Artaud and sedition ~ theatre notes

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Artaud and sedition




Nick at Rat Sass went off the deep end:











Paul Martin said...

I feel that using the name of Osama bin Laden is wrong. We assign meaning to this name, similar to how we assign meaning to the name Adolf Hitler.

We do not know what part bin Laden played in the events of 9/11. We believe he was involved with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we believe that he has been involved in various acts of terrorism against US interests prior to 9/11. But it is slowly emerging that what actually happened on that fateful day is not exactly as it has been officially stated.

We believe Osama bin Laden to be the greatest evil because George W. Bush says he is. I'm not going to go into conspiracies or theories here; anyone can research the subject on the web. I'm just pointing out that we may be inadvertently perpetuating a lie.

I know this is not adding to the discussion of Artaud (who, in my ignorance, I acknowledge I know nothing about). But having read the reference to bin Laden, thought I'd have my two cents worth. ;)

Alison Croggon said...

Hi Paul

Yes, it's a bad idea to mention Bin Laden, because people immediately stop thinking and react emotively... but on the other hand, does that mean that we must avoid what might be legitimate comparisons, despite the danger of being misunderstood? I was referring to what I saw as a fierce moral imperative in Artaud's work, and it seems to me similar to the moral extremity of the Wahhabites, the Fundamentalist Muslim sect to which Bin Laden belongs, in how it sees destruction as a cleansing act. Artaud also uses Christian images of suffering and death (crucifixion etc) fairly frequently (eg in The Peyote Dance)...

As for what Bin Laden is, or what he is said to be...I guess I said what I meant about that in my comments on terrorism. Personally, I do not believe that terrorism can be art, no matter what Stockhausen did or didn't say, although you can argue that the spectacle of 9/11 was the ultimate Situation in how it hijacked our media coverage.

And perhaps at this point I should make clear that I utterly repudiate terrorism of any kind. However, it ought to be possible to look coolly at these phenomena without running for cover in moral panic.

Paul Martin said...

We live in troubled times, but not in the way that politicians would have us believe. It is indeed tragic when the greatest threats to peace, freedom and democracy are the very people who claim to be protecting these virtues.

Unknown said...


Your blog is the first place I've heard of the Sedition laws of which you speak--if you have a moment to spare, might you point me to a starting point for understanding the situation? It sounds disturbing indeed.

Alison Croggon said...

Hi Sylvia - yes, it's is disturbing (even more disturbing that it's had so little coverage!) A good resource, with lots of links to things like the Law Reform Commission report, is the Oz Sedition blog.

Unknown said...

Hello alison, i am diego from mexico city, i have some doubts on this play of artaud, the only one I can find with this title of him is "the spurt of blood" 1925.
The one you review is "Jet of Blood" and this one I can´t find.
Are they diferent? or based on?
If that is the case do you happen to know where I can find this plays on the internet? or s published book?
sorry for these practical questions.
hope you have some time to answer.
best diego

Alison Croggon said...

Hi Diego - they are the same play, just different translations! So you already have it.

Anonymous said...

'Spurt of Blood' is a precusor to Theatre of Cruelty written in 1928. It was a response by Artaud to being kicked out of the Surrealist movement and was intended as a parody of other 'unperformable' surrealist plays such as 'The Glass Ball' by another Surrealist playwright. So is the 'cruel' and torturous quality people so seem to desire relevant to a production of this play at all? Surrealism seems to be its point - the rest is interpretation post 'Theatre and its Double'.