Archive for August, 2011

August 22, 2011

Monumental Narratives Waiting to Cave

by M. A.

A projected video sequence of Aida ElKashef’s and Ruud Gielens’s archival footage opens the performance “Lessons in Revolting.”  To my knowledge, this is the first artistic application of the extensive material that Aida has collected throughout the three sit-ins (even at the darkest hours, it was impossible to catch sight of the activist filmmaker without a video cam glued to her hand.)  Initially the prolonged sequence, edited by Gielens, failed to capture my attention, while painfully extending what turned out to be a video calendar of the first 18 days, even with date captions.  The audience sat patiently watching an interpretative performance by the group, on a background of imagery already engraved in our recent visual memory.  It seemed that the informative approach was the only possibility for the video component of this performance.  Through 75 minutes, the videos sought to present narration, to tell a story, which didn’t need the ‘surplus’ of  the emotions invoked by acting.  This in a way is a purist gesture, leading one to conclude that narration was the essence of this work, not its instrument.  The video, thus, played its part.

The very first minutes of the performance also establishes the iconic style of Karima Mansour‘s choreography for the performance.  The movement was expressive and interpretative.  Upon watching the bodies of the activists, as they roll on the floor, jump in the air, and self-inflect pain with maximum use of the stage as in a theatrical movement workshop, the audience are left with no alternatives but to collectively wonder that this dance definitely means this or that (the Aly Sobhi torture dance, the forcefully-putting-the-revolution-to-sleep dance, and of course the exhaustive protesting finale.)  Here, again, narration reappears, as the choreography becomes an instrument to serve a seemingly more noble purpose, rather than being a self-sustained body of work.  It is that peculiar urge to justify art, articulated by Susan Sontag in her essay “Against Interpretation,” which transforms art into a mimesis of reality, in order to then interpret it, and thus creates this unfortunate segregation between content and form we are accustomed to when encountering art.  I shall revisit this point later.

Five extended monologues, carrying the testimonies, impressions, emotions, and reflections of their true narrators who also delivered them, and intersected by performative movement, constitute the spine of the performance.  The monologues were meant to be “a reaction” as co-director Layla Sulayman tells a press interviewer, instead they were overburdened with the half-baked reflections and emotions of an open-ended revolutionary experience, all trying to pass through the eye of a creative needle, which requires a much greater deal of processing the source experience before attempting to re-release it in a work of art.  Unresolvedness, in its own right, is for me far more interesting a paradigm than indulging in fixed notions of monumentalisation.   The possibilities it offers on the performance level are limitless.  Yet we are left to feel that this work was hardly concerned with that positioning.

This invites a curious question on timing; what is that pressing need which urges an artist to construct a work comprised of her personal experience in its pristine form, or to formalise it in a mechanical, formative fashion in order to “formalise” the narrative, in other words to forge the content in a cast of form? The separation thus prevails, as form here can only exist to serve a narrative, interpretative content.

I would argue that the motive in this case is the individual desire of the activists to monumentalise the revolution, its thoughts, its sentiments, its moments, its victories and its losses.  An act of monumentalisation that neither the masses, nor the interim state, nor the media has claimed. No architects or sculptors were commissioned to carry it out, as the Soviet habit went.  Monuments are in their own right narrative and interpretative.  From this angle, it is safe to perceive the work’s title in a new light.  The lessons are not those acquired by the activist performers throughout months of a revolutionary experience as Sulayman suggests at the same interview, but rather the sum of what the performers are lecturing and confronting us with, and the guilt we are subjected to throughout the performance.  This work is, equally, educational.

The instrumentalisation of art for educational and enlightenment purposes is by far the best applicable example for the project of content-form separation in the arts.  Art here is form, whereas education is content, and content must always come first, followed by the serving form.  The separation project could be well-intentioned, fueled by the artists and critics’ genuine desire to justify art’s value, going down the rabbit hole of interpretation which “means plucking a set of elements” from the wholesome work, and whose project is to “translate” a work of art rather than receiving it, Susan Sontag tells us.  At any rate, this project of separation, along with the interpretation approach, calls for a true critical view.

Music may well be the sole component in the performance that succeeds in overcoming the content-form schizophrenia, possibly due to it, music as a medium, being the last stronghold for creativity that requires no reconciliation between the two sides.  Maurice Luca skilfully manages to merge Mustafa Said’s immensely appropriated live performing (Said is an academic scholar, a professor, a published composer, and a skilful Oud player) with the soundscape of the documentary footage, and his own pre-composed works.  The resulting constructive complexity of the finale scene for example, in which the sound grows from ambiance to a space filling, dominant Shaabi music, is a sublime example of a piece of work one does not wonder before it about the statement of its creator, or the meanings of its elements.  The work’s energy, structure, and appropriation simply leave no room for an interpretative project.

