Jay Murphy remarkably challenged and exploited remain describe these quandaries of mediation in

simply impregnable. Then there are the Artaud, where representation always seems
Getting Under the Skin: snarky remarks about performance artists to be conceived negatively yet is necessary
Antonin Artaud’s Media of the 1960s and 1970s, who often ascribed for any thought or work or trace to appear—
to Artaud their inspiration for breaking the this is the “scum” or “scraping” Artaud refers
Ros Murray. Antonin Artaud: The Scum
fourth wall. As the theorist Kuniichi Uno— to so often. There are many different ways
of the Soul. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave
a confidant of the Butoh founder Tatsumi of approaching this issue in sympathy with
Macmillan, 2014. 208 pp., 3 b/w ills. $90
Hijikata—remarks, “One sees that Artaud Artaud’s struggles and combat: one is to
does not circulate freely in the world.”2 discuss the fluctuation of matter as the syn-
The surrealist artist and writer Antonin
Fortunately, Ros Murray’s Antonin Artaud: cope, the syncopation of rhythm, and show
Artaud, who died on March 4, 1948, remains
The Scum of the Earth zeroes in on Artaud’s rela- how Artaud advances his writing by leaping
in a troubling afterlife. He is frequently
tion to the different media that made up his over such gaps or stuttering, the “spasms”
pushed into the prisms he most resisted,
various practices of revolt and bodily recon- he so often equates with death and, at times,
even by those envoking his value, such as
struction. Murray’s book is part of a vibrant with the symbol of the cross as a barrier or
the Catholic priest who defended Artaud’s
countertendency seeking to explore Artaud block to becoming. This complex treatment
incendiary final testament, the banned
as an artist in his own right; that is, beyond of rhythm is a feature of Jacob Rogozinski’s
radio broadcast To Have Done with the Judgment
his seminal notions of activating a Theater 2011 book on Artaud.5 Murray’s strategy,
of God (1947–48). Although he was the most
of Cruelty. In this regard, Murray is in league like many other approaches to Artaud, is
significant thinker of theater in the last
with a number of other recent milestones highly ambivalent—it is a critical defense of
century, along with Bertolt Brecht, even his
in the reinterpretation of Artaud, including Artaud’s exploration that also seeks to reveal
founding influence is sometimes denied. For
an exhibition mounted at the Bibliothèque the contradictions and limits within it. For
example, Jerzy Grotowski, a theater director
nationale de France in Paris in 2006–7. The example, in the interpretation of Artaud’s
and theorist, argued that his prescriptions
exhibition presented Artaud’s enormous glossolalia—the syllable-language that, after
were impossible, the playwright Eugène
output—drawings, writings, films (as an a certain point, punctuates every single text
Ionesco found him too malicious and mor-
actor and scenarist), and sound works—in by Artaud—Murray concludes that Artaud
bid, and, according to the producer and
their “surprising coherence” and “global- succeeded in generating language from cor-
director Roger Blin, neither Jean Genet or
ity.”3 Artaud moved restlessly from medium poreality, directly from the body, at the cost
Samuel Beckett knew his work well. Artaud’s
to medium, often in such a state of agitation of the universal communication he strove
scores of extraordinary, uncategorizable
that the categories are difficult to parse from for. Playing off the huge quantity of literature
drawings, which were completed during his
one another. After a certain date—Artaud surrounding Artaud’s various failures, Murray
final years, exhibited in Paris in 1987 and
claimed October 1939—he no longer wrote pays a backhanded compliment to the artist’s
1994, and shown in New York in 1996–97,
without drawing. glossolalia, writing, “What is perhaps impor-
opened the doors for reconsideration; yet, to
The mediating effects of drawing and tant about this supposedly universal language
date, the most famous commentaries on his
writing combine poetry, theater, the cru- is not that it succeeds, but that through its
drawings continue to be those of the phi-
cially important gesture, and cinema. As very failure, it draws attention to the non-
losopher Jacques Derrida, who maintained
Stephen Barber has pointed out, there is a universal nature of representation” (25).
that Artaud’s graphic “prostheses” kept him
pronounced cinematic quality to many of Artaud probably did not see himself as
trapped in the quandaries of representation
Artaud’s late cahiers.4 This quality is perhaps Murray does, as striving for a “reflection
he so ferociously railed against.
