Postmodern Techniques

7/24/2019 Postmodern Techniques

1/16

1

Postmodern techniques

A postmodern theatrical production might make use of some or all of thefollowing techniques:

1. The accepted norms of seeing and representing the world arechallenged and disregarded, while experimental theatricalperceptions and representations are created.

2. A pastiche of dierent textualities and media forms is used,including the simultaneous use of multiple artor media forms, andthere is the theft of a heterogeneous group of artistic forms.

!. The narrati"e needs not #e complete #ut can #e #roken, paradoxicaland imagistic. There is a mo"ement awa$ from linearit$ tomultiplicit$ %to inter&related we#s of stories', where acts and scenesgi"e wa$ to a series of peripatetic dramatic moments.

(. )haracters are fragmented, forming a collection of contrasting andparallel shards stemming from a central idea, theme or traditionalcharacter.

*. +ach new performance of a theatrical pieces is a new estalt, aunique spectacle, with no intent on methodicall$ repeating a pla$.

-. The audience is integral to the shared meaning making of theperformance process and its mem#ers are included in the dialogueof the pla$.

. There is a re/ection of the notions of 0igh0 and 0ow0 art. Theproduction exists onl$ in the "iewers mind as what the "iewerinterprets & nothing more and nothing less.

3. The rehearsal process in a theatrical production is dri"en more #$shared meaning&making and impro"isation, rather than the scriptedtext.

4. The pla$ steps #ack from realit$ to create its own self&consciousatmosphere. This is sometimes referred to as meta&theatre

5hile these techniques are often found in postmodern productions the$are ne"er part of a centralised mo"ement or st$le. 6ather, the$ are toolsfor authentic introspection, questioning and representation of humanexperience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastichehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(arts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gestalthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(arts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gestalthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastiche


2/16

2

7acques 8errida: The Theater of Cruelty and the Closure of Representation

9n his second article on Artaud1;, 8errida underlines that the theater ofcruelt$ in the sense of a destruction of the classical representation for the

sake of life implies a li#eration from the concept of imitationThe stage istheological for as long as it is dominated #$ speech, #$ a will to speech, #$the la$out of primar$ logos which does not #elong to the theatrical siteand go"erns it from a distance. The stage is theological for as long as itsstructure, following the entiret$ of tradition, comports the followingelements: an author&creator who, a#sent and from afar, is armed with atext and keeps watch o"er, assem#les, regulates the time or the meaningof representation, letting this latter represent him as concerns what iscalled the content of his thoughts, his intentions, his ideas. e letsrepresentation represent him through representati"es, directors or actors,ensla"ed interpreters who represent characters who, primaril$ throughwhat the$ sa$, more or less directl$ represent the thought of the [email protected]"e sla"es who faithfull$ execute the pro"idential designs of the?master@. %T), 2!*'

But the theater of cruelt$ strictl$ refrains from association orimpro"isationC on the contrar$, it points to rigorous formaliDation, areconstruction of the scener$ which would #reak and transgress thedictatorial compulsion of the word and the written text. But: >ow will

speech and writing function thenE %T), 2(F' Thus, 8errida explains: >The$will once more #ecome gesturesC and the logical and discursi"e intentionswhich speed ordinaril$ uses in order to ensure its rational transparenc$,and in order to purloin its #od$ in the direction of meaning, will #e reducedor su#ordinated. And since this theft of the #od$ #$ itself is indeed thatwhich lea"es the #od$ to #e strangel$ concealed #$ the "er$ thing thatconstitutes it as diaphanousness, then the deconstitution ofdiaphanousness la$s #are the Gesh of the word, la$s #are the word@ssonorit$, intonation, intensit$ H the shout that the articulations of languageand logic ha"e not $et entirel$ froDen, that is, the aspect of oppressedgesture which remains in all speech, the unique and irreplacea#le

mo"ement which the generalities of concept and repetition ha"e ne"erInished re/ecting. %T), 2(F'

Jurthermore, 8errida underlines that this opening of a >lossopoeia, whichis neither an imitati"e language nor a creation of names, takes us #ack tothe #orderline of the moment when the word has not $et #een #orn, whenarticulation is no longer a shout #ut not $et discourse, when repetition isalmost impossi#le, and along with it, language in general: the separationof concept and sound, of signiIed and signiIer, of the pneumatical and thegrammatical, the freedom of translation and tradition, the mo"ement ofinterpretation, the dierence #etween the soul and the #od$, the masterand the sla"e, od and man, author and actor. This is the e"e of the originof languages, and of the dialogue #etween theolog$ and humanism whose
http://artaud-project.net/the-closure.html#_ftn1http://artaud-project.net/the-closure.html#_ftn1


3/16

!

inextinguisha#le reoccurrence has ne"er not #een maintained #$ themetaph$sics of 5estern theater. %T), 2(F'

