Behave Yourself, Please: A Monkey is Watching You

How Music Informed the Writing of Satie et Cocteau: A Rehearsal of a Play of a Composer by a Poet.

by Mike Czuba

Within the pages of the script this play is attempting to find a Rock & Roll spirit. Only this play, Satie et Cocteau: A Rehearsal of a Play of a Composer by a Poet, is about Erik Satie, a Minimalist Classical composer who died in 1925, as told by the Poet/Artist Jean Cocteau. The concept of the play is that we are watching Cocteau direct an Actor playing Satie in a play that he allegedly wrote in1939 called ‘Soyons Vulgaires[1]’. The action takes place during what turns out to be the final day of rehearsals, after Cocteau has learned that he’s lost his financing. This last rehearsal is where Cocteau wishes to have the Actor fully embody Satie so Cocteau can posthumously demand Satie acknowledge all that he had done for him. This ultimately backfires and Cocteau ends up a broken man, asking Satie for forgiveness. The framework, bordering on absurd and meta-theatrical, allows the play to ‘stage’ sections of Satie’s life as they suit the narrative. Throughout the play the audience will discover both Satie and Cocteau’s desires and philosophies about Music and Art within the conflict between Cocteau and the Actor. So how can Erik Satie and Jean Cocteau be Rock & Roll? After 18 months of writing and research, the answer is: easily. Rock & Roll is tension, aggression, attraction and desire and isn’t that what we want to see on our theatre stages? Satie was music. He created, influenced and foreshadowed. He was a precursor, a thorn, a distraction, a jester, and a magician.

During my research I teased myself with these grand academic notions of breaking down and analyzing his music and layering them into the play. I set out to read different books on musical semiotics to decode the significance of his music. That all ended in a little under a week when I realized I was way out of my depth. Music has been an integral part of my entire life, but I never learned how to read music or felt I needed to understand the larger cultural significance of a suspended ninth chord. Music has always been a visceral, instinctual endeavour for me. So I deciphered what Satie said about his music (which was very little) and what others said about it, then distilled that information to permit those impulses to inform me, letting the music, not the theory of it, tell me where it wanted to go.

Cocteau needed to talk about his and everyone else’s (A)rt hoping he would be able to understand it, or make others believe that he knew the secrets that lay behind its creation. Satie would not talk about his music and refused to analyze it. So how do you communicate with someone who refuses to explain his own language? And then how do you communicate that to an audience? Just before he died, when he and Cocteau were no longer on speaking terms, Satie wrote, “Music requires a great deal from those who wish to serve her … A true musician must be subjugated to his Art . . . he must put himself above human miseries . . . he must draw courage from within himself . . . from within himself alone.” We can take those words and place them in front of any band, musician or artist today; Springsteen, Radiohead, Sigur Ros, Prince[2], Me’Shell Ndegeocello, Ron Sexsmith, Feist, The Mars Volta and on and on. By staying true to the music, I would be staying true to both men, allowing the music to act as another layer of antagonism within the structure of the dramatic conflict and thus creating Rock & Roll theatre.

The obvious top layer materialization of the music was going to be found in Satie’s actual compositions. As the concept of the play developed, presenting various elements of Satie’s life, the easiest part was simply narrowing down the time periods and then matching them with an appropriate piece of music. Even though Satie would have approved[3], I knew it had to go beyond just dropping in a track here and there to provide a backdrop. I was not going to receive a musicology degree before finishing the writing of the play so I studied how Satie composed to determine what he was trying to achieve with his music. I seized structural elements from the music to use as structural elements in the play. I adapted Satie’s musicality and created a ‘scriptuality,’ a non scientific, completely instinctual interpretation of the musical shapes, from notes to words, script + structure + musicality = scriptuality.

In his book Erik Satie, Alan Gillmor writes, “Satie’s music, with its characteristic mosaic structure and its collage-like juxtaposition of familiar musical (and extramusical) elements, suited Cocteau’s purpose admirably” and it now suited my purposes perfectly. I did not want to break down and analyze the music to simply place it into individual scenes, but to have his musical ideas of simplicity, beauty and honesty live and breathe through the entire play. I began to think of Cocteau and Actor as two hands on a giant metaphorical piano.

