Commentary

Commentary How does the idiom of the Absurd differ from traditional drama? M ARTIN ESSLIN: The salient difference between the idiom of the Absurd and traditional drama is that while traditional drama tried to give an objective representation of the external world, the Absurd endeavours to put onto the stage metaphors for states of mind. The traditional drama therefore tells a story; the Absurd develops a pattern of metaphors or images. ALEKSANDAR POPOVIC: The most characteristic aspect of the Theatre of the Absurd was its boldness in freeing the dramatist from his too great subservience to the then sudden development of science and knowledge. That is to say, traditional drama was (before the advent of the Theatre of the Absurd) concerned with the regurgita­ tion of knowledge in an artistic format. (As a result we were often served up with boring art and specious knowledge.) It even came to the point that traditional drama, according to its field of interest, was divided into certain branches of knowledge, e. g., psychological drama, historical drama, philosophical drama, political drama, and so on. In contrast to these and similar traditional forms of drama, the drama of the Absurd resisted this sudden pressure of knowledge. In fact it completely overreacted: it came to a complete negation of knowledge, even of any form of art. But that time when all movement seemed blurred has passed and the Theatre and Drama of the Absurd today is taking on its own logical shape and meaning. O f course, the drama of the Absurd adopted the oldest and only possible method of artistic creation, which leads by means of a long or short road from the unknown to the little known or the unknown. Accordingly, art cannot be concerned with the re-shaping and popularization of ready-made knowledge, but must blaze the trail for knowledge, must be “ the dream of knowledge” and the guiding star of freedom of the human spirit. ADAM T A R N : The idiom of the Theatre of the Absurd probes into 219 220 Comparative Drama the many layers of our day dreams, as does poetry at its best; con­ ventional drama, at its best, is concerned with painting. M ARTIN PORUBJAK: It all depends on what we understand by the term “traditional drama” and what we consider the most relevant aspect of “ absurd drama.” If we consider for example the destruction of communication (of human speech) as the most relevant aspect of the Absurd, then Gogol’s The Marriage will stand as an example of Absurd drama much the same as Ionesco’s The Bald Soprano is con­ sidered part of that genre. Similar analogies can be found elsewhere— in Grabbe, in Maeterlinck’s symbolism, in the Italian Grotesque Theatre at the beginning of this century, and in the tragic pieces of Andrejev and Blok. The formal devices which differentiate Absurd drama from tradi­ tional (e. g., destruction of dialogue, lack of motivation of the charac­ ters, the often “unreal,” non-human situations) — these are merely formal differences which however arise from contextual differences. So-called “ Absurd drama” springs from a different human condition, interprets a different kind of human experience than does traditional drama—-and that is why form in the drama of the Absurd differs primarily from that in traditional drama. “ Absurd drama” would have been unthinkable in the Golden Age of Athens or during the period of Louis X IV . (The Zeitgeist of their times was interpreted by Sophocles and Molière respectively.) Today our times are given arti­ stic form by Ionesco, Beckett, or Havel (in Czechoslovakia after last year’s August occupation, Havel’s works seemed even more realistic and actual). ANDRZEJ W IRTH : In Polish literature it differs less than in Western European literatures, because of the persistent orientation toward the grotesque in its eighteenth century (Potocki), romantic (Mickiewicz, Slowacki, Krasinski), and symbolistic (Wyspianski) applications. JOVAN H RISTIC: First of all, I’m afraid the term “ Theatre of the Absurd” does not adequately enough define the nature of those dramas which we usually associate with the term. Martin Esslin first came up with the term, but undoubtedly more out of need to create some sort of...