one reason the academy, despite its alleged of universal truth” and “microcosm of the
Artaud was admittedly politically insen-
embrace of transdisciplinarity and interdis- external world” (25). For one who wrote “I
sitive on any number of levels, and a recent
ciplinarity, finds Artaud so incomprehen- was there before God,” it is this postulation
book by one scholar recoups the old charge
sible. Murray’s book is a welcome attempt of inner and outer that is to be constantly
that Artaud’s ideas were simply fascistic.1
to demonstrate the relationships among challenged.6 To Artaud this dichotomy indi-
Despite the many studies on Artaud and
Artaud’s many practices. Artaud asserted that cates the false erotomaniac division of the
the vast quantity of work he left behind—
his underlying project was the drive “to find world; the notions of microcosm and mac-
the twenty-six volumes of Artaud’s Oeuvres
the fundamental matter of the soul” (quoted, rocosm are another folly of representational
complètes, published by Gallimard, remain
8); Murray quite rightly emphasizes that all thinking that the artist must unravel. In
incomplete—he is best known through the
too often commentators become fixed on his journeys to Mexico in 1936 and Ireland
references and representations of others.
the “soul” rather than the “matter,” despite the following year, Artaud hankered after
Julia Kristeva, Derrida, Susan Sontag, and
Artaud’s fierce attack and deconstruction of a primordial language. Yet the Artaud who
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, who bril-
it, especially in the latter works. This atten- emerges from the asylums in May 1946 to
liantly appropriated Artaud, are but a few of
tion to the “material aspects of the body, the return to Paris does not think or feel in the
the author’s legatees.
text and the physical object” (8) in Artaud same way; this is a profound transformation,
The mention of Artaud often provokes
is indispensable, Murray argues, since “it the seeds of which were first inaugurated
eye-rolling, given his incarceration for more
is in the very process of mediation that his with his participation in Tarahumara Indian
than nine years in insane asylums, as if the
thought emerges” (11). Murray seeks to peyote rites in September 1936. This late
boundaries of sanity and madness he so

113 artjournal
Artaud, of 1945 to 1948, despises the mysti-
cism and mystical systems in which he had
immersed himself during the 1930s; any
notion of a universal understanding is con-
sumed in his apocalyptic fury within a world
of sorcery and countersorcery. Artaud’s most
illustrious commentators rarely remark on
this transformation. In an exception, Jean-
Joseph Goux has taken note of Artaud’s late
or final “total reversal,” calling it “a radical
rejection of everything related to the initia-
tory” who replaces his earlier vision with a
“harsh and immediate conception of life in
which the body is the foundation.”7
This change is significant when examin-
ing Artaud’s language, which, during 1943
in the asylums, starts to take on different
characteristics and style. At this point, it
becomes inseparable from his creation of a
“new body”—the “body without organs”
proclaimed in To Have Done with the Judgment of
God.8 Murray points out the incoherence of
the idea of a glossolalia that anyone can read
regardless of nationality, despite it being
riddled with portmanteau words, shards of
the polygot languages Artaud grew up with in
Marseilles, and transcribed using Latin letter
forms. Artaud’s project is far more ambi-
tious than cataloguing the failures of any
possible representation, and these are the
more expansive goals that Murray calls into
question.
After first acknowledging Artaud’s
“highly imaginative” account of his journey
to the Sierra Tarahumaras and many earlier
scholars’ doubts that the trip was undertaken
at all, Murray concludes, “What is really at
stake is a complete incapacity [of Artaud]
to understand anything beyond his own
vision” (24). Entering figurally into what
was Artaud’s ecstatic suspension or syncope,
Murray oscillates between explaining his
extremely challenging methods and sec-
onding the judgments of other writers that
Artaud remains trapped in veils of his own
making. She stops short of an affirmation of
Artaud’s accomplishments; in Deleuze and
Guattari’s phrase, “Through him something
succeeded for us all.”9 In marked contrast
to this analysis, one finds the Paris-based
filmmaker Raymonde Carasco following
Artaud’s footsteps to the Sierra Tarahumaras
and, like him, being initiated into the
Tarahumara indigenous worldview. For
Carasco, Artaud’s notion of a “body with-
out organs” was a faithful transcription of
Tarahumara thought and its pantheistic deity,
Ciguri.10 Likewise, and also initially skeptical
of Artaud’s account, Sylvère Lotringer—who
journeyed to the Sierra Tarahumaras in the
1980s as part of his research on a biography
of Artaud—found Artaud’s descriptions of
Tarahumara ceremonies remarkably accurate.
In other words, Artaud’s pilgrimage yielded
something other than a relentless orientalist
fantasy.
Despite these lapses that restore Artaud’s
alienation, so to speak, Murray’s close
focus on Artaud’s notion of representation
remains fruitful. She accomplishes this, in
part, by resorting to the differing versions
of mimesis found in Plato, a philosopher
Artaud abhorred. In Plato’s Republic, mime-
sis is not only the shallow reflection of the
phenomenal world that exists due to the
unseen forms that dictate reality (a mirror
to a mirror), it is also the theatrical mimesis
whereby the poet Plato claimed he “could
turn himself into anything by his skill and
imitate anything” (quoted, 29). Murray
argues that for Artaud, le réel “exists in the
world, and this is why he places so much
emphasis on the materiality of his work”
(29). This idea is especially true of the final
Artaud of 1945 to 1948. For Artaud, it is the
social control based on ideological systems
such as language and ideas that occludes this
reality from us; in terms of Plato’s Republic,
Murray asserts that Artaud partakes of both
these forms: the world-reflecting and the
world-creating. Artaud claims these aspects
of mimesis revolve around the evocation of
the space of creation and the extraordinarily
strenuous effort to create a space and time
where this event can happen. This is Artaud’s
risk and experiment—a situation that
requires continual, destructive intervention
into the means of representation. As Murray
writes, “Words must always fail Artaud in
order for him to demonstrate that language,
and the subject that it claims to represent, is
a process to be intervened in” (35). For the
late Artaud, this laborious working, the spin-
dling or shattering of any representation—so
its failure is a kind of success in which any
finite thought is a failing thought (14)—is a
means to construct the new, ecstatic body. In
a note from December 1947, Artaud writes,
“I have made / a body.”11 Artaud’s rending
of representation, which echoes the rites
of the Tarahumaras, is both intimate and
cosmological, calling for the destruction of
114 spring 2016
one world and its replacement by another.
Murray begins to suggest this idea when she
writes that Artaud’s war with representation
is not merely normative but forms “a kind
of dangerous, affective ‘mimesis’” (35). This
insight provides an opening to Artaud’s uni-
verse of sorcery: “I am a magician, / nothing
makes itself through nature, entirely through
the will.”12
Artaud called the creation of a new,
double body the “search for fecality.”13
Murray devotes an entire chapter to this
topic, exploring Artaud’s obsession with caca,
waste matter, and the process of expulsion.
She points out that for Artaud, the notori-
ous proclamation in Nerve Scales (1925) that
“all writing is pigshit”14 is somewhat of a
compliment: “Words should draw attention
to their status as something to be discarded.
We might see excrement as being not an end
result, but a continually transforming process
of production, both decomposing and fertil-
izing, which is to say becoming a catalyst
rather than a barrier for creative activity”
(38). In fact, Artaud conceives of each word
as a terminus, a container, and thus an
impediment to the process of direct corpo-
real expression of the nervous system.
When Murray returns to the issue of
mimesis, theater, and magic in her central
chapter, she connects this notion to the
problematic of Artaud’s “present body.”15
For Murray, theater is the most successful
realm for Artaud, owing to its reliance on
the power of gesture. The different senses
of the French verbs agir, to act (in Artaud’s
sense, to become something other than
one is and affect one’s surroundings), and
jouer, to playact, to consciously represent
something, juxtapose the difference between
mimesis and representation. Artaud’s actors
must be “conjuring rather than representing
something symbolically,” thereby enacting “a
type of sign that does not have an arbitrary
relationship to its referent, but rather . . . a
mimetic one in that it both acts like it and
invokes a physical presence that is always
mediated by the body . . . the sign becomes
its referent” (70, emphasis in original). For
this notion, Murray is partially indebted to
the psychoanalytic revisionism of Mikkel
Borch-Jacobsen, for whom mimesis implies
a more direct communication in which the
subject moves beyond itself; here mimesis is
“ungraspable, inconceivable, unmasterable,
because unspecularizable” (quoted, 71). Such
arguments prove the coherence of Artaud’s
project, providing a much-needed corrective
to those who argue that Artaud’s theatrical
theories were contradictory pipe dreams and
his later invectives simply mad. Seconding
this argument, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe
contends that “only a demiurgic interpretation of
mimesis allows us to liberate its essence, which
is installation, or more precisely ‘disinstal-
lation’” (quoted, 72, emphasis in original).
