BOBO 1 I S H H H H H H 3 H 3 ` . 4 1 Z - - ```````````````Stuart Brisley j F LOM! ` R x ( H H A @ J { h h x E l 2 EG P ' d 1 E 6Ml - [ 5 / s ) H / H / 3 s 2 ` P| [ _ 6 DSET > Q 2 3 2 \ " , ; # , Y # , ' # , 7A P , F, # , R # , a . , l # , x # , ܫ # , # , # , # , \ & . - 8 i s w " " 4 8 ` Q + + , + y \ w o 5 p 1 6 X * 'l ' + /, 0 6 : ? B; B] Ck Cl C Ln L} ; L~ ; P P ] ] ]! ]9 3 b d$ d% d e eq e e fO fP fm g g hz h{ h i i i iD iE m m mr ms s/ s0 sQ sR ue uf u u u u w7 w8 wj wk x ~w ~x ~ u v < k | } s \ ^ ` a ݪ ݺ B B B D C D D D 7 D ; H H H D D D D D D D D D D D - D - D D D D D D D B \ ] 3 E 3 $ N ! O ! h i ) s v w . 4 5 / 7 8 ` $ Q , - y $ \ w , o 7 p 8 9 > 9 @ 9 , , X , , 'l % ' , ) 0 + , B; B] , Cl C , Ln L} = L~ P - P , T 2 T 4 T 0 WO , ] ]9 ? b , fP fm , ݺ G , B F ; I b E c K E K E I F C ^ A / ? l 2 d 2 5 2 2 Z ~ 2 O 2 ' \ 2 2 X 2 2 , q ( $ - . " % )y + - 1X 5 4 88 r ; : > A EP H L O~ Sh Wh ZW ]0 `J dG e g r k- T mr % o r T u R y8 } Ǘ # : + > W | ^ i x t p " l 0 h 9 d = ` Resisting the Object. April /May/June2001/London R Y Sirb hos dn-a os osf i e ugol an a na si ht s i d or It isn`t too bad after the dust settles (quote from a guard at the Hayward Gallery London) The ground is not for sitting on. Here and there, but less so here, in the uneven layering of dirt and dust, stone, bone, metal, glass and possibly thermoplastic resist the drift to the lower levels surviving the spans of many human lives being ground to sand and then dust. (The role of worms in producing an undffereniated substance which when dried out becomes dust should not be underestimated). These artifacts, if that is what they are, lie partly hidden by coverings of dried mud, dog, cow, man, monkey and pig shit coated in undifferentiated powders, dust, the sign of future/ past: and not forgetting elephant and camel dun g. Well everything that happens, it would seem happens, eventually to everything, as in the biblical maxim - ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Are they men or monkeys who are scratching and biting people, causing panic. There are approximately 10,000 monkeys living in the city. Vultures and eagles wheel endlessly high up above the sky line. In the subway the walls were splattered sputum stained red as blood from betel nuts. The ground in the urban space is familiar. Dirt is universal, ahistorical even. Homogeneity at ground level, mediated by the universal glue of sputum and excreta are differentiated at the surface by the droppings of regional and global consumers , e.g. where there are the leavings of fast food and fast food containers, broken down furniture, news media debris, plastic garbage bags, condoms, sanitary towels, cigarette butts, betting slips, syringes etc. all of which ar ~e regularly removed for land fill or other sites of displacement. The alternative is a vast accretion of rubbish mountains which would simultaneously disintegrate, exhaling methane, and imploding in time into unmitigated grime. Along the south bank of the Thames somewhere to the east of Gravesend there is a stretch of land which was used as a gigantic rubbish dump in the nineteenth century. The ground sinks lightly underfoot in the process of maturation. Objects curiously rise to the surface to be reclaimed . What goes down comes up. Rubbish dumps, waste disposals of whatever kind are orgiastic events made manifest by the surfeit of surplus materials, objects, and secretions, releasing noxious gases as profligate energy and metaphorical shit. Dirt: is good for baby. This dirt substance is a mixture of what were once all kinds of beings, things and substances, Owhich in time become identifiable only by weight and volume, a universal undifferentiated material. finally passing beyond the parameters of com modification. Even shit is com modified. Is there anything that has not been market tested? semen? menstrual blood? smegma, and pus, There will be a demand somewhere. Can dust be valueless? Has grime become a `non` substance by escaping valorisation? cameo I saw him standing on a dark blue plastic milk crate at Speakers corner. He was dirty and disheveled, wearing a filthy raincoat in the heat. He wasn`t tall but by standing on the milkcrate elevated himself enough to draw a group of interested bystanders. It was a warm summer`s afternoon in 1967. We stood there held in tension as an expextant audience, but of what? No one spoke. \And then he lifted one trouser leg followed by the other raising them up as far as they would go, up to his knees. His legs were filthy, mottled with the tracks of dried out black shit and blood which had run down into his shoes The `mirror` he presented was not exactly bearable. The crowd shrank back and most turned away leaving a few of us behind who heard him say that he was not long for this world. His heart was giving out he said. Looking into the mirror we see a reverse probably vertically stretched image of ourselves on which the notion of who we are and what we look like has been inscribed. What we base our view of ourselves on doesn`t actually exist, where the subtle signs of the face in the mirror image have been reversed, and is significant, where the right side of the face is claimed to attest to the will, and the left side to f eeling. And mirrors are not. The image one has of oneself can be disturbed by a slight shortening or widening of the mirror image. Lengthening is more acceptable as it conforms to the current bodily ideal which is to be taller, slimmer, and remain within range of an achievable collectively desired shape, which has replaced the more junoesque figures as seen in the paintings of Rubens and Rembrandt et al. It is an urban construction aided by the use of the camera superceding the agrarian condition of the body which required robust physiques. The body changes, adapting to circumstantial shifts, emerging out of fundamental economic change as in the development from agrarian to industrialised society. Stepping out into the street we perform to an internal script devised from continual reaffirmations of what we look like as a reversed image in the mirror, the way we think we look, together with the response and reaction to who we think we are and how that is broadcast. This public performance behaviour is shared by most other people who are similarly conscious. To be unconscious of the image of self is recognised as a warning sign. A visit to a mental institution might provide evidence of the apparent effects of the unconsciousness of the image of self. Those who appear to be more or less unconscious of their