安東尼？亞陶的 Subjectiles ---穿越—重新評價亞陶的價值
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2008/08-2009/07
Authors
蘇子中
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
在其著作To Unsense the Subjectile 中，德希達以亞陶所創卻無法翻譯的 字—subjectile—大作文章，試圖去說明該字的狂亂意涵，也用以詮釋亞陶的思想與藝術 創作。德希達也運用該字似是而非的特質來舉證亞陶藝術創作「既佔有主體與客體的位 置—又非為兩者的事實」(Derrida, The Secret Art of Antonin Artaud 61)。這並不是說亞陶 的主體會在subjectile 的運作下被消除，而是點出亞陶主體會以多重、破碎的形式重新 出現或返回。再者，subjectile 處於雙重意義的狀態下，既表徵生產的辛勞，也意味著支 持突顯藝術創作的多層重疊的情況。 本計畫「安東尼.亞陶的Subjectiles: 穿越—重新評價亞陶的價值」所關注的是一個 有多層面向的人--安東尼.亞陶(1876-1948)。他饒富創意的聰明才智穿透文類和概念的 藩籬。他是一位詩人、劇作家、短文隨筆作家、小說家、演員、製作人、劇場的理論家、 藝術家和瘋子。他也曾被診斷為精神分裂病患、吸毒者、偏執病患以及精神異常患者。 亞陶死後除常被視為精神錯亂的典範，也常被譽為文化偶像的破壞者和憂鬱卻具洞見的 先知。除此之外，他也被公認為現代前衛劇場之父。他的「無經典作品劇場」的洞見對 當代的劇場導演與理論家，諸如Jean-Louis Barrault, Herbert Blau, Peter Brook, Jerzy Grotowski, Richard Schechner 等，均造成深遠的影響。亞陶的思想無法被歸屬於任何特 定哲學或派別，但他對部分後結構主義思想家，諸如Blanchot, Kristeva, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze 等，卻有舉足輕重的影響，提供他們多重詩的靈感與構思的力量。 亞陶的作品具層層疊疊的震撼力，往往能爆發出深不可測的巧思，並從四面八方釋 放出「殘酷的力量」。這些作品是名符其實的「subjectiles in couches」。他每一層的思想 都隱藏更多層的思想。不同的理論家從中篩選各自所要部分，並試圖創發新的層面以滿 足所需。他們對亞陶想法的開發衍生出更多的層次面向。然而，在諸多理論家的挪用或 借用後，亞陶的思想並未消聲匿跡或隱藏於眾說紛紜的論述後。相反地，亞陶的思想與 時俱進，到處衍生滋長。亞陶多種層次主題的文本(「subjectiles」)構成多層繁複的「文本 織物」(「textiles」)，這些文本織物是血與思緒的泉湧，也是文字的交織投射。除了再次 檢視亞陶所言與言說的方式，本計畫的目標在探索並重新評估從亞陶的著作所演繹的理 論的價值轉換與哲學的流派。本計畫打算分析較少受重視與檢視的早期與晚期著作，其 目的不外乎重新標示一個新的亞陶研究的研究範疇。亞陶曾說其著作就宛如樂譜，其間 充斥著散佈在五線譜上的音符。這樣的一個層層重疊的意像是本計畫結構設計與主題規 劃所不可缺的援引對象與構成要素。在本三年期的計畫中，筆者打算在層層疊疊的主題 與意象中挑選三個亞陶研究面向來作進一步的討論。 對許多批評家而言，德希達的兩篇討論亞陶「殘酷劇場」的早期論文—「La Parole Soufflee」(1965) and 「The Theater of Cruelty and the Closure of Representation」(1966)—不 但是「亞陶評論的經典範例」(Scheer 8)，且為往後的亞陶研究定了調。本三年期計畫的 第一年計畫是「趨近/挪用亞陶：德希達詮釋再探」(「Approaching/appropriating Artaud: Derridean Interpretation Revisited」)，在正式分析細讀德希達的觀點與讀法之前，筆者會 先針對亞陶作品所衍生的批評理論或哲學論述作初步的整理與分析(特別Kristeva, Deleuze, Bataille, and Blanchot 等人對亞陶作品的閱讀與挪用)，其目的不外乎是試圖描 繪出亞陶影響的多面性與複雜性。但更重要的是希望能將德希達的閱讀與挪用置於亞陶 遺產的文本織物脈絡中。接著筆者將深入探討亞陶的「書寫」和「場面調度」兩個概念。 同時，也將進一步檢視並批判德希達如何憑藉其無所不包的解構典律有系統的挪用或穿 越—重新評價亞陶。 在本計畫的第二年計畫中(形上學—在—行動：從亞陶的「無器官的身體」到葛洛 陀斯基的「精髓的身體」到巴拔的「擴張的身體」；Metaphysics-in-Action: From Antonin Artaud』s 「Body without Organs,」Jerzy Grotowski』s 「Body of Essence,」to Eugenio Barba』s 「Dilated Body」)，筆者有兩個研究目標。第一個目標著重於分析亞陶、葛洛陀斯基與巴 拔的「身體」概念；其次才進一步比較、追蹤這三個身體概念的異同與相關性。從亞陶、 葛洛陀斯基到巴拔，本計畫不只希望能描摩身體的輪廓，更希望能掌握身體的奧密--特 別是流過並穿越身體的能量與神密莫測的「形上學—在—行動」的問題。 亞陶的身體病痛體現於他的思考方式、書寫與藝術創作。他的病痛轉化為細/戲說哲 理的過程承襲了尼采的生命哲學風格，然而卻發展出截然不同的展演方式。對亞陶與尼 采兩人而言，抱病書寫尤為困難。兩人皆因此發展出驚人的耐力與毅力，積極擁抱病痛， 並視病痛為他們創作天賦和生活中不可或缺的一部分。於是在本計畫的第三年計畫中 (從病痛到細/戲說哲理：以尼采與亞陶為例；Sickness Unto Philosophizing: The Cases of Nietzsche and Artaud)，我們將討論在尼采與亞陶的作品中所展現的病痛效應。計畫試圖 說明對尼采與亞陶而言，病痛是知識、權力和論述的表癥驅力，且這驅力也支配了寫作 的場景。 對尼采而言，「以新價值觀重新評估所有的價值」(「the transvaluation of all values」) 並非是個智性問題；說得更恰當一點，它是需要經驗領略的東西。同樣地，本計畫「穿 越—重新評價亞陶的價值」並不訴求智性或形而上的認知；相反地，本計畫訴求讀者用 其膽識與熱情來感受「穿越—重新評價亞陶的價值」。在方法學方面，為了要能更確實 掌握和評估亞陶前後兩期著作的成就與影響力，本計畫擬採用傅柯「言說分析」(discourse analysis)的方法來檢視評價以上所提亞陶作品的三個重要面向。除此之外，本計畫也將 博採各家理論來幫助筆者詮釋亞陶和解析亞陶詮釋者的策略；不論是現代主義、後結構 主義、精神分析、人類學、尼采、海德格、德希達或克麗絲蒂娃的理論，只要適用皆可 派上用場。更精確地說，筆者所恪遵採用的是德勒茲「理論工具箱」的作法，活用手邊 現有的理論來詮釋、穿越並重新評價亞陶的價值。但一般而言，傅柯、德勒茲與瓜達裡 的相關思想與理論將會是筆者主要援引的對象。
issues with the untranslatable word 「subjectile,」coined byArtaud, and attempts to illustrate demented implications of the word and thus Artaud』s thoughts and artistic practices. Derrida takes Artaud』s paradoxical 「subjectile」 in relation to Artaud』s artwork which 「can take the place of the subject or of the object—being neither one nor the other」(Derrida, The Secret Art of Antonin Artaud 61). This is not to say that the Artaudian subject can be effaced by the subjectile, but rather that the Artaudian subject re-appears or returns as a multiple, fragmented form of itself. Furthermore, the subjectile is in double-sensed couches, signaling at once in the labor of giving birth and in layers, layers that underpin the work of art (Derrida, The Secret Art of Antonin Artaud 145-46). Our current project, 「The Subjectiles of Antonin Artaud: The Trans-evaluation of Artaud』s Values,」is concerned with a man of many layers--Antonin Artaud (1876-1948). His creative intellect traversed both generic and conceptual boundaries and he was poet, playwright, essayist, novelist, actor, producer, theoretician of the theater, artist, and madman. He has also been identified as a schizophrenic, drug-user, paranoiac, and internee. After his death, while having been looked upon as a perfect example of one suffering from delusions, he was hailed by some as cultural iconoclast and melancholic visionary. In addition, he was widely recognized as the father of modern avant-garde theater. His vision of a theater without masterpieces has exerted a profound influence on contemporary directors and theorists alike, such as Jean-Louis Barrault, Herbert Blau, Peter Brook, Jerzy Grotowski, Richard Schechner, to name only a few. Artaud』s thought cannot be identified with a particular philosophy or philosopher, yet it has been of great significance to some post-structuralists, such as Blanchot, Kristeva, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, etc., providing them with much poetic resonance and conceptual power. Artaud』s writings are layers deep in strain. They madden in layers of unfathomable genius and issue forces of cruelty in all directions. They are truly 「subjectiles」in couches. Each layer or couche of his thought is embedded with more layers of thought. Different theorists tease out different layers from Artaud and try to create a new layer to serve their purpose. Their accounts of Artaud』s ideas either break down into more layers or branch out into new shoots. Nevertheless, after being used and appropriated by varied theorists, Artaud does not slip beneath multifarious theoretical arguments and out of view. On the contrary, Artaud』s ideas evolve and metamorphose over time, multiplying and disseminating like a rhizome. The multiple layers and subjectiles of his texts constitute 「textiles」which are more of a spurting of ideas and a projectile of words. Other than re-examining what Artaud says and how he says it, this project aims to investigate and evaluate the theoretical transvaluation and philosophical ramification derived from Artaud』s work. It proposes to analyze the less focused and under scrutinized early and later writings so as to provide a new framework and a new line of flight in the field of Artaudian scholarship. Artaud said of his writing like a musical score, with 「notes」scattered in different lines. This image of layering is integral to the overall architecture of this project, both an aesthetic principle and a structural rule. In this three-year project, of all the layers and notes, I intend to address three unique aspects of Artaudian scholarship and suggest ways through which we can read both Artaud』s writings and their interpretations anew. For many, Derrida』s two essays on Artaud, 「La Parole Soufflee」(1965) and 「The Theater of Cruelty and the Closure of Representation」(1966), defined the field for future Artaud studies and formed 「the paradigmatic case of Artaud commentary」(Scheer 8). In my first-year project, before examining Derrida』s readings of Artaud closely, I