Mondialité : Opening

Conférences, interviews, lectures et performances autour de l’exposition Mondialité à la Fondation Boghossian - Villa Empain Avec Luc Tuymans, Sylvie Glissant et Genevieve Gallego, Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster, Martin Guinard, Daniel Boyd, Raqs Media Collective et Otolith Group, Valerio Adami et Antonio Segui, Anjalika Sagar, Manthia Diawara, Paul Dujardin, Jacques Coursil, Justin Kennedy, Mârten Spângberg Modération par Hans Ulrich Obrist et Asad Raza, commissaires de l’exposition 18 avril 2017

Remarque : les annotations de type ‘57.10’ ou ‘[unclear]’ marquent les passages inaudibles ou incompréhensibles.

Remark : annotations like ‘57.10’ or ‘[unclear]’ mark inaudible or incomprehensible passages.

Introduction

Asad Raza :

The English are looking into the idea of global dialogue which is at the heart [39:41] so in that sense it’s an exhibition that tries to [39 :39-39 :50] with the concept of Mondialité, which is very much at the beginning of the show and very much hugely, you know, this is like over opting concept although we also explained or tried to look into several other former concepts from Glissant which are kind of the five organising concepts of the show. The others are Créolisation, Pensée du tremblement, Opacité and the Musée du Tout- Monde - which was an unrealised project of Glissant himself. So, we tried to give introductions to all of those things together.

Anyway, we both included artists who are currently working and inspired by Glissant’s ideas and artists from Glissant’s own circle who were going to be intended in the pensée du tremblement and we also created this book which includes the work of many painters who are interested and in dialogue with these ideas. So, it was an amazing project to do. I feel very proud that Hans-Ulrich agreed to work on the project. We had collaborated many times before but this was one of the most fun and we extended certain things.

We also worked together with a [drama 41:08], Ranjana Leyendecker who helped us design a kind of new way to experience these ideas in the space through kind of sound installation and so it was an adventure like Glissant says, Mondialité is an adventure also making the show Mondialité was a kind of adventure.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Oui on m’a dit que peut-être on va peut-être faire ça bilingue donc je vais parler un peu français et ça d’ailleurs est tout à fait ce que Edouard Glissant aurait souhaité parce qu’Edouard m’a toujours dit il faut dans tout évènement au moins deux langues, idéalement encore plus. Je me rappelle souvent de ces extraordinaires soirées de poésie qu’il a organisé à la Maison de l’Amérique Latine où il a invité des poètes du monde entier à lire des poèmes sans traduction. Juste écouter la langue, comme écouter par exemple, écouter Tor Williamson en parlant en islandais, etc... etc… Ce que Glissant appelait la célébration du multilinguisme, donc par rapport à ça il faut que cette conférence de presse soit au moins bilingue.

Oui donc Asad a tout dit sur la genèse du projet. Et je tiens aussi à remercier évidemment Asad pour ce dialogue formidable et la Fondation Boghossian pour ce dialogue formidable. C’est un complexe extraordinaire pour faire cette exposition. J’ai toujours cru en l’intimité des maisons, des institutions d’art à l’échelle d’une maison, qu’on peut 42.37-42.41 Ce qu’on a fait ici. On ne pouvait pas avoir un contexte plus idéal que cette Villa extraordinaire. D’autant plus, comme Asad a dit, que la mission de cet endroit est le dialogue et que la mission de cet endroit est d’une certaine façon la « Mondialité » comme Glissant l’a dit. Donc le contexte est absolument idéal. Moi j’ai rencontré la pensée de Glissant la première fois à travers Alighiero Boetti quand j’avais 17 ans, parce que j’ai rencontré Boetti quand j’étais lycéen et Boetti m’a parlé de cette idée parce que, évidemment, il était très intéressé par rapport à son travail de penser le monde et il m’a dit qu’il était très inspiré par un penseur de Martinique qui s’appelle Edouard Glissant. Ça a pris plusieurs années après pour moi pour le rencontrer. C’est d’ailleurs grâce à Agnès b. à Paris que j’ai pu le rencontrer en personne et que cette amitié de 15 ans jusqu’à sa mort a commencé. On s’est parlé toutes les semaines. On a fait beaucoup de voyages ensemble. On a fait avec Sylvie Glissant qui d’ailleurs sera là aujourd’hui… Plus tard aujourd’hui… La veuve d’Edouard et lui on a fait de nombreuses conférences et dans d’autres expositions, comme Utopia Station et, à travers ces années on a multiplié évidemment les interviews, les enregistrements qui servent un peu de base, toutes ces interviews que j’ai fait avec lui, inédites, ont un peu servi comme base pour cette exposition qu’on a fait ici, une exposition avec Asad, qu’on a vraiment commencé à penser au moment de la mort d’Edouard, ce qui a pris plusieurs années dans le «making ».

Ce que l’exposition essaye de montrer c’est peut-être la chose la plus urgente. C’est pourquoi Edouard Glissant aujourd’hui ? Et je pense que de manière très prémonitoire, Glissant avait prévu que les forces de la globalisation que nous vivons. Ce n’est pas la première fois que le monde expérimente une globalisation. Il y a eu une globalisation avec l’Empire Romain. Il y a eu de nombreux moments précédents de la globalisation. Mais c’est sans doute le moment le plus extrême, peut-être aussi le plus violent de la globalisation et comme Glissant a dit : « Ceci nous amène à des forces homogénéisantes qui risquent de nous mener vers une extinction. » Une extinction non seulement de culture puisqu’il y a beaucoup de langues qui disparaissent, 45.13 a fait un film formidable sur ça, sur la disparition des langues. Mon Instagram par exemple est dédié à célébrer l’écriture à la main. Glissant a dit l’écriture à la main est menacée donc toutes ces sortes de phénomènes culturels qui risquent de disparaitre. Mais Glissant était très prémonitoire parce qu’il a très tôt vu, par rapport à son concept de « mondialité » que la contre réaction, contre ces forces homogénéisantes de la globalisation qui mène à l’extinction non seulement de cultures mais aussi d’espèces. Elisabeth Colbert nous dit que nous sommes au milieu de la sixième extinction. Mais Glissant a très tôt prévu que la contre réaction contre ces forces homogénéisantes sera encore pire. Et c’est ce que nous pouvons voir dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, avec des nouvelles formes de séparation, de nouvelles formes de manque de tolérance, les nouvelles formes de racisme, d’isolation, qui apparaissent un peu partout dans le monde, et comme dit Etel Adnan, poète, artiste, qui fait aussi partie de l’exposition et qui connaissait bien Glissant. Il disait : « le monde a besoin de Togetherness », de ensemble et pas de séparation, d’amour et pas de suspicion, de futur commun et pas d’isolation. Donc Glissant a très tôt vu ces deux choses. Il a vu l’homogénéisation de la globalisation, et il a vu ces dangers d’une contre réaction. Contre la globalisation il a dit qu’il s’agit de résister aux deux et il s’agit donc de trouver une sorte de troisième chemin qu’il a appelé la « Mondialité ». La » Mondialité » étant donc un dialogue global, un dialogue qui vers ce qu’Etel appelle « togetherness ». Il va vers un futur commun mais tout en prenant en conscience, en prenant note des différences locales. C’est pour cette raison que ça nous parait aujourd’hui en 2017 plus urgent que jamais avant, de célébrer la pensée d’Edouard Glissant. Moi je pense que tout le monde devrait lire Edouard Glissant. Il est très important qu’il y ait plus de traductions, puisque l’œuvre reste finalement très peu traduite. Si nous regardons les dizaines de livres que Glissant a publié en France et, c’est d’ailleurs très choquant si vous allez à Paris qu’on ne trouve toujours pas ses livres dans les librairies. Il y a une sorte d’extraordinaire invisibilité. Je fais toujours cet exercice quand je suis à Paris. Dès que je vois une librairie j’y entre et je demande s’ils ont des livres d’Edouard Glissant et c’est à chaque fois une catastrophe donc… Voilà il faut absolument que la pensée de Glissant soit plus présente, puisque c’est vraiment une boîte à outils pour notre monde aujourd’hui.

Dans une deuxième partie je voulais parler un tout petit peu de la méthodologie qu’on a donc appliqué pour faire cette exposition. Comme Asan et moi on l’a dit on est parti de cette archive. Et la gageure c’est toujours comment peut-on présenter une archive sans que cela soit ennuyeuse ou morte, parce qu’il faut d’une certaine façon faire une résurrection de ce matériau. Et c’est pour cette raison que la dramaturgie est très importante, et nous tenons vraiment à remercier de tout cœur Ranjana Leyendecker qui a passé des semaines ici à Bruxelles avec nous. Ranjana a développé une chorégraphie, vous allez voir la voix de Glissant et certain commentaires qu’Asad et moi on a pu faire pour expliquer l’exposition vont vous accompagner. Et d’ailleurs l’exposition commence par un de ces films que j’ai fait de Glissant comme introduction dès qu’on entre dans La Villa Empain.

A part ça, cette chorégraphie des archives de Glissant nous avons évidemment voulu rendre hommage ici au concept principal de Glissant mais surtout aussi à son grand projet non réalisé qui était son musée pour Martinique. Il avait ce rêve de faire un Musée du Tout- Monde, puisque c’est très important que son œuvre incluait non seulement une œuvre littéraire et théorique mais aussi il était toujours intéressé à produire de la réalité. Par exemple il était membre de la Résistance et politiquement très actif. Il était dès le début en faveur l’indépendance de la Martinique. Il s’est battu de la Martinique de la France et a été banni de la France pendant plusieurs années. Il était un très proche ami de Frantz Fanon. Il a fondé en 1967 l’Institut Martiniquais d’Etudes qui était une école qui a influencé comme beaucoup de gens nous ont dit, une époque entière. Ça a eu une influence sur des générations et des générations de gens. Donc voilà, l’idée de fonder une école est un autre exemple comme Glissant voulait produire de la réalité. Troisième cas de figure son musée. Le musée c’était un musée où il parlait à tous ses amis artistes, de Wifredo Lam à Roberto Matta, où il voulait en fait célébrer la diversité de l’art de toutes les Amériques. Des Mayas jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Glissant m’a dit dans une conversation, l’idée principale était qu’il voulait mettre ensemble une encyclopédie historique et comparative des arts des Amériques. L’idée c’était que l’archipel lui a servi de modèle. Donc il imaginait le musée comme un archipel, non pas comme un continent mais un archipel. C’était donc l’idée que cela ne serait pas une synthèse comme souvent les musées prétendent être une synthèse qui standardise. Mais au lieu d’être une synthèse qui standardise, un réseau d’interrelations entre différentes traditions et perspectives, donc créer une sorte de multi perspectivisme peut-être.

Le musée comme nous l’a dit Glissant n’illustrerait pas des choses qu’on a trouvé précédemment mais fonctionnerait comme un laboratoire actif. Encore une citation ici de Glissant de mes interviews. « Il ne s’agit pas d’une récapitulation de quelque chose qui existe de manière évidente mais bien au contraire c’est la quête de quelque chose que nous ne connaissons pas encore. » Et ceci est évidemment un projet qui est resté non réalisé. Le musée de Glissant pour la Martinique est resté non réalisé… Reste en fait cette définition, restent ses idées, restent ses dialogues. Pour le citer encore, « puisqu’à la fin l’idée d’un musée aujourd’hui est de mettre le monde en contact avec le monde. D’amener quelques endroits du monde en contact avec d’autres endroits du monde. Nous devons multiplier le nombre de mondes à l’intérieur de nos musées. » Et nous pensons que ce projet n’est pas suffisamment présent, de ce musée que Glissant voulait concevoir, mérite aujourd’hui la redécouverte, puisque que ça nous donne beaucoup d’idées, ça nous donne vraiment beaucoup d’inspiration, pour comment gérer un musée aujourd’hui dans le XXIème siècle dans le monde. Et 52.23, la façon dont il met l’accent sur l’archipel est très intéressant puisque évidemment l’archipel antillais, de la géographie antillaise… Et là j’ai retrouvé ce matin un livre que Glissant m’avais envoyé, où il avait dessiné d’ailleurs cet archipel antillais que vous voyez ici. Et l’archipel caraïbe… Enfin pour lui c’était vraiment l’idée que nous pouvons apprendre de cet archipel. Comme il dit Haïti, Cuba, Martinique 52.55 L’archipel Amérique est extrêmement important puisque c’était sur ces îles que l’idée de la « créolisation », ça veut dire le « mix » de cultures, était accomplie de manière la plus brillante. Il dit que les continents refusent le « mix », ils refusent… C’est en fait… Ils rejettent plutôt, non ? Les continents rejettent le « mixing » tandis que l’archipel ou la pensée archipel rend possible et là c’est très important parce que c’est de nouveau une chose qui ne pourrait pas être de plus grande actualité. Quand il dit que la pensée archipel rend possible de dire que l’identité de chaque personne, ou l’identité collective sont fixes, ils ne sont pas fixes. Ils ne sont jamais établis. Il dit : « moi, je peux changer à travers l’échange avec vous sans perdre ou diluer mon sens de moi-même. » Donc d’une certaine façon c’est ça l’enseignement de l’archipel. Ça veut dire par rapport à ça, l’archipel est un modèle, un modèle non seulement par rapport au monde de l’institution que Glissant voulait concevoir, mais vraiment par rapport au monde aujourd’hui.

Ce qu’on s’est dit que ce serait intéressant d’avoir une présence de ce musée à travers les artistes que Glissant a connu. Et donc on s’en ai rendu compte en parlant avec Sylvie, avec Sylvie Glissant, en parlant avec différents artistes, Etel Adnan, Valerio Adami, aussi en fait à Miquel Barceló, à 54.32 Tous des personnes avec qui Glissant avait discuté de son musée, Simone Fattal, Geneviève Gallego, Wifredo Lam et évidemment Roberto Matta ne sont plus là, mais j’ai bien connu Matta avant sa mort. Donc on avait un enregistrement d’une interview et évidemment aussi Antonio Segui avec qui Glissant s’est beaucoup entretenu. Tous ces artistes nous on dit la même chose, que c’est une galerie, « Le dragon » qui était vraiment à l’origine de l’idée de Glissant et les arts parce que c’était une galerie à Paris dans les années 50/60, la Galerie du Dragon, fait par un poète et c’est là où l’art et la poésie d’une certaine façon s’est rencontré. C’est comme ça que Glissant a pu se connecter au monde des arts. On a pour cette raison au travers de nombreuses interviews essayé de reconstituer ce moment et on est très, très ravi que, plus tard, aujourd’hui on aura donc les légendaires artistes Antonio Segui et aussi Valerio Adami, vraiment compagnons de route de Glissant pendant toute sa préparation de son musée, qui vont venir ici à Bruxelles pour discuter avec différents autres artistes d’ailleurs, avec Geneviève Gallego aussi, le principe du musée de Glissant.

L’autre chose que l’exposition essaye d’adresser c’est évidemment comment la pensée de Glissant voyage dans une nouvelle génération d’artistes. L’artiste le plus jeune est Walter Price qui est né en 1989, qui vit à New York. Pour Walter Price, un jeune artiste à New York, la pensée de Glissant est une très grande inspiration, donc pour nous c’était important, à part les témoignages vous voyez de l’époque de Glissant de montrer dans quelle mesure cette pensée compte par rapport à aujourd‘hui et continue à voyager dans le monde.

On vous invite peut-être à faire un tour maintenant dans l’exposition et peut-être Asad de dire quelques remarques. Or we should take questions now maybe, or we might lose each other ? Question :

Hans you spoke of language. Vous avez parlé d’une langue qui se perd ?

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Beaucoup de langues. Suzanne 56.54 a fait un film qui est vraiment sur la disparition de langues. Tous les jours des langues meurent, dans le monde. Moi je suis Suisse. La langue romanche est menacée. La quatrième langue est parlée de moins en moins. Ça c’est planétaire. Il y a des langues qui… Ce n’est pas une langue particulière, c’est le phénomène de « mass extinction of languages » dont Suzanne 57.24 a fait un magnifique film qui montre ça.

Other questions ?

Question :

You say something about “Why Now”, “Pourquoi maintenant »?

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Yeah, I think I tried to address it about the current [57:42] but I think it’s good if you add on to that.

