The Theater and Its Double

Teorie Współczesnego Teatru

by Antonin Artaud, Victor Corti (Translator)

Οι θεατές των κινηματογραφικών λεσχών μπορούν να δουν σήμερα τον Αρτώ στο φιλμ Fait-Divers του Ωτάν - Λαρά (1922). Μια ευαίσθητη, σεραφική εφηβική μορφή. Ο Αντονέν Αρτώ γεννήθηκε στη Μασαλία στα 1896, και πέθανε στο Παρίσι στα 1948. Ύστερα από μια εφηβεία που την έσκιαζαν συμπτώματα σοβαρών νευρικών διαταραχών (αργότερα θα εκδηλωθούν αγριώτερα και με άγρια αποτελέσματα), ο Αρτώ φτάνει στα 1920 στο Παρίσι, όπου γνωρίζεται με το Θέατρο, τον Κινηματογράφο και τον κόσμο τους. Είχε την τύχη να συνεργαστεί με μεγάλα ονόματα: τον Ντυλλέν, τους Πιττοέφ, τον Ζουβέ. Στα 1922 δημοσιεύονται τα πρώτα του ποιήματα στον "Μερκύρ ντε Φρανς". Ήταν πρώτα απ' όλα ποιητής. Έτσι επίστευε.

Περιεχόμενα
Εισαγωγή
1. Το Θέατρο και η Πανούκλα
2. Σκηνοθεσία και Μεταφυσική
3. Το Αλχημικό Θέατρο
4. Το Θέατρο του Μπαλί
5. Θέατρο της Ανατολής και Θέατρο της Δύσης
6. Για να τελειώνουμε με τ’ αριστουργήματα
7. Το Θέατρο και η Σκληρότητα.
8. Το Θέατρο της Σκληρότητας. Πρώτο Μανιφέστο
9. Επιστολές με θέμα τη Σκληρότητα
10. Επιστολές με θέμα τη γλώσσα
11. Το Θέατρο της Σκληρότητας. Δεύτερο Μανιφέστο
12. Ο Αθλητισμός του θυμικού
13. Δύο Σημειώματα

Genres: Theatre, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Art, France, Plays, Drama

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1938

About the author

French surrealist poet and playwright Antonin Artaud advocated a deliberately shocking and confrontational style of drama that he called "theater of cruelty."

People better knew Antoine Marie Joseph Artaud, an essayist, actor, and director.

Considered among the most influential figures in the evolution of modern theory, Antonin Artaud associated with artists and experimental groups in Paris during the 1920s.

Political differences then resulted in him breaking and founding the theatre Alfred Jarry with Roger Vitrac and Robert Aron. Together, they expected to create a forum for works to change radically. Artaud especially expressed disdain for west of the day, panned the ordered plot and scripted language that his contemporaries typically employed to convey ideas, and recorded his ideas in such works as Le Theatre de la cruaute and The Theatre and Its Double .

Artaud thought to represent reality and to affect the much possible audience and therefore used a mixture of strange and disturbing forms of lighting, sound, and other performance elements.

Artaud wanted that the "spectacle" that "engulfed and physically affected" this audience, put in the middle. He referred to this layout like a "vortex," a "trapped and powerless" constantly shifting shape.

Reviews

[Luís · Rating 4 out of 5]

This essay combines several texts by Artaud centered on his research and desire for a new theater. This theater would eliminate its bourgeois aporias, abandoning its psychological traditions and the sovereignty it grants to the text and the author. We are in the 1930s, when the public favored cinema over the theater, which appeared moribund.
Artaud wishes to return to a magical and liturgical theater (he often refers to an exorcism, a trance). This theater would aim to bring the souls of the spectators to life, a theater of vibrations and resonances.
If this conception is quite right, Artaud often loses himself in mystical and kabbalist rantings that make no sense (for me, in any case) and harm his subject.

[Radoslaw · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perfect for a day at the beach

[Steven Godin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even though there are some weaknesses in Artaud's arguments this was no less a stimulating set of essays that certainly raised the eyebrows. Basically, western theatre of the time was (apart from the odd play here and there) utterly disgusting, likened to the plague, decadent, full of puss, and needed a good kick up the backside. This is the sort of thing Georges Bataille could have wrote had he been a theatre director.

