Матеріал з Wiki
Перейти до: навігація, пошук

Whatever's gone down typically the drain, including the thirty-nine additional pupils who presented their health, “Aaah! ” to the title of out of knife, “my biceps, my breast, my hips ;-( knife” (Bald Voz, 74), the Professor furthermore looks to be planning on particular psychophysical effects of noisy behavior that will, simply by approach of punk, funk, and even heavy metal, are presently commonplace on MTV, even though on often the assumptive level he seems to be outdoing Roland Barthes in “the hemp of the tone of voice, ” through which, when thoughts seriously speak—that materialization connected with words by way regarding the body, its fleshiness or perhaps tactility—what heard will be “the tongue, the glottis, the teeth, the mucous membranes, the nose, ” whose meaning is the seduction from which “signifiance blows up, ” erotically extra and apart from words, getting into effectiveness “not this soul although jouissance. ”9 It's achievable, very, for you to see the Professor's vocal lesson not only by means of the unhelpful ? awkward ? obstructive ? uncooperative alternatives involving his brain, but throughout the terms utilised by Foucault writing of Deleuze, their theater of phantasms, which will functions in the limits of bodies, but against bodies, too, sticking to them all, but sticking it directly to them as well, cutting these people open and multiplying his or her floors, as a web page of metaphysics for often the disillusioning of phantasms; inside short, a space involving idea “never hallowed simply by a thought, ” a good “theatrum philosophicum” as a “epidermic take up of perversity. ”10 So far as the metaphysics can be vocalized in the “phantasmaphysics” of sensations at the skin (“Theatrum” 172), under the eyelids, up the nostrils, or in the dirt below the fingernails, what exactly it is not, as Barthes writes about the particular membranous voice, is a few fetishism of breathing, just where inside the affect(ation) of relaxation just about all techniques begin, taking in performance, as by a secretly magical middle, some strong emotive real truth or facsimile of typically the soul.
Metaphysics, like Artaud suggests (and Deleuze is usually indebted to him), may well with the sonorous streaming come in through the pores, but only while escaping, inside vibrations, frications, ovulations, sibilations, the repressive simulation or perhaps “tyranny associated with meaning” (Barthes 185). Because for the tyranny within the Training, true, the libidinous soundings of the linguistic principle there—that “all typically the words of all different languages :::. are always the same” (65)—takes a hallucinatory course to the lethal pedagogy of the knife, which, although the Student feels the idea, voluptuously, in every portion of her system, is usually something else again when compared with Artaud's rudeness or Barthes's conception of voice, whoever truth is to get hallucinated (“Grain” 184). Which usually is not necessarily exactly the condition of mind of often the Smiths and even Martins, throughout the vociferous anger involving The Bald Soprano, their very own vain pursuit of symbolism, where concluding lesson can be about often the runaway signifiers, not this that, not really that this, distributing more than the stage: “It's definitely not that way, it's around right here, it's not the fact that way, it's over below, it's not that technique, it can over here, really not this way, it's around here! ” (42).
Yet wherever its or may possibly be, this, typically the indeterminate referent through the disturbance of the idea all, “a work of art, ” according to Ionesco—unembarrassed by the phrase, which he uses generally, honorifically, without much slippage—“is not a disordered group of associations. silent pauses 's a good arranged series of relationships around a theme. The work of art is definitely primarily a construction, ”11 nevertheless it may turn out to be pushed to the place associated with paroxysm, “where typically the source involving tragedy lies. ”12 The particular tragic, also, has become questionable inside our time, as noteworthy disempowering, starting with often the judge by Brecht plus moving by way involving poststructuralism into feminism, typically the new historicism, queer concept, and the gendered, racial, together with ethnic politics regarding ethnical studies. In any case, when Ionesco echoes of art while the construction he will not indicate by that precisely what, by means of Foucault and others, we've come to think associated with as “social construction, ” as if the work ended up composed by a good assimilation of discursive instances or perhaps, in the anonymous efficiency of language, as a good form of accretion of record.
The written text may be, as Barthes claimed inside “The Dying on the Author, ” a multiplex area of diverse writings, none of them of them original, but rather “a tissue connected with quotations drawn from the many centres of culture” (Image 146); but whenever Ionesco speaks involving his or her work he finds zero doubt that he is—as much as William Faulkner with Yoknapatawpha County—the single proprietor of the site of multiplicity; and in case items need to end up being deciphered or disentangled by the target audience that's for the reason that “the common relations regarding dialogue, parody, contestation” aimed, as Barthes says, inside the reader or the target audience (148), has been developed and perpetrated by the creative powers of the particular artist, that has through all those powers typically the potential to be able to construct. This is hence even when the construction resembles, like with often the frenzied finish of Often the Bald Soprano or maybe throughout the equally frenzied layout of chairs—when the Classic Women says, “I'm definitely not a equipment, you know. Who are all these folks? ” (Chairs 137)—the deterritorialized or nomadic place of an Thousand Plateaus, put together simply by Deleuze and Guattari because a great assemblage, the “economy of violence” in which “speed is included to shift, ”13 within what they call typically the war machine. Which might, certainly, be a description of the speeding up constructions of Ionesco's drama, an exacerbation of raccord, ostensibly irrational and denuded of all sense, as the particular enmity of the heroes emerges, like it were innate, from banality regarding its beginnings.