English is the language of use in this publication, for most contributors it is their second or third language.

Speech and What Archive is A Constructed World, Étienne Bernard, Marie Gautier, Anna Hess, Clémence de Montgolfi er, Guillaume Pavageau, Sébastien Pluot, Matthew Rana, Fabrice Reymond, Michele Robecchi, Yann Sérandour and Fabien Vallos

SWA acknowledge the generous support of Vision Forum, Linköping University, Sweden

With the support of the Fondation nationale des arts graphiques et plastiques

Projet réalisé avec le concours de la Direction régionale des aff aires culturelles d'Ile-de-France - aide individuelle à la création 2012

Editing and graphic design: SWAOriginal photographs: SWA and Emma Crayssac

Published by A Constructed WorldParis, November 2012Printed in an edition of 300

Thanks toMichele Robecchi, Elsa Philippe, Quentin Lannes, Vivian Rehberg, Katerina Andreou, Camille Beauplan, Alexis Cauville, Emma Crayssac, La Ferme du Buisson; Julie Pellegrin and Emilie Renard, Musée de l'Objet; Alain Goulesque and Stéphanie Boisgibault, Cneai Paris; Sylvie Boulanger, Le Café Pompier and EBABX-École supérieure d'art de Bordeaux, Gregory Lang and Solang Production Paris Brussels

Part Two

How can we make an account of what we-already-know and what we have-already-said? We look for, as Frances Ferguson says, ‘the aesthetic appreciation of what was never made to be appre-ciated’1. As we mentioned in the first Speech and What Archive newspaper, Ferguson makes a dis-tinction between affect (the production of fur-ther responses and consequences) and effect (the manifestation of the visible consequences of what one has already done). Even though we are in daily occurrences with things, and acts and processes that we name quotidian, when we see them in the context of speech, or perhaps more so, public discourse, we can be shocked or more deeply offended to see what we are already well acquain-ted with! What is embedded in language ‘speaks us’, yet it can be difficult to say again what was just said one moment before.

So in October 2011 the SWA group met together for one whole day in Paris to write down (together) what we had already thought and said. We gather-ed not to create something, not even transform, but to bring speech back. How did we do it?

We look at what-we-want as a case, there is no demand to make sense, do good, achieve, but more like the analysand on the couch, to say and discover what-we-know. Maybe there is nothing, maybe we don’t know much, don’t know any-thing. We consider what we want to say without-knowing. Impulsive speech.

We eschew rigor and interrogation in favour of lis-tening. Listening is radical in that we don’t often have time for it, especially informally. There may be more there than what we had imagined or accounted for. ‘I speak then you speak’, ‘You lis-ten to me then I’ll listen to you’2, favours trying

to remember what you want-to-say over ques-tioning and clarification. We work in an economy of desire where you-can-say-what-you-want. Jacques Lacan says ‘desire is always desire of the other’, which is duly noted, so we look for something that is more pleasurable or pertinent to say than another. In a fragmented world we look to find a way to share our individuated speech. To table that speech not as singular but as evidence of a co-joined space. ‘A group seems most com-pletely a group when the individuals in it share a maximal number of beliefs…there is less psycho-logically immediate account of groups that spe-cifically minimise the place of common belief’3. What is the address we are making? From who to who? What to what? Where are the conduits and lines that attach one locution, pattern or feeling or knowledge to another?

Academic discourses, locutions and critiques usually focus on what is missing, ‘there’s nothing there’, ‘you’re not saying anything’, ‘you’ve left something out’, ‘you forgot to mention…’, ‘do you not know who… is?’ The hardest thing in this eco-nomy is to say what you dislike (that which criti-cism does easily), we keep returning to ‘you can’t say that’, protecting those inside and outside the group. Can we enlarge the discourse to re-view any locution, to find its free utterance amongst other sayings?

So the text speaks you, the group speaks you, for the philosopher everything consensual is sus-picious, yet somehow it’s more fun more imme-diate being together talking and writing. Thomas Hobbes declared we are all selfish and concerned only with our own self-preservation. Self-interest rules his state of nature, security is impossible for anyone and fear permeates every aspect of life.

Yet once we let go of our individual status in this group everyone was in fact able to say more and write more promptly. As a group we were in search of what Fabien Vallos calls ‘satisfaction without delay’. No one was killed, overwhelmed even fuc-ked, as far as we know. So Nietzsche’s idea of a work of art without the artist becomes here wri-ting without the writer and leads us to Agam-ben’s general rule, ‘we must protect the work against the author’. Group therapy is usually seen as a pejorative, a force that simplifies what-we-want-to–say even if it sounds deep. We instinc-tively avoid archetypes. To borrow from Fabien, ‘making a (workshop) is first an experience of alte-rity. It makes no sense otherwise’. In our group some people know a lot more than others, some attach themselves to the craft of writing, others see themselves decidedly outside easy expres-sion. Yet throughout the workshop, in desire’s economy, wanting to say something and saying something impulsively ruled over all else.

Comment pouvons-nous rendre compte de ce que nous savons déjà et de ce que nous avons déjà dit? Nous sommes à la recherche, comme Frances Ferguson l’a dit auparavant, de « l’appréciation esthétique de ce qui n’a jamais été fait pour être apprécié ». Comme nous l’avons mentionné dans le premier numéro de Speech and What Archive Newspaper, Ferguson différencie l’affect (la pro-duction de réponses et de conséquences supplé-mentaires) et l’effet (la manifestation visible des conséquences de ce que l’on a déjà fait). Bien que nous soyons situés dans un rapport journalier aux choses, aux actes et aux processus que nous nommons « quotidien », quand nous voyons ces actes dans un contexte de speech, c’est-à-dire plus spécialement dans le contexte du discours public, nous pouvons être choqués ou offensés

1 Pornography, the Theory: What Utilitarianism did to Action, Frances Ferguson, University of Chicago Press, 2004, p73. 2 Similar in Maoridom in New Zealand, ‘Because Maori is an oral language, you are expected to listen’...‘that is the role in the conversation. If it's your turn to speak they'll listen to you. If you miss something that they say, that's your problem. Don't interrupt to ask them to repeat themselves.’ Eels, James Prosek, Harper Collins, New York, 2010, p60.3 ibid, Frances Ferguson, p54.

Speech Brought Back

davantage d’entendre ce qui nous est pourtant déjà familier ! Ce qui est déjà implanté dans le lan-gage «nous parle» et parle de nous, et pourtant il peut être difficile de réitérer ce qui vient d’être dit. En octobre 2011, le groupe SWA s’est rassem-blé à Paris pour écrire ensemble ce que nous avons déjà pensé et ce que nous avons déjà dit. Nous ne voulions pas créer quelque chose de nouveau, ni même transformer quelque chose, mais nous voulions faire revenir le discours.

