Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1984 - 30

Third
Biennial Scenography Exhibition
.............................................................................................
This issue of the journal coincides
with the Third Biennial Scenography
Exposition. Exposition Coordinator
Stephen G. Hild and Juried Section
Head Dick Durst have provided some
comments on the adjudication process.
To begin with, the designs submitted to the juried competition were 1101
judged by other designers. "In our theatre," noted Hild, "it is the Producer,
Director, Choreographer, and Critic
who determine the selection, use, and
quality of the designs." As a result, the
panels of judges were made up of professionals from those fields plus a recognized author, educator, or scenographer. This year, for the first time, judges
were provided by the League of New
York Theatres and Producers as well.
Hild explained that "members of that
group were invited to come by, at their
convenience, to vote. The result of their
votes was tabulated and attached to each
entry after the initial individual screening by each member of the adjudication
panel. This additional input seemed to
be an added benefit. For the next Exposition we are considering extending a
similar invitation to the Society of Stage
Directors and Choreographers." The
judges this year were George Bunt, Willard F. Bellman, Michael Feingold, Bill
Gile, and Roger Morgan.
Everyone involved in the process
seemed excited by it-not least of all the
judges. Durst noted how beneficial it
would be if all designers could have
"that many creative minds saying, 'can
you choreograph on that space?' or '[
would love to have the chance to manipulate people within that space.''' The
critical process was always constructive.
Durst went on to speculate about "the
frailty of director-designer communication," but noted that "the value of the
judges' comments was that they had no
vested interest in the production, but
were simply evaluating the presentation
on its own merits. The success of an entry in lIIany instances was due to the
clarity of the conceptual statements that
came with the designs. Those least successful were, in most instances, those
that the judges had to search for correlation between design and concept."
Certain themes have recurred
through the judges' comments over the
28

Willard Belllllan viewing Ihe jllried ell/rall/s.

Thejlldges and slajjjor Ihejllried e.\pOSilion. PiCillred lejl 10 righl: Roger Atforgan, Ii'illan! Belllll(//
51ephen Hild (Exposilion CoordinalOr), George BUlI/, Michael Feingold, Bill Gile (kneeling).

three Expositions, noted Hild: How do
we know what belongs to the designer
and what was forced upon him by the
director and does that make a difference in the way we should look at the
entry? Why aren't more undergraduate
and graduate students entering their

Theatre Design & Technology/USITT /Spring 1984

work? Why are designers so weak i
photographing their work? Whyaren
designers making more use of new me
terials and projection techniques avai
able to them? What can we do to eI
courage designers? These questions sti
need answers.

A 96-page catalog
of the
Third Biennial Scenography Exposition
is available through
the USITT National Office.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1984