Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1985 - 9

patriots in the field. There needed to
be, it was felt, an organization which
could provide a common bond or meeting ground for all areas of theatre:
community, commercial, as well as academic. It was this objective, coupled
with a desire to promote closer association, harmony, working relationships
and exchanges in the art on all levelsfrom the performer and technician
through the producer and playwrights
-which led to the establishment of the
USITT. To continue with Dr. Wells'
germane comments from the first
USITT ewsletter:
A century ago our present condition
had not arisen. Any presentational
an, to be sure, demands to some extent a division of labor and of technical skills Olher [han the work of the
performers themselves. Someone
mu t make a costume, a puppet or a
violin, prepare a dancing place or design and build a theatre. But modern
technology vastly increases the complexity of all that lies behind the scene
itself-not to mention the scene as
well. The actor remains but nOl his
environment. We are building many
theatres and endowing them with far
more equipment than theatres have
ever enjoyed before. The equipment
of the lesser world of the theatre can
easily become nOl its blessing but its
bane, somewhat as the superior military equipment in the greater world
may, if uncontrolled, become its de0 Americans wish registruction.
mentation in the bleaker sense of the
word but rational organization we do
require. It is a malleI' of common
concern that owners of theatres have
toO often had lillie fruitful communicalion with architecl , architects with
producers, engineers with theatre administrators, and technicians in general with playwrights and actors.
Each group has advanced without
adequate acquaintance with its neighbors, often creating a technical language difficult for the outsiders to
understand. The result has been a
widespread malformation in the body
and limbs of the theatre. We have
lacked a roundtable about which
leaders with vision in various fields
may meet and exchange their view.
The In titute aims to provide such a
table.
The SITT then was envi ioned a
an organization which could and hould
serve all of the contributing arti ts and
practitioners on all levels. The name
cho en was indicative of what the 01'-

ganization was intended to be. Techno logy, by definition, means the science of the application of knowledge
to practical purposes; hence all who
contribute (playwrights, actors, designers, technicians, costumers et al.) play
their roles and are technologists in the
broad sense. Certainly we do not doubt
that our mission is to apply the knowledge and creativity of all to the practical purpose of theatre production.
Without production, which is the sum
total of the contribution of all our technologists' we do not have theatre, only
literature. And literature, no matter
how great, may not be compared with
theatre production. lance knew a very
learned professor of English, a critic
and a poet, who told me that only after
seeing a production of one of Shakespeare's great plays did the full meaning and significance of the written
words of a particular scene come to Ii fe.
This was production in the best sense
where all of the contributing artists' efforts fused into a visually moving image
to make the script live, and focus on the
full meaning of the written words.
In historical perspective, the story
of the USITT actually began in the fall
of 1959 when Tom DeGaetani (the tech-

nical and lighting director for the J uilliard School of Music) and Joel Rubin (a
young electrical engineer and graduate
of the Yale Drama School who had
joined the Kliegl Brothers Lighting
staff five years before) were brought
together by a mutual friend, scenic designer David Hays. Hays had heard
each independently express similar
views of the need for a collective of theatre experts to deal with the problems
of a boom in American theatre. During
the next year, these two men became as
Tweedledum and Tweedledee, with constant meetings and discussions, and
even more frequent telephone conversations all directed towards their shared
belief in the need for a nationally
shared experience and exchange of
ideas in American theatre building.
They drew into their discussions many
outstanding figures of the day: Harold
Burris - leyer (physicist, consult an t,
and theatre practitioner), Arthur Benline (national expert on building codes),
Edward C. Cole (consultant, designer,
professor at Yale School of Drama),
John Cornell (Actor's Equity), Peter
Cott (Society of Stage Directors and

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1985