THEATRE OF ACTOR-AUTHOR 1, Theatre of Liberated Desire - MILICA DJUKIC - E-Book

THEATRE OF ACTOR-AUTHOR 1, Theatre of Liberated Desire E-Book

MILICA DJUKIC

0,0
7,99 €

oder
Beschreibung

    The ground-breaking work of the founder of Theatre of Actor-Author, MILICA DJUKIC, Hungarian-Montenegrin actress, merges together the dominant and the subversive, the inner and outer, the past and the future.

       MILICA DJUKIC, depicts and explains her original hypothesis in the field of acting in theatre that acknowledges scenic text, and where the actor is the author of the complete scenic work. In a series of books, she depicts processes of decomposition, genesis, cancellation and abolishment of a role, examining different types and kinds of concentration of an actor, in an individual and collective search that paves the way for many different directions of the theatre of the future.
In the end, the actor-author becomes a complete author of a unique scenic language, opening the door for the continuation of the human theatre, with or without the aid of technology.
        MILICA DJUKIC leans onto what is learned and mastered, lists her influences (amongst which the theatre of monodramas of Maxim Gorky and of Spalding Gray), digs into the realms of post-structuralist philosophy (Gilles Deleuze), yet rebels against the same influences (what is learned and mastered), deepening the insight in her gradual research which is aimed towards the liberation of an actor from any adverse stimuli-reaction motivation, in a theatre where the actor is the complete author (or one of the authors) of the entire scenic work (inside and outside of the Theatre of Actor-Author and the 4th Curtain (Quadrant) and beyond)).
          Today and tomorrow, You are more than a quadrant, inside or outside of the Theatre of the Actor-Author, you can be an author too. In her 25 years of work, MILICA DJUKIC starts with the depiction of the abolishment of a role, and finishes with the outlines of the cancellation of universal laws of representation; inside and outside of the universal symbolism, seeking the future in which traditions with no drama, or even acting, or acting theory are equated amongst many different directions of the theatre of the future. In her work, through a series of books, MILICA DJUKIC, tries to depict what Lee Breuer once called the "third revolution" in theatre, that of the Actor (author).

Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:

EPUB
Bewertungen
0,0
0
0
0
0
0



THEATRE OF ACTOR-AUTHOR 1

Theatre of

Liberated Desire

Towards the theatre of liberated desire

MILICA DJUKIC

Copyright © 2021 Milica Djukic

All rights reserved.

DEDICATION

Dedicated to my father

I have made a secret goal.

Table of Contents

1. ACTOR IN THEATRE OF SPONTANEITY

2. EXPANDING FUNCTION OF ACTOR-AUTHOR IN CONTEMPORARY POSTDRAMATIC THEATRE

3. EXPANDING FUNCTION OF »MAGIC IF« CIRCUMSTANCES

4. NEGOTIATING OF MYTH, OR MODEL OF FLEXIBLE ROLE AND ACTING ARCHETYPE

5. ACTOR CREATES SCENARIO, CHOOSING A ROUTE OF PASSABILITY

6. TOTAL SENSITIVITY OF ACTOR

7. TRANSFORMATION OF AUDIENCE, TOTAL SENSITIVITY OF SPECTATOR

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

9. ABOUT THE AUTHOR

 

 

I dedicate this book to myself, and the search

of my own identity and what I want to keep of it.

Towards myself and towards others

1

ACTOR IN THEATRE OF SPONTANEITY

A

s one of the possible directions of the theatre of the future, it is advisable to examine the interdependent relationship of the fictive role, real identity of the actor, the entire scenic work and the spectator. In that sense, in the Theatre of Spontaneity the specific acting techniques are developed that are examining and explaining this further.

Today, within the contemporary postdramatic theatre, we speak about the concept of acting and ’non-acting’, that is, about the process of montage of deconstruction and the process of reconstruction of the dramatic text. We also speak about the processes of deconstruction and synthesis of the actor’s role (or at least, this is the way I understand the processes in contemporary postdramatic theatre).

The actor creates a dynamic model of drama, as a web of sensations, where the actor creates a dimension of absolute freedom (surplus reality), or conducts the change at will in his real environment and gets freed from the conditional nature of reacting on stage (total sensitivity, or total conductivity).

The actor has the responsibility, towards himself, the theatre and the spectator, but also towards his own identity; in the theatre more broadly perceived as a scheme of change or transformation. Theatre of Spontaneity is an action model of the gradual work of the actor who comes to a change by changing both himself and the spectator.

