Lev Vygotsky 1932

On the Problem of the Psychology of the Actors Creative Work

Source: The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 6.

The problem of the psychology of the actor and theatrical creative ork is at one and the same time old and completely ne . !n the one hand, it seems there never as one even some hat great theatrical pedagog"e or critic, not one man of the theater in general, ho might pose this #"estion one ay or another, and ho, in o"ld not practical activity, performance, teaching, or eval"ations, actor. $any ho

proceed from one or another "nderstanding of the psychology of the ere active in the theater prod"ced e%tremely hich they fo"nd a comple% systems of the actor&s performance in

concrete e%pression net only of p"rely artistic aspirations of their a"thors, not only the canons of style, b"t also systems of practical psychology of the actors& creative ork. S"ch, for e%ample, is the famo"s system of '. S. Stanislavsky, f"ll of theoretical staging, hich, "nfort"nately, e do not have to this day. (f e try to trace the so"rces of theatrical psychology, they ill take "s far back, and this area, problem, e ill see the great and very diffic"lt problems of hich over the co"rse of a cent"ry and in vario"s forms, hich ). )iderot poses in the remarkable *+arado% of the

agitated the minds of the best representatives of the theater. This ,ctor,- already anticipates the sharpest arg"ments bet een vario"s contemporary theatrical systems, b"t he, in his t"rn, as anticipated by a n"mber of thinkers of the theater ho long before )iderot p"t the

#"estion in a some hat different form, b"t on the same plane as )iderot sets it. There is something basic in this form"lation of the #"estion, and hen one begins to st"dy attentively its historical development, one is inevitably convinced that, obvio"sly, it is rooted in the very essence of the creative hich is still ork of the actor as it opens "p to direct "nderstanding, holly g"ided by a naive ama.ement before a ne

psychological phenomenon. Th"s, in theatrical systems, if the problem of the psychology of the actor ith all its changes retained as central the parado% of the actor&s time, investigations of a different type investigations emotion, then in the ne

opened paths applicable to the same problem. /e

begin to involve the actor&s profession in the common circle of investigations of the psychology of the profession, bringing to the forefront the psychotechnical approach to the actor&s craft, The problem "s"ally at the center of attention is ho the person certain general #"alities and traits of h"man giftedness sho"ld be developed to ens"re ho has them s"ccess in the area of theatrical creative ork. Tests are created to st"dy fantasy, the motor system, verbal memory, and e%citability of the actors, and on that basis, a *professiogram- of the actor&s ork is constr"cted according to e%actly the same principle as analogo"s psychograms for any other professions are constr"cted0 then, according to the register of established #"alities, people are selected for this profession correspond to this register. !nly very recently did e note an attempt to overcome the ho best

inade#"acies of this and another approach to this problem and form"late it differently. (n this respect, orks of a ne type have come into vie 0 in this respect also, not st"died at all. e have called the problem of the and almost psychology of the actor a problem that is completely ne

(t is easiest to define the ne

approach to the old problem by

comparing it to t o former trends. They had a common inade#"acy over and above the "ni#"e, radical methodological fla s that characteri.e each of them separately and hich to a certain degree is opposite in the one and the other system of investigation. The common inade#"acy of former trends is the complete empiricism, the attempt to proceed from hat is on the s"rface, to ith establish facts that are directly grasped and to elevate them to the rank of a scientifically discovered pattern. ,ltho"gh the empiricism hich people of the theater ork is fre#"ently an area of phenomena orks of great masters

profo"ndly "ni#"e and e%tremely significant in the general sphere of c"lt"ral life, altho"gh facts s"ch as the specific are dealt ith here, the scientific significance of these materials is not

beyond the limits of the collection of fact"al data and general deliberation over the form"lation of the problem. ,lso marked by the same radical empiricism are the psychotechnical investigations of the actor&s craft hich cannot rise to any e%tent above the directly fact"al data and incl"de them in the general, previo"sly determined methodological and theoretical "nderstanding of the s"b1ect. $oreover, as has been indicated, each of these trends has a specific inade#"acy. Stage systems, from the actor, from theatrical pedagogy, from observations of rehearsals, and d"ring performance, hich are "s"ally enormo"s generali.ations of the prod"cer&s or actor&s e%perience, set specific, "ni#"e, feat"res of e%perience, inherent only in the actor, as being of paramo"nt importance, forgetting that these feat"res m"st be "nderstood against a backgro"nd of general psychological patterns, that the actor&s psychology comprises only a part of the total psychology in both the abstract2scientific and the concrete2life significance of this ord. 3o ever, hen these systems reach to general psychology for s"pport, the attempts prove to be a more or less

