Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1976 - 40

ently filled the entire space of the cathed ral and no
indication was given as to where the audience would be
placed, it might be assumed as the ultimate in ilud ience
participation shows. One could draw all sorts of conclusions about how the production was to be staged.
The lighting device was found in one of the models
and consisted of 27 little round mirrors attached to small
rods which were mounted in a ball and socket, thus by
moving the mirrors one could focus light into any part
of the model by using a single light bulb. (A 100W PAR,
for example). It is an ingenious method in solving one of
the most perplexing problems of model building.
Leon I. Brauner
As I passed through the Swiss exhibit several large
pencil drawings for The Raven by Werner Hutterli caught
my eye. Such grace and movement! You don't often see
drawings like these anymore. The subtle shading and
line technique are a testament to the nearly lost art of
sketch designing. The large format, off-white smooth
surface paper and elegant proportions of the costume
characters seemed at first to overshadow the simple
designs, though in fact, they actually underscored the
simple shapes and lines of the costumes.
URUGUAY
Leon I. Brauner

Controversion, a series of costume renderings by Jorge
Prieta Carmen Carrozzino of Uruguay, were truly striking.
His bold use of color and South American motif imbued
the costumed figures with a kind of "native spirit." The
characters were designed with clean lines and a strong
sense of the tacti Ie.
UNITED STATES
Gary Gaiser

Patricia Zipprodt
We took no prizes. I think we took no prizes because
we did not put "winning" as our top priority. In marked
contrast to the majority of displays, especially that of the
self-selected trio representing British design, we made a
marvelous mistake. We provided a "broadcast" showing
of our anonymously selected best, and it ended up as a
huge potpourri of work by unknown students, teacherdesigners, regional and Broadway designers, the whole
lot. So, allowing this fact, that we chose to provide a
forum of display for as many as could qualify, we were
caught behind the 8-ball when it came to capturing
honours. We spread ourselves too far and too thinly.
Our democratized approach did us in.
But do we want to win prizes at the next Quadriennale? Is that more important than the unmeasureable encouragement given to those American designers who were
represented? Or the fact that it was a totally open competition in the first place?
If we do, then to win next time should be simple for
us. How? Take ten or so major designers and display their
work in depth. Let each designer's individual talents be
magnified and made powerfully clear. Let the overall presentation be augmented by beautiful photographs (remember the British!, slide projections of related productions,
possibly film clips. In short, eliminate the fragmented
"broadcast" of our 1976 show.
Then we can win. But what will we be losing?

The United States eXhibit, selected under the sponsorship of the U.S. Center of the International Theatre Institute, led by Martha Coigney and Rosamond Gilder, and
under the guidance (until his untimely death in June of
1975) of Donald Oenslager, was one of the largest at the
Prague Quadrennial. Special recognition must be given
to Dr. Joel Rubin for his indefatigable efforts as a member
of the ITI Committee and as Chairman of the International Liaison Committee of USITT to ensure the success of
this exhibit.
In the catalog, the U.S. section ran over 80 pages,
presenting 50 artists and listing 111 designs, photographs
or models. This size is in itself an achievement in a country where government subsidy necessary to underwrite
the cost of such an exhibit is not a matter of course. The
fact that we have received both private and public support
in part indicates the quality of the U.S. exhibit. Selected
from the far-flung American theatre, this professional
work reveals our rich resources from Hawaii to New York,
whether in the regional, repertory, university, resident,
or commercial theatre. Resumes of the artists' careers in
this exhibit indicate that some came from European,
but most from American backgrounds. They were trained
in professional art schools, in the apprentice system and
increasingly in universities, among whom Yale University

is pre-eminent. The practice of their art reveals a gradual
transition from the free-lance artist to the more permanently placed designer in some institutions, as one moves
from the older to the younger members of the profession. This rich array of U.S. scenography makes one look
with pride and feel happy to work in such a vital and creative art.

FALL

1976

Gary Gaiser
The U.S. theatre architecture exhibit is a culmination
of the efforts of USITT's Architecture Commission,
under the leadership of Peter Frink. A series of panels,
representative of newly completed projects, had been
gathered for the 1975 USITT Conference and with some
sign ificant add itions provided a representative picture of
regional, educational, and commerical theatre activity.
This series ran the gamut from small to large theatres
and from single units to multi-structure centers.
USSR
Gary Gaiser
Capitalizing on new materials both in the models and
renderings, and in the execution of these designs, the
artists frequently reveal an immediacy that talks to us
now. Of even more significance in this freshness of approach in the handling of materials is their frequent
success in recognizing the essential power of a piece and
focusing it on the action for our view, via its proper
environment and in terms of our condition. An arresting
example of this tool-and-mirror function - human beings
in a social environment as instruments and the spectators
as observers of their reflection - is to be observed in this

THEATRE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

USITT

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1976