Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1991 - 43

991 PRAGUE QUADRENNIAL

COSTUME AT PQ'91: ONE
DESIG ER'S PERSPECTIVE
BY JEAN N IE DAVI DSON
his discussion of the
costume elements in
the PQ'91 will be a
very personal and very
general repon; my
focus was almost exclusively on those elemenrs of the exhibit
that appealed ro my personal inrerests.
My commenrs are simply a few general
remarks abour some selened fearures of
the exhibit that were parricularly memorable ro me. These observations, then,
are not so much a review of the costume
aspens of the exhibi t as they are notes
from one designer's perspective.
The most striking quality of the PQ
exhibit was the degree of emphasis on
the display methods for presenring the
design work. Although this was also a
fearure of PQ'87, it appeared ro assume
a greater imporrance for the exhibirors
this year. Many of the national exhibits
(Great Britain and Finland most
notably) focused on the installation or
the environmenral sculpture in which
the design work was displayed ro the
extent that at times it assumed greater
imporrance both visually and in terms of
its emotional impan and statement. I
am unclear why this seemed to be a
trend, bur in some cases the efforr put
inro creating the surround both outshone and swallowed up the design
pieces on display. There is no adverse
criticism inrended here, bur I was inrerested to know just what I was looking at
sometimes; viewing the exhibit became
more of a personal experience than
something one could look at and know
what SOrt of work was being done on
stage except by inference.
In the Finnish exhibit in parricular it
was often difficult ro find the design
work within a rather dour and depressing black plastic-wrapped organic environmenr through which you wandered.
There were fragmenred images through-

our and it was impossible at times to tell
which were elemenrs from some production and which were elemenrs which
were created as parr of the installation
environmenr itself. This frightening,
sullen black plastic world was evocative
and fascinating in the extreme, but I left
it feeling I had not
understood much of
what was being produced in Finland, only
thinking that they probably don't see enough of
the sun.
The British exhibit
seemed spare; there
seemed ro be few works
on display and the installation of the work, if it
was not more Interesting, at least appeared ro
.
.
receive more attention or
carry more weigh t than
the design work per se.
You enrered the exhibit
ro see a series of lighting
instrumenrs on the floor
and a stuffed (real) wolf
or dog. A group of scenic
models viewed by peeking into holes cut into
the sides of a large black
plastic mound sat in the
center of the room.
Other models were stuffed at odd angles into
paint-splashed garbage
cans. I am certain some
commenr was inrended;
I don't dare to guess
what it was.
This tendency ro create an environmental sculpture within which the
design works were seen seemed ro be
strongest among the European displays
and it cerrainly was by no means universal. The American display of Mozart

works was perhaps as straightforward,
perhaps traditional in terms of approach
ro presenring the work as anything in
the exhibit. Here the individual design
work was clearly the focus and was presenred in a well-composed, clear format;
the elemenrs of the display structure

were simply a frame for the design work
and did not make a statemenr other than
ro organize and support the work.
One would expect such a large inrernational exhibit ro presenr clear representations of national character or perTD&T

1991

FAll

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1991