This origin of the languages in the sense of a theatrical writing >will no

longer occup$ the limited position of simpl$ #eing the notation of words,#ut will co"er the entire range of this new language: not onl$ phoneticwriting and the transcription of speech, #ut also hierogl$phic writing, thewriting in which phonetic elements are coordinated to "isual, pictorial, andplastic elements. %T), 2(F' This issue of a hierogl$phic writing compares8errida with Jreud@s remark on the transferred and transposed dream&content #$ a pictural writing and an analog$ of the ps$choanal$ticalinterpretation of the dreams >to the decipherment of an ancientpictographic script such as +g$ptian hierogl$phs. %T), 2(1' ence, thecorrespondence of the Jreudian interpretation of the dreams and thetheater of cruelt$ is centered on this certain decipherment of apictographic script. Kn the other hand, Artaud stresses his reser"ation anddiference in regard to ps$choanal$sis in general: >As concernsps$choanal$sis and especiall$ ps$choanal$sts , Artaud was no less carefulto indicate his distance from those who #elie"e that the$ can retaindiscourse with the aid of ps$choanal$sis, and there#$ can wield itsinitiati"e and powers of initiation. %T), 2(2' Because of his intention totranslate the dream into the cultural and social structures in order to gi"ethem a signiIcation, the ps$choanal$st falls #ack and re"erts to theoriginal structure of elusion and its inherent logic of representation. Thus,ps$choanal$sis appears as an agent and accomplice of the general

structure of elusion. Kn the contrar$, according to Artaud, the dream is nota >su#stituti"e fulIllment of desire %T), 2(!' #ut rather an originalrelation to one@s self and its #od$, it is rather a eld of immanence ofdesire in the terms of illes 8eleuDe and JLlix uattari which should #eopen for its conscious creation. ence, >the theater of cruelt$ thus wouldnot #e a theater of the unconscious. Almost the contrar$. )ruelt$ isconsciousness, is exposed lucidit$. %T), 2(2'

9n order to circumscri#e Artaud@s pro/ect of a theater of cruelt$ 8erridalists conditions which would #reak and not fulIll Artaud@s intention. Thiswould refer to 1. all non&sacred theater, 2. all word theater, !. all a#stract

theater which intends to reduce the medial pluralit$ of the scener$, (. alltheater of alienation, #ecause the eect of alienation is tied to an aspectof a distance of the spectator which is refused in the theater of cruelt$, allnonpolitical theater and also >-. all ideological theater, all cultural theater,all communicati"e theater, interpretiveM; theater seeking to transmit acontent, or to deli"er a message M;. %T), 2(*' ence, Artaud intends toannihilate a content that could #e repeated in dierent contexts and8errida points out: >Artaud wanted to erase repetition in general. Jor him,repetition was e"il, and one could dou#tless organiDe an entire reading ofhis texts around this center. 6epetition separates force, presence, and lifefrom themsel"es. This separation is the economical and calculatinggesture of that which defers itself in order to maintain itself, that whichreser"es expenditure and surrenders to fear. This power of repetition


4/16

(

go"erned e"er$thing that Artaud wishes to destro$, and it has se"eralnames: od, Being, 8ialectics. %T), 2(*'

Thus, >in this sense the theater of cruelt$ would #e the art of dierence

and of expenditure without econom$, without reser"e, without return,without histor$. Pure presence as pure dierence. 9ts act must #eforgotten, acti"el$ forgotten. %T), 2('

That is the reason wh$ Artaud connects the conser"ation of the writing&s$stem with an >erasure of the #od$, of the li"ing gesture which takesplace onl$ once. %T), 2('

But e"en the theater of cruelt$ has to a=rm the repetition and in regard tothis condition it appears 0tragicall$0 as impossi#ilit$: it >will alwa$s remainthe inaccessi#le limit of a representation which is not repetition, of a re&presentation which is full presence, which does not carr$ its dou#le withinitself as its death, of a present which does not repeat itself, that is, of apresent outside time, a nonpresent. %T), 2(3' The impossi#ilit$ of atheater of cruelt$ results from its reference and #inding to a purit$ ofpresence which would no longer know an$ dierence or repetition. Thisimpossi#ilit$ is grounded in Artaud@s emphasis on a metaph$sics of propersu#/ecti"it$ and life that leads the theater of cruelt$ again to a closure ofrepresentation. Artaud intends to erase the ur&stage of the killing andelusion of proper su#/ecti"it$ and thus produces another ur&stage ofdestruction as its supplement. 9n regard to this framework, representation

would #e endless #$ pointing to a >closure of that which is without end%T), 2*F'. This turn is inscri#ed in Artaud@s pro/ect due to his unquestionedassumptions of a pure and proper self&presence on the one and a thoughtof original alienation due to the structure of elusion on the other hand.According to 8errida, Artaud did not question the metaph$sical opposite ofpurit$ and dierence radical enough. ence, in these earlier readings of8errida Artaud appears as an accomplice of metaph$sics within a pro/ectof a destruction of metaph$sics.

A New Ocne Oeen Anew:6epresentation and )ruelt$ in 8erridas Artaud

#$)olin 6ussell

9n the work of Antonin Artaud, 7acques 8errida disco"ers another of theman$ sites which #oth presages and opens to the penetration of hisdeconstructi"e method. Artauds texts make a su#stantial contri#ution tothe tool#ox with which 8errida pro#lematiDes and dismantles cherishedtenets of 5estern thought. 9n the essa$ 0The Theater of )ruelt$ and the)losure of 6epresentation,0 8errida explores how the theoretical plan forthe theatre Gies #ra"el$, though hopelessl$ in the face of the structures of5estern thought. 9n his #iograph$ of Artaud, Otephen Bar#er attri#utes to8erridas article the claim that 0r;epresentation is a repetitious andmalicious process %explicitl$ social for Artaud' which di"erts the immediac$


