Antonin Artaud: Theatre of Cruelty Essay

Antonin Artauds most profound piece of work was not a poem, not a play, not an acting role, but a theory Artauds Theatre of stiffness. He began to form his Theatre of Cruelty theory after learning of the Balinese theater of operations that take tomed, to him, to share qualities with his ideas ab break through theatre. Artaud held a great respect for Balinese theatre which revolves around dance and actions to convey he ruse and soul (Encyclopedia Britannica). More traditional theatre revolves around words to convey gist.Artaud believed that the specificity of oral interpretations got in the counseling of true meaning and that using physical gestures to give tongue to thoughts was much effective (Encyclopedia Britannica). He behaviored at turn as more of a physical act than a recitation of a script. The finished form of theatre, in his view, needed to be diverse to suit his unuse idea that the purpose of theatre was to express the inclemency of man beings (Encyclopedia Britannica). Artaud was actu everyy liberal in his ideas for this new theatre. He was specific in what he wanted out of the new theatre.He had some plans for how it would function and numerous dreams of the effect it would bring to its audiences as well as the prowess form as a whole. Antonin Marie Artaud was born in 1846 in Marseille France to his Grecian parents, Euphrasie Nalpas and Antoine-Roi Artaud. He was iodin of the two surviving children out of nine, but he was very ill. Many of his problems merchant ship be attributed to his early childhood illnesses and the counselling they were hardened. 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 life-long addiction.As a young man Artaud was smart, handsome, and capable. He wrote poetry, but his main(prenominal) focus was theatre. He also acted in plays and directed theatre. While he was never well-kno wn, he gave his life up to writing and excelled at it. His cleverness for writing strange-yet-interesting pieces was a result of his demented mind. He had strange ideas that were some(prenominal) brilliant and misunders besidesd. The opium and mental illness that brought Artaud his skill in writing took a toll on his body and were his howevertual downfall.Artaud spent some old eon of his life 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 may never decidedly know whether Artaud was really intellectually inspired by the drugs he was so addicted to, but one might hope that the drugs that took his life remote from him at such an early age served some sort of useable purpose. Such an odd man would seem to be more well-known, when in fact Artaud and his theories are so obscure that little can be found on them in any reliable resources. To fully go steady Artauds Theatre of Cruelty completely, one must first realize the meaning Artaud endues into the word ruthlessness.He used the words in many different ways to express his own philosophies. Artaud, according to Lee Jamison, used the word barbarousty to apply to many differerent philosophies and views of his. More specifically, she defines four different ways Artaud included the invention of savagety in his theories. The first of Artauds conceptual definitions of cruelty is the essense of human existence (Jamison). This definition of cruelty is that human life has no meaning, which is a cruel thought indeed. This definition lay downs Artauds jaded persepctive of life.He believed that life had no meaning and that theatre should show everyone else the cruel fact that he knew to be true. The second definition is cruelty as a practice, the practice of cruelty being breaking absent from false reality (Jamison). He believed that everyone was living a lie and should exclusively accept reality rather than ignoring the the t rue. Artauds third cruelty concept is that he believed that the audience should be exposed to cruelty by promoter of the theatre follow up. He did not just want the audience to see cruelty up on the stage 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 audience to become set off of the action in drama (Jamison). In this way the audience could have a better soul of the concept Artaud was so eager to put on display in the theatre. The fourth and last interpretation of cruelty is Artauds own personal views. He considered everything imaginable to be reality (Jamison). If it could be thought up, it was real. This ties in with the willing suspension of disbelief which means what the audience is experiencing in the theatre is real in a way. The characters become good deal that the audience cares about. arrest the many meanings Artaud put on one word, cruelty, is vital to understanding his meaning in his theo ry 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 binding points in his writing. Perhaps life is just a cruel, meaningless existence. wholeness could never know without blind faith. There is no science to turf out that life has a deeper meaning other than to live and reproduce. If facing the fair play is cruel and then Artaud believed that all people should stand up to cruelty and look it in the face.Artaud could be right in adage that people should not live a lie. putting an audience in a dramiatic situation is a marvelous idea if not taken too far. His theories may have been the beginnings of improvisational theatre or may have even spawned the modern day house of horrors. Artaud could be right about saying that even things that exist only in the mind are real. macrocosm is merely perception. Whether one can think of something or tangibly experience it, it is real in their pe rception. Artaud had many excellent ideas and theories that carry on with macrocosm through today.Artauds theories very well may be the jumbled-up imaginations and creations of a drug-addicted mad man. Perhaps his mental instability do him look at life through a distorted looking glass. What he saw was there, he was merely twisting it. spirit itself being cruel sounds exactly like an exaggeration a depressed person would make. Life can be wonderful in so many ways. world itself is no cruelty to mankind. Existence merely forces the living to eat and breath, zero point 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 behind 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 drive people by from t he theatre. Looking at it reasonably and scientifically, if something cannot be seen, smelled, heard, touched, or tasted, one can never know if it is actually 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 alter and become Theatres of Cruelty. Artaud was very particular in his theories. All of Artauds theories level(p) in very closely to one another. To conform to one of Artauds ideas without conforming to any other would be an immense challenge.