.

I'm starting to feel like the further I go in this project, the harder it gets. Which probably shouldn't be happening, considering that I'm painting. The actual objects I'm painting aren't necessarily getting more difficult, but I find them more difficult to paint. It could be because I'm starting to second guess myself, as opposed to just painting. I don't like it. I don't feel like I'm progressing as much as I was just a few days ago. Maybe I'll start to think a little less. Unless I just can't paint in general, then I'll just GIVE UP. (Just kidding).

I think I've finally figured out what my final project is going to be. I think I'm going to do little adventures using my self portrait. It'll help me work on my technical skills, but will also give me the freedom to create my own scenes. I love incorporating my character into drawings. Though my character is usually a stick figure with 2 tiny dots for eyes, I think it's very accurate. It's strange. But anyway, I'm excited to see where this will go.

Today I attempted to paint a Poland Springs water bottle using oil paints, and I think I was pretty successful. I thought it looked realistic enough. I'm thankful that my paintings are progressing nicely. They seem to be getting significantly better. It's become more natural now, almost like a flow. Though, I'm having trouble mimicking the actual shape of the objects/people/etc. that I'm painting. I'm not very good at drawing realistically. However, I like abstract better. I personally find it easier because it feels more natural. I also think it makes for a more interesting piece. But, it would only help me to know how to draw. It would open many new doors for me, more than just artistically. This could really helpful for major/career. I think drawing will be my "side salad."

I painted.

Yesterday I took my first crack at painting with oils. I painted a total of 3 pictures and I have to say by the 2nd one, I thought I was pretty good. The first time I tried to paint a Starbucks coffee cup and I couldn't figure out shadows, or how to blend. I quickly realized that I didn't have to really blend with the paint, it's supposed to be thick and layered. I overthought the whole thing. Once I saw what I was doing wrong, I had no problem starting over. And it worked. My 3rd picture was of 2 cups: one red, one blue. I thought that they looked very realistic. And other people did, too, which is always nice. I still haven't figured out what exactly I'm going to paint for my final, but I think I'm going to need a bit more practice before I start anything serious. Let's do this.

Independent Project

When I first learned that I would be able to do an independent project on what ever I wanted, the first thing that came to mind was, paint. Everyone loves to paint. Even people who are bad at painting love to paint. Now, I've always lacked technical skills when it came to anything artistic (paint, drawing, etc.), which is why I was so excited to finally get the opportunity to try and teach myself.

I chose Wayne Thiebaud as an inspiration because his work was the first to pop into my head when I thought of painting. I did a report on him in the 9th grade for Studio Art and I kind of just adore his paintings. I love his use of colors, the thickness of each piece. I especially love what he paints. His work is inspired by advertising, diners and are very 50'-60's, mostly because that was his prime. I appreciate how his work is always light and upbeat, because life isn't always light and upbeat. Especially when you're an artist~.


I think the reason why I've always been so attracted to Thiebaud's work is because it reminds me a lot of my family, in a way. My parents grew up in the '50s and they always talk about the culture of it, with the clothes, food, music, etc. I also remember my parents taking me to the Hamptons where there would always be a lot of Thiebaud-esc paintings around. Looking at his pictures bring me back to those little moments and it's nice. This all especially makes sense after taking the enneagram test. Mine was tied between 5w6 and 6w5. 5's are apparently prone to clinging to comfort and security, which is probably why I like Thiebaud's work. But anyway. I'm excited to get started.

Workshop Essay

I have never thought about how acting worked. I assumed an actor was trained to express different emotions and when a script came they acted what was necessary. I never thought much deeper than that when it came to acting. Now, I wasn't completely wrong with this assumption, what I lacked in my thought process was where the actor gets these emotions from. As we learned in the intensive, there are a few notable ways to achieve this. One could use one of Constantin Stanislavski's techniques, which involves an actor to draw from their emotions for a character from past experiences and remembrances of the actor. Or one of Sansford Meisner's techniques such as repeating, where an actor spontaneously makes a comment based on his or her partner, and the comment is repeated back and forth between the two actors in the same manner, until it changes on its own. I learned that there are many techniques that can be used and it all depends on preference. Personally, I thought that Robert Lewis' technique made the most sense. His theory revolved around the idea that there are many branches of an actor's preparation for a role. Meaning an actor's emotions aren't the only factor that should be taken into account when practicing for a role. If an actor is playing an astronaut, an actor should study up on astronauts. However, for my independent project, this idea felt a little silly. I played a drug dealer and I felt I had the stereotypical drug dealer down. However, I had a hard time relying on the second half of this equation, my emotions.