Further directions of exploring the Theatre of Spontaneity, i.e. exploring of the theatre of the actor—author, where we speak about the processes of decomposition and synthesis of the role, that is, about the process of decomposition of a man, are divided into several segments, and will be described in the following chapters:

Affirmation and negation of the actor as the author of a scenic work.

Provoking the change at will and the abolishment of the will of the actor—author

Flexible role of the actor and the crystal of total act

Decomposition and synthesis of role; total sensitivity of the actor

The art of acting as the dynamic model of change (exploring the possibility of absolutization of the acting transformation)

The notion of the static moment of

crisis

and the direct experience of movement and playing a role

The web of sensations, the actor’s expression and his kinaesthetic sense

Unity of the subject and object in the Theatre of Spontaneity

Experience of movement and playing a role; the real identity of actor and the process of decomposition of a man

Importance of dynamization of actor’s attention (concentration)

Drama and acting as the art of self-transformation give the actor a choice and responsibility. Using the structure and his own liberated desire, he forms a dynamic model of drama as a unique web of sensations; and extinguishes a form of his aspiration, by exploring his real identity, and by liberating himself from a drama.

The true nature of acting representation, is the creation of space and the specific temporal dimension of absolute freedom (the process of decomposition of a man and the rhizomatic series of transformations); or the creation of a specific change under will in one’s own real environment. The actor-author creates a scenic work which explores the interdependent relationship of the fictive role, the real identity of an actor, and the web of sensations being proposed.

Through creation and interpretation, the actor creates an object the part of which he is, and from which he is distanced, through a gradual process of work, and a direct experience of playing a role whose goal is self-transformation, or the extension of consciousness.

The actor shows why he decides to play a certain role at a given moment.

The actor observes his real identity thereby creating a web of sensations that includes his own drama.

The spontaneous intuition is important in the actor’s work on the role and the whole entirety of the scenic work.

The actor’s work while going through the role and his work on the entire scenic play, and/or the montage of performative sequences and events; is in an interdependent relationship with the process of decomposition of a man (and/or the deconstruction and synthesis of role).

The Theatre of Spontaneity does not deprive the actor of responsibility towards his real identity. The role and the dynamic model of drama is viewed as a flux, or as a rhizomatic series of transformations, that is, the opening of the space of liminality; in the theatre perceived as a wider scheme of change or transformation.

The first requirement of the actor, and the purpose of his direct experience of playing a role on stage, is the actor’s responsibility towards his real identity, and/or the examination of the right reasons why he is coming on stage at the present moment.

Using excises of spontaneous selection and montage, i.e. creating a dynamic model of drama, (a certain sequence of events and/or a web of sensations), the actor does not concentrate so much on the meaning or the content, but on the points of transformation of the role, i.e. on the decision-making process, or on "becoming". 1

The actor must go beyond the series of events, that is, the cause-consequence structure of the drama, as a model that interprets the idea and the message of the writer. With his intervention in space and time, the actor produces a stage substance, in the theatre in which he is an author or one of the authors of the entire scenic work. Actor has to go beyond the attitude that interprets the idea of the writer or contradicts it, and/or express his own attitude,2 towards creating the dimension of absolute freedom that is, provoking a change in his own real environment, and accepting his own deepest identity.

By exploring the interdependent relationship between the experience of movement on stage and the experience of playing a role, and by exploring the relationship between the subject and the object on stage; (through dynamization of his attention), the actor comes to a simple, liberated desire that creates a change. This process introduces the new risks and opportunities, because the actor abandons a certain repetitive pattern of reaction on stage (that starts from the cause-consequence connection of the model of drama and scenic elements), and uses free associations, spontaneous intuition; whereby extending his creative consciousness and releasing himself from the drama.

The actor creates a dynamic model of drama, as well as a dispersive model that connects a flexible role with all the scenic elements, by the montage sequence, rhythm, and the actor's intervention in space and time. We can mark this model as the model of decomposition of the drama and decomposition of a man. It can be said, that in the theatre that explores the relationship of the actor’s real identity and the role, the actor is in the process of “becoming”, accepting and deconstructing his own identity: and accepting a manifold, multiple, and multifaceted identity.3

We can speak about the art of acting as of a “becoming”, flux, but also as a static (unchanging category), an archetype of acting, whose nature is a rhizomatic transformation.4 Through the processes of acting and non—acting, that is (decomposition) and synthesis of the role, the actor opens up the space of liminality (i.e., "becoming", he is limited but also open to boundless possibilities). The actor creates the space of absolute freedom (surplus reality)5, by creating a unique web of sensations and exploring the range of roles that he plays in his real life) and causes a change at will.