physical selves sometimes appear and behave as though they are from another species. Is individualisation a fictional enterprise, which to function requires collective affirmation? q The Collection of Ordure Before he began collecting ordure the Collector thought he might collect himself. How? It just wasn`t possible to collect everything connected to the self, and anyway it was already too late. The process should begin at birth, although even that is not a starkly definitive moment. From conception perhaps, or in the hearts and minds of p rospective parents prior to the sexual act which fertilised the egg. Where should one begin? There is no obvious point of departure. He was attracted to the notion of an auto collection. It didn`t have to contain everything from the moment of conception, it wasn`t necessary to preserve afterbirth or other significant materials. Some mothers if not going to that extent do collect mementos, snapshots, locks of hair, the first pair of shoes, often cast in bronze and so on. It could be started at any stage of the subject`s life. The Collector wasn`t moved to do it. It would be possible to collect parts of the self. He didn`t want to do that either. Collections will reflect something of the collector. Collections do speak to and of, `the collector`. But I have already declared to myself that our view of ourselves is not an objective reality and that we may not exist in those terms. The collection of the self becomes a collection of f ictions, a collection pertaining to the fantasy of a life. The collector is interested in the area which lies beyond the range of the com modification of objects materials and substances, and most if not all of the objects in his collection are in this category, but the whole collection is subject to the market. He claims that his collection is unique for this reason. I suggest that while the artifacts contained in the collection may or may not be art works, the collection is an art work. Generally most collections are comprised of objects which have, or are anticipated to have appropriate values, consequent upon the rare, peculiar, or unique characteristics of the constituents, as art works, or as objects of significant or potentially significant cultural value, sh .runken heads, matchboxes, etc, either individually or in groups. Sigmund Freud`s collection is a case in point, although objects of everyday use are also included in the collection. Freud was potentially omnivorous. The collection becomes a work of art. The collector becomes an artist. The Collector has no interest in claiming to be an artist although he accepts the idea that his collection has become a work of art. His ambition is to raise the status of the objects in his collection to the condition of art. Recognising that `artists` have claimed the authority to designate what has previously not been considered as art, to be art, Duchamp` and the urinal signed R Mutt in 1913. Not being an artist the Collector assumes that for any object to become a wo rk of art it requires the consensus of an authority and doesn`t necessarily believe that the `artist` has such authority. The collection can be publicly recognised to be a work of art, but the objects, the excreta among other things, will not be seen in the same way. The discussion under the title `The Custodian of `legs` and the Curator of ordure` above reported by the author, does introduce the subject of the `Collector`s collection`, and the collection of shit which is a significant part of his collection of Ordure. It describes the methodology of collecting in the field, and mentions that the collector doesn`t claim that excreta can be categorised as art, although it is the issue of conscious human pr oduction, which is an important factor in making art. In the case of the Collector`s Collection it would rest on an authority claiming an art status for it. As the Curator of the Collection I am presumably in a position to make the claim. The purpose of the Curation of the Collection of Shit agreed between the Collector and myself as the Curator, is to raise the status of the objects in it to the level of art. The constitution of shit, metaphorical dust and grime Excrement is made up of substances which have become extraneous to the requirements of the body. It contains dead blood and tissue cells, food residues etc. passing through the digestive system and the colon, which should normally be regularly expelled from the body. The kidneys perform a similar function passing waste material as urine. These two functions assist in regulating the health of the body. The constitution of excrement is also dependent on the capacity of the body to perform efficiently. It makes some kind of sense as above or not as in: Sroh ie vt iobs ma sad e usup oesf sfoubdnstik anemceos s wsehikach m tham tve. Beltconeme cisuifrpfelusus oito tcthnue f reesquht irmremofenrets p of ot thyde ob boehdy. Fo ytiticcoapntac aiehns t deno ad tnbledooned peand d ostila sssi ue ticehs llfo s nofoitod utseitsisnduoc es ehett.c, ydpaob ssehint g fo thhtrolaugeh h ehtht e gndiitgealstugiver e ni sytsstisem sa ansnd oithtce nucof loxen, lpwhmoicc h owsht ouesedehnot. Rmenalirly u be sa relaguirlaetrlam y etexsapew llgned isfrsaom p thnoe itbody. cnthuf e rakilidnimeyis s a pemrrfo. The appearance of the typical object of excrement appears exceptionally in the western canon of high art, in one or two of Durer`s and lesser known artists drawings of the period, and Manzoni`s cans of shit, in one instance as representation, and in the other the implicated existence of the shit of the artist in a sealed can? It is an exemplary example of the transference of shit into a rt, profoundly to do with the concept. The shit only has a presence in the mind space. Whether it is there in the can or not is a matter for conjecture on which it`s value as art, on which it`s monetary worth depends. The temptation to find out whether there is shit in the can will only be satisfied by destroying the object as art. Canning preserves it for an indefinite period, thereby enhancing it`s market value. It is not intended to raise the objects in this collection into an art status by association, but to show that certain objects of excreta including those in the collection have characteristics which are found in art: coincidence or significant juxtaposition. Obviously not all that is claimed or accepted as art stands the test of time. As values change great shards fall away into obscurity. Excrement is expressed from the body in a variety of