In ugly scenes of "theater of cruelty" refers to its own borders, which already foresaw himself Artaud. Actually, there is a dilemma: either to give
total output of the show unleashed brutality (the solution to which was inclined Artaud, uncompromising maximalist), or stop it (what did the Living Theatre), thus, however, showed that the theater "plague" - is "not really." But in this case should have the courage to declare that the House refuses to aesthetics, "cruelty" and crucial to its principle of identification of the theater and life. On this live theater managers were not able to, and the company continued its activity, though with a vague feeling that it all comes to a standstill on. This feeling was aggravated by the fact that, adhering to the ethics of nonviolence, the Living Theatre was converted into arsonist instincts of aggression and brutality. American theater critic Eric Bentley wrote that one of the mistakes of the Living Theater - in that it seeks to instill a guilt complex for people who come to play a friendly and open-minded, provoking the audience rather than to appeal to those who bear much greater responsibility for things happening in the world of evil. Note more than fair, but it would like to add that the entire capacity for introspection and self-control in the Living Theatre was as if inhibited by the role he chose for himself consciously: to be a magic mirror, reflective, and even anticipating all the features of the impending "cultural revolution ". In this "revolution", especially in its European version, a mocker provocation played a big role too in order to live theater could not reflect it. Attempt to overcome the contradiction between ethics and aesthetics of the provocation of humanism - a contradiction, all the more painfully aware, and in riot - were the two most fully displayed the philosophy and the pathos of the youth counterculture of the performance "of the Living Theatre:" Frankenstein "and" Paradise - instantly! ".