Latest news with #JonFosse
Arab News
28-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Arab News
Book Review: ‘A Shining' by Jon Fosse
Jon Fosse, the 2023 Nobel laureate, delivers a masterclass in existential minimalism with 'A Shining,' a novella that glimmers with metaphysical unease. Translated from Norwegian by Damion Searls, this brief but resonant work lingers like a half-remembered dream, inviting readers to grapple with its haunting ambiguity. An unnamed man drives into a remote forest, seeking isolation. When his car stalls, he abandons it, lured deeper into the trees by an enigmatic light. What begins as a quest for solitude spirals into a disorienting confrontation with the unknown. Strange encounters — a flickering figure, disembodied voices, a persistent glow — blur the boundaries of reality. Is the 'shining' a divine sign, a mental rupture, or something beyond comprehension? Fosse offers no easy answers. Fosse's sparse, rhythmic prose mirrors the protagonist's fractured psyche. Sentences loop and stutter, mimicking the repetitive chatter of a mind unraveling ('I walked, I walked, I walked'). Yet, within this austerity lies startling beauty: Descriptions of moss, shadows and cold air ground the surreal in the realm of the sensory. The novella probes humanity's existential contradictions, particularly the tension between our desire for solitude and our terror of abandonment. It lays bare the futility of seeking meaning in a universe indifferent to human struggles, while questioning how much we can trust our perceptions. Are the protagonist's encounters real, or projections of a mind teetering on the brink of collapse? Fosse leaves readers suspended in that uncertainty. Fosse refuses to cater to conventional narrative appetites. There are no villains or heroic arcs, only a man wrestling with the void within. Fans of Franz Kafka's existential labyrinths or Samuel Beckett's bleak humor will find kinship here. 'A Shining' is not for readers craving action or closure. It is a quiet storm of a book, best absorbed in one sitting under dim light. Perfect for lovers of philosophical fiction, poetry devotees, and anyone who has ever stared into darkness and wondered what stared back.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Contributor: Art for art's sake, or the president's?
This month, in a move equally shocking and predictable, the National Endowment for the Arts terminated or rescinded hundreds of previously awarded grants to arts organizations nationwide. Among the California institutions affected are the South Coast Repertory theater company, Los Angeles Theatre Works, the community-based Cornerstone Theater Company and Transit Books, a Bay Area publisher specializing in international literature with authors including Norwegian novelist and playwright Jon Fosse, who received the 2023 Nobel Prize in literature. 'The NEA,' the endowment asserted in a mass emails sent to these grantees, 'is updating its grantmaking policy priorities to focus funding on projects that reflect the nation's rich artistic heritage and creativity as prioritized by the President. Consequently, we are terminating awards that fall outside these new priorities.' Read more: UCLA, LACO, South Coast Rep: How Trump's NEA cuts are hitting home Such a criterion is absurd, not least because the recipients in question are part of our 'rich artistic heritage.' Many serve as incubators, creating spaces for artists and art making that might otherwise be overlooked. In that regard, they are the most necessary components of our aesthetic infrastructure. The NEA, of course, has long been a target of this president. During his first term, he repeatedly tried to cut the endowment's budget but was restrained by Congress. This time, things are different, with the administration hollowing out many of the mechanisms of government, including federal grants and aid across the board. It was only a matter of time, then, before the focus returned to the arts. I understand why some might consider art dangerous. What is it worth if it hasn't any teeth? And yet, in all sorts of ways, the arts necessarily represent a nation's collective soul. The mediums, the artists and what is created remind us of our diversity, and also reflect our commonality, in all its glorious contradiction and complication. The arts make us question ourselves and feel for one another. They encourage us to think. Read more: Los Angeles and the literature of the apocalypse I also understand there's a case to be made that artists should not be in the business of taking money from the government. Isn't accepting federal support a form of complicity? Over the years, I've gone back and forth on this, but now I'm off that fence. Why shouldn't artists be rewarded? Why wouldn't they deserve taxpayer support? For their own sake, yes, but also because it's good for everyone. Every grant, after all, carries a host of ancillary benefits — not only to recipients but also to the businesses and services in their communities. The NEA represents the proverbial rising tide that lifts many boats. In any event, the grant terminations have nothing to do with questions of purity. They are politically