It's Not About Automation: North America's diverse theatre community--from high school theatres to large, publicly funded venues and everything in between--creates unique challenges for funding and approving construction projects.

While the "Flying Dutchman" article by Hein Lobo and Ruud Moojen (TD&T, Summer 2018) was interesting and informative, working professionals in the rigging industry are more than aware of the technical and operational information raised in the manuscript. In discussing Motorized Automated Stage Control Systems (MASCS), Lobo and Moojen seem to presume that North American theatre professionals do not understand the benefits of automation. However, rigging industry professionals deal with the shortcomings of manual systems daily and are highly motivated to embrace new technologies. The issues are not knowledge, nor understanding, nor familiarity. Rather, the issue is that Europe is Europe, and America is not.

Although the truism says nothing new, the implications are huge in regard to North America's adoption of automation in stage rigging (MASCS).

But first, let's unwrap the term "automation," which is different from motorization. A motorized line set may not be automated, but an automated line set must be motorized (or employ other non-manual power). Motorized line sets are operated using simple controls; generally a push/start release/stop control. On the other hand, an automated line set uses some kind of smart control in which the system is doing a lot of the "thinking."

Motorized line sets have been used in North America for decades and are steadily increasing in usage for lighting battens, acoustical shells, and other heavy loads. Motorization is not the topic of discussion here; automation is. Automated line sets have grown in popularity since the introduction of the Vortek hoist in 2003. But why hasn't the industry more quickly and more fully adopted automated rigging?

The two key differences between Europe and North America are the spectrum of the North American market and the complexity of its institutions.

North American Market

In 1991, I went to Sweden to meet with the product developers at AVAB. We needed a lighting console for the market at a price point of $1,200. The least expensive console that AVAB could offer was $2,400. In 1991, that was an insurmountable price difference.

I was to be in Sweden for 5 days, Monday through Friday. AVAB rep Anders Ekvall treated me most royally. I learned much about Sweden and AVAB, and the people of both. Each day, I broached the topic of a $1,200 console. The response was always, "Look what this ($2,400) console can do: this and this and this." "But I do not need those features," I said. A brief conversation ended each day with frustration on both sides. We could not bridge the gulf.

By Thursday at noon I was concerned. With only a day and a half left, I had to convince Ekvall to commit to producing the $1,200 console. Then for no particular reason and without thinking about it, I said, "Tell me about your high school marketplace." The response was, "High schools? We do not sell to high schools." High schools did not purchase lighting systems in Sweden, at that time anyway. So, I proceeded to discuss the North American high school marketplace and the ready appetite for lighting systems. As I spoke, I could see the light go on in Ekvall's eyes. He got it. And within 2 months, we got our $1,200 console.

From that time, I have paid attention to the different segments in each market. Put together, the segments comprise the market spectrum. The European spectrum, by my observation, is quite narrow. It mostly includes well financed, state-funded, expertly operated facilities. However, the North American spectrum is wide and diverse, reaching from the most well-funded to the most poorly funded and the most knowledgeable users to the least.

Of course, North America also has a market segment that is similar or even identical to that of Europe. It includes not-for-profit theatres like the Metropolitan Opera and the Kennedy Center. It also includes for-profit enterprises like Cirque du Soleil and Disney, and a multitude of hotels and casinos. This segment, in the North American market, is full throttle on automation. And, these organizations purchase the best and operate with the best people with the best funding.

But the full spectrum of the North American market also includes theatres owned by small cities and towns, universities, high schools, and community theatres. These owners are not flush with funding. They may or may not have people with expertise in automation. If they do attract a qualified person, he or she is often pulled away by a better offer from a better facility.

The ownership of MASCS systems by this other huge market segment may not be fiscally responsible. Even if they can manage the capital expenditure of acquisition, will they have the ongoing maintenance budget? Standard accounting practice suggests budgeting 10 percent of capital cost for maintenance and repair of a capital item. If the item is mission-critical, the budget should be as high as 20 percent. Theatres with a high-maintenance mission-critical system, which costs $1.5 million to install, should budget $150,000 to $300,000 for annual maintenance and repair. A MASCS system is high maintenance and mission-critical.

The market spectrum in Continental Europe largely includes high-end users with appreciable financial resources. Although North America has a segment that is comparable to Europe, the market spectrum in North America is broader and includes a huge segment that is better served by a more robust and forgiving technology.

State-Sponsored vs. Commercial

Theatre in continental Europe is state-sponsored, and has been since the 17th century. Although the "state" in North America has become more involved in the last half of the 20th century, our tradition of theatre--based upon its English roots--has been, for the most part, commercial.

Sabbatini, in 1637, writes of being summoned to the palace of the duke because the duke wishes to have a (temporary) theatre constructed in the palace for upcoming festivities. This was typical. Theatres were financed by the royalty, not only for cultural purposes, but also to impress their peers, their subjects, and foreign dignitaries. These installations--permanent or temporary--were completed at great capital cost with the understanding that (and this is the salient point) there are ongoing labor and maintenance costs. After all, stage machinery was made of wood. And wood, as resilient and beautiful as it is, is fragile under the mission-critical usages of theatre.

So, these important state sponsored theatres were well-manned and well-financed to keep them working. Over a matter of centuries, approximately 418 years, capital and operating costs have become institutionalized.

Theatre in America, by comparison, has its roots in the English stage of the 3rd quarter of the 18th century where it was a commercial enterprise, sanctioned by the crown, to be sure, but without crown financing. The first theatres in colonial America were commercially operated. They were converted "found spaces." When theatres and opera houses were finally purpose-built, they were funded by leading citizens in their respective towns and cities and operated as private enterprise. During a brief interval in the very late 19th and early 20th centuries, theatres and opera houses were built by municipalities, and in which the municipal offices were also housed. With the influx of central and southern (Continental) Europeans into America in the second half of the 19th century, there may have been an impetus for municipally owned and operated theatres, as was the case in the countries from which they emigrated.

