The New York Times Article on Dance Lighting
Last week, the NY Times published a wonderful and serious article on
dance lighting. Incredible! I urge you to read it here.
I think it brings up some excellent points and ideas. I don't think
that the public is even aware of what we do, let alone aware of the
issues that are brought up in the article and I just love that they
published it (kudos to Roslyn Sulcas the writer). It is the kind of
article that I wish the industry press would publish, but never seem
to. I hope that it sparks a discussion about what we do and the ways
that we do it. I think that lighting has arrived at the point that
scenery has always been. it IS fashion, and this is a natural
progression of the art form I think: we're skilled enough now and the
technology changes quickly enough that stage lighting can have a
'period' reference and a 'trendiness', if you will, to it. What I
find interesting is that fashion, in lighting and other areas, without
anyone really knowing or acknowledging it, is often driven by
technology. Forsythe makes his (I think wonderful and interesting)
choices because the equipment (borrowed mostly from the movie
industry) exists and is available to him for the first time. In the
90's every musical on broadway had congo blue in it, because the
equipment was for the first time available to us that could put out a
credible amount of that deep color. Now the same thing is starting to
happen with LED's, and our color sense will develop with this change
in equipment.
Tom Skelton defined a period of stage lighting in dance that was
heavily colored. This was possible for him because deep color
polyester was just coming onto the market, replacing the very pale and
fade-prone gelatin that preceded it. Once every ballet in the world
(it seemed) had this deep color, other designers and choreographers
came along and completely rejected the use of color and would only
allow so-called "White Light" in their post-modern ballets. Both
trends were valid and both were fashions.
dance lighting. Incredible! I urge you to read it here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/arts/dance/04sulc.html?scp=1&sq=tipton&st=nyt
I think it brings up some excellent points and ideas. I don't think
that the public is even aware of what we do, let alone aware of the
issues that are brought up in the article and I just love that they
published it (kudos to Roslyn Sulcas the writer). It is the kind of
article that I wish the industry press would publish, but never seem
to. I hope that it sparks a discussion about what we do and the ways
that we do it. I think that lighting has arrived at the point that
scenery has always been. it IS fashion, and this is a natural
progression of the art form I think: we're skilled enough now and the
technology changes quickly enough that stage lighting can have a
'period' reference and a 'trendiness', if you will, to it. What I
find interesting is that fashion, in lighting and other areas, without
anyone really knowing or acknowledging it, is often driven by
technology. Forsythe makes his (I think wonderful and interesting)
choices because the equipment (borrowed mostly from the movie
industry) exists and is available to him for the first time. In the
90's every musical on broadway had congo blue in it, because the
equipment was for the first time available to us that could put out a
credible amount of that deep color. Now the same thing is starting to
happen with LED's, and our color sense will develop with this change
in equipment.
Tom Skelton defined a period of stage lighting in dance that was
heavily colored. This was possible for him because deep color
polyester was just coming onto the market, replacing the very pale and
fade-prone gelatin that preceded it. Once every ballet in the world
(it seemed) had this deep color, other designers and choreographers
came along and completely rejected the use of color and would only
allow so-called "White Light" in their post-modern ballets. Both
trends were valid and both were fashions.
A well written article in the mainstream press about lighting design? No way.....
Way!
This article very nicely sums up the contradiction between the "classical" dance lighting aesthetic, and the Forsythe aesthetic... which seems to be the new norm for anything that calls itself "contemporary".
I've enjoyed learning the Forsythe aesthetic, primarily by working with all these Euro-rock star choreographers at Cedar Lake. Its a great technical challenge to execute cleanly (especially in low-ceiling venues like Cedar Lake), and conceptually it challenges the designer to consolidate their impulses into a very restricted abstract vocabulary. It puts Light strongly to the front of the stage composition, and paired with the right movement vocabulary, cuts light across the figure in often breathtaking ways.
But I find its not as universally appropriate and effective as choreographers seem to think it is. The Forsythe aesthetic is definitely a valid visual vocabulary, but I don't see why its suddenly considered the ONLY way to light a dance piece. "I can't see their faces" has been replaced atop the list of lighting complaints by "I can see their faces" And GOD FORBID I ever turn on a head high or a shin... Color is definitely un-cool, and gobos are anathema.
And I'm only stressing about it because nearly every choreographer I've worked with in the last year and a half wants it...
My theory? American dance is waning. European dance is waxing. The age of the American dance pioneer has gone, and all eyes are on the international contemporary dance scene. Reviewers and critics have said this explicitly in the press, and presenters and agents have said this implicitly with their programming. I think American choreographers are looking to capture some of that Euro Mojo, and they've decided that if a wall of L201 backlight works for Forsythe, well then it might just work for them too.
Its a FAD. And like Ripped Jeans, Wallpaper, Chumbawumba, and the Mullet, it will eventually fade and filter down to take its place as one option among a wide variety of valid aesthetic choices.
OK, maybe the Mullet is never a valid choice.
The Forsythe aesthetic IS a valid choice. But as Tipton points out, its now such a common choice that it is sometimes taken for granted and executed without craft. When universally applied, without regard to choreographic content or intent, it loses its value as a visual vocabulary. It becomes arbitrary, a non-choice, and using it devolves a design into a convenience.
Reply to this
I enjoy the Forsythe aesthetic when its paired with appropriate material. But I've found recently that its become the default lighting style for a broad variety of work, much of which calls for a different approach. Like any other visual artist or designer, lighting designers have a wonderful variety of techniques to choose from. Some are established; Rosenthal's Jewel, Balanchine Blue, Chenault's Shins, and some are as new as yesterday's tech rehearsal. With light as the most abstract of mediums, we have astonishing flexibility.
So why is so much contemporary work treated with this one iconic style?
OK, off the soapbox with me, up with you. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Reply to this