MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047780875 · doi:10.1353/tt.2006.0012

Scenography in Canada: Selected Designers (review)

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

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre topics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Art and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScenographySection (typography)Visual artsStyle (visual arts)ArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from 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...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheatre topicsSame topicHistorical Art and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207