On Mar 29, 2008, at 10:10 AM, William Conger wrote:
Somehow, in the past 100 years (blame Duchamp) skill of whatever type was distinguished from honesty of expression (no one knows what that is but it's broadly assumed) and thus any artist who demonstrates high skill is regarded by some hipsters to be dishonest, inexpressive, and unoriginal, etc.
I remember many years ago seeing a well-known actor (forget who) on the Carson show. The actor was known as a "method" actor, i.e., he used a mode or manner of preparing and acting to "gets into" the role so that his visible acting is motivated and informed by that identification with the character or role. (Correct me if my notion is different from your more professionally knowledgeable notion, Cheerskep.) Method acting, in this anecdote, is somewhat analogous to "authenticity" and "honesty" in painting.
Well, the actor told the story of working in a show on Broadway. He found out that Laurence Olivier was starring in a play directly across the street in another theater. He had never seen Olivier act, so he took the opportunity when he was offstage for a long period of time to cross the street and sneak a peek at the master. When he slid into the house, he saw Olivier on stage, get up, start to deliver a line, pause slightly as he crossed the stage, and finish the a line. He marveled at the way Olivier did it, his bodily gestures, the cadence of his voice, etc. It was almost as if Olivier was a method actor. He reevaluated the old guy. The next night, he again went to see Olivier act. He got there at the same point in the play and he watched Olivier repeat the scene. He was astounded that he (Olivier) did it exactly as before. He went a third and fourth night, and Olivier's performance was virtually identical. He WASN'T method-acting. It was old-school acting, and it was so exact he mistook skill for method!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
