Amrita Madan
1*, Nitish Jain
21Ansal University, India; Atelier Anonyme Design, New Delhi, India
2 Theatre Faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts (DAMU), Prague, Czech Republic
ABSTRACT
Space tells stories that attempt to decipher shared memories, traces of past, ideologies, emotions and values. Yet, in the praxis of ‘drawing’, when designers try to express principles and percepts through representations, they tend to become mere geometric patterns, generating default experiences. In an attempt to simultaneously address issues of representation and perception that currently stand at loggerheads, this paper introduces a narrative-based approach within an academic setting. It focuses on the body as the centre of all visual (along with temporal and material) considerations that drive designing through a crossover from the discipline of Scenography, i.e., the mise-en-scene.
We evolve a unique framework and articulate a design methodology for spatial thinking in discourses of architecture and interiority. Bringing the body into the centre-stage of a narrative-based dialogue allows us to simultaneously experience and theorize (hence represent), which is of critical value in the making of space. What would the steps of such a design process be? Where would it start? We look at ways in which narratives are created through spatial systems at the overlap of interior and scenographic endeavours.
We try to address:
Can this method allow for space to be experienced with human sensory perception and be accomplished by composing the physical characteristics of size, shape, texture, etc.?
How can space be a canvas for performance of human interactions?
Can we shift from employing representational tools to perceptual tools, and in the process re- appropriate primitive fundamentalsof spatial thinking?
Keywords: mise-en-scene, scenography, design process, percept, spatial narrative
INTRODUCTION
A. Traditional Design Processes: Issues of “Representation”
Traditional spatial design processes, within the disciplines of architecture and interior design, implicate elements such as site and context, function and programme, users, etc. and are found to be successful only when such elements can come together into a cohesive whole. No one element takes precedence over another in the final product, and the process invariably starts and ends in a repetitive sequence of putting them together. In addition, within each stage, an arrangement of Analysis, Evaluation and Synthesis
[in]arch international conference 2018 176
(Lawson, 2005), in no particular order or hierarchy, occurs in recurrent though linear manner. The linearity of the process is in the fact that once decisions are taken within it, the related content is left behind, never to be revisited. Inevitably, such a process is expressed through a representational mode of interiority rather than a perceptual one.
This representation has for long been considered to be “a fundamental architectural act that lies at the core of the discipline’s self-understanding” (Medina, 2017). In the current post digital scenario, a deluge of representational techniques attempt to develop an “approach to what drawing might mean or do for architecture—to reassert the architectural drawing not as a window onto the world but as a way of making the world, and to reclaim the drawing as a primary site where an architectural idea is staged” (Jacob, 2017). While this ‘staging’ of a representation creates provocative scenarios, it is seldom used as a tool of creation. The questions we ask here are: what would it take for the depiction of space to no longer be just a representation, though provocative, but an element of creation just like site and context or function and programme? Can it be achieved by simply adding more variants, or does it need the creation of an entirely new process, or, better yet, a comprehensive redefinition of what a creative process in interiority is per say?
B. Phenomenological Approaches: Issues of “Perception”
Contrastingly, at the other end of the spectrum, are processes relying heavily on perceptual thinking.
Scholarly contributions have led to phenomenology, which provides the occasion to “catch the essence of the things and phenomena, and bring us near to our existential being” (Shirazi, n.d) and is “a method well suited to penetrate the world of everyday existence” (Norberg-Schulz, 2000).
Perceptual approaches simultaneously deal with visuality, corporeality, temporality and materiality. Though these processes (architectural/ spatial/ interiority based) commence with visual triggers and produce visual outputs, they attempt or rather claim to mould perception as a whole. As Pallasmaa argues, visuality takes centre stage in the design process (even of perceptual space) through the “introduction of perspectival representations, which made the eye the centre point of the perceptual world” (Pallasmaa, 2005). Corporeality in space, or the relationship between the space created and the body has also been taken up in very sporadic manners by architects. Peter Zumthor writes about taking cues for his architectural outputs from his essentially corporeal memories – “how the ground felt below my feet with the sound of gravel crunching, how the smell of oil triggered a memory-based response to a space, etc” (Zumthor, 2006).
