There was clearly a certain equivocation on the phase of this Absurd
“I've invited anyone :. in order to explain to you, ” tells the Old Man inside The Chair, “that often the individual”—that character of the particular self spawned simply by typically the Enlightenment—“and the man or woman can be one and the exact same. ” That established, he admits that a time later, “I am definitely not myself. I will be another. I am the particular one in the other” (145). About the self, to be sure, there was initially a certain equivocation upon the stage of typically the Eccentric, from Beckett's tramp requiring that the minor messenger by Godot certainly not come tomorrow and claim that he by no means saw him to the quarrel about the doorbell throughout The Bald Soprano. “Experience teaches people, ” says Mrs. Jackson in a good fit regarding anger, “that even when one hears the doorbell ring the idea is because there will be in no way anyone there” (23), like there have been virtually no one to get there, not any person as well as particular person, nothing resembling some sort of self applied. Of course, we don't include to feel her, no more than we trust Derrida or Deleuze or perhaps the fresh orthodoxy associated with dispersed subjectivity, that typically the self is no more than liability of identities elided into language. For inside the utter untenability, untenable while utterance, the self is likewise liable to be consumed on faith. “This morning hours when you considered oneself in the mirror, you didn't see yourself, ” says Mrs. Martin to help Mister. Martin, who will be undeterred by that. “ box 's mainly because I wasn't now there still, ” he tells (36). The way curious that is, how wondering that is, we somehow consider we exist.
As intended for the existence of some sort of “work of art” inside our demystifying period, if artwork has not been recently entirely divested of privilege, it have been relegated to be able to the status of another kind of “discourse, ” while (with the several in jeopardy too) the aesthetic has been flipped into an antiaesthetic. One might think that Ionesco was there in advance regarding his notion of an antiplay, having to its metonymic limitation, not this, that, not necessarily that, this, words dropping, sliding, decaying with imprecision, the bare play from the signifiers: epigrams, puns, platitudes, suppositions, rebates, pleonasms plus paradoxes, low, proverbs, fables, the show of prosody, or around a schwindel of nonsense and nonsensical iterations, a eruption of mere vocable, plosives, fricatives, a cataclysm of glottals or, within the screaming choral climax in the Bald Soprano, with the staccato of cockatoos, “cascades of cacas” (40) careening over the stage. Or as the Professor demands via the College student in This Lesson, sounds estimated fully with all the push associated with her lung area, like that diva of overall performance art, Diamanda Galas, definitely not sparing often the vocal wires, but producing a exclusive weapon of those. Or the sounds warming inside their sensation—“‘Butterfly, ’ ‘Eureka, ’ ‘Trafalgar, ’ ‘Papaya’”—above surrounding weather, “so that they can certainly journey without danger regarding decreasing on deaf the ears, that are, ” as within the despegado vibration associated with the bourgeois audience (Brecht's culinary theater), “veritable voids, tombs of sonorities, ” to be awakened, if, simply by an accelerating combination of words, syllables, content, in “purely irrational assemblages of sound, ” a assault of sound, “denuded of all sense” (62–63).
Mania obsessive, cruel like he / she becomes, what often the Teacher is apparently defining, via the crescendo involving intimidation, is not only this hero worship of a antiplay, yet a kind involving alternative theater or one other form of skill. Certainly, he might be talking about, “from that dizzying plus elusive perspective in which in turn every facts are lost, ” what Artaud tries to reimagine, in pertaining this Orphic tricks for the alchemical theater, its “complete, sonorous, streaming realization, ”6 such as well as certain fresh activities of the sixties, turned on by simply Artaud's cruelty, its faith-based gumption, which came, much like the come back of the repressed, with the exhilarating crest of the theater of the Silly. So, in the period of the Residing Show and Dionysus around 69, or Orghast with Persepolis, we saw entertainers (the word “actor” shunted aside, tainted like “the author” by conventional drama) pitilessly expelling air through the lungs, or caressingly within the oral cords, which, just like Artaud's incantatory murmurs in the air as well as, in the Balinese crisis, the “flights of elytra, [the] rustling of branches, ”7 or maybe, in the brutalizing inspiration from the Professor's lyric saying, “like harps or renders inside the wind, will suddenly tremble, agitate, vibrate, vibrate, vibrate or ovulate, or maybe fricate or jostle in opposition to each other, or sibilate, sibilate, putting everything in movements, often the uvula, the tongue, the palate, the pearly whites, ” and as you might still observe it today (back in a great acting class) together with routines in the tradition coming from Grotowski to Suzuki (tempered by the Linklater method) typically the polymorphous perversity regarding it all: “Finally often the words come out involving the nasal area, the mouth, the pores, sketching coupled with them all often the body organs we have named, torn upward by typically the moth, in a effective, majestic flight, … labials, dentals, palatals, and others, some caressing some poisonous and violent” (62–64). Plus some, too, expressing “all typically the perverse possibilities of the mind, ” as Artaud says on the contagious great time-saver of the Plague8—the contagion there, if not the particular revelation, in Ionesco's The particular Chairs, with “a poor smell from … immobile water” down below the screen and, with mosquitos being released (113), the unrelieved smell of the pathos connected with “all that's gone down the drain” (116).