Once the designer has become conscious of the lens through which she views the world, she can then approach Ringer’s fourth and final question, “How have my relationships with other artists in the theatre and the creative and working process I use been constructed?” Knowing the answers to this question is as important as awareness of personal creative process because they makes manifest the ways in which gender-bias in design and the theatre community affect artistic synthesis and output. As discussed before, the necessity of a unified design concept is considered paramount in the traditional theatre process and this comes from the hierarchical structure that places the director at the head of the process: the director who is usually male. Thus, the relationships and hierarchy in the creative team become a part of the patriarchal control over design process and product. Ringer declares that “the feminist designer should consider herself a creator in her own right, equal to the director; her visual statement is no less important than those made by directors and actors” (306). This close partnership between director and designer is not only being called for by feminist designers, but also by contemporary directors and producers. In an informal survey of artistic directors, producers, and stage directors, designer Robert N. Schmidt asked what makes designers more hirable than others:
[. . .] It is no longer sufficient for designers to be able to develop their work in a chameleon-like way from a director’s fully formed ‘concept.’ It is now essential that designers [. . .] function as co-equal artists-helping to initiate rather than merely elaborate upon the director’s theatrical aesthetic style[. . .].” (163)
The philosophy behind scenography, a field that combines at least scenic and costume design and is most common in European theatres, most directly speaks to the necessity of creative partnership rather than a hierarchical structure. In her book What is Scenography? Pamela Howard explains that “to go further scenographically is to work seriously to observe the director’s methods [. . .] the implications of the text, and to use this knowledge to unlock the visual power of the play” (xxiv).
By adopting a scenographic approach, the feminist designer not only escapes the traditional patriarchal hierarchy of the director, but also has the opportunity to “regard the entire visual field of the theatre as a ‘landscape’” (Ringer 305), which promotes a wider canvas on which to interpret Scolnicov’s earlier assertion about the intertwined association of woman and space in which “any articulation of space on stage [. . .] is directly expressive of her position, her lifestyle, her personality” (xiii). Furthermore, scenography is often described as working from the character outward in order to make “the space speak” (Howard 14). A feminist designer who works in this manner visually places woman and her struggles and growth at the center of the action rather than as “supporting objects surrounding and supporting the male hero” (Ringer 300). This can lead to design decisions like Ringer’s choice to organize the kitchen in a non-logical way discussed earlier, or the decision to eliminate unnecessary walls in my recent design of Act III and IV in Chekov’s The Seagull in order to highlight the feeling of entrapment felt by the characters, most of all Nina.
Scolnicov argues that “the articulation of [The Seagull’s] theatrical space is [...] determined by female motivation” despite woman not being the central character (111). Until studying feminist theory and design in depth, I was unable to articulate that this idea had subconsciously worked upon my process, which in turn made discussions with the director and creative team difficult when trying to articulate my simple design concept. Smith asserts that “the pressure of hurdling through the design process to opening night narrows the scope of what can be created” (108), which I would argue is at the heart of why the field of design has not yet evolved past the theories and ideas set forth nearly a century ago by Jones, Craig, Appia, and Simonson. However, there is hope in the scholarship of designers like Delores Ringer who set forth her four important questions to ask when embarking on a new design project. Arguably, Ringer’s questions are not applicable to just feminist designers, but instead lay the groundwork for a new mode of approaching design as a whole. No longer should the designer be presumed invisible in their work, nor just a servant to the script or director. As my contemporaries begin to take up the mantle given to us, we can take Pamela Howard’s assertion to heart: “A theatre designer has to have an insatiable curiosity to find out about things, to know where they come from, and why. To look beyond the surface and discover the truth.” (299)
French, Marilyn. “Is There a Feminist Aesthetic?” Aesthetics in Feminest Perspecive. Ed. Hilde Hein and carol Korsmeyer. Bloomington, Indiana UP: 1993. 68-76. Print.
Hein, Hilde. “The Role of Feminist Aesthetics in Feminist Theory.” Feminism and Tradition in Aesthetics. Ed. Peggy Zeglin Brand and Caroylyn Korsmeyer. University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State UP: 1995. 446-463. Print.
Howard, Pamela. “What is Scenography?” Theatre Design and Technology. Summer 2001: 13-16. Print.
---. What is Scenography? 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Jones, Robert Edmond. The Dramatic Imagination. New York: Theatre Art Books, 1969. Print.
Pajaczkowska, Claire. “Issues in Feminist Visual Culture.” Feminist Visual Culture. Ed. Fiona Carson and Claire Pajaczkowska. New York, Routledge: 2001. 1-21. Print.
Ringer, Delores. “Re-Visioning Scenography: A Feminist’s Approach to Design for the Theatre.” Theatre and Feminist Aesthetics. Ed. Karen Laughlin and Catherine Schuler. Madison, Farleigh Dickinson UP: 1995. 299-315. Print.
Schmidt, Robert N. “Training Scenic Designers for a Changing Aesthetic.” Perspectives on Teaching Theatre. Ed. Raynette Halvorsen Smith, Bruce A. McConachie, and Rhonda Blair. New York, Peter Lang: 2001. 160-165. Print.
Scolnicov, Hanna. Woman’s Theatrical Space. New York: Cambridge UP, 1994. Print.
Simonson, Lee. The Stage is Set. New York, Theatre Arts Books: 1963. Print.
Smith, Raynette Halvorsen. “Deconstructing the Design Process: Teachign Scene Design Process Through Feminist Performance Art.” Perspectives on Teaching Theatre. Ed. Raynette Halvorsen Smith, Bruce A. McConachie, and Rhonda Blair. New York, Peter Lang: 2001. 107-116. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment