Meeting August 2021: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Rlg moved page August 18th 2021 to Meeting August 2021) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Reflecting light meeting 18.08.2021 |
|||
'''Short discussion on light as signifier.''' |
|||
Meeting each other, talking about KASK project week, and the best possibility to grasp something about the students- earlier project week unsuitable, different structure. |
|||
If stagework is a communication between different elements that create meaning - how come light was never questioned in that respect? Is there a sense of normality regarding light? Or is a lack of lexicon blocking all discourse on light? |
|||
JanM suggests the students get invited to our Belgian shows, Henri suggests in whatever framework but to show work to the students and make them talk about it. |
|||
Remark: the practice of nowadays lighting design was formed in what is called the postdramatic era, where light became the agent - par excellence - to replace the idea of a set, provoking an aesthetics of the empty space. (ref. Grotowski/Brecht - and the fear for illusion). This turns light away from being a vivid layer, from being a performer towards something materialised - a recording, purely functional: the aesthetics of neutral/working light. |
|||
Preliminary light design- where the concept/base of creation is formed (becomes a topic of discussion, also as a slippery place where unrealistic expectations are formed from the ‚piecemakers‘) |
|||
in its extreme deconstruction: minimalism becomes a limitation for material-use - a solo is expected to use less lamps, more sparse plot - wrong angle |
|||
How to collect our thoughts in the research process? |
|||
Excercise: to start developing a lexicon from the sparse one from uninformed dialogues in our praxis; like using 'less and more' but give depth to what different attributes can be quantified in that way |
|||
Wiki, fanzine, google drive |
|||
E: to see what is the focus of the wiki and what is the evolution of the discussion not to flood the wiki with a lot of talking |
|||
additions |
|||
reactions |
|||
Tomi: what to do with documents that we do not yet know what to do with? |
|||
'''Preliminary lighting design discourse.''' |
|||
When is a theme becoming too limiting? |
|||
A danger lingers in this discourse: it might generate expectations that are not met - because of a not matching vocabulary. |
|||
Beginning themes and resulting themes |
|||
Should we not differentiate between lexicon and discourse? Where lexicon is a tool enabling a conversation - a negotiation - beyond technical notions, learn to see through operating fixtures. |
|||
Probably to thematize and structure we will need to find in the future |
|||
Create a sensitivity to watch the light. And what it makes visible: the dramaturgy. |
|||
JanM: We are agreeing on an informal and a formal thread |
|||
together we decide when something becomes formal |
|||
Start wiki- and formalize in Gangplank (good distance in time) |
|||
Reading through the project description: |
|||
Geert postdramatic turn in the performing arts happened in the 80-s theater turned into performing arts, did not have to be dramatic |
|||
reshuffled the dramaturgical hierarchy, lighting design made that shift too but was not recognized. |
|||
Geert talks about new materialism (coined in the 90-s) as a school within thought, which dininishes the clear western distinction of culture and nature, a distinction that resulted in anthropocentric science, and theater (human psychological drama) |
|||
signifier: elpement having an agency of its own, a player in this meaning-making |
|||
Our goal: stepping beyond technical education, artistic practice |
|||
first infiltrate then see what/how to do |
|||
Tomi: why is illusion a threat? (the illusion making capability of light becomes a threat?) |
|||
Geert: problem- we are not working with light but we want to have lights |
|||
Henri: communication with KASK students |
|||
Light as a performer becomes materialized in the heads of people even though it cannot be materialized like that |
|||
Henri: ego of the artist – taking care of whom? Working together towards a certain goal |
|||
excercise: to start developing a lexicon from the sparse one from uninformed dialogues in our praxis; like using less and more but give depth to what different attributes can be quantified in that way |
|||
excercise: what I appreciated about it was… or give a perspective to the insight: as a dog I found the pitch hard |
|||
Tomi: Kask and Giessen differnt ways of elaborating on working multimedia |
|||
De-construction: minimalism becomes a limitation for material-use |
|||
JanM: solo is expected to use less lamps, more sparse plot- wrong angle |
