#streetphotography #portugal #peoplewatching

Kiana Khansmith
untitled

tannertan36
Not today Justin
𓃗
No title available
EXPECTATIONS
Fai_Ryy
taylor price
Xuebing Du
No title available

Andulka

izzy's playlists!

Love Begins
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Noah Kahan
Cosimo Galluzzi
Cosmic Funnies
Keni
No title available
seen from Russia
seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from Malaysia
seen from Spain
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Portugal
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Colombia
@femachad-blog
#streetphotography #portugal #peoplewatching
#streetphotography #nikon #smile #peoplewatching #portugal
Morning bliss ❤️ #love #geometry #design #annapolis (at Historic Inns of Annapolis)
#streetphotography #nikon #portugal #photography #fashion #style
#streetphotography #nikon #portugal
#annapolis (at Annapolis, Maryland)
#streetphotography #portugal #photography
#streetphotography
in love with this song since 2010
Old but still great article on street photography
Killin' it in these streets.
#streetphotography #portugal #photography
amazing! ... Macro Kingdom
Nobody could accuse Annie Lennox of having an excessive preoccupation with the trivial and frivolous
Photograph: Murdo Macleod for the Observer
Annie Lennox: 'I would have been perfect as a man'
With her androgynous beauty, Annie Lennox was pop's ultimate feminist icon. Now she's using her unmistakable voice to campaign for Africa's HIV/Aids victims. Here, she talks about Mandela, the anguish of romantic love – and why she might have been better off with a wife
Nobody could accuse Annie Lennox of having an excessive preoccupation with the trivial and frivolous. A few minutes after we sat down in the cramped bar of Notting Hill's Portobello Hotel, she was talking about death and injustice, systematic rape, torture and oppression. She also went on to reflect on her childhood nightmares about the Nazis, the suffering of starving children, her concern about global warming and the failure to find a peace agreement in the Middle East. At one point, she seemed to sum up her life outlook with the statement: "The world is a heartbreaking place, without any question."
If all of that makes her sound rather heavy and earnest, then I'm responsible for adding yet another injustice to history's multiplying toll. Because in spite of the solemnity of her subjects, Lennox is oddly warm and lively in conversation. She exudes energy and enthusiasm even as she describes a planet full of pain and despair. The effect is a little confusing, as though news of the impending apocalypse is being relayed by a Blue Peter presenter. But while she tends toward a bleak sensibility, she lacks the world-weariness of the cynic and the defeatism of a genuine miserablist. Instead there's an evangelic quality in those piercing blue-grey eyes and a vivacity in that wide-mouth smile that lends a passionate zeal to her pessimism.
At 55, she still retains the sleek figure and striking looks of her pop heyday, but her face is somehow softer, less guarded. The former Eurythmics singer has been nominated for the Barclays Woman of the Year Award, which according to the blurb "is given each year to an exceptional woman whose personal and public life has been both brave and bold. Such a woman is a modern maverick, combining extraordinary insight with determination and a visionary approach".
Words like "maverick", "bold" and "brave" were often used to describe Lennox's musical career, which was full of unorthodox moves and statements, but the nomination owes more to her work as a humanitarian campaigner, particularly in relation to Sing, the charity she set up to raise funds for and awareness of the prevention of HIV and Aids in South Africa, which has one of the world's highest rates of HIV prevalence. The charity works in liaison with Comic Relief, and the main beneficiary of its donations is a group called Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), which seeks to prevent mother-child transmissions. Sing has provided a £300,000 grant to TAC, which also aims to increase access to testing and treatment and improve education about HIV. Lennox also gives talks in support of her work, such as the "Why I am an HIV/Aids activist" lecture she delivered at the TEDGlobal conference in Oxford earlier this year.
