Exposition

Actor Self vs. Character Self: An Empirical Exploration (2012)

E. T. Hetzler

About this exposition

This work combines the results of an online survey about the experience of acting with interviews of many of the respondents to explore how actors describe the relationship between the character they portray in performance and their non-character selves. It also explores the role of emotion in this relationship.
typeresearch exposition
date01/01/2012
published05/11/2012
last modified05/11/2012
statuspublished
share statusprivate
licenseAll rights reserved
urlhttps://www.researchcatalogue.net/view/15971/15972
doihttps://doi.org/10.22501/jar.15971
published inJournal for Artistic Research
portal issue2.


Simple Media

id name copyright license
31049 Emotion I - Coral Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
31038 Relation to Character-Nelson Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
31022 Relation to Character-Gadzinski Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
31019 Relation to Character-Coral Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
31018 Relation to Character-Mills Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
31017 Emotion to Character - Gibson Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
31016 Emotion to Character - Kingsley Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
31009 Emotion to Character - Larsen Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
31005 Emotion to Character - Nelson Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
31004 Emotion to Character - Lange Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
31000 Love - Kingsley Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
30999 Love - Coral Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
30995 Emotion to Character - Bass Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
30990 Emotion to Character - Bass Hetzler 2012 All rights reserved
18243 Q-96 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
18241 Q-95 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
18239 Q-94 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
18238 Q94-96 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17895 Interviewee Demographics Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17893 Q-54 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17891 Questionnaire Answers Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17889 Q121 Answers Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17886 Q121 Answers Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17884 Q-121 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17876 Q-110 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17874 Q-79 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17872 Cross Tab 96-68 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17869 Q94-96 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17867 Cross Tab 68-66 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17865 Q-68 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17863 Q-66 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17861 Q 119 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17858 D:\Q 51 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17856 JPEG 51 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17855 JPEG 51 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17853 Questionnaire pdf Eric Hetzler All rights reserved
17850 Questionnaire 5 Eric Hetzler All rights reserved
17848 Questionnaire 4 Eric Hetzler All rights reserved
17846 Questionnaire 3 Eric Hetzler All rights reserved
17844 Questionnaire 2 Eric Hetzler All rights reserved
17840 Questionnaire Eric Hetzler All rights reserved
17832 Q-64 Eric Hetzler All rights reserved
17779 D:\Graph 51 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17774 Frequency Analysis US Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17478 Dr Eric Hetzler Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17344 Q51 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17342 Q-51 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17339 Q51.jpg Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17340 Q51.jpg Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17068 Q 51 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17065 Q 51 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17063 Q51 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
17060 Q51 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16954 A. Antoine Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16807 The Survey Questionnaire Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16795 Love - Coral Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16793 Love - Kingsley Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16785 Love - Urich Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16783 Everyday vs Stage - Eifrig Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16780 Everyday vs Stage - Coral Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16779 Emotion to Character - Lange Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16750 Emotion to Character - Nelson Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16749 Emotion to Character - Eifrig Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16748 Emotion to Character - Johnson Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16747 Emotion to Character - Bass Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16736 Emotion to Character - Pallant Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16433 Q54 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16429 Everyday vs Stage - Coral Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16403 Emotion to Character - Lange Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16399 Emotion to Character - Nelson Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16396 Emotion to Character - Eifrig Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16393 Emotion to Character - Johnson Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16391 Emotion to Character - Bass Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16375 Emotion to Character - Healy Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16372 Emotion to Character - Levin Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16369 Emotion to Character - Larsen Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16325 Emotion to Character - Bucholz Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16312 Emotion to Character - Leonard Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16309 Emotion to Character - Kingsley Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16304 Emotion to Character - Gibson Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16300 Q94-95-96 Interviewee Answers Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16299 Q94-95-96 Charts Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16295 Q121 Interviewee Answers Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16289 Q121 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16276 Relation to Character - Mills Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16266 Relation to Character-Coral Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16262 Relation to Character - Lange Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16181 Relation to Character-Gadzinski Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16176 Relation to Character-Nelson Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16174 Relation to Character - Weakly Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16067 Emotion to Character - Nelson Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16065 Actor Interview Demographics Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16057 Q110 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16055 Q79 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16053 Q68-96 Cross Tab Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16051 Q94-95-96 Interviewee Answers Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16049 Q94-95-96 Charts Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16047 Q66-68 Cross Tab Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16044 Q68 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16042 Q66 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16041 Q66 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16039 Q119 Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16037 Q64 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved
16030 Q51 Chart Hetzler, 2012 All rights reserved

comments: 2 (last entry by Esa Kirkkopelto - 10/11/2012 at 12:21)
David Roesner 05/11/2012 at 16:16

