Interview with Mladen Dolar

I think to make art is to make a break. And to make a cut. Theres a cut in the
continuity of being, in the continuity of survival.
Mladen Dolar is co-founder of the Ljubljana school of psychoanalysis, together with Slavoj
iek, Alenka Zupani and !astko "onik# $onny %abbel &et the Slovenian philosopher in
'une ())* in Ljubljana#
WgK: Is there an artwork that had a lasting effect on you
+olar, -he work of Sa&uel .eckett / if 0 have to single out just one# 0t is both the i&portance it
had for &e and for the particular historic &o&ent of the end of the twentieth century# 0 think he is
the one who went the furthest in a certain way# -here are various reasons for this, and one of
the& has to do with an enor&ous will to reduction# 1hat .eckett did was to create an infinitely
shrinkable world# -here is never little enough# 2ou can always take away &ore#
-ake the -he -rilogy, Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnamable# 0n the .eginning there is so&e sort
of plot and so&e sort of characters# -hen in the second novel you have just "alone, who is dying
alone in his roo& and who is inventing stories as he is waiting for death# -he space has shrunk,
there is no &ore travel# And then you have the third novel, where you don3t even have this# 2ou
don3t even have a space, you don3t even have a character, you just have a voice# A voice which
just ra&bles on and continues, and it doesn3t &atter what it says in the end# 0t3s just the sheer
thrust of perseverance, of persistence, which carries the whole thing# So just persist# 2ou have to
go on# And you know how this ends, it ends in the &ost beautiful way, 40 &ust go on, 0 can3t go
on, 0 will go on4#
0 think this is an incredible point, 0 don3t think literature has ever gone this far this radically# -his
is so co&pletely reduced to a bare &ini&u&, what .eckett has called 5the unnullable least3# And
e6tre&ely powerful#
WgK: !o what is art actually
+olar, 0 think to &ake art is to &ake a break# And to &ake a cut# -his would be the si&plest way
of answering your 7uestion#
.ut there are different ways of answering# 8ne of the& would go to 9reud3s theory, which looks
at art through the spyglass of subli&ation# 0 think what 9reud conceives as drive, 5der -rieb3,
actually has to do with the transition between so&ething natural and a creation of a separate
space, and that everything he describes as the specificity of culture actually has to do with the
structure of the drive# -he drive is like thwarting of a natural hang, it gets thwarted towards a
different sort of end# -his is like a supposed initial natural need, but which in the process of its
satisfaction actually gets thwarted# 0t produces so&ething else than &erely the satisfaction of a
natural need# 0f you look at the way 9reud describes culture in Unbehagen in der Kultur, he
defines culture with a list of features#
-he first on the list would be the 7uestion of tools# 1e3re getting &ore and &ore tools in order to
be the &asters of nature, so that we can do all the &agic things, we can look at far away
distances through the telescope, we can see the invisible in the &icroscope, we can talk through
distance with the telephone, we can do absolutely &agical things# And 9reud uses the wonderful
word, he says, 4+er "ensch ist ein :rothesengott4# So he3s a god with prostheses# 2ou just need
so&e prostheses to be a god# So you have these e6tensions of the body# And what actually the
drive to &aster nature produces at the sa&e ti&e / so&ething &ore than the si&ple &astering of
nature / it produces prostheses, a sort of 5in between space3, a space which elongates your body,
prolongs your body into the world# -he eerie space between the inner and the outer is libidinally
invested# And, to cut it short, this is also the area where culture co&es in#
WgK: "o you have any idea of what good art is Which art do you regard as good
+olar, 1ell, this is not a subjective 7uestion# -here is a strong tendency to reduce art to the
7uestion of taste# And the 7uestion of taste is kind of dangerous because it always goes down to
the 7uestion of narcissis&# -here is so&ething profoundly narcissistic in the judge&ent of
preference# 50 prefer this, 0 a& a connoisseur, 0 prefer the late .eethoven 7uartets against
sy&phonies#3 -he difference which &eans difference as such and which &eans that you are
distinguished and that you can distinguish yourself fro& the co&&on lot of people by being the
&an of refined taste, to see all these differences that the others don3t see#
0 have this conception of art, which is that art has to do with universality and infinity# 0t
introduces so&ething into the continuity of being, into the continuity of our survival# A break#
1hich is a universal break# A break to universality# 0t can speak universally# 1hat is i&portant in
art is not a 7uestion whether it is an e6pression of a certain individual or whether it is an
e6pression of a certain ethnic group or nation or of a certain age#
