Stanislavski, the actor and the nanobot
15 February 2007
Written by 
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. No doubt. that around the turn of the 20th century, the word ‘organic’ would have had a different connotation than it does now. Today’s usage, linked with the food industry, is set in contrast to industrial or genetically modified substances. In Stanislavski’s day,perhaps it resonated more with a pre-industrial idea of nature - it’s difficult to say, but what is more evident is that shifts in popular perception of the biological body take their lead from key scientific/technological developments.
I went away from the talk marked by the word ‘biology’ and began thinking about how important biology is 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 and in light of recent scientific developments, particular innovations in the field of nanobiotechnology, I wonder if that perception is not 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.
———-
Photographs included in this article:
- Triptych photograph assimilated by me. Original photos (respectively) Garibaldi Dantas, Mike Kuniavsky, Jerry Jones; released under creative commons license with the right to make derivative works.
- Second photograph: an en:mite examines a gear chain produced using en:nanotechnology. Released in the public domain by Wikipedia.
Great article, I’ve posted a response on my own blog.
Hello Matt,
Thanks for the comment. I read your follow up. In writing this piece, I didn\’t have time to look at the etymology of the word \’organic\’ and thus left it as a loose end which you put right in your blog post. Very interesting stuff. I\’d be keen to know what you think is the future for the Stanislavski system.
That’s a great question. And a subject for an entire post which I will try to write. But, in general, I think Stanislavski is timeless and applicable to every form of theatre. And will never die. Lots more to say! I’ll get to it….
Thanks for bring cutting edge science into this forum. Unfortunately, your leap from Stanislavski to biology, instead of cognitive psychology is creating a red herring. The subsequent link from biology to nanotechnology is also a wrong turn. The impact of nanotechnology will occur on our society, but I think Stanislavski training will see little impact.
I’m a drama teacher who stumbled onto this forum as part of some general research i’m currently doing on ways to introduce ‘A’Level Drama to students and the question you heard in the auditorium (would Stanislavski’s system would continue to be practiced and evolve in the future.) has lead me to draw two conclusions.
1. Stanislavski is going to be around for a long time. He has, in many ways, put into 20th century language a lot of what Aristotle had conceived. Considering how long ago that was, its mind boggling to realise that his theory was the only systemised method of acting until about the 19th century and then when Stanislavski put it all into a convenient training manual (An Actor Prepares). We look at his writings now and say “of course, thats obvious” but we musn’t forget how groundbreaking it was at the time.
2. i think we are right in the middle of the evolution of Stanislavski’s system Don’t forget that Brecht was inspired and driven in part by everything that Stanislavski stood for. So no Stan, no Brecht (perhaps). Any piece of stylised or non-naturalistic theatre that you see grew from ideas and concepts from three core people. Brecht, Artaud and Craig. These three re-invented theatre and most modern non-naturalism is derived from it. e.g. Shaffers ‘total theatre’ owes a debt to Artaud while the likes of Peter Brook are also self confessed Artaudites. Similarly Theatre de Complicite are the modern incarnation of Brecht (via Theatre Workshop - I think Oh! what a Lovely War is the greatest play Brecht never wrote!).
So unless theatre transforms into something that we obviously cannot fathom at the moment and I honestly can’t see Stelarc being the future voice and language of the theatre then i think man will always want to see “a slice of life” convincingly portrayed live on stage. Humans communicate with vocal words, body language and facial expression and as long as that remains the case we shall always reach for that copy of “An Actor Prepares” in order to discover how it should be done… or at least until someone writes a better book
i think it was Peter Brook (even), though perhaps Eugenio Barba, that said - (something like) “noone - since Stanislavski - has investigated the craft of the actor like Grotowski”…
…indeed, many people forget that toward the latter stages of Stanislavski’s research, he began to lose favour with the (purely) ‘psychological’ approach now so prevalant in western acting (which is mostly a derivative, and down to strasberg et al), and went towards a more ‘physical approach’…
…in this context; Meyerhold (Stanislavski star pupil at one point) can be seen as one of the ‘futures’ of Stanislavski, as can Grotowski.
i probably disagree with the “no stan’ no Brecht” canon - and would cite Piscator as Brecht’s predecessor; though i get Kennie’s point entirely and dont want to sound like he’s wrong (when he’s totally right!). Though Complicite should be seen NOT as a “modern-day incarnation of Brecht”, but more closely linked with the practices, and craft taught by Jaques Lecoq (post Decroux, or Copeau; the canon of ‘theatre-based’ physical theatre and commedia/mime).
