Saturday, January 30, 2010

Antonin Artaud - from No More Masterpieces

"One of the reasons for the asphyxiating atmosphere in which we live without possible escape or remedy, and in which we all share, even the most revolutionary among us, is our respect for what has been written, formulated, or painted, what has been given form, as if all expression were not at last exhausted, were not at a point where things must break apart if they are to start anew and begin fresh."

[...]

"Masterpieces of the past are good for the past: they are not good for us. We have the right to say what has been said and even what has not been said in a way that belongs to us, a way that is immediate and direct, corresponding to present modes of feeling, and understandable to everyone."

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Labels We Use

Recently, some people instigated a conversation about what our three years here have been like. Obviously, these moments of retrospection are not entirely without bias. A lot of your memories become part of one big nostalgic blur, indistinguishable, mitigating those rough edges, the moments of dullness and stupidity. This is what one generally finds is the case. Immured in a last-minute box of mementoes, write-ups and paraphernalia, we forget to cast that last, crucial circumspect look at all that has been terrible, incongruous and plain insufferable. This is not to say of course that this is what we should carry with us when we leave. That would be self-defeating. Instead, this is what really constitutes the better part of our judgment – our ability to recollect, meticulously, those things that have not gone too well. The conversation that took place reminded me of one such excoriated detail of life. Not that it doesn’t happen all the time. In fact, it’s something that happens on a daily basis presumably, on a scale and magnitude truly inconceivable, but we don’t like to think about it. It’s safer relegated to the recesses of our under-graduate memories, never to be retrieved again. But I wouldn’t like to not put on record the seriously dangerous levels of extant labeling and libeling here. Some people, of course, have mastered the unenviable art more adeptly than others. From day one, it has been an interminable cycle of ‘So-and-so is a pseudo’, ‘So-and-so is a dope-head’ and ‘So-and-so is loose’ and ‘So-and-so is a snob’. Probably the most condemnable (and commonly used) label is ‘So-and-so is shady’. First of all, it’s an absolute mess. Various labels apply to individuals simultaneously and in some (more repugnant) cases, all of them are the collective brain-children of individual label-manufacturers, dolts propagating them at break-neck speed. It’s not something that one gradually gets acclimatized to. The first day itself is witness to an onslaught of labels mindlessly hurled in all directions by overzealous seniors who cannot contain the overwhelming impulse to regurgitate their personal opinion of others in college on unsuspecting first-years. After that, one can only imagine how the pace redoubles with time and ultimately reaches insurmountable heights. A friend, in that conversation, used the word ‘shady’ again. Perfect! This was probably my last opportunity to get it out in the open. The word is bandied about so often, I had to clarify what it means. Obviously, we seem to think that the word is legitimated by the fact that we use it. By this I mean that every person who uses it assumes that he or she authenticates it by simply labeling someone else with it. Ergo, using the word is giving yourself that harmfully erroneous and deceptive sense of authentication. The assumption is that the more someone uses it, the more he or she is distanced from that category and is therefore more acceptable. This self-congratulatory, self-validating gesture is near hypnotic. The more you run around like a headless chicken labeling others ‘shady’, the more you delude yourself into ratifying your own importance. Now, this friend who mentioned it is someone I like and enjoy being around, and her usage of the word probably has something to do with its doctrinaire, hypnotic proliferation – it’s used so often, you don’t even think twice about it - but what is particularly repugnant is the fact that some people use it to refer to others they don’t even know or have never even spoken to, as if they were a sanctioned authority to denigrate others arbitrarily based on nothing but an effulgent need to gratify a fledgling, pitiably crippled ego. It is strange, but it happens ever so often. The most contorted aspect of this is the fact that the ‘shady’ people have their own circle of friends, people who would not consider them ‘shady’, who, in turn, would refer to the original labelers as ‘shady’. Not in retaliation, as it were, but impulsively, of their own accord. So the acrimony is mutual. And doubly erroneous. Apparently, it’s not even relative anymore. Everyone is ‘shady’ regardless of the people to whom they are close, with whom they share their lives; people for whom, eventually, others unknown to them would fittingly deserve the label. Even the more garrulous people are ‘shady’ because, I am sure, there must be people out there who don’t know them and consequently think they are ‘weird’. The other label of course is ‘snob’. Let’s keep that aside, because it barely needs dissection. To put it simply, for the person who uses it, all those who do not know or make fatuous conversation with him or her are ‘snobs’. The underlying assumption is, only those who speak to you are people who are ‘nice’ and hence not ‘snobs’. The other remarkable, and slightly more hilarious, phenomenon is the ‘hot or not’ label. This, however, is not something I feel fit to comment on, because I think it abounds in the world outside, other than in the incestuous labeling-pogroms of college. But sometimes, and you know when it happens, people do it so blatantly, you’d think they were brought up on it. Besides the giggling that accompanies it, you also notice the way they look people over as they pass by or simply sit in the metro. There is something primarily wrong about it, and it is this (I don’t mean to be facetious): those who do this kind of thing really ought to take one good, long and lingering look at themselves first. If there’s any ounce of honesty in them, much diminished as it may be, they’ll probably realize how unconscionable their assuming the right to label others is. Now, one can say that all of this is exaggerated and generalized, but the fact of the matter is, we know generalized observations have greater credence in this area. Some might also say that there are certain common standards that apply to one and all, and that these may be used to label individuals in whatever way:To hell with these liars.

The Group Grimace Social Energy

Something has been growing heavy on my mind for a long time now. It started in the first year at university. Every subsequent year has incrementally added to the impression. Now, I am almost certain. Certain that this is probably true. And there is nothing I can invent to refute it. Of course the context is specific to college years, and below, in descending order of numbers and ascending strength. It’s been my experience that whenever someone, a new person, comes into contact with a certain group of people, the experience has a certain bitterness. Bitter is a very particular word, but for want of substitutes, it will do. I don’t know where this stems from, or if at all it’s something that comes from either one side or the other. There is something almost automatic about it – sui generis. The new person enters a group sitting around and talking at a table in the café, or a party, and intuitively tries to fall in with the conversation, or the atmosphere. He or she tries to say something prefatory. Something relating to the talk at the table. He or she sits down, speaks to others, or maybe not. But ultimately, a few people secede and make some clandestine remarks and gestures. A grimace sometimes, sometimes a look of annoyance, frowning eyebrows et al. The littlest unfamiliar gesture, the littlest idiosyncrasy enervates those two. They feel beleaguered by this addition to their sitting party. It’s an added egg in an overladen nest, and they skip off to bitch on a separate bough. I’ve felt the same about certain people. Unconsciously even. A girl particularly with her gesticulation and twanging tone never fails to make me grimace. Outside the café. A word or two snidely to our common friend, and I’m off. It’s enervating, no doubt. But why the restlessness? Why the unspoken acrimony? And more often than not, it doesn’t even need a good enough reason (which is not to say, of course, that my disliking this girl for her twanging South Delhi tone is reasonable). Some people, particularly girls, most from the second year (I presume), have this deliberate, and tedious, look on their faces when someone else traipses along to sit next to them at the dhaba tree. It’s fallacious. Worse off, I’ve begun to do the same thing when unwarranted, people come to park their seats at the same spot. We’re getting worse than the territorial pye dogs on campus. Who knows? – tomorrow, we could barking viciously at each other, too. I thought that maturity would inevitably come to me in college. I would be spontaneous and my behaviour would be unhindered. But this is a den of intensified aberrations of insecurity, a den of mutual hostility, a forever pungent air – a tenuous thread that easily snaps – and snapping, scathing, razor-sharp, embittered scissors abound.

Idle conversation

Last night, a chat-conversation with someone unknown from my friends-list. I did not know the person, and am pretty sure I never added her in the first place. When I randomly add people, it’s because they’re either part of some group that I’m interested in, or because they look interesting. The last is pretty incriminating, but, hey, who would I be kidding? It’s unfortunate that one’s profile picture doesn’t essay a character exegesis of its subject, but I’m not responsible for this misfortune – the system deems it fitting. Initially, the chat tottered on the brink of being rude. I said, who are you? She said, I don’t know, you tell me. I said, well, you added me. She said, I never did. I said, then how the hell are you here? She said, I don’t know, you tell me. That’s it. Closed it. Got pinged again – she said, why would I add you? I said, no idea. Closed it again. That’s when I thought I would ‘revise’ my friends-list, but she intervened. She said, anyway, it doesn’t matter. The rest of the conversation followed. The central problem is, a networking site can do this to you. It makes you vulnerable to people you wouldn’t expect, people who can ask you incredibly irrelevant questions and leave you dangling. It comes attached with a rude, brusque, unpleasant arrogance, an arrogance that leads you to delude yourself into presuming that you know people whose profiles you have access to. There are times when some of your friends in real life get cocksure because they think they know you inside-out, they gloss over your feelings, but you deal with it anyway, because they do, in fact, know you, and you like them. Imagine how repugnant it is when some mere profile picture with name attached presumes to act the same way.