In the 1920s--the Roaring '20s--private theatre construction, driven by vaudeville and movies, exploded in America. However, during the '30s, when some private construction occurred, a limited number of publicly owned performance venues were constructed under the Works Progress Administration (WPA.)

The next major boom (beginning in approximately 1955) in theatre construction came after WWII when thousands of theatres--federal, state, municipal, and owned by governments and/or their agencies--were built. So, unlike the Continental European state owned and operated tradition, which is 418 years old, the North American state-owned theatre tradition reaches back not quite 70 years.

Furthermore, most of the theatres built in the last half of the 20 th century had counterweight systems. Unlike the early wooden machinery of continental Europe, counterweight technology was dependable, robust, and low maintenance. That point is raised not to support its ongoing use; rather, it emphasizes that North American institutions were not compelled to work with the older European wooden systems that included ongoing care and maintenance. Theatres in North America could install the counterweight systems and forget about them. Because North American theatres started the last half of the 20th century with low-maintenance counterweight systems rather than high maintenance wooden ones, a culture of regular maintenance never developed. This isn't ideal, but it is the result of our history.

Finally, the difference in health and safety regulations and of capital financing between continental Europe and North America are profoundly different. Consider the experience of the Theatre de la Ville place du Chatelet in Paris. That theatre is currently closed for renovations that include a new rigging system.

"All the rigging system (counterweight) is now removed and it will be replaced by an electrique/informatique system," says Clementine Bollee, the theatre's assistant technical director. (Bollee was interviewed in August and is now with the Philharmonie of Paris.). "At first we chose to rebuild a new counterweight rigging system, but the CRAMIF, the institution that takes care of health workers, said no. So we changed to an electrique one, but now the city of Paris needs more money to do it, and that is why it takes so much time."

Although, on this side of the ocean, we might hope for the day when OSHA exerts some great amount of power as to cause cities to install automated systems rather than counterweight, we dare not hold our breath. How long will it take for American institutions to embrace not only the capital cost of automation, but the ongoing cost of maintenance, repair, and replacement? I certainly hope not another 350 years. But until a realistic annual budget line item for upkeep is added at the time of purchase, we must think very carefully before automating.

Editor's Note: This manuscript is the second in a TD&T series of articles on automated rigging systems. We hope this series will result in a robust and ongoing conversation on our pages. The summer 2018 issue began our discussion with a piece by Hein Lobo and Ruud Moojen, offering the European perspective. "Flying Dutchman" looked at how widespread rigging system changeovers were driven by Dutch and European legislation; the authors took readers through the installation process at The Dutch National Opera and Ballet Theatre in Amsterdam as one potential model for that process. In this issue, Rick Boychuk responds with an assessment of the various challenges facing theatres in the United States and Canadian markets. TD&T invites readers to join this ongoing conversation by proposing additional articles to expand the discussion of this technology. Please email: tdteditor@usitt.org

Disclosure: The author has written a book that documents the history of the counterweight rigging system and holds two patents that improve counterweight technology. "I am invested in counterweight rigging--as a theatre consultant on numerous theatre construction projects, as a historian, and as an inventor," he says. "Despite all of that, I truly believe that our industry will be highly automated in the future. In fact, I believe that many of the mundane and unsafe tasks that we as humans endure in many aspects of our daily life will be automated. And I look forward to that day."

Rick Boychuk is a theatre technician and designer who also researches and writes about rigging. He is also an inventor and owns the patent for the front-loading arbor and has a patent pending for an arbor trap, which is designed to prevent runaway line sets. He continues to explore the spread of the counterweight rigging system in the United States in anticipation of releasing a second volume of Nobody Looks Up: The History of the Counterweight Rigging System: 1500 to 1925. Nobody Looks Up is the only book ever written to document the history of the counterweight rigging system. See: http:// www.gridwellinc.com and http://www. counterweightrigging.com.

Caption: Photograph of line sets courtesy of Rick Boychuk.

Caption: This spread from the beginning of the 1950 JR Clancy Stage Construction-Equipment and Theatrical Hardware catalog underscores the differences between the North American and European Markets. Here, Clancy is intentionally marketing to a broad spectrum of theatrical equipment purchasers by including a junior high school, a university, and a civic theatre in their selected sample installations. Images courtesy of the JR Clancy Catalog Archive hosted at http://jrclancyarchive.usitt.org.

Caption: The widespread use of rigging systems in North America and the need to operate these systems safely has led USITT to sponsor various training programs and safety initiatives. Here, participants learn about hanging hardware. Image courtesy of USITT.

Caption: The rigging programs USITT sponsors include the Rigging Safety Initiative, which provides free inspections and training for secondary schools, and the Jay O. Glerum Rigging Master Classes, seen here. Entry-level, intermediate, and advanced classes are offered annually. These programs respond to the need for training and maintenance assistance at all levels of the North American theatrical market. Photos courtesy of USITT.

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:	Boychuk, Rick
Publication:	TD&T (Theatre Design & Technology)
Geographic Code:	100NA
Date:	Sep 22, 2018
Words:	2207
Previous Article:	Transdisciplinary SOUND DESIGN Pedagogy: Building a university class to create research and learning opportunities that transcend traditional...
Next Article:	Extended Reality Meets Theatrical Design: Virtual and augmented reality technologies offer exciting opportunities for the theatre world, presenting...