2 resultados para Samuel Beckett
em Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki
Resumo:
Dissertation considers the birth of modernist and avant-gardist authorship as a reaction against mass society and massculture. Radical avant-gardism is studied as figurative violence done against the human form. The main argument claims avant-gardist authorship to be an act of masculine autogenesis. This act demands human form to be worked to an elementary state of disarticulateness, then to be reformed to the model of the artist's own psychophysical and idiosyncratic vision and experience. This work is connected to concrete mass, mass of pigment, charcoal, film, or flesh. This mass of the figure is worked to create a likeness in the nervous system of the spectator. The act of violence against the human figure is intended to shock the spectator. This shock is also a state of emotional and perceptional massification. I use theatrical image as heuristic tool and performance analysis, connecting figure and spectator into a larger image, which is constituted by relationships of mimesis, where figure presents the likeness of the spectator and spectator the likeness of the figure. Likeness is considered as both gestural - social mimetic - and sensuous - kinesthetically mimetic. Through this kind of construction one can describe and contextualize the process of violent autogenesis using particular images as case studies. Avant-gardist author is the author of theatrical image, not particular figure, and through act of massification the nervous system of the spectator is also part of this image. This is the most radical form and ideology of avant-gardist and modernist authorship or imagerial will to power. I construct a model of gestural-mimic performer to explicate the nature of violence done for human form in specific works, in Mann's novella Death in Venice, in Schiele's and Artaud's selfportaits, in Francis Bacon's paintings, in Beckett's shortplat NOT I, in Orlan's chirurgical performance Operation Omnipresense, in Cindy Sherman's Film/Stills, in Diamanda Galás's recording Vena Cava and in Hitchcock's Psycho. Masspsychology constructed a phobic picture of human form's plasticity and capability to be constituted by influencies coming both inside and outside - childhood, atavistic organic memories, urban field of nervous impulses, unconsciousness, capitalist (image)market and democratic masspolitics. Violence is then antimimetic and antitheatrical, a paradoxical situation, considering that massmedias and massaudiences created an enormous fascination about possibilities of theatrical and hypnotic influence in artistic elites. The problem was how to use theatrical image without coming as author under influence. In this work one possible answer is provided: by destructing the gestural-mimetic performer, by eliminating representations of mimic body techniques from the performer of human (a painted figure, a photographed figure, a filmed figure or an acted figure, audiovisual or vocal) figure. This work I call the chirurgical operation, which also indicates co-option with medical portraitures or medico-cultural diagnoses of human form. Destruction of the autonomy of the performer was a parallel process to constructing the new mass media audience as passive, plastic, feminine. The process created an image of a new kind of autotelic masculine author-hero, freed from human form in its bourgeois, aristocratic, classical and popular versions.
Resumo:
The Lucianic text of the Septuagint of the Historical Books witnessed primarily by the manuscript group L (19, 82, 93, 108, and 127) consists of at least two strata: the recensional elements, which date back to about 300 C.E., and the substratum under these recensional elements, the proto-Lucianic text. Some distinctive readings in L seem to be supported by witnesses that antedate the supposed time of the recension. These witnesses include the biblical quotations of Josephus, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, and the Old Latin translation of the Septuagint. It has also been posited that some Lucianic readings might go back to Hebrew readings that are not found in the Masoretic text but appear in the Qumran biblical texts. This phenomenon constitutes the proto-Lucianic problem. In chapter 1 the proto-Lucianic problem and its research history are introduced. Josephus references to 1 Samuel are analyzed in chapter 2. His agreements with L are few and are mostly only apparent or, at best, coincidental. In chapters 3 6 the quotations by four early Church Fathers are analyzed. Hippolytus Septuagint text is extremely hard to establish since his quotations from 1 Samuel have only been preserved in Armenian and Georgian translations. Most of the suggested agreements between Hippolytus and L are only apparent or coincidental. Irenaeus is the most trustworthy textual witness of the four early Church Fathers. His quotations from 1 Samuel agree with L several times against codex Vaticanus (B) and all or most of the other witnesses in preserving the original text. Tertullian and Cyprian agree with L in attesting some Hebraizing approximations that do not seem to be of Hexaplaric origin. The question is more likely of early Hebraizing readings of the same tradition as the kaige recension. In chapter 7 it is noted that Origen, although a pre-Lucianic Father, does not qualify as a proto-Lucianic witness. General observations about the Old Latin witnesses as well as an analysis of the manuscript La115 are given in chapter 8. In chapter 9 the theory of the proto-Lucianic recension is discussed. In order to demonstrate the existence of the proto-Lucianic recension one should find instances of indisputable agreement between the Qumran biblical manuscripts and L in readings that are secondary in Greek. No such case can be found in the Qumran material in 1 Samuel. In the text-historical conclusions (chapter 10) it is noted that of all the suggested proto-Lucianic agreements in 1 Samuel (about 75 plus 70 in La115) more than half are only apparent or, at best, coincidental. Of the indisputable agreements, however, 26 are agreements in the original reading. In about 20 instances the agreement is in a secondary reading. These agreements are early variants; mostly minor changes that happen all the time in the course of transmission. Four of the agreements, however, are in a pre-Hexaplaric Hebraizing approximation that has found its way independently into the pre-Lucianic witnesses and the Lucianic recension. The study aims at demonstrating the value of the Lucianic text as a textual witness: under the recensional layer(s) there is an ancient text that preserves very old, even original readings which have not been preserved in B and most of the other witnesses. The study also confirms the value of the early Church Fathers as textual witnesses.