Monday, June 26, 2006

Foucault and Wilde

1 The Picture of Dorian Gray

Oscar Wilde wrote plays, short stories, essays, and one novel. Though his first play proved to be a disaster, he continued to write plays, and achieved success. His plays “Lady Windermere’s Fan”, “AWoman of No Importance”, “An Ideal Husband”, “The Importance of Being Earnest”, etc. have all the brilliance of the author’s wit, sarcastic treatment of the contemporary Victorian manners and prudery, and dry humor. Apparently his plays make a light playful reading.

The plays reveal the artificial lives that people belonging to the nobility and the higher class led. Each play has its scenes of the bright drawing rooms and the witty conversations that hide the real intentions of the characters. Someone enters their peaceful lives and brings the possibility of a revelation of a secret from the past, that may be some indiscretion done while young – love affair, some long lost child, etc. The crisis may involve an almost loss of position in the society if the secret is revealed, yet the resolution is glossed over as another normal incident in the lives of the characters. Upon being made public, besides providing solution to the original problem, usually a love affair, the secret helps in bringing the protagonists more closer. Eventually everything settles down to the advantage of the protagonists, and people resume their “normal” lives.

This is the basic structure that Wilde’s plays usually follow. Situations are funny, conversations between the protagonists are brilliant, entertaining, and epigrammatic. Another characteristic is the “goodness” of the central character. He is the wittiest as well as the most intelligent and resourceful person, who inspite of trying hard to be cynical and skeptical about everything in life – clothes, situations, relations, etc. is the one who helps in the crisis resolution.

In similar vein are the short stories, mostly fairy stories. However, the stories have more of poignancy than fun and laughter and humor of the plays. “The Happy Prince”, “The Selfish Giant”, “The Sphinx Without a Secret”, and even the “The Canterville Ghost” have a certain delicateness and sensitiveness of denouement. The sacrifice of the “Prince”, loneliness of the “Sphinx” as well as the “Giant” and, the unending torture of the “Ghost” have been brought out with compassion and finesse.

The one novel Wilde wrote, “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, is in stark contrast to Oscar Wilde’s other writings. It is perceptibly darker and gloomier than his plays and short stories. The novel elucidates the life of Dorian Gray, the development of his character from a naive and gullible youth to the calculating, insincere and pretentious man. It traces the unraveling of a complex character, both the vital “Picture” as well as the living person. It is also as much the story of the artist. The novel can be read at another level also, as the study of sexuality and the power relations.

The novel unfolds the transformation of an unaffected young man of “extraordinary personal beauty”, Dorian Gray. Lord Henry sees the picture Basil Hallward is painting and gets curious to know the real person. When he meets Dorian he compliments him on his beauty, charm and beauty. He is an influential personality who captures the imagination of Dorian as much as the latter has fascinated him. He explicates on the advantages of possessing youth and beauty. One should return to the Hellenic ideal and revel in pleasures, for their negation is what makes the life miserable. “The only way to get rid of temptation is to get rid of it”, is what he tells Dorian. Repression and suppression of desires creates sin, and it is in “the brain, and the brain only, that the great sins of the world take place”, as well as the “great events”. And since Dorian has the beauty and the youth he should enjoy life more fully, and seek to triumph, because youth and beauty are fleeting and once old age and wrinkles come he will have nothing to “triumph” over. These words of his act as a wake up call for Dorian. He suddenly becomes aware of the power of his beauty and youth. His wish for eternal youth is granted in the strangest of ways. Dorian’s painting that Basil has painted takes on the “soul” and Dorian becomes just the body. He doesn’t “feel” the emotions but lives the life of sensations making the most of the opportunity he had wished for and so amazingly granted to him. He remains youthful and handsome as ever, but the painting shows the signs of age as well as degradation and debauchery.

Sibyl is a young innocent girl who falls in love with the charming Dorian, who commits suicide after his bestial treatment of her when she fails to live up to his expectations in front of his friends. Therein starts the successive acts of savagery, licentiousness, and degradation. Apparently he is as charming and beautiful as he was years ago, but the painting, which he hides from everyone including Basil, shows the actual signs of his downfall. It becomes old, wrinkled, and bears every sign of Dorian’s profligacy.

