Performative Image: health warnings/a crucifix?

Having read Katerina Bantinaki's review of Barbara Bolt's book Art Beyond Representation: The Performative Power of the Image and a couple of chapters from the book itself, I am finding it hard to think of any secular images which could be considered to have performative elements.

Initially, when I was thinking of 'performative' as a term which simply meant 'which has an effect', in that a performative utterance is something which effects a change of some kind, I questioned whether or not the images on cigarette packets nowadays could be described as performative. To an extent, I think this is possible as the image has an intended effect of dissuading people from smoking. Bantinaki writes, '... the image is thought to embody its object rather than merely signify it; it is thought to assume a degree of reality that allows it to transcend its status as a sign, thereby gaining the power to affect the user ... in a more direct and powerful manner.' (215) Though the image is perhaps made more powerful by a projection, from the viewer onto the image, about the life of the person depicted, probably identifying the person depicted with themselves as a fellow smoker, it does not invite a dialogue between the image and the user.

The efficacy of the image may be questioned but does an image have to fulfil its function to be considered performative or just need to have a desired function? If it's the former, how would it be possible for performative images to be thought to exist in a secular, technocratic society? If the image has to fulfil its function, surely Artaud's images aren't performative either. Did his spells ever work?

The cigarette packet images have one serious set back in that they are highly representative, the documentary style of photography hardly enabling 'the dynamic relation between artist and materials' (214) which Bolt's theory suggests.

So what could be a performative image? Within the Christian faith, I wonder if the crucifix could be considered one. The action of prayer in front of a crucifix suggests its power within the faith. It could be argued that the depiction of Christ on the cross 'transcends its status as a sign' and hold some spiritual presence, what Bantinaki refers to generally as 'life': 'When life gets into the matter of the image, the image produces reality and thus casts its effects back onto the world.' (215) A believer supposedly having a prayer answered could be an example of this or, in folkloric tradition rather than scriptural evidence, the belief that the crucifix can ward off evil spirits, hence its use in exorcisms and vampire novels.

Cited work:
Bantinaki, Katerina. Review of 'Art Beyond Representation: The Performative Power of the Image' by Barabara Bolt, British Journal of Aesthetics. Vol. 46, 2006. 213-216.

Essay Questions.

School of Theatre, Performance and Cultural Policy Studies

Aspects of Theatre & Performance
Autumn Term Module 2008

THEATRE AND THEORY AFTER ARTAUD

Essay Questions. Essays (c. 3000 words) are to be submitted to the Departmental office by 4pm on Monday 12th January 2009 (Week 2, Spring Term)

Choose one of the following topics:


Q1. Andre Breton once said that ‘the simplest surrealist act consists in descending to the street with revolver in hand and shooting at random, as fast as one can, into the crowd.’ (The Second Manifesto of Surrealism) What does he mean and how is the surrealist aesthetic evident in Artaud’s work (artworks, radio, film, theatre writings etc)?

Q2. Michel Foucault says that ‘Artaud’s… madness is precisely the absence of the work of art, the reiterated presence of that absence…’ (Madness and Civilization p287) What does this statement suggest about Artaud’s artistic output?

Q3. ‘Smash language to touch life!’ (Artaud, ‘The Theatre and its Double’) What is the function of language in the theatre of cruelty? You may wish to consider how Artaud’s work in other media (cinema, drawing, radio, poetry) influenced his writing about the use of language in theatre.

Q4. ‘Conceived as an art form at the juncture of other signifying practices as varied as dance, music, painting, architecture and sculpture, performance seems paradoxically to correspond to the new theatre invoked by Artaud.’ (Josette Feral in Elizabeth Wright Postmodern Brecht pll5) In what ways is Artaud’s theatre of cruelty evident in developments in contemporary performance? Discuss with reference to at least 2 of the artists on the course.

Q5. In Pour en finir avec le jugement de dieu Artaud calls for a reworking of the human body, in the form of a ‘body without organs’ which will liberate man and ‘teach him to dance inside out...and that inside out will be his true side out.’ (PF p79) Discuss this image in relation to the body in performance art. In what sense does performance art stage a ‘body without organs’?

Q6. Devise your own topic in association with your lecturer. NB. this must be completed and a wording agreed upon by end of week 10 in Autumn term.

On the difficulty of translation...

Translating a piece of writing into another language is not an easy task. It asks for a perfect knowledge of both languages in order to stick with the writer’s thinking. Eugene Nida in 'The Theory and Practice of Translation' says that he evaluates on the quality of a translation by its ‘dynamic equivalence’. Such a concept retains the attention of scholars who want to see if the message of the original text has been transported so accurately ‘that the response of the receptor is essentially like the one of the original receptors’. However the question we may ask ourselves is how similar a translation can be. Such a question appears particularly accurate if we look at the problems that translators met for the various translations that have been made of Artaud’s work and Rowell’s doubts on the possibility of understanding Artaud when reading it in another language. Firstly we may say that a translation of Artaud’s oeuvre seems futile if we look at the incredible vitality of his language. As reading it in French, we obviously understand that his texts profits for being spoken aloud. Artaud was himself a fervent defender of places where he could read aloud his texts. Some of the conferences he did in la Sorbonne were consequently seen as live performances where the audience would take part into a disturbing feast of words and meanings never experienced before.

