Acting : Talent or Education and Practice?
Acting : Talent or Education and Practice?
Introduction
The question of what makes a good actor is one which has been explored and discussed since Aristotle to the present. Interestingly, however, no single answer to this question has been agreed upon. Some, for example, have contented that the good actor is a naturally talented one, that acting is an artistic gift. Others, however, have argued that the good actor is one who has studied the art of the theatre and who has studied and trained in various acting methods. A third group insists that the good actor is, first and foremost, an artist. While, as may be understood from Fredrik Schyberg and Harry G. Carlson's article, "The Art of Acting," each of these answers was provided as an argument against the other answers to the question of what makes a good actor, they actually compliment one another. In other words, each of briefly reviewed answers to the question raised contains an important clue to understanding the characteristics of a good actor. Naturally, a good actor is a talented one but equally importantly, the good actor is also one who has studied and trained in acting theories and methods. Through an analysis of the various opinions on what makes a good actor, the argument will try to establish that the good actor combines between talent and theory.
Actor as Artist
Actors tend to define themselves as artists and, indeed, the title for actors in Egypt is fanan, artist. The actor is an artist because he portrays and paints characters, events and situations and leads audiences to believe that the illusion that he is drawing is reality. The relationship between acting and art is so strong that, according to Schyberg and Carlson, not only is the profession of acting referred to as the "art of acting" but, many theatre and acting scholars have argued that the good actor is, above all else, an artist (107). In support of this argument, many theatre scholars refer to Aristotle's statement that "dramatic ability is a natural gift, and can hardly be taught" (107). The meaning of this is that actors, just like painters, are born with a natural gift which can be developed through training and practice. Numerous critics, among them George Jean Nathan, have insisted that the good actor, or the one who stands out in the theatre and makes a name for himself, or herself, has to be a born artist a person born with a natural artistic gift for acting (107).
Even though the notion that the good actor has to be, first and foremost, an artist is a popular one, according to Schyberg and Carlson, there are many acting scholars and critics who oppose this theory. In referring to this point of view, Schyberg and Carlson explain that it rests upon two main arguments. The first is that the actor is not an artist in the real sense of the word because, rather than create something new, he only represents a work of art which has already been created by a true artist, whether a writer or a director. The second argument is that the actor cannot be an artist because the rule of survival for actors is popularity. If actors are to survive as professionals and earn a living, it is necessary that the audience likes them and it is equally important that they gain widespread popularity. This means that the actor must please the audience and give them what they demand. As Schyberg and Carlson report, for many critics and theatre scholars, the true artist does not give people what they want and his/her goal is not popularity. Therefore, due to the fact that the actor does not create something new but reflects something which an artist has already created and because his/her primary goal is popularity, many critics and theatre scholars reject the notion that the good actor is, first and foremost, an artist.
When considering the arguments regarding the actor as an artist, we find that both points of view are valid. Certainly, popularity is the key to survival for actors and, of course, it is true that the actor represents the work of another artist, the writer. However, as Schyberg and Carlson argue, this does not mean that the actor is not an artist. Not only is the actor an artist but, more importantly, the acting talent is an artistic gift which cannot be acquired through learning and practice, although learning and practice are essential for the development of this gift. The question now is on what basis can we reach the conclusion that this theory of acting is a valid one.
The theory which states that the good actor is an artist is a valid one. As Schyberg and Carlson explain, while it is true that the actor may be representing the work of another artist, the writer, the fact of the matter is that they bring that work to life and communicate to audiences the impression that they are witnessing reality, not acting and illusion. They are artists insofar as they possess the talent to reshape themselves into the character that they are playing and, indeed, to become that character whether in relation to speech, clothing, behavior and reactions. Actors, in other words, are artists because they create characters and even more, importantly, convince e audiences with the character they are playing.
As it is possible to determine here, the theory which states that the actor must have a gift for acting, that the successful actor must be a born artist, is a valid one. The prerequisite for the actor is artistic talent. This, however, does not mean that the actor is simply born and neither needs to learn or practice the art of acting before he/she can become a professional. Accordingly, and as shall now be argued, learning and practicing acting techniques and methods are as important as talent.
The Actor as a Student of Acting Techniques
In their article on the education of actors, Burgoyne, Pouline and Rearden assert that acting is not only a talent but it is also a technique which must be learnt. One of the greatest difficulties which confronts student actors, or the students of acting and theatre departments and academies, is that regardless of how talented they may be, many cannot forget their own character and identity when they are playing a role and very often, are not able to understand the psychology of the character that they are playing. The actor, in other words, must have the capacity to forget his own self in the character that he is playing, loose his own self-consciousness and, equally importantly, must be able to understand the psychology of the character that he is playing and is expected to become (Burgoyne, Pouline and Rearden).
Burgoyne, Pouline and Rearden insist that acquiring these skills is dependant on both learning and training. The student actor must not only learn psychology in order to understand the psychological makeup of the characters he is playing but needs to learn psychology in order to allow him to enter and exit a character. That is, to become the character required when it is required and then to become himself, or his own character. This, indeed, is one of the more difficult of the acting professional skills which student actors are required to learn (Burgoyne, Pouline and Rearden).
