Presentational acting and the related representational acting are critical terms used within theatre aesthetics and criticism.
Due to the same terms being applied to certain approaches to acting that contradict the broader theatrical definitions, however, the terms have come to acquire often overtly contradictory senses.
In the most common sense (that which relates the specific dynamics of theatre to the broader aesthetic category of ‘representational art’ or ‘mimesis’ in drama and literature), the terms describe two contrasting functional relationships between the actor and the audience that a performance can create.
In the other (more specialized) sense, the terms describe two contrasting methodological relationships between the actor and his or her character in performance.
The collision of these two senses can get quite confusing. The type of theatre that uses ‘presentational acting’ in the first sense (of the actor-audience relationship) is often associated with a performer using ‘representational acting’ in the second sense (of their methodology). Conversely, the type of theatre that uses ‘representational acting’ in the first sense is often associated with a performer using ‘presentational acting’ in the second sense. While usual, these chiastic correspondences do not match up in all cases of theatrical performance.
Read more about Presentational Acting: The Actor–audience Relationship, The Actor–character Relationship, Confusion of Terms
Famous quotes containing the word acting:
“Often, when there is a conflict between parent and child, at its very hub is an expectation that the child should be acting differently. Sometimes these expectations run counter what is known about children’s growth. They stem from remembering oneself, but usually at a slightly older age.”
—Ellen Galinsky (20th century)