pproaches but both Piscator and Brecht conceived of a new form of theater as essential in a world being, as they believed, transformed by the transition away form capitalism and toward socialism. Antonin Artaud was also moved by human suffering but he was not interested in political ideas and wished to create a theater that reached into the darkest, most repressed parts of human beings--where the impulses that led to human cruelty had been repressed by civilization and language. Artaud's notion of a theater of cruelty was based on surpassing language and mere replication of the real world in favor of ritual theater that would exorcise cruel impulses and change audiences in fundamental ways. The creators of these notions of theater had varying opportunities to embody their work in actual productions, but each of them has been very influential and has had a wide influence on theater ever since.
In terms of dramatic or theatrical innovation Shaw did not progress very far beyond the standard of the well-made plays of Scribe and Sardou--which he had deplored during his years as a critic--or the naturalism of Ibsen--which he admired for its supposed utilitarian approach to social problems. In writing over fifty plays Shaw made "no advance, in point of innovation, on his original scheme of taking nineteenth century stereotypes and turning them on their heads" (Spurling 139).
Shaw did, however, believe that the only significant drama is that which "lead[s] the audience to right action" (Brockett & Findlay 112). He disapproved of Shakespeare, for example, because he did not demand social improvement of his audiences, and he claimed to dislike the carefully made works of his own era because their pursuit of the correct commercial formulae took precedence over any interest in showing audiences the truth about the world. Shaw was fully aware of the fact that he never really transcended contemporary conventions himself. Indeed it was ...