# 17. Postscript On the essays "Ein Vorschlag zur Hebung des deutschen Theaters" by Hans Olden and "Regieschule" by Dr. Hans Oberländer.

In an important theatrical question, a dramatic writer, who is also an expert on practical stage conditions, and a subtle director have taken the floor one after the other. Anyone who subjects their proposals to thorough consideration will have to admit that the matter in question can really be promoted by their statements. But it must also be said that their ideas for reform suffer from the evil that is noticeable in all such ideals. They are moving in a favorite direction. They have noticed certain imperfections in the present system of government and want to eliminate them. To this end they invent a formula according to which they would like to transform the present conditions. They overlook the fact that in practice such a formula must have its great disadvantages. I am convinced that if Olden and Oberländer could intervene as personalities in the reform of the system of government, they could accomplish infinitely important things with their ideas. But I am no less convinced that the same ideas in the hands of others must cause terrible mischief.

And this brings me to the point that seems to me to have been given too little consideration in the debate. The most important thing in art is and remains personality. You can set up conservatories and theater schools with the most beautiful principles. They will achieve nothing if they are run by pedants with these principles. They will achieve great things if they are run by personalities from whom emanates that secret influence which, working from artistic to artistic nature, produces the most wonderful things.

And an artistic nature will never set out to work through mere drill. It will be concerned with discovering the artist in the making. That's why I don't want to disagree with the critic of the "Berliner Tageblatt". It really is true: you cannot become a director, you cannot become an actor; you are or you are not. Schools should see it as their highest task to discover and promote the artist who is. If one sets out to do this, one will only too soon realize that all template-like suggestions have only a subordinate value. One will have to realize that, depending on the emerging individuality of the artist, this method will have to be applied here and that method there. It will also have to be conceded that little value should be attached to the type of previous training. Whether someone goes through the school of literary training or whether he has worked as an actor for a while is a matter of chance. But it is not a matter of chance, but the result of a person's talents and individual abilities, whether he is by nature a director or an actor or neither. It should therefore not be said that it is mainly people with a literary education who should be attracted to the directing profession. With such a rule one creates restrictions which can exclude the best forces from a field to which they belong.

I know that I am basically saying very mean truths with these sentences. But it will always remain strange that reform-minded natures are blind and deaf to such general truths. One should avoid laying down general rules at all; one should be content to say: I do it this way; let another seek to organize his activity as it suits him.

The best education in all areas will be that which has self-education as its goal. The teacher cannot transfer his nature, least of all his views and convictions, into the pupil. He can only awaken in the pupil what lies dormant in him. He can stimulate him to self-education.

It is possible that damage is caused by the necessity of self-education. Those who educate themselves are inclined to experiment and try things out. And since the director is dealing with valuable experimental material, with people, bad things can be done through experimentation. Here, however, one will have to take an art-friendly and not a "people-friendly" standpoint. It must be said: sacrifices may be made for art. May many individual hearts be offended in their ambition, may much be spoiled by the still immature experiments of a young director: if artistic perfection is ultimately achieved in this way, one cannot mourn the sacrifices.

One more important point must be mentioned. One must refrain from trying to master natural facts by artificial means. If one realizes that directors and actors cannot be discovered, then one must refrain from training them. And we will also have to come to terms with the fact that in certain times there are no discoverers. We must always remember Laube. When this master of all directors set out to make discoveries, he found an impressive group of talented actors who delivered what he expected of them. No training can replace such a capacity for discovery. It always depends on the personalities. The general suggestion should always be: put the right personality in the right place.

Now you can reply: yes, it is true that personality is the main thing; but that only applies to the preferred personalities; there must be rules for mediocrity, for the average. That would be all very well if the rules laid down for the average did not at the same time harm and oppress the select. But it is infinitely more important to allow the select to develop freely than to help the average to get on their feet.