|||
At Kask: |
|||
B: research for us, practice with the school |
|||
H: create sensitivity in the students, measure level of knowledge by making students talk about what they see |
|||
G: to understand light (Ezra is referred to, as in how to create discourse ability) |
|||
B: what is the smallest lexicon we cane share by? The exercises aim this direction |
|||
Preliminary light design discourse: |
|||
JanM: this might generate expectations that are not met (not matching vocabulary- mismatch of expectations) |
|||
Mutual vocabulary – lexicon is a tool and not a result |
|||
Geert: Lexicon and discourse differentiation. Lexicon is enabling a conversation |
|||
discoursive practice in itself doesnt make sense |
|||
Not only practical workshop of light |
|||
H: images are abstract, fast lost in translation |
|||
arrive to semiological |
|||
the notion of technicality, not the presence of it |
|||
t: how to learn to see? |
|||
Witnessing while doing |
|||
angle change is the change of the look |
|||
‚I didnt watch the lights‘- where to focus, pulling out focus |
|||
T: recognized areas that are blurred can be useful too |
|||
G: what are we talking about when we talk about light? |
|||
Bram: Minna Grind Jefte- light as the signifier, Jefte the agent |
|||
similarly Jan working with Mana Depauw similarly |
|||
T: it is not a competition. Mutual aim, presence with light, playing together |
|||
G:at what point lighting design can join a performance? Everything will have to adapt to the media joining earlier |
|||
Light dramaturgy- dramaturgy of the piece |
|||
Tomi: different distribution of tasks and professionalization |
|||
Latest revision as of 13:51, 21 December 2021
The Abstract
“Even though the postdramatic turn in the performing arts has radically reshuffled the dramaturgical hierarchy of different signifying entities that are at stake in a work of art, light as an essential signifier and agent in performative situations and, as a consequence, the practice of lighting design has until now been underappreciated (1). Setting aside some specific practices, light is in general less recognized, analyzed and understood as a fundamental part in the dramaturgy of contemporary performing arts practices, nor does it find its way into the artistic curriculum of performing arts educational programs in general. Lighting design has been evolving greatly though, both as an autonomous and an interdependent artform, however much of that work gets lost in translation when it comes to the dialogue with directors, theatre makers, dramaturges, performers… (2) How to speak about light? How to create from the perspective of lighting (design)? How to make light a full and equal signifier within a contemporary dramaturgy? (3)"
(1) But what is causing things? Is light too much considered as a normality – something like: 'there’s always light'. Or is it because of a lack of lexicon? Are we not able to talk on light?
(2) The materialisation of light: it turns away from being a performer and becomes a something you can regulate in terms of ‘more/less’.
(3) Can we start a discourse leaving of from questiong the basic lexicon of more and less. More or less what?
Short discussion on light as signifier.
If stagework is a communication between different elements that create meaning - how come light was never questioned in that respect? Is there a sense of normality regarding light? Or is a lack of lexicon blocking all discourse on light?
Remark: the practice of nowadays lighting design was formed in what is called the postdramatic era, where light became the agent - par excellence - to replace the idea of a set, provoking an aesthetics of the empty space. (ref. Grotowski/Brecht - and the fear for illusion). This turns light away from being a vivid layer, from being a performer towards something materialised - a recording, purely functional: the aesthetics of neutral/working light.
in its extreme deconstruction: minimalism becomes a limitation for material-use - a solo is expected to use less lamps, more sparse plot - wrong angle
Excercise: to start developing a lexicon from the sparse one from uninformed dialogues in our praxis; like using 'less and more' but give depth to what different attributes can be quantified in that way
Preliminary lighting design discourse.
A danger lingers in this discourse: it might generate expectations that are not met - because of a not matching vocabulary.
Should we not differentiate between lexicon and discourse? Where lexicon is a tool enabling a conversation - a negotiation - beyond technical notions, learn to see through operating fixtures.
Create a sensitivity to watch the light. And what it makes visible: the dramaturgy.