Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1967 - 37

force can be a vital counterbalance to the automation and
technology that is rapidly developing in this society. I think
that out of this will come a new church, and it probably will
start developing in the dance halls in the country.l
BOWMAN: Our next panelist is P. Adams Sitney, President
of the Film-Makers Cinematheque, and editor of Film Culture.
SITNEY: The Cinematheque shows independent, basically
American-made movies, and publ ishes some culture magazines for the promotion and criticism of them. We have always believed-not all film-makers, but I and the other two
people in charge of Cinematheque-that what we are most
interested in has absolutely nothing to do with the theatre.
Instead we feel that films grew as an art directly in proportion to the strength with which they turned their back on
the theatre and everything that the theatre is associated
with. In fact, our strongest, most recent project is to get
films out of theatres completely, out of projection booths,
and make films available cheaply for sale in the home, like
books or long-playing records. The Cinematheque is related
by association with the theatre. It grew out of it (not technically, but spiritually), but it was suppressed by the theatre
for a long time. My concern is to speak of the film as having nothing to do with the theatre.
BOWMAN: Michael Kirby is an Assistant Professor in the
Speech Department of St. Francis College in Brooklyn, a
sculptor, and author of a book that has been doing the rounds
for three years entitled Happenings. It is a staple for the
young peson coming to New York and wanting to find his
way around.
Mr. Kirby, what has happened since Happenings?
KIRBY: I am still fighting the battle of the word "happenings" and in doing my performances, I am emotionally torn
between this identification with the word happenings and
trying to get away from the whole business and just do my
work. Sometimes, people ask me to do performances because of my association with the word, but some audiences
have just looked at the pictures in my book, if anything, and
they did not get the message that is being promulgated:
that happenings are not spontaneous orgies with nude girls.
People come expecting this kind of thing, and they do not
really appreciate what I am doing. Happenings are planned.
The kind of theatre that I am working on (we can call it
whatever name we like) does involve acting. (I have a background in the professional theatre as a director, and I am
more familiar with acting and dramatic literature than the
other artists working in the field, so that I tend to use acting to a great extent.) This does not fit my definition of a
Happening, which I made up years ago-I will not repeat it
now because it is too academic. However, I am using acting. The structure does come from happenings. It is what I
call an alogical structure. There is no plot or story development.
BOWMAN: Our final panelist is Earl Reiback, a nuclear engineer and an artist, who uses light as a creative medium.
He also designs projections for discotheques.
REIBACK: Billy Kluver spoke about artists and engineers
working together on a one-to-one basis, and I think that I
am a perfect example of that, because I am both an engineer and an artist, and it is very easy for me to work
with myself on one·to-one basis.
One of the difficulties in using technology is that in using
it properly, you must know where you are going and be
guided by potentials inherent in the technology you are using. It is a tool, a means to an end, and the end must al-

OCTOBER, 1967

ways be artistic effect. If you get carried away by the technology so that the display of technological innovations becomes the goal, then you are losing the goal of achieving
something of aesthetic value. In working with light, I use
lasers, radiation by electronic beam and gamma radiation polarization, and sound as an activator for light; and I make a
variety of projections which integrate these various technological elements. However, in each of them I use technology merely as an artist would use a brush, rather than
as a means of displaying a technique; the result, an art object, integrated perhaps into the goal that you are looking for.
The most elaborate theatrical thing was at a fashion show at
the Metropolitan Museum of Art last September where I
formed scenery backgrounds on a sixty by twenty-five foot
screen, using a Lumia type projection. Originally, technically
oriented, then inspired by the work of Thomas Wilfred, I
gradually moved into the direction of Lumia. Further inspired
by the work of Chris Sedanus, I became absorbed in the
field of light and Lumia; exploring its potential has become my whole life. Our penetration into this field still has
a long way to go. We are just beginning to get used to the
idea of using real projections; and by using the type of work
pioneered b Tom Wilfred, we wi II go much further than we
are at the present time.
BOWMAN: We have a singularly distinguished group with
us today, and it would be more than a little unfair if I took
the credit for having assembled this group. It is true that
Ray and I did have early discussions about the directions in
which this panel might go, but in fact, Ray Smith put the
panel together. With that in mind, I would like to ask Ray
to help crystall ize the issue at hand?
SMITH: To begin, I would like to ask the following questions: To what extent does the theatre need the new technology? Let us preface that with an examination of the difference we have among the panel with respect to the boundaries of the new technology. Is there some doubt as to what
we mean by "the new technology?" (There'd better be.)
LEE: I am a little confused as to what a happening is. We
spoke of structuring it. How much is it structured? Do you
actually have a script, or is it like the Commedia, an outline?
KIRBY: Usually, if the things are very complicated, you will
find that you must write something down, at least to keep
the order of images in mind, so having no script would not
be the distinction. I make the distinction on two broad
grounds: one is the type of structure used. The easiest distinction to make is an analogy to the difference between
non-objective painting, purely abstract painting, and realistic
painting, where you can recognize the landscape or the still
life, or whatever. In a Ilappening, you do not have what I
call "an information strucwre," where everything explains
everything else. You do not have the narrative type of StruCture. The other distinction that I make is that happenings
tend not to use acting. (This becomes less and less applicable as I myself start using acting more and more.) As performers, you might see someone running a light machine as
part of the performance. A person might come out and
sweep the stage. The image of sweeping is all that happens.
This is not acting, impersonation. Although we have performers in happenings, the tendency is not to use acting and
not to use dialogue. You see, this has nothing to do with
technology.
SMITH: Maybe Billy Kluver can answer one more question.
Are happenings more or less structured than plilyS?
KLUVER: They are JUSt as structured. They had just as many
rehearsals for the original happenings as any other perform-

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1967