The Theatre of Liberated Desire explores the relation of real identity of the actor and the fictive role, the entirety of the scenic work, and the intervention of actor in space and time; that is of all scenic elements, rhythm and excises of spontaneous selection and montage. Within the framework of the research conducted within the Theatre of Spontaneity (or the Theatre of Liberated Desire), the key in exploring the possibility of merging with the archetype of acting, and/or absorbing any individuality (which is explained as total sensitivity or total conductivity of the actor)6 is the exploration of the relation of the actor’s concentration and experience of movement and playing a role within a unique web of sensations that is being proposed.7

The Theatre of Spontaneity proposes a model of the theatre in which the actor brings in a concept and works on it. But one should go beyond the concept, and farther from conditionality, towards the extension of the actor's consciousness. Only the extension of the actor’s consciousness leads farther from the extension of the senses and the acting as art of reacting, towards the change at will, and the liberation of the insensible truth.

By exploring his own real identity and the possibility of merging with the archetype of acting at the moment of creation, the actor creates a model of drama as an expression of his simple desire, and/or understanding of his deepest identity that is provoking of the change at will.

The processes of decomposition and synthesis of the role can also be depicted as the examination of the relationship between the real identity of actor and the archetype of acting (through the web of sensations or the system of associations being proposed), and/or examination of the manifold and multifaceted quality of the acting transformation and the opening of the space of liminality.

In the previous research of the Theatre of Spontaneity, a tripartite model of a flexible role was used, that describes the elements enabling the actor to explore his real identity through the model of drama (and all the scenic elements), and his own function — of an actor as improviser.

Thus, the flexible role in books “Towards the Theatre of Spontaneity I” and “Working through a Role” is displayed through the model (real (our daily “self”)), the role (character) and “I" as an improviser)).8 In Theatre of Spontaneity we study these elements of the flexible role through the dramatic, psychodramatic situation, the process of the decomposition of a man and the actor’s participation in the creation of the entire scenic work (as a unique web of sensations).

The Theatre of Spontaneity starts from the standpoint that the role and function of the actor—author is basically compatible with the very nature of the creativity of acting (and its integrating feature). The scenic work should engage the whole organism of the actor, to enable him to react, but also to produce and create. Drama (the scenic work) is created for the theatre, and has to be created on other grounds, which are less harmful to the actor’s identity, and the concept of harmful identification with the role (catharsis), or, in contrast to that, the process of abolishment of the role. Also, it is important to examine the function of a flexible role through the model of drama; as the web of sensations, and /or through the proposed points of transformation of the role and procedures of the decomposition of man and disorganization of organism. 9

In postdramatic theatre today, there is a certain affirmation and negation of the role, that is, its simultaneous formation and abolishment — through the existence of one model as a conductor of a pre-arranged and invisible structure (where the actor is exposed and sacrificed) in the act of complete giving)).

Merging with the archetype of acting, at the time of creation,10 represents the moment of the broadening of the actor’s consciousness and/or directed action, movement, the experience of playing a role, and the decision of the actor driven by his spontaneous, simple desire (the process of abolishment of the role and gaining of a different insight through unselfishness).

We speak about the role as about the process of “becoming” exploration of the interdependent relation of the static element of crisis, the real identity of the actor, the fictive role and the unique web of sensations that is proposed (the abolishment of the will of the actor-author). Through the invisible model of decomposition of a man, and/or the processes of acting and non-acting, we describe the cohesive effect of the flexible role, but also the process of annihilation, which ends with the absorbing of any individuality into infinity (archetype of acting as a rhizomatic series of transformations).

The process of abolishment of the role (and exploration of the total sensibility (total conductivity of the actor)) opens up the space towards exploration of the interdependent relationship between the actor's real identity, the fictive role and the process of "becoming" (or the possibility of the absolutization of the acting transformation). On this path, Grotowski11 and all the great theatricians of acting start from the fact that the actor should be freed from what prevents him or leads his creation to a futile repetition, instead of fullness, spontaneity and conducting a change at will.

