“Probability” / in terms of personalization

Theater News Base: You find the term “personalization” these days more than anywhere else about applications, operating systems, and of course sites and the cyber world. Various programs to reach the hearts of their audiences, go to the attractive word “personalization” and consider it a big step towards democracy and freedom of expression. However, the “personalization” model on a commercial scale is nothing more than Ford’s famous slogan, which resulted in a more popular song by Pink Floyd: “You can have it any color you like, as long as it’s black.” However, you are still limited to the options that the service provider offers you, giving you the illusion of some kind of freedom.

You are not actually personalizing anything, you are playing with the limited things they have given you. The same is true of cyberspace. Cyberspace gives us the illusion that you are free and can “personalize” your personal pages. Gives you a little tool and tells you to produce content; But if we look around a bit, we find that the general public is reproducing the content of others. There is no “personalization”; Rather, a strange “coloring” takes place, and there is even a competition as if no one should be left behind in this competition. Few people can survive in this world. Some basically give the gift of being in the cyber world to others, while others virtualize their real personalized world.

This introduction was a relatively long opening for me to enter the world of Ali Shams in “Probability”. The play, originally called “Ali Shams Probability”, is his most personal work today and is in fact a good example of the concept of “personalization”. But this total “personalization” does not occur in the world of theater; Rather, one step goes back to the same virtual world of Golzank, where Ali Shams tries to personalize his page and to say and write things that disturb the tolerance of the “same-colored”.

Ali Shams strongly insists on personalization. He utters rhetoric about ancient literature and, mocking Derrida’s philosophy and preparing the word for meaning, mocks the intelligible concepts and interpretations of literary poems and texts. This personalization of language, however, had cost him dearly. He is tried for criticizing Shahriar and enters into an impersonal controversy. Traces of this issue can also be seen in “Probabilities”. He also represents his personal life on the stage to find out more about the personality of his work; But in what style of “personalization” !!? Bergman style in “Fanny and Alexander” !!? Or Woody Allen in “Anihal” !!?

The answer is none. Extreme “personalization”. Ali Shams believes that he can narrate history and this is a personal narration and he is not supposed to belong to anyone or believe it. This is just a narrative. An example of this approach seems to be Derrida’s view of the endless chain of finding meanings in dictionaries. In the first scene of the play “Probability”, the character of Taroush (Ibn Sina’s bastard) in front of the dictionary – whose name is in the play The Short King – asks what is the undertaking and suddenly a chain of nested meanings covers the space of the play until Taroush concludes that Entrepreneurship means alive to the grave. In Ali Shams’s personalized world, this is not impossible and seems to be provable. The same rigid logic that tries to make the connection between any cause and effect sometimes suffers from irrationality within itself.

In “Probability”, Ali Shams intends to re-read the world through a lens that is important to himself and not to others. He does not give the audience what he wants. For example, the Iranian audience will undoubtedly choose the former between Lotfali Khan Khan Khoshsimai Shirazi and Agham Mohammad Khan Muqtu’a al-Nasal Astarabadi. But in Ali Shams’s play, everything turns upside down. He narrates history in a place where the narrator was not involved, and now he wants to represent the ruthless and ruthless king, who is a little bit trying to establish justice. He “personalizes” history for himself and presents it.

However, presenting the narration means accepting the judgment. A paradoxical situation arises as to whether the audience’s judgment can be involved in “personalization”? Do we make personal judgments or, influenced by the world around us, move towards the dominant discourse? Somewhere in the play “Probability”, Ali Shams has placed Shahriar’s book next to Asghar Nouri’s collection of works, which refers to a bitter event for him. Ali Shams, in the permissible form, includes a less dangerous part of that event in his play and ironically points out that in our judgment we do not generally use the “personalization” of judgment, but we look at where the formed wave moves to ride on the wave possibly. Get rid of suffocation and drowning.

So “personalization” is not something that everyone can achieve. Let’s go back to the virtual world and talk about the two concepts of UI and UX. The first is user interface design and the second is user experience design. In the first, the appearance of a site or app is seen, and in the second, the facilities that are intended for the audience of that site and app. The first is the negative world in which we have no involvement; But the second is where it gives us choices. Our judgment of the work of art is no less than either, except that the UI instructs us to use the two “good or bad” options in the UX. Without knowing what is good and what is bad. Good and bad are the product of waves to save from bites. So we can not “personalize” our judgment. Now, if we extend the same concept to the world of Ali Shams, the question arises: What is the UX effect?

To what extent does the job audience have the right to choose? What role does he play in shaping? How much does Ali Shams allow his audience to enter this personal world? I find the answer where some critics, without mentioning their opposition to Ali Shams’s postmodern approach, passed by in the language of expansionism. His share of this world is small. He sees neither himself nor his world, and therefore Ali Shams’s “personalization” is extreme.