During the last ten years of his life, Antonin Artaud shows more and more intensively a multi-faceted and caustic refusal for traditional literature and the ordinary practice of writing. But above all, he shows a stylistic impatience for the alphabetic use of the word and the language. By the intention of creating an inhuman language, which could be understood also by the illiterate people, Artaud wants to undermine the significant use of the word, so that he can achieve (...) a non-representative language, a language that could make real. In this perspective, the aim of our work consists in an inquiry of the expressive forms through which Artaud’s last literary production shows the refusal of canonical literature: especially, we attempt to work about the use of glossolalias, drawings and pictograms included in several Cahiers which Artaud draws up during his confinement in the Rodez’s madhouse, as well as in some of the letters that he writes since 1943. (shrink)

Beyond the eras a dialogue seems to have been established between Bruegel the Elder (1525-1569) and Antonin Artaud (1896-1948). The poet’s wonder at the « painting of the North », both realistic and emblematic, reveals his deepest ideal as an artist : painting, a « magical » operation, deploys a power of expression based on signs and no longer on words, which the theatre is also called upon to seize. The juxtaposition of Bruegel’s Triumph of Death and a famous (...) drawing by Artaud, Le Théâtre de la cruauté [The Theatre of Cruelty], highlights the striking convergences between the two artists. Through their pictorial works, both of them renew over the centuries the funerary and mythical symbolism of death, inherited from the macabre scenes of medieval paintings, but also from ancient times. Studying the references to theatrical iconography in Bruegel’s painting, where carnival and crudity of death reinforce each other, allows us to deepen the meaning of these resonances. For the two artists, form and poetic momentum meet so that representation, as a structure common to painting and theatre, fixes a moment of the world, while animating that moment to infinity, thanks to signs conceived as « true hieroglyphs » (Artaud), a problem that Michel Foucault associated with the strongest truth that the experience of madness carries. (shrink)

Edvard Munch (Løten, 1863 — Ekely, 1944), Antonin Artaud (Marseille 1896–Paris 1948): deux artistes bouleversés par des conditions de santé fragile et par des crises nerveuses. Une relation s’instaure entre eux. Chacun, de manière particulière, invite le spectateur à réviser son rapport avec la mort, la mélancolie et les forces de la nature. Tantôt cette relation s’exprime dans les écrits personnels d’Artaud ; tantôt elle apparaît dans le rapprochement que nous pouvons faire entre les oeuvres graphiques d’Artaud, (...) qui mettent en exergue l’influence qui a exercé le peintre norvégien dans sa démarche artistique. Plus tard, l’approximation d’Artaud à la peinture devient plus évidente. Lui-même, non seulement poète et homme de théâtre, est aussi dessinateur et, comme témoigne nombre de ses documents écrits, porte une grande appréciation par l’art d’El Greco, Bosch, Lucas de Leyde, Bruegel et Goya. Cette étude comparative vise analyser le processus d’intertextualité qui accompagne Artaud tout au long de sa vie et qui commence précocement, quand il observe et traduit les références recueillies d’après d’autres artistes. Avec ceux-ci, il est possible de tracer une correspondance, non seulement artistique, mais aussi biographique avec Artaud. Ce projet présente des contributions pour la critique littéraire d'Antonin Artaud. Même si d'autres études ont fait le rapport entre son œuvre et la peinture, et celle d’Edward Munch, il y n’existe aucune étude plus détaillé autour du sujet. (shrink)

This chapter examines the ways in which French philosopher Gilles Deleuze offers conceptual resources for an enactive account of language, in particular his extensive consideration of language in The Logic of Sense. Specifically, Deleuze’s distinction between the nonsense of Lewis Carroll’s portmanteau creations and that of Antonin Artaud’s “transla- tion” of Carroll’s Jabberwocky highlights the need for an enactive, rather than merely embodied, approach to sense-making, particularly with regard to the general category of what Jakobson and Halle (1956) call (...) “sound symbolism”. (shrink)

