emotional intelligence for writers, directors, actors and all art lovers

TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER IN ART

‘All art deals with the absurd and aims at the simple. Good art speaks truth, indeed is truth, perhaps the only truth.' [From Bradley Pearson's Forward to Iris Murdock's The Black Prince, Bloomsbury Publishing].

What makes a creative work great and a "work of art"? Some works of art continue to inspire generation after generation of readers in diverse countries, cultures, economic and historical circumstances, never out of print for decades or even hundreds of years. What makes people read a book or watch a film over and over again, always seemingly finding something new and moving in it, and to treat the characters in it as if existing in reality? What inspires readers' enthusiasm to write "Thank you" letters to the authors for their personal experience, and form fan-clubs? Many readers claim that a book or a film "changed their lives" and feel transformed by personally experiencing or reacting to the problems presented to the hero in the story.

This article offers a method of evaluating a work of art through identifying the dynamic temperament of its characters. The article is of interest to writers, screenplay writers, reviewers, editors, commissioning editors, publishers, literary agents, film-makers, actors, directors, and all interested in film and literary arts. The principles most important in visual and literary art in describing and outlining characters are described and illustrated by examples from classic literature, emphasising the role of understanding dynamic temperament.

What motivates people to contemplate art? Do we seek art to be shocked, amused, surprised, entertained? What makes a work of art? What do people as recipients of art look for in a work of art?

A work of art does not have intrinsic value. Its value is in the perception of the recipient. The meaning is attributed to it by the recipient who is contemplating it and therefore, artistic value is relative to each individual. This results in the contingency of judgements, because the recipients are different and each of them may attribute a different value to the same work of art. This is, indeed, how it happens. Condemning popular literature as ‘soapies' and criticising its artistic deficiencies is senseless because it will not induce the masses reading ‘cheap' novels to read Shakespeare. It may, however, persuade them to abandon reading entirely, thus surrendering one of the few pleasures available to them, and separate them from an important source of education about life and its problems.

On the other hand, clear statistical regularities show that ‘Hamlet' has been seen by millions of people all over the world for three hundred years and is still being seen today, whereas more than one of last year's bestsellers or ‘hits' are already completely forgotten.

Although the opinion of one recipient (reader, viewer) may differ considerably from that of another, on the scale of large human communities the general opinions show remarkably little discrepancy. The reason for this lasting quality is that, in spite of individual differences, human character, dynamics and synergies in relationships, including those of both artists and recipients of their works, are subject to the same laws of nature.

They were discussed previously, but here they will be demonstrated as the direct link between dynamism and art.

Art and intellect

Let us begin with the role of the intellectual level. A work of art is a collection of signals containing a certain amount of information. It is no greater than the level of the artist, and the recipient will be able to get from it no more than his or her own level permits. And here we have a confrontation of the level of the artist and the level of the recipient.

It would seem that the artist's level should not matter to the recipient, who has access only to the work of art and not to the intellectual characteristics of the individual who created it. This is a mistaken view---a work of art indicates the level of its creator.

Let us assume, as an example, that a master and a dauber both paint a girl with blue eyes. The master, having a high level, distinguishes between many subtle shades of blue, and chooses from among them the one he or she thinks is right. The dauber has a low level, and thus chooses between light blue and dark blue only. Both of them used one colour, but the master chose from an extensive range of hues, while the dauber could only choose from a very small range of shades. If the recipient notices the difference, he or she can distinguish between the master and the dauber. Here, however, the level of the recipient comes into play too. If it is very low, to such a recipient the work of the master is not worth any more than that of the dauber.

To show more clearly how a recipient of a high level can discern an artist of a high level, let us take for example Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa. Is she smiling or not? It is very difficult to answer this question, because one can just as easily see a smile as a wry expression of the mouth. This, however, means that Leonardo da Vinci has been able to give the mouth an expression on the very limits of distinction---one subtle undertone too much or too little and the whole expression would have completely changed. This constitutes proof of the extensive range of possible undertones that this painter could use, which in turn is proof of his high level of character. A similar question could be asked of the ancient Greek sculpture Venus de Milo sculpture: is she smiling or not?

The value of a work of art

To evaluate anything, one must know it first, and because of this one can distinguish two opposite possibilities in the relations between the artist and the recipients.

