Stanislavski, the actor and the nanobot

Last week, I attended a lecture by UK Stanislavski expert, Jean Benedetti, and I was struck by a simple question from an audience member who asked whether Stanislavski’s system would continue to be practiced and evolve in the future. Paraphrasing Benedetti’s response, he thought the system was here to stay because it is one based on “biology” – a reference to the training of the actor’s body as an intuitive psycho-physiological tool for performance; but also of the system being rooted in the actor’s “observation” rather than “imitation” of the world.

Another keyword used in the lecture was ‘organic’, a term that Stanislavski himself was apparently fond of. Around the turn of the 20th century, the connotation of the word ‘organic’ would have differed from its current counterpart. Today’s English language usage, linked with the food industry, is set in contrast to industrial or genetically modified substances. In Stanislavski’s day, it may well have resonated with a pre-industrial idea of nature – but without further etymological and historical probing it’s difficult to say.

Another problem in understanding shifts in the popular perception of biology is understanding the means by which the advances in its field of research filter into popular discourse. Do changes of perception come straight from scientific/technological developments, or are they filtered through popular art forms and cultural outlets, including in this case the theatre?

Following the lecture, I began thinking about the significance of biology in our perception of the performer on stage; and how important the perception and knowledge of biological function is to the actor today. I also began questioning the Stanislavski/Benedetti notion of biology and the body in light of scientific innovations in the field of nanobiotechnology. Is the Stanislavskian vision of a ‘biological’ actor on the verge of obsolescence?

In the 4th century B.C., Aristotle placed great importance on the imitation of life as the key to dramatic representation. In chapter 2 of his Poetics, he writes “since the objects of imitation are men in action, and these men must be either of a higher or a lower type…it follows that we must represent men either as better than in real life, or as worse, or as they are. It is the same in painting. Polygnotus depicted men as nobler than they are, Pauson as less noble, Dionysius drew them true to life.” (Aristotle, Poetics Chap 2, 48a) Aristotle’s notion of ‘biology’ and particularly his anatomical understanding of the body would have been limited to the work of scientists of the time; figures like Hippocrates who had a basic overall understanding of human musculoskeletal structure but relied more on speculation than empirical observation as to the internal functions of the human body. With that in mind, It’s a fair guess to say that Artistotle’s understanding of the body was based on a surface observation which is reflected in the importance he places on imitation of life – of reproducing the visible world.

It’s not until the latter part of the 20th century that we’re able to get ‘inside’ the body, particular with the development of scanning and photographic technology that has allowed for the study of living subjects. And parallel to this came a shift in perception of the biological body – the departure from the pre-industrial idea of the body as one intrinsically linked to the natural world to one that bears attributes of a synthetic world: this is the realisation of the post-human idea. In a previous article here on London Theatre Blog, I touched on the work of Australian performance artist Stelarc. Stelarc’s work is in some ways the representation of the post-human idea, in which the body’s interaction with its environment bypasses technological interfaces to become fully integrated with that technology. Whether Stelarc is actually able to achieve this shift in being is debatable, at the very least he provides a compelling representation of the condition with performance pieces such as third hand, virtual arm, and virtual body.

Outside of the performance realm, the marriage of the synthetic and the biological has been the object of study by scientists working in the field of nanobiotechnology. In a fascinating paper, published on Salon.com, prof. Alan Goldstein, explains how the old idea of the cyborg, one of an imposed fusion of synthetic and biological, is already defunct in the face of new nanobiobot technology – a true hybrid artificial life form that evolves and develops from the inside-out, rather than the outside-in:

“In order to understand the astonishing leap we are about to make, one needs to grasp that nanobiotechnology is more than just another tool. It is also a monumental experiment in molecular evolution over which we may ultimately have very little control. A nanobiotechnology device that is smart enough to circulate through the body hunting viruses or cancer cells is, by definition, smart enough to exchange information with that human body. This means, under the right conditions, the “device” could evolve beyond its original function.” (Goldstein in I, Nanobot, Salon.com, 2006/03/09)

If indeed our biological make-up does change at a sub-atomic level, and mutations do occur but they are not visible on the surface then chances are that it will not affect the actor or theatre in general, because the theatre is based on spectacle, the act of seeing, on external senses. This prompts me to think that the theatre as a ‘mirror up to nature’ in Hamlet’s words, is more of a smoke screen that falls short of seeing the bigger picture. The question is, do we really need to ’see’ or are we content with the illusion of seeing? I’ll end this one with a poem:

In this house of skin and bone,
frame supporting silky chasm,
I slip into the black abyss — where
organs spin like jellyfish,
and heartbeats pound on goatskin drums,
where spleen and lung dance as one –
but in the dark, deep inside, who am I
but a guest it seems, the guest of me.