accidental connection in the manner of that

hich e%ists bet een the

Stanislavsky system and the psychological system of T. 4ibot. +sychotechnical investigations, on the other hand, lose sight of all specificity, all the "ni#"eness of the actor&s psychology, seeing in the creative ork of the actor only a special combination of the same mental #"alities that are fo"nd in a different combination in any profession. 5orgetting that the activity of the actor is itself a "ni#"e, creative ork of psychophysiological conditions, and not analy.ing these specific conditions in all the variety of their psychological nat"re, the investigators2psychotechnicians dissolve the problem of the actor&s creative his psychology. The ne approach to the psychology of the creative ork of the ork in general, and at the same time, banal test psychology, paying no attention to the actor and all the "ni#"eness of

actor is characteri.ed, first of all, by the attempt to overcome the radical empiricism of the t o theories and to comprehend the psychology of the actor in all the #"alitative "ni#"eness of its nat"re, b"t in the light of more general psychological patterns. ,t the same time, the fact"al aspect of the problem ass"mes a completely different character 6 from abstract, it becomes concrete. (f formerly the testimony of one actor or another or one epoch or another as al ays considered from the point of vie of the eternal and "nchanging nat"re of the theater, no investigators approach a

given fact mainly as a historical fact hich is finished and hich m"st be "nderstood most of all in the f"ll comple%ity of its historical condition. The psychology of the actor is form"lated as a problem of concrete psychology, and many irreconcilable points of vie of formal logic, abstract contradictions of vario"s systems, identically reinforced by fact"al data, are e%plained as a living and concrete historical contradiction of different forms of the actor&s creative changes from epoch to epoch and from theater to theater. ork, hich

5or e%ample, )iderot&s parado% of the actor consisted of the fact that the actor portraying strong heart2felt passions and agitation on the stage and bringing the a"dience to a high emotional pitch, himself remains devoid of even a shade of the passion that he portrays and that shocks the vie er. The absol"te form"lation of the #"estion by )iderot is as follo s: m"st the actor e%perience hat he portrays, or is his acting a higher form of *aping,- an imitation of an ideal prototype7 The #"estion of the internal states of the actor d"ring a stage play is the central node of the hole problem. $"st the actor e%perience the as s"b1ected to serio"s disc"ssion, b"t the o"ld allo only ork of t o actresses, Clairon ere representatives of t o role or not7 This #"estion

very form"lation of the #"estion s"ggested that it one ans er. $oreover, contrasting the and )"menil, )iderot kne opposite in a certain sense. (n the ne form"lation of the #"estion that that they

different systems of the actor&s craft, e#"ally possible, altho"gh

e are considering, the

parado% and the contradiction contained in it find a resol"tion in the historical approach to the psychology of the actor. (n the bea"tif"l ords of )iderot, *first of all, prono"ncing the ill remain there, my

ords, 89aira, yo" are crying,& or 8yo"

da"ghter,& the actor hears himself for a long time and he hears himself at the moment hen he to"ches yo", and all his talent is not in feeling, as yo" might think, b"t in transmitting most s"btly the e%ternal signs of feeling and th"s deceiving yo". The cries of his grief are distinctly revealed in his ears, his gest"res of despair are imprinted in his memory and ere preliminarily learned in front of a mirror. 3e kno s completely precisely at and hen his tears hich moment to take o"t his handkerchief ord, at a ill flo . :%pect them at a certain

certain syllable, not sooner and not later. The trembling voice, the interr"pted ords, the m"ffled or dra n2o"t so"nds, the sh"ddering body, b"ckling knees, the s ooning, the impet"o"s o"tb"rsts2all of this is the p"rest imitation, a lesson learned by heart in advance, a

