The particular indeterminate referent through typically the anarchy of it just about all
Whatever's gone down this drain, including the thirty-nine additional pupils who gifted their health, “Aaah! ” to building appearing out of knife, “my biceps and triceps, my breast, my body :. knife” (Bald Soprano, 74), the Professor as well appears to be planning on selected psychophysical effects of noisy behavior the fact that, by means of means of punk, funk, plus heavy metal, are now commonplace on MTV, when on the particular theoretical level he appears to be outdoing Roland Barthes on “the grain of the words, ” through which, when phrases genuinely speak—that materialization connected with words by way associated with the body, it has the fleshiness or maybe tactility—what you hear can be “the tongue, typically the glottis, the teeth, the mucous membranes, the nose, ” whose meaning is some sort of seduction from which “signifiance blows up, ” erotically more and besides words, bringing into overall performance “not the particular soul although jouissance. ”9 It's feasible, way too, in order to see the Professor's oral lesson not only by way of the difficult ? unhelpful ? awkward ? obstructive ? uncooperative alternatives involving his imagination, although throughout the terms used by Foucault writing of Deleuze, their theater of phantasms, which will functions on the bounds regarding bodies, but against systems, way too, sticking to all of them, yet sticking it in their eyes as well, cutting them wide open and multiplying their particular surface types, as a web site of metaphysics for often the disillusioning of phantasms; throughout short, a space regarding consideration “never hallowed simply by a concept, ” the “theatrum philosophicum” as a great “epidermic have fun of perversity. ”10 As long as the metaphysics is usually vocalized in the “phantasmaphysics” of sounds at the particular skin (“Theatrum” 172), under the eyelids, up typically the nostrils, or in typically the dirt under the fingernails, what exactly it is not, because Barthes writes about this membranous voice, is quite a few fetishism of breathing, wherever inside the affect(ation) of meditation just about all techniques begin, taking straight into performance, as by a secretly mystical middle, some strong emotional simple fact or imitation of typically the soul.
Metaphysics, because Artaud suggests (and Deleuze is indebted to him), may well with the sonorous streaming come in through typically the pores, nevertheless only whilst escaping, from the vibrations, frications, ovulations, sibilations, the repressive simulation or “tyranny of meaning” (Barthes 185). Like for the tyranny within the Tutorial, true, the libidinous soundings of the linguistic idea there—that “all typically the words of all the different languages . are always the same” (65)—takes a hallucinatory study course to the deathly pedagogy of the knife, which often, though the College student feels the idea, voluptuously, in every element of her entire body, is definitely something else again when compared with Artaud's cruelty or Barthes's conception of voice, as their truth is to be hallucinated (“Grain” 184). Which often is not necessarily exactly the state of mind of this Smiths in addition to Martins, inside the vociferous rage of The Bald Soprano, their vain pursuit of meaning, in which the concluding lesson will be about this runaway signifiers, not this that, not that this, distributing around the stage: “It's not necessarily that way, it's above below, it's not that way, it's around here, it's not that technique, is actually over here, really not because of this, it's above here! ” (42).
But wherever it is or may well be, it, typically the indeterminate referent through the anarchy of the idea all, “a work of art, ” according to Ionesco—unembarrassed by simply the phrase, which they uses often, honorifically, with little slippage—“is not a disordered pair of associations. It's the arranged series of associations around a theme. Some sort of work of art is mostly a construction, ”11 although it may turn out to be pushed to the point regarding paroxysm, “where the source involving tragedy sits. ”12 The tragic, too, has become suspicious throughout our time, as essential disempowering, starting with the particular complaint by Brecht together with relocating by way regarding poststructuralism into feminism, the particular new historicism, queer theory, and the gendered, ethnicity, and ethnic politics associated with cultural studies. In any case, when Ionesco speaks of art like a good construction he won't imply by that precisely what, by way of Foucault and others, toy trucks come to think of as “social construction, ” as if the job were composed by the aggregation of discursive scenarios or even, in the nameless performance of language, as a new form of accretion of record.
The written text may end up being, as Barthes mentioned within “The Dying from the Publisher, ” a multiplex place of diverse articles, nothing of them original, but somewhat “a tissue connected with quotes drawn from often the lots of centres of culture” (Image 146); but whenever Ionesco speaks associated with his work he finds no doubt that he is—as very much as William Faulkner along with Yoknapatawpha County—the singular seller of the internet site of multiplicity; and when items need to turn out to be deciphered or disentangled by means of the audience that's mainly because “the shared relations involving discussion, parody, contestation” aimed, as Barthes says, around the reader or the market (148), has been developed and perpetrated by often the inventive powers of typically the artist, who may have through individuals powers often the capability for you to construct. This is therefore even when the construction resembles, because from typically the frenzied conclusion of The particular Bald Soprano or perhaps around the equally crazy design of chairs—when the Classic Female says, “I'm not really a appliance, you recognize. Who are all these types of men and women? ” (Chairs 137)—the deterritorialized or nomadic space of any Thousand Plateaus, developed by Deleuze and Guattari as the assemblage, a great “economy of violence” within which “speed is additional to shift, ”13 throughout what they call the war machine. Which may possibly, indeed, be a account of the increasing set ups of Ionesco's episode, a exacerbation of rivetage, ostensibly irrational and denuded regarding all sense, as the particular enmity of the personas emerges, almost like it ended up anatomical, through the banality involving its beginnings.