Warning taken, Chris!
I don't quarrel with any of that. And while I agree that psychological
diagnosis might be used to dismiss Artaud's ideas, that's not
something I'm interested in doing.Though I do think he very clearly
On 10/5/06, Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Late replies are really GOOD by me. Still have rotten health problems,
> so slow down or you will join me in this basket (my health problems go
> back to leading a far too busy professional life, just to explain.)
> Thanks for the theatre notes reference, also. The perhaps disagreeing in
> the first post had more to do with avoiding a not intended reading (as
> Bakhtin would say) which quarantines Artaud as a theatre critic only and
> avoids the more challenging suggestions which confronts classical
> logic's understanding of bodies as relations. (Bodies, atoms, monads as
> relations of composition and decomposition and so forth.) Artaud's
> suggestions of absolute bodies and absolute affects too often gets
> dismissed as a diagnosed symptom of his madness which is then too easily
> ignored as madness and of course is chauvinistic. To explain a bit more,
> classical logic demands that bodies, that is to say atoms and monads,
> are to be understood as relations and not as absolute deviations. In
> this way it can follow that Artaud has a very basic quarrel with third
> person singular and indeed the accepted theories of narrative.
> Anyways, there is a lot more to this but this could be a book length
> reply, no doubt.
> best wishes
> Chris Jones.
> On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 18:25 +1000, Alison Croggon wrote:
> > Hi Chris
> > Apologies for the late response; I've had server problems and have
> > been offline for the past few days.
> > I basically agree with you on Artaud's importance, though I think
> > influencing most of the best 20C theatre is no small thing; but I
> > don't think Sontag talks pathos. Or maybe I have similar reactions
> > reading Artaud. Hard not to when he speaks of anguish so often. He is
> > of course more complex than it's possible to say in a small space.You
> > might be interested in the further discussion going on a theatre notes
> > - http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> > All the best
> > A
> > On 9/27/06, Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > Maybe somewhat disagreeing with Alison here... Atraud provides far much
> > > more then then an inspiring text on theatre and I cringe reading the
> > > pathos presented by Susan Sontag in the pathetic rendition of her
> > > encounter with Artaud.
> > >
> > > Artaud, first must be understood as one of the grand theorists of
> > > modernist poetics, his breaks with the bearded critic (Kant) and the
> > > catalogue of affects (Spinoza) alone mark Artaud as one of the grand
> > > modern poetics writers for he truly understood what the infinite is more
> > > so then Mallarme could ever have. Artaud knew more then any other what
> > > affect is and what it was to create true affects.
> > >
> > > Chris Jones.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 13:30 +1000, Alison Croggon wrote:
> > > > There's a lot of Artaud (15 volumes in the Gallimard complete works)
> > > > and he can be hard going (I wouldn't put myself through the 15
> > > > volumes) but at his best the writing is dazzling. Theatre and its
> > > > Double is an essential and inspiring text for anyone interested in
> > > > theatre. And Nietzsche is one of the few philosphers I can read with
> > > > enjoyment, though it's the Nietzsche of The Gay Science rather than
> > > > Thus Spake Zarathustra, which is a bit portentous for my taste...but I
> > > > do find both of them funny as well as terrifying. They do have a lot
> > > > in common.
> > > >
> > > > All best
> > > >
> > > > Alison
> > >
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com