Acting-Out Politics

Weblog opens discussion about the psychology of Bushmerican style of behavior.

You can hear mainly the chief lout
Steering the fire of violence

Paraphrase from Osip Mandelstam’s poem

Our destiny under the neo-conservative rule is either to continue to understand social life in a conformist way (without any genuine radicalism of being seriously critical about what’s going on) – keeping using euphemisms and pleonasms instead of factual explanations, or emotional and impulsive “radicalism” of just projecting into life our frustration and rage without real – thoughtful understanding.

When we are trying to understand what’s happening and how it’s possible in a country with democratic traditions of fight for justice, equality, fairness, compassion and concern for the general wellbeing of others, we’re magically transformed into cowards with heavy clay in our mouths. And when we’re not surrendering to “careful” cognitive figure skating – when we allow ourselves to question the very structures of our living and become more radically critical – we find ourselves dangerously close to extremists, to the same people who are overwhelmed with unleashed hate – creators of all the political nightmare of proud anti-humanism and cruelty in the first place.

So, we live in between understanding which is allowed/tolerated because it’s palliative and conformist (like the growing majority of Humanistic sciences professors and lecturers), and “understanding” which surrenders its essence but is full of extremist frustration which is very pleasant to catharsizes to the world (like conservative scholars and think-tanks specialists loyal to traditionalist dogma of powerful minority and aromatic warmth of money). We exist in between the both positions in a kind of messy and swampy moral (immoral) environment where we’re paralyzed or semi-paralyzed and chaotically and clumsy moving as mollusks in a warm mud.

What we’re not able to find and keep is a combination of honesty, emotional intolerance to the louts with their lies and tricks, and our own dignity, because these abilities demand from us what we’re afraid (after we became corrupted by cheap prosperity that made us spiritually impotent after it worked on us more than seven decades). People like we are barely able to politically achieve anything because we’re just resourceful settlers who are in panic of poverty, homelessness, illnesses and being beaten up or worse. The hairy fists of thugs, their high-tech machine-guns and metal taste of violence in general are the conductors of the melodies of our fears in fur of shame.

In our semi-whispers we use ellipses, hints, allusions and metaphors dissolving meaning so as to keep the remnants of our presence in the world still traceable.

Jean-Luc Godard, the creator of (among other incredible films) – “My Life to Live” (1962), “The Little Soldier”, 1963, “Contempt” (1965), “Every Man for Himself” (1980), “First Name Carmen” (1983), “Hail Mary” (1985), “The Detective” (1985), “Helas Pour Moi” (1993), “For Ever Mozart” (1996), “In Praise of Love” (2001), “Our Music” (2004), “Film Socialisme” (2010)

Godard comprehends in what a disastrous existentially spiritual environment we live, not just the politico-economic circumstances we with amazement have found ourselves “trapped in”. He is horrified by what’s going on in so many previously democratic countries. On his photograph here Godard is looking at the reality of the changing life with suffering but without fear. Look at amazement in his gaze, intensity of his involvement. He is contesting the socio-psychological tendencies but is in… dialogue with them. He wants to explain to the defenders of the old new – those overwhelmed with antidemocratic moods, what they are doing to human world. And he, as if, wants to awaken the masses of their followers – people who are for decades already seduced and mislead not just by the right wing crude propaganda, but by goodness and niceness of pseudo and cheap prosperity and comforting fakery of entertainment. These people are losing their humanity and humility because of their megalomania based on the belief in their exceptionalism – and they became enraged because of losing the feeling of their glory connected with their pauperization as a result of “austerity”. And now the wealthiest take from the rich, rich from the middle class, the middle want to take from the poor, poor from even poorer, and even poorer from the poorest. White will take from the brown and black, but white, brown and black from the “foreigners” who’re in a process of being rapidly transformed into “enemies”. That is where we all are victoriously going.

Godard doesn’t deserve to see this. But we who tried to ignore the growing dangers deserve to see and feel it. Who can help us? As the proverb says – god is too high up and king is too far. Participation in electoral ritual will not be enough. Our souls ought to be involved. But souls are not identical neither with our bodies demanding consumerism, entertainment and high-tech gun power, nor with our minds hired by our bodies to calculate our advantage better. And souls themselves are vulnerable to the poisonous process of “philistinization” with its greed, hate, hubris, cruelty, need to dominate, etc.