5/16

*

and tangi#ilit$ of the creati"e work, so representation is alwa$s attackedand opposed0 %Bar#er -'. This quotation succinctl$ captures thequintessence of Artaud, and what 8errida sa$s a#out him. 9n hisdiscussions of metaph$sics and language, of the #od$ and gesture, oftheatre and the plague, Artaud seems alwa$s to #e o#sessed #$ this

pro#lem, and 8errida Inds ample fuel for the Ires of his own similaro#session. )omparisons with NietDsche and Jreud, made #$ 8errida andother authors, demonstrate how Artauds writings participate in the anti&theological deconstruction. 8errida "ociferousl$ challenges the charges ofdestructi"eness le"ied against his own method, and he #egins his essa$with the same defence of Artaud, that the Theatre of )ruelt$ is essentiall$,necessaril$, implaca#l$ a=rmati"e.This is its nature, $et 0this a=rmationhas not $et #egun to exist0 %8errida 2!2'.Artaud expounds the notions of the Theatre of )ruelt$ in the essa$scollected in The Theatre and its 8ou#le. 9n 0Theatre and )ruelt$,0 he openswith the lament, or the charge, 05e ha"e lost the idea of theatre0 %Artaud-('. 9n the #ourgeois theatre of the earl$ twentieth centur$, which isperhaps identical to the theatre of the nineteenth, e"en the eighteenthcentur$, the focus is on 0pro#ing the intimac$ of a few puppets0 %Artaud-('. The mem#ers of the audience are "o$eurs, pri"$ to the machinationsof these characters, passi"el$ consuming what the author, director andactors peddle as the head$ liquors of titillating for#idden scenes. Thispassi"e role which the audience is compelled to accept leads to acomplacenc$ and a sterilit$. 9n 8erridas words, this stage 0comports apassi"e, seated pu#lic, a pu#lic of spectators, of consumers, of en/o$ers &as NietDsche and Artaud #oth sa$ & attending a production that lacks true

"olume or depth, a production that is le"el, oered to their "o$euristicscrutin$0 %8errida 2!*'. The a#sence of 0"iolent gratiIcation0 has led themasses awa$ from theatre to 0the cinema, music&hall and circus0 %Artaud-('. The whole experience of theatre has #een denuded of its original"italit$ and immediac$. As Artaud decries,

The damage wrought #$ ps$chological theatre, deri"ed from 6acine, hasrendered us unaccustomed to the direct, "iolent action theatre must ha"e.)inema, in its turn, murders us with reGected, Iltered and pro/ectedimages that no longer connect with our sensi#ilit$, and for ten $ears hasmaintained us and all our faculties in an intellectual stupor. %Artaud -('

Kf the two programs & the disconnection from sensi#ilit$ and themaintenance of intellectual stupor & Artaud clearl$ seeks primaril$ toredress the former. The theatre of the 5est has confused the proportions,since it has tended to pri"ilege the intellectual response o"er the sensor$.9t is this error which the genesis of the Theatre of )ruelt$ is intended tocorrect.9nfused with the idea that the masses think with their senses Irst andforemost and that it is ridiculous to appeal primaril$ to our understandingas we do in e"er$da$ ps$chological theatre, the Theatre of )ruelt$proposes to resort to mass theatre, there#$ redisco"ering a little of thepoetr$ in the ferment of great, agitated crowds hurled against oneanother, sensations onl$ too rare nowada$s, when masses of holida$crowds throng the streets.


6/16

-

9f theatre wants to Ind itself needed once more, it must presente"er$thing in lo"e, crime, war and madness. %Artaud -(&*'

These su#/ects & lo"e, crime, war and madness & present humanexperience #e$ond the quotidian, and these are the su#/ects which Artaud

#elie"es can expunge the lifeless 5estern theatre and its patrons from thecomforta#le niche in which se"eral centuries of practice ha"e ensconcedthem. These are of course the su#/ects of the traditional theatre itself, #utthere the$ are dealt with in safe, secure wa$s that perhaps allow for a paleshadow of Aristotles catharsis to occur in the am#ience of the hall itself,without disrupting the comforta#le digestion of coee and cakes after theperformance, let alone the conduct of #usiness the next da$. Jor Artaud,unless the experience of theatre irremedia#l$ alters the indi"idual, it isworthless. 9t must surpass this le"el of 0seeking di"ersions,0 and shake thefoundations of our world"iew. 9n a letter to to his friend and editor 7eanPaulhan a#out his Qanifesto, Artaud insists upon a #road, all&encompassing deInition, or arra$ of deInitions, for the term cruelt$ as heuses it. This arra$ includes a deInition from a 0mental "iewpoint,0according to which 0cruelt$ means strictness, diligence, unrelentingdecisi"eness, irre"ersi#le and a#solute determination0 %Artaud '. 8erridadistinguishes 0the sense of crueltyas necessityand rigor0 %8errida 2!3'. 9tis not onl$ on the grounds of the desired appeal to the masses that the

Theatre of )ruelt$ precludes the #ourgeois attitude to theatre of thefashiona#le socialite or the pleasant #ut ineectual humanist. Oerioustheatre 0upsets all our preconceptions, inspiring us with Ier$, magneticimager$ and Inall$ reacting on us after the manner of unforgetta#le soul

therap$0 %Artaud -('. Neither coee nor #usiness should e"er #e the sameagain after one has undergone the experience of an authentic theatre.There should #e an a#solute cathartic experience once the #od$ and soulha"e #een drawn through the maelstrom which Artaud intends for hisaudience. As Al#ert Bermel suggests,)leansing, transIguration, exaltation & these are o#/ecti"es Artaud willaccomplish through the medium of 0cruelt$0. . . . e did appear to intendthat a punishment of a sort #e "isited on spectators. owe"er it would #ea #eneIcient punishment. ife has in it a lot of ugliness and e"il, which are#oth natural and man&made. 9nstead of shielding spectators from theirimpact he would expose them, put them through the experience of a

danger and then free them from it. e went to great pains to explain thathis theatre was not a form of torture, #ut a facing of the worst that couldhappen, followed #$ a refreshing release from it. At the end the spectatorwould feel relie"ed, as if awakening from a nightmare, the e"il and terrorcleansed awa$. %Bermel 22'

The horri#le crimes, and the treament of madness, lo"e and war, wouldshock the audience from their complacenc$, and send them out with areawakened sense of the "italit$ and authenticit$ a#sent from their dail$li"es, and from the theatre which the$ had hitherto experienced in the)omLdie franRaise and each additional tired rendition of Qolire.As Qartin +sslin points out, this search for a renewed "italit$ andauthenticit$ in life and in the theatre marks an a=nit$ #etween Artaud and


7/16

NietDsche, another pi"otal Igure in the deconstruction of 5estern thoughtfor 8errida. 9n The Birth of Traged$, NietDsche deri"es the concepts of theApollonian and the 8ion$sian principles from reek traged$. TheApollonian principle, reasoned, restrained, self&controlled, form&gi"ing andorganiDing, is su#sumed in NietDsche within the 8ion$sian principle,

primordial, passionate, chaotic, frenDied, drunken, chthonic and creati"e.The aesthetic tension allows the imaginati"e, creati"e power of 8ion$susto operate, though the products of this operation are kept honest andintelligi#le #$ the Apollonian constraint. 9n +sslins "iew,Artaud re/ected the Apollonian element altogether and put his trust in thedark forces of 8ion$sian "italit$ with all their "iolence and m$ster$. 9f theseforces could #e acti"ated through the theatre, incarnated #$ the theatre,Artaud hoped that mankind might #e di"erted from their disastrous paththat led towards an increasing atroph$ing of their instincts whichamounted to the death of their "italit$ and e"entual extinction. %+sslin 3F'

A compelling reason for pri"ileging the 8ion$sian elements o"er theApollonian in Artauds theories is his preoccupation with the #od$. Thedesired cathartic eect of theatre is far more fundamental in Artaud thanthat made manifest in the pre"ious reference to alterations in coee&drinking and the conduct of #usiness. ike NietDsche, who felt that a newph$siolog$ was required for the human #eing to successfull$ o"ercome thenegati"e eects of spiritual and aesthetic genealog$, Artaud is insistent ona radical transformation and reappropriation of ones own #od$.Kne of the most striking metaphors #$ which he demonstrates such atransformation is the comparison of theatre and plague. 8rawing on

archi"al accounts of plague epidemics, Artaud illustrates his thesis that0the plague0 is a ps$chical entit$, regardless of the particular #accili whichma$ #e isolated to explain it in medico&scientiIc terms. e records eeriestories of the apparentl$ intelligent and discriminating mo"ement of adisease which seems to select and re/ect potential "ictims. To achie"e thegreatest impact on the reader, gruesome details of the infection itself "iewith horri#le accounts of the ps$chological impact on #oth the "ictims andthose who are spared the actual ph$sical attack. 9t is the in"erted#eha"iour of those who do not displa$ s$mptoms which pro"ides thestrongest e"idence in support of the thesis. The plague is a catastrophicsocial phenomenon, and a total disorganiDation of not onl$ indi"idual

#odies, #ut the #od$ politic, out of which a new social order andph$sicalit$ emerge. As 7ane oodall asserts in 0The Plague and its Powersin Artaudian Theatre,0 the dream of the Sicero$ which Artaud relates in0The Theatre and the Plague,0. . .illustrates that the powers of the plague are powers of re"elation, ofalchemical transformation, leading through the nigredo of dissolutiontowards a new genesis. Artaud descri#es how "olcanic eruptions on thesurface of the Gesh "iolate the inside


8/16

3

The ps$chical impact, de"oid of 0real0 ph$sical s$mptoms, of theps$chosomatic plague suerer pro"ides Artauds analog$ to the acti"it$ ofthe actor. e argues that 0t;he condition of a plague "ictim who dieswithout an$ material destruction, $et with all the stigmata of an a#solute,almost a#stract disease upon him, is in the same condition as an actor

totall$ penetrated #$ feelings without an$ #eneIt or relation to realit$0%Artaud 1*'. The actor consumed #$ her performanceis what she portra$s, #ut 0nothing has reall$ happened.0 Oimilarl$, theaudience should trul$ experience the horrors which are enacted #eforethem #ecause the atmosphere into which the$ are thrust has the sameaecti"e power as the locale of a plague has to undermine the rational#eha"iour of the citiDenr$. Artaud claims,/;ust as it is not impossi#le that the unconsumed despair of a lunaticscreaming in an as$lum can cause the plague, so #$ a kind of re"ersi#ilit$of feelings and imager$, in the same wa$ we can admit that outwarde"ents, political conGicts, natural disasters, re"olutionar$ order andwartime chaos, when the$ occur on a theatre le"el, are released into theaudiences sensiti"it$ with the strength of an epidemic. %Artaud 1*'

ike the plague, theatre 0takes gestures and de"elops them to the limit,0 it0can onl$ happen the moment the inconcei"a#le reall$ #egins,0 and it0distur#s our state of mind0 %Artaud 1'. Both the plague and the theatree"ince 0 a powerful appeal through illustration to those powers whichreturn the mind to the origins of its inner stuggles0 %Artaud 14'.At the origin of the inner struggles of the mind is the primordialresponsi"eness to m$th, which is fundamentall$ rooted in the #od$ and its

relation to those themes of crime, lo"e, war and madness. Jor Artaud, it isnecessar$ to re/ect not onl$ the traditional theatrical representation ofthese themes, #ut also the 0ancient Q$ths0 which inspire our deepestknowledge and sense a#out them. 9n the #od$ of m$tholog$ inscri#ed inour ci"iliDation, the human experience of crime, lo"e, war and madnesshas #een encoded for posterit$. Artaud #elie"es, like NietDsche, that thesetreatments are hackne$ed with use and a#use, and furthermore that thetreatment which one epoch gi"es to these themes is good for that time,#ut not for all times. 9n Artauds opinion, one must cast o the trappings ofa theatrical genealog$, /ust as NietDsche would ha"e us remo"e theshackles of an outmoded moral genealog$. According to iliane Papin, this

classical theatre, 0nous dit Artaud, est nL de la littLrature , cantonnL aulangage, #ti sur une parole "ieillie, LculLe et usLe. 9l faut en Inir a"ec leschefs doeu"res et tout recommencer, tout rLin"enter0 %Papin --3'. As oneof Artauds essa$ titles expresses this last point, it is necessar$ to ha"edone with the /udgement of od. Again like NietDsche, Artaud #anishesod from the space of his theatre as an interloper, a transgressor whotries to impose the ogos upon the pure, primordial sensi#ilit$ of action.ods text is underl$ing the operation of the classical theatre, and permitsno escape from the perpetual representation of the original creation. Thisnew theatre must ha"e done with od and with Q$ths, #ecause it must #eits own m$thos. As +rella Brown argues, 0Artauds notion of theater asm$th&making, as an alternati"e for traditional representation, is #utanother name for life as the dou#le of the theater0 %Brown *4*'. The


9/16

4

responsi#ilit$ of the theatre is to #e as no"el as possi#le, to stretch theen"elope, to seek the limits of its spatial and temporal conditions, withoutlosing that frame of reference which allows for immediate impact upon itsaudience. The new thing must impact on the #od$ like a plague, uniquel$and totall$.

5e want to make theatre a #elie"a#le realit$ inGicting this kind of tangi#lelaceration, contained in all true feeling, on the heart and senses. 9n thesame wa$ as our dreams react on us and realit$ reacts on our dreams, sowe #elie"e oursel"es a#le to associate mental pictures with dreams,eecti"e insofar as the$ are pro/ected with the required "iolence. And theaudience will #elie"e in the illusion of theatre on condition the$ reall$ takeit for a dream, not for a ser"ile imitation of realit$. Kn condition it releasesthe magic freedom of da$dreams, onl$ recognisa#le when imprinted withterror and cruelt$. %Artaud -*'

9n his anal$sis of Artaudian theatre, Qartin +sslin comments on Artaudsnotion of the 0dream&work0 of the theatrical process. e suggests thatArtauds position,. . . has parallels with Jreuds "iew that the malaise in 5estern ci"iliDationwas due to the repression of so much of mans instincti"e, su#conscious,impulsi"e life. . . . 9t was Jreud who had indicated how language in dreamis transposed into images which can then #e read like picture&writing,hierogl$phs. ence Artaud, in his endea"our to reacti"ate thesu#conscious and to appeal to it directl$, preached a return tocommunication at this le"el. %+sslin 3F&1'

Kf course, hierogl$phics, 0the writing in which phonetic elements arecoordinated to "isual, pictorial, and plastic elements0 %8errida 2(F', is the"er$ example which Artaud gi"es as a tentati"e, temporar$ model as hewrestles to attain a suita#le alternati"e for the logocentric text of thetraditional theatre.Jreuds conception of the unconscious pro"ides a fruitful analog$ for the#attle #etween the classical authorial control and the primordial forcesthat control represses. Kne could posit that the preoccupation withwritten, scripted text maintains an ego control o"er the processes in thetheatre. Beneath that control swirls the cesspool of the id, thesu#conscious source of desire and m$ster$ which Artaud seeks to tap for

sensor$ experience of the theatre, as Jreud seeks to tap it for clues to#eha"iour. Jreud acknowledges the necessit$ of the controlling mechanismto keep the repressed forces from o"erwhelming the indi"idual and thesociet$ in an explosion of irrational, chaotic acti"it$. This is perhaps exactl$what Artaud desires & the casting o of the $oke of su#mission to personaland social control, the release of the #od$ from the control of the intellect,the spontaneous responsi"eness of the deepest core of the self to anexperience of theatre which del"es far #elow mere aesthetic appreciationand has nothing to do with moral ediIcation. As 7ane oodall suggests,0i;t is as though Jreudian insights help to show Artaud the wa$ to the"ulnera#le core of the social and ps$chological order he a#hors, #ut hisrelationship to these insights is itself su#"ersi"e0 %oodall *!!'. 8erridatoo suggests that Artauds relation to Jreud is one of su#"ersion. 9f the


10/16

1F

Theatre of )ruelt$ is a theatre of dreams, then the desired immediac$ oftheatrical experience #elies the remo"al from immediate experience whichJreud identiIes in the dream process. As 8errida muses, 0p;erhaps Artaudis also protesting against a certain Jreudian description of dreams as thesu#stituti"e fulIllment of desire, as the function of "icariousness: through

the theater, Artaud wants to return their dignit$ to dreams and to make ofthem something more original, more free, more a=rmati"e than anacti"it$ of displacement0 %8errida 2(!'. Another signiIcant dierence#etween Artaud and Jreud, for 8errida, is the insistence of the formerupon the full$ conscious operation of the theatre. Artaud wishes to remo"ethe su#conscious from its traditional role on the stage and particularl$ inthe relationship #etween actor and audience, and the relationship of criticor anal$st to the stage. There should #e no intermediaries #etween theaudience and the action. 8errida contests that Artaud 0would ha"ere/ected a ps$choanal$tic theater with as much rigor as he condemnedps$chological theater. And for the same reasons: his re/ection of an$ secretinteriorit$, of the reader, of directi"e interpretations or ofps$chodramaturg$0 %8errida 2(2'.8erridas commentar$ in 0The Theater of )ruelt$0 on Jreudian analogies isde"oted mainl$ to such correspondences and dierences #etween thetheatre&work and the dream&work. 9n The 9nterpretation of 8reams andother works, Jreud suggests that speech is a thing, among other things,which can #e manipulated #$ the dreamer like an$ o#/ect. 5ords can #eselected from an arra$ and a#andoned in fa"our of others if the$ fail tomeet the requirements of the dream&content which the dreamer isimagining. Opeech thus loses its normal authoritati"e function as the

schematic means for naming the other o#/ects in the en"ironment. Thespeech #alloons of the comic strips pro"ide an excellent example of the0pictorialiDation0 of speech. 8errida suggests that in Jreuds assessment ofsuch representations, 0we understand what speech can #ecome when it is#ut an element, a circumscri#ed site, a circum"ented writing within #othgeneral writing and the space of representation. This is the structure of there#us or the hierogl$phic0 %8errida 2(1'.

This model in"okes Artauds notion of 0spatial expression,0 as outlined inthe 0Jirst Qanifesto of the Theatre of )ruelt$.0 e contrasts 0expressi"e,d$namic spatial potential0 with 0expressi"e spoken dialogue potential0%Artaud -3'. This new 0language0 of theatre includes the normal

conception of language, #ut as one 0gesture0 out of an arra$ of gesturesincluding all possi#le means of expression.

Theatre can still deri"e possi#ilities for extension from speech outsidewords, the de"elopment in space of its dissociator$, "i#rator$ action onour sensi#ilit$. 5e must take inGection into account here, the particularwa$ a word is pronounced, as well as the "isual language of things%audi#le, sound language aside', also mo"ement, attitudes and gestures,pro"iding their meanings are extended, their features connected e"en asfar as those signs, making a kind of alpha#et out of those signs. a"ing#ecome conscious of this spatial language, theatre owes it to itself toorganise these shouts, sounds, lights and onomatopoeic language,creating true hierogl$phs out of characters and o#/ects, making use of


11/16

11

their s$m#olism and interconnections in relation to e"er$ organ and on allle"els. %Artaud -3'

Artaud wishes to a#andon the strict adherence to the wa$ in which thewords of dialogue signif$ the meaning of a pla$ in traditional 5estern

theatre. These words and this meaning are t$picall$ pre&determined andpre&programmed #$ the pla$wright and enacted, or represented #$ thedirector and cast. The primordial responsi"eness which has #eensu#merged in the social experience of the ps$chological theatre, isrecouped through an a#andonment of dependenc$ on the words. Thus allthe non&textual facets of theatrical production are #rought to the fore in aholistic conception of the stage presentation. Oounds, lights andmo"ement of the #od$ are all gestures #$ which a total theatre can exhorta response. Knomatopoeia is a "er$ 0gestural0 form of language, as thesound in"okes a direct ph$sicalit$, #ut it does not incorporate theelements of Artauds "ision in the wa$ that 8erridas term does.lossopoeia, which is neither an imitati"e language nor a creation ofnames, takes us #ack to the #orderline of the moment when the word hasnot $et #een #orn, when articulation is no longer a shout #ut not $etdiscourse, when repetition is almost impossi#le, and along with it,language in general: the separation of concept and sound, of signiIed andsigniIer, of the pneumatical and the grammatical, the freedom oftranslation and tradition, the mo"ement of interpretation, the dierence#etween the soul and the #od$, the master and the sla"e, od and man,author and actor. This is the e"e of the origin of languages, and of thedialogue #etween theolog$ and humanism whose inextinguisha#le

reoccurence has ne"er not #een maintained #$ the metaph$sics of5estern theater. %8errida 2(F'

5ith these #inaries, one recogniDes the 8erridean o#session with thestructure of 5estern metaph$sics. 9n the t$pe of 0grand ideas0 in"oked #$such words, one encounters Artauds conception of the 0metaph$sics0 oftheatre. e apologiDes for the use of the o"erdetermined word, #ut assertsthat 0that is what such ideas are called.0 e refers to associations such aschange, Jate, )haos, the Qar"ellous and Balance, which strike him while"iewing the painting Lot and his Daughters#$ ucas "an e$den. 9n theessa$ 0Production and Qetaph$sics,0 Artaud esta#lishes correspondences

#etween the experience of this painting, and his "ision for the theatre, for0this painting is what theatre ought to #e, if onl$ it knew how to speak itsown language0 %Artaud 2*'. Ouch 0metaph$sical0 concepts cannot easil$#e put into words #ecause the$ are so profound, so deepl$ #uried in thecore of our #eing that the$ surpass the limits of expression, that theiradequate expression is inconcei"a#le, that the$ reside somewhere #e$ondwords, and for Artaud, certainl$ #e$ond dialogue. e complains of thesituation of 5estern theatre, in which 0e"er$thing speciIcall$ theatrical,that is to sa$, e"er$thing which cannot #e expressed in words or if $ouprefer, e"er$thing that is not contained in dialogue. . . has #een left in the#ackground0 %Artaud 2*'. e points out that dialogue is not speciIcall$ aninha#itant of the stage, #ut rather of #ooks, since 0there is a specialsection in literar$ histor$ text#ooks on drama as a su#ordinate #ranch in


12/16

12

the histor$ of spoken language0 %Artaud 2*'. The stage needs 0its ownconcrete language,0 and Artaud insists that 0t;o make metaph$sics out ofspoken language is to make language con"e$ what it does not normall$con"e$0 %Artaud !2'.

The concatenation of metaph$sics, concrete language, the search for

originar$ moments in the mind, and the situating of experience within the#od$, suggests that Artaud is stri"ing for a metaph$sics of presence on thestage. This notion is supported #$ 7on +rickson in 0The anguage ofPresence: Oound Poetr$ and Artaud.0 e argues that Artaud seeks alanguage of presence through a t$pe of sound&text 0which operatesthrough a denial of signiIcation toward an ideal of the uniIcation ofexpression and indication0 %+rickson 24'. +rickson outlines theassumptions upon which the search for such a language of presence must#e #ased.Jirst of all, #ehind this language of presence is the tacit assumption that itis the original, adamic tongue, an ursprachethat names an o#/ect or #eingin its essence, which means that the signiIer is one with the signiIed andtheir relationship is not ar#itraril$ Ixed. Oecondl$, #ecause of the primalnature of this language, it can #e construed as a uni"ersal language,whose true nature arises primaril$ from exclamation and emotionalintonations. Thirdl$, this emoti"e, intonational language is seen as #eingmore true for the human condition than signif$ing language #ecause itsexpression is that of the #od$, acti"e and reacti"e, not distracted #$ an$cogniti"e split. And Inall$, this language should #e incantator$,summoning forth the power of presence within e"er$ I#er and organ andner"e of the human #eing, uniting the spiritual with the ph$sical, tapping

into dormant and primal creati"e energies, and emanating outward toconnect with the listener. . . . %+rickson 23F'

+rickson refers to 8erridas characteriDation of this language as the o#/ectof a 0nostalgia for presence, a concern a#out origin, a#out a t$pe ofolden Age m$th that has persisted, often unrecogniDed, to this da$0%+rickson 23!'. The second part of the title of 8erridas article indicatesthe signiIcance of this illusi"e quest in which Artaud is engaged & thequest for the 0closure of representation.0 8errida a=rms, 0t;he theater ofcruelt$ is not a representation. 9t is life itself, in the extent to which life isunrepresenta#le. ife is the nonrepresenta#le origin of representation0

%8errida 2!('. The classical theatre which Artaud disparages has, throughits dialogue and textound performance, #een constantl$ engaged in therepresentation of real life which the audience has come to expect. Jor8errida, Artaud #reaks with the notion of the mimetic. 5hile the catharticexperience is still a useful characteriDation of the audiences response tothe new theatre, the rest of Aristoles aesthetics must #e transcended. Artdoes not imitate life, art is equal to life, and e"en superior to life, sinceArtaud insists that the performance of an act on stage makes it uni"ersal,whereas the performance of the same act 0in the world0 occurs once anduniquel$.As pre"iousl$ mentioned in relation to NietDsche, the pro#lem here is toha"e done with the /udgement of od, to cast od o the stage. Thereason that theatre has #een representational has #een its reliance on the


13/16

1!

creati"e genius whose authorit$ permits the action to occur. 7ust as theogos of od has initiated the acti"it$ of humanit$ in the world, the ogosof the pla$wright has initiated the acti"it$ on the stage. The relatedin/ustices of t$rann$, hierarch$, mimesis and the alienation of la#ourin"ol"ed in the theatrical act all contri#ute to the representational form,

and for Artaud, the fundamental remo"al of the primordial meaning

of theatre. )rime is at the head of the list of appropriate topics fortheatrical displa$ #ecause, according to 8errida, 0there is alwa$s a murderat the origin of cruelt$, of the necessit$ named cruelt$. And Irst of all, aparricide0 %8errida 2!4'. 9t is in remo"ing the author, that one remo"esod and frees the stage from the t$rann$ and alienation.

The stage is theological for as long as it is dominated #$ speech, #$ a willto speech, #$ the la$out of a primar$ logos which does not #elong to thetheatrical site and go"erns it from a distance. The stage is theological foras long as its structure, following the entiret$ of tradition, comports thefollowing elements: an author&creator who, a#sent and from afar, is armedwith a text and keeps watch o"er, assem#les, regulates the time or themeaning of representation, letting this latter represent him as concernswhat is called the content of his thoughts, his intentions, his ideas. e letsrepresentation represent him through representati"es, directors or actors,ensla"ed interpreters who represent characters who, primaril$ throughwhat the$ sa$, more or less directl$ represent the thought of the 0creator.0%8errida 2!*'

Jor Artaud, the t$rannical author is as dia#olical as the od whom he so

delighted in re"iling. The prompter, or souUeur, according to 8errida, isthe 0hidden #ut indispensa#le center of representati"e structure & whichensures the mo"ement of representation0 %8errida 2!*&-'. All the agentsof the theatre, pla$wright, director, actor, prompter, audience,unconsciousl$ conspire to continue this dependenc$ and this inauthenticit$of the production. The signiIcance of the souUeur is paramount in8erridas other article on Artaud in 5riting and 8ierence. 9n 0a ParolesouULe,0 8errida pla$s on the "arious meanings of souUe and itsderi"ations to indicate Artauds sense of the words


14/16

1(

structure then, le langage soue& it takes our soueor soul as it oersus words to repeat that are not ours. %Thiher *F*'

The word, the dialogue, the script&text is paramount in this equation, sothat each production is true to the original intent of the pla$wright&god,

and 0true to life0 as wellV All the man$ wa$s in which the primordialpresence could #e achie"ed without recourse to stultif$ing words, are#anished to su#sidiar$ roles in the traditional theatre. 8errida asserts that0all the pictorial, musical and e"en gesticular forms introduced into5estern theater can onl$, in the #est of cases, illustrate, accompan$,ser"e, or decorate a text, a "er#al fa#ric, a logos which is said in the#eginning0 %8errida 2!-'.9ndeed, the 0word0 ensures that the histor$ of the theatre of the 5est has#een a continual process of erasure. 8errida claims that 0classical theater,in Artauds e$es, is not simpl$ the a#sence, negation, or forgetting oftheater, is not a nontheater: it is a mark of cancellation that lets what itco"ers #e read: and it is a corruption also, a per"ersion, a seduction, themargin of an a#erration whose meaning and measure are "isi#le onl$#e$ond #irth, at the e"e of theatrical representation, at the origin oftraged$0 %8errida 2!-'. ere is a classic 8erridean trace within thestructure of #inar$ opposition. The classical stage, despite its #est eortsto o#scure the primordial theatrical presence, continues an illicitcommunication, a communication of #etra$al, with that counterpart, andhence the a#sence of that presence makes the presence itself present.Artauds theatre lurks in e"er$ classical production #ecause its principlesare so steadfastl$ ignored #$ the earnest practitionersV

8espite the #est eorts of those who would enclose the theatre within thetext which initiates productions, theatricalit$ itself #etra$s them, andpro"ides glimpses of the scenario which Artaud en"isions. This is a 0miseen scne,0 and the Jrench con"e$s the essence of what he is tr$ing toaccomplish & a 0putting on stage0 of something. The term seems toconnote creati"eness without authoritati"eness, presentation withoutrepresentation. 8erridas Artaud asserts that 0to put on stage and too"erthrow the t$rann$ of the text is thus one and the same gesture0%8errida 2!-'. This production is unique: it presents itself rather than #eingthe 0repetition of a present.0 5hat is con"e$ed in the production is notsu#ordinate to something which could ha"e occurred elsewhere at another

time, either as a 0real0 e"ent or as a pre"ious production of the 0same0dramatic text. This is a 0closed space, that is to sa$ a space produced fromwithin itself and no longer organiDed from the "antage of an other a#sentsite, an illocalit$, an ali#i or in"isi#le utopia0 %8errida 2!3'. This is anoriginal representation, or an

autopresentation, the reco"er$ of an original presence, comprised of puresensi#ilit$. Perhaps each Artaudian production would #e its own m$th&genesis, tapping the well of responsi"eness which humans #ring toencounters with m$th, #ut refusing to rel$ on the 0tired Q$ths0themsel"es.

This new mise en scne includes a new space, a new time and a newspeech. Ouch a spectacle creates its own space, as suggested a#o"e, and


15/16

1*

this 0appeals to a time that is no longer of so&called phonic linearit$0%8errida 2!'. Jor Artaud, the time that speech takes determines theduration of the classical production. The remo"al of dependenc$ uponspoken dialogue for the progression of the production will alter theparameters of time within which the theatre operates. 5ithin this space

and time, e"er$thing is part of the text of the production, su#ordinatingthe power of speech and the ordinar$ understanding of text


16/16

1-

undermines itself. Oome of these Igures, like Want, could li"e acomforta#le, sedentar$ life while writing earth&shattering #ooks, #utArtaud is a Igure who trul$ li"ed the theor$ that he promulgated. As man$post&structuralists argue, the indi"idual who goes #e$ond the structures #$which others go"ern themsel"es steps into an a#$ss, since all our learning

is focussed on mastering the structures. There one encounters freedom,#ut at the price of losing the ad"antages of the s$stem. Artaud felt that his#od$ was appropriated #$ od, and that in reco"ering the full presence ofthe original moment of theatre, he could reappropriate his #od$ andexperience the communion with sacredness, without od. The theatre thathe posited in order to accomplish this cannot #e realiDed, for there is noorigin without a past, nor a moment without a repetition, nor presencewithout a#sence.9n the madness to which Artaud succum#ed, 8errida can read a case stud$of the eects of 5estern culture and thought as the mise en scne ofmadness. Allen Thiher concludes that, 0in encountering Artaud, 8erridamakes more than clear the NietDschean origins of a thought that mustexalt in the pla$ of the same & at the risk of otherwise going mad0 %Thiher*F3'. 9f 5estern metaph$sics and 5estern theatre are akin to a plague,Artaud suers the ph$sical s$mptoms as his #od$ Ights the infection, andthe apparentl$ health$ cannot #e assured that the$ too do not suer fromthe u#iquitous eects of this social disease. 9n representation, the chronicand terminal condition of the disease #ecomes apparent, and Artaud canonl$ dream of the closure which could occur on the stage in the moment ofpresence, the moment of gesture, the moment of cruelt$.

Documents

Postmodern Techniques