Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1992 - 63

USITT

DESIGN

CONI MEN TAR Y
SARAH NASH GATES:
Our choices were influenced by what we looked for: originality, cIority, concise use of elements at the disposal of the
designer, and how appropriate we found the designs to the
text. In some coses, Ifelt designs were rejected becouse of
a misguided directorial approach. We chose not to "excuse"
the designer from being a party to this. While it could be
argued that, if the designer did what the director asked for,
that was okay or good, but we decided it was the deSigner's
job to help guide the Director to an appropriate visual solution. If we felt they did not do that, they were not Q(cepted
into the Expo.
We also looked closely at how well the design translated from sketch or model to realized designs. If designs lost
some of the "feel" established in the sketch or if the proportions changed, then they were be eliminated. If there
were no production photos, the entry was eliminated.
RICK PAULSE
It was a distinct pleasure to sit on this panel and examine
the many fine entries submiMed. Some of the criteria we
used were that the design be appropriate to the text, utilize
strong and striking visual imagery, be represented by photographs from an actual production and that those photographs convey the same strong design ideas as sketches
and models. We felt that a designer's ability to achieve the
goals of a design in actual production is paramount.
Indeed, several of the best entries were productions which
did not have outlandish budgets or resources. Also, several
entries were regretfully not accepted becouse there were no
photographs of actual productions.

EXHIBITION

Many of the designs we found most interesting dis·
played an economy of visual vocobulary that seemed to
add to their expressiveness. Also, more lighting designers
should make the effort to enter and make the effort to get
photo documentation of their work. Although the limitations
of photography on displaying lighting design ore profound,
lighting designers need high quality photos of their work.
Too much else of a lighting design is lost by freezing it on
still slides. Ifeel it more difficult to get past poor photography in judging lighting than to get past poor drawing in
judging scenic or costume designs.

MICHAEL OLICH:
Good design-ond its inevitable partner bad desigHo
not exist out of context. The success or failure of the visual
world that embraces an actor's work con be judged only by
that audience in the instant of "theatre." As a designer, it
has been a humbling and completely self-evaluating experience to preside over the "competition" of my colleague's
designs in the cIinicol orena of a jury. Iam not sure that we
could begin to guess any level of true "success, " but Iknow
that Ileorned a few more voriotions on misguidance. Icontinue to respect the "magic" of good collaboration with
insightful directors, upon which the success of good design
depends.
Design for the sake of design remains my greatest disappointment in the profession. Iam pleased to join my fel·
low jurors in offering these handsome designs as fine
examples of just that.

JEFF STEITZER:
The first thing to be said is that it was kind of a strange
experience to spend a day looking al slides and trying to
assess the skill of individual set, costume or lighting design-

1992

ers. Strange, becouse it tended to reinforce the notion that
theatricol design is, somehow, about making effective pictures. That illusion was destroyed for me 20 yeors ago
when a professor of mine at the University of Minnesota, H.
Wesley Balk, was appraached by a directing student with an
improvisation she had inherited from another teacher and
wanted to try, now, in a rehearsal for Wes. The improvisation worked like this: The actors taking part tried to recreate a famous painting, then improvised a scene that took
off from that initial grouping and eventually ended by
recreating it again. Wes listened patiently before rejecting
the suggestion because he said it implied that the progression of the action of a play was a series of static pictures.
Overhearing this exchange led me to begin exploring
my own notions about the constant aliveness of stage
space (as well as giving me the means to articulate a growing dissatisfaction with traditional notions of stage realism
as represented by, for example, the box set). The success
of any design for the theatre, then, can really only be
judged by the potential it presents-o potential that can
only be realized when actors are added to the equation.
This is not meant to negate the adjudication process I
participated in_ On the contrary, I'm all for encouraging, by
recognition, the work of any artist who chooses to collaborate in the difficult job of creating an effective theatrical
experience. And while all the judges felt there was work
worth recognizing, Ithink we also suspected that too many
of the designers whose work we looked at were more concerned with their ideas about a production as reflected in
their designs than in crealing a useful design.
Iguess what I'm orguing for is design that isn't aspiring to be the show but that demands the active, imaginative
participation of an audience to create the environment for a
theatrical experience.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1992