This article will explain and take apart the definitions of acting given by Meisner and Kirby. While they at first seem very different, we will be able to establish a correspondence taking into account that there are different degrees of acting. Meisner's definition will be seen as the more useful one, especially for the actor and acting teacher. He focuses on the quality of acting, whereas Kirby emphasizes the quantity of acting. Kirby's definition assumes a level of exactness in comparing different instances of acting that will be shown to be unattainable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GordonM. (1987). The Stanislavsky Technique: RussiaNew York: Applause Theatre Book Publishers.
2.
HeldV. N. (1998). How Not to Take It Personally: 10 Action Strategies for Communications Success in Business and in LifeMcGraw-Hill.
3.
JandaL. H. (1998). Psychological Testing: Theory and ApplicationsBoston: Allyn and Bacon.
4.
JohnstoneK. (1979). Impro: Improvisation and the TheatreNew York: Routledge.
5.
KirbyM. (1972). On Acting and Non-Acting. The Drama Review16, 13–15.
6.
MeisnerS.LongwellD. (1987). Sanford Meisner on ActingNew York: Vintage Books.
7.
MorenoJ. L. (1946). Psychodrama: First Volume., Seventh ed.Ambler, PA: Beacon House.
8.
MorenoZ. T.BlomkvistL. D.RützelT. (2000). Psychodrama, Surplus Reality, and the Art of HealingLondon: Routledge.
9.
PhillipsG. (2000). Take it Personally: On the Art and the Process of Personal ActingNew York: Applause Books.
10.
SavageE. (2000). Don't Take It Personally!: Transform Rejection into Self-AcceptanceMJF Books.
11.
SchedulerR.McNamaraB. (1997). Michael Kirby 1931–1997. The Drama Review41, 35–8.
12.
StevensS. S. (1946). On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science103, 2684677–680.
