Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1978 - 23

~~~~~~~~~~~_To~ny_c_our_~_e_Book

Theater Design, by George C. Izenour. New York: McGraw-Hili, Inc.,
1977, ISBN 0-07-032086-1, xxxiii, 631 pp., illus., $60.00.

George Izenour states in the preface that " ... this book began ten
years ago as a monograph on the design of the multiple-use
theatre ..." but was expanded to include"... a selected study of the
history of Western theatre design ..." The result is a ten pound,
nearly 700 page book that can only be comfortably read with the aid
of a desk or table for support. (Don't try to read it while lying in bed!)
I am glad that George Izenour undertook the historical study. I
found it the most interesting part of the book. His review of the history
of theatre form, from the viewpoint of an analysis of systems for
seeing, hearing and seating, contributes an important assembled
body of knowledge.
I am not convinced, however, that Theater Design as an entity
offers more, in a synergetic sense, than the sum of its parts. Included
between its covers are actually two and a half books which could
easily have been pUblished separately as "A History of Western
Theatre Design," "Multiple-use Theatres from the Practice of George
Izenour," and "Some Views on Theatre Design by George Izenour."
Two of the twelve chapters are essays on the acoustics of mutiple-use
facilities by Robert B. Newman and the late Vern O. Knudsen. The
firms of both of these men served as acoustics consultants for most
of the projects by George Izenour.
Dominating the content of the book, and certainly making it both
an invaluable historic document as well as a bargain at almost any
price, are a series of theatre plans and center-line perspective sections. The original documents, drawn for Izenour by a number of
hands, but disciplined by a consistent style, illustrate forty-five historic theatres, and twenty-five multiple-use theatres from Izenour's
practice. The original 1/8 inch scale drawings have been reduced to a
standard scale in the book allowing for easy and meaningful comparisons. The larger structures, such as the Roman Colosseum,
require a fold-out page. Most of the sections avoid the gutter division.
George Izenour has been closely associated with the design and
construction of multiple-use facilities. He states that the multiple-use
house is the only answer for the size of communities (30,000 to
1,500,000 population) in which ninety percent of the twentieth-century Americans live. His reason for this view is one of economics. The
taxpayers of a community should not be asked to support the construction and operation of a facility that does not have a high percentage of use, say at least 250 performances a year. There are few
communities which can fill a single-use concert hall with 250 symphony concerts. There are few communities which can fill an opera
house with 250 performances. There are, however, a large number of
communities which can fill a hall 250 times a year with a combination
of music, dance, opera, theatre, etc.
Those persons categorically opposed to multiple-use facilities,
who might disregard the question of maximum use sometimes argue
that the conversion equipment required to create a multiple-use
theatre costs on the same order of magnitude as the capital costs for
two or more single use facilties. The fallacy of this argument is
overwhelmingly exposed in Chaper 11 of Theater Design, which
deals in detail with capital costs of multiple-use facilities. There is no
question that conversion equipment costs are small when compared
with capital construction costs of theatre structures. I think it would
also be accurate to state that operating costs for two or more singleuse facilities are greater than the operating costs for a single, multiple-use facility.
An important question posed by those who question the value of
multiple-use theatres and auditoriums is how well such facilities
function when compared with single-use facilities. One of Izenour's
USITT/Fall, 1978

Reviews

principle objectives of the book is to establish that multiple-use
facilities can function nearly as well as single-use facilities.
Izenour's parameters for the judgement of success for theatres
apparently rest greatly on the basis of an analysis of "systems for
seeing, hearing and seating as these relate physically to performance-the basis for all theatre design." Each historical example, as
well as each of his multiple-use facilities is dissected through the
means of half-plan and center-line section diagrams showing the
acoustical ray distribution for first reflections. Also included is an
isometric diagram indicating the disposition of seats with respect to
an idealized seating wedge whose limits are defined by thirty degree
planes in plan and section from "standard" proscenium openings for
drama, opera and concerts.
I, for one, would certainly not fault the scientific application of
seeing and hearing criteria to the judgement of the quality of theatre
design. I believe, however, that in the interest of simplicity. Izenour
has chosen to remain overly wedded to the historic traditions of the
two-dimensional, scenic, proscenium stage with his analysis. Of
greatest importance to the exploration of theatre design are the
spatial relationships between performers and spectators, and the
scale (or size) of the performing area, not simply the width of a
physical, proscenium opening. Izenour's thirty-degree seating limits
beyond a proscenium opening represent more of a functional response to historic scenic traditions than to the science of pure communication between performers and spectators.
A question of whether a spectator might actually prefer to sit in a
"box" location, quite close to the stage, with adequate sightlines to
the stage, but outside of the "idealized" thirty-degree wedge, rather
than somewhere else farther away but within the thirty-degree
wedge, is not part of the discussion in the book. Such considerations,
lying within the realm of "subjective design considerations" are important elements of theatre design, I believe, which are rather summarily dismissed by Izenour.
Reoccuring time and again in the book is the theme that "architecture [and the architect) has never played the decisive role where
essential understanding of the performer-audience relationship is
concerned ... " [because of the ignorance of the objective laws of
seeing and hearing]. Izenour states that "no one person-architect,
consultant or other-can know all the facts and have a working
knowledge of all areas of theatre design." He states that "It is rare
indeed to find a generalist in theater design-enginering who (1) understands the mathematics of seating design and sightlines; (2) is
equally at home in the engineering specialties of lighting and its
control and instrumentation systems and design of rigging and its
machinery and control; and (3) at the same time as sufficient knowledge of structural, mechanical, electrical and acoustical engineering ...."
I must strongly object to this point of view. I am not prepared to
argue whether such persons have existed in the past. I am absolutely
convinced that (1) Architects with this expertise do exist today, (2)
Clients who want successful theatres should seek and/or demand
persons with this expertise, (3) More architects with this training and
expertise will appear if and when this expertise is demanded.
Architecture, and even more certainly theatre architecture, is both
an art and a science. Izenour emphasizes the importance of science
and engineering in theatre design, a point of view with which I concur.
He is full of justified criticism for those examples of theatre architecture which are remembered for their art but can be faulted for
their lack of attention to scientific principles. What should be demanded is theatre architecture that can be praised for both its art and
its science.
Peter H. Frink

Frink and Beuchat: Architects

Theatre Design & Technology

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1978