0 think that the break is such that it &akes the universal out of particularities#
.ut the proble& is how to do this with the subjective &eans at your disposal, within the nation to
which you belong, or language, or culture, within a particular type of civili;ation, within this
historic &o&ent / which are all very finite and singular things# %ow to produce universality and
infinity out of this< And this 0 think is the &o&ent of art# -his is not a production of spirit, this is
a &aterial production of the break# 0 like very &uch this saying, which is on t-shirts like, 4Art is
a dirty job, but so&ebody3s got to do it4# 2ou have to get your hands dirty# -his is a very &aterial
thing# 2ou produce the idea with the &aterial, with the &atter# Art has always worked with the
sensual# 0f one tries to get i&&ediately to universality or the infinity of a beyond, an idea, the
subli&e or whatever / this is, 0 think, a big &istake# 2ou cannot do this# 2ou just have to produce
it the hard way# .ut it depends on being able to produce a break#
And this sets the standard by which it can be judged# 0 don3t think it can be judged on the basis of
taste, it3s not just a 7uestion of whether 0 like it or not# 0t has the power to produce universality# 0t
creates a potential virtual audience which goes far beyond this audience here# And 0 think the
awareness that it goes beyond this, beyond &y particular taste and reaction, is what &akes good
art#
WgK: Is art a benefit for society Why does there have to be someone who does this dirty #ob
+olar, 1ell, 0 think that in the 7uestion with which 0 started, the 7uestion of drawing a line,
&aking a cut in the continuity of our ani&al or social being, of our finite being, that this is what
defines hu&anity# 03& not saying that art is the only way to do this# 0 think thought is so&ething
which does this also, it breaks with the conditions of its own production# -his is the practice of
philosophy# 0 think philosophy, si&ilarly, but also very differently, &akes a conceptual break in
the continuity of particular received ways of thinking#
1e have the definition of &an as homo sapiens, the thinking animal, but the trouble is that
thought is very rare# 0t3s not that &en think all the ti&e, it happens very rarely# -here are very
few occasions when thought happens and when it does, it seriously changes the very para&eters
of the ways we conceive the world, ourselves, whatever# -here3s a handful of thinkers# -his is a
strange thing in the history of philosophy, there3s only a handful of thinkers with which we have
to deal continually# .ut 0 don3t think / this is i&portant / that thought is so&e sort of prerogative
of philosophy, that philosophers are very special because they have this specialisation in thought#
0 don3t think that at all# 0 think thought can happen anywhere# 0n silence and=
WgK: "oes it also ha$$en in art
+olar, 8h yes# 0t does &ost definitely# 0t has a different way and the 7uestion of art working with
the sensual, with sensuous &aterial &eans is very i&portant, this is a &aterialised thought# 0t3s
the thought which works within the &atter and shapes the &atter# 0t is attached to &atter, and
&atter thinks in art# -his is very i&portant, the &ateriality of thought# 0 think thought actually
happens in a nu&ber of areas of hu&an endeavour# And art is one of the &ost reflected#
WgK: Which are the others
+olar, +o you know the work of Alain .adiou< %e has &ade a list of four truth procedures, four
areas where truth e&erges#
-hese are, Science, and above all the co&pletely constructed science like &athe&atics# 0t doesn3t
refer to anything in the world, it just creates its own entities, pure entities# -hen, :oetry and art as
such# -hen politics# :olitics not of opinions but politics of truth# -here3s an opposition between
the two# +e&ocracy basically is a de&ocracy of opinions# Anybody is free to hold any kind of
opinion and then you count the votes# -his is not a politics of truth# -here is a sort of truth at
stake in politics which has to do with justice and e7uality, it has to do with an idea# And then
there is the 7uestion of love, which is the e&ergence of a truth event# A subjective truth event#
.adiou lists the four areas as the areas in which this break happens# 0 a& not sure that this list is
the best, e6haustive or conclusive# "aybe this list is too neat in so&e way# 0 think things are
&essier in life# 0n &any everyday situations, even trivial ones, there &ay be a sudden and
une6pected break, people show an inventive creativity and do so&ething very une6pected, and
actually change the para&eters of the situation and their own lives and the lives of others# 0
would leave this field open#
WgK: I #ust had this s$ontaneous thought if humour might be one of those areas too
+olar, 1ell, you have an old suggestion which goes back to Aristotle, that the &an is a laughing
animal# 2ou have various proposals for the definitions of &an, one is the thinking animal,
another one is the tool-making animal, which goes back to .enja&in 9ranklin# "ar6 takes this
