Modernists

So this semester I'm taking a theatre course, because I don't know that much about theatre and wanted to learn more (in sharp contrast to several other students in the course, who already know everything about theatre, and are just there to get an easy grade). I really wanted to do the Shakespeare course, but because that alternates with the modern theatre course, I am doing the latter. Now I will say up front that I don't really like modern literature. I can't tell you exactly why I don't like it, but most things written from 1880 until around 1960 don't really grip me and entice me as texts from before or after that period do. There are always some exceptions of course, including Sherlock Holmes, the war-poets, and Tolkien, but generally speaking, it's true.
Now we've been reading some more "conventional" modernist plays for the last few weeks (which still caused huge riots when they were first produced, but are not something we would lift an eyebrow over), but now we've really gotten to the good modernist stuff. Jarry's Ubu the King, and Beckett's Waiting for Godot. And while I was reading the former, I suddenly realised why I don't like it. It is just too contrived. It's shocking just to be shocking. It's absurd just to be absurd. Just like Woolf or Joyce were writing in a new way, just to write in a new way, although for them of course there was a higher purpose. Here there isn't one. The point is that there is no point, which is all very existentialist, but it does not really get us anywhere (think about it, if we were all constantly thinking about the fact that there isn't really a point, nothing would ever happen again. Also, see Calvin & Hobbes and another one and another one). There is no message, no goal, except to say "hey, look at how absurd and weird and non-conventional I am! Look at how different I am! I bet you're jealous now, stuck in your conventional boring society/literature/art!" There is absolutely no reason for Jarry to put "shit" into his play about 100 times, he just does it to shock the audience (and it worked, I can tell you). Why would you do that? Why would you irritate people just for the sake of irritating them? There is so much beautiful art out there, there are so many beautiful plays, why not direct your energy towards something that people can enjoy and love, instead of something that will shock and anger them?
I can see how it works when you want to tell something about society, or about people. Sometimes you need to shock people before they can realise or see things that they are so used to that they won't see them any more. Comedians are good at this. But if you want to shock just to shock, then you're not creating art, in my opinion (remember: it's just my opinion. Although I do think most people agree that art should both entertain and educate). And we can see the end result of this process on tv every night, all those "Shock docs" and "The bride of 500 kg" and "Embarrassing Bodies" and whatnot programs.
So yes, modernists, especially modernist playwrights, do not appear to be my thing. Which does not mean I don't enjoy taking the course; I think it's fascinating to see what people though of as "disturbing" and "horrendous" just 100 years ago. And you can still study something even though you don't like it or agree with their point of view. Maybe that even makes it easier, because you're somewhat more distanced and can look at it more objectively. And who knows, maybe I'll come to like it in the end!