“I've invited an individual ;-( in order to explain to you, ” tells the Old Man throughout The Chairs, “that the individual”—that avatar of the particular self spawned simply by the particular Enlightenment—“and the man or woman can be one and the exact same. ” That established, he says a moment later, “I am not myself. Me a further. I am this one in the other” (145). About the home, in order to be sure, there seemed to be a certain forestalling in the stage of this Screaming, from Beckett's tramp suggesting that the small messenger from Godot not really come future and point out that he by no means noticed him to the close about the doorbell within The Bald Soprano. “Experience teaches people, ” tells Mrs. Johnson in a fit of anger, “that even when one particular hears the doorbell ring the idea is because there can be by no means anyone there” (23), like there were virtually no one for being there, no person or maybe specific, nothing at all resembling some sort of home. Connected with course, we don't possess to consider her, not any more than we trust Derrida or maybe Deleuze or even the fresh orthodoxy of dispersed subjectivity, that the self is no more than the liability of identities elided into language. For inside the utter untenability, untenable since utterance, the self is usually liable to be obtained on belief. “This day when you considered by yourself in the mirror, a person didn't see yourself, ” says Mrs. Martin in order to Mr. Martin, who is undeterred by that. “That's since I wasn't presently there nevertheless, ” he states (36). Exactly how curious it is, how curious the idea is, we somehow imagine we exist.
As with regard to the lifetime of a new “work of art” around our demystifying period, if art work has not been recently fully divested of advantage, it has been relegated to be able to the status involving a further kind of “discourse, ” while (with the cannon in jeopardy too) the aesthetic has been turned into an antiaesthetic. A single might think that Ionesco was there in boost together with notion of a antiplay, using to their metonymic hat, not this, that, not necessarily that, this particular, words sliding, sliding, decaying with imprecision, the clear play of the signifiers: epigrams, puns, évidence, suppositions, breaks, pleonasms plus paradoxes, doggerel, proverbs, fables, the show of prosody, or around a schwindel of absurdity and nonsensical iterations, a eruption of mere terme, plosives, fricatives, a cataclysm of glottals or, within the screaming choral climax of The Bald Soprano, with some sort of staccato of cockatoos, “cascades of cacas” (40) careening over the stage. Or maybe since the Professor demands through the Scholar in Often the Lesson, sounds forecasted loudly with all the push involving her voice, similar to that gorgeous woman of overall performance art, Diamanda Galas, not sparing the particular vocal wires, but doing a new digital weapon of these. Or the sounds warming inside their sensation—“‘Butterfly, ’ ‘Eureka, ’ ‘Trafalgar, ’ ‘Papaya’”—above surrounding air flow, “so that they can easily take flight without danger regarding decreasing on deaf ears, which might be, ” as inside the despegado vibration connected with the bourgeois target audience (Brecht's culinary theater), “veritable voids, tombs of sonorities, ” to be awakened, if, by an accelerating combination of words, syllables, sentences, in “purely irrational montage of sound, ” a assault of sound, “denuded of all sense” (62–63).
Manic obsessive, cruel as he or she becomes, what this Professor is apparently defining, by the crescendo of intimidation, is not only the particular apotheosis of a good antiplay, yet a kind of alternative theater or perhaps a further form of art work. Certainly, he might be explaining, “from that dizzying in addition to slippery perspective in which usually every facts are lost, ” what Artaud tries in order to reimagine, in pertaining typically the Orphic insider secrets into the alchemical theater, its “complete, sonorous, streaming realization, ”6 mainly because well as certain treatment plan situations of the 60s, turned on by Artaud's cruelty, its faith-based motivation, which came, such as gain of the repressed, from the exhilarating crest with the theater of the Absurd. As card , in the period of the Surviving Theater and Dionysus throughout 69, or Orghast at Persepolis, we saw artists (the word “actor” shunted apart, tainted like “the author” by conventional drama) pitilessly expelling air through the voice, or caressingly on the singing cords, which, like Artaud's incantatory murmurs up or even, in the Balinese drama, the “flights of elytra, [the] rustling of branches, ”7 or even, in the brutalizing inspiration from the Professor's lyric saying, “like harps or leaves in the wind, will unexpectedly get rid of, agitate, vibrate, vibrate, vibrate or ovulate, or maybe fricate or jostle versus one another, or sibilate, sibilate, placing everything in movements, the uvula, the tongue, this palate, the pearly whites, ” and as anyone might still see the idea today (back within an acting class) having exercises in the tradition from Grotowski to Suzuki (tempered by the Linklater method) often the polymorphous perversity regarding it all: “Finally typically the words come out associated with the nose, the lips, the pores, pulling down with them all often the organs we have named, torn upward by typically the moth, in a effective, majestic flight, … labials, dentals, palatals, and other individuals, some caressing some nasty and violent” (62–64). And many, too, expressing “all the particular perverse possibilities of typically the mind, ” as Artaud says in the contagious revelation of the Plague8—the contagion there, if not the particular revelation, in Ionesco's The Chairs, with “a negative smell from … stagnant water” listed below the windows and, with mosquitos coming in (113), the unrelieved stench of the pathos regarding “all that's gone lower the drain” (116).