What strikes me now about the Floating Conver-sation on telepathy is that while something may or may not exist, regardless of its existence as a phenomenon, the idea had its own agency which was separate from its verifiable reality or the intention behind it. What was being negotiated in the conversation was telepathic effects: on science, on language, on the audience, iPhones, digital networks, satellites etc. In this sense, tele-pathy is just as reality-producing an idea as an actual phenomenon. It has consequences whether telepathy exits or not. |

The

Flo

atin

g C

onve

rsat

ion

was

firs

t an

att

empt

to

co

mm

unic

ate

to

the

audi

ence

w

hat

we

wer

e tr

ying

to

do a

nd w

hy w

e w

ere

here

. It

is

also

mea

nt t

o re

ceiv

e m

essa

ges

from

peo

ple

invo

lved

in

th

e gr

oup,

as

w

ell

as

from

th

e au

dien

ce.

I th

ink

it s

erve

s bo

th a

s a

rece

ptac

le

and

as a

tex

t w

hich

is r

e-w

ritt

en e

very

tim

e, t

o be

tra

nsm

itte

d an

d to

cha

nge

agai

n. I

thin

k w

e ar

e m

ore

tryi

ng t

o es

tabl

ish

a co

mm

on g

roun

d th

an t

o tr

ansm

it a

spe

cific

kno

wle

dge.

It is

sup

-po

sed

to f

unct

ion

as a

tra

ce o

f th

ings

tha

t ha

ve

been

sai

d an

d th

at c

an b

e us

ed a

gain

. |

I have been listening to the two Floating Conver-sations in a kind of telepathical state. I was, each time, curious to understand and know what Geoff Lowe and Clémence de Montgolfier were talking about, but I wanted to keep my mind open to any telepathic messages from Sean Peoples and Vero-nica  Kent or the audience. I just remember that I understood this day a lot of things about SWA. |

Il n’est peut-être pas très important de défi

nir ce qu’est une Floating C

onversation. Ce que c’est est

moins im

portant que ce que cela produit. Une pré-

sentation presque formelle, plastique, m

atérielle du contenu des langages. Il est alors possible de dire que cette expérience n’est pas autre que celle de la parole ou de l’énonciation. C

e qui fait image

dans le langage est l’intention que quelque chose puisse éventuellem

ent advenir à un sens. Ou à un

non-sens. Ou à une non-com

munication. U

ne Floa-ting C

onversation est l’expérience matérielle des

langages et de leur ambiguité. L’expérience de la

nausea latine, l’expérience du noise anglosaxon, l’expérience de la rum

eur et du bruissement: le

bruissement de la langue, l’herm

éneutique maté-

rielle. L’ivresse d’une odyssée. |

The Floating Conversation has something rela-ted with the Internet, the idea of an international network. It makes things that are not supposed to meet themselves existing in the same place at the same moment. It makes as valuable consi-dered true knowledge and myths and legends. It makes someone talking on the phone seated on his sofa a performer in another country at ano-ther moment of the day. It makes everyone able to talk about anything. |

The Floating Conversation is a text, a perfor-mance, a conversation that introduces some kind of knowledge, something factual, knowle-dge that has some kind of research behind it, but also something unknown... such as telepathy. It attempts to bring in things from other places... like the telepathic message... maybe they’re metaphorical spaces. It has its element of lec-ture, something that’s been studied or read, the Chinese characters, for example, we ask people if they understand what they are. |

The

Flo

atin

g C

onve

rsat

ion

is a

tex

t/le

ctur

e/pe

r-fo

rman

ce t

hat

atte

mpt

s a

spat

io-t

empo

ral

com

-m

unic

atio

n. T

he a

udie

nce

is in

fact

ask

ed t

o lis

ten

(in t

hat

they

are

bei

ng t

old

som

ethi

ng)

to r

ecei

ve

mes

sage

s (t

elep

athi

cally

) an

d to

sus

pend

dis

be-

lief.

The

y ar

e ta

ken,

in e

ffec

t, o

n a

long

tra

vel o

f w

aiti

ng t

o re

ceiv

e so

met

hing

unk

now

n, l

iste

n to

lo

ng d

ista

nce

calls

, and

to

expe

ct a

nd t

oler

ate

an

endu

ring

pie

ce. |

Floa

ting

Con

vers

atio

n

Ava

nt-S

pect

acle

, Mic

ro M

edic

ine

Show

La F

erm

e du

Bui

sson

, Noi

siel

, 16

juill

et 2

011

It is difficult to resay what you have understood. |

I introduced Fabien Vallos's performance and Quentin Lannes translated. Fabien came to the table and spoke. I was a little distracted with my role of preparing the way for the next part, then I sat down. Fabien sat at a small table on a sea of notes and papers, he looked like he was floating. There was a sense that he wanted to convey something and he was doing this quite directly without delay. At the time I thought it was in fact quite performative, he had one or two books in front of him, that he held up at one point or another. Being drunk puts us in the same place. |

Fabien introduces a new layer in knowledge in offering people to drink what he is talking about.These drinks are like skill pills in science fiction, it doesn’t matter anymore if you don’t know or if you don’t understand his complicated discourse because it gives you the feeling of absorbing the knowledge. |

It is an intellectual discourse which arrives in the middle of non intellectual actions, where it’s about doing something together without understan-ding what we are doing. You feel open to receive something even if it is too difficult to explain it after. And the fact that Fabien made references to the precedent actions helped to make links and

made it more understandable. Also, having the drink gave to the discourse a materiality. So, in the same way as the rest of the event, you understand or you keep something from what you have seen or heard, but the idea of giving an existence to what you understood is not the point. |

Pharmakon means ‘the same as’. Talking about Derrida and Heidegger in a big lazy crowd. He kept returning to low culture references. No one knew what he was saying. Esther Lowe couldn’t hear the audio. No one can tell what Fabien was saying. What we could tell is that it was was erudite and funny, that it was a philosophical talk. It was a masterpiece of not-knowing and not understan-ding. It was never clear what was communicated, but its form was in fact very precise. |

Ava

nt-S

pect

acle

, Mic

ro M

edic

ine

Show

La F

erm

e du

Bui

sson

, Noi

siel

, 16

juill

et 2

011Pharmakon

Geoff Lowe parle de ma communication lors de la performance à la Ferme du Buisson. Ce qu’il en relève c’est une double articulation autour d’un concept (le pharmakon en grec) et une non-com-préhension due à une trop grande difficulté du lan-gage. Cependant, il semble en ressortir que cette communication, en produisant une trop grande complexité fondée sur une érudition (ou un sem-blant d’érudition), devienne drôle. Il faut alors penser que la « drôlerie », plus ou moins volon-taire de la communication, repose sur une non-compréhension, ou plus exactement sur une satu-ration du sens et de l’interprétation. Il semblerait que le public ait pu comprendre mais qu’il soit incapable de dire ce qu’il a compris. Il y aurait une «intraduisibilité» de la complexité et de la sur-sémiotisation. Je crois que ce qui est fondamen-tal est de saisir que la complexité est d’une part, une posture éthique – non-idéologisation du dis-cours et non-symbolisation du sens – et d’autre part, une expérience plastique de la saturation. La saturation est l’expérience de l’inéchangeabilité. |

