Saturday, September 29, 2007
Projection is one word that sums up the future of theatrical design
Live Design: "Projection — if there is one word that sums up the future of theatrical design, it has to be “projection.” It's a brave new world where projections are moving off the screen to add a new layer of interest on the entire stage, and images of actors are being projected from remote locations, mixing live performers with their digital counterparts or replacing live actors altogether. What does this mean for all the designers of today not just in projection, but also set, lighting, and sound, and those of tomorrow? Will we exist in an entirely digital world?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I don't think that digital projection will ever replace conventional scenery and/or lighting, but I do think it has a great potential to enhance it. We have projected backdrops in "Three Sisters" and, although I have not yet been able to see it from the front, they look pretty cool on the monitors. I just think that this a new tool that can be integrated into designs... or not depending on the show. Technology is always changing and developing, sometimes in good ways. It just shows that part of our jobs is adapting to this new technology and being able to create using new and different methods.
I thought this was very interesting I always knew this was there but never really thought about it. When I was in Scotland over the summer I saw a show that had two actors who responded and were part of at times a projector screen other characters that were projected would talk to and physically respond to the actors it was really exciting to me that there was this whole new kind of theatre. The design process of projection seems odd to me because i shouldn't just be the lighting designer who has to deal with the projection. Maybe since CMU started the Dramaturgy major they should start a projection major.
I do that adding projections, which already has been done, is an interesting new aspect to theatre. It gives a new medium to the theatre aspect of telling a story in a different way. The theatre is always intergrading new ways into shows and performances. But as with all new intergrations into theatre we have to be careful not to get carried away with a new design aspect. It will change the way of how theatre works, which is what theatre is all about, but it should not take over.
I previously worked on a production of 'Iron' where we used 2 projectors to project 1 image onto the entire set.
I thought it was so clever the way the director weaved together the different dynamics, creating wonders in the performance.
The cast worked with the momentum of the images, and it was just wonderful to watch them, in the midst of the flowers...
Projection tends to be jarring to the theatrical audience. To a certain extent they are expecting to see a box set on stage and not having that can be disorientating. However, there can be a union between projection and not. I just hope that plays that don't call for it (A Hatful of Rain comes to mind) won't be made to adjust to the new art form. Just because something is new and cool does not mean it is always necessary. Sometimes a crash box back stage works better than a sound effect.
Decent projection has been around longer than we realize. But its integration and innovation is becoming incredible. I know from hearing about projections from Wendall Harrington, it's really inspiring to see what can be done. Truly well done projections can not be identified as such, and are seamlessly integrated into the other design areas.
This is an interesting idea, I think the observation that projected scenery will only remain interesting as a dimensional entity and not as a stand alone source of scenery. As designers we must remember though that, the three dimensional environment type of scenery is a relatively new idea. For many years scenery consisted of a painted drop or two that just depicted a location for the scene. This also reminds me of another closely related type of scenery which is on the rise in the world of video. When I was approached to redesign the scenery of my high school television studio in an effort to give the organization a more 21st century look. I was asked to look primarily into static backgrounds that could be keyed into the scene with a video mixer saving them the trouble of constructing and installing a new set for their main news desk. The problem that I saw with this approach is the lack of believability in this scenery, no matter how well designed it still looks like a effect, whereas with actual material scenery. The true 3d environment is achieved. I think projected scenery falls into this same family, where the effect can be used in moderation to create effective and stunning visuals, yet without some of the traditional elements of any set. The effects look incredibly two dimensional and fake as far as aesthetics are concerned.
I like to see projection when it works alongside scenery, lighting, and the general action of the play -- not in replacement of it. It can be a very effective way to add a scenic effect that there isn't space for. The projection used in "Three Sisters" doesn't really accomplish this, because it doesn't make sense spatially with the action of the play -- but it does add a scenic element for which there would be no room otherwise.
Projection needs a place to land; a set. I think that more, and more projection will be used as a way to keep the flow of the show up, but major sets will still be needed. Until we can create true to life 3D projections, carpenters will have jobs. I do think that more actors will be projection, just because it's easier to fly a flat and project Jesus onto it, rather than flying an actor to portray him. It's cool that this new tech can enhance what is already on stage, but actors really do need something to move and interact with on stage (with the exception of "Our Town").
This is one of those ideas that can either be spectacular or a huge failure. I went to a performance at a college in my hometown that used projection as a big element in their design and I was disappointed by it. The style of the animation was not particularly appealing and nothing meshed. Not the projection itself or the projection with the performance.
I think this is what Chemers was referring to when he talked to our class about cinematic versus theatric qualities. I would be much more impressed with a show if they projected the images into my head rather than on to some screen. If you think about it that way a projection just seems lazy.
I think that projections absolutely have become the new "cool thing to do" in theatre, and I can really say I don't think I've ever seen it used to its fullest potential. What this might mean is that projections don't really have a full potential, and can never actually be used effectively in the world of theatre. The "less is more" mentality comes to mind here, where small projections that work alongside the rest of teh scenery are better than huge projections that flood the stage.
many new Broadway shows are using projections in their shows. It is a good feature. I don't feel there is a full need for projection right now. It still needs some refinements to make it look more integrated into the set. It doesn't look natural to have painted flats and the random projection of the sky in the background, it just doesn't seem to flow as well together.
technology is making artists' lives more and more difficult, and more and more unneccesary. the world is getting smaller, as less and less people are needed to make theatre happen. so sad for us. so sad.
Post a Comment