motivated, targeting projects and institutions deemed insufficiently American. The stance is partisan even as it implies art should not be ideological. As George Orwell observed in his 1946 essay 'Why I Write': 'The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.' I was a juror on the NEA's 2012 literature publishing panel. Many of the grants we awarded — to literary organizations, journals and independent publishers — are similar to those that have been reversed. I recognized then, and continue to believe, that such support is crucial, not only because it is necessary for the financial stability of the recipients but also because it allows us, as a culture, to uncouple art from commerce in fundamental ways. Read more: Appreciation: In a world full of lies, Milan Kundera taught us how to be free 'It is difficult,' William Carlos Williams wrote in 1955, 'to get the news from poems / Yet men die miserably every day / for lack / of what is found there.' What he's saying is that to reduce art to a mere commodity, measured by price or practical utility, is to overlook its true worth. This is what makes the NEA and its grant making so important. Without it, many arts organizations have been, and will continue to be, driven out of business or forced to restrict the scope of their work. In a May 6 email to subscribers and supporters, Oscar Villalon, editor of the San Francisco literary journal Zyzzyva (full disclosure: I am a contributing editor) responded to the publication's rescinded grant in the starkest possible terms: 'The current mood is one of dreadful anticipation of further hostility toward arts and culture, in general, and toward any institution or organization — nonprofit or otherwise — whose values do not align with the goals of this presidency.' That this is the point of the exercise should go without saying. At the same time, there is more at stake. The issue is not simply the survival of any one institution but the need to preserve the legacy and lineage of the humanist tradition, which begins with making room for many voices and constituencies. The most essential art challenges not just our preconceptions but also our perceptions. That's what makes it necessary. The arts speak for all of us, which means we cannot help but be diminished when they are. David L. Ulin is a contributing writer to Opinion Voices. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Art for art's sake, or the president's?
This month, in a move equally shocking and predictable, the National Endowment for the Arts terminated or rescinded hundreds of previously awarded grants to arts organizations nationwide. Among the California institutions affected are the South Coast Repertory theater company, Los Angeles Theatre Works, the community-based Cornerstone Theater Company and Transit Books, a Bay Area publisher specializing in international literature with authors including Norwegian novelist and playwright Jon Fosse, who received the 2023 Nobel Prize in literature. 'The NEA,' the endowment asserted in a mass emails sent to these grantees, 'is updating its grantmaking policy priorities to focus funding on projects that reflect the nation's rich artistic heritage and creativity as prioritized by the President. Consequently, we are terminating awards that fall outside these new priorities.' Such a criterion is absurd, not least because the recipients in question are part of our 'rich artistic heritage.' Many serve as incubators, creating spaces for artists and art making that might otherwise be overlooked. In that regard, they are the most necessary components of our aesthetic infrastructure. The NEA, of course, has long been a target of this president. During his first term, he repeatedly tried to cut the endowment's budget but was restrained by Congress. This time, things are different, with the administration hollowing out many of the mechanisms of government, including federal grants and aid across the board. It was only a matter of time, then, before the focus returned to the arts. I understand why some might consider art dangerous. What is it worth if it hasn't any teeth? And yet, in all sorts of ways, the arts necessarily represent a nation's collective soul. The mediums, the artists and what is created remind us of our diversity, and also reflect our commonality, in all its glorious contradiction and complication. The arts make us question ourselves and feel for one another. They encourage us to think. I also understand there's a case to be made that artists should not be in the business of taking money from the government. Isn't accepting federal support a form of complicity? Over the years, I've gone back and forth on this, but now I'm off that fence. Why shouldn't artists be rewarded? Why wouldn't they deserve taxpayer support? For their own sake, yes, but also because it's good for everyone. Every grant, after all, carries a host of ancillary benefits — not only to recipients but also to the businesses and services in their communities. The NEA represents the proverbial rising tide that lifts many boats. In any event, the grant terminations have nothing to do with questions of purity. They are politically motivated, targeting projects and institutions deemed insufficiently American. The stance is partisan even as it implies art should not be ideological. As George Orwell observed in his 1946 essay 'Why I Write': 'The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.' I was a juror on the NEA's 2012 literature publishing panel. Many of the grants we awarded — to literary organizations, journals and independent publishers — are similar to those that have been reversed. I recognized then, and continue to believe, that such support is crucial, not only because it is necessary for the financial stability of the recipients but also because it allows us, as a culture, to uncouple art from commerce in fundamental ways. 