MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2047780875 · doi:10.1353/tt.2006.0012

Scenography in Canada: Selected Designers (review)

2006· article· en· W2047780875 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick Neilson

Notice bibliographique

RevueTheatre topics · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHistorical Art and Culture Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScenographySection (typography)Visual artsStyle (visual arts)ArtComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Scenography in Canada: Selected Designers Patrick Neilson Scenography in Canada: Selected Designers. By Natalie Rewa. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004; pp. x + 249. $98.00 (£60.00) cloth, $63.00 (£40.00) paper. This handsome volume is divided into three parts. The first section, printed on heavy coated paper, contains beautifully reproduced illustrations of designs by a group of seven Canadian scenographers. The second section contains captions and photo credits; the third, extensive commentaries on the illustrations. To some extent the chosen designers were self-selecting in that they were willing and able to participate in the project. But author Natalie Rewa acknowledges that there are many other theatre artists, equally talented, whose work deserves recognition—perhaps in future volumes. Most of the pictures are in full color and many are stunningly beautiful. The author has chosen to present the images grouped by designer, arranged two to a page, portfolio style; or as one might encounter them in an art gallery, with only a discreet number pointing the viewer towards the captions contained in the second section. While this approach is clean and uncluttered, it has its drawbacks. Some designs, like Susan Benson's sumptuous Mikado,are unmistakable. But others are more mysterious. An [End Page 106] impatient reader who wishes to know more about a particularly beautiful design—and there are many—is forced to flip back and forth between the captions and the photos. This problem has been solved by other books about design through the use of brief captions—often just a play title—that allow the reader to know whether she is looking at Shaw or Shakespeare. The third section of the book begins with an explanatory essay by Rewa, in which she outlines her process and objectives. Rewa sees this volume as not only contributing to the historical record but also enhancing the visual vocabulary of the general theatregoing public. She presents a variety of contemporary artists, not as a celebration of an elite, but as an indication of quality and range. Each designer has a unique approach to his art—from Astrid Janson's celebration of the material composition of her designs, to Michael Devine's use of dream-like visual metaphors. While pride of place goes naturally to the larger venues, the author has made an effort to include some works for smaller spaces. Subsequent chapters are devoted to each artist, with biographical information and extensive footnotes. Scenographers express themselves visually through texture, light, pattern, color, and the articulation of surfaces. Unlike directors, scenographers rarely express themselves other than through the medium of their work. Edward Gordon Craig notwithstanding, most designers prefer to let their work speak for itself. How often does one see a theatre program that describes the scenography in even the simplest terms? It is a rare pleasure, therefore, to discover that Rewa has coaxed each of the featured designers to write, however briefly, about their process and their influences. This is particularly interesting when we are able to trace Susan Benson's thoughts about A Midsummer Night's Dream over two seasons' work at the Stratford Festival in Ontario. Rewa fleshes out each designer's remarks with her own commentary. Her intelligent remarks are lucid, balanced, and informative. There are a few lapses into academic opacity, but for the most part the writing is accessible and comprehensible to the nonspecialist. This makes it all the more frustrating that the third section of the book contains no illustration numbers, or even page numbers, referring back to the illustrations. Comparing the written descriptions with the pictures involves going back to the captions section to get the plate number, flipping through the first section to find the right designer's portfolio, and then finally zeroing in on the appropriate picture. Fortunately, there is only one description for which there is no corresponding illustration. The struggle to match text to illustration, while labor intensive, is nevertheless rewarding. In many instances, there is more than one illustration for a design and we can see the development of the work from conceptual sketch to production photo—much more satisfying than a single picture. A curious omission in the otherwise very complete production...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,963
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,481

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,168
Écart entre enseignants0,158 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTheatre topicsMême sujetHistorical Art and Culture StudiesTravaux en français237 207