After speaking to a friend studying the history of languages, she explained that /k/ is a plosive sound (made using the mouth, lips and/or tongue) and that French language is dominated by fricative sounds (created by air passing through a constricted of partially obstructed vocal tract).
After looking at examples of his glossolalia, one can see that many other plosives are used, such as 'pec te', 'pek ti le' and 'pte' from To have done with the judgement of god. This tendency to harsher sounds is further suggested by Artaud's accent and pronunciation of these sounds as more akin to Italian than French;
where /h/ is never mute; /u/ is pronounced /ou/; /z/ is pronounced /dz/; /g/ is always hard, and slightly general when followed by /h/; the final /ch/ is pronounced somewhat like the German /ch/ - Paule Thévenin in a note to Artaud le Mômo
It's therefore possible that Artaud was reaching for a more plosive language; or a possibly more violent one in terms of expression. I was wondering if people thought it plausible that by the use of violent plosives and the frequent harsh stopping and release of the glottal sphincter caused by the /k/ sound, that Artaud was offering an act of spitting (or excreting, as suggested by 'caca') the inner feelings desired to be released, which along with the allusive screams of expression could violently assert emotion?
4 comments:
I've just read through Weiss’ chapter and I think that you've made a valid point about the expression of violent emotion through Artaud's glossolalia. Artaud believed that the 'word-like sounds' within his glossolalia had the ability to transcend the space of writing, perhaps meaning that he believed the glossolalia had more power in terms of communication. I did some research about the idea of glossolalia or ‘speaking in tongues’, and it was originally thought to be a side effect of mental illness. It may be that it was in fact a way for people to communicate who were otherwise unable to express themselves i.e. it was a truly pure form of emotion that came from within the depths of the soul and had not been restricted by the constraints of everyday language.
I believe that there is a huge amount of significance in the fact that Artaud’s glossolalia is made up of plosive sounds that cause you to spit out words as you speak, giving it a very violent tone. It may be that Artaud was attempting to create a form of expression in which you could expel all of your emotion at once, in a violently meaningful and realistic way. We all know that Artaud believed in violently powerful images and, as Weiss says, the glossolalia is ‘the image of language’. I believe that the glossolalia allowed Artaud to give more depth and meaning to his already intense theatre of cruelty by going beyond the language that we and his actors would have been accustomed to. Not only did the exploration of the glossolalia allow actors to express emotion in a more forceful and raw manner, but it will also have had a shocking effect on the spectator by communicating emotion in such a violent manner.
I think this is all very interesting. I like the idea of a glossolalia as a pure language, one that can be understood by any human just it is echoes bodily sounds.
The idea of 'spitting sounds' also makes me wonder whether the velar plosives (i.e. /k/) are suggestive of pain or malady, for example choking or expectorating. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that Artaud would want his glossolalia to be seen in this way (regardless of whether or not this was what he was doing) as this reproduction of sounds associated with actions (spitting, choking) would represent, rather than just be. In fact, by writing his glossolalia, Artaud seems to go against his own belief (if I've understood it correctly) that the moment of art dies in the moment, by writing it down it holds the possibility of being venerated as a masterpiece.
I think that is definitely a valid point, but, Artaud may not have viewed his glossolalia as an art form but more of a way of communicating part of an art form. Just as a poet would employ metaphor and alliteration I believe Artaud employs his glossolalia. Also, I feel that these plosive sounds need to be representative, because it is this link that the sounds have with pain and malady that affect our subconscious. Maybe for the glossolalia to be totally effective it needs to be representative to emotions and not actions like suffocation; this way the actor would be touching the primitive subconscious, and not the part of us that would find links for it within our reality and would think about it instead of letting it submerge and engulf us as part of the spectacle.
I also believe that it is important to raise the point that the majority of Artaud’s writings that used glossolalia were during his time in Rodez and after. Charlie stated that glossolalia is mainly visible in mental health patients (normally schizophrenics), and we know that at this point Artaud is no longer a stable man. Yet, I feel that this may help, schizophrenics and mental health patients can sometimes become very inverted and involved in their own subconscious. This may be reading into the point too much, but maybe because Artaud was in a similar state he could see or feel the language that affects the subconscious, more so than someone who is totally connected to our society and reality.
Post a Comment