Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1992 - 18

bureaucrars, ir calls arremion co rhe idiocy of unjusriflable resrricrions on personal choice, reveals rhe folly of inflexibilirv,
and worsr of all, ridicules rhe anri-human
regularions imposed in rhe name of an
efficiem process.
Process is always ar rhe end of a discussion of rhe rension berween order and
disorder. While professional rhearres are
dependenr on rhe success of rheir producr and search for an equilibrium rhar
allows for crearive chaos wirhin rhe
resrricrions imposed by rhe perils of economic survival, educarional rhearres
should srress process, wirh producr a secondary considerarion. Academic programs, however, are ofren more rigid in
demanding compliance ro organizarional
rules in an anempr ro reach a "proper"
process as rhe means ro achieve a successful producr. Maybe srudenrs cannor
grasp a dozen differem ways ro do somerhing. Or maybe reachers find ir easier ro
evaluare srudem performance wirhin proscribed limirs. Some reachers may even
be passing on, unquesrioned, a process
rhey have been raughr. In any case, srudenrs deserve ro be raughr rhar process is
nor a frozen dogma of "how-ro" ru les,
bur is an evolving search for bener ways.
The rension berween chaos and order is
parr of rhar earch.
The collaborarive process we use in a
producrion, a microcosm of an organizarion dedicared ro accomplishing a rask, is
a good example of rhis evolurion and
search. Each producrion evolves a somewhar differenr merhod of collaborarion;
rhearres wirh permanem sraffs differ less
in rhe process from play co play rhan do
producrions wirh freelance parricipanrs.
Bur in every producrion rhere is a jockeying for posirion and an implicir or explicir comperirion berween individual arrisric
vIsions.
In our modern rhearre, rhis jockeying
for self expression has been limired by a
hierarchy of power and a paradigmaric
organizarion. \Virh rhe rexr as a bible, rhe
direccor is rhe anoinred inrerprerer. The
ser designer, cosrume designer and lighring designer have inpur, in a decreasing
order. Many of us were rrained ro honor
rhis chain of command and have raughr
ir as gospel because ir was rhe parh ro a
unified producrion. [r has become a rule
read v ro be broken.
The feminisr movemenr sees rhe rule
bridling rhe crearive process. [r is hierarchical and rhus modeled afrer parriarchal
and milirarisric consrrucrs. Raynerre
Halvorsen Smirh calls for a re-examinarion of rhe producrion process in lighr of
new ideas derived from feminism, posrmodernism, deconsrrucrionism and fem16

1992 SPRING

TD&T

inine performance arr. " She does nor,
however, propose a new process, rhough
a feminisr process mighr subsrirure consensus for flar and equaliry for hierarchy.'l
The problem wirh such a srrucrure,
and possibly rhe reason Halvorsen Smirh
does nor suggesr ir, is rhar consensus is a
form of order more resrricrive of crearive
chaos rhan parriarchal or marriarchal
hierarchy. Ar leasr a dicrarorialleader
may rake risks and mandare a personal
and possibly chaoric vision. If we lisr
recenr new direcrions in rhearre, innovarions have come from individuals wirh
srrong personal visions: Grorowski,
Roberr Wilson, Perer Sellers or even rhe
lare Tadeusz Kanror, whose dicrarorial
power exrended inro rhe run of rhe play
when he direcred on srage ar each performance. Are rhere corresponding examples of innovarion by consensus?
"'[hen we consider collaborarion, ir is
as a merhod of bringing order ro rhe disparare work of many people. Bur whar if
collaborarion meanr a way of crearing
chaos? Direccor Roberr \Voodruff calls
for a sysrem in which rhere is opposi rion
rarher rhan agreemenr, many visions
rarher rhan one. He would like rhe
designers nor ro ralk ro one anorher bur
each arrive ar rech rehearsal wirh a personal expression of rhe play. He uses a
musical image, comparing rhe process ro
a 16-rrack recording.

close co whar rhe scien risrs working an
chaos are doing. Ha\'ing recognized rhar
rhe world is nor a near, closed, linear,
orderly s\'srem and rhar chaos is a major
parr of reali~', rhey are looking For some
meaning in disorder. The weakness in
Woodruff's aesrheric is rhar he is subjecr
ro rhe Burrerfly Effecr. His scnsirivc
dependence on inirial condirions is his
choice of collaborarors. IF his colleagues
are our of rune, play wrong nores or don'r
undersrand rhe pla~' rhey are scoring. no
amounr of sound mixing will sray disasrer.
This may have been rhe case all rhe
while. Grear arri rs probably creare
order our of chaos, invenring rheir own
sysrems while rhe mosr resrricrive srep
by srep process will never rurn an
incomperenr inro an arrisr. Chaos
inspires rhe arrisr while rules are made
ro keep rhe mediocre from falling off
rhe deep end.
ffi
Beeb Salzer is a desiglleJ; a proftssor fl{ Sail
Diego State Ulliversit)1 alld williler of the
1990 Herb Greggs A lilaI'd for his TD&T
article, "Teachillg Desigll ill a World
Without Desigll. "
Endnores
JJm~s

Gleick, ClhlOS. J/Ilking
York: Penguin Books 1988) 23.

As a process, Woodruff's ideas come

.\"(u·

SOd/f,-

(~e\\

Ian Stewart. DOfs God Pill) Dla! (Bl.Ickwdl 1'l 9)
Chapter -. "The \,\'e,lther Facwry.'·
3

So we lay our sixreen scores, and rhe
mix comes when we're in rhe rhearre doing a rechnical rehearsal or
previews and seeing all rhe elemems
ar once. Everybody may be playing
all rhe rime, and you have co make
some adjusrmenr co one or more of
rhe scores. The work becomes more
assaulrive because ir's denser, bur ir's
nor only rhe densiry of language.
or everybody has ro play behind
rhe rexr, supporr one melody. Each
can play his own melody, and rhere
doesn'r always have ro be agreemenr. There's a ronaliry rhar you
look for, bur ir doesn'r have ro be
harmonic. ThaI' creares an unserding edge rhar conrribures ro live
performance. [r's nor a c10scd experience, as in siruarions where you
have a kind of roundness, a nice
landscape rhar ever~'one agrees on
and where rhe edges of ir are raken
away. \X/hen you have agreemem ir
seals rhings. You've raken away rhe
possibiliry of a dynamic rhar can
come from disagreemenr. "

StC'wJrt. 1-.

Gleick. 306.
Gleick. 306.
6

Gleick.9.

Gleick.2-.

Stewart. 63.

St('wJ.rl. 219.

Edwin A. Abbott. Fltl/land (~ew York: DO\'cr
PublicJtions. 2nd Edition I -I).

H. O. Peitgen Jnd P. H. Rich(er. Th,' 8e'.I111) of
FTll(/,IU 88) ,"\ 1,"\ (Rohl'rt
\\'oodruIT intcr\'lcwl.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1992