Dr S
"
ladies and gentlemen, the topic: 'provocation, elemental life form of society' will be
discussed. The organisers have consciously abstained from adding a 'question mark' here, and have
thereby postulated the provocation as that that challenges the elemental life form of society.
Me personally, and I assume all of us here accept the premise of this statement. The subject area of
our world, where the debate of provocation as elemental life form of society is to be investigated, is
'Art and anti-art'. Of course, this is as ambiguous and general as the provocation that went before is
precise. Art and anti-art, what is art? What is anti-art? Is art that that doesn't provoke? Where a
consensus arrived at over time is the accepted status quo? Does anti-art itself provoke? How do we
define art? How do we define anti-art? How do we define the meaning and function of art today?
...in the past, in the future? How do we define anti-art?
I begin by questioning Marcel Duchamp who is closely associated with the term 'anti-art'. I asked:
'what was it you were aiming for when you attached the bicycle wheel to a stool, signing it, placed it
in your home, later send it to an exhibition? What was your intent? Did you want to provoke? Did
you do anti-art?' He replies; 'God no! I have nothing to do with 'anti-art'. These are terms that were
invented later by art historians and art critics. I was never interested in the theoretical investigations
of such terms. I took great pleasure in painting for a short time, then I lost interest in painting, I
couldn't stand the smell of turpentine any longer and I wanted to do something different, and so I
took this bicycle wheel, an object I like, into my home, set it up, signed it - later some people took it
to an exhibition and I was ok with that, but, I never wanted to make anti-art'. I can imagine that
many artists will agree with Marcel Duchamp. And indeed, that the term anti-art only exists because
it was born out of criticism and reflection. All art, all new art, new and thereby provocative art is
always perceived as anti-art by parts of society. For example, the 'Salon painters’ in the 19th Century
and the 'Impressionists'. For many this must have been perceived as anti-art, even though it would
have been expressed and termed differently.
Mr Beuys, may I ask: did you ever ask yourself: am I making art? Am I making anti-art? Do I want to
provoke? Could you answer from your stand and viewpoint please?
"
JB
"
of course, did I ask myself what I am doing when I am making art. And I am not - if it is
true what you just said about Marcel Duchamp - such a bad thinker as Marcel Duchamp, if it is true
what you said about Marcel Duchamp. For me the first question was; what is it? What is it I do when
I make art? I also realized that this question stirs humans, that they ask, what am I doing? Is it
something that has relevance to us humans? Is it therefore essential to make art? It is this question
that let me to explore from the beginning of my practice the term 'art' theoretically in a sense
Marcel Duchamp may reject. I coined a definition of 'anti-art' which is likely to be different to the
definition of ‘anti-art’ for other artists. I attempted with the term of anti-art to encompass and
address the 'complete human'. To encompass and address all questions concerning the 'human
being' that present themselves. I therefore attempted to expand the art term to include any human
activity that is set in motion. That through the expansion of the art term - I also want to express this
schematically - and we encounter the term of 'expansion of consciousness’ here - and I have to
sketch this schematically - is for me directly connected and related to the demand to expand this to
the sciences as well. Therefore, in my definition of ‘anti-art’ lies the question of 'human being'. This
comes out of a process of going back and asking the question: 'how is it justified to claim every
human is an artist?' I can only start presenting this schematically by saying 'here is the artistic' and
the definition ‘every human is an artist' is equal to saying 'every human is a creative'. Every human,
from inside every human there is a source of origin, of creation, an element, which at the point of
'thinking' - here I place the term 'thinking' as the most important term for my definition of 'anti-art' -
through thinking something radically new is brought into the World- which converts and clarifies the
understanding of 'freedom'. What reveals itself if it is real, is that at a specific point the process of
'Plastik'- and here sits my term of 'Plastik' - that the process of ‘Plastik’ is primal and creative, a
captured emerging situation, that introduces something new into the network of matter of the
Earth, from the supernatural into space from an opposing space or anti space or, how shall I say,
let’s take religious categories from a metaphysical context which enter into the World of matter.
Here is where the understanding of 'freedom' is to be discussed as humanity encounters here the
ever-present question: “Is the human being a social being, which means dependent and bound by
the substance ratio of the physical world or is he a free being?”
Here, we have of course, to differentiate the examination on the premise that the human being is a
social being. Here it is especially important to recognize that furthermore he is also a free being who
for the part where he is connected to society, where he has to work together with others, has to
introduce new modes of thinking, new substances to earth in order to work out a new model
towards the social and the evolution of humanity…
"
Dr S
"Mr Beuys …"
JB
" : this is in regards to art and anti-art, provocation is another thing, which would have
to be explored from here onwards.
"
Dr S
"your definition of anti-art, if I understand you correctly, is merely an expanded art
term since the question of human kind has also always been asked in art but you have simply placed
your expanded art term above art like a hat.
"
JB
" yes, but I have to say here I have to be more precise and I have to alert you...
"
Audience talking and shaking heads
JB
" do you not understand? Well, then the microphone must be set up wrongly… So,
here I have to say that of course, art has always asked the question of human kind but in different
ways. We encounter now a historic cultural situation - it may not be too farfetched if we say that
humanity stands before a significant, the most significant transition of change since the existence of
this planet. That humanity may endeavour to achieve a new level of consciousness and therefore the
examination of the 'human' how I explained it, meant in a very specific way. Of course, this would
have to be further explored into all directions to prove, test and evidence. That's why I'm here and I
advocate contrary to conventional debates that are scheduled to last one and a half hours, and then
off to the pub, - that we debate into the early hours in order to clarify the specific points. Well,
otherwise it's not possible! It makes any discussion problematic some general stuff appears but
nothing else.”
"
Dr S
"Max Bense, you like to respond..."
MB
"well, let me start by saying that everything Mr Beuys just said is a total dilution of the
entire subject. Because.... well, because I have no idea what he is talking about, when he talks about
'freedom', when he talks about 'anti-art'... What is anti-art?! Anti-art has to pick up 'art', otherwise I
don't understand the term 'anti' –
"
louder
MB
"
even louder? The second question is this: why is the actual topic for which I was invited
been simply amputated by Mr Beuys? I was invited to discuss the topic: provocation! Does art
manifests itself as a provocation of society? Why is provocation an elemental life form of society. I
personally think this all to be general paraphrasing, general nonsense if it isn't defined!
"
Dr S
" Max Bense, may I ask you then for our first definition."
MB
"yes, what about? What do you like to have defined?”
Dr S
" the topic.”
MB
"alright, the topic! I'm of the opinion if we talk about provocation than we talk about an
artist creating something, achieves something we are able to define as work in the conventional way
which within society - to use Mr Beuys terms – is to achieve a change of consciousness. If the art
work is really meant to change consciousness or facilitates such a change, I would like to know which
change of consciousness the so called 'works' by Mr Beuys have achieved.
"
JB
"well, I couldn't care less about what change of consciousness my works –"
MB
" you have to define! –"
JB
"well, don't interrupt me –"
MB
"yes! Sometimes an interruption is good, precisely one which forces the opponent to be
precise. You have to say; what is it you want to change when you provoke?"
JB
"Ah, so you are my opponent –"
MB
"In this discussion, yes! Well, do you think you have none? I have them too."
JB
"So, of course, I can't continuously ask to which extent I achieved through my art, my
work, a change of consciousness. I can only say that I always attempted to introduce that that trigger
the change of consciousness. So I can't say that I ponder and speculate long and hard about the
value of my work. I work at a point through thought to reveal something, namely my ‘will’."
MB
"What do you want? what do you want?"
JB
"I want to expand the consciousness of humans especially towards the real political
situation"
MB
"Alright then..."
JB
"I do not hold the view for example that we are living in a democracy, I do not hold the
view that we are nurtured to become free beings through our party political administration, etc… I
am ready to start right here with my provocation!"
MB
"That's right! Me too, me too. My first provocation - is it still my turn?"
JB
"Max Bense"
MB
"My first provocation goes back to the original topic; if you want to expand
consciousness or change consciousness, you have to know into which direction or it is all nonsense"
JB
"Well that's why I said I am happy to discuss this into the early hours."
MB
"No! This has to be decided now!"
JB
"Aha, in one sentence!"
MB
"It has to become clear! If you have to say something about the change of
consciousness you have to be able to say in which direction!"
JB
"Indeed, and I can only say this is only possible through education by connecting
humans with the terms of anthropology."
MB
"What is a term of anthropology?"
JB
"A term of anthropology is for example, to observe the total anatomy of the human,
the outer anatomy and the inner. So, I ask what is the internal pole of ‘freedom’? What is the
internal pole of ‘will’? What is the so called ‘empathy’? from which emotions..., what is the so-called
sub conscious of which psychologists talk? These are all questions we face…"
MB
"These questions are way back in the past!"
JB
"I see, and what have you revealed?"
MB
"Well you have to research the works of those who are experts!
Excuse me? Yes, Psychoanalysis exists! … at least since the year 1900"
Booing
MB
"Well is this all wrong?”"
JB
"Psychoanalysis is exactly what I view critically"
MB
"Yes, me too"
JB
"Yes suddenly you too! A minute ago you wanted to research..."
MB
"No, you should research… because you said you'll get stuck..."
JB
"I did a lot of research."
Dr S
"Tonight we don't want to research - we want to discuss. Arnold Gehlen…"
Audience complains about the room being too small
Dr S
"At the moment we have to make do with this small room. I am not the organiser, I
haven't booked this room for the discussion, which was as unknown to me as to some of you. We
have to...even if regrettable to be in this small room, there is nothing we can do about this, even if
we find this regrettable.
Professor Gehlen, may I ask...now...to enter this discussion."
AG
"yes, now gentlemen, when I accepted this invitation, it was on the condition that
we will have a conversation about art or 'anti-art'. The title ‘provocation as elemental life form of
society ’I consider already too vague and open and as a subject beyond art. To apply this to art, I
would say I want to see that individual who is still able to be provoked by art. This used to be
different, I myself in the year 1920 went to one of the first 'Dada events' then as a pupil, but what
happened there that was truly provocative. This was enormously successful, which of course is not
repeatable, and I believe…I believe, we should, if no more specific…specific thought on provocation
reveals itself, we should divert from this. But, the topic 'art' and 'anti-art' we should think about
more. Mr Schmied said, the term ‘anti-art’ was invented by the critics - that may be true. What I
struggle with - I want to pre-empt - I am a loyal art lover and because of that often disappointed.
And...I miss something to grab here of the 'shape' or comprehension…- may I
demonstrate; in the moment when the previously mentioned Duchamp in the year 1914 signed a
metal bottle-"
Dr S
"a bottle stand"
AG
"No, he signed a metal bottle, that's what he did. Set up a bottle rack and the by you
mentioned bicycle wheel - in this moment something essential appeared – that made this Duchamp
for the current situation likely more important than Picasso - there appeared that every and any
object, a beer bottle or whatever, somehow by being placed onto a plinth with an accompanying
comment from Art History and Science works as art. This already expanded the art term...and now...
something else was added; the boundary of play got blurred. Everywhere where I have to twist
something or press some buttons, or walk through...yes?.... the border of engagement… 'look! This is
something to engage with', has arrived at this boundary. Now 'play' becomes current and it now gets
dangerous, because there is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in 'play'. There is only 'boring' or 'fun'. These are
totally different categories. We now have such an expanded remit of art into which every
'handmade' is included and every 'game' as well, that we have to remind ourselves of the ancient
logic thinkers who said the broader and all encompassing a term becomes the greater the absence
of content and that's true. I am no longer able to define with the term ‘art’ any meaningful
understanding. And I believe some artists feel the same who then enter politics. And then you are
back...you are back on shaky ground.
Yes, that's how it is, isn't it? Help me here…"
JB
"Do you want to remain on shaky ground?”"
AG
"Yes Mr Beuys do help..."
JB
"Or do you want to help towards steadying the shaky ground into a secure base for
humans?"
AG
"I don't want to thrash empty phrases, I want to...ask you something specific:
"
Audience complains
AG
"...yes, yes...it's alright...I want to...ask specifically: Do you have any criteria for art
works? I am not talking about yours, but any, including yours, do you still have any criteria to say
‘this is good - this is not good, this is useful, this is nonsense."
JB
"yes of course. Of course"
AG
"Well then tell us so I can get back to the art term."