For my independent project, I acted in a play written by Julian. I played the stereotypical drug dealer with a big heart. When it came to acting before and during the intensive workshops, I just read what I thought was right. Figuring out what a character is doing and why they're doing it, usually isn't a problem for me. And judging from the feedback I've gotten in the past, it's kind of worked in my favor. I just acted what I thought those situations would be like in real life. However, my original technique did not work in my favor for this particular role. Acting like typical, loose drug dealer wasn't an issue. It was simple, really. The biggest problem I had was at the climax of my particular scene where Grace's character hits on me. When I first went over the scene, my first instinct was to of course be shocked, but at the same time be sympathetic. I was leaning more towards sympathetic. When I asked how I did, everyone told me that I hardly looked shocked. I tried again. Still wasn't surprised enough. I kept trying over and over again and I couldn't figure out why I was having such a hard time putting myself in that place. I wasn't sure if it was more a personal disconnect, that I wouldn't personally act that way in that situation therefore I couldn't put myself into that situation, or whether it's because I'm more of an introverted person and I just couldn't push myself to get to that place. Then I realized that it wasn't necessarily about the situation being so real, but more entertaining. Not that someone couldn't act in the way I did in real life, but I felt that most people would probably keep more of their true feelings to themselves. The problem I had was not being able to trust my own instincts and feelings. I found it so difficult to exaggerate the truth for some reason. A lot of the time during practice I couldn't bring myself to really go for it because I kept thinking that it wasn't the truth. It became weirdly personal in a way that I wasn't expecting.

In the end, I'm not sure how I did, mostly because I don't think while I'm acting. My brain completely shuts off and I just feel like I'm saying words. It's a strange feeling because when I'm done I don't have much recollection of what I did. I believe that the workshop helped me a lot on my acting because now I have an idea of where everything comes from and how it gets there. It's also interesting to watch others act in real life. I get more of a sense of what people are doing and why they're doing it, and it's pretty interesting. I'm not much of an actor and I'm not sure how much acting I will do in the future when it comes to plays and things of that nature, but I do know that this workshop has helped me with my acting in everyday life and that's much more than I expected to get out of this.

Acting Workshop

I've always liked the idea of acting. In my head it seems so easy, understanding and breaking things down usually isn't a problem for me. However, when it comes to producing it on stage, I have no idea what I'm doing. I just kind of read the lines and see what happens. Sometimes it works. I find when I think about the lines it's more unnatural and uncomfortable. I never realize what I'm doing or how I did until afterwards when I get feedback. I don't think I've done too terribly in anything so far, or at least that's what I'm led to believe. We'll see. I think it also depends on the scene and the character. Today it worked out in my favor. I got a character I could relate. However, if I were given Ms. Mendoza, I probably would've crumbled. I don't like to be loud.
I've found acting to be fun. I think acting is a great skill to have even if you're not pursuing it as a career. I think it's useful to know how to act, because it can only help in certain situations. I also believe that it helps you to see when others are acting. It's kind of a funny thing. I've already started to notice it in, just a tiny bit.
Overall I think acting was the best workshop for me. I can't believe I learned as much as I did in just a week. I like it.