The argument here is that the acting talent, in itself, while important, is hardly sufficient to create a professional actor. The professional actor must acquire, through learning and education, a specific set of skills. This point is also emphasized by Addison and Harrop who note that talent alone can never create a true actor but that education and training must compliment this talent. It is, thus, that the various acting techniques, from method acting to the Alexandrian technique emphasize the importance of both psychology and of having the skills to understand and empathize with other people.
The role of psychology in the training and education of the professional actor has already been argued but the issue of empathy needs to be explored. As Addison and Harrop explain, empathy is closely related to psychological understanding and knowledge, insofar as it refers to the ability of not only understanding the character of others but of sympathizing with others to the extent of being able to experience their feelings and understand their motives. Accordingly, in professional acting academies, student actors are required, not simply to study psychology but to read plays from various cultures and historical periods in order to train and educate them in the interpretation and analysis of characters as well as develop their capacity, or skill of empathy. The actor, in other words, must be a critical reader, must be extremely well read in world theatre and, more importantly, must have developed his/her skill of character analysis (Addison and Harrop).
Students of acting and theatre may immediately recognize the truth of the arguments raised by Addison and Harrop and Burgoyne, Pouline and Rearden. The more plays one reads and the more often one reads a single play, the greater the knowledge one gains of the characters and more importantly, the greater awareness one gains of the motivations and psychology of the different characters depicted in that play. Acting, as most student actors eventually come to understand, is not simply a question of talent but it is, more importantly, a question of being taught how to read, analyze and understand characters and situations.
Beyond having to learn about psychology and having to acquire the skill and knowledge, not only to fully understand and become other characters but to forget one's own character in the process, student actors must acquire the equally important skill of presentation. Golding highlights this particular point in his article on the training and education of actors. As he explains, a person may be born with the acting gift and he may have acquired the skill to analyze, empathize with and become another character but, none of this is important if he/she does not acquire the necessary presentation skills. It is absolutely imperative that the actor learn such presentation skills as clear speech and, more importantly, the methods of presenting an entire character. This does not only mean method of speech but body language. Presentation, as Golding argues, is a very complex and complicated group of skills but, this entire set of skills is essential insofar as the development of the professional actor is concerned.
As may be understood from the discussion, thus far, the actor is an artist and must have a natural talent for acting, for becoming another character in a believable way. Nevertheless, talent, in itself, is not enough and must be complimented with education and practice. As Sellers-Young argues, the actor must learn the theory of acting and practice what he has learnt in order to develop his talent. The implication here is, therefore, that even though acting may be a gift, it is a gift that requires education and practice in order that it develop.
Conclusion
In the final analysis and as based on the arguments and opinions presented and analyzed in this essay, it is only logical to conclude that education and training are as important as talent in the making of the good actor. The actor, certainly, must be an artist and, as argued, must be born with the artistic talent required for him to understand and become other characters. However, the artistic talent, in itself, is not enough. It needs to be developed through education and training. The student actor must acquire the skills and knowledge necessary for him to become another character, for him to forget his own self-consciousness, for him to understand and empathize with other characters and, equally importantly, he must acquire the presentation skills required for him to project that character in a method which is both understandable and believable insofar as the audience is concerned. As such, talent and education compliment one another in the creation and development of the professional actor.
Works Cited
Addison, Michael and John Harrop. "Actor Training in Australia." Education Theatre Journal. 23, 2 (May, 1971). Jstor. AUC lib.
Burgoyne, Suzanne, Karen Poulin and Ashley Rearden. "The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth and Emotional Distress." Theatre Topics. 9, 2 (1999) ABI/Inform. AUC lib.
Golding, Alfred S. "Presentational Tradition and the Reportory Company." Educational Theatre Journal. 20, 4 (Dec. 1968. Jstor. AUC lib.
Schyberg, Frederik and Harry G. Carlson. "The Art of Acting Part II: What's Hecuba to Him?" The Tulane Drama Review. 6, 3 (Mar., 1963). Jstor. AUC lib.
Sellers-Young, Barbara. "Somatic Processes: Convergence of Theory and Practice." Theatre Topics. 8, 2 (1998). ABI/Inform. AUC lib.
Ajami, Fouad. "The Sage of Cairo." U.S. News and World Report. 133, 22 (Dec. 2002). Academic Search Premier. AUC lib. EBSCOhost.
One School Moonlights As a Nightclub Financial Education – Should teenagers learn about ISA's and be warned against Iceland? Autism And Education - How Does This Condition Affect Education With Children Debt Education - Smart Method to Avoid Debts Can You Become A Bartender Without Going to Bartending School? Purpose of education How to Find the Right Hypnosis School Schools for Chiropractic Studies Teaching Social Studies - Marginalization Teachers Use Online College For Further Career Growth A Brief History of E-learning and Distance Education Education Franchise Only One of Its Kind Requiring Tutors to Have Master's Degree Homeschool For Expository Writing Skill in High School