My understanding of pharmakon comes from the phrase ‘that which cures us makes us ill’ or perhaps, ‘that which makes us ill, cures us.’ I’m not sure exactly where I’ve derived this from... perhaps the Vespetro text in the SWA first news-paper. Nonetheless, this notion of pharmakon appears to be something that is ambivalent and uncertain, something capable of being in contra-diction, opposition or tension, not necessa-rily with itself, but with its effects. As we work together and always speak easily, I started to accept the idea of not-understanding sometimes. It is maybe not important to understand eve-rything. And even listening to a lecture in his own language could be the same. It is maybe not a big deal if you don’t understand everything.  |

Ce n’est peut-être pas grave de ne comprendre que des bribes, tant que ces bribes font réflé-chir. C’est plus se laisser aller en écoutant des idées arriver comme des vagues, et laisser son esprit rebondir sur certaines et en abandonner d’autres. |

What I understood of what Fabien was talking about during his lecture was about how being drunk, both physically and metaphorically, makes you more aware of the present time, and the being-together-now. Maybe people didn’t listen to the whole thing but only fragments, because other things were going on in the same time, like offering alcohol. Offering alcohol was both gene-rous and funny, and gave the impression of hos-ting the audience. He spoke as if he was in a state of emergency and urge to be able to say every-thing he wanted to say – in the little time that was available. |

Ava

nt-S

pect

acle

, Mic

ro M

edic

ine

Show

La F

erm

e du

Bui

sson

, Noi

siel

, 16

juill

et 2

011

Farai un vers de dreit nien,Non er de mi ni d’autra gen,

Non er d’amor ni de joven,Ni de ren au,

Qu’enans fo trobatz en durmenSus un chivau.

No sai en qual hora-m fui natz,No soi alegres ni iratz,

No soi estranhs ni soi privatz,Ni no-n puesc au,

Qu’enaisi fui de nueitz fadatzSobr’un pueg au.

No sai cora-m fui endormitz,Ni cora-m veill, s’om no m’o ditz!

Per pauc no m’es lo cor partitzD’un dol corau,

E no m’o pretz una fromitz,Per saint Marsau!

Malautz soi e cremi morir,E re no sai mas quan n’aug dir.

Metge querrai al mieu albir,E no-m sai cau:

Bos metges er si-m pot guerir,Mas non, si-m mau.

Amigu’ ai ieu, non sai qui s’es,C’anc no la vi, si m’aiut fes,

Ni-m fes que-m plassa ni que-m pes,Ni no m’en cau

C’anc non ac Norman ni FransesDins mon ostau.

Anc non la vi et am la fort,Anc no-n aic dreit ni no-m fes tort;

Quan no la vei, be m’en deport,No-m prez un jau,

Qu’ie-n sai gensor e belazor,E que mai vau.

Fait ai lo vers, no sai de cui,Et trametrai lo a celui

Que lo-m trameta per autrui,Enves Peitau,

Que-m tramezes del sieu estuiLa contraclau.

In the 16th century in Italy, Castiglione wrote a book about the concept of sprezzatura: the effort-lessness of living. In Yann Sérandour’s perfor-mance, he is still living but without effort, without the difficulties of making art, being there etc., but simply the elegance of life. The historical unders-tanding of the European avant-garde suggests the merger of art and life by bringing art into life, making an artful life. This somehow takes the art out of life, life simply remains without artifice. |

Initially Nothing brings up a question of how to be part of a group without having any obligations, without having to participate or do anything. But the performance is changing, (whereas before he was performing...) now Nothing is indistin-guishable from anything else he does, the way he spends his time with his children, Julie, with his friends and with the audience – everyone at the exhibition. |

Yann Sérandour’s Nothing piece was each time signified by his physical presence and his costume among the group. He seemed to insert himself in the context, by wearing clothes related to what we were doing, or making links inside the group. How is this action embeded in his own work as an artist? He inserts himself first within the group, and by that also within the exhibition format. How can this piece be perceived by people outside the

I’ll write a verse about nothing at all,it isn’t about me or about anybody else,it isn’t about love nor about youth,nor about anything else,because, in the first place, it was conceived while sleeping on a horse.

I don’t know at which time I was born,I am neither happy nor sad,I am neither a stranger nor a native,nor can I do anything,because I was so bewitched one nighton a high hill.

I don’t know when I’m asleep,nor when I am awake, unless I am told!I almost had my heart brokenby a deep pain,and I don’t care at all,by St. Martial!

I am sick and I’m afraid to die,but I don’t know more than I hear around. I’ll call for a doctor as I feel,but I don’t know which one:he is a good doctor if he can heal me,he isn’t if I get worse.

I have a mistress, and I don’t know who she is, because I never saw her, by my troth, nor did she do anything I’d like or dislike, nor do I care since I never had either a Norman or a Frenchman in my house.

I never saw her and I love her much,I never had meed, nor did she ever wrong me;when I don’t see her, I do rather well,I don’t care, because I know a kinder and prettier one who is worth more.

I have written the verse, I don’t know about whom, and I’ll convey it to the one who’ll convey it to someone elsetowards Poitiers, since I would like, of that etui, to have the second key.

group? It might be invisible. Yet, to do nothing as an artwork is passive on the level of action, but it is the opposite of being absent. Also, repeating the act of doing nothing, identified as such, gives it a materiality and a use value. |

To do nothing is a political action. Something has shifted more recently in the way people represent themselves and what they have done. Now testi-monies reflect what one does and what one has to do. |

In a sense Yann pretends to do nothing, or, he pre-pares quite a lot to do nothing. He has grown his hair over the past two years, he has taken the time to find the right clothing to wear while doing nothing. So in a sense he uses costume to be able to do nothing. |

Quite clearly there is a certain amount of activity involved in his action to do nothing – his being passive in front of the audience. |

Yann wasn’t doing anything but was acting as though he was doing nothing. He was always doing something in relation to what was happening, the way he dressed; he was actively doing nothing. Counter productivity which is always signified, perceivable for us but not for those who don’t know that he is there to do nothing. In Rotterdam he didn’t do anything, but in Blois he had the ske-leton costume on, which wasn’t really nothing. It was almost a joke, because he wasn’t aware of what he was supposed to do. It was a suggestion to do nothing. Jacqui Riva bought Yann a comb for his hair... He wears a skeleton costume, a very expensive one by a fashion designer. In the Blois performance he was speaking to people, so he was just ‘normal'. It’s impossible to do nothing. Yann has made an artifact of the fact that he wanted to do nothing. The problem of choosing not to do something... |

Yann was doing the same thing that everyone else in the audience was doing, which was living his life, it was an elegant solution... The only way it can become n othing is because it’s already been des-cribed as ‘something’. The fact that it becomes something only happens through the exhibition. |

Yann’s decision to do nothing creates problems between notions of activity and passivity, and the decision to show what doing nothing is... which is what most people do already. |

