Monday, November 8, 2010


Since the documentation has been taking its own course to upload, a reflection from the intervention:

I see invisible theater not as a revelation, but as a forum for chance and time to play together. The result of one intervention is certainly not a revelation. I have come to this consensus after my previous engagement with street art and street performances.
What you see is not really what you get in many cases.
Perhaps if this was repeated elsewhere, on another day, we'd have found a good hearted citizen who would have reacted to the situation. But my core dilemma is-why is it such a game of luck at all? Why is one's public safety so dependent on waiting for the right person to come along?
The episode that stayed with me was Malvika's helpless state and public apathy towards her situation. However, is this really so shocking?
We, as a witness to a not-so-common incident often take a while to absorb a new situation and more often than not,we do what is safest for us in this case- ignore, run away (escape) or forget about the situation of someone else's plight at hand. We, as a society I believe have been trained to 'resolve'. Resolve a conflict. Resolve a problem. Make a judgement and assume. We are so conditioned to justify injustice in our minds that we have become immune to it. The question here to ask, though is- what is the extent of apathy? Will we act/react as spectactors, citizens,policemen, street vendors, shop owners, mothers, fathers or uncles only when there is a murder in front of our eyes?
Why is it okay to let violence be taking place because 'it is someone else's business' in which 'an outsider has no say'?

No comments:

Post a Comment