JB
"Well of course, the definition of ‘anti-art’ includes the old definition of ‘art’. I said
‘anti-art’ includes ‘art’ and ‘anti-art’. There is the old definition of ‘art’ where rules of aesthetics -
and I have to bracket the term (aesthetic) as this term is no longer relevant to me as I said 'aesthetic’
= (equals) ‘human’. We have to discuss this further, these old terms of an old definition of ‘art’ of
course coexist alongside the expanded definition of ‘art’. Therefor, criteria such as measure, order,
size, scale, etc... their proportional relation, all the things known from classical art theory - tension,
etc..., of course, they are relevant to me and are useful to some degree in providing a basis for
pedagogical art lessons. However, these have to be expanded with terms of observations of the
human as an evolving being. Who endeavours to aim and move towards new things. Who asks: Can
this art induce something to 'being'? This is the question. This is the question of many humans that
effects them day and night. Is, for example, my art relevant to politics? You shouldn't ridicule the
term 'politics' by declaring it to be the usual vague term. We want to see that in the future
something new for everyone has been developed that is useful, that for example allows
development of new pedagogical models... I believe that from an expanded art term and an
expanded comprehension of anthropology which are connected, we of course make some
conscientious statements about pedagogy. This is of course directly connected with the attempt to
work out models, to operate 'project science'. There is nothing more important to us Europeans
than to have a clear vision about our future; is it for example our task to compete with large
economies? Is it of any interest to us to compete with the Eastern and Western super powers on
economy and technology? Or may this become our path of ridicule for us? And maybe instead, for
Europe, questions of and for humanity should be the focus? Evolved from Europe and spread across
the entire World, etc, etc..."
Dr S
"Mr Beuys, this is very general... Mr Gehlen, you said the boundaries of art have
become expanded and you no longer feel art to be able to provoke. A few weeks ago an event
happened which moved many minds, a so-called 'happening' at a University in Braunschweig, where
a pig was slaughtered. As a reaction to this about 18.000 signatures were collected under a
statement that this was abuse of 'human dignity' - 'Action human dignity - PO box 18' was the name
of this action in Braunschweig. Do you think that a happening, an event of this kind -and it doesn't
matter if good or not - is no longer art? Or art no longer provokes? How do you answer this
question?"
AG
"well, I did not say that art isn't able to provoke anyone anymore, I only stated that
I'm no longer provoked by art. And..., well, and... and the story you just mentioned- which is only
fragmentary - well, much more than that happened, yes? I read in the paper, back then, that a pig
was slaughtered and that the intestines were emptied over a young lady who in a state of undress...
well something like that... Ok? Yes."
Dr S
"well do you see this as provocation or not?"
AG
"...yes, well...I wouldn't be offended by this...I have seen much worse, I have seen
much worse... just a moment, I haven't finished! ...But... my interest in the process as a thinking
human- is a total different thing. I think there is the attempt - I assume the man was thinking of
something - and there is apparently the attempt to execute an expansion of consciousness to trigger
disgust, a desire of humanity, which in our polished surface doesn't receive much attention - and he
wanted to emphasize this, which he obviously succeeded in. That's how I perceive this. I do
understand others, who feel that their boundaries have been crossed and they don't want to pay to
see this, but for me this isn't a provocation."
Dr S
"Max Bense
MB
"prior to the question of provocation there is the question if this is an artistic action."
AG
"yes, but everything is art we just learned!"
MB
"yes but is this correct? I am not..."
JB
"but it is correct!"
MB
"just wait you don't know what I want to say!"
JB
"yes, but it is correct."
MB
"I am not denying... I say the following; art is a form of the epicurean enjoyment and in
this context the slaughter of a pig is a valid expression of an epicurean enjoyment. And as a
consequence of that it is safe to say that the act generates ’lust’. Generating lust may as well trigger
an expansion, a transition of consciousness, to use his terms, and is possible. If we assume that the
essential of the epicurean enjoyment expresses itself in art - I concede that the slaughter of a pig
delivers such an enjoyment. And I am willing to admit that in specific circumstances, a butcher who
masters a fine art of slaughtering a pig will have the same emotion and experience, the same
expansion of mind as someone who applies colour and paint onto canvas."
JB
"yes, yes"
Dr S
"the alternative Mr Bense, you owe us, if there is no epicurean enjoyment at play…?"
MB
"if it isn't the case, I am prepared to say that in this case the slaughter of a pig has
nothing to do with any artistic processes and that in this case, a change of consciousness such as
disgust, as Mr Gehlen mentioned, is a completely different thing and belongs to a different sphere."
JB
"I have to say, you all are drowning in sense overload. I already explained my idea of
anti-art referring to the human ability of thinking, and when I say, that as a principle; every human is
an artist - I address the human and define him as a creative. I am not interested in outlining a palette
of various shades of possibility through art in the sensory world... I aim through epistemological
endeavour to arrive at the point where the human realizes himself as a free creative being. Where
he realizes that he isn't subordinate to the mechanism of society, where he isn't depending on the
ratio of substance - including nature – but that he is a free creative being. If someone slaughters
pigs, or whatever he likes to do then that doesn't need to be a highbrow artwork. I never talked
about this. I never talked about these materials. I spoke about the idea. And the term provocation is
of interest in order to reveal what it means in its essence: provocation means if examined in its
essence nothing else but 'production'. If a Physicist presents a new idea to be discussed he is likely to
provoke some of his peers. Therefor the term 'provocation' is synonymous of 'production'. What
enters here is the question what is the 'goodness' of production. One has to query quality in this,
one has to ask: ‘how did the idea originate? How did the idea evolve as Plastik? How is the matter of
expression 'goodness'? But also how is the 'goodness' of the recipients? All of this is of course,
connected with the process of provocation. But here I also have to acknowledge it is correct what
Mr Gehlen said that nobody is really willing anymore to be provoked by art. That's why in my view
everything that speculates with 'shock' is nonsense. But important is to observe that provocation is a
continuously human production and the only question to ask is: how is the 'goodness' of this
provocation? And what are its intentions! If the intention is an artistic one, the question to ask is
'how'? If the intentions are political the question is also 'how'? To ask 'what is it you want?' To be
precise in describing what your political intentions are, etc... That's important to me. In addition,
today, and what seems to be incomprehensible to many humans in a positivistic World is that
through provocation something enters what seemingly appears to be irrational. Something that
doesn't enter via our 'ratio' but partly from the human ‘will’, partly from human feelings – emotions
– ‘emotion’ is the negative description for something that can be expressed positively as the moving
element. Therefor a provocation is still significant if the idea content follows it. Therefor, for the
motion towards revolution, the provocative element that originates from motion - and therefor
originates from emotion - is necessary. Simultaneously is, what many contemporaries define as the
irrational aspect of provocation, the element that originates from the ‘will’. And it would be
desirable for the future that revolutionaries are interested to develop a rational beyond that that
evolves with their provocations, that is a given."
Dr S
"Professor Gehlen, may I ask - you heard what Mr Beuys said, provocation equals
production. This means he wants to have his production to be understood as provocation. Do you
feel challenged by his work? Do you feel moved or do you feel his art, his anti-art as a moving
element?"