Nothing

Spee

ch O

bjec

ts, M

usée

de

l’0bj

etB

lois

, 26

mai

- 14

nov

embr

e 20

11

Il semble que la notion de délai soit l’élément primordial de la performance de Matthew. Le contexte d’apparition de la performance de Matthew suppose un jeu sur la compréhension, la non-compréhension et le problème de la tra-duction. Nous évoquons deux situations, celle de Jacqui, présente dans la performance et face à Matthew et la mienne, occupé à discuter avec Clémence et ne percevant que les échos de la voix de Matthew, du rire de Geoff et du silence de l’audience. Il est important de préciser que l’en-jeux de la pièce était l’énonciation de blagues en anglais, traduites simultanément en français pour un public français. Il s ‘agit donc d’un problème de traduction et de non-compréhension du contexte d’apparition de ces blagues. Ceci produit un délai important. Nous pouvons préciser qu’il s’agit de trois niveaux de délai : le premier est fondé sur une non-compréhension de l’anglais et surtout des subtilités nécessaires à la compréhension de blagues anglaise. Le second est un délai fondé sur la non-compréhension du français : la langue fran-çaise est compréhensible, mais le sens traduit de la blague est, la plupart du temps non-saisis-sable. C’est un délai entre la communication et le sens de l’objet communiqué. Le troisième niveau est un délai fondé sur les différences de postures sociales, celle de Matthew avec un nœud papillon, les anglophones riant immédiatement, les fran-çais riant selon leur compréhension et leur gêne comme existence d’un « rire de circonstance », et la traductrice dans une posture sérieuse. |

Usually I don’t like comedy because it's embar-rassing, with people being booed and so on. The comedian may fail and the audience doesn’t know what to do. In Matthew Rana’s performance he includes this risk in the work itself. He fails on purpose. The audience laugh together about the absurdity of the situation itself. It emphasises that the audience wants to know how-to-behave, they laugh the first time then he says, gently, ‘No that’s not the punch line'; he goes on and then they laugh again, never really sure what they are meant to be doing. |

There’s not just speech, but also sound and a phy-sical reaction, a surplus of anxiety, embarrass-ment; you look at the others in the audience and how their bodies react, laughing is a bodily reac-tion, you can’t control it. It’s something you share with the others, but it’s without language. It’s not just a linguistic translation, but it is also a bodily translation. |

Not understanding the joke is also not recei-ving meaning — this lack of meaning creates awkwardness, a doubt and uncertainty that acts on the bodies from which meaning is withheld. But this also creates a new meaning because even though you can’t understand the joke, you can understand the emotion. |

Nobody spoke about the suit! And nobody talked about the jokes!

What were the jokes?

Matthew Rana picked English language jokes that were well known, or jokes that were told to him in the days before the performance. He also told the same jokes over and over again. He wanted to tell the jokes badly, to interrupt the joke’s timing, their humor and the audience’s expectations. The translation aspect added to this creating delays, misunderstandings and the problem of context. Jokes are impossible to translate. |

“A bear w

alks into a bar and he asks the parrot bird for a ‘scotch... and soda’. T

he parrot bird says that’s fine, but why the long pause?”

The relationship between audience and perfor-mer was emphasized, playing off of each other, the problems and gaps that were created. The translation and the delay also resulted in Matthew being both the performer and the audience for the work... He became painfully aware of his own per-formance, Vivian Rehberg’s and the audience’s. He didn’t know how Vivian was translating the joke, if what she was saying was even faithful to the joke. This changed the way he told the jokes and by the end, they weren’t even recognizable as jokes any-more. |

The experience that the audience lived during Matthew’s performance is not really individual because it depends on which group you are in, and

the way you are accepted as an individual person inside this group. The levels of translation are multiple, and there are several different ways to react to the joke: you can understand directly the joke in English (and eventually laugh), you have to wait for the French translation (and because of the delay, a sincere laugh is not possible anymore), but you can also react to the reaction of the group. So in a way, the way people who surround you will react to the joke is the last step of translation. |

Stop me if you heard this one before

Spee

ch O

bjec

ts, M

usée

de

l’0bj

etB

lois

, 26

mai

- 14

nov

embr

e 20

11

Spee

ch O

bjec

ts, M

usée

de

l’0bj

etB

lois

, 26

mai

- 14

nov

embr

e 20

11

Table Top Tour

Bonjour. Je vais vous présenter des objets. Il y en a trois, je vais prendre le premier.

Il y a un peu de poussière dessus. Il ressemble à un agenda, il est bleu. Il y a un petit… J’ai l’impression que c’est un petit 1, comme si c’était le premier d’une liste ou peut-être que c’est un petit rectangle blanc. Avec le titre, Speech Objects, en plein milieu. Voyons voir l’intérieur…

Alors, le papier n’est pas très blanc, il sent l’éco-logique, le papier recyclé. Il sent le neuf. Tout est bleu à l’intérieur. Il y a des photos, du texte, plein de typo différentes. Voilà… Ah non, y’a pas que du bleu, y’a du rouge, y’a de la couleur aussi ! Finale-ment ce n’est pas du tout un agenda, on dirait un livre, un livre de théorie. Est-ce qu’il y a quelque chose écrit derrière ? 244. Sur la couverture, il y a des petites boules, ça fait des petits reliefs, moi ça me fait penser à une nappe. Il y a aussi des petites nervures, comme s’il était un peu abîmé. Quoi d’autre… Il y a des remerciements à la fin et une photo du livre aussi, avec une main. À l’intérieur, il y a des photos d’installation, on dirait qu’il y a trois sections de photos en cou-leur avec une police de caractère rouge alors que tout le reste est bleu, très très bleu. Il y a des images d’expositions, des photos, des extraits de livres, des restes de performance, des résidus, des traces, un dessin, un billet de train, l’inté-rieur d’un livre, Hobbes and Republican Liberty, et pleins d’artistes. Ça ressemble au journal de bord d’un groupe d’artiste. Voilà… Des gens dans la forêt qui regardent une toile, Robert Filiou…Je suis en train de l’abîmer en le regardant, je vais

le reposer très doucement.Ensuite, il y a un genre de journal, qui est à peu près aussi léger qu’un journal que tu trouves dans le métro, mais j’ai l’impression que ce n’est pas tout à fait le même format, c’est plus carré. Le papier est doux. Il fait un bruit agréable.

Dedans il y a des textes dans tous les sens, c’est complètement désordonné. Y’a des flèches, on dirait des brouillons. Il y a du bleu et du noir. Les photos sont bleues. Y’a pas beaucoup de pages. C’est un petit journal. Il y a des gens qui appa-raissent souvent, ils sont récurrents, ce sont visi-blement un peu les stars du journal. Beaucoup sont déguisés. On dirait les restes d’une fête. Des gens parlent dans des micros, y’a des bouches. Des performances. Il y a aussi des images extraites de vidéos hyper floues, c’est très mal découpé. On dirait du col-lage. C’est comme un carnet de bord, encore, un journal. Des fois, on arrive pas très bien à lire. Il y a des gens qui chantent, et qui dansent, c’est un peu la fête dans le journal. Y’a des grandes parties sans rien, c’est le grand luxe ! On respire un peu, ça fait plaisir. Au dos, il y a une photo de papier, on dirait… Un sac poubelle déplié avec un trou au milieu. Le titre : Speech and What Archive Part 1, en bleu mais ce n’est pas le même bleu que le livre, il est plus violet. Je le replie.

Maintenant je prends une pochette de disque, un vinyle. C’est un format carré, c’est en car-ton. Ça me semble bien lourd, peut-être qu’il n’y a pas de vinyle dedans, ou peut-être qu’il y a plus qu’un vinyle. Voyons voir à l’intérieur, y’a un papier légèrement biseauté, c’est cool. Dedans il y a un vinyle, avec une bouche au milieu, A Side, B

Side. Le trou du vinyle est juste en dessous de la bouche, comme si c’était un piercing, c’est rigolo. Il est bien noir, il a l’air tout neuf, j’ai l’impression qu’il n’a jamais été écouté.

Peut-être qu’il y a de la musique, je vois sur la couverture des gens qui parlent, j’ai pas l’impres-sion que ce soit de la musique classique… C’est pas évident à remettre, je fais légèrement trembler… Ça ne marche pas… arr… Voilà… C’est hyper dur à remettre. Le carton ne se ferme pas…Je ne sais pas si c’est normal parce que je ne suis pas habituée aux vinyles… Il y a écrit Speech and What Archive, le même groupe qui a fait le journal, même bleu que le jour-nal. Ça s’appelle Medicine Show, c’est peut-être une musique pour se sentir bien, une musique thérapeutique. Les gens ont l’air bien. C’est peut-être en relation avec la nature et la vie, parce que les personnes ont des feuilles autour d’eux et ils ont des costumes où ils sont à poil et puis il y a un squelette. Au milieu il y a un mec qui réfléchit, on ne sait pas ce qu’il fait là mais il était déjà présent dans le journal, avec une espèce de touffe, il est là, il croise les bras, il se passe rien, voilà. Il est un peu récurrent, il ne regarde même pas l’objectif. Il est pas de la même couleur que les autres. Et puis les photos sont mal découpées comme dans le journal, on dirait que c’est mal fait avec le lasso sur Photoshop. Tac tac, hop.

Le livre est bien théorique, on se pose, on réflé-chit. On peut peut-être le lire en diagonale. Par contre, je pense qu’on peut écouter la musique et lire le journal en même temps, comme ça on est bien.

Voilà. Merci.

Le m

onde

des

obj

ets

Pens

er c

'est

lais

ser r

emon

ter l

es o

bjet

s.

La p

hilo

soph

ie e

st u

n to

ur d

e m

agie

.

Toy

Stor

yL'

inve

ntio

n de

la p

hoto

grap

hie,

du

télé

phon

e, d

e l'o

rdin

ateu

r...

le p

rem

ier

réfl

exe

est

touj

ours

la

porn

ogra

phie

. O

n ér

otis

e ch

aque

nou

velle

tec

h-no

logi

e po

ur s

e l'a

ppro

prie

r, p

our

l'app

rivo

iser

, po

ur a

ppre

ndre

sa

lang

ue.

On

espè

re,

à ch

aque

fo

is, q

u'el

le s

era

enfi

n le

lang

age

qui p

ourr

a no

us

trad

uire

, qui

rend

ra n

otre

cor

ps in

telli

gibl

e.D

evie

ndro

ns-n

ous,

un

jo

ur,

les

sex-

toys

de

s ro

bots

?

Dét

ourn

er le

s lo

is d

e la

pes

ante

ur, d

e la

phy

siqu

e,

fair

e de

s ta

bles

san

s pi

eds,

au

plaf

ond,

dan

s le

s m

urs,

sur

la

tête

, un

cub

e. L

'art

pou

r l'a

rt,

les

obje

ts p

our e

ux m

êmes

.

Com

men

t sor

tir d

e l'o

bjet

art

isti

que,

par

sa

form

e ou

par

son

sen

s, p

ar le

bor

d ou

par

le fo

nd ?

La q

uest

ion

n'es

t pl

us «

être

ou

ne p

as ê

tre»

mai

s «

fair

e ou

ne

pas

fair

e». L

'hom

o fa

ber e

st e

n pl

eine

cr

ise

de c

onsc

ienc

e.

Les

obje

ts s

ont

com

me

les

héro

s cl

assi

ques

une

id

éalis

atio

n de

l'h

omm

e. L

'Ant

iqui

té a

vait

les

m

ythe

s et

lége

ndes

com

me

syst

ème

de re

prés

en-

tati

on, l

a m

oder

nité

a le

s ob

jets

tech

niqu

es.

Les

obje

ts q

ui n

ous

ento

uren

t so

nt n

imbé

s de

l'i

dée

qu'o

n s'

en fa

it.

Le v

irtu

el e

st u

ne r

éalit

é. O

n pa

rle

sans

arr

êt à

des

gen

s qu

i ne

sont

pas

là. I

ls n

ous

répo

nden

t et

par

fois

mêm

e no

us a

ppar

aiss

ent.

À c

es m

omen

ts là

on

a le

s m

êmes

ex

pres

sion

s du

vis

age

et le

s m

êmes

com

port

emen

ts p

hysi

ques

que

s'il

s ét

aien

t en

fa

ce d

e no

us. L

e té

léph

one

est

une

sort

e de

jeu

vidé

o, o

n si

mul

e un

e ac

tion

rée

lle

face

à u

ne p

roth

èse

info

rmat

ique

.O

n m

et d

e pl

us e

n pl

us d

e co

nvic

tion

et

de s

érie

ux à

inte

ragi

r av

ec c

es o

bjet

s te

ch-

nolo

giqu

es e

t in

vers

emen

t on

se

com

port

e fa

ce a

ux m

anif

esta

tion

s ré

elle

s du

m

onde

ave

c de

plu

s en

plu

s de

froi

deur

et

de d

ista

nce,

d'e

nnui

et

d'in

diff

éren

ce. L

a re

prés

enta

tion

de

la v

ie e

st d

even

ue b

eauc

oup

plus

réu

ssie

que

la v

ie e

lle-m

ême.

Pass

ionn

és p

ar le

s si

mul

acre

s on

se

retr

ouve

dan

s la

vie

com

me

deva

nt u

n m

au-

vais

 film

.

Com

me

les

atom

es

nous

so

mm

es

des

obje

ts

sens

ible

s qu

i n'

exis

tent

que

par

leu

r vi

brat

ion

cons

tant

e. À

cha

que

inst

ant

on s

acri

fie

son

iner

-ti

e a

l'ord

re c

osm

ique

.Sp

eech

Obj

ects

Lau

nch

Cne

ai ,P

aris

, 21

janv

ier 2

012

From

left

to ri

ght:

The

co

stum

es

prov

ide

an

easy

fa

mili

ar

fram

e fo

r bo

th p

erfo

rmer

and

aud

ienc

e to

mak

e th

ings

st

rang

e. T

he c

ostu

mes

are

not

illu

sion

s, t

he c

os-

tum

e is

a c

omm

itm

ent

to s

omet

hing

tha

t’s

not

your

self

and

it’

s no

t th

e ch

arac

ter.

We’

re n

ot

doin

g it

the

atri

cally

as

a ch

arac

ter.

