University of South Florida Scholar Commons Theatre and Dance Faculty Publications School of Theatre and Dance Winter 2010 The ommiC ssions: Devoted to Investigating and Research by Members of USITT: Computers and Software Patrick Michael Finelli University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/the_facpub Part of the Other Theatre and Performance Studies Commons Scholar Commons Citation Finelli, Patrick Michael, "The ommiC ssions: Devoted to Investigating and Research by Members of USITT: Computers and Software" (2010). Theatre and Dance Faculty Publications. Paper 2. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/the_facpub/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Theatre and Dance at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theatre and Dance Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE COMMISSIONS: DEVOTED TO INVESTIGATING AND RESEARCH BY MEMBERS OF USITT Architecture, By Raymond Kent Computers and Software, By Patrick M. Finelli Costume Design and Technology, By Peggy Rosefeldt Education, By William Kenyon Engineering, By Jerry Gorrell Health and Safety, By David C. Glowacki Lighting Design, By Richard Devin and Richard E. Dunham, Management, By Richard Peterson Scene Design, Edited by Heidi Hoffer Sound Design, By Dave Tosti-Lane A Lifelong Love/Hate Affair, By Charlie Richmond Technical Production, by Bill Browning A TIMELINE OF USITT EVENTS AND PEOPLE, 1960–2010 Published in TD&T, Vol. 46 No. 1 (Winter 10) Theatre Design & Technology, the journal for design and production professionals in the performing arts and entertainment industry, is published four times a year by United States Institute for Theatre Technology. For information about joining USITT or to purchase back issues of TD&T, please contact the USITT office: USITT 315 South Crouse Avenue, Suite 200 Syracuse, NY 13210 tel: 800-93-USITT (800-938-7488) tel: 315-463-6463 fax: 315-463-6525 e-mail: [email protected] web: www.usitt.org Copyright 2010 United States Institute for Theatre Technology, Inc. ARCHITECTURE By Raymond Kent the In a statement published in USITT’s first newslet- ter (May 1961), several reasons were given for establishing the new organization. “In the most spe- cific terms our problem is only too clear. It is a matter of common concern that owners of theaters have too often had little fruitful communication with architects, architects with producers, engineers with theater administra- tors, and technicians in general with playwrights and actors. Each group has advanced without adequate acquaintance with its neighbors, often creat- ing a technical language difficult for the outsider to understand. The result has been a widespread malformation in the body and limbs of the theater. Many theaters are badly equipped for the functions which they perform. Operas are given where they should not be and not given where they should be to advantage. The complex problems of the multi-purpose stage are still inadequately studied and there remain serious problems under certain conditions as to the efficacy of such theaters. Technical progress in almost all mechanical fields has been so rapid that in many instances theaters have fallen far behind their best potential. Playwrights, working in a vacuum, have too seldom known for what stages they may be ex- pected to write or actors on what stages they may be expected to perform. The traveling theater today faces radically different problems from those of a generation ago, problems that it is often unprepared to meet. New types of drama, opera, and dance are created without remotely adequate facilities for their performance. Our shortcomings in all of these cases are essentially defects in communication. We have lacked the roundtable about which leaders with vision in various fields may meet and exchange their views. The institute aims to provide such a table.” The challenges described above which prompted the formation of USITT are in many ways the ones we still face today. How many of us are called upon to work on or within a theater that is inadequate by today’s standards? We constantly strive to do more with less in ever increasingly tough economic times making that “roundtable” even more needed. During the last fifty years countless articles on designing and build- ing a better mousetrap have been published in TD&T as well as in the AIA Journal and others. We have examined, convened, and re-examined every aspect of theater design, from front-of-house to the stage and audi- toria, to backstage support spaces. We have had to act and react to ever changing technologies and sophistications of performances of at the time. Right now we are reacting to the digital revolution and figuring out how to create spaces for the Millennial Generation that has grown up with iPods, 200 cable channels, video on demand, and PlayStation gaming consoles. Instant access to entertainment, anywhere, anytime, is live theater’s main competition. We strive to adapt. We look at the lessons learned by our predecessors and we look at the world around us—and embrace it. We members of members learn new jargon such as Data Architecture, Net Streaming, and V-LAN. We move forward. In the December 1965 issue of TD&T Donald C. Mullin writes about the foibles of theater design throughout the ages, identifying seven prin- COMMISSIONS: research and investigating to devoted by cipal “flights from theatrical reality.” He points out that there have always THEATRE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY 36 W I N T E R 2010 Copyright 2010 United States Institute for Theatre Technology, Inc. aRCHITECTURE The Sydney Opera House, a center line section through Minor Hall. This theatre was singled out as an example of “Theatre as Sculpture” in Mr. Mullin’s TD&T article (Dec. 1965). been “apologies” for theatre’s existence. “The most concrete (sometimes have pleasant surroundings and reasonable comfort, needs to share their literally) and substantial of these apologia is that of the theater build- responses, needs to have a sense of anticipation and not have the stage ing itself, the only thing that lasts after the show has closed.” The article revealed too soon, needs to see actors and actions and hear natural voices includes many examples of theatre structures that were massaged into clearly, needs to be close enough to see facial expressions, needs to be conformity with ideas that were thought to be respectable and worth pre- able to feel involved in actions and emotions (but also feel distant enough serving at the time instead of letting the buildings take whatever shape to be separate from “distasteful things”), and needs to be part of “a small and form was necessary. Two common themes in Mullin’s seven apologies group associated with a mass rather than a midge within a mass.” is the lack of understanding of the art of theatre and the lack of com- How do we preserve theatricality? Mullin insists that theatres are munication in the design and construction process among the owners, unique and should not feel like, or be, art galleries or cocktail lounges. architects, construction managers, and artists who will inhabit the build- He answers his question about creating a “sense of occasion” with the ing. The need for better understanding and communication which Mullin argument that U-shaped theatres with galleried auditoria provide the best identified in 1965 remains a valid rationale for USITT’s existence today opportunities for audience members to be seen and heard. He says inti- and into the future. macy doesn’t equal smallness but rather depends on a sense of genuine Mullin followed up this article, “Theatre as Something Else: A History relationship or closeness between the actors and the audience. And fi- of Apologies,” with “Real Theater Please” (May 1966) in which he offers nally, he says scenery is entirely a function of the play—“put up scenery some positive approaches to correcting what he earlier called Western when you want it and don’t put it up when you don’t want it.” culture’s inability to accept theatre for what it is. The following six ques- In conclusion, Mullin runs through several contemporary theatres and tions, which he says can indicate the direction to look for answers, have architects—the ANTA Theatre (designed by committee), Philip Johnson’s little to do with the size and shape of the building. New York State Theatre (a frank retrogression), George Izenour’s theatres • With the current emphasis upon flexible theater, what is the most (trying to cover all bets), and the theatres of James Hull Miller (child-like flexible form possible? and fragile)—and concedes that his ideal theatre has yet to be designed. • What should be the relationship between the actor and the audience, The first chair of the Standing Committee on Architecture, Engineer- relative to their physical environment? ing and Construction, Helge Westermann, AIA, identified the purpose of • How are we to preserve theatricality, assuming we know what that is? the committee as a place “to provide collective experience and exchange • How are we to create a “sense of occasion” and its attendant magic ideas and authoritative data relating to the workable, effective design, of the theater? equipment, and construction of theaters.” Various sub-committees had • What is intimacy and how can it be achieved? their own missions. The Sub-Committee on Architecture, chaired by Eric • How do we accommodate scenic as well as non-scenic productions? Pawley, AIA, provided “collective experience and exchange of ideas on ef- Mullin’s suggested answers are as instructive today as they were for- fective theater architecture, based upon evaluation of the theater program ty-four years ago.