Though stories abound as to his moral corruption, it becomes hard for the people to believe them because of his bewitching and charismatic face. However, except Lord Henry, those who become his friends leave him and avoid any further contact out of a mixture of fear and disgust. Dorian murders his friend Basil when in his horror and guilt at creating such a painting he urges the former to change. This crime acts as a catalyst in bringing Dorian to commit suicide. In a wrath, he stabs the painting for showing him who he really is. His body is found out next morning, old, wrinkled and bearing the signs of his sins, while the painting resumes its original form, that of a young, beautiful and charming young man.

2 History of Sexuality

Michel Foucault writes about knowledge, power and sexuality. Power comes not from above but from “below”, and from everywhere. The repression of talk about sex led to an increase of discourse about it, and perhaps initiation of “sexual heterogeneties”. It may be that the attention on sexuality in the 19th century was a means to ensure the proliferation of species, and increase labour capacity, i.e. to serve capitalistic interests. It also led to the legitimation of certain relationships – heterosexuality and marriage and to the exclusion and marginalization of others – homosexuality, infidelity, and suppression of sexuality in minors, mad people, as also criminals.

"He shows that what we think of as ”repression” of sexuality actually constituted sexuality as a core feature of our identities, and produced a proliferation of discourse on the subject."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

Important in this division is the form of power exercised. It operates not through the repression of sex, but through the production of discourse about sexuality. Knowledge is not object and cannot be separated from power. It is another way for classification, power brings marginalization, control and maintenance of “order”. A “normative” pattern of sexuality was established that the “deviant” behaviours could be eradicated from society. Power also contains the seeds of resistance in it. This is how Foucault elucidates the idea of power and inherent resistance in it,

"the desire of one’s own body... once power produces this effect, there inevitably emerge the responding claims and affirmations, those of one’s own body against power, of health against the economic system, of pleasure against the moral norms of sexuality, marriage, decency. Suddenly, what had made power strong becomes used to attack it. Power, after investing itself in the body, finds itself exposed to a counter-attack in that same body."
http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/bodypower.htm

"power is a technique or action which individuals can engage in. Power is not possessed; it is exercised. And where there is power, there is always also resistance."
http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-fou1.htm

Power in sexuality plays through four mechanisms, control over children’s sex, attribution of hysteria to women’s sex, exclusion of deviant behaviour and preference to heterosexual relations. Foucault argues for the kind of power the discourse on sexuality produces “on body and on sex”. This power acts through the multiplication of sexualities, that sex is there in the body and attracts “its varieties by means of spirals in which power and pleasure reinforced one other...pleasure and power do not cancel or turn back against one another; they seek out, overlap, and reinforce one another.” The discourses give rise to multiplicities of sexuality rather than repression and restrictions. And this is what happened in the nineteenth-century bourgeois society. Instead of repression of sexuality, it let to more talk and wider spread of power.

3 Foucault and Wilde
Foucault writes about knowledge being power. And that power is exercised, and that it comes from everywhere. Youth is juxtaposed with power in this novel by Wilde. Dorian Gray has the youth and the beauty. Lord Henry arouses his narcissistic desires with his talk of the charms of youth and the influence he can exert over people, and exhortations about “a new Hedonism”.

"The sense of his own beauty came to him like a revelation. He had never felt it before.

I am jealous of everything whose beauty does not die. I am jealous of the portrait you have painted of me. Every moment that passes takes something from me and gives something to it."

However, youth being fleeting, he would soon part with his good looks and would become a wrinkled old man. When Dorian’s wish for eternal youth is miraculously answered, he commences on his mission of triumphing over the world. He is flamboyant and rules everybody’s mind. With his charm and charisma accompanied by his fascinating personality, he always attracts people to himself. Basil is drawn to his innocence and symmetry. Lord Henry is captivated by his beauty and unaffectedness of the picture even before he has met him, and the meeting affects him more.

Lord Henry is able to exert influence on Dorian because he has knowledge that the young man lacks when they first meet. He has the “power” to mould his mind, and he takes pleasure in stirring his soul. He exercises the power that he has by virtue of his having knowledge. He has the desire to control Dorian, and to this end he directs his fascinating voice and all of his thoughts.

"Nothing can cure the soul but the senses, just as nothing can cure the senses but the soul...Be always searching for new sensations. Be afraid of nothing...Yes; he would try to be to Dorian Gray what, without knowing it, the lad was to the painter who had fashioned the wonderful portrait. He would seek to dominate him – had already, indeed, half done so. He would make that beautiful spirit his own. There was something fascinating in this son of Love and Death."