The

out

fits

are

exch

ange

d be

twee

n pe

rfor

mer

s. T

he d

ecis

ion

to

put

a co

stum

e on

is c

onfr

onti

ng, y

ou m

ake

your

-se

lf v

ulne

rabl

e. W

e ar

e al

l ri

dicu

lous

in

cost

ume,

bu

t w

e ar

e no

t ri

dicu

lous

bec

ause

we

are

not

cha-

ract

ers.

The

y ar

e ne

gati

vely

defi

ned

by w

hat

they

ar

e no

t. A

dam

and

Eve

is n

ot a

SW

A p

erfo

rman

ce

beca

use

ther

e ar

e ru

les.

The

y in

voke

the

rid

icu-

lous

and

rid

icul

e es

tabl

ishi

ng a

col

lect

ive

in c

om-

mon

of

amat

euri

sm.

The

car

niva

lesq

ue,

pow

er

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e in

vert

ed o

r su

spen

ded,

wea

ring

a

cost

ume

in a

con

tem

pora

ry a

rt c

onte

xt b

egin

s a

disr

upti

on.

In S

WA

cos

tum

es p

erm

it a

n ex

peri

ence

of

bein

g ri

dicu

lous

in

com

mon

and

of

the

perf

orm

ance

it

self.

The

ide

ntit

y of

the

cos

tum

e is

not

nec

es-

sari

ly in

terc

hang

eabl

e w

ith

the

char

acte

r or

the

pe

rfor

mer

who

mak

es a

n ut

tera

nce

yet

it in

voke

s an

ong

oing

alt

erit

y. (

Si,

dans

SW

A,

le c

ostu

me

perm

et d

’ass

umer

le

ridi

cule

com

me

expé

rien

ce

du c

omm

un e

t de

la

perf

orm

ance

, ce

pend

ant

il co

nfèr

e à

celu

i qui

le p

orte

, non

une

str

icte

inte

r-ch

ange

abili

té –

ne

pas

figu

rer

com

me

pers

onne

, m

ais

com

me

énon

ciat

eur

– m

ais

une

perm

anen

ce

de l’

alté

rité

.)

The

cos

tum

es a

re n

ot il

lusi

ons,

the

y ar

e to

ols

but

we

don’

t kn

ow w

hat

they

are

for

intr

oduc

e w

hat

is f

ake,

the

y ar

e sh

ared

and

the

y cr

eate

ano

ther

pl

ace.

A s

econ

d sk

in, b

arri

er, h

iera

rchy

, gen

erat

es

anot

her

plac

e, a

ske

leto

n is

not

a s

kele

ton,

not

yo

urse

lf a

nd n

ot t

he c

hara

cter

. Ya

nn,

by in

terv

e-ni

ng in

to th

e hi

stor

y of

the

cost

umes

in S

WA

cha

n-ge

d th

eir

mea

ning

. The

use

of c

ostu

mes

in S

WA

is

a w

ay o

f rem

aini

ng in

a s

pace

of

not-

know

ing,

but

it

is

a sp

ace

of c

onti

nuou

s pe

rfor

man

ce,

and

for

this

reas

on it

is n

ot a

wor

k of

am

ateu

r the

atre

.

From right to left:

The use of costum

es in SW

A is a w

ay of remai-

ning in a space of not-knowing, but it is a space of

continuous performance, and for this reason it is

not a work of am

ateur theatre. The costum

es are not illusions, they are tools but w

e don’t know

what, they introduce w

hat is fake, they are sha-red and they create another place. A

second skin, barrier, hierarchy, generates another place, a ske-leton is not a skeleton, not yourself and not the character. Yann, by intervening into the history of the costum

es in SW

A changed their m

eaning.

Si, dans SWA

, le costume perm

et d’assumer le

ridicule comm

e expérience du comm

un et de la perform

ance, cependant il confère à celui qui le porte, non une stricte interchangeabilité – ne pas fi

gurer comm

e personne, mais com

me énoncia-

teur – mais une perm

anence de l’altérité. (In SWA

costum

es permit an experience of being ridicu-

lous in comm

on and of the performance itself.

The identity of the costum

e is not necessarily interchangeable w

ith the character or the per-form

er who m

akes an utterance yet it invokes an ongoing alterity.)

The costum

es are not illusions, the costume is

a comm

itment to som

ething that’s not your-self and it’s not the character. W

e’re not doing it theatrically as a character. T

he outfits are exchanged betw

een performers. T

he decision to put a costum

e on is confronting, you make your-

self vulnerable. We are all ridiculous in costum

e, but w

e are not ridiculous because we are not cha-

racters. They are negatively defined by w

hat they are not. A

dam and Eve is not a S

WA

performance

because there are rules. They invoke the ridicu-

lous and ridicule. Establishing a collective in com-

mon of am

ateurism. T

he carnivalesque, power

relationships are inverted or suspended, wearing

a costume in a contem

porary art context begins a disruption. T

he costumes provide an easy fam

i-liar fram

e for both performer and audience to

make things strange.

Cos

tum

e

Each

per

son

wro

te a

sen

tenc

e ab

out

the

use

of

cost

umes

in S

peec

h an

d W

hat A

rchi

ve th

en re

ad

each

sen

tenc

e ou

t ar

ound

the

tab

le fo

rm le

ft t

o ri

ght

then

bac

k th

e ot

her

way

. Ea

ch l

inki

ng o

f se

nten

ces

effor

tles

sly

form

ed t

hree

art

icul

ated

pa

ragr

aphs

aro

und

the

subj

ect o

f cos

tum

es.

Spee

ch O

bjec

ts L

aunc

h C

neai

,Par

is, 2

1 ja

nvie

r 201

2

Dance could be understood as something funny or ironic because the dancer doesn’t know how to dance. But also, she experiences it and she really tries; not to dance as a professional dancer, but to use and move in the space with her body, during quite a long time. This work does not try to use a repertoire of dance-gestures that we are fami-liar with, it does not pretend to copy ‘real’ dance. It offers an attempt to do something else, even if we don’t know what this something else is, it is a material dance. |

It’s interesting that we’ve been talking about disrupting the expectation surrounding a situa-tion, such as a performance, or the expectations that come with an art form. Dancers are expected to have graceful and strong bodies, full of energy and spontaneity, yet they are simultaneously in control, in total possession and mastery of their bodies and movements. I’m not so convinced that language and the body can be so separated; or that there is an outside of language that we can access with our bodies. Or for example, that rationality and desire are distinct. Our discussion seems to revolve around notions of vulnerability, and also about how to hold together with various anxieties embarrassments, contradictions and ambiguities. |

The reason why it works is that you don’t know what it is. It’s not dance, it’s not yoga, you know that, but what? I like the way she takes it so seriously and so lazily but alternately her body is very flexible and malleable like that of a dancer. |

She plays with the idea of fragility, which creates tension. It’s not about language, but it’s about the body. It’s the same misunderstanding as with the jokes, which also creates a kind of poetic space. |