Another element of the music I wanted to utilize was its power as an entity. Yes, Satie wanted music to resemble a chair and not “go into convulsions,” but for my purposes I wanted the music to carry a certain amount of antagonism between the characters. Music was Satie’s (A)rt and the thing that Cocteau could never fully penetrate, so it already had an element of violence. It would not have been enough if all the Actor did was ‘talk’ because Cocteau is the poet and words are his domain. Having the Actor use certain pieces as metaphorical punches when he felt words alone were not making his point would allow the music to live on stage. An example of this musical antagonism is Satie’s Vexations, which I included as the intermission’s music. The piece is a repetitive, slightly dissonant work that Satie recommended be played 840 times and as Robert Orledge suggests in Satie the Composer can create “hallucinatory effects”. The title alone is antagonistic, hinting that Satie knew this piece of music would drive the player mad.

I also investigated the idea of ‘sketches’ or unfinished pieces of music by a composer. Satie abandoned many unpublished, unknown and forgotten pieces of sheet music in his apartment. I decided to look at the play as a series of sketches, of unfinished moments in time, because Cocteau was never finished ‘re-writing’ them. I also used a literal version of sketches within the play when Cocteau hands Actor a pile of music that he wants to be performed during the show and the Actor notices that none of the pieces are actually finished. I, in turn, took sketches of Cocteau and Satie’s ‘relationship’ and finished them in a way that I hoped remained true to their respective characters. These elements have allowed the music of Satie to exist as its own character and the concepts of music as man, collage, as a physical entity and as sketches have given the play its scriptuality.

Early in the development of the play, before the heavy research began, I scribbled a narrative equation into my notebook:

‘Actor needs Cocteau,
Cocteau needs Satie,
Satie needs Cocteau,
Cocteau needs Actor’.

When I returned to review my old notes, I was struck byhow this ‘doodle’ had become the actual shape of the play and how it fit so easily into the very shape of Satie’s music and the mirrored structure of Satie’s music to Parade.

Parade Mirror

Image from: Robert Orledge Satie the Composer  p.173

In writing Satie et Cocteau: A Rehearsal of a Play of a Composer by a Poet I was interested in creating a piece of theatre that challenged audience’s expectations of what theatre, music and (A)rt is and could be. The spirit of Erik Satie and Jean Cocteau are within the pages of the play and I hope to continue their work by challenging conformity and to never, ever be predictable. Sounds like Rock & Roll to me.

**Robert Orledge, a Satie scholar and composer, who has written two books about Satie, says the play is: “…a truly excellent piece of theatre which deals convincingly and imaginatively with one of the most fraught love-hate relationships in modern French art. It has real depth and excellent dramatic pacing and is a work of art in itself”

[1] No original copy of Soyons Vulgaires has ever been found. The events of the play have been (re)assembled using the Actor’s own journal written during the rehearsal process. The journal was purchased for a dollar from a barn sale in Ohio in 1972 and was only recently (re)discovered… maybe.

[2] Prince is god.

[3] Satie had no patience for over-analysis.

Nathaniel’s Music.

Dancing Monkey Scientist Nathaniel Schmidt has uploaded the music from Satellites and the music from Karl Nimeni is not Dead – I Killed Karl Nimeni.
Here is a sample: Slow Spiral.

Visit the full page here: https://soundcloud.com/nathaniel-schmidt-1

SATELLITES – Oct. 2013.

Dancing Monkey Laboratories is pleased to be able to share with you our production of SATELLITES that was produced at the Big Secret Theatre in Calgary, Alberta. October 2013. We are continuing to develop our mission to allow our original works to exist in multiple media and we are learning the how’s and what’s along the way. This development demands from us that we ask questions of how the work might be presented, how might it shift or change or grow from stage to film or vice-versa and from eye to ear… Dancing Monkey Laboratories wishes to share the fundamental core of each piece, to find it’s centre and offer it to you, how ever you might wish to receive it.

“This is the most beautiful, honest and creative performance I have seen in a long, long time.”

