“… if we do a theater is not to represent the work, but to be able to ensure that what is dark spirit, the hidden, not detected, manifests itself in a sort of projection of real material …”
The theater as a place where the invisible becomes visible,
the actor as the one in which this transformation takes place:
on this track we followed Artaud.
It is not an actor.
It ‘an actor.
It ‘a non-actor.
Mimesis in the “inner desire” the actor embodies the invisible history,
becomes an image of his own feelings.
The body in-writes, obedient.
At the edge of the word.
Words communicate images and text.
Gone is the wild abandon, beyond any “reality” and “likelihood”
and these images, disciplined and strictly processed,
the actor describes “the words of the text”
that despite and through the words he utters.
Acting to anyone, just like crazy.
Jealously guard-show-hide their actions.
Remove the sentence, the word itself; disrupt the syntax.
Instead organize the phonetic instrumentation corporal.
Expropriate the words from the stage of the theater of the ever-heard-digested.
Said or did not say anything?
Or he said, and then was forgotten himself in the ear.
Giving back to the art market dramatic folly of fiction first-hand.
We can do without.