Can you give your reasons for doing what we do? What is the purpose of the actor? The play? The performance? Im interested to see your responses! I want to hear your definitions as to what acting is, and what its purpose is.

It's really all storytelling, isn't it, as far as the audience is concerned?

The actor may engage in self-expression, mimicry, release of energy, emotional catharsis, pure vanity - people have all manner of methods and meanings to being on stage - but the audience just wants to live the dream in the most immediate way possible.

The main objective of all acting is and always has been, to ENTERTAIN.

Things like aesthetics, education, storytelling -- by all means, yes. These are all important elements of the art and have intrinsic value in and of themselves. But if an actor can fulfill this single objective alone, he has succeeded. All other considerations are secondary in significance.

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

I think Brecht would disagree with you Robert Kim. Acting/Theatre can be a very important catalyst for conversation and education. I think it is a problem with our society today that theatre is all about entertainment. It's the reason that Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole are more important than what is going on in Iraq or Darfur. (wow, I sound like a downer)
On another note, you can look at many parts of history through the lens of theatre and performance and get a much clearer idea of what the people were feeling and thinking. The mystery plays of the middle ages were the only way that the people could learn the stories of the bible because everything was written in Latin (and most people didn't read). This was very empowering. Then again, to support your point if you look at ancient rome and the colosseum/the phallus plays, yes that was total unadulterated entertainment (violence and sex). Actually you can draw many parallels between that society and ours today (government, etc.). So maybe in THIS society we want entertainment but I don't think it is the purpose of performance. In closing: when I was in school my teacher said to me that there were three kinds of actors 1. Entertainers: these were actors who honestly had an urge to take the audience away from their current life for a few hours and leave them feeling happy at the end. 2. Performers: These were actors who wanted to make a point with their work but were definitely more interested in putting on a good show rather than inciting debate or thought. and 3. Artists: he said that these actors will have the toughest time but these are the actors who want to put forth art that makes people think and feel.
There is no judgement to be any of the three of these but I choose to be an artist.
In this country/society where there are so many issues attached to race, gender, religion why shouldn't the actor take on the challenge of trying to present issues in a palatable way to the public? Then again, sometimes I want to go see Hairspray too...no really I do!

Wow, great responses people. Well, Tallytal, you've said some things that really ring true. My question to you: Can you be all three types of actors?
My thoughts on this issue are similar to yours and Roberts. Yes, we have to entertain. BUT, entertaining does not necessarily mean mindless fun. Entertaining is also educating, enlightening, and taking people away from their everyday lives. The old saying that "art imitates life" isn't exactly the whole truth anymore. We have life emulating art. Things have become cyclic, to an extent. Sheesh, we're living in a twisted greek tragedy mixed with Jerry Springer shows! Yikes. The bottom line, the job of the performance (actors, directors, producers, crew, etc..) is meant to inform. Whether that information is pure entertainment, or a philosophical statement on specific issues, it is a means for sharing a point of view with the world. Some, are self-indulgent, and some are self-less. I think any musical (which is deemed pure entertainment in most circles) can still make the audience THINK about themselves differently. I think the purpose of the actor is to maintain the integrity of the information transformation. Yes, we are STORYTELLERS. But anyone can just tell a story. We have to make our audience travel WITH the story, so they felt like they LIVED in the story, so yes, we are ENTERTAINERS. We also have the obligation to find new ways to share our creativity, and explore the world around us both creatively, and logically, so in the greatest essence, we are ARTISTS. So I think what everyone wrote is correct. Do you think there's even MORE to what we are? Thank you all for the great discussion!

quote:

Originally posted by Robert Kim Photography:
Things like aesthetics, education, storytelling -- by all means, yes. These are all important elements of the art and have intrinsic value in and of themselves.

I think we're all on the same page on this.

Acting has always been much more than merely strutting out on a stage -- be it a sound stage or a theatre stage. I think if you were to sit down and try to describe the countless ways that acting enriches our lives you could fill the Yellow Pages. So for the sake of brevity, I intentionally cut to the central core of ALL performing arts, the entertainment aspect. Perhaps because of my film industry background I'm a little biased, but I feel that if performing arts failed to fulfill this single obligation, they would probably cease to exist.

I thought your example of the Roman Colosseum as an example of pure entertainment for it's own sake is the perfect analogy, TallyTal. "Blood sport" certainly wasn't long on cerebral qualities, unless you consider brain tissue lying in the dust, 'cerebral.' Yet as grisly as The Games were, it did manage to accomplish the "prime directive" of which I spoke, the ability of performers to give the audience a dramatized enactment and observation of life, providing them blessed relief from the humdrum existence of their lives. It still does today. If acting can also educate and and inspire, all the better. But without the element of pure, unadulterated entertainment value, it's doubtful whether the arts in any of their myriad forms would have stood the test of time (for example, what would a Roman crowd do if they deemed a gladiator's performance poor? Suffice it to say, the unfortunate soul wouldn't be leaving the stadium the same way he came in!). Using your instructor's example of "Entertainers," Performers" and "Artists" to illustrate my point, if any of this group were so untalented as to miserably fail at ENTERTAINING us, would they be still be considered masters of their craft, or would they be delegated to the same, miserable fate suffered by our gladitorial friend? It was recorded that the Emperor Caligula, arguably the most depraved Caesar of all, was killed not for his innumerable acts of debauchery but his failure to put on a good performance in the Amphitheatre. No doubt a major exaggeration, but it illustrates the point.

Acting fulfills our need to pardon the pun, "act out," giving us the first-hand experience of what it is to be a human being.

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

quote:

Originally posted by TallyTal:
I think Brecht would disagree with you Robert Kim. Acting/Theatre can be a very important catalyst for conversation and education. I think it is a problem with our society today that theatre is all about entertainment.

I would take issue with the idea that there is anything in the least untoward about entertainment for its own sake. The great majority of people live lives of great effort and enforced seriousness. The ability to escape however briefly from their own reality and be lifted in someone else's dream is, for many, intensely precious.

I have the greatest admiration for someone like George Clooney, who has managed to emerge from years as kind of journeyman TV actor into not only being a movie star, but an activist creator. But he could never have attained the power he now has to influence others if he had not first fulfilled what the public most expects of entertainers: to entertain.

If I may quote from one of my own monologues (this one last week's Monologue of the Week, on a harlequin):

quote:

He's made you laugh, he's kicked your troubles in the rump and sent them scurrying out of your life, for a short while, he's let you feel superior, if only to the likes of him. You owe the clown a great debt, don't you think, for the weight he's chased from your shoulders, for the smile he's put on your face?

...his back bent with the work he's done - the work of carting off other men's cares

Don't belittle a tonic that makes many otherwise dull lives worth living. An entertainer who ONLY entertains serves an ancient and noble function.

Very enjoyable topic, avidactor. Thought provoking...

"Tally Tal," I saw a vintage B&W film that I think you might like watching. It's a feel good, screwball comedy called "Sullivan's Travels," with Joel McCrea and Veronica Lake. It's about a big Hollywood producer who wanted to make a film about the trials of tribulations of Depression era Americans. Every serious film student/afficionado should see it. It demonstrates in a very real way how a motion picture can both entertain and inspire. It's a lovely film.

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com