up that one can define the &an through the tool which conditions his capacity for work# And then
you have Aristotle3s suggestion, "an is a laughing animal# -he only ani&al that can laugh /
laugh at what< -o laugh, precisely, at being able to produce a certain break# -he break in
&eaning, in the very para&eters of &aking sense# 8ne way of describing this could be where 0
started / to &ake a break, to &ake a cut / which is also to &ake a break in &eaning in order to
produce sense, if 0 &ay use this +eleu;ian opposition between &eaning and sense# And sense is
the sort of une6pected thing which e&erges# 0n order to produce this you have to cut down the
usual e6pectation of &eaning# -he very hori;on of &eaning in which you &ove, in which you
live your life# And this is the capacity of art#
As far as hu&our is concerned, 0 would just point out that there3s a 7uestion of hu&our and
there3s a 7uestion of 51it;3# 9reud has written a book on 51it;3 and a different paper on humour
and he says that those things are absolutely not to be confused# Additionally there3s a 7uestion of
comedy and there3s a 7uestion of irony# So we have four different things which are not the sa&e#
1e &ay laugh as a result, but there is laughter and laughter# Laughter itself does not have to be
subversive# 0t can also be very conservative#
WgK: Who becomes an artist What is it that makes $eo$le become artists
+olar, 0 don3t think there3s a rule# -here is the capacity, well, the break-&aking capacity# -he
way that we relate to ourselves is always conditioned by a break, there is a 7uestion of
redoubling# $ulture is always a 7uestion of redoubling, it redoubles the 5nor&al3 life# 0t reflects it
into so&ething else, but redoubling is always already there#
WgK: %ut still there are some $eo$le who dont become artists or intellectuals.
+olar, >o, no, of course# 0 think the capacity is there, and it is a capacity which defines hu&anity
and subjectivity# And= how the hell do you beco&e an artist< 1hat particular things have to
co&e together< 0 think what &akes the greatness of art is precisely its singularity# 1hich &eans
that if you could establish this rule art would stop being art#
WgK: %ut couldnt it be that there is some reason why $eo$le start to make art &obert 'faller
once suggested that artists might have some traumatic e($erience that they ) all their lives )
try to handle by making art.
+olar, +on3t we all have to handle so&e sort of trau&atic e6perience< 0t3s very hard to say# 0
&ean, the 7uestion has been asked &any ti&es, so you have art schools which precisely can
teach you everything e6cept what is essential#
WgK: *eah, but art school starts at a moment where you already decided to go to art school.
Who is likely to go to art school !o there are two as$ects of this +uestion. The one is: ,ow do
you become a good artist The other +uestion ) which actually interests me ) is: Why does
someone want to become an artist -o matter if good or bad, if successful or not: What makes
a $erson take u$ this way
+olar, 0f you want to beco&e an artist, what do you want to beco&e< 0f 0 take so&e of the
greatest &usicians of all ti&es, like .ach and "o;art or %aydn# 2ou can see what< 1ho was
%aydn< %e was hired by the ?sterha;y fa&ily as a crafts&an# 0 &ean, did he want to beco&e an
artist< 0 don3t think he ever thought of hi&self in that way actually# %e was a paid crafts&an#
And if you look at "o;art, he was all the ti&e trying to get hired by so&e court or so&ething# 0f
you look at .ach, he was e&ployed by the St# -ho&as church in Leip;ig to produce a piece of
&usic for &ass every week#
0t was not a 7uestion of genius or inspiration# 2ou were hired# .ecause this was another craft and
0 don3t think anybody would look at the&selves this way today# 0f you want to beco&e an artist
you don3t want to beco&e a crafts&an# 2ou see yourself as a person with a special vocation,
which goes beyond all usual vocations# -his is due to the ro&antic &odel of art and then to the
&odernist conceptions#
WgK: .ets stick to todays understanding of art: "o you think artists are narcissistic
+olar, -he 7uestion of art and narcissis&= 0 would say that on the one hand it3s profoundly
narcissistic# 0t3s usually linked with a project of profound narcissis& of self-e6pression and the
precious treasure 0 have in &e and want to disclose to the world## .ut 0 don3t think that this is
what &akes art# As 0 said before, Art is not e6pression# 0t3s not an e6pression of yourself# :eople
&ay want to do it to e6press the&selves, but what &akes the break and what &akes the universal
appeal, the clai& of art, is not a 7uestion of whether they e6press the&selves well or not# 0t3s just
not the 7uestion by which art is ever judged# So on the one hand 03& sure that the &otivation for
doing this is in &ost cases narcissistic#
WgK: "id I understand you right when you say art is not an e($ression ) could you say art is
one of the /'rothesen
+olar, 2es# 8h yes#
WgK: I really like this $icture.
