La Mama Theatre, Faraday Street Carlton, 6 x Sundays from May 20th at 2pm TO BOOK CLICK HERE to read my bullsh*t scroll down

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Martyrdom, or the challenge of trusting the untrustable

The word "martyr" in its original Greek form, means "witness". We think about a martyr more like participant. The stereotypical image today is one of bombs and carnage.

There is not much available which Ira has said about the interview. However, there's an interesting interview here where Ira is asked whether he has conducted a shaming. To which Ira replies "I haven't listened to the show since we did it". The journalist is following a particular line here. But it's a worthy question I think.

Was it a shaming? If so, why?

And also why hasn't Ira listened to the interview? That seems weird. And it seems like he probably feels a bit jumpy about it.

We could say the This American Life thingo as a shaming in which Mike is placed on the mantle of sacrifice in order to correct a cultural schism that Daisey has created. If we are to listen properly to Mike, we must review completely our consumption of products and the systems in which they are made. Isn't this an anarchist proposition? If you were to look hard enough at this in your own life, you would have to throw out most possessions.

This makes him a ripe target.

I think whenever Ira and Schmitz ask Daisey a question, the politics behind it is always about reinforcing status quo and denying activism.

That's why I believe Daisey more now than I did before, and perhaps why I'm doing this show. It's a challenge to believe him now, knowing that his speech comes from a place of art and activism and not journalism. It's a challenge to throw out your emperical knowledge and to just believe.

From the actions of Mike, especially the way in which he handles the Retraction interview, I believe Mike in a way that sort of circumvents empericism, and becomes pure belief.

Sort of like a religion.



    In which Mike Landy destroys everything he owns.

  2. Hmmm I don't think he did enough research about why he was doing this. He doesn't seem to give any reason? Apart from maybe nihilism. And he seems oddly unemotional about the whole thing. (The comparison with Mike is apt, except for this.) If I tried to destroy all my material posessions, I think I'd be pretty distressed.

    I like this work though, I think a valid response, more valid than most work out there.

    I do wish he'd recycled and also used a less elaborate means rather than the conveyor belt system.