Abstract: It is a truism that theatre leaves behind only fragments of a process; the object itself-the performance-is transitory. What remains, perhaps, are written texts, photographs of productions, blueprints, costume renderings, set models, and, of course, the theatre building itself, though even this is not always the case. The study of any of these shards is problematic, for when taken out of the context of the overall performance these fragments are an incomplete and distorted record that often take on an artistic or aesthetic life of their own. The case of the written text is, of course, well known: the words become the property of literary analysts and the inquiry shifts to questions of language, meaning, and structure divorced from the realities of performance. More recently, however, the elements of design have become a focus of collections and exhibitions as well as a subject for analysis. This is a good thing insofar as it heightens spectator awareness of the contributions of design and the inseparability of the performance (i.e., actors and language) from the physical space. But it also elevates the processual icons-the models, renderings, plans, and sketches-to the level of art objects. The moment this is done, the object ceases to be viewed and evaluated as a tool for achieving a production-as part of a process-and is instead appreciated for aesthetic principals similar to those applied to painting and sculpture; it becomes an end in itself. Some designers fare well in this context. Many Russian scenographers, for instance, are part of a long tradition that values exquisite set renderings which compare favorably with paintings. Indeed, many of these designers are also highly regarded painters. When looking at these renderings it is often difficult, however, to understand how they translate onto the three-dimensional world of the stage. In fact, the realizations of these renderings are often disappointing when viewed side by side with the painting. (Some American designers such as John Lee Beatty and Ming Cho Lee are known for their rendering abilities or for exquisite models, though it must be said that in the U.S. the emphasis is always on the final execution and there is a strong correlation between the designer's plan and the final product.) The result of this emphasis upon the object or some extratheatrical scale of aesthetic principles contributes to the valorization of painters in the theatre-Pablo Picasso and David Hockney are prime examples-when in fact they are not always particularly good, let alone innovative, theatrical designers.
Publication Year: 1993
Publication Date: 1993-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 2
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot