Creating an effective theatrical lighting design competition on a national level has been a difficult problem for the American College Theatre Festival for many years. A newly developed lighting design workshop was launched this year bringing eight lighting design students from across the country to the ACTF National Festival at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D. C.
Funded generously by the Barbizon Corporation, Beverly Emmons took inspiration from work by David Thayer, John Uthoff, and Bob Welk who have been conducting a lighting project in ACTF Region V for several years. Emmons was a guest adjudicator for the regional project in January, 2001 and the experience inspired her to see if something similar could be done on the national level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Day #1
The students arrived in Washington, checked into the St. James
Hotel and visited the Kennedy Center to see rehearsals of the
scenes they were to light the next day. Rooming together proved
to have a positive effect on their experience as they bonded with
one another through the week. Living together and working together
gave them a chance to compare theatre practices. Discovering how
theatre is done in other parts of the country turned out to be
an important part of their experience with this project.
Day #2 Morning
Back stage of the JFKC Lab Theatre
The day began by having the daily schedule explained for the students. It was a logistical challenge to get scenery, costumes, actors, blocking and the venue prepared for scenes of Macbeth to be lit eight different ways. Allowing each student enough time to focus, cue and present their scene would take eight hours a day for the next three days. The stage was divided into two playing areas, one upstage and one downstage, and each day four students would present their scenes.
After the overall schedule was explained, the students retired to the lobby area of the JFKC Lab Theatre to sort out their individual gel cut lists. Each student had submitted a list of gel colors and gobo patterns in advance and now needed to cut the gel to proper sizes and put patterns in the correct pattern holders for the light fixtures they were planning to use.
Eric Cornwell organized the workshop and was on-site throughout the three day project. He became involved at the request of Beverly Emmons, who had adjudicated the competition the previous year. Eric developed the master plan to make 20 instruments available to each student to be focused and cued in the time allotted. Eric also served as the liaison with the local union crew, working around the lighting rig for a show that was running concurrently in the Lab Theatre each evening.
Greg Henry, the Co-Manager/Artistic Director of the KC/ACTF Festival, served as the director for the project and supplied actors and a stage manager for the scenes. He sent the lighting designers a written directorial approach to the play and blocking notes in advance of their arrival.
Day #2 Afternoon
On stage of the JFKC Lab Theatre
Once the students got on deck, the first step was to spike the upstage and downstage acting areas. Students got to see the actual set pieces for the first time and realized they would have to adjust their designs to the specifics of the scenic elements as time would allow. The four students presenting their scenes on Thursday used the same scene from the play and the same scenic elements. On Friday, the second group would light a different scene with different scenic elements. Since all eight students needed to focus fixtures the first day, scenic pieces from both scenes were available and spiked in different colors.
The performance space was fairly small, 12'-0"x12'-0", but it worked out to be about the right size for the designers to light adequately with the 20 fixture maximum they were allowed to use.
Just before lunch, the students were introduced to Cecilia Frederick, an I.A.T.S.E. representative. She talked about the alliance U.S.A.A. now has with I.A.T.S.E. and clarified procedures for taking the U.S.A.A. exam in lighting design.
That afternoon the students began their first focus session. Eric stayed on deck and called students up to focus lights as needed. The union crew at JFKC were amiable and seemed to enjoy working with the young designers. Some of these students were working with a union crew for the first time, so it took a while for them to get comfortable using a crew to focus fixtures for them.
One issue the students had to deal with early on was whether or not to ask for something that might have been deemed outside the parameters of the project. Eric was as flexible as possible, and encouraged the students to ask if they wanted anything in particular.
Focusing techniques the students used improved dramatically during the three day workshop. In a practical way, there is nothing that can replace the experience of going through the actual tasks lighting designers are expected to master in the professional world. The students seemed pretty nervous when they first started focusing, sometimes not even looking at what the light was doing while it was being focused. Some would ask the crew to focus the light a particular way, but give up too quickly when the crew found some difficulty in completing the task. Others fussed with a given fixture too long, or went back to lights already focused. Some would rattle off long series of commands that the crew could not remember. Others would talk too softly to be heard. But as the hours passed, all of the students improved their technique, becoming more relaxed and clearer in what they wanted to have done. The students also became more comfortable with the time constraints, intuitively knowing when to push ahead and when it was okay to slack up the pace.
Students used a variety of terminology to communicate with the crew, and some standard commands were overlooked occasionally. On the other hand, the students seemed reasonably versed in regards to the variety of fixtures they had to work with, taking advantage of the features of Source 4 equipment when it was available, or knowing how a par can filament could be rotated to best effect. The students usually asked for the crew's names which is important when attempting to work as efficiently as possible. There seemed to also be some good focusing adjustments made on the fly, which often is the case in actual design situations.
As time passed, design styles began to emerge, and unlike poster projects, we could see how dominant aspects of lighting were taking hold of each design. One student emphasized color in the design, another used color scrollers to change color dramatically during the scene. One student emphasized side light, another relied on front light. Some used gobos extensively, others went without. Some chose to include a cyc in their project, others preferred a black background.
Day #2 Evening
JFKC Education Gallery
That evening, Eric Cornwell critiqued the poster projects the students entered in the Barbizon Award for Excellence in Lighting Design. This remains the official competition and Eric's task was to choose a winner and a first runner-up. Eric asked each student to talk briefly about their design, explaining that designers must be able to communicate on a number of different levels with directors, designers, technicians and the general public. After each presentation, Eric offered tips on how design presentations can be more functional and communicative.
