InPark Magazine: When people go to see a new attraction, a new experience, what do they look for? What do they look at? Most guests are there to see the show, to be immersed in the story and experience. The behind-the-scenes stuff – the projectors, mixers and other equipment – should stay behind the scenes, where it’s meant to be, or else the illusion will be broken, and the suspension of disbelief lost. That’s when the magic is gone, unless you’re one of the folks (like us) who make the magic using tools and technology. We call ourselves Alchemists, because we transform matter into attraction magic.
5 comments:
Theater like many other things is a machine with many parts. One of those parts that is crucial to the creation of art is the technician. I like the idea of describing technicians as alchemists because in truth that is what they are. This is because technicians make something impossible out of something seemingly ordinary and mundane. Technicians to any audience member can tend to be the man behind the curtain quite literally and therefore are often underappreciated by those who are not in the creative arts field. This is a shame because these people are what allow art and stories to be brought to life. This article also claims that technology should never drive a creation but rather the story behind the object which I agree with. The trouble behind being a technician is that cutting edge tech is always evolving and those who work with that technology have to evolve with it no matter what to keep up with what the audience may expect.
Theo
I agree that the fun of entertainment is in the "magic", but it also comes off as demeaning to assume that the general audience is incapable of immersing themselves in a story when the technical elements are present. If the story is compelling enough and the performers are engaged with each other and/or the audience, then it shouldn't matter if cables are exposed or there is a speaker visible on stage. Most audience members are going to forget that piece of tech is even there! It's like when we go to the movies; most of us don't even register the "Exit" sign glaring at us from across the room. It becomes part of the background.
When I first started doing theatre at community college, the TD there ripped into us after one of the shows when we turned on the work lights before every audience member had left. He was outraged that we had broken the illusion for the dozen or so people who were still lingering around and accused us of being unprofessional. It was something I took to heart and now I wait until every audience member has gone before work lights come on and post-show actives start. Yet at the same time, I am perplexed by the notion that anyone is under the assumption that anything other than a play just happened. Why does the "backstage" need to be so secretive? I actually think there's value in exposing the audience to everything that goes into making live entertainment happen -- perhaps then they'll have a deeper appreciation for the art and illusion.
This was a really good read, and the comparison between theater and alchemy really drives the point home. It's important to call attention to those that may be less appreciated in the field, like the techs at Alchemy Controls. The article does a good job of encompassing the main reason why I decided to go into theater. To me, it was always the art of making something seem as though it just occurred inherently that drew me in. I read once (I don't remember where or when or by who or exactly how it was worded) that the better a technician does their job, the less noticed and appreciated they are. Their job is to create something that draws in the audience so much that they don't notice any of the technology making things work. In that sense, I really admire that role, because those that play it aren't looking for fame, they're just doing a job they enjoy in an industry that's important to them.
A lot of technical theatre elements such as sound and video and light work goes underappreciated, as the article states. And I’ve often heard in entertainment in general for technical design and production elements that “if you’re doing your job right, nobody will notice” or something to the effect of “they’ll only notice the sound if it’s off/wrong.” Which to an extent is true but I also think theatre and movie goers can appreciate say the lighting or projections or sound of a production without being prompted to but just because it IS done well and noticeable for being good. I like the article’s emphasis on alchemy and putting a systematic lens on viewing the team work that goes into designing sound not only in building equipment like speakers themselves but also where they go and how/if they’re hidden. I’d say often and in general the people making the environment around the main talent of productions goes underappreciated–but certainly not entirely or without being prompted to do so.
This was a fascinating article to read for me particularly at a moment where I’m exploring different roles within theatre and figuring out what I might want to pursue. I’ve gone back and forth a lot between being a designer and being able to be creative, and being a technician of some sort and getting to physically work on a project and create with my hands. I really enjoyed the way that this article framed a possibility for how technicians and creatives can truly work together from the very beginning of a creative process. Having technicians in the room while in the blue-sky phase of a project doesn’t hinder designers and possibilities, it expands the scope of what they might think possible. I haven’t considered the perspective of truly integrating the technology into the scenic elements very much, but reading about how considering tech elements from the very beginning of a design process makes a lot of sense.
Post a Comment