스타니슬랍스키 연기론의 비판적 고찰 = A Critical Review of Stanislavsky’s ‘System’

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Stanislavsky’s acting theory, the ‘System’, has made a great impact on actors and the actor training process since the modern age. Although the Stanislavsky System was introduced in Korea for the first time in the 1920s, a full-fledged discussion has only begun after the 1990s. The System can be characterized as three parts : ‘acting as embodiment’, ‘psychological acting’, and ‘systematic acting with scientific attitude’. This thesis focuses on these three parts from a critical perspective.
At first, Stanislavsky’s idea of embodiment assumes that humans have a unique original nature. More to the point, experiencing helps the actor to fulfil his basic goal, which is the creation of the life of the human spirit in a role and the communication of that life onstage in artistic form. The belief in the life of the human spirit is caused by modern subjectivity. This concept of a natural, intrinsic, universal modern subject never embraces the postmodern subject which is fluid, fragmental and ideological.
Secondly, the System is based on dualism, the idea that the mind controls the body. This originated from a nature-culture dichotomy where culture (male, mind, text) controls, shapes, and tames nature (female, emotions, the body). Futhermore, psychology exists outside of ideology, and, therefore, can be applied to any theatrical genre. Although Stanislavsky tried to overcome the mind-body dichotomy through training of his system, he always thought the mind as divided from the body.
Lastly, the systematic acting with scientific attitude is also a result of the modernistic concept. With its scientific and systematic language, system never coopts something ‘unstable’, ‘unqualified’, or ‘unborderable.’ More to the point, an organic approach can lead actors to erase themselves from the social and historical context.
‘Truth’ was Stanislavsky’s aim for art, and the approach he developed for the actor was significantly influenced by the modern concepts of subjectivity and science. Stanislavsky often discussed theatre and acting as projects that would seek out, discover and celebrate the so-called universal human attributes and values. The language of acting can never be universal. Therefore, we have to continuously challenge the searching for the ‘language of acting which best allows one to actualize a particular paradigm of performance in a particular context for a particular purpose.’

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 콘스탄틴 스타니슬라브스키, "체험의 창조적 과정에서 자신에 대한 배우의 작업" 지식을만드는지식 2010

2 김태훈, "창조적 일류전의 공간, 판타스틱 혹은 드라마틱 리얼리즘의 경계지대-스타니슬랍스키의 비사실주의적 경향 연구-" 한국연극교육학회 23 (23): 51-82, 2013

3 김용수, "연극이론의 탐구 : 대립적인 시각들의 대화" 서강대학교 출판부 2012

4 김대현, "스타니슬랍스키와 ‘시스템’ -시스템 형성의 과정과 그 특성을 중심으로-" 한국연극교육학회 21 (21): 5-46, 2012

5 나상만, "스타니슬랍스키, 어떻게 볼 것인가?" 예니 1996

6 Sonia Moore, "스타니슬랍스키 연기 수업" 연극과 인간 2014

7 이진아, "스타니슬랍스키 연극론에 있어서 배우와 역할의 관계 -『역할에 대한 배우의 작업』 을 중심으로 -" 한국드라마학회 (42) : 185-219, 2014

8 김석만, "스타니슬랍스키 연극론" 이론과 실천 1993

9 김대현, "스타니슬랍스키 연구사 -국내 스타니슬랍스키 수용․번역․연구의 제 문제를 중심으로-" 한국연극학회 (40) : 345-400, 2010

10 김태훈, "스따니슬랍스끼의 연기학 전문 용어" 예니 2009

11 안나 살로비에바, "스따니슬라브스끼의 삶과 예술" 태학사 1999

12 콘스탄틴 세르게예비치 스타니슬랍스키, "나의 예술 인생" 책숲 2015

13 Mira Felner, "공연예술산책" 시그마프레스 2014

14 Richard Hornby, "Feeding the System: the Paradox of the Charismatic Acting Teachter" 23 (23): 2007

15 Konstantin Stanislavski, "An Actor’s Work" Routledge 2008

16 Phillip B. Zarrilli, "Acting (Re)Considered" Routledge 1995

17 Lauren Love, "Acting (Re) Considered" Routledge 1995