The Eye That Hears (چشمی که میشنود)

Bahman Mohassess lives on a narrow street

between Latehzar and Sadi Street.

We filmed him on a winter's night

between 9 pm. and 3 am.

During these 6 hours, he painted, joined his friends in a cafe,

then went back to work again.

While penetrating his world, we were struck

by the strong vision of himself as a historic figure.

But why not let him explain why he is a historic figure.

Of course I'm a historic figure!

It's not that I'm so full of myself you understand?

To this Nation,

I'm a historic figure.

So I take very good care of myself.

One day, these people will wake to their ineptitude,

and if it doesn't elevate them,

at least they'll have their nose in shit.

Thanks to me.

But the opinion that Mohassess has of himself

and that he repeats to listeners,

is not shared by others.

You see, when you're In front of a mirror,

whether you're shaving or not, you still look at yourself.

But what the people here think of me,

is solely what they want to imagine.

Nothing else.

But what do people imagine?

Those who have had money dealings say he is ruthless and venal.

So, I think only of money?

No Sir!

I don't know how to manage it.

The only thing I know is how to spend it.

I don't even know how to earn it, you know.

In fact,

if I ask to be paid quickly,

I'm treated like a Westerner.

But that's not it!

It's just that...

Nothing has ever come to me easily.

I gave a lot of myself unreservedly.

I can even say I gave all of my youth for free.

Which is why I would at least

like my work to be spared from being sacrificed, you see?

That's why I'm still not rich after spending a year here.

You can become very rich

very fast, if you want to.

But to each his principles.

I could have many exhibitions.

Personal or collective exhibitions.

Enough to bring me fortune

and make me famous.

At least, for the years to come.

But I don't intend to show with just any novice.

I apply my principles to everything and I'm faithful to them.

I don't force myself,

that's my nature.

I've always looked down on people.

Perhaps even more so today.

So I don't accept money and success at any cost.

So if it's not for success or money'

what drives him

to paint endlessly?

I'm condemned to paint.

I already had this debate with Zenderoodi.

Ifs a ritual.

It's a habit that has become

a true physical need.

To me, painting is exactly like taking a piss.

It's a sense of relief, you see?

Ifs the same thing.

Ifs like bursting a pimple.

But what comes out of this burst pimple?

And what meaning is there

for the amateurs of his art and even for himself?

In my work, there is one essential thing:

The condemnation of the being.

Man, who was multidimensional,

is today reduced to nothing.

And I show this nothing

with bodies devoid of arms and legs,

bodies without mouths,

without eyes...

All claim to life

that man is stripped off today.

He's naked. I know it, I'm convinced of it.

He no longer has anything, no life.

That's what I show: man reduced to nothing.

He is nothing but a bodily assembly.

Of which he is proud!

And this bodily assembly

is reduced to his wallet.

I reduce him to his naked obscenity,

this man of the void.

But I feel compassion for him, since he's still a man.

Around 11 pm, we find him in a cafe' with his friends.

They talk of this and that

including his favorite topic: himself.

...whether it be brick or bronze.

The material is not the key but the expression.

When the expression is powerful enough,

the material defines itself.

The best lesson is to be found in Braque's collages.

He showed that antinomic objects create a language.

But ifs not a question of materials...

A piece of newspaper is a material.

But this material is just one plane. I'm talking about volume.

I see what you're getting at.

Exactly, this piece of newspaper that is a material,

the artist takes it and renders it in space.

Every volume takes up space.

It's the expression that optimizes the space.

Giacometti showed the same idea of space in all his paintings.

Giacometti's art was not in his paintings but in his sculptures.

That's where he perceived the figure of being.

The question of art is not found in the dimension...

the carnal and physical dimension but

in the condemnation of the being.

Giacometti shows the figure of the being.

Whereas I show the depth of the being.

These are the two possible opposite paths.

It can scare me