He himself acknowledges the fact that he has the capability to influence to Dorian

"I represent to you all the sins that you have never had the courage to commit."

Dorian Gray with his “chiseled” features and beauty has the power to dominate gathering he is in. He dominates Basil because of his physical appearance. Lord Henry opens a completely new world to him.

"You filled me with a wild desire to know everything about life...I had a passion for sensations.

He saw that there was no mood of the mind that had not its counterpart in the sensuous life, and set himself to discover their true relations."

According to Foucault, sex lies in the body, and power and pleasure instead of remaining oppositions form spirals that reinforce each other through reinforcement. Dorian Gray seeks sensuous pleasure. He has come to love beauty first in himself through the painting which has “taught him to love his own beauty”. Now he seeks beauty, experience and pleasures outside. He has an obsessive and insatiable curiosity to seek every kind of experience. Pain as well as pleasure is there in every act, pleasure of experiencing an hitherto unknown experience, pain of being base and corrupt.

"Eternal youth, infinite passion, pleasures subtle and secret, wild joys and wilder sins – he was to have all these things. The portrait was to bear the burden of his shame...Like the gods of the Greeks, he would be strong, and fleet, and joyous."

He doesn’t live on in one experience, rather flits from one to another. In his own words,

"But he never fell into the error of arresting his intellectual development by any formal acceptance of creed or system, or for mistaking, for a house in which to live in, an inn that is but suitable for the sojourn of a night, or for a few hours of a night in
which there are no stars and the moon is in travail."

Another juxtaposition in the novel is that of youth with sexuality. Youth has vitality and vivacity to allure, and to keep the interest from flagging. Dorian has attained “eternal” youth by a quirk of fate. He uses that youth, and the amazing fact that he can hide his real face from the world, to gain all kinds of experiences. He becomes debauch. And the expression of this sexuality is an exercise of Foucauldian power. No one can resist his harm, they fight against even their own better senses to associate with him. However, they lose reputation, relations, friends, position in society, as well as self respect. Yet he still has the power to make them fear even his name. And this dominance as well power and far is due to his sensuousness.

Dorian has the ability to attract beauty, makes friends with women and men, but he has also the uncanny ability not to feel the emotions himself, the picture does that and bears the permanent marks of his cruel, evil, and criminal acts. This makes him callous and calculating, not caring for anyone except his own pleasures. He yearns for never ending youth that he may continue with his pleasures and conquests. The portrait is the representation of all what he would have lost if he had become old as “normal” people do.

"It held the secret of his life, and told his story. It had taught him to love his own beauty...The picture, changed or unchanged, would be to him the visible emblem of conscience...life, and his own infinite curiosity about life. .. What did it matter what
happened to the coloured image on the canvas? He would be safe. That was everything."

He does not conform, sexually or physically. Foucault argues that the repression of discourse about sexuality instead of silencing brings about a multiplicities of discourse. The nineteenth century is perceived to be prudish that put a muzzle on speaking about sex and sexuality. However, as seen through Wilde’s novel it is not so. Sexuality, sexual experiences and verbalization are there, of alternate sexualities as well, though not openly. Dorian indulges in all kinds of sexual relations, not necessarily in heterosexual, or even the more desirable marriage. He keeps experimenting as a result of his irrepressible curiosity. This is acceptable to some people like Lord Henry, who rather encourages him on in his endeavour to learn more as well as live more.

It is this tendency of deviation that is irksome to the people. People whisper about him, stories make round about his fallen ways and his ruthlessness, but he has the indescribable charm and a charming and disarming smile that makes it impossible for anyone to believe that he could do any wrong. When he feels guilt and remorse, besides being haunted by the murder he has committed, Dorian thinks of confessing his crimes. He has this weak moment when he wants to give up his way of life of being “different”, being pointed out as something of a phenomenon, being a “sinner” as society judges it. He thinks about confession as a way of embracing the “norms” of the society, and normalization. This is what Foucault describes when he talks about the four mechanisms through which power works through sexuality, conforming to the societal norm – preference for “procreative heterosexual” relationship, and the exclusion of deviant behaviour.