Asad Raza :

But I think also in a way although we started working on this show more than a year ago it’s only become more urgent to use one of Hans favourite words. It’s only become more urgent as a topic because the idea of a global dialogue that doesn’t reject, we don’t reject the global dialogue but we try to create a global dialogue that does not erase differences or that does not homogenise and lead to extinction. That seems to me to be like ever more crucial as a topic and so it’s not that we’re trying to give the answer to this question but to suggest that maybe this is the question that it’s worth looking into and you know Glissant might be someone who can help us look into that so on that level I hope for it to really connect to the reason that Jean I think created this place which is again to use art as something that can really link people and can create a common language that in the midst of this global dialogue retains its own specificity, retains its own meaning even as its able to exchange with the others so the theme of Mondialité, the concept of Glissant and the foundation’s core misson, I think, are linked in a strong sense and that mission seems to be more urgent now than before and so I thought it’s just worth pointing out that for us at least is seems like we have been interested in this topic for a while but perhaps it’s something, it’s now changing in my mind as I see how the world is changing, the status of these ideas have become more interested in Glissant, have become more interested to kind of think with him and so in some kind of way although you experience all these works of different artists and you experience this pensée du tremblement of Glissant, kind of brought to life in part for the first time it’s a dialogue with the ideas of the show and that’s where the dramaturgy of Ranjana Leyendecker came in because that really presents in a very... Ranjana Leyendecker directed us basically to try to explain our common sensical or our own spontaneous understanding of these main concepts of Glissant and then included part of that in the show.

You will find that as we walk through, in a normal tour we would give you all of the tour, here we will be accosted in different rooms by voices and by Sylvie Glissant’s voice and by Edouard Glissant’s voice and by our own voices and so in a way that relates to a concept of Glissant.

Another one which is, you know he has this idea of pensée du tremblement, the trembling thinking of the world, that the world is full of all these voices that are creating music, creating poetry, creating thoughts and that there’s something about listening to those without worrying about which one is from where. For Glissant I think in some kind of way what Ranjana did with the show is create these voices that are echoing all over the place in many different rooms.

Question :

Why is it the art of Americas that he wanted to preserve the work and second what happened to his museum? It is still only a dream or it is reality?

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

I mean the idea of making the [1:01:08 Americas head of cost], you know the fact that it was supposed to happen in Martinique so the idea was that he had to have a necessity and he wanted to basically celebrate this archipelago conditions in Martinique. What makes it interesting today for the world is that we can actually look at his archipelago idea and apply it to other, you know to other regions in the world. You know we can apply it…it’s what is so relevant across continents, not only reject mixings but continents and in this sense also homogenising and I think this idea of an archipelago logic is very powerful.

I think the other thing which is interesting is that the museum has to do with utopia also. It cannot remain in utopia and of course, you know it’s now the way he conceived things. He cannot be built anymore and it’s got to do with government negotiations. He thought very close, a bit like a…you know very utopic institution of [1:02:16] which [1:02:20] that also remain unrealised. [1:02:23] would want to do this in London with inter-disciplinary art centre but I mean we could use these archives today when we think about the museum of the 21st century. There are so many discussions now, you know, about where art institutions are going and it’s interesting what Glissant says about utopia because we worked with him…the exhibition I did with him sort of most frequently besides all the interviews we did was utopia station to Molly Nesbit and we invited him to Venice and [1:02:56] Station, Utopia Station and Glissant was very critical of utopia of our theme because he sort of criticised the utopias of Plato, the Republic and Thomas Moore’s utopia as kind of…how did he call it, “static systems”. He criticised them as static systems and he says that basically we need new alternative forms of utopia consisting of a continuous dialogue.

So, for him utopia was a quivering or a trembling utopia because it would transcend, established systems of thought and such as itself to the unknown so to quote him here it must be said from the start that trembling is not uncertainety and it is not fear. Trembling thought and in my opinion every utopia passed through this kind of thought is first of all instinctive feeling that we must reject all categories of fixed thought and of imperial thought. That’s very important to resist all categories of fixed and imperial thought. He also said that the whole world trembles. The art world, that’s the tout monde, the whole world trembles physically, trembles geologically, trembles mentally, trembles spiritually because the whole world is looking for the point not the station but the utopian point where all the world catches…all the world’s imagination can meet and hear one another without disbursing or loosing themselves and that I think is utopia.

Utopia is a reality, we want to meet with the other without loosing himself. So, it goes back to that idea what he also said about the archipelago, that idea that we can basically meet with the other without loosing ourselves. If we find that point it solves one of the biggest problems the world has right now.

Question :

What difference do you make between globalisation and modernisation and the forces that are interacting with them because if you see for quite a few years already, you know, when you travel to Africa now you’ve got mobile phones like sort of 20 years ago on the radio all they wanted was [1:05:23 5Gs] and all these phenomenon that are…and that how you connect them or relate to them.

Asad Raza :

Yeah, I think that’s the question because in a way what you’re describing I would call, most of the things that you’ve just described I would put under the word globalisation. Right? Like the projection of cheap consumer goods around the world in a way that creates a homogenous world culture in which the same brands are in the same place in every city in the world and the same companies are making money from that process, that range of expanding over the entire world has enriched them enormously and given them much more power.

That’s one aspect of the historical moment that we’re living in that we’ve seen this occur in the last 30-50 years but what Glissant, I think, is trying to say is that the flip side of that is there’s an opportunity now for an actual global dialogue and that doesn’t mean that we go to each place and announce what the global dialogue is but it means that people in one place can be without losing their own identity in contact with people from another place and that they can also travel from place to place in a way like I think Hans Hans-Ulrich Obrist would be a good example of a kind of agent of this Mondialité especially in his early years when before everyone had the intranet or email he was travelling from city to city around the world constantly and bringing news of what was happening in the art scene of one place or alliteration of another place to another although that might be making a kind of embarrassing comparison but that, for instance, is not so much about the same information being propounded in many different places but about the possibility to be connected and to be connected through art.

So Mondialité as Glissant says, you know it’s actually the flip side of globalisation.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Well to make this thought more accessible is really a mission. I believe in his idea that you know the world needs Glissant and of course an exhibition, and of course this is only the beginning because we will tour this exhibition and of course it will go to many different places on our continents. It’s going to become a growing archive and you know exhibitions are a way of carrying Glissant’s thought, you know and making it more known. Then another kind of idea we had a couple of years ago was in Paris there is a thing called [1:07:57] Blanche and one a year the entire city becomes an exhibition and many, many shows happen so my friend [1:08:06] it is [1:08:06] Blancher because she asked me to do an exhibition so I suggested that we print 100,000 booklets just with quotes from Edouard Glissant and spread them to all the participants of the [1:08:18] Blanche so that was another way of dispersing Glissant’s thoughts then you know with Agnus [1:08:24] which is the magazine we are doing and we give carte blanche to an artist always and we gave Glissant, of course when he was still alive, we gave him the issue and that was printed 100,000 copies as well and distributed so you know all of these are initiatives and I think in a way what is so interesting also about Edouard is that there is this connection to the art world because of course you know we are routed in the art world that is our home base, that is going to be our base and I think it’s always very, very important to kind of bring things back to that connection and the exhibition does that in many, many different ways.

For example, it does it to artists from Dominique Gonzalez Foerster to Walter Price who carried the thought of Glissant into a younger generation but he also does it through the multiple artists who actually worked with Glissant during his lifetime.

So, for example, with [1:09:21] you would see that between he did artists books with Glissant or Michael [1:09:26] who participated here with a mask, he did almost like a death mask of Edouard Glissant. He was close friends with Glissant, he made [1:09:38], they made books together so that’s part of the exhibition.

Or another example which is more related to the utopia to this trendy utopia is actually the project Edouard did with the artist [1:09:51] where she did a…she revisited the [1:09:54], she came up with this fictitious country of [US 1:09:59] and the country of US was introduced into the [1:10:02] so you know there was no entry for her country, her utopic country US in the [1:10:02] so she reprinted the [1:10:10] with the fictitious country of US and Edouard Glissant wrote the entry for her, you know, imaging how this fictitious country would be.

So, these are complete collaborations Edouard had with the art world. At the same time you will see you know with his museum with Antonia [Sergi] and [Ballerio Adamie 1:10:32] and of course also with his partner Sylvie Glissant who is an artist they did a lot of collaborations and his idea also…I mean that is another thing which we feel is very important as a sub-text to his exhibition is, you know if you look at all the great moments of historic [1:10:54] in the 20th century, I mean I’m from Zurich and the City of [Dada 1:10:59 and 100 year ago Dada was invested. You know in Dada the connection between artists and poets was essential. Many artists actually [1:11:06] our support and of course culminated into surrealism that is bridge between art and poetry was very close and its of course still connected to surrealism because of course you know Glissant was friends with [Matan 1:11:21] and so these sorts of tradition of this habit that artist supports would work together is something we’re going to bring back for our time. We think it’s very important to bring that back to the art world.

Asad Raza :

I would also add to that you know another way that Gleeson’s reach or the ideas that are in the shows reach has been extended is by artists who already were inspired by Glissant but because of the show thought more about Glissant. So Thea Maria, for instance, who’s the great artist from Qatar, she was emailing to Manor and I, Manor is our [1:11:58] production standing behind us, asking for more poetry from Glissant, for us to scan more books of Glissant and send them to her in South America where she was working on her project for the thing and so like I could sense she was learning more and more and it even influenced the work that I recently saw that she did that’s in Athens right now at the Benaki Museum and the curator said, “You know, she told me this is all about her new discoveries from the work of Edouard Glissant,” and I was like, “Oh I know where she’s getting this because we’ve been sending her the books on scans,” and so this global dialogue is also being generated with the actual work with artists or Steve McQueen who Hans Hans-Ulrich Obrist and I were talking to about this show and we discussed lots of ideas of Glissant with Steve and Steve was…you know Steve’s work has often referenced the kind of like afro- Caribbean landscape as a specific terrain and I think that he didn’t have…he made a stronger and stronger connection to Glissant’s own understanding of the landscape, the relation between landscape and identity and so that was exciting to see people like Sophia and Steve really getting more and more into taking these ideas and doing something with them. So, if the show…as the show will move on and go to other places that’s one of the things that hopefully can continue to happen.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

We also for the first time, not only the manuscripts of Glissant which are extraordinary, because of course hand wrote all his manuscripts but we also have for the first time the drawings of Edouard Glissant because he himself made quite a lot of drawings and whenever he signed a book for a friend he would basically make a drawing and if you look at this drawing you find a lot of these you know key roles of his thinking. You find of course many drawings of the archipelago and the archipelago is a passage and not a wall. It’s kind of a great sentence, the archipelago is a passage and not a wall so many drawings of the archipelago.

Also, many drawings of the [1:14:02] which is basically a rock in Martinique which was always a reference point for him, or you find drawings of the logo of the Institute [De Monde 1:14:16] which is a kind of an open spiral. He wanted to kind of draw…whenever he drew the logo he drew the spiral or he at the same time of course drew many trees. You know we see trees. That’s another interesting thing you know which I think is interesting here, a bit like [1:14:37] that you always see trees and the connection actually to the Serpentine Galleries in Kensington Gardens which is also, you know in the sense a museum, it’s a former tea house and we see…whenever I’m in my office at the Serpentine I see trees every day and that’s very relevant here and Glissant drew a lot of trees. The roots are deep and never die.

He also drew a lot of [1:15:08]. What is a XX in…

Turbine?

Turmoil?

No, it’s like a…no it’s this kind of thing, you know…

Whirlpool? A whirlpool kind of thing? And so turbine or whirlpool and so he says, you know, suddenly we’re in this turbine or whirlpool of the art world. So that’s another very recurrent thing which appears in the drawing and then of course the maritime connection. The connection to the sea. You very often have both. He talks about the south, I mean he of course wrote a book about Faulkner which is very important and he talks about the south of the world and very often sketches boats. So that’s kind of you know very rarely seen the drawings of Edouard Glissant so that’s, you know, of course the flip side of his connection to you know visual art.

back to the art world.

Asad Raza :

Just one final technical aspect of the show that I wanted to point out because we might not be able to appreciate it in the tour group version. You know exhibitions are generally organised with the idea of a small group of visitors coming or a single visitor or three friends or something and yet when sound and video is used in exhibitions it’s often on a loop and so there’s a 15 minute long film or one hour long film and it’s on a loop and when the visitor comes in they might come in, you know 40 minutes into the film and they have no idea when they are seeing and they have no idea how long it’s going to be before it starts from the beginning and they have no idea whether they should stay for one minute more or whether the thing will loop so these are issues that I think have never really been satisfactorily solved for exhibitions and one of the things that we worked on together with both [Wara 1:17:11], the great African film maker who was very close to us through the whole exhibition making of and with Ranjana Leyendecker was a system by which a visitor who comes here can actually not just run into the things in the middle of their loop but to trigger the thing to start from the beginning and so it won’ be so apparent if we walk through in this big group like this but if you walk through the museum on your own or in a small group each of these sound files, each of these video pieces is actually in a complex feedback system with motion detectors and will be triggered by the visitor’s entry to the room, so they will hear exactly from the beginning Glissant describing his own ideas or they will hear from the very beginning Hans-Ulrich Obrist explaining you know what créolisation is or Sylvie Glissant explaining opacité and I think that’s…I just wanted to point that out because you might not get to see if it if we’re in a big group because some people might go ahead and trigger the motion and you’ll…but that’s something I think just even though we’ve been talking mostly about ideas I think on a technical level of exhibition design that would be what would constitute a kind of new display feature also for this exhibition and something that in the collaborations that Hans-Ulrich Obrist and I have done in the past both doing shows together and working on texts and I’ve done some dramaturgical work on shows that Hans-Ulrich Obrist created we were always speaking a lot about how to create new display features for exhibitions. So here we are working on that. How can we present these things to the visitor without putting them in the middle of…without this endless loop problem so I think we could take a short walk through…

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Yeah, unless there are more questions?

Okay let’s go.

Luc Tuymans

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Thank you all so much for being here, Asad and I are very happy to welcome you all for the afternoon of conversation around the ideal of Edouard Glissant, an inspiration as a toolbox, we will address many different topics. I am particularly happy that Sylvie Glissant is here today with us and would like to ask you now to give a very very warm welcome to our first speaker Luc Tuymans. Now one of the things which is very relevant in relation to Glissant in many of my conversations with him, that always came out is of course that his activities encompassed not only literary and theoretical work but also the consistent production of reality. Initially of course as a member of the resistance he fought for Martinique’s independence from France, he counted Franz Fanon among his closed friends, and found that several institutes as for example in 1967 the Institut Martiniquais d’études, and of course he was in the later part of his life very engaged in finding the museum for Martinique which we’re going to talk about a lot later today, which is the kind of departure of the exhibition which he wanted to curate and basically bring into the museum in Martinique. That brings us right the way across to Luc and his initiatives curatorially, and there was a brainstorming here a couple of days ago in the Villa Empain - maybe we can begin with that, and it would be great if you could tell us a little bit what prompted you to work on this project which of course involves many different things from different disciplines, and it would be great to hear a little bit more about the genesis of how this all started.

Luc Tuymans:

I wanted to gather artists and people out of the culture together to make a sort of statement that could activate the nonstop activism. There was an idea also to do this specific project with the show which is actually like changing the place of the documenta from Kassel to Brussels but at this point the idea of making a show like that is actually obsolete and it's much more important to do to direct action.

You have to look at things in a more open sense in terms of diversity which I think is something we should keep within the framework of the situation and also the discourse that Hans also put up on Skype went in that specific direction.

If we talk about the fear that there is in terms of globalization which is inevitable, I mean it's an inevitable change, it's a change we have to deal with and it's a change we have to deal with in a crucial way because there is a great deal of confusion and a great deal of fear and a great deal of anxiety towards things that are adverse and strange and could be actually opened up new toward new worlds.

I think therefore it is very necessary to remain aloof and sharp and the element of reaction should be in the reaction span which should be very quick and in all different labels.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

You were also saying when you first stared this project that it was not only a project you as an artist would take the initiative to know the way for the bureaucracy but you also said you wanted to connect artist to all artist, so maybe it would be interesting to hear a little more about that and how it has been accepted on ?

Luc Tuymans:

As an artist who now work, I have the chance since I know a lot of my colleagues, to immediately contact them which is a speed and element which goes above the frontiers built, countries whatever, so in that sense you can make an adjustment and you can work with a different speed, with a different...and to show in that sense that it comes a different entity. And also the fact that there will be without the element of generosity, there will be no culture and that generosity should be an angst within the sphere of culture in order to bring it back to – if we can talk about it like this - people that are so called not interested in culture.

It is also interesting to see that whenever you are interviewed for a newspaper they have to find an excuse to formulate something about culture just the same. And this happens the whole time, the idea of actually underestimating largely the possibility and presumably making the balance of probability there. And that is a big problem. I mean this is nearly educational.

Asad Raza:

Luc I was wondering since we made this exhibition here about Mondialite which is one of Glissant’s core concepts and I think it's a very interesting initiative to create something that relates to a kind of Pan-European culture. What would be the relationship between the project and let's say the world beyond Europe, or how are the links constructed between a European cultural institution and then the world beyond?

