Creativity and the formation of consciousness (in the professional activity of an actor)

Sosnova M.L.

candidate of pedagogical sciences
Associate Professor of the Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education RUDN University
e-mail: art-margo-1@yandex.ru

The creative work of the actor has repeatedly become the object of analysis by art historians, psychologists, and theatre critics, who each time formulated their subject of research in accordance with the objectives and conceptual apparatus used.

The novelty of our research subject lies in the following. We are primarily interested not in the entirety of an actor's activity in the theater, but only in those fragments encompassing the processes of character creation, role development, and, to a lesser extent, the process of performing a role in a performance before an audience. Preparing for and performing a role in a performance is a technologically well-established method for forming mental images, ideas about a character (their inner world, external appearance, patterns of external behavior and communication, etc.). People whose professional activity consists of constantly forming new fragments of their consciousness are usually gifted individuals; in them, many mental processes occur in an extremely developed form. Therefore, the process of comprehension of new ideas in the images of performance is shorter and more intense for theater actors than for people outside the theater (with the exception of writers, who independently form mental images).

From this perspective, theater can be viewed as a laboratory where new technologies and techniques for shaping actors' consciousness are constantly being tested and refined. If we analyze the most famous theater schools from the perspective of how an actor learns a role during rehearsal and then performs it in a performance, we come to the conclusion that each new school is born in the theater, first and foremost, along with a technology for preparing a role and, consequently, a technology for shaping the actor's consciousness. This conclusion is especially evident when comparing such theater schools as Stanislavsky's theater and Brecht's.

Thus, the novelty of our research subject lies in our proposal to analyze the actor's activity in order to answer the questions: "How does an actor form their understanding of a role?" "Why are the processes of forming mental images in an actor so much more successful than in people outside the theater?" "What are the invariant features of the mechanism and process of forming mental images in an actor?"«

The second factor that determines the novelty of our research is that it is carried out at the intersection of theater practice, art criticism, and psychology. From art criticism, we draw concepts to describe the actor's activity, and from psychology, specifically the psychology of consciousness, we borrow conceptual frameworks to analyze and interpret the process of consciousness formation.

This bridging approach to research—that is, utilizing the theoretical concepts of the aforementioned disciplines and constructing a conceptual framework that interprets the conceptual systems of both disciplines—is motivated by the following considerations. A number of insightful descriptions of the process of an actor's work on a role exist, written by both actors themselves and directors. These descriptions are often unique in their insight, but they are written in metaphorical language, capturing both the essential and the detailed, nuanced aspects and phases of the process. These texts were created by talented, sometimes brilliant, individuals possessing a unique consciousness, and therefore, comprehending these descriptions for a researcher whose consciousness differs from that of the artist presents a difficult task.

The translation of the ideas of the artistic subject, inseparable from the experience of the artist's personality, into the impersonal and depersonalized concepts of science is naturally associated with the inevitable simplification that we undertake, recognizing the positive and negative consequences of such a transposition of knowledge.

The author of this study undertakes this transposition because she possesses the necessary prerequisites, being a theater actress, teacher, and researcher in the fields of educational psychology and pedagogy, including theater pedagogy. Thus, the cross-cutting nature of our study is a second factor determining the novelty of this work's subject matter.

It's entirely possible to raise the question of the advisability of analyzing an actor's performance in search of patterns in the formation of consciousness in human activity. The fact is that there is an empirically and experimentally substantiated thesis that creativity is the area of human activity where the formation of consciousness and the creation of new images of consciousness are most effective. There is a well-founded hypothesis—founded primarily in the cultural-historical school of L.S. Vygotsky and the genetic psychology of J.P. Piaget—that explains the effectiveness of consciousness formation in creative activity.

