Right now, I've almost made my mind up in favour of doing it.
What might not have been clear from my post, is that it's for some monthly cultural/artsy event. From the announcement on their website: "With a reenacted interview of Nobuyoshi Araki with Kohei Yoshiyuki, a freezed car accident, an old advice of Peter R. de Vries, a love confession to a panda bear and more stray images and sound. The editors compile the programme from received and selected material." It sounds wacky enough to be interesting, and the cross-media angle is something I should be specialised in. From what I gather from the website, I guess you might expect that medium sized words shouldn't be a problem and that it isn't meant to be a lecture or a straight forward explanation of what 'that' is. They asked for a presentation on the 'myth of what "that" is', so I would guess that some creativity would be appreciated.
Anyway, I've send a mail to the contact, asking about the context and what they (approximately) look for in a presentation.
As for the "can't understand why people still don't get it": remember in this case that for us Dutchies English is a second language at best.
> I think you should do it. Set as many people straight as
> possible. Remember to use small words to avoid
> confusion.
>
> Play the verse once. Explain what won't be done. Play
> the verse again. If those in the audience still don't
> understand, repeat the previous steps. Then move onto the
> next verse.
>
> It still is comical how, I'd venture to say, the majority
> of the public still doesn't understand the song.
>
> I've known a few people over the years that think Anything
> For Love is a stupid song, and it's always because they
> don't get it. Although it really isn't that hard.
|