[Aung Sett Kyaw Min · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm practically a phillistine when it comes to fine arts. Even then, I found much of what Artuad says in this manifesto to be surprisingly accessible.
The Occidental theatre has lost its magic to make a metaphysics out of gestures, lighting, movements, in the short, the whole mise en scene, proclaims Artuad.
The Director prostrates before the Author, the stage before the text, the non-discursive materiality of the word before the written text.
Frustrated by the emanciation of Theater into a pathetic, anaemic screen on which our psychological and moral squabbles are half projected and half resolved, Artuad proposes that we break out of the dictactorship of written text and restore to Theater its original destiny as a spectacle of equal convulsion, impulse, and vigour as the phenomenon of life itself.
In the Balinese theater, for example, the distinction between background and foreground collapse under the immense abstract weight of the costumes, the sound of the thunderous musical accompaniments that threaten to become gestures in their own right, and the geometric lines articulated by sudden and mechanical sliding, twisting, and turning of the heads, limbs and wrists.
Artuad notoriously fancies "cruelty" as the essential dimension of this Theater.
But cruelty is something wholly other than bloodshed, at least according to Artuad. Rather, it is an abstract principle that life insofar as an conscious effort on its own part to discriminate itself from unlife obeys to the nth degree. Namely, life is already cruelty.
"Cruelty signifies rigor, implacable intention and decision, irreversible and absolute determination"
Often times Artuad is at pains to explain his theses in practical terms. But there's a palpable sense that what he's groping towards is a kind of a limit that life tends to as a primordial source from which it draws its vigour, but is not itself that. Artuad does not mince words. His prose is obscenely visceral.

[Oziel Bispo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Artaud faz uma Crítica ao teatro verbal do ocidente que não se utiliza da metafísica dos gestos ,que nunca soube utilizar a música para fins dramáticos ,não faz uso de movimentos ,formas, cores, vibrações, atitudes e gritos. Elogia o teatro oriental que se utiliza de tudo citado acima. Artaud admira o teatro de Bali com toda a sutileza dos gestos , nas modulações variadas das vozes, músicas e mímicas. Critica os diretores ocidentais que seriam eliminadores de atores, enquanto os diretores orientais seriam um ordenador mágico, um mestre de cerimônias sagrado. Critica também as adaptações de obras primas a qual chama de teatro psicológico .Essas obras teriam que ser adaptadas para a época atual.
Propõe então através de manifestos, uma nova forma de se fazer teatro( isso na década de 30) que seria o teatro da crueldade.O espectador não seria apenas um mero espectador , seria submetido a uma carga emocional , a um tratamento de choque emotivo. Não haveria também nenhuma distância entre ator e a plateia, todos seriam atores e todos fariam parte do processo, ao mesmo tempo.

[Naopako dete]

Ova knjiga je više silovita nego što je pametna. Arto u nekom naletu neobuzdane energije govori o suštinskim promenama neophodnim za pozorište koje dolazi. On najpre traži da se ukine primati reči kao glavnog sredstva i medija kojim pozorište operiše. Ono što je za savremeni tatar podrazumevano - upotreba tela, pokreta, svetla... odnosno svih scenskih elemenata, za pozorište sa početka XX veka bilo je gotovo nedostupno polje. Arto, traži novi jezik za zapadni teatar, jezik po uzoru na pozorišta istoka. gde prema njegovom mišljenju granica između života i teatra nije izbrisana i to zbog toga što su pomenuta pozorišta i kulture u okviru kojih ona nastaju sačuvala jedinstvo između mišljenja i delanja. Odnosno, kako to Arto formuliše, "pokret i mišljenje u ovim pozorištima dolaze iz života, a ovaj proces nije suprotan."

U nekom tehničkom smislu ova knjiga deluje pomalo haotično, nasumično nabacana poglavlja, bez jasne strukture navode na pomisao da je Artou jednostavno dopizdilo da gleda izvedbe Rasina i Šekspira i megalomaniju reči koja obično prati ove velike dramske pisce, te je odlučio da se obračuna sa svojim savremenicima.

Kako bilo, Artoov rad predstavlja prekretnicu ka savremenom pozorištu i tu je najveća vrednost ove knjige, koja uz izvesne modifikacije može da komunicira i sa savremenim trenutkom, budući da govori o smeni poetskih paradigmi, a ove u tranzicionim periodima gotovo uvek stoje u istom odnosu.

