There was clearly a certain equivocation with the phase of this Absurd

จาก BIA

“I've invited a person :::. in order to explain to you, ” claims the Old Man throughout The Chairs, “that this individual”—that character of typically the self spawned simply by the Enlightenment—“and the person are one and the same. ” That established, he admits that a second later, “I am not necessarily myself. boy will be an additional. I am the particular one from the other” (145). About the do it yourself, for you to be sure, there seemed to be a certain forestalling with the stage of this Absurd, from Beckett's tramp requiring that the very little messenger through Godot not necessarily come down the road and state that he in no way saw him to the imbroglio about the doorbell inside The Bald Soprano. “Experience teaches us all, ” affirms Mrs. Cruz in a good fit involving anger, “that even when a person hears the doorbell diamond ring that is because there will be never ever anyone there” (23), as if there ended up not any one being there, zero person or even personal, little or nothing resembling some sort of home. Involving course, we don't own to trust her, no more than we believe Derrida or maybe Deleuze or perhaps the innovative orthodoxy regarding dispersed subjectivity, that this self is no more than the liability of identities elided into language. For in the utter untenability, untenable as utterance, the self is also liable to be taken on belief. “This morning hours when you viewed oneself in the mirror, you didn't see yourself, ” says Mrs. Martin to Mr. Martin, who can be undeterred by that. “That's due to the fact I wasn't presently there still, ” he affirms (36). Exactly how curious it is, how inquisitive the idea is, we somehow consider we exist.
As intended for the existence of a new “work of art” around our demystifying period, when fine art has not also been entirely divested of benefit, the idea continues to be relegated in order to the status regarding a further kind of “discourse, ” while (with the rule in jeopardy too) the particular beauty has been switched into an antiaesthetic. One particular might think that Ionesco was there in progress along with his notion of a good antiplay, getting to it has the metonymic limit, not really this specific, that, not really that, this specific, words falling, sliding, decaying with inexactitud, the unfilled play of the signifiers: epigrams, puns, platitudes, suppositions, breaks, pleonasms together with paradoxes, impure, proverbs, fable, the show of prosody, or inside a schwindel of junk and nonsensical iterations, a good eruption of mere vocables, plosives, fricatives, a cataclysm of glottals or, inside screaming choral climax on the Bald Soprano, with a staccato of cockatoos, “cascades of cacas” (40) careening over the stage. Or because the Professor demands coming from the College student in Often the Lesson, sounds expected fully with all the pressure of her lung area, such as that diva of efficiency art, Diamanda D?ner, not sparing the particular vocal cords, but producing a new digital weapon of them. Or the sounds warming within their sensation—“‘Butterfly, ’ ‘Eureka, ’ ‘Trafalgar, ’ ‘Papaya’”—above surrounding air flow, “so that they can easily fly without danger involving dropping on deaf ears, that are, ” as throughout the despegado reverberation regarding the bourgeois target audience (Brecht's culinary theater), “veritable voids, tombs of sonorities, ” to be awakened, whenever, by simply an accelerating merger of words, syllables, content, in “purely irrational montage of sound, ” an assault of sound, “denuded of all sense” (62–63).
Mania obsessive, cruel since he becomes, what this Lecturer is apparently defining, via the crescendo of intimidation, is not only the apotheosis of a good antiplay, yet a kind involving alternative theater or even a further form of skill. Certainly, he might be conveying, “from that dizzying and slippery perspective in which every the fact is lost, ” what Artaud tries to reimagine, in associated this Orphic strategies for the alchemical theater, its “complete, sonorous, streaming realization, ”6 simply because well as certain unique occasions of the sixties, turned on by simply Artaud's rudeness, its faith-based effort, which came, much like the go back of the repressed, in the exhilarating crest on the theater of the Ridiculous. So, in the time period of the Living Theatre and Dionysus in 69, or Orghast with Persepolis, we saw artists (the word “actor” shunted aside, tainted like “the author” by conventional drama) pitilessly expelling air from the voice, or caressingly in the singing cords, which, similar to Artaud's incantatory murmurs in the air or maybe, in the Balinese episode, the “flights of elytra, [the] rustling of branches, ”7 or, in the brutalizing fervor of the Professor's lyric picturing, “like harps or finds in the wind, will unexpectedly wring, agitate, vibrate, vibrate, vibrate or ovulate, or maybe fricate or jostle against 1 another, or sibilate, sibilate, positioning everything in movements, the uvula, the language, this palate, the teeth, ” and as an individual might still observe this today (back inside an acting class) using routines in the tradition coming from Grotowski to Suzuki (tempered by the Linklater method) often the polymorphous perversity of it all: “Finally the words come out of the nasal area, the oral cavity, the pores, drawing along with them all the internal organs we have called, torn upward by the particular moth, in a effective, majestic flight, … labials, dentals, palatals, and other folks, some caressing some poisonous and violent” (62–64). And a few, too, expressing “all typically the perverse possibilities of the particular mind, ” as Artaud says from the contagious coverage of the Plague8—the contamination there, if not the particular revelation, in Ionesco's Often the Chairs, with “a negative smell from … flat water” down below the screen and, with mosquitos coming in (113), the unrelieved smell of the pathos connected with “all that's gone straight down the drain” (116).