Hence Artaud’s double imperils the normal
unitary sense of self and threatens to act on
its behalf, stealing its thoughts and capacity,
leading Lacoue-Labarthe to conclude that
“madness is a matter of mimesis” (quoted,
72). Murray closes this line of thought by
suggesting that Artaud’s “refusal” to prof-
fer “any kind of vision for what follows the
momentous destruction of the subject” is
actually a positive stance, since this is how
his project “remains resistant to any forms
of ideology, including fascism” (72). Though
Murray admits that the psychoanalytic mod-
els of Borch-Jacobsen and Lacoue-Labarthe
begin precisely where Artaud explicitly
rejects such a mode of explanation, the con-
tinued use of psychoanalytic counters may
account for Murray’s reluctance to assert
Artaud’s value in a more forthright manner.
While Murray claims that Artaud’s decima-
tion of the subject merely refuses recu-
peration, Guattari maintains that due to this
“figureless and foundationless Body without
Organs of self-reference we see spreading
before us an entirely different horizon, that
of a new machinic processuality considered
as the continual point of emergence of all
forms of creativity.”16 In contrast, for Murray,
Artaud’s attempt at spells “inevitably, also
ends in failure and alienation” (72).17
In her chapter on Artaud’s remark-
able prescience in his cinema writings and
scripts, Murray notes Artaud’s contribution
to the contemporary posthuman in terms of
a philosophy of film in which the capacity
to exceed human processes of thinking and
imagination is explored (94). In the book
Filmosophy (2006), Daniel Frampton cites
Artaud, along with Sergei Eisenstein, Jean-
Louis Schefer, Jean Epstein, and Deleuze, as
a pioneer of “cinematic thought” (quoted,
94). The notion of cinema produces its
own processes of thinking and, in the case
of Artaud, is potentially beyond individual
human experience. For Artaud—an actor,
scriptwriter, and early film theorist—cinema
was one of the most promising mediums; at
one point he heralded its “virtual power of
the images [that] probes at the foundation of
spirit for possibilities unutilized today. The
cinema essentially reveals an entire occult
life with which it puts us directly in rela-
tion.”18 This promise for Artaud was based
on film’s capacity for direct contact with the
nervous system. Just as Artaud often referred
to the “skin” of the surface of the page on
which he “scraped,” he wrote “the human
skin of things, the epidermis of reality: this
is the primary raw material of cinema”
(quoted, 99). Typical of Artaud is this merg-
ing of the material and the affective, in the
different senses of the verb “to touch.” Yet
by 1933 Artaud was already denouncing cin-
ema’s “idiotic world of images” and “closed
world of vibrations.”19 Despite Artaud’s disap-
pointment and his return in the early 1930s
to theater (Eisenstein, as Murray notes, went
in the opposite direction), it is still true that
Artaud’s emphatic advocacy of corporeal
gesture “potentially finds its most advanced
permutations in the cinema” (100). What
Laura Marks has called the dissolution of
the dichotomy between the subject and the
object in cinema,20 in which the body is the
mediator, can lead to the contagious affect
central to Artaud, and shows how cinema
can create what Murray terms “collective,
affective consciousness (not just between
humans but amongst objects, animals, and
other life-forms)” (109).