I should start by saying that have thoroughly enjoyed reading Eric Hetzler’s submission and watching the rich material he provides. I find this research highly interesting, and it is conducted with a great amount of insight and integrity.

Hetzler tackles an age-old question in a new original way. Most often we find ‘acting’ to be described and interrogated in one of three ways: (1) in general theories on the cultural phenomenon of acting exploring what it means to act – these can be philosophically interesting, but often quite removed from day to day acting reality; (2) in instruction manuals on ‘how to act’, which seek to provide a tool-kit, often for one approach singled out as the ‘right’ one, (3) through biographies and anecdotes, usually with an air of reverence and celebration of the star actor. Hetzler, however, uses empirical evidence – both through a quantitative study of questionnaires as well as a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews – to dig deeper and to provide much more accurate insights on what actually happens during acting and how actors reflect on the relationship between themselves and their characters.

The way this is conducted is thorough and it produces interesting results and access to a wide range of views and practices  - a quarry for actors and theatre scholars alike.

Hetzler’s submission does leave me with two open questions, however:
Does his research not challenge or at least stretch the idea of JAR as an online journal committed to practice as research? The research is – in a good way – traditional, both in its methods and form of dissemination and while Hetzler’s findings are highly relevant for practice and practitioners, I would perhaps not call it ‘artistic research’. It is research about practice, not through practice. Or do we need to redefine practice to include field research, interviewing, empirical research?

My second question is where Hetzler’s research stands in relation to the more current (and perhaps more European) discourse on acting which documents an overwhelming trend towards the dissolution or redefinition of the actor’s task in the contexts of devising, postdramatic theatre, presentation vs. representational acting, acting as task performance, etc. This goes back at least to Brecht’s notion of acting as “showing that you are showing” (Street Scene) and has recently led to a number of publications interrogating conventions of acting [Rey, Anton, Kurzenberger, Hajo & Müller, Stephan, Wirkungsmaschine Schauspieler – Vom Menschendarsteller zum multifunktionalen Spielemacher (Berlin/Köln, 2011); Roselt, Jens & Weiler, Christel (eds.), Schauspielen heute (Bielefeld, 2011); Zarrilli, Phillip, Acting (Re)considered (London & New York, 2002), Philip Auslander, From Acting to Performance (London, 1997) to name but a few)].

I do think Hetzler’s research is important and relevant since – quantitatively speaking – a lot of acting (particularly in the UK and US) probably still finds itself within the naturalist/realist paradigm, which means that the reality of most actors is creating fictional characters on stage based on dramatic writing. There are, however, strong and hugely influential trends in theatre and its scholarship / theorization, which question this very paradigm and debate whether for example Iffland’s notion of acting as Menschendarstellung (representations of man) is still current.

Hetzler gets a lot out of his premise and his methods of enquiry and has managed to synthesize what must be a larger piece of work into a succinct, accessible and well-presented online exposition, which will complement JAR’s range of topics and forms of submission.

Esa Kirkkopelto 10/11/2012 at 12:21

I am pleased that the author engages so straightforwardly his subject, i.e. classical questions related to the actor’s practice considered from the point of view of the actors themselves. These questions, as the author points out, have not lost their actuality or relevance.

The actor’s distance or separatedness in relation to the “character” is supposed already at the beginning (even in the title) and this presupposition  - a real hypothesis - conditions also all the questions presented. This methodological choice clearly undermines the results.