If the recipients' levels are higher than that of the artist, the recipients can easily discern all the information contained in a work of art, after which they lose interest in the work, because they can find nothing new in it. On this basis they evaluate the worth of it with not a single doubt about the accuracy of their evaluations.

On the other hand, if the artist has a higher level than the recipients, the recipients will have difficulty in discerning the information contained in the work of art. It then turns out that each time they look at it they discover something new, and so will never be certain if they have discovered everything. In view of the fact that they cannot fathom the work of art to its very depths, the recipients are afraid to evaluate it and express just admiration for it as the work of a master. This explains why recipients only count as great art the works they feel were created by artists of a higher level than their own.

An artist's talent in a defined field of art assures his or her preference in registering information concerning this field and constitutes a specific expression of the three intellectual components constituting level of character. It is talent that creates an impression of the masters' level being higher than those of the recipients of their works, evoking admiration.

Dynamic temperament and art

The role played by dynamic temperament in creating works of art is also essential. As has already been said, the largest amount of information per unit of time is processed in the hyper-dynamic stage (C archetype). So in this case, too, artists have higher levels than the recipients, who are mainly the middle-aged public, usually statics (B archetype)---that is, people with a lesser ability to process information. So people who are talented hyper-dynamics are most likely (but not uniquely) to be masters of art. This phenomenon seems to trouble some artists who perceive the difference themselves looking at their own creations from the perspective of mature or old age (in a later dynamism) and appreciate their early works more than their recent ones.

This might suggest that talented children, as they, from their very nature, have hyper-dynamic temperaments, would be most likely to produce great works of art. It might, if it were not for the fact that talent is a component of potential level, not the real one. Possessing talent means possessing only the ability to process information. In addition to that aptitude a talented individual must also have something to process, and this can only be achieved by having in the brain sufficient amount of registered information, sourced from stimuli in the environment (life experiences). Children have little such specific information yet, and while they will accumulate some more later, in the process of growing up, their hyper-dynamism decreases and passes into hyper-statism and then statism etc. In other words, talented children, when growing up, gradually accumulate the information necessary to nurture their talent, but also gradually lose the facility furnished by their hyper-dynamism to creatively transform it.

From the point of view of creating many accomplished works of art it would be most advantageous for children with talent if their hyper-dynamism could continue without changes throughout the whole of their later life. This means that people with a delayed course of dynamism, still having a hyper-dynamic or perhaps a hyper-static (i.e. at least partially hyper-dynamic) temperament in their mature age are most likely to produce accomplished works of art.

This is also an explanation of why so many masterpieces (or concepts conceived for scientific and other discoveries) are created or imagined when artists are still relatively young.

Temperament of the characters in works of art

Finally, it is worth discussing the dynamic temperament of the figures presented in works of art, particularly the literary and visual.

Authors of novels, plays or films compose the characters of their heroes and heroines on the basis of observation and their own imaginations. The results, better or worse, depend on their own intellectual levels and dynamic temperaments.

The judgements of these efforts are expressed by recipients of art (readers, viewers) in their approval by viewing, buying and enjoying these works of art (books, films, videos, DVDs, CDs, etc), or by rejecting and ignoring them. They can also be independently evaluated on the basis of knowledge of the cybernetic laws governing human dynamic temperament.

The doubt may arise here as to whether the cybernetic laws that apply to living people can be applied to fictional characters equally well, since the dynamic temperaments portrayed in works of art are fictional, invented by the authors, who give their heroes features sprung from their own unbridled fancies?

Well, let us see. Every author of a work of art has co-authors in the recipients of that work. And what do novelists do when writing a book? Of course, they choose from among the variants they have thought up those they feel as the most true. Also, the readers choose from the book those characters they like and may recommend the book to others, because to them they seem real. However, readers will not mention, or will advise against those books that they consider unsound. All novels are given a seal of approval by their authors, but if some are devoured by generations while others are lost in the mustiness of oblivion, it is because the readers also gave their approval to some but refused to hypo-rse the others.