The dancing body is an intrusion. The dancing body does not exactly signify the realization of separateness any more, but the display of something from or out of the ordinary. Elsa Philippe's body crawls, stretches, slides. The body is an intrusion and it disturbs. It is not an expression of discomfort, but it is the uncomfor-table experience of what we would prefer not to see, because what remains is what is visible, and because it is we who are not crawling. This body dancing is the contradictory experience of what is inevitably exposed as a symbol. It is probably for this reason that is it hard to watch. |

I think a lot of people are confused by contempo-rary dance because it’s not related anymore with dancing skills and a beautiful execution of very complicated and long to learn moves but with something else. The audience feels often embar-rassed because as in contemporary theatre, which is very referential, even cynical and you don’t know when you are supposed to laugh, or whether or when you are supposed to be moved. |

Imag

e /

Proc

ess

The

imag

e of

the

dan

ce is

som

ethi

ng t

hat

is p

re-

viou

sly

fixed

in

our

min

ds,

it’s

the

way

peo

ple

perc

eive

and

vis

ualiz

e a

danc

e in

the

ir h

eads

. And

th

is im

age

is r

elat

ed t

o th

e ex

peri

ence

the

y ha

ve

rela

ted

to d

ance

. For

tho

se w

ho a

re n

ot d

ance

rs,

it m

ay b

e th

e da

nce

of L

ady

Gag

a in

her

vid

eo

clip

s, c

lass

ical

bal

let,

mod

ern

or e

ven

cont

empo

-ra

ry d

ance

, acr

obat

ics

etc.

whi

ch m

eans

a c

erta

in

qual

ity

of m

ovem

ent,

mov

emen

t in

acc

orda

nce

to t

he rh

ythm

or t

he m

elod

y, c

ostu

mes

, eve

n ce

r-ta

in p

ostu

res

of t

he b

ody

or f

acia

l ex

pres

sion

s.

The

im

age

is t

he p

rodu

ct,

the

resu

lt t

hat

has

been

tra

nsm

itte

d to

the

m a

nd d

epen

ds o

n th

eir

past

, the

ir c

ultu

ral e

duca

tion

and

rel

atio

nshi

p (o

r no

t) to

dan

ce (a

s an

art

form

).

Peop

le t

hat

are

not

danc

ers

have

oft

en a

cle

ar

imag

e of

dan

ce.

Usu

ally

the

y ca

n ac

tiva

te t

his

imag

e ea

sily

wit

h pl

easu

re,

even

if

they

cla

im

that

the

y do

n’t-

know

-how

-to-

danc

e. T

he i

nte-

rest

ing

thin

g is

tha

t w

hen

they

rep

rodu

ce t

his

imag

e-pr

oduc

t in

stal

led

as a

n im

age

in t

hem

, th

eir

danc

e ca

n be

see

n as

a r

ough

and

not

ela

-bo

rate

d m

ater

ial,

even

if

they

rep

rodu

ce t

he

mos

t so

phis

tica

ted

imag

e of

the

dan

ce.

It i

s lik

e p

layi

ng w

ith

ston

e to

imit

ate

a w

ell-

know

n sc

ulpt

or, o

r dr

awin

g to

imit

ate

a fa

mou

s pa

inti

ng

they

 kno

w.

Dan

cers

are

mor

e in

capa

ble

of d

efini

ng d

ance

or

an

imag

e of

it.

The

y in

sist

on

the

impo

r-ta

nce

of d

ance

as

a pr

oces

s, a

s a

way

to

built

up

som

ethi

ng,

to s

erve

a c

once

pt f

or e

xam

ple.

T

he a

im,

is s

omet

hing

asi

de o

f th

is.

Or,

the

danc

e it

self

is t

he b

igge

st q

uest

ion

they

wan

t to

re

sear

ch a

nd a

nsw

er, a

nd t

hey

danc

e in

ord

er t

o fin

d it

s im

age.

It

is t

he p

roce

ss t

hat

give

s va

lue

to t

heir

fina

l pro

duct

. Res

earc

h to

ans

wer

big

ger

ques

tion

s or

eve

n th

e ul

tim

ate

ques

tion

: w

hat

is a

dan

ce?

And

the

dan

ce is

the

too

l the

y ha

ve

in t

heir

han

ds,

thro

ugh

danc

e th

ey s

earc

h th

e m

ater

ials

tha

t th

ey c

an u

se t

o re

aliz

e th

e ar

tist

ic

visi

on t

hey

have

, to

answ

er q

uest

ions

. The

imag

e is

not

fixe

d an

d th

ey t

ry t

o do

a s

culp

ture

, an

d th

is e

ffor

t is

the

pro

cess

tha

t is

mor

e im

port

ant

than

the

imag

e it

self.

Tha

t pr

ovok

es a

par

adox

: peo

ple

that

cla

im t

hey

don’

t kn

ow h

ow t

o da

nce

or t

hey

don’

t un

ders

-ta

nd d

ance

as

an a

rt f

orm

, th

ey a

re u

sual

ly h

ol-

ding

a c

lear

im

age.

And

the

y ca

n re

prod

uce

it.

Peop

le w

ho k

now

how

to

danc

e in

a m

ore

offici

al

way

, ha

ve n

o id

ea a

bout

the

im

age

of d

ance

so

they

hav

e to

try

to p

rodu

ce o

ne.

If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution

Jacqueline Riva is Australian, she speaks English. I’m French, and I speak French. So when Jacqui hadto talk to the audience during the performance, she was speaking English and I was translating her words in French. Clémence de Montgolfier is French, she speaks French & English. But she asks me in French to write some words in English. I’m still French, I usually talk in French, but I’ll write some words in English as Clémence asked me in French to do it.I never danced, professionally speaking. I’m not a very good amateur dancer either. When I try to dance, I put my hands in my pockets and I’m quite embarrassed. Whatever, at the Ferme du Buisson, I danced. I spent several days in preparation of the show and a little over an hour on stage, but I have only few specific memories, as if the photographs of the event had replaced my imperfect memory with a series of unalterable images.I can no longer remember what I was asked to do and the initiatives I took. What I remember is thatwe were all supposed to dance around the fire, but when I finished setting fire to the SPEECH letters, there were only Clémence (the one who asks me in french to write in English) & Michele Robecchi singing "burn the speech" and Anna Hess dancing alone.I’m looking at the photograph of the dance and I wonder where are the other participants of the show. I couldn’t refuse to dance with her, I had to dance with her. I can remember the dance throughmy eyes, and the picture sends me back the reverse view. I see myself looking.

Dance

KAT

ERIN

A A

ND

REO

U

QUENTIN LANNES

Ava

nt-S

pect

acle

, Mic

ro M

edic

ine

Show

La F

erm

e du

Bui

sson

, Noi

siel

, 16

juill

et 2

011

A m

arqu

ee.

Sun

loun

ges

and

cush

ions

. W

e en

ter

but

do n

ot s

it.

Pres

enta

tion

. Ph

ones

, ev

en a

n I-

phon

e. W

ho c

alls

? A

nna.

