As I continue my research for my portfolio I have observed the existing argument between imagination and presence. Actor training still currently relies on Stanislavski's system. Actors are encouraged to use their imagination to 'transform' themselves into a character, and the emphasis is placed heavily on the individual. It is interesting then to look at eastern styles of training, such as Suzuki, whose aim is to train the actor to be present at all times, constantly ready to accept and react to the unexpected. The emphasis is on the ensemble working together, and in order to do so, the actor can not escape or drift into his or her own imagination.
Today Darren and I participated in what has been labeled as 'the blind fold exercise'. Throughout Darren was really taunting me, tapping me in different places, lifting and spinning me, and overall, completely disorienting me. By the end I was truly exhausted, primarily physically, but my emotions had begun to creep in as well. Feeling abused and fatigued I felt on the verge of tears. Naturally I do not know what the experience was of watching this performance. However, I imagine this real human experience was theatrically interesting. Some would say this was not acting; however, I would argue that 'acting' is a subjective term. We naturally begin to portray a performative self when placed in front of others or a camera in this case. Furthermore, as the exercise progressed stories start to creep in. I imagined I was a prisoner of war at one point, then it seemed as though we were lovers fighting. See? It is impossible NOT to involve the imagination. But it is my belief that the answer to creating exciting theatre is through liveness (being present and allowing anything to happen), whether that is through true physical pain, exhaustion, or failure.