[Plagued by Visions · Rating 5 out of 5]

A spellbinding, passionately iconoclastic critique of art and a momentous recognition of its power to provoke and challenge.

[Timothy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is one of those books that seems cursed by having been too influential. Some of the arguments, presumably ground-breaking at the time, have been so thoroughly absorbed in later theoretical and artistic developments that they seem obvious. The end result is a book that feels repetitive and rather banal. The message may be trivial, but Artaud's writing is lively. He covers Balinese theater, Kabbalah, Aztec culture, and the Black Death; not in the manner of an eclectic scholar, but rather like someone who has become fiercely obsessed with a few random subjects. As a Marx Brothers fan, I appreciated this bit near the ending: "The poetic quality of a film like Animal Crackers might correspond to the definition of humor, if this word had not long since lost its meaning of total liberation, of the destruction of all reality in the mind."

[Brendan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Artaud's ideas about revolutionizing the theater remain groundbreaking and provocative even today. This is a good place to start with his work.

[Phillip · Rating 3 out of 5]

Newer Review: Apparently the first time I read this I rather enjoyed it, but this time I was really put off by the racism, especially in essays like "The Balinese Theatre." But I also disliked this essay because I simply have no idea what he's talking about. I mean, I have a sense of how Balinese performance works and what it generally looks like, but Artaud's explanation of it is so bizarre and dependent on generalizations about a shared communal response that his explanation simply doesn't make sense to me.
I think I have some sense of what his overall goal is--a theatre of expression almost without words, where other non-linguistic semiotic codes do the work of meaning making, but I simply don't see how that kind of theatre is meant to consider deep metaphysical issues as he says it does/will/should (though maybe I misunderstand what Artaud means by 'metaphysical,' which could significantly change my reading of his theory).
The other thing I don't fully understand with Artaud is why. I mean, Brecht lays out fairly clearly why he wants the Epic/Dialectic Theatre, but I don't really see much justification for Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty. Yes, he points out that there is some kind of problem with contemporary theatre (of the 1930s), which I think was a fairly well accepted idea, but apart from a general primitivist ethic in Modernism I don't see anyplace where he explains why the Theatre of Cruelty is THE way to redeem theatre.


Original Review: I was intiially put off by several aspects of Artaud's theory--his notable racism (he has overly romantic of non-Wester ultures), the vagueness of his terms (especially "life," just as in Nietzsche), and his general inability to clearly articulate what exactly he wants. By the end of the book, I still feel that these are problems, but they bother me much less than after the first two or three essays. The racism is very much a problem of its time, and for the 1930s a noble-savage mindset was somewhat tolerant. The vagueness never really goes away, but as he repeatedly tries to explain and develop his core idea, this vagueness becomes less and less problematic.

I think that Artaud's idea is interesting, and I can certainly see his influence in certain modern productions (notably a RSC production of Julius Caesar, which was very spectacle heavy). However, I suspect that the image of Western theatre he sets up may be a strawman--the idea that no one ever 'does' anything, only talks, doesn't seem to ring true. But I suppose I don't know for certain what the theatre culture of the 1920s and 30s was like, beyond Laurence Olivier films.

[mia :•) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bring back criticism that's funny!! 'I attended a discussion on theatre a few days ago where I saw some of those creepy men, otherwise known as playwrights'