The abolishment of the role, (i.e. the abolishment and re-definition of the role), takes the actor away from the frame of direct experience of movement on stage and playing a role, to the space of liminality and performing the change; i.e. to total sensitivity or total conductivity.

The actor’s intervention in time and space, and the experience of movement on stage; makes a dynamic model of drama, (which acknowledges the real identity of the actor), in the theatre perceived as a wider scheme of transformation; where the actor is freed from conditional reacting on stage and performs a change at will.

The element “not-I”,12 as a part of the flexible role which introduces the principle of annihilation (in all the three parts of the role), stands for the catalyst of the change, an element of the multifaceted, in the dynamic model of drama, in the theatre where the actor is an author, or one of the authors.

By examining why the actor here and now is playing a certain role, the actor goes beyond the nature of the conditional reacting, through creation of the entire scenic work (as a unique web of sensations).

The flexible role in the Theatre of Spontaneity is displayed as a model (real “self” (our daily “self”), the role (character) and “I” as an improviser13, These three elements are explored in the Theatre of Spontaneity through the dramatic, psychodramatic situation, and through a participation of the actor in the creation of the composition of the whole scenic play (as a unique web of sensations)."14

However, now it seems that the proposed scheme of the flexible role, which I am proposing in this book, is basically incomplete. The dynamic, flexible role that is formed through the preparation of the actor, concentration, attention, repetition, punctuation, probably contains one part that is unchanged, eternal, that is, a part that we can mark as the archetype of acting, or the space outside of myself, or "not-I"; an element that speaks about the invisible, and the unknown, and which corresponds to the actor’s search for continuity. This element, at the same time, is contained in all three elements; permeating, ignoring, clashing and complementing each other. That is, the fourth element in such a proposed scheme corresponds to actor’s need for self-exploration and self-improvement, i.e. the need for the actor’s skill to be understood not only as the use of senses and responses, but as the liberation from the desire and recognition of real substance. The fifth element is the scenic play as a dynamic model of drama or a unique web of sensations, which is linked with the idea of the possibility of absolutization of acting transformation, and examination of the interdependent relationship of the real identity of the actor, role, and the archetype of acting.

The model of a flexible role (speaks about the process of decomposition of a man and the liberation of his simple (spontaneous) desire. The total sensitivity, that is, the total conductivity of the actor, represents the release of the actor’s simple desire, which has the potential to cause a change (in the real environment) and free the actor from the nature of conditional reacting on stage.

Breaking down the conditionality and cause-effect model of drama, that is, exploration of the possibility of absolutization of the acting transformation through a unique web of sensations (and the dynamic model of drama) that acknowledges his real identity, offers the actor an instant insight — but also figures as a gradual process that speaks about the true nature of acting representation. Liberating the actor's thoughts from the nature of conditional reacting on stage, through the experience of movement on stage, and playing the role (by using excises of spontaneous selection and montage); represents one of the actors' tasks in the Theatre of Spontaneity.

In the work on the performances, within the Theatre of Spontaneity, the work of the actor was process driven, and a different working through the flexible roles has influenced the structure and dynamics of the entire scenic work, like the scenic work in the process of creation has influenced working through the role (i.e., its interaction with the spectator).

Expanding the model of drama as an action model; and the possibility of absolutization of the acting transformation, is interconnected with the dynamization of the actor's attention and the experience of movement on stage, or provoking of a concrete change at the will of an actorin his real environment.

The process of decomposition of a man, and the processes of observation and action, are related to the dynamic model of drama proposed by the actor (and with the processes of decomposition and synthesis of an actor's role) within a unique web of sensations.

In his book "Elements of Acting"/Elementi glume, Rasa Plaovic mentions three processes that are important for the actor's acting in the Theatre of Spontaneity:

Observation of facts without internal reaction - objective observation

Observing ourselves and the happenings within us - subjective observation

Action - the state "I am", that is, our personal active participation in the work, with a full sense of responsibility for what is being done.«

15

»The Theatre of Spontaneity considers that these three processes can have a certain function in the process of creation of a model of a flexible role in the theatre of improvisation where the actor is one of the authors of the entire scenic work.«16

Action is a very important notion in the art of acting, because it suggests activity, participation (interaction – and/or direct experience), which most often initiates a change.

These three conditions and processes are equally important for the spectator in the postdramatic theatre, who participates in a total act, that is, in the creation of a dynamic model of drama as a unique web of sensations and the process of decomposition of a man; through the system of free associations, interpretation and participation.

