That’s an interesting point. I think it gets at a good part of this issue. Certainly the greater control we have available to us now allows for richer, or at least more complex, compositions. There is a passage in McCandless’ A Method for Lighting the Stage in which he theorizes about the future of lighting wherein a single lamp could provide controlled light indoors comparable to the sun. In short, he is theorizing about the 4k or 10k HMI Fresnel. Seen in that light what he was doing was making the best out of the tools he had available to him. I think this is true of any designer.

Related to that is the shifting sophistication of the audience’s eye. We live in a visual world composed of short bursts of information, jump cuts from moment to moment and myriad other developments that simply did not exist 30, 50, or 100 years ago. More is possible not only in terms of technology, but more is possible in terms of aesthetic acceptance. The success, visually, of the film version of Chicago was made possible by the pioneering work in Moulin Rouge. The latter opened up certain aesthetic avenues in film that quite simply did not exist prior to it.

This all ties back into what you are saying when you talk about Renaissance painters and perspective. It is a curious development in art that as soon as something has been done once it becomes merely part of the potential palette for future artists. Innovation can only happen once. If we are truly concerned with moving work forwards artistically we must theorize beyond what is possible now and strive towards that invisible future. I’m not entirely sure what that is, but part of why I am so interested in history is that it gives me a foundation from which to move forwards.

I think your earlier post about dance reconstruction is interesting in this context. In a pre-video era, you could have a dance formally notated and/or have it transferred directly from dancer to dancer – in much the same way that original paperwork and the associate or assistant from the original production can recreate the lighting. It’s the combination of the objective accuracy of the paperwork with the human input that makes this work. The original dancer and the original assistant were present at the creation, and understand (hopefully) the intent and goals of the original choreography / design.

The real question, at some point, becomes – why are we doing this? Is that 80 year old production at the Opera House artistically relevant anymore? Is it a historical/academic exercise rather than a living performance? I actually wonder how Conklin feels about remounts of his work, especially in cases where he is unable to participate in the remount.

I have also lately been wondering if modern lighting might actually be “better” (and I’m being intentionally vague there) than lighting from, say, pre-1976 (Chorus Line). And I ask this simply because our tools have gotten more supple. We can do more now. And while we often shouldn’t be do more, there are times where 300 computer controlled dimmers and 100 moving lights are going to create a richer experience than 60 2k lekos being controlled by 4 electricians. In a way, it’s like Renaissance painters (re)discovering perspective. Once perspective became a tool and not the point of the painting, suddenly we have a new richness and depth in their work. I know we talk about Appia and Craig, and Jones and Svobada and the new scenography, etc, etc, but really, doesn’t feel like the first 50 years of modern stage lighting was either washed out frontlight or stark dimly lit pools?