[Patty Gone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Following a lengthy discursive diatribe on plagues, Artaud gets to his metaphor: theater is like a plague. Both hit you in the lungs and mind. They each grab and twist, taking over, and whereas the plague will kill you, theater, if done to Artaud’s specifications, captures the breath and liberates the mind. Liberate it from what? Who knows.
Artaud thinks of theater as a venue to play out “the perverse possibilities of the mind.” To those who think that’s dark and morbid, Artaud says that’s life’s fault, not theater’s. If it’s buried deep in his psyche, it’s probably deep in your psyche too, so let’s not lie to each other here. Let’s make the stage a location where the “difficult” and “impossible” become “normal.” If Artaud can stage extreme behavior, it will impel his audience “to see themselves as they are.” It will cause “the mask to fall.” It will “reveal the lie.” What exactly is that lie, that mask? Nevermind. But once we’re rid of them, we can all move forward and live out the remainder of our days with a “heroic attitude.”
Chapter 2 - metaphysics and the mise en scène
Artaud uses a painting by Lucas ven den Leyden, “The Daughters of Lot,” to demonstrate his theories of metaphysics and mise en scène in art. He says, “it affects the mind with an almost thunderous visual harmony.” He says the painting contains the following elements, and capitalizes them: Becoming (a transformation of some kind), Fatality (death, it’s coming for all of us, so let’s acknowledge it), Chaos (in the painting, fireballs shoot down from heaven), Marvelous (the non-representational), Equilibrium (what I interpret as balance in aesthetic composition), & Impotence of Speech (talk is cheap).
These words become the foundation for his Theatre of Cruelty. He advocates for a poetry of space, “a poetry of the senses,” to leave the “poetry of language” for the page. He questions the notion that the script should be the number one priority of a stage production. Why? Literature is for an audience of one. The writer isn’t present, so all a writer has are words. Conversely, theater is present, and when one is in the same room as the audience, what you control above all else is atmosphere, mise en scène. How to do that? Target multiple sensory registers and shoot. If you’re going to use words at all, weird them, make them loud, soft, chant them, fragment them. Do anything but use words in actors’ mouths to achieve some “modern humanistic and psychological meaning,” some blah blah realistic domestic drama, a prestige play that tries to represent real life. Where is the danger in that? Artaud does not want his audience to quaintly empathize with a character, to see themselves. He wants to yank out their insides and hold the bleeding organs in front of their eyes.
Chapter 6 - No More Masterpieces
So why this “asphyxiating atmosphere” of the modern world? This “respect for art” that already happened, this allegiance, bowing down before the so-called classics? They’re only masterpieces because an institution called them so. Artaud says that if “the public” doesn’t respond to a new production of Oedipus Rex, it’s the fault of Rex and those deciding to stage it. It’s no longer “of our time.” I’ve had this argument with many regarding restaging of classics, especially Shakespeare. If not for money, name recognition, asses in the seats, they why? Institutions have fed actors and directors these classics, and now that they have the means, they want to play Hamlet, direct Hamlet, etc, to regurgitate classics as a way of fulfilling childhood fantasy. Artaud advocates for death to “this closed, egoistic, and personal art.” This seriousness, this cloying need for validation and prestige on loop, turns us into “snobs, rushing en masse to hear such and such singer, to see such and such an admirable performance.”
But while Artaud wants to rid the theater of this seriousness, while he wants to provide a “valid spectacle” for the average theater-goer, his work is not intended for “grad students” or “esthetes,” he knows he can’t win them over. All this sounds like a theater that relaxes, considers the audience over the need for prestige of those performing it, but Artaud says The Theater of Cruelty’s goal is to change the minds of its audience by force, Sontag calls it a theatrical version of shock therapy. For all his intent, what Artaud mounts on the stage is seemingly nothing more than a violent morality play, which seems like a sidestep, not the leap forward he envisions. I admire his purity of vision, the boiling passion, but I’m longing for a mode of practical application. Artaud sets out the possibilities of theater, a set of impossible standards. Why is the concept of the Theater of Cruelty ultimately a failure?

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book should be read, closely read, re-read, and taken seriously by anyone who ever takes theatre seriously as an artform, a means of communication, a way of life, or the only thing we've ever done besides procreating, defecating, and dying.

it's written by a total lunatic who's thoughts and precision cannot be dismissed because of his insanity. to the contrary, his particular mental disturbances so sharpen his thoughts, that, at the very least, they need be considered, if not pored over with great care.

as with many of our madmen, artaud was directionally crazy, and his direction took him through the heart of theatre.

the fantastic thing about this book, for anyone working in theatre, is that it gives you the answer to the question: what would i think about what i'm doing here if i were so batshit crazy that i could think about nothing else?

and, at some level, if you have no answer for that question, you've really fucked up to've ended up where you are, my friend.

[Ollie Embourne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was... something of a mixed bag, I think would be the best way to phrase it. I read it partly out of curiosity, partly for research, and partly out of a need to be the most pretentious person I know in a particular hobby and I feel very much aided in the third of those goals. Artaud's intention with his practices was essentially to create a reaction in his audience, though, and he certainly did that for me.