French’s version of ‘To have done with the judgement of God’:
(The consonances are here being explicitly shown to illustrate my thinking);
J’ai appRis hieR
(il faut croiRe que je RetaRde, ou peut-êtRe n’est-ce qu’un faux bRuit, l’un de ces sales Ragots comme il s’en colpoRte entRe évier et latRines à l’heuRe de la mise aux baquets des Repas une fois de plus inguRgités)

English’s version :
I learned yesterday(I must be behind the times, or perhaps it's only a false rumor,one of those pieces of spiteful gossip that are circulated between sink and latrine at the hour when meals that have been ingurgitated one more time are thrown in the slop buckets)

The repetition of the guttural sounds ‘R’, 'ER' and ‘QU’ (which are pronounced « K ») give a dynamic rhythm to the sentence which is not present at all in the English version. Thus we may assert that through translation we loose the content of the text by giving the meaning of the words regardless of the sonority of it.


Artaud shows a profound concern for the words which are heavy in significance to the point where the “words regain some of their old functions” by going back to the ancient and sometimes forgotten roots of the word itself. In his fascinating essay, Paule Thevenin examines the language of Artaud’s 1943 piece of writing ‘Le Rite du Peyotl chez les Tarahumaras’.
As an example, the use of the word ‘escharrasage’ which is formed with the ‘eschare’/or’escarre’(as the new spelling would suggest) which means ‘eschar’ and that Antonin Artaud consciously spells with two ‘r’ as it was originally written. Artaud not only added ‘-age’ to the word which would have formed ‘escharrage’ describing the action which causes ‘eschar’ on the body, but also added the suffix ‘raser’ which can be used not only in his common sense: ‘to shave’ but as a city or a building which has been completely demolished after a battle. “Thus ‘escharrasage’ is the action of producing eschars which ‘destroy’ where it’s being formed”. I here try to give some layers to Artaud’s language in French and give a taste of Paule Thevenin’s essay ‘Antonin Artaud, ce Desespere qui vous parle’ which also puts into perspective the word escharre with the whole extract.

As a result we may argue on the meaning of the glossolalias from an English perspective. English and French languages do not share the same approach to the sound « K » which haunts Artaud’s writings. The glossolalias contain more than a pure ‘symbolic function’; they constitute one of the many composites of an organic ensemble that Artaud formed to find ‘a language prior to language’ which goes beyond the intelligible when words are no longer sufficient.
Finally it seems that the glossolalias cannot cross the boundaries of the language and convey accurately the substancial meaning of it. It is therefore the only moment when translation seems no longer possible the glossolalias remaining as they have been originally written by Artaud. This incapacity to translate the glossolalias materializes in some ways the incapacity to translate fully a piece of writing which calls for a common share of values and knowledge of a certain culture in order to comprehend it.

Questions re screening week 7

Please answer briefly to each in a single blog post.

Q1. What different kinds of bodies were used and how were they used in this production?
Q2. What did the titles of the 3 Acts mean?
Q3. How was sound used?
Q4. What if any aspects of Artaud's ideas for the theatre were in evidence?

One for Bertrand!

DIFFICULTIES IN TRANSLATING ARTAUD

After reading the comments below on Artaud's language, as well as Rowell's question in 1996 that "if you're not French how can you understand Artaud?", I was led to wonder to what extent the meaning or message of Artaud's writings has been lost through translation. Any translated material is undoubtedly not an exact replica of the original, but with Artaud's unusual style of writing and less mainstream vocabulary, have the translations been taken even further away than normal from the genuine material? For example, using Billy's and Charlie's example, even simple alliteration (the repeated 'k' sound) can present a dilemma to the translator. One must prioritise either style or content. Do they struggle to find words in the new language of lesser accuracy to maintain the alliteration? Of course, content usually overrides, but then the tone of the language is lost, a crucial element in Artaud's violent and 'spitting' writing. Translating things too ‘literally’ is a common problem, leading to rather ugly sounding phrases unintended by Artaud, such as “hungering after life” from his Theatre of Cruelty.

According to the philosopher Wittgenstein and his notion of 'language games' (later used by the postmodern theorist Lyotard), one can only truly understand a language if you are part of what he calls the appropriate "form of life". For example, theologically speaking, one could only understand religious language, such as the concept of the trinity, if they themselves were religious. Can this idea be applied to the translating of Artaud's unusual writings? Is it necessary that, as readers, we must be part of a "wider form of life" in order to truly grasp the meaning? Or at least, be of the same understanding as Artaud?

In order to translate Artaud's work precisely, it would be essential to understand his personality and motives for writing, a near impossible task given his enigmatic nature. Furthermore, it is important for a translator to identify with the person and to have a motivation themselves to produce work as true as possible.

Interestingly, Artaud had an unusual relationship with the concept of translation. He had done a number of translations himself, most of them reluctantly (either in an asylum or when in desperate need of money, as in the case of Lewis' novel 'The Monk'). However, Artaud also strove to have some of his own writing translated and selected for the English magazine, Horizon (Barber). It is therefore interesting to consider what Artaud’s own opinions of his work being translated would be.

Artaud's glossolalia as violent?

After reading Weiss' K in the Critical Reader, I became very interested in Artaud's glossolalia or 'speaking in tongues'. It is explained by Weiss that when someone speaks glossolalia, the phonetic structures they create roughly parallel their own mother tongue; in Artaud's case a high frequency of the /k/ sound which is very rare in French.

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?

Questions from Week 4

What do you understand by the expression ‘ the crude and epileptic rhythm of the time’?
What does Sontag mean by a ‘total art form’?
Debate: Do you agree that ‘an image is true insofar as it is violent.’ (88)?