Stageplay Written and Directed by Mike Czuba
Choreography by Melissa Tuplin
Original Composition by Nathaniel Schmidt
Filmed and edited by: Harry Papavlaspoloulos, Jon Tsamalidis for Sitting With Giants.
Actors: Laura Allen and Steven Evanik
Dancers: Melissa Tuplin and Jason Owin F. Galeos
Design by Derek Paulich and Leon Schwesinger
Stage Management by Marcia Liber
Publicity by Michelle Brandenburg
Graphic Design by Jarett Sitter: www.jaretts.com
Music composed by Nathaniel Schmidt
Producer: Donovan Seidle
Engineer: Spencer Cheyne
Featuring: The Kensington Sinfonia
Violin I: Donovan Seidle, Hyewon Kim
Violin II: Jeremy Gabbert, Lenora Leggatt
Viola: Dean O’Brien, Carl Boychuk
Cello: Tom Megee, Rafael Hoekman
Piano: Nathaniel Schmidt

Soundtrack album available on iTunes

DML_laurels copy

(A)RT! Lecture Excerpt.

(A)RT!
A philosophy for everyone, not an object for the few. 

At Dancing Monkey Laboratories show last April I introduced myself as a (S)cientist and I got an e-mail from a colleague who hoped I wasn’t doing this because the word Artist had become distasteful to me. I answered No! of course not – but there was a little ‘yes’ in there somewhere. ‘Yes’ because sometimes the word is used too easily as a label – as a description of identity – and not because of anything that person actually does – and DOING is the only thing that matters in Art. This is not an attempt to defend Art and Artists and say they/we are awesome people and we should be viewed with reverence – We shouldn’t be – This also isn’t an apology for our constant cry for more funding – We do need more and it’s not because there’s not enough money, it’s simply a matter of the priorities of those who have it all. What I am hopefully here to do and what I try to do with my own Art is to remove it from its pedestal – for the Artists and the Non-Artists. Yes it is important; it feeds culture and creates identities for peoples and nations. Well so does Sport, Science, Medicine, Engineering, Farming, Carpentry and on and on… Culture and identity are made up of many things and ART as a philosophy is within each of those disciplines – within every discipline.

PIss Christ

Piss Christ by Andres Serrano

I say the words ART or ARTIST or ARTISTIC and images might pop into your head – a painting or a Museum or a pretentious flake maybe? Sometimes positive, sometime negative but what are they based on? How we react to Art things is sometimes not even a personal reaction but a manufactured one. ‘Piss Christ’ by Andres Serrano is an extremely controversial image. I didn’t feel or know that when I first saw it – but my Fine Arts Professor told me it was so now I see this image as controversial and ‘important’. When I first saw it, I felt it would probably be a difficult image for some with its religious imagery but I saw colour and composition and I reacted to it – I tried not to see it for anything other than how I saw it – I didn’t care if it was important – because when art is presented to you as important, you have to understand that ‘important’ can easily be another word for agenda. Depending on your knowledge of these things, you begin to form opinions not on the work alone but on all these other variables that have little to do with the piece itself – If I showed you this image – Without the title – how would you feel about it? What do you see? What is your reaction? And can you say based solely on your reaction, if it’s ‘Important’?

Many people might say that they’re not Artistic or Creative or talented – and that usually refers to the fact that they can’t draw or they’ve convinced themselves they don’t have any cool ideas or can’t play an instrument – Let me tell you that not even the self-described Artists are all that creative and talent does not mean taste. This idea of what exactly being Artistic means is based on things that you’ve been told, taught or read about or might not understand– I consider myself an artist – and I can’t draw.  So when you tell yourself that you are not Artistic, you are basing that on subjective ‘rules’ created by a system, controlled by mechanism of economics and academia wrapped in an enigma viewed though a mirage of usefulness and on and on. I don’t consider myself a terribly gifted artist – I don’t have that ease with language or music or drawing – but I have ideas and the conduit to manifest these ideas is craft and craft can be learned. It might take you longer, it might not be the greatest thing in the world, but commitment and focus can make pretty much anything real. This applies to everything, not just Art. And I would like to argue that the majority of the artists working today – in any discipline – are not the most talented or gifted – but the ones that wanted it more – were hungrier. We study geniuses – but have any of us met one and were they even considered geniuses when they were alive? They are extremely rare so don’t compare what you do to what they do – you’ll never win. And I would also like to suggest that you are subconsciously more imaginative and creative than you think and it’s only when you start thinking too much about rules and reception that you allow that creativity to dissolve. There’s a quick story in the book Art & Fear by David Bayles and Ted Orland that perfectly captures this, they write:

Recently a painter of some accomplishment (but as insecure as the rest of us) was discussing his previous night’s dream with a friend over coffee. It was one of those vivid Technicolor dreams, the kind that linger on in exact detail even after waking. In his dream he found himself at an art gallery, and when he walked inside and looked around he found the walls hung with paintings – amazing paintings, paintings of passionate intensity and haunting beauty. Recounting his dream, the artist ended fervently with, “I’d give anything to be able to make paintings like that!” “Wait a minute!” his friend exclaimed. “Don’t you see? Those were your paintings! They came from your own mind. Who else could have painted them?”