Each student's entry was unique not only in the manner and style in which the materials were displayed, but also in the display's intent. Some redid storyboards or magic sheets after the fact to better illustrate how those tools can be used by lighting designers. Others documented the process by including originals, which were less attractive graphically, but gave a better idea of the actual process used to design the production.
Choosing a winner is never easy because the adjudicator has to clearly define the specific criteria for the selection. Ideally, the adjudicator would actually see each production and judge the lighting by witnessing it firsthand. This method is certainly the most comprehensive, but impossible logistically. Even when the production happens to be presented at the Kennedy Center as part of the ACTF National Festival, the lighting design has almost always been compromised from the original venue.
When restricted to the poster projects, the adjudicator must
decide how much to base their decision on how clearly the project
depicts the lighting design process for a general audience. This
method emphasizes graphic design excellence and relies on information
that is redrawn in a more interesting and understandable manner
after a play has been produced. This allows more time to devote
to improving documentation with quality graphics in mind.
The project could be evaluated based on how clearly it informs
an educated audience, such as other lighting designers, with actual
documentation that was used to execute the design. This would
include private documents that would mean very little to the general
public, but reveal a great deal about the design process to an
experienced designer.
The projects could be judged more on what the student says during
the verbal presentation. During the walk-through, some students
were better at explaining how they approached this particular
production and how the challenges of the process made them better
artists.
The projects could be judged based on technical merits. Is the
information clear and accurate? Does the light plot follow standard
drafting practices? Do the production photos clearly demonstrate
the execution of the design approach and the research examples
included in the display? Is the concept statement clearly written
and interesting to read?
In fact, all of these aspects of the poster projects should be taken into consideration, but ultimately, the limitations of a poster project must be recognized. Quality graphic design cannot truly reveal the ability to design light. The opportunity to have an actual lighting project critiqued next door in the Lab Theatre was much more immediate, and the experience transcended the need to declare one student somehow better than the others.
Day #3
On stage of the JFKC Lab Theatre
In the world of lighting design, time is always an important issue, so once general focusing was completed, Eric informed the students that they would each have one hour to focus any specials they intended to use and cue the scene they were lighting. Eric conducted a quick tutorial of the operation of the lighting console. There were very few problems in the cueing process since most of the students had experience working with fairly advanced lighting consoles. Some used groups, others did not. Some attempted to use the computer's tracking mode.
Beverly Emmons arrived on the scene and was introduced to the students. David Thayer, John Uthoff, and Bob Welk were also there to comment on the student's work. Beverly talked to the students about the time and organizational components of lighting design. Using time well, communicating clearly, and accurate documentation often determines who will succeed in the lighting design business. Speakers were placed on the tech table so observers could listen to the headset conversation between the lighting designer, light board operator and stage manager as they programmed cues for each scene.
Before the presentations, Beverly said the first question each student would be asked to address would be what they would do if they had more time to work on the scene. It was an excellent way for the students to consider their own work critically and recognize how designs can always be improved if given more time to work on them.
Day #4
On stage of the JFKC Lab Theatre
The third day we repeated the process with the second set of four students, but with a different scene, different actors and a new set of scenic elements. Light for this scene seemed centered more around blocking than the previous day, so more adjustments were needed based on what the designers saw during the run-through Tuesday night. After each presentation, the students were again given the opportunity to state what they would do to improve the design. Discussions after the first two presentations were limited so as not to give the second two students too many helpful suggestions.
When all eight presentations were complete, Beverly pointed out that in most cases, the students' suggestions as to how they would attempt to improve their designs involved hanging more lights, changing color, or refocusing. Then came what I considered one of the most important learning experiences of the workshop. Beverly pointed out that while the solutions the students presented were certainly appropriate, they were also costly in terms of time and labor. So with the student's permission, she took the last two designs, in turn, and attempted to adjust the lighting to fix the problems that were identified without refocusing, regelling, or hanging more fixtures. She made the important point in each case that all attempts should be made to fix problems with programming. When the director is concerned about how the light is working, it's important to address the issue immediately, as much as possible, through the programming of the cue. She explained that preconceptions of any lighting concept may need to be abandoned when the lighting is not accomplishing what the director was hoping for in a given scene. Far more important is getting the scene to "work", which is often addressed only on some non-verbal level. Beverly advised the lighting designers to listen for intuitive responses from the director as they adjusted the lighting levels, bringing up channel by channel to full if necessary. A director will feel far more confident in the designer's ability to address such issues if the designer can make adjustments immediately rather than taking a note and making a promise that it'll be better the next day.
To witness the interaction between a seasoned professional designer and eight talented, aspiring students was a delight, and the experience would have been a mere shadow of what would have happened had we not had the lighting project to bring together a meaningful dialogue of lighting as an art form. That evening Raquel Davis was honored with the Barbizon Award for Excellence in Lighting Design. Susan Nicholson was first runner-up. The award ceremony, however, did not seem quite so "winner take all" as it has in the past because all eight of these talented designers were going home with the knowledge that they were better artists for having participated in the workshop.
It was also rewarding to see the students bonding as they experienced a stressful three days. They responded well to the pressure to perform at their very best, and they each grew immensely as they rose to the challenge. I was actually pleased to hear they had all ducked out of the post-awards ceremony party to spend their last night in Washington together.
A tremendous amount of time, energy and financial resources were committed to make this project possible. Greg Henry is already talking about how the process could be adjusted to make it work more efficiently next year. It was wonderful to realize that KC/ACTF has a commitment to make the experiences of young lighting designers at the national festival as meaningful and educational as possible. Congratulations to the Festival Staff and the KC/ACTF National Committee!