The history of the theatre (which, by the way, is a rather uncritical scholarly discipline inclined to mythologisation of facts and all kinds of exaggerations!) has recorded that, when Artaud, in the middle of Paris, suddenly saw the exotic Balinese people, he almost had a genuine illumination. At that very moment, he clearly saw all that which he had never been able to interpret and understand (although he intuitively felt it). And that is, that the Western theatre was hopelessly stuck in its imitative/logocentric tradition and that it was barely alive; if it was to be saved at all, it should radically turn to its own ritual metaphysical beginnings. Instead of dealing only with narration (which means relying exclusively on speech and – only as much as is necessary – on body language), the theatre, according to Artaud, must radically change its own poesis and semiosis, as well as its own logos and, hence, its own techne. In other words, the traditional European theatre of fictional thought, as it was later defined by Barba and/or Grotowski (Barba, 1996; Grotowski), the theatre which operates with ‘imagined’/fictional characters and their ‘imagined’/fictional psychology should learn (and much at that!) from the traditional Asian theatre of the fictional body. The primary form of expression of this specific theatre (a theatre of a grandiose, millennia-long tradition!) is not abstract (“psychological”), but quite real and visible: it is ‘stored’ in the concrete body of its actors, in their superiorly ‘trained’ bodies prepared for the impeccable performance of the most complex stage missions, including the impossible ones. The performing tradition of the Asian theatre is fully founded in the seemingly simple creative principle: it constantly transposes the corporeality of its actors into that which Barba calls bios (Barba, 1996). And, as we know, bios means life which is renewed/happens on the stage as art!
In an emblematic essay on the Eastern and Western theatre written in 1935, Artaud is very clear: if it was to survive and become creative again, the theatre that was being practiced at the time must not ‘imitate/be mimetic’; instead, it must begin to reveal. That is why it must be re-directed to the unknown and the magic… and in Artaud’s case, this means directed to unknown cultures. The purpose of his journey to Mexico (1936) and the trips to certain exotic destinations he planned but never made (Tibet) was to encourage his intuition and imagination, not multiply and enrich his insights. They were not meant to be tourist-like. “Artaud clearly does not travel to get to know the world better.” (Todorov, 1994:326).
On the contrary, the “inherent nomadism” of this theatre dreamer – perhaps the most abstract and therefore the most inspirational of all the theatre theoreticians, should be understood as, above all, transcultural. His theatrical concept is absolutely extreme and therefore (most likely) impossible/unachievable in standard theatre practice, and not only that of his own time. Namely, European theatre practice, and, again, not only that known at the time of the publication of his prophetic The Theatre and Its Double, but that of the present day as well, is predominantly mimetic and/or illusionist. It is mainly concerned with “telling stories” (Aristotle calls it “action”) or, simply said, with the interpretation of certain emotional, ethical or speculative “content” which should be skillfully presented to the curious recipients. However, the theatre upheld by Artaud is not “interpretative”, on the contrary, it is immediate and (therefore) cruel. Instead of being directed to emotions or abstract intellectual speculations, it aims directly at the essential, the impulses and the instincts. Of course, impulses and or/instincts cannot be interpreted (or, as Aristotle puts it, “imitated”); they – if they are to be authentic and genuine – must be provoked.
In contrast to the European conventional theatre which builds its aesthetics in vitro (according to Stanislavski’s famous formula esli – bi), the Asian theatre operates only/exclusively in vivo. Instead of “telling stories” or “imitation of reality” and production of entertainment (of any kind), this theatre is inclined towards mythopoesis, i.e., towards an understanding and eventually even explanation of those “dark” and “secret” things that surround all, the (mystical) “arch-beginnings”, including those clouded ones from which the essential metatheatrical/paratheatrical epiphenomena originate.
In all the cultures we know (regardless of whether we know them more or less, or whether we define them as “eastern”, “western”, “northern” or “southern”), such epiphenomena, which we usually call myths, rites and/or rituals, seem to recur – almost systematically and in a way that is completely the same/identical.
One of the most passionate “Artaud fans” in world theatre, Eugenio Barba, defines these epiphenomena as anthropological phenomena or sensations. Studying them in a systematic manner, i.e. both theoretically and practically, during the past forty years, he has practically followed and, as much as it is possible, pragmatized/”brought to life” Artaud’s visions. Applied (theatralized) in the form of quite specific performances produced by him and his ISTA, these visions have never ceased to be transcultural. Regardless of the cultural circle to which they “originally” belong, they are always fully subjected to the dominant idea of absolute (anthropological) togetherness, a togetherness that superiorly fuses the Beginning and the End, the Good and the Evil, Light and Darkness, Life and Death.
If the purpose of Artaud’s theatre was to confront the European tradition with its synthetic “arch-beginnings”, for instance with the Eleusian mysteries, Barba’s theatre seems to go even further. Upholding the Euro-Asian idea of the theatre which he quite passionately proclaims/promotes in all his projects, he strives to confront almost all performing traditions in the world with almost all of their hypersynthetic “arch-arch-beginnings”. Moreover, Braba’s theatre strives to do this in an active way by adhering to the principle “everything, now, simultaneously and suddenly.” Acting in accordance with its own creative motto, “same principles, different performances”, the school of theatre anthropology run by Barba is, in essence, more transcultural than intercultural. Searching for the “samenesses” that regularly recur in different cultures, ISTA and Barba in fact promote a kind of supra-cultural concept; in his productions, exactly because of an idealistic and mystical (hypersynthetic) togetherness, but also on behalf of this “archetypal” idea, “diffuse mixtures” are constantly assembled and disassembled from a multitude of cultural personalities, identities and subjectivities.
the art is inside