Luc Tuymans:

Of course, there is a link and there is a sensitivity, you cannot...I mean if you live in a global situation you cannot get away from that. I think what is important also in terms of Europe is actually if you look at the new states that were added very rapidly within the construction of the European community, mostly out of Eastern Europe and the way they perceive their addition to the European community much more as a defense situation than something else.

So there is a lot of work to be done. There’s a lot of work to be done especially in these parts of the world, also to create a sort of importance within the periphery and get away from the Eurocentrism which is actually one of the major problems, which is a legitimate problem, I think to which people also react.

The way that they are reacting is something that is geared up by the media, that is something else, so there diversity and information is a very important subject. And of course that diversity can come from everywhere in the globe.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Glissant, when I asked him about how he imagines this institution, this artist and poet run institution for the 21st century to be, he said I think, and that's a quote “I think more and more the museums will benefit from being less solemnized, that they should have fewer of these big imposing interior monumental spaces and more intertwining pathways and trails. So he was sort of asking for pathways and trails because the idea of a museum today is to bring the world into contact with the world. To bring some of the world’s places into contact with other of the world’s places and if we want to do that we can't do it with the solemn and majestic design you find in some museums. That would be much more interesting, the memory that I keep from my visit to the Guggenheim in Bilbao is that I felt lost there, etcetera, etcetera. So he talks about this idea of how we can actually develop exhibition architectures where we put worlds in context with worlds, I was wondering in terms of your exhibition making and this vision for a project of Europe what you thought about space, about the architecture of such a...

Luc Tuymans :

Well first of all there are several things to consider. There is also the element of a legacy that you have to consider and if we are talking about museums and institutions there is also...there are quite some problems. It's quite funny because on my way to the show, because we are in the capital city of Brussels where there is no museum for modern or contemporary art for the last, I don't know what, 15 years or something like that.

There is a big problem within the institutional world itself in order to actually...it’s nearly an element of survival I think which is pretty important in terms of the cultural heritage and the way that that has to be perceived. Because museums in a sense, I mean if they ever deal with actuality they deal with that actuality from within the size of their collection, within the size of their memory, that is how they actually will respond back onto the actual world which I think is an important thing.

Now to make this more dynamic one should be having...there should be a sort of lineage and access to different collections interchangeability, of course not in the sense that will be a danger for works that are too fragile to travel, but the ones that are not it should be interesting to sort of make an exchange between those situations. And of course there should be also a lineage and one should make a link to the private world because otherwise it will never survive. So those are things in the practice of working, as a curatorial practice, this of course is too temporary, this is actually something that adheres to a moment but also has to agree its own momentum in terms of being relevant. I think the word relevant or relevance is something that is really important when it comes to a curatorial practice of making a show.

The one thing I also said to Barroso from the very beginning is that seeing the very poor PR of the European community and as I understood it, it was a question to give Europe a new narrative which actually when you phrase it differently means ‘what can culture do for Europe?’, which was a very belated question. Whereas we have lived in a Europe that is mostly technocratic and has never dealt with the idea of a social cultural Europe, which we are going to be forced to adhere to. I am very sure of that. That is actually the very positive constructive point of all the negativism that surrounds us. That means that we will have to create a stance and we have to create...we will have to take a position in that point in how we want to succeed in life and how we want to proceed in it in terms of quality, in terms of what we actually think and therefore all these interconnections are very, very necessary and important.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

It could not be a better conclusion, Luc thank you so, so much. Many thanks.

Sylvie Glissant et Geneviève Gallego

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Edouard a toujours dit qu’il faut dans tout évènement au moins deux langues, et il nous a conviés, toujours à la Maison de l’Amérique Latine, pour ses soirées inoubliables, multi linguistes, de poésie, où arrivait Tor Williamson qui parlait en islandais et Edouard tenait beaucoup à ce qu’il n’y est pas de traduction. Tu peux nous parler un peu de ces soirées Sylvie ?

Sylvie Glissant :

C’est ce qu’il appelait des « chaos opéras », donc chacun était invité à intervenir, mais dans sa langue et donc nous devions essayer de … il disait toujours « j’écris en présence de toutes les langues du monde », donc pour lui de toute façon on avait un sens, on comprenait ce qui était dit, même dans une autre langue. Parce que déjà cet imaginaire- là qui parle, nous a déjà touché, était déjà-là, donc il nous invitait à entendre la langue et puis évidemment ensuite on allait vers les traductions, mais déjà les entendre d’abord, être à l’écoute de ces langues.

Et on a toujours beaucoup parlé de cet Institut et de ce musée qu’Edouard voulait construire à Martinique qui est évidemment au centre même de cette exposition ici, qu’on voulait avec Asad, d’une certaine façon rendre cette expérience aujourd’hui, ramenée dans la mémoire et personne ne connait ce projet mieux que toi et donc je voulais savoir si tu pouvais nous parler un tout petit peu, sur ce projet, sur les idées de ce projet et peut-être aussi les raisons pour lesquelles ça ne s’est pas fait finalement.

Sylvie Glissant : En fait je pense que c’est toi qui connais mieux que moi, parce que tu étais là, il t’en a beaucoup parlé, tu as fait à travers les interviews. C’est vrai qu’il avait ce grand projet, peut-être d’une nouvelle idée du musée, qui à la fois conviait évidemment les artistes mais aussi les voix poétiques et je il disait qu’l fallait revenir à cette conception du musée, cet accompagnement, voilà, des écrivains, des artistes, de ces voix poétiques qui travaillaient ensemble et qui étaient ensemble dans ce rapport au monde finalement.

Oui, on lui avait donné un lieu en Martinique, c’était une usine, une ancienne usine à sucre qui portait les mémoires des luttes sociales et les victoires des luttes sociales, donc c’était un lieu très important pour lui et il se trouvait ce lieu au Lamentin où il a vécu toute sa jeunesse et quand il a voulu faire ce lieu, tout de suite environ une cinquantaine d’artistes ont voulu être là, ont voulu avoir leurs œuvres dans ce lieu, être autour de ce projet. Donc tout était assez prêt, on lui avait donné le lieu, il avait les œuvres, les idées étaient là et puis malheureusement ça ne s’est pas fait pour des raisons politiques je pense. Le lieu a été vendu, sans qu’il le sache et donc ce lieu ne s’est pas fait mais il s’est constitué finalement en un lieu nomade parce que cette collection, donc le musée finalement existe toujours, les œuvres sont là à l’Institut du Tout Monde, on fait de temps en temps, très rarement quelques expositions et quelques œuvres d’ailleurs de ce musée sont ici, et notamment les œuvres de Matta, et puis celles de Valerio Adami qui est ici, et Segui aussi, donc c’est vrai que ce lieu ici résonne assez bien, répond assez bien à cette idée du musée d’Edouard je pense.

Et puis la façon dont vous l’avez conçu aussi, on entend, c’est-à-dire les œuvres sont là et on entend cette pensée-là, poétique, qui résonne aussi partout, enfin il y a vraiment cet aller-retour qui est vraiment important, et donc cette résonnance voilà qui est celle du Tout Monde. En fait je pense que le musée était aussi une recherche de ce Tout Monde, ce Tout Monde qu’il a cherché partout dans son œuvre, dans son œuvre poétique, dans son œuvre littéraire et c’est vraiment concret ici dans ce lieu. C’était aussi d’ailleurs pour lui, je pense - il avait dit ça lors d’une interview -, le musée était pour lui aussi un lieu de résistance, un lieu où s’exprimaient toutes ces pensées qui émergent à l’heure actuelle, qui résistent justement à tous ces systèmes, à toutes ces pensées de systèmes, qui réduisent par le bas, qui nivellent en tout cas par le bas.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Evidemment toi tu fais partie du Musée, vous avez fait ces collaborations, c’est dans l’exposition. Il y a ton dessin et le texte d’Edouard, tu peux nous parler un peu de cette pièce ?

Sylvie Glissant :

Oui c’est vrai qu’on avait ce dialogue depuis longtemps et j’étais très privilégiée de pouvoir l’avoir. De temps en temps il y avait ce moment ou lui écrivait un texte poétique et moi je pouvais y apposer mes formes à moi.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Et peut être, avant qu’on passe la parole à Geneviève, qui est une des artistes qu’Edouard avait sélectionnés pour son musée. C’est intéressant, tu nous parle un tout petit peu de cet univers des artistes qui était autour d’Edouard, car évidemment il y avait Wifredo Lam et Matta qui étaient plus âgés, c’était un peu comme des mentors, après il y avait les artistes de sa génération, il y a donc Antonio Segui et Valerio Adami qui sont aujourd’hui parmi nous et qui vont parler plus tard cet après-midi. Ça serait intéressant si tu pouvais nous parler un tout petit peu de ce contexte artistique qu’il voulait avoir dans son musée. Il y avait aussi quelqu’un ce matin qui nous a demandé, on a essayé de répondre à cette question et ce serait aussi intéressant d’entendre ta réponse, pourquoi ce focus sur les Amériques ?

Sylvie Glissant :

Quand Edouard est arrivé de la Martinique, il est arrivé donc en 1946 à Paris. Il a tout de suite retrouvé, il a tout de suite trouvé en tout cas, le milieu des artistes et des poètes à la Galerie du Dragon. Donc c’était dans les années 50 ,et là c’est vrai que ce lieu, cette galerie était fréquentée par Matta, par tous ces grands artistes qui sont devenus ses amis, qui l’ont accompagné toute sa vie … Et c’est à ce moment-là aussi qu’il a d’ailleurs publié ses premiers poèmes qui ont été illustrés par Lam, par Matta, par des artistes et donc tout de suite cette relation poétique aux artistes a été une évidence pour lui, et je pense que son œuvre, son intention poétique de base est vraiment partie de cette fréquentation de l’art et des créations des artistes qu’il fréquentait, des gens qui étaient importants à cette époque en tout cas, qui traduisaient ce temps et ce rapport au monde, c’est sûr. Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Et ça c’est quelque chose qu’il a continué, même plus tard. Il faisait des livres avec les artistes qu’il fréquentait.

Sylvie Glissant :

Oui, il a écrit beaucoup de textes qui se retrouvent partout dans son œuvre : que ce soit dans ses essais ou ses poèmes, toutes ces réflexions et poétiques sur ses amis artistes couvrent toute son œuvre. Ca n’a pas été rassemblé pour le moment. C’est fragmenté et d’ailleurs il a avait commencé à les rassembler dans un livre, qui devait s’appeler la pluie du sable, mais il n’a pas terminé.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Il nous a souvent parlé donc de Geneviève, et c’est peut-être donc le moment de demander à Geneviève de nous raconter un peu les relations avec Edouard.

Geneviève Gallego :

Oui je connais Sylvie et Edouard Glissant depuis plus de 30 ans. Je pense que j’ai commencé à sculpter à la montagne sous le regard d’Edouard. Mon premier bois, je l’ai fait, on était tous ensemble dans une grange de montagne. Mon rapport avec Edouard est un rapport très amical, familial et aussi je suis en résonnance toujours avec ce qu’il dit, j’ai besoin de ses livres autour de moi avant de commencer à travailler à l’atelier. Il a écrit quelque part que le frémissement des branches, dans le frémissement des branches il entendait la parole. Et bien moi je peux dire que j’entends dans le frémissement de la parole d’Edouard, j’entends, je m’en sers avant de commencer mes bois que je sculpte. Autrement je ne sais pas quoi dire, demandez- moi mais c’est compliqué.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Oui peut-être le rapport à son musée puisqu’il nous avait raconté justement qu’il avait un dialogue avec vous sur le musée pour Martinique.

Geneviève Gallego :

C’est vrai. Je crois que j’ai sculpté la dernière œuvre après un coup de téléphone à Edouard, quand il était très malade. J’ai entendu son souffle comme ça, et je lui ai dit : je reprends ton souffle dans mon ciseau, et j’ai comme ça sculpté les Géographies du Chaos Monde que j’ai donné au musée. Et je pense que cet espace fait de frémissements, de sentes, de tours et de détours rendaient un tout petit peu les Géographies d’Edouard.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Et la question qui se pose évidemment, c’est celle de l’espace. Tu disais Sylvie, que le musée est devenu nomade. Il y ‘avait cette exposition à la maison de l’Amérique Latine, qui était une esquisse. Ce serait intéressant que vous nous en parliez ?

Sylvie Glissant :

En fait il avait déjà préparé une sorte d’itinérance de la collection dans les Amériques. Les Caraïbes étaient dans cet arc des Amériques, ils sont liés à cet imaginaire poétique des Amériques. Il voulait que ce musée soit un peu le trait d’union de ces Amériques, l’esthétique qu’il y trouvait était commune, elle se trouvait aussi bien aux Caraïbes qu’en Amérique du sud et il a beaucoup écrit là-dessus. Je vous incite à le lire. Il avait commencé cette itinérance au Pérou, à Porto Rico… Et ensuite, il n’a pas existé en tant que tel, mais finalement il y a eu des expositions à la maison de l’Amérique latine, qui était pour lui sa deuxième maison – c’est le siège de l’Institut du tout Monde. Et j’ai récemment édité une petite version de cette exposition à la Cité internationale des arts, en mai dernier. Avec cette exposition ici, on continue cette itinérance.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Et aussi Edouard disait toujours que ce musée ne devrait pas être continental, que ça ne devrait pas être un continent, mais un archipel. L’archipelago était le modèle. Il me disait dans une interview : « j’imagine le musée comme archipel et donc pas comme une synthèse qui standardise mais un réseau de relations entre différentes traditions et perspectives. » Je voulais te demander si tu pouvais peut-être nous en dire un peu plus sur cette idée de l’Archipel.

Sylvie Glissant :

De toute façon il y avait aussi cette notion de Pensée Archipélique. Ce qui était pour lui, ce qui relayait aussi la pensée du tremblement c’est-à-dire une pensée loin des certitudes qui enferment, qui réduisent, qui empêchent justement d’aller plus loin, qui réduisent d’ailleurs à notre propre transparence, notre propre système, et il relayait ça aussi à une pensée de l’opacité. Cette pensée du tremblement, cette pensée de l’opacité était pour lui la façon à travers laquelle on devait peut-être écouter le monde, le voir, c’est-à-dire être très sensible au surgissement, à tout ce qui arrive et non pas rester enfermé sur ces notions par exemple d’identité fermée, d’identité unique, d’où évidemment tout se découle, cette notion de l’identité comme identité relation qui est absolument nécessaire à l’heure actuelle pour pouvoir vivre le monde tel qu’il se crée actuellement, tel qu’il émerge . Et donc, je crois que tu en as un peu parlé, il a essayé de nous prévenir contre toute cette notion de l’identité qui arrive maintenant, à racine unique, donc c’était la pensée du rhizome. C’est beaucoup de choses, donc je ne peux pas trop développer, mais je pense que ça donne quand même quelques pistes pour essayer de le comprendre.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

C’est formidable et ça ramène directement à cette phrase conclusive qu’Edouard nous a dit quand on lui a parlé une dernière fois de son musée. Il a dit : « Nous devons multiplier le nombre des mondes à l’intérieur du musée. » Donc c’est l’idée de multiplement.

Merci infiniment Sylvie, merci infiniment Geneviève.

Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Dominique. Super. Please give a very wam welcome to Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster.

So it’s a pleasure to have you. I will speak in English as is my want but you’re free to speak in French also if it’s better for the audience at large. You know you have this amazing charm which we’ve had here for a little while and now it becomes to be part of the [00:42] of Glissant so I thought it would be interesting to ask a little bit about your relation to Glissant and how it is that you feel connected to or that you are working [00:54] also with the concerns of his because I know that you know his work well.

Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster :

D’abord je suis très honorée parce que je suis arrivée un peu par induction... En fait quand Asad a proposé de faire entrer la voix d’Edouard Glissant dans la « Chambre de l’Inhumaine » qui est aussi en liaison avec la cantatrice Georgette Leblanc, Maeterlinck et toute une histoire de la musique, de l’opéra, j’ai trouvé que c’était une très, très belle idée. Et quand je suis montée tout à l’heure et que j’ai entendu ta voix Hans-Ulrich devenir celle de Glissant, ça m’a rappelé à quel point pour moi vous êtes indissociables et à quel point c’est toi pour moi qui l’a révélé, et aussi si je me souviens bien à Venise, Utopia Station, je pense que c’est là que j’ai pu le rencontrer grâce à toi, mais vraiment à quel point vos voix et vos pensées sont proches. C’est complètement là, quand j’entendais le texte, je me disais : « mais en fait Hans- Ulrich…, il y a beaucoup de Glissant en Hans-Ulrich et beaucoup de Hans-Ulrich en Glissant ». Voilà… Je ne sais pas toi… Je ne sais pas si tu te rappelles ta première rencontre avec lui mais tout d’un coup je me disais que tu voulais peut-être la raconter.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Oui la première rencontre ça c’était fait en fait… Puisque Aligherio Boetti nous en avait parlé… C’était comme ça quand j’ai rencontré Boetti pour la première fois, après je n’avais jamais eu de contact pour Edouard Glissant. Et c’est en fait Agnès b. qui a rencontré Christian Bourgois, et Christian Bourgois lui a présenté Edouard Glissant très, très tôt. Elle était très jeune. Elle avait 20 ans et elle a rencontré Edouard Glissant au Café de Flore et à partir d’un certain moment c’est donc Agnès b. qui a organisé le rendez-vous et nous a présenté et c’est comme ça que le dialogue avec Sylvie et Edouard a commencé. Et après il y avait cette histoire très drôle… A partir d’un moment Agnès pensait que ça serait peut- être intéressant que je rencontre Christian Bourgois pour que Christian Bourgois puisse me raconter l’histoire et donc on a eu ce rendez-vous avec Christian Bourgois au Café de Flore, et de nouveau tout s’est passé au Café de Flore et, j’ai commencé la conversation. Je suis arrivé au café. J’ai dit : « Monsieur Christian Bourgois… », et on a parlé pendant environ quinze minutes. C’est un peu comme notre histoire avec 03.42 après quinze minutes on s’est rendu compte que ce n’était pas Christian Bourgois, c’était le frère de Christian Bourgois qui par hasard venait aussi déjeuner au Café de Flore et donc, je n’ai jamais rencontré Christian Bourgois puisque qu’entretemps le vrai Christian Bourgois avait quitté le café. Mais tout ceci était vraiment très lié à Agnès b. et à Christian Bourgois. C’est pour cela qu’on a évidemment, avec Agnès, après fait ce journal qui est ici et que tout le monde peut prendre. Ça a été imprimé comme un numéro du « Point d’Ironie » et ça c’est vraiment une œuvre d’Edouard. C’est un collage qu’Edouard a fait avec ses notes, avec ses cahiers, avec ses écritures à main et avec aussi, avec des photos, avec des dessins. Très souvent il a aussi dessiné. Vous allez voir dans le livre, très souvent il a écrit des dédicaces dans les livres. Il a fait des dessins. C’est souvent des éléments récurrents. Il y a très souvent le rocher qui est lié à son rocher en Martinique, qui est lié à « La Cohée du Lamentin». Il y a très souvent le logo de l’Institut du Tout-Monde. Une sorte de spirale. Le logo était une sorte de spirale vers l’infini. Il y a très souvent des bateaux… et voilà tout ça on le retrouve aussi dans « Le Point d’Ironie ». Je sais Dominique que toi tu t’intéresses à ce dialogue entre Derrida et Edouard et ça c’est une histoire dont il faut absolument qu’on parle. On va en parler plus tard aussi avec Valerio Adami qui est ici, puisque ça s’est fait en fait au 05.08 C’est publié dans les annales de la Fondation d’Europe du Dessin. C’est une fondation que Valerio Adami a fondé. Valerio est très proche de Derrida et très proche de Glissant. Il a invité les deux et il y a eu de très fortes dissonances. Peut-être Dominique tu vas nous parler de Derrida et de Glissant.

Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster :

Oui, alors moi je suis complètement fascinée par cet échange et par ce qu’il révèle, mais plutôt que de paraphraser, j’ai demandé à Hans-Ulrich si je pouvais lire en fait une partie du texte.

Donc, fragments d’une discussion - Jacques Derrida – Edouard Glissant : (…)

Je voudrais juste peut-être indiquer, deux ou trois perspectives de discussions à propos de ce qu’a dit Jacques. La première c'est qu’il me semble que sur cette question du tremblement il s’est placé résolument, et il a raison, dans un champ théologique et même téléologique où le tremblement intervient comme une catégorie du rapport à dieu, et il a aussi placé la discussion sous le signe du multilinguisme qui m’est cher, puisque une de mes devises est que j’écris en présence de toutes les langues du monde. Mais là où je voudrais faire discussion c’est que je pense que dieu est monolingue et que les dieux sont multilingues. Quand je dis que dieu est monolingue, le dieu est monolingue c’est ce que je veux dire. Les dieux sont plurilingues parce que ce n’est pas la même chose. Le Dieu, ça peut être le dieu des islamiques, le dieu des judaïques, ça peut être le dieu des chrétiens, c’est le dieu. Le dieu jaloux et monolingue, et c’est le même dieu jaloux pour les uns et pour les autres. Mais les dieux amérindiens qui sont les dieux éparts, j’oppose les dieux éparts aux dieux jaloux, sont des dieux plurilingues. Ils perdent leur langue. Ils en inventent une autre. Ils n’ont pas le sacré de la langue, de la révélation, etc… C’est ce que je veux dire. Il y a une différence entre le dieu qui est monolingue et les dieux qui sont plurilingues. Alors il faudrait que l’on essaye de discuter de cette question, autour de la symbolique de la Tour de Babel. C’est-à-dire que si vous parlez plusieurs langues vous ne pouvez plus vous entendre et c’est la fin de la communauté. C’est une défense du monolinguisme qui est éclatante. Il faudrait peut-être discuter de ça. La différence avec ce que je pense du tremblement c’est que le tremblement est une catégorie du rapport au monde et au monde actuel. C’est-à-dire au monde dont nous ne pouvons pas ne pas voir qu’il est en nous de manière foudroyante, inattendu, irréversible et que nous devons nous débrouiller avec son inextricable et que le tremblement est une des armes que nous avons, disons de propagation dans cet inextricable, alors que Jacques en fait une catégorie d’abord du rapport à dieu. C’est une différence intéressante car j’ai remarqué que dans le discours de Jacques, à deux reprises au moins, il a dit : « un tremblement digne de ce nom » et moi je pense qu’il n’y a pas de tremblement digne de ce nom. Parce que si un tremblement est digne de ce nom il n’est plus un tremblement. Donc il y a cette question, qui peut être intéressante à traiter, de la catégorie du rapport à dieu et de la catégorie du rapport au monde. Et là où je ne suis pas du tout d’accord, où je ne pose pas de question mais où je dis que je ne suis pas d’accord c’est quand Jacques dit qu’il y a mondialisation, donc il n’y a pas de monde. C’est-à-dire que tout ce qui fait le caractère négatif de la mondialisation, qu’il a très bien détaillé, fait que nous pouvons dire qu’en fait, il n’y a pas de monde dans son discours. Et moi je dis que j’oppose à la mondialisation ce que j’appelle la mondialité. Et pour moi la mondialité c’est l’intuition, le sens, la perspective et la poétique de l’ensemble des interrelations du monde mêmes menacées, même sous le regard des satellites, même sous la domination des puissances hégémoniques qui fait que nous avons cette poétique de la mondialité en nous, qui est le contraire « positif », dirons-nous entre guillemets, parce que « positif » est un mot dont il faut se méfier de la mondialisation. D’ailleurs quand j’ai exprimé pour la première fois cette idée de la poétique de la mondialité, à opposer à ce que nous savons du négatif de la mondialisation, j’ai remarqué que quelques temps après des associations internationales, qui se disaient anti-mondialisation, ont changé leurs titres et sont pour l’alter-mondialité. Autrement dit il y a quelque chose qui marche et ce n’est pas seulement le négatif de la mondialisation qui est important, il y a aussi le caractère, et que j’appelle une poétique. Une poétique ce n’est pas faire des poèmes. Une poétique c’est avoir une conception de la manière de penser et d’agir, et de se ressentir dans le monde, et cette poétique de la mondialité fait que pour moi il y a un monde. Le monde ne cesse pas d’exister et on ne peut pas agir, selon moi, que dans le monde, c’est-à-dire que l’on ne peut agir qu’en fonction de cette poétique de la mondialité qui serait un monde. Ce sont peut-être là les choses dont il nous faudrait discuter pour voir si on est d’accord.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

And maybe it’s a good moment to switch to English and continue a little bit in English because interestingly Dominique wrote this part from a conversation with Edouard Glissant and Jack Derrida which was organised by [11:22], the artist who is here and will talk later this afternoon as part of his extraordinary institute at the [Lago 11:32] it’s called the European Foundation of Drawing. It’s a European foundation, the [11:37] foundation where [11:40] for many decades has brought together [11:43] from all over the world and [11:47] often was there in residence as he told us over lunch today and it’s interesting because it’s really a disagreement between Derrida and Glissant which Dominique writes throughout.

It leads back to that questions of yours about the first meeting because the first meeting I had with Edouard which Angus [Bay 12:05] had organised was all about his idea of the tremblement, it’s the trembling and we later on then went deeper with him about it when we worked on utopia station with [12:16] and [12:18] and in a way addressing this topic of utopia it created a lot of discomfort of course. Etienne Balibar you know gave us all his books he had on utopia because he says he wanted to get rid of them anyhow for a long time. So, it was somehow interesting this idea of actually critically questioning utopia whilst he never called the project utopia but utopia station. It was a kind of a waste station and Glissant was very clear, he was also critical of [Plato’s 12:44] republic and Thomas Moore’s utopia because he says they are static systems. These are static utopias and he wanted to design a new alternative form of utopia which would be a continuous dialogue and it’s interesting because [12:57] when he was pushed against the wall by [13:00] to finally define what is utopia he said something is missing and when we cannot gently really nudge Edouard to tell us what is utopia, you know what is his idea of utopia, the opposite of this static utopia of Thomas Moore and Plato he told us about his novel [13:20]. For those of you who haven’t read it, it’s an incredible book. It’s such an urgent book for the 21st century and for what’s happening in the world right now because it basically is a description of Glissant in [13:31], a book from 1999 of the utopian people called [Baputo 13:34] and these people derived their identity not from their own genealogy which is very important so it’s not from their own genealogy but they derived the identity solely from being in constant exchange with each other as you know [13:51] would say, it is exchanged.

So Glissant referred, when we worked on utopia station on utopia as a quivering, quivering or trembling notion because it transcends established systems of thought and here is a quote from him. “It must be said from the start that trembling is not uncertainty and it is not fear. Trembling thought, and in my opinion every utopia passes through this kind of thought is first of all the instinctive feeling that we must reject our [contemporaries 14:19] of fixed thought and all contemporaries of imperial thought. The whole world trembles. The whole world trembles physically. The whole world trembles geologically. The whole world trembles mentally. The whole world trembles spiritually because the whole world is looking for the poem, not the station but the utopian point where all the world’s cultures, all the world’s imaginations can meet and hear one another without dispersing or losing themselves, and that, I think, says Glissant is utopia above all.”

Utopia and now comes to the definition and [Bloch 14:53] says something is missing Edouard told us, “Utopia is a reality where one can meet with the other without loosing himself or herself,” and that of course given the current moment in politics, I mean that could not be a more profound and important statement to be made and that’s really what then led to utopia station, the moment in Venice when we were all together.

Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster :

And I know [Speaking in French 15:17-15:21], I think this is utopia, this is also another way to call utopia station like the way I remember it or [Speaking in French 15:30- 15:44]

[Speaking French 15:44], it was amazing evenings at the poetry, infinite poetry readings, I remember [Tambooki 15:52] was there, Antonia Tambooki and just all the great poets from all over the word reading in their own language carried by Edouard in a very impromptu, free, totally free kind of way. There wasn’t really a schedule and people just popped up in a way.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Now one thing I thought would be interesting is we talk a little bit maybe towards the end of this conversation about the exhibition because in a way [Asad 16:11] and I have been thinking a lot about this exhibition and how to do the archive, how to work with the archive or all the conversations of Edouard so we are very, very grateful to Ranjana Leyendecker because Ranjana was here two weeks and you will see later when you experience the exhibition you know Ranjana is the dramateur, the choreographer in residence in [16:35] and Ranjana really choreographed the voice of Edouard, the voice of us [16:39], the voice of Sylvie and Dominque was describing me for when you entered the rooms you are entering the room free of the voice and so it’s not that you…because normally in exhibitions you have the sound as a loop so then you always arrive, you know, you arrive too late or you arrive in the middle. Here it’s not playing. It only plays when you are there and it follows you. So that’s really Ranjana Leyendecker because invention it’s the display feature of this exhibition and we’re going to talk about that later more.

I thought it would be interesting that Asad and Dominique tell us a little bit about Dominique’s room because it actually has to do with the previous exhibition. It’s a layer from the previous exhibition, it’s the memory of the previous exhibition so maybe Asad first and then Dominque can tell us about this room.

Asad Raza :

Well the one thing to say is also that somehow I…I somehow see [17:33] in some sort of small tradition here to keep work from the previous show, with each show and so in the last show which was [Décor 17:42] we kept the work of [17:45] and now this time we keep the work of Dominique and I think somehow the tradition feels a little bit to me [17:50], it feels to me a little bit kind of like a [17:54] of each exhibition, a little bit by a remnant of the past exhibition or a [17:59] as Dominique might say.

The other thing is that I just, this is going to sound not so intelligent but I just love Dominque’s piece which was originally done for the last show [18:11] and somehow a very magical combination of fiction and reality and [18:19] reality or something because as far as I understand, you can correct me Dominique, it relates to many things. It relates to the architectural space that it’s in which is the Chambre de Madame of the Villa [18:33]. It relates to [18:36] which is a film about a woman who lives in a villa who also has two lovers, one eastern and one western.

Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster :

More than two.

Asad Raza :

Okay, but two are western scientist and kind of a middle eastern someone more spiritual so she has this kind of dialogue between cultures thing going on I guess which is the foundation’s core mission and also the Mondialité show kind of relates to this.

Then on another level of course it’s about Georgette Le Blanc and her actual life and she was very involved with the art world in Paris and also in Brussels and was friends with Louis [19:12], no?

Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster :

Almost.

Asad Raza :

So at least may have been at the house. We believe she was in this house and we believe her spirit is still haunting the house in the Chambre to Madam in Dominque’s room. But anyway, all those layers kind of combine and you don’t know what if you’re in a fiction or you’re in a reality and so for me I just…once this thought came like maybe we could just keep it and maybe because Glissant is close to Dominique that it will work also in Mondialité I was really happy because we could have it for longer but I don’t know if you should not correct and add to…correct all the errors I made but also add maybe.

Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster :

No, no nothing to correct. I was so happy when you suggested first to keep the room because I think it’s great when a space can have a longer life and therefore bringing more you know gain in presence also but the story of Georgette is incredible as [20:17] lover but also as a great singer and actress herself. She began to stage, for a while she was living in France in a big abbey almost alone with [20:31] and she began to stage…to stage theatre in the abbey with friends, like to make a kind of living theatre for very small audience using actual architecture so not making any décor but really playing on site and inventing a kind of theatre that is now very…performative moments that are now very common but that at this time to stage things in this way was completely new and I think this is maybe why I responded so much to the idea of [21:12] that she was, she was into opera, she wanted to sing the [21:17], she was close to the [Busee 21:21] and the Busee brought this new voice in opera like this almost speaking…speaking/singing.

So, there are many…I think that all these connections they are very typical of this [21:37] and this way to relate things and so yeah, it’s more an encounter of this sort.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

We must also say that it is very interesting this idea, you know exhibitions because very often you have this double Asad moment and I like a lot that Asad layers it here and it reminded me of another collaboration Dominique when we did Cities on the Move [22:02] at the [22:06] decided to use it [22:06] exhibition design and add another [22:05], add another layer and it’s an interesting thing this idea of exhibition not as double [22:14] but as a kind of [22:16].

Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster :

Totally. I completely believe in the [22:20] and I think that the context of an exhibition is as much spacial in a city as the works that were there before. We have the ghost of the previous works that are still in the space. It’s completely an illusion to imagine that by dismantling your show you move it from the space because the audience who’s coming they still see it so any show is full of the previous presences and it’s very important in the thinking of the exhibition to bring in this genealogy, to bring in this idea of a context, to bring in the idea that it’s not like just you move in your apartment and everything else disappear like [23:00], in fact it’s the opposite. We live surrounded by ghosts and no ghosts are more powerful than artwork. They’re the artificial life of artists who have disappeared. Their presences have an incredible power. This is why they keep so many humans busy like if any artist had imagined how many humans he would keep busy you know he would just leave it.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Yeah and the house exhibitions are a lot thicker than they have to do with the guest, the wholes of the ghost and of course what is also very wonderful is that your room by being implemented here into this exhibition by continuing in this exhibition becomes a collaboration between you and Ranjana Leyendecker because of course Ranjana’s display feature with the voice is all of a sudden the focus of attention, you know, in the room whether it’s…

Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster :

Yeah and Georgette’s voice becomes Glissant’s, it’s your voice and I think this is totally, yeah.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Dominique thank you so, so much. Merci beaucoup.

Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster :

Thank you.

Martin Guinard

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Martin has been very closely collaborating with Bruno Latour on numerous exhibition projects at ZKM, here we have another interesting example of an exhibition of ideas where basically I think Bruno Latour decided to dedicate an important amount of time, rather than writing a book actually to the medium of the exhibition and did already three times. It's interesting that the trajectory of it, Edouard Glissant with exhibition started in Belgium, very often things do start in Belgium and that actually was the case with Laboratorium and we had invited him to Antwerp and to work on the table top experiments. Basically Bruno Latour developed a whole series of experiments, in pubic he worked with Isabelle Steinhaus, he worked with Peter Gellison, he worked with Caroline Jones, he worked with Panarmarenko, you know different artists and scientists to do an experiment in public and this gave him the appetite to actually really dive into the medium of the exhibition and then together with Peter Weibel, and more recently with Martin, develop exhibitions for the ZKM. We have to thank again Ranjana Leyendecker who has been so instrumental for this exhibition, Ranjana has come up with the display and the way the sound is displayed, but Ranjana has also relentlessly quoted the composition is manifesto which is published in the book, which is a text by Bruno Latour and Martin will now tell us more.

Martin Guinard :

Merci beaucoup Hans pour cette invitation, et Asad, je suis très content d’être ici, surtout dans un contexte, étant français, à une semaine des élections présidentielles, où les éléments de langage de Le Pen ont toujours été sur la polarité entre d’un côté les patriotes et de l’autre côté les mondialisés, comme l’espèce de, vraiment de développement, qui était quand même une espèce d’image de tous les maux de la situation dans laquelle on était. Et donc je pense qu’il est absolument impératif de repenser cette relation entre le local et le global notamment à l’heure de la mutation écologique.

Or sur ce point ce que l’on ressent c’est qu’il y a vraiment une possibilité de faire travailler, de faire dialoguer le travail d’Edouard Glissant et de Bruno Latour, même si c’est deux formes de pensées qui sont très différentes, l’un étant dans une approche de la pensée poétique, l’autre anthropologique, dans le domaine des sciences et du droit. Mais on a le sentiment vraiment que, là où les deux se rejoignent et que c’est extrêmement important qu’on entame un travail, c’est vraiment sur cette inadéquation des manières de se représenter l’articulation du local et du global.

Hans tout à l’heure tu as beaucoup parlé chez Edouard Glissant de sa critique de la mondialisation et de toutes les formes d’homogénéisation qui vont avec et notamment le concept de mondialité qu’il développe mais ce dont je voulais parler plus en particulier et qui est extrêmement intéressant chez Glissant c’est l’apport qu’il a avec cette idée du « lieu commun ». Le « Lieu commun » est quelque chose qui est censé être, dans la littérature française chez Flaubert par exemple, ce qui est banal, ce qui n’a pas forcément d’intérêt. Edouard Glissant lui donne toute une nouvelle saveur avec une définition qui est multiple mais dans laquelle il définit une forme d’expérience partagée, et donc il dit « combien de personnes en même temps sous des auspices contraires, pensent les mêmes choses, posent les mêmes questions. Tout est dans tout, sans s’y confondre par la force. Vous pouvez supposer une idée, ils la reprennent goulûment, elle est à eux. Ils l’a proclament. Ils s’en réclament. C’est ce qui désigne le lieu commun. Il rameute mieux qu’aucun système d’idées, nos imaginaires. » Ça c’est dans le Traité du Tout-Monde et ce qu’on voit qui est vraiment intéressant là c’est une manière de penser cette articulation entre des lieux qui sont disperses, qui sont dispersés, et en même temps penser une forme de lien plutôt qu’une forme de séparation et évidemment chez Glissant on a une méfiance énorme de l’universalisme. L’universalisme il qualifiait ça d’une erreur fondamentale de la pensée européenne parce qu’il la perçoit comme - et à raison - le véhicule de valeurs particulières. Il dit par exemple qu’on parle de fraternité mais on parle de fraternité comme étant une valeur qui doit s’appliquer à tout le monde, alors que c’est un contexte extrêmement précis, qui est celui du contexte français, qui essaye de s’exporter, qui d’ailleurs n’essaye pas, qui s’exporte par des principes, par des méthodes coloniales et donc il en arrivait à la conclusion que l'universel n’est pas compatible avec la multiplicité, qu’il n’y a pas, et là je le cite, « il n’y a pas d’universel là où il y a la notion de poly, que ce soit la polythésie, la polyconnaissance, la polyoration »

Donc cette réarticulation entre le local et le global n’est pas simplement importante par rapport, enfin en relation avec tous les phénomènes d’échanges culturels, ça l’est aussi quand on essaye de penser la mutation écologique. Et là encore Glissant a beaucoup à apprendre à la pensée écologique aujourd’hui.

Mais maintenant je vais plus parler du travail de Latour et de Sloterdijk. Quand on parle d’écologie, là je suis sûr que la plupart des personnes dans cette salle ont en tête l’image d’une planète bleue. C’est la première image qu’on a, cette vue globale qui va vraiment de pair avec cette notion de globalisation, ces deux termes. Ça c’est une évidence. Et quand on regarde d’où vient cette image qui est vraiment déployée au public, divulguée au public à partir de 1968 avec le Whole Earth Catalog on a cette vue extrêmement belle d’une planète bleue, qui ressemble à une espèce de marbre bleuté - Blue Marble - et qui correspond complètement, historiquement, à la naissance de la conscience écologique. On a cette espèce d’appel à un habitacle commun, qui soit le plus grand cadre de l’action humaine possible, et du coup qui appelle à une forme d’unité à laquelle on devrait se soumettre, une espèce d’autorité supérieure. Sauf qu’en fait cette image du globe est assez problématique si on essaye de la mobiliser pour une action politique. Pourquoi ? Et bien parce que d’abord l’image du globe c’est vraiment la représentation d’un point de vue qui est extrêmement lointain, qui est extrêmement distant. Quelque part c’est extrêmement loin, ce marbre bleu magnifique ne nous laisse pas voir l’ensemble des problématiques qu’on a sur un point de vue écologique. Mais ensuite - et là c’est un cadre qui est encore plus problématique avec cette image du globe - c’est qu’elle propose un cadre qui est unificateur, qui englobe et lisse complètement, et forme complètement une espèce d’unité, donc ça , on a l’impression que ce qui correspondrait le mieux à ce cadre général de la planète bleue se serait un régime de gouvernance mondiale auquel on n’est pas prêt d’arriver d’un point de vue pragmatique, ce qui est problématique à l’heure, quand on voit l’urgence des problèmes écologiques auxquels on va se confronter. Mais en plus de ça, ça pose un autre problème qui là encore est très proche des préoccupations de Glissant, c’est que ça pose des problèmes d’hégémonie et de souveraineté. Au nom de qui prendrait la gouvernance globale, au nom de qui ? Et on a tous les risques de redévelopper et de redéployer au nom d’une espèce de quête universaliste qui absorberait les problématiques écologiques des formes de dominations, encore une fois de pouvoirs coloniaux.

Donc le modèle qui est développé et qui est particulièrement pertinent dans ce contexte-là par Latour, les sociologues et les artistes qui le suivent c’est cette idée que finalement en pensant le global comme une entité complète on a tendance à mettre notre attention au mauvais endroit. Parce qu’on peut très bien percevoir un phénomène global comme étant toujours local, c’est-à-dire en étant toujours la multiplicité, une multiplicité de points locaux qui se déplacent quelque part.

Avoir une vision dynamique du monde c’est évidemment un impératif mais par contre sauter tout de suite à une espèce d’échelle qui soit globale, ça, ça peut réellement poser un problème. L’articulation entre le local et le global, pose forcément la question de l’échelle. Et l’échelle, les échelles nous permettent d’observer différents phénomènes et donc différents types de données à différents niveaux. Et la politique a eu tendance à s’organiser, là j’ai vraiment la définition la plus classique, la politique étatique, a eu tendance à l’organiser en fonction de différentes échelles, en mettant donc les problèmes, certains problèmes, à une échelle internationale, d’autres nationale, d’autres régionale. Mais ce qui apparait avec les problématiques écologiques c’est qu’elles n’obéissent en aucun cas à cette espèce de hiérarchie des échelles qui avait été définie par les Etats-Nations. On pense à une sécheresse qui ne va pas s’arrêter à la limite d’un pays, donc il y a vraiment cette nécessité de réinventer un cadre pour une politique qui soit adéquate.

Hans a parlé de cette exposition qu’on avait faite au ZKM - l’un des enjeux qui avait été vraiment important de développer c’était de montrer comment une entité qui n’était pas celle d’un Etat-Nation avait pu se développer, déployer son territoire sur différents endroits, et donc on avait proposé à la Territorial Agency de déployer, à partir des données qu’ils avaient récupéré de Greenpeace, des grandes images qui montraient l’empreinte d’un réseau du pétrole dans un territoire et son impact. Ce qui était intéressant avec ces immenses panneaux d’aluminium qui nous montraient des territoires dans lesquels l’industrie pétrolière s’insérait, que ce soit en Alaska, que ce soit au Texas, c’est qu’à chaque fois ils montraient comment est-ce que la déforestation s’opérait, ou bien comment est-ce que des fossés, des puits pétroliers étaient créés, des formes d’empreintes, d’emprises sur le sol. Et du coup il nous permettait de voir comment est-ce qu’une entité, comme une industrie, déployait son territoire.

Donc l’un des points qui je pense est particulièrement important à développer si on veut arriver à une représentation des territoires à l’heure de la mutation écologique c’est de développer un point de vue qui ne soit pas forcément externe, qui ne soit pas forcément à l’extérieur du monde, comme le serait la planète bleue dont on parlait tout à l’heure mais qui soit dedans et là il y a tout un travail qui est à faire, de vraiment se rendre compte de cette très fine surface dans laquelle on se trouve, qui mesure que quelques kilomètres de haut et que quelques kilomètres de bas, cette très fine enveloppe dans laquelle la vie peut se constituer, c’est , les scientifiques l’appellent la « zone critique » et c’est donc finalement par rapport à cette espèce d’idée d’unité complètement lissée, d’homogénéisation, cette zone est complètement hétéroclite, hétérogène et c’est là où il y a vraiment tout un enjeu à développer, à déployer par des collaborations entre des artistes, des scientifiques, c’est essayer de se réimaginer, de recréer une image qui permettre de mobiliser la pensée, donc qui ne soit pas en dehors du monde, mais qui soit dedans, qui ne considère pas que, qui ne saute pas tout de suite à une échelle globale qui ne nous permet pas de saisir toute la complexité des enjeux qui sont tous interconnectés mais qui ne réagissent pas forcément, qui n’obéissent pas forcément à des formes de hiérarchie qui sont définies comme l’on fait les Etats-Nations et les politiques des Etats-Nations jusqu’à maintenant et je pense que le travail d’Edouard Glissant et toute sa pensée sur la connexion des différentes parties, des territoires et tout le travail qu’il a fait sur la lutte de l’homogénéisation sont particulièrement importantes dans ce contexte comme un outil qui nous permette de penser la connexion et pas l’homogénéisation.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Je voulais te demander de nous parler peut-être du lien au texte qu’on a dans le catalogue – le Manifeste Compositionniste – et Glissant.

Martin Guinard :

Je pense que là-dessus, ce qui est saillant tout de suite c’est le fait que, le Manifeste Compositionniste c’est vraiment cette idée que le tout est plus petit que les parties qui le composent. Chacune finalement, le tout n’est jamais plus que la somme des parties, et c’est à ces différentes parties auxquelles il faut faire attention si on veut développer une forme de pensée qui soit capable de capter ce phénomène là, et chez Glissant on a - encore une fois dans sa volonté d’éviter toutes formes d’homogénéisation, de passer à la mauvaise échelle qui lisse les différences -, on a toujours cette attention aux différents fragments, aux différents éléments de l’archipel qui permettent aux uns et aux autres d’interagir, donc je pense que c’est vraiment sur cette réarticulation entre le tout et les parties, le local et le global que les deux pensées se rejoignent et l’inadéquation des liens qu’on a pensé, à présent pour lier ces deux échelles.

Asad Raza:

Do you think Martin, that Latour, I feel for me the composition manifesto was very appropriate text to put in this book because it thinks about the whole work, like the Tout- Monde but do you think that the poetic, because in my opinion Latour’s work is about this, I would say is about dismantling critique but it's not necessarily so poetic as Glissant’s concepts, so I wonder what you think would be the status of the composition manifesto in relation to this kind of poetic character of Glissant’s work?

Martin Guinard:

That's a complicated one because indeed it doesn't deal much with the motion of poetry within the text and actually as I was highlighting a little bit in the beginning of my talk I think that the two conceptual universes here are different ones, really like they are both thinking through various resources like Latour has this sort of obsession with empirical studies … Latour a cette espèce d’obsession d’avoir une pensée qui soit toujours empirique, qui soit toujours basée dans des éléments qu’il a récupéré sur le terrain, ça c’est vraiment son lien avec l’anthropologie. Glissant lui façonne sa pensée à partir du texte qu’il travaille comme poète, donc évidemment je pense que ça donne des ouvertures qui sont assez différentes mais les deux partagent quand même cette intuition - je pense assez profondément - sur le lien en fait entre le tout et les parties et donc je pense que le texte qui est là est assez bref et donc se concentre plus sur les champs de prédilection de Latour. Mais les deux pensées sont, bien que pas similaires, compatibles, en fait.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

Thank you so much....

Daniel Boyd

Hans-Ulrich Obrist: And Daniel to begin with the beginning it all began with this mysterious portrait you made of Edouard Glissant which made me sort of aware of your interest in Glissant’s work which is a portrait in the collection of Okwui Enwezor, can you tell us a little bit about what connects you to Glissant, how you came to him?

Daniel Boyd:

I guess well I was curating into his exhibition in Venice and I was completely unaware of Glissant until his exhibition in Venice and it wasn't until this time that Molly Nesbitt made me aware of his ideas and it was quite interesting that what I was trying to do with my art was kind of running parallel or I was kind of trying to think about these very similar ideas and so when I became aware of these, this kind of parallel or relationship with Glissant’s work that it kind of made sense that we were thinking about the same thing.

And I, I thought it was a, you know, would be a nice gesture to give a [unclear 00.10].

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

And which tracks of the [unclear 00.15]. Inspired you, can you tell us about that? In a way it’s, it’s a toolbox for you.

Daniel Boyd:

Yeah, I become very interested in his poetry, I, I guess the language of poetry and the kind of, the multiplicity of the language kind of, I’m very very interested in. I think it kind of, it works quite well with my, my paintings and my work in the way that it is about multiplicity, it’s about, you know, the way each kind of blends, relates to the bigger picture and I guess it’s, I’ve only just kind of recently come to poetry and, and it was this, the way that the language allows you to, you know, come in and out through different points of entry and engage with works that have so much weight. And the, also the, yeah, the, you know, the relation is quite interesting to me because of the kind of formal aspects of my painting or my process in art making. I think also being an Australian, growing up in the tropics I kind of have this relationship to landscape that’s kind of similar to Garcon my work was organised by a British, I first, when, while I was at Art school I was kind of began looking at the kind of the renaissance of the British Empire and how that kind of, you know, how that, how it informs our relationships today. In particular in that landscape, so that, my particular landscape. But I think a lot of the ideas, [unclear 03.12] ideas in that landscape are quite important to me as well because I see those things in my own, you know, where I was born, where I grew up and I’ve always had an affinity with, with the Caribbean and the Caribbean Islands. Firstly through music but then through [unclear 03.42] and, and people liked his art. So, it was, I guess it was the kind of, the kind of similarities between the two, two different landscapes and, and, you know, what they kind of mean to me like, you know.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist

[unclear 04.11] started from his portraits and the whole process and maybe it’s good to hear a bit more about this because [unclear 04.21] hero started in the middle, there is a test of your piece in Assad’s’ office. Maybe it’s good to hear, hear a little bit about the genesis of the room?

Daniel Boyd:

Okay, so basically, I started with painting and I kind of moved into, you know, I kind of realised I had this language and it was just about translating that language to allow people to understand that space. It’s between lenses, I think [unclear 04.58] said something like experience of the abyss both inside and outside of the abyss and I kind of think that that’s quite a, I think it’s a good thing to have when you viewed the work up in the room. So, it’s, basically it’s about making this, this space visible, this kind of space that receded so that you only understood the, the information by knowing that there was stuff that, that was, that has an association with something like the landscape here. For example, the, the window installation. It is, it’s making people aware of the kind of, the layered history, the kind of, the interactions with this place over time. So, it’s breaking that down so that you hopefully get a sense of, that there is, that there is, that so individually perceive the outer space of this landscape, this experience with the, the immediate experience with the work and your relationship to this place. And so, it’s, it’s just a tool for me to have the viewer understand that space.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist

That was very interesting I think for the people who haven’t seen the room, I can just say that it’s the opposite [unclear 07.08] dorm which is the Chambre de Madame, Chambre de Monsieur on this side and the windows have all been treated, the windows are an installation of Dianne’s work. Can I describe it?