The word Art has been hijacked by  – or feels hijacked – by an elite few, by an academic machine and most unabashedly by business. If I ask you if you like Art  – most people will say yes, what’s not to like – but if we dig deeper and ask what kind of Art its starts to get more complicated.

Philistines by Jean Michel Basquiat

Philistines by Jean Michel Basquiat

There’s High-Art, Low-Art, Avant-Guard, traditional, popular, mainstream, independent, Middle of the road, Meta, Post Modern (POMO for the hipsters), Post Dramatic, Post-what ever the next thing is – and those are just a tiny percentage of descriptors and styles – there’s also the many different forms – painting, music, theatre, film, sculpture, photography, dance, graphic design, visual arts, performance art and on and on… We as humans feel the need to categorize everything. This all makes Art really scary to a lot of people because no one wants to feel stupid. I recently sent a video of Dancing Monkey’s latest performance of our show Satellites to my sister – She liked it but felt the need to qualify her response with “I don’t want to sound like a complete ignoramus but…” then she went on to list the things she liked and why… Why couldn’t she just say what she liked? Maybe she felt her reactions were too basic, too pedestrian…? But you see, that’s what we forget – the simplest connections are the important connections and everything she described were things that we as creators tried to make happen.

How many times have you read a review destroying a popular film for being juvenile or unsophisticated, or a rave review of some independent ‘art’ film that you didn’t fully understand and left you empty – or downloaded a new album from a band that’s a critics darling to find out its just noise but then you catch yourself singing along to every word of what ever hit is on the radio and is dismissed as not serious music. Do you need to analyze everything you see or hear or feel and why should you feel the need to qualify your opinions? Big words don’t always make you sound smarter – sometimes they make you sound like an asshole. The conventional wisdom is ‘popular = not art’ and ‘real art = not popular’ – And sometimes this equation works but I believe there is art in everything if want to look for it.

Now, to me, ART! (with mandatory exclamation point) is not a thing, not a noun – It is a philosophy, an energy, a way of doing things – not the things themselves with their alleged value based on finished products. As far as I’m concerned, once something is technically finished it becomes a product – something to market, promote and exploit. It is the product not the art that is being ingested by an audience – What kind of room is it displayed in? How does it compare to the last thing? Will it sell? For how much? How smart will I feel if I say I like it? Will that girl or guy I like find me more attractive?  And as Artists we have a tendency to base whether something has been a success or a failure based on how it is received when that is completely out of our control. No matter how amazing I think my new play is – and it is amazing – the audience will have their own reaction to it based on a 1000 different subjective variables.

So the finished product is just that, a product. The ART! has already been done and we can’t base its value on how it is received, we can only learn from the doing – what were the obstacles, challenges, discoveries and successes while you were making whatever thing you were making? How does this matter at all to you if you are not an artist? Let me ask a question: How many of you have a dream, a goal – something you want to achieve? Now, what happens if and when that dream comes true? Then what? What if it’s not all that you imagined? It can never be all that you imagined. What if you don’t achieve your dream? What if you placed your entire being into achieving this dream and now you find yourself in a weird void? Very little is learned from achieving the dream itself – its just a thing. All the knowledge is in the quest. Chasing it, working towards it, over and under obstacles, struggling for it, re-evaluating it, seeing the dream itself begin to change and evolve – without that, the dream is empty, a mirage. How you achieve the dream is where the ART! is – in the DOING.

I don’t teach my students “How to make Theatre” – As in, follow these steps and you will end up with Theatre. Because the ‘Theatre’ part of the sentence is the finished product – a style, or genre or a convention. It’s a finish line. I’m more interested in teaching students the “How to make…” part. Also, saying “This is how you make Theatre” assumes there is a right way and a wrong way – and then rules are being taught and used and perpetuated and then we all die a very boring death. So I try to avoid rules and focus more on tools. Tools require your involvement, alone they are useless – Rules or steps can be skipped over and have an assumed involvement, but not tools, you either use them or you don’t.