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exactly, exactly and I told her I said, "ma'am,"

[pievava · Rating 4 out of 5]

kalbėjimas negimus žodžiams

[Skrivena stranica · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ova knjiga važna je za poznavanje povijesti kazališta, ali se ne slažem s vizijom koju predstavlja, zapravo, bolje bi bilo reći da se ne slažem s onim što je ostvarila. U mnogome ono što Artaud opisuje meni zapravo zvuči kao folklorno kazalište (kazalište koje nije na pozornici, kazalište koje je dio ritualnog prostora malih ljudi, koje njima znači u njihovoj percepciji prostora, kazalište koje kroz divlje zvukove, čak i lascivne teme zapravo kroz taj kaos pokušava povratiti na duboko simboličan način red u svemir), ali folklorno kazalište koje je on tumačio u potpuno pogrešnom smislu od onoga koje ono nosi (ili bar nosi u mojoj percepciji jer sam u njemu sudjelovala). Govori u nekim slučajevima kako treba vratiti kazalište narodu i da je krivnja kazališta što ono narod ne zanima, a upravo ono što je nastalo inspirirano njegovom vizijom je nešto najdalje od naroda što se može biti i u čemu uživa samo turbo elitistički odvojena ekipa koju zanima njegova vizija i koja je upućena u ono što bi ona trebala predstavljati. Upravo to meni zvuči kao točna promašenost njegove vizije, a možda je to i zato što je ni on sam nije potpuno razumio, tj. nije razumio to Balijsko kazalište kojem se toliko divio. U drugu ruku, vidi se da je djelo jako inspirirano istočnjačkom duhovnošću i tumači problematiku upravo zapadnjačkim razvojem umjetnosti, ali očito nije zavrio u folklor na zapadu da bi shvatio da se ne radi toliko o razvoju uniformirane umjetnosti koliko o cijelom duhu u kojem su te civilizacije nastajale.
Ovo sam se napisala upravo zato što me njegova vizija čak i zaintrigirala, učinila da se u mnogome slažem, ali način na koji se to postiže (ostvarenje te vizije) po meni je potpuno promašen.
Knjižica je jako pristupačna, jezik je lijep i poetičan, a mnoga ponavljanja su po mome mišljenju dobrodošla jer pomažu u razumijevanju i usustavljivanju Artaudovih ideja.

[G · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muy buen libro sobre la identidad del teatro. Artaud reclamaba una revolución dentro del teatro para romper con la decadencia del entretenimiento burgués o de la subordinación a la literatura. Su propósito era transformar el teatro en una experiencia estética superadora, única, promotora del desarrollo humano, en una especie de despertar de la conciencia, de apertura a posibilidades cerradas por el teatro tradicional de occidente. Propone fortalecer un fondo inasible, algo difuso, de la subjetividad humana en el que no hay lenguaje pero resulta vital para el ser humano. Hace un elogio del teatro de oriente por su empleo del simbolismo, del gesto, de la sutileza, del alejamiento de la palabra, de la puesta en escena. La duplicidad a la que se refiere Artaud es algo escurridiza, parece aproximarse a la noción también escurridiza de crueldad. Creo que se trata de una manera muy personal de referirse al conflicto, al choque, a la violencia que implica la dialéctica. En el devenir dialéctico el movimiento puede ser entendido como una especie de crueldad. Es decir, la antítesis destruye y a la vez restituye en síntesis a una versión revuelta de la tesis. Pienso que Artaud era un teórico hegeliano del teatro, al menos en una versión muy particular de hegelianismo. Creo que es valiosa la tentativa de promover un teatro vivo, capaz de transformar al ser humano, de habilitar experiencias superadoras. Sería imposible estar en desacuerdo con ese propósito. Sin embargo, creo que Artaud se confunde justo cuando está iluminado. Dice, por ejemplo, que Shakespeare es culpable de la decadencia del teatro, también Racine, por promover el entretenimiento en lugar de la experiencia transformadora. Creo que esta postura es errónea o al menos objetable. Pienso en las lecturas de Racine que hace George Steiner y en las lecturas de Shakespeare que hace Harold Bloom. Artaud, en cambio, se vuelve dogmático al respecto. Más todavía, extiende su teoría a las masas, con lo cual su discurso de ruptura, liberación y superación se transforma en algo próximo a un totalitarismo. Creo que esta es la razón por la que Artaud genera lecturas inestables, contradictorias, molestas. Pienso también que la promoción de la conciencia no es un propósito siempre feliz. La conciencia humana es sólo un recurso cognitivo, uno más entre otros. Actualmente sabemos que la conciencia humana está muy distorsionada, su principal tarea es la de dotar de sentido al mundo que percibimos. Ese sentido es siempre ficcional, contiene sesgos sistemáticos, es asintótico con la percepción misma. Pienso en las limitaciones de la conciencia descriptas por Phil Johnson-Laird, Jonathan Evans, Daniel Kahneman, las ciencias cognitivas en general. De manera que la sobrevaloración de la conciencia que promueve Artaud puede resultar algo ingenua, incluso peligrosa. Creo que ese giro totalitario de las intenciones libertarias es un lugar común. No tropezó sólo Artaud. Trotsky, por ejemplo, en su teoría de la revolución permanente afirma que la revolución concluye cuando el grupo de dirigentes revolucionarios llega al poder. Entonces, no es permanente. Creo que algo similar le ocurre a las teorías de Artaud. Parecen saludables en su diagnóstico de la decadencia, en su propuesta de superación, pero se enferman en su propia afirmación. Artaud en sus textos transmuta de libertario en dictador. En cualquier caso, pienso que este libro es muy valioso porque plantea problemas del teatro que sólo por ser planteados resultan saludables.