Loyalty Instead Of Lawfulness – Conservative Women And Macho-Men They Admire

Dora Maar’s “Pont de L’alma”, Paris (1935)

What is the most important part of the female anatomy for a despotic male? Harmonious face? Meticulous hairdo? Neck of purity? Breasts of generosity? Coquettish pubic hair? Paradise Bird? Her shoulders with underarms asking for a man’s hands’ pressure? Not at all. It’s women’s legs. But not if they are impeccably straight, but if they are reliable as a playmate. It’s legs that will come to the man when he wants. This is what Dora Maar seems to express in her amazingly penetrating photograph.

When women’s legs are responsive to macho man’s “whistle” his despotic call doesn’t need to ask for anything – just to put his fingers into the configuration we see in Dora Maar’s photograph – as if he wants to take the woman’s approaching legs as the stem of crystal wine glass. Machoistic mannerisms’ of irresistibility for conservative (traditional) women is not limited to males of peasant or proletarian or tough sport background. It can be even more potent with women in upper-middle or even higher class type of males or even the (function!) of money.

Conservative women (CW) are curious creatures in whom love for their macho-spouse is dissolved into unconditional admiration and loyalty. In other words, their feelings towards the head of their family or owner of their hearts are psychologically organized around their obedience to male authority. It’s, as if, the woman’s very trembling soul becomes a junior addition to the personality of her male amorous hero. This doesn’t mean that the character of conservative women in their very everyday life with conservative men (CM) necessarily becomes a domestic servant-like, but that male’s social views and “philosophical” positions are completely accepted by the female spouse who will automatically defend them in front of the world and believe whatever her amorous patriarch will say. CWs are pre-democratic organisms – for them, for example, the idea that every person in democracy has his/her right and obligation to independently vote – is a perverse and dangerous idealism. They will side with or vote for their husbands (if the last ones happened to run for public position). CWs are always an extension of their macho-husbands’ ideological views. They cannot, for example, be witnesses in relation to their husbands – they don’t have the minimum of independence of the soul to be objective. If a woman has a judgment different from her husband or disagrees with him on important issues it for the macho’s wife (for the “macho wife”) automatically means that such a woman betrays her spouse or beloved and even that she doesn’t love him.

For a macho-sissy (macho megalomaniacally sensitive, i.e. expecting woman to accept his “greatness” without reservations) to have a sexual intercourse with a woman is not necessary to be possessive but rather indifferent to her identity. Macho-sissies expect that their superiority not only over their spouses but over other machos and, of course, under-machos, is obligatory for women they are connected with – so vulnerable they are to refutation. They’re intolerant not only to women who rejected or abandoned them, but who accept them without recognizing their “exceptionalism”.

But what is signified by the two towers in the background, behind the bridge? It seems, it’s a symbol of despotic macho-sissy and “macho-woman” as exemplary conservative marital (or just amorous) couple. But it’s also a metaphor of permanent political alertness of the very institution of conservative (between macho-sissy and “macho-woman”) marriage. These two figures-towers are like eternal sentinels watching for and guarding against any deviation from the very social institution of traditional marriage with its cult of macho-patriarch.

Contrary to traditional macho-marriage, Dora Maar’s relations with Pablo Picasso in all its ecstasies and difficulties, in all its creative apogees and difficult melodies of freedom between the two – is the epitome of democratic relationships which deserves our admiration.

Dora Maar, “Alberto Giacometti’s Sculpture ‘Hands Holding Void (Invisible Object)’ in his studio”, Paris, 1934

It’s a very tricky task to try to interpret the work of one artist (especially as significant as Alberto Giacometti) as a part of the work of art made by another artist (especially as talented as Dora Maar). Why Dora Maar decided to make the photo of Giacometti’s sculpture inside his studio and in addition to this filled with another his works some of which couldn’t be even finished? Sculptures usually aren’t exposed inside the studio. It’s like to perceive human life as a part of life of the planet Earth – the connection is obvious but it’s not helping us much in understanding human problems – tautology swallows meaning. Besides, the sculptor inside his studio is like god in a creative mood – what is in the world – was in god or the artist’s mind before. Is it a right time for the public to see the product of the creative mind when it’s still in the studio? What could motivate Dora Maar to expose Giacometti’s work when it’s not yet fully finished?

May be, every artist is a bit like the figure with hands holding the void as an invisible object? The very creative gesture – gesture of creating includes holding and caring about an Invisible Object perceived by the creator as a precious potentiality, as a future baby is for a woman dreaming about it, or as a belief is for a believer a uniquely worthy object.