These tools can be layered and meshed within almost any discipline, any project, any life. Right now there are five ideas/tools that I’m bringing into the classroom and I am not so arrogant to believe these will not mutate and evolve or transform into something else over time. Maybe something more focused, maybe something with more room for interpretation but for the moment here they are: Pre-Creation, Instinctual Negation, Justified Resistance, Fail More and Acquired Knowledge and the Subconscious.

Lets break these down: 

Pre-Creation or to Pre-Create is a sickness. Stop it. For my theatre students this means to only think of the finished product before you even know how you might get there or what you want to say. We can imagine what and where we’d like to go – that’s in and of itself is not a horrible thing, but to hold on to that image will only lead to frustration. If you are only fixated on the end game, you’ll miss all the ideas, impulses and possibilities along the way that could take the work in a multitude of new places – These new places might not look at all like that first image, or could look very similar, but you have to work in the moments of development, stay open to those new sensations and meanings that will permit the work to be more connected to you and your intentions. This also means a slowing down of the process – so you can root yourself in the work and not race forward to the end  – missing everything along the way.

Instinctual Negation is the mirror image of Pre-Creation. What this means is that you – by instinct – dismiss ideas before they’re allowed to be worked on, explored and developed. It’s like racing to a finished product by saying ‘No’ to every idea that jumps out – because… Because why? The older we get the more we negate. “I don’t like this” – “I like that” -  “That’s stupid” – “that’s too complicated” – “That’s too pretentious.”… We begin to inherit all these instincts about everything and after awhile we stop asking why. Ask Why!! Some of these instincts are based on experience – things we’ve learned about ourselves, but we as a species are not set in stone, we change, we grow – every new experience we have adds to the who and what we are and we experience new things everyday. So, if new experiences continue to shape us, we have to then re-evaluate our instincts based on these new experiences. Yes, it’s safe and comforting to declare ‘This is who I am” – but it is inaccurate the moment after you say it. Some of your instincts might be re-affirmed with investigation but I will wager there are many that will not stand up to scrutiny.

Justified Resistance is the natural outcome of Instinctual Negation and can work on anything. It’s an intellectual exercise that does nothing but make you feel good about not doing something. In Theatre, where you might think that everyone is opened minded and will try anything – Justified Resistance very much exists. Students who have set up what they like and dislike about certain styles and methods and even one teacher over another. This is mostly based in fear. Fear of not wanting to feel stupid, or embarrassed or that you might actually be open to things that you have so resolutely said you would not be. Ego gets in the way all the time. This also requires questioning. We can justify anything we don’t want to do or things we want to do. But make sure that the justification is based on real experiences and not some imagined (pre-created) outcome. Resistance also keeps you in a comfort zone where little interesting can exist because you feel comfortable  – meaning you’ve done it before – it didn’t ‘hurt’ you – so therefor must be safe. Safe is boring.

Fail More. You will always fail more than you succeed, and the successful fail a lot because they keep trying and keep failing. If you stop failing it means you’ve stopped trying. If you stop trying, you can’t succeed. Ever. This is a standard business trope with start-ups and for business leaders. Even Steve Jobs got fired from Apple – and his own start up after the firing – Next Inc. – bombed. But he took what he learned with that failure and brought that new knowledge back to Apple and now we all live in his world.  In Nolan Bushnell’s book Finding the Next Steve Jobs there is an entire chapter (Pong) called “Celebrate Failure”. This tool is so indispensible to ART! or anything else because you learn very little from success – mostly you’ll end up trying to re-create exactly what you did the last time, but everything is unique and what worked on one project, might be a disaster on the next.

Acquired Knowledge and the Subconscious: The more you do, the more you experience, the more you allow into your imagination, the more knowledge you have at your disposal  – the greater your metaphorical languages, the greater your tool box. And this final tool is a mix of doing and researching. Being street smart AND book smart. Don’t limit it.  The more you can actively do – not just think about, builds this file cabinet in your head and body that is always being crossed referenced. And the best part is that you don’t have to actually think about putting the information into the cabinet. Everything you do and see and hear is recorded and filed away into the sub-conscious. Now there’s one problem – its really hard to consciously access the sub-conscious and you can’t actually ‘Think Harder” – the brain is not a muscle.  Squeezing your face, rubbing you temples, hitting things – all useless. Might make you feel better, but won’t help you find answers. The only way to access the subconscious is to relax. Stress will cut it off, panic will lead to worry, and worrying will lead to stress. There’s a great line in The Wisdom of Insecurity by Allan W. Watts that reads: “Seeing that it is unreasonable to worry does not stop one from worrying because now you are worrying for being unreasonable.” It’s fun to tell a group of university students moving around the studio to stop thinking!! Thinking too hard or trying to force ideas or solutions will just get you stuck in the spin cycle of stress, panic and worry. So as it is with the Arts and what I try and teach in my classrooms is that in the process of creation, or problem solving or brainstorming – you need to include time into the schedule. You need to let things marinate – work on something else for a while and come back to it with fresh eyes, a fresh mind and a fresh heart. And in the time you’re not hyper-focused on this thing you’re working on, when the mind is relaxed and you are not negating, justifying and worrying about failing – solutions will appear. By DOING and acquiring knowledge you are filling the subconscious.