Daniel Boyd:

Yes.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist

This little here can become black vinyl or kind of, but there are many circles of different sizes cut out in there. So, there’s the production, the multiplicity of points of view but also subtraction of a lot of information. I think there’s something about your work that works with subtraction and multiplication at the same time. This one I see, from what I see, and I also know that recently you did a book in which you used, you took fragments of Aimeé Cesairé poetry and Cesairé being the teacher of both [unclear 08.05] and I was wondering, did [unclear 08.10] lead you to Cesairé or was it the other way around? And also, how do you treat those, how do you choose what to select? Because in a way you subtract by, you create by subtracting from a picture, I see it on this, that’s how it seems in that book but what’s the process, what you choose and what to leave?

Daniel Boyd:

Well it’s just a, it’s kind of like, I kind of feel all the way through it’s just a random process of a ratio and the, the [unclear 08.47] led me to Cesaire and so kind of in this, in this moment where there are, you know, these stickers that I find run, run parallel to what I was, it was quite interesting when we came to Australia, I had no understanding of any of these people and it was really quite an experience to come and find them because afterward what I was trying to find was [unclear 08.33] and, and so it’s, I mean the whole thing is, can be, both the windows and the painting scan be quite local, like a localised thing but it can also be, you know, about the kind of experience of time and space as well. So, it’s not only thinking about the, the kind of alliance, it’s thinking about the kind of alliance in relationship to, like, you know, quantum physics and the universe or the kind of molecular kind of makeup of us and, and how we are all bound by, you know, this energy or this kind of, this matter. And so, in one sense it’s kind of grounded in the kind of, the universe in that sense but then it’s also localised to personal experience or experience on, you know, kind of groups. So, thinking about the groupings of people or experiences as well is the, is like an individual’s experience that…

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Yeah, no no. That makes a lot of sense. Also it seems to be, it’s interesting the lots of different scales what you, what you’re proposing because you said something about the molecular and about this very very small scale and that’s also the universe and quantum kind of. So it’s the micro and the macro somehow and, and I also find it, for me it’s interesting that you, that for you, you’re able to, you seem to be able, you seem to have been able to immediately connect to his thinking despite the fact his thinking is often used as a very specific metaphor for a very specific to a landscape of the [unclear 11.42] the key , you know, [unclear 11.46] and also, and also as you mentioned that you are Australian so I was wondering also do you think because [unclear 11.54] continental thinking is too monolithic and the thinking of the archaeological is a better model for thinking. So, I’m just also wondering if, for you, was Australian thinking too monolithic or is that too facile a thing for me to say?

Daniel Boyd:

Well I’m native Australian and before the British came to Australia there were three hundred and fifty or so Aboriginal nations in Australia. So, I kind of, I, there is a, I think also like the, the kind of lineage of British history to the landscape is, is kind of one that I, in Australia that I, that is very different to the places. I mean where I’m from in the tropics we have those islands and it’s through colonisation I think we, we have, we have lots of cultural inheritance, like for example in, in Australia true colonisation and when I began looking at, you know, this kind of process of making it, it was about the, you know, the kind of denial of my cultural inheritance and so, I think I’m going a little bit off.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

No no.

Daniel Boyd:

It’s kind of, it kind of began at that point, you know, being asked what I was denied culturally and then it kind of, so what I think, what I’m interested in is also [unclear 14.17] I began looking at the colonisation of the, you know, the kind of, the movement of people. Some of the things that happened so my great great grandfather is from Ballarat, I’m not sure if anyone know where that is but it’s in the Pacific, he was taken to the tropics to work as a slave in the sugar plantations. And so, this, this kind of, you know, the different relationships to particular landscapes for me is quite an interesting thing because I’m, to me there is some familiarity there. Although I’ve never been back to Ballarat I understand that the landscape looks exactly the same as where he ended up in these plantations. And so, yeah, I, I’m kind of, you know, the movement march of people or, between spaces is interesting as well for me. Yes, I mean I can look at it in a similar way but it’s, yeah, it’s that idea of, of these kinds of records that speak across, across space. I, I’ve recently been kind of interested in, for example Joseph Bates was the, he kind of drove the colony moving to the British perimeter in volumes in Australia and I’m, I began looking at him, him in particular but his relationship to the economy of agriculture and how the British people got to drive the Empire and at the moment I’m thinking about the kind of breakthrough, it’s a kind of metaphor for this kind of, you know, using the kind of link to that landscape so creating a connection between Tahiti, Australia and the West Indies, Jamaica and kind of, you know, understanding that, that the breakthrough has all these kinds of like associations. I’ve kind of looked at this before. Previously which works, I kind of looked at my ancestry and my relationship to the [unclear 18.05] which was previously called the New Hebrides and so, you know, this idea of projecting onto landscapes so like the, you know, the New Hebrides, New South Wales in Australia, you know, bringing these kind of understandings and projecting them onto a landscape and onto people. So, I kind of, I kind of, yeah, I, I like these, these symbols that kind of connect people, you know, this kind of low objects or, you know, like a grapefruit, how that can connect two different landscapes through the process of colonisation and slavery.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

It almost echoes some kind of, it’s a metaphor but also in a way a kind of connection between systems of circulation on relation, that was fascinating. I want to ask one more question, but we have to go quick now I think, so I’ll just do the last question here. And so, now that you entered now you’re working on a portrait with Cesairé, you’re working on the breadfruit, would you, are you continuing to work directly with the texture of these now or are you soon moving towards new figures?

Daniel Boyd:

No, it is, I’m just kind of, so I’ve, I’m happy to be consumed by this work and I’m happy for that work, I’m happy for that to happen, so yeah.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Thank you so so much and I hope you can all experience some of the [unclear 20.13]. Thank you.

Raqs Media Collective

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Okay great. So we’ll move on now to the Raqs Media Collective and I believe we’re going to start with a short video presentation is that correct? A very, very warm welcome to Raqs Media Collective.

Applause.

Raqs Media Collective :

I could talk about that.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Could you say a few words maybe to introduce, when we spoke earlier today we discussed that actually for your piece you know you’re amazing space upstairs it [unclear 00:49] your own work. So it would be great to hear a little bit more of this.

Raqs Media Collective :

Yeah thank you for actually pushing us to re-encounter this [unclear 01:00] as part of this for us [unclear 01:04] some people who are growing up, working, doing everything in the south [unclear 01:10] or at least [unclear 01:12]. You think some of those things you know you can inspire them. And then you sort of put them aside because then you have to do things and make things and live things and try [unclear 01:24] and make your own mistakes and see what you can do with life and what life can do with you. And it is interesting then to return as it were by your invitation to some of the ideas that perhaps have been submerged. And if you [unclear 01:42] you can see is very relative of how we think. It is only when we are in submergence that there can be a direction that you can sort of…and in that sense the [unclear 01:54] interestingly because you know [unclear 01:57] is fundamentally a [unclear 01:59] inventiveness. It is not like [unclear 02:02]. It is not about finding something balanced, it is about being inventive.

And I think what we are doing or what this whole space that we’ve made is it is a kind of innovative search. A search for what can happen when you become inventive and sort of thinking about [unclear 02:23] [unclear talking over speaker 02:28] speaking back, the machine is speaking back. And that’s quite relevant because if you look at images upstairs it is a relationship between the human body and the [unclear 02:39] and how that has you know transformed and how we have to find a relationship of inventiveness, with technology it is not one [unclear 02:50] even where technology is concerned. And also where the [unclear 02:56] in the upper most sense, so there is that the body has to inhabit that kind of sector. So if you witness perhaps [unclear 03:06] it is constituted of the animal and the machine. And also I think one thing that I did want to, one moment of [unclear 03:19] I think we would like to mention is in his poetry when he says [unclear 03:25] he says, I am quoting here, the poem recited [unclear 03:32] to the trees. And the trees they tell him this language that seizes you is not from you, dig for your words. And for us it was also quite interesting because the name of the work is Present Tomorrow and if you [unclear 03:49] here it was also about [unclear 03:53] with language. So Present Tomorrow is one of those words and there is others like memory and schizophrenia and even words like [unclear 04:04] exist. But as [unclear 04:07] says I change before I exchange and sort of allowing change to happen in terms of [unclear 04:16] I suppose is how.

So in a way we are not illustrating [unclear 04:20], we’re not taking from [unclear 04:23] ideas, it is like he says it has to be the beginning of doing things yourself. It is a beginning of making yourself and that’s what we’re trying to do with this thing here and I would just take a moment to clear this.

So what I’m going to do is I’m going to read, well I’m not going to read it because you can read it yourselves, [unclear 04:47].

[Unclear 05:59] so you have to just [unclear 06:05] historically how such a [unclear 06:10] possible history [unclear 06:11]. I mean also the female [unclear 06:17] so the one thing is [unclear 06:26]. It is very bright I don’t know if you can read it? You can or you can’t?

Raqs Media Collective :

[Unclear 06:42].

Okay so sometimes some ideas are [unclear 06:46] surgical evaluation for operation undertaken to [unclear 06:55] excessive. [Unclear 07:01] with the body and [unclear 07:06]. These growths [unclear 07:09] maybe just [unclear 07:11] designed to camouflage [unclear 07:17] of how [unclear 07:20]. And so sometimes what we need is a historic [unclear 07:23] which is what [unclear 07:26]. And these [unclear 07:29] so we must find [unclear 07:37] the main issues. We have [unclear 07:41] between [unclear 07:43] decay and between decaying and being born maybe. The other subject [unclear 07:55] but this is [unclear 08:00] and just [unclear 08:03]. This is an image from the video so which I hope you will see and it is from the videos upstairs. This is so bright. The sunshine. [Unclear 08:22] and so we [unclear 08:29] but in the last [unclear 08:34] design to let the [unclear 08:38] itself of [unclear 08:42] universal stress and I think this, each of them has [unclear 08:48]. And I think it is interesting how for us it became both [unclear 08:56] and it is also about [unclear 08:58].

[Unclear 09:05] the few [unclear 09:17]. It is a [unclear 09:20] for humans and other bovines. How we and how [unclear 09:28] and who we [unclear 09:29]. So this is all kind of the faith in the words that are being made of the images that have been made and also thinking of allowing the boundaries to blur all over the place and [unclear 09:44] opening [unclear 09:47].

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

Applause.

Are there any questions? Please don’t leave us yet because I have a very important question. There was something I wanted to ask you for a while in relation to [unclear 10:04] we never had an opportunity to talk about. It is basically we talked earlier today about the problem on the [unclear 10:09] and the importance of resource concept of [unclear 10:13] in a way I mean [unclear 10:15] send us his message the world needs togetherness not separation, love not suspicion, a common future not isolation and we only seem to face the situation in the backlash of [unclear 10:25] leads to these forces of separation, suspicion, isolation [unclear 10:32] there is a very strong [unclear 10:33] also in India with forces of nationalism etc. So I was just wondering in a way if you could talk a little bit about that and to which [unclear 10:41] maybe you know [unclear 10:43] could be a tool box in India in the current situation?

Raqs Media Collective :

Well I’m sure most of you know what is happening not just in India but in many parts of the world. And I think for me again the question was [unclear 10:57] that is something that it is a more [unclear 11:00] right and if you could for example [unclear 11:02] especially [unclear 11:05] you know came into [unclear 11:08] and elected by a voting majority [unclear 11:12] a bigger majority in terms of votes and in the last 18 or 20 years. But what was really interesting was [unclear 11:21] see in [unclear 11:25] especially in social media because it is at the high level of being able to share. And it is incredible because you can, it is only when you can see, you can laugh at something that you can actually put it in its place and not sort of be you know it is not [unclear 11:44] but just a [unclear 11:47] it cannot be [unclear 11:49]. And I think that the way [unclear 11:53] talks about [unclear 11:54] in the world it asks you to not give up on the terms of [unclear 12:01] they set you but to sort of set out new ones. [Unclear 12:05] tools from their tool box.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Thank you. Do you have a question?

Raqs Media Collective :

I just wondered if you could say something about [unclear 12:19] making this piece here because I believe this is the first time that you combined, that he combined things that were already there [unclear 12:28] but very strongly [unclear 12:31] a new piece, is that a new method for you?

Raqs Media Collective :

Yes absolutely and I think this is what is, that’s what I was saying [unclear 12:40] really deeply [unclear 12:42] set of ideas that you might have [unclear 12:46] or encountered or not. But this is the interesting thing what has been the best part of this whole process is when you feel that the thing that you’ve been thinking about and thinking through and thinking with you find an echo from the past which also [unclear 13:02] of the future and this is what it felt like working on this work, which was [unclear 13:08] encounter. Not everything is old but the way it has been played with is completely new and some of the material is new. But I think that sense of echoing that you feel is coming from both sections of time from your own future and from the ideas of the past which there is no time to…

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Aneka thank you so, so much. Thank you for…

Applause.

Valerio Adami et Antonio Segui

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Bienvenue à Antonio Segui.

Je voulais commencer par le commencement, comment vous vous êtes rencontrés avec Edouard, au début, et on en a parlé un peu, avant aujourd’hui mais pas en profondeur et ça serait intéressant de parler plus sur cette situation de la Galerie du Dragon. C’est une situation très exceptionnelle qu’un poète 00.58 une galerie et que cette galerie d’une certaine façon, Sylvie nous en a parlé, que cette galerie d’une certaine façon a rassemblé les artistes, les poètes, les écrivains, autour de vous deux, autour de Matta, avec Edouard donc, peut-être on pourrait commencer par ça, par vos mémoires de la Galerie du Dragon et à l’importance que ça a joué pour vous tous, pour vous rencontrer.

Antonio Segui :

Effectivement j’ai connu Edouard à la Galerie du Dragon, à une époque où il a joué un rôle très important à Paris. D’abord je 01.31-01.40 la première 01.43-01.45 au début des années 50 avec l’exposition de Jackson Pollock à Paris.

Quelques temps après c’est 01.56, un poète qui a acheté la galerie, qui s’est convertie en peu de temps dans un lieu de rencontre des artistes latino-américains, à l’époque où les artistes avaient des lieux pour se produire. A l’époque les argentins se produisaient au 02.21-02.24 sur le boulevard St Germain, n’est-ce pas, ou de temps en temps on se rencontrait 02.31 un endroit où ils se réunissaient avec des amis 02.37 – 02.41 dans le lieu où se réunissaient surtout les latino-américains disons avec une tendance pas loin du surréalisme, Matta, Lam, 02.57 et quelques autres, des péruviens, des colombiens aussi. Et à part des artistes, il y a avait des jeunes 03.11 qui venaient beaucoup à la galerie et c’est là 03.16 -03.22 avec notre ami Glissant.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Valério, vous pourriez nous parlez un peu de vos mémoires de la Galerie du Dragon ?

Valério Adami :

Non, je n’ai jamais eu affaire avec la Galerie du Dragon. A l’époque je travaillais avec une autre galerie, qui était 03.41 mais Edouard Glissant était un de mes meilleurs amis à l’époque et on avait aussi l’habitude de passer tous les étés chez moi sur le Lac Majeur. Des étés un peu compliqués, mais enfin des étés de grande affection. Qui m’avait présenté Edouard Glissant ? Un poète italien, Emilio Tadini, un très grand poète italien. Et ils étaient de très, très grands amis, donc à la fin j’ai invité Edouard à passer un été dans une maison que j’ai sur le Lac Majeur et là notre amitié est devenue une amitié très, très… Oui ma femme qui est devant moi, fais des gestes en disant 04.32 – 04.35 mais c’était les années 60. Enfin c’était une grande amitié avec Edouard. On a vu beaucoup de choses ensemble, on a fait des longs voyages, par exemple en Italie. On est descendu jusqu’en Sicile, jusqu’en Calabre où on avait loué une maison dans laquelle on a passé, je me souviens, tout notre été, dans une sorte de bras de fer. Qui sortait le matin avec le seul cheval qu’il y avait dans le village ? Le cheval qu’on avait loué n’est-ce pas ? Qui pouvait prendre en premier ce cheval ? Ou c’était moi, ou c’était lui. D’abord c’était lui. 05.21 -05.25 Et donc il y avait ce bras de fer sur la possession de ce cheval, qui s’appelait 05.34. Je me souviens du nom du cheval 05.37- 05.42 Mais c’était une grande amitié avec Glissant. Après on passait souvent de grande périodes sur le Lac Majeur chez moi, ensemble. Et c’est là qu’on avait créé une sorte de 06.00 dans laquelle chaque été on donnait des séminaires, des longs séminaires, 06.06 -06.08 par exemple était présente. 06.11-06.14 et puis il y avait quelques problèmes. Ils ne voulaient pas du tout partager 06.23 – 06.33

Antonio Segui :

Moi je me souviens d’un séminaire qu’Edouard avait fait en Martinique 06.39 – 06.46 et des amis. Nous dirons, il était assez souvent à table.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Et je voulais vous demander aussi puisqu’on a parlé cet après-midi sur ses activités de Glissant, non littéraires. Cette idée qu’il était allé au-delà de la théorie pour produire de la réalité. On en a parlé de ça, de son musée, du musée qu’il voulait créer en Martinique. Evidemment cela faisait aussi partie de son activisme politique, son amitié avec 07.24 La fondation de l’Institut Martinique d’Etudes en 67, cette idée de produire de la réalité. Chacun de vous a aussi eu ce désir de produire de la réalité. Antonio vous avez fait un musée ou un centre d’art en Argentine et Valério vous avez fait cette fondation européenne du dessin, notamment au Lac Majeur. Je voulais d’abord demander à Antonio de nous parler de cette expérience, puisqu’on en a discuté l’autre jour, c’était très intéressant.