'It is difficult,' William Carlos Williams wrote in 1955, 'to get the news from poems / Yet men die miserably every day / for lack / of what is found there.' What he's saying is that to reduce art to a mere commodity, measured by price or practical utility, is to overlook its true worth. This is what makes the NEA and its grant making so important. Without it, many arts organizations have been, and will continue to be, driven out of business or forced to restrict the scope of their work. In a May 6 email to subscribers and supporters, Oscar Villalon, editor of the San Francisco literary journal Zyzzyva (full disclosure: I am a contributing editor) responded to the publication's rescinded grant in the starkest possible terms: 'The current mood is one of dreadful anticipation of further hostility toward arts and culture, in general, and toward any institution or organization — nonprofit or otherwise — whose values do not align with the goals of this presidency.' That this is the point of the exercise should go without saying. At the same time, there is more at stake. The issue is not simply the survival of any one institution but the need to preserve the legacy and lineage of the humanist tradition, which begins with making room for many voices and constituencies. The most essential art challenges not just our preconceptions but also our perceptions. That's what makes it necessary. The arts speak for all of us, which means we cannot help but be diminished when they are. David L. Ulin is a contributing writer to Opinion Voices.
The Guardian
09-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Einkvan review – Nobel-winner's eerie, evocative study of estrangement and solitude
The dynamic between audience and performer is vital to theatre, so what happens when it is imperilled? Einkvan (Everyman), written by the Nobel-winning novelist and playwright Jon Fosse and directed by Kjersti Horn, puts that idea to the test, hiding the entire stage behind fogged plastic curtains suggestive of a sinister clinic. The six-person cast register only as vaguely shifting shapes, though their faces are filmed in tight closeup by two cameras; the images are then relayed to the auditorium on a pair of screens above the stage and accompanied by the cryptic Norwegian dialogue in surtitles. The effect is contradictory. We are so intimate with these actors that we can count every pore on their faces and even see the ring-lights reflected in their eyes, but we are also simultaneously held at arm's length. That discord mirrors the play's themes of estrangement and solitude, the need for human contact locked in a violent struggle with the thirst for autonomy. The opening closeups form a diptych of the same face shot from different angles as a man lies in the bath fretting over the possibility that someone is watching or following him. Someone other than the camera operator, presumably. He doesn't have both screens to himself for long. Soon, a second male face appears on the right. Are they old flames? Siblings? Or, given the Bergmanesque mood, two halves of the same personality? The possibilities shift as readily as the camera angles. Other pairs of doppelgangers take their turn in closeup, each making some parental claim on the younger duo. The bathwater becomes redolent less of a soak in the tub than the suspension of a foetus in amniotic fluid. Never mind cutting the apron strings: the son seems barely to have departed the womb. Among this opaque production's more expressive elements is Oscar Udbye's lighting, which allows the pale antiseptic chill to give way now and then to a warming orange glow that defrosts the stage before the next emotional ice age sets in. In Erik Hedin's score, a piano motif surfaces from the eerie ambient hum before plunging, like the son in his bathtub, back beneath the surface again. At the Coronet theatre, London, until 17 May
Time Out
03-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Time Out
Einkvan
A rare London chance to see a work by Norway's leading living dramatist Jon Fosse, whose works simply don't seem to travel over here despite his huge critical reputation (and Nobel Prize). Staged by Det Norske Teatret and directed by its artistic director Kjersti Horn, Einkvan (or Everyman), it's about a family struggling desperately for connection. Horn's production is billed as 'a beautiful hybrid of contemporary art and theatre' and whatever that means fans of live film can be assured that there are two camers operators amongst the ensemble.