[Natalie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whether you study the theater professionally or are just interested in learning something new about it, you’ll enjoy this book thoroughly. Not all of Artaud’s positions are acceptable for me. For example, I do not agree that the Oriental theater is superior and more invocative just because it is about the spiritual conflicts. The Occidental (Western) theater, the theater of psychological conflicts based on spoken language, could acquire the same incantation, depending of actors’ professionalism and directors’ skillfulness.
Nevertheless, thanks to Artaud I discovered the theater of cruelty, the surrealistic theater, I did not know anything about before, being just a theater lover and not a specialist.
As for me, the general ideas of the theater of cruelty would be better understood if one ever watched the works of Mnochkine’s “Theatre du Soleil”, Punchdrunk’s immersive “Sleep no more” or pantomimic “Mummenchantz,” presenting the art of performing in different means, but alike in surrealistic approach, brought to life by Artaud’s generation. I highly recommend to paire at least one of the above pieces with the “Theater and its double” in order to value the ideas of Artaud as well as their impact on the theater in general.

[M.L. Rio · Rating 2 out of 5]

I disagree wholesale with pretty much everything Artaud has to say--and his philosophies usually produce the kind of insufferable pretentious theatre nobody outside of an art school can stand--but this is still essential reading for any serious theatre student. The last chapter on actor-as-athlete Is particularly worthwhile.

[Lani Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

he really was schizophrenic

[Joe Simpkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

No one else has understood reality quite like Antonin Artaud
And no one else can make reality tremble out of you like he can
As he shakes your mind violently

[Milo Galiano · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me lo leí hace unos 5 años. Perdí a Artaud de vista hasta que me tuve que volver a encontrar el año pasado. Ahora vuelvo a él. Un zig zag interminable. Ojalá no cese nunca. Su forma de escribir me hipnotiza y en muchas ocasiones me bastaba con que las palabras se formasen en ruidos visuales.

A nivel de contenidos, la tesis que presenta me han atravesado de un modo que solo les poetas lo consiguen hacer. Artaud, el dramaturgo, el pensador, el poeta y el creador, pero también Artaud el que impacta, el que violenta, el que baila y el que se desahoga en el texto tras extraerle el logos.

[Sarvin · Rating 5 out of 5]

a true and violent critic on theater in which all the dialogue-based reality of the theater is damaged and a more concrete and poetic one is created by Artaud. the one which functions more through the "mise en scene" and through a language of its own.

