This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DionysosProteus (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 11 August 2007 (typos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:34, 11 August 2007 by DionysosProteus (talk | contribs) (typos)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article is a little confused.
Firstly, it does not address the contradiction between the terminology that Stanislavski and his followers (the article cites Uta Hagen, for example) use and that used by the wider critical community when discussing these issues in aesthetics.
The problem here is that Stanislavski's terminology was the OPPOSITE of that used here and by the wider community.
Stanislavski described his own approach--that of 'experiencing' the role and creating it afresh each time onstage--as 'presentational,' while he described an approach whereby the actor prepares the role during rehearsals and reproduces those results onstage as 'representational' (because the actor 're-presents' his/her results). (See Chapter Two, 'When Acting is an Art' of Stanislavski's *An Actor Prepares*)
The same terms are also used in a very DIFFERENT sense (in fact, an almost opposed sense) in aesthetics to describe the performer's functional relationship with the audience.
'Representational' acting, in this sense, refers to the maintenance of a 'Fourth Wall', whereby the performer pretends that the audience are not present and they are treated as 'peeping tom' voyeurs.
'Presentational' acting, in this sense, refers to a relationship that acknowledges the audience, whether directly by addressing them or indirectly through the use of language, looks, gestures or other signs that indicate that the character(s) are aware of the audience's presence (Shakespeare's use of punning and wordplay, for example, often has this indirect function - see Robert Weimann's Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition.)
Thus, the terms 'representational' and 'presentational' acting have been used both to describe the processes that the actor uses in the preparation and execution of the role AND to describe the functional relationship that the performance creates with the audience.
The second problem with this article is that the central elaboration of the distinction between the early and later approaches of Stanislavski (that which formed the basis of Strasberg et al's 'Method Acting' and that which became known as the 'Method of Physical Actions) isn't pertinent to the title of this article, and so doesn't really belong here.
The third problem is that in attempting to define 'presentational' acting, the article misrepresents completely the approach to performance developed by Bertolt Brecht. Brechtian acting is not about presenting merely an 'idea' of the character, nor does it elide realistic characterization. Brecht thought of himself as a realist! Brecht has discussed the use of Stanislavskian techniques in the preparation of a role. It would be more accurate to say that a Brechtian approach requires the actor to go further than a Stanislavskian approach, whereby the actor supplements their empathatically-felt experiencing of the character with distanced, critical commentary 'from the outside'.
'Presentational' performance is not necessarily less realistic, nor is its mode of characterization less 'fully-rounded,' than 'representational' performance.
While it is appropriate to use Brechtian acting as an example of 'presentational' acting (in the sense used in aesthetics), the reasons for doing so lie in the functional relation with the audience that it establishes - an attitude of narration of events known as 'epic'.
Other examples of the kind of relationship that 'presentational' acting establishes could include the 'platea'-playing modes in Elizabethan / Shakespearean theatre and the extensive use of the 'aside' in Restoration comedy.