Creative activity is associated with the creation of works that objectify the creator's consciousness and creative abilities, through which ideal images of consciousness acquire an objective form of existence external to the creator. The creator, examining the products of their activity, sees before them the fruit of their consciousness, alienated from its creator. If the creator analyzes the intermediate results of their creativity, they gain the opportunity to correct the very process of forming their images of consciousness. All forms of creative activity in art and beyond have developed effective technologies for evaluation, control, and correction, unique criteria for assessing images of consciousness in both ideal and objective forms.

In the theater, the creator deals with one of the most complex forms of the external existence of images of consciousness—their activity-based form. The created image of consciousness—the actor's conception of a character—exists not in an objectified form, but rather in the form of operations (methods of performing the actor's stage actions), observed first by the director and then by the audience—like an actor's performance in a play. Alongside the objective form of the existence of ideal images of consciousness, there are activity-based forms, which are embodied in real, visible human behavior. Obviously, monitoring and correcting the process of forming images of consciousness based on intermediate results, which have an activity-based rather than an objective form, is more difficult. This is precisely why the theatre has created a detailed procedure for monitoring and correcting the process of forming the products of the actor's (and director's) consciousness, including director's explanations, staging schemes, actor's sketches of the portrait of the future character, his "life novel" (a description of the events that happen to him before and after the play), rehearsals of various kinds, right up to articles and reviews from critics, theatre scholars, letters from grateful audiences, etc.

The creation of images of consciousness in the process of monitoring and correcting active forms of creativity is analogous to the formation of consciousness through texts consisting of signs of various natures and modalities. The hypothesis we sought to confirm in a metatheoretical and empirical analysis is that the effectiveness of an actor's activity in shaping their consciousness (for the sake of creating a creative product—a role in a performance and the subsequent impact on the audience's consciousness) is explained by the presence of a system of means. external appearance consciousness, allowing one to control and adjust this process. It should be noted that for the creators themselves (the actor and director), this process is both conscious and irrational, intuitive, as it relies on a complex mental formation: professional consciousness plus artistic taste and experience acquired over years of study and professional work.

The result of the research should not so much be a confirmation of the hypothesis about the process of their formation, but rather an analysis of technologies for controlling and correcting images of consciousness.

Strictly speaking, the process of forming mental images during an actor's work on a role does not exist in isolation from other processes of operating mental images in the theater. The author's or playwright's creation of a play, the director's understanding and interpretation of it, the creation of explications, sets, costumes, makeup, music (specially created or selected), the actual course of the performance, the audience's perception and understanding of it, and subsequent interpretation in articles by critics and art historians—all of this involves the functioning of mental images in an ideal, objectified, or active form. Therefore, our analysis of the actor's creative activity also includes these processes of operating mental images.

Thus, purposeful activity, and especially creative activity, are phenomena inherent only to humans. An analysis of creative activity reveals that it most effectively forms, refines, and develops human consciousness, thanks to the mastery of complex mental processes, the work of imagination, memory, emotions, and, most importantly, the formation in the creator's mind of an entire chain of images and various forms of intermediate and final results of this activity. In the process of creative work, the person itself, its individual aspects, fragments of knowledge, abilities, skills, colors, and devices, become increasingly subject to control—thus the development of consciousness—with the involvement of the unconscious and intuition. Researchers in the theory of creativity write about the extraordinary importance of creative processes for society and humanity as a whole: "The fundamental meaning and historical necessity of the emergence of consciousness-thinking consist precisely in the creation and development of programs, projects, in the discovery of methods and possibilities for the creative transformation of reality, in creativity, in changing the world that does not satisfy man" [Shumilin, 1989, p. 45]. Among the spheres, «spaces,» of a theater figure, one can name society, the community as a whole, the art of world and domestic theater, a specific theater group, and—the most sensitive and determining factor—«the internal »space,“ the artistic and «life» world of a theater person« [Sosnova, 2008, 223].

