There is a certain equivocation upon the step of the Absurd
“I've invited anyone … in order to describe to you, ” states the Old Man in The Recliners, “that typically the individual”—that character of this self spawned by simply this Enlightenment—“and the man are one and the identical. ” That established, he admits that a second later, “I am not really myself. My business is an additional. I am this one from the other” (145). About the do it yourself, for you to be sure, there seemed to be a certain equivocation about the stage of this Absurd, from Beckett's tramp insisting that the little messenger coming from Godot definitely not come tonight and declare that he never ever noticed him to the close about the doorbell inside The Balding Soprano. “Experience teaches all of us, ” tells Mrs. Jackson in the fit associated with anger, “that even when a person hears the doorbell diamond ring this is because there is definitely by no means anyone there” (23), as if there have been zero one to get there, virtually no person or perhaps individual, nothing at all resembling a good self. Associated with course, we don't own to feel her, no more than we consider Derrida or even Deleuze or the innovative orthodoxy connected with dispersed subjectivity, that often the self is no more than liability of identities elided into language. For inside the utter untenability, untenable since utterance, the self is usually liable to be obtained on hope. “This morning when you viewed on your own in the mirror, you didn't see yourself, ” says Mrs. Martin in order to Mr. Martin, who is usually undeterred by that. “That's because I wasn't now there yet, ” he affirms (36). The way curious this is, how interested that is, we somehow believe we exist.
As for the lifetime of a new “work of art” within our demystifying period, in the event that fine art has not also been fully divested of privilege, that has been relegated to be able to the status involving another kind of “discourse, ” while (with the several in jeopardy too) the particular plastic has been changed into an antiaesthetic. A single might think that Ionesco was there in advance with his notion of an antiplay, taking to its metonymic hat, not necessarily this, that, not necessarily that, this, words sliding, sliding, rotting with inexactitud, the clear play from the signifiers: epigrams, puns, évidence, suppositions, reductions, pleonasms and paradoxes, impure, proverbs, fable, the repertoire of prosody, or around a vertigo of absurdity and nonsensical iterations, a eruption of mere terme, plosives, fricatives, a cataclysm of glottals or, inside screaming choral climax on the Bald Soprano, with a good staccato of cockatoos, “cascades of cacas” (40) careening over the stage. As well as because the Professor demands through the Student in Often the Lesson, sounds believed fully with all the pressure associated with her lung area, similar to that diva of effectiveness art, Diamanda D?ner, not sparing the vocal cords, but producing a good exclusive weapon of them. Or often the sounds warming in their sensation—“‘Butterfly, ’ ‘Eureka, ’ ‘Trafalgar, ’ ‘Papaya’”—above surrounding weather, “so that they could journey without danger regarding slipping on deaf the ears, that happen to be, ” as within the despegado resonance involving the bourgeois visitors (Brecht's culinary theater), “veritable voids, tombs of sonorities, ” to be awakened, if at all, by an accelerating combination of words, syllables, paragraphs, in “purely irrational montage of sound, ” a assault of sound, “denuded of all sense” (62–63).
Mania obsessive, cruel since he / she becomes, what the Professor is apparently defining, through the crescendo of intimidation, is not only the hero worship of an antiplay, nevertheless a kind regarding alternative theater or even one more form of art work. Certainly, he might be conveying, “from that dizzying and slippery perspective in which will every the fact is lost, ” what Artaud tries to help reimagine, in pertaining often the Orphic strategies for the alchemical movie theater, its “complete, sonorous, streaming realization, ”6 as well as certain experimental occasions of the 60s, turned on by way of Artaud's rudeness, its faith-based motivation, which came, just like the return of the repressed, with the exhilarating crest from the theater of the Outrageous. Thus, in the period of time of the Dwelling Cinema and Dionysus throughout 69, or Orghast at Persepolis, we saw performers (the word “actor” shunted aside, tainted like “the author” by conventional drama) pitilessly expelling air from lung area, or caressingly in the noisy cords, which, like Artaud's incantatory murmurs in the air or maybe, in the Balinese episode, the “flights of elytra, [the] rustling of branches, ”7 or maybe, in the brutalizing joyfulness in the Professor's lyric guessing, “like harps or finds inside wind, will all of a sudden tremble, agitate, vibrate, vibrate, vibrate or ovulate, or fricate or jostle from the other person, or sibilate, sibilate, inserting everything in movement, typically the uvula, the tongue, this palate, the teeth, ” and as a person might still see it today (back around a good acting class) with exercises in the tradition via Grotowski to Suzuki (tempered by the Linklater method) often the polymorphous perversity of it all: “Finally this words come out of the nostril, the jaws, the pores, attracting along with them all often the body organs we have called, torn up by often the moth, in a strong, majestic flight, … labials, dentals, palatals, and other folks, some caressing some poisonous and violent” (62–64). And some, too, expressing “all the particular perverse possibilities of typically the mind, ” as Artaud says in the contagious revelation of the Plague8—the contagion there, if not the revelation, in Ionesco's This Chairs, with “a terrible smell from … flat water” under the home window and, with mosquitos coming in (113), the unrelieved smell of the pathos regarding “all that's gone along the drain” (116).