Arte e Educação - Fundação Bienal do Mercosul

promoting their circulation, reducing the impact
of “cruelty of image”, rescuing them from obscurity
to prevent the morbid pleasure and attraction of
the obscene-porno viewer. We also attempt to foster
something else with the TV programme: to facilitate
the power of the listener/viewer, including their
manifestation in the construction of the
programme itself. We call this proactive.
In his space, Alejandro chooses a story by Borges. A
viewer sends in their drawings inspired by listening
to the audio of Alejandro reading the story. The
encounter Platform is the La Colifata web page
where people are called up and the fragments to
be illustrated are published. A third-year drawing
teacher can get their students to listen to the story
and then go on to make drawings of it. The idea in
play here principally brings together two aspects.
– There is an act of integration, of friendly and
caring investment between the community and
the patient;
– We are not so much interested in an ‘established
person’ illustrating a segment or section; it is more
important that it be a platform for initiating and
achieving a social “seedbed”. To give spaces for the
productions of our society to circulate. The
community devises and practices solidarity based
on showing their ability for intervention in relation
to problems. It is interesting here that the
community not only comes together with the aim
of doing good, but participates, above all, because
it finds a place offered for developing its art.
Furthermore, it would be the patients that offer
these spaces of expression and circulation of their
productions. For us, that means working with
community health and, in this case, the promoters
of these healthcare actions would be those who
supposedly have none.
The destination of radio micro-programmes and
TV programmes is the broad public, the society
with the problem of segregationist arguments
against “the different”, the society that constructs
myths, that fears, that criminalises, that denies, that
is paralysed, consuming morbid pleasures, that
idealises, etc. A society that is educated in and for
the “consumption” of what is produced by the
media, and not in the possibility of using it to
produce citizenship, cultural assets or health. While
in our case all these dimensions come together to
produce what we call acts in health. Is that not the
function of public TV, for example? Is that not one
possible function – amongst others – of the
communication media in general? Is not its function
perhaps that of interactively promoting the
development of a community’s potential? By
potential I am referring to the promotion and
awakening and development of the resources of a
community, and talking about resources is to refer
us to the symbolic as a driving force of cultural
production. It is therefore when the proactive is
associated with the public in the use of the media.
I should like to conclude by sharing something
that I believe synthesises this whole story. I began
by saying that in 1991 I assembled a group of
people around a table in the grounds of a
psychiatric hospital and we quickly organised a
workshop for “discussion and reflection” with the
feature of it being recorded. This space was soon
385