Disenchanted with the way the work was going in the Group Theater in the 30s under the direction of Strasberg, Stella began to hate acting. Strasberg's emphasis on sense memory took the joy out of acting for her. She didn't need to delve deep into her past or even deeply anywhere to emote. Then, in 1934 she went to see the Stanislavsky's theater for herself in Moscow, she studied. She learned. She was resurrected.
But it wasn't until later that same summer that she actually met and studied with the master himself. So when it was time to return to the Group Theater's summer retreat, she couldn't get off the boat quickly enough and go upstate to tell her fellow actors they were doing it all wrong! They didn't have to use there own personal past. They could make it up! Create, as it were, like any artist does. That year marked the beginning of Stella's teaching career, 80 years ago as of the publication of her first biography last year (although no one in the media/press picked up on that!) So, to answer your question, Stella didn't really fall into teaching so much as teaching became the conduit through which she could "pay Stanislavsky back," which became her mission in life: to clarify how one creates emotional truth in his performance. Like everything sacred, her teaching came from a place of generosity.
Stella would answer the second part of your question differently on any given day. Do people have natural talent? Can acting be learned? She might say, "Of course, darling, but you have to give up your soul for it." If a student came unprepared to class, she couldn't be subjected to it. On such an occasion, she might just say, "Give it up, darling. Go find yourself a desk job."
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)