Theater Science Questions(isn't that an oxymoron?)

Finally moved in and my computer is working.

Today's post is about a scientific study which was performed at my college which involved theater. The study was conducted by a friend of mine who is very good at theater and acting; if a little rusty at conducting research(it's alright, look past it). The study went something like this:

He approached our acting class telling us that he was doing research on memory. A few months after we signed up each those who signed up were contacted individually and given meeting times. None of us were to know of any of the other students' involvement. Due to scheduling it just so happened that the study took place during the last week of classes. The study was three days(m,w,f) all around 4:00. I was given half an hour to memorize a good paragraph of monologue, then a ten minute break, and a final ten minutes to prepare before performing t from memory as best I could. I was given one chance to start over each day. Each day was a different monologue. After the test I was told it was actually to examine the effects of environment on memory. The break 10 minute break I received was the most crucial information. What is wrong with this picture?

OK, so after I finished the experiment I informed the person conducting the experiment that there were some issues with his test.
1. The test was conduced during finals. This assumes that stress directly effects the ability for someone to memorize things, or at least concentrate.
2. Each of the monologues were different. I understand that this was done because we couldn't use the same script each time(it would be easier each time); however, it also introduced a few variables I assume would impact the study.
    2. A. Each of the monologues had different styles of writing. Some were used literary devices such as alteration. I suspect that alliteration was very beneficial as a tool for specific accurate memorization; but that it also made it more difficult to form a general memorization.
    2. B. Each of the monologues registered on a different emotional level with me. I suspect that emotion and  memory are strongly linked. This thought is based on an interview with a man named Bob Milne. Basically the guy has the memory of a supercomputer when it comes to music; and he attributes it do some emotions he associates with music("http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2011/jul/26/4-track-mind/).
    2.C. Going along with B, I suspect that the different speaking styles of the monologues and how closely they resembles that of the actor was an underplayed factor.
    2. D.  As I was memorizing the scripts I noticed that, more or less, the scripts were basically divided in three ways: the first was all together with no line space, the second was in two paragraphs, and the third was roughly in three paragraphs.

3. Another issue that seemed important to me is the issue of the diet I had. Monday and Tuesday I ate as i usually do. Friday however, just a little before I went to the study I had had a cup of coffee. I suspect that coffee has a negative effect on a persons ability to memorize information. On an unrelated note, I suspect it has a positive effect on mood and work performance after material has been learned.

4. Aside from the fact that it was finals, I think a large factor is that the studies were conducted one after the other (more or less). I think that the brain is basically a muscle. I know that for myself I have had some very limited damage to the part of my brain dedicated to short term memory. At the end of the third day, I could actually feel the area of my brain which was exhausted. (Of course I'd need a doctor to back up that claim, but I'm pretty sure that if I indicated where I felt the pain it would match up with the area of the brain responsible for short term memory.)

Unfortunately, based on these problems the study done by my colleague is pretty useless. EXCEPT! Now that I've picked it apart, I can go about trying to support each of the claims I made. A task I intend to do through the course of the year right here on this blog. Of course I will need time to find information to support the claims, and even after that is found; I may still want to apply the data to the realm of theater to see if it still proves true.

If you would like to help with this task please leave a comment. It would be most appreciated(though not expected). If not, stay tuned.

Moving... New Posts Soon

I suppose I should say, I'm planning on updating my blog on a daily basis soon. However, I've just recently been working on my finals for school. I have one more year in college, but I'm going to have to take a break from that. I'm in a financial situation which requires I get a job, and the area I'm in is very bad for getting jobs(unless you're related to the right people, or go to church with the right people BLECH soo corrupt). I will be done moving this weekend, at which point I will start my new job. If the job is very challenging I may not post  regularly for about two or three weeks.

After I'm settled in, I will probably write what I've already mentioned, and I think I will be putting down some personal information. I've just come from a pretty challenging background, and I would like to write about it here. If I handle it one piece at a time, I think people will have an easier time accepting that my life really has been full of a lot of things that aren't my fault, but have impacted me heavily.

