Typically the indeterminate referent through often the disturbance of it just about all

Материал из WikiSyktSU
Перейти к: навигация, поиск

Whatever's gone down the drain, including the thirty-nine additional pupils who gave personal, “Aaah! ” for you to the sound out connected with knife, “my forearms, our breast, my rear :. knife” (Bald Soprano, 74), the Professor furthermore would seem to be looking forward to particular psychophysical effects of expressive behavior that will, by approach of punk, funk, plus heavy metal, are presently prevalent on MTV, even though on typically the assumptive stage he is outdoing Roland Barthes with “the feed of the words, ” through which, when thoughts actually speak—that materialization involving words by way connected with the body, its fleshiness or even tactility—what heard is definitely “the tongue, often the glottis, the teeth, the mucous membranes, the nose, ” whose meaning is the seduction from which “signifiance blows up, ” erotically whole lot more and besides words, bringing into functionality “not this soul but jouissance. ”9 It's feasible, way too, to be able to see the Professor's oral lesson not only by the twisted possibilities of his brain, nevertheless within the terms utilised by Foucault writing of Deleuze, their theater of phantasms, which functions on the bounds connected with bodies, but towards physiques, also, sticking to these individuals, although sticking it for them as well, cutting these individuals available and multiplying their particular surface types, as a internet site of metaphysics for the disillusioning of phantasms; around short, a space connected with notion “never hallowed by means of a thought, ” some sort of “theatrum philosophicum” as a “epidermic have fun with of perversity. ”10 As long as the metaphysics is usually vocalized in the “phantasmaphysics” of sensations at often the skin (“Theatrum” 172), beneath the eyelids, up typically the nostrils, or in typically the dirt below the fingernails, precisely what it is not, since Barthes writes about the particular membranous voice, is many fetishism of breathing, exactly where from the affect(ation) of yoga just about all techniques begin, providing in performance, as from a privately magical middle, some serious psychological truth or imitation of this soul.
Metaphysics, while Artaud suggests (and Deleuze can be indebted to him), may possibly with the sonorous streaming come in through this pores, although only whilst escaping, inside vibrations, frications, ovulations, sibilations, the repressive simulation or maybe “tyranny involving meaning” (Barthes 185). Because for the tyranny inside the Lessons, true, the libidinous soundings of the linguistic theory there—that “all this words of the dialects ;-( are always this same” (65)—takes a hallucinatory program to the deathly pedagogy of the knife, which often, the Pupil feels this, voluptuously, in every portion of her physique, is something else again compared to Artaud's cruelty or Barthes's conception of voice, as their truth is to be hallucinated (“Grain” 184). Which usually is not necessarily precisely the express of mind of typically the Smiths together with Martins, throughout the vociferous bear involving The Bald Soprano, their very own vain pursuit of interpretation, the location where the concluding lesson is definitely about the particular runaway signifiers, not this particular that, certainly not that this, growing above the stage: “It's not necessarily that way, it's over below, it's not of which way, it's above below, it's not that way, is actually over here, it can not because of this, it's above here! ” (42).
But wherever it can be or may well be, the idea, this indeterminate referent through the disturbance of it all, “a work of art, ” according to Ionesco—unembarrassed by means of the phrase, which he or she uses frequently, honorifically, with little slippage—“is not a disordered list of associations. It's a set up series of associations around a motif. The work of art will be mostly a construction, ”11 nevertheless it may get pushed to the position associated with paroxysm, “where often the source involving tragedy is. ”12 This tragic, as well, has become dubious inside our time, as essential disempowering, starting with typically the complaint by Brecht plus relocating by way regarding poststructuralism into feminism, the particular new historicism, queer theory, and the gendered, peculiar, together with ethnic politics of ethnical studies. In any case, when Ionesco speaks of art since the construction he will not mean by that precisely what, via Foucault and others, toy trucks come to think of as “social construction, ” as if the task were composed by the linking of discursive instances or even, in the confidential functionality of language, as a good sort of accretion of record.
The text may end up being, as Barthes claimed around “The Demise from the Writer, ” a multiplex living space of diverse writings, zero of them original, but instead “a tissue connected with quotes drawn from typically the lots of centers of culture” (Image 146); but any time Ionesco speaks regarding his or her work he leaves not any doubt that he is—as substantially as William Faulkner together with Yoknapatawpha County—the sole manager of the web page of multiplicity; and if items need to end up being deciphered or disentangled by simply the target audience that's since “the communal relations connected with talk, parody, contestation” aimed, as Barthes says, throughout the reader or perhaps the viewers (148), has been conceptualized and perpetrated by the particular innovative powers of often the artist, who has through individuals powers often the ability to help construct. This is consequently even when the construction resembles, as on the frenzied finish of Typically the Bald Soprano or perhaps around the equally unhappy agreement of chairs—when the Ancient Female says, “I'm definitely not a machine, you understand. Who are all these types of folks? ” (Chairs 137)—the deterritorialized or nomadic place of any Thousand Plateaus, conceived by Deleuze and Guattari like a assemblage, a great “economy of violence” throughout which “speed is extra to displacement, ”13 around what they call the particular war machine. Which may possibly, certainly, be a description of the augmenting buildings of Ionesco's crisis, the exacerbation of rivetage, seemingly irrational and denuded regarding all sense, as the particular enmity of the characters emerges, just as if it were genetic, through the banality connected with its begin nings.