Here’s something that makes me uneasy: The idea that some vendors in the Broadway market have been providing content ’services’ (in addition to the gear package) to shows that don’t really have a defined Projection Designer.
Hasn’t there always been a sort of wall between renting gear and also providing design, specifically in the theatrical market ? I own a Hippotizer, but I don’t rent it to clients out of respect for the relationships I have with my favorite vendors. As a designer, what am I supposed to think when I find that some vendors are going ahead and providing content ?
Let me be clear: A corporate event, a party, a little advertising thing, any of these I can see the vendor stepping up for the complete package. There’s clear precedent. But when the vendors suddenly become the competitors to some of their biggest clients (i.e. the designers) on Broadway level shows, or big tours… That makes me nervous. Is it every man for himself now ? Isn’t theatre the province of a collaboration between artists ?
Certainly the flip side exists… There are programmers and projection designers out there who rent their own servers to the same people hiring them for programming or content. But this tends to take place in the world of one-off events, corporate stuff or broadcast. It’s not something Colleen and I have done up to now. And on the concert side, there are a number of LD’s who provide the rental of the gear to the client and then subrent it… It seems to be the way that those designers construct on-going compensation for a gig, sort of building a royalty sensibility into an industry that doesn’t do royalties for design.
And on reflection, it’s fairly common on the sound side of things. But in those cases, at least it’s acknowledged and named. If the show is designed by Richard Fitzgerald, I’ll expect to see Sound Associates boxes everywhere. But the sort of situations I’m talking about don’t fit that. Vendors are just ‘throwing in’ the content… or maybe billing it out by the hour. It feels like a model that blows away the market standards for fees vs. work produced that the designers have been struggling to define. And does it undermine designers as artists ?
What do all of you think ? Is this just part of our changing world ? I really welcome the comments. I’m not entrenched here… I’m wondering, is the market changing ? And if it is, how do we as designers, figure out how to remain competitive.
I was sent a YouTube link today from our ME at CalArts, Jacqueline, who I have not officially met yet, but still get group emails from. As an undergraduate, my final project in my lighting class was to create an interesting and educational lighting video to teach people the basics of lighting. As most people know, there are no good lighting educational videos out there, because they are out of date or way to corny. I didn‘t fail horribly at my final project, but it wasn‘t a blockbuster either. That being said, this video goes old-timey on us, but it is enjoyable at least and has some point to it. For reference, my undergrad mentor gives this video an A+. So props to WUT. Enjoy.
As I enter my 3rd week of grad school things are going really well. I thought it was going to be really difficult juggling school with my internship, but it has been working out well so far. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that my class schedule is so compact. I certainly don‘t have a ton of free, but to make sure I have some time to myself to relax, I have had to be strict about working on projects and assignments well before they are do. Time management is definitely a virtue in grad school.
I am starting to get settled in at the Opera finally. The tech for Jenufa, which transferred from the Metropolitan Opera, just finished and will be opening soon. Since that is over, I have a week off before I have to be back. When I get back we will start work on Wagner‘s Ring Cycle and more importantly be working with our new Eos desk. The biggest thing I‘ve learned so far at the Opera is about the collaborative process between everyone.
As far as school goes, Don was out of the country this week and couldn‘t make it back to teach class, so we had Kevin Connaughton fly in as a guest lecturer. He is the Lighting Supervisor for the San Francisco Ballet and discussed how the ballet works, lighting design and answered any questions we wanted to know. I always find it interesting to learn about why other designers got into the industry and what influenced them. The SF Ballet uses a repertory plot with flexible alterations when needed by a designer. It was really enjoyable to see the plot, paper work and magic sheets that Kevin uses. The magic sheets and channeling were the most useful paperwork to study as they have had such a long time to be perfected and really make sense of the plot and theatre space. We also talked a lot about concept statements, which has really helped me in rewriting my own concept statement for my Jitney project due next week.
Coming into this lecture, I wasn‘t really aware of what a Lighting Supervisor was responsible for. It‘s an interesting position because it is a cross between a designer and a professional assistant. Basically, when a new ballet is produced Kevin designs it. If it is a restored piece he is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the original piece, and if there is a guest designer, then he assists them as needed.
Just got done reading the anniversary issue. Man, what a confluence of amazing minds, opinions, recollections, prognostications, and predictions.
I think one of my favorite articles was the piece by Colin Lowry. I won’t spend a bunch of time re-hashing (you should read the whole issue), but what struck me as super-cool is Colin’s DIY approach. Only once does he refer to media servers. The rest of the time, Colin is stringing together DV decks, DVD players, small switchers, multi-head video adapters for laptops, and the phenomenal new (and FREE) software, Q-Lab. By leveraging what each of these straight forward things can do, he’s solving real challenges like multiple signal paths, cue malleability, and total lack of $$. This kicks serious butt. Add in operators who are REALLY interested in engaging with the show, operating it artistically (i.e. NOT boiling it down to one button) and he’s allowing theatrical productions to achieve amazingly advanced things. On the big shows, these challenges are most often met by turning on the money hose and soaking the problem with cash. Colin is implicitly rejecting this approach… And I think he’s finding something more genuinely artistic and collaborative in the process.
Which is not to say it isn’t happening on the big shows too. Colleen and I were staggered when Willie Williams told us he was using a Playstation controller to trigger and direct video cues on U2’s latest tour. And Justin and the gang at Art Fag are taking a really advanced (but no less DIY) approach in their Control Freak endeavour… For all of these guys the priority is about finding exactly the right tool to do the job. Or even creating a brand new tool.
When we designed video for Barry Humphrey’s (Dame Edna) Australian tour four years ago, we had no options like media servers. But we were creating a show for a comedian. Comedy is anything but predictable. What could we do ? We could have racks full of hard drive based decks, with a kinky show controller and tons of crap in between. This would have been major $$… Instead we explored solutions that aren’t really ‘made’ to do what we needed, but still offered us flexibility in a total gorilla fashion. In that case it was a freakishly heavy gaming laptop equipped with Avid’s brand new DV editing software, and a $1000 dollar DV to RGB signal converter. By putting different cues at different places on the timeline we could jump around at random. It required only a fraction of the cash we would otherwise have spent on the ‘legit’ system. It DID require an operator who was paying close attention and had little fear of tools he’d never seen. fortunately we had that. The audience never knew the difference.
SO the next time your project doesn’t have the $$ to rent a media server, set aside the disappointment and start thinking way outside the box. You might find something even better.
I went and saw a dance exhibit the other night during a rehearsal break at the Opera. Some of the dance professors at CalArts had mentioned that there was a dance performance by this group Slow Dance in downtown LA. It sounded like it would be interesting, but they neglected to tell the class that it was not live dance. It was really convenient for me to go check it out, since it was being held on the square between the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, home of the Opera, and the Mark Taper Forum. Bridget joined me on the break and we went to explore it. It was a bit of a let down to be honest. Slow Dance is basically four really large projection screens that have super-slow motion projections of dancers doing jumps, turns and other movements. At a quick glance it didn‘t even appear that they moved, and then after about 5 or 10 seconds, you understand why they call it Slow Dance. I think part of my dissatisfaction is that I was excited to see what I had hoped would be live dance, but I was let down. But you get what you pay for; the event was free. My suggestion is if you are in the area between 6pm-midnight any time this week, go and check out Slow Dance, but it‘s probably not worth your time to make a special trip to see this exhibit. The exhibit runs until September 26, weather permitting.
