Week FIVE: Coming to Terms

So Physical Graffiti is officially over. It's really ironic because most dance major 101's are ecstatic that they finished their 101 units after the closing of a show, but I'm not. I actually completed three extra units of 101 this quarter, and I wish I could do more! Programming/Operating the board for Physical was a really eye opening experience, and I've learned many things not only about lighting design, but about myself in this process:

I know I talked about this last blog post, but I would just like to reiterate how important it is to accept the messiness that comes with designing a show and creating new works. Nothing in a design is going to be perfect initially. There are many layers to designing, which includes A TON of collaboration, thought, and experimenting, and throwing out ideas is one of the most important techniques that allows for a designer to learn and gain new understanding about a present situation or piece. While I observed this behavior from both Martha and Naomie, I began to think that there is a fine line between getting messy in design and just being outright sloppy. This is not to say that Martha and Naomie's designs were sloppy, but rather that messiness is thought-provoking and experimental, and sloppiness is unfinished, lazy work. The reason I'm discussing this is because it is so apparent in ALL forms of design. I have had experiences with choreographers who do not want to get messy, and so they throw something on their dancers to fill up time, and the piece becomes sloppy, syrupy, unfinished, unresolved, whatever you want to call it, and the message never gets conveyed (but rather confusing). In lighting design, this is also true, and although I touched on this last week, this is where the difference between lighting a piece to light a piece versus capturing a piece through design are apparent. When lighting a show, designers must be cautious, and make sure that they are portraying a piece exactly how they must so that they assist the audience in grasping a deeper understanding of that piece's world and  ultimately the concept that is being presented. I was talking to a lighting grad, and they told me that if they don't understand the concept of a piece that they are designing, they make up their own concept and light the piece that way. I question this strategy(even as an inexperienced amateur). I think it is vital to a piece's survival that ALL designers find a way to grasp the original concept, build upon it in their designs, and let the concept resonate. If not, why light a piece? There has to be original meaning and thought in design: a piece should never become a 'get it out of the way' ordeal (what do you think Lonnie?)  Designers, I have learned (especially in this process), are a team, NOT a single entity, and it is the team's motive to communicate a similar message to the audience, and how they are going to collaborate to fulfill this task is the next step of the design process.

As for me, I think this entire process was eye-opening and extremely helpful for me as a performer.  I feel that I have been able to come to terms (title of this week's blog) with being okay with the unclarity that occurs in a design process. I've learned that concepts/work are/is sacred, that they must be respected even if a designer hates or disagrees, and everyone must work as a team to motivate and inspire the audience (get the audience to feel, that's art right?). This was apparent in many pieces in Physical Graffiti, and I was taken to another world (even as I was operating the board) where I could relate to, feel, and question some of these concepts. In other pieces, not so much, which made it clearer for me to figure out all of the above. As for my lighting interest: I AM FASCINATED! I think nervous because it is so new to me, but fascinated and inspired and excited!