Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Thursday, November 07, 2019
A Hack At The Opera
Butts In the Seats: No, no, no, this isn’t a story about someone with little talent and unoriginal ideas, quite the contrary.
Recently my Arts Hacker colleague, Ceci Dadisman, had linked to an article about an Opera Hack-a-thon that happened at the end of July.
Too often, we can get stuck in a routine of “this is always how it’s been done” in the arts industry. Events like these can bring much needed innovation and design into practices that have been stagnant for years or decades. A lot of current innovation seems to be focused on the patrons, which of course, are essential parts of the industry and who often expect the entertainment industry to keep up with the “rest of the world” in terms of technological integration. But all of these proposed ideas are aimed at the design, technical, or management areas. One comment I thought was insightful was about the arts living in their own heads, which can lead to a lot of reinventions of the wheel. It often takes a shake up of the industry, or a groundbreaking new idea, to see change, which then also takes a while to trickle down into smaller companies or across the country.
To me, this article makes it seem like opera has just discovered three-dimensional modelling. Software such as AutoCAD and Vectorworks have existed for some time now, but this Opera Hack-a-thon seems to claim that an online database used for three-dimensional modelling is a revolutionary idea. Not to say, of course, that it isn’t – at the very least, drafting ground plans and details of a set is vital to any show, and three-dimensional modelling of the sets to be rented and or built will do nothing but supplement this. However, this technology is not new. AutoCAD was first released in 1982 and Vectorworks much around the same time. Granted, these software were not nearly as sophisticated and functional as they are now, but the ability to model in three dimensions has been around for more than just the past year or two. CAD software has been an integral part of many (not all!! e.g Dick Block) designer’s process for years.
I really like what this article addresses. I am a strong supporter of hack-a-thons as I have helped organize them in high school. I had only ever seen them in a very localized frame of reference or focus, so hearing about a hack-a-thon aimed at opera and live performance is really intriguing to me. Regarding the top three ideas that came out of the event, I was drawn to the one about the mapping of the space. At my high school, we had 3-D renderings on Vectorworks of all of our theatre spaces including hanging positions for lights, so to me, this is not a new concept. I do like the aspect of their idea where it would be every theatre across the country filed into a large collective database. I also really enjoy the idea with having files that connect the music to lights and other cues. I think that this would cut dry-tech time down considerably. I do not like the part of the idea where they would make all the productions look exactly the same with this functionality. I think it would be good if they had a master file that showed where other productions have had cues, but not necessarily say what the cues were or looked like. It makes sense in opera to have cues, specifically lighting cues, follow the score of the music, but if you provide the other/base design, then there is no need for a lighting designer for any other productions.
Rented scenery is fascinating to me, because we built our own scenery in high school and we’re building our own scenery here at CMU, so why is it that professional theaters (who presumably have larger budgets) sometimes rent their scenery. When we put on a show at CMU, the designers meticulously read a script the script and discuss, coming up with ideas and bouncing them off each other, leading to a production that is unique is every way but the script, which is more interesting theater. I did find it odd that they were excited about using 3D modeling software to map the inside of the theater because there was a situation where the rented scenery showed up and it was too big to fit. This doesn’t sound like 3D software would fix this problem, it sounds more like they made a mistake and didn’t accurately measure the space or the theater.
I was excited by the title of the article and then I read it. The set didn’t fit? That’s because you didn’t pay attention to the measurements of the space. I have not yet come across a tech data sheet for a venue that did not list space measurements of the performance space. I also don’t like taking the human element out of things. Oh and one more thing, a machine is never going to get me to “feel” the music. That is always going to be my own. We are getting far too involved in computer driven performances. Pre-defined cues, virtual signers, things like that are foreign to me. I can get with some of the cool technology in the performing arts but when you start to make everything run on a computer and take away the human elements you start to kill the artform. This also speaks to the design process. If I am going to direct something or design something, I don’t want pre-defined cues, I don’t want someone else’s vision. I want my own. I want the ideas of the design and production team to flow freely and not be hampered by what you are able to rent. And why are you renting a set anyway. If you want to save money, go with projections.
