and her thoughts and I think she's out now the double-edged sword we have an artist from Indonesia, Heli Minardi will be with us and talk about her work in Jakarta and how it feels for her at the moment to be making art, create art and to create networks or communities there and Dima Matta from Lebanon artist openly or for queer artists we'll talk what it means to be an artist in Lebanon at the moment in Beirut where things seem to be collapsing they already were very difficult after civil war and so we will get an update from her and then the great Richard Schekner will come back and he is also preparing his special issue for TDR for the magazine and so many contributors also brought pieces with him so he will also try to connect for us theater performance and the current moment and the unrest so this is another week where we try to get some ideas and know even more how ignorant we really are and how very very very little we do know so Chuck really thank you for joining us and contributing to us Amanda for being there in case we needed you and so this is very very good so any what are you going to do now you're going to have dinner not yet I don't know it will be the time just for going to see the sea but now there is a mist I think I will stay home perhaps have a drink with my wife because it's not really the right time to go outside unfortunately so I hope again really thank you for taking the time and I hope we didn't disturb your day too much it was a pleasure it was really important to hear from you and inspiring and also to underline that your research is of real significance and is inspiring and really gave us a new perspective of the world and it is much much needed so thank you all and I hope to see our listeners again or hear from them again and thanks to Halraum for hosting us and thank you all for joining and goodbye and thank you and have a good drink goodbye