Readers base the evaluations of characters from novels on knowledge of their own characters and those of the people they know. If sufficient similarity cannot be found, the character of the literary hero is perceived as not ‘real'. True, the opinion of one reader is not decisive, because it might have so happened that in her or his life she or he had never met anyone with whom he could compare the character in the novel. But such an opinion becomes conclusive if given by many readers, because if none of them could find in real life adequate confirmation of the created character, this would simply mean that the author had invented an ‘unnatural' character, not deserving any interest. So authors have a right to fantasise, but their fiction must be probable, if they want their work read or viewed.

And that is how the knowledge of readers about the characters of living people (and, of course, their dynamic temperaments which are subject to cybernetic laws) compels authors to invent characters that fit reality. Soundness of fictional characters can be evaluated using these same laws as are used for living people.

So, appraisal of artistic value of a literary work or film and a forecast of its future popularity can be equally well based on the opinion of the general public as on the Cybernetic Theory of Dynamic Temperament.

Cybernetic evaluation of works of art

There is, however, an elementary difference between these two ways of evaluation. Collecting sufficient evidence of the public opinion takes a long time (years), and so it is of no value for improving the work and correcting any shortcomings that may exist in it at the time of creating. This is particularly important for films or books, since the production process is lengthy and expensive, and the finished product is not easy to alter. Making decisions based on the opinion of a body evaluating the film or book before its public showing or launch, which may turn out to be very distant from the later opinion of the general public, adds a completely unnecessary element of speculation and risk to potentially predictable products.

The Cybernetic Theory of Dynamic Temperament can assist with clear and precise guidelines for quick evaluations of soundness of characters in literary or film art, and can help distinguish between works of low and high quality. As an additional benefit, it can provide guidelines for those works that are generally good but have a few aspects or false notes needing change, which can be done without waiting for the opinion of the audiences.

The cybernetic art evaluation scale

Roughly speaking, taking into account only the presented five dynamic temperaments (hyper-dynamic, hyper-static, static, hypo-static, hypo-dynamic) the cybernetic evaluation of literary or film art can be based on a scale of five categories, listed below in the direction of growing value:

• 1. In the lowest category are works in which the dynamic temperaments are incoherent, assembled from randomly picked traits belonging to different individuals. For example, a character displaying hyper-dynamic traits may out of the blue show an hypo-dynamic trait, then suddenly a static one etc. There may also be an easy-going character (broad dynamism) who suddenly starts behaving ‘tough' (as though having a narrow dynamism), or someone who appears ignorant and crude one day and sophisticated the next. In other words, what the heroes say and do does not make sense.
• 2. In a slightly higher category are works in which the dynamic temperaments are coherent but sketchy (e.g. when the heroes behave according to universally obvious, loosely related stereotyped traits, such as the evil stepmother, the rich usurer, the gloomy criminal, the overworked director, the incorruptible judge, the undaunted avenger). Such characters are defective because they lack description of limits to their willingness (actions and deeds performed readily and with pleasure) and yieldability (actions and deeds performed under pressure). In other words, it is not clear why the heroes do what they do, or why they would refuse to do something else.
• 3. To a high category belong works depicting the characters in individual detail, giving a complete outline of the set (biologically predetermined) parameters of temperament and personality (e.g. receptivity (comprehension), recordability (memory), predilection (talent), dynamism, willingness, yieldability, vitality). In other words, it is understandable why the heroes say and do what they do.
• 4. In a higher category are works including not only the set parameters of temperament as well as the flexible ones, but also the changes taking place in the heroes' dynamic temperaments with the passing of time, and the reasons for them. In other words, the heroes' potentials are outlined and what they did with these is shown.
• 5. In the highest category are works depicting hereditary, environmental, cultural and historical influences, representing several generations and showing interdependence between each of the elements, as well as projecting a clear image of the past, the present, and the future.

Inferior works depicting incoherent characters of category one, of which so many are produced as television series, are irritating to the recipients of higher level because no-one can tell what their dynamic temperaments are really like---there is no indication of their dynamism or their willingness or any other parameters of temperament. One cannot see any logic in the characters' reaction to events, what they say is never heard in real life and the action consists of various unconnected chance occurrences (floods, failed crops, quarrels, illness, death, births, weddings, etc).