passionate grimace, a splendid 8aping&- ;). )iderot, <=>6, pp. ?@62 ?@@A. ,s )iderot says, all the passions of the actor and their e%pression enter as a component part into the system of declamation, are s"b1ect to no la of "nity, and are selected and harmonio"sly disposed in a certain ay. (n essence, t o things that are very close to each other, b"t never completely merged, are mi%ed in )iderot&s parado%. 5irst, )iderot has in mind the most s"perpersonal, ideal character of the passions that the actor pro1ects from the stage. These are ideali.ed passions and movements of the so"l0 they are not nat"ral, live feelings of one actor or another, they are artificial, they are created by the creative force of man and to that e%tent m"st be considered as artificial creations, like a novel, a sonata, or a stat"e. Beca"se of this, they differ in content from corresponding feelings of the actor himself. )iderot says: *, gladiator of ancient times is like a great actor, and a great actor is like an ancient gladiator0 they do not die as people die in bed. They m"st portray before "s a different death so as to please "s, and the vie er feels that the bare, "nadorned tr"th of movement to the poetry of the hole- ;ibid., p. ?C<A. /ot 1"st from the point of vie of content, b"t also from the aspect o"ld be shallo and contrary

of formal connections and co"plings that determine their co"rse, the feelings of the actor differ from real, live feelings. )iderot says: *B"t ( ant very m"ch to tell yo", as an e%ample, ho an actor and his ife, hating each other, played a scene of tender and passionate lovers in the theater. /ever have t o actors seemed so strong in their roles, never have they aro"sed s"ch long appla"se from the orchestra and the loges. We have interr"pted this scene do.ens of times ith appla"se and sho"ts of delight. This is in scene three, act fo"r of $oliDre&s Le Depit Amoureux- ;ibid., p. ?C6A. Later, )iderot brings in the dialog"e of the t o actors, hich he calls a d"al scene, a scene of the lovers and a ife. The scene of the declaration of love is scene of the h"sband and

inter oven here pp. ?C62?CCA. ,s

ith the scene of a family #"arrel, and in this

inter eaving, )iderot sees the best evidence of his being correct ;ibid.,

e have said, )iderot&s vie

is based on facts, and this is the

so"rce of his strength, his "ns"rpassable significance for a f"t"re scientific theory of the actor&s creative ork. B"t there are also facts of an opposite character hich do not in the least ref"te )iderot. These facts consist in the fact that there is still another system of performance and another nat"re of artistic e%periences of the actor on the stage. (f e take an e%ample close at hand, the evidence is all the stagecraft of the Stanislavsky school. This contradiction, hich cannot be resolved in abstract psychology

ith the metaphysical form"lation of the #"estion, has a possibility of being resolved if e approach it from the dialectical point of vie . We have said that the ne trend poses the problem of actor

psychology as a problem of concrete psychology. /ot eternal and "nchangeable la s of the nat"re of actors& e%periences on the stage, b"t historical la s of vario"s forms and systems of theatrical plays are in this case the controlling direction for the investigator. 5or this reason, in the ref"tations of the parado% of )iderot that e find among many psychologists, there is still the attempt to solve the problem on the absol"te plant regardless of the historical, concrete form of the theater hose psychology e are considering. $oreover, the basic prere#"isite of any historically directed investigation in this area is the idea that the psychology of the actor e%presses the social ideology of his epoch and that it also changes in the process of the historical development of man 1"st as e%ternal forms of the theater and its style and content change. The psychology of the actor of the Stanislavsky theater differs m"ch more from the psychology of the actor of the Sophocles epoch than the contemporary b"ilding differs from the ancient amphitheater.