There's little doubt that she does a commendable job, and one deserving of recognition. The one pedantic proviso, perhaps, is whether "maverick" and "brave" are the appropriate words to describe a western pop star supporting the fight against Aids. After all, among celebrities it's hardly an unusual or controversial cause. Certainly those working on, say, anti-malaria and anti-tuberculosis campaigns must look with envy at the charity galas, fashion shows, rock concerts and well-known faces that HIV/Aids activism generates?
"I can't make comments on what gets coverage," says Lennox. "It's all important at the end of the day and I can't cover it all. It depends on perspective. I was drawn to the issue because it was affecting women and children, so I identified with it. It was more an intuitive response than anything."
In 2003 she was invited to take part in the launch of Nelson Mandela's Aids charity 46664. At the time Mandela described Aids as a "genocide". Lennox later described her reaction to this event: "I see Nelson Mandela in the twilight of his years thinking: 'We've conquered apartheid – now Africans face genocide.' How can intelligent, educated westerners like myself live with that on my conscience? I know I can't."
Can a viral pandemic be classed as genocide? Genocide is not only about victimhood; it also concerns perpetrators. When I pick her up on the word, she says that it was Mandela's, not hers, although she accepts that it served to galvanise her. "And I think – I don't know, I can only assume – that he was referring to the wilful refusal of the government of [former South African president, Thabo] Mbeki to really address the issue in a properly effective way."
Regardless of her motivations, she has made and does make a difference. There are children who are alive today as a result of her work who would otherwise almost certainly be dead. Still, some of her pronouncements can appear ill-thought out or contradictory, and Lennox is not shy of making pronouncements. She maintains a blog on her website in which she frequently vents her frustration and rage at the world's wrongs. For example, last month she laid into "western consumerist culture", which some might find a little rich from a super-wealthy pop star who's sold more than 80m records. Similarly, she wants to halt global warming, but is opposed to nuclear energy, the resource that many experts agree is needed to replace fossil fuels. When I raise these points, she leans back with an anguished smile and says: "Please don't ask me for the actual answer to anything, because I don't have it. Because all I do is look at stuff and ask questions. What can I say? I just think the world's barking mad. Look, I'm not an expert. I'm just an ordinary person."
The truth is, though, she's not an ordinary person. She's a world-famous multimillionaire and people, especially her fans, take notice of her. What's more, she doesn't just ask questions, she also makes plenty of assertions. I push her a little further. "At the end of the day, everything is extremely complex. I guess I'm an idealist… I don't have clear-cut positions. I get baffled by things. I have viewpoints. Sometimes they change."
Unlike many outspoken people, especially famous ones, she's not particularly combative or egotistical in debate. She has the ability and willingness to laugh at herself, yet strangely her interviews often read as humourless. "You don't see the self-deprecation or wryness," she says, perhaps because it's delivered with a facial expression or vocal inflection rather than a rehearsed witty remark.
Nonetheless she says she enjoys the interview process. "Back on the couch!" she joked as we sat down. Her partner in the Eurythmics, Dave Stewart, once said of their time together in that band: "We were eight years in psychotherapy with journalists." What everyone wanted to know about was their relationship. They had been lovers when they formed a previous pop band, the Tourists, in the late 1970s. But they split up before the Eurythmics and, in Stewart's phrase, "took eight years to untangle… a complicated relationship".
Apart from anything else, their entanglement meant that neither was able to form a solid relationship with anyone else. She got married, briefly, to a German Hare Krishna monk. The story goes that he won her heart by leaving vegetarian dishes outside her room while she was on tour. The image of female strength that Lennox so emphatically projected on stage and in her videos was partly that: an image.
In her dyed-orange crop and men's business suits, she was a picture of slick modernity: cool, feisty and sharply composed. The androgyny inevitably raised questions about her sexuality. "I didn't want to be perceived as a girly girl on stage. It was a kind of slightly subversive statement and what's even more subversive about it is that I'm so not gay. I'm completely heterosexual."
With the indomitable persona and that potent voice – a distinctive mix of gifted technique and tenacious delivery – Lennox became the pop diva as feminist icon. She was every strong woman's favourite strong woman. Behind the scenes it was a less empowering story.