consistencies depending upon the health and condition of the host body, and the qualities, cond 5ition and the manner of the ingestion of food. Excretion is akin to a mini birth, reliant on peristaltic rhythmic action. After emerging, and cooling it appears to stay in a stable condition for a few days before seeming to miraculously disintegrate and disappear, due to microbic activity. Examples in the collection are usually preserved a day or two after excretion, but sometimes it takes much longer to transport the items to a point where preservation can take place. They will have cooled. and depending on climatic conditions and begun to dry out. Most of the items have been found in rural areas. The efficacy of the water closet has severely reduced the propensity for human excreta to be found wild in Western Societies. The collector has largely depended on the practice of excreting in natural surroundings in isolated parts of the western world and in developing countries where there are still close relationships between human societies and the laws of nature. Specimens need to be removed without breaking up. When they have been too loosely formed have been too delicate to handle. Liquid examples could be dried out depending on the environment, and then preserving chemicals introduced by injection to preserve them in as close approximation of the natural state as possible. The Collector is relatively affluent, living a comfortable bourgeois life. His interest in the collection is connected to his work in retail business, where the demands of commerce require above all an acute street wise intelligence which is in direct contrast to the surface of a respectable bourgeois life style. It places the profit motive at the apex and base of a complex set of motivations and circumstances which play on the pr remise of primary self interest, and the deceptive idea of service to the common good as a primary strategy. Some of the time bought by the profits from his business is devoted to the Collection. Potentially the Collection has value which expresses the interaction of public interest with the Collectors pleasure in the artifacts and in the aggrandisement which ensues from public knowledge of the Collection. However his primary motivation appears to be self interest, which fueling the drive to collect, produces a collection which to be fully satisfy him, demands a public face. He rejects the vast majority of excrement, and will only collect when he is compelled, as collectors are, to act. He has alluded to being embarrassed when approaching an item for collection. He thinks his private embarrassment both before, during and immediately after picking up an example : comes from a conditioned desire to hide , bury or in some other way dispose excrement as soon as it has passed out of the body. exretion is also often accompanied by offensive odours, which signal to the condition of the body and reduce the desire of the producer to remain in the vicinity. The choice of site may be sufficient to satisfy this desire. Apart from further engagement for medical reasons, to continue to show interest, or for another person to express interest in another`s excrement, breaks the taboo. Usually the act of defecation takes place in private in a place set apart, although not in every society. In parts of Morocco the sense of distance acts similarly to privacy, and seems to be acceptable. Excrement has been described as useless matter discharged from the animal system. It does howe ver have its uses: to fertilise soil, in tanning leather and so on. But in the urban circumstances inhabited by the Collector it has no interest for the producer. The Collector`s intention to collect human faeces, breaks the taboo and challenges the social training he received as a child. He persists in adding to the collection inadvertently opening up a cast of issues which otherwise are masked by the taboo beneath the skin, the fabric of society, and assaults the values he upholds as a retailer. To take something which has been abandoned may have a whiff of theft about it. One can never be sure without contacting the producer that it has been abandoned and is freely available. Nevertheless leaving excrement behin d in a secluded place suggests that the perpetrator would confidently expect to have nothing more to do with it. The Collector as a scavenger. He is a radical scavenger, whose enormous ambition to transform his excremental pickings into art, subverts the train of conventions upholding the value of art resting on the system of monetary exchange. Money and shit interchange in the most unsettling fashion. The Collector as an addict : An upright subject of the UK, retail trader and conservative in all things, he believes that there are codes of practice in retail trading which are underlaid by a code of `Business ethics`. He supports the argument of the virtues of pragmatism, and operates through the established codes of behaviour founded on the common sense of self interest. Competition requires it. Legal retailing can provide the impetus for the development of addict ions to alcohol, tobacco solvent inhaling and shopping etc where the law doesn`t intrude. The collector doesn`t accept the view that ironically the ideal products for retail are the hard drugs cocaine heroin etc. He is law abiding to all accounts, but has also intimated that it is not possible to succeed in his business by operating entirely within the law, breaking it surreptitiously by stealth. The conditions which apply to retail equally apply to retailing hard drugs apart from the prohibition of law, and conspicuous marketing. For example heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine are regarded as being so addictive they require no marketing, offering maximum profit returns, by setting up a mode of dependency in consumers, producing an involuntary physical desire leading to craving to repeat the experience ad infinitum. Shopaholicism is derived from the same dependency. As far as the hard drugs are concerned t here is an implosion of the elements of the mechanisms of exchange where consumerism is reduced to the supply of the temporary means of pleasure and relief from craving as necessity. Repetition of the process eventually requires larger and larger amounts of the product to temporarily assuage the needs of the body of the consumer and more resources on the part of the buyer to satisfy the demands of the dealer. It has been said that the ecstasy derived from the first dose of a hard drug is never experienced with