Modern civilization, in its abstract form, is the product of the creativity of many generations of people, although, of course, not all human endeavor is creative; many executory, routine actions occur, and, unfortunately, destructive processes also occur. Apparently, multidirectional aspirations and inclinations are inherent in human nature itself (as evidenced by the works, texts, thinkers, and artists of different countries and eras); under the influence of the environment, through training and upbringing, abilities, inclinations, and the foundations of the human personality develop (or not).

Among cultural phenomena, art occupies a special position in terms of its impact on people, in humanizing man. In this case, a two-way impact is exerted: on the recipient and the creator himself. N.G. Chernyshevsky’s idea is well known that art objects represent something of general interest in human life. Aesthetic objects reflect the entire experience of the historical development of mankind; the most significant archetypes, human and spiritual values are reflected and embodied in them. «The natural and social characteristics of the object are embodied in the aesthetic in their relationship with the practice of mankind, in their significance for mankind as a genus» [Borev, 1988, p. 43]. From the point of view of the approach to artistic creativity and its products as an effective sphere of development of consciousness (of the creator and the recipient), it can be said that every step, every element of activity as a system (perception, analysis, search, design, compositional solution, etc.) carries within itself image – method actions, as well as intermediate and final results, product, and some fragment of the work and the whole creation in his perception.

The significance of works of art is emphasized by many researchers, who write, in particular: "Art proves to be a kind of agent through which civilization exerts its influence on the formation of its authentic personality type. But the whole point is that art simultaneously retains its significance as a sphere of cultural and creative activity, allowing us to judge the state of culture as a whole and civilization itself... It is commonly called the self-awareness of society. But, being the self-awareness of social existence, it cannot but be the self-awareness of a feeling and thinking historical individual" [Zavadsky, Novikova, 1986, p. 230]. Each era both reflects and provokes the birth and emergence of a new type of cultural hero, a personality type, as a result of artistic and philosophical analysis, embodying the author's intentions in sanctioned and unsanctioned patterns of behavior. It is not without reason that art is called a "time and space machine," a "model of life," influencing the images of consciousness of contemporaries and descendants.

It is not for nothing that the position has long been generally accepted о person as the main subject and goal of art. Although a work of art contains not only a person, but also specific historical events, natural phenomena, etc., everything is reflected through the perception of a person, refracted in his consciousness, in the clash of his passions, values, and ideas. A researcher of the problem of "art as thinking" writes: "The spiritual life of a person occupies the main "space" of a work of art, constituting its "fourth dimension" in relation to the images of material reality"; "Art captures real, unique, individual spiritual processes, not only typifying them, but preserving their living individuality, as well as self-awareness" [Ermash 1982, pp. 149, 148]. This individuality of spiritual processes is that eternal, enduring value for humanity and the individual, that spark that can awaken in him something true, essentially human at meeting with a work of art. This can serve as the basis for his attitude to the world, to life itself, as Beautiful (let us remember that Truth, Goodness and Beauty are one, which is noted by many philosophers and thinkers). To know, accept and love the world and oneself in it - this is the super-task of art; to lead the viewer, listener, reader to this discovery is the conscious or not entirely conscious task of the artist-creator. In his work «Art as a Humanizing Practice» M. Vartofsky writes that «art in its works expresses the process of creation and therefore objectifies and reifies the specifically human capacity for creativity. It is precisely by recognizing this creative capacity in oneself that a person realizes himself as a human in the special sense that he realizes himself as a creator or an artist» [Vartofsky, 1988, 401]. Many researchers write about the significant potential of the humanistic impact of art on a person, but the problem of involvement young generations to high examples of art, the task of instilling in their consciousness an aesthetic need, in pedagogical science, methodology and practice, is clearly insufficiently developed.

A work of art is an open system, embodying the artist's thoughts, feelings, worldview, and worldview, awaiting decoding and de-objectification through the active perception of the reader, viewer, and listener, and through the interpretive work of critics, art historians, and cultural scholars. The richer and more developed the recipient's consciousness, the more significant, complete, and effective the "aftereffect" (in the words of L.S. Vygotsky) of a work of art. "We sharpen our minds on the minds of great personalities," wrote M. Montaigne, while Antoine de Saint-Exupéry lamented: "Too many people have been left unawakened." However, how and by what means can such an "awakening" be provoked? This question and this task confront all researchers and members of the educational community.

