2019 Year 12 IB Extended Essays

emerge from a place of subconscious, unimpeded thought – much in the same way as the Surrealists. Artaud and the Surrealists had many common desires, and the aesthetics of their theories feel very closely related. The way both parties discuss language and advocate the subversion of convention are very similar, and this is where Artaud and the Surrealists begin to feel inextricably linked. However, it is also the place where the relationship becomes complicated, mostly due to Breton’s insistence on automatism as the principle means of Surrealism. This conversation directs the discussion towards the contentious point of whether or not a Surrealist theatre ever existed to begin with. The short answer would appear at first to be no. Surrealism as movement was controlled by the vision of Andre Breton. For him, Surrealist Theatre was a contradiction – he found the two concepts incompatible. As previously discussed, this was partly due to his perception that automatism could not be applied to the theatre, but it was also due to his (and the movement’s) communist alignment, which designated the theatre as a superfluous, bourgeois pastime. Artaud saw this politicisation as a contradiction of Surrealism’s core principles (Artaud, 1988), which was part of what prompted his departure from the movement. Either way, in Breton’s eyes, the theatre was not compatible with Surrealism, and as such a Surrealist Theatre never existed. Despite such a proclamation, Surrealism’s mark in the theatre is undeniable, and can still be observed today. Artaud is just one example: Roger Vitrac was a member of the movement for some time, and Jean Cocteau was heavily influenced by the group (Cohn, 1964). Absurdist playwright Eugene Ionesco cites Surrealism as a significant inspiration (Ionesco, 1960). The imagery of all these practitioners is undoubtedly Surrealist, and surely must be considered to some extent as a product of the movement. Even with this notable influence, the body of

6