i have been thinking about this a lot. ive been thinking about whether or not i want to be someone who is critical or someone who is an actor. i think there is a contradiction between the two. because the critic necessarily inhibits his/her own actions by virtue of his/her enterprise, checking, comprehending actions, interactions, thought dynamics. so that critic cannot be the actor because the actor, distinct from the critic, is one who acts on impulses. impulses that are a product of all of the political sociological cultural etc dynamics that that actor is subjected to. impulses are the best thing to study if you want to understand, because it is a…amalgalm of time and space in a way that is transmitted through the political, sociological, cultural etc actor. so what could be more rich. but the actor and the critic cannot live in one person. i wish i could be the actor. but i think i am the critic.
why does it have to be one or the other?
it doesnt. i guess there is no real essential dichotomy between people, but i think there is between function. this is something ive observed and have thought of in this way: hyper awareness of oneself and one’s surroundings is an inhibitor of spontaneous action and reproductions. spontaneous action and reprod can produce the richest things because less is filtered. and these are the things and people that effect change and that are studied. Studying and Criticizing involves a different set of pressures because u are exposed to a more all-encompassing arena that usually involves powers that be.
Also another thing is that studying and criticizing something is always so definitive and conclusive, which represents a big disconnect from action, which is immediate and continuous. i just feel like its so difficult to embody these two things.
I know many casting directors (critics directly of actors work) that are also actors…it is better ….they get to see both point of views and improve on their own work. Acting is an art but it is also a business….
http://rlhtalent.wordpress.com/