"The text must give proof of his desire the reader. The writing is the science of the pleasures of language: its kamasutra"
According to Roland Barthes's hedonism text must be claimed against the intelligentsia: "It's the old myth of the reactionary heart against the head, the feeling against the reasoning." The task of the artist, Debussy said, is to try humbly to please, as Oscar Wilde says, "the artist who creates beautiful things."
The text must then seduce the reader. You configure the preference here, by Barthes, the Dionysian nietzscheiano than reason. Nietzsche attributed to Euripides in fact guilty of having eliminated the tragedy, and then art, the Dionysian element in favor of moral values \u200b\u200band intellectualising; criticized Socrates and his mad presumption to dominate their lives by reason, because "the rationality at any cost is a disease. "
Dionysus was the god of the exaltation of the vital values, irrationality, passion, and then of artistic creativity.
Barthes distinguishes between two types of pleasure of the text: the pleasure (what, coming from the culture, satisfaction and fulfillment) and enjoyment, which could be regarded as the appeal to a higher grade, emotional pathos led to its excess. The enjoyment entail major changes, a lack, a sadness, because in it the subject (reader-scittore) loses the consistency of his ego: "the spirit of the text is its willingness to enjoyment." In this design resembles that of the enjoyment of the Kantian sublime, catteristico of a beauty so intense and overwhelming, to cause together two contrasting feelings such as repulsion and attraction.
The enjoyment derived is an expression of his instincts, and has an anti-social nature.
The criticism focuses more on the texts of pleasure and never on those of enjoyment, because the pleasure is unutterable, the enjoyment is indescribable, the latter can not be judged as right or wrong, because it goes beyond the text itself. Send a text of pleasure is impossible, intractable and far removed from any criticism, so you can not argue about such a text but only in it. "The pleasure of the text can not be any argument. Not being able to say, the pleasure is in being put on a general explained the reasons, none of which can be definitive." It is therefore so seeker free and unpredictable, which is outside the control of its own creator. Hence the failure establish a science of pleasure as a critical principle.
language, since part of the doxa, human nature, would inevitably be contaminated by social life and for this topic.
Unlike the text (provided it is not a meta-language) is atopic, neutral, at least in its production, precisely because it is free from any political or moral standard and is a sort of super sociolinguistic, Barthes defines the perverse enjoyment of text is necessarily as perverse "enjoyment no one can bring in a mass culture." The subject of eroticism also see the destruction of culture and revels in his downfall.
However, it is decreed the foreclosure of the pleasure of the text, in favor of cultural conformity, or the rationalist critique of the signifier. But the pleasure of art, being free from any moral cultural, political or religious, must be justified before it, as it is pure, counts with the innocence of becoming, beyond good and evil. "Look at the good and righteous! Who they hate more? He who breaks their tables of values, he who violates that swoon, but this is the one who creates." (Nietzsche).
Just in the absence of extrinsic reference language text has its maximum Dionysian explosion of pleasure.
But the nihilism of the language in Barthes goes well beyond the extra-references: seeks the destruction of language and the syntactic structures of their fees ... "The writer is the one who plays with the body (language) parent, to glorify, embellish, or quartered, take it to the limit of what, the body can be recognized: there will come to enjoy the disfiguration of language and the public cry scandal. "
Devoid of any causality or purpose (even that of pleasure), which could be an obstacle to the affirmation of self, enjoyment becomes the textual evidence of the crisis and the death of the traditional language.
E 'to the point where it was born from the ashes of "a new state of matter philosopher's language," which is no longer a language, but the language: the language of the enjoyment that goes beyond the language of the text and the reader, when he takes pleasure is comparable to an anti-hero who creates a new sense of the literature.
According to Saussure, language is a sign consisting of the arbitrary correspondence between signifier and signified, and this may be true in the language as a social tool, but not in the text, which is atopic, and his enjoyment is not dependent on its meaning content (since it is pulverized with the collapse of certainties), but the sensuality of significance. For Barthes, the two terms are presented as synonyms: the enjoyment and meaning and the significance and enjoyment, which exceeds the value of meaning.
"The meaning is a stone in his mouth to the signifier" (Jacques Lacan)
According to Barthes the most perverse of the readings is tragic: "I feel pleasure to be told a story that you already know the end," because the real enjoyment in the tragedy lies not in the ephemeral epistemic satisfaction, but in the emotion of reliving the dissolution of history.
"Alas, there will come a time when most men do not hurl the dart of his desire beyond human
and the string of his bow will have unlearned to vibrate"
Nietzsche
0 comments:
Post a Comment