Marc Crespo Cuadrado
ALL GOOD ART IS SUBVERSIVE
Sarah Kane’s statement that “all good art is subversive, either in form or content. And
the best art is subversive in form and content” offers a filter through which we can study
Samuel Beckett’s work, Waiting for Godot. Beckett’s play was first staged in 1953, it
was one of the foundations of 20th-century theater, and it was famous and renowned for
its enigmatic and existential themes. We can see that analyzing its form, content, and its
historical context we can claim that Waiting for Godot is an embodiment of Kane’s
notion of the subversive in both form and content.
From the very beginning, Beckett’s work subverts the conventional dramatic structure,
it challenges the traditional roles of plot and character development by unfolding the
story in a way that no one had used. The story unfolds in two acts, each act is embedded
in a circular repetitive loop of dialogue, that works as a tramp for the audience. The first
tramp starts with Vladimir and Estragon, two men who await the arrival of the very
elusive figure of Godot. The dialogue between them is repetitive and defies the
audience's expectations. The traditional narrative arcs are disrupted by these circular
looped scenes that are cleverly employed by Beckett in order to represent the futile and
absurd existence of the human condition. The lack of resolution in both the dialogue and
the scene forces the viewer to confront the discomfort of the uncertainty and the unease
of a meaningless scene, disrupting their preconceived notions of storytelling.
Moreover, Beckett’s subversiveness as we already said is reflected in both content and
form. When we look into the form of the play, we see that the author’s manipulation of
language and dialogue emphasizes its disruption of the traditional theatric dialogues,
The characters of this play engage in segmented conversations filled with wordplay and
a lot of repetition. This manipulation of the language challenges the conventional
dialogue norms and highlights the breakdown of language as a tool for meaningful
expression. The iconic exchange between Vladimir and Estragon, “nothing to be done,”
highlights the linguistic ambiguity and invites the viewer to multiple interpretations of
the same message. Beckett forces the audience to break with the notion of language and
communication as always meaningful.
Beyond these formal forms of subversion, Beckett’s work confronts existentialist
themes that challenge society and its norms and values. The play’s context is set in the
post-war period after World War II, and this is seen in the play as Beckett clearly
portrays society’s disillusionment and existential anxiety of the era. The characters’
entrapment in these loopful dialogues refers to the uncertainty and meaningless feeling
of society after this global conflict. After all the sadness and disillusionment of war,
Beckett’s play portrays existential loss as a cyclic and meaningless dialogue between
two men that lacks resolution. In both acts, it is clear that the author paints a pessimist
filter through the scene, and it does so by exploring through these dialogues, themes of
identity, mortality, and the search for meaning. Referring to the pessimism inherent in
Beckett’s work I quote from Rónán McDonald’s article on Waiting for Godot:
“Beckett’s work is notorious for its intense preoccupation with pessimism and human
suffering... Two world wars, the horrors of Stalin, the Holocaust of Hitler, the disastrous
Marc Crespo Cuadrado
Great Leap of Mao, brutal colonial wars in Africa, and the protracted threat of atomic
annihilation during the Cold War surely creep into a receptive mind at some level.”
Furthermore, Waiting for Godot’s absurd elements subvert conventional notions of
theatrical realism, pushing boundaries and challenging the viewers’ perceptions. The
author’s rejection of traditional plot development and character psychology aligns with
the absurdity of the scenes that ultimately refer to the absurdity of human existence. By
establishing the scenes on mundane and usual activities as waiting for someone as the
central focus of the play, Beckett exposes the absurdity inherent in everyday life,
forcing the audience to confront their preconceived notions of their own existence
through society and its norms.
In conclusion, Sarah Kane’s statement that “all good art is subversive, either in form or
content, And the best art is subversive in form and content” clearly applies to Samuel
Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. The author uses subversion of dramatic form, and
linguistic form, and explores existential themes. When the author does this, it challenges
the traditional way of setting scenes and creating dialogues in theater. Then it also
challenges the audience's expectations by breaking with the social conventions, inviting
the viewers to confront not only social norms but their own preconceived notions of
daily life, it also forces the audience to confront the discomfort of uncertainty and the
absurdity of human existence. As a groundbreaking work of the 20 th-century theater,
Waiting for Godot continues to resonate with the audiences and also continues to disrupt
social conventions. It embodies Kane’s notion of art as inherently subversive and her
notions of the power that subversiveness has to challenge and confront the complexities
of human existence.
832 words
Bibliography.
Beckett, S.(1953). Waiting for Godot: Tragicomedy in 2 Acts.
McDonald, R.(2006). The Cambridge Introduction to Samuel Beckett.
