Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 2019 - 34

Snezana Pesic, curator for Canada, experiences the virtual reality space in Blue Hour. Photo by David
Armelino.

parts of the installation and were built to
exploit the unpredictable and unexplored
quality of sounds possible. Methods of
sound generation included generating
and exacerbating feedback and ground
loop sounds, using electrical currents
to generate noise by varying proximity
to lit fluorescent tubes and other electrical devices. This all made "electromagnetic pendulum music." These spaces
pushed the boundaries of experimental
sound generation using a collaboration
between human and object, unabashedly asking the question, "Why make the
things that make sound?" Time was built
into the cycling environment to highlight
the dirty electronics experimental sound

34 |

THEATRE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY

FALL 2019

group workshop in between the 24-minute performances of Blue Hour.
During the PQ talks, the curators of
the 36Q held a panel to discuss the purpose, structure, and creation of the Blue
Hour installation. Markéta Fantová discussed how the project was meant to
build upon a 2017 project where artists came together to create an installation with light in a museum space. The
2019 project was meant to see what the
future holds for the creation of artistic
space that place art before technology. It
was meant to ask questions like "What
is the message of their media? How do
we use the media? What is the point of
using these things?" while bridging vi-

sual arts and theatre arts. The starting
point for addressing these questions
was the body in space. Each element's
value in the environment was related to
the body of the observer and participant
in the space. Bodies and feeling were at
the center of all the collaborators' approach to the space. The lights, projections, sounds, virtual reality, and tactile
elements nested within each other to
create a macro environment that held
several micro environments for the participant to explore.
For this project, the process mattered more than the result. Originally,
the installation's goal was to have everyone's work respond to each other's
work, with all content interrelated and
networked. There were initial plans to
connect the tactile areas to the lighting,
sound, and video playback systems so
that changes audience members made
to the tactile objects by moving or otherwise changing their states would
trigger different effects, offering some
unpredictable and organically motivated changes to the environment. Each
area had a lead artist who curated and
assembled teams of fellow artists and
students to previsualize, design, and actualize the elements in the space. All in
all, approximately 60 designers worked
for months to collaboratively conceive
the 24-minute cycle echoing the 24
hours in a day and a week to install and
program the final designs.
During the installation process, several challenges became apparent. First,
the scale of the endeavor and its networking needs were mammoth. Assembling
and troubleshooting this system took
over some of the intended duties of some
team members. For example, the system
integrator spent much of the load-in time
troubleshooting the video system. This
means some planned elements of system
integration were not possible in the time
the team had to prepare the installation.
The team readily admits, "In our rush
to find a solution, we caused a bigger
problem." This is where the focus on the
process is important. The piece was not
about the final outcome, no matter how
astounding; it was about an experiment
to see how these areas interact and how
to fully artistically engage every member of the team. This enthusiasm for the
project led to some frustration with the
limitations of time and its effect on the

Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 2019