Of course, the object of creative or even dogmatic belief as dearest to a believer is ambiguous – the void is ambiguously empty, the emptiness is objectively cannot be reliable. The dreamer is always between yes of not, black and white, blue and brown, hot and cold, existence and non-existence, between one and zero (the fertile “one” vs the dead-end zero), between being loved and being betrayed.

The utopian belief or sentimental optimism or the very experience of having been drastically wrong about important matters, or being treacherously abandoned makes the very gesture of holding the void tragic or ironic. Emotionally nurturing an invisible object has a wide spectrum of connotations from romantic accent on belief in goodness to ironic one on utopian indulgence.

Let’s look at Maar’s photo more attentively. The heavy object pressing the feet of the figure (whose hands hold the invisible object) and paralyzing its movements is a symbolic attribute of any believer including a creative artist fixated on his/her creative efforts and the very products of his/her creativity. This fixation makes the believers and even creators (until the last ones didn’t yet distance themselves from their still invisible objects) – static, stationary, without a nomadic “gene”. The frozen position of the hands holding the void corresponds to the lost ability for dynamic inquisitiveness, which as a rule will return to the creative individuals, but will forever keep most of the believers in a petrified state of the soul.

Because Dora Maar has brought us into Giacometti’s studio we got the opportunity to see not only the statue “holding a void” but the other three objects of the sculptor’s inspiration – the bird (behind the holder of the void), the child (to the right of her) and – in the darkness in the corner – a small revolutionary with a toy-size flag. All these three mini-sculptures have the same particularity as the androgynous figure holding the invisible object, as the two artists themselves and any believer in his/her precious emptiness – the object of his/her belief.

The bird is expressing its excitation about life and light by filling the studio with its insisting tweets. It doesn’t know what her song is about, but it knows that this song has a point and that it has a right to utter it. The child (with awkward body of a square) has a sad, almost crying eyes and pouched lips trying to keep the sulking inside – the adults are always occupied with their “empty” interests while the child is alone. Finally we reach the abandoned, dark corner of the place of Giacometti’s inspiration, where we discern the forgotten little figure of revolutionary still trying to wave his toy-flag, tirelessly, stubbornly, desperately, continuing to rely on his “sacred” belief.

Are the bird, the child and the revolutionary the abandoned babies of their androgynous mother suckling the new invisible object(s) of her belief, like before she was suckling her previous “voids” (invisible objects), before they became concrete, earthly creatures settling now in the backs and corners of Giacometti’s studio. Creative instincts of the creators – worshippers of their own inspiration – gods and artists – love their creations only before they became incarnated – when their essence can be imagined as more perfect than reality. That’s why god-father has retreated from Earth. That’s why Christ was sent down to compensate life for God’s disappointment.

That’s why Giacometti ended his creative life with a completely new style corresponding to a destroyed – degraded condition of human beings (corresponding to the position of the bird, child and the revolutionary mini-sculptures in his studio and don’t deserve to be admired because they’re no longer in the creator’s dreams).

Dora Maar, “Handstand”, 1934, Barcelona

Why is this child of early adolescent age standing in front of photo-camera and viewers on his head? Is he preparing for school competition? For future athletic profession fertilized by solid investment? Is he entertaining the passer-byes (passer-buyers) for coins or banknotes reward? May be, he is bragging about his prowess in front of his peers? Looking at the boy’s face it is obvious, that it’s not pleasant for him to stand on his hands. The boy is without any bravado we can see on kids’ faces in sport photos.

But why Dora Maar could get the idea to make a photo of the boy doing] handstand? Was her intention casual or “instinctive” or just a “why not” idea, with the hope that the photo can look “interesting” or “unusual” – motivation of many photographers looking for success? Dora Maar is a meaning oriented photo-artist – she “disinterestedly, selflessly thinks”, not just “wanders” searching for images.

The variant of Dora Maar’s “Handstand” – “Hanging on the Ceiling”

As we see in the second photo (which is just a turned upside down version of the first), it doesn’t matter is the kid standing on his hands or “hanging from the ceiling” – it’s his great attempt to do so the point. The circumstances made him do this instead of inspiring him to do something more meaningful, for example, to study for better understanding life, not for “survival”, but for the development of the soul and mind, instead of preparing himself to serve to protect the wealth of the wealthy and power of the powerful.

