One of the most tragic episodes in the history of resistance took place long before our time. It was described by Sophocles. The royal couple, condemned by oracular prophecy: the son will kill his father and marry his mother. To evade the will of the gods, they put the infant to death. But he survived. In his youth, he too visited the oracle, which revealed the will of the gods as the true source of his identity. Of course, he had to leave his foster parents, which he thought to be his own up until the oracle’s revelation. Everyone knows what happened next.

Until, the scene is vivid: Oepidus stands at the crossroads, trying desperately to choose the path that leads away. Even though he is under fate’s control completely, he still wants to hoodwink providence somehow, to resist, but his actions only help to seal his brutal fate, which has very little to do with anything like justice or freedom.

The revolution is over, but in the end of revolution what wins is a completely reactionary mode of living. And the nostalgia of the poet is really the attempt to reconstruct in this passage, this reactionary desert in which humans have been thrown, to reconstruct those other values, pushing them forward.

Antonio Negri

The development of history occurs through the negation of historical experience which – in turn – negates the one that precedes it.
My work deals with such basic notions as a “Worker” and a “Dissident”. In the contemporary context, both terms seem to lack any actual meaning. Yet, as history teaches us, certain phenomena from the past tend to return and represent another semantic level in the present.

What does it mean today to be a worker or to be a dissident?
Which connection could be established between these two notions?
Is it possible that this historical paradigm reverts?
What is an artist’s role in the comprehension of history and the delineation of historical development?