JB
"what is the relevance of my work to all of this? Let's throw my works out of the
window! And all of your works-throw them all out of the window! ...and then we start discussing…on
the premise of thinking. And not by consulting my books, or the writings by Emmanuel Kant or
whatever. Begin to think and demonstrate that the human at any point in time has the ability and
opportunity to take a step forward and to communal action, not one against the other."
Dr S
"Mr Beuys, we would like to think how you explain it and we will leave your work as you
wish aside. But when you claim 'production equals provocation' - equalling both terms…"
JB
"yes, but that has to happen."
Dr S
" on the other hand saying that art is no longer perceived by audiences as a provocation
the function of art would be over. I like an answer to this... beyond your art works. Professor
Gehlen..."
Audience member asks to hear from Max Bill
AG
"the claim that ‘production equals provocation’ I view as wrong. These are different
things. I do understand however, that artists today may be reluctant to abandon the term
‘provocation’ and believe they still provoke. And that's because the art of today has no opponent
anymore. It is difficult to assume a fighting position and there is no one to fight. From which follows
that I too, as an artist would cling to the term of provocation. Even if no one is provoked one has to
say now ‘provocation is production’, right? That's that. My previous enquiry about criteria to judge
‘good’ and ‘bad’ in contrast to boring and fun has not yet been answered in the context of Modern
Art. And I believe that it isn't possible. If we would talk about this we could try again
to...hm...converse in a thoughtful manner. Mr Beuys...I understand and honour that you want to not
include your own art, but I do have a question: In the Cologne Art fair in the previous year, a work by
yourself was presented, which was a VW camper van and out of this van 'poured out' a large number
of ...I don't know...20? Please correct me"
JB
"40!"
AG
"40 small sledges which were all the same model and were all wrapped in the same
way. I spent a long time standing in front of this and felt amused! That I didn't really want to admit
to you!"
JB
"but that's good! "
AG
"no..."
JB
"yes! Fantastic! Why not?"
AG
"well then you are a play maker"
JB
"yes, and why not? Why wouldn't we want to laugh? Do you want to eradicate
laughter? Do you want to eradicate fun? Do you want to revolutionize without laughter?"
AG
"I want to ask you something specific..."
JB
"nd I would like to have my cake and eat it with a revolution..."
AG
"yes I believe you"
JB
"and I want others to also have their cake and eat it"
AG
"yes I believe that, but I want to ask: why didn't you use prams?"
Audience and panel laugh
JB
"why? I would say I determined the theme, I determined it with sledges...you should
use the prams…and try..."
Laughter from audience and panel
JB
"…and try to create something of interest yourself!"
Dr S
"now thoughts again. Max Bill…"
Max Bill
" I fully agree with Mr Beuys that we are here to think. However, it isn't necessary to think
until the early hours. I don't agree to that. We talked and discussed, Mr Beuys and Mr Bense did,
that art is provocation. I am not sure if art - if the only meaning of art is provocation. All new art has
the ability to provoke but that isn't art's only intention. There are other things art does not only
provocation. There are also other ways to provoke with art. I think that this is something that can't
be approached as Mr Beuys just did, he said: The 'goodness' of provocation plays a role. How do we
measure the goodness of provocation? How do we measure any quality? And this makes it difficult
to discuss this subject. If we want to start measuring quality, the quality of artistic expression, the
quality of provocation, etc..., who measures this? Who is able to measure this? This has never been
done before!"
Dr S
"Max Bense, it was mentioned you measure quality. Are you really able to do this and
how do you do this?"
MB
"well I am not sure if this is relevant to the topic"
Audience laughter
MB
"no, this isn't relevant. No, I want to ‘pin down' Mr Beuys on a different point. He said at
the beginning…"
don't divert!
MB
"ok, Mr Bill you have the word... I didn't interrupt, I was asked to comment…"
Dr S
"alright, Max Bill, please...."
Max Bill
"furthermore, I share the view of Mr Beuys that questions concerning humanity should be
the focus today in Europe. I refer to probably different humanitarian questions as Mr Beuys. We are
not able to discuss what we understand under humanitarian questions ...well, this isn't easy..."
JB
"yes, it is, for example the political humanitarian questions which of course are
directly relevant to what art does. What meaning is there to develop everything from art, this must
be in relation to what humans need. Otherwise it is nonsense to make art."
Dr S
"I do think we can talk about this?"
Max Bill
"yes, I will answer to this with; does it make sense to make art? Or does it make no sense
to make art? And where does the sense come from? And why then does one make art?"
what is art?
Max Bill
"exactly! That's what I ask myself often…"
Dr S
"well, what is art? That's a discussion we wouldn't finish even into the early hours ..."
JB
"but yes, I solved this question ages ago!"
Max Bill
"he's a happy human!"
JB
"the human is the art. The human is the aesthetics. The human is the art work."
MB
"so, the conception is an act of art?"
JB
"of course! Of course, in this sense it is a human act and act of interest to observe. In
the context of the history of the world the conception of a human being, to ask how does a human
being enter into the world and how does he exit the world. These are all significant questions for
artists."
Dr S
"Max Bill, would you like to conclude? Or have you already concluded your topic?"
Max Bill
"I believe after Mr Beuys explained that he views himself as a producer of art and
provocation that he's a very happy human and believes he really makes art. I am accepting of that
because I don't know these things about myself. I do something. I do something I have an interest in,
something I consider addresses a problem. I set myself to investigate, which may come from my
environment continuously, and this problem comes to a solution, a remedy with potential effects or
maybe no effects. This doesn't play a significant role at the beginning. I can't say if a thing has to
have an effect or not. In general, it may have an effect. But if what I make has an effect or not that
isn't significant. This is what Mr Beuys said as well."
JB
"Yes, sure. I can only confirm that."
Max Bill
"..."
JB
"that's why one shouldn't debate how significant or insignificant one's work may be.
It should be possible to pre-empt that - even though I can't claim this for myself. But of course,
everyone should endeavour that work - let's talk about work done conscientiously, not specifically of
artistic work- is thought through every layer. Otherwise he (human) can't take responsibility for the
product. I claim that I can at least say that I am able to take responsibility for my work. There is no
need to discuss this further because it is a question of talent. It is a question of how talented am I?
How talented is Bill? How talented is someone else? I am not interested in querying my talent. I only
observe that there are different human talents and it is clear that one day there may be humans
who view my works as inadequate and simultaneously present something that convinces me as
being much better. Everyone is called upon to correct what I am doing wrong, to highlight my
mistakes."
