Reflections on recent work

I've been busying myself with lighting lately for several companies who would have otherwise been up a creek. I wish to stress that I have not been these companies' standing designer and had not engaged with their methodologies or artistic foci at any earlier point in the process, so while I did give each show my full attention I was not a full member of their groups. I chose, arranged, hung, focused, and programmed their lights, but ensured that the scenographers within the groups created the looks, timing, and dramatic impact that they believed would best support their pieces. It was a rather awkward position to be in, as the tech/artist/peer trusted to save the day without taking over. Lighting is something I know how to do, but I am neither an expert in nor an enthusiastic student of it.

Which may strike you as funny, seeing as my personal piece is entitled Loud Light.

My focus this year has been on scenography's interactive potential. I don't merely want to immerse the audience in the landscape of the piece, I want to give them the ability to change it, and see what they do with that power. With most scenic elements--set, dressing, props, etc--that has the potential to be very interesting, but very, very expensive. If people think they are invited to break shit, they probably will. (Anyone remember Yoko Ono's Cut Piece?) So a cheap and difficult-to-break alternative is, of course, lighting. You put the instruments in the air, keep the audience away from ladders, and let them screw around with things in a safe and repeatable manner.

And repeatability is no trivial matter. If after the fourth participant has had a swing at it the changeable scenic element is busted beyond repair, or reshaped to something else entirely, it becomes a different artwork. It becomes a study of the object itself, and how it is malleable. To study the audience, you must allow each person to have the same shot at the piece as everyone else. Otherwise each progressive turn is a new and more challenging handicap. So, while perhaps giving the audience Lego bricks, a camera, and a projection screen to make their own set--with the clear instruction that they dismantle everything when they're done--could be a valid option, giving them a pile of lumber, a skil saw, and a nail gun is not. If the actions of one audience member affect the ability of the next person to participate, the freedom to create is compromised. It's not good or bad, it's just a different piece.

I'm going to take an opportunity, if one comes up, to use Lego and a camera to see what kind of scenery the audience creates. I have no idea if it will work like Licht but it might be fun. People do like hands-on performance. They like to feel not only involved, but necessary. And Licht's function hinges on that. While I don't assume this is the future of theatre in the making, I do hope it is engaging. (And I don't think scenic input from the audience will feel too much like the disturbing manipulation I've seen with Licht. It should be fun and light. I hope.)