Playbill: As the current Broadway season begins to crest in New York, a conversation has emerged in the media about the set design in this year’s new crop of shows, and in turn, the relationship of design to the price of tickets. There have been dire warnings of a dearth of lavish scenery, and productions that penny pinch on visuals while charging premium ticket prices. The argument at the core of this conversation is that only shows with sets of a maximalist style and scale are worth the price of admission.
6 comments:
Taking an Introduction to Scenic Design class has been an eye-opening experience for me. As someone who loves theater and performance art, I have always been fascinated by the way sets contribute to the overall experience of a production. However, this class has taught me that excess doesn't always equal excellence in set design.
The article on Playbill.com titled "Excess Doesn't Always Equal Excellence in Set Design" is an excellent example of this concept. The author discusses how sets that are too busy or too cluttered can actually detract from the performance and make it difficult for the audience to focus on what's happening on stage.
In my own work, I will strive to keep this lesson in mind. While it can be tempting to include every little detail and decoration, I now understand that less is often more in set design. By focusing on the essential elements and creating a clear and impactful design, I can help enhance the overall experience for the audience and support the actors in their performances.
A week ago, I read the New York Post article where it was kind of bashing scenic designs on Broadway because they are too simple and not elaborate. I think that small and simplistic scenic designs can be just as powerful as sets that are so big and enormous. Good design cannot be defined by its scale. Good design cannot be defined by how much the set cost to build.
The article compares A Christmas Carol with Parade, since A Christmas Carol has a big, unique, and detailed set, when Parade is very minimalistic and simple. It’s always neat to see very big and cool sets. I mean, when I saw Hadestown for the first time, the set made the friend I was seeing the show with cry. Sets are powerful! But small sets have brought out emotions for me just as much as bigger sets.
I think that this article does a good job discussing the differences between the two types of sets and price of admission, but I do still wish that Broadway was filled with a bit more in terms of scenery. I fully agree that a “good” set can be minimalistic, that a minimalistic set can leave a large impact, but there are just so many shows that really are minimalistic right now. I enjoy the way that the sets look, I think they fit the show, they are just numerous in comparison to the “spectacle” type shows in my opinion. I do find it unfortunate that often it comes down to cost alone. The cost of materials continues to slowly rise, and it makes one wonder about the near and distant future of scenery, but also about some less expensive material alternatives to use. I think that if the costs continue to rise in this pattern in the long term, we will start to see this shift in material usage.
Personally I feel like it is also the same in costume design. I’m someone who always go off of my own design sketch and make decisions that make my design a lot more complicated and some times it does not help with the design as much as the original design that I would be trying to base off of. Learning less is more is such a long and on going process that requires a long period of time of learning and experiment. Certainly, sometimes complex artworks with a great amount of details is also great for some shows. In situations where more detail are needed for a show to establish and create a better story line, or establish a fuller setting that helps with the performances and the understanding of the script. The complicity and simplicity is often established while communicating with other departments and sharing thoughts with each other to come up with a ideal solution.
I love reading articles about thought processes behind different designs for shows especially when it is a designer talking about different designs that they have done. I agree with the author that just because you can go big does not necessarily mean that you should. I think that the design for a specific show should do just what the specific production means and it varies depending on multiple different variables. and I think this goes for all of the design areas, not just scenic. When designing something you have to take a lot of things into consideration and part of that is the the scope of the show how long is it running will you be able to make that money back and ticket sales will it make sense with the direction of the show will it make sense with the other designs and if not is that on purpose. hearing all of this from someone who is designing four shows that are on Broadway is great.
Some sets utilize empty space more than a lavish set. And I am more and more seeing the two extremes of that scale being shown, sometimes deceivingly so. But a set is so integral to the story being told in a way that the audience can see the world the story lives in. Scenic Designers have the incredible task of shaping that world. Sometimes that world is more physical, and looks like a version of our world, while other times it’s someone’s dreams. The set tells us not only about the world but also about the characters in the world, and how they might function in their day to day life. IS the world around them chaotic while they look calm? Or is everything cluttered around the sides of a room while the middle of the floor is clear? These all mean things. Personally, I tend to not enjoy a minimalistic set as much as a more lavish set.
Post a Comment