We investigate the fundamental relationship between philosophical aesthetics and the philosophy of nature, arguing for a position in which the latter encompasses the former. Two traditions are set against each other, one is natural aesthetics, whose covering philosophy is Idealism, and the other is the aesthetics of nature, the position defended in this article, with the general program of a comprehensive philosophy of nature as its covering theory. Our approach is philosophical, operating within the framework of the ontology of the (...) process of the production of art, especially the views of Antonin Artaud, Heidegger, Bakhtin, Deleuze, and Guattari. We interrogate Dilthey and Worringer while outlining an ontology of art based on the production of nonhuman images and a nonpersonal experiential field of nature. (shrink)

What is the concept of sense developed by Deleuze in his 1969 Logic of Sense? This paper attempts to answer this question analysing the three dimensions of language that Deleuze isolates: the primary order of noises and intensities ; the secondary order of sense ; and the tertiary organisation of propositions. What renders language possible is that which separates sounds from bodies and organises them into propositions, freeing them for the expressive function. Deleuze argues that it is the dimension of (...) sense that brings about this genesis of language, and he analyses in detail the three syntheses that bring about the production of this surface of sense. Yet Deleuze also distinguishes between two types of non-sense: the nonsense of Lewis Carroll's portmanteau words, which remain ensconced in the dimension of sense, and the more profound nonsense of Antonin Artaud's psychotic scream-breaths, which penetrate the almost unbearable world of the primary order of noise and intensities. In the end, the focus of Logic of Sense is less the surface domain of sense than the primary depth of corporeal intensities. What Deleuze calls a ‘minor’ use of language is nothing other than an intensive use of language that constitutes a principle of metamorphosis. (shrink)

Recensione di "La grande straniera. A proposito di letteratura", di Michel Foucault.

‘The Image of Thought’ could be considered to be the most important piece of writing in the entire Deleuzian corpus. This is the chapter of Difference and Repetition that several decades later, Deleuze claims is the ‘most necessary and the most concrete’ (Deleuze 1994: xvii) section of the book, and the one that provides a basis for his later work with Guattari. Here, Deleuze engages with two basic issues. First, he separates out his conception of thinking, and with it, philosophy, (...) from prior philosophical approaches, explaining why the difference of his philosophy from prior systems itself differs from the traditional relationship between philosophical positions. Second, he raises the question of how one should begin to philosophise. As we will see, philosophy often operates by the recognition of implicit presuppositions in prior thinkers, and their refutation. Descartes, for instance, criticises Aristotle for presupposing the transparency of categories such as rational and animal. Kant, in turn, criticises Descartes for presupposing the determinability of his own foundational moment, the cogito. If we see the development of philosophy as the unmasking and critique of presuppositions of prior systems, then the endpoint of philosophy will be a system entirely without presuppositions. This is the goal Hegel aims at with his system of absolute idealism. Deleuze’s claim is that such a model of the progress of philosophy itself operates within one overarching assumption: the good will of thinking. In this essay, I want to relate these questions of thinking and beginnings to the work of one of Deleuze’s predecessors. Deleuze writes of Ludwig Feuerbach that ‘Feuerbach is among those who have pursued farthest the problem of where to begin.’ (Deleuze 1994: 319) As we shall see, prefiguring Deleuze, Feuerbach accuses Hegel of operating within ‘an image of Reason’. While Feuerbach is famous as a precursor of Marx, and for his critique of traditional accounts of religion, I want to here focus on an early piece by Feuerbach, his Critique of Hegelian Philosophy. Here Feuerbach sets out the limitations of traditional philosophical accounts, and provides the groundwork for his own later materialism. Deleuze discovered Feuerbach through his friend Althusser’s translation of his work, published in 1960. While many of the intuitions behind Deleuze’s critique of the image of thought can be found within a broader pantheon of thinkers, including Nietzsche, Bergson, and Foucault, the specific mechanics of Deleuze’s criticism bear a striking resemblance to the formulation of the critique of philosophy in Feuerbach’s earlier thought. I want to explore this connection, first by looking at the dialectical interrelation of two thinkers, Descartes and Hegel, to get a sense for how criticism in philosophy typically operates. I then want to move on to look at Feuerbach’s critique of Hegel and philosophy more generally, drawing out several aspects that will be taken up by Deleuze himself. I will then look at some of the ways in which Deleuze goes beyond Feuerbach by recognising some of the limitations that persist in Feuerbach’s own analysis. I will conclude by showing how Deleuze’s desire to think the two common acceptations of aesthetics together (the artistic and the sensible) bring Feuerbach into relation with an unexpected figure: the playwright and poet, Antonin Artaud. (shrink)