"It was tough, really tough," she says. "When I look back it was almost like a lost decade in terms of my emotional life. It was a mess. I was not in a good space. I was very, very isolated."
She was not suited to touring, essentially, she thinks, because in spite of the men's suits she was not a man.
"I think life on the road really suits very egotistical men. It's set up for kings."
But Lennox couldn't or didn't want to throw herself into the traditional tour pastimes of sex and drugs and mayhem.
"It wasn't my scene. It was like the party was going on in the other room. It would be almost embarrassing if you looked at my rider: a few bottles of water, some raw ginger, some honey and tea, some raw vegetables, and that's about it."
You can see how the Hare Krishna monk might have seemed like an attractive option. But, notwithstanding his culinary talents, the monk didn't last long. The civilian husband to a female superstar has never been the easiest or most enduring of positions.
"I didn't know I needed a wife," says Lennox, half-jokingly, of her peripatetic life in the 1980s. "I would have been perfect as a man. That's your headline. There we go. Just because my life was set up for it and I didn't realise. It's tricky. It's about roles. If you're in a position where you're perceived to be powerful…" she trails off without completing the observation. "Actually, I'm quite a domesticated person. I love the little things of home."
It was to home that Lennox headed when she met her second husband, the Israeli film producer Uri Fruchtman. In December 1988 their first child, Daniel, was stillborn. The death marked the beginning of Lennox's withdrawal from the celebrity frontline. The next Eurythmics tour was her last, the band split up, and Lennox devoted herself to the two daughters she went on to have with Fruchtman.
She'd had her fill of fame, and remains scathing about celebrity culture that has mushroomed in the decades since. "People who want to get into this business because they want to be famous," she says, "haven't got a clue what they're talking about. Do something that warrants interest in what you're doing, and then try living with the fame because, actually, that is a bit challenging."
She talks about the invasions and intrusions that come with fame, not to gain sympathy but simply to give a lie to the glamour. "When I lost my first baby, I experienced a taste of just how low people can go. You know, I'd lost a baby and people were trying to get into the hospital to get interviews. That's disgusting. It was just loathsome. I said to myself: 'I'm going to protect this family of mine. I'm not having this life.' Having said that, I got off lightly. Back in the late 1980s there wasn't digital downloading of images that are sent instantly round the internet. There was a picture of Russell Brand the other day; apparently he punched a photographer. I don't effing blame him for taking a pop at that lowlife," she says in a manner to suggest that she wouldn't have minded adding a few pops herself. "He's living in the spotlight there, and I wouldn't want that life for anything."
All the same, she briefly reformed Eurythmics with Stewart in 1999. Whether or not by coincidence, her marriage to Fruchtman ended the following year. Subsequently she's said that she's not built for marriage, and that she has serious doubts about the possibility of romantic love. "It's a fine thing if you can get it," she said, "but then if you're a person like me, it will take you to a place of anxiety, because it can never be sustained. We want it – but when we get it, it's terrifying because you could be hurt, abandoned, and it's actually a really risky place to be."
You sense that Lennox has a tremendous emotional capacity but that it's bound up with an extreme sensitivity to the vagaries and frailties of life. She traces this feeling back to her childhood in Aberdeen. "I was perfectly safe and happy there," she says, "but when I think about it, when I go back, it was grim, you know." Even at a young age she realised that she was more than usually disturbed by mundane misfortune, "things like a dog being knocked down or seeing a dead bird".
"You become conscious when you're a kid that the world is a bad place," she says, and recalls the fear she went on to feel about the nuclear threat in the 1970s. Again, there's a strange disjunction between what she says and how she comes across. She may sound highly strung, but her demeanour is admirably grounded.
Still, while she doesn't put herself on a pedestal with regard to other people, her estimation of humanity appears not to be very high. Whether a despairing disposition has affected her view of the world or the state of the world has caused the despair is perhaps a philosophical distinction. The net effect is that making herself feel better has become almost synonymous with making the world better, so that hers is a kind of humanitarianism of the soul.
Sometimes this has led her into disputed territory. Last year, for example, she came under fire when she spoke out against Israel. "I was critical of Israel's policy of bombing Gaza," she explains, "that was populated by mainly children in a space where they couldn't escape from. I said that it was not the way forward to peace." However some felt that, in attending the demonstration against Israel, she was effectively supporting the Palestinian Islamists, Hamas, a suggestion she flatly rejected. Even so, she was accused of naivety and even antisemitism.
"That really hurt," she says now, "and it's a pack of nonsense. My children are half-Israeli. Why should I ever be antisemitic?" Her Israeli ex-husband, she says, respected her stand and told her there were many Israelis who were proud of her.
I wondered if she had been to Israel recently.
"No, not for years. I don't have any interest to go to Israel. I don't think I'd ever have a cause to go. It would be too volatile [to perform], I think, because people get carried away and they twist what you say."
Despite that experience, she remains committed to speaking out against what she sees as injustice. And she has no time for pulling punches out of cultural sensitivity. "I think the stoning of women is barbarous," she says, "and I think genital mutilation is barbarous. I will talk about these things because it's about my gender."
We come to the end of our time and, when her PR man enters, she repeats the comment that, she thinks, will be the one that stands out. "I would have been a fantastic man," she tells him and laughs out loud again.
Perhaps she would have made a fantastic man. But all things considered, it has to be said that she's done a pretty remarkable job as a woman.
The Barclays Women of the Year Award is announced on 11 October (womenoftheyear.co.uk). Annie Lennox's single "Universal Child" is available to download from 12 October, and her new album A Christmas Cornucopia is released on 15 November
'You would have to be mad, in my view, not to admire Jamie Oliver!'
Jamie Oliver: 'I annoy lots of people'. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian source: guardian.co.uk
"God, why do I give interviews to the Guardian?" Jamie Oliver groans. "They always try to dissect you, and I don't really think about stuff in the way that you're asking me these questions. It's far more natural, and less . . . less strategic than you seem to think." Looking thoroughly fed up, he mutters under his breath, "I just know what this article's going to be like." It's only halfway through the interview, and I fear he may get up and walk out.
Well I am mortified. You would have to be mad, in my view, not to admire Oliver, whose evolution from mildly grating Essex geezer to heroic public campaigner has elevated him to secular sainthood. From his restaurant Fifteen, training troubled youngsters to be chefs, to his campaigns for decent school dinners and basic cooking skills, he has been a national inspiration. My mistake had been to assume that the popularity of these campaigns must have given him invincible confidence – and to infer from their success that he must have the mindset of a political strategist. On both counts, it turns out I'm completely wrong, for instead he is a scattergun of raw emotions, chief of which appear to be beleaguered frustration, and acute sensitivity to any perceived criticism.
Part of this may well be down to the fact that he is exhausted. When we meet, his fourth child is only two weeks old, and Oliver's speech patterns bear the unmistakable mark of sleep deprivation, with sentences abandoned halfway through, and thoughts colliding into one another. But he also seems shattered by his campaigning work, as if unaware of quite how much respect – even adoration – it commands. He describes his new TV series, a straightforward cooking show called Jamie's 30 Minute Meals, as "an antidote", and "heaven", after all his struggles to change the way we eat.
"I hate making TV documentaries," he says with feeling. "Because it takes quite a lot of energy to know that you're going to get your arse kicked and people will hate you, or fight you, for large proportions of time. You know when I did School Dinners I got so much abuse for a year and a half, and the people who were getting in the way of some of the biggest progress . . . you know, once the show was broadcast, all of a sudden it was 'authentic'. But until then it was just lots of – well, people hate change. So I don't particularly enjoy doing the stuff I'm most proud of."
The health secretary Andrew Lansley recently accused him of "lecturing" people about what to eat. I ask if he thinks the remark was a one-off, or suspects it may be indicative of the new government's hostility to anything that smacks of the nanny state.
"It's very clear that there's a lot of double standards going on. Should there be a 30mph speed limit? Of course there bloody should. And certainly with kids and school food, kids need to be nannied for sure. So give them a bloody good meal at school."
But I wonder if he ever worries that he might lay himself open to the charge of lecturing by saying things, as he did in School Dinners, like: "If you're giving your young children fizzy drinks you're an arsehole, you're a tosser. If you give them bags of crisps you're an idiot. If you aren't cooking them a hot meal, sort it out."
"But that," he says indignantly, "came after a sequence where some obviously quite thick woman was having a pop at me about taking her kid's sticky toffee pudding away, and we gave them fruit and yoghurt instead. And while she was having a go at me she had the gall to have a baby in her arms feeding it Coke in a bottle, so she's obviously thick as shit, you know; she was clearly thick as shit, because you don't feed babies Coke in a teated bottle, and anyone who does is categorically wrong.
"I challenge you," he adds angrily, "to go to any school and open 50 lunchboxes, and I guarantee you there will be one or two cans of Red Bull, there'll be cold McDonald's and jam sandwiches with several cakes." Then he pauses, as if reminding himself to be diplomatic.
"Look, Lansley wrote an apology letter. For me it's all in the past, I've got nothing against him. But it's easy to say you can't tell people what to do, when clearly it's the only way forward. If you're going to be civically responsible for feeding children once or even twice a day for 190 days of the year from age four to 18, you'd best know what you're talking about, cos we're half responsible for all their nutritional intake. You know that government advertising campaign, Change4Life, cost £20m on billboards? I could have built over 100 Ministries of Food in towns all over the country for that. The public doesn't need to know that we're in a fucking state, that we need five a day. What it needs is skin on skin, it needs beacons locally where you can find out stuff for free, and have lessons. It's the only way forward, and it won't blossom through cuts."
Jamie's Ministries of Food have been established in four cities now, where the public are taught basic cooking skills in a bid to wean them off processed food and ready meals. But the future of the original Ministry in Rotherham is now in doubt, threatened by cuts, and Oliver is incredulous.
"The reason why I'm so passionate about the Ministry of Food is that we're fully booked, and if we had another staff member we could put another third on the numbers. We do about 8,000 people a year from one little cheap £130,000 setup grant from Rotherham council. We're fully booked, we're busy. It works. But they're all looking at me now for money, and the thing is I don't have it. I haven't got dough sitting in banks for me or for anything else."
Some readers may think come off it, you're really rich, I suggest. His wealth is routinely reported to be anywhere between £25m and £45m; could he not write a cheque for £130,000?
"I can't. I can't. I just can't, it's as simple as this. I've got my businesses that I look after, I don't have venture capitalists swoop in and pay for everything. Basically everything I've got funds my restaurants, the vulnerabilities are all mine. I've got 18 months of wages for my staff in the bank, but I'm not spending their money."
Oliver has recently extended his campaign to America, where he made a series called Jamie's American Food Revolution, set in the nation's most obese town. It won him an Emmy, and has been recommissioned, but far from celebrating, Oliver is still recovering. "The town didn't react very well to me being there, and there was one fellow on the radio who did a lot of shit-stirring that caused basically six weeks of aggro for me. No one really wanted to get involved or help, they thought we wanted to make them look stupid." With hindsight, I ask innocently, does he feel he made any tactical errors?
"No," he shoots back, "it was brilliant. You know, change is very hard – structures, organisations, businesses, people, anyone really. And if you're shining a light on one of the most unhealthy places in the world, it has to be a car crash, there's no pretty way. I knew what I was flying over there for, I knew it would be horrible, but I hadn't done horrible without my family. When you have shit days you need to be able to go and hug your kids, do you know what I mean? I didn't have that, and it was hard, really hard."
