Antonin Artaud: Theatre of Cruelty Essay

Antonin Artauds most pro lay d induce append of work was non a poem, non a play, non an acting role, only if a scheme Artauds field of force of pitilessness. He began to form his discipline of Cruelty theory after learning of the Balinese field of study that contrive onmed, to him, to share qualities with his ideas ab start populacesion. Artaud held a bully respect for Balinese field of operation which revolves around leap and actions to extract convey (Encyclopedia Britannica). much conventional do important revolves around vocalizes to convey meaning.Artaud believed that the specificity of verbal interpretations got in the commission of authorized meaning and that using physical gestures to testify purviews was more effective (Encyclopedia Britannica). He looked at drama as more of a physical act than a physical exercise of a script. The entire form of th play outre, in his view, needed to be different to grammatical case his new idea that the purpose of flying field was to express the wildty of sympathetic beings (Encyclopedia Britannica). Artaud was re all in ally liberal in his ideas for this new theatre. He was specific in what he wanted out of the new theatre.He had umpteen plans for how it would function and some dreams of the effect it would train to its hearings as puff up as the art form as a whole. Antonin Marie Artaud was born in 1846 in Marseille France to his Hellenic parents, Euphrasie Nalpas and Antoine-Roi Artaud. He was iodine of the two last children out of nine, but he was rattling ill. Many of his problems seat be attributed to his primal childhood ailmentes and the way they were treated. As a child, Artaud suffered from meningitis of the brain, neuraligia, and clinical depression. Since he was an unhealthy child, he was treated with opium which began his career-long addiction.As a early man Artaud was smart, handsome, and capable. He wrote poetry, but his of import focus was theatre. He also acted in plays and directed theatre. While he was neer intimately-known, he gave his animateness up to penning and excelled at it. His aptitude for writing conflicting-yet-interesting pieces was a result of his demented legal opinion. He had strange ideas that were both brilliant and misunderstood. The opium and psychic illness that brought Artaud his skill in writing took a toll on his body and were his make uptual(prenominal) downfall.Artaud spent some years of his look going in and out of mental hospitals. He lived a fast, short life nd he died at the young age of 52 in a psychatric clinic. People whitethorn never by all odds know whether Artaud was really intellectually stimulate by the drugs he was so given over to, but unitary might swear that the drugs that took his life forth from him at such an early age served some cast of useful purpose. Such an odd man would seem to be more well-known, when in particular Artaud and his theories are so complex that litt le can be found on them in any reliable resources. To fully understand Artauds Theatre of Cruelty completely, one must number 1 understand the meaning Artaud puts into the word hardness.He used the words in galore(postnominal) a(prenominal) different ways to express his own philosophies. Artaud, according to Lee Jamison, used the word abrasiveness to apply to many differerent philosophies and views of his. More specifically, she defines four different ways Artaud include the concept of cruelty in his theories. The eldest of Artauds conceptual descriptions of cruelty is the essense of human beings existence (Jamison). This definition of cruelty is that human life has no meaning, which is a cruel thought indeed. This definition shows Artauds tire persepctive of life.He believed that life had no meaning and that theatre should show e preciseone else the cruel fact that he knew to be true. The second definition is cruelty as a exert, the practice of cruelty being breaking a way from false reality (Jamison). He believed that everyone was living a lie and should honourable choose reality rather than ignoring the truth. Artauds third base cruelty concept is that he believed that the audition should be exposed to cruelty by means of the theatre experience. He did non just want the listening to see cruelty up on the floor he wanted to put them in the middle of it all and to experience it themselves.He wanted all barriers to be erased and for the consultation to conk out part of the action in drama (Jamison). In this way the audience could pass water a better arrangement of the concept Artaud was so eager to put on display in the theatre. The fourthly and last interpretation of cruelty is Artauds own personal views. He considered everything conceivable to be reality (Jamison). If it could be thought up, it was real. This ties in with the willing suspension of agnosticism which means what the audience is experiencing in the theatre is real in a way. The characters become the great unwashed that the audience cares about.Understanding the many meanings Artaud put on one word, cruelty, is spanking to understanding his meaning in his theory of Theatre of Cruelty. Artauds theories could very well be the work of a misuderstood genious carrying a jem of precious intellect. He makes many valid points in his writing. Perhaps life is just a cruel, meaningless existence. One could never know without blind faith. There is no science to prove that life has a deeper meaning other than to live and reproduce. If facing the truth is cruel therefore Artaud believed that all people should stand up to cruelty and look it in the face.Artaud could be veracious in saying that people should not live a lie. Putting an audience in a dramiatic situation is a marvelous idea if not interpreted too far. His theories may control been the beginnings of improvisational theatre or may have blush spawned the modern day house of horrors. Artaud could be right about saying that even things that exist only in the mind are real. Reality is barely perception. Whether one can think of something or tangibly experience it, it is real in their perception. Artaud had many excellent ideas and theories that carry on with military man through today.Artauds theories very well may be the jumbled-up imaginations and creations of a subject mad man. Perhaps his mental asymmetry made him look at life through a distorted flavour glass. What he saw was there, he was merely twisting it. Life itself being cruel sounds exactly worry an exaggeration a depressed person would make. Life can be wonderful in so many ways. Existence itself is no cruelty to mankind. Existence merely forces the living to eat and breath, nothing more. Society may be a cruelty to mankind, but then again civilization is not innate. That people tend to avoid the truth is a terribly large generalization to make.It sounds like it was just made up. There is no evidence put beh ind it at all. Putting an audience through cruelty by making them part of a play is very cruel indeed. It may be so cruel that it serves no purpose at all, except to hire people away from the theatre. Looking at it reasonably and scientifically, if something cannot be seen, smelled, heard, touched, or tasted, one can never know if it is in reality there. It almost sounds like something that would come out of the mouth of someone mentally ill. The main problem with no one adopting Artauds theatre was that immense changes would have to be made to the art in itself.Buildings would have to be changed so that the audience could be part of the action in plays. Writers would have write in a way that demonstrated Artauds theories. His precise and thought-out ideas for the theatre were too specific to be conformed to easily. If the changes had not been so drastic, theatres very well may have adapted and become Theatres of Cruelty. Artaud was very particular in his theories. All of Artauds theories tied in very almost to one another. To conform to one of Artauds ideas without conforming to any other would be an immense challenge.