[Aleksandras Rimdžius · Rating 5 out of 5]

Degantis tekstas. Tiesiog nuostabu, kad laikotarpiu tarp didžiosios depresijos ir antrojo pasaulinio kažkas tokiu skvarbiu žvigsniu žvelgė būtent į meną. Drauge jo atodangos apnuogina moderniojo meno nykumą ir skurdą, kai viskas aplink meniška, išskyrus patį meną. Perskaitęs, supratau, kodėl jau negaliu tverti visokių nekrošių, oskarų, areimų ir kodėl taip traukia vėl pažiūrėti Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

[Drew Praskovich · Rating 4 out of 5]

oh yes oh yes oh yes- I’m a metaphysical girl in a material world- I get it Antonin!!!!

[Marcos · Rating 5 out of 5]

ascendente

[Alin Cristian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Genul de carte care te face să îți pui întrebări...

[Mehran · Rating 4 out of 5]

من بصورت خلاصه دو برداشت کلی از مقاله‌های آرتو در رابطه با تئاتر شقاوت داشتم
اول اینکه اعتقاد داشته نباید تئاتر با تکیه بر متن و زبان مرسوم طراحی و احرا بشه بلکه باید بر اساس زبانی مانند هیروگلیف کارگردانی و اجرا بشه
دوم هم اینکه تئاتر باید با شقاوت تمام به دنبال زنده و نمایان کردن عمیق‌ترین احساسات و ادراکات طبیعی انسان باشه نه اینکه صرفا بدنبال مطرح و حل کردن مسائل روانشناختی انسان اون هم متکی بر متن باشه

[Ⰰⱃⰿⰰⱀⰴ Ⱆⰾⰴⰵⱃⰻⰽⱁ Ⱅⰵⱄⰾⰰ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hrvatski centar ITI-UNESCO
Zagreb, 2000.
Preveo: Vinko Grubišić
Izvorno objavljeno 1938.
Ocjenu sam dao oslanjajući se pretežito na sadržaj, s time da je stil jako kvalitetan.
U vezi jezika valja reći da je sve pisano esejističkim stilom koji je, u nekim teorijskim tekstovima, toliko isprepleten s književnoumjetničkim stilom da se neki teorijski tekstovi mogu smatrati i književnim djelima, posebice tekst "Kazalište i kuga". Jezik je jednostavan i razumljiv. Artaud je posjedovao izniman i živopisan duh, iz njegova teksta kreativnost,u stilu i u sadržaju, bombardira čitatelja.
Teorijska ideja gotovo potpunog odbacivanja teksta, u potpunosti micanje dijaloga, negiranje europskog psihološkog kazališta je inventivna i avangardna. Meni je tekst uvijek draži od posttesktualnog kazališta, no kužim što Artaud želi. S time da nikada nisam gledao artaudovsku predstavu, možda bi nakon gledanja jedne takve predstave i zavolio takvo kazalište više od ovog srednjostrujaškog kazališta. Artaud je u pravu kada tvrdi da su dijalozi, izgovaranje riječi, konkretni psihološko-egzistencijalni problemi kazališnih likova nekazališni element kazališta. Artaud smatra da je temelj kazališta režija, po uzoru na kazališta nezapadnih društava želi ostvariti kazalište utemeljeno na kretnjama tijela, simbolici scenografije, neljudskim zvukovima, neartikuliranim zvukovima te na novom korištenju rasvjete. Artaud želi dovesti publiku nasred kazališta, da se predstava odvija u svim smjerovima oko publike. Artaud je prometejska vatra, svojevrsni Donadini, rušitelj starog, stvaratelj novog, koji je, poput Donadinija, bio psihički bolestan.
Artaud je bio bajronovska ličnost avangarde.
Obično, u svojim osvrtima, nikada ne govorim o piscu, no Artuad me zaintrigirao. On je Napoleon književnosti, Raskoljnjikov koji je pokušao ubiti Aljonu Ivanovnu, no gledajući današnje srednjostrujaško kazalište, očito je da je Aljona Ivanovna još živa. Ali nakon Artauda, iako živa, još nije izvadila sjekiru koja joj je zabodena od strane Artuda, te tetura, sve više i više.
Pročitavši ovu knjigu očito je da je velik utjecaj na nju imalo Nietzscheovo "Rođenje tragedije".
No na kraju smo Kali Yuge, na kraju smo helenističke kulture, bar se možemo nadati, no smrt naše civilizacije je očigledna. Aljona Ivanovna će valjda uskoro preminuti.
Hvala ti Artaud!