And yet, I say, it's these documentaries which make us love him. "But there's still lots of people who don't like me," he counters straight away. "You can tell that if you go on any blog. I annoy lots of people. You know people often don't like the good guys, and I try to be a good guy, I'm consistent. You know, I've been consistent in my direction, the beliefs that I have. And people hate that."
It's on the subject of consistency that he takes offence. Oliver has always been passionate about his family life – "Family first, always, always," as he says. He and his wife Jools were childhood sweethearts, and family life with their three daughters and now a son too provide the narrative backdrop to many of his programmes and his books.
"Jools is a militant Gina Ford and it bloody works," he volunteers. "What people don't understand is that sticking to Gina Ford is a job, it's not easy, it's not casual, it doesn't suit you. I see some of my friends who have a very casual approach – you must never judge," he adds quickly, "but when their kids are going to bed at two in the morning they look knackered. Gina's basically just a structured routine, and it's quite a lot to remember, but it does work. It's like communism," he grins. "If everything's done then it does work."
Authenticity is what makes Oliver's television so compelling, and part of this has involved filming his personal life in intimate detail. I want to ask him about how he navigates the balance between authenticity and family privacy, but as soon as the words are out of my mouth he begins to look annoyed, anticipating an attack. "Now you're going to ask about family, compromising, why have you put your family on the telly and all that sort of stuff," he says grumpily. I only make matters worse by asking him about his contract to promote Sainsbury's, which is now in its 10th year and earns him a reported £1.2m a year, but has laid him open to the charge of hypocrisy by critics who point out that the supermarket sells the very processed meals he tells us not to eat. Personally I don't see a problem, so my question is purely one of strategy: as a political campaigner is the money worth it, when it allows critics to claim it undermines his message? But Oliver thinks I'm attacking him again.
"I think journalists try to get more upset about Sainsbury's than the public, cos the public shop in supermarkets. And that's the truth of it. Sainsbury's does feed the country. It's nothing I apologise for," he snaps.
I think Oliver is sick and tired of people trying to define him – is he a chef, a businessman, a social entrepreneur or a TV star? In his mind the distinctions are irrelevant; he talks instead about following passions, creating cultures, and prefers to employ people who "get it"; his righthand woman "isn't qualified to do her job at all", but just pestered him in the street for a job, and "she knows what I care about, and the things that are true to me". His ambition appears to be literally infinite – even if, he sighs, his motivation doesn't always slot into a neat category.
"No one understands me. No one. My wife doesn't even understand me in terms of what I want to do. Everyone thinks everything's about money. You think I'm going to America to make money? That is probably the worst financial use of my time in the world, going to America next year, cos there's no money in TV, and they don't buy books. I don't want to break America, I don't want to move there, I'll be there for three months next year but I don't want to be making that show, I want Americans to be making that fucking show. I'm not pleased I got the Emmy cos I got the Emmy; I'm pleased because it will get other people to make these shows, and get the public active, and get McDonald's to start doing some other shit instead of the shit they are doing.
"I have a fairly low regard for money to be honest, it doesn't really add that much to a lot of the things that give me pleasure in life. However, if you have an idea, and you've got it, you can do it. If you haven't got money and you've got a great idea, it's hard to get it done. So for me I want to get in a position where I can do stuff myself. I want to be able to go into Essex and say: 'I want all your schools.' I want to set up a company that would be not for profit; I want to set up a company that would be like the government used to be, where we train dinner ladies militantly, where we'd fit the kitchens out and deliver on budget. But it's not just Essex, you see, it's trying to create things that can be rolled out elsewhere. But it all comes down to money."
In the end, Oliver believes that change will only come through public pressure. "Although they don't know it, the public is still king. So what I try and do is shit-stir. In America, what hasn't happened yet is the public haven't really told business what they want. For instance, McDonald's America and McDonald's UK are totally different. You've got one public that's fairly well informed, which is here, so you know you've got organic milk, 100% free-range eggs; they do a huge amount of salads, they've done a huge amount of inward thinking in the last five years. So although they've been the enemy for many years, you've got to take your hat off and say well done, and carry on. America hasn't even done that, they've done nothing in comparison. The only difference is the public ask for more."
