Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1977 - 29

visually; it's got to compete verbally.21
If, as scenographers, we have only two choices; either
to use restraint and be servants of the word or take command and provide visual fireworks, then our position is
relatively simple. However, each production we design
forces us into aesthetic decisions which are complicated
by the state of our culture. Given a society, accustomed
to mindless TV. and sensual self fulfillment, can we, as
scenographers, offer this society productions of classic
plays which stress beautiful language? Or must we jazz
up the classics to interest such an audience, and thus
destroy the true value of the play? On the other hand if
we choose to make the visual production of utmost importance, even in a new play, what message of significance
can we, as scenographers, transmit? For me, the huge, and
ohen beautiful sets of designers, like Svoboda, are by
their scale and power anti-human, and thus corroborate
Maxine Greene's contention that today's art communicates the powerlessness and despair of man. In th is case
the unimportance of the character, dwarfed by his surroundings, serves as an additional defeat of man in his
struggle against the forces of irrationality, of bigness, and
of technology.
I am not an enemy of innovative and visually powerful
scenography. Alwin Nikolais's work exhibits great technical skill and power, yet it is employed in the service
of a traditional humanism. His advantage lies in the fact
that he is choreographer, composer, and scenographer to
his own works and that he is working in dance which has
never been a verbal form of communication. Rather than
unbalancing a work by causing one element of a production to take precedence, his work gains power through its
unity and its use of technology. His art is always scaled
to the size of the human body (see back cover).
Few of us are fortunate enough to be playwright,
director, and scenographer all at once. We work in theatre
where responsibilities are fragmented. We live in a society
that is fragmented, that is in transition, that is becoming
more and more sensual, and that can not even discuss the
major events of its time. As scenographers, we have entered a permissive era where the old rules no longer operate. We are often asked to design classic plays and operas
and in doing so are expected to use an aesthetic which has
no relation to the original. As artists, we are expected to
communicate and the only universal message today is
despair. What are we to do?
I wish I really did have an answer that I could pronounce with conviction. But I see several directions and
none of them are satisfactory. We can become museum
curators attempting to foster a new appreciation for verbal theatre. We would have a hard time finding an audience. Or we can throw off the traces and work with directors who permit us to mount spectacular and sensual
productions. But when we do this we seem to exclude
vast areas of things that the theatre is able to say. Or,
we can work intuitively, never considering the philosophical implications of what we do. If we do this, we are
adrih in a meaningless activity that has lost the continuity of both history and the future. Or we can become so
engrossed in technology, new lamps, new dimmers, new
plastics, that like much of our culture we substitute

I USITT

things for what little humanity there still is in our work.
It seems criminal that of all people, those in the theatre
should take this course.
It is important for scenographers to realize that their
new found importance and power in the theatre stems
from the kind of messages they are capable of transmitting. Technical theatre can command sensual and emotional messages such as fear, excitement, calm, mystery,
or even sexual desire. But we can not tal k of loyalty,
honor, generosity, duplicity, or greed, but then, no one
seems to be discussing such things any more.
I am concerned because intellectual quests rather than
sensual satisfaction have raised our civilization to whatever heights it has reached. Now that we seem to distrust
our own culture and the rationalism and humanism on
which it rests, I fear that we will swing too far the other
way in an attempt to explore our neglected emotional
and physical selves.
As audiences, and critics,
more sensual productions,
recognize that our growing
th ings comes at the expense
this is a pyrrhic victory.

such as Clive Barnes, demand
we, as scenographers, must
importance in the scheme of
of a theatre of ideas. For me,

NOTES
1. Warren Bennis, in a speech before the Cincinnati Historical
Society, reprinted in the Yale Alumni Magazine.
2. Harold Rosenberg, The New Yorker, May 12,1975.
3. Harold Rosenberg, The New Yorker, Dec. 22,1975.
4. Judith Shklar, The New Republic, Dec. 27,1975.
5. Maxine Greene, Teacher as Stranger, Wadsworth Publishing
Co., Belmont, Calif., 1973, p. 105.
6. Alfred Kazin, The New Republic, Jan. 17. 1976.
7. Susan Sontag, "Notes on Art, Sex and Politics," The New
York Times, Feb. 8,1976.
8. Christopher Lehmann·Haupt, reviewing a book, The Fall of
Public Man, by Richard Sennett, Knopf, 1977, in The New
York Times, Jan. 6,1977.
9. Description of a course given by the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, New York City. Rosalind Krauss,
course moderator, Spring 1976.
10. Rollo May, The Courage to Create, W.W. Norton 8. Co.,
New York, 1975.
11. John Rockwell, review of Patti Smith, The New York Times,
Dec. 28, 1975.
12. Hilton Kramer, The New York Times, May 23, 1976.
13. Alfred Kazin, The New Republic, Jan.17.1976.
14. Jean Shepherd, "Bridging the Gulf Between Indiana and
Brooklyn," an interview by Martin Jackson in The New
York Times, Sunday, Dec. 19, 1976, P.D. 33.
15. Robert Edmond Jones, The Dramatic Imagination, Theatre
Arts Books, New York, 1941, p. 26.
16. Jo Mielziner, as interviewed by Iva Drapolova in "An Inter·
view with Four Leading American Designers," Theatre
Design and Technology, Fall 1976, p. 45.
17. Ralph Koltai, as interviewed by Glenn Loney in Theatre
Crafts. Jan-Feb. 1977, p. 65.
18. Robin Wagner, as interviewed by Lynn Pecktal in Designing
and Painting for the Theatre, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, 1975, p. 390.
19. Jarka M. Burian, "A Scenographer's Work: Josef Svoboda's
Designs, 1971·75," Theatre Design and Technology, Summer
1976, p. 33.
20. Clive Barnes, The New York Times, Dec. 8, 1976, p. C 19.
21. Walter Kerr, The New York Times, Jan. 9.1977, p. D 21.
*

In the Winter Issue:
A Report on the F.I.R.T. Congress, Munich,
"Theatre Space,"

THEATRE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

FALL,1977

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1977