"We should have to hold classes on holidays outside the school."
I don’t know why this sentence holds such power apart from the obvious absurdity of classes on holidays – here this can be taken as classes that engage with the study of holidays as subject, or classes that occur on holidays, beyond the school grounds (a much less interesting notion). Because of the plausibility of a double entendre, however, it seems as if Klee is motioning towards an idea of classes wherein students study holidays, that students partake in only on the holidays themselves, outside of the school – such that ‘holidays’ then are defined by their study taking place at the same time as their occurrence, and that their unique aspect - their 'holidayness' is therefore locational, and not temporal - holidays are then not periods of time (days) within which classes do not occur, but simply the day on which only holidays are to be studied. From this – and I’m not sure if Klee went so far as to try to suggest this intentionally – one might draw out the notion that classes, as Klee sees them, never cease, that learning (the act inherent to a class) – the learning of ‘we learn to see what flows beneath, we learn the prehistory of the visible,’ – cannot be bound by time, since it always points back to Genesis, to the origin, or original Creation, itself, and only varies by the location at which it happens. This is building on thoughts as presented by Klee in Ways of Nature Study (1923). Perhaps this is what makes the original sentence so remarkable, or what caused it to strike me with such force as it did when I read it. It makes a statement on learning without its mention, using only a schoolboy’s dialectic of classes and holidays.
notes
- I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me whether or not this is completely ludicrous lol. But maybe read what Klee had to say first