Design/Tech

Okay…I already posted most of this on the Diversity/Difference/Wiz thread but I’m posting it under Design/Tech now to start a new discussion. More to come.

Classroom. Education. Why are we here? I am beginning to be convinced that undergraduate experiences are being/have already been reduced to another form of generalist education, fostered by the idea of survey classes. This translates to some form of rigid structure and an inability to foster discussion and improvise as needed to create valuable learning environments. The majority of the classes I have taken so far (and most I have to look forward to) rely on this idea of disseminating large amounts of general information. In order to accomplish this (on paper) we are provided with syllabi at the beginning of the semester that outline everything that will (and wont…) be covered in each course. We must stay on track in order to “get through everything.” In my experience this has one, dominant result—the silencing of opposition. There is no room for conflict or anything that may be perceived as difficult discussion because it stalls the only type of progress this structure values—progress that is definable, linear, and able to be proven. This in no way encourages articulation of individual thought and produces a learning environment based on a sense of false tranquility. Conflict is avoided because it is scary and messy and time consuming.

I would argue that the way theatrical design is thought about (in most American theatre, and certainly at the University) creates elements of visual pleasure that are void of necessity and immediacy. It has become a disposable element of theatrical production because it is used in a predictable, didactic, and superfluous manner. Not only do I see this on the stage but I see it in our classrooms as well. We are taught (in our neatly packaged survey class) about one type of design that works for one type of theatre space, relying on one understanding of theatricality. We are taught that design elements function as a supplement—a reinforcement of the story. Shifts in music and lighting dictate the emotions of audience members and tell them what to feel. Scenery is often realistic in style or just non-existent. Consideration for the audience is often excluded from the design process or tossed in as an after-thought. What about the possibility of design elements functioning in a different way? What if design elements don’t reinforce a difficult moment but contradict it? What if the audience doesn’t know what they are supposed to feel, but they know that they feel something? I don’t think we should expect everything to be intelligible to every audience member. If you provoke thought, rage, confusion, satisfaction, or joy (or a million other things…) than I think there is an element of success. Do all the “answers” really have to be presented in such a digestible fashion? I think our possibilities in the theatre are being destroyed with these survey classes that offer solutions—answers where none exist. There is no formula for this process—only attempts at accessing or creating some sense of community and thought and feeling, if only for a few moments.

I’m going to start with a rough quote from a professor in class today. I hesitate to put it in quotes because I was trying to write a lot of these ideas down as they were talking and it was hard to keep up. Here it is…

(In a discussion about design and the theatrical process…)
The thing is never done. It just has to open and we have to move on.

I just want that thought floating around in our heads as we think about some other things. I’m not sure how to deal with that statement quite yet…

The tech classes that are required for the major are less than impressive in their approach to teaching design and their engagement with students. Sitting in a theatre with 70 other students listening to a professor ramble about their past experiences designing at The Guthrie or The Goodman, etc (“the good theatres”…as I was “taught” today) does not improve my ability as a theatre artist to think about design. We are asked to write a 10-page paper about our lighting design but never touch a lighting instrument. We are asked to design costumes but only with a “realistic” and “authentic” approach. We are asked to design a set without any experience with hands on composition and arrangement. I don’t think it’s so revolutionary to want to get up on my feet, get my hands dirty, and make something. Design. How can we possibly learn about design by talking about it for four hours a week. You have to do something. The class size is massive, I get it. Instead of giving up because it poses a challenge, why don’t we consider the possibility that instead of one mind having to provide all of the discussion, we have 71 minds. What if, instead of just talking about it, we all created something in the moment—using whatever was in the room. This can give us an opportunity to do and discuss. What if we designed some element for a word, an emotion, a sentence, a sound, etc. Afterward we could discuss various approaches to style. Someone may approach the design realistically or literally while others chose a variety of other options. We could learn from each other and create a more diverse spectrum of thought and actually experience what it means to design! This is just one idea—there are so many more. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Not only is the current approach lacking in engagement, but I also don’t think these classes teach us anything about the design process. What we really learn about are the politics of economics in the theatre. We don’t explore the thought process of design, how to problem solve, how to think about the possibilities of creativity—we just learn about budgets, money, how much you “have to have” to make theatre, how much is not enough, etc. This approach to theatre is so wrapped up in money that its success is immediately hindered. The “point” of teaching design classes is not to try to impress us by telling us that $10,000 is not a big enough budget when the costumes cost $4,500 a piece. We were “taught” today during class that designing without a budget can not happen. This puts parameters on our thinking about design by privileging one approach to theatricality over all others and creates theatre as an elitist art form—only for those with money. I would argue that the reason these professors think designing can’t occur without money is because the work they are talking about is not immediate or necessary. If a story had to be told, I have to believe people would just make it happen. If there had to be a way, there would be a way.

Theatrical design takes on so many forms and I just don’t think it can be contained in one interpretation of theatricality. These classes privilege the current, Western approach to realism and deny the existence of everything else. I understand and respect the design practices that function in this form of representation. It is valid and important and it should be discussed. At the same time, I think many other approaches to theatre are just as valid and important and should be discussed.

Our professors (and ourselves as artists) are responsible for a certain participation in knowledge dissemination. It is unacceptable to teach design as three walls, some practicals, and “authentic” costumes. This is not the only answer. There are no answers. We have to remain constantly engaged, constantly searching and creating and failing and learning.

What a simple revision to the way these classes are being taught—an abandonment of the idea of some “universal approach” and a constant engagement for the sake of creating, failing, and learning.

I have many thoughts about the way we're taught design/tech. But i'd just like to respond to the idea that we cannot costume unless we have money, and a good 10,000$ no less, by putting here the cheap art manifesto of the Bread & Puppet theatre company.

"the WHY CHEAP ART? manifesto
PEOPLE have been THINKING too long that
ART is a PRIVILEGE of the MUSEUMS & the
RICH. ART IS NOT BUSINESS!
It does not belong to banks and fancy investors
ART IS FOOD. You cant EAT it BUT it FEEDS
you. ART has to be CHEAP & available to
EVERYBODY. It needs to be EVERYWHERE
because it is the INSIDE of the
WORLD.

ART SOOTHES PAIN!
Art wakes up sleepers!
ART FIGHTS AGAINST WAR & STUPIDITY!
ART SINGS HALLELUJA!
ART IS FOR KITCHENS!
ART IS LIKE GOOD BREAD!
Art is like green trees!
Art is like white clouds in blue sky!
ART IS CHEAP!
HURRAH!"
-Bread & Puppet - Glover, Vermont. 1984