Other - forgotten - ‘methods’ for acting (and ‘performance’)are Chekhov (Michael, not Anton), Meisner, Bogart and many others (such as the names already mentioned: Barba, Copeau, Lecoq, Grotowski, Meyerhold) should be recognised as much as the 3 Kennie mentions (Brecht, Artaud and Craig) - i could spend hours providing opposing arguments against those 3 as ‘the’ ones!
though i wont…i just wanted to wade in with my tuppence worth and say something in response to the really excellent debate going on so far.
All theatre folks need to check out Sharon Carnicke’s book STANISLAVSKY IN FOCUS immediately to get caught up on who the real Stan was and most importantly, his latest development in his systematic approach to acting that was kept from others by Soviet control. Stanislavsky was into experimentation and is not so removed from Brecht, Growtowski, Meyerhold as we all think. However, Stalin only wanted Stan connected with Soviet Realism and set his up as an icon for “realistic” acting and a scientific approach to acting. Stan was placed under house arrest the last years of his life under Stalin’s “isolation and preservation” policy so that his new, inventive ideas wouldn’t be allowed out of his home. During that confinement, Stan attempted one final class and his greatest discovery that Torpokov mentions in his book STANISLAVSKY IN REHEARSAL. Maria Knebel, one of the students, calls the process “active analysis” which moves beyond the scientific propoganda approach of “method of physical actions”. Thru improv, the actors explore their characters and the given circumstances of a play “on their feet” using mind, body-voice, and spirit simultaneously. This allows for a complete assimilation of character instead of actors who come on stage “with a full head and an empty heart”. Stan knew acting was a psycho-physical technique, he knew that mind and body were connected, he used concepts of yoga (that were greatly censored by Soviets and also American editing), knew there was a “spiritual” side to acting…all concepts that were kept from the Western world and Soviets because of strict censorship. This information became available after the fall of the Soviet Union and Sharon Carnicke, who is both a theatre professor and Russian scholar, has spent her years trying to bring Stan into focus for us. Much resistence still remains as the hold of Strasberg’s “method acting” (which is still thought to be the same as Stan’s system)prevails in America. Luckily Europeans are more open and slowly the myths and misunderstanding of Stan and his “system” are getting to the theatre public. I’m still amazed at how little folks know about Stan. Even with the new translations Benedetti is coming out with…one must first read Carnicke’s book (a second edition will hopefully come out this spring…but in the meantime read the 1st edition!)to get the groundwork, clear the myths, and see how liberating understanding the true concepts of the system is for the 21st century actor! For example, Stan didn’t use the word “feeling” as Hapgood uses in her translations but used the word that translates “experience”. Stan wanted the actor to be in the “conscious creative state” as he/she goes on stage and in that moment to moment contact with partner, true artistic acting happens. Much like an athlete is in “the zone”…the actor “lives” each moment on stage instead of being a robot that goes from action to action prescribed by the director. So in reading your blog…I encourage ALL THEATRE PEOPLE to get Carnicke’s book immediately so they can stop spreading more myths and misunderstandings and we can finally bring Stan into focus. He devoted his life to elevating the art of acting and trying to find a systematic approach to actor training. It isn’t about emotional recall…it isn’t only for realistic plays (by the way, “realistic” is another word he used to avoid censorship…but to play truthfully on stage means to be fully engaged and in the moment with your partner not to be “real”.). He discovered the universal truths of acting that apply to any country, any style of play…and in my use of active analysis as a director, teacher, and actor, I am in love with acting again. It is an exciting, dynamic approach that is RELEVANT to the 21st century actor and will hopefully replace all the garbage that is out there on Stan. Read Carnicke’s STANISLAVSKY IN FOCUS, read Bella Merlin’s books. Avoid books on acting unless they mention Carnicke, active analysis…because they haven’t included the “new” (actually her book was first published in 1998) information on Stan. Get with the times, quit promoting the myths…and we can appreciate the man who has brought to us a usable systematic approach to acting we can use in musical comedy, Moliere, Shakespeare, avant guard plays, and realistic plays….all of theatre!!
Leave your response!
Recent articles by Andrew Eglinton
Read Related Articles
Browse LTB Resources
London Theatre Blog Bookshop (Visit the shop »)
The site is powered by WordPress and is a member of the 9rules network.