Antonio Segui :

On en a parlé beaucoup avec Edouard parce que c’était quelques années avant qu’Edouard essayait de le faire. Moi je viens d’une ville d’un million d’habitants qui s’appelle Córdoba au nord de l’Argentine, où il n’y avait pas une institution, de portes ouvertes pour les jeunes artistes qui venaient 08.17 Et moi je pensais que l’expérience qu’il y avait à Córdoba, d’une biennale 08.26-08.30 ce qui est déjà le début de la fin 08.35 -08.41 Ce qu’il y avait en Argentine avant, c’est-à-dire les 08.47 – 08.58 Peintures et gravures de mes amis soixante 09.03-09.09 Qui continue à exister avec beaucoup de difficultés aujourd’hui, à cause de la situation difficile politique qu’on vit en Argentine depuis toujours.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Et Valerio vous pouvez nous parler de votre Institut, de cette Fondation du Dessin, donc une fondation 09.29 – 09.33

Valério Adami :

Oui, Edouard était complètement terrorisé par les serpents et dans le jardin, un grand jardin de 09.54 Lac Majeur, il y avait je pense un petit lézard comme ça, rien de plus, qui lui a traversé devant et Edouard était resté complètement traumatisé par ça. Donc je devais 10.15, l’emmener à la maison. Tant que la maison qu’on habitait 10.23-10.25 C’était je ne sais pas 50 mètres, pas plus, 60 mètres, mais je devais le prendre et l’emmener là-bas parce que la vision de ce petit lézard qui lui avait traversé devant l’avait complètement traumatisé. En fait c’était une très grande amitié avec lui 10.50- 10.59 car je pense que c’est lui qui me l’avait présenté. 11.02-11.07 Donc il y avait énormément de points communs 11.13-11.16

Avec Edouard je pense qu’on avait fait même un long voyage dans le sud de l’Italie. On était arrivé jusqu’en Calabre et là-bas on avait besoin d’un moyen de locomotion et il y avait deux chevaux qu’on pouvait louer et Edouard avait décidé… 11.55 qui est devant moi et qui me fait des gestes, peut-être qu’elle a des choses à dire… J’étais en train de parler d’Edouard et du fait qu’il avait habitué le seul cheval qu’on avait, qu’on se partageait à manger des spaghettis. Donc chaque midi on préparait des quantités de spaghettis pour pouvoir se nourrir, nous, et nourrir ce cheval qui était le seul signe de liberté qu’on avait là-bas. C’était un moment tout à fait extraordinaire 12.36

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Et un autre moment extraordinaire Antonio, c’était la visite de cette délégation martiniquaise dans votre studio et ça nous ramène évidement à votre implication dans le musée d’Edouard puisqu’Edouard était inspiré ou intrigué, intéressé par votre expérience en Argentine, par les difficultés, les solutions. Il est donc venu avec une délégation de Martinique chez vous. Vous pouvez peut-être nous parler de ça et de votre implication au musée de Martinique d’Edouard.

Antonio Segui :

Il y a quelques années de ça j’avais acheté une maison où j’habite maintenant, où j’ai trois étages, une cave et dans cette cave j’ai une petite collection d’art précolombien et c’était un exemple de ce qu’il voulait faire là-bas aussi. Et malheureusement dans mon cas je n’ai pas pu le faire à Córdoba parce que notre société à un peu honte que nos « arrières » sont des 13.44-13.53 avant la liberté 13.56-14.02 Et ça a commencé là mes problèmes avec le centre. Je n’ai pas eu beaucoup de dialogue avec le gouvernement et j’ai dû laisser les arts plastiques et graphiques et j’ai dû enlever tout ce que j’avais 14.20 – 14.23 La plus importante…

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Merci infiniment Antonio. Merci infiniment Valerio. Merci beaucoup.

Anjalika Sagar

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

We now have the immense pleasure to welcome Anjalika Sagar, a very warm welcome.

Anjalika Sagar :

It’s a very dangerous chair. Is it possible to have a glass of water?

Asad Raza :

We want her to read a text for us.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

But before the reading I wanted to ask you because I remember when we met for the very first time in London I had just moved to London, it must have been around 2006 and I think it was Callum and friends that I got to know you for the first time and we spoke about Glissant in the very first conversation so I wanted to ask you a little bit how you came to work with Glissant and what his work means to you before we go to the text.

Anjalika Sagar :

I think Glissant gave us a lot actually, I mean him in particular like Monica was talking about [15:56], James Baldwin and others [15:59] more recently but Glissant I think gave us a kind of technology for being able to kind if locate ourselves in a continuity with nomadism that had been, I would say experienced you know in our lives.

So it was a way of avoiding the kind of conditions or the restrictions of being identified and the pressures of having to produce identity within a kind of British context I suppose, I mean that sounds a little bit you know reductive but it kind of manifests in our name which is the Otolith group and otoliths are the crystals deep within your inner ear that guide your sense of orientation and balance in the world and we wanted to...we use this name as a way to kind of basically kind of like you know find a way to move out of being harvested within the racial economies of the cultural world that we are in.

This question avoids people saying, “Where are you from?” It’s like an interesting question but it can also be a policing question. You know so this kind of...the reason we call ourselves the Otolith group was number one because we wanted to think about how to be collective but also the kind of how to deal with ourselves as a kind of composition of many traces an this sense of the otolith which are the crystals that lie so deep within your inner ear which guide your sense of orientation and balance in the world came out the first film that we made which was called Otolith where we did a number of parabolic flights with the Russian space agency and experienced micro-gravity and so our relation to earth, ground, space, futurity and this question of you know potentials and like unsung futures were very important to us and kind of Glissant’s kind of notions of realisation in a way kind of gave us these kind of technologies to think about how the tensions of being one and a whole and the tensions of being multiple and this kind of question like Caligula antagonisms, how to live inside the difference with complexity were some of the ideas that were kind of you know important to us in terms of Glissant’s kind of technology of his poetry I suppose.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Thank you.

Anjalika Sagar :

So, I’m going to read this text, some of it at least. Is it possible to put the GlissantBot up on the screen now? Is it there. Ah, there he is. So, this is our project that’s in this this…I think there’s one in there and there’s one in the other room over there.

So as Lewis [19:01] rightly writes in the Sound of Culture, Diascra and Black Techno- poetics in 2015, the Caribbean lineage of realisation and its hostility to conventional orders and to autonomies is what makes Donna Harroway’s notion that by the late 20th century in the United States scientific culture…sorry…Donna Harroway’s notion that, and I quote, “By the late 20th century in the United States scientific culture,” the boundary between human and animal is thoroughly breached. A rightly influential but historically inaccurate statement.

[19:50] points to the ways in which the temporal and the geographic context of Harroway’s speculations on the [19:56] and the companion species can and should be extended beyond their North American [20:03] so as to think the post human conditions from the multipole perspective of the Caribbean, Latin America, East Africa, South Africa, West Africa and North Africa and from the moment in 1492 into the future.

Composed from…composed from…so yes sorry. Reorientating the time and space of post humanity within the colonial division of humanity makes evident the extent to which the writings and poetry of Edouard Glissant like that of the novelist and theorist Wilson Harris and the philosopher and novelist Sylvia Winter always concerns itself with the ontological transformation of the foundational categories of the human evolution, temporality and futurity.

Glissant’s depiction of realisation continually shifted in…sorry. Everything is on double pages…in scale and mood from the long [21:18 duray] and incomplete evolutionary process set in motion by the systemic economic predation of the Atlantic slave trade to the ambitions for urgent political change and the resources required for cultural agency within the Caribbean.

Glissant’s grand theme is the making of Caribbean’s. He enforced mutation and self- authorised reconstruction of Africans into Antilleans is evident everywhere in the landscapes, the oceans and the languages of the archipelagos and yet his insistence on realisation as a techno-social assemblage that unfolds in and through timescales that are oceanic and geological as much as historical and biradical produces profound effects of [22:08] and estrangement throughout his writing. The cross culturalism celebrated within his text often seems to occur independently of agency or will. In this aspect of Glissart clearly discernible in poems such as the [22:23] or poem [22:27], world making seems to emerge by themselves diminishing humanities promethean efforts as mastery.

This grand tendency towards a process that blindly steers the course of the planet is intimated by GlissantBot which began to tweet on the evening of 15 April 2017 and will continue to do so every 15 minutes day after day, night after night. The confrontational poems and speculations tweeted by GlissantBot are composed from sentences selected and extracted and recombined from a number of Glissant’s texts post 1981 including the poetics of relation.

So, the existence of GlissantBot effectively realises an ongoing debate that Glissant staged with himself throughout the 1980s which would eventually be published in the poetics of relation in 1990.

With some trepidation Glissant envisaged the future in which the oral and written poetry would converge with computation. He observed that many people have either a fascination with computers or merely a curiosity, this is a quote, “Many people have either a fascination with computers or merely a curiosity to see them cough up poetry.” He foresaw a role with the computer as a machine of synthesis and contingency that could function as a, and I quote, “Introduction and invitation to the binary speed for the operator’s last invented.” A roll of the dice endlessly resumed. Systemics and simultaneously stitched together synthesised and derived.

The combinatorial efficiency of the computer, however, rendered it unable to capture, and I quote, “Vivid contrast among the languages of the world which constitute the desiring flesh of the poem.” What the computer could offer instead was access to a totality that could continually expand. The computer could become, and I quote, “The privilege instrument of someone wanting to follow any hole whose variance multiplied vertiginously.”

It is useful for suggesting what is stable within the unstable. What Glissant discerned was both the computer’s capacity to generate what we now call a data set and the usefulness of what is commonly described as being data.

The ultimate outcome of these mathematical tendencies was not poetry, instead, Glissant declared the computer, and I quote, “Could show the way to poetics.”

Glissant’s understanding of realisation as an impersonal process of technological evolution that was not determined as much as it was piloted alerted him to the implications of the industrialisation cognition as mathematically recursive instruction.

What is at stake in the algorithmic créolite tweeted by at the GlissantBot is not merely a matter of classified tweets as recombinant poetics or machine fiction or robo philosophy fascinating as these topics are on the contrary GlissantBot’s engineering créolisation can and should be understood as a techno-social process of evolution that includes but exceeds language. Créolisation extends beyond poetry, philosophy and fiction, all of it which does indeed process and reprocess. Créolisation tends unstoppably in personal need towards the antilogical transformation of the foundational categories of the human. The opposed recombination of créolisation through the randomising operation of the market chain announces an externalisation of the cognition that is rendered as a functional process. From this perspective it becomes clear that specifically [26:35] and speech patterns of créolite could be said to have already been reprocessed in the French language.

For Glissant certain kinds of poetry in certain kinds of créolite and certain poetics of créolite already possess an imaginary technicity. That is to say certain kind of poetry and specific modes of créolite can be understood as always already machining. This believe in the technicity of poetic knowledge allows Glissant to save poetry and créolite from computation. If poetry and créolite are already and always were computational then neither of them need computers.

The role at GlissantBot is not to conserve the border between machines, humans, poetry and algorithms insisted on by Glissant. Instead it claims it inhabits, circulates and multiplies in the tech through dynamics of the Twittersphere in a global landscape populated by millions of bulgaricus bots in the anonymous humans that thrive on cunning, hostility, charm and duplicity. The future destiny of that GlissantBot is an experiment in scale and evolution that is random fixed, becoming aleatory, impersonal, affective, blind and bulbous.

You can all follow at GlissantBot every 15 minutes you know all we basically put all these books by Glissant into the data set and every 15 minutes the bot takes certain quotes randomly from one of these books, combines them and puts them into the world. For us this is a way to counter you know Donald Trump, I think we’ve got to think about it like a post-Trumpian aesthetic in a way, like how to produce a kind of populism of good things like Glissant. So, you know the more people that re- tweet and join and follow Glissant he is constantly speaking you know we can maybe try and do that.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Thank you so much.

Manthia Diawara

Hans-Ulrich Obrist: It is now I have immense pleasure to introduce Manthia Diawara who heroically made to Brussels from Athens by New York. So, a very warm welcome to Manthia.

So shall we speak in English ? That’s better. Who doesn’t follow French. Are they many people here who don’t follow French then we probably should do it in English? Right we do it in English. So Manthia, as I said Sylvie and Edouard always urged a meeting between us and actually it’s wonderful because the preparation of the exhibition finally made it happen that Asad and I could spend a lot of time with you. We met several times in New York and we met also through the resistances project with the [30:31] project with [30:32] but I wanted to kind of go back to the beginning and ask you how you met Glissant first. How it all began.

Manthia Diawara :

Thank you, Hans. I actually as a student of black studies in the United States have always known Glissant in a sense that you have to read Glissant when you come out of negritude. The negritude movement, you come out of black countries there’s movement, the [31:07] then you have to read following Glissant so in that sense I’ve always known Glissant.

As a human, and I was afraid of him, I was…you know I would see him in places and then you know I will avoid, I didn’t want to be confronted with Glissant. It was only in the 90s that you know there was some kind of generosity, some kind of intuition on the part of Sylvie and Edouard, they just welcomed me and I couldn’t believe it myself. So really very early in the 90s we suddenly become very, very good friends. I would go to their place, they’d come to my place and we did exchanges like that so it would be very recent. It’s very recent.

I had read all the work but I was afraid of the man. So…

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

And how did the idea grow on you to make this film because you of course made this extraordinary film which is here in the exhibition and which is actually a very small extract of the many, many hours of interviews you did with Edouard, of conferences you filmed with Edouard. How did this idea of the film grow?

Manthia Diawara :

Yeah, you know allow me before I get to the film I heard two or three things today that really moved me. The first one was the encounter between [32:35] and Edouard which resulted in [32:39] of the other that mass students read all the time and today to hear somebody who read the Glissant side of that story where Glissant is basically saying that [32:54] was a mono-taste and that God was a jealous God whereas Glissant and others always were saying the same thing by the way, believed in the [pantienne 33:07] of God which are not jealous Gods, which are not Gods that do forced conversion, which are not Gods which kill you if you don’t become part of their religion but yet which…these Gods survive in the world. You know in Haiti, in Brasil even more than Africa. These Gods survive and they are also worshiped not just by black people but by people of different Caucasian descent so to hear that today I was very moved. The concept of a jealous God and the concept of the relation of God. That was really beautiful and then finally when Antonia [Sergi 33:54] says something like Glissant was afraid of snakes and when I see a rope sometimes I think it’s going to turn into a snake so I get paranoid. So, I was very relieved that I’m not the only person to be afraid of snakes. This really was wonderful to listen to that story. Sit here and hear, you know people like [Beckett 34:19], people like, I don’t know [34:20] coming to the galley, [34:24]. That was wonderful. Thank you for organising that. That really took me to school. That was really great. Thank you very much.

The film you know many people do not realise this but Glissant I think went to [34:40] right, went to the [34:46] so he’s very interested in film, loved [Jean Rouche 34:50], loved many film makers like that and knew that I was in film and I have been really begging to make a film on him for a long time but I made a mistake. I said you now you went to [35:05], how do I make a film on you? So, he looked at me and he said, “Well the reason why I left [35:13] is because of Montage. You know so the life there is not poetic so what you do is you just take the camera, point to the water and that’s the film otherwise you’re not telling the truth.” Then he said, “[35:30 French Speaking]” Because Jean does [35:36] whereas other people do [35:41] and so on.

