There is a certain equivocation with the phase of often the Absurd
“I've invited an individual :. in order to reveal to you, ” states the Old Man throughout The Recliners, “that typically the individual”—that character of often the self spawned by means of the particular Enlightenment—“and the man or woman can be one and the same. ” That established, he admits that a instant later, “I am not necessarily myself. Me one more. I am often the one inside the other” (145). About blood , to be able to be sure, there was a certain equivocation with the stage of often the Screaming, from Beckett's tramp requiring that the minor messenger from Godot certainly not come future and declare that he never ever found him to the close about the doorbell around The Bald Soprano. “Experience teaches people, ” claims Mrs. Johnson in some sort of fit connected with anger, “that even when one particular listens to the doorbell wedding ring that is because there will be certainly not anyone there” (23), like there had been not any one being there, simply no person as well as particular person, zero resembling a self applied. Connected with course, we don't have got to trust her, simply no more than we feel Derrida or Deleuze or maybe the fresh orthodoxy regarding dispersed subjectivity, that this self is no more than liability of identities elided into language. For in its utter untenability, untenable because utterance, the self can also be liable to be obtained on faith. “This morning hours when you looked at your self in the mirror, an individual didn't see yourself, ” says Mrs. Martin for you to Mr. Martin, who can be undeterred by that. “That's because I wasn't now there yet, ” he tells (36). Precisely how curious this is, how interested that is, we somehow believe we exist.
As regarding the lifetime of the “work of art” inside our demystifying period, when skill has not also been totally divested of advantage, this has been relegated to the status involving one other kind of “discourse, ” while (with the several in jeopardy too) the particular makeup has been converted into an antiaesthetic. One might think that Ionesco was there in advance with his notion of a great antiplay, getting to its metonymic limitation, definitely not this particular, that, not that, this specific, words falling, sliding, decaying with imprecision, the bare play of the signifiers: epigrams, puns, évidence, suppositions, rebates, pleonasms and even paradoxes, low, proverbs, fables, the show of prosody, or around a schwindel of rubbish and nonsensical iterations, a good eruption of mere terme, plosives, fricatives, a cataclysm of glottals or, inside the screaming choral climax from the Bald Soprano, with a good staccato of cockatoos, “cascades of cacas” (40) careening over the stage. Or because the Professor demands through the University student in Typically the Lesson, sounds believed loudly with all the drive of her lung area, such as that godess of efficiency art, Diamanda Bals, not sparing the vocal wires, but producing some sort of online weapon of these. Or this sounds warming inside their sensation—“‘Butterfly, ’ ‘Eureka, ’ ‘Trafalgar, ’ ‘Papaya’”—above the nearby surroundings, “so that they may travel without danger of decreasing on deaf hearing, which are, ” as throughout the insensible vibration connected with the bourgeois viewers (Brecht's culinary theater), “veritable voids, tombs of sonorities, ” to be awakened, if, by simply an accelerating merger of words, syllables, essay sentences, in “purely irrational montage of sound, ” a assault of sound, “denuded of all sense” (62–63).
Manic obsessive, cruel while he / she becomes, what the Professor is apparently defining, through the crescendo regarding intimidation, is not only this apotheosis of a antiplay, nevertheless a kind involving alternative theater or maybe a further form of art work. Without a doubt, he might be explaining, “from that dizzying in addition to slippery perspective in which in turn every the fact is lost, ” what Artaud tries to reimagine, in related this Orphic insider secrets on the alchemical show, its “complete, sonorous, streaming realization, ”6 such as well as certain experimental situations of the sixties, turned on by Artaud's cruelty, its faith-based motivation, which came, such as the give back of the repressed, at the exhilarating crest with the theater of the Ridiculous. Therefore, in the period of time of the Living Show and Dionysus inside 69, or Orghast from Persepolis, we saw performers (the word “actor” shunted apart, tainted like “the author” by conventional drama) pitilessly expelling air through the bronchi, or caressingly in the oral cords, which, similar to Artaud's incantatory murmurs in the air or even, in the Balinese episode, the “flights of elytra, [the] rustling of branches, ”7 or, in the brutalizing fervor on the Professor's lyric guessing, “like harps or leaves from the wind, will all of a sudden move, agitate, vibrate, vibrate, vibrate or ovulate, or fricate or jostle towards the other, or sibilate, sibilate, putting everything in motion, the particular uvula, the tongue, often the palate, the teeth, ” and as an individual might still discover that today (back inside a acting class) along with workouts in the tradition coming from Grotowski to Suzuki (tempered by the Linklater method) often the polymorphous perversity involving it all: “Finally often the words come out involving the nose area, the jaws, the pores, sketching together with them all often the areas we have referred to as, torn upward by typically the moth, in a powerful, majestic flight, … labials, dentals, palatals, and other folks, some caressing some sour and violent” (62–64). And many, too, expressing “all typically the perverse possibilities of often the mind, ” as Artaud says with the contagious great time-saver of the Plague8—the prophylaxie there, if not this revelation, in Ionesco's The Chairs, with “a poor smell from … still water” down below the screen and, with mosquitos to arrive (113), the unrelieved smell of the pathos connected with “all that's gone along the drain” (116).