We view the concentration (focus) of the actor in an interdependent relationship with the direct experience of movement and playing the role, i.e. together with the unity of the subject and object on stage (total sensibility, or total conductivity — the actor is united with all scenic elements).

Separation from oneself and introspection, the state of action ("I" am), and the role of an actor as an improviser are important in the actor's work on the entire scenic work (whose author is the actor) or one of the authors. These elements must also be included by the model of a flexible role, in a theatre where an actor affects the entire scenic work (aware of his responsibility (as an artist)) and aware of the responsibility towards his real identity.

The dynamization of concentration (focus) of an actor, is in an interdependent relationship with his spontaneous desire that leads him to the release from the conditionality of reaction on stage, within the unique web of sensation being proposed. The model of drama proposed by the actor, respects his real identity and serves as a web of sensations, which describes various intensities, energy and speed; i.e. the actor's intervention in space and time.

The aim is to provoke a change of the state (concrete, real change) in the theatre that explores the range of roles that an actor plays in his real life; and in the semi-realistic situation of a game.

Anti-model of decomposition of a man (in a dynamic model of drama) exists as some kind of encrypted code; or as a web of sensations that depicts the unity of the subject and object on stage (i.e. the absolutization of the actor's body and transformation in thought).

"There are only becomings and blocs, childhood blocs, blocs of femininity, of animality, blocs of present becoming, and nothing of the memorial, the imaginary or the symbolic. Desire is no more symbolic than figurative, no more signified than signifier: it is made up of different lines which cross, articulate or impede each other and which constitute a particular montage on a plane of immanence."17

»We simply say that desire is inseparable from a plane of consistence which must be constructed every time piece by piece and from assemblages on this plane, continuums, combinations, emissions.«18

"Like Deleuze and Guattari’s conception of the BwO (Body without Organs), Deleuze’s discussion on time relates to the conception of subjectivity, consciousness and the possible constitution (past, future) or the nature of being. The BwO is a way of apprehending the power of an assemblage of subjectivity... (...) Thus, BwO is not space, it is a matter, and above all, it is the potential energy of "becoming" through intensities"19

The structure of the scenic work, in the Theatre of Spontaneity, is achieved by actor's intervention in time and space, which we view as the line of aspiration of the actor's desire (continuum, flux, static moment of crisis and resolution). Several rhythms, several speeds, are figuring in the process of "becoming," i.e., the model of decomposition of a man, being proposed through a dynamic model of drama as a web of sensations of various intensities.

Movement (movement on stage) as a manifestation of desire, flow (flux), and the experience of playing a role, is examined within a unique web of sensations, where the actor is freed from drama. Through the processes of deconstruction of drama, and the creation of a dynamic model, which examines the relationship of the real identity of the actor and the fictive role, an actor strives towards the realization of the possibility of absolution of transformation, and conducting the change at will.

The act of reterritorialization and the process of creation and abolishment of the role, speak of the specific intervention of the actor-author in space and time, and/or of the creation of a dynamic model of drama, as a unique web of sensations.

The process of decomposition of a man, (direct experience of playing a role and movement on stage) releases that non-sensory truth that allows recognition, and acquisition of a different insight.

The simple desire of an actor-author is related to the exploration of the relationship between the experience of motion, and the experience of movement, music and lighting on stage, that is, transferring of all scenic elements, and the experience of playing a role in a web of sensations (i.e. a model that contains or describes the process of decomposition of a man).

"(…)Yet he does touch on something which we may be able to reach by a different route. I mean the very crux of the actor's art: that what the actor achieves should be (let's not be afraid of the name) a total act, that he does whatever he does with his entire being, and not just one mechanical (and therefore rigid) gesture of arm or leg, not any grimace, helped by a logical inflection and a thought.