will conduct a survey of the philosophical offshoots and ramiphications of Artaud』s writings (especially those of Kristeva, Deleuze, Bataille, and Blanchot). Its purpose is not only to chart some layers of the philosophical rhizome branched out formArtaud』s thoughts and words and then to situate Derrida in this rhizomatic context, but also to highlight the complexities of Artaud』s legacy. Then, I attempt to discuss Artaud』s notions of writing and representation and reexamine and critique Derrida』s systematic appropriation or trans-evaluation of Artaud by means of his all-inclusive canon of deconstruction. In the second-year project, my purpose has two fronts: the first is to analyze Artaud』s notion of 「the body without organs,」Jerzy Grotowski』s notion of 「the body of essence,」and Eugenio Barba』s notion of 「the dilated body」respectively; the second is to investigate the correlation and make a comparative study of the three notions. From Artaud to Grotowski and then to Barba, this project not only hopes to mark out the contours of the body but also to demonstrate that embedded in the question of the body is the haunting problem of force or energy and the burning issue of metaphysics-in-action. Artaud』s physical pain is integral to his way of thinking, writing, and artistic creativity. His sickness unto philosophizing assumes a style of Nietzschean life philosophy. Nevertheless, Artaud deviates from Nietzsche and develops his own style. For both Artaud and Nietzsche, writing was particularly difficult in times of sickness. They both developed the stamina to embrace suffering and sickness as essential parts of their creative gift and life. Thus, in my third-year project, my purpose is to discuss the effect of sickness in both Nietzsche and Artaud』s work. It attempts to show that for both Nietzsche and Artaud 「sickness」is a 「symptomatic」drive of knowledge, power, and discursive practice, which continues to dominate the scene of writing. To Nietzsche, 「the transvaluation of all values」 is not an intellectual problem; rather, itis something to be experienced. Likewise, our trans-evaluation of Artaud』s values is not an intellectual or metaphysical move; rather, it is something to be experienced and felt with all guts and bloods. Thus, my project does not just aim to make Artaud understood by laying bare different theorists』takes on Artaud and highlighting the complexity of Artaud』s legacy. Rather, it is to make Artaud passionately and madly felt. Methodologically speaking, in order to better appreciate Artaud』s agenda in the two major periods and evaluate in depth the full swing of his impact, this project seeks to examine the three crucial aspects of Artaud』s work from a Foucauldian perspective of 「discursive formation」and by employing the Foucauldian method of discourse analysis. In addition, in this project, prompted by Deleuze and Guattari』s insistence on philosophy and theory as a tool-box, I will approach Artaud as a reservoir of thought and make a contribution to our transvaluation of Artaud by drawing on various theory-tools at hand, be it modernist, post-structuralist, psychoanalytical, anthropological, Nietzschean, Heideggerian, Deriddean, or Kristevan. Generally speaking, Foucauldian as well as Deleuzean and Guattarian thinking and theories will be our major frame of reference.