same intensity again, but the consumer is caught in a progressive cycle of dependency in trying to reproduce it. The cycle like the constrictions of the boa constrictor progressively tightens. To control addictions whether from tobacco, food, alcohol, drugs or consumer products or whatever is a formidable individual achievement. . Dust to dust. Last sunday after lunch at about two oclo ck we were on the first floor looking out of the window on to the street. It was warm,dry and dusty out there with a light breeze. I didn`t see anything unusual, and returned to the setteee. Later on she said I saw a strange event in the street just after you were looking out of the window. I saw a car pull up opposite with two men in it, black men. They looked around but didn`t see me. For some reason I had drawn back from the window. And then they closed the windows of the car. Suddenly a young white man appeared by the side of the car, and got in behind the front passenger seat. I could see him quite clearly. He looked skinny, and unhealthy. He took a wad of what looked like paper out of his shirt pock et and passed it to the man in the front passenger seat who passed it to the driver who shuffled through it. He handed something to the young man who instantly put it in his mouth. He took what I then realised was money from the driver and counted it himself. And then the young man got out of the car. The Collector doesn`t accept that the root of his own desire to collect may also be an addiction which places his collecting behaviour in the genus of addiction. Privacy and surreptitiousness is common to the production of faeces and of the Collection. I have publicly presented and discussed some of the questions surrounding some of the examples from the collection e.g the excremental object from Hasan Keif in the western region of Kurdistan under Turkish control, and revealed their origins, to contextualise some of the issues at stake. In contrast and to be expected, the Collector focuses on the aesthetic qualities of objects, believing that they may then be seen as art. He would applaud the current Government`s Cultural Secretary`s commendation for an art of abiding principles of excellence and access. ( Acclaim greets Trafalgar Square sculpture by Maev Kennedy Arts and heritage correspondent of the Guardian. 5.6.001.) Ministers of Culture do tend to pontificate. What are the `abiding principles` of excellence for art. Ipclneisr opf genxicdlilbea neche t feorr a atrathw? Abiding: continuance, permanence. ipclneisr Principle a source, orot, origin, opf that which is fundalatnem; genxicdlilbea essential nature: t eroehttilac bassi etc. Excellence, neche great merit, any excellent quality: worth t greatness: snuirsgpsas others in some good quality, see what I mean. feorr Of great virtue taller, loftier, higher still Art a: practical skill , or its application guided by cnirpiples such as a source, root , origin, atrathw, that which is fundamental; essential tanuer human skill and agaenecyy ( in opposition to nature) you know I mean. This expresses in part the Collectors own ambition for the Collection of Ordure. He takes a radical stance where healthy living, a good diet, regular excercise, respect for one another, religious belief etc, a code of moderation in all things, will by the nature of events lead to the production of beautiful stools, which carefully collected, preserved and presented can be seen in precisely those aesthetic terms accorded to `excellent` works of art. He associates moral virtue as a precondition for the production of art works of excellence, and an art of moral virtue is very seductive for the arbiters of cultural production and public dissemination of a `healthy culture`. He claims that the production of aesthetically beautiful stools, interrupted at the rig ht moment in the process of disintegration and precisely preserved, can result in the creation of stunningly beautiful works of art, where aesthetic value supersedes other considerations. He dismisses the view that one piece of excrement is like another as an argument against stools as art, by saying that there are many examples of artists who fundamentally, have had one idea which is repeated ad nauseum, sometimes well, sometimes badly. It bodes well for the market. It is rare to find excrement in public in urban areas. And much more likely that aesthetically pleasing excrements as sculpture will be found in the agricultural areas of rural societies run according to long standing tradition. The Collection stinks To my eye some excremental stools do appear to be more aesthetically pleasing than others, but this is a simply a matter of personal taste, hardly a basis on which to establish the validity of human excrement as art works, or that aesthetic pleasure be the sole or even predominant measure of the value of a work of art. One of the arguments against the idea of excrements being regarded as art works is the similarity to excrements of some animal species, for example dog excrement. Animals seem to have an instinctive sense of what to eat and what to leave alone. Is this entirely instinctive, or is there is a degree of concious awareness? Human eating behaviours are largely consciously determined. There are well known eating disorders the effects of mental disturbance, where the question of concious awareness might be challenged. Eating habits can quickly degenerate into mindless repetitiousness, into a reductive mechanical approach to the body where repetition is pleasurable, and desired, but which is bad for the whole organism, body and mind. The influence of individual eating behaviours will among other things affect the structure texture colour form and appearance of excrement. Animal excrement could be said to result from entirely natural processes, while human excrements derive from a combination of natural functions affected or (infected) by (un-natural) mental processes. There are factors which contribute to the healthy but fragile short lived condition of excrement, a subject replenished by continuous production, and to the elevation and preservation of individual excrements: works of shit into art, which are not accounted for by the Collector`s or the official views of Government as expressed by the Cultural Secretary. Context: The consideration of art e works within the complex layerings of the society. The contextualisation of art within historical contexts, in terms of the fracturing of continuity within the broad historical continuum. The relationship of a work of art to other