So if he had to choose only one element of his empire – the cookery shows, the restaurants, the books, Fifteen, or the campaigns – which one is closest to his heart?
"I'd love to be elitist, cos that's where my heart is – I'm a food geek. But it's fuck-all use to anyone, absolutely no use to anyone, it doesn't change anything really. I really want to get school food sorted, and it ain't going to get sorted by the government. It needs investment, entrepreneurialism, expert management – and it's not going to happen, cos they'll never put their hands in their pockets or be there long enough to change anything."
Jamie's 30-Minute Meals is on Channel 4 every weekday from today at 5.30pm. The book of the series is published by Michael Joseph
Marina Abramovic and cult pop star Antony Hegarty are cooking up an opera
'Wow!' ... Antony Hegarty and Marina Abramovic in a Madrid cafe. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian
When Antony met Marina
Legendary performance artist Marina Abramovic and cult pop star Antony Hegarty are cooking up an opera. They talk about art, suffering – and the power of a hot bath
It's early morning in Madrid, and neither Antony Hegarty nor Marina Abramovic´ have been up long. The celebrated musician and the legendary performance artist are rehearsing for The Life and Death of Marina Abramovic´, an opera that will make its debut at the Manchester international festival next year. The pair have a benevolently witchy air: Abramovic´ has an almost narcotically deep, consonant-rolling Serbian accent; Hegarty talks a lot, but less than the motormouthed Abramovic´, his soft voice punctuated by reflective pauses. Despite the fatigue of rehearsing solidly for 15 days, the level of mutual admiration is almost tangible.
They met three years ago at a party hosted by Björk and her partner, the artist Matthew Barney. "Matthew Barney was grilling little fish on the lawn, and Antony was sitting inside at the table," says Abramovic´. "The next time I saw him was when he performed at Carnegie Hall, part of Rufus Wainwright's Christmas special. I hadn't heard him sing before and his voice came at me like a great wave. I just stood up. People around me were complaining, but I was compelled. I kept saying out loud, 'Who is he?' I wanted to know everything about him."
"Oh lord," breathes Hegarty, heavily. "I don't know quite what to say, Marina. I just feel like a normal singer." Yet, since the release of the Mercury prize-winning album I Am A Bird Now, in 2005, Hegarty's eerie, genderless voice has had a profound effect on audiences across the world. As Abramovic´ says, "his voice brings a spirit to everyone who listens – so much so that you begin thinking about your own mortality".
There are few artists more concerned with mortality than Abramovic´, now 63. She describes The Life and Death of Marina Abramovic´ as "a series of births and funerals of the soul", adding that it will contain scenes from her childhood and her adult career. Hegarty has composed the music, with avant garde sound artist William Basinski, and will appear on stage; the opera will also star Willem Dafoe, along with an international cast of performance artists.
It's Abramovic´'s first major project since this year's retrospective of her work in New York, which drew 850,000 people to the Museum of Modern Art and cemented her status as the doyenne of performance art. Since the 1970s, she has pushed mind and body in shows that explored the limits of pain and exhaustion: cutting herself, lying on ice or in a ring of fire, even allowing the audience to attack her with guns and knives. For Moma, she created a piece called The Artist Is Present, in which she sat mute in the museum's atrium each day for three months, while spectators took turns to sit opposite her. This week, she launches a new retrospective at London's Lisson Gallery and is giving a lecture at Tate Modern.
Hegarty had misgivings about The Artist Is Present. "I was so worried about you," he says softly. "I was scared of crazy people coming and disrupting the piece. In a lot of ways, I really didn't want you to do it." In the event, the piece was relatively drama-free: the most remarkable disruption came from someone projectile-vomiting into the performance area.
Hegarty, who "sat" with his friend a number of times during the piece (something she found "galvanising") asks if she "had a process for letting go of the energy".