In order to at least partially show what exactly the theater offers to a specific spectator at today's performance in the form of images of the consciousness of creators (past and present), transformed into something visible, sounding, perceptible, let us present possible objects of perception, evaluations and judgments about the activities of the theater company (we will use an excerpt from our work):

1. Play How single, holistic phenomenon.

Those perceiving and evaluating a performance must see it as an artistic and social phenomenon, existing within a specific cultural and historical context. The background for perception includes both actual, previously seen, live performances and those reconstructed through descriptions and explications.

2. Separate components performance:

• choice of play (its relevance, artistic level, language, style, etc.);
• the director's interpretation of the play (its depth, originality, traditionality or novelty of the solution, connection with the tradition of staging this play, etc.);
• artistic and figurative solution of the performance (sets, costumes, make-up);
• musical solution, sound score of the performance;
• genre solution of the performance;
• tempo-rhythm of the performance, the score of its changes and development;
• stylistic features of the performance;
• degree of adequacy and persuasiveness main images и symbols, born from the fantasy and imagination of the creators of the performance.

3. Acting game:

—     an ensemble of actors in a play;

• concept, solution, individual character image;
• the execution of a separate image (its brightness, depth, originality, integrity, psychological nuance, etc.);
• the degree of socio-psychological typification of the image: what exactly, what phenomenon of reality is distinguished in it;
• artistic truth of the character's image, organicity, recognizability of the image;
• dynamics of image development;
• the degree of transformation into the character's image;
• the actor’s energetic «charge», his stage infectiousness and temperament in the role;
• the scale, the caliber of the actor’s personality, which «shines through» the image;

— the individuality of the actor, the degree of its brightness and originality;

• «technological and technical perfection of the actor (plasticity; features of speech in the image; distribution of colors throughout the role; »assessments,« »adaptations,« taking into account »proposed circumstances» and mastery of other elements of acting; dedication of the actor to the role; emotionality, internal mobility in the image, etc.)” [Sosnova 2008, pp. 101-103].

Without dwelling on the problem in detail motivation artistic creativity (we have also analyzed it in our work cited above), we note the spontaneous, self-propelled nature of this process. A person with even a little experience in creativity, especially one who has experienced success in it, having encountered «"in the image myself, other"» (with the artist-creator), most often strives to return to this amazing process, the need to develop new qualities and techniques is born, and a dominant desire to improve one's skills and abilities appears. At the same time, he changes as a person, becoming a more purposeful, hardworking person. The ever-improving works, the products of his labor, the process of their creation becoming more complex with new details - all this activates the artist, gives him new energy, strength and confidence. Even the inevitable doubts, comments of the director and colleagues, cannot shake him on this path. Thus, an "image-emotion" (the actions and operations of creating a creative product, fused with emotions and feelings of inspiration, spiritual and emotional urge, "soaring" above reality) appears and is fixed in the artist's consciousness - it is acquired and grows new need, one of the leading motives of creative activity. The thirst and joy of creativity, the upsurge of spiritual and intellectual strength, help overcome frustration, inevitable difficulties, and dissatisfaction with oneself and others. The artist, to a certain extent, becomes a "slave" to their growing talent and their professional activity. It can be said that the greater the sacrifice, the more soul, mind, and destiny the creator invests in the work, the greater the likelihood of a reciprocal wave, which will manifest itself in the co-creation of the recipients, in the convergence of their souls with the soul of the creator (which in everyday language is called "the love of the public").