Of course, mass orientation on pop-sport today is supported by pop-taste for mass-cultural prevalence of building up of human body and developing mental control over loco-motions – to the drastic neglect of humanistic education, of reading poetry and prose, giving oneself to un-entertaining art and to experiencing serious films instead of action movies. The cult of professional sport helped by intensive money investment. The result – the teens and teenagers become involved with high-risk sport, Ultimate fight in all its variants, skateboarding sport and more and more attracted to speed, height, high level of physical exertion and highly specialized gear. Modern military training, intense sport and big business united into one super-efficient sector of mass pedagogy and propaganda of strength and prowess as an ultimate value.

In the 30s this tendency to train kids, youth and adults for obedience (in front of rulers) and domination (instead of contemplation and grace) over others was developing in countries with intense authoritarian-totalitarian tendencies, like some European countries and in Soviet Union. Number of Dora Maar’s photographs including her “Handstand” are dedicated to the historical analysis of this tendency of preparing children to endure tough and rough self-treatment for being able to fight with the “external and internal enemies” of militaristic States. Children are especially vulnerable to influence and manipulation by adults, even when they think that they’re in the center of the world or on the rock-music stage. Ultimately, it is adults who finance children’s childish and anti-thinking orientation – on developing muscles instead of existential brains. It is the ruling adults create the obstacles for the young to mature intellectually and spiritually.

For money, success, rewards and trophies for courage in self-sacrifice for the sake of the adults they have idealized, children learn how to stand on their heads or how to hang from the ceiling, clouds and sunbeams, like Dora Maar’s protagonist will do everything to deserve the encouraging smiles of adults, like animation cartoon superheroes, like today’s champions and winners, like future conquerors of the planet Earth. The abused boy in Dora Maar’s photo is a recruit into adult males’ dreams of unlimited power.

Children from their childhood are cultivated to remain infantile. Ruling adults organize the structure of education in a way that children cannot develop into authentic adults. Thinking about future money and social success overburdens their souls. Children and child-like adults (the majority) are more gullible and easier seduced to follow any fantasy of any tyrant. Homo-childish is a creature who dreams just to work very hard by playing games in order to get rewards. Homo-childishness as an adult condition includes hard work unrecognizable by the toy artificiality of the childish worldview.

Dora Maar, “Apres la pluie/After the Rain”, 1933, Paris

The artist has chosen to characterize Paris as, from the first glance, nearly a monstrous stony landscape – the wide asphalted pedestrian road with the stoned bordure, the massive “cargo” wall on the side, the tiny figures of a mother and child at the distance and not a tree or shrub anywhere in sight. Can this be Paris we’re looking at?

Of course, there are generous shadows of trees on the side wall and some deformed dry leaves lying near the pedestrian way. So, trees are somewhere nearby, and this gives hope, although Paris, as it is well known, doesn’t need to appeal to tourists and hopeful. Asphalted road is shining, as if, polished by the remnants of the rain. The shadow reflection of the trees is embellished with the some sunlight on the wall. We start to enjoy not only the shadow of the verdure but modest although reflected by the walls and pedestrian way sunlight. We feel that Paris is far from being hopeless.

But what if the reflection of the tree branches with leaves on the giant sidewall is not reflection at all and instead – phantoms of trees which already don’t exist and belong to the category of the memories – of people who remember Parisian trees, or, may be, even belong to the memory of the walls themselves. May be, Parisian trees continue to live in the form of being the shadows of their previous vitality? May be, it is a sign of previous trees’ vitality – to be alive while being dead and to be still noticed by the passersby, by, if you like – by the surface of the walls itself which is to the wall as human skin to human body? Probably, some cities, like Paris, never can die, only sometimes the form of the living may look like after-death experience. Besides, Dora Maar in her “After the rain” doesn’t depict the whole Paris but only its tiny part. And if to think like this we can even feel that this Parisian area not without some poetical touch, a drop of poetry amidst the passion of living. And the tiny mother and her child inhale the Parisian air recently purified by the rain, while going from their past to their future. And we are the witnesses.

Dora Maar, “Arcade”, 1934

How pleasant it supposed to be – to sleep right on the floor under the giant arcades. It’s like to sleep right under the protection of the universe – so great the distance between resting so far down from the very height of the borderless world. To sleep under the castle of arcades it means to be protected by what is, as if, opened, when the ceilings are very openness itself, more exactly – when openness is ceiling.