Creative options

There is an indefinite number of dynamic temperament archetypes in nature. Every individual is different. No two individuals have ever been the same. Can categorising of dynamic temperament into archetypes limit artistic creativity, were it to be taken into consideration by creators? Nonsense. It may simply remove the creator's agony of pondering some ambivalent or unclear alternatives which are not immediately clear in the imagination, and assist in creating works that need less correcting or rewriting---which can certainly ease the artist's way to the publishers, the film-makers, the financiers, the judges and most of all---the public.

The knowledge of dynamic temperament archetypes facilitates comprehension of art and helps to make some sense out of the unlimited variety of dynamic temperaments. It also allows communicating between people who find discussing art enjoyable. Understanding of dynamic temperaments of real people by the creators of works of art will ensure that readers and viewers will feel that the character is a real one.

To illustrate these principles, here are a few examples.

Literary and film representations

In all the staged performances of Hamlet known to me, Hamlet's mother was played as a majestic lady nobly mooning about the stage, strangely insensitive to the fact that her second husband (hypo-dynamic) is the murderer of the first one (static). Meanwhile, it is clear that she must of course be a hyper-dynamic ‘whore in a crown', because only then matters gain dynamic sense: the pair of lovers with dynamic match hypo-dynamic man---hyper-dynamic woman (A---C) was being disturbed by a static, who was the husband of one lover and the brother of the other lover. By murder the hypo-dynamic got the power he longed for, and when he married the widow, they could do legally what they had so far been doing secretly.

Hamlet's dynamic temperament, on the other hand, was interpreted in all sort of manners: as a frivolous ironist, a sceptic philosopher, a man of weak will or a clever politician, who in the end is outwitted. In the absence of a consistent dynamic temperament concept, the term ‘hamletism' was coined, making believe that this is some special dynamic temperament archetype or category. Meanwhile, Shakespeare's text leaves not a shadow of a doubt that Hamlet is a very obvious hyper-static---he did not have enough statism to consistently become a dogmatic avenger, and not enough hyper-dynamism not to bother about the revenge. Besides, only a hyper-static can show off with such tricks as an allusive performance of travelling actors, or the swap of spades in the duel with Laertes.

Carmen (from Bizet's opera Carmen) has undoubtedly a hyper-dynamic temperament. Although the first blueprint for this dynamic temperament was created by Merimee and it was adapted to opera by a libretto writer, it was only Bizet's music that emphasised her hyper-dynamism. And Michaela is a static, of course.

The success of Sherlock Holmes' character (created by Conan Doyle) with the English people and Arsene Lupin's (by Leblanc) with the French has, of course, nothing to do with the fact that the former is a detective and the latter a robber (even though a ‘gentleman-robber'). It is due to the fact that the former is a hypo-static, who was therefore appealing to readers appreciating organisational efficiency achieved by simple means (predominant hypo-statism in the English nation), and the latter a hyper-static, appealing to readers liking elegance and impressive showmanship (predominant hyper-statism of the French).

In Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac we find in the couple Cyrano and Roxanne an interesting illustration of a statistically less frequent relationship in which the organising partner is female[1], and the showing off partner is male. The relationships (configuration of couplings) between the main protagonists are depicted at high level, with a very precise illustration of mistakes made in recognition of dynamic temperament and their consequences. In the love triangle, Cyrano is an hyper-static, Christian a static and Roxanne an hypo-static. Naturally, Cyrano and Roxanne constitute a well matched couple, but Roxanne makes two mistakes: she considers Cyrano (‘so brave!') an hypo-static and Christian (‘so handsome!') a hyper-static---and so it is no wonder that she has friendship for Cyrano and love for Christian.

When Cyrano shows off his effective fencing feats before her, Roxanne (who, as a hypo-static, likes to take charge and arrange and manage everything), unaware of his feelings towards her, quickly decides to persuade him to pledge protection for Christian. To a mistakenly presumed hypo-static she correctly assigns the role of a protector of the supposed hyper-static.

Roxanne's mistake about Christian's dynamism is almost revealed to her in the famous balcony scene. When the static Christian straightforwardly imagines that since he said ‘I love you' nothing else remains in the way of tangible proof of love (lust) now, Roxanne cools his advances with the question ‘Is that all?' This is because romantic encounters are not that simple with a hypo-static lady. To induce erotic arousal in her one must recite sentiments about love and urge persuasively, disarm her defences and stimulate (warm up) gradually. Only a hyper-static can do this spontaneously. So, hidden in the shadows of the night, Cyrano tries to prompt Christian (‘That's better' says Roxanne approvingly), and in the end he himself utters loving compositions. ‘Come' Roxanne finally relents when sufficiently warmed up towards an amorous liaison. Alas, instead they have to take care of an impromptu wedding ceremony, hastily arranged by Roxanne in the face of Count de Guiche's covetous attempts to possess her. Alas, the honeymoon must be postponed, since in revenge, the hypo-dynamic Count immediately sends the young husband to war with Spain.

Roxanne does not understand her mistake even later, in the camp near Arras, where she manages (hypo-statism!) to get through the enemy troops of the surrounding Spaniards, and on top of that she even succeeds in bringing food for the starving besieged. But Christian had understood it when she expressed her rapture for his love letters (actually written by Cyrano in Christian's name, but without his knowledge). Not willing to tell her the truth, which would have been cruel, or to conceal it, which would have been dishonest, Christian chooses death in battle.

Fourteen years pass, during which Roxanne lives by memories of love for her beloved hyper-static, reading his letters frequently, while Cyrano never suspecting that she loves him, visits her regularly bringing news from the city. She understood both of her mistakes at once when, at her request, Cyrano began to read these letters aloud. She realised it because he voiced them not like a reader, but like an author and without even looking at them (since it was already dark), and besides, the words came from his heart.

But Roxanne does not throw herself at him, because she is no longer the same Roxanne, and he is not the same Cyrano. Time has done its deed---Roxanne's dynamism has moved from hypo-statism to hypo-dynamism, and Cyrano's dynamism from hyper-statism towards statism (which found its expression in his relentless condemnation of corrupt practices of the landlords, and for which he was mortally wounded by their hired henchmen). In such a dynamic configuration there is room for protective feelings in Roxanne and adoration in Cyrano, and in such tone the play ends.

Another example of a match where the showing off partner (hyper-static) is male and the organising one (hypo-static) is female is Higgins and Eliza in Shaw's Pygmalion. Many dynamic consistencies occur in the interpretations of the role of Eliza. Theatre directors seem to have a tendency to treat this figure as an operetta type coquette; that is, attribute to her a hyper-static dynamic temperament. However, the traits with which she was equipped by the author himself leave no doubt whatsoever that we are dealing here with a hypo-static dynamic temperament, even with a shade of prevalence towards hypo-dynamism. Eliza is a very enterprising girl, well capable of being in charge her own life: she sells flowers, has an ambition to rise above her present social position, makes a decision to take diction lessons and is prepared to spend a certain amount of money on that, finds the address of the university professor and comes to see him, treating it like a transaction. Later on she even threatens Higgins that she may compete against him in giving elocution lessons. Higgins' mother has a correct recognition of Eliza's dynamic temperament, and supports their marriage in the conviction that Eliza will bring a factor of stability into the life of this charming disorderly person who undertook educating Eliza only for the sake of showing off. Their match is quite clear in the final scene of the play, when Higgins leaves it to Eliza to take care of the details of his life. Although Shaw stipulated that this marriage will not take place, he did that only in the notes to his play, perhaps wishing to avoid an argument that he wrote a melodrama with a banal happy end. But the public has an unmistakable feeling about the future of the pair.

A perfect illustration of the manifestations of hypo-statism and hypo-dynamism in a marriage coupling between a hypo-static and a hypo-dynamic can be found in Shakespeare's Macbeth. Macbeth's dynamism (AB) and his wife's dynamism (A) constitute an AB---A coupling (intermediate one between A---A and B---A). That is why Macbeth is treated by his wife as something in between a partner (A) and an executor (B).

The forecasts of the witches, a subject of most diverse interpretations by literary essayists, actors, directors for so long, are in fact the thoughts of Macbeth himself, constituting a declaration of his own hypo-static dynamic temperament. Macbeth aspires to power by nomination, over the existing grades of promotion: Thane of Glamis (which he is now), then also Thane of Cawdor (which he has a chance to become, as a reward for overcoming a rebel occupying this position hitherto), and in the end King of Scotland! He soon receives the nomination for Thane of Cawdor from King Duncan, but from whom can he receive the nomination to become the king? For the hypo-dynamic Lady Macbeth it is clear that power is conquered, not given, and only a fool would not use the opportunity to murder Duncan. But this does not befit Macbeth's dynamic temperament; he believes that power must be given to him by someone, nobody knows who, perhaps fate ‘If fate wants me to be king, then let it crown me, without my help'. But it does not seem that fate wants to, because Duncan has just proclaimed his own son as the heir to his throne. In this situation, urged by his wife, Macbeth agrees to kill Duncan, but, typical for hypo-statics, he would have preferred to take care only of arranging the matter, while here he must carry out this disgusting task by himself. Later, as the king, he will organise the killing of many people with someone else's hands. Lady Macbeth understands his dynamic temperament, although too late, saying that he would have liked to combine ‘honours and sainthood', that is hypo-dynamism with statism. Macbeth has enough hypo-dynamism in his dynamic temperament to want power to be a king, but also enough of statism to feel fear for breaking the rules: ‘To be what I am is to be nothing, if I can not be it without fear'. Meanwhile, Lady Macbeth speaks with pure hypo-dynamism: ‘So what if it comes out? Well, who can put us, the rulers in front of a court?' And it is not from compunction or remorse that she reflexively wipes her hands from the non-existing stains of blood and in the end kills herself, but because of the obvious futility of the murder when she realises that Macbeth's dynamic temperament, being what it is, will bring both of them down from the throne and under the executioner's axe. If it had been herself who had the royal power, matters would have looked quite different. She would have managed the affairs, turning Macbeth into an efficient assistant, and if the worst came to the worst, she would have sent him to heaven, and it would not have occurred to her to look at her hands in search for blood stains. Macbeth did not succeed, because a hypo-static can only be a hypo-dynamic's assistant, never the boss. A humorous version of such a situation was shown in television series ‘Yes Minister‘, with an hypo-dynamic Permanent Secretary taking orders from his hyper-static Minister. A real-life situation occurred when a recent Australian Prime Minister (A) was ousted by his Treasurer (AB), who craved to take the appointment for himself, thinking it was just a ‘job' - with predictable results. It was his mistake to think that an election is equivalent to a ‘nomination' or that a ‘job swap' deal could apply to a position of power

An illustration of a relationship between mother and daughter in conflict based on their dynamic archetypes is illustrated in George Bernard Shaw's Mrs Warren's Profession. Mrs Warrens justification of her occupation (the owner of brothels) as a person's right not to live in poverty constitutes a declaration of an hypo-static dynamic temperament. It is no wonder, then, that this static statement finds approval in the static dynamic temperament of her dogmatic daughter. However, when the mother refuses the daughter's request to put an end to the disgraceful enterprise (‘because I like this job'), it is clear that she has got an hypo-dynamic temperament and this is already not reconcilable with the pure statism of the daughter. Dynamically the two women have nothing in common; their paths must part.

A story capable of revealing character must fulfil certain elementary conditions, such as believable character traits of its main characters. The story or plot must show the inevitability of its unfolding plot according to the character traits ascribed by the creator to the hero. A character, a hero, cannot exist out of context. He, she or it, be it human, animal, animated object or complete abstraction must inevitably possess and display character and behaviour which is recognisable by the recipients as "true" and "real", and this can only be shown in believable context by proper understanding of the elements of personality, character, and especially dynamic temperament. Believability of a fictional character is predetermined by motives and emotions matching choices and decisions and resulting in understandable actions. A creator of a literary or film work presents situations as part of a story, during which the character traits are revealed through decisions made and actions taken, that is, by consequential life choices. the plot development the hero is shown for who he or she is.

[1]This is apparent also in the fact that hypo-static women frequently initiate the marriage proposal if the desired one is not forthcoming by itself, e.g. Hobson's Choice (1953) with Brenda de Banzie and John Mills, No Time for Comedy (1940) with Rosalind Russell and James Stewart, The Seventh Veil (1945) with Ann Todd and James Mason, The Proud Rebel (1958) with Olivia de Haviland and Alan Ladd, and many more.