I'd intended to dig out my notes from 50C (I'm using the same notebook as I was in 157, so I had those review notes with me) and thus appear like I remembered every single moment of every class from my first quarter. Luckily, even though that didn't happen I've been involved enough in classes and projects since then that the knowledge hasn't completely escaped my brain.
I find myself thinking about which brushstrokes are likely to be most suited to which kinds of space. Designing in the Nixon this quarter, I suspect I'm going to be dealing less with par-cans and fresnels, but they may have a place in the worlds I'm lighting (or, I guess, painting). I'd never really thought about it in the context of realistic theater - maybe because the creation of a realistic world successfully doesn't usually draw direct attention to the lighting as separate from the production as a whole, where more abstract lighting is viewed in a different way?
Working on compositions in 157, and having conversations with the other designers, there always seemed to be a general consensus that the more abstract the design the more "fun" it was. I wonder if that's a result of less pressure to make the stage appear strictly realistic, or from a freedom of color, or just because moving further away from realism feels like stepping out of the box. Bigger gestures are allowed when realism is not the first priority, I would think. Maybe it's easier, or maybe it's just a different kind of challenge.
I enjoy both but feel many times realism is harder because we still need to make emotional statements but are tied strongly to the root of realism - that said, if one has not done realism, I feel that the 'abstract' plays lose focus
ReplyDeleteRegardless all brushstrokes are necessary for all types of lighting
Thank you!