There seemed to be a certain equivocation on the level of the Absurd

“I've invited you ;-( in order to explain to you, ” affirms the Old Man in The Bar stools, “that typically the individual”—that character of often the self spawned by simply the Enlightenment—“and the man will be one and the very same. ” That established, he says a moment later, “I am not myself. I am a further. I am the particular one in the other” (145). About the do it yourself, in order to be sure, there was a certain equivocation on the stage of this Stupid, from Beckett's tramp suggesting that the minor messenger coming from Godot not come down the road and declare that he by no means saw him to the close about the doorbell within The Balding Soprano. “Experience teaches people, ” tells Mrs. Jackson in the fit connected with anger, “that even when one particular hears the doorbell band that is because there is definitely never ever anyone there” (23), as if there were zero one for being there, zero person as well as personal, nothing resembling a home. Of course, we don't have to trust her, zero more than we think Derrida or even Deleuze as well as the fresh orthodoxy connected with dispersed subjectivity, that this self is no more than liability of identities elided into language. For in the utter untenability, untenable while utterance, the self is also liable to be considered on beliefs. “This early morning when you looked at on your own in the mirror, an individual didn't see yourself, ” says Mrs. Martin in order to Mr. Martin, who can be undeterred by that. “That's due to the fact I wasn't right now there however, ” he claims (36). Exactly how curious that is, how inquiring the idea is, we somehow think we exist.
As intended for the presence of some sort of “work of art” within our demystifying period, if skill has not already been completely divested of benefit, that has become relegated to help the status associated with another kind of “discourse, ” while (with the several in jeopardy too) typically the aesthetic has been flipped into an antiaesthetic. 1 might think that Ionesco was there in move forward regarding his notion of a good antiplay, using to the metonymic hat, not this specific, that, not really that, this specific, words slipping, sliding, rotting with imprecision, the unfilled play on the signifiers: epigrams, puns, évidence, suppositions, rebates, pleonasms plus paradoxes, doggerel, proverbs, fables, the repertoire of prosody, or within a schwindel of nonsense and nonsensical iterations, an eruption of mere vocables, plosives, fricatives, a cataclysm of glottals or, inside the screaming choral climax with the Bald Soprano, with a new staccato of cockatoos, “cascades of cacas” (40) careening over the stage. Or as check from the Scholar in The particular Lesson, sounds expected fully with all the power regarding her bronchi, just like that gorgeous woman of overall performance art, Diamanda Repas, not necessarily sparing this vocal wires, but producing the exclusive weapon of which. Or the particular sounds warming in their sensation—“‘Butterfly, ’ ‘Eureka, ’ ‘Trafalgar, ’ ‘Papaya’”—above surrounding air flow, “so that they can easily travel without danger involving going down on deaf ear, which might be, ” as inside the imperceptible resonance associated with the bourgeois visitors (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 montage of sound, ” a great assault of sound, “denuded of all sense” (62–63).
Manic obsessive, cruel as he or she becomes, what this Lecturer seems to be defining, by way of the crescendo associated with violence, is not only often the hero worship of a good antiplay, nevertheless a kind involving alternative theater or even a further form of fine art. In fact, he might be conveying, “from that dizzying in addition to dicey perspective in which often every facts are lost, ” what Artaud tries for you to reimagine, in relevant typically the Orphic mysteries towards the alchemical theater, its “complete, sonorous, streaming realization, ”6 such as well as certain trial and error occasions of the 60s, turned on by simply Artaud's rudeness, its faith-based motivation, which came, just like the give back of the repressed, with the exhilarating crest in the theater of the Outrageous. So, in the period of time of the Living Cinema and Dionysus inside 69, or Orghast with Persepolis, we saw artists (the word “actor” shunted aside, tainted like “the author” by conventional drama) pitilessly expelling air through the lung area, or caressingly over the singing cords, which, such as Artaud's incantatory murmurs up or even, in the Balinese episode, the “flights of elytra, [the] rustling of branches, ”7 or perhaps, in the brutalizing ecstasy in the Professor's lyric saying, “like harps or finds in the wind, will all of a sudden get rid of, agitate, vibrate, vibrate, vibrate or ovulate, or fricate or jostle towards each other, or sibilate, sibilate, setting everything in movement, this uvula, the tongue, typically the palate, the pearly whites, ” and as you might still discover that today (back in the acting class) having workouts in the tradition through Grotowski to Suzuki (tempered by the Linklater method) the particular polymorphous perversity regarding it all: “Finally this words come out of the nose, the mouth area, the pores, attracting down with them all often the areas we have called, torn upwards by this moth, in a impressive, majestic flight, … labials, dentals, palatals, and some others, some caressing some unhealthy and violent” (62–64). And some, too, expressing “all the particular perverse possibilities of the particular mind, ” as Artaud says from the contagious coverage of the Plague8—the contagion there, if not the particular revelation, in Ionesco's Typically the Chairs, with “a negative smell from … at standstill water” down below the screen and, with mosquitos arriving (113), the unrelieved stench of the pathos involving “all that's gone down the drain” (116).