Dorian’s urge to confess, though short lived, and though it unknowingly becomes the cause of his suicide, is a manifestation of the chains that society binds people with. He has lived life on his own terms, has indulged in every kind of sexual relationship, yet when he feels hounded by his own crimes he tries to run towards conformity. He is a sort of social outcast who has no friends except Basil Hallward and Lord Henry, former he has already murdered in a fit of rage. Lord Henry is more of a mentor. Everyone else is either too afraid of him (former friends and partners in sin) or worship him (newer acquaintances). How aptly Lord Henry had said in the beginning that

"great events of the world take place in the brain. It is in the brain, and the brain only, that the great sins of the world take place also"

The development of Dorian Gray’s character, from the simple, carefree youngman, through being the one who can still feel remorse, guilt and sympathy when he is reminded that he behaved cruelly with the girl he was madly in love with, to the remorseless man who has no qualms in murdering his best friend, and one who blackmails another to remove every trace of his handiwork, and ultimately kills himself by “mistake” makes for an interesting study of sexuality, and power relations. Youth, sexuality and power are equated in Foucauldian terms, and all are embodied in the protagonist. Dorian Gray has youth which he uses to gain power and use that power to dominate in every gathering and relationship he is in. Sexuality is in the body. It cannot be separated from the person – Dorian Gray. Power is simply not repressive,
but creative as well because it increases discourse and desire as a result of trying to repress discourse on sexuality.

4 References
1. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Class handout.

2. Collected Works of Oscar Wilde, Wordsworth Editions Limited(1997)

3. Sim, Stuart and Borin Van Loon, Appignanesi, Richard ed. “Introducing Critical Theory”. Totem Books, USA, 2001. pp 91-99.

4. Gutting, Gary, ”Michel Foucault”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/foucault/

5. http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-fou1.htm

6. http://web.utk.edu/~misty/AndersonFouc.html

7. http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/bodypower.htm

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Shklovsky's take on Sylvia Plath's "Cut"

What a thrill —–
My thumb instead of an onion.

Sylvia Plath in the poem “Cut” illustrates an ordinary experience, of having one’s finger sliced while cutting vegetables, as something extraordinary. The physical wound, however painful, is exciting in the beginning but the blood flow brings on an illness that is mitigated only after taking medicine. Is Plath being sarcastic, or is she exhibiting a psychopathology? Is she authentic in this poem? After all it’s just a cut. Since the poet uses first person in the poem, it appears as if she is speaking from her own experience. Perhaps she describes the common in uncommon terms because of the pleasure she is feeling. Or is she putting a “hat” on the readers making them find some meaning in her meaningless poem?

Plato, Aristotle, Horace as well as Longinus all stressed different characteristics in a work of art, from function, structure, content, to intention. They did not question art. Shklovsky argues for innovation in art, in language as well as form, and seeks to bring poetry into the realm of science and emphasizes technique. He wants poetry to shock the readers into true perception. Plath has managed to do that. Her poem hardly fits in the conception of what a poem should be as envisioned by the former four.

The poetess draws from a mental picture of the incident that becomes palpable to the readers as a result of the imagery used to describe it. The sensation of getting one’s hand cut that gives a “thrill” in the beginning later on changes for the worse and a “pill” is taken to overcome the pain. The poem is rich in its use of imagery. The sight of finger top hanging loose is likened to “hinge”, “flap”, “hat”, and “wattle”. Flow of blood appears to be a “pilgrim”, “carpet” rolling forward, “soldiers” marching on. Even the act of taking medicine to suppress the pain becomes a “celebration”. Staining of the “gauze” in blood as well is shown by word pictures. The bandaged thumb becomes a ku klux klansman, a “babushka” clad woman and the scarf “darkens” because of the stain. Plath uses images of battle and death to make the readers see blood flowing from the Cut, and seems to do so in an alluring sort of a way as if she is fascinated by it, and wants us to be attracted too. The terse blank verse keeps the poem from becoming automatic. Usage of short words and breaking of sentences make the reading fast paced. A sense of hurry as well as urgency is conveyed by the use of such words as “rolls”, “run”, “confronts”, “jump”, etc. There is emphasis on the language used, words convey the felt pain as well as the seen blood.

Dead white.
Then that red plush...

The stain on your
Gauze Ku Klux Klan
Babushka...

Trepanned veteran,
Dirty girl,
Thumb stump.