+olar, -he 5:rothesengott3< 2es# .ut, well, 9reud uses this in the conte6t of technology and tool-
&aking#
WgK: I have the feeling that its very good, maybe not only for tools.
+olar, 2es# 0t3s a good thing# 0t3s not just a 7uestion of tool# A tool is never a tool# 0t3s a
libidinally invested e6tension of the body#
WgK: !o you could also say art is a libidinal e(tension of yourself. 0f the body.
+olar, 1ell, it has so&ething to do with the libidinal e6tension# -he way 9reud introduces the
notion of prosthesis, it has &ore to do with technology than with art# .ut 0 think it3s nevertheless
a useful &etaphor also to think about art#
WgK: 1ould you also call it objet a Art as an e(tension towards objet a
+olar, 1ell, yes# 0 didn3t want to use the heavily technical Lacanian language for this# 0 &ean
this could be described in another language, but what Lacan calls objet a is precisely the object
of transition between the interior and e6terior, which doesn3t 7uite fall either into interior or the
e6ternal world out there@ the objective world# 0 &ean it3s neither subjective nor objective# 0n this
sense it3s always in this ;one of indeter&inacy, in the ;one which opens in between# And which
is the ;one of 5:rothesen3 if you want, 0 &ean, the :rothesen always fill the ;one, you put
so&ething between subjects and objects# 2ou e6tend your body into the world, and at the sa&e
ti&e the world e6tends into you# Still, what Lacan calls the object a doesn3t coincide with any
e6isting object, it has no substance of its own, while art produces e6isting objects whose task is
to evoke this i&possible object# -o evoke the i&possible#
WgK: Would you agree that artists and $hiloso$hers share similarities in the realities they live
in
+olar, 2es# 0 think there3s a lot of co&&on ground# -he tools with which they work are different,
but 0 think they work on a co&&on ground and that they can3t be neatly delineated# 8ne way of
differentiation / which 0 particularly dislike / is to say that artists have the passions and the
feelings and they work with this and philosophers have the reason and understanding and they
work with this# 0 don3t think this opposition is worth anything# 0t never works this way# 0 think
that any hu&an activity has both, indiscri&inately passion and reason inscribed into it#
0f you look at the history of philosophy / look at :lato, look at Spino;a, look at Augustine, look
at %egel, "ar6, Aant, 1ittgenstein / there is always a huge passion# -his is terrible passion you
have in this# -hey are all passion-driven# -o describe this as works of &ere intellect is co&pletely
&isguided# -his is the erroneous co&&on conception of philosophy, rationality and concepts# 0f
it doesn3t involve passionate attach&ent and passionate involve&ent, then it3s not philosophy#
-here is very, very serious passion at work in this# And at the opposite end 0 think there is very,
very precise thinking involved in art# 0f it3s not, it3s just not good art#
WgK: We were talking about $assion and reason ) do you think artists or $hiloso$hers can
have a family "o you think it can be organised to do such an ambitious or $assionate work
and to have love for $eo$le
+olar, 8n the general level 0 don3t see why it should be e6clusive# .ut this is not a 7uestion
which concerns only art# 0 think it3s a 7uestion which concerns any sort of passionate attach&ent
to your profession# 0 &ean it could be a lawyer, a politician, a scientist, a teacher, all kinds of
things# 0t can be sport, it can be all kinds of things and it does produce proble&s, very practical
proble&s, how the hell you then deal with your fa&ily, with your love, with your private life# 0
suppose it very &uch depends on what kind of person you are# -here are people who would
so&ehow erase everything else and there are people who would always find ways, no &atter
how# -hey can work twenty hours a day but they will nevertheless find a way to have a private
life#
WgK: And what can you tell me about $assion Where does it come from and what can you do
to $revent its disa$$earance
+olar, -o prevent its disappearance<
WgK: 1an anything be done
+olar, %ave you ever read 8vid< Remedia Amoris, the re&edies against love# -he 7uestion that
he asks is the opposite# >ot how to keep the passion going but how to prevent it happening#
