Who goes hunting chair Loses Sa

Categorize seems to be a necessity of human beings in its efforts to establish order, regardless of whether that order is based on natural or artificial phenomena such as literature, schools of thought, etc.. Nietzsche wondered why we say “a leaf” when referring to the leaves of trees as they are all different, obviously this is a problem of language. The most Courrant is given by the communities of Eskimos who have several words for “snow”, while other communities have one, that is to say “snow”.

The thoughts of Nietzsche must not only be analyzed through the issue of language but also from his hatred-although intellectually this term is not suitable too vis-à-vis the Kantian philosophy. It exists in the literature few names used to classify works and writers within the current literary-aesthetic as classicism, romanticism, neo-romanticism, realism, naturalism, modernism, surrealism, marvelous realism, etc..

However, there are works that are difficult to categorize, this difficulty is undoubtedly their wealth and unable to “tame”. The word tame contains an interesting concept that can be used to describe these messages or those works that refuse to be read one way in which the illegibility is a characteristic sought and whose reluctance to feel unique surprise many readers in some attractive and inevitably frustrates many others. An example of work “rebel” is Trilce, the collected poems of the avant-garde Cesar Vallejo. The richness of this type of work based on the fact that they can be read several ways, and they resist a single reading, why, beyond their high degree of illegibility they are highly “indomitable”.

Are there unique furniture and bizarre that it is almost impossible to categorize? (We say “almost impossible” because the human need to categorize everything that this furniture can be classified … “of unclassifiable”). When talking about furniture, what really matters are the opportunities for inclusion in a defined space and possible combinations with the rest of the furniture. This kind of furniture, undoubtedly capture the attention and furniture are as central part. This piece and decorate it should then adapt the protagonist of this furniture, and not vice versa.

The chair traforata can be described as the chair of a king. The associations are obvious and glaring, and the detailed work and meticulous wood us back to the antique furniture and baroque. Note also the figure of a lion’s head on the armrest and even the claws of the animal on the front feet. But it is the tapestry that makes all the difference: indeed, if we choose the traditional red carpet with golden upholstery nails and dark brown wood, it leads to a style already seen, already treated.

However, if the timber is black and the upholstery is neither conventional nor typical antique furniture gives a chair that can be called “hybrid”. In other words, a single chair opposite style kitsch (we mean by kitsch that does not cause a new emotion, which was converted into a model which the reader, viewer and finally recipient already possesses the tools to interpret and does not work décodificaction or imagination kitsch is that which does not cause anything that does not move).

Many works of art are intended to create an impact, and this chair is probably striking even monstrous. The average reader will interpret the monstrous as something negative, but remember that monstrous thing may be well qualified because of its size, its compounds and its confusing nature. What follows is monstrous precisely because it is unclassifiable; is what can not be equated and which is eventually built, ceases to be monstrous. Cesar Aira-brilliant literary critic, has described the prose of Argentine writer Robert Arlt of “monstrous” because of the lack of distance between the narrator and the reader. The monstrosity of the writer Juguete Rabioso (The Toy Enrage), Los Siete Locos (The Seven Fools) and Los Lanzallamas (The Flamethrower), among others, lies not only in the complexity of the narrator but also in his little literary vocabulary academic (as Beatriz Sarlo has called “knowledge poor”) and its characters (which Erdosain and Barsut embody the theme twice).

More importantly, the monstrosity in Arlt lies primarily in its hybrid (mixture between German Expressionism, existentialism North American and Italian Futurism) and in the total abscence of attachment to an ideology. The secret society in which the character is involved mixing speech fascists and communists, technological and spiritual, religious and atheists. This incorporation of conflicting discourses and ideologies seemingly contrary leads to a total incredulity towards any ideology, and ideology as a lie (the allusion to lie metaphysics is constant).

The monstrosity of writing Arlt led contemporary critics to despise the author and say that Roberto Arlt knew simply not write. His way of doing violence to the syntax to produce a distorted and aggressive writing has troubled many critics (it is necessary to mention that Los Siete Locos, written in 1929, anticipates the Argentine coup of 1930, which puts show the lucidity of Arlt and his ability to understand the society of his time and decode all the talk involved).

These and other reasons (such as the ability to interpret the work of Arlt different ways at different times and his indomitable character and unclassifiable) who led the Argentine literary criticism to the work place Arlt on top of that very famous of Jorge Luis Borges (this is completely different styles; Borges works on the edge while Arlt working on all-anxiety, imprisonment, madness, etc. .).