Dr S
" here is a question...from the audience? A question for Mr Beuys:"
JB
"it says: can you define what specifically do you
understand as 'revolution'?
Yes, of course. A revolution, as I see it, means that the human is able to observe himself on his
possibilities. That he doesn't neglect the every day life experience for all the philosophical and
anthropological insights. That through his education on the question ‘how can I become a better
instrument in the World?’, he simultaneously is concerned about the well-being of others.
To simply ask how are the relations in the world? Who is the disadvantaged, and how can I help?
That raises the question, what is going on in our political system? What can I suggest? And I could
suggest a lot! I could suggest for example that it is urgently required to overcome the party political
bureaucracy through direct consensus with the population on every single point. I would suggest
that it is very important to take the constitution seriously. That we take seriously that the human has
self determination, that he is part of what is done. That he's asked if we want armed forces or none.
That we have direct communication on all these points, that we continue to take seriously the
question of equality, complete equality. That we no longer have some humans with privilege. That
the nationalization of production and of private property in production is stopped. Etc, etc... Only a
brief sketch... it asks further to which extent and what is the aim..."
Dr S
"this is...moving into very general subjects..."
MB
"no it contains a very important question!"
JB
"consensus is a common…communication with people towards consensus is
presented here as a too general point...?!"
MB
"no, listen! You have to listen when I pose a question. Please don't interrupt my
question. I want to ask you; if you view every artistic act as an act of political engagement, this is
how I understand what you said-"
JB
"yes, I can only reply: of course."
MB
"Bon. Then you exclude all results, all emotions, all intentions, tendencies of production
of a so called art work. These are secondary to you."
JB
"no!"
MB
"not secondary?"
JB
"no! They are complex and integrated and contained in it all, it can't be dissected
because today every action politics is an act of politics"
MB
" I am allowed to continue my question... Now... Mr Beuys, do say... I follow from what
you say that you are of the opinion that you as an approximation - produce art."
JB
"Yes, I produce."
MB
" Good, you produce art. This means that you must when you aim to present a
provocation – namely change of consciousness - have planned your art works"
JB
"Yes, correct."
MB
"just a moment, this means that you must be able to present under which conditions
political change of consciousness occurs. How does an art work have to look like that induces
political change on change of consciousness? And are there art works who don't do this but are still
art works?”
JB
"correct. I would first answer that the art works made by humans as human actions, I
made clear, can never be separated from the political. Now we again go back to my art."
MB
"no, no, I am not talking about you."
JB
"You said, 'you must be planning' when I make an art work, you said, so I must be
planning."
MB
"take Rubens…"
JB
"well, I don't want to talk about Rubens now..."
MB
"about whom do you want to talk?"
JB
"well in this case my work. This is not a colloquium about Rubens."
MB
"ah, a colloquium about Beuys!"
JB
"No, I said I am not interested in that…"
MB
"Yes, you just said that!"
JB
"No. I said that I am interested in these terms on a purely epistemological basis...to
make information perceivable to humans..."
MB
"Mr Beuys, you are following your own tactic of dialectic..."
JB
"yes, of course do I follow my own. Should I follow yours?"
MB
" a vain one! One you always reflect on yourself when the dialectic doesn't fit."
JB
"time will tell…"
MB
"objective dialectic..."
JB
"time will tell if what I do is vain or not. Because every human thing has to evolve
over time that is correct. It has to stand the test of time. And if it doesn't - chuck it! Get rid!"
Dr S
"Mr Bense... can you ask your question"
MB
"I want to know from Mr Beuys if he acknowledges that art works can be produced
without any specific political engagement. He's in the dilemma, that he now has to interpret for
every single art work the political engagement."
JB
"I would say that's impossible because every art work includes political engagement."
MB
"Now I ask Mr Bill, Mr Bill, when you create, when you work when you create an art
work - I may say so - do you pursue consciously a) a political...do you have a political engagement in
mind, do you think about the change of political consciousness, the political situation, the misery - or
do you simply think of doing what is fun to do?"
Max Bill
"I am of the opinion that every human has to think politically and be politically engaged. If
as an artist he is obliged to politically engage, that's a different question. I am of the opinion that art
just like other aspects, physics, etc... has to be developed through work, to develop a problem on its
essence, and... these are problems in themselves which can have effects but the effects are not
'priori' contained in problems…"
Dr S
"Max Bill..."
JB
"I disagree"
Max Bill
"I am not finished. I also want to say the following; Mr Beuys said before we are living in
times of rationality. There is not much we can achieve with 'ratio'..."
JB
"I didn't say that."
Max Bill
" he didn't say it exactly like this, but..."
JB
"but that matters!"
Max Bill
"the phrase goes different it is not the 'ratio' but the...there are things that originate from
the ‘will’. I now want to ask Mr Beuys; what...has a human...has he a human ‘will’ which works
without human 'ratio'? I would like to know…"
JB
"yes that is of interest because I made exactly these terms the program for my art. I
have in my work crystalized and isolated these terms. I transferred them onto art. I have more
specifically transferred these onto the term 'Plastik', and I said it is no longer possible to continue to
talk about Plastik in its conventional sense, as if we knew what it is. To say; Plastik - well that's a
thing that stands around in space, it is spatial and you can put your hat on it…I want to know about
the forces…and I realised…I developed a theory...or even revealed a truth, I believe, that Plastik
manifests itself out of varying forces. That there is something that comprehensively represents
energy relapsing in isolation that is of chaotic nature. I, for example, tried to do that with Fat
demonstrations which contrary..."
Dr S
"the question asked is 'will’"
JB
"I am answering this right now! I am on this point demonstrating ‘will’ in Plastik - I
have juxtaposed ‘will’ to ‘form’, and in ‘form’ is presented the thought or what can be termed 'ratio'.
And I have placed into the centre 'motion' or what is termed 'emotion' or ‘feeling’. I made these
criteria for Plastik. And I tried to transfer this directly onto the human, so that what I am able to
discover in the term ‘Plastik’ - I can also discover in the human, that I can transfer this directly to a
model….to a political model, so I can develop a new model of state…"
Audience laughter
JB
"alright, you can laugh, that's not interesting, but I did it."
Max Bill
" yes, I would like to, I want to get back to 'ratio'. When you - lets say make 'fat
corners'...you will be thinking how you will make fat corners…"
JB
"yes correct."
Max Bill
" they don't make themselves without 'ratio' without pondering into a corner of fat."
JB
"correct! But I already said this, it seems one has to explain everything twice in this
discussion."