2ou can see this through thousand years of anti7uity, 0t3s not the proble& how to keep your
passion alive# 0t3s the proble& of detach&ent# 4!e&edia A&oris4 are rather hu&orous# 8vid3s
advice is, don3t go for it# Aeep your &ind aloof, otherwise you go cra;y# :assion is folly# -his is
a bad thing for you# 0t would co&pletely ruin your life# So you have a history of passions# -his is
a stage of anti7uity and then you have a certain stage of $hristianity which again is very
differentiated in itself# 0 &ean the passion is the passion of $hrist# So the passion worth having is
the passion in this other sense# -here is a passion worth having and which is this suffering you
&ust undergo in order to be worthy of rede&ption# -he ulti&ate passion to sacrifice all other
passions# -his gives the word passion a very different &eaning# 0t co&es fro& 5patior3, 5passus3,
which &eans suffering# Like 5Leidenschaft3 co&es fro& 5leiden3#
0f 0 put it in this very reduced, si&plistic way, the 7uestion of passion which drives you, the
7uestion of passionate love is a 7uestion of ro&antic love, a certain conception of ro&antic love
which we deal with# 0t e&erged only in the B*th century#
WgK: Its a very interesting $oint that you made about the difference between trying to get rid
of it or trying to kee$ it alive. *ou said before $hiloso$hy is always $assionate, driven, so in
this way its actually necessary to kee$ it. I didnt only mean $assion in $rivate life, also as an
activating thing like in your work.
+olar, 2es, there has to be a passion which drives this# -here3s an interesting passage in
%elvetius# %elvetius was a philosopher of the 9rench ?nlighten&ent and he has written this book
De lesprit in BCD* / the book was actually burnt at that ti&e and banned# %e has a passage there
which 0 always found terribly funny, he says, 41hy are passionate people &ore intelligent than
others<E %e co&pletely overturns this co&&on view that you either have intelligence / and then
you can control your passions / or if you let the passions have the upper hand, then you lose your
head# %e puts these two together and he says, :eople never use their intelligence unless they are
driven by a serious passion# 0t3s only the passionate people who are intelligent# 8therwise they
are la;y# $o&e on, why use your head< 2ou can always get along so&ehow# So it3s only the
passion which actually drives you to use your reason# And this is just a funny way of putting it
that you can3t see the two as being on opposed sides#
WgK: "o you have an influence on it, can you do something to kee$ it or to feed it
+olar, 0 think passion is what drives you, drives you towards so&ething# .ut it3s not that passion
as such is enough# 0t3s not that it just drives you and you let yourself be driven# 0t actually
de&ands a hell of a lot if you want to pursue this passionF 0t de&ands that you put so&ething,
everything at stake#
-o risk the usual ways of your life, the 5be7ue&es Leben3, if you are lucky enough to have a
co&fortable social position# -here is the spontaneous hang to pursue your social survival within
a certain slot, the script for your career is waiting for you# And this is where the 7uestion of break
co&es in# -he passion is what &akes a break# .ut the break, it de&ands a hell of a lot of
5Anstrengung3 and you have to put things at risk# So&eti&es drastically at risk# 2ou risk
everything for the 7uestion of passion, to pursue your passion#
1hat 9reud na&es 5-odestrieb3 Gdeath driveH in enseits des !ustprin"ips #$eyond the %leasure
%rinciple& is not so&e striving towards death, but too &uch of life# -here3s too &uch life, &ore
than you can bear# So this is the e6cessive &o&ent which derails the usual course of things and
in order to pursue this it takes a lot of courage and persistence, perseverance# 0 think &ost people
give up at a certain point# -here are &any ways of giving up, also as an artist# 8ne way of giving
up is to so&ehow be content with your role or to= 5Ibereinsti&&en3# So that you consent to
being that role# And this is a socially assigned role which can bring glory and awards# 0f it started
with a break, then the big danger is that the break starts functioning as the institution of the
break# -he break itself gets institutionalised and highly valued#
WgK: It has a $lace then.
