Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 1985 - 7

POilllilli~l1l. or "Di\l,>ioni,m." a, Seurat called
il. Ila, rart of a 11l0lemenl all'al from 1I1lpre,,ioni,t rainting in the mid-I, 80, thaI. IOgerher
II it h \\ or\" by C ban ne and \ an Gogh, became
known a, Posl-lmpl-e»ioni~m. Selll'al'~ technique
\\a, to replace the usual brush stroke, \\'jth dab, or
dOl) of paint-hence the name Pointillism. Image,
\\ere created out of myriad poinls of color that,
\\ hen I ie\\ed close up appeared highly abstracl. but
\\'hen ,een from a distance appeared as ca ually
depicted ~cene, Hi method was deril'ed from
sludying scientific Irealises on the nature of ligh!.
Based on this he crealed color on hi' canvases by
breaking light down or dividing il illlo ils component elements-hence the term Divisionism,
Aware that the eye often sees what is nOI really

there, he created color by lhe JuxtapositIOn of
other colors. Purple was created by the juxtaposition of lillie dots of blue and red; green \\'as suggested by placing dot of yello\\ and blue side by
side. Flech of white \\'ere incorporated into all the
color mixes and as a result the \\'hole painting
seemed 10 shimmer,
Sondheim and Lapine hal'e made wry reference
to t his technique by naming Selll'at's mistress Do!.
There is also a dog-a t\\o-dimensional cut-out
lhat pops up through a hole in the stage floor and
.. ing," a duet \\'ith George; it i named, of cour e.
Spa!.
Ju t a Sunday ,..J.fternoon on the Is/and of the
Grande lalle can be enjoyed without knowing any
of lhis. it is equally true that Sunday in the Park
with George can be enjoyed without knowing ho\\'
the production designers worked. But, like coming
10 grips with Seurat's method, the production is
more in terest ing when t he challenges t he designers
faced and how they met them are understood.
The questions facing the designers was how to
capture the shimmering quality of the painting in
the sets, costumes and lights. Simply pUlling dots
of color all over the sets and costumes would not
work, If nOlhing else, the three-dimensional stage
and actor create perceptual problems di fferent
from that of a flat canvas. And even if there were
some way 10 reproduce Seurat's images dot - 1'01'dot, the time and cost in labor was out of the question, "We'd be painting for weeks!" exclaimed set
designer Tony Straiges, Seurat, after all, worked
for two years on the painting. The task, as COSlUme
a-designer Ann Hould-\\'ard explains. was "How
can painting be dealt \\'ith in relation to the human
body? How do you combine fantasy with reality?"
Standard approaches to design \\'ere not t he answer.
The starting point \\'as the paillling itself. But
el'en here there \\'ere problems. .. I gal'e upon
Seural.'· said lighting designer Richard
elson,
"\\'e all spent man~' hours looking at all the e\iqing reproductions of the painting. Some people
\\entto the Chicago An Instil ute to loa\" at it there.
but my feeling i that the audience \\on't hal'e done
lha!. The fact i thaI no t\\O reprodu'tions look
alike, \\'e agreed amongst our,ehe \\ hich of the
many lIe ~a\\ that \\e'd go for. in term, of color.
I based my palelle some\\ hat on lhal. but mostl)
on the CO~lllme and scener~ colors." "We tried to
be honest and true to the tone~, shapes and shadings." explained Tony Award-\\'inning costume codesigner Patricia Ziprrodl,
Because the first half of the play is about
Seurat' imagined interaclions \\'ith the figures in
the painting, making the e characlers come to life
dominated lhe process and lhe costumes became a
primaryelemen!. The co lllmes had 10 be historically correCI and reproduce what is shown in the
paillling-allhough detail are often unclear. And
because the characters are seen on four Sundays
over a two-year period as Seurat paints, their costumes have 10 change while remaining true to the
SITT

\\'illl~r

1985/Thealre Desi!(n & Techn()I()!(~

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