The psychology of the actor is a historical and class category, not a biological category. The idea central to all ne investigations that determines the approach to the concrete psychology of the actor is e%pressed in this one aspect alone. Conse#"ently it is not biological patterns primarily that determine the character of the actor&s stage e%periences. These e%periences comprise a part of the comple% f"nction of the artistic ork that has a definite social, class f"nction hole state of the mental development historically established by the

of the epoch and class, and, conse#"ently, the la s of co"pling passions and the la s of interpreting and inter eaving feelings of a role ith feelings of the actor m"st be resolved primarily on the historical plane and not on the plane of nat"ralistic ;biologicalA psychology. !nly after this resol"tion can the #"estion arise of ho , from the point of vie of the biological patterns of the mind, one or another historical form of the actor&s ork is possible. Th"s, it is not the nat"re of h"man passions that determines directly the e%periences of the actor on the stage0 it only contains the possibility of the development of many most varied and changeable forms of the stage implementation of the artistic forms. Together interests "s, ith recogni.ing the historical nat"re of the problem that e come to the concl"sion that e have before "s a

problem based in a d"al respect on the sociological prere#"isite in the st"dy of the theater. 5irst, like any concrete mental phenomenon, the actor&s st"died and defined primarily in the conte%t of that hole to ork hich it hich the

represents a part of the social2psychological activity that m"st be belongs. The f"nction of a stage performance in a given epoch for a given class m"st be revealed as m"st the basic trends on actor&s effect on the vie er depends, and, conse#"ently, it is necessary to determine the social nat"re of the theatrical form in the conte%t in hich the given stage e%periences ill have a concrete e%planation.

Second, admitting the historical character of this problem and at the same time to"ching on the e%periences of the actor, social2psychological conte%t in e ill begin to speak not so m"ch of the individ"al psychological conte%t as of the hich the e%periences are incl"ded. (n the happy Eerman e%pression, the e%periences of the actor are not so m"ch a feeling, of *(- as a feeling of * e.- The actor creates on the stage infinite sensations, feelings, or emotions that become the emotions of the hole theatrical a"dience. Before they became the ere given a literary s"b1ect of the actor&s embodiment, they

form"lation, they ere borne in the air, in social conscio"sness. 8Be melancholy of Chekhov&s Three Sisters, presented on the stage by actresses of the ,rts Theater,& becomes the emotion of the a"dience beca"se it the attit"de of large social circles for hom its stage e%pression hole as a as to a large degree a crystalli.ed form"lation of

kind of means of reali.ation and artistic interpretation of themselves. (n the light of the aspects indicated, the significance of actors& a areness of their ork becomes clear. The first thing e come to is the establishment of the limited

significance of this material. 5rom this point of vie , the actor&s a areness of his sensations, the data of self2observation of his acting and his general state do not lose their significance for st"dying the psychology of the actor, b"t cease being the only and "niversal so"rce for making 1"dgments on their nat"re. They sho ho the actor recogni.es his o n emotions and hat their relation to the str"ct"re of his personality is, b"t they do not disclose for "s the nat"re of these emotions in all their act"al f"llness. Before "s, vie 2from the point of vie "nderstand the part it plays e have only partial, fact"al material that ill"minates the problem from only one point of of the actor&s self2a areness. (n order to hole scientific significance, e m"st ithin the system of the hole. We m"st e%tract from s"ch material its

"nderstand the psychology of one actor or another in all his concrete historical and social circ"mstances0 then the normal connection of the

given form of stage e%perience ith the social content that is pro1ected thro"gh this actor&s e%periences to the a"dience "nderstandable for "s. We m"st not forget that the emotions of the actor, since they are a fact of art, go beyond the limits of his personality and make "p a part of the emotional dialog"e bet een the actor and the p"blic. The actor&s emotions e%perience hat 5. +a"lhan felicito"sly called a *fort"nate hich they transformation of feelings.- They become "nderstandable only if they are incl"ded in the broader social2psychological system of are a part. (n this sense, one m"st not separate the character of the stage e%perience of the actor, taken from the formal aspect, from the concrete content that incl"des the stage image, and relation to and interest in that image from the social2psychological significance and from the f"nction that it f"lfills in the given case of the actor&s e%perience. Let "s say that the e%perience of the actor trying to la"gh at a certain str"ct"re of psychological and life types and of the actor trying to give an apologia for the same images different. 3ere e are approaching close to an e%tremely important hich as the ca"se, in ill, nat"rally, be ill become clear and

psychological moment, the ine%plicability of interests "s. 5or e%ample, most of those

o"r opinion, of a series of mis"nderstandings of the problem that riting abo"t the system of ith the Stanislavsky identified this system in its psychological part system of Stanislavsky theatrical practical b"t does not e%ha"st the ith his theatrical practical hole content of the system,

