Writing an essay and need help understanding Thomas Hirschhorn on a video

Question

I'm writting an essay in English about the Swiss artist Thomas Hirschhorn. For my essay I plan to use what he says in this video, from 5:04 to 6:48.

The things is, my French is a little bit rusty and I am unsure I understand correctly what he is trying to say; here is my attempt:

In that part of the video the artist talks about his conception of an ideal world; I think he says that for him him the ideal world is similar today's world, in which there are problems, contradictions, conflicts, but the difference is that in an ideal world we accept it as it is, and we all have the purpose of changing the things that are not working, for example legalization, and the truth in it's pure state.

I don't know if I'm missing something, there are some parts where is hard to follow what he is saying. If you could see that part of the video and correct my translation/interpretation I will appreciate it.

Answer 1

I made a transcript. Obvious redundancies and hesitations removed, and some grammar errors corrected (I don't think French is his native language).

Le monde idéal, c'est le monde d'aujourd'hui, avec toute la complexité, tout le chaos, toute la problématique, toutes les contradictions... Pour moi, il ne s'agit pas créer un monde idéal ! Ce qu'il faudrait, c'est d'être conscient que le monde dans lequel on vit fait partie de lui -- Il ne faut pas essayer de le changer ? -- Si, il faut le changer, mais d'abord, il ne faut surtout pas le repousser, il faut être d'accord avec ce monde. Ça ne veut pas dire l'accepter, évidemment, c'est ça la la grande différence, il faut être en accord avec le monde pour le changer. Donc seulement si on a un accord, c'est-à-dire, qu'on le voit comme il est, et qu'en même temps on dit... (se reprend) Et en accord, ça ne veut pas dire approuver le monde, c'est seulement là qu'on peut le changer. Donc un monde idéal, en quelque sorte, c'est ce monde, avec lequel on est en accord, et qu'on s'emploie à changer. Par exemple, par des termes qui sont très importants, par exemple : l'Égalité, la Vérité... et quand je dis la Vérité, c'est pas la vérité vérifiée, ou de l'information, c'est pas un fait la Vérité, c'est la Vérité, l'universalité... Donc il y a plein de choses à faire, je pense... Et il faut par contre toujours partir du monde existant.

And a very rough translation:

The ideal world is today's world, with all its complexity, chaos, problems, contradictions... For me, it's not about creating an ideal world! What we should do, is being aware that the world where we live is part of it. -- So we shouldn't try to change it ? -- Yes we should, but first, we mustn't push it away, we have to agree with the way it is. Not accepting it, of course, that is the big difference here, you have to be in accord with the world to change it. Thus, only if there's an accord, meaning, and that we're seen it that way... (backtracking) An accord, doesn't mean agreeing with the world, it's only then that we can change it. So an ideal world, in a sense, is this world, which we are in accord with, which we are actively changing. For example, by very important concepts, like Equality, Truth... and when I say Truth, it's not a verified truth, information, or a fact; it's the Truth, universality... So there's plenty of things to do, I think... and we must always start from the existing world.

So yes, your interpretation is mostly correct (apart from the "legalization" part, I think you misheard "Égalité" there).