According to Shklovsky, in his essay ‘Art as Technique’, when perception becomes routine it becomes automatic and over-automatization nulls life itself. He looked at art as a means of bringing sensations back to life. He also argued for the creation of a work of art “artistically” that its apprehension becomes difficult and its effect is lengthened. He talked about the technique of defamiliarization to promote ‘true perception’ of things and emotions as against ‘recognition’ promoted by arts. Defamiliarization is “the capacity of art to counter the deadening effect of habit and convention by investing the familiar with strangeness and thereby deautomatizing perception”. This is done by making the poetic speech rough and “tortuous”, which can be reflected either in the choice of style or words used.

Plath has used defamiliarization to make the readers jerk out of their automatic responses to a poem. Choice of an ordinary incident as the subject of the poem marks the beginning of this process. Treating of laceration of a thumb may be a subject of poetry in terms of what Shklovsky has propounded, Plato or Aristotle would have hardly thought this to be an apt subject for poetry, according to whom it should be either in the service of society or give pleasure by catharsis of like emotions. Horace and Longinus stress the place of sublime in and aesthetic experience of a poem while reading it. They emphasize effect of a poem. However the experience of cutting a finger and the pain arising out of it does not appear sublime or aesthetic. Does reading this poem give any pleasure? No. Does it help in purgation of painful feelings? Perhaps.

Further defamiliarization is achieved by the use of words like “hinge of a skin”, “axed your scalp”, “kamikaze”, “balled pulp” etc. that make the readers attend carefully to the poem. Why has Plath used these mechanical words, as well as words that conjure images of war, to describe the incident? Apparently she wants to see a serious look on the faces of those who read this poem, but it could may as well be that she is laughing at her readers, making them fall in her trap of taking it seriously. It does seem ridiculous to compare thumb to an onion and skin to flap and hat. Then the chopped off thumb becomes a pilgrim who looses his scalp to an Indian and blood is a marching company of soldiers. It then becomes “saboteur”, “kamikaze man”, “trepanned veteran” and “dirty girl”. These words and comparisons are so wildly out of context, of so fantastic proportions and something that one would not think of in the kitchen that though they do make defamiliarization possible, they also make one feel that Plath is so wrapped up in her phantasmagoria that she’s losing touch with reality. Perhaps the catch phrase is the first line of the poem “What a thrill—–”, as well as “A celebration this is”. The reader has fallen into the trap!

The critics from Plato to Shklovsky might all treat the poem differently. Plato makes the feeling artist important. He addresses authenticity in a work of art, otherwise artist not having experienced all that he writes about, would be a liar. Aristotle emphasized credulity, consistency, and emotional identification of the reader to the work of art. Horace and Longinus talk of moral, aesthetic experience and effect of and intention of the work. Shklovsky needs the artist to only express things in a way that arouses feelings in the audience, that his/her writing should defamiliarize the reader. Effect on the reader is important but he hardly addresses the issue of authenticity, and doesn’t say much about how genuine an artist’s feelings must be.

The poem appears credible and readers can relate to the pain of hurting one’s finger. But what if Plath did not cut herself, just wrote about it? Since the poem does arouse feelings of sympathy and does shock the readers into looking at a common experience differently, Shklovsky may still call reading it a moral and aesthetic experience. Plato and other critics would perhaps differ, and I would agree with them.

References

1. Plath, Sylvia. “Cut”. Electronic copy from question paper.
2. Shklovsky, Viktor. “Art as Technique” 1916. From course handout.
3. Plato. “Ion”. The Internet Classics Archive, 2000. MIT. January 2006
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/ion.html
4. Davis, Robert Con, and Finke, Laurie, eds. “Literary Criticism and Theory: The Greeks to the Present”. London: Longman, 1989. pp 60-83, 92-114.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Jean François Lyotard's "The Postmodern Condition"

While growing up Lyotard was unclear about what he wanted to pursue in his life. At different times he wanted to be a monk, a painter, an historian, etc. All these aspirations gave way to a career in philosophy, and until the Second World War he led a life of solitary introspection mulling over the philosophy of indifference. The Second World War disrupted his way of life and jolted him into thinking about the external social world in which he lived. During the war he worked for the Liberation of Paris and helped on the streets. Indifference of his pre-war life where he hardly thought about the lives of other people and if and how they influence his’ gave way to a life of participation and commitment. After the war ended he took up a job teaching philosophy in French occupied Algeria. After reading Marx and after studying the political situation there he thought that the time was ripe for a social revolution in Algeria. He became involved in their struggle for liberation, writing pamphlets and providing a theoretical base to the struggle in collaboration with other thinkers.