MB
" yes because it isn't clear!"
JB
" yes, because it isn't simple, that's why we should discuss this for a week!"
MB
" no less!"
JB
" ok, that's what you think. But I shouldn't be this impatient. You maybe permitted,
but... I can only say that of course, I have thought about - for example – fat, that at the beginning is
in a chaotic condition and I shape into a geometric form in a spatial context; a corner. That in order
to do so I developed a text which says schematically - that the term ‘Plastik’ is here separated into
the two principles of ‘will’ and ‘ratio’. That action is a rhythmic entity which facilitates that which we
term 'soul' in the old sense, or simply speaking: ‘motion’. Now every single...every single entity can
be approached autonomously. One can say, I can observe ‘will’ separately…"
what is the political relevance?
JB
" the political relevance...the political relevance is there where I say it concerns the
human, when I proceed to the point where I say out of the three terms; ‘will’, ‘emotion’ or ‘feeling’
and ‘thinking’, I have to arrive at the point where thinking originates. I therefore have to ask going
backwards. At the point where thinking originates there is no other option. Even if I have the
information model as the blueprint for something new that enters the world… That is the evidence
for the freedom of the human, for his creativity… That he is able to give something new and is not
bound by the ratio of production only…That is the model to transfer to the political…"
please moderator! moderator!
Dr S
"this is now diverting into mysticism what you say"
JB
"mystic is extremely interesting!"
Dr S
"but even mystic demands clarity."
JB
"yes, but I said that this clarity can only be obtained in steps"
Dr S
"Mr Gehlen"
AG
"no not in reply to this."
margarine isn't mystic! It is simple and a clear formula!
AG
"don't all interrupt"
JB
"stop going on about margarine!"
Audience and panel chatter
AG
"I would like to say something, as the sociologist, that's what I was invited for, I have
already... I have already expressed my suspicion that the...that the desire of provocation increases
proportionately with the indolence of the audience. And now I would like to express another
suspicion, namely that art in reality has no longer any enlightening purpose to society…"
Audience applauds
AG
"and because of that…"
JB
"top applauding! You have no clue where this is going!"
AG
" I don't want to be continuously interrupted, alright? "
JB
" but you are happy to be interrupted by applause..."
AG
" and because art no longer has any societal function some try to add a political
function to art. I fully understand this, but tell young people who attempt this: Art is the most
useless instrument for revolution."
JB
" Why? Reason please!"
AG
"Because…because…because in all of art history there has never been an emerging
revolutionary art of unifying and clear content. Therefore it obviously doesn't work very well."
JB
"Aha…"
AG
"please, do make sure I am not getting interrupted…There are probably, there are
often art works concerned with empathy and cruelty just like the 'desastres de ageros' by Goya, and
of Kalo, Dix and others, that is real, but it isn't specifically and concretely made to cause a political
change. I struggle to think of - or name an art work that explicitly and specifically has a political
message."
Dr S
"Well there are..."
AG
"there are in literature, yes, Brecht for example…"
Protest from the audience
AG
"someone mentions the name Grosz- he's a cartoonist."
Dr S
"Grosz, I believe, Mr Gehlen, was not only a cartoonist but an important artist. But Mr
Bense wants to comment."
AG
"let's discuss"
MB
"I want to shift the discussion from Mr Beuys to Mr Gehlen…he had us...we pretend - I
interpret that from the applause - why, Mr Gehlen has art today no societal function anymore? I
want to point to the following; if we always and only understand under societal function political
engagement then I would agree with you. But I can imagine and that is likely the case in the modern
and urban dilemma, which incorporated much from modern art, that there are many constructive
elements in urbanism that are directly connected with the results of modern art. Art without objects
since Kandinsky especially in regards to painting, etc... There are many things from architecture -
which plays a very significant role. Urbanism and architecture, which incorporated from previously
determined concepts of art. And I am of the opinion that urbanism is an expression of society and
since it has been influenced by the development of modern art therefore has a societal function. Or
are you denying the societal function that comes from urbanism?"
AG
"this is easy to answer. I have of course in my argument considered the entirety of
the visual arts but not included architecture, town planning, which are evidence for crafts and for
utility. But I struggle to find any evidence for art offering the same urge or pressing interest to
society. If there would be such a function then surely there wouldn't be any need for all the
marketing and PR."
Dr S
"I am not sure if this is a big fallacy to think marketing is only for things that otherwise
aren't relevant. But what Bense said has significance to arrive at a broad remit of constructive art,
which without doubt is directly relevant to theory of - and to society, and should not only be
restricted to architecture but it has been pre-conditioned by Mondrian..."
AG
"that's passe..."
Dr S
"I don't think it is passe and..."
"it is not about the art - it is about the artist who undergoes change of
consciousness that's the point."
Dr S
"of course, it's about art and not only about the artist."
Max Bill
"we all talk about art. I want to...what Mr Bense said the influence of art to society as
influence to urbanism, etc... If you define this as art, it may be right, I would say there are
investigations, there are aesthetic objects - and these objects have this model character in a sense
that they influence decisions which impact our environment and not only as constructive art. I am of
the opinion that the others - the non-constructive also have a model character- for the negative. I
would say that this character today is generally very much underestimated because it doesn't
receive the same interest, missing out on the existing polarity.
I wanted to add that here..."
JB
"I fully agree with what Mr Bill just said, but it simultaneously raises the question when
is art necessary for human's survival? There never has been much attention to the instinctive
education of the human and education through art. We all know that there is no appropriate art
education anywhere in the world. Therefore, instinctively every human knows that a human is not
able to survive without art. A human being without art education is wasted and human evolution
without art over 2000 years would see the brain disappear. Here is an emphasis on art as an entity
that animates the human into being out of a space we are not familiar with yet. But I attempt to
describe with my term of the 'anti space', that I simply pose the question of the complete existence
of the human being. How does a human enter the world? What are the energies that nurture him?
What is the function of art in the sense of Goethe - and I bow in front of this statement - I accept it
fully, when Goethe says: “Art has the best of two worlds: art is a technique within two worlds. Art
has to explore/ confront the material world and the world that is outside the material world- the
spiritual world” and that is the challenge of art. Through art something enters the human that makes
him able to live for the physical aspect of life, what makes him strong even if he later decides to
become a physicist - someone who is forced to think rationally. He will be better at thinking
rationally if he nurtured himself on/ through art. I attempt to present art as a necessary fertilizer for
the human, which he needs for all and every activity and to develop models for this…"
Dr S
"both, art and anti-art are equal?"
