Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1989 - 25

always obvious at the time! There is a good deal to be said
for not clinging to past work, so that each generation's
efforts may in turn be swept away by that following, but
I'm not so sure now how wise this is.
My own work on the Histories is no model of documentation. A production of Henry N, Part I is represented by
one photograph of two actors wearing what appear to be
wooden wastepaper bins, clad with strips of metal and
rivets - a stark reminder that objects with real function,
like armor, are notoriously difficult to re-invent in later
years with any degree of success. There was also a set
drawing, optimistically proportioned in view of the size of
the old Birmingham Rep stage, and that was all. I'm sure
the Rep's arch.ive would be able to provide more, though I
thought I had valued the production better myself at the
time. I hadn't started to take my own photographs then,
and didn't for another six years. A later production of
Richard III fared a little better, with some costume drawings, but I know the finished ones looked so much better. I
have no record of my fruitful collaboration with the wardrobe, though I can remember them being very doubtful at
the time.
The latter production was with a director who frequently brought photographs of his past productions to
early discussions. They clearly meant much to him, but
often upset me until I realized the intention was to share
the successes, and failures, of his own earlier work and
provide it with a context. At least we both rapidly ruled
out some avenues for exploration. His constant hope was
that we could go further this time. We often did, even if it
was in the era of minimalism when more progress generally meant less design. We used such documentary evidence as he and the company possessed, and learned from
it.
The object in reviving any play must always be to discover and reveal new aspects of the text through production, so why not be fully informed about what has already
been done? There's really no point in repeating earlier
work in ignorance, if evidence of its nature can be found.
Each fresh production only opens the way to further possibilities. It is part of a process of development which
stretches both backward and forward.
Paradoxically; the designer's problems in production can
stem from the very collaborative nature of making theatre.
One's involvement is largely with a team of often essentially nonvisual people. Though each has his or her own
particular acquired e},,'perience in theatre, the depth and
range of the visual experience does not always stretch very
far beyond the theatre into the visual arts. There are many
exceptions of course, but this is the general rule, and those
co-workers who are more visually aware are often not so
visually informed. We should also remember that Britain
is not renowned as a visually literate country, which does
not always provide the most supportive working
environment.
Recent moves away from the design departments
formed in the sixties and seventies only tend to exacerbate
this sense of isolation in a collective world. Again we are
faced with questions of value. Any ambitious hopes of
stretching the visual art of theatre can pale into insignificance against the practical problems of getting it on. The
value placed on the rehearsal process, the real place of
creation, is too often less than it should be. Performance is
all. This attitude is slowly changing, but by no means as
quickly as it should. Even within the larger national com-

CARING

FAST

EXPERIENCED

IT COMES TOGETHER
FOR YOU AT:
ADIRONDACK SCENIC

------._. - -

-~-~-----.

~---~~;; ~*

.:.

****'

s- .".,

~:::

605 Commerce Way W.
Jupiter. FL 33458

(407) 746-0159

ALL OTHER STATES
9 Broad Street
Glens Falls, NY 12801

(518) 793-6706
TD&T

SPRING 1989

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1989