Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1985 - 13

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To the Editor:
There seems 10 be a feeling among many theatrical designers that dance lighting is a free-form
medium allowing much more "self expression"
and demanding more extreme cueing and saturated color than dramatic theatre. I heard such
nOlions again at the recent USITT convention
when conversation turned 10 dance. il is true that
a great deal of well-designed dance does include
strong lighting statements. However, much of
the dance lighting I see and the discussion I hear
represents a false design impetus resulting from
either a lack of deep understanding of dance, or
from misplaced exhibitionism.
Consider for a moment who dancers and
choreographers are and what it is that the lighting
designer must attempt 10 reveal 10 the audience:
First, there is a highly trained human body
with a commitment of a minimum of ten years of
daily classes and rehearsals. A designer has only
10 watch the corrections a good dance teacher
gives 10 begin 10 see the degree of physical precision and articulation that is required and valued
by the dancer's eye. The lighting designer must be
acutely aware that she or he can't help altering
these carefully created shapes and movements and
had better have a damn good reason for the design decisions. Furthermore, dancers are people
and should generally be allowed 10 look human.
Even if the intent of the piece is nOl human per se,
it is still true that one of the main modes of communication in dance is through deep physical
empathy, which is never as strong for a moving
dancer-like object as it is for a very human dancer.
Second, the art form itself cannot simply be
written off as the "abstract expression" that
many lightly tag on it. A tightly choreographed
dance is structurally more faceted than any combination of poetry and blocking. In dance one
often finds the theatricallOols of plOl, character,
and development combined with the line, mass,
movement, etc. of the sculptural arts and controlled by a physical manifestation of the musical
structures of counterpoint, canon, fugue, inversion, and reversal, 10 name only a few. The designer who fails 10 perceive these relationships
has simply not done his homework. And no matter how he relates 10 these structures in his design
it must be knowingly or it will almost necessarily
be destructive.

Third, dances are generally created by an impresario / choreographer in a process that differs
substantially from theatrical practice. The choreographer simultaneously acts as a movement
equivalent of playwright, direclOr, dramaturge,
and sometimes composer. Excellence at this formidable task doesn't necessarily include the desire or ability 10 verbalize the intent of the piece
10 a designer. Rather than limit the abstract piece
with an explanation, the choreographer simply
tells the designer 10 come 10 rehearsal. In rehearsal, dances are often created through conceptual or emotional imagery that in some cases is
central 10 the intent of the piece and very useful 10
the designer. In other cases the imagery may be
only a very limited, personal, neuro- kinetic 1001
for creating one special movement quality. As
these images and movements evolve in the relatively long rehearsal process, certain intellectual
or movement themes become so ingrained that 10
kinetically dissect or verbally describe them 10 a
designer does not even occur 10 the dancers or
choreographer. Also, movement ideas that
seemed appropriate at the beginning of the
process start 10 seem 100 "literal" as the work
progresses and the choreographer is likely to abstract them further. Thus the abstraction can become quite deep and complex and quite removed
from the theatrical designer's normal methods of
analysis. The choreographer who is very aware of
these effects often feels that the only analysis of
the piece is the piece itself. Designers often infer
that this means that they can act on whatever
impressions they get from the piece, which is only
valid to the degree that the designer is knowledgeable and acutely perceptive of dance.
Finally, when the designer and choreographer
come 10 technical rehearsal, the difficulties of the
collaboration become visible and aren't necessarily corrected. It may be impossible 10 create any
stage picture with the richness of the evolved choreographic image, or worse, the choreographer
may "see" the original movement onstage in spite
of the destructive lighting because it has become
so familiar. More likely the choreogrpher will see
very clearly how the piece is being altered and
assume that it is technically unavoidable, or, in a
way that may be unique to the abstract arts, they
may think that the alteration is interesting and the
whole concept of the piece may change in one rehearsal. Unfortunately, it is not nearly so easy to

modify the choreography and the result can be
very disjointed.
Dance as a performance medium fathered the
theatre of the ancient Greeks but as the two have
evolved, dance has remained largely undocumented, while theatre abounds with scripts and
intellectual criticism. We should nOl infer from
this that we can de-emphasize careful consideration and adorn dance with visual spectacle inspired by an equally false understanding of modernism in modern dance or tradition and style in
ballet. Like Olher modern arts, dance is often nOl
very conservative in its expression and the lighting must therefore walk the fine line of strength
and care. A great deal of bad lighting is created
under a misconception of what constitutes abstraction. The points I have presented are only a
few of a multitude of considerations which may
affect dance lighting. If a designer can answer all
the requirements of a dance piece and still have
room in his mind for "self-expression," I suppose she or he should go for it. Personally, with
over 160 dance designs in my files, I feel that
those fleeting instants where I gave a piece exactly
what it wanted are the most flattering selfexpression I can imagine.
Kenneth P. BOlVen
Chicago,IL

To the Editor:
Enjoyed the Winter 1985 issue of Theatre Design & Technology; especially the tribute 10 Hans
Sondheimer written by his associates. il is true
that Mr. Sondheimer was not an accepted member of the United Scenic Artists in the 1940's, as
Doris Einstein Siegel notes in her thoughtful tribute. In her article she states: "However, when he
designed the lighting, his credits were nebulous
due 10 his non-acceptance by the United Scenic
Artists. Though he greatly enjoyed work on the
productions, he disliked the position in which this
pla2ed him."
For the purpose of clarification, your readers
may be interested in noting that Hans Sondheimer became a member of United Scenic Artists
L. U. 829 in 1966, when lighting design was established as a separate category within the Union.
Sincerely,
Charles Berliner
Western Regional Representative
United Scenic Artists, L.U. 829

ACTF DESIGN AWARDS
The adjudication of the annual American College Theatre Festival DeSign Awards took place on
April 28. 1985 at the Kennedy Center in Washington. D.C. The judges were Santo Loquasto (set design)
and Jennifer von Mayrhauser (costume design). The winners were:

Costume DeSign:

Janet M. Grabert

Medea

University of California. Los Angeles

Set Design:

Sue Flournoy

Of Mice and Men

East Texas State University

There were two runners up in set design: Frederick Agnew. Humbolt State University. for Getting
Out; and Scott Chambliss. California State University at Hayward. for The Son joaquin Blues.

Rendering by Sue Flournoy for Of Mice and Men

USITT I Fall 1985/Thealre Design & Technology

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1985