What is an Actor?

If we are going to investigate the Art of the Actor then it makes sense to first define the Actor.  This should be a universal answer but I find that sometimes that's not the case.  Well maybe we can all agree as to WHAT the Actor is but differ on WHY the Actor is.  I'm interested in the purpose that defines an Actor.  So...

What is an Actor?

Let's start by being obvious and cliche and go straight to Webster's for their take.  Here it is:

1. :one that acts: DOER
2. : one who represents a character in a dramatic production
3. : a theatrical performer
4. :one who behaves as if acting a part

SIDEBAR - I love to go to the dictionary because I'm always surprised by something.  I think, "I KNOW what XYZ means!"  But then I learn that what I REALLY know is what XYZ means to me.  Hence the dictionary!  It never hurts to return to the "source" and discover something new.  Something I missed.  Something that sheds new light and sometimes to discover, as in this situation, that my personal definition is far more complex and maybe I could do some streamlining.  Therefore, I'll more than likely do this often.  So count yourself warned.

So we're back to the definitions!  They all speak to the perceived actions that define an Actor.  A doer.  A performer.  Someone who represents.  Someone who behaves.  However, in my opinion, "represent" and "behave" are problem words for an actor.  BUT, other than that I can't disagree with them.  They are spot on.  An Actor does DO all of these things.  And if that is enough for you then I wish you all the best of luck and thanks for stopping by.

If not then...What is an Actor?

I will say this; these definitions do inspire images of a person of action and Actors MUST BE active!  So that brings me back to my friend Webster for another definition..ACTING which is "the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras."  Now we're getting somewhere!

The ART!  Here is where the road will sometimes diverge.  Many cynics and realists will argue that the Actor/Artist is too romantic a notion to adhere to in this day and age and that the Actor is just a professional entertainer who works in show business.  The same cynics would argue that the idea of being an artist clutters the Actor's ability to be a working professional.  This could be true but it's certainly no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I plan to spend more time with this topic at a later date when I start to address the Actor's dualisms.

So for now we are back to the Actor/Artist.  And because I love it so, let's go to the dictionary...

ARTIST - a: one who professes and practices an imaginative art. b: a person skilled in one of the fine arts. c: a skilled performer.

Now to me, THIS speaks more to being an Actor that "one who acts."

SIDEBAR - I have always been fascinated with identity.  Its part of what draws me to acting.  Who we are.  Where we come from.  What defines us.  I find it fascinating that we have such difficulties being true to our own self, or maybe just being consistently true to ourselves.  I find it fascinating how many identities we try on before finally accepting who we are.  I find it fascinating that our identities are constantly evolving but always staying the same.  I'm talking about when we are reinventing and soul searching for our true self or new self but along the way discover those parts of us that never seem to change.  They are the ideals that "who we are" is built on.  I call them constants.  Most of these constants are shaped for us either by those who raised us or by our emotional responses to our experiences over time.  This is why constants are so personal.  Constants drive our passion.  Constants break our heart when they are shattered.  Sometimes we're ashamed of them and sometimes we are proud of them.  But they are there to give purpose to our actions.  And I'm fascinated with the purpose of things.

So if we mash-up the Actor/Artist from Webster we might come up with "a skilled doer who professes the imaginative art of representing a character in a dramatic production on stage or before a camera."  I like this but it's still missing something.

Purpose!

Now here again is where folks can come to words.  I myself have gone nine rounds with my great friend and artistic partner on the purpose of art and the Actor/Artist.  He, and he's not alone, would argue that art has no purpose or agenda than to communicate an experience that the audience will interpret for themselves.  He also believes that no one should set out to create with the goal to change someone and that change is only a byproduct of communication.  This is only the tip of the iceberg of an elaborate debate for me.  I believe that art should be used to instigate change.  I will present my point regarding this in a separate post but for now feel it's important to mention it here because it plays a large role in my definition for the Actor.

I, like my great friend, believe that art and the Actor's purpose IS to communicate.  However, I believe it is for the purpose to inspire change.  The Actor/Artist is an integral part in a creative collaboration.  The Actor/Artist "brings into creation" a character to service the story and the Writer and Director's vision.  There is a nobility to the Actor's purpose and in my mind it's that nobility that emboldens one to step into a role.

"The first essential to retain a youthful performance is to keep the idea of the play alive.  That is why the dramatist wrote it and that is why you decide to produce it.  One should not be on the stage, one should not put on a play for the sake of acting or producing only.  Yes, you must be excited about your profession.  You must love it devotedly and passionately, but not for itself, not for its laurels, not for the pleasure and delight it brings you as an artist.  You must love your chosen profession because it gives you the opportunity to communicate ideas that are important and necessary to your audience.  Because it gives you the opportunity, through the ideas that you dramatize on stage and through your characterizations, to educate your audience and make them better, finer, wiser, and more useful members of society...You must keep the idea alive and be inspired by it at each performance.  This is the only way to retain youthfulness in performance and your youthfulness as actors.  The true recreations of the play's idea--I emphasize the word true--demands from the artist wide and varied knowledge, constant self-discipline, the subordination of his personal tastes and habits to the demands of the idea, and sometimes even definite sacrifices." -Konstantin Stanislavsky, Stanislavsky Directs

I read this about a year ago and it inspired and solidified how I view the Actor.  Pursuing an artistic career is difficult enough these days and impossible without a driving belief at the core of your artistic identity.  In our modern age of American idolism and reality television the Actor is taking a back seat to the Entertainer.  I believe that, while the Actor can be an Entertainer, I do not think the Entertainer can be an Actor.  At least I have seen no evidence of it in our current situation.  The shortcut to fame has created a number of "actors" who "behave as if acting a part" but are really just playing dress up.  I believe it is time Actors are reminded of who they should be and what their noble purpose is--to humbly be in service of the story--to communicate--and to inspire change.

This is who an Actor is to me.