I once used my struggles as a crutch when I was living at home and going through elementary school. I believed that it was necessary for me to have certain exceptions made because of the things from my past. I never want to do that again. I no longer think that there should be "special exceptions" just for me. However, I do believe that there is a very big problem with teachers and managers taking an adversarial approach to dealing with their subordinates; and I hope to show that you don't always know where someone is coming from, so you should always seek to help others do the very best they can. This of course does not imply that you should do this at your own expense, rather that generally doing this will allow for you to have a better end result than you would otherwise have. More on that later.

How to determine the purpose of theater.

The question of the purpose of theater is one I've been considering for a while. I think I have a good concept of my answer, but I'm not yet able to crystallize my thoughts into a conveyable meaning. I might just be over complicating issues, but I think that in order to determine the purpose of anything, I must first link it back to the universal objective of every living creature: to maximize happiness. So, very first I'm going to need to write about what convinces me that maximizing happiness is as important as it is. In a society where we have messages of so-called "selfless acts" being those acts we should take, many people have been skeptical of my claim. To resolve this I will be posting a detailed explanation. I think that anyone who reads it will have to concede that what I'm saying is universal; though perhaps in words they may not appreciate.

After I resolve what the "universal" purpose is, then I can start talking about how man uses tools to attain this. After this, I will show that stories are a rather complex tool for attaining the same thing. Then I will, using that as my guide, be able to more clearly define what is makes a story "good". After I've shown what a "good" story is, I can begin the task of showing how we have different types of tools for attaining a particular "end"(e.g. a Novel has "x" qualities, which makes it very useful when trying to attain "y", Theater has "z" quality... Essays have "q" quality etc. etc. . I may go somewhat out of order, but I should end up with all those pieces. In the end I hope to have a fairly good writers manual for the purpose of determining what format a writer should use for which purpose.

Teacher's Response

After having written the lengthy blog explaining what my problem with my professor was, I went and talked to him. Before talking to him I spoke to two other professors about my issue. They were able to help me make sure that I was focusing on only one issue. I also found out that I had been wrongly blaming my professor for another issue(not related to what was previously posted.)

When I went to the professor to talk to him, things went much better than I had expected in very many ways; thought not as good as I would have liked in a few small ways. When I spoke to the two other professors they thought what I had to say was very positive. Unfortunately, because of past events, my professor had a more difficult time understanding why I had come to him. He talks to a lot of students, so I'm sure he gets a lot of students who just want to blame and accuse him.

We spoke for roughly an hour and half. He was very considerate to me. The conversation ended up leading to me telling him some rather personal information about my family life and some problems I've had. He had at least three people come to speak with him, one of which even had an appointment. He turned each one of them down so that he could give me the kind of attention which would demonstrate a respect for what I was saying. While it was difficult for me to get my point across, the respect that was demonstrated meant a great deal.

Ultimately, my professor did not agree with most of what I was saying. He continued to say that he had not seen anything which demonstrated that I was the high caliber actor he was looking for. If you read my previous post, you will understand exactly why I agreed that he hadn't. After some talking, I finally triggered a small understanding of what I was saying when I mentioned that while I could see why he thought I have a difficult time taking direction, ultimately what was happening was him setting up a self fulfilling prophecy.

The conversation continued, and we basically settled onto the idea that he had not seen enough to say that I was a high caliber actor. However, it was a great opportunity for us to exchange compliments, and I believe we both left with a greater respect. He said that before he could say he thought I was the kind of actor he was looking for, he would have to see me perform something which showed I could be in the moment. He started suggesting that I do some kind of independent project at the school next year. This is where I had to inform him that I will be leaving this summer(that's a post for another day.)

I ended up getting, at least, a good grade in the class; not as a result of the conversation but simply as a result of the scene I did. So, while the conversation didn't help to convince him I was a good actor(which of course it shouldn't) I believe it has opened a door of opportunity. After I informed him that I may or may not be returning next semester, I suggested an Idea for an independent project.

