Theatre Design & Technology - May 1973 - 8

account of the main themes communicated by Svoboda
during the trip and his main impressions once it was over.
Evaluations of the success of the total venture must come
from those who either participated directly in the several
events or at least observed them. What is being presented
here is a relatively bare and hopefully objective report.
At Svoboda's suggestion, two projects were assigned
for the master classes: Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's
Dream and Paul Zindel's The Effect of Gamma Rays on
Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds. Svoboda himself had designed
both plays; in fact, his most recent production before
arriving for the tour was the Zindel play, in Prague's
National Theatre. Moreover, Svoboda felt that each play,
besides providing a contrast with the other, has the
challenge of more than one level of meaning or action.
Dream has the three actions and implications of the
world of the court, the forest (which Svoboda stressed as
central), and the journeymen. Gamma Rays has the level
of gritty reality and the realm of the cosmic and metaphysical. The brunt of most of the critiques focused on
the extent to which the student projects captured the
several dimensions of each work. Although arrangements
varied, the master classes usually met for three or four
sessions of two or three hours each.
During the classes themselves, Svoboda's recurrent
observations on the student projects also stressed the
necessity of the students' mastery of the ABc's of their
craft: color rendering, drawing, modeling, and the materials of these crafts. Also stressed was the practicability
of the designs and models: could a given design idea be
realized as it was drawn? On another level, Svoboda
repeatedly challenged the historical manner or style of
many of the designs. "This might have been drawn in
1912," "and this in 1928" he would often remark. In
other words, a design today should reflect an awareness
of today's arts and modes of expression. Why render a
set for the contemporary Gamma Rays in the manner of
a 19th century genre painting? More broadly, whatever
the period of the play and whatever the design concept,
it should be evident that the design was produced in 1972,
even if historical authenticity is sought in the setting.
Interspersing his critiques of the projects at hand with
broader observations and explanations of his own work
and its premises, Svoboda combined in each session desirable features of specific criticism, lecture, demonstration,
and discussion. Time was always short, but each student
had the benefit of direct attention to his work.
Svoboda's public lectures usually consisted of three
parts: a showing of a 20 minute English language film of
his work (produced by the Czechoslovakian ITI Center in
Prague in 1965), Svoboda's lecture (with running translation by the present author), and a showing of representative slides of Svoboda's work up to the present, with
commentary.
Svoboda's lecture, which focused on the present state

of scenography, was not delivered from a text but was
essentially extemporaneous, based on key points in the
form of notes. Consequently, no authoritative, single
text exists. The present author recorded four of the
lectures, however, and the following translation represents
a fair composite of the essential points made by Svoboda
in the body of the lectures (introductory remarks and
incidental comments have been omitted).
Scenography has experienced many changes during
recent years. Above all it has developed new expressive means and thereby something akin to its
own alphabet. No longer is it dependent on the
classical arts of sculpture, architecture, or painting.
And no longer is it content to be a copy or an
illustration, but instead is concerned with creating
and shaping dramatic space: dramatic space for a
given production, dramatic space wh ich accomodates a given production and no other; dramatic
space which is not static but develops in dramatic
time and evolves in the flow of dramatic action.
Today's scenography is flexible and adaptable: at
a given point in the action it may dominate the
production, but at another point it may virtually
disappear, depending upon the guiding concept of
the production.
We must also keep in mind that scenography is
one element of the collective art of the theatre, and
its expressive means must be functional, which is to
say that they must be dramaturgically necessary_
What are some of scenography's new expressive
means? Before mentioning them several qualifications are necessary. First, we did not invent these
new expressive means, but recognized them and
adapted them to our use. Second, they are not
necessarily new: mechanics and kinetics, for example, were prominent in the Baroque theatre. What
is important today is how these means are used, in
what relation with each other and with other elements of production. It becomes a question of style:
not style as external surface or manner, but style as
a way Qf thinking. We should ask ourselves '!'o!!:!Y we
use this or that technique, material, or device. Our
purpose should be evident, and -- most important -it should be clear that these means are being used
by people today, in 1972.
When we consider these expressive means, such
as movement, light, sound, pictorial techniques of
projection by means of film, TV, or slides, or laser
and hologram technology, three points are paramount. These materials and techniques must be
thoroughly studied; we must know their principles
and laws; we must become intimately acquainted
with their properties and limitations; we must acquire a feel for them. As the Renaissance sculptor
knew his medium of stone or metal, the scenog-

THEATRE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

MAY. 1973

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - May 1973