issues with the untranslatable word 「subjectile,」coined byArtaud, and attempts to illustrate demented implications of the word and thus Artaud』s thoughts and artistic practices. Derrida takes Artaud』s paradoxical 「subjectile」 in relation to Artaud』s artwork which 「can take the place of the subject or of the object—being neither one nor the other」(Derrida, The Secret Art of Antonin Artaud 61). This is not to say that the Artaudian subject can be effaced by the subjectile, but rather that the Artaudian subject re-appears or returns as a multiple, fragmented form of itself. Furthermore, the subjectile is in double-sensed couches, signaling at once in the labor of giving birth and in layers, layers that underpin the work of art (Derrida, The Secret Art of Antonin Artaud 145-46). Our current project, 「The Subjectiles of Antonin Artaud: The Trans-evaluation of Artaud』s Values,」is concerned with a man of many layers--Antonin Artaud (1876-1948). His creative intellect traversed both generic and conceptual boundaries and he was poet, playwright, essayist, novelist, actor, producer, theoretician of the theater, artist, and madman. He has also been identified as a schizophrenic, drug-user, paranoiac, and internee. After his death, while having been looked upon as a perfect example of one suffering from delusions, he was hailed by some as cultural iconoclast and melancholic visionary. In addition, he was widely recognized as the father of modern avant-garde theater. His vision of a theater without masterpieces has exerted a profound influence on contemporary directors and theorists alike, such as Jean-Louis Barrault, Herbert Blau, Peter Brook, Jerzy Grotowski, Richard Schechner, to name only a few. Artaud』s thought cannot be identified with a particular philosophy or philosopher, yet it has been of great significance to some post-structuralists, such as Blanchot, Kristeva, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, etc., providing them with much poetic resonance and conceptual power. Artaud』s writings are layers deep in strain. They madden in layers of unfathomable genius and issue forces of cruelty in all directions. They are truly 「subjectiles」in couches. Each layer or couche of his thought is embedded with more layers of thought. Different theorists tease out different layers from Artaud and try to create a new layer to serve their purpose. Their accounts of Artaud』s ideas either break down into more layers or branch out into new shoots. Nevertheless, after being used and appropriated by varied theorists, Artaud does not slip beneath multifarious theoretical arguments and out of view. On the contrary, Artaud』s ideas evolve and metamorphose over time, multiplying and disseminating like a rhizome. The multiple layers and subjectiles of his texts constitute 「textiles」which are more of a spurting of ideas and a projectile of words. Other than re-examining what Artaud says and how he says it, this project aims to investigate and evaluate the theoretical transvaluation and philosophical ramification derived from Artaud』s work. It proposes to analyze the less focused and under scrutinized early and later writings so as to provide a new framework and a new line of flight in the field of Artaudian scholarship. Artaud said of his writing like a musical score, with 「notes」scattered in different lines. This image of layering is integral to the overall architecture of this project, both an aesthetic principle and a structural rule. In this three-year project, of all the layers and notes, I intend to address three unique aspects of Artaudian scholarship and suggest ways through which we can read both Artaud』s writings and their interpretations anew. For many, Derrida』s two essays on Artaud, 「La Parole Soufflee」(1965) and 「The Theater of Cruelty