It just so happens, I have been writing a one man show.(I know, I know, it seems every actor has written some shitty one man pity party.) However, I have been writing for a few years; and I didn't decide to think up a one man show. It's actually just something that happened to me that, while it was happening to me, I thought to myself, "HA! This would be a hilarious play! Now I just have to make it out of this alive to tell about it." (Ahh, now you see; that's something you can only say of a story worth hearing!) Basically, the plan is that I will film/perform the piece as my independent project.

I do, however, see that it doesn't really show that I can take direction. However, I want to discuss this idea of whether I actually have difficulty taking direction or not. I'm going to write about it next.

"Feeling" acting And "Thinking" acting

I've been majoring in acting for a few years now, and I recently solved a problem I think is common to many people like myself. I am a very left brained, rational, thinking person(which I don't mean to sound as snooty as it does). I tend to resolve all my issues by sitting down and thinking about them. I have found, however, that the arts world, or at least acting world, is largely dominated by a right brained, instinctive,  feeling group of people.

Learning from such people has been difficult. In the community of actors you will typically find lots of people throwing around terms such as, "don't 'act', 'be'.", "Don't 'think' do." These types of phrases used to drive me mad . "I can't stop thinking! I'm a human being! You stop 'thinking' you are literally dead!" and other misinterpretations. That was until I saw a very spectacular performance at my schools regional KCACTF (http://www.kcactf.org). Weber State University (http://www.weber.edu/) performed a breathtaking performance of a new rendition of sleepy hollow.

Each scene; with the exception of one musical number by a pompous actress, was riveting. Every moment was motivated, the actors were completely focused on what was going on in the scene. It was amazing. The best I can do to describe what was happening is to express it emotionally. It was as if there was a remarkable light from the center of the stage bursting with energy, violently expanding in a violent gust of awe. Of course, how it felt and what actually happened are far different; but it's the best I can do from the perspective of an audience member. After this moment I cam to understand what people meant when they talked about acting as "being" and not "acting".This, however, did not solve all of my problems.

I have been going to an upper level acting class this past semester, and it has lead me at times to moments of hair-pulling and teeth clenching. I have long believed the professor from whom I took the class to be a pompous arrogant buffoon, living comfortably with his tenure confirming his position rather than the merit of his work. I once believed his methods could never possibly work. He seemed to lack the very basic understanding of what he was saying.My distaste for him was, rather than secret, a shining banner I loftily boasted to any and every person who would give me the time.

 In the acting class we had final scenes as our last test. The professor gave three of the scenes high marks. One of these was given as an exception for a student who has been very busy acting in performances outside of class. The other two were done by some very good actors who I respect greatly. These two did separate scenes, but were each the focus of the scenes. The first is a man, we'll call him "John". He is very comfortable acting in comedies, and was hilarious to watch. The second is a girl: "Jane". She is very good at tragedy, and her scene was rather moving. My scene was not what my teacher would call "good", and I actually agree with him. However, he goes on to say that he thinks this is because I am not a good actor. This is where I disagree. In order to show this I must explain why I disagree with his acting theory, and how I believe it ought to be corrected.

I have since come to better understand him, and I now believe that; while he is of the best intent, he is unwittingly damaging others and himself. He was still mistaken, but it is a small and simple mistake. I believe his main theory of "be" rather than "act" is correct. I simply disagree with some underlying interpretations of what this means. I believe the problem this professor faces is similar to the very problem I faced with him. My flaw was believing he was an idiot for "feeling" through his acting, his flaw is that he believes me incapable of acting because of my "thinking" approach. In actually either can work. It was as wrong for me to criticize his approach as it is for him to say that of me. Though in his case, it is much more difficult for me to show why. I will need your patience, but I believe it will be worth it.