Despite phenomenology covering all these aspects, the practice of designing essentially perceptual architectural spaces has not materialised into a method. Phenomenological approaches and perceptual thinking philosophies have contributed very little to the practice or architecture beyond questioning some presumptions or providing some pointers (Shirazi, 2009).
THE REMODELLED DISCOURSE A. Scenography as an alternative model
In this paper, we look at the intersection of these two approaches such that the discourse can be remodelled. We attempt to investigate and initiate a methodology which
a. Considers ‘representation’ as a ‘creative’ tool, and
b. Is derived from the continuous superimposition of visuality, corporeality, temporality and materiality, to fill in gaps of the perceptual approach.
For this purpose, we look at another creative discipline, that of Scenography, which may provide the framework. Scenography, where spatial thinking is dominantly perceptual and ‘narrative-based’, allows us to build parallel processes, which can be used as catalysts for alternate methods of spatial thinking.
[in]arch international conference 2018 177
A study of the discipline of Scenography and the crossover of methods provides us with unique opportunities to theorise and delve into critical aspects of space making:
How space could be created for human occupation and its contingent experience, rather than and without compromising, its usability or similar practical inputs1.
A re-interpretation of the roles of the designer and the participants in purely corporeal terms by the physical juxtaposition of the body within the experience and by the creation of a relation between the observer and the observed.
B. Methodology and approach
In this paper, we attempt to come up with a methodology of design that appropriates the perceptual nature of space, hence takes into account the components: visual (creative and representational), corporeal (somatic and sensual), temporal (experiential and progressive) and material (real and phenomenal). Can we design taking direct cues from how bodies inhabit space, traverse it, be inside it or watch it, etc. making it the canvas for performance of such human interactions and interactions?
Section 3 below is an attempt to synthesize a method within the discipline of Scenography. We begin by understanding narrative thinking and its constituents within the discipline. For this purpose and for facilitating a dialogue between architectural and scenographic space, certain relevant and extensively employed scenographic terms are elaborated in Section 3A. While some of the terms are commonplace in a theatrical vocabulary, this allows us to understand their value and contextualize them for perceptual discourses. Next, in Sections 3B and 3C, fundamental highlights of scenographic theory; the merits of the proposed methodology for spatial thinking; and the method itself are explained. Here, we elaborate on the creative process’ incorporation of the visual, the corporeal and the temporal as its decision makers eventually leading to the material as its output. Further along this enquiry, in Sections 3D and 3E, the deconstructed components of the method are developed using a set of theoretical premises that serve as the framework to address the ‘communicable aspects of all spaces.’ How this communication is achieved is addressed as the nucleus of design tools that are at the disposition of the designer in Section 3F. Together, Section 3 aims to address the critical aspects of perceptual space and look into the interpretive and narrative role of the production of space.
Next, in Section 4, the articulated method of Scenography is ‘tested’ in various manners within an architectural setup. Using one of our academic studios titled ‘Architecture as a Narrative: Design of Architectural Space as a means of Story-telling’2 As the field for experimentation, we test steps of the process – both with regards to its value within the architectural process and the type of possible outputs generated from this approach. We expand on chosen components developed in the framework above in a case- specific architectural pedagogic exercise where implementation of the design tools is elaborated.
The aim here is not to interpose verbatim the scenographic process within architectural space making but to critically assess if the scrutiny of a certain component of space making could lead to
a) Developing a more comprehensive understanding of narrative thinking as a tool for design, and b) Finding a method to address the issue of architectural design processes that do not adapt to interiority.
1 e n er tan an e re ractical in t of the roce to e entitie ch a ite an conte t f nction an ro ra e etc hich eco e tool for action an eci ion a in for the e i ner thin er
2 he t ent or e icte in thi a er i a art of a e i n t io e erci e econ ear e i n t io ec 2015 at the r aon n ia he t io content e icte here an the ceno ra hic etho n er i c ion are ho e er the ole intellect al ro ert of the a thor an are the re lt of their er onal re earch
[in]arch international conference 2018 178
The cues developed out of the Scenographic processes are more a result of on-going explorations of the history of the subject as well as the personal experience of the authors. They do not refer to any particular discourse, and rather are a distillation of information collected and appreciated over time while focusing on spatial and design lexicon.
