Eug猫ne Ionesco, born Eugen Ionescu, was a Romanian playwright and dramatist; one of the foremost playwrights of the Theatre of the Absurd. Beyond ridiculing the most banal situations, Ionesco's plays depict in a tangible way the solitude and insignificance of human existence.
The first absurd drama I have read. It drew my attention to a debate between Ionesco and Kenneth Tynan (a social realist critic of the era), about the role of artwork. While Tynan favors art to be a way of bettering reality by explaining and criticizing it, Ionesco is rather trying to radically change it by emphasizing and searching for other planes of realities. Tynan thinks that this intention leads to the creation of characters that are like isolated robots. Isolated in the sense that they are blind to the social reality they inhabit. And robots in the sense that they are dehumanized characters, lack the very humane feature of being "parasitic" of life. For him, art must be parasitic of life. It should be realistic while interpreting and criticizing life. Any attempts of hiding behind the "subjectivity" or "personal affective testimony" is an exemption of the self from any kind of value-judgment. We should all be in some sense critics. Being receptive to the social surrounding and truthfully criticizing it is a must. Otherwise, subjective getaways put the artist in danger of being locked in a "hall of mirrors" and lead to solipsism. Thus, art and ideology must interact with each other because they both spring from a common source, which is the human experience. This way, the play-writers can explain mankind to itself. Ionesco approaches more radically, demands an overall change, which is also understandable. Maybe it is a debate of evolution vs. revolution? If so, Kenneth has the right to critisize Ionesco about being blind to the reality, just as Ionesco has the right to suggest that the ones like Kenneth are so burdened with overestimated problems. Overestimated in regards to the role of art. Ionesco argues that art simply interprets realities and communicates perspectives. Doing so, presents alternatives to the realities, which is in itself full of ideas even if not ideological. Kenneth, on the other hand, sees art as a way of directly critisizing the social problems to awaken the audience. For me, I feel closer to Tynan especially in regards to approaching art as a way of interpreting and critisizing existence with an aim of bettering it. Ofc w/ the acknowledgment that every art has its own version of the good and its own ways of struggling for it.