Les pensées de la différence selon Gilles Deleuze et Jacques Derrida se touchent dans leur sujet même, le Sujet qui « fait des histoires et des scènes » construisant le même système différentiel, le monde. C’est ce qui assure une sorte de continuité entre les deux philosophies. Concernant les « thèses » il n’y a aucune différence entre Deleuze et Derrida. Et pourtant, ils ne se laissent pas unir dans une seule et même philosophie de la différence. Les deux histoires (...) ne se laissent pas identifier dans un seul et même discours, elles exigent deux discours différents. Leur Sujet se raconte de deux façons, se joue sur deux scènes parallèlement, alternativement – cela relève d’une différence minime, différence de genre, de style, de geste, qui pourtant change tout. Penser pour Deleuze consiste à entrer dans le jeu, dans l’acte de la différence, à « faire la différence » – pour Derrida c’est comprendre la différence. Une philosophie comme celle de Derrida suspend les philosophies comme celle de Deleuze – une philosophie comme celle de Deleuze ne prend pas au sérieux une philosophie comme celle de Derrida. Leurs pensées s’excluent réciproquement tout en faisant signe l’une vers l’autre - comme le dirait Derrida : selon un certain graphique de la supplémentarité. Renverser le platonisme : changer son ontologie « en hauteur » pour une ontologie « en profondeur » , c’est un jeu immanent de l’ontologie. Le renversement deleuzien du platonisme est de se déplacer insidieusement en lui, mais aussi de se décaler légèrement par rapport à lui, lui ouvrir la porte, y instaurer une autre série de pensée divergente, constituer un para-platonisme, en d’autres mots : le déconstruire. L’effet en sera, selon Foucault, un « Theatrum Philosophicum » de fantasmes, de simulacres, d’événements, d’effets corporels où Freud et Artaud entrent en résonance même en s’ignorant. Derrida joue un tout petit peu différemment, du dehors, ou plutôt à la limite de son dehors. Si on se sert de l’allégorie de Rodolphe Gasché : Derrida s’installe au bord de la réflexion, dans le tain du miroir – on peut dire alors que Deleuze se déplace dans le miroitement, entre les images reflétées. Ils tiennent tous les deux, chacun à leur manière, à la limite de la réflexion, limites internes et externes. L’exemplarité de la relation Deleuze/Derrida réside en ceci : c’est une image de la doublure en soi de la pensée qui tente ses limites. Elle « illustre » la doublure inévitable de la pensée – doublure qui, par ailleurs, appelle à la déconstruction et à son mimétisme. (shrink)

Современность, подарившая человеку свободу от диктата традиций, лишила его возможности определять цели внутри себя. В ХХ-ХХI вв. целью «Я» стало узнавание субъекта-во-мне исключительно в ложном объекте-во-мне, что загнало личность в порочный круг погони дурно сыгранного «Я» за дурно сыгранным «Я». Возникла острая необходимость в возврате к театральности в различных областях искусства, эстетике и обыденности в противопоставление театра одного Я. Вопрос лишь в том, как превратить театральность в практику души.

This essay explores how contemporary works of critical theory and deconstruction can challenge preconceptions of the body and embodiments and interrogate their limits, particularly in relation to intertwined foldings of desire, gender, race and sexuality. It aims to suggest that Jacques Derrida’s acute concern for the question of translation might help challenge and re-configure the conventional dichotomy between understandings of the body either as physical/material or as socio-culturally constructed. The authors then analyse the questions of translation and untranslatability in relation (...) to interculturality, and explore their implications for thinking the corporeal and the material. (shrink)