contemporary works of art in the historical continuum . The relationship between art, money and excrement. Aesthetic considerations. All these factors bear upon the question as to whether examples of human excrement can be to be works of art. The Collector`s commission. In addition to the Collector`s forays in the `field`, he has commissioned the artist to make works derived from the subject of excrement, and in response to the collection. The following discussion Rosse Yael Sir rb with Stuart Brisley on the subject of the commission took place on the 2nd of June 2001. The Collector was invited to take part, but declined. (A sound tape is available from R Y Sirb. www.ordure.org) R Y S. You have been commissioned by the Collector of ordure to produce a body of work based on the subject of human excrement. S B Yes thats right. R Y S Would you tell me how this came about? S B. I went to the opening of an exhibition of photographs by Stephen Berkoff at the end of 1999 at the Golden Hart (public house) on Commercial Street in the East End with a friend Paul Johnstone. That is where I was introduced to you by Harry Diamond if you remember. I also met the Collector. Several weeks later he contacted me. He asked me not to use his name. You know he likes to keep out of the limelight and doesn`t want his name associated with the Collection T. It suits me because I am interested in the commission above everything else. I haven`t seen it in situ but saw a few examples which you showed me before presenting them in `Legs` at the Whitechapel Art Gallery in February 2000. And the Collector has shown me a few pieces when we discussed the commission. He had them in a brief case wrapped in cotton wool. I am intrigued to know how he administrates the collection. Does he keep it like a bird`s egg collection for instance? How does he do it? R Y S Yes I well remember that evening. When did the Collector commission you. ? . % S B I think he must have visited the performance at the Whitechapel Art Gallery sometime in February 2000. He sent me a letter suggesting we meet to discuss the possibility of a commission When we met at the Delli Diner in Spitalfields Market I couldn`t work him out, I thought he might be in business. For some reason or other he knew a bit about my work. He is a strange person, friendly but self involved I think. We had a kind of bantering conversation, probably because I feel as sensitive or as raw as he does, about my own work, and am no t going to talk about it casually. Why should I? And I`m not that obsessed with myself, unlike some we could mention. He suggested that I might like to consider how I could contribute to the collection. He said he`d talked to you about it. I had only recently met you as well so this was an altogether new development for me. Not the idea of working with shit, as you may know I have used shit in work in 1978, in 1981 and again in 1996. I have never been approached by a collector before. And I had to mull it over in my mind. I was flattered at first and my response was to agree to do something. But I hung back and went over all the issues I could think of, as I usually do, often in bed in the early hours when I like to think I get my best work done T. And then when there was nothing else left to consider. I waited, until one day without thinking, I phoned him on the off chance and agreed to go ahead. R Y S . Do you have a contract. S B Yes I do. No money will exchange hands unless the collection is sold when I shall receive an agreed proportion of the profits presuming there are some, taking the cost of my time and materials into account. I don`t know of another arrangement like it, but then I haven`t had any dealings with a collector until now. So it seems that we are all three tied together. It`s like one of those accident claims, where the legal representative is paid if the claim is successful, and not at all otherwise. Its a gamble I suppose. R Y S What do you think about the Collection and the idea that selected human excrements maybe considered to be art. S B W Rell it didn`t surprise me as an idea. I have already used shit in at least three works. I am more interested in his suggestion that I consider making art around the notion of human excreta. He didn`t elaborate. I think he has left it up to me. And of course, naturally as the Curator I assume you will have some interest in it as well. R Y S What interests you about the commission? S B There are a number of factors which I might find difficult to lay out clearly enough in an interview as my mind doesn`t work like that. I do have a view as to what the Collector is trying to do, otherwise I couldn`t respond to the commission. But I am coming to it from a different perspective. I`ve been working on it now for some time and as is often the case , my attitude has changed, leaving the surface of the subject and diving deeper into it. Perhaps the best way to explain what I mean is to give an example. Taking the basic condition of the subject: There is a host body, the excrement and the means by which the excrement leaves the body, and there is the state of excrement immediately after excretion and then the various stages leading to its disolution. Taking one moment from that scenario, the act of excretion I have come to realise that this event is rather more interesting in terms of the outcome the shapes and forms of excrement than I supposed, probably because I hadn`t given it much thought. What e.g is the shape of the anus, when extended to accomodate the passage of excrement. Is it round , or oval, and does it change shape according to the consistency and the urgency of the process? This effects the form of the excrement prior to its dissolution. I suppose that when stretched to accomodate urgent peristaltic activity it is more round than oval and as the stool comes out towards the end t he anus closes around the stool and a more oval form is produced leading to closure which naturally enough progressively tapers the stool sometimes ending in a point if the consistency of the material is compact enough to hold together after deposition. Clearly this determines the final form of the stool, and its propensity to be considered aesthetically. R Y S What other factors would you regard as important to the production of an excremental work as art? The Collector told me that most of his pieces have been collected in rural circumstances where evacuation of the bowels often takes place near the site of labour in the fields for example. Another factor is the height from