The origins of the term ‘scenography’ are associated with both scene painting and architectural perspective drawing.1 In the twentieth century the term has gradually gained currency by drawing attention to the way stage space can be used as a dynamic and ‘kinaesthetic contribution’ to the experience of performance.2 This suggests a difference in intention from the static and pictorial scene design of previous centuries. Architect and scenographer João Mendes Ribeiro says that scenography is concerned primarily with the ‘inhabitability of the space’; that is, the creation of spaces with which performing bodies can interact: ‘The scenographic concept, as currently understood by the majority of artists, is a far cry from the pictorial two-dimensional scenography and focuses much more on the three-dimensional (architectural) nature of the space or the scenic object and its close relationship with the performers.’3 Contemporary use of the term has also been influenced by the work of theatre designers such as Josef Svoboda. His concern with the actualisation of a play rather than the decoration of the stage underlines the need to consider scenography as a component of performance: ‘True scenography is what happens when the curtain opens and can’t be judged in any other way.’4
1
1 My great fear is that of becoming a mere ‘décorateur.’ What irritates me most are such terms as ‘Bühnenbildner’ or ‘décorateur’ because they imply two-dimensional pictures or superficial decoration, which is exactly what I don’t want. Theatre is mainly in the performance; lovely sketches and renderings don’t mean a thing, however impressive they may be; you can draw anything you like on a piece of paper, but what’s important is the actualization. True scenography is what happens when the curtain opens and can’t be judged in any other way.
Josef Svoboda in Jarka Burian, The Scenography of Josef Svoboda, p. 15
Pamela Howard’s What Is Scenography? (2002) reflects a continuing debate about use of the term. In this work she used her extensive experience as a designer to articulate a practice of scenography defined thus: ‘Scenography is the seamless synthesis of space, text, research, art, actors, directors and spectators that contributes to an original creation.’5 For Howard, scenographic
In this book, scenography is defined as the manipulation and orchestration of the performance environment. The means by which this is pursued are typically through architectonic structures, light, projected images, sound, costume and performance objects or props. These elements are considered in relation to the performing bodies, the text, the space in which the performance takes place and the placement of the audience. Scenography is not simply concerned with creating and presenting images to an audience; it is concerned with audience reception and engagement. It is a sensory as well as an intellectual experience; emotional as well as rational. Operation of images opens up the range of possible responses from the audience; it extends the means and outcomes of theatrical experience through communication to an audience.
Scenography has affinities with other terms which describe the visual, conceptual and organisational aspects of performance; in particular mise-en-scène, theatre design and visual dramaturgy.
‘Mise-en-scène’ refers to the process of realising a theatrical text on stage and the particular aesthetic and conceptual frames that have been adopted as part of that process. The mise-en-scène is a means of staging the text through ‘the physical arrangements which articulate and set a frame to the activity within them’.7 Scenographic concerns, clearly, form a major part of the mise-en-scène. But they are not limited to this. The mise-en-scène does not refer to the performance itself. It is ‘a synthetic system of options and organizing principles’ which will be apparent in the performance, but it describes ‘an abstract theoretical concept’ rather than what actually happens at the point of performance.8 Scenography, as shown, is defined in its realisation and performance rather than its intentions.
Pavis points out that a traditional approach to the mise-en-scène is one where performance is discovered in the text:
These philological positions all have in common a normative and derivative vision of mise-en-scène according to which mise-en-scène should not be arbitrary, but should serve the text and justify itself as a correct reading of the dramatic text. It is presupposed that text and stage are bound together, that they have been conceived in terms of each other: the text with a view to a future mise-en-scène, or at least a given acting style; the stage envisaging what the text suggests as to how it should be performed in space.9
This is the approach that has dominated the general practice of theatre design and one which can be found reflected in most handbooks on the subject.10 Individual designers, such as those referred to in this book, have resisted this rather simplistic approach. They have sought to investigate the potential of scenography as an expressive and affective agent of performance. Svoboda explored how to harness new materials and technologies in order to find ways that make the play work in a given time and place11 and, in doing so, went far beyond what playwrights might have envisaged for their texts. For Svoboda it was the theatre itself, and what happened on stage as much as the text, that inspired scenography. This condition defines the essential difference between scenography and theatre design: ‘Scenography must draw inspiration from the play, its author, all of theatre. The scenographer must be in command of the theatre, its master. The average designer is simply not that concerned with theatre.’12 In a similar way Bertolt Brecht identified the difference between an approach to design where the aim was to ‘evoke an atmosphere, give some kind of expression, [and] illustrate a location’13 without much thought given to the performance itself. He and Caspar Neher worked together and let the designs evolve through rehearsal. Here, design ideas were dialogical interventions in the rehearsal process which led to the development of presentations, situations and characters, which influenced audience and reception. It is this second approach that is scenographic in its orientation; it is one where the space of the performance and the bodies of the performers can interact. Ribeiro says that the ‘inhabitable spaces’ which scenography creates are ‘determined by the circumstances and purposes of the action in question and by the movement of the bodies within the space, in order to create a formally coherent and dramatically functional system’.14 The scenography is part of the performance.