And still the danger can come – danger is coming. Not from the up where we are opened and at the same time sheltered by protection, but from the earthy soil, from the underground waters. They are coming to the floor of the arcades. They are covering it with its foam. They are conquering the world from under. They’re like the poisonous saliva of the primordial dangers.

Aren’t we ourselves guilty? We enjoyed protection from above – protection by the very openness. But we forgot to protect ourselves from underground. We try to protect ourselves from the sky and what is above the sky, but we, children of the earth, forgot the dangers of the earth we ourselves are part of. We wanted to conquer what is above us, and we invented anthropomorphic god(s) – our dream of being protected from above. We didn’t take into consideration the dangers of our earthly nature to us ourselves. Now we are victimizing ourselves with our own megalomaniacal stupidity and greed. The foam of revenge is coming. Our blissful sleep under the universe’s “high ups” is interrupted by our own earthly nature. We are sadists of our own life and masochists of our death.

Dora Maar’s Photomontage “Le Pisseur” (1935), Gelatin Silver Print

We see in front of us a magnificent but not imposing interior of what looks like a castle-temple as a monument of traditional aristocratic culture in its double nature (castle aspect and temple aspect). The castle aspect refers to the sociological meanings of the building, and the temple aspect to its aesthetic (secularly spiritual) quality. Historical changes can easily dismiss the value of sociological meanings of traditional architecture – revolutionary moods of people who hate everything aristocratic serve as a justification for vandalism and destruction of the old historical sites. But cultural value of traditional culture is universal and timeless – philosophers and artists of the past are “immortal” and are always needed for spiritual functioning of the later generations. The palaces’ architectural and interior-designs as examples of human creativity are inalienable from humanity in its wholeness, from our past and future.

Still, it’s not only the desperate revolutionary crowds can be destructive to the traditional secularly-spiritual culture. It seems, that the real destroyer of serious culture is subcultural organism named “mass culture” (which is based on psychological “mechanism” of repressive desublimation) helped by human consumerist reflex and megalomaniacal need to be entertained. Mass culture doesn’t destroy the walls of traditional monuments, but the spiritual side of human aesthetic sensitivity, it undermines the human soul with gradual but radical erosion. Everything mass-cultural mind is focusing on is reduced to rudimental forms and ideas. Here, we are already close to the very semantic nucleus of Dora Maar’s photomontage “Le Pisseur”.

In the upper left corner of the photograph we see something happening that is challenging our expectation of what is possible to see in work of photographic art. We see that an adolescent boy is… urinating not just on the internal wall of the castle, but right at the adult person who is trying to protect the place’s interior from being scandalously dirtied and defiled – the precious relic from the past. The boy is obviously intending to damage and dishonor the castle, but the woman is desperately trying to protect its interior by, literally, putting her body on the way of the hooligan. She is, probably, the curator and an educator, a person feeling that thinking that it is her noble obligation to help the younger generation to become more culturally competent and aesthetically refined. By observing today, in the 21st century, mass orientation on consumption, entertainment and fight for higher social position and wealth we can easily imagine how “successful” this heroic woman-defender of cultural values can be in a situation depicted on Dora Maar’s prophetic photograph. How can you stop the new generations from neglecting and defiling serious culture then and today, after more than eighty years after Maar’s photomontage was made, when children are formed by animation cartoons and very often – violent video-games?

This encounter between the barbaric teen and “self-sacrificial” educator is the punctum of Dora Maar’s photomontage. But now let’s focus on the relations between the ceilings and the interior walls of the castle-temple – and its polished floors meant to reflect them but already losing this “reflective” ability because of “urine of contempt” for the cultural heritage on part of the liberally uneducated generations. Here Maar’s photomontage forces us to differentiate between a work’s of art plot-as-action and plot-as-meaning of action (plot enlarged and ennobled by its meaning). Of course, this particular hooligan boy is not able to destroy the whole floor of the castle-temple’s wide hall, but the group of young people inspired by collective excitement to destroy what they don’t (and don’t want to) understand triumphantly can, and this is exactly what we see in the photograph. Dora Maar’s photographic art is not an example of mass-cultural photos depicting actions and sentiments. “Surrealistic” style gives her the chance to make photographs semantically multi-dimensional. She is interested not only in the lives of concrete human beings but in lives of human societies in culturological perspectives, in their development or degradation.