which faeces is dropped and the nature of the surface it falls on to. In the case of dogs the height of the anus is likely to be closer to the ground than in human beings and therefore the propensity for it to fall apart is minimal. Without the aid of a water closet western fashion our bodies have difficulty crouching. Unless the human position is close to the ground faeces will drop from quite a height, enough to be broken up on landing. The pieces I have seen from the collection are all of a kind, being of a certain consistency, a limited range of colour from near black, brown and greenish to beige and of a limited range of circumference. The manner in which the faeces is extruded not in one continuous length but in sections stimulated by the peristaltic rythm, one piece after another like extrudued s ausages creates small clusters and characterises the way one thinks of shit. this might also be affected by the common sight of dog shit. I have also been intrigued by the connection between the size and scale of excreta, and other parts of the body, e.g. the penis, the vagina, the mouth, the hand all of which play a part in sexual life. There is no escaping the intimate connection of all of these parts of the body and their various functions, most of the representations of which have been tabooed at one time or another. I don`t think it is credible to consider the question of shit as art without taking into account the contexts which would inform the claim. I am suspicious of the Collectors attitude because he seems to want to justify it on aesthetic grounds alone. R Y S The # Collector and I agree that the Collection can be considered to be an art work although for different reasons. In my view the Collector is a typical bourgeois collector . His thinking is habituated by his business life and social life. S B. Yes I think he is really ensconced in the`merchants world` where the idea of the collection plays it part to mask the reality of commerce by embellishing the life it provides it with civilising features; although he is not interested in anything else except for the time, effort and money he has pu t into it, and the technical questions involving preservation of the artifacts, apart from the idea of beauty. I can see that it might prove to be a good strategy for his purposes, but then he might need to appoint a Curator who is in strict accord with him, don`t you think? Your position as I understand it, correctly problematises the genus of the private collection, and is not going to create a concensus of agreement for a collection of shit as art, is it? R Y S I think you underestimate the challenge . The Collector has been collecting `ordure ` for years. Recently he decided that the Collection of Excrement needed to be separated from the rest of the collection, properly curated and recognised as a collect +. And he has found that the curators he approached were either uninterested and/or repulsed by the prospect. In contrast I have had an interest in ordure since I was a child, and my involvement with the Collection is the culmination of a life time pusuit. But this is my first appointment as a curator. Although I disagree with the Collector about the ways in which the Collection can be categorised in terms of art, we are both committed to the challenge to make the Collection and the items in it worthy of serious consideration as art. I don`t dismiss the aesthetic argument, but would qualify it with other arguments as well. The context in which the Collection becomes an art work is a critical factor in the equation. Its placement within the matrix of historical continuities/discontinuity is ess Wential to an understanding of it`s placement in the order of alterities, of `otherness`. I don`t think it problematises the genus of the private collection to quote you, but places the Collection and its contents in the historical continuum of the vernacular , which has a dynamic connection to High Art. S B Is there a difference between the Collector`s approach and your own apart from the question of ownership. The Collector owns it. And you are contracted to change the terms of reference from a description of what it is in a strictly material sense to one which includes the question of what constitutes art. In effect you are helping the Collector to raise the marketable value of the Collection. It relegates what I suspect is the Collector`s unconscious desire to change that part of himself which lives out the daily life of th e merchant. You are probably aware of that. All that is likely to happen is that his desire to break the terms of his engagement with the market will be resisted. R Y S I can see from your perspective there is no good reason to succeed in changing the status of the collection, but you do want to problematise it. It surprises me that you accepted the commission in the first place. S B The claim to art should remain as an open question which then comments on the conditions and terms of reference of art collections in general. I did ask myself whether to accept the offer or not. The fact is that currently, while you and the Collector claim it to be a work of art, it is not publicly known as a Collection. I don`t particularly want to work with excrement as a ma terial. I have no desire to act as a shit collector, what used to be called a `pure` collector. Luckily he doesn`t necessarily want me to do that either. Maybe he would like to keep that part of the collection to himself as his way of being creative. And I have no interest in the idea of beauty as a thing in itself. I think successful aesthetic resolutions are always be tied up with other aspects of the subject. Work itself for instance is not a satisfying pursuit without the inclusion of an aesthetic dimension. I am not sure that what I do will become part of the Collection. I am interested in making what I propose to be art works which look like shit. And I am becoming interested in life forms sustained by shit. R Y S That isn`t something the collector has shown an interest in. S B I know, but the commission offers me the opportunity to examine whatever aspects of excrement I choose. And one can`t really think about excrement without coming accross some of its attributes, like its use as manure for instance., and in homeopathy. I hope the Collector will consider this. We are not meeting again until I have something substantial for him to see, and that will take time because I am a slow worker. As I have said that there is a strategy involved in the purposes and qualities of art