Theatre of Cruelty:
I really admire Artaud's theories. Theatre of cruelty in particular i like because no one dares venture in to that line because of the boundaries socity has put upon drama. However, Artaud goes past that, to scare the audience as much as possible to create raw emotions, not just sympathy to what is going on within, but providing them with pure emotions rather than imagining what emotions someone else must be feeling.

An exercise we did to enhance our understanding of Artaud was to write down an impossible task within that room. I.e- To eat the radiator. We then put all the pieces of paper into a bag, and everyone was to take one out of the bag, and made to attempt this task. This was artuadian because even though they were impossible, we were made not to act. We literally had to try by whatever means possible, to achieve that task despite it's impossibility. This was very Artaudian because he believes that anything is possible, and it is only ourselves that convince us that the task is impossible. Because his style of theatre is so raw and animalistic, these impossible tasks should be possible, when you set your mind to it. These tasks then seem like nothing in comparison to everything else that occurs within the performance. This fits in with theatre of cruelty again because when trying to achieve these impossible tasks, people return to animal instincts, not as actors but as humans. We did not try to achieve these as if we were someone else, with a need to act, but literally try. We were allowed to do whatever was needed and the room soon turned into mayhem, scaring the audience because of the fact we did so without any form of acting, but true, personal inner intentions of the individual, which scared the audience because even with some form of acting, amounts to nearly nothing compared to that of Artaudian's theatre of cruelty.