Posts Tagged ‘richard foreman’

The Structural Failure of The Idiot Savant

Monday, October 26th, 2009

Richard Foreman is known for his signature visual and performative style. If you have seen any of his works you should be familiar with the pieces of string, barriers, dotted lines, bits of fringe, voiceover, ambient soundscapes, lighting instruments pointed at the audience, and more. Each of these elements are used by Foreman to create a specific effect in the audience. Some are there to create a kind of aesthetic distance between the audience and viewer(string, barriers). Other elements are there precisely to overcome that distance and bring the energy of the stage into the space inhabited by the audience(voiceover, lights pointed at the audience). One is simultaneously drawn in and pushed away from the work. That tension gives his works a singular quality and contributes to their almost indescribable power.

What must be remembered when experiencing one of his works, and yes experiencing is more accurate than mere viewing, is that every element of the performance is present for a very specific reason. Nothing is mere decoration. Each aspect of the production works with (and against) every other element to become a cohesive (if not fully understandable) whole. Foreman’s plays are complex psychological machines which manifest for the audience a wide and complicated emotional spectrum.

Many elements that go into a Foreman production have been appropriated by various avant garde theater makers and others exhibiting nothing more than a derivative quality. For once the element is used without concern for its precise role in the work, but rather for surface effect, its power disappears. Foreman is very careful about this and will readily change or cut something that is not working to full effect.

Most of his works have been produced in his long time theater, the Ontological-Hysteric, in St. Mark’s Church. That space is small with a rather low ceiling. As a result the force of his works are direct and powerful. In producing Idiot Savant he has moved from his usual space to a larger theater at The Public. In this space not only is the audience seating area bigger but the stage itself is far deeper and has a much higher ceiling.

While Foreman’s traditional elements are employed in Idiot Savant there has been a translation of sorts in order to make them work in the same way in this larger space. More string than usual as well as a larger focus on designing the audience area in addition to the stage space has had to happen. Every element scaled up properly to this new space except for the lighting. The lighting designer, rather than deeply exploring how Foreman uses the various lighting elements in his plays and making sure they scale to the new space, simply hung those same instruments in the larger theater. The result is a structural failure of the lighting plot that, despite vigilant efforts by Foreman, has not been fully solved.

The lighting designer put together the physical lighting plot and then left Foreman to his own devices for a month to actually light the play. Foreman made numerous changes, structurally, the the plot, taking what was largely unusable and moving them around to actually provide some function and value to the play. Many of the ideas from the original lighting plot read as derivative attempts to achieve a Foremanesque aesthetic in contradistinction to the hardworking elements Foreman typically employs.

Being the true master that he is, Foreman has done a miraculous job of lighting the play to a rather striking effect. After all, in the hands of a master, art can be made from nearly anything. While the work looks good the lighting lacks a certain vitality inherent to much of his previous works due to the oversight by the lighting designer in terms of accurately translating the ideas into the larger theater. While getting bogged down by details such as specking several variations of virtually identical floodlights, the larger conceptual design problem failed to be solved.

What Foreman has done with such a severe structural handicap is admirable. But the sad reality is that the work fails to live up to its true potential. The beauty of the rest of the work (scenery, costumes, sound and staging) which was accurately translated to the larger space is met only half way by the lighting.

The inherent failure of the lighting design in Idiot Savant comes from a lack of foresight on the part of the designer to translate the ideas behind Foreman’s lighting work into a system that would achieve those same results in the larger theater this work is being performed in. Foreman’s use of lighting instruments pointed at the audience creates powerful psychologoical effects. Without properly scaling them out of the Ontological and into the Martinson what we are left with are merely superficial tropes lacking the power and vitality that his work both demands and deserves.

This lack is striking precisely because the rest of the work is so powerful. The vitality and immediacy of the play makes it stand out as a work worthy of this great master’s final homage to the stage. His directorial mastery is shown to powerful effect and anyone doubting his approach to performance would do well to see this piece and reconsider those opinions. All that said, the failure in the lighting design leaves one wishing his collaborator had been more invested in creating an accurate translation of the work rather than merely copying and pasting ideas without getting behind their authentic essence.

Content with meaning

Wednesday, October 24th, 2007

I had drinks with my friends Jeff and Pilar last night. It was a lot of fun. Jeff may well be the smartest person I know. I know a lot of smart people. I know a lot of really smart people. Really smart people.