115 artjournal
Murray’s recurring attention to the func-
tion of “skin” in Artaud, “continually dis-
rupting the boundaries between surface and
depth and between metaphor and material”
(113), finds fertile territory again when she
turns to Artaud’s drawings. As in the pas encore,
or not yet, effect of Artaud’s spells, the appar-
ently infinite process of the construction of
the “body without organs” or the perpetu-
ally deferred apocalypse much of his later
work called into being, Artaud’s drawings
also exist in a kind of “suspension” (118).
Though in a form disparate from much of
Artaud’s other oeuvre, they may be his most
powerful expression. His drawings also act as
a “virtual form of glossolalia” (124) and an
attempt at “communicating through vibra-
tion” (161). Artaud described them to Jean
Dubuffet as “the action of forces which have
presided over the calculation of the forms”
(quoted, 119). “The stage itself is put on
stage,” Murray writes, in that “all elements
of their composition, whether material,
linguistic, corporeal, or all of these at the
same time, must be rendered visible” (119).
Artaud termed the drawings “anatomies in
action” (quoted, 120), and they constitute,
according to Murray, “a force-field that
would never become a complete form, but
an entity existing between the form and the
force that puts its own process of destruction
in motion” (72). Once again, Artaud presents
the “‘work’ at once as the practice of scrap-
ing and as the scum that is left over” (122).
Artaud’s ferocious, catastrophic drawings,
which frustrate the symbolic formation of
normative language as much as the organic
body at every turn, are verbal as well as
visual entities, as Derrida recognized. Murray
compares them to the spells, in that they are
perpetually “unborn,” “incubators for threat-
ening, embryonic forms that never quite
materialize.” Any “subject” represented here
is “the botched result of God’s malfunction-
ing sexual organs” (132).
These drawings, in which the scarred
surface of the page testifies to a continual
abutting of limits, “of existing at the limit,
under constant threat of annihilation” (137)
with their invasion of different types of
signs, thwart and disrupt the Saussurian and
Lacanian primacy of the signifier. This would
still be a negative accomplishment, but
Murray’s consideration of the drawings’ dia-
grammatic qualities leads to the discussion
of the “machinic body” in the last chapter—
“how can one act in a way that is not already
anticipated by structures of representation
which dictate the creation of a ‘subject,’ in
opposition to the non-figurative body without
organs?” (139, emphasis in original). Here,
we contend with Artaud’s odd, fragmenting,
hybrid, mechanized, and electrical bodies
on their own terms—how they act, move,
and possibly communicate—as well as the
long-overdue encounter between them and
the philosophy of media. For Murray, this is
due in part to Marshall McLuhan, who, when
writing of the power of the sense of touch
to unify the nervous system, asked, “Perhaps
touch is not just skin contact with things, but
the very life of things in the mind?” (quoted,
147, emphasis in original). McLuhan, like
Artaud, is not interested in representative art
but rather in how media acts and transforms
consciousness in its very physicality.
Murray is particularly good on Artaud’s
notebooks, in which the very surface of
the page becomes the organless body, an
extension of Artaud’s skin. As the reposi-
tory or well of Artaud’s complex practices,
the notebooks allow words to evade their
fate as published, final forms, instead act-
ing as extremely powerful, affective, roving
signs. This concept is perhaps even more
true of Artaud’s radio broadcast To Have Done
with the Judgment of God, with its words turned
into incantatory chants and dissolved into
screams, as Artaud judged it a successful
“mini-model” for a Theater of Cruelty.21 As
Murray writes, “The voice of this record-
ing becomes an attempt at creating this
body without organs” (147). McLuhan, who
could have been paraphrasing Artaud’s own
thoughts, wrote that radio was a “subliminal
echo chamber of magical power to touch
remote and forgotten chords” (quoted, 159).
Although Artaud’s last radio broadcast is also
sometimes judged a failure, even on its own
terms,22 Murray refers to Friedrich Kittler’s
theory of how the lack of visible embodi-
ment in radio can paradoxically highlight
the body’s presence as stochastic sound
and white noise, exceeding and disrupting
the illusion of wholeness that an image of
a body would instantiate. One can listen to
Artaud’s broadcast, Murray notes, “entirely as
noise,” as another example of “communicat-
ing through vibration” (161). As an unstable,
extremely challenging projection of “the very
genesis of creativity” (166), it is perhaps only
now—with the publication of his notebooks
by Gallimard in 2011—that Artaud can be 15. Artaud, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 13, 118.
properly evaluated in his entirety.23 Murray 16. Félix Guattari, “Regimes, Pathways, Subjects,”
in The Guattari Reader, ed. Gary Genosko, 98.
has contributed a vital level of complexity in
17. One can look at most or all of Artaud’s late
understanding Artaud’s multifarious relations work as operative spells; see Barber, cited above.
with his means, from which his message of 18. Artaud, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 3, 80.
corporeal transformation was inseparable. 19. Ibid., 99.
