Posts Tagged ‘composition’

Abstract Realism

Friday, May 7th, 2010

There is an assumed dichotomy, when discussing works of art, between abstract pieces and realistic works. Realistic might be substituted for naturalistic, but the basic dichotomy reigns. I have discussed abstract minimalism quite a lot in this space. The counterpoint to abstract minimalism is not realism or naturalism but abstract realism.

Art, by it’s very nature, demands of the creator that choices be made. An object, event, idea, image, plot, and so forth are all framed. The frame might be literal in the sense of a classical painting, or it may be metaphoric through the use of language. In all cases a human experience is reified and placed within a frame. Art is the abstraction of reality.

To understand how fundamental abstraction is to art we should look, not to those considered abstract like Mondrian or Beckett, but to those considered realists like Ibsen or Caravaggio. In understanding the abstraction inherent in naturalistic works, this will lead us to a deeper understanding of and appreciation for those works more traditionally considered abstract. Even photography, by the nature of framing an image, abstracts our experience of reality before we even get to issues of color or focus. Walker Evans, about as naturalistic a photographer as has ever shot a roll of film, is highly abstract. Not so much in what he includes exactly, but with regards to what lies outside the frame. Through his images we have a limited understanding of a particular view of reality. A deep and rich understanding of that piece of the real, but a piece nonetheless.

Ibsen is a fantastic example of linguistic framing. He takes a story and distills it into the formalism of the three act play. Life is abstracted from the glorious non-linear mess that it is into a tight and controlled sequence of events. Act 1, Introduction. We, the audience, are shown the major players, ideas, and themes that will run their course throughout the play. Act 2, Conflict. We see the characters, ideas, and themes evolve and come into conflict. Act 3, Resolution. The conflict comes to an end perhaps through some transformation of the people, ideas, and themes. This may all sound familiar.

Should we choose to abstract this structure further we would do well to look back at Hegel and his dialectic. His thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis follows the same rhythmic pattern as the three act “well made” play. Once we understand that structure we can apply our understanding to any work and see that the distinction between realist and abstract work is a surface distinction at best. Good works that exist as temporal art (music, theater, opera, dance) all share this rhythmic structure. The form may be infinitely varied but the underlying structure is the same.

In the visual realm, rhythmic structure is replaced with proportion. When I looked at minimalism earlier I used Mondrian as an example. His work throughout his career was an exploration of proportion, though the form was multi-varied. Rothko is a painter whose work is focused on proportion almost to the exclusion of anything else.

The rigor needed for minimalism points to the necessary abstraction in any work of art. It is impossible to include everything in a work of art. Reality is the only experience that is not abstract.

Mondrian, or Rothko, are wonderful examples of the formalism of proportion exercises. We can look to Caravaggio, a so called realist, to better understand the formal structure of proportion. At the time he was active, his work was derided for the realistic style he employed, especially with regards to the painting of religious figures. While his realism is indeed impressive, and arguably unparalleled in the history of painting, it is at the more abstracted level that his works take on their true power. His sense of proportion, in terms of color, composition, and contrast, are impeccable.

As close to reality as some of Caravaggio’s works get, they are the product of clear and decisive choices at every level. From general composition, to the finer details of relative value between figures, to the color palette, we are looking at an abstracted space. Foreground and background, or depth of field to return to the world of photography, play a critical role in solidifying a well proportioned image.

Working as a lighting designer for live performance, I am concerned with both the rhythmic structure of the temporal work and issues of proportion. Foreground and background play a critical role, as do relative light and darkness, color, and other issues of contrast. At the same time, I must deal with these issues over time as the stage picture constantly changes. Temporal Rhythmic Proportion is a synthesis of the structures of temporal art and static art. It is the basis of what we do as visual artists for live performance. Navigating the ever shifting compositional needs through time is the primary concern of the lighting designer.

As naturalistic as a work might be, we are moving through an abstracted space bounded by abstracted time. From Beckett to Ibsen we navigate an abstraction of reality. Fundamentally understanding abstract space allows us to do so with full efficacy and powerful results.

The Style of Composition

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

“There are a million ways to skin a cat,” or so the saying goes.

I was thinking about this the other day in regards to visual style while in my studio designing a lightplot. I was thinking about it because as I was devising the lighting scheme I noticed that I was engaging in a somewhat new process. I don’t mean the steps I take to create a plot, but rather the inner creative journey.