NARRATIVE THINKING
A. A new vocabulary/ terminology
Historically and contemporarily, ‘What is Scenography?’ has found many answers, intersecting at various junctions. Yet, only in the past few decades have theoreticians and practitioners of theatre demonstrated an active mindfulness to the spatial, visual and material components of performance. As such the vocabulary of describing these components is still poor (Bosch et al., 2013). It is somehow difficult to arrive at a shared terminology because different schools of thought consider scenography to either be an art or a way of thinking or both (Bosch et al., 2013). While we have tried to address the difference between scenography and stage design previously (Jain, 2017), the absence of a substantial set of agreeable terminology can also be linked to the ephemeral nature and capacity of theatre or to the fact that the boundaries between architecture, scenography and installation art are blurred and permeable.
Despite the lexical void, certain important terms that are common to performance criticism and perceptual space have been used extensively in this paper, and they can be briefly explained (for our purpose) as:
The Actor: They who inhabit the space. What do they do? How do they move? How do they acknowledge or play with the space that is given to them?
The Spectator: They who observe it being inhabited. What do they all see? How do they interpret space and time together?
Mise-en-scene: The arrangement of everything that appears in a frame, which can be looked at as the spatial envelope around the actor, and in some cases, around both the actor and the spectator. The frame is a singular instance where all perceptual components come together in a ‘frozen’ instance of time3. Spatio-Temporal Continuum: A series of frame-like mise-en-scene, providing time and rhythm to the performance or a spatial experience with the body - its actions and movements - at the centre of visual consideration.
Spatial Narrative: A means of approaching, designing and describing space4 such that the body within the space becomes the central focus. In a spatial narrative, the space provides a physical framework and perceptual indicators, facilitating its own discovery by the actor while being narrated visually to the spectator. Experiencing (in time) through the body (and designing), theorizing (and representing) through visual storytelling can hence be looked at as two facets of the spatial narrative.
B. The criticality of the mise-en scene: the intersection of “Representation” and “Perception”
The revolutionizing works (and writings) of Adolphe Appia (Beacham, 1987) and Robert Gordon Craig (Innes, 2005) from the 19th century have made it evident that spatial thinking within scenography requires the designer to address the relationship of the (stage) space with the actor; the spectator; light as the tool that sculpts space and colours it; and sound as the tool that elevates it from being a space to an environment.
3 hile it ill e inter rete ifferentl in theatre irector actor an ra at r e ter inolo 3 o r etho eal ith the ter i e en cene thro h a re cti e len of ceno ra h alone
4 a e on hri to her nne narrati e e cri tion of the ro ction of a let ar rai in d a d d n ai A isi n in at 2005
[in]arch international conference 2018 17
These four relationships drive the creation of the mise-en-scene; and are implicit in the creation of experiences. The mise-en-scene is understood as the spatial envelope around the performer. It hinges on the experience of the spectator while observing the performer and is represented as a 1-point perspective.
In essence, during the elaboration on a mise-en-scene, one is no longer designing for ‘another’ user, but using/projecting the self as the body - both of the spectator and actor - jumping constantly between these two assumed roles. This centrality of the designer, who looks at experiencing space ‘inside-out’ or from positioning oneself within the space, paves the way for the deconstruction, leading to the making of an experience. This is the primary purpose of the mise-en-scene. As evidenced, the tool of creation (the mise- en-scene via the projection of the self) becomes the output of creative thinking all along the process (the mise-en-scene via its visual recounting).
Figure 1: The mise-en-scene in Scenography
Michael Levine’s scenography for a) Wozzeck by Alban Berg, (1989). The Canadian Opera Company and b) The Magic Flute by W.A. Mozart, Paris Opera (2014), The Paris Opera
Source: Michael Levine Studio @ http://www.michaellevinestudio.com/work.
C. The Scenographic Method – processes and representations
The method we develop here is solely based on reflecting and deconstructing it to the elementary questioning of anything – answering the What, Who, How, Where and When variables.
The What is the mise-en-scene; the spatial envelope that we seek to create. This envelope is a carefully composed frame, having the power to coherently communicate itself to they who see it, i.e., the Spectator - the Who. Where and When is the spatiotemporal continuum, a series of mise-en scene observing the engagement of the actor in space and time. The continuum regards the body’s actions and movements to be the focus of visual consideration (Postlewait). As such, it substantiates the actors’ relevance further, for without them the continuum would not exist.
Because the continuum is composed of multiple mise-en-scene, this paradox is the highlight of the method wherein the process-product emerges as the output. It becomes a flowchart such that the end variable is inextricably linked to the initial one and cyclic processes of creating mise-en-scene result in the articulation of the spatiotemporal continuum.
In a discourse on design methods and processes, How this communication is achieved becomes significant, and as such, is the nucleus of our design tools. The How is answered by designing relationships - using the actor as the central tool, they who inhabit the space. In the language of representation, this can be understood as the storyboard.
D. What does a mise-en-scene do in terms of architectural space?
Ching decodes the constituents of a work of architecture (and by extension, interiority) in Architectural Systems and Orders (Ching, 2007). These are
Systems: divided and explained as “The Architecture of Space, Enclosure and Structure; Experienced through Movement in Space & Time; Achieved by means of technology; Accommodating a Program;
Compatible with its context”.
[in]arch international conference 2018 180
Orders: categorized as “Physical – the play of form and space or solid and void; Perceptual – sensorial recognition of the physical elements and Conceptual – comprehension of the relationships and meanings of the systems.”
In The Manhattan Transcripts, Tschumi (1994) proposes to ‘transcribe an architectural interpretation of reality’
elaborating on the “tripartite set - Object, Movement and Event - as tools-in-making” via a “non-coincidence between meaning and being, movement and space, and man and object”. As Tschumi explains, “the purpose of tripartite mode of notation was to introduce the order of experience, the order of time – moments, intervals, sequences”. He elaborates that their coming together “establishes an instant of continuity” in an otherwise discontinuous discourse. The temporal (the When), hence, comes into play as the product and a critical constituent of the spatial (the What) via the corporeal (the Who), expressed through visual representations allowing the stitch to ensue hereby giving meaning.
This is essentially what all spaces communicate, i.e., a larger, and more generic order of the ‘sequencing of communication’ as:
1. That which exists (as make-believe/ heightened reality) – hence we observe, 2. That which we react to – hence we are stimulated, and
3. That which gives meaning – hence we interpret.
An elucidation of scenography on stage illustrates this pivotal sequencing - the first one observes (a picture, a blank/ dead mise-en-scene), then one is stimulated (the mise-en-scene is alive - there is the actor, and as in immersive scenography, the transition is faster since a co-observer could become the actor any time).
Eventually, one interprets based on the clues, signs, indicators the director-scenographer-dramaturge gives over time, making this sequence durational, with an inbuilt component of time.
E. When and Where does a mise-en-scene exist?
Each instance of creating the What (mise-en-scene) using How (designing relationships) communicates meaning For the spectator. An awareness is required on the part of the designer to recognize that for every line that is put on paper, or rather any trigger used from How will always qualify the space uniquely for the spectator and generate a response from them. This becomes the basis of the spatiotemporal continuum, or the storyboard, addressing Where and When.
F. How is the mise-en-scene created?
Scenographic method is contingent on the overlap of the Who and How as tools to create What, i.e. the identification of the mise-en-scene is defined by the position of the spectator and its ideal representation is
‘drawing’ perspective views from their field of view. This view - a blank frame to begin with and populated gradually by the designer - is the key tool as well as the output.
Populating the frame is achieved by answering How the sequencing of communication is happening. Here, we look at designing relationships
1st) between:
1) Bodies with each other - those who inhabit (Actors). For example: proximity – adjacency or contiguity, gaze – watching or being watched, etc.
2) Bodies and spatial elements - actions in space. For example: Being inside, bypassing an edge, being a part of, being engulfed, etc.