The show must go on
I asked my mum to read this piece for me because she is an actress, and I was kind of disappointed that she found it long and boring. I did explain it to her instead of making her go through all the trouble though, and I can say that it was worth it. Like a true Vygotskian, I cooperated with her (even though she didn't read 0_0) and the results, as per usual with anything Vygotsky, broke my mind. This is why I'm up at 2am writing this; because the show must go on (lol). So, let's see. When we talk of the actor, Vygotsky talks about diametrically opposite approaches to looking at the ways in which actors do their craft. He says that stage systems that look at the essence that an actor possesses that is only inherent to him is what produces a scintillating performance. A psychotechnical approach is something that looks at acting as deconstructed into the byproducts of basic mental drives. However, these two warring approaches present a fragmented view of the actor's psychology.
When I asked my mum about how she feels when she's behind a camera, she said she feels as if there is something that holds her two identities together, like a partition of sorts, but it is a careful, conscious process. She said that she is in character while being filmed, but that is constructed from her experience of that character, from an outside perspective. I guess, in whatever weird existential way, this outside perspective of being in someone else's shoes can allow us to interiorize the identities we can portray on stage, while playing pretend, and have new experiences with it; in this case; use it on screen! This really made me think about imagination. I think acting could just be a complex version of childlike imagination, or rather, a more specific version of a developed adult imagination that only jumps out when the curtains drop.
Why are actors perceived as exceptional? Isn't it because they have active imaginations? Didn't we also say that children, while playing, exhibit different behaviors, and interiorize symbols by playing pretend? Isn't behavior during play at odds with regular behavior? Aren't actors doing something similar while exercising his/her imagination to embody someone else from an outside perspective, and then integrate them into their actor's psyche?
When we look at imagination as both real and not real, and try to analogize it with the actor's psyche, we come to understand how some domain-specific skills mirror the basis of our behavior that stems in our childhood to a larger extent. Acting is definitely one of them. It allows adults (and sometimes children; makes me think about why child stars are so troubled.....) to use their imaginations to create abstract experiences, and then externalize them as an aesthetic object, which then creates aberrations on their nerves by way of neural plasticity. We thus understand that the actors craft is an amalgamation of real, concrete experiences, as well as the inner essence of the individual on stage. Just like imagination, acting is both real, and not real. Whatever it may be, the show must go on.
When I asked my mum about how she feels when she's behind a camera, she said she feels as if there is something that holds her two identities together, like a partition of sorts, but it is a careful, conscious process. She said that she is in character while being filmed, but that is constructed from her experience of that character, from an outside perspective. I guess, in whatever weird existential way, this outside perspective of being in someone else's shoes can allow us to interiorize the identities we can portray on stage, while playing pretend, and have new experiences with it; in this case; use it on screen! This really made me think about imagination. I think acting could just be a complex version of childlike imagination, or rather, a more specific version of a developed adult imagination that only jumps out when the curtains drop.
Why are actors perceived as exceptional? Isn't it because they have active imaginations? Didn't we also say that children, while playing, exhibit different behaviors, and interiorize symbols by playing pretend? Isn't behavior during play at odds with regular behavior? Aren't actors doing something similar while exercising his/her imagination to embody someone else from an outside perspective, and then integrate them into their actor's psyche?
When we look at imagination as both real and not real, and try to analogize it with the actor's psyche, we come to understand how some domain-specific skills mirror the basis of our behavior that stems in our childhood to a larger extent. Acting is definitely one of them. It allows adults (and sometimes children; makes me think about why child stars are so troubled.....) to use their imaginations to create abstract experiences, and then externalize them as an aesthetic object, which then creates aberrations on their nerves by way of neural plasticity. We thus understand that the actors craft is an amalgamation of real, concrete experiences, as well as the inner essence of the individual on stage. Just like imagination, acting is both real, and not real. Whatever it may be, the show must go on.
Comments
Post a Comment