ABSTRACT
Most “Companions” have a clearly defined subject such as a discipline, a genre, or a person that is reflected in the title. A “Companion to Shakespeare,” say, or a “Companion to Greek Tragedy” tells you immediately what will be inside, even if the individual essays might challenge or contradict accepted approaches or understandings. But, for this volume, even the title was a contested subject. Should this be a “Companion to Theatre Design” or to “Stage Design,” or a “Companion to Scenography”? I have opted for the latter for reasons I will explain. On one level, the problem is essentially a linguistic one. Scenography and design have different connotations and are understood by different people in different contexts to mean different things. The English language has several words or phrases that address the visual aspects of theatre, some related to specific fields (lighting, costume, etc.) and some, more broadly, a factor of the language’s tendency to absorb and borrow from many other languages, giving us words such as “decor” and “scenery,” for example. Considerations ranging from shifts in disciplinary thinking – theatre studies has been challenged by performance studies which has significantly expanded the range of activities and practices beyond traditional Western concepts of theatre – to economic models and modes of training also play a role in nomenclature. In the United States in particular, graduate programs and conservatories tend to train designers in specific disciplines; and the United Scenic Artists – the professional union for designers – administers examinations in separate design categories.
