“Make some Heaps” : Swiss, Happiness & Photography

I don’t remember exactly the whys and wherefores but I know that Pierre Bourdieu (the French sociologist) was in Swiss and he was questioning about the “Swiss happiness”, and with the help of medias he and his team received tons and tons of photographies, daily, normal, families photographies.

They got so many of them that he asked each people, around the table, to choose a bag of photographies and… to “sort” them.

In the end, the talking with each member of the team, while they were watching the heaps of photographies chosen by A or B, became a reflection on “Why did you choose these?”.

The qualities and the beauty of the photos? The historical informations? Knowledge about family lives? Colors?

Bourdieu, in a way, as a non-specialist of the photo area, transformed the material in his sociologist way. It became a study about “How to we choose? How do we sort?”. It became a reflection about the idea of choice : make heaps.

Well that’s all. I’m sorry I don’t develop more. This article is pure bricolage, makeshift. I thought one of you could do something with it. And also : how do we see things through our eyes? How do thinkers pull out all the stops?

Have a nice day!

karine.tuil_-_La_patience..jpg

Instagram : karine.tuil

The Think & The Do : Catch a Tip

This is a mayhemic article about a pattern I meet everyday these days.

(As you know, when you spot then notice a pattern, you see it everywhere, right?)

ONE

Bourdieu explains that there’s a problem with scholars studying the source of Manet‘s paintings scandals. These guys develop theories about the “will of Manet”, seen as a smart rebel.

Like in History, it’s easy to rebuild stray events and sew them into a “will” of destiny or whatever. Bourdieu says simply that Manet was just in the process of painting, that’s all. A haeccetian recall : he’s painting, thinking about a Japanese etching, he has an idea with color, or frame, he finds difficult to paint eyes, a gaze, and deals with the days (hungriness, sex, friends, insomnia, whatever, who knows).

The clear will to make a scandal doesn’t even exist. He just paints! Theoricians, 100 years after, explain crystal clear theories.

TWO

This could be one branch of the science of bullshittery.

Taleb tells stories of lecturers in huge hotels of New York powerpointing about the need to be ethical and fight poverty, who treat waiters harshly at lunch. The consequences of these meetings is mainly to blossom other meetings with powerpoints elsewhere in the world. Practice what you preach, buddy!

THREE

Big talkative personalities (like me, haha) love theories, maybe more than action, so what? I love to talk about movies and books and arts, I love analysis, I love structures. Plus I’m an INTFJ, plus I’m a Five (a watcher). I’m not action man. And sometimes I admire action men…

Grand diseux, petit faiseux, we say in Ch’ti, the north of France dialect : “Big teller, small maker”. Makes sense?

FOUR

If you Google “theory” and “action” on Google you’re parasitated by… Theories of Action, arghhhh.

I regret to not to be an anthropologist (sorry for my English), and I probably need help here. I’m pretty sure that many persons studied the dance between action and theory.

Creation is an act of resistance, says Deleuze.

A book of Agamben is called “The Fire and the Account”. He says that acting and thinking are interlinked :

We think when we can’t act anymore, we act when we can’t think anymore

Lacan says that what is important is that “makes something happen” – then you can catch a tip.

“Life to knowledge” !

Maybe the action is not that important, but the way one person witnesses it, talks about it, links it, shows a way to live or to spout…

OK, I know, it’s mess. I’ll dig into it. Who can help me?

Thanks for reading!

(noted_women)12142321_1530090473737209_1578242652_n.jpg

Instagram : noted_women