Proscenium Arch is an experi(ence)ment of framing and its lifetime has already been estimated. Its authors, who draw the limits of the invisible frame that provides visibility, first try to open the parentheses, which will turn the experiment into an experience, on the basis of ‘teamwork’. Among the methods of PA, this kind of working together and giving home works to one another in accordance with talents and wishes of each takes a great place. The expected, if not fundamental, is at least to have an approach in the works which is to enable the critical view turn the thing or things that are invisible at first into something visible, but not to lose its intelligence/comprehension to the limit of getting lost at the line between ‘understandable’ and ‘pornographic’. Proscenium lists document of its topics that are paid attention in “links” form until it finds a better way. This method aims at facilitating the formation of one-time or continuous working groups; but principally it does not involve the desire to present itself as “serious”. Not only events and facts, but also things and circumstances could be among the topics. The essence is, in most cases, to make the dominant/hegemonic codes visible and to make the research of re-editing this vision and how the author (or the authors) would achieve this is completely in his initiative. The thing that is called “dominant code” ranges in a wide realm from sexism to fascism, from left fetishes to nationalism and from grammar analysis to illusions of making “as if”s which also includes Proscenium Arch itself. We base the definition of this code on the Theodor Adorno’s suggestion which is “Dialectical reason is, when set against the dominant mode of reason, unreason: only in encompassing and canselled this mode does itbecome itself reasonable.”: For us, to determine the mind of the dominant and the dominance of the mind to stay irrational require our looks to have conversations with friends. In this general frame, it could be said that the definition of the dominant relies on the suggestion/diagnosis of Theodor Adorno, the unity definition on Michel Foucault, the revolutionary conversation/speech on Ulus Baker. Proscenium experiences the borders with this conversation: Sharing the boldness of the great project of transcending metaphysics, it is also a border breach which affirms the Derridaian plan of radical theory of “taking the border out of its threshold”. This breach requires forgetting the way back home effectively and requires the production of works to be on guard at the border for the sake of keeping it passable. This will require new staging researches, analysis of their techniques and the trial of "effective" resistance techniques. At the same time, these experiments are a festival invitation which is designed for the destruction of dominant information network systems. Festival area is equal to worksite region: Artaudian and Brechtian imagination, Barthesian semiology and Vertovian subjectlessness or Kinskiian betrayal of his own role: Festival is a technic of deconstruction of texts which is ready to destroy the circumstances under which its own reference system does not exist any more even though the excavations will be depleted to Proscenium. However, the field works of Proscenium Arch will not be recorded daily on the web. The readers who will follow the diary and who wish to join the works actively have to get in touch with the editors and join the closed circuit mail group. Although this participation is possible largely by contributing to group works, the things all these glum declarations need not to say, the power of laugh and irony, intelligence and the courage to be able to create your personal agenda, to be able to transform the structure of Proscenium, to observe its tendency to deviate, the will to be able to distort it, from the cur’s movement between two pavements to the other appearances of life surrounding that dog, the desire to mark the living and the dying ones for one’s own friends…such things hold us in the state of writing and drawing, even just by being read they do. Shortly, as much as the writers themselves are, readers are the ones who “have to prove their existence/presence” according to PA. Besides, what reader and writer do is nothing but swapping the deeds that their names include: The writer writes to be a reader, the reader reads to be a writer: As has Ulus Baker proved to all of us persuasively by dying what is meant with renunciation from possession and the potential of the thing that push the energetic charges of this conversation form towards “becoming revolution”.
Translate: Gülfem K.