Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1967 - 17

ing capacity is 300 persons. As you can see, the auditorium is a perfect circle so that everyone sits almost equal
distances from the center of the stage, which is also a section of the circle. The backstage area is rather limited: it's
a shallow stage, about fifteen feet, and not designed for
stage productions since there are no wings or scenery storage. The stage has been used successfully on occasion for
dance programs. And I'm told by the dancers that the quality of the floor is excellent for modern dance. It has an excellent sound system, a large projection screen and a com·
plete projection booth equipped for recording and amplification. The acoustics are quite good for spoken programs, not
so good for musical events. After the program is over, you
are all welcome to see the current exhibition in the museum, if you have not already done so.
C. RAY SMITH: Thank you very much Mr. Ellin. In all our
discussion this morning about art centers, no one pointed
out that one art is almost invariably overlooked, if not actually resisted. One art is not permitted ever to function as
an art. That art is architecture, with its relative, interior design. Architecture is more than the functional craft of building and construction, more than merely making a roof that
does not leak. It, too, is an art-an art of space-making, an
art with social aspects, with psychological aspects, with
those of other functions. Because of my own personal association with Progressive Architecture, I hope that this afternoon we can communicate to each other, for a change,
what architects are doing right-right as functional space and
right as art. How appropriate it is for us to discuss this subject in this auditorium. Now, it gives me pleasure to introduce the Chairman of the USITT Committee on Theatre
Architecture, David Weiss, of the University of Virginia,
and his Co-chairman, Hugh Hardy, Architect.
WEISS: I shall begin our discussion by asking a question of
Norris Houghton. Norris, since you have been roaming the
country for years, I would like to ask whether or not according to your observations the new theatres are contributing to
or improving the state of the art generally?
HOUGHTON: The heart of the theatre does not depend on
bricks and mortar; it depends upon what happens inside the
theatre. We all recognize that no matter how beautiful the
buildings created by our architect friends are, it is the life inside those buildings that makes the theatre live or die. It is
nevertheless important that America somehow possess the
brick and mortar elements which will provide buildings where
theatre can be presented with the importance and dignity it
deserves. On a trip to Germany two years ago, I was invited
to see what was happening in their theatre. Mostly they
showed me buildings, magnificent buildings, fascinating buildings, and they, in themselves, served to dramatize the theatre as an art. Sometimes what was happening in those theatres was brilliant; sometimes it wasn't very good; but at
least every city of distinction, of any importance, has a
theatre. Since Germany's theatres were virtually bombed out
during the war, almost all were new theatres. Because of
all those beautiful buildings, I got the feeling that the theatre was important to the Germans. It seems to me that, if
for no other reason, these new theatres are contributing to
or improving the state of theatre art by their very existence.
As I see it, the time is coming now when the theatre (by
the very existence of such buildings). is taking its place
alongside the other arts.
HARDY: Does this assume that the theatre has to be a
ritualistic formal act, an event which separates it from everyday life? Does it assume that you have to go to an identifiable place that is called a theatre in order to have theatre?

OCTOBER, 1967

HOUGHTON: I think you have to go to some kind of a
place, yes. You can go across to Central Park, and you can
see Joe Papp's Shakespeare-in-the-Park, but you cannot see
it in just any spot in the Park. You must find that place
where the necessary arrangement of audience, of spectators
and performers are brought together.
BUTLER: We are the only art form that insists "You must be
where I want you when I want you there." A painter paints.
His work is there and you can go by on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. But, because of the nature of our particular
art, we must say, "Would you mind being there Wednesday? And not at 9:00 but at 8:30?" Also, some forms of
theatre require certain facilities to do a production properly.
And if you haven't got the facilities, we can't play for you.
MI ELZIN ER: I think Norris mentioned that going to the theatre must, in a sense, be a special event. The moment you
enter the lot or building dedicated to living theatre, you
should feel that the outside world is cut away and that the
drama must start immediately. I believe that the most successful theatres in this country, and also in Europe, are
those that are very specific in their relationship between audience and actor. I feel the theatre that is made up entirely
of uncommitted space with the audience here and the
stage there one day, and with a different arrangement tomorrow, loses enormously. I think that one of the most exciting theatre buildings is the Stratford Theatre in Ontario,
one of the first thrust theatres in this century in North
America. Here you walk in and you're excited the moment
you see it-because you know there is the building, that's
where the sacrifice is going to be, and here's the audience
around it. That's specific, dogmatic, and strong. I don't
bel ieve the other types are nearly so successful or exciting.
WEISS: Well then, you suggest that the state of the art
is being improved by improving the relationship with the
audience?
MIELZINER: Absolutely, and by preserving it. The great
enemy of living theatre, of course, is film, TV, amplification, all the things which destroy the physical and psychological relationship between the actor and the audienceand between the audience and the actor. Scale is enormously important; clients who want to have 2,000 people in the
auditorium one night and a performance of Ibsen the next
night absolutely fail to see that the show won't reach that
far in a proscenium theatre. There isn't an architect in the
world who can solve that problem.
WEISS: We have a question out here.
QUESTION: Would anybody give his concept of "What is a
theatre?"
JONES: That's a good question because it forces us to
make the wonderfully dangerous decision that is being made
allover the country now. You're forcing us to talk about
structure before product. The only answer to that question
that I could buy is that a theatre is a package for an event
that already exists, either in practice or in the mind of an
artistic director. Once the event exists, either with the company's practice or in that man's mind, then we build the
package.
QUESTION: Shouldn't we begin to think in terms of not
limiting theatres simply to structures which fit our present
dramatic form? In other words, mustn't we make provisions
to some extent for development?
HOUGHTON: May I ask this question? How do you envisage the theatre of the future? You ask if we shouldn't be
making provisions for the kinds of plays that will be written

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1967