+olar, 2es, it has a place then# 9reud has this wonderful phrase 4people ruined by their own
success4# And 0 think that in art &any people are ruined by their own success# :recisely by
succeeding in what they wanted to do and then they fit into this# -hey have &ade an institution of
the&selves and so&ehow started to believe that they are this# 2ou have this wonderful phrase in
Lacan, who is a &ad&an< 0t3s not just an ordinary person who thinks that he3s a king# -he
definition of a &ad&an is a king who thinks that he3s a king# And you have this &adness a&ong
artists who believe that they are artists# -his is psychosis, in a certain sense, if you really think
that you are what you are# 2ou really think that you are an artist# -his is the end of art, 0 think#
WgK: *ou were saying that one has to be courageous to $roceed with $assionate work. I have
the feeling that there is another big thing, besides from missing courage, which might be a
cushion for $assion: The desire for containment, for feeling secure. I dont know the best
translation, I mean /2eborgenheit.
+olar, Jeborgenheit<
WgK: *eah. *ou know 2eborgenheit 3eeling secure.
+olar, Security, yes# Sicherheit#
WgK: A warm feeling.
+olar, 9eeling at ho&e# 0s there a good way to feel at ho&e< 0 don3t know# 0 think there3s always
an ideological trap in this# 1hat you &ostly feel at ho&e with is always ideology because it
offers a sort of security# 0 &ean security in the sense of providing a certain status within which
you can dwell# And also security of &eaning, which &eans that it provides you with so&e
answers as to 51hat does it all &ean<3 51e live in parlia&entary de&ocracy, we3re a free society,
in the aera of progress and prosperity3, etc# 0 &ean the words which fulfil a certain hori;on of
&eaning which situates you within a certain social &o&ent and social structure, within a certain
type of social relations# And this is always ideology, ideology is what &akes this run# And 0 think
that the break that we are talking about / the break with &eaning or the break with the continuity
of things / it could be described as a break with ideology# Art and ideology are at the opposite
ends# Art always &akes a break, a cut into the ideological continuity of what you &ost feel at
ho&e with# And what you feel at ho&e with is entrusted upon you# .ut this is not to say that art
is i&&une to ideology, it can easily be &ade into ideology#
WgK: At that $oint when you feel content.
+olar, 2es# 1hen you feel content in your role# 8ne could &ake a certain opposition between art
and culture# 0 think culture is a sort of do&estication of art# 2ou establish canonical artworks
which you are taught at school# And it3s a 7uestion of what co&es into the canon and is it a good
thing to have a canon or how to include or e6clude works# 8f course you always have a canon#
-here3s no escaping this, but at the sa&e ti&e you have to understand that culture is always a
do&estification of what is dangerous or e6cessive in art# 0t do&esticates things by giving the& a
sort of proper place and value# 2ou can say, 51ell, Shakespeare is the greatest dra&atist of all
ti&e#3 0 &ean it3s 7uite true, but it3s also a very forced state&ent to do&esticate Shakespeare3s
work# 2ou glorify it instead of dealing with it#
WgK: It ends their +uality of being a break by giving them a $lace.
+olar, 2eah# 2ou reinscribe the& into a continuity of a tradition, of a cultural identity#
WgK: I have the feeling its a regressive desire.
+olar, 9or ho&e<
WgK: *eah. Isnt it
+olar, 2es# Klti&ately yes# 0 think that being at ho&e &eans being in the ideology and being in
the &eaning and having so&e sort of &eaning secured# And 0 think that creating a ho&e as a way
of being with yourself / or being with another person / is precisely to try to deal with the
unho&ely ele&ent of it# -o keep the unho&ely ele&ent of it alive# 1hat 9reud called das
Knhei&liche, litterally the unho&ely, but with the utter a&biguity where it can be given the
co&ic twist# 0 think that love is keeping the non-ho&ely ele&ent alive# 0t3s not to finally 5go
ho&e3 with so&eone, but actually to keep this thing in the air# Aeep this thing in the air# And
co&edy is precisely / to keep the ball in the air# Aeep the ball in the air, 0 &ean constantly#
WgK: !o then I can come to my last +uestion: ,ow can one become ha$$y in life
+olar GlaughingH, 0t beats &eF
WgK: !o this is why I ke$t it till the end. Is there a good strategy
+olar, Ah, god knowsF .ut 0 a& an atheist#
http://www.wiegehtkunst.com/?p=599