To explain what happened I am now going to tell you first the grades given for scenes in his class, then his theory of acting which explains why he would grade them this way.  After having explained what his theory is in this manner I will assume that his theory is correct to the fullest extent. At this point, I believe flaws will begin to show themselves. If you agree with my claim that these are flaws, you must agree that the theory proposed by the professor is  flawed. I will then give what I believe to be a more correct explanation which resolves the previous problems. I shall then explain how he has been supporting his argument, and demonstrate how it is actually a self fulfilling prophecy having its flaw rooted in the simple mistake of identifying correlation as causation.

His theory(or approach) is centered around the idea that an actor aught not "act", but "be" the character. Next he asserts that if an actor is truly "in-the-moment", a phenomenon which is universally recognizable occurs. I agree that this happens, it is the same as what I was trying to express earlier.  He believes (and I again agree) that the phenomenon is what makes theater and performance so worth-while. To attain it is the goal of all actors. He then goes on to say that an actor can be "in" even when the directing is "wrong". 

Allow me to clarify what is meant by "in-the-moment." This is based on method acting, which was developed by Konstantin Stanislavski. His method borrowed heavily from the behavioral science of Pavlov in order to create performances which are "true to life". Basically, the idea is that an actor must forget that they are "acting" and react only to the associative behavioral stimuli from the performance. This allows the actors work to be "honest" and unregulated, giving an accurate image of how an actor would behave if the premises in the play were true.

Now, he does not mean "wrong" in the literal sense. In order to explain I am going to tell you about my rehearsing of a scene for his class. The name of the scene is, "Ghost Scene". He did not specify where the piece came from, and there was no author's name on the script. He and I disagree as to what the scene is "about". I could probably go in depth on the script and why we have differing opinions, but I don't believe it's necessary for what I'm going to say. To sum it up, he believed that the scene was about a man who loves a woman but is so convinced that she loves his brother that he pushes her away when she is confessing her love based on a line which says,"Well, that's probably because he knows how I feel about ... about inter office romance. ". I at first, thought the same thing, but upon further reading the play I realized it's actually about a homosexual man who is trying to stay "in the closet" when confronted by a girl who is infatuated with him. This I determined by the otherwise out of place line, "He was probably gay." followed by him saying to a character who works in a theater how(basically) "actors are...(self absorbed.)"Which in the script can only be hinting at the idea that the character is gay and she's not taking the hint.

When I tried to bring this idea to the professor's attention in class, he only listened to me say that I thought the character was actually gay, and then laughed and ridiculed my idea before I could explain why I thought the way I did. He then went on to say how his interpretation was the only one that allowed for the scene to work and presumed that I was simply thinking his idea was "wrong" and not paying enough attention. He then went on to say that an actor has to go with what the director says even if it is "wrong" believing I had simply not understood the script as well as he.

My point here is not to say whether or not he or I was ultimately "right" in our understanding of the script, but that he was not working with me. Instead he was working against me. While the other students in the class were given plays which have had succesfull Broadway performances, and coherent and supportive direction, I was given an experimental script, with direction which I could not understand, and when I tried to address the issue with the professor; he took it as an act of hostility believing I was trying to make him look foolish  in front of the class. Because of this I was expected to bring about the same "phenomena" under conditions far less desirable than those of the other students. Now, if we go with what the professor has said about acting, this seems at least reasonable. However, allow me to point out the flaw.

If we assume that this being "in" the moment is the most important part of theater, and that an actor can do this regardless of directing, or writing strange things begin to happen. Suddenly, writers and directors are no longer necessary components of theater. In fact, even trained professional actors become obsolete. In the place of theater comes reality television, shows such as "Jersey Shore", "Cops" etc. become the pinnacle of theatrical achievement. Certainly these people are acting "true to life", they are living their everyday normal lives. How could they not be responding to the "illusion" of the environment they are in?

