I would like to make a response to the opinions expressed by Lyn Gardner in her recent post on http://www.guardian.co.uk/ on the 23 of Oct 08.
In this post, which was entitled “Is drama losing out to design in modern theatre?”, Gardner criticised the employment of overpowering visual imagery to compensate for a lack of content in contemporary theatre. The author perceives that there is a current trend among theatre makers to focus more on the setting of a piece rather than on the piece itself.
In this post, which was entitled “Is drama losing out to design in modern theatre?”, Gardner criticised the employment of overpowering visual imagery to compensate for a lack of content in contemporary theatre. The author perceives that there is a current trend among theatre makers to focus more on the setting of a piece rather than on the piece itself.
“it seems to me that I'm increasingly coming across stagings and design,
site-specific or otherwise, that seem intended to dazzle so that you don't
actually question the content too closely. What you are often getting is lamb
dressed as steak.” (Gardner, 23/10/08)
In opposition to Gardner’s statement, I am of the opinion that the content of a piece of theatre is not simply expressed through the performance. Indeed, good design should encompass both form and content.
Having discussed Gardenr’s article with fellow VLP students, I have found that there is a great awareness among new theatre makers of the concerns expressed by the author. In fact among those to whom I’ve spoken there is a collective belief that a good designer must be a rather selfless actor. A designer cannot let his/her ego distort a piece of theatre for personal glory.
With this in mind, allow me, if you will, to play devil’s advocate and to say a word in defence of the designer’s ego.
I do not hold with the idea that design must take a back seat in the performative setting. It is an old-fashioned and false belief that the greatest complement a theatre designer can get is if the audience leave a performance and do not mention the scenography. Theatre designers are authors in their own right.
While I agree that theatre must be a collaborative endeavour, and that it is simply poor design practice to create a set that does not complement all aspects of the production, I do not, however, believe that it is necessarily the fault of the designer if the action on stage is not to the same standard as its settings. No matter how collaborative a project is - there are some elements of a production that are outside the remit of the designer. It is possible that if the settings overpower the performance then the performance is not strong on its own merit. If anything a good design may serve to highlight a poor performance all the more, but this should not reflect badly on the designer.
This point reminds me of a great quote i once heard by artist and director Julian Schnabel. When Frank Gehry’s design for the Guggenheim in Bilbao was criticised on the grounds that his design was too overpowering to function effectively as a museum space, Schnabel retorted “if it does compete with the art, then maybe the art isn’t good enough”
Having discussed Gardenr’s article with fellow VLP students, I have found that there is a great awareness among new theatre makers of the concerns expressed by the author. In fact among those to whom I’ve spoken there is a collective belief that a good designer must be a rather selfless actor. A designer cannot let his/her ego distort a piece of theatre for personal glory.
With this in mind, allow me, if you will, to play devil’s advocate and to say a word in defence of the designer’s ego.
I do not hold with the idea that design must take a back seat in the performative setting. It is an old-fashioned and false belief that the greatest complement a theatre designer can get is if the audience leave a performance and do not mention the scenography. Theatre designers are authors in their own right.
While I agree that theatre must be a collaborative endeavour, and that it is simply poor design practice to create a set that does not complement all aspects of the production, I do not, however, believe that it is necessarily the fault of the designer if the action on stage is not to the same standard as its settings. No matter how collaborative a project is - there are some elements of a production that are outside the remit of the designer. It is possible that if the settings overpower the performance then the performance is not strong on its own merit. If anything a good design may serve to highlight a poor performance all the more, but this should not reflect badly on the designer.
This point reminds me of a great quote i once heard by artist and director Julian Schnabel. When Frank Gehry’s design for the Guggenheim in Bilbao was criticised on the grounds that his design was too overpowering to function effectively as a museum space, Schnabel retorted “if it does compete with the art, then maybe the art isn’t good enough”
No comments:
Post a Comment