First we got the assignment. To deal with insanity.
We knew that we did not want to take up the position of a knowing distance – either intellectual or medical – nor poke around in our own pathology. We could not adopt any of these usual stances, but we could also not say that madness – in the full width of its field of reference – has absolutely no connection with us. Where to start? In what way, about what? The positions mentioned above were completely inappropriate for us (and ultimately, too, insincere) since we primarily could not connect them with our artistic viewpoints that – in the case of my work on text and in the case of Alen’s and Nenad’s work in the domain of music – aim at contesting the very concept of normality, showing that attempts at expression with a different kind of language, and attempts at slipping out of completed structures, or attempts at breaking one’s own process of fixing the same models and habits, are not demonstrations of arbitrary chaos and autism but deliberate reactions to the world that surrounds us. And this world is only speciously readable and audible. To reflect on it with the maximum degree of authenticity implies a certain violence on its seemingly normal, clear and logically structured geometry. It means affixing a diagnosis to it. And that is why we accepted the assignment.

The only sphere in which we could respond to the problem of the assignment was the political, which reserves the attributes of normal and truthful as proofs of its own legitimacy, and forces us to affirm them in spite of their arbitrariness and inconstancy. What is more, in spite of the danger that a simulation of the reality to which we attach our views, our beliefs and desires can at every moment disintegrate and leave us without foundations. Without meaning.

The text that we took as the score for our performance starts with a political instruction to turn sense inside out:
“An apple is not an apple.
An apple is something else entirely.”
The theatre is a place that illustrates just this kind of mechanism; an appeal not to believe in what is patent, but in what is told, with a viable suspicion that both one and the other might be only constructions. Without any intention of finding a substitute for them and designating new foundations and without any intention of doing a finished performance, we wanted to make use of these margins of the imaginary and the patent as a potential for our own performance adopting the attributes of the (mad) world as a chance for ourselves.