Dimension

Tonight I attended a lecture on "Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Pictorial Organization" (which sounded a lot more interesting when I first considered it, and I really thought it would have more to do with graphic design) and I came away with an interesting quote I thought would work well here.

Basically, 2D Pictorial Organization (PO for short) was how artists functioned up until the 16th century or so - the concern was mainly with strong geometric lines and with non-occlusion (making sure no figure was masking or blocking another figure). Art moved into 3D PO by blurring the overall compositional shape lines and stacking figures in front of each other (gracefully and elegantly, of course). The Sixties have a real aesthetic feel for the 2D, with the clean, strong lines and un-blocked perspectives. Essentially, the point of the lecture was that you can function in 3D design and be aware of 2D principles (particularly in regards to photography and film). I was trying to figure out how to ask the speaker to relate his topic to theatre presentation, when I happened to read the quote on the handout he'd given us:

Henrich Wolfflin: "It is characteristic of 'painterly disorder' that individual objects should not be fully and clearly represented, but partially hidden. The overlapping of one object by another is one of the most important devices for the achievement of painterliness, for it is recognized that the eye quickly tires of anything in a painting that can be fully grasped at first glance. But if some part of the composition remains hidden and one object overlaps another, the beholder is stimulated to imagine what he cannot see. The objects that are partly hidden seem as if they might at any moment emerge; the picture becomes alive, and the hidden parts then actually do seem to reveal themselves. Even the severe [linear] style could not always avoid overlapping objects, but all the essential features stood out clearly and any restlessness was softened." (1888/1964, p. 33)

Also: "Since the spectator cannot possibly absorb every single thing in the picture, he is left with the impression that it has unlimited potentialities, and his imagination is kept constantly in action, a reaction, of course, intended by the painter." (1888/1964, p. 34)

Cool, huh? Take note, dramaturgs, directors, designers, and playwrights - if an audience's imagination is stimulated, if the picture comes alive because of what cannot be completely seen, if a little restlessness is not only a good thing but a goal, then you've got an exciting, intriguing, (slightly dangerous in the good way) production on your hands. Think in lines and shapes and images and layering as you put together your show, and see if art philosophers can help you find a more interesting theatre!

It's flat, strong geometrics, and no figure is actually blocking any other. 2D PO!

In this picture, the figures have much more of a sense of inhabiting the space - there is some occlusion, or overlapping figures, and the lines and shapes are softer. There is still 2D at work, here, but it's a good transistional illustration to 3D PO.

Wow, those captions are super-nerdy. Next time I will definitely find something snarky to say, just to get the taste of pompous out of your mouth...

Steampunk-ish Novel Mashup

You've heard about Steampunk, right? No? OK, well, it's a movement that allows authors, artists, and performers to create an alternate world based on the Victorian era and 'rude' mechanicals. It's kind of a funky Goth aesthetic - you've got corsets, hats, cravats and pocketwatches, and you've got all kinds of wacky inventions based on the mechanics of the 1850's (think of airships and dirigibles instead of jet planes). I enjoy the look myself, though I haven't started building a costume or persona or anything (yet). I mention this because it's a fun example of the way dramaturgy can function in a day-to-day format: taking a historical, documented and well-referenced era and slotting elements together with developing sensibilities and concepts. It's a whole lotta 'what if' that can still be researched and given a basis in recognizable rules. It's a dramaturgical gold mine - facts and questions building each other up to a new, exciting world!

It looks Victorian, but it's not. Trust me.

Anyway, it's fun.

With that as a background, I want to talk about a book I read recently: Anno Dracula by Kim Newman. The story takes off from Bram Stoker's Dracula (the book, not the -ugh- movie), and while not overtly 'steampunk' in its portrayal or sensibilities, it definitely plays on the related concept of 'mash-up'. Newman works on the alternate-world premise that Dracula is not killed (oops, spoiler?) but instead defeats Van Helsing and Co. and goes on to marry the widowed Queen Victoria, turn her into a vampire, and rule the British empire. What if your neighbors were not only vampires, but it was a socially acceptable (and advantageous) thing to be? How would society function? What problems would stay the same, but how would the solutions change? Newman goes on to bring in cribbed storylines and characters from almost every other major Victorian-era novel you can think of, and a big part of the fun is picking out which characters originated under some other author's pen. (All of which sounds a little pretentious - it's actually much better written than you might expect if you've tried crossover fanfiction or period mashups before.)

All of which is to ask: Dramaturgs, how do you take what has been done before, mix it all together, and turn out something new? Is it about period? How about writing style? Can the writing and the period contrast rather than mesh, and make something completely different? Try writing out a grid of theatrical, period, and writing styles you're interested in, and see if mixing-and-matching the squares sparks something fun.

* * *
Picture found here -check out the others in the gallery!