At its most basic level there are three ways a three dimensional figure can be lit, from the back, from the side or from the front. These can be expanded upon ad nauseum as they are in various lighting methods but in the end those are the options. Light from above and light from below ultimately fall into one of these three categories while diagonals are at most a combination of two of these and ultimately do not function independently from the three core directions.

These three directions each serve a distinct and critical role in defining the form of a three dimensional object, specifically the human form.

Light from behind defines that object as distinct from its background and contextual surroundings. Body as existential entity.

backlight

Light from the sides defines the physical form itself. Body as sculptural object.

Crosslight

Light from the front defines the features. Body as emotional subject.

frontlight

Nearly every show I light has some version of these three elements. Depending upon the compositional needs of the piece one may be highlighted over another. Dance, for example, traditionally focuses on sidelighting while theater often focuses on frontlighting. But these traditional rules of thumb get broken to truly create art.

I used to hear designers say some version of “I always use such and such a color backlight” and would be fairly shocked every time I heard it. After all, isn’t every show unique and distinct from every other show?

Making what could be generic responses specific is what differentiates craft from art. Taking that one step further, it becomes important to have those “generic responses” be a function of the piece at hand rather than conforming the design of a particular piece to some platonic ideal of angle and color that does not approach the nuance of the specific work in front of you.

Sometimes that specificity is a function of the demands of the venue or the scenery or some other physical constraint. Other times the choice is wholly artistic. Some designers choose to fight the venue and make the space conform to what they have determined is necessary. Others use the space as a guide to figure out how light best moves in this particular voluminous space. Neither one is right or wrong, but which approach is taken determines so much about the final design, and often tells us much about the designer.

I like to challenge myself regularly by paying attention to ruts I fall into and questioning them. Sometimes it will be with color, so I try to use a new color or color combination on every show I do. Sometimes it will be with angles and how I build the sidelight or backlight systems. Sometimes it will be with the quality, whether the light is hard or soft or broken.

This recent plot I set up several different challenges. In every area in fact. And while I have no idea if the final outcome will look startlingly new or more of the same, the internal process of creating it was quite a ride. Do I really need sidelight? Why use that color? Should I light that directly or indirectly?

Having a style is a wonderful thing. But there is a risk that an effective style can soon become a rut. Without an engagement in the work and a critical eye to the creation, one can find themselves explaining how they “always do such and such.” Yet with the right degree of criticism, that “always” can become incredibly freeing.

Breaking light down to its most basic elements allows the designer to really focus on the compositional approach for the particular piece. It allows us to look at a show scene by scene and determine whether or not we need backlight, for example. If we do, what is that? Are we lighting the actors from behind with spotlights or lighting the scenery from the front? If a spotlight, is it from straight behind or diagonal? One big light or a bunch of smaller ones.

The options are at once simple and infinite. Even when talking about clear backlight, there are literally thousands if not millions of permutations as to what that actually means in practical terms. Straight back, angled, hard, dappled, direct, bounced, the list goes on. Clear might even be a general term to indicate very unsaturated colors, yet still for all intents and purposes be clear.

Thus it is possible to always use such and such a color backlight and yet never repeat the same choice over hundreds and hundreds of shows. There are, it seems, a million ways to hang a light.

Where it should be

Saturday, October 6th, 2007

One of the first “rules” of lighting design I remember is that it is about “putting light where it should be and taking it away from where it shouldn’t” Seems fairly obvious, but its a problem that, like many simple things, has a great deal of depth to it.

What does it mean to “Put light where it should be?” Clearly the first aspect of this is to light the performers on stage. But these performers exist within some context, they are in an environment, so the environment must be lit. Sometimes this is as simple as lighting scenery, other times it has to do with more subtle things like toning and sculpting their bodies in a certain way.

Taking light away, is also not so clear cut. Sure, sometimes you just need to turn all the lights off on half the stage, but more often the work is much more subtle. It is about illuminating parts of the stage in such a way that while the performers are visible, they are not the focus.

Ultimately, lighting is about focus. Just like a photographer or cinematographer, the work is on focus and depth of field. Often the whole stage must be lit, in some way, but certain areas must have focus over others, and then all that shifts.

ART_05

Like cinematography, it is a form that only truly exists in time. As the work changes emotionally and dramatically, so too must the light shift and change to the myriad demands of the stage.


Creative Commons License

All text on this site, unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All other rights reserved.