A relation between methodology and outcomes remains unclear. What the “majority” proves here in general? – What do actors usually think about their own work? – The theoretical truth concerning the basis of actor’s technique? – The judgement concerning what their work should be or how it should be discussed? These are all different things. The conclusions remain open partly because the motives are not clearly stated.

Is an actor a beholder of a specific knowledge concerning his or her art?
 
The research produces a huge amount of information but the conclusions drawn remain a bit modest since the initial focus remains unarticulated.

I would have expected a more “qualitative” analysis of the answers the respondents have formulated by themselves. These answers are in my mind the richest and most potential part of the material. Now, very little attention is paid to the way the interviewed put their words, articulate their experiences. Instead, the focus resides in the contents of the questions (this MAY be due to the method chosen but I cannot say this for sure). The interviewed people are now discussing their issues by using the vocabulary and terminology suggested by the author. Even though the interviewed are asked to “describe” their work, they are not encouraged to change the terminology, the discourse dominating their practice (and you do not need to be Foucauldian to ask this!). As a result, the discourse risks to remain captured by the dialectics whose guidelines are already set in Diderot, if not in Plato (cf. “puppet” paradigm) instead of trying to find a way out of it.

In my mind the greatest potential resides in the anomalies and inconsequence of actors’ talk: in the artistic logic, which cannot (and in my mind should not) be reduced to “everyday” discourse (which here seems to be synonymous for “empirical”). The state where an actor finds him or herself as separated from his or her character is certainly not an everyday state of mind! However, the actors are not asked to describe this state / or they are compelled to speak about it as if they were “themselves” beside their character. The artist’s point of view is missed on the discursive level. This clearly undermines the status of the research as “practice-based” or “artistic” research.

Despite my criticism I bear a deep sympathy towards Mr. Hetzler’s research as well as his personal commitment. There is no doubt about the importance and sincerity of his endeavour.

Comments are only available for registered users.
join the research catalogue
Portals The research catalogue serves:
Journal for Artistic Research
a peer-reviewed international journal for all art disciplines
KC Research Portal
Research Portal of the Royal Conservatoire, The Hague
Norwegian Artistic Research Programme
The portal of the Norwegian Artistic Research Programme
RUUKKU - Studies in Artistic Research
Taiteellisen tutkimuksen kausijulkaisu / Studies in Artistic Research
University of Applied Arts Vienna
RC portal of the University of Applied Arts Vienna
Journal of Sonic Studies
A peer-reviewed, international journal on sound studies and auditory culture
Academy of Creative and Performing Arts
Portal of the Academy of Creative and Performing Arts, Leiden University
Faculty of Fine Art, Music and Design, University of Bergen
Portal of Faculty of Fine Art, Music and Design
Polifonia
Polifonia
Codarts
Portal of Codarts, University of the Arts, Rotterdam
Stockholm University of the Arts (SKH)
Stockholm University of the Arts (SKH) provides education and conducts research in the fields of choreography, film & media, opera and performing arts.
University of the Arts Helsinki
University of the Arts Helsinki was launched in 2013 upon the merging of the Finnish Academy of Fine Arts, Sibelius Academy, and Theatre Academy Helsinki.
Norwegian Academy of Music
A leading artistic and academic university college with approximately 700 students. Located in Oslo, Norway.
The Danish National School of Performing Arts
This portal is a platform for distribution of knowledge produced through artistic research at the Danish National School of Performing Arts.
VIS – Nordic Journal for Artistic Research
VIS – Nordic Journal for Artistic Research
Rhythmic Music Conservatory Copenhagen
The portal of Rhythmic Music Conservatory Copenhagen
Konstfack – University of Arts, Crafts and Design
Konstfack – University of Arts, Crafts and Design, Stockholm
NTNU
UNDER CONSTRUCTION. Description to be implemented
DMARC University of Derby
DMARC is the portal of the Digital and Material Artistic Research Centre at the University of Derby (UK).
The Research Catalogue server is operated at
KTH's IT-department