Maar’s photograph also focuses on the importance of the function of reflection not only in mirroring but in the intellectual sense. She makes the physical reflection of the castle’s interior by the floor a metaphor of the very ability of life to reflect about its own past, roots and ability for growth and modification. The inability of human civilization to reflect – to disinterestedly think about itself and the world is a matter of the difference between serious culture cultivating interested in real humanistic knowledge instead of stimulating blind emotional reactions on the world and other people and mass culture based on exchanging entertainment on financial profits. The boy (trying to debase the castle’s interior) is a product of mass culture which taught him how to have fun instead of intellectually loving the world of otherness he is born into. His ability to reflect about the world is radically hurt, as the function of the floor to reflect the interior of the castle-temple. This floor signifies disintegrating civilization which has lost its humanistic (not technically “mechanical”) reflective ability – it is transformed into ruins, the floor in the Dora Maar’s photograph looks like.

Look attentively at the floor in the photo – eroded by human waste. It looks not like chaotic piles of unorderly rocks as pre-civilizational crude landscape, but like post-civilizational disaster – as rocks ripped out by the cosmic catastrophe of human making – as a fiasco of human culture, the inability of human societies to disinterestedly reflect about themselves, life and the world.

Dora Maar in her “Le Pisseur” is trying to alert us – by mobilizing her own experience of knowing European life between two wars – about the dangers of technological fetishism and mass-cultural distortion of human reflective abilities.

Dora Maar (1907-1997)

Dora Maar, “Portrait of Paul Eluard”, 1933-34

Looking at this photograph we see a person who has completely given his gaze to us, the viewers, who is straightly looking into our eyes. Without having uttered a word, he is already talking to us. With his silence Eluard, as if, telling us – “I am a poet – a human being who is looking into the eyes of people when they are interested in poetry or reading or listening my poems”.

We see a person who – while looking at us keeps his hands on the open surface of the table – as if to show us his craft – writing poems. Paul Eluard is quietly alert, when he is ready to write he is listening to the silent presence of language. He is in tune with us – through his eyes, and with language – by hearing its readiness and through his hands encouraged by the bright light.

Eluard is a frank person – in his openness to us confidence and humility enrich one another – he is honest with us and honest with language. With him la parole is authentic and la Lange is organic. We, as if, see his poetic confessions – and we are prepared – we are becoming impatient to hear his poetry.

Look again at his gaze combining his mental alertness with relaxation, the two together help his talent to coin unique verbal combinations in his poems.

Dora Maar, “Portrait of Jean Cocteau”, 1936

Contrary to Paul Eluard, Jean Cocteau in Dora Maar’s photographic representation doesn’t create unconditional emotional bonds with people. He, it seems, has recently awaken after his internal journeys and his gaze is a bit over-tough, as if, protecting his inner discoveries from the factual world full of conformist fears, human prejudices, vulgarities and intolerance. Cocteau’s facial expression is of a stubborn determination – as though he is guarding what he has recently understood and needs to think through. Cocteau is not rushing to open himself up. He is not trying through Dora Maar’s photo-camera to characterize himself in any way – just his being. His all body is a little compressed, as if – hermetic, but look at his resolute gaze – he needs to win over his environment including other human beings.

His coat on the chair he is relying on is for him like an animal hide for a hunter, but the sleeves of his jacket is slightly rolled back. Cocteau doesn’t need dandyism for a psychologically defensive purposes. He is an authentic spiritual dandy. And this identity helps him to develop the perspectives and trajectories of his art. Cocteau is a knight of secularly spiritual dandyism.

If in Eluard the eyebrows follow the arch-lines of his eyes like the borderlines of his hair emphasize the noble curves of his forehead, Cocteau’s eyebrows are straight as his gaze and as his mouth, straight as a verbal arrow which he soon will send to the world to spiritually hit and seduce – with his intuition and determination – with his tireless versatile artistry.

Posted Sep, 11 ’13 – Paul Eluard’s (1895 – 1952) Poem “Honest Justice” – Humanism of Honest Justice As An Existential Position, With Man Ray’s “Portrait of Paul Eluard” by Acting-Out Politics

Posted on March, 16 ’16 –   Jean Cocteau’s “The Testament of Orpheus” (1959) – Psychological Alchemy of Poetic Creativity and Self-reflection (Phases of the Artist’s Spirituality) by Acting-Out Politics

Posted on April, 13 ’16 –   “The Testament of Orpheus” by Jean Cocteau (1959) by Acting-Out Politics

« Previous Entries  Next Page »


November 2018
« Oct    



Recent Entries

Recent Comments