No thought can guide the entire organism of an actor in any living way. It must stimulate him, and that is all it really can do. Without commitment, his organism stops living, his impulses grow superficial. Between a total reaction and a reaction guided by a thought there is the same difference as between a tree and a plant. In the final result we are speaking of the impossibility of separating spiritual and physical. The actor should not use his organism to illustrate a "movement of the soul", he should accomplish this movement with his organism."20

We look at the breaking down of the conditionality and causality of stage, as the possibility of absolutization of the acting transformation through the processes of decomposition and "becoming", i.e. opening of the space of liminality, between two manifold or multifaceted possibilities.21

»Becoming is "always in the middle" and in between. We might be tempted to think of becoming in terms of where and who we were, when we started and where or who we are when we end up. But becoming is not about origins, progressions or ends; rather it is about lines and intensities (...). Deleuze and Gauttari described the movement of becoming as "rhizomatic".«22

»Becoming breaks down our idea of who we are and what we can be beyond the categories that seem to define us: beyond the boundaries separating human being from animal, man from woman, child from adult, micro from macro, and even perceptible and understandable from the imperceptible and incomprehensible...Becoming moves us beyond our need to know (the truth, what is real, and what makes us human); beyond our determination to control (life, nature, the universe); and beyond our desire to consume of subjectivity or possess (pleasure, beauty, goodness, innocence), etc.«23

The true nature of acting representation, or activity, exists in the present, yet it is described through the models of decomposition of a man, and the unlimited process of "becoming", that is, through the examination of the interdependent relationship of the absolutization of the actor's body, and the nature of the total act.

In the theatre where the actor creates a dimension of absolute freedom in the semi-realistic situation of the play; where he intervenes in time and space; the actor is driven by his spontaneous desire, comes to a change (whereby aspiring to total sensitivity or total conductivity).

This is the theatre where the actor goes beyond the psychological motivations and directions of the writer, where he examines the connection between his entire sensory-motor reactions, thoughts, emotions and movements on stage, creating an entire scenic work; or creating new intelligibility.

Reaching the archetype of acting and the return to the level of physical representation is described through the examination of the interdependent relationship of the real identity of an actor and the role, that is, as the creation of a dynamic model of drama as a unique web of sensations; which may have a certain curative effect for the actor. The model of the role and the entire scenic work, suggest the release from the drama through the examination of the interdependent relationship of the real identity of the actor, the fictive role (and archetype of acting), through the direct experience of playing a role and movement on stage; which we view in relation to the proposed points of transformation of the role (nodes of events and the montage of performative sequences) and the search for guidelines (passages) that dynamize the actor's presence and movement. The flexible role of the actor in the Theatre of Spontaneity is described as a flux, a constant movement, but also as a static model examining the actor's real identity, and a series of multiple (multifaceted transformations).

The actor produces the dynamic model of drama in the Theatre of Spontaneity, through the examination of the relation between deconstruction and the synthesis of the role, movement on stage and all scenic elements, in the shared situation of shared time in the theatre (that is, in the situation of 'momentariness' and 'liveness' - where we observe the relationship of an actor and a spectator).

The actor, driven by his simple desire, uses the excises of spontaneous selection and montage, and through his intervention in time and space examines the range of roles he plays in his real life; as well as the level of uniformity and balance of these roles.

The examination of dynamization of the actor's attention and the interdependent relationship of internal and external impulses, within the unique web of sensations being proposed in the Theatre of Spontaneity, speaks about the victory of the senses and the nature of conditional reacting on stage.

»To identify does not mean only to recognise something within the same repetitive context but also to explore other contexts; to see beyond what the eye sees, to hear beyond what the ear hears, to feel beyond what touches the skin, to think beyond what words mean.«24

The focus (concentration) of the actor, and the experience of playing a role and movement on stage, are explored as the main catalyst for change, in the dynamic model of drama that leaves the actor a choice. The actor is responsible at all times to the material and the spectator, as well as to his real identity, within the dynamic model of drama. By creating a unique web of sensations, the actor examines dramatic and psychodrama situations, that is, the connection between his attention, the object on stage, and the conscious selection of the direction of movement.

In a theatre where the actor performs a change at will, and where the model of disorganization of the organism is present, the actor creates a scenario, using his full sensory-motor attention (total sensitivity, or total conductivity).

By using the excises of spontaneous selection and montage, the actor creates a space of absolute freedom (surplus reality), where he performs a change at will, and gains a different insight.

A simple or spontaneous desire of actor, perceived as a work, refers to the metamorphosis without an aim, and/or the opposition to the rigid consciousness and the spontaneous unconscious, which speaks of a potential of a subjectivity, which produces a change in the actor’s environment.

The liberation of the actor from a drama is reflected by the actor not renouncing the responsibility for his real identity, and the creation of a dynamic model of drama as an expression of the spontaneous desire of an actor who strives towards total sensitivity; performing a change and gaining a different insight.