and the Closure of Representation」(1966), defined the field for future Artaud studies and formed 「the paradigmatic case of Artaud commentary」(Scheer 8). In my first-year project, before examining Derrida』s readings of Artaud closely, I will conduct a survey of the philosophical offshoots and ramiphications of Artaud』s writings (especially those of Kristeva, Deleuze, Bataille, and Blanchot). Its purpose is not only to chart some layers of the philosophical rhizome branched out formArtaud』s thoughts and words and then to situate Derrida in this rhizomatic context, but also to highlight the complexities of Artaud』s legacy. Then, I attempt to discuss Artaud』s notions of writing and representation and reexamine and critique Derrida』s systematic appropriation or trans-evaluation of Artaud by means of his all-inclusive canon of deconstruction. In the second-year project, my purpose has two fronts: the first is to analyze Artaud』s notion of 「the body without organs,」Jerzy Grotowski』s notion of 「the body of essence,」and Eugenio Barba』s notion of 「the dilated body」respectively; the second is to investigate the correlation and make a comparative study of the three notions. From Artaud to Grotowski and then to Barba, this project not only hopes to mark out the contours of the body but also to demonstrate that embedded in the question of the body is the haunting problem of force or energy and the burning issue of metaphysics-in-action. Artaud』s physical pain is integral to his way of thinking, writing, and artistic creativity. His sickness unto philosophizing assumes a style of Nietzschean life philosophy. Nevertheless, Artaud deviates from Nietzsche and develops his own style. For both Artaud and Nietzsche, writing was particularly difficult in times of sickness. They both developed the stamina to embrace suffering and sickness as essential parts of their creative gift and life. Thus, in my third-year project, my purpose is to discuss the effect of sickness in both Nietzsche and Artaud』s work. It attempts to show that for both Nietzsche and Artaud 「sickness」is a 「symptomatic」drive of knowledge, power, and discursive practice, which continues to dominate the scene of writing. To Nietzsche, 「the transvaluation of all values」 is not an intellectual problem; rather, itis something to be experienced. Likewise, our trans-evaluation of Artaud』s values is not an intellectual or metaphysical move; rather, it is something to be experienced and felt with all guts and bloods. Thus, my project does not just aim to make Artaud understood by laying bare different theorists』takes on Artaud and highlighting the complexity of Artaud』s legacy. Rather, it is to make Artaud passionately and madly felt. Methodologically speaking, in order to better appreciate Artaud』s agenda in the two major periods and evaluate in depth the full swing of his impact, this project seeks to examine the three crucial aspects of Artaud』s work from a Foucauldian perspective of 「discursive formation」and by employing the Foucauldian method of discourse analysis. In addition, in this project, prompted by Deleuze and Guattari』s insistence on philosophy and theory as a tool-box, I will approach Artaud as a reservoir of thought and make a contribution to our transvaluation of Artaud by drawing on various theory-tools at hand, be it modernist, post-structuralist, psychoanalytical, anthropological, Nietzschean, Heideggerian, Deriddean, or Kristevan. Generally speaking, Foucauldian as well as Deleuzean and Guattarian thinking and theories will be our major frame of reference.