Tel

epat

hy

wit

h A

ustr

alia

. Is

it g

oing

to w

ork

? I t

hink

, tha

t it

is

wor

king

thi

s ti

me.

Int

erlu

de.

A s

kele

ton?

A

tre

e? T

elep

athy

did

not

wor

k, I

belie

ved

in it

, I

had

held

my

brea

th a

litt

le w

hen

the

verd

ict

cam

e. C

hine

se id

eogr

ams.

Wha

t do

es it

mea

n?

I do

not

rem

embe

r. A

mar

quee

. A

bal

l. Po

etic

ac

roba

tics

. A

sea

l. A

phy

sici

an.

A s

peec

h. T

he

acti

on o

f co

ld o

n th

e se

min

al fl

uid.

It’

s fu

nny

Un

chap

itea

u. D

es c

hais

es lo

ngue

s et

des

cou

s-si

ns.

On

entr

e m

ais

on n

e s’

asso

it p

as.

Pré-

sent

atio

n. U

n té

léph

one,

un

I-ph

one

mêm

e.

Qui

app

elle

? A

nna.

Tél

épat

hie

avec

l’A

ustr

a-lie

. Es

t-ce

que

ça

va f

onct

ionn

er ?

Je

pens

e qu

e, c

ette

foi

s-ci

, c’

est

la b

onne

. In

term

ède.

U

n sq

uele

tte

? U

n ar

bre

? La

tél

épat

hie

n’a

pas

mar

ché,

j’y

cro

yais

, j’a

vais

mêm

e un

peu

re

tenu

ma

resp

irat

ion

au m

omen

t du

ver

dict

. D

es id

éogr

amm

es c

hino

is.

Qu’

est-

ce q

ue c

ela

sign

ifie

? Je

ne

me

rapp

elle

plu

s. U

n ch

apit

eau.

this

pas

sage

. Int

erlu

de o

n gu

itar

. Let

’s d

ance

! A

fea

st in

wor

ds, l

et’s

wai

t fo

r it

wit

h V

espe

-tr

o. U

nder

thi

s m

arqu

ee, w

e dr

ink,

we

danc

e,

we

saliv

ate,

we

sing

. A

pir

ate.

A s

kele

ton.

So

ngs.

Onl

y hi

ts! F

irefi

ghte

rs. M

atch

es.

Whe

re is

SPE

ECH

?

Une

bou

le.

Acr

obat

ie p

oéti

que.

Un

phoq

ue.

Un

méd

ecin

. Un

disc

ours

. L’a

ctio

n du

froi

d su

r le

liqu

ide

sém

inal

. Il e

st d

rôle

ce

pass

age.

Inte

rmèd

e à

la g

uita

re. L

et’s

dan

ce !

Un

fest

in p

ar d

es m

ots,

pat

ient

ons

avec

du

Ves

petr

o. S

ous

ce c

hapi

teau

, on

boi

t, o

n da

nse,

on

saliv

e, o

n ch

ante

. U

n pi

rate

. U

n sq

uele

tte.

Des

cha

nson

s. Q

ue d

es t

ubes

! Po

mpi

ers.

Allu

met

tes.

SPEE

CH

a d

ispa

ru.

E

MM

A C

RAY

SSA

C

Ava

nt-S

pect

acle

, Mic

ro M

edic

ine

Show

La F

erm

e du

Bui

sson

, Noi

siel

, 16

juill

et 2

011

‘We render objects as nothing.’

‘This nothing is embedded in us, in the way we speak, in the way we say things. By including nothing in what we say we allow the possibi-lity that we are in some sort of connected space, together. It puts us in a position to speak, given that there is such a thing as speaking.’

« La fin de l’école. Plusieurs d’entre nous se sont installés dans une autre ville ou un autre pays. Nous nous croisons parfois, gardons autant que possible le contact par email ou Facebook. Mal-gré la distance, peut-on rester aussi proches qu’avant ? Est-ce que Sacha, qui vit à Genève, et moi à Paris, pouvons être connectés par le même désir ? Et si Christelle pouvait inconsciemment me faire partager ses propres sentiments depuis Barcelone ? Si je me réveille de bonne humeur, est-ce parce que Simon, dans sa petite ville d’Au-triche, est également heureux ? Et si j’ai soudai-nement envie d’une glace, est-ce parce qu'Anaïs, dans le chaud été australien, y pense aussi ? » ‘Rather than transforming the immaterial into art, we can consider, as Ben Kinmont prompts, the materiality of our lives. Through technolo-gies and global networks, nothing is rare anymore, it’s always there, ready to be brought back as an object, a material object.’

‘What we aspire to, through Speech Objects, is already available.’

‘Even to listen to your explanations, one needs to be psychologically prepared. And I know how you will proceed, you will brainwash us and you will succeed, but we prefer to remain free. Thank youvery much.’ ‘This passion play of ignorance, being unsure and not-knowing is currently being played out against the viewer, who over and over in contemporary art is guided into being the constituted subject: the one supposed to know.’

‘In canceling the show, Francesco Manacorda, Artissima’s director, noted that it could be ‘poten-tially very offensive to artists and gallerists who participate in the fair’ and ‘negatively impact government funding of the arts in Italy, and potentially threaten the viability of Artissima.’ ‘Rather than this work making a creative unity of possibilities and actions it points to the fact that the audience may know what the artist does not, has forgotten or chooses to ignore. The audiences’ embarrassment about whether-it-is-a-work-of-art-or-not clearly points to and gene-rates the shared origin of the work or object itself.(And it is often noted that those involved in the

learned or official practice of art, find this almost unbearable).’

« F : J’ai une autre question. Si tu poses ce state-ment de l’illégitimité ou de la légitimité du dis-cours, est-ce qu’on pourrait avoir une question sur l’illégitimité de l’énoncé ?

C : L’énoncé par rapport au discours c’est comme utterance ? Et alors quelle différence tu fais avec le discours ?

F : Justement c’est bien cela le problème. Je pense à cela car je vois sur le coin de ta table, « Michel Foucault is a fatherfucker », il y a bien toute la question de la différence entre le discours et l’énoncé, et si il y a une illégitimité du discours, est ce qu’on pourrait poser la même chose de l’énoncé ? Et qu’est-ce qui se passe dans le cas contraire ? Moi par exemple je suis persuadé que tu peux poser l’illégitimité du discours, mais cela relève d’une doxa, cela relève d’une construction, autoritaire, doxologique, idéologique etc ; mais l’énoncé lui en revanche tu ne peux pas. Il ne peut pas être illégitime ou légitime.

C : Par ce qu’il est en dehors de la doxa ?

F : Parce qu’il est en dehors d’une construc-tion discursive. En dehors de la puissance d’une construction discursive. »

‘Although it is a commonplace to claim that it is only today that we have come to experience the self as fragmented, the contemporary Western ideology of selfhood indicates precisely the oppo-site: that what is new is the idea that there could be a coherent, unified self concealed behind it. Through documenting the loss of this self, it is, in fact, made to exist.’

Spee

ch O

bjec

ts L

aunc

hC

neai

, Pa

ris,

21

janv

ier 2

012

Floating Conversation