I Needed the Laugh

Awards can get a little... crazy.  

I just found out this year's nominations for The Column Awards.  

Perhaps you remember a couple of earlier posts of mine on the intricacies of scenic design and plagiarism versus legitimate reuse etc.  HERE and HERE. The short version is that a tree - and the rest of its set - for A Midsummer's Night's Dream somehow ended up, to its designer's surprise, on stage again as a set for Camelot.

A Midsummer's Night's Dream, Trinity Shakespeare Festival - 

set design DEFINITELY by Bob Lavallee

Camelot, Lyric Stage - photographer unknown 

set design still by Bob Lavallee... or, and... well, it's complicated

So... now BOTH sets have been nominated for awards!  The Shakespeare play's set as "Best Original Scenic Design of a Play - Equity" and its Camelot zombie-after-life as "Best Original Scenic Design of a Musical - non-Equity."  This is credited to both it's actual designer and to its imaginary nom-de-repaint-it-we-won't-say-plagiarism designer, Cornelius Parker.  

That rascal.

Ha!

As a side note, I am appropriately honored to discover that two shows of my own are also so honored:  Kind Lady, for Mainstage Irving-Las Colinas and The Winter's Tale, for Trinity Shakespeare Festival.  

But I'll happily lose - twice! - to that gorgeous tree.

PS I'd be very happy to credit the photographer of that Camelot photo if anyone knows?

In the Press

A few interesting items from newspapers:

On a personal note, I am chuffed to discover that Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike at Uptown Players is a hit.  According to the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

 "It’s the best production of a play that Uptown Players has ever done, and it doesn’t hurt that the script is one that, like the great writer from which it takes its inspiration, is destined for classic status."  

Wohoo!  Read the rest of the review HERE.  I really do admire this script and cast.  Earlier post on the show HERE.

Les Demoiselles de Avignon, Pablo Picasso - public domain at Wikipedia

On a non-personal but still theatrical note...

There's an interesting op-ed in the New York Times written by actor James Franco about the recent plagiarism scandal around another actor's, Shia LeBeouf's, creative? endeavours...  It's an thoughtful and maybe even a plausible take on behavior that, in anyone not a famous actor, would be considered mere cheating and brattiness.  Read it HERE.  

I think Franco may have a point (I've seen a few actors let much less fame that LaBeouf's go straight to their egos), but it seems... inconsistent... for anyone to act out because they're treated "special" while counting on that "special"ness to shield them from the consequences.

More and more I come to think that we have to separate the work from the man (or woman).  

Picasso was a kinda nasty person who painted well.  Charles Dickens was more flawed than his own Scrooge. More recently, Woody Allen... sigh.  I deeply love many of Allen's movies, but I have no idea where the truth lies in the ugly 20 year old accusations against him that have resurfaced.   I can only be glad that I need never decide whether to let him babysit my kid and can, instead, just rewatch Manhattan.  Whatever Allen is or did I choose not to devalue his work, just as I'll always love the story of Scrooge's redemption and Picasso's blue guitarist.  

I think it's often true that the artist puts the best part of themselves into their work (leaving the worst for us to cope with in daily life), while The Work seems to go on to develop a  life independent of its creator.  

In which case... maybe LaBeouf's biggest sin isn't so much plagiarizing others as that, by casting doubt, by NOT putting his best self out there, he betrays his own body of work, past and future.

Comments?

SNIPPET #7

Here's the latest bit from the "Design Methods" chapter of Alice Through the Proscenium (currently being re-re-formatted aargh! for its e Publishing launch):

Go-Bys –  Not quite inspiration and not really guides are those pictures of someone else’s work used as a model for your own project.  Don’t use a go-by for the whole design.  (Plagiarism is mortal sin, but, sshhhh, shop-lifting a few little bitty clues is only a venial one).  A go-by can kick-start your brain.  You don’t need to feel guilty either, because you will modify it all completely by the end.

Which brings up intellectual property rights.  The principal is simple: stealing is wrong.  Permission and compensation are fair.  You know when you’re cheating.

It’s after the lawyers trample in it all that it gets muddy.  I mean, the Chrysler building is trademarked? 4.10  Use that shape in a set and legally you ought rent it from someone.  Really.  And collages using images you didn’t create yourself require permission from the copyright holder of each scrap. Yes, that ladies’ underwear ad.  You can legally line the bird cage with overlapping funny pages, but frame it and becomes Art and apparently illegal.  Freedom of speech?  The law tells collage artists to shut up. 4.11     

4.10   Yes, trademarked by the building owners. Yet an architect cannot copyright a building’s design, only the construction drawings.  Go figure.
4.11  But, thanks to the brave Barbie artist who beat Matel’s lawyers, you can now legally dress your dolly in tortillas and bake her as an enchilada.  Just don’t dress her photo, unless you took it yourself, or, arguably in Britain, if it’s a museum photo and a documentary sort of photo rather than an artistic photo…  Yeesh.

As a footnote to that footnote...  One of my shows may have been plagiarized - it's hard to tell.  Designers often come up with similar solutions as they solve similar problems, but in this case there were so many similarities, shapes, materials, plan all seemed too similar.  At the time I was 95% convinced it was borrowed - but over time that conviction has dwindled to 75%.  On the other hand, one architectural plan really was blatently stolen!  The thief admitted it cheerfully - couldn't understand my upset - but did, in the end, pay a token design fee,

ADDENDUM:  Copyright law keeps evolving.  As of 2013, it may be okay to use that ladies' underwear ad... if your use is "transformative."