stylistic tasks that it initially served0 in other ords, they identified the ork. Tr"e, all hich can have ork does not hose ork is a concrete e%pression of a given system,

many other concrete e%pressions0 theatrical practical from its concrete e%pression stylistic aspirations of the ,rts Theater b"t

present the system in all its range. , step to ard separating the system as taken by :. B. Vakhtangov, ere so very different from the initial nat"ralism ho, nevertheless, as a are that his o n

system

as an application to ne

stylistic tasks of the basic ideas of

Stanislavsky. This can be demonstrated ith the e%ample of Vakhtangov&s ork

on the staging of Princess Turandot. Wishing to pro1ect from the stage not simply the content of the tale, b"t his o n contemporary relation to the tale, his irony, a smile *addressed to the tragic content of the tale,Vakhtangov creates a ne content for the play. B. :. 9akhava tells of a remarkable case from the history of the staging of this play: 8,t the first rehearsals, Vakhtangov "sed this device. 3e proposed the actors play not the roles indicated in the te%t of the play, b"t (talian actors playing these roles ... 5or e%ample, he proposed that the actress playing the role of ,delma play not ,delma, b"t an (talian actress playing ,delma. 3e improvised ;in the theme, s"pposing she ere the ife of the director of the tro"pe and the earing broken shoes, that they are ho does not ant to ants to mistress at the opening, that she is

too big for her and hen she alks, they flap at the heel, slap the floor, etc. ,nother actress playing 9elima is an idler sleepA- ;<=>F, pp. <G>2<GGA. Th"s, e see that Vakhtangov directly changes the content of the as p"t in place in the system of Stanislavsky: act, and she does not at all hide this from the p"blic ;she

play he is given, b"t in the form of its presentation, he depended on the same fo"ndation that Stanislavsky ta"ght that finding the tr"th of feelings on the stage is an internal 1"stification of each stage form of behavior. 9akhava says: *(nternal 1"stification, the basic re#"irement of Stanislavsky, remains as before one of the basic re#"irements of Vakhtangov, only the content itself of these feelings is entirely different no ith Vakhtangov than ith Stanislavsky ... (f the feelings as and ill al ays become different, if they re#"ire different theatrical means of

e%pression, still the tr"th of these feelings is as it

be "nchangeably the basis of the soil on gen"ine great art can gro - ;ibid., p. <>>A. We see ho

hich only the flo ers of

the internal techni#"e of Stanislavsky and his mental

nat"ralism come to serve completely different stylistic tasks, opposite in a certain sense to the one that they served at the very beginning of development. We see ho form, ho application it is given. 5or this reason, the declarations of the actors on their ork, certain content dictates a ne theatrical a system proves to be m"ch broader than the concrete

especially s"mmary declarations, are in themselves incapable of e%plaining their character and their nat"re0 they are made "p from generali.ations of the actors& o n and most vario"s e%perience and do not take into acco"nt all of the content embodied in the actor&s emotion. (t is necessary to go beyond the limits of the direct e%perience of the actor to e%plain it. Hnfort"nately, this real and remarkable parado% of all of psychology has not, th"s far, been s"fficiently assimilated by a n"mber of trends. (n order to e%plain and "nderstand e%perience, it is necessary to go beyond its limits0 it is necessary to forget abo"t it for a min"te and move a ay from it. The same thing is tr"e also actor. (f the actor&s e%perience ithin itself, then it ith respect to the psychology of the ere a closed hole, a orld e%isting

o"ld be nat"ral to look for la s that govern it,

e%cl"sively in its sphere, in an analysis of its composition, a caref"l description of its conto"rs. B"t if the actor&s e%perience also differs from everyday life e%perience by the fact that it comprises a part of an entirely different system, then its e%planation m"st be fo"nd in la s of the str"ct"re of that system. (n concl"sion, e o"ld like to note briefly the conversion that the psychology. (n the e are still far from resolving this

old parado% of the actor e%periences in the ne contemporary state of o"r science, parado%, b"t