However, the social revolution that Lyotard had hoped for, as predicted by Marxism, failed to materialize. He closely studied the prevailing power struggles in Algeria, and came to the conclusion that it is not possible for a single all encomapssing theory like Marxism to explain social reality. Since social interactions consist of many voices any revolution results in newer power struggles, and consequent suppression of these voices instead of any class based action.

In his attempt to find a theory that would take into account the many different voices, and multiplicities of the social reality he started developing his theory of “Paganism”. The way people believe in many gods in pagan religions, Lyotard’s theory also accounted for the differences and diversity of opinions. Instead of striving to club these differences within a single system of thought (consequently doing injustice to the opposing opinions) they must be taken separately. Lyotard gave up using the term “Paganism”, and introduced “postmodernism” instead. In 1979 he published “The Postmodern Condition” where he develops his idea of postmodernism in terms of the effect of rapid scietific developments on knowledge and the problem of legitimation.

Since reality consists of multiple points of view i.e. multiple narratives, no one narrative can be said to capture reality in its totality (something that other meta-narratives like Marxism were said to do). Each point of view or narrative takes into account only some aspects of reality and misses other different aspects. These aspects of reality missed in one point of view but present in another constitute the “differend”. And missing that aspect is doing injustice to that particular point of view. Hence Lyotard’s belief in multiple points or view or multiple narratives and not in some universalising priviledged narrative, which is how Lyotard defines the term postmodernism, “incredulity towards metanarratives”.

Lyotard borrows the term “language games” from Wittgenstien to explain how each narrative must be judged by its own set of rules. In Wittgenstein’s model, different language games are said to be judged by their own unique rules and these rules are legitimised by an understanding between the players, any changes in the utterances leads to the consequent changes in the rules. Similarly, because there exist multiple narratives in the world, a single criteria cannot be made to judge them all. When different points of view are judged against a single criterion, those that differ are excluded. This introduces an element of “terror” i.e. sidelining or making redundant of anything that cannot be justified by the existing legitimizing narrative.

Science pretends to be objective, but is it? Pursuit of scientific knowledge is legitimized by society and it’s objectives i.e. the prevailing narrative in the society. The Enlightenment justification was that pursuit of science leads to finding the “ultimate truth”. The modern justification is provided by the idea of production or narrative of “performativity”. The more the production, the better the progress, the better the idea that produces this progress and hence more is the legitimation for the existence of science. Science (the ”narrative”) seeks legitimation from society’s/societal trends (the ”metanarratives”); but since any metanarrative limits the understanding of reality, using any legitimization criteria will limit what science can uncover, it excludes other potential developments. So science needs to be delegitimized that it may uncover more facets of the real world Reality is too complicated to be captured by any legitimzing criteria.

At any time knowledge determines what is relevant in the world, and thus control the world opinion. Rapid developments in science and technology after the Second World War led to the transformation of knowledge into “information”. This transformation has in turn made it controlled more and more by big corporations. So these corporations get the power to determine what is relevant and important. They impose their own will upon the people and thus control the world.

Like scientific knowledge and politics, if art has to be legitimized by the dominant narrative, it will get restricted to finding out only those ideas about reality as are thought important and relevant by that narrative. The legitimizing narrative that art must have meaning, limits all art to whatever that has meaning. It leaves out the Kantian sublime. Lyotard borrowing from Kant writes that for something to be aesthetically beautiful i.e. sublime, it has to transcend understanding. Hence, art can be sublime when it is beyond understanding. But if art is to be legitimized it must be understood, so sublime art is one that cannot be justified or understood. And such art which cannot be justified is “postmodern”. For Lyotard only postmodern art is valuable since it discovers a new aspect of reality which was hidden from the legitimizing narrative.

Postmodern art once understood becomes ordinary art. Hence, postmodern in art is not a particular period but has been ever present in its history. It is something that challenges the existing notions, whenever such a form emerges, it is postmodern. Whence the phrase, “What is modern is first postmodern”.