The processing work of the actor-author, and the examination of the reasons why he plays a certain role at the present moment, and working on the entire scenic work, has something to do with the study of forces that connect us, working through the flexible role and the actor’s will and aspiration to discover his deepest identity.

The intervention of an actor-author in space and time, that is, provoking a change at will in the semi-realistic situation of the play, but also in his specific environment, refers to the working through a flexible role and the creation of a dynamic model of drama, examining the interdependent relationship of the actor’s real identity, his direct experience of playing a role and his movement on stage (and the true nature of the acting representation).

In all previous acting techniques, the first postulate of acting and the activities on stage, are related to the liberation of muscles (the body), that is, the recognition of the spontaneous, simple desire of an actor.

»If one’s own body is thus used not as the subject of action but at the same time as its object, as signifying material, then this procedure annuls all aesthetic distance – for the artists themselves as much as for the audience. (...) In theatre, too, the moment of self-transformation can be reached but theatre stops short of turning it into an absolute. While actors want to realize unique moments, they also want to repeat them. (...) But they want to repeat the process the next day as themselves.«25

When considering the interrelated relationship between the problem of repetition and the possibility of the absolutization of the actor's transformation (that is, the direct experience of movement of the actor and of playing a role); the key lies in expanding the consciousness, that is, to bringing about a gradual process of preparing the scenic work (the model of drama) that is produced for the stage (whose author or one of the authors the actor), in connection with the right reasons why the actor is coming out on stage, and the conscious selection of the direction of movement. Therefore, the question of the dynamization of the actor's attention in the Theatre of Spontaneity is connected with a unique web of sensations that is being proposed, but also with the dynamics of gaining the insights of the actor, in the process of his gradual work

Ann Dennis26, talks about creating illusion of a character of physical being, where generalities and clichés have no place.

"Actors must first work with their bodies. They need to identify the "physical feelings" and not to come up with replicas or text."(...) making the actor think about how to enrich the actor's physical dictionary. He can then begin to understand what he feels and what other bodies feel - the causes and effects of physicality. Understanding how external and internal influences work on the body - in the muscular, skeletal, nervous, respiratory structure - the actor can reproduce the physical feelings in the body of his character. The body and his physical sense can then organically arise.«27

Grotowski develops his organic exercises, and the techniques of an actor, whose aim is not the development of muscle or physical perfection, but the process of research that leads to the removal of the resistance of one's own body.

»These exercises are based on various suggestions made by Delsarte, particularly his division of each facial reaction into introversive and extroversive impulses. Every reaction can, in fact, be included in one of the following categories:

Movement creating contact with the external world (extroversive)

Movement which tends to draw attention from the external world in order to focus it on the subject (introversive)

Intermediate or neutral stages

A close examination of the mechanism of these three types of reaction is very useful for the composition of a role. On the basis of these three types of reaction, Delsarte supplies a detailed and exact analysis of the human body's reactions and even those of parts of the body such as the eyebrows, eyelids, eyelashes, lips etc..« 28

The kinaesthetic expression of an actor in the Theatre of Spontaneity is related to the examination of the sensory-motor attention of the actor, his real identity, inner and outer stimuli (i.e. total sensitivity, or conductivity of an actor and the process of dynamization of attention).

»The creative process of an actor can be performed completely distantly. He can break his body into different parts and reassemble them, thus achieving dramatic effects, in a conflict situation, or by introversion and extroversion by allowing various parts of his body to talk to each other. By means of a physical dialectics, the actor establishes a picture that makes visible emotional, conceptual and psychological tensions.«29

»Choose an emotional impulse (such as crying) and transfer it to a particular part of the body — a foot, for example — which then has to give it expression. A concrete example of this is Eleonora Duse who, without using her face or arms, "kissed" with her whole body. Express two contrasting impulses with two different parts of the body: the hands laugh while the feet cry.«30

The possibility of absolutization of the actor's transformation, and examining of the kinaesthetic sense, refers to the examination of the relationship between attention, stimuli (internal and external), and the actor's reaction in a shared situation of communication in the theatre, within the unique web of sensations that is proposed.

Broadening of the actor's physical senses, not only in the body of the role, but also through the dynamization of attention, is observed with respect to reactions, internal and external stimuli, or points of transformation of the role — which, through the broadening of a physical sense, bring the actor in connection with the lines of aspirations (liberated desire of an actor).

