Hi Alice,

Well I must say my knowledge of performance philosophy is very limited which is why I signed up here to learn more. But because of this I can only speak generally about Blanchot. I would agree, I don't think there is much humour in it at all but that said, it's beautiful stuff. I think the key is paradox...so the neutral is a way of framing what resists the realm of possibility as impossibility. It's all to do with language too, what resists us in our interpretation of the work of art, not as some kind of aesthetic sublime but as a radical impossibility. Where as the sublime is a way of thinking the impossible and still within our power, Blanchot neutral is a non-concept. The difficulty in his writing is how can you write that which resists what is written...and that is where the beauty comes in for me. I would strongly recommend The Infinite Conversation and Leslie Hill's commentaries on Blanchot, essential stuff. What is your interest?