For what?

For what?


Moscow, January 18, 2015

They walk. They’re colleagues. They’re also friends. The existence of two people in the same unique subject is proven. Some people would go further, talking in terms of a possible trinity. They look, comment, plan, while they text. They’re off to a meeting, which is why they’re in work mode. In other words, they’re walking quickly, decidedly, as though they weren’t looking, as though the only thing that mattered was the role they’re now playing. How well we move when we have a role, an objective! They’re actors in their own film. The role of colleagues doesn’t prevent them from bursting out laughing every now and then, because that’s why they’re friends and colleagues, so they can laugh twice as much, for each role. But how do you want to do it? À trois, obviously. Yes, I know a trio is done with three. The problem is we can’t do it. And so they continue walking, and texting, and they laugh about the à trois, not for nothing, but because one is very gay and the other very hetero, so it’s not going to work out, however hard they try. The Trinity out of context is forbidden fruit. The only chance of a trio with you is if you like some female, Andrés says to him, because you can forget about three guys. And you can forget about me liking some female, Federico replies. And the fucking trinity, they say, is not easy at all. And they carry on texting and enjoying themselves thinking that if a trio is impossible for them perhaps they might at least find some special brothel where they could have a good time together, where each would get his own: men for Federico, and women for Andrés. This way each of them will have their own thing, but sharing those moments as close as possible to each other. It’s all such fun.

Other colleagues, other friends, in other cities, move around differently. They look, comment, plan, again, texting at the same time. They’re not headed to any meeting. They move in a different mode, to a different beat. In other words, they’re in the “What shall we do mode?” They wander around, as though they weren’t interested in the role they’re playing. They’re not in their own film. “Of course,” says one. “Not of course”, says the other. “I’m sick and tired,” says the one who looks the most likely to raise problems. “With that attitude…” “Guys, shall we have a couple of beers?” asks their female friend. But now it’s different. It all seems less fun.

For what?

P.S.: In an adjacent street to the Vinzavod arts center in Moscow, I came across this “For what?” graffito. I tend to forget key questions, but when I come across them, I see that there is no reason for everything to be fun either: For what? Why? And if everything was without any for what? Either way, why not continue believing that love can overcome everything? [1]

José Félix Valdivieso. Director of Communications. IE Business School


[1] Love Conquers All (1602) is a painting by Caravaggio in which Cupid appears nude except for a bow and arrow, while trampling upon the symbols of the arts, sciences, and government.


Like it? Share with your friends!

What's Your Reaction?

Boring Boring
0
Boring
Cool Cool
1
Cool
Important Important
0
Important
Interesting Interesting
1
Interesting
Like Like
3
Like
Dislike Dislike
1
Dislike
Recomend Recomend
1
Recomend

0 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Send this to a friend