which is opposed to the context the Collector operates in. In terms of my own position I can only work contrary to the Collector`s intent. I did try to explain all this to him, but I could tell he wa sn`t really interested. And this doesn`t surprise me since artists tend to talk far too much to little avail including myself. And so you are right to suppose that in general my intention has been to problematise whatever subject I am engaged with, beginning and ending at the point of no return. He deals with the preservation of shit, and in that way to propose it`s transformation into art. I am interested in making what I propose to be art works which look like shit. The difference between preserved items of shit and the representations of shit could be the interface between art and non-art, and therefore affect the content and status of the Collection. As to the question of life forms which are sustained by shit, the simpler organisms we cast as parasites, there is as always a fascinating parallel to draw with human behaviour, don`t do you think? R Y S Yes, but as you know it is not the Collector`s intention to offer the Collection as a satirical device. Your participation won`t necessarily change th at, will it? S B Well, we shall have to see. If the Collection became known because of it`s satirical thrust, I suspect the Collector wouldn`t be unhappy. I think he would like to have public recognition. It flies in the face of his determination to be anonymous, but there again if the project is successful I suspect he will forget all about that . But I am not thinking about satire, although on a superficial level there is ample scope for it. i R Y S I want to quote something I wrote after I visited your studio with the Collector. The artist was boiling, simmering, broiling, and rendering, materials to produce a congealed substance to compare with excrement . It comes slowly into its own, as broth, like a common humanity, being of no special quality or type, a class defined by attributes possessed by everyone, just like excrement, and eventually arrives as a state of particles unified by moisture. As the mixture is heated to twice the temperature by which humans will be close to expiring, the water gives up, and just as the spirit leaves t he body, separates from it`s liquid state by streaming into the air. The boiling and rendering process is crude, but effective. There isn`t an exact equivalence for the complex ingestion, digestion and excretion system of the body. He remarked on the similarity of the rendered substances to shit . I am begining to think that to empathise with the subject, to have a profound sympathy for it, involves everything the body is, and is associated with, for example in terms of sight, touch and sound, of weight, mass, texture, colour, noise, measurement, proportion and scale, to the desires of the body, emotion, feeling and thought, and the recognition and engagement with social bodies. Ultimately it requires an understanding of the self as part of the complexity of society. The Collect ion of Shit can be played as an elaborate game. S B I sympathise, but your language is rather too grand for me. What you seem to be saying is something like ` The Collection of shit is rewarding conditional to what is brought to it, which is surely a generally applicable truism. R Y S Yes, but I have to try to put it into words. S B It is a subject full of contradictions and paradoxes. The Collector may have an inkling of all this and is being quite mischevious in offering the commission. He doesn`t want to suffer on his own. R Y S As far as curation is concerned there has to be some element of the imagination at work, but until I have some confidence in my knowledge of the subject I "can`t allow myself that freedom. There has to be a discipined and informed approach to curation which is publicly recognisable. . S B You mean like or interpreted as: sccccccccccU^cccccc and s========Q=>>">&>>s?@qB. R Y S Over and out, my dead body. Public art by the fact of its coming into being at all is characterised by submission to the self regarding ministrations of the post human ethos. It is public art in public only in sofar as it is placed in conditions where publics are tolerated by agencies of an emerging post democratic political system in league with corporate finance. I suppose my involvement with human excrement is a protest, however puny. 0 This text is part of the internal format of your mail folder, and is not a real message. It is created automatically by the mail system software. If deleted, important folder data will be lost, and it will be re-created with the data reset to initial values. what follows could be another example of vitual, rubbish to go in the dump what do you think eg}ܦssssssssssssssssssssss܎ܕ\bjVXkmssssssssssssssssgss ')@BDFH/1 ssssssssssssssssssssss)+ACEGIKssssssssssssHcqK-./012K........ ............/02ssssssssssssssssssssss E](.29;<=='GHIJzN,accteNfopp8rtsu@u!īH֙܇K3456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]P'K%b 1/1dЯ 9`%b|W uuuuussssssssssssssssssssssuuuuuussssssssssssssssssssss}/}~!ssssssssssssssssssssss u"u$u&u(u*u,u.u0u2u4u6u8u:uu@ @ufuuuuuuuuvvxv~wXxz- !ķNPRTVhjlnѵхѼѪчѡшщѫsssssssssssssssssssssъѦыѲѹэѤѷѓ)Hssssssssssssssssss H^`bְ֪և֖֒֔֕֯֙sssssssssssssssssss&(\Essssssssssssssgssss E톺uSUWY[npr֮sggggggggg[[gg[g[ ÑsggggggggggggggggggӕٖKUWY[]ssssssssssssssssssssss]ָ֜/!&'K(M(O(Q(S(d(((((((sggggggggggggggg[ sss s ssss (((((q)Kz.|...........ssggggggggggggggggg27B999999999999999999ssssssgggggssssssss997:9:x::::::;|;;;;;;;;;sssssssssggsssssgss;;;;;;;;;;;<<<<<<<<<>">$>>s?@qBE'Gssssssggggggssssssstevexeze|e~eeeeeeeeeeeezNqPRTTTTTTTW6YM`O`Q`S`U`W`Y`[`]`_`,assssssssssssssssssssss'GG@HBHDHXHZH\HHHHHHHHHHHHHsssssssssssssgsssssc/c1cAcccccccccssssssssssssssssssssssHHHI*IMIeIgIiIkIIIIIIIIIIIIIIssssssssssssssssssssss,abbbbbbb'c)c+c- IIIIIIIIIIIJJJJ JJ JJJJJJssssssssssssssssssssssJJJJJ!J#JJJJJJJK- KFKKKTKVKpKLZMzNsssssssssssssssssssssscccccccccccccccccccccccssssssssssssssssssssssLeperetesssssssssssssssssssssccccd!dLdsdddddddeee3eJe . Z N DSET 2 H M X + 6 * DSET 2 H  T r + H V s , : W - #e # &- &; ( ( + r + G V r + : V - #e # &- &: ( ( 6 * DSET 2 H H P ` * ` - - a DSET T @ L H D # : $ < $ nt )t < DSUM 6 - ```````````````Stuart Brisley HDNI STYL % K - J STYL < 8 0 ( N @ $ 1 u , 2 - " # & " ' ( * ) ! % + - + . " + / 0 2 4 5 7 5 6 - 9 6 - 1 8 1 : < : ! ; " - ; # ; # = ; # @ 6 - 3 ? 3 > 6 - A $ D % F D & B ' G B ( C H ) C I H & E H & K K H A HASH $ z4K Aޓ . . ? . J g. >. . -. . /. .( %. 0 . 0 . . $. . ).N. 6.Q- ,.Q- -.i. .i. *.r. (.- .