I am disinterested, on a personal level, in self-glorifying indulgence, particularly in the art.  I am equally disinterested in, and maybe even irritated by, monuments.  History, together with human behavior specialists, psychologists and anthropologists, often observes with pity the wealth of poetry, songs, monuments, statues, films and literature produced directly at the wake of critical moments of history.   These practices are often locked in an indulging, romantic, and seldom critical, viewing of a nostalgic perception of these moments.  A view often carried out by the triumphant side while reconciling history according to ideologised narratives.  Monuments are an exportation of values, an attempt to immortalise a certain view of a moment while creating a false rhetoric.  Whatever shape they may take, they are by large totalitarian constructions awaiting to cave.  They stand no chance against the principles of change and the instantaneity of any given revolutionary project.  An artist, and by far a rebel, should surpass such problematic approaches.

August 22, 2011

سرديات صرحية في انتظار التقويض

by M. A.

ﻳﻔﺘﺘﺢ عمل “ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺭﺓ” ﺑﺗﻮﻟﻴﻒ ﻓﻴﺪﻳﻮ من ﺘﺴﺠﻴﻼﺕ ﻋﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺷﻒ ﻭﺭﻭﺩ ﻏﻴﻠﻨﺰ الوثائقية. ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻇﻴﻒ الأول لهذه ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ الأرشيفية ﺍﻟﻬﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺟﻤﻌﺘﻬﺎ ولا ﺗﺰﺍﻝ ﺗﺠﻤﻌﻬﺎ ﻋﺎﺋﺪﺓ أثناء الاعتصامات (ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ من الممكن ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺮﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺋﺮﺓ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻛﺎﻣﻴﺮﺍﺗﻬﺎ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺣﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ.) ﻟﻘﺪ فشل توليف ﻏﻴﻠﻨﺰ ﻣﺒﺪﺋﻴﺎً ﻓﻲ إﺛﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ الأولى ﺇﺫ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺻﺒﺮ ﻣﺆﻟﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺮﺽ مذكرات ﻳﻮﻣﻴﺔ لمشاهد الاعتصام الأول ﺗﻔﺼﻠﻬﺎ ﻟﻮﺣﺎﺕ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ. ﺟﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻳﺸﻬﺪ ﻣﺸﻬﺪﺍً ﺣﺮﻛﻴﺎً ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮﻳﺎً لمجموعة من ﺍﻟﻤﺆﺩﻳﻦ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻗﻄﻊ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺪ ﺣﻔﻈﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮﻱ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ. ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ الإخباري ﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﻳﻮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ الأوحد ﻃﻮﺍﻝ ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺭﺑﻊ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻌرض، ﻟﻢ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﻳﻮ ﺳﻮﻯ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﺴﺮﺩ ﻻ ﻳﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻷﺩﺍﺀ، ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻨﻲ ﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﺩ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺪﻓﺎً ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ، ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻘﺪ نجح ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﻳﻮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺳﻮﻡ ﻟﻪ

كذلك تم توظيف ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ الأداء ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻛﻲ الجمعي ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺿﻌﺘﻪ ﻛﺮﻳﻤﺔ ﻣﻨﺼﻮﺭ منذ اللحظات الأولى ﻣﻦ ﺍﻠﻌﻤﻞ. ﻳﺄﺗﻲ الأداء ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻛﻲ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮﻳﺔ وتأويلياً ﻻ ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﻫﺪﻳﻦ ﺳﻮﻯ النظر ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻧﺸﻄﺎﺀ/ ﺍﻟﻣﺆﺩﻳﻦ (ﻭﻫﻢ ﻳﺘﻤﺮﻏﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ الأرض ﻭﻳﻘﻔﺰﻭﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﺍﺀ ﻭﻳﺘﺼﺎﺭﻋﻮﻥ ﻣﻊ أﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻭﻛﺄﻧﻨﺎ ﺑﺼﺪﺩ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺐ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺮﺣﻲ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻐﻼﻝ ﻓﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺽ) ﻭالتكهن ﺟﻤﻴﻌﺎً ﻭﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ معنى ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺼﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺫﺍﻙ (ﺭﻗﺼﺔ ﺗﻌﺬﻳﺐ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺻﺒﺤﻲ، ﺃﺩﺍﺀ ﻭﺃﺩ ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺭﺓ الثنائي ﻭﺭﻗﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺘﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﻜﺔ مثلاً.) ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻳﺒﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﺩ ﻭﺟﻬﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﺢ، ﻭﺑﺪﻼً ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ يكون الاداء الحركي ﻋﻤﻼً ﻓﻲ ﺫﺍته ﻓﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻏﺮﺽ ﺃﻧﺒﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ. ﺇﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺒﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ تحدثت ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺳﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺯﻭﻧﺘﺎﻍ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻬﺎ “ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ” ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺠﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﻐﺮﺽ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻠﻪ، فتخلق بالتالي ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻭالذي ﺍﻋﺘﺪﻧﺎ عليه ﻟﺪﻯ ﺗﻌﺎﻃﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ. ﺳﺄﻋﻮﺩ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ﻻﺣقاً

ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻣﻮﻧﻮﻟﻮﺟﺎﺕ ﺳﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﻄﻮﻟﺔ يتخللها ﺃﺩﺍﺀ ﺣﺮﻛﻲ، ﺗﺤﻜﻲ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻭﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮ أﺻﺤﺎﺑﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺛﻠﻴﻦ أمامنا على ﺧﺸﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺮﺡ. ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻗﺪﺭ لتلك ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﺎﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ “ﺭﺩﺓ ﻓﻌﻞ” ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻟﻴﻠﻰ سليمان ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﺨﺮﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ، ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺃﺗﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﺘﺨﻤﺔ ﺑﺄﺩﺍﺀ ﻣﻔﺘﻌﻞ ﻳﺰﺝ ﺑﻤﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻭﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻣﺨﺘﻤﺮﺓ ﺃﺻﻼً – ﺑﺤﻜﻢ ﺍﺑﺘﺴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺪﺭ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺭﺓ – ﻣﻦ ﺛﻘﺐ ابداعي ﻀﻴﻖ ربما قد تطلب ﻫﻀﻤﺎً ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻟﻔﻈﻬﺎ. يقودنا ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﺴﺎﺅﻝ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻴﺖ. ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺠﻌﻞ ﻓﻨﺎﻧﺎً ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻋﻤل من واقع خبرته ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺮ ﻭﺩﻭﻥ إﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺻﻴﺎغة، ﺃﻭ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺘﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺣﺮﻓﻲ ﺷﻜﻠﻲ ﺑﻐﺮﺽ إﺿﻔﺎﺀ ﺳﻤﺍﺕ “ﻓﻨﻴﺔ” ﻋﻠﻰ “ﺍﻟﺴﺮﺩ”. ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺻﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ. ﻻﺯﺍﻝ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻗﺎﺋﻤاً، ﺣﻴﺚ ﻻ ﻮﺟﻭﺪ للشكل إلا ﻓﻲ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ.  لابد أن أشير هنا إلى أن الأسئلة غير المجابة لهي أكثر إثارة للاهتمام من أي انغماس في تشييد صروح لصيغ الثوابت.  إن الاحتمالات المطروحة على مستوى الأداء غير محدودة، ولكنها على  ما يبدو لم تقع في حسابات هذا العمل

ﺃﺗﺻﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ التوقيت ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻧﺸﻄﺎﺀ ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺸﻴﻴﺪ ﺻﺮﺣﺎً ﻟﻠﺜﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮﻫﺎ ﻭﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻭﻟﺤﻈﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﺰﺍﺋﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﺭﺍﺗﻬﺎ. الصرح ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻢ ﺗﺸﻴﺪﻩ ﺟﻤﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ ولا ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ النتقالية ولا الإعلام ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻠﻒ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺤﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺟﺮﺕ العادة ﺍﻟﺴﻮﻓﻴﻴﺘﻴﺔ. ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻭﺡ التذكارية ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺳﺮﺩﻳﺔ وتأويلية، ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﻳﺠﻮﺯ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﺤﻰ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ. ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻭﺱ ﻫﻨﺎ ليست ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻓﻨﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ الاعتصامات ﻛﻤﺎ تخبرنا ﻟﻴﻠﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍر، ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺤﺎﺿﺮﻧﺎ ﻭﻳﻮﺍﺟﻬﻨﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﻠﻮﻣﻨﺎ عليه ﺍﻟﻨﺸﻄﺎﺀ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ. ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺇﺫﺍ تعليمي ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ

ﺇﻥ تسخير ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻛﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻨﻮﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻬﻮ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻟﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻠﻔﺼﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻲ. ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ هو الشكل، بينما ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﻤﻮﻥ. ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻈﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺷﻚ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ المقدمة، ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺩﻣﺎً. ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺔ، ﺇﺫ ﻧﺸﺄ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻮﻍ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺩ ﺣﺠﺠﺎً ﻟﺘﺒﺮﻳﺮ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ، ﺳﺎﻟﻜﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻃﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ “ﻳﻨﺘﺰﻉ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮﺍً ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻩﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻲ” ﻭﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻪ ﻫﻮ “ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ” ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻲ بدلاً ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻘﻴﻪ. ﻣﻬﻤﺎ كانت ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻓﻊ، ﻓﺈﻥ مشروع ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻭﺍﺗﺒﺎﻉ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﻛﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ الإبداعية ﺫﺍﺗﻬﺎ ﻟﻬﻲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﻧﺎﻗﺪﺓ

ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻤﻮﺳﻴﻘﻰ العرض هي العنصر ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻧﺠﺢ ﻓﻲ الهروب ﻣﻦ ﺍﻧﻔﺼﺎﻡ الشكل ﻋﻦ المضمون، ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺳﻴﻘﻰ ﻛﻮﺳﻴﻂ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻌﻘﻞ ﻠﻔﻨﺎﻧﻴﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻭﻥ ﺩﺍﻉ ﻟﺘﺒﺮﻳﺮ ﺃﺣﺪﻫﻤﺎ باللآخر. ﻳﻨﺠﺢ ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻟﻮﻗﺎ ﺑﺒﺮﺍﻋﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻣﺞ ﺃﺩﺍﺀ ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻀﺢ بالاتساق (ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺑﺎﺣﺚ ﺃﻛﺎﺩﻳﻤﻲ ﻭﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﻭﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﺻﺪﺭﺕ ﻟﻪ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﻟﺒﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻋﺎﺯﻑ ﻋﻮﺩ ﻣﺠﺪﺩ) ﻣﻊ ﺻﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﺳﻴﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ. ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟتركيب المعقد ﻟﻘﻄﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺘﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ تنمو ﻓﻴﻬﺎ الاﺼﻮاﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ تضج ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺔ بلحن شعبي ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺃﺩﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻟﻬﻮ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺀ ﺑﺼﺪﺩﻩ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻘﺼﺪ لصانعه ﺃﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ لعناصره. ﺇﻥ ﻃﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻭﺗﻤﺎﺳﻚ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﺍﺗﺴﺎﻗﻪ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﺣﻮﻟﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺴﺢ مجالاً ﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ

ﻻ ﻳﺜﻴﺮ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺎً أﻱ ﺍﻧﻐﻤﺎﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻤﺠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍت، ولاﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ. ولا تثيرﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻲ – ﺑﻞ ﻭﻗﺪ تثير ﺣﻔﻴﻈﺘﻲ – الأنصاب ﺍﻟﺘﺬﻛﺎﺭﻳﺔ. ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻄف، ﻭﻣﻌﻪ ﺧﺒﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ الإنساني ﻭﻋﻠﻢ النفس والأنثربولوجيا ﺇﻟﻰ ﺯﺧﻢ الأشعار والأغاني ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺛﻴﻞ والأفلام والأدبيات ﺍﻟﺘﻲ تعقب لحظات تاﺭﻳﺨﻴﺔ ﻣﺤﻮﺭية، لما تحمله ﻣﻦ ﺍﻧﻐﻤﺎﺱ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﺘﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﻭﻧﻮﺳﺘﺎﻟﺠﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺨﻴﺔ، ﻓﻲ الأغلب ﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ. ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺎ تخطها ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺼﺮﺓ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻔﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺳﺮﺩﻳﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﺩﻟﺠﺔ. ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﺬﻛﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻟﻬﻲ ﺗﺼﺪﻳﺮ ﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﻭﺗﺨﻠﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﺤﻈﺎﺕ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻴﺔ ﻭﺧﻠﻖ ﻟﺴﻴﺎﻗﺎﺕ كاذبة. ﺃﻳﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ الأمر ﺑﻨﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﺷﻤﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭ سقوطها ﻭﻻ ايمان ﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻨﻁﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺛﻮﺭﻱ. ﻻﺑﺪ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﻓﻊ ﺃﻱ ﻓﻨﺎﻥ – ﺑﻞ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺛﻮﺭﻱ – ﻋﻦ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻲ ﺑﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ

مراجعة وتحرير النص العربي: دعاء علي

%d bloggers like this: