The Vanguard of Progress

I find To Have Done with the Judgement of God a really unsettling piece of work. Part of this discomfort is purely aesthetic; the delivery on the recordings is harsh and aggressive. Artaud and the other performers, make the full use of range, pitch and expression (even to the point where it sounds absurd). The whole delivery of the text reminds me of the scene in My Life and Times with Antonin Artaud, where Prevel is watching through the window as Artaud makes Colette, an actress, repeatedly recite 'there once was a King of Thule', whilst he shouts 'NO..the sound must squirt out' and 'make it vibrate until the fibre of life squeals'. The directions are obscure and hard to imagine, but i get the sense that if these commands were realised, even partially, the result would be similar to the performers deliveries in To Have Done with the Judgement of God.

In contrast, i find the content less unsettling, but i am almost certain that this a contextual issue. The themes that Artaud were dealing with, such as anti-religion, anti-state and anti-America, are sentiments that feature heavily in even our pop culture: we have grown desensitised to claims such as 'God is shit'. This said, i find it interesting that it seemed to be Artaud himself (and also the director of the station) who found it 'obscene, inflammatory and blasphemous', to the point where Artaud echoed the directors very words. Perhaps the broadcast is not a shocking as Artaud would have wanted? The themes are still relevant today however, and some quotes could even be directly applicable,

'I didn't know the Americans were such a warlike people'
'I tell you that they have reinvented microbes in order to impose a new idea of god'

Whether it is shocking or not, with it's clever mix of biblical and epic imagery such as the 'crosses of the earth' and 'the kingdom of black night' contrasting the more pedestrian and base images of 'coal' and 'shit', To Have Done with the Judgement of God, is a fantastically distorted piece of writing. What i find most interesting is this interview at the end with the unnamed man asking Artaud questions. A conclusion of this sort gives the entire piece of writing context, but it is important, in my opinion to remember that has to be taken as a character rather than Artaud himself- similar to the end of a Bright Eyes song (this time done more tongue in cheek and perhaps as a slight self parody?).

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/An-Attempt-To-Tip-The-Scales-lyrics-Bright-Eyes/D55A7C5807C5205448256C7D0007ABD2

Sorry for waffling on.

Matt

Lightning Bolt

Sorry also probably the band most worth checking out in relation to Artaud that I can think of are a band called lightning bolt. They use microphone distortion and play noise muic with elements of thrash n hardcore without falling into a cliche trap. It's very very fast and aggressive and knocks your socks off. It however is not hard to listen to and after a while kinda seeps into you creating a driving force.
x

Music

This is just a small response to the electronic/noise artist we heard on wednesday and possible artists to look at that are in some way or other in a similar vain to the viceral experiance of Artaudian theatre.

Firstly I would suggest listening to all Sonic Youth Albums at very high volume but particularly Confusion is Sex/Kill YR Idols and Daydream nation. Both albums use a huge amount of feedback and dischordal noise. The feeling gets into your gut and moves tension and pace forward with no remorse. The experiance is un apologetic but also quite uplifting. I'd recomend starting with Daydream Nation as a departure point, then onto the earlier works for a harsher more uncontrolled experiance. Plus this band are prety sweet in general.

Next I'd say look at the artist Venetian Snares. He's a break/thrashcore DJ who uses loads of samples from films to create a very unsettling atmosphere. Often it's very course and violent in it's approach and at points brutal. (he actually made an album from sounds souly taken from wound fucking....true) that aside, the music knocks you back and makes you pay attention always ready for what happens next. It may not be clever but its very affective. another dj in a similar but slightly more serious is Aaron Spectre/Drumcorps.

other bands that I think encapsulate the tone and approach of Artaudian theatre are SHELLAC, DON CABELLERO, OXES, MOGWAI, MINOR THREAT, BLACK FLAG, MILES DAVIS. Anyway I'll stop there or i'll just end up listening my favourite bands.

Nick.
x

Intellectual Madness

This won't be as linguistically profound as some of the other posts, but I have to mention something which has been in my head since the debate.

A speaker on the 'against' side of the argument pointed out that in order to make art, there needs to be an intellectual input or message, and therefore was suggesting this as a reason for L'art Brut to be a void concept.

1. This is hugely offensive in its implication that people with symptoms of 'madness' cannot be intellectual,

and

2. This speaker was implying that art is an elitist activity to be made and shared only by intellectuals.

Both of these points I refute, as Artaud himself was a very intelligent man, and indeed if we are to say that all art should be met with an intellectual eye, should there not be some kind of humiliating I.Q. test to take upon entry to an art gallery?

Emma

Madness and Art Debate

Just a couple of things I was thinking about during the debate and afterwards (on the pro side).

Considering the view of thinkers such as Sasz, Laing etc etc that perceived 'madness' as an attempt to express 'disapproved' thought led me to wonder if in fact part of the wonder of art is the ability and opportunity it affords the artist to express and explore ideas that might not otherwise be acceptable or understood by society. The use of art as a medium through which to express these ideas does not by any means indicate that an artist is mad, merely that he or she chooses this medium through which to express ideas he or she may otherwise struggle to. I would suggest that in some cases art becomes an acceptable arena for what could otherwise be unacceptable, or perhaps inexpressible. In this case 'madness' or the accusation of madness appears to me the result of incomprehension or 'blinkeredness' (really really not a word, but never mind....) on the part of the audience.

Considering also the question of inaccessibility to 'normal' society: I believe that really, pretty much all art is going to come from a place essentially inaccessible to any one part of society; one person's imagination is not the same as another's and in this sense all art comes from a different place, a different mindset than the one with which an audience will then view the piece. It is surely almost impossible for an audience to fully understand an artist's motives- the fact that this is the case in no way indicates either that the work is the result of madness or is pointless and useless within the medium. Personally I believe that one of the greatest things about art remains the fact that, whatever an artist's motivation and/or message, it is possible to interpret the same work in countless different ways.

Shakespeare without his verse

With a playwright now so universally acclaimed and interpreted, why not get rid of the language that makes up Shakespeare’s masterpieces? Yes, they are classics and masterpieces, and Artaud indeed stresses the anachronistic nature of them in a modern society, renouncing them as ‘fit for the past’ and incomprehensible to the masses, but Artaud also makes the suggestion that masterpieces can be made conscious to the masses if their ideas are spoken in their language. As Artaud says: ‘theatre is the only place in the world where a gesture, made once, is never repeated in the same way’. I believe it is possible to recreate Shakespeare in an Artaudian language, that goes deeper than one’s intellect and touches on the sensualities and emotions of all people across the world, through what Artaud calls a language somewhere between thought and gesture, which lies outside the restricted nature of words. Instead of actors focussing on the complex nuances of Shakespearean verse, they would make use of the language’s symbolism and interconnections to speak of a world they live in. Last year I saw ‘Richard the Third’ recreated into an ‘Arab Tragedy’, where Shakespeare’s text was cut and edited and translated into Arabic. The English geography, images, conceits and religious framework were reworked into the world of the Gulf today. English history was used to explore contemporary political anxieties in the Gulf and Arab region. Language was not the focus of the play; it had been rewritten. The play was created by a historical idea, much like what Artaud championed, and a theatrical language was created where Arabs as well as English (and I’m sure other nationalities) in the audience could connect with the sensuality, emotion and rhythm contained in that language, whether or not the words were understood.

Artaud's theory in relation to Shakespeare's 'Othello'

Artaud continually stressed the restrictive nature of language, campaigning against traditional masterpieces. He sighted Shakespeare as a key culprit whose work he claimed was ineffectual with the audience, undoubtedly seeming to contradict his idea of staging a Shakespeare in conjunction with his theories. However, perhaps dependent on the fact that Shakespeare plays are what I know more about, there are moments in these where I can imagine the Artaudian theory being exploited. There are parts to‘Othello’ which to me seem an obvious choice through the degeneration of the principle character’s mind. Not only does the play portray physical violence, (predominantly in the blood bath that is the final scene), but also internal torment within Othello climaxing in Act Four Scene One. The stage directions indicate ‘He falls down in a trance’, indeed a production I saw explored convulsions and physical distortions in the actor’s body, both unnerving to watch, and likewise suggesting a move into the unconscious, looking to the inner world or ‘metaphysical man’. The last scene is, fundamentally, violent in action, a literal take on the word ‘cruel’ which Artaud did not necessarily intend. However in the production I saw the audience became central to the action. They were surrounding the actors as the plot unfolded and almost became part of the carnage as blood splattered onto them. Indeed Artaud wanted his audience to be central to the action, ‘true’ theatre he claimed was dangerous, he wanted it to be immediate and completely encase the audience so as to have a profound, long term effect. Whether or not this latter idea is the case, the feeling of being trapped and immersed in the violence was prominent. Finally, I agree with Nick’s point about language for Artuad looked to the oriental way of considering the voice, where words become almost incantations arresting our sensibility and inducing trances. The rhythm, structure and continual flow of Shakespeare’s words, on one sense aligns with this, highlighting how I believe there are at least moments which suggest ‘Othello’ could be produced in an Artaudian style.