- 50 . 0+/ 80i. 27- 7L:Q h ja k . FlQ.X :n. n . 'n . &n . n . .n .( n .9 0n 0 "n 09 #n9. Hn9. InH. EnN. 4nN. @nN.6 =nQ- nQ- -nQ.X ;nQ.x H ` > H ` . * HASHr 7 $ b & ! F I d d m "2 "d ` ` ` ` `1 &`@ J (`F -`I `I @ #`L `d `d ` ` , '` & "` -` a %a )bd bd @ KSEN - I " HASH L J LKUP ( & ' ! ; : % - ) - " $ # * + , - . 5 / > 0 1 3 2 6 4 7 9 8 < @ ? = A D F B I C E G H J 0 $ NAME Default Default SS Default TB Header Body Footer Footnote Footnote Index D FNTM Helvetica Geneva Charcoal Times New Roman Charcoal Monaco MCRO MCRO oBlN MARK -MRKS MOBJWMBT SNAP & &~&~ - H H .T . @ kZo{ {{ޝ C w{ޝ {ws {w{ww{{wo{s{s{ޝ O kZRJRNs B g9RRkZNsR {Ns^RJRkZRNsV JRNs^NsVg9VVRB RNs o{{ޝ s s w RsZkZc Rw c g9g9c Z^s ! {w s w w ? F1Nsc RVRg9F1o{JR^g9^kZ5NskZB kZNsVJRZkZNskZVkZ o{ ^o{ {w Co{c kZZkZg9o{g9c kZ^Vo{VVkZkZZkZ^c Zs^c VZsskZc g9^g9^^g9kZg9o{^g9c g9Vo{^c c Z^g9^Zg9^^c Nsc g9g9wg9g9Vc o{ ֝4ww^kZ{wkZg9wg9c sg9kZswc wkZg9g9wkZwg9o{wo{^c o{ssg9g9o{kZ^^c kZo{g9wo{kZwkZg9kZo{c o{ c c kZg9wg9 o{ ! kZo{ w {{{{ޝ 5 o{g9JRc JRNsRF1c Nsc NsRg9Nsg9VRNsRNsNsR ! w sw {ޝ {kZ{ޝ CJRg9V{NsZkZRV^kZo{^Ro{RVo{RsRZ^c sNsZwRZ^Zc o{VV^^Rwg9ZkZVZg9VVsVRg^Z^V{R^ZkZsZc JRkZ ǝwsw({oww{{w{{ws{wswwsw{wwswssg9s{w{swsw{ޜw{{sw {sow o{ {Nsc ^{^c kZc 9^Z^sV^g9c c g9ZZc ckZ^c V{R^o{ZVc g9o{g9ZkZc g9^^{Rg9c Vo{kZ^kZZc ^sRZwg9^g9c sR *wNsc g9{c g9s^g9kZc kZ^{o{kZo{kZc Zc g9scskZc kkZcsg9g9wsswg9wkZ gg9wkZc wkZkZso{g9Rsg9g9{VkZg9c wg9 ѝo{ skZo{o{{c o{o{{g9o{ so{-kZo{g9{o{o{kZso{o{s^o{oc o{gwc c s{o{kZwsg9o{kZo{kZo{{o{{o{o{g9o{kZo{sso{ C^Nsc ^o{^^RVsVg9V{VZZRNsVc V^s^o{VZVkZVZo{c VZs^VkskZsJRsg9RkZc sVg9c ^Vo{ZkZZ^^Z^ZJR^^ i kZc {{{ޝw{ww{ޝ w{w {ޝwwws s s{w ;JRF1JRVNsVNsB RR^RF1F1VNsJR^g9RF1ZVc JRNsV^JRRR^RNso{RRNsRJRRNsF1Nsg9VF1VJRo{F1Zc Rg9RB JRRNs RJRJRRkZ A o{{ޝ {ޝ {{ޝ {ޝ {ޝ {{{ޝ w{ޝ {ޝ -g9^RVkZVZRZZg9sg9NsZ^g9kZNsZRg9ZZc g9RcVo{VZ sVZF1^c ^^kZc ZV^c NskZ^g9VZVg9Z^ZsZZ^sc Vg9 {ޜws{sw{s{{ww{w{{swwos{ws{g9w{o{{ޜs {s{ow{wsVs{ssw{swsswwVs{w ?c ^kwc g9g9V^sg9c ^o{c g9g9Z^{g9^^c kZc wwg9g9Z9^Zc ^c Zc o{c g9ZRg9Zo{Vg9o{o{ZkZkZc ^wg9VZc ^{ޝ #kZc cwkZg9g9c kZskZc kZkZ^Zo{kZg{kZc o{kZwc w{c g9c g9o{kZ c o{kZwZo{g9g9o{g9wsc kZo{wkZo{sZVwo{swg9kZg9kZ -o{kZkwo{g9{o{kZo{kZkZg9o{o{wkZsg9kZo{swo{go{o{skZwg9kZo^c g9sso{o{sg9 o{wg9o{skZso{kZso{wwo{{kZo{g9c CVNsg^Z^o{Zg^VF1g9c ZRg9VZZRZs^ZZw^VVc o{ZVBsg9ZkZg9g9Vc o{^RB wc Rso{NsZRc Rc so{s^c RV a {ޝ w w g{ޝ {w w{w{s{w ww{ޝ{ޝ w{ޝ D{JRJRRkZVJRRF1JRNso{ZZJRRVJRNs^kZVc ZRVRRNsB kZJRc VkZc F1kZkZF1ZF1R^NsB NsF1kZ{wB VNsR^c NsVF1JRssNsJRVkZNs % {ޝ w{ޝ {ޝ {ޝ ww w^RZ sw{ޝ -RkZo{kZZZ^wc g9kZsg^kZc ^^c {^Zc {^^wg9kZVo{^ wc c o{Z^c Zwg9c c ^kg9g9Zg9^wg9c ^oRZg9^{^^ CkZo{wwc o{kZwkZo{g9wkg9kZg9c o{g9wg9o{c^o{{g9kZkZo{g9c JRwc kZwg9kZc Rg9g9kZZg9kg9kZc g9Rs^g9^owg9o{gc o{ Fo{ kZo{kZsg9{g9o{Z^c so{o{g9o{wkZo{o{kZo{skZsg9swg9s O#{JRZ^g9ZVZV^Zwc c Zc c kZVZZVc c kZ^^Nsg9Zg9^^kZc c {ޝ {ޝ {ޝ {ޝ E {w{ޝ {{ޝ {ޝw{{{ޝ {{{ޝ c w^JRc JRZVZVV^B RNsg9F1ZRZ RJRJRVZkZkZNsRo{RZZNsNsVkZRNsg9Nsc o{RNss ] s{s{{wsw{o{^w{ޜw {wwsw{k{g9^so{ww{{wwwko{s g9kZg9RsZZc ZZs so{skZssg9o{sg9s o-c s{o{o{^w{o{o{swo{kZg9o{o{skZso{o{kZo{s{kZo{kZsg9wo{ wg9c o{c^kZs{g9skZo{so{kZ{ޝ o(kZ^wVc Zo{sc ^g9kZZZc g9c ^kZg9Zc g9c c wkZZZc c kZ^o{Vo{g9^Zcc wkZ^c g9g9c g9s _ {^w w{w {ޝ ss c {{ޝ ws{ޝ w ss {{ޝ CkZV^B NsRNsB {B kZRZkZNsJRB kZRF1JRNso{Rg9B NsRB ZZJRg9Zg9RRNsNsRJRVg9RF1RRNsRJRg9ZVNkZRNsNsR9NsJRRZg9Ns W o{{{{ޝ{{{w {{w {ޝ {wo{ o{{{w #wJRVZRVkZNsV^sRRNsRNsJRo{^^g9F1sZVRVRF1kZZVF1o{VkZV Rc RVc VRZRVF1ZVNsVZVJRZNsNs^wF1{RJR ǝ {^s{sw{ޛw ss{wsw{wws{{ޜw^sw{wkZ{ޛw sw{ww{w{s{ssw sww{wwww CZg9Nsc c g9g9sNsc {o{VkZc g9^Vc g9^g9ZZc ^^g9c Zg9VZVkZo{c ^c c ^^gkZZVVg9ZVZc sZg9kZZkZ^^c ^ZV 0{o{g9o{kZo{sco{kwg9kZ^^g9Nso{o{wo{ZZg9kZkZskZg9^^kZkZsskZg9o{c o{kZkZ{sNo{ ko{g9o{wg9s{o{so{ kZZZ o{kZ^o{o{kZ g9wo{cZo{sZo{/wo{o{g9o{o{ssg9kZg9so{wc skZwg9kZo{o{g9o{w{o{o{ko{o{c oc c o{kZ{sg9o{kZkZ D{kZsc Vo{o{g9^kZo{c VZ^sg9c c o{o{c c ^V^kZ^c c Zc g9s^c ^so{c ^g9g9c ^sZg9c {^Zc Zw^Zc c o^^Vo{^ U {ޝ w w {ޝ {w {{www w {ޝ ow +w9NsJR=BV9B o{kZNsRJRRF1R{VNsF1VF1Z{RRJRNsV^9JRF1^JR{RNsVRV JR={RB Rc o{VRNsB JRVo{ZcJRZkZJR g s{o{{{w{{ޝ {so{so{ sw o{{{w{w{ww{ޝ C=RZ^^R^kZJRRRF1^^c VVNsVRkZNsZkZVNsc VVo{Vo{RZVo{VVRc Zg9VRZNsNsRZNsRgRF1g9NsRZRRVNVoR ֝ {wsw{s{{sc ssww{swss{so{{ww{w{{w{wskZws{sww{ww{s{sw{w{w{ޝ c Zg{ZkZc Zc c wg9Zc RRc Zwg9c *^Vg9c w^Vc ^^^c Vg9o{g9Zg9Nsc Zc g9V^swZ^Zc Z^Rgg9kZRVc V ֝(wg9wkZkZo{skZkZwo{so{g9kZkZo{wkZkZo{kZkZg9kZoo{kZg9ksso{c swkZ o{c kZwwg9kZg9o{Z^kZswo{kZg9 Ns{ޝ ѝ kZs^o{o{so{ wo{o{g9o{c o{!wg9o{okZkZwso{o{g9o{kZkZskZkZo{kZswo{c o{so{g9wo{kZkZc o{kZ{c kZg9wg9c o{ Cc Zg9ZZc sZ^so{c VZc ^^Ns^sg9^ZZg9o{g9^c Z^F1c ^s=c ^co{kZZc JRs^o{Zg9c c o{^Zc sc wg9g9so{^Z^^ U w{s {kZss s{w {{so{wwww w D{JRNsNsRNsNsJRVo{RRNswJRJRkZVc kZVJR^JRJRNsJRo{ZNsJR{B o{g9ZNsVVZg9Vo{B NsNssNsRJRVo{NsB kZVF1RkZNsZVg9==NsRJR _ {{{{ޝ {ޝ {ޝ wo{{ޝ {{{{{ޝ {s {ޝ wws{ޝ CVNsJRVVc NsZVVo{ZkZF1kZZVNsVRRc Zc NsVRc ^o{F1kZF1^NsVVZVZNsc RVZRkZNsRNs^NsVVVo{RJRkZZNsZNsJRkZNs ֝ wsw {wswkZww{w{wo{ww {ww{swwwZs{ss{sswc g9wkswsw {sws w{www Cc Z^c ^Zc kZkZ^ZZo{VskZc ^c Z^sc c kZ^sVc wZc V^c kZc kZ^sg9kZRc ^c gNsNsc c ^c ^o{RkZV^wkZc ^^o{c s kZg9sg9o{kZ {o{g9c skZ{o{g9kZo{g9kZso{kZs kZ{o{c o{kZkZ{kZwkZwo{kZg9kZg9kZwwskZsVg9kZwg9o{wkZo{g9kZ{Zs Ro{ZskZg9wg9o{#wwkZo{kZwg9o{kZo{kZs^{c skZg9g9o{so{{g9kZc {o{wwo{g9o{g9o{{ޜo{ kZwo{ kZwo{kZkZc kZo{g9ww^o{ Cg9c ^g9^^sc ^Rc g9o{c Vg9o{g9^Zc Z^Vwc {c ^Zg9o{Z{^Z^sc c o{g9=Vc g9{c g9g9c sc ^^Zsc V^c ^sg9^g9V M o{o{ {ޝ {ww{ޝ w w w {g{ޝ DwNsNsRRkZ^Zc Ns^NsF1Ro{VJRJRZB F1{kZNsNsR^V=Rg9ZJRVZNsRF1cF1RF1RNs5wF1RF1RNso{B B JRVwF1o{NsVJR^9B R ; {ޝ w{ޝ {{ޝ {ޝ s o{ w s 3 wRRVRg9kZVF1o{ZVB VRZVVRc NsV / wwsZwsw {wkZwws{s{ws 'c ZZc sZc ^ kZkZc Vg9w ) o{kZo{{kZo{VkZo{o{kZs{kZg9g9{ޝ 9{^kZkg9kZso{c o{g9so{swswo{o{g9so{wsg9kZg9kZso{o{swo{o{swg9o{kZkZc swc g9so{o{k^o{o{kZwo{ c kZo{ sw sc Zg9^skZVc g9^^c o{g9o{wc c ^o{^o{g9s^kZNswc -s^^c sZo{^^Zg9sg9o{Zc JRV{c c RF1o{Zc kZg9^Zg9^c $skZwoso{w{sw{wwwo{{o{o{g9kZo{{so{{o{w{{wsso{w swwo{s{ޝ wswwswwwwkZVsw{g9{o{kZ CF1VR^kZRo{VRJRo{RZRVJRo{RRNsVVNsR^w^F1Zs^c o{RRJRRsB Rg9g9VVRF1g9g9o{RF1g9RJRNskZo{NsRNsZJRVVZRNsR A {s{{ޝ {{{ޝ s s ws w{ޝ {ޝ NsB NsV=cJRF1F1RkJR3RB gF1ZRJRRg9c B kZc F1JRNsF1NsVF1{V^g9NsRo{RNsNsJRJRRRJRRo{c VNsRsF1RkZZgZNsNs % ws ws{{ޝ s Cc ^ZRZg9o{kZgR^c wg9g9c V^g9co{Zc o{g9Zg9sc ^o{g9^cg9ZkZV^Z^^g9R^c c ^c {g9c g9c Zc c o{^Zg9c Ns o{g9o{kZo{o{{wso{o{s{so{kZskZkZ^{o{o{{wkZo{wo{wo{o{kZskZsso{wo{wkZo{ wso{skZo{so{wskZo{o{w Cg9o{kZg9kZw{kZkZo{g9o{oVc o{kg9c o{c swZo{kZo{g9g9o{kZkZo{kZ^skZ{sg9kZwc kZ^c so{kZc o{g9kZc oNso{okZg9kZo{ -{^g9NsNs^Z{Zc sRg9csg9c ZZc o{g9c o{w^Zc ^Zo{kZc c Z^kZZ^wskZZsc ^kZs^c R^c gg9c gF1c c V TNAM --84B70DC7E6657E6584813D29731DD1ETBL `DSUM &HDNI dSTYL nMCRO zoBlN MARK WMBT SNAP TNAM (SETBL (zۛ