I wanted to include in my research on family stuff a person that died March 1940 in Buchenwald.
He was a priest. A missionary who got in deep troubles with the director of Bekennende Kirche (The Confessing church)
Dr. S Knak who got upset really upset about my priest and had made him come back to Germany, Nazi Germany
because he caused too many troubles down there in Tanzania (I slapped his way through faces…….that does not sound like a correct phrase nor is the behavior.. but this were Mr. Knak’s words in German without an appropriate translation)
and back in Germany the priest got in new and deeper troubles
because he refused to serve as the spiritual imitation of a counseller the burial of a Nazi who had committed suicide…so he had been sent to Buchenwald learning how to die correctly.
A very complex story.
There are some other names in it (and of course back in my mind there ..some ideas trodding up and down about how incorrect sentences could possibly depict incorrect behavior
some ideas about true content and force content and the bias behind
a very interesting article on Academia.edu has been published on this topic by a certain Mr.M.Schmitz, but you don’t have to subscribe)
and I would really encourage some people to play with because sometimes you have to play, to deal with inappropriate "as if behavior" - if you want to reach an understanding of „given facts“ with the goal to understand them how they work how they are functioning
two people sitting at one table having supper together - you would even say this is a correct sentence, wouldn’t you?
But I can’t.
Nobody is interested in.
My African acquaintances or actors or participants are simply NOT interested.
the only thing they are proposing is a kind of spiritual assistance by and through the African church
and I understand what they are trying to say I'm just the German fascist and there is no solution at all exempt to believe
… Even here my grammar is not correctly put. As far as I am concerned a trigger is missing - in this sentence.
AND it is very pathetic and sentimental but true.
Of course ( grandloquental) we could say between „picture“, „artwork“ and „believing“ lies a very little space for a small step: theoria in grec and understanding
(hope no philosopher is reading this stuff wehre complex semantic structures are swirrling around like... like true value content -speaking with out any force of convincing anybody).
Hidden names in my words
But you see: I am not talking about HEIDEGGER, I am talking about REPRESENTATION.
How to represent an evil person, What does it mean being a fascist (all those questions are not your problem, I know. )
You don’t even care how to depict them, it is so easy.
But sometimes it occurs to me (and this word I am using recurrently in a wrong way)
that THE ACTUAL VISION OF ART is based on a very shitty idea of harmonical ILLUSION:
This kind of idea that a artificial creative story must reflect the old and baroque idea of a celestial HARMONY
whre the painful delusion of of historical tragedies comes to an harmonious end
catastrophic sufferings meet their end in a kind of relief
and cathartic pressure on the spectator's pity and condolence… are released and resumed in the spirit of HEALING
where the artist and this spectator are united in a totalitarian world of perfect people
the artist must be beautiful art must be beautiful
In my case, the case of my priest there is no spiritual distance no theoretical gap between watching playing and understanding.
The thing is a big shit about a German fascist dying in a German fascist concentration camp
there is no other possible symbolic meaning
And I could NOT re-appropriate SCHINDLER'S List, nor pretending to re-enact on my own behalf Liam Neeson's rôle.
The fact that I am talking about referring to „Schindler’s List“ constitutes per se a kind of indecent appropriation.
A newly refreshed violation - I am supposed to apologize for.
ART is not about the deep human inhumane behavior
NO MEDEA
NO Pasolini
but learning about the misfits of white supremacist behavior.
Please - no biased understanding.
I am not pretending that the priest or other members of my family have could or might have saved some people or children.
Not at all. But in order to find out what they did
or what they could have done
I help myself with a kind of positive fiction
I am trying to figure out what kind of positive possibilities they could have had.
I do not pretend this is a case of doing justice. The problem are missing representations.
theoretical blindness is not the blindness of justice.
Missing cases.