5 comments:
Too often, we can get stuck in a routine of “this is always how it’s been done” in the arts industry. Events like these can bring much needed innovation and design into practices that have been stagnant for years or decades. A lot of current innovation seems to be focused on the patrons, which of course, are essential parts of the industry and who often expect the entertainment industry to keep up with the “rest of the world” in terms of technological integration. But all of these proposed ideas are aimed at the design, technical, or management areas. One comment I thought was insightful was about the arts living in their own heads, which can lead to a lot of reinventions of the wheel. It often takes a shake up of the industry, or a groundbreaking new idea, to see change, which then also takes a while to trickle down into smaller companies or across the country.
To me, this article makes it seem like opera has just discovered three-dimensional modelling. Software such as AutoCAD and Vectorworks have existed for some time now, but this Opera Hack-a-thon seems to claim that an online database used for three-dimensional modelling is a revolutionary idea. Not to say, of course, that it isn’t – at the very least, drafting ground plans and details of a set is vital to any show, and three-dimensional modelling of the sets to be rented and or built will do nothing but supplement this. However, this technology is not new. AutoCAD was first released in 1982 and Vectorworks much around the same time. Granted, these software were not nearly as sophisticated and functional as they are now, but the ability to model in three dimensions has been around for more than just the past year or two. CAD software has been an integral part of many (not all!! e.g Dick Block) designer’s process for years.
I really like what this article addresses. I am a strong supporter of hack-a-thons as I have helped organize them in high school. I had only ever seen them in a very localized frame of reference or focus, so hearing about a hack-a-thon aimed at opera and live performance is really intriguing to me. Regarding the top three ideas that came out of the event, I was drawn to the one about the mapping of the space. At my high school, we had 3-D renderings on Vectorworks of all of our theatre spaces including hanging positions for lights, so to me, this is not a new concept. I do like the aspect of their idea where it would be every theatre across the country filed into a large collective database. I also really enjoy the idea with having files that connect the music to lights and other cues. I think that this would cut dry-tech time down considerably. I do not like the part of the idea where they would make all the productions look exactly the same with this functionality. I think it would be good if they had a master file that showed where other productions have had cues, but not necessarily say what the cues were or looked like. It makes sense in opera to have cues, specifically lighting cues, follow the score of the music, but if you provide the other/base design, then there is no need for a lighting designer for any other productions.
Rented scenery is fascinating to me, because we built our own scenery in high school and we’re building our own scenery here at CMU, so why is it that professional theaters (who presumably have larger budgets) sometimes rent their scenery. When we put on a show at CMU, the designers meticulously read a script the script and discuss, coming up with ideas and bouncing them off each other, leading to a production that is unique is every way but the script, which is more interesting theater. I did find it odd that they were excited about using 3D modeling software to map the inside of the theater because there was a situation where the rented scenery showed up and it was too big to fit. This doesn’t sound like 3D software would fix this problem, it sounds more like they made a mistake and didn’t accurately measure the space or the theater.
I was excited by the title of the article and then I read it. The set didn’t fit? That’s because you didn’t pay attention to the measurements of the space. I have not yet come across a tech data sheet for a venue that did not list space measurements of the performance space. I also don’t like taking the human element out of things. Oh and one more thing, a machine is never going to get me to “feel” the music. That is always going to be my own. We are getting far too involved in computer driven performances. Pre-defined cues, virtual signers, things like that are foreign to me. I can get with some of the cool technology in the performing arts but when you start to make everything run on a computer and take away the human elements you start to kill the artform. This also speaks to the design process. If I am going to direct something or design something, I don’t want pre-defined cues, I don’t want someone else’s vision. I want my own. I want the ideas of the design and production team to flow freely and not be hampered by what you are able to rent. And why are you renting a set anyway. If you want to save money, go with projections.
Post a Comment