e are already close to its correct form"lation as a

gen"ine scientific problem. ,s problem,

e have seen, the essence of the ho rote abo"t it, consists

hich seemed parado%ical to all

in the relation of the artificially prod"ced emotion of a role to the real, live, nat"ral emotion of the actor playing the role. We think that solving this problem is possible if e take into acco"nt t o points that are e#"ally important for its correct interpretation. The first consists in that Stanislavsky e%presses the invol"ntary #"ality of feeling in a certain sit"ation. Stanislavsky says that feeling cannot be commanded. We have no direct po er over feeling of this nat"re as e have over movement or over the associative process. B"t if feeling *cannot be evoked ... vol"ntarily and directly, then it may be enticed by resorting to hat is more s"b1ect to o"r po er, to ideas- ;L. Ia. E"revich, <=J@, p. ?CA. ,ct"ally, all contemporary that the path to psychophysiological investigations of emotions sho and artificial creation of ne interference of o"r

mastery of emotions, and, conse#"ently, tire path of vol"ntary aro"sal emotions, is not based on direct ay that this ill in the sphere of sensations in the

occ"rs in the area of thinking and movement. This path is m"ch more tort"o"s and, as Stanislavsky correctly notes, more like coa%ing than direct aro"sal of the re#"ired feeling. !nly indirectly, creating a comple% system of ideas, concepts, and images of hich emotion is a part, can and, in this given system as a e aro"se the re#"ired feelings ay, give a "ni#"e, psychological coloring to the entire hole and to its e%ternal e%pression. Stanislavsky

says: *These feelings are not at all those that actors e%perience in life;ibid.A. They are more likely feelings and concepts that are p"rified of everything e%traneo"s, are generali.ed, devoid of their aimless character. ,ccording to the 1"stifiable e%pression of L. Ia. E"revich,- if they passed thro"gh the process of artistic shaping, they differ according to a n"mber of traits from corresponding living emotions. (n this sense, e agree ith E"revich that the sol"tion of the problem, as "s"ally

happens in very st"bborn and long controversies, *lies not in the middle bet een t o e%tremes, b"t on a different plane that makes it possible to see the s"b1ect from a ne point of vie - ;ibid., p. 6JA. We are compelled to this ne point of vie both by the acc"m"lated doc"ments on the problem of stage creativity, the testimony of the creators2actors themselves, and by the investigations carried o"t in recent decades by scientific psychology ;ibid., <. 6JA. B"t this is 1"st one aspect of the problem. The other is incl"ded in the fact that the transfer of the parado% of the actor to the gro"nd of concrete psychology immediately eliminates a n"mber of insol"ble problems that ith ne ere formerly am component parts and replaces them paths. 5rom this point of vie , there is not a problems that are prod"ctive and resolvable and place the

investigator on ne

biological2aesthetic and eternally given e%planation, b"t each given system of the actor&s performance is s"b1ect to a concrete2 psychological and historical, changeable e%planation, and instead of the once2and2for2all, given parado% of the actor of all times and peoples, e have before "s from the historical aspect, a series of historical parado%es of actors of given environments in given epochs. The parado% of the actor is converted into an investigation of historical development of h"man emotion and its concrete e%pression at different stages of social life. +sychology teaches that emotions are not an e%ception different from other manifestations of o"r mental life. Like all other mental f"nctions, emotions do not remain in the connection in hich they are given initially by virt"e of the biological organi.ation of the mind. (n the process of social life, feelings develop and former connections disintegrate0 emotions appear in ne mental life, ne systems develop, ne "nities of a higher order appear dominant. relations ithin ith other elements of hich special patterns, alloys of mental f"nctions and

interdependencies, special forms of connection and movement are

To st"dy the order and connection of affects is the principal task of scientific psychology beca"se it is not in emotions taken in an isolated form, b"t in connections combining emotions ith more comple% ill bring the psychological systems that the sol"tion of the parado% of the actor lies. This sol"tion, as might be e%pected even no , investigators to a position that has a f"ndamental significance for all of the psychology of the actor. The e%perience of the actor, his emotions, appear not as f"nctions of his personal mental life, b"t as a phenomenon that has an ob1ective, social sense and significance that serves as a transitional stage from psychology to ideology.

Vygotsky Archive