unresolved questions
offerings from the listening field, gc de rinck, 2026
Text written during Listening Field Winter School at GC de Rinck, read during the broadcast
Offerings from the listening field
, at the end of the Listening Field winter school by Eszter Nemethi and Julia E. Dyck, with Némo Camus, Joan Somers Donnelly, Julia E. Dyck, Lara ferrari tumma, Oscar Mathieu Le Bussy, Maria Muehombo, Mira Matthew, Eszter Nemethi, Berno Odo Polzer, Gülce Padem, Norma Prendergast, Karolien Polenus, Olivier Praet, Melissa Ryke, Femke Snelting, Ewoud Vermote.I have unresolved questions.
Can fragmented listening and speaking constitute resistance mechanisms? I’m thinking about: the disruptive quality of a stutter, a repetition, a story that drags on and on, loops, delays, silence as refusal, silence as filling the space with negation, acts that breach into and break open capitalist expectations of linearity, speed, productivity. How can this translate into understanding patterns of fragmented listening not as defective attention, not as something to correct with cultural norms of bourgeois politeness, mindfulness exercises, education, meditation, medication, but as resistance to incorporate unwanted information, or as simply creative possibilities opening other ways of relating to each other?
I’ve been reading the Queer art of Failure by Jack Halberstam in which he speaks aboutthe radical creativity of forgetting, taking the example of Dory the Fish in the animation movie Nemo. Dory suffers from short-term memory loss, she’s also inattentive and impulsive, she’s de facto a bad listener, and many times, she saves the day.
Can fragmented listening and speaking constitute resistance mechanisms? I’m thinking about: the disruptive quality of a stutter, a repetition, a story that drags on and on, loops, delays, silence as refusal, silence as filling the space with negation, acts that breach into and break open capitalist expectations of linearity, speed, productivity. How can this translate into understanding patterns of fragmented listening not as defective attention, not as something to correct with cultural norms of bourgeois politeness, mindfulness exercises, education, meditation, medication, but as resistance to incorporate unwanted information, or as simply creative possibilities opening other ways of relating to each other?
I’ve been reading the Queer art of Failure by Jack Halberstam in which he speaks aboutthe radical creativity of forgetting, taking the example of Dory the Fish in the animation movie Nemo. Dory suffers from short-term memory loss, she’s also inattentive and impulsive, she’s de facto a bad listener, and many times, she saves the day.
I’m thinking about a friend that speaks too much and too fast, a friend that speaks too loud and too much, a friend that never remembers important facts -
I love all of them.
I’m thinking about an ex that tells me look me in the eyes when I speak to you, a school teacher that says Stop looking at the ceiling, a music teacher forcing me to perform in public, until my crippling anxiety wins and I give up on playing forever. Look me in the eye, Stop looking at the ceiling, Produce sounds for other people’s pleasure,
Look me in the eye,
Stop looking at the ceiling,
Stop looking at the ceiling.
How is our understanding of listening tied to our understanding of speaking? How do we listen to temporarily, or permanently non-verbal speeches? What do we recognise as a language, as a sound, i.e, what are we used or compelled to listen to, what are we used or compelled to ignore, what is too alien, disorganised, loud, absent, unintelligible?
I’m thinking about Mel Baggs, in fact I often think about Mel Baggs, and their video titled In my language. The video, in two parts, shows Mel speaking in « their native language », then providing a « translation » in spoken English. Let’s listen to a part of it.
The previous part of this video was in my native language.
Many people have assumed that when I talk about this being my language, that means that each part of the video must have a particular symbolic message within it designed for the human mind to interpret.
But my language is not about designing words or even visual symbols for people to interpret. It is about being in a constant conversation with every aspect of my environment reaction physically to all parts of my surroundings.
In this part of the video the water doesn’t symbolise anything. I am just interacting with the water as the water interacts with me. Far from being purposeless, the way that I move is an ongoing response to what is around me.
Ironically, the way that I move when responding to everything around me is described as « being in a world of my own », whereas if I interact with a much more limited set of responses, and only react to a much more limited part of my surroundings, people claim that I am « opening up to true interactions with the world ».
I just feel myself stuck in the oppositional dialectics of listening and speaking, listening or speaking, listening then speaking, speaking then listening, listening by speaking, speaking by listening…
Emitting, and/or/then/by receiving.
I have brain fog, and only unresolved questions.
31.01.2026
I’m thinking about an ex that tells me look me in the eyes when I speak to you, a school teacher that says Stop looking at the ceiling, a music teacher forcing me to perform in public, until my crippling anxiety wins and I give up on playing forever. Look me in the eye, Stop looking at the ceiling, Produce sounds for other people’s pleasure,
Look me in the eye,
Stop looking at the ceiling,
Stop looking at the ceiling.
How is our understanding of listening tied to our understanding of speaking? How do we listen to temporarily, or permanently non-verbal speeches? What do we recognise as a language, as a sound, i.e, what are we used or compelled to listen to, what are we used or compelled to ignore, what is too alien, disorganised, loud, absent, unintelligible?
I’m thinking about Mel Baggs, in fact I often think about Mel Baggs, and their video titled In my language. The video, in two parts, shows Mel speaking in « their native language », then providing a « translation » in spoken English. Let’s listen to a part of it.
The previous part of this video was in my native language.
Many people have assumed that when I talk about this being my language, that means that each part of the video must have a particular symbolic message within it designed for the human mind to interpret.
But my language is not about designing words or even visual symbols for people to interpret. It is about being in a constant conversation with every aspect of my environment reaction physically to all parts of my surroundings.
In this part of the video the water doesn’t symbolise anything. I am just interacting with the water as the water interacts with me. Far from being purposeless, the way that I move is an ongoing response to what is around me.
Ironically, the way that I move when responding to everything around me is described as « being in a world of my own », whereas if I interact with a much more limited set of responses, and only react to a much more limited part of my surroundings, people claim that I am « opening up to true interactions with the world ».
I just feel myself stuck in the oppositional dialectics of listening and speaking, listening or speaking, listening then speaking, speaking then listening, listening by speaking, speaking by listening…
Emitting, and/or/then/by receiving.
I have brain fog, and only unresolved questions.
31.01.2026