Art of representation

One symptom of the recurrent myopic ideological bias displayed by commentators schooled in the American Method[opinion] is their frequent confusion of the first five of these categories with one another; Stanislavski, however, goes to some lengths to insist that two of them deserve to be evaluated as 'Art' (and only two of them): his own approach of 'experiencing the role' and that of the 'art of representation'.

[7] During rehearsals, Stanislavski argues, both approaches make use of a process of 'living the part', in which the actor becomes "completely carried away by the play ..., not noticing how he [sic] feels, not thinking about what he does, and it all moves of its own accord, subconsciously and intuitively.

In a state of absorption, the actor responds 'naturally' and 'organically' to that situation and the events that proceed from it (a 'natural' and 'organic' response conceived along lines originating from Pavlovian behaviourism and James-Lang via Ribot Psychophysiology).

[11] In contrast, the approach that Stanislavski calls the 'art of representation' uses 'living the role' during rehearsals as "but one of the preparatory stages for further artistic work.

"[12] The actor integrates the results of their 'living the part' from their rehearsal process into a finished artistic form (in contrast to the improvisatory quality of Stanislavski's approach).

[14] The distinction between Stanislavski's 'experiencing the role' and Coquelin's 'representing the part' turns on the relationship that the actor establishes with their character during the performance.