Meeting August 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.