A final analogy between ART! and Life. The Actor, when preparing for a part, takes the text and reads it several times, looks for the theme of the story, discovers the objective of the character they are playing, then breaks the text into the separate acts and scenes. Then the actor will break those individual scenes down into Units and Beats and even down to individual words and syllables. The actor will return to this analysis several times, fine tuning and then exploring and rehearsing those choices. But at some point, close to opening night, the Actor has to let go of all of that and be in the moment. The Actor has to let all that preparation sink into their bodies, fall into the subconscious and only re-act to the present – to the mood of an audience, the energy from the other members of the cast, how the Actor feels from performance to performance, a malfunctioning prop or a lost line of dialogue… These things will happen and if the Actor in not fully present in the moment of the performance, all the rehearsing and preparation and choices will be for not.

Now, in life, we do the same thing. We have dreams and goals and desires as we create our own characters, and we think about how we can achieve these things and start making plans – and we break down these plans into years, months, weeks, days, minutes. Just like the Actor breaking down a text, we break down our own life objectives. And as we break down our lives into these shrinking sections of time, we make choices on how to proceed. But, just like the Actor, all of this detailed planning is wasted if we are not present in our own lives. If we are not ‘in the moment’ we will miss everything and be left with an empty, all be it well planned… plan.

So go ahead, make plans, have dreams and goals, but instead of only being concerned with the final product – the show – with that future achievement and possible success – instead of confusing the end with the art – Remember that Art! Is not a noun, not an object. Remember that Art is in every month, week, day, hour – every thought, idea, impulse and image. It is a way of doing things, it’s in how you do things, how you do everything.

Mike and Monkey by Harry Papavlasopoulos

Mike and Monkey by Harry Papavlasopoulos

SATELLITES: Epilogue by Nathaniel Schmidt.

Here is a sample track from Nathaniel Schmidt’s soundtrack to Dancing Monkey Laboratories SATELLITES. Featuring the Kensington Sinfonia, Produced by Donovan Seidle.

Album is available on iTunes now!

I AM I – is waiting for you…

“The characters in Mike Czuba’s new tragi-comedy “I am I” may state in frustration that they hate postmodernism, but the show owns its very appeal to this fragmented, and yet strangely cohesive genius of narrative that brings together in a hodgepodge of at times entertaining, at times disquieting instances two highly neurotic (and charismatic) leading men in perpetual pursuit (and pullback) from an equally attractive, yet strangely evanescent leading lady.” Lucian Tion – Amsterdam Fringe.

“Mike Czuba’s breakneck and hilarious play rockets from place to place, taking in everything from love poems to sexual politics…” Orange Tea Theatre.

“…If you spent the entirety of Waiting for Godot wondering when the hell Godot was going to show up, you may not like this Montreal playwright’s anti-narrative aesthetic. But if words like “postmodern”, “self-referential”, and “meta-fictional” appeal to you, then Czuba’s playful portrait of sexual politics in the modern age is a must-see.” Sarah Fletcher – Rover Arts.

“Not many writers can pull off a play that transcends all boundaries of realism and logic but that still comes off as witty and entertaining” Julia Gerke – The Suburban

“Stimulating, ironic, dynamic and without compromise, the eternal human search for the Other, mirror of postmodernity in the pettiness of our time.” Yves Rousseau – LE QUATRIEME

I AM I provides the audience with an exploration of duality, love, the ridiculous things we think and the unexplainable actions we take, which remain a mystery even to ourselves.” The Concordian.

i-am-i

Text sample can be found at Original Works Publishing… Click on image.