It happened again...

These past few days I have had several discussions and tutorials with several different people in and out of college. In all these occasions, I wanted (or was asked) to explain what it is that I am doing this year. In all occasions, I answered (or started to) by saying the same thing in - more or less - the same words:
'I am exploring the specificities of creating a piece of theatre through the scenographic approach, exploring how a piece of work can emerge through a procedure which places the scenographic elements at the departure point of the creation and relies mainly on them to communicate meaning, thoughts, ideas, etc.’
This is the crucial point where, a lot of times, problems may begin. Some people, mainly performance-related people, start very interesting conversations that result brilliantly in giving me references and interesting questions to go home with. Some other people (naturally) are not familiar with the term scenography (a more holistic approach of ‘theatre design’) but that is not the problem since I would be more than happy to speak about it and then start explaining what I want to do with it– if I was given the opportunity of course. Since I am usually not given that opportunity (rather I am ‘arrested’ in the first words of my sentences and end up elaborating on the smallest points of my thoughts as if they were the whole) I thought I could get it off my chest and on the blog to get it over with.
Scenography is usually associated with the creation of the appropriate environment for a dramatic text to fit in, the spatial transformation that aims to 'house' the text and the performer. Having this description in mind, a lot of people believe that practicing scenography is about decorating the stage appropriately or creating beautiful still images. 'Beauty' and 'pictorial' and 'still' exist in it but only if they are called for by the 3-c (concept, context, content). It is about images, yes, but 4-dimensional moving ones. Scenic images that cannot stand on their own as sculptures because they are transformed by time and movement as they are parts of a unity completed by the performer existing in them. The performer's body is a scenographic element, too (a very important one according to my experience) since its movement defines and transforms space.
Joseph Svoboda thought of scenography as a conversation among space, time, movement and light. Elements enorchestrated in a temporal, constantly moving live entity. 4D images.
I can understand that it is the 4th D that causes the problems, it is that ‘t’ landing on the head of x, y, z that messes with people’s preconceptions about what is what. But that ‘t’ is what makes a live performance a live performance. I thought everybody understood that. Take that ‘t’ out and you’re only left with some kind of memento. Nice perhaps, but dead.
There, it is said and done with.

About the NRLA...

Speaking about the NRLA, I have to say it was a very interesting experience and since it will take me ages to comment on everything, I'll just start with a few important things and then add to them whenever possible.
For now: The Galapagos Man. I want to congratulate Kasia and Rich for their work, I hadn't seen it in September and I liked it a lot (Harriet who saw it for the second time pointed out some details that were different now but noone unfamiliar to the piece would be able to tell of course). We meant to find them afterwards and speak to them but having to queue immediately for the next performance made it impossible. Anyway, I really loved some details like the part in the beginning where everyone entering the space had to rub his hands with some kind of liquid that smelled as mouthwash. I think it worked brilliantly and gave me associations of 'sanitizing before entering' as well as carried and spread that scent in the space for the whole performance. And I liked the fact that you left the performance taking that little glass bottle with you (which has that smell inside and we all know how smell is connected to memory). I can imagine how that huge room must have given the guys some trouble and I think I can understand how this piece must have worked in a smaller more intimate environment. Nevertheless, as I saw it, the performance went on very well and it was obvious that it was a complete and well thought through piece of work with a lot of interesting and engaging details (which is not something I can say for everything we saw there! but that's another story).
I would really like to know more about it, so I guess I should visit last year's posts in their blogs. It is a shame we didn't get to meet them and talk a bit about their work, our course, their experience from it, etc. It would be nice if they could visit us sometime and discuss all about it.
This is an open invitation guys (if anyone is reading). If you find some free time and feel like it we could meet and go for drinks...