I don’t think I need to move with this other than note where my one desires are shaped.
If I want to explore the matter in detail I would pick George Bernard Shaw and Chekov. Both experienced high levels of dissonance when viewing there work performed by Actors.
Shaw want to use phonetic language to ensure a consistency with expression. That always struck me as somewhat authoritative. ordering inflexion from a distance and far removed from the space you have to work in.
I Imagine Shaw in his drawing-room with a replica map of the battlefield and a range of tin soldiers that were his to command. Chekov’s expressive symbolism at the outset looks more flexible.
But that’s ahistorical I can’t set the thought perfectly in its time and place. A reminder of these contextual factors are Samuel L. Jackson’s recent remarks on such things and his decision to frame them in terms of identity politics.
I suspect such frames will have a history both in terms of ethnicity and class. The oldest acting teachers on the British stage (influential on later classical style and teaching methods) were the dancing masters of the restoration stage (comedy of manners).
Actors came from the lower classes they had to replicate the manners of the upper classes and the aristocracy.
The dancing masters traditional role was in the art of dance, fencing, manners and deportment. His students, the wealthy and privilaged classes.
Dissonance caused by a rather different comedy of manners, lead to tutors from outside of the stage incorporated into its working practice.
Means of keeping it real.
Identity politics and its dissonance is an old feature of the comedy of errors that resulted in the establishment of formal teaching methods and eventualy a distinctive stylistic form, described as ‘classical’ although its full title is ‘classic and restoration comedy’ (the period in which this traditional school traces it’s orgin and the starting point of its methods and observation).