Unfortunately, such a "blissful" picture is far from always observed. The artist may be "ahead of his time," or the public may not care about the issues raised in the work, or they may be distracted, for example, by the pursuit of simple survival, unwillingly avoiding "contact with beauty." Only in rare cases. meetings, coincidences The artist and the recipient serve as the spark that ignites the flame of true success. This happened when the Moscow Art Theatre staged A.P. Chekhov's play The Seagull (after its failure at the Alexandrinsky Theatre); later, K.S. Stanislavsky wrote about this in his book My Life in Art: "Chekhov is inexhaustible... he speaks... not of the individual, but of the Human with a capital H" [1972, p. 257]; and the result was a performance in which "a creative miracle occurred" [Ibid. p. 262]. Let us analyze what exactly could have played a decisive role in what happened? Apparently, the participation of a young theater under the guidance of reformers of theatrical technology, followed by a new author with a new approach and style in dramaturgy, and a new audience responding to the theater's artistic appeal—literally everything had significance and remained an event in the history of Russian and world theater. Clearly, such a phenomenon is rare. It can be assumed that the cultural events associated with the names of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Shakespeare, Molière, Lope de Vega, Brecht, and a few others are in some way analogous to the example we've cited.

One more note. The role of art in the public consciousness is often distorted. It is ascribed with functions that are not inherent to it, and some of them are exaggerated. For example, this applies to the function of education and even re-education. Of course, if a work of art is included in system impacts From the family, school, and media, he may be responsible for the formation of certain positive qualities in a young person, but only in combination with and subject to a variety of forms and methods of educational influence (the personal example of adults, demonstration of positive models of behavior, communication, contact with works of art, and much more). It is necessary to take into account that a priori a person is not given the ability to deeply perceive a work of art; this must be preceded by the experience of mastering various skills, habits, and attitudes - from a superficial perception of the plot line and characters, simple empathy for the hero, to developed and multi-layered perception, the emergence of catharsis, a change in the value orientations of recipients, an ever-growing need to meet with familiar and new creators. In other words, "these forms of human activity (creativity, perception of art, critical interpretation - M.S.) do not express the a priori essence of human nature. The very essence of a person is formed in the course of the practice itself, as self-awareness develops. "Therefore, the condition of self-awareness is the existence of such objects that not only embody a certain activity (for example, art), but also through which a person recognizes this activity as his own" [Vartofsky, 1988, p. 413]. Apparently, it is precisely this improving work of consciousness that L.S. Vygotsky attributes to the "aftereffect" of art. Human nature is diverse, "we all come from childhood," it is in childhood that the foundations of self-awareness, emotional and mental assessments of events and one's actions, the foundations of morality, conscience, taste (including artistic) are laid, the orientation of a person as a citizen is formed, including towards a certain calling, profession, social circle, self-realization - in accordance with the super-task of the individual.

«"Creativity," "choice," "responsibility," "duty," "spirituality"—these and other important concepts and categories are, not without reason, the focus of philosophers, thinkers, researchers, theorists, and theater practitioners (K.S. Stanislavsky, N. Berdyaev, J.-P. Sartre, L.S. Vygotsky, M.M. Bakhtin, A.N. Leontiev, V.P. Zinchenko, M.O. Knebel, and many others) when analyzing human consciousness and activity. Self-determination for a young person is no easy task, and therefore requires support from society, the state, social institutions, and especially individuals. A work of art can also play an extremely important role, but only in a system with other positive influences and in the presence of so-called "chance," a coincidence. (An interesting example of such an »encounter with the beautiful« is given by D.V. Grigorovich in the essay »Straightened Up,« talking about the »impact« of the sculpture of Venus de Milo in the Louvre on him).

Let's draw a conclusion from the above: creative activity in art is a human activity that, through its primary and secondary products, intensively shapes human consciousness, both in the creators themselves and in the recipients. According to researchers, the formation of consciousness occurs intensively and effectively because the processes and products of creativity are recognized by both the creator and the recipient as an objectified form of the creator's conscious images, allowing them to record, evaluate, and adjust the complex processes of creating ever new images.