text, "Forcener le subjectile"-- an expression that forces, incarcerates, and maddensin a touch of unfathomable genius -- deals fathoms deep with what underlies a text like that of Artaud himself, so visually, verbally, heroically mad. It sets out to further a frenzy, to unsense completely, to set things askew -- forever.
The language is already layers deep in strain: since this volume was to appear first inGermany, and originally only there (Munich: Schirmer/ Mosel Verlag, 1986) and notin France, Derrida's French text, prepared for German readers, addresses, in footnotesand asides, the difference between the Latinity of French and the anti-Latin nature of German: "How will they translate this?" "German has no way of saying . . ." "You arereading in German here. . . ." As the French version leaves those strains in, so does theEnglished version, deliberately: the strain contributes to the depth. Derrida's Frenchstruggles with Artaud's peculiar language, as with the predicted German reception tohis struggle; just so, the translator into English struggles with both, against and alongwith the otherness, I might say the foreignness, of Artaud himself.To be sure, his mother tongue is not mine, but he did not want it to be his either,lashing out as he did against anything reeking of the "fathermother." Just as thestrangeness, the foreignness of Artaud's language, even before Rodez, exacerbates theserious gap between original and translation(s), it enables Derrida to find, to force andfrenzy and unsense the underlying support of canvas, paper, text: this subjectile of which the initial passage speaks at such length and in such difficult depth. It ismarvelously and strictly unbearable.Derrida warns against anyone trying to speak like Artaud, in order to "understand"him. His own speaking here is addressed toward what underlies both language and artlike a support, at once the subject-he and the subject-she: this so-called "subjectile"which is his subject, and which is not to be translated. Which will, says Derrida, never cross the border of French. Which is both male and female, and at the same timeserves as birthing table for text and canvas, as the mater/matrix/pater, whose double-sensed
couches
signal at once the labor of birthing, and the layers and layersunderpinning what we hear and see and call by the name of art. The subjectile is in
couches
, literally giving birth, and in layers, prehistoric, historic, and posthistoric. If itis having birth pangs, so is this text, so long to come to English. The subjectile ismultiply contrarian: matrix and fiend, belying, birthing, and betraying. The text of
Derrida
is no less frenzied than that of Artaud, inscribed in the surface and theundersurface, the subjectile of his drawings and portraits cast as spells. The best thetranslator can hope for is not to break the spell.Under this spell, any address or skill risks a sudden turn into what Artaud calls"maladresse," a very serious awkwardness, seriously taken and received -- as in God'sown mistakenness: "
la maladresse sexuelle de dieu
." The rather more straightforwardtext of Paule Thévenin describing the history of Artaud's art and drawing up the list of its naming, and the text of Derrida, brilliantly inscribed in the name of this madnessoutpoured, originally made up this most justly maddening
catalogue irraisonné
for anexhibition of frenzy. The project calls for a rendering that can espouse AR-TAU'swilled self-projection past his name and language, past any mother tongue at all.This book should be read, says Artaud of his writing, like a musical score. "We won't be describing any paintings," says Derrida. And indeed, this text will read like a
Leave a Comment