Here is where I introduce my correction. I think that my professor has made a very simple logical misstep, mistaking acting as the entire cause, rather than one of the causes which creates this "phenomenon", and is in fact more co-related than causative. I believe that what my professor is speaking about as this "phenomenon" is the very same thing that I was talking about at the beginning of this article when I mentioned the performance at KCACTF. I have come to know this event as "gestalt", and I believe that the actor is crucial to it's coming about. However, I think that it is much more complicated than simply one actor willing themselves to be "in", but that it is the result of all of the pieces, writing, directing, acting, coming together in the actors performance. Certainly the actors role is the most crucial for this event, as no matter what the writer or director do; if the actor does not bring about their work coherently, no such "gestalt" occurs. However, without a scene having a coherent direction and well spoken dialogue, the actor alone must take on the position of writer, director, and actor for this effect to happen.

I believe that this is the reason we have writers, directors, and actors. Each role is different, and requires different skills for the completion of their process. With this assumption in place, the best performances once again would seem to be "King's Speech", "Hamlet", etc. I think these shows are so successful because they give the actor what he needs to be "in". I also believe that once this correction is made, it is easy to see why John and Jane succeeded. They are, of course, wonderful actors, but they were also given great scenes and beneficial direction. This is good. Truly a good teacher ought to give his students every opportunity to succeed. I would say my professor was excellent in how he treated them.

My scene however, was not given the same kind of treatment. Where others were given scenes from Broadway classics, I was given an experimental script. I was given direction for the scene which did not make sense to me. When I tried to bring this to the teacher's attention, rather than having a reasonable discussion, I was simply ridiculed. So I was given a trial by ordeal in which I may, by some miracle, have been able to pull everything together. This performance was to be compared with those who were given every opportunity to succeed. Clearly this is a mistake. Certainly  you can see why I feel I have been wronged. I do not, however believe this to be from mal-intent on the part of my professor. The work he has done in helping my fellow students to succeed has been instrumental. I believe that it is simply my professors misunderstanding which caused this. I believe that he has been willing to accept only the possibility that actors can feel their way through acting, and not think their way through it. I believe I was making a similar mistake when, prior to this class, I assumed that he could not know what he was talking about based on how he explained what he was saying. However, I now think that both techniques can lead to the same result. I do not believe my teacher errs in teaching acting the way he does. Rather, I think he errs when he states that I am a poor student simply because I have a different method of reaching the same goal.

I do not wish to see this man put on any probation, or stopped from teaching in any way. I believe that his mistake has been that he is too committed to helping students. I believe all that is necessary is to bring about a better understanding. I believe that once the professor can understand what his misconception was that he will be better equipped to do that which has always tried to do: namely teach students well. I believe that this man, once equipped with this new knowledge may go on to be of the very best kind of teachers. I hope that what I have written will be instrumental in reaching that end.

New Portrait of Iris Clert

"New Portrait of Iris Clert" -by Justin Carter

Undestanding “New Portrait of Iris Clert” - by Justin Carter

This image is a new take on Marcel Duchamp's message of the role of the observer in creating art's message. It makes this message as a new take on Rauschenberg's Portrait of Iris Clert. Whereas Duchamp and Rauschenberg asserted that art becomes valuable when the viewer inteprets the message of the art; this new work by Justin Carter asserts that the art is only truly valuable once the viewer is moved to take action they previously might not have done.

The original paper cutout was a non-expressionist piece by artist Jessica Phillips. After it had been presented; artist Justin Carter purchased all rights to the piece at which point he expounded upon the idea of the art being only as valuable as the highest amount given for the work. Subsequently he signed his name, claiming it to be a new work, he later said, “The true art of what has been done was the purchase of the art. In purchasing the art, I asserted it had a value of at least the amount of work necessary to have purchased the painting. The painting as it stands now is important only as a manifestation of this event. Further, it can only claim to be valuable art inasmuch as the idea it represents causes an effect upon its viewers. Probably the easiest way to tell is if it can be sold, but any actions or thoughts which come about as a response to this art, are in part due to this first cause.”

So that's it. Ultimately, the question of whether this art is valuable will be determined by any and all viewers who choose to act upon the importance of the message it presents. High resolution scans of the original are available under special permission from the artist through this blog. Just let me know.