This lesson assumes that talent is a standard measurement of "art". However, 'having talent' is a subjective phrase. One could possess vocal (singing) abilities that surpass anything coming out of my throat; therefore, I would consider this person to be very talented singer. However, in comparison to a professional, or, even a voice major here at Case Western Reserve University, the former mentioned person may not be as "talented". So, to simply say "That [talent] is something one has or has not" is rather presumptuous. In page 17, the author mentions "connoisseurs of talent." To an extent, this phrase irritates me. As mentioned before, even though the "I" in this lesson seems to be a professional actor, or a professor of acting, he/she cannot presume that talent can be measured, for every person's experiences constitute a different outlook on talent.
             One redeeming quality in this lesson was the topic about concentrating all our forces, spiritual and intellectual, on a particular object. I do not think that it is very hard to go on a stage and read lines however; a true artist can be distinguished from an actor by the emotions he/she rouses in the audience. An actor does precisely as the title suggests: he/she acts. But, an artist creates. He/she creates the character on the stage instead of just dressing up like one. While watching a true artist at work, we forget the person and believe him/her to be the character. The artist is a no-name entity who becomes the character that we perceive on stage. When we leave we should not think that the person playing the character was such and such person, on the contrary, we should think that we just witnessed the occurance(s) in a person's life or whatever the play was about.
             I also agreed with the lecture about how the actor/artist should be well built, both mentally and physically. The actor could be co...