Part I
Theoretical reflections
1 PAR methodology and the main research questions
It is important to note that the discussion covered throughout my research project ventures into comparative religious studies to illuminate possible cultural influences on Stanislavskyâs legacy rather than comprehensively explaining that particular field.1 Additionally, with this book, Iâm not only attempting to understand certain aspects of Stanislavskyâs âsystemâ that, in my opinion, are less analysed theoretically and maybe not enough explored in practice, but also, I am hoping to offer future practice as research students the example of my own experience.
Notions such as âpractice as researchâ or âpractice-based researchâ are both used to stand for endeavours very similar to the case study described. Christopher Bannerman draws a clear distinction between these two terms. On the one hand, âpractice-based research implies [âŠ] that the research may be based in practice, but that there are [âŠ] other modes used to further the workâ. On the other hand, âpractice as research [âŠ] implies that practice, in and of itself can be considered researchâ.2 In Robin Nelsonâs thinking, âa research project in which practice is a key method of inquiryâ and results in a practical form such as a theatre performance, can be âsubmitted as substantial evidence of a research inquestâ.3
Barbara Bolt talks about a âdouble articulation between theory and practiceâ in so far as the âtheory emerges from a reflexive practiceâ while, simultaneously, the âpractice is informed by theoryâ.4 Although reluctant to engage in what he calls âthe historical binary between âtheoryâ and âpracticeââ, Nelson appears to agree with Bolt. Finding âPaR [âŠ] ineluctably centred in practiceâ, Nelson also considers âreading, as in any research programmeâ, to be just âanother mode in a multi-modal research enquiryâ.5 Similarly, Bolt argues in favour of âtheory imbricated within practiceâ.6 She talks about two distinctive ways of knowing â that is to say, âKnow-how and Know-whatâ. The first one represents the âEmbodied knowledgeâ as in âExperiential, haptic knowing â Performative knowing â Tacit knowledgeâ, whilst the second remains a âdistant knowledgeâ that needs to be âmade explicit through critical reflection: â Know what âworksâ â Know what methods â Know what principles of composition [âŠ] â Conceptual frameworksâ, and so forth.7
Focusing âon the âuniquenessâ of PARâs production of knowledgeâ, Angela Piccini argues that it might run âcounter to the wider critical engagement with âknowledge makingâ in the arts and humanitiesâ.8 According to Piccini, by calling into question crucial notions of âobjectivityâ and âoriginalityâ, âPAR may significantly contribute alternatives to current âways of knowingââ, also raising âcritical issues regarding the ability to generalize such knowledgeâ.9
Citing Gunther Kress, Heli Aaltonen considers this âproduction of knowledge in performance practice [âŠ] different from ordinary arts practiceâ to the degree that it can be both epistemological and ontological.10 As she explains, performative research âoften requires methods that are applied in vocational trainingâ, and these can make âthe embodied knowledge explicit through the analysis of practices, multimodal discourses and contextual social settingsâ.11
In terms of theory versus practice as generator of knowledge, as opposed to Nelson and Bolt, who are in search of defining better ways of congruence, Helen Bendon finds this distinction unhelpful in expounding her practice. Quoting David Durling, who refers to âsome forms of practice as âpersonal Journeysââ,12 Bendon simply chooses to name what she does as âthe workâ.13 According to Durling, there should be a clear distinction between practice and research. In his view, âresearch has goals quite different to those of practiceâ to the extent that it âasks questions, selects appropriate methods, tests the questions, analyses the results, and disseminates the conclusions unambiguouslyâ.14 However, in my vision, based on the practical work explored on the stage, these research goals do not seem to differ from those of the practice, as Durling argues.
Both during training and while rehearsing, the actors find themselves in a constant need to ask questions, to select the methods appropriate in order to test these questions and, finally, to analyse the results. There is also a lack of ambiguity in disseminating the conclusions drawn. Being embodied in their own artistic creativity, the stage-floor experience of the actors becomes very clear to them, while the results are visible to the naked eye of the spectator. It might be that due to their ineffability, some of these personal results are not always easily explained and need a more profound and ongoing reflection. Nevertheless, as Monica Prendergast and Juliana Saxton argue, âthe heart of the reflective process is the space it provides to bring into existence a personal relationship with the materialâ.15 Further:
In terms of research methods, Baz Kershaw and Helen Nicholson strive to bring forward ideas of reconceptualisation that can highly benefit studies of theatre and performance. In order to âresist unhelpful dichotomies and fixed binaries, which separate embodiment and intuition from intellectual practices, emotional experiences and ways of knowingâ, they both support a methodology of âthinking philosophically, procedurally, and practically, about working processesâ.17 As Kershaw explains, because âPaR is pursued through time-space events, its transmission â the means by which any knowledge/understanding/insight it produces are communicated â is always multi-modalâ. Additionally, it âhas the qualities of a moveable feast: always already the âsameâ project but forever differently displayed through diverse channelsâ. Therefore, it ends up disrupting the âpowerful parade of binary formulations: theory/practice [âŠ], ontology/epistemology, artist/academic [âŠ], multiple formats/singular outcomes, and so onâ.18
On the same note, without denying the importance of any of the views noted above, because the artistic creation leading to experiencing the creative state can be a very personal accomplishment, by relating to my own former training and acting experience, while using in places a strong personal voice, and by often bringing on indirect evidence, I have moved away from the normal academic ways of research, to look upon the findings and problems that are formulated and analysed in each chapter. These findings followed the structure in which the practice was organised and also considered the constant feedback coming from the actors.
1.1 Methodology
In my research, I strive to find answers to several central questions: Is the creative state, as envisioned by Stanislavsky, reachable merely by acquiring skills developed only through a realist-psychological technique that does not account for his earlier spiritual ideas? Or, on the contrary, does this creative state also necessitate a spiritually orientated type of work? Moreover, by following a spiritual path that connects body and mind to touch upon what a believer would consider to be the soul, can the actor reach deeper and subtler awareness? And if so, can this awareness be transformative to the extent of touching upon that moment when âthe actor merges with his [her] partâ?19 Yet, how can such a spiritual awareness go hand in hand with the necessary technical aspects of the actorâs work? Are the two divergent approaches so incompatible that they cannot be brought together?
To answer these questions, I am intent on finding out whether or not a point of congruence is possible while striving to show ways in which this can be done. Considering Stanislavskyâs expressed certainty that the two ânatures of a part, the physical and the spiritual, merge in each otherâ,20 this bringing together might not at all be an impossible task. With this purpose in mind, I draw on Maria Shevtsova, Nikolai Demidov, and Anatoly Smeliansky as primary sources concerning Stanislavskyâs concept of âthe creative stateâ, as well as the Orthodox influence.
To support the argument of a spiritual way of working with the âsystemâ, I am also turning to Rose Whyma...