20. See Laura U. Marks, The Skin of the Film:
1. Kimberley Jannorane, Artaud and His Doubles Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses,
(Durham: Duke University Press, 2000).
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010).
2. Kuniichi Uno, e-mail communication to 21. Artaud, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 13, 127.
reviewer, May 7, 2012. 22. See, for instance, Allen S. Weiss on this
3. Jean-Noël Jeanneney, preface to Antonin Artaud, issue, “From Schizophrenia to Schizophonica,”
ed. Guillaume Fau, exh. cat. (Paris: Bibliothèque in Phantasmic Radio (Durham: Duke University
nationale de France and Gallimard, 2006). The Press, 1995).
exhibition was held November 7, 2006–February 23. Antonin Artaud, Cahiers d’Ivry: Février 1947–
4, 2007. Mars 1948, 2 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 2011). Other
4. See Stephen Barber, Artaud: Terminal Curses; editions from the notebooks include Cahier Ivry,
The Notebooks 1945–1948 (London: Solar Books, Janvier 1948 (Paris: Gallimard, 2006), and 50
2008), 56. Drawings to Murder Magic, ed. Évelyne Grossman,
trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (London and New
5. Jacob Rogozinski, Guérir la vie: La Passion
d’Antonin Artaud (Paris: Cerf, 2011). This and York: Seagull Books, 2008).
further translations are by the reviewer, unless
noted otherwise. Jay Murphy is a writer and independent cura-
6. Antonin Artaud, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 19 tor currently in New Orleans. His treatment of
(Paris: Gallimard, 1984), 189. Artaud’s “reversal,” Artaud’s Metamorphosis, is
7. Jean-Joseph Goux, “Antonin Artaud and the forthcoming from Pavement Books in 2016. He
Promise of a Great Therapeutic,” Angelaki 13, no. has contributed to Parallax, Culture Machine,
3 (December 2008): 17–24, 21. Frieze, MAP, Afterimage, Parkett, Art in America,
8. I have argued elsewhere that it is the trans- Metropolis, and Third Text, among other
formation of this final Artaud who contributes publications.
invaluable, uncanny insights into the dilemmas of
our media society; see Jay Murphy, “The Artaud
Effect,” CTheory (September 15, 2015), at www.
ctheoryarchive.net/the-artaud-effect/, as of
September 16, 2015.
9. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand
Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian
Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1987), 164.
10. See Raymonde Carasco, “Approche de la pen-
sée Tarahumara,” in Antonin Artaud, 134–41. For
information on the eleven documentaries Carasco
made with the Tarahumaras from 1979 to 2003,
see www.raymonde.carasco.fr, as of December
22, 2015.
11. Cahier no. 389 (December 1947), Artaud
Archives, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris.
Thanks to the permission of Guillaume Fau, the
director of the Bibliothèque nationale de France,
and Serge Malusséna, Artaud’s nephew and liter-
ary executor, I was able to visit Artaud’s archives
in June 2010. The notebooks have since been
published by Gallimard in two volumes in 2011;
see note 23.
12. Artaud, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 24, 213.
13. “The Pursuit of Fecality” is the title of one
of the key sections of To Have Done with the
Judgment of God. Fecality is a strong theme in
Artaud’s work that takes prevalence from 1943
onward at Rodez. It has a sense of doubling the
functions of the physical body, in that any expres-
sion has to contain the same inexorable force
of expulsion. In To Have Done with the Judgment
of God, we see, as much as we can, Artaud’s
bizarrely definitive statement concerning it. See
Artaud Oeuvres complètes, vol. 13, 81–87.
14. Artaud, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 1, 100.
116 spring 2016
Copyright of Art Journal is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.