The concept and practice of scenography does not promote existing hierarchies of roles and functions in the creation of theatre, dance or performance. Scenography and its production sit uneasily within the existing functions of writer, director, choreographer, designer and performer because each, or any combination, of these roles is capable of producing scenography in ways that will not accept restriction implicitly imposed by such singular identities.
Contemporary, experimental forms of theatre are often seen to utilise scenography rather than theatre design. Hans-Thies Lehmann has examined ‘postdramatic’ theatre and new forms of theatrical performance, evolved since the 1960s, which do not focus on the dramatic text. Here, visual dramaturgy replaces dramaturgy which is determined by a theatrical text. Traditionally, dramaturgy refers to the process of realising literary text as a performance. Visual dramaturgy differs both in form and in the manner of its operation: ‘Visual dramaturgy here does not mean an exclusively visually organized dramaturgy but rather one that is not subordinated to the text and can therefore freely develop its own logic.’16 The logic of visual dramaturgy develops through ‘sequences and correspondences, nodal and condensation points of perception’17 rather than linear narrative structures. Scenography is often the central component of visual dramaturgy.
The particular materials and resources which scenography draws upon overlap with those used in theatre design. Broadly, these include the scenic environment, objects, costumes, light and sound. However, because scenography focuses more specifically on performance, other elements become equally important. Consideration of space and time are central to scenography. Regard for the performer within the scene underlines the essential three-dimensional nature of scenography and the way this evolves over the duration of performance. Even where scenography is not conceived as kinetic in a physical sense, from an audience perspective, scenography is capable of evolving in its impact and meaning as the performance unfolds.
Performers, too, may from time to time be implicated in the scenography. In performance terms, it is sometimes hard to distinguish clearly between what is achieved through the performer’s body and movement of the performer’s
The multi-sensory aspect of scenography is important. Dorita Hannah, theatre architect, designer and academic, defines scenography as ‘The dynamic role design plays upon the stage, orchestrating the visual and sensory environment of performance’.19 Although the visual aspect of scenography tends to dominate, it can also work with sound. There are also various ways in which aspects of space may be apprehended, such as the ‘kinaesthetic’ (sense of movement through muscular effort) and the ‘proxemic’ (pertaining to distances between people) and the ‘haptic’ (understanding through sense of touch). Scenographies may also include smell and taste as part of the audience experience.
The audience is a vital component in the completion of scenography. Svoboda and others stress that scenography happens with audiences as witnesses. Vsevolod Meyerhold felt his productions were ‘unfinished’ when they reached the stage and required an audience to make the ‘crucial revision’.20 These comments suggest that scenography defines an active role for the audience. In some work, especially that which takes place outside a theatre building, scenography is used to shape a particular spatial relationship, a certain kind of encounter between audience and performance.
Although practitioners themselves have offered definitions and principles of scenography, it is only recently that scholarly study of scenography has begun to gain ground. Perhaps this is not too surprising given the ephemeral nature of the traces left by scenography. Models or drawings developed as part of the production process may remain, but what endures after production can only provide a partial impression of what actually happened. Photographs of productions may appear to provide accurate records, but in actuality they are selective and inadequate. Photographers make their own aesthetic judgements in framing and selecting static images that represent performance. Video recordings of performances are similarly problematic. Choices made regarding the number and location of cameras and the nature of editing mediate the original scenography and re-present it through another medium in ways
Despite the above caveats, retrospective exhibitions of scenography (and their associated publications) have provided a valuable way of preserving and examining scenography.24 Nonetheless, until recently, it has been perceived that within the study of theatre and performance, scenography has been marginalised.25 This, however, has begun to change. Arnold Aronson has drawn on past and contemporary American work to analyse scenography as the physical and ‘spatiovisual aspect’ of the theatrical event in order to restore it to its ‘proper place’ as an element that is integral to performance.26 At the same time, Christopher Baugh’s examination of how theatre technology has influenced development of scenography in the twentieth century shows how this has affected development of theatre as a whole.27
This book aims to contribute to an understanding of scenography by examining practices and theories of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The work begins by considering some of the practitioners, designers, directors and artists who have helped to shape notions of scenography. Some, like Antonin Artaud, are essentially theorists or visionaries, who left very little behind by way of practice, but who nonetheless have inspired others. Some, like Josef Svoboda and Robert Wilson, are practitioners who have helped define notions of scenography through their work. Between them key concerns can be identified that have influenced the development of scenography. Many of these considerations continue to raise pertinent issues for contemporary theory and practice.