Two basic types of attention (introversion and extroversion), which are present in the physical sense of an actor) are also present in the process of dynamization of the attention of the spectator; i.e. the dynamization of the reception of the entire scenic work. Also, the question of dynamization of attention of the actor and spectator, in the Theatre of Spontaneity, is in an interdependent relationship with the relation between the inner and outer rhythms of the dynamic model of drama, that is, with the montage that follows the logic of sensation.

Model of drama and of the flexible role, in the Theatre of Spontaneity is described by the process of decomposing of a man, but also by the process of "becoming" as the absorption of any individuality. The actor, through his work on a flexible role and dynamic model of drama, examines the scope of the roles that he plays in his real life, and the level of their uniformity and balance. Creating a model of a flexible role and a dynamic model of drama is described as an actor's intervention in space and time, which is related to the proposed points of transformation of the role, and the model of decomposition of a man (or the process of disorganization of an organism).

The dynamization of the subjective and objective attention of the actor, is in an interdependent relationship with the nature of the total act and the process of decomposition of a man, the consequence of which is the expanding of the actor's consciousness, that is, change or transformation. The same mechanism, in the dynamic model of drama, also allows for its parts or its unity to deconstruct, that is, to explore during the repetition, in a new and fresh manner, the interdependent relationship of a unique web of sensations and the direct experience of playing a role, or the process of its abolishment.

The dynamics of the inner and outer rhythm of the performance are observed in the energies and tensions of the deconstruction and synthesis of the model of drama and the flexible role of the spectators and the actors. The actor, as the catalyst of a change, must allow the spectator to create the space of absolute freedom (surplus reality), and/or to perform a change at will, in his real environment (self-dramatization of physis, transformation of the spectator in thoughts and gaining of a different insight, through selflessness).

The Theatre of Spontaneity, in its work and research uses the term crisis (crisis), which shapes the transitory phase (in which the actor, through the principle of omission and montage of performative sequences, by his intervention in time and space), comes to a place where the change is possible or gets an insight about the true potential of the nature of acting creativity.

The static element of crisis is also important for examining the actor's kinaesthetic sense and his experience of movement on stage, that is, his liberation from causation and the cause of drama, the psychological motivation of the role, and the conditionality of reacting.

We explore the connection between movement-image, and image-thought; that is, the experience of playing a role and movement on stage and the nature of the total act.

By searching for a route of passability (as the space of reterritorialization and liminality), the actor, guided by his simple desire, creates a dynamic model of drama through which he is liberated from the causation, and the conditionality of the reactions, whereby being unified with the archetype of acting at the moment of creation.

What one strives towards is the liberation of the simple desire of an actor —the man who searches for the totality of reactions, in his work on the entire scenic work and the flexible role; where the relationship of the real identity of the actor, role and a universal model is examined.

The notion of directions is also important in the research of actor's kinaesthetic sense, and his liberation from the conditionality of reacting, and the observation of the interdependent relationship of the model of the flexible role, the dynamic model of drama and all scenic elements.

A model of drama that includes the actor's own drama, examines the ways in which the actor can go beyond the repetitive scheme of his sensory-motor reactions, the way he can achieve the unity of the subject and object on stage; i.e. total sensitivity or total conductivity. When we talk about processes of deconstruction and synthesis of the role, we refer to the fragmentation of the body and the procedure of abolishment of the role (disorganization of organism); but we also refer to the unity and totality of a flexible role.

»Actors, while they are acting, are recommending. Actors, through their acting, are validating a definition of identity and rendering other definitions invalid. Recommending a way to perform oneself is working to sell a mode of being.«31

»Ideally, the issues related to acting have to do with giving the form to what someone cares about. They give up the setup in which people are seen as "groceries." Through acting, a person can try to reflect on the conditions of life and modes of action that a revolutionary actor tries to achieve.«32

The discontinuous, collage, fragmentary form of the dynamic model of drama, as a web of sensations, speaks about the processes of deconstruction, synthesis, and the abolishment of a role. By creating a dynamic model of drama (as a unique web of sensations), the actor enters an unfamiliar territory, and exposes himself to the shock of sudden, intense encounters, which he conquers in the same way as he conquers the still uncertain future.

The actor creates a route of passability and frees himself from drama and conditionality of reacting, expanding his creative consciousness and gains a different insight into the true nature of acting representation and/or creativity that is by its nature unlimited.