So that was a learning point for me and I think I was really…when he asked me how did I make the film I think another way of answering the question is really why did I fall so deeply in love with Glissant? Coming out of black studies in the United States, Glissant in a way and I will recommend he’s [36:14] to everybody here. I think it’s one of the best books every written. We all know Tout-Monde, great books, the Philosophy [36:22] but Faulkner Mississippi talks about a condition. In Faulkner Mississippi Glissant basically is telling African Americans to read Falkner. Yes, he’s racist. He’s black so you don’t see their faces. They are like silhouettes.

The Indians are very distant from the centre of the description and the whites are there and the whites do always want to hold on to their genealogical dream. You know you don’t want any mixture, you want purity of blood. But Glissant said maybe read him because when you read him first you understand America because all the whites who want to be pure are actually corrupt some place. They have been mixed some place and they are hiding it but some place deep down you keep going and that’s what they are hiding and the whole style of Faulkner therefore becomes revealing and hiding.

He said but if you begin to read Faulkner then you know that all we need is to bring the blacks, the Indians and the whites together and then you have the solution of America. This is what’s happening but every American denies it. Black American don’t want it. Indians don’t want it and especially whites don’t want it.

So that critique reveals to me the critique of the genealogical to the level we have been talking about. The roots. So, the multiplicity of identities.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Which of course he addresses also in [37:56] and the other one [37:59] book which is not read enough. No?

Manthia Diawara :

I think so. So really, I wanted Edouard to explain that to me on film so I said, but remember I’m an American now, I was born and raised in Africa but I’m an American and in America near time says ninth grade has to be able to read the New York Times if not it’s not useful. So Glissant looks at me, “So you want me to [38:31]?” I want him to explain his theory to me so I can explain it to people in America. So, he just said, “[38:42].” So, we left it at that and then we actually had with Sylvie and [38:47] at that dinner and Edouard was supposed to fly to the United States and his health did not allow him to take planes all the time and we took the Queen Mary II. For five or six days we were on the boat and every day I talked to him and that really changed me completely. Yeah, so that’s how between us came about.

But the film really came about as an attempt to explain Glissant to the American situation. So, I mean Glissant himself says, “You have your place,” what he calls [lure locale 39:35] but think with the world. [Pense avec le monde].”

So, I wanted to use the American condition and think with the world. That’s really what the film is about.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

So Manthia you are also in the process of making a film. We have [masked 39:54] this large door of footage of Glissant attempting to speak about his work. Did you use that footage a lot in the exhibition? We have a key moment in the exhibition when we finally hear him explaining his five concepts pensée du tremblement, créolisation, mondialité, [40:13] and opacité so I was wondering if you think in this effort of saying it clear do we lose something that you get if you still read him or did you feel that it’s been basically a faithful transcription to the ideas or translations?

Manthia Diawara :

First of all, the clips that I have here again you cannot do Glissant if you do not believe in magic, if you don’t believe in intuition, if you don’t believe in you know these ways of communicating with the seen and the unseen, the heard and the unheard. When you two ask me to do something on Glissant with my daughter we went to my archives and I found this clip in about one hour 20 minutes and Glissant was invited to an event in Martinique, [41:20], I don’t know if you remember Sylvie? Okay even though we remember this because I didn’t know either but my daughter found this, they had invited Glissant to come and give a keynote speech and in this Glissant said, “Well I don’t want to go.” I said to Glissant, “Why don’t I film you and then we send a DVD to them?” So, you know we’re talking about technology here and videos.

So, I went there and filmed him and he actually takes every single one of his concepts and explains in this video. Then my daughter showed it to me and I said, “Wow, I’ve never heard this before,” so he goes from realisation to archipelago to opacité to you know every single concept but you told me to choose five so I only have five up there. But I was so shocked. I didn’t know I had it you know so it’s magic.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

It’s magic because it’s unbelievably clear. He summarises the entire exhibition and we transferred edited out so we have the five. We’ve been talking all day about these five. Which other ones are there? Which ones have been edited out?

Manthia Diawara :

So actually, I have five concepts, créolisation, mondialité, so that’s two, opacité, realisation, archipelago so sometime when I can’t perform a whole grouping of chapters with let’s say [43:04] so I put some of the [43:07] inside mondialité or inside the archipelago.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

So, you cheat?

Manthia Diawara :

Yeah, in that sense and sometime when I can’t find space for tremblement I take tremblement and put it inside whatever it is relating to. So yeah, I didn’t leave out a lot of things in that sense. You know his relation to Caribbean, his relation to Africa, the United States because he really wanted to, in one lecture, explain his ideas to people and he begin…this is why I love the Antonia Sergi and [43:50] now when they said Michelle [43:51] was going to this [43:55] gallery. Well Glissant began his conversation and he said, “If I’m too complex to be in this [44:06], as Michelle [44:07] said, “Don’t blame me, I’m not the one who’s complex but it’s the world that’s complex.”” That’s the way he begins conferences. So, I thought. Then Michelle [44:18] name was mentioned here and I thought that was quite interesting.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

There’s a question I wanted to ask which is we were just in Athens where your new film was careered as a major part of the document that just opened in Athens and your film is called An Opera of the World, it’s about an opera being introduced by [44:42] which is where you are from originally and so I was wondering what…because that experience of making the film Edouard Glissant [44:51] relation as you say changed your life so tell us about the relation between you know that film and the new film An Opera of the World which I guess we’re all going to get to see in Athens or here in Brussels.

Manthia Diawara :

You know I had forgotten one thing. Hans said to day, Hans-Ulrich said today that he mentioned the word [45:18] or the other way round and I read that in [45:21] which is also a great book by the way because he is explaining the two monde and the concept in that book also and in 2007 I went to [45:40] for the premier of an opera film, an opera [45:48], Nigel Weaver produced an opera so I said the [45:51] Foundation Amsterdam had invited me to the premier so I said okay if I come I have to bring my cameras. So, I filmed and then long story short they invited me to do a project and I said I want to do the opera and then I went to see Alexander [46:10] who has seen more than 8,000 operas, who knows everything about opera so what I wanted to do was to do an opera more of less making of the [Bamako 46:24] opera but I suddenly realised that Bamako opera, African leading Africa to go to Europe is actually Walter Benjamin leaving Europe to go to America. It’s the Albanian leaving some place to go to another place. It’s the Syrian leaving Syria to go to another place. That’s why I thought about Glissant and [46:47] opera of the world.

So, the film now has become really an opera that is attempting to show immigration with Glissant’s ideas because there is a citation of Glissant in the film which is a beautiful one where he says, “I’d rather be the person attempting to cross the border than the person guarding the border,” because the person crossing the border is full of ideas. He has dreams, had hopes, wants to change the world. The person standing at the border has no idea. Just stop time in many ways. So, he’d…Glissant said he’d rather be the person attempting to cross the border.

So, the film is about those kinds of things.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

We spoke about your amazing work on Edouard Glissant. We spoke about your amazing work in Athens. We spoke about your amazing work in Athens and your amazing work on Glissant. Now obviously Edouard had these unrealised projects to build a museum in Martinique and many of the artists present today [48;06] to get involved in his museum. He wanted to actually go beyond his literary and theoretical work and produce reality as has done earlier on with liberating Martinique from the French as he talked earlier on with his school. His incredibly French school and so his art realised museum he somehow became a [48:25] and he explained beautifully, he became a nomadic museum. He still realised it and today what we do here is another iteration we can say of this nomadic museum and we hope that it’s going to go to many more cities and that we can let it evolve and let it grow.

I wanted to kind of ask you a last question which is if you had any unrealised projects because we spoke about your realised feelings and I was wondering if you had any utopias in the Glissantian sense, non-static utopias, dynamic utopias.

Manthia Diawara :

By the way I mean when you come to these places you learn so much. I love the definition of utopia that you gave today from Glissant that is his meeting the other or relating to the other. It’s that space. I love that.

Do I have an unrealised utopia? I thought you were going to ask me a question about this utopia in Glissant’s museum because we talk a lot about him with Sylvie and how he wanted to do it and the power struggles and all these things. But if it’s me, I think my unrealised utopia is the writing that I’ve been trying to do or films that are never finished, that are never finished and that I keep doing and, for example, now my biggest writing project really is this.

63 going on 64 I’m supposed to be a famous professor in an American university. I’m from Africa, I can’t help anybody. You know I’m successful but I can’t help anybody. I mean how do you analyse that. You know when I go to places people think I can do all kind of things and I can’t do anything. I get a big salary, you know I write books, I get invited to these kinds of places but when I go to Bamako I can’t help anybody. So how to fix things so that I can help somebody is really my biggest utopia and I’ve been trying to write about it. I don’t know what’s going to happen you know because you succeed and then you realise your failure. That’s what’s happening you know.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

You mentioned the Glissant museum and you had many conversations as I did and Sylvie did of course, how do you interpret from 2017 his idea of the museum and how it then became nomadic. How do you see his…?

Manthia Diawara :

Well I really think that this is the best thing. When I was coming here at NYU I’m organising these three days, a conference with Orlando Pattison. So, I should have stayed in New York really you know but I introduced him quickly last night and took the plane and came here and I explained this to people, not one single person said, “No you should have stayed at NYU,” and I’ve been in Greece for 10 days so I’m almost never there at NYU and they pay me but no one I met said, “Don’t go to Belgium.” All of them said, “This is so important, you have to go. This is so important.” So, in many ways I think that you have all laid the ground for what is going to happen. This is going to be augmented, it’s going to be something coming, some things will go out. In fact, what I wanted to do today, that’s why I’ve been harassing these men. I brought a clip on David Hammond and Edouard Glissant. When I interviewed both of them and they say the same thing.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Can we see it?

Manthia Diawara :

I don’t know if you can. It will be ages. So that’s what I wanted to talk about. Yes, because I interviewed David Hammond in Nigers and then Edouard, I think this is a clip from New York so if you can just see some of it. So, I interact between them. The sound is very bad but you will love it.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

David Hammond of course never gives interviews.

Manthia Diawara :

Yeah of course.

Asad Raza :

It’s not working.

Manthia Diawara :

Okay well then…I sent it to you at some point. Do you remember? So…it’s a project that’s on the side. Yeah.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

So, I think we should organise a screening of it specially here at Villa [53:21] and do it specially then. Manthia thank you so, so much.

Paul Dujardin

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

Now the day started with a conversation with Luc Tuymans about this brain storming which happened here in Villa Empain week about Europe and that maybe and definitely only art can save Europe. And of course, Luke, very much in the logic of what Edouard wanted to do with his museum, and Antonio Segui achieving his museum and Argentina the idea actually of setting up their own structures, they wanted to do this last approach in Belgium in very close time of Paul Dujardin who is the Director of the Palais des Beaux Arts and we are very, very glad to welcome…now please give him a very warm welcome….applause.

So Paul it could be great because Luke told us earlier today about his idea of a European project and it would be great to hear from your perspective what happened here, as it is very connected in a way the think thank of last week and what happens here today. But it would be great to hear from you maybe a synthesis of what was discussed.

Paul Dujardin :

I think there is many relations to the global world and what Glissant was doing in his own project as an artist and writer. I think that Luke this morning in discussion he had for many years, it is said even tonight we have several artists coming and curating in this exhibition. But for Luke beside the Biennale of Venice and the Documenta is that many artists are there but are not really connected. And so for many years it is, besides directors, director, art directors in the first place they connecting with artists. I think that is what I just heard from the discussion we’ve just had.

The important network and discussions influences [unclear 02:37] so that is I’d say the first reflection. Artists have to be connected. So that is the main issue independent of any project that we do.

Now connected to the European identity in Europe the more we feel about crisis, the more we need to take responsibilities. I think that is in my opinion, I am not a curator, I’m not an artist, but what I’ve learned mostly from artist, it is a responsibility they took and in the utopian idea, and I think I would say the first place is to be responsible and share this experience. And that’s I think what I learned most from an artist’s aspect in general but also many others. It is not I would say an exclusive [unclear 03:56] there are many artists here in this room who wanted to share this form of working together and that was also the token idea of what was Beaux-arts after the First World War. We referred all the [unclear 04:19] in the different narratives linked to Post-colonialism, related to the debate here today. And in the different narratives that we discussed of, related to the First World War, Second World War, the end of the communism and it is interesting to see that we have to find a new form of Renaissance. And this sort of Renaissance is the main issue in my own responsibility I want to share with artist.

And it would be Martinique or it would be Brussels, what I learned from Edouard was for me the element of the cooperative work. It was a fantastic system of sharing together the same responsibilities. And the second way [unclear 05:38] Brussels, London, Paris is the way how we shared things. And that’s, it’s really urgent to do it. And Brussels could never be Paris or London, but a sort of Periphery. Is Brussels a periphery ? Is Martinique a periphery ? What is a periphery ? There is no center, we need to change these matters, we need to start building bridges. So between Luke, myself and many others yourselves it is a discussion we have recently in [unclear 06:45] we discuss these matters and [unclear 06:49] with a high concentration of highly educated civil servants we always [unclear 07:01] and we show a lot of empathy and compassion to them.

And I think that’s what a lot artist also to [unclear 07:12] in this way, because we it is maybe the place where democracy in the form of [unclear 07:23] can [unclear 07:26] and safe to be its even [unclear 07:32] what can we achieve. I remember 1993 when the [unclear 07:40] the main publicity was [unclear 07:46] they try to [unclear 08:00] to have.

Hans-Ulrich Obrist:

One thing I was curious is because obviously it is fascinating that [unclear 08:08] wants to go beyond the literary [unclear 08:10] and produce reality. Some even talk about todays of course John Latham who we celebrate at the moment at the Serpentine galleries in London who found his progress to be in the artist placement group and very much like [unclear 08:24] wanted to produce reality. He wanted artists to be in society. He wanted artists you know he said every company; very government should have an artist in residence. And his idea is now backed up by [unclear 08:38] are very interested in the artist placement group and you know going to have placements in London etc, etc. So that is one aspect.

I think the other aspect we’re discussing a lot together in terms of the Europe [unclear 08:50] is of course how artists, architects from [unclear 08:54] have a real desire to produce reality and you know and get involved in such projects, which goes beyond their own usual practice. So I was kind of wondering because I miss big parts of this gather last week where I participated by Skype what are the kind of conclusions. If you can tell us a little bit about some sparks and some things which you can memory of this brain storming which happened here in this very same building a week ago basically?

Paul Dujardin :

The first was an element of [unclear 09:24] each ourselves in [unclear 09:29] I think that [unclear 09:33] formations are [unclear 09:35]. But I think the element of inspiration and building bridges [unclear 09:50] I would say is centre in a certain way that [unclear 09:59] 19th century, beginning of 20th century we are much more [unclear 10:02]. And I think that all these different worlds were [unclear 10:14]. I think from the discussion [unclear 10:17] artists from different communities [unclear 10:22] fascination to see that all the [unclear 10:28] artists sitting round a table having all [unclear 10:37] able to speak and to visualise what’s for me and for all [unclear 10:51]. The wish was in 48 hours to come to a [unclear 10:57]. And it was possible so it was interesting to see that in different worlds [unclear 11:07] or [unclear 11:11] as individual artists [unclear 11:24] be related to the same complexities. And so it was [unclear 11:33] link them together and then [unclear 11:37] and create the same [unclear 11:51] in some way to find because it was an interesting discussion during these two days and it was the process for the final result was [unclear 12:07]. But we know that we need to do [unclear 12:14] before [unclear 12:16] and [unclear 12:19] indications. [Unclear 12:26] was fundamental to the discussion from all the artists around the table. Luke and [unclear 12:33] the freedom of states in education what we see is [unclear 12:43] we see that we need to share experiences not [unclear 13:00] but also outside [unclear 13:02] and that element of education and [unclear 13:06] and building together the project in a [unclear 13:10] that is why I think in [unclear 13:14] complexities in the city between [unclear 13:23], complexities of [unclear 13:27] but at the same time a discussion [unclear 13:34] on Europe we think that [unclear 13:36] the economic system makes [unclear 13:41] Germany is an economic power and we [unclear 13:51] we only have to think [unclear 13:55]. So we can work on that and so [unclear 14:04] we have a discussion of the [unclear 14:10]. But it was mostly about the process how we need to inter [unclear 14:18] and that’s what was mostly the [unclear 14:22] in the discussion it was of the artist. [Unclear 14:30] for the last three years we talk about 3,000 artists together [unclear 14:45]. The artists were setting the stage and politicians are thinking [unclear 14:53] and that’s important that most clearly we change their [unclear 14:58] and that is an interesting discussion. [Unclear 15:04] director and [unclear 15:10] we have to change that [unclear 15:13] changing the way of [unclear 15:18].

Hans-Ulrich Obrist :

That could not be a better conclusion thank you so, so much. Thank you very much.

Applause.