Some of the tendencies Lyotard speaks about art can be gleaned from Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot”. It is about two men waiting for someone. Though they know that that someone may not turn up, still they wait because they think their survival depends upon that person. The play opens on an evening with two tramps, Estragon and Vladimir, waiting in a deserted street for someone named “Godot”. They are involved in conversation that appears funny as well as disjointed at the same time. They are soon joined by two men Pozzo and Lucky passing by. The spectacle of their arrival startles Vladimir and Estragon, and they enter in conversation with Pozzo. They are amazed at the sight of Lucky being treated like an animal. He is on a leash, carries all the things needed by Pozzo on his journey and follows all the commands meekly and mutely. The converstation between Pozzo, Vladimir and Estragon is apparently strange. It seems to make no sense, jumping from one topic to other, funny at times, absurd at others. Upon being commanded to think aloud, Lucky delivers a speech that is the epitome of disjointed language that has been used throughout the play. Both Pozzo and Lucky leave after a short scuffle at this speech. Meanwhile Vladimir and Estragon receive a message to the effect that Godot will not be coming this evening but definitely the next one.

The second act also opens next evening at the same spot as in Act I. Estragon and Vladimir are still waiting for Godot. They again have the same kind of disjointed conversation as of the previous evening. Pozzo and Lucky again happen to pass by, but now Pozzo is blind and Lucky is dumb. Again after the latter have left, a message is received that Godot will not be coming this evening but the next.

Though the play manages to baffle understanding at times and appears difficult, it does keep the audience glued to it. It offers something that is not yet understood. It challenges the audience as to its meaning. It hardly fits into any existing narrative . The characters as well as their conversation appear “absurd” to the audience, but each character is very much sane and making sense to himself in the play. This represents Lyotard’s multiplicities of narratives. They are being reasonable, and maybe very intelligent according to the narrative to which they subscribe, but appear disjointed and perhaps crazy in the audience’s realm of justification. The play insinuates that reality is a construct, we can buy any narrative we want and live in a different reality – if we choose to believe the play, we can start believing godot and the characters’ world. It manages to show that reality is complex and totally out of comprehension. The play questions notions of god/meaning/existence/certainty etc. For example they believe in godot, and are sure of him; we believe in god (some people at least) and are sure of him, but we have only as much evidence as they have of godot. we believe in existence of several things (e.g. man landed on moon, that dinosaur fossils exist, that antarctica is cold) of which we have no evidence except other people talking about it – which is like people talking of godot – and yet we think didi and gogo are absurd and we are sensible. The characters are eternally hoping, waiting for Godot which gives them a motive to live until he comes. Lyotard wanted artistic experience to be sublime which can happen
if it manages to challenge, baffle and not to be justified by the existing narratives. This is what Samuel Beckett’s play manages to do. Like abstract art, it may not be interpreted into narrative of the audience except as ”experience”, when you ”interpret” abstract art you say, ”I have experienced it and find the experience good”, you can’t put music into words, or a picture into words, it’s like the sublime, you find it good, but can’t understand it (abstract is abstract because it defies interpretation).

Reality is too complex to be theorised to a conclusion. To the question “What is postmodernism?” asked by Bernard Blistene Lyotard’s reply was, “My work, in fact, is directed to finding out what that is, but I still don’t know. This is a discussion really, that’s only just beginning. It’s the way it was for the Age of Enlightenment: the discussion will be abandoned before it ever reaches a conclusion.”


References
1. Aylesworth, Gary, ”Postmodernism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.). April1, 2006.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2005/entries/postmodernism
2. Bernard Blistene. ”Les Immateriaux: A conversation with Jean-Francois Lyotard.” Henry Warwick’s website. 1985. Kether.com April 1, 2006
http://www.kether.com/words/lyotard/
3. Irvine, Martin. The Postmodern, Postmodernism, Postmodernity: Approaches to Po- Mo. 1998. April1, 2006.
http://georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/technoculture/pomo.html
4. Jean-Franois Lyotard. Wikipedia. April 2006. April 1, 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyotard
5. Lyotard, Jean-Francis, ”The Postmodern Condition, A Report on Knowledge”. Manchester University Press. 1984.
6. Postmodernism. Wikipedia. April 2006. April 1, 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
7. Postmodernity. Wikipedia. Feb 2006. April 1, 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernity
8. Woodward, Ashley. ”Jean-Francois Lyotard.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2006. April 1, 2006.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/Lyotard.htm