Really....honestly... 

These first posts are simply to create discipline for me. By making this thought process public I feel this stupid pressure to create on a more disciplined and precise level. So, for once, I will use this to my advantage. This is my thesis, creating this method for multimedia performance for actors. Specifically to react against and with the already established Stanislavski method, Meisner technique, Bogart's Viewpoints, Lee Stasberg.... Also that of Robert Edmund Jones, E. Gordon Craig, Peter Brook....Graphic Design, Cinema, Editors and Cinematographers... Michel Gondry... 

Looking at all techniques and theories of the last century and re-examining that under the scope of multimedia performance and how we can create a more suitable vocabulary for actors in this form. 

So please excuse these first posts and their mumble jumble.... Once I fart all over the page, I plan on honing in on what exactly I'm examining here. I just need to re-discipline myself and get it all out there.

Alright. peace

Actor-As-Technician

Another aim for this blog is to produce a method that I'd like to explore...

What does it mean to be an actor-as-technician? Before defining that, I guess I would like to elaborate on what it means to be a performer, a technician, and an actor. To me there are distinct differences that, through identifying, can clarify what I mean by actor-as-technician. These words are defined in so many ways by so many people that I should start with my own definition. 

And as Peter Brook believes Rough, Deadly, Immediate, and Holy theatre can be lived through in one performance any any given night....I believe one can perform, act, and be technician all in one evening of theatre as well. Specifically, though, it is the difference between performer and actor that I need to clarify for myself. 

For a while I thought this was an issue of artifice, but I'm not so sure of that anymore. And I'm not sure why.

A Beginning

When looking at multimedia performance, the first question is that of the hardware. what is it in the world of the performance? What is made aware to the characters and what is infused into the technological magic of the performance?

I guess the first thing I want to do is separate the hardware and operator into 4 different categories for the performance.

Case 1: both the operator and hardware are invisible to the world.

Case 2: The hardware is visible in the world, but not the operator.

Case 3: The operator is visible to the world, but not the hardware.

Case 4: Both the operator and the hardware are visible to the world.

By world, I mean the narrative. The structure of the environment through which the story plays out. The plot. What have you.

visible in that world means that we have a rule that allows for both the audience and characters can view this.

invisible in that we only see its bi-product. The residue of the object. The projected surface at the end of this chain of events through which we film something and project it.

From here, I think we can begin to create a foundation. One that perhaps I can build something off of....

That's all for now. I just wanted to begin this tonight...

Jared