Griggs courier. (Cooperstown, Griggs Co., Dak. [N.D.]) 1885-1902, 1891-12-11
TIE ART IN ACTING.

The Essential Point in Which the Actor
Differs from the Dranlatist.
A great French critic said once, in
concluding an essay, that acting was the
lowest of the arts. He admitted that it
was an art, but only by courtesy. l
agree with him, and do not think it
requires much reasoning to arrive at that
conclusion. The mimetic art means
simply the Interpretation of the creative
art. Do you catch the idea? A pupil in
the beauN arts may sketch the Venus de
Milo on paper with such vigor that his
fellows are wonderstruck. But the vi
rile reproduction on paper of hektatue
does not place the artist next the statue's
maker, nor does the representation of
Phedre put the actor on the pedestal of
Racine.
The sculptor, the painter. the drama
tist, the musician-they create. A thou
sand different persons, a thousand differ
ent things rush to be assimilated by their
genius. The effect is all aggregate of
beings taken from the whole of ma
ture. The individuality Of the creative
genius is deepened, but is not annihi-
lated. His art is of the highest, because
he is the embodiment, the representa-
tive of nature. Balzac said that to de-
scribe a landscape he turned himself for
the moment into trees and grass, and
fountains and stars, and sunlight, and
thus reached the heart of that which he
would reproduce. In other words, he
created the landscape just as Rousseau
would create the same landscape upon
six inches of canvas.
But for the actor-let him storm Par
nassus as he will; there are few leaves in
the laurel crown. It is his function to
represent the creations of genius-to in
terpret them to the public. He has not
the thousand inspirations of the author;
he has only the suggestions of the glow
ing words. The actor is subservient to
the author, notwithstanding he may for
get his bondage for brief five minutes
and breathe the free air of genius.
There was an age in France, they say,
when actors were provided simply with
the framework of the drama and left to
improvise the rest. In fact, Goldoni, the
Italian dramatist, speaks of supplying
plots to the French kings players from
which they improvise the speeches. But
we have no evidence that the actors rose
above the level of the Chinese stage of
today, where similar practice prevails.
Mind you, this opinion is not accepta-
BILE to the public. know it must be
unpopular of necessity. The public
looks upon Siddons, Mars or Rachel in
terpreting the grand creations of gen.
ius and regards the actor as the en-
bodiment of Shakespeare or Racine or
Corneille. The public shouts with ap-
plause when the actor trembles with
feigned passion, but this same public
forgets that the words, the action, the
expression are all simply echoes of an
other genius. In the clamor of approval
the creative art is forgotten, although
that is the base of the entire structure.
No actor brings this genius nearer to
the heart of the public, to be sure, but
at the same time let him remember that
he is only the interpreter, after all, and
the shouts are really for Shakespeare
and Racine.
And, to end with suggestion, is not
the actors art akin to the Journalistic
that is, in the relation of the latter to
literature? It seems to me that the
playhouse and the newspaper go hand
in hand. They are popular vehicles of
thought, and are within the scope of
the people. Perhaps this is not aatter-
ing and perhaps it is unjust-but then,
it is only suggestion.-Sarah Bernhardt
in San Francisco Examiner.