In comparison to dancing and singing, what makes acting as
an art form subjective?
During
college I, along with my other peers, participated in a course that integrated
all three performance disciplines. The course’s structure was designed to
utilise skills learnt across these three art forms to create a “bouquet” method
for practice, meaning that the most appropriate teachings developed by dance,
singing and acting practitioners were pulled together in order to complement
one another. For example, choreographer, dancer and theorist Rudolf Laban’s movement
efforts, or Laban Movement Analysis (LMA), were developed by the aforementioned
to assist dancers in helping to develop different strokes of fluidity in their
work. The technique was later applied to acting in aiding character
development. Whilst this is an example of interchangeability, modern dance and
singing technique often does not lend itself to acting choices made by the
performer. The individual may wish to play a certain action in support of their
objective, which may prove effective if the work was a strict acting piece.
However, the demands of musical theatre will often require an engagement with
singing and dance, either or both at the same time. A degree of compromise is
needed in order to carry out all three effectively, and it is arguably the
acting that suffers the most as a result. This raises a vital sub-question as to which
discipline should take precedence over another? Is it right for the performer
to take it upon themselves to decide which is more important artistically or
should they look to accommodate their creative directors and audience? The
latter is probably the ethical answer as it falls under an agreement the
individual entered when accepting the job.
Whilst
my acting tutor found the topic interesting for debate, she did share my issue
with it for inquiry in that it is too linear for further investigation. We both
agreed that literature as part of research would be thin, and that such a heavy
focus on acting would be to neglect knowledge from other disciplines that could
possibly prove fruitful for others. At this point I reminded myself that I
should be looking to create an inquiry that is engaging for others as well as
myself. She then pointed out that whilst the question is most probably too niche
to become a fully fleshed investigation, it could play a part in supporting
another question I had posed.
Why is there so much conflict of ideals within performance (with particular regards to acting) when theorists of reflective practice seem to acknowledge one another?
This question has not been edited since my initial post with task 2d, a
time in which I was beginning to develop knowledge and find an appreciation for
reflective practice. What has been reaffirmed since starting the BAPP programme
is that I find practitioner research riveting and further enjoy learning how
new ideologies play within my own practice. I will admit, however, that this
question was may have been the premature result of my own thoughts running
wild, unrefined. Not to say there is anything wrong with this, especially since
this was a question formed during a task only attempting to turn my thinking to
possible topics for inquiry. My acting tutor professed to not having the widest
knowledge of reflective practice, however among initial reading of the question
she pointed out a gaping flaw that I had not really considered. Instead of
attempting an answer she instead asked me a question; why I was interested in
evaluating reflective practitioner’s concepts above other subjects as found on
the course?
I had previously explained to her before presenting the questions that
aspects of the course focused on the uses of information technologies,
networking, reflective practice and ethics (the latter of which being a
reasonably new addition when considering inquiry). She felt that the title displayed
a negligence for context, meaning without an example of practice that, for
example, a question influenced from someone’s work within a school has the inquiry
loses a clear objective and becomes bottomless. Whilst it is correct for me to
challenge particular practitioner’s views in conjunction with my practice it
should not be governing the overall subject question, but rather shaping
arguments as well as being influenced by other practitioners within their
fields. What I ultimately drew from this was that I should not be looking to
begin an investigation with a question as focused as the one presented as it
signifies I have reached a conclusion before unpacking anything that has
brought me to it. I may know my reasons for reaching this argument but, in
order for others to find any value or understanding in my query, it must be
appropriately discussed.
Aside from the title, my acting tutor did find significance in the
bullet points that made up my thinking for the aforementioned question and
found these of more interest and more in line with what she thought I should
have been engaging. They were the following:
·
Does this qualify an argument for art against
education?
·
Can any examples of a crossover between
ideologies be proven?
·
How does this translate within the context of
the professional workplace?
·
Does vocational training, formal
public/syllabus education or self-acquired skills from separate practitioners
within a single company affect collaboration?
These questions were instantly more relatable to her practice for, as a
teacher, she is dealing with a number of different students on a daily basis.
She told me as she once did whilst I was training that students will come from
a variety of differing backgrounds. Some will have had lots of exposure to
acting training whether it be through school or extra-curricular activities
whilst others will be starting lessons with more competence as a dancer or
singer. She mentioned that a lot of students will utilise techniques learned in
their respective fields to aid developing an understanding within her classes,
such as the Laban Movement Analysis as aforementioned. She found my latter two
bullet pointed sub-questions of particular, citing that whilst they were still
too vague for analysis the context is present and this is the structure I
should be employing; context first, practitioner research and ideology in
support, followed by analysis and argument. We found an example of this
approach working when she asked me about my first sub-question; “does this
qualify an argument for art against education?” She mentioned that if this was
to make up part of the body for inquiry, this should instead follow the latter
two and would require a degree of literature support to give some weight and
justify its presence. She then asked if this question has been informed by any
practitioner in particular whilst studying. Although the question was a product
of my own thinking, it does lend itself to John Barnett’s concept of multiple
“tools of learning” as I have discovered upon examining reader four. I will be
looking at his ideology more closely in task 4d with reference to appropriate
literature and its relevance to my inquiry interests.
This first experience of an external source providing feedback for my
current position with regards to inquiry has been one of apprehension, but
satisfying all the while. I am approaching a time on the programme where I will
be prepping questions related to my inquiry topic for trial interviews later in
the module. I must remind myself that while it will be a difficult to process
and collate information from various sources, especially given the diverse
number of roles I will be considering in relation to my practice as a
performer, they will also be fundamental in helping to produce a debate with a
much wider breadth than can be achieved with only my own knowledge.
Bibliography
Espeland, T,
2015, “The theatrefolk blog” The eight
efforts: laban movement [online] Available at: http://www.theatrefolk.com/blog/the-eight-efforts-laban-movement/ [Accessed 18 November. 2015]
No comments:
Post a Comment