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.