Technique and Value - Mastery and Liberation

In a letter from Franco Ruffini to Eugenio Barba, Ruffini mentions a distinction which he attributes to Stanislavsky regarding "the work of the actor" and "the work on oneself." The explanation is that Stanislavsky had entitled his first intended book for actors "The Work of the Actor On Oneself." And it's in two parts. Part one is "The Work on Oneself in the Creative Process of Experiencing." Part two is "The Work on Oneself in the Creative Process of Embodying." Ruffini implies that Stanislavsky, in titling his book so, had added two concepts together - work on oneself and work of the actor (work refers to training and preparation). In separating and explaining these two inter-related concepts Ruffini says "The work of the actor is the way to become a master; work on oneself is a way to become free. The way to master (the body, the feelings, the will) in opposition to the way to liberate (the body, the feelings, the will)."

I have had many conversations with friends and colleagues and students about this idea of Ruffini's. In setting Stanislavsky's work in this context of "mastery and liberation," Ruffini gives it an 'Eastern" philisophical bent - one that goes much further and is much wiser and much more insightful than merely saying Stanislavsky was influenced by Yoga or was "mystical." Ruffini goes on to put it in other terms though, "Western" terms if you will. He says "Mastery" is the way of "Technique" while "Liberation" is "Value." No matter the terms, to me there is brilliance in Ruffini's assesment - and truth, whether Stanislavsky overtly communicated such thoughts or not. An actor must master his/her body, feelings, will while at the same time freeing his/her body, feelings, will, arriving finally with technique and value.

What does it mean to "free" or "liberate" your body exactly? What would an example of such be? It sounds romantic and all to be free with your body and move uninhibitedly and all that. But thats a generalized condition and doesn't convey the precise work in this regard for the actor, of Stanislavsky and others intention. Therefore we turn Grotowski. We turn Strasberg, for concrete examples. Take a single, common, everyday gesture by an actor, something with the arms, hand, shoulder for example. In all probability the gesture is one of habit for the actor, one that he/she frequently generates in life as well. On the stage it may seem to the actor that he/she executed the gesture spontaneously - which may be true in one regard - but not in the important ones. The "value" of this habitual gesture would include its personal associations, its orgin, the level of awareness with which it was done, and its quality of energy. In all likihood it carries a large degree of "comfort" - rendering it banal. In short the body is slave to the habit in this case and all that does or doesn't go along with that in a particular gesture. Through concious technique though, ala Grotowski or Strasberg for example, technique which incompasses muscular relaxation, sensory awareness, rythm and energy and other related componets, the actor is able to "re-educate" their body and soon will reproduce the exact same gesture but now with a whole new "value." Through technique the body is freed from the habitual impulses and associations of its movement, and free now to imaginitively pick and choose, to create, its own impulses and associations. The same gesture is no longer banal but rather is imbued with an in-the-moment aliveness, executed with true spontenaiety and rich in meaning and consequence for both the actor and the spectator.

Master the technique and free the body. The same would be true for the feelings and the will if we follow through with Ruffini's premise.

This notion of "re-education," of mastery and liberation, for indeed it constitutes a re-education when undertaken, so as to be creatively free and not slave to habit, is the reason Stanislavsky stressed things like Sense Memory till his dying day and not Soviet Pavlovian ideas of Physical Action. One serves to assume and propose freedom of associations and impulses, the other assumes and proposes habitual and singular impulses and associations. And the layers, the depth and width of the genius of Stanislavsky's work and ideas becomes ever more intricate. His brilliance ever more clear.