JB
"yes"
MB
"...then we only need one term and we can get rid of anti-art."
JB
"yes over time, but not right now please.... Not every human has yet grasped the
problem. We need yearlong discussions to achieve that we arrive at this point. For humans to
recognize that they live in a culture that is continuous and not completed. That we are in a culture
which will ask completely new questions, such as these. So we don't only physically travel to the
moon but that we…so we can travel psychologically. What appears physically outside is reflected
emotionally on the inside otherwise we haven't landed on the moon. So far, we haven't really been
to the moon, so far, we haven't really been to the moon it was only the elevator principle...third
floor or seventh floor we managed...what do we know of the moon?"
Max Bill
"yes I like to say what Mr Beuys said before flying to the moon - I am in full agreement
with; I believe that without art humanity will perish completely. That is certain. If a human is a direct
consumer of art, a conscious consumer of art isn't really relevant. He is a consumer of art, he can't
not be one. Now, it does matter what the quality of art is, but this is difficult to discuss because we
cannot simply decide on parameters of or for quality. We have to assume from the artists, the ones
who view themselves as artists, that that what they do is proper and originates from a good sense
out of a consciousness of responsibility, then it should work. I don't think there is any other way to
view this. The opportunity that art, that many things decline because of if art doesn't exist - and that
therefore art education in schools is of great importance - there is no doubt about this. Because in
the moment where any professional worker has never been in contact with anything of artistic
character, he will be lacking specific artistic ability. Ability of making value judgements...and because
of this art is important, especially because all the dilemmas that require decision making by each and
everyone of us. If he's an engineer or if he sells apples, or anything he does; education to being able
to make value judgements that is directly linked to art. That art is something that's difficult to define
that it is continuously changing and has to change, otherwise art wouldn't exist anymore. That is an
observation and fact to those who deal with such questions and problems as a given; the continuous
transition."
Dr S
"Art is change, change of consciousness is a motion, not static. Replication isn't
production. There has to be something new and elemental added in meaning. May I pass over to
Max Bense…"
MB
"Mr Bill, are we not in danger that while we find many grand words for the necessity of
the artistic process that we only ever view art as evidence for the artist, who as Mr Beuys described
is willing to be active as an artist? But, if we talk of art, I don't talk about the artist or the process but
what he created - we seem to pretend that there is art, an artistic feeling, an artistic thinking, an
artistic intention without artistic works - and I am not yet quite ready to accept that there is art for
the sake of its process. There is also art as art's work, that what at a specific point in time has been
manifested in a work and I think this is what we need to discuss."
JB
"correct..."
Dr S
"a decisive question. Art as completed work, as a product or art as process. Maybe it is
one characteristic of the change of evolution of art in this century that it has become increasingly
process not a completed art work but open work – process, and thereby the role of the audience the
recipients increased and has grown and becomes stronger. That the art work involves the viewer in
ever increasing measures, which Professor Gehlen described as 'play' is maybe not only 'play' but the
attempt of art works that are not completed, who require the viewer to become completed, which
only when a viewer encounters them are able to reveal their character completely, by being walked
around who can manipulate them, who can move them.
I believe that we have arrived here at a very decisive subject and Mr Beuys I have next
... Gehlen..."
JB
"I have my hand up."
Dr S
"I had passed the word to Gehlen..."
JB
"yes all right!"
AG
"I fully agree with Mr Bill that there is a human desire for art. I didn't challenge that.
It appears to me that the current industrial society has no clear demands, no clear tasks allocated to
the visual arts. It allows to be bullied into what happens. And because of this we require so much
comment rhetoric which Mr Beuys is such a Master of. If we all would have a consensus on what art
is for we wouldn't need to have this level of discussion but could evolve from this agreed point
forwards, but this is exactly what we can't do. And because of that I permitted myself to head
advice: 'do think carefully when you are young, if art truly - if you have a revolutionary urge - is a
suitable medium for movement."
JB
" of course! I would say art itself is what allows to even pose such questions. Especially
because art expanded the terminology of process. Because art doesn't only ask for a result but goes
back and asks after the process. By default art arrives at the origin and has to ask; where does the
process begin? And here arrives at the point where thinking happens, or in higher realms, where the
intuition or the imagination happen. And you have to ask; where at which point does imagination
happen? And through what? Is it something that is dependent on - that is reflected - through the
environment the material world? Or is it something that comes from a superior space or to translate
a real spiritual realm? This is the most burning question: am I a prisoner in the physical World? Or
am I beyond the physical World? Art therefore goes back to ask after the process. Art poses the
epistemological questions Science doesn't ask. I want to state this. And Art arrives at the result that
thought in the evolution is to be understood as a process of ‘Plastik’, and where the thought sparks
into language, language becomes art. And it would be desirable that humans learn language as art.
That language becomes art that's important. Language is of course art and can become art. And of
course, can language recorded in text become art when the thought is transformed through
neurological impulse into hand writing it can become art; poetry. Further transformed through
motion it becomes dance and performance. If it continues energetically and grabs material and
shapes it can become a Plastik. It is important that through art the process is queried through the
human, the exploration of the human through this process to being able to say something about the
human. Only then can we know what matters to educate a human. Should a human being be
educated according to pragmatic political necessities? Determined by politicians? Yes? That's how
it's done today…in general. Why don't we have a free education? The politicians today think they are
entitled to determine what humans need to be educated in."
MB
"the contradiction in the exchange between Mr Gehlen and Mr Beuys can be
summarised into a formula, a question, which was already significant to Hegel. Hegel, in his
aesthetics expressed that we - in 1835 - no longer had any desire to express a thought through art. I
am under the impression that this is the position of Mr Gehelen. I agree with this partially- and Mr
Beuys radically is in the camp of the anti-Hegel, that of course, we today have the real and absolute
desire, the engaged desire to express a thought in the form of art."
JB
" correct. Because Hegel's error was that he didn't realize that his system itself was
art."
Dr S
"Max Bill"
Max Bill
"I am afraid that Mr Beuys after what he said before about politicians knowing what makes
for a good educational system - he's against the politicians. So, he now goes against the previous
claim, now politicians are worthless, but we should all think politically."
JB
"I didn't say that politicians are worthless"
Max Bill
"well yes..."
JB
"I didn't make it that simple"
Max Bill
"not that simple, but similarly simple...it sounds like if only you or maybe someone else
know best how the education system has to be."
