There seemed to be a certain equivocation on the stage of this Absurd
“I've invited a person :::. in order to clarify to you, ” states the Old Man inside The Chair, “that the individual”—that character of often the self spawned simply by the particular Enlightenment—“and the man or woman are usually one and the very same. ” That established, he says a minute later, “I am not necessarily myself. We are one other. I am typically the one in the other” (145). About the self applied, to be able to be sure, there seemed to be a certain forestalling about the stage of this Eccentric, from Beckett's tramp requiring that the tiny messenger coming from Godot not really come future and claim that he never ever noticed him to the jostle about the doorbell throughout The Bald Soprano. “Experience teaches us, ” states Mrs. Smith in a new fit associated with anger, “that even when 1 hears the doorbell engagement ring the idea is because there is definitely never ever anyone there” (23), as though there were zero one to be there, virtually no person or person, zero resembling a new do it yourself. Associated with course, we don't possess to feel her, virtually no more than we trust Derrida or perhaps Deleuze or even the new orthodoxy of dispersed subjectivity, that often the self is no more than the liability of identities elided into language. For in its utter untenability, untenable because utterance, the self is usually liable to be obtained on beliefs. “This morning when you looked over yourself in the mirror, a person didn't see yourself, ” says Mrs. Martin in order to Mister. Martin, who is undeterred by that. “That's mainly because I wasn't presently there still, ” he tells (36). Precisely how curious that is, how inquiring this is, we somehow assume we exist.
As to get the presence of a “work of art” throughout our demystifying period, if art work has not recently been entirely divested of benefit, it has become relegated to be able to the status involving one more kind of “discourse, ” while (with the several in jeopardy too) this aesthetic has been switched into an antiaesthetic. 1 might think that Ionesco was there in move forward together with notion of the antiplay, using to the metonymic limit, not really this, that, not that, this particular, words moving, sliding, decaying with inexactitud, the vacant play of the signifiers: epigrams, puns, platitudes, suppositions, deductions, pleonasms and even paradoxes, impure, proverbs, fables, the show of prosody, or within a schwindel of nonsense and nonsensical iterations, an eruption of mere terme, plosives, fricatives, a cataclysm of glottals or, in the screaming choral climax in the Bald Soprano, with some sort of staccato of cockatoos, “cascades of cacas” (40) careening over the stage. Or even for the reason that Professor demands through the Scholar in The particular Lesson, sounds believed fully with all the power involving her voice, just like that gorgeous woman of performance art, Diamanda Bals, not really sparing typically the vocal wires, but making some sort of electronic weapon of which. Or this sounds warming into their sensation—“‘Butterfly, ’ ‘Eureka, ’ ‘Trafalgar, ’ ‘Papaya’”—above the surrounding air, “so that they can fly without danger connected with going down on deaf ears, that happen to be, ” as around the indiferente vibration of the bourgeois visitors (Brecht's culinary theater), “veritable voids, tombs of sonorities, ” to be awakened, if at all, by simply an accelerating merger of words, syllables, paragraphs, in “purely irrational montage of sound, ” a great assault of sound, “denuded of all sense” (62–63).
Manic obsessive, cruel while they becomes, what the particular Lecturer is apparently defining, through the crescendo involving violence, is not only the apotheosis of the antiplay, yet a kind associated with alternative theater or an additional form of art. Indeed, he might be describing, “from that dizzying and even slippery perspective in which will every facts are lost, ” what Artaud tries to reimagine, in relating often the Orphic insider secrets to the alchemical movie theater, its “complete, sonorous, streaming realization, ”6 just as well as certain fresh events of the 60s, turned on by way of Artaud's cruelty, its faith-based effort, which came, such as gain of the repressed, from the exhilarating crest from the theater of the Silly. Hence, in the interval of the Living Cinema and Dionysus within 69, or Orghast in Persepolis, we saw entertainers (the word “actor” shunted out, tainted like “the author” by conventional drama) pitilessly expelling air in the voice, or caressingly on the oral cords, which, like Artaud's incantatory murmurs in the air or maybe, in the Balinese drama, the “flights of elytra, [the] rustling of branches, ”7 or maybe, in the brutalizing ecstasy from the Professor's lyric saying, “like harps or foliage from the wind, will instantly move, agitate, vibrate, vibrate, vibrate or ovulate, or fricate or jostle against 1 another, or sibilate, sibilate, setting everything in movement, often the uvula, the tongue, often the palate, the pearly whites, ” and as a person might still see this today (back in a acting class) using workout routines in the tradition through Grotowski to Suzuki (tempered by the Linklater method) this polymorphous perversity of it all: “Finally typically the words come out of the nostril, the lips, the pores, attracting down with them all typically the organs we have named, torn up by the particular moth, in a strong, majestic flight, … labials, dentals, palatals, and others, some caressing some bit ter and violent” (62–64). And many, too, expressing “all typically the perverse possibilities of typically the mind, ” as Artaud says with the contagious great time-saver of the Plague8—the contagion there, if not typically the revelation, in Ionesco's This Chairs, with “a terrible smell from … stagnant water” listed below the windowpane and, with mosquitos being released (113), the unrelieved smell of the pathos of “all that's gone down the drain” (116).