![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A little relief...
Jun. 19th, 2001 11:32 pmWhat I like about the translation profession is that you get to learn about some pretty abstruse subjects. My current text concerns embroidery in Dagestan, and I am in the middle of acquiring an education in what roots and plants make the best dyestuffs. (It's fascinating reading, except for the part where one adds cow urine to the mixture...).
My trial period with WebCam32 expired. To be frank, the demonstration version of the software sucked. The AVI feature would not, could not be turned off and I kept getting a lot of unexplained errors that prevented me from using the program. However, based on the reputation of the software, I sprang for a registration, and it turns out the registered version of the program works like a charm. Go figure.
I managed to get to Zach Nelson's class this evening. He spoke of developing an actor's "persona," though he did not elaborate too much on the concept. Nonetheless, I found myself making connections with various things he said, though I don't necessarily agree with all of his statements.
In particular, he said that the techniques he was going to present to us would not be useful in any area of our lives except acting. I disagree, but I don't think my disagreement in any way detracts from what else he said. As I've mentioned before, I believe interpretation requires some acting skill, if only from the perspective that you are "on stage" before an "audience" with whom you must establish a rapport. I believe any actor's technique that allows one to deal with stress under fire (e.g., the speaker says a word whose meaning is a complete mystery to you... you must say something... what do you do?) would come in handy. Surely, actors face similar situations, no?
In any event, he spoke also about accepting what he said without debating him at every turn, especially since - in effect - he was going to tell us how to live, as actors.
Perhaps I'm not restating his position with surgical precision, but I think I understand what he's trying to say. The way I see it, language is a linear mechanism. In order to explain something, you've got to lay things out, one word after another. The listener gets an opportunity to digest things one small piece at a time, and there may be some (or many) things that - taken by themselves - either make no sense or are counterintuitive. Rejected in this linear, piecemeal fashion, you never get the full effect of what the speaker is trying to convey.
Since there is no harm in keeping an open mind when hearing new ideas (particularly if there is no "call to action" that would commit you to an irrevocable course, as would be the case, say, when turning over all of your worldly possessions to a religious sect), it makes sense to accept what is being said in a non-judgmental manner, no? At least that's the way I see it.
I seem to be babbling. It's late, and I have a bunch more embroidery to write about tomorrow... maybe even some space work, if I'm lucky.
Cheers...
My trial period with WebCam32 expired. To be frank, the demonstration version of the software sucked. The AVI feature would not, could not be turned off and I kept getting a lot of unexplained errors that prevented me from using the program. However, based on the reputation of the software, I sprang for a registration, and it turns out the registered version of the program works like a charm. Go figure.
I managed to get to Zach Nelson's class this evening. He spoke of developing an actor's "persona," though he did not elaborate too much on the concept. Nonetheless, I found myself making connections with various things he said, though I don't necessarily agree with all of his statements.
In particular, he said that the techniques he was going to present to us would not be useful in any area of our lives except acting. I disagree, but I don't think my disagreement in any way detracts from what else he said. As I've mentioned before, I believe interpretation requires some acting skill, if only from the perspective that you are "on stage" before an "audience" with whom you must establish a rapport. I believe any actor's technique that allows one to deal with stress under fire (e.g., the speaker says a word whose meaning is a complete mystery to you... you must say something... what do you do?) would come in handy. Surely, actors face similar situations, no?
In any event, he spoke also about accepting what he said without debating him at every turn, especially since - in effect - he was going to tell us how to live, as actors.
Perhaps I'm not restating his position with surgical precision, but I think I understand what he's trying to say. The way I see it, language is a linear mechanism. In order to explain something, you've got to lay things out, one word after another. The listener gets an opportunity to digest things one small piece at a time, and there may be some (or many) things that - taken by themselves - either make no sense or are counterintuitive. Rejected in this linear, piecemeal fashion, you never get the full effect of what the speaker is trying to convey.
Since there is no harm in keeping an open mind when hearing new ideas (particularly if there is no "call to action" that would commit you to an irrevocable course, as would be the case, say, when turning over all of your worldly possessions to a religious sect), it makes sense to accept what is being said in a non-judgmental manner, no? At least that's the way I see it.
I seem to be babbling. It's late, and I have a bunch more embroidery to write about tomorrow... maybe even some space work, if I'm lucky.
Cheers...