Define

Constantin Stanislavski- 1863-1938, was a Russian actor and theater director who was part of the socialist realism movement. He came up with a "system" made up of 3 branches: magic if, motivation and objectives. He believed that if an actor was to follow this "system", they would successfully create any experience any desired emotion. One earlier technique used for the system involved a "round the table analysis," which was a process in which the actors and director literally sat around a table and put their thoughts and characters on the script until a clear understanding was formed. He also associated with method acting, particularly the concept of Emotional Memory. This teaches actors to draw from emotions for a character from past experiences and remembrances of the actor. In 1897, Stanislavski created the Moscow Art Theatre.
I take from this that Stanislavski's methods were based on the actor feeling the part as opposed to acting the part. He believed that if the actor could put himself in the character's shoes, that he would be golden. I could see this working to a certain extent, however, if an actor is given a role that they have not experienced in real life, than what would they do?
Michael Chekhov- 1891-1955, was a Russian-American actor, director, author and theater practitioner. Was a student of Constantin Stanislavski who later on found Chekhov's work to be a betrayal of his principles. Much like Stanislavski, Chekhov explored the question of how to access the unconscious creative self through indirect non-analytical means. Chekhov taught a range of movement dynamics such as molding, floating, flying, and radiating that actors use to find the physical core of the character. His techniques seemed more external, though they were meant to lead the actor to a rich internal life.
His technique seems similar to Stanislayski's "system", but the difference is that Chekhov uses physical movements to get the same result. I believe this is probably more effective because it's easier to become a character when you prep yourself, meaning you can build yourself up for it. As opposed to recalling a memory that one never had in order to play a role.
Lee Strasberg- 1901-1982, was an American actor, director and acting teacher. He is considered "the father of method acting." He co-founded the Group Theatre in 1931, which was hailed as "America's first true theatrical collective." In 1951, he became director of the non-profit Actors Studio in New York City which is considered "the nation's most prestigious acting school.
Strasberg also founded the The Lee Strasberg Theatre & Film Institute and Film Institute in New York City and in Hollywood to teach. He required that an actor, when preparing for a role, dig into not only the character's life in the play, but also, "Far more importantly, into the character's life before the curtain rises. In rehearsal, the character's prehistory, perhaps going back to childhood, is discussed and even acted out. The play became the climax of the character's existence."
This I could see working. This helps the actor really become the character by having him create his own connection with the character. Essentially, an actor is imagining what this character's past, present and future is going to be like, they're just branching off from the script.
Robert (Bobby) Lewis- 1901-1997, was an American actor, director, teacher, author and founder of the influential Actors Studio in NYC. He was an early advocate of the Stanislavski system. His theory revolved around the idea that there are many branches of an actor's preparation for a role. He believed that Stanislavski intended that the actor prepare internally and externally, rather than only relying on internal techniques such as affective memory. In the 1970's he was the head of the Yale Acting and Directing Departments. Lewis made a point that there was a "generation of mumblers", whose acting conveyed the truth of the actor but not necessarily the truth of the character on the stage.
This is exactly what I was thinking. One couldn't act based solely on their past experiences.
Stella Adler-1901-1992, was an American actress, acting teacher and founder of Stella Adler Studio of Acting in Los Angeles. She was the only American actor to study with Stanislavski. Adler once said: 'Drawing on the emotions I experienced, for example, when my mother died to create a role, is sick and schizophrenic. If that is acting, I don't want to do it.' She later dismissed Stanislavski's theory, as did he, and came to the conclusion that instead of an actor having to experience the actual circumstances of a character, they must at least know something about the circumstances. For example: if a movie is about horseback riding than the actor must know something about horseback riding.
Sansford Meisner- 1905-1997, was an American actor and acting teacher who created the "Meisner technique" based off of Stanislavski's "system." An example of what would happen between 2 actors in a class: "They were given a single line of dialogue, told to turn away, and instructed not to do or say anything until something happened to make them say the words (one of the fundamental principles of the Meisner technique). The first student’s line came when Meisner approached him from behind and gave him a strong pinch on the back, inspiring him to jump away and yelp his line in pain. The other student’s line came when Meisner reached around and slipped his hand into her blouse. Her line came out as a giggle as she moved away from his touch." The goal of the technique was to "live truthfully under imaginary circumstances." He is also known for his repetition exercise, where actors are where one person spontaneously makes a comment based on his or her partner, and the comment is repeated back and forth between the two actors in the same manner, until it changes on its own. The goal is always to react truthfully, allowing the repetition to change naturally rather than manipulation. Sanford Meisner and his life partner James Carville founded the Meisner/Carville School of Acting on the Caribbean island Bequia in 1983.

Expressionism

Expressionism portrays emotions rather than the subject. Expressionistic pieces focus more on the feeling than the actual story. Judging by what I've seen so far of the Expressionist era, most of the emotions expressed are negative ones and are quite exaggerated.
I particularly enjoy the piece "Höre" by Else Lasker-Schüler. It's like I feel her jealousy while reading, and it's as if I can picture her confronting her ex. She changes the emotions subtly throughout the poem and it's so wonderfully condescending. I like how she kind of dangles herself in front of him as if to say: this is what you're missing. However, one can tell that she is the one who is probably hurting the most, and she expresses this beautifully.
Expressionism pieces saturate the raw emotions in specific scenes or situations. This is different from standard pieces because usually one is given the task to figure out the emotions and put them together within the context, thus getting the picture. As opposed to this movement which is more straightforward, pure emotion. I personally enjoy this movement because I love the emphasis on the emotions, because I believe that in any art piece, emotion is the core, and is perhaps not as prominent. I believe it's interesting to see the emotions distorted as the main the focus.