Sell out or Starve

Legendary acting theorist Constantin Stanislavski proposed the purpose of acting to be to convey the beauty of "the life of the human spirit." 

Although Stanislavski specifically focused on theater, I believe his idea can be applied to any artistic outlet, be it visual, performance, or written text. Yet as inspiring and noble as this goal may be for artists, I cannot help but question the practicality of its application in American culture today. Staying true to one's artistic roots while succeeding in the ever-competitive realm of entertainment sounds about as easy as taming Chuck Bass (which is, for all you non-Gossip Girl addicts, a one-in-a-million chance). 

Our generation of headphone-wearing, texting, Megan Fox-worshipping hipsters seems uninterested in artistic integrity. Today's audiences love films and television because they deliver rapid exposition, limitless plot devices, and immediate satisfaction. Actors are valued not for their talent or versatility, but for their jaw lines. Today's movie-goers probably couldn't care less about truthful portrayals of human nature, especially when coming from young, attractive actors. Obviously I am not immune to this trend, though, considering my earlier reference to one of the silliest shows on television. The difference is that I acknowledge that Gossip Girl is just that--a silly TV show, not art. 

You can only imagine how discouraging this sad truth is to someone who has dedicated her education to theatre.

In fact, the public's shift away from tradition and toward technology has altered my personal career plan. I used to believe I could make a living as an actor/director in theater. The new plan, post-graduation, is to move to L.A. and sniff out film work. I dread the inevitable shock this change might present to my liberal arts background. I fear the rude awakening that awaits me in Hollywood: my naiive belief in higher art could quite possibly be shattered to pieces when placed in L.A.'s brutal hands.
A few weeks ago, my acting class was instructed to label each of our classmates with their "type" (what roles he/she could play) and what actors they were similar to. Here is my list:

Miranda Parham  

• Ingénue
• East coast/horsey set ingénue
• The sweet, shy girl
• The girl all the guys want
• The innocent
• Preppie
• Hippie
• Queen bee
• Smart girl everyone thinks is dumb
• Successful corporate type
• Ice Princess
• Blonde bombshell
• Vulnerable girl
• Bitch
• Valley girl
• Dumb blonde
• Scandinavian
• German
• Dutch
• 15-25
• Kirstin Dunst
• Blake Lively
• Rachel McAdams, The Notebook
• Anne Hathaway, The Devil Wears Prada
• Claire Danes
• Cate Blanchett
• Nicole Kidman
• Gwyneth Paltrow
• Andy in How To Lose A Guy...
• Mary in There's Something About Mary
• Allie in The Notebook
• Regina George in Mean Girls
• Emily Proctor in CSI Miami
• Kate Hudson in Almost Famous
• Juliet in Romeo and Juliet
• Lindsay Lohan in Mean Girls

Not that I don't appreciate some of these as compliments, but am I doomed to be just another ditzy blonde in some horrid teen movie?
I recognize beauty in others and in myself, but I would hate to look back at my acting career and see that I wasn't proud of my work as an artist. The extent to which I am willing to sacrifice my artistic goals to make a buck is up to me, and I will simply have to face that question as each opportunity arises.
Yesterday I had a conversation with my landlord who lived in L.A. for roughly fifteen years as she pursued music. She told me, quite frankly, "It's a rough, dirty, mean city, and if I were you, I'd think twice before moving there." Thanks for the encouragement...
As for audiences, no one can force others to care about the integrity of their entertainment. I only hope that our generation eventually becomes jaded with looks and sex and instead desires something deeper than cheap entertainment. 

As my dear grandma always says: "Turn that crap off!"