It is always an interesting experience interfacing with his brain. When our thought patterns mesh it is a great meeting of the minds. A fabulous time. Then there are the times where he is so far beyond my level of conceptual thinking that I can only sit back and admire. Last night was one of those times.

Topics of conversation ranged from general catching up to art, music, porn, drinking, mutual friends, Bay Area weather, etc. etc. A typical night at the bar.

The issue of aesthetics is such a personal one. It is always interesting to talk to other artists about how they see the world. Hearing them speak about how they see and then looking at their work can be such an intense experience.

I remember hearing Richard Foreman talk about his first video project. How it was such a radical departure from his earlier work. A real aesthetic rupture. Then I saw the piece. To my reckoning it was a Richard Foreman piece with video. But to him this was such a radical shift that it necessitated a revaluation of aesthetics and meaning.

The disparity between what I heard and what I saw caused me to realize how intense his vision is. That the way he sees the world is so specific that what to me appears a small change is to him a tectonic shift of cosmic proportions.

This is the essential nature of art. It is the expression of a worldview. A specific way of seeing. A visual representation of a Being in the world.

Art is a physics of presence. It is the geometry of identity.

Concepts become thin and tangled here at the edges.

Theatre is in many ways a perfect art form for the 21st century. It is inherently collaborative and relies upon the contributions of many. Like web 2.0 the content and the form are distinct and interchangeable. A single script can be placed in any of an infinite number of visual, aural and spatial contexts. The script remains static, but its meaning shifts as its context shifts. Content and meaning are two independent variables along a matrix of experience.

So too a conversation shifts as the surrounding context transforms. As the bar fills, the sun sets, food and alcohol are consumed, the nature of the language alters. Same people, different context. Thus different content.

It’s not literal Mister Sleepy

Monday, October 16th, 2006

I suggest there are two kinds of theater.

One kind ‘talks about’ things and suggests at least a possible ‘resolution’ to the issues raised.

The second kind EMBODIES in its style and structure the often agitated ebb and flow that consciousness experiences in its collisions with life– understanding that nothing is ever ‘resolved’, but rather that all things change into other things before there is any possible ‘resolution’.

So this second—which is my theater, of course—is about “nothing” that can be discussed, but deeply about the
moment to moment experience of the flux of the real—i.e. impulse giving way to new impulse giving way to new impulse.
-Richard Foreman

My first experience with Richard Foreman’s work was shortly after I had moved to New York, it was Maria Del Bosco. The experience was like nothing I had ever seen before. Here, among many other things, was a totally non-literal theatrical event that still managed to follow the dramatic arc of the three act well made play. I was, to say the least, amazed.

OHTlogoPicONLY

What I love about Foreman’s work is how ephemeral it is. Even within the event itself. It is a constantly changing and shifting thing that becomes its own opposite and then disappears for a while only to reappear again as something else. His work fails the audience when that audience attempts to fix the work in place. When one looks out for a singular or literal meaning the work dissolves like the morning light on fragile mist. The work is gone and what is left looks to be nothing more than a sham.

WakeUpThumbnail

Yet the work is no sham. It is a powerful and living thing. But to be understood it must be addressed as the living thing that it is. The theatre is “about ‘nothing’ that can be discussed.” I do not like talking about his plays after seeing them. I will communicate emotions and impressions, but for me they do not live in the place of intellectualization. And further, when I try and intellectualize them, as I did with Zomboid the piece begins to break apart inside my mind.

zomboidthumbnail

An openness is needed to engage his works. They do not seduce you with the easy and simple tropes of much theatre. They are not ‘pretty’ things, though they are beautiful. That distinction is important when engaging with his work. They are not ‘nice’ but they do have immense compassion and understanding of and for the human condition. In short, they are not easy.

Godsthumbnail

I saw The Gods Are Pounding My Head! with my good friend Oana who did the costumes. The two of us sat in the back of his small theatre laughing uproariously at the absurdity of the situation. I think it might have been one of the funniest plays I had seen in quite some time. Yet once I was out of the “moment to moment experience of the flux of the real” I am not so sure I could explain what it was that was so amusing.

mdbThumbnail

His plays are like a powerful dream. They can be such deep and intense experiences as they are happening and yet they burn away like the morning mist upon the hard light of reason. In fact, applying classical reason to his works inherently fails to understand it and causes his otherwise beautiful creations to have little to no value for the spectator. The fault is not his. If it does not make sense to you, your unconscious mind may be dead.


Creative Commons License

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