introduction (with the voice of Tomas)

Here is Belgium calling. I’m sorry I have to talk to you with the voice of Thomas, but as Kleist already knew, human beings are very imperfect, they can be sick (as marionetts cannot be.)

So. Heinrich von Kleist? Yes.

They always say: a famous German poet, dramatist, novelist and short story writer. (But for me, you could also say, a philosopher, and not the easiest one.) And let us not forget: a cultfigure.

He lived from 1777 until 1811 - so Germany as later unified under Bismarck, was still future. Kleist was born in Frankfurt and died in Berlin, and was Prussian.

Kleist had his own character, but also the times were complex. It was the beginning of the century, France had his revolution, but in Germany with a lot of different little states - with maybe only the German language as common thing - revolution draw more inwards. There was maybe to mutch and maybe to much different things: enlightment and ‘sturm und drang’, the optimism from science and technik, the machine!, but also the beginning of the feeling that man lost also something. There was a growing new Europe but also influences from America and Russia, even India. There were wars (for instance with the French) and repression and censure from within, and also the still new longing for freedom, equalty and progress...

Philosophers were arguing about politics and social things but also a lot! about knowledge, thruth, the distance between man and the things around him: look, we are human beings and there is the world, (here is the subject and there the object), how can we reach knowledge? By our reason (rationalists), by informations from our senses (empirists), maybe by both ways (like Kant said)? Also the young German Idealistic philosopers stepped in this interessing but confusing discussion. If you want, you can read a book like On Grace and dignity from Schiller. You are then really close to the Kleist-universum.

But. Why we should read Kleist today, unless you are a philosopher interested in early 19the century thinking?

First. We are often not aware that our thinking and feeling today is deep influenced from the 19th century. It was a ‘see of ideas’ and al our ‘conversations’ about, say: free market or religion, dead penalty, abortion, art, authenticity and so on fleed very often from there.

Second. Heinricht von Kleist came to early, they say, and is more modern than a lot of other later 19th century persons. It is true, in temperament and content he looks closer to us then, for instance, Goethe. (Of course, others, like Goethe and Shiller became much older, and more boring, then the for ever young Kleist.) But, his style, I have to admid, I was impressed.

Third. Kleist had a very short spectacular life. (Maybe because he embodied to much the chaos of the early 19the century). He was a soldier at fifteen (a family tic), decided at early twenty to study (a lot), science, philosophy, maths..., but he became not a scientist but instead started to write literature (plays, poems...), he travelled a lot in Europe (also triggered by ideals, for instance, he went to Suisse to become a peasant - ah, Rousseau!), he invented some things (I think also a sort of submarine?) he started a magazine and later on a newspaper in Berlin,... and so on, but at 34 he decided to kill himself (together with a sick friend - he shoot her first.)

So. But around a year for his dead, he wrote the text ‘On the puppet theatre’. Well.

I give you - as a bridge to Kris Verdonck - a short reading-experience and a few remarks. On the website from the Rietveld (under projects- in residence) I give you more information, and also on my own website. You can, for instance, find the images of the works of art mentioned in the text, or some remarks for better understanding.

Because, yes, in my opinion, you have to read this beautiful, interesting, enigmatic text.

When I read it for the first time, I was catched by the rithme and style and also the story - and the stories within the story. But I admit, at the end I could not explain about what was Kleist writing. After three times reading, I thought it was even harder to say. Who were the speaking-partners in this fictional conversation, what were they defending, what was the opinion from Kleist himself, Was it about art, about philosophy, about technics, maybe even about politics (because specially in newspapers there was a lot of censure.)

Is it al about the feeling that human beings by using their head to much, they became alone and isolated, in head of the world in stead of in the cradle of the world?

Did Kleist believe that we cannot go back, to an animal state in an animated world, but maybe there is a way forwards, to find the backdoor in Eden, by using our head more, or maybe differently?

Is maybe te bear with the rapier, the symbol of a midway, the way of an artist, who can in a sort of other understanding know more en act better?

I dont know. I am a philosopher and have more questions then before reading the text. My way is to read more, and other writers of that time, (and so I dicovered even that a famous Englisch translator made a mistake to pick up the wrong dancer (Vestris.) I let you some notes on my website that I am preparing. But if you ask me. Maybe you have to read is as a bear with a rapier?