On the Boon and Bane of Experts
A Headline is never congruent with the programme in question; it is either half or one and a half of a programme
| |
 | |
| |
 |
It was a simple original deliberation that led to the conception of this programme. It wasn't supposed to be another pursuit of what can be generally called a depiction of societal realities. Instead, the intention was to subvert a merely narrative dominance of film.
Just like a sculpture by Richard Serra, for example, has got nothing to contribute when it comes to finding a figurative counterpart in nature or in the socially observable. By sculpturing the things he does, he mostly turns into an expert of his own things while creating something that becomes perceivable. That is his offer. Everything else has got to be mustered up by those who are standing in front of it.
There is a sufficient number of aficionados of fields of their own choice, aka experts. When it comes to specialisation, it is possibly less often pathetic in the areas of artistic expression. From chicken sexers to terrorism experts - the supposedly real life is full of unintentionally hilarious characters. And judging one's own position as a planner of programmes is not necessarily up to oneself.
For example, the wonderful question asked by Fischli & Weiss is universally funny: Is seven a lot?