"I had to be a blank canvas with each person," she says. "I tried to empty myself between each sitter." Not physically, though – Abramovic´ says she "didn't pee at all" during each day of the performance. "I'd come home some nights with this incredible heaviness. I would sit in the bath and pour two pounds of salt into the water until my skin had almost boiled off, so that the next day I would be stripped down and ready. I was also in a lot of pain with my back. Every work changes me, but in the past I have been able to visualise my next piece of work as I reached the end of another – this was entirely different. I was in a state of complete . . . blankness."
Vulnerability is the key parallel between Abramovic´ and Hegarty. Though their work should be, says Hegarty, "more esoteric than it is", both lay themselves so bare that the audience can create their own inroads into the work and find something that resonates with them. "Throughout my life," says Hegarty, "one of the only places I saw people truly expressing themselves was through pop music. I was such an emotional child, but there wasn't much room for expression in my family, and I think a lot of people are still in the same situation. People need help to cry out about how they feel."
Abramovic´ says that's why his performances are so cathartic, with audience members weeping or singing out loud in the breaks between the songs. "His work is so dense with his own experience, but has enough pure emotion to let the public complete it. That's why he gets such an amazing response."
Although Hegarty performs more frequently than Abramovic´, and on bigger stages, she experiences the most anxiety. "I have so much insecurity," she says. "I will literally sit on the toilet until the minute I'm due to perform. Then I get in there and it all disappears."
Hegarty, on the other hand, has varying degrees of jitters. "When I'm on tour, I run on so much adrenaline that, really, I never leave the stage. When I finish touring, I am out of commission for six months or so, until I can crawl back to being a normal person."
Abramovic´ laughs. "It's funny, because I get the same thing," she says. "I still feel like I am in that museum atrium sometimes. Being an artist is not easy – I have always said that to the students I have taught over the years. It's a huge sacrifice."
The pair embark on an analysis of the artist's function. "I believe art is the oxygen of society," says Abramovic´, "which means artists have to work hard to keep it alive. To really change the way society thinks, you have to give your entire being to it until there's nothing left." Hegarty agrees, but suggests artists are privileged. "I believe creative expression should be the birthright of all people," he says, "but a significant portion will never have any other opportunity than to do it vicariously, through people like us, the few allowed to express our inner lives in the way we do." He pauses, cautious. "Sometimes it sits uneasily with me."
Please sing at my funeral
If Hegarty is feeling introspective, that isn't too surprising. The new Antony and the Johnsons album, Swanlights, out today, has an almost apocalyptic preoccupation with the human body and its relationship to the earth: it is clearly the product of someone with not only existential concerns ("I am battling through my shame and fear," he says), but environmental ones. This week he edits the Guardian's music site and – judging by the pieces he's commissioned, particularly a conversation with Björk about the environment – it looks like his fears for the planet have, for a moment, eclipsed his preoccupations with gender, which made I Am a Bird Now so captivating.
More than anything, Hegarty wants the world to strive towards a more matriarchal existence. "Just living is creative," he explains. "Every decision we make in life is a creative one: sentences we string together, the way we get dressed in the morning. Every movement could be considered dance if you really open your mind to that feminine plane of thought."
"Wow!" says Abramovic´.
These two artists do seem awestruck by each other, listening intently to what the other has to say, only speaking when they've reached their full conclusion. One thing, however, remains unspoken: the ultimate tribute, Abramovic´'s request that Hegarty will sing at her funeral, which she recently divulged to her biographer.
"This is Marina's wish," confirms her assistant, after the interview. "But she has never asked Antony because she is too shy."
Marina Abramovic is at the Lisson Gallery, London NW1, (020-7724 2739), 13 October to 13 November.
• Correction 11/10/10. We misquoted one of Antony Hegarty's lyrics as "shaman fear" when he was singing about "shame and fear". We also talked about the "feminine plain" rather than the "feminine plane". This has been corrected.