JB
"you missed some things that were said and that is...why in this discussion everything
has to be said twice! I said at the beginning; if we ask questions of the political and revolutionary
programme we talk about ‘self-determination’. Self-determination on every single point. This is not
about that some other revolutionary group founds a new government. This is the dilemma, that we
always want to form a government. There must be no government. The human being is able to selfgovern. The human is able to self-determine. We do not need a revolution where we get another
government or another minority that determines education! Everyone can engage and work on
this!
(directly to Max Bill)yes you went backwards in Switzerland, you were better…"
Dr S
"that isn't the discussion. Max Bill, you have the word…"
Max Bill
"I only want to say to this we have one area where we genuinely have freedom and where
freedom is close to perfection is the area of art. And this is the reason why in the area of art there
are diverse and different and multiple things possible. If we, however, claim art to have a model
function, then we have this model character in art, in the manifold character of art, in the manifold
attempts which are possible. And I believe that this is an important point. Mr Beuys himself has ..."
JB
"accepted"
Max Bill
"...made..."
JB
"so don't stop here!"
Max Bill
" it is a statement by him where he said art has been set free."
JB
"thats right"
Max Bill
"and that art has been set free in some sense without any ties and possibilities in all
directions, even in completely wrong directions doesn't seem to play a significant role. The
confrontation in the setting of art exists. I want to now reply to what has been forwarded to me as a
question. It says: “you spoke of the woman who sells apples, such people read 'thirty penny novels'
if they can read at all. The art you make is only for a minority'.
I want to condemn the arrogance that comes out of this question. I condemn this, to
compare someone who sells apples with 'thirty penny novels’…"
"but that's the reality!"
JB
"well then engage to make it better!"
Dr S
"Max Bense…"
MB
"I have to return to a question at the beginning which Mr Beuys brought up because in
my opinion we are still not clear - if I understood Mr Beuys correctly – he alluded that the
momentum of creativity is what matters and let’s get rid of government, etc…and all of a sudden
switched his standpoint. He once said that he is tenderly concerned about the well-being of society.
And I was under the impression that he considers the pre-marxist claim that the human is a social
animal to be true. On the other hand..."
JB
"correct"
MB
"on the other hand however for the creative and in some - in quotation marks 'way' that
his own standpoint to dissolve all into individual anarchy, where he then has the viewpoint that the
creative-the one who is called upon to change humanity's consciousness - has to be the creative
individual. And so I see on the one hand the skills of humanity justified in societal being – while on
the other hand by the individual creator."
JB
"Correct. you got it."
MB
"What now? I do understand sometimes..."
JB
"yes and from this follows that the creative is moved, that we shouldn't only talk
about the societal being, that we have to observe the creative because in it we can find what is
intrinsic to the term ‘freedom’."
MB
"who's freedom? The freedom of the individual, your freedom to do what you want?"
JB
"at first the freedom of the individual. We are all individuals, I am not growing
intertwined with you."
MB
"thank God!"
JB
"yes, we are all individuals and not intertwined"
MB
"that is clear to me, I want..."
JB
"well obviously not"
MB
"its the other statement you made. Do you think the statement the human is a social
animal, and everything he does is a reflection of society, do you hold this as truth?"
JB
"I hold the truth that the human is a social animal."
MB
"what does that mean?"
JB
"that he has to always live with others and is thereby bound to consider others. That
he has to ask the other, that he doesn't just hit the other over the head. That to live together
something has to be worked at to achieve better conditions."
MB
"that doesn't mean to you then not to hit someone over the head to provoke!"
JB
"I said, ‘provocation equals production’. I have to present the other with a new
product or at least a product, it even can be an old one. I am not demanding new products every
day. I simply demand that he is productive, that he thinks, that he is active, I demand that. I also said
that beyond this statement of the human being as a social animal and dependent on society,
dependent on his brother, which is a keyword in the French revolution of brotherhood. That beyond
this he has to comprehend this from freedom. That he can only resurrect through the activity within
himself -thinking - and present the other with the product: ‘this is my suggestion, what is your take
on this? Where do you stand?"
MB
"so your individual freedom from the creative is limited through asking the other: are
you willing to accept?"
JB
"no, no, there are no limits. I only present my product."
MB
"without any intent to provoke, just as product?"
JB
"he can of course judge the product and say where he stands. But maybe someone
else comes along and says: ‘this is a product I could use.’ There is the freedom that potentially my
product is useful - potentially it isn't useful at all."
MB
"so, freedom under the condition that society acknowledges what you do."
JB
"no, wrong. In my opinion in this system it is only possible, if something new has been
created, it can't come from the system where one is bound. Where practically everything from the
past is established. If we, today observe our society from the sociological standpoint then it is a
product of the past. If we want to change something in the system in the future we have to add
something from the creative - a new depot to it. And only the creative human is able to do this. Is
this too difficult?"
MB
"no, but this is ancient."
JB
"ah, so now it's ancient!"
MB
"I only want to force you to explain what the relationship of the creative individual is to
the societal consumer."
JB
“consumer is again..."
Dr S
"recipients, the product, production, the relation to its reception, the acceptance from
humans towards their movement of consciousness..."
JB
"it is all so very important that these terms are clear. That the human has no minority
complex within his work, his creative action. That he says; I am a prisoner in the system of society.
He has to finally recognize that he can determine himself. That he can apply what it says in the
constitution. Today he has an inferiority complex, he continuously allows the government to add to
the basic rights and articles, new paragraphs until emergency decrees omit the basic right. He has to
realize that he is a creative free human. That he can determine himself, and he has to know that he
has to practice equality. So that there is no revolution which elevates again a minority which lines up
the defeated one and gets rid of them. But that there is equality for every opinion and that has to
stand the test of time."
Dr S
"we had one and a half hours for our discussion. I have been reminded that the time is
over. Would you like to close Mr Bense?"
JB
"well, does the audience not have an opportunity to take part in the discussion?"
Dr S
"maybe afterwards…maybe after the allocated time, we have a short break and the
audience asks questions after that..."
JB
"a break is never good. I have had bad experiences with 'breaks’…"
MB
"half an hour longer..."
MB
"people are leaving"
Dr S
"Max Bense, do you want to have the last word?"
JB
"should we not facilitate people's desire to ask questions? Who have something to
say?"
Dr S
"ladies and gentlemen, the discussion at the table is hereby concluded. I thank you all. It
is not possible to summarise the discussion. It was too - too far were the views, and not only the
views but also the language and rhetoric. Mr Gehlen used the word retal (?) rhetoric, it went too
diverse to be able to conclude in a sentence. But maybe that in itself has provided inspiration and
maybe even in this open discussion is some meaning. I thank you."
"
