Indivisible

George and I got into quite a discussion yesterday about his concept for a Theatre Minima. A kind of revisioning of Grotowski's ideas for a contemporary American setting. Reducing theatrical spectacle down to the minimal components necessary such that we can return to a clear and precise New Humanism. The quote of the week is from George who says:

This argues, for theater, a design that centers the experience of the body, that a production should wrap itself around the presentation of the human form, rather than dictating the human form's placement. This is also a suggestion for the text: to attempt the body's centrality as source of the language that defines the rooms and the landscapes around it.

This is a call back from the esoteric theatre of the mind that can often lose sight of core essence of the human experience. Two beings relating to each other in time and space. Dorothy continues this exploration from an actor's perspective through the Mash-Up and Viewpoints.

The minimalism this calls for is an essentializing of the theatrical form. It is a matter of stripping away all that is extraneous in order to reach a purity of style. A process of discovering what is the minimum gesture necessary to create the maximal impact. Where shadow and light coverge to illuminate the essence of being. A theatre of elegance. Theatre of truth.

As a designer one inevitably works in a variety of styles. From the spare to the Baroque. High drama to low comedy. And each demands a different perspective and a different sort of rigor. I have worked with a Ballet Company that produces a lot of works for children. These pieces require a fullness in the light. There can be no dark places on stage. Darkness is blue. Even the house lights must be kept at a glow so as not to scare the little ones. The designer must be able to go from that to this without batting an eyelash.

Each piece demands its own sort of rigor, but so too does the life of a designer as well. It is a strict discipline one must impose on oneself to see the piece for what it is, not what you want it to be. It must, by its very nature, be egoless work. Just as the medium of light is Invisible, so too must the ego of the designer be invisible. I believe this is true for all theatre artists to an extent. It is after all a collaborative form and the focus must be on the work. It is an act of faith, that everyone involved shares a common vision and wishes to manifest that vision with the best of intentions.

At the same time the work is a collaboration towards a shared vision. And while everyone should act without ego they should not act without vision or perspective. It is that uniqueness of vision that creates the uniqueness of experience. You can see in the costumes or the decor or the lighting if the designer reached some truth about the piece or if they just did something 'designey.' Does the scenery evoke the essence of the text or does it look like scenery? Is the lighting decorative or illuminative?

A rigorous focus on the individuality of the text forces you, by necessity, to achieve some degree of truth about the story. This truth occurs when you bring your own rigorous individuality to the table. Individuality not in the myopic narcissistic sense it has taken in American discourse but as Grotowski said:

The etymological meaning of "individuality" is "indivisibility" which means complete existence in something: individuality is the very opposite of half-heartedness.