![]() ![]() It was also that particular notion of exclusive corporeity, of corporality, coming into play.įor a long, long time I was “the body writer,” and I still am, alas. When I do a reading of that book, especially of the end, I realize that it wasn’t just bodies exploding into scattering body parts out of sexual need. Every body bursting, every body exploding, as at the end of Eden, Eden, Eden, in 1970… Now is when I’m realizing this. For me at that time humanity was reduced so specifically to its bodily expression that things always came to a sort of burst. I was wary of all metaphysics, all psychology. Do we mean humanity in the sense of humane sentiment? Do we mean the current mass of humanity, or evolution, or humanity with respect to a divinity? Or, especially, humanity versus inhumanity?įor years during my youth, when I was about thirty, I did indeed wittingly focus on humanity’s material aspect, its organic aspect-my psychoanalytic period. To begin with, we have to decide what we mean by humanity. It’s nothing new, and it necessarily lies at the core of every work of art. Pierre Guyotat: I’ve always dealt with that question. ![]() ![]() Where do you stand these days on this question? There has been a series of titles- Humains par hasard, Joyeux animaux de la misère, Par la main dans les Enfers -that echo one another and call our humanity into question. Donatien Grau: I have a sense that, in your recent work, the question of humanity has become more and more explicit. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |