Litro: When I interviewed designer Chloe Lamford a few months ago, she suggested that the dream for her when creating the world of a play is to find a “golden idea” which encapsulates the central premise of the text whilst creating a space which is theatrically interesting. Referencing her design for the Schaubühne’s production of Duncan Macmillan’s Lungs, which saw the actors peddling stationary bikes to create the show’s power in order to comment on the play’s themes of global warming, Lamford told me that once an idea like that is found, it’s a no-brainer. In two of its recent shows by American playwrights, the Gate Theatre has found a way of achieving this on a small scale, creating designs which act as a space within which the play can occur whilst simultaneously commenting on its ideas, demonstrating the importance of non-naturalistic design in theatre.
9 comments:
This is certainly an interesting article. Personally, I get somewhat annoyed with the whole abstracted deeper meaning movement. Often times I wish I was just seeing something realistic that fit the production rather then something which was confusing, forcing me to figure out what the design was about. I think sometimes designers can take this abstract idea completely overboard to the point where the average audience member has NO idea what the intention of the designer is. There's nothing wrong with coming up with innovative creative designs, I simply feel that sometimes it could be brought back to reality a bit more.
Smart designs can really hit the center of a piece and illuminate its deeper essence. I agree that these designs worked because the shows they were for were already abstracted. I also really like the way that the designs stem from a big concept of the work. Even though the audience may not understand the explicit intentions of the designer, an effect design will still communicate these emotions.
I was looking through Joe Pino's Narcosis Labs website the other day and came across a quote that said "I don't know how the art world gets away with it, it not like you hear songs on the radio that are just a mess of noise, and then the DJ says 'if you read the thesis that comes with this, it would make more sense'". I like the designs for both of these productions in that i can understand them, and they support the design, likewise I am not really a fan of designs that are only understood by the designer.
I find the idea of abstract set design really exciting. Having just seen our production of The Glass Menagerie, its amazing to see how the set can do so much more than just portray a realistic space for the world of the play. The set can be an opportunity to give the audience deeper insight into the playwrights meaning. My favorite line in this article was "They give us an extra lens through which to contemplate the ideas the plays present us with, but also exist as works of art within their own right." This idea of the set existing as its own piece of art is such a great way of thinking. It also reminds of the set design of Numen/ For Use. This all makes me excited for new approaches to design.
Abstract sets have been on the rise for a while now. (As seen at CMU.) This article, or the examples in it remind me of the set of American Idiot. Though the show does not make much sense the scenery carried a message of the dangers of the world in the new century. American idiot was pretty abstract with several levels of acting space and a wall of television monitors. The media reflected the technology and dangers of the modern world. I think it is cool how abstract sets are not just too attract attention, but to strengthen the message of the show, almost acting as its own character one may say?
I liked the thought from Chloe Lamford where she says that she finds the "Golden Idea" of a play and then uses that to create her set. I feel like in other design practices so many people just think that set designers decorate things in order to create the scenery. In contrast, designing a set is just that, DESIGNING! Scenic designers use the characters, settings, time period, and place to create a well pictured and imaginative realization of the play. A lot of work goes into reading a play and then designing a world from that text. I really like this idea of Abstract scenery because it gives more room to explore the big ideas of a play. I definitely think that there is more room to study and incorporate this kind of set design into live theater. I feel that CMU trains us for traditional theater as well as breaking into new and exciting forms of entertainment.
I think that abstract sets have e huge amount of potential, if done well and if they fairly precisely fit the show in terms of mood and theme and so forth. Some of the examples that the article gives are really interesting, and the author makes a good argument for why they match the shows. At the same time though, I don't think that more realistic sets can be entirely disregarded. The set that is the best fit depends entirely on what kind of show is being produced, and both abstract and realistic sets can be incredible, given that they are correct for what the production needs.
The thing that really made me click on this article was the fact that I feel like here at CMU we really strive for that abstract deeper meaning... stuff.. that often appears in our warehouse shows or new-works and quite frankly I don't think its always pulled of very well. I think more thought is put into how abstract can we make this while still making it watchable instead of striving for something that connects to everyone and has all the elements of a great production. On the other hand, I do feel like sometimes we are able to pull off a good experimental or abstract theatre experience.
I currently have a love hate relationship with abstract sets. I tend to really like the really abstract ones that have interactions with the actors. Truthfully, I feel that the scenic design of a show can be as realistic or abstract as the designer wants it be. As long as it works with the production than its good for me.
Post a Comment