Thoughts on a New Educational Tool

[BLPisani]

A former professor of mine has come up with a new tool for teaching stagecraft. I think it's pretty neat, but I'm interested to know what you guys have to say about it. It's a 1/6 model theatre, basically, including scaled rigging, lighting, soft goods, and so on. He'll be showing it off at SETC this week. If you want more information, check out Yeagerlabs and the following youtube video from USITT this past year.
[video=youtube_share;3MH873ujxpQ]http://youtu.be/3MH873ujxpQ[/video]

I am not trying to sell anything. I honestly think this is great and wish I had something like it when I was in high school and college. (Although, I got to work in the full-sized thing...) Let me know what you think of it.

 

[derekleffew]

1. Give me an appropriate-sized room and $20,000, and I can build a FULL-SIZE working theatre space.

2. Scenic designer's Set Models are usually 1/4", 3/8", or 1/2" scale. It's likely cost-prohibitive and impractical to build them at 1:6 scale (2"=1'-0"). Costumes? I've seen exercises where demonstration/exhibit costumes were built at half-size, but any smaller is next to impossible.

3a. An old criticism of the set model process (I can't remember in which textbook it appears)--
The "Dollhouse" Effect*:
"Upon first being shown the model, directors/actors/designers/crew are immediately moved to express 'Look at the tiny chairs, Look at those drapes, etc. How cute! It's darling!, etc.' and lose sight of what the model is attempting to convey (mood, spatial relationships, painter's elevations, etc.)."
Tell me you haven't witnessed this phemonenon when a scenic model is first presented.

3b. Thus artist's renderings are preferred, and today, with photo-realistic visualization programs and CAD, virtual walk-throughs and fly-overs have all but supplanted the model as a medium.


*Not related to the Henrik Ibsen play, A Doll's House. Or is it?

... I honestly think this is great and wish I had something like it when I was in high school and college. (Although, I got to work in the full-sized thing...) ...

And wasn't/isn't working "on the full-sized thing" always better?

 

[josh88]

I'm really not sure what you'd accomplish with this. Weve always had foamcore models of our spaces that sets could be mocked up on, and you won't be able to replicate the photo metrics of the scaled lights. I mean for talking about things it's useful but I can teach the same with pictures, physical and digital renderings. If you're trying to teach designs I have to agree with Derek that the best way to do it is to let students get their hands dirty with the real full size stuff in a real space so you can adequately see how color effects things, how gobo patterns work in a space, how tiring it is to hang and cable a show by yourself, and anything else you could dream up. I feel like this is a novelty that doesn't really serve a purpose, especially if you actually have a theatre to work with. I've got softgoods sitting waiting to be rehung by my students next week after the last show. They'll learn by doing it right (or wrong and then having to correct their work) on the real thing.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[venuetech]

It has lots of very nice parts and pieces that would over time,would likely get dispersed throughout the school district. shortly after that most of those parts would start gathering dust is some closet waiting for the right person to come along and discover a treasure. Or the wrong person who needs the space but not the junk in the space.

 

[DrPinto]

When I first looked at this, I thought, "You've got to be kidding." But I have to admit, the more I look at the video and website, the more I like it. There have been many times when I wanted middle school students to have more "hands on" experience, but couldn't due to the fact that they're not allowed to use a lift, ladder, or even hang an instrument because of liability issues. I see this as a great way of teaching the basics of how to focus instruments and a great way to experiment with gel selection.

I think my biggest concern is that it's made too well, and that makes the price much too high for a teaching aid. If there was a way to keep it under maybe $5,000 by using more inexpensive instruments and dimmers and maybe making it smaller and easier to store, it might be more marketable. In these times of tight budgets, even $5,000 may be high.

Just my opinion...

 

[gafftaper]

Is this the same mini lighting lab that I saw at LDI 2006? Seems like it won an ESTA award, or was at least nominated.

 

[Drmafreek]

Let me begin by saying these are merely another educator's views on what you've presented.

1. Give me an appropriate-sized room and $20,000, and I can build a FULL-SIZE working theatre space.

Let me first totally agree with this. $20,000 sounds amazing and stunning and wonderful to create a full-size working theatre space. Heck, I could probably do it with $10,000 at this point.

2. Scenic designer's Set Models are usually 1/4", 3/8", or 1/2" scale. It's likely cost-prohibitive and impractical to build them at 1:6 scale (2"=1'-0"). Costumes? I've seen exercises where demonstration/exhibit costumes were built at half-size, but any smaller is next to impossible.

Agree here as well. In fact, I've done all three of those scales this academic year. I prefer 1/2" for detail, 1/4" for speed, and 3/8" for a happy medium. The one thing this can be used for is lighting your model though, which would be nice.

3a. An old criticism of the set model process (I can't remember in which textbook it appears)--
The "Dollhouse" Effect*:
"Upon first being shown the model, directors/actors/designers/crew are immediately moved to express 'Look at the tiny chairs, Look at those drapes, etc. How cute! It's darling!, etc.' and lose sight of what the model is attempting to convey (mood, spatial relationships, painter's elevations, etc.)."
Tell me you haven't witnessed this phemonenon when a scenic model is first presented.

This I both agree and disagree with. It may happen with some, but with others they view the model exactly as is. The same can be said with a rendering. What a beautiful piece of artwork. This has happened to me often, especially in during my grad school years, which was rather annoying. In the academic environment, it's a matter of training students how to use a model. In the professional environment, well, if they are enamored by the little chairs and drapes, well, I'm not sure what to say there.

3b. Thus artist's renderings are preferred, and today, with photo-realistic visualization programs and CAD, virtual walk-throughs and fly-overs have all but supplanted the model as a medium.

I will disagree with you here. Models have supplanted renderings in most any situation. Most directors do not get much from a rendering. They lack the ability many times to understand depth perception and scenery position. With a model I can move things around, and especially if you have a scale model, can show them movement patterns. Now, yes, the computer aided drafting is quite fabulous. I love it myself, and use Vectorworks to do that type of stuff. For some reason though, a director is able to fully grasp a 3-dimensional model.


Having said all that I have seen this product several times over the years. It is used every year for a workshop at the Southeastern Theatre Conference. The reason I like it is for the ability to quickly look at things. Is a full size theatre preferable? Yes, of course it is, but that means grabbing a ladder, or going to the catwalk, or bringing in an electric to merely see what a new gel might do. It is a great educational tool, though unfortunately my school will never have the money, or room, to purchase it, I can see how it could be quite useful.