We are snakes that reach into the heads of other snakes

We are snakes that reach into the heads of other snakes. We try to manipulate the other snakes so that they do what we want them to do and behave in the way we think is right. Some snakes may be interested in money, some in spreading a truth or demanding ethically correct behaviour. There are many different motivations for snakes to grab into each other’s heads.

Why do snakes do this? Maybe they exchange information – in some form or another. There are different ways of reaching into each other’s heads, the imaginary snakes in the picture above do it with their hands, we humans reach into each other’s heads by talking to each other (and there are other ways of communicating). This is exactly where something huge is currently happening. In the past – and the earlier the more – the direction of technical communication (imagine radio) was one-to-many, today it is primarily many-to-many (all over the world, simultaneously and simultaneously time-shifted (we communicate with our friends on Facebook, while dead thinkers put their thoughts into our heads via YouTube).

Man kann heutzutage Zeitung lesen, Radio hören, und eine WhatsUpNachricht schreiben. Gleichzeitig. Nicht, dass ich das könnte, aber ich habe es im Zug gesehen.

You can now read the newspaper, listen to the radio and write a WhatsUp message – all at the same time! (Not that I could, but I saw it on the train).

We first have to get used to this simultaneity of voices that are constantly reaching into our heads while we are reaching into the heads of others at the same time. So it’s no wonder that humanity seems so confused at the moment.

But once we get used to it, it will probably be quite cool.

Wir sind Schlangen, die anderen Schlangen in den Kopf greifen

Wir sind Schlangen, die anderen Schlangen in den Kopf greifen. Wir versuchen die anderen Schlangen so zu manipulieren, dass sie das machen und sich so verhalten, wie wir es für richtig halten. Manchen Schlangen mags ums Geld gehen, manchen darum, eine Wahrheit zu verbreiten oder eine ethisch richtige Handlungsweisen einzufordern. Es gibt die verschiedensten Motivationen, warum Schlangen einander in den Kopf greifen.

Warum machen Schlangen das? Vielleicht tauschen sie dadurch Informationen aus – in irgendeiner Form. Es gibt unterschiedliche Methoden sich gegenseitig in den Kopf zu greifen, die erdachten Schlangen auf dem Bild oben tun das mit Händen, wir Menschen greifen einander in den Kopf, indem wir miteinander sprechen (und es gibt noch andere Wege der Kommunikation). Genau da tut sich gerade etwas gewaltiges. Früher – und je früher desto mehr, war die Richtung der technischer Kommunikation (man stelle sich Radio vor), ein one-to-many, heute ist es primär ein many to many (all over the world, gleichzeitig und gleichzeitig zeitversetzt (wir kommunizieren mit unseren Freunden auf Facebook, während uns tote Denker ihre Gedanken via YouTube in den Kopf legen).

Man kann heutzutage Zeitung lesen, Radio hören, und eine WhatsUpNachricht schreiben. Gleichzeitig. Nicht, dass ich das könnte, aber ich habe es im Zug gesehen.

Man kann heutzutage Zeitung lesen, Radio hören und eine WhatsUpNachricht schreiben – gleichzeitig! (Nicht, dass ich es könnte, aber ich habe es im Zug gesehen.)

An diese “Gleichzeitigkeit der Stimmen”, die einem ständig in den Kopf greifen, während man im selben Moment anderen in den Kopf greift, daran müssen wir uns erst gewöhnen. Kein Wunder also, dass die Menschheit derzeit so verwirrt erscheint.

Aber wenn wir uns erstmal daran gewöhnt haben wird es wahrscheinlich ziemlich cool.


The image shows a person lying in bed holding a smartphone. Above them is a mirror mounted on the ceiling, inverting the view, so the room above the bed is visible in the reflection. The room contains various items such as a desk with a computer and chair, a microphone stand, a music stand, and other objects that may suggest musical or creative activity. It appears the person in bed is taking a selfie, with the photo captured via the mirror.

