The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 4 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
(_α_) In respect to this change in the art, there are broadly speaking
two systems. The first, according to which the performer tends to
be simply in spirit and body the living instrument of the poet, we
have already referred to. The French, who make much of professional
rôles[23] and schools, and are, as a rule, more typical in their
theatrical representations, have shown an exceptional fidelity to this
system in their tragedy and _haute comédie_. What we may define here
as the position of the art of acting reversed consists in this, that
the entire creation of the poet now tends to be purely an appendage
or frame to and for the natural endowment, technical ability, and
art of the actor. It is by no means uncommon to hear actors make the
demand that poets should write expressly for them. The soul function
of poetical composition is, in this view, to give the artist an
opportunity to display and unfold in all its brilliance his emotional
powers and art, to let us see the final outcome of his particular
individuality. Among the Italians, the _commedia dell' arte_ belongs
to this type. Here, no doubt, we have certain definite types of
character such as those of the _arlecchino_, _dottore_, and the like,
with appropriate situations and series of scenes; the more detailed
execution is, however, almost entirely left to the discretion of the
actors. Among ourselves, the dramatic pieces of Iffland and Kotzebue,
and many others besides, though in large measure regarded as poetry,
unimportant or even bad compositions, nevertheless offer such an
opportunity for the creative powers of the actor, who is compelled to
initiate and shape something from such generally sketchy and artificial
productions, which on account of a vital and independent performance
of this kind receives a unique interest exclusively united to one and
no other artist. It is here, more especially, that we find our much
belauded realistic effects are displayed, a style carried to such
lengths that a mere mumble and whisper of articulate speech, quite
impossible to follow, will pass as an admirable performance. In protest
to such a style, Goethe translated Voltaire's "Tancred" and "Mahomet"
for the Weimar stage, in order to compel its actors to drop this
vulgar naturalism, and accustom themselves to a more noble exposition.
And this is invariably the case with the French, who, even in all
the animation of the farce, always keep the audience in view, and
throughout address themselves to it. As a matter of fact, mere realism
and imitation of our everyday expression is as little exhaustive of
the real problem as the mere intelligibility and clever use made of
characterization. If an actor seeks to produce a really artistic effect
in such cases, he will have to extend his powers to a genial virtuosity
similar to that I have described already in a previous passage when
referring to musical execution.[24]