“I've invited anyone … in order to clarify to you, ” tells the Old Man around The Bar stools, “that the individual”—that character of this self spawned by the particular Enlightenment—“and the man can be one and the similar. ” That established, he admits that a time later, “I am not myself. tech
will be a further. I am often the one in the other” (145). About the do it yourself, to be sure, there was a certain forestalling on the stage of typically the Absurd, from Beckett's tramp suggesting that the very little messenger from Godot definitely not come down the road and say that he by no means found him to the imbroglio about the doorbell inside The Bald Soprano. “Experience teaches all of us, ” says Mrs. Cruz in a fit connected with anger, “that even when one hears the doorbell wedding ring the idea is because there is definitely in no way anyone there” (23), as if there ended up zero one for being there, zero person or individual, little or nothing resembling a new home. Connected with course, we don't own to trust her, zero more than we consider Derrida or perhaps Deleuze or perhaps the innovative orthodoxy of dispersed subjectivity, that typically the self is no more than liability of identities elided into language. For in the utter untenability, untenable since utterance, the self can also be liable to be considered on trust. “This morning hours when you looked at on your own in the mirror, a person didn't see yourself, ” says Mrs. Martin in order to Mister. Martin, who can be undeterred by that. “That's because I wasn't now there yet, ” he states (36). Precisely how curious the idea is, how inquiring the idea is, we somehow believe we exist.
As with regard to the presence of a “work of art” in our demystifying period, in the event that art has not been recently fully divested of opportunity, that is relegated for you to the status connected with one more kind of “discourse, ” while (with the rule in jeopardy too) the particular makeup has been changed into an antiaesthetic. One might think that Ionesco was there in improvement along with his notion of a good antiplay, having to it is metonymic limitation, certainly not this specific, that, not really that, that, words sliding, sliding, rotting with imprecision, the clear play of the signifiers: epigrams, puns, évidence, suppositions, deductions, pleonasms together with paradoxes, impure, proverbs, fable, the repertoire of prosody, or throughout a schwindel of rubbish and nonsensical iterations, a eruption of mere écrit, plosives, fricatives, a cataclysm of glottals or, in the screaming choral climax with the Bald Soprano, with some sort of staccato of cockatoos, “cascades of cacas” (40) careening over the stage. Or since the Professor demands coming from the Student in The particular Lesson, sounds expected loudly with all the push connected with her voice, just like that stella of efficiency art, Diamanda Galas, not really sparing typically the vocal wires, but making the electronic weapon ones. Or typically the sounds warming in their sensation—“‘Butterfly, ’ ‘Eureka, ’ ‘Trafalgar, ’ ‘Papaya’”—above the surrounding air flow, “so that they can easily take flight without danger of slipping on deaf hearing, that are, ” as inside the duro resonance involving the bourgeois viewers (Brecht's culinary theater), “veritable voids, tombs of sonorities, ” to be awakened, whenever, by an accelerating merger of words, syllables, essay sentences, in “purely irrational montage of sound, ” a great assault of sound, “denuded of all sense” (62–63).
Manic obsessive, cruel while this individual becomes, what this Professor appears to be defining, via the crescendo associated with violence, is not only the hero worship of a great antiplay, yet a kind connected with alternative theater or another form of fine art. In fact, he might be expounding on, “from that dizzying plus dicey perspective in which every the fact is lost, ” what Artaud tries to help reimagine, in pertaining the particular Orphic insider secrets to the alchemical cinema, its “complete, sonorous, streaming realization, ”6 as well as certain fresh functions of the 60s, turned on by simply Artaud's cruelty, its faith-based motivation, which came, such as the gain of the repressed, with the exhilarating crest from the theater of the Outrageous. Therefore, in the time of the Residing Theatre and Dionysus inside 69, or Orghast in Persepolis, we saw artists (the word “actor” shunted besides, tainted like “the author” by conventional drama) pitilessly expelling air from lung area, or caressingly over the oral cords, which, like Artaud's incantatory murmurs in the air or, in the Balinese dilemma, the “flights of elytra, [the] rustling of branches, ”7 or perhaps, in the brutalizing inspiration in the Professor's lyric visualizing, “like harps or results in in the wind, will suddenly wring, agitate, vibrate, vibrate, vibrate or ovulate, as well as fricate or jostle from one another, or sibilate, sibilate, setting everything in motion, this uvula, the language, often the palate, the tooth, ” and as anyone might still notice the idea today (back inside a acting class) along with exercises in the tradition from Grotowski to Suzuki (tempered by the Linklater method) the particular polymorphous perversity of it all: “Finally the words come out involving the nostril, the mouth, the pores, drawing coupled with them all typically the bodily organs we have named, torn right up by this moth, in a strong, majestic flight, … labials, dentals, palatals, and other individuals, some caressing some nasty and violent” (62–64). And several, too, expressing “all typically the perverse possibilities of typically the mind, ” as Artaud says in the contagious revelation of the Plague8—the contagion there, if not often the revelation, in Ionesco's The particular Chairs, with “a awful smell from … at standstill water” listed below the window and, with mosquitos coming in (113), the unrelieved smell of the pathos connected with “all that's gone down the drain” (116).