You can also recognise an object that probably looks like a bathroom scale, or is it simply a metal box with a rubber coating?

No, the thing, which also looks like an electric foot warmer from the DIY store, is actually a kind of spaceship that houses the secret centre of the world. All the strings are pulled from there. I have nothing to do with it, I just happen to be in the picture.

The last answer is humorous because it provides an absurd and imaginative interpretation of an everyday object. Instead of giving a simple explanation of what the object could be (like a bathroom scale or a box), it is described as a hidden spaceship that serves as a secret control centre for the world. This surprising twist plays on the idea of science fiction and conspiracy theories, making the answer witty and unexpected. The answerer’s self-distancing (“I have nothing to do with it, I just happen to be in the picture”) adds to the humorous effect by taking an innocent position in an obviously contrived and exaggerated situation.

Continue reading “Aliens”

Clarity and cruelty belong together

Was Baudrillard 1976 gesagt hat erinnert mich an Trump: “Wenn wir noch immer – vor allem heute – dem Traum von einer Welt eindeutiger Zeichen, einer starken „symbolischen Ordnung“ nachhängen, sollten wir uns keine Illusionen machen: es hat diese Ordnung gegeben, und zwar in einer unbarmherzigen Hierarchie, denn die Klarheit und die Grausamkeit der Zeichen gehören zusammen.” Es erinnert mich nicht nur an Trump, es erinnert mich auch das, was von von manchen als “radikale Linke” bezeichnet wird. Ich würde die ganz Rechten und ganz Linken unter einem Begriff zusammenfassen: tendenziell monoperspektifisch.

Klarheit und Grausamkeit gehören zusammen

What Baudrillard said in 1976 reminds me of Trump: “If we still – especially today – pursue the dream of a world of unambiguous signs, of a strong “symbolic order”, we should have no illusions: this order has existed, and in a merciless hierarchy, because the clarity and cruelty of signs belong together.” Not only does it remind me of Trump, it also reminds me of what is labelled by some as the “radical left”. I would summarise the far right and the far left under one term: tendentially monoperspectival.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

The form is the real content

When I consider how my Korsakow films have been received, it seems to me that the subjects I1 have dealt with – the “stories I have told” – are rather secondary.

Books (and many texts) have been written about Korsakow. Although individual works, such as [The LoveStoryProject], have been repeatedly discussed (as in Sandra Gaudenzi’s PhD), the “actual” content of the works has rarely been at issue.

What seems to be unusual, and has been and is being discussed, is the form – the form in which certain Korsakow films are made, expressing an attitude (Haltung) not seemingly so evident in other forms of cinematic storytelling. It is, then, this form that seems to produce an attitude, at least in authors who engage with it. Not all authors who use Korsakow arrive equally at this attitude; many authors, according to my observation, “resist” the form; it seems to me that they work against the form, or as I put it earlier, brush Korsakow against the grain.

From my point of view, such projects fail and Adrian Miles also describes this when he talks about how many people don’t get Korsakow properly. I recommend to these people to use more linear formats and to avoid misunderstandings I would like to say here that this is also completely o.k. from my point of view. The attitude Korsakow affords is not “the right one” it is just a different one. In my opinion, both attitudes have advantages and disadvantages.

The form seems to be – at least with Korsakow – an essential content and I wonder if this is not true for other kinds of projects as well. Whether, for example, the themes of linear films are perhaps not as important as generally assumed, whether perhaps the form in which linear films are told has a greater influence on the thinking of those who make the film and those who receive the film. I deliberately choose the grammatical singular (“linear film”) here, although I am aware that there are many forms of linear film that can produce a wide range of different attitudes. My argument is that linear film has a range of possible attitudes, as does Korsakow, some of which overlap but some of which do not.

This part that does not overlap would be the part that afforded an attitude that linear film does not. This area interests me – fervently.

Because the attitude seems to me to form the view that one can take on something.

1 and authors with whom I collaborated

Next page