Week 4: GO FOR LIGHTS

A ton of lighting information was thrown at me in the past few weeks, that I'm pretty sure I am ready to enter the field and begin my career as a designer... just kidding, but wow, my time as a programmer/board op has been an incredibly fascinating experience.

I think the best way for me to approach writing about all of the information from the brushstrokes class and from tech/programming for Physical Graffiti is to discuss all under the transcending concept of designer intention and the use of rhetoric.

The brushstrokes lecture was a ton of information in a very short amount of time. It was difficult for me to grasp all that Lonnie was attempting to explain in one sitting, especially because I am a visual (and messy) learner, and have to experience things for myself to be able to completely understand conceptual thought. However, working in the Claire Trevor with Martha and Naomi has proved beneficial in instilling these concepts about brushstrokes as they designed the various pieces in Physical Graffiti. In many of the pieces, the audience enters a specific world that conveys an underlying theme. This is where I truly realized that certain brushstrokes can aid in deepening the audience's understanding of the piece's world, or can extract from the audience's understanding. I noticed that harsher brushstrokes, including texture, can be oppressive, raw, and exposing. In a particular piece about feminism, Martha used a textured system to convey the inner turmoil that the choreography was expressing. In contrast, softer brushstrokes can present a more ethereal and angelic look. In another piece about Divinity, Naomi uses Source 4 Pars, and it evident to the audience that a higher power is present and is dictating (communicating and manipulating) the arc of the piece. 

So about programming/tech: buttons are awesome, Martha says that I am a rockstar. It took me a solid day to re-familiarize myself with the board, but seeing the light plot on a screen proves beneficial to designing. While I learned about operating the board, what surprised me about programming was the importance of accepting messiness as a designer. I am a perfectionist at heart, and it is difficult for me to not attempt to get things correct the first time. In the programming process, the designers were at first nervous and overwhelmed as they were attempting to create a "perfect" design for tech rehearsals. They were able to work more efficiently when they allowed themselves to be messy and to make mistakes and to accept that the editing process is a huge part of designing. This is so pivotal to all that I aspire to be (if this makes sense). As a designer in both dance and someday lights, I, as a perfectionist, must accept mistakes because in the end, these mistakes solidify a design. Because I know dance well, I was able to offer suggestions (at both designers' convenience). It was helpful for me to be a part of the designing process, because I had an opportunity to communicate and discover (and better comprehend) the relationship between piece and lights: lights can either compliment or, for lack of a better term, 'contrast'  the piece, and this is where intention plays a huge role in design.