Dialogue As Art

With dialogue I mean the process between two persons which are in a deep intimate conversation which matters acutely to both. These two aspects are central: the importance of the subject matter and the relaxed, trusting state of mind. A lack of salience would degrade this exchange into senseless chatter, a lack of trust into a cold posturing of ideas. No, it is a communal sense of flow in which inspiration and transformation enters by itself without conscious effort. Why is that?

Trust in the unknown is certainly part of it. Not only trust in relying on the expected but also that the unexpected will be beneficial. A trust that even the unpleasant, hurtful will be revealed in a truthful, but nondestructive way. Most importantly, that there is trust to speak the words which want to be spoken. The certainty that all subjective truth can be expressed. And the awareness of this fragile subjectivity. This subjective truth is spoken in crucial honesty and without the expectation of rewards, punishment, solution, or recognition. This seems to be important: this aspect of courage, of taking the leap of faith. The spoken word therefore becomes more than just gossip or self-aggrandization, it becomes a series of steppingstones into an unknown future. Stones which appear out of the deep at the moment they are required to give stability, and the need to feel them below your feet. The fearful aspect of this is: this my truth, my words, my steppingstones. Should they fail to emerge then I will fall and drown. If you accomplish this sensation, then you know you have entered the state of dialogue.

In a state like this, words become carriers of information and of emotions. They are steeped in meaning and have the same quality as musical notes, or words written down in prose, or the actions an actor takes to shape a character — there is no difference between the artistic process and the dialogic process. Every word matters, nothing is spoken without attention and care and still it flows along almost by itself, held ever so slightly.

If you are fortunate enough to see these steppingstones appear from no-where, then you realize it is you creating your limitations of understanding the world. Your mind is bound by what is in it and available to build that pathway into the future. Just like the artist is bound bis his instrument and his art. It is your pathway and your music you are creating. Be it as a solo musician or within a concert.

Should the dialogic response be filled with equal musicality, then dialogue is more like a duet of two instruments which play back and forth their themes. And the dialogic response is completing and enriching the phrase. It completes the first phrase in its tonality and color and broadens its scope and depth. The limitations are expanded. But the main point is that both instruments, both partners create one thing, one piece, one dialogue.

And this is then larger then just the pieces of the single speaker. The subjective is absorbed by the communal and enriched, completed by it. As if the actor has become part of the play which reveals its entire meaning after the last act. The missing pieces present themselves in their dramatic necessity. By entering the dialogic process, the participant has subjected himself to something larger, a journey of sorts, which due to its creative, cathartic nature transforms him. And as any encounter with what is larger than oneself, this leads to a sensation of wholeness and fulfillment.

A sensation that the dialogue must have taken exactly this pathway to its satisfactory conclusion.