Maranda DeBusk is a theatre artist specializing in lighting and media design. This fall, she joins the Department of Theatre, Film, and Media Arts as an Assistant Professor of Design. She is an alumna of the University of Tennessee and Furman University.
In 2023, Maranda’s lighting designs for Lizzie and K2 were featured at the Prague Quadrennial in the USA National and Emerging Artist Pavilions respectively. Her lighting design for Roméo et Juliette was a Featured Emerging Design at the same event in 2019, and in 2017, Maranda’s lighting design for A Lesson Before Dying was exhibited at the World Stage Design Expo in Taipei, Taiwan as one of fifteen Emerging Designers worldwide.
The DEI Committee sat down with Maranda to discuss lighting design and pedagogy. A transcript from our conversation is below.
Lighting design affects so much in a production, so I’m sure DEI issues take center stage (so to speak). How do these issues show up in your work?
A recurring question for lighting designers is how to light a diverse set of skin tones, which is a vital concern. The root of which to me seems to be how do you make sure that you’re putting care into the feelings of and the impact on the people who you are lighting. How do you light people as people rather than people as moving reflectors of light? I like this question because it reminds me that we are a people-centered field: lighting is about people, by people, for the consumption of people. In that sense, lighting, like all parts of production, is a space of care.
Oh, I love that. So how does “care” fold into your practice?
You know, sometimes lighting can feel a bit removed from other aspects of production. After all, costume designers talk to people all day long and sound engineers work in direct physical contact with the cast . . . but lighting involves sitting in the dark forty feet from the performers and three rows behind the audience, so it is important to get out of that bubble by remembering, ‘I’m lighting people, I’m telling peoples’ stories.’
This means putting time back into the process and broadening your scope. It’s about reflexivity. Lighting is about reflecting on what I see from the lighting booth, but also reflecting on what audiences will see and how they’ll perceive it, as well as what performers will feel when they’re under the lights.
Could you share a success story that “reflects” this line of thought?
We just opened Hedwig and the Angry Inch at Actors Express in Atlanta. And that’s been interesting because the production double-cast the role of Hedwig. We’re playing with this concept of inclusivity when it comes to gender fluidity. So, both Hedwigs are non-conforming and use they/them pronouns. The director Quinn Hernandez was asking this question, ‘what does it mean if you take this story that premiered in 1998 and you bring it forward to 2023 when our concept of gender is very different (and yet not very different), and is the physical body the be-all and end-all of this story?’
In terms of lighting, this was fascinating because we had two very different performers playing the same role, alternating night to night. Once we got into the room, we had to consider their physical differences—their blocking is similar, but they move through it differently, not to mention one is four inches taller than the other! Our solution was to have two follow-spot operators who, in the spirit of the drag performance, were always on Hedwig. This gave the performers flexibility to move however they felt most natural in any given moment.
Do experiences like that influence your teaching? It seems like flexibility and inclusivity are at the heart of lighting but—presumably—they are difficult concepts to teach…
Teaching lighting is mostly showing students that there isn’t necessarily a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ way of doing things. Instead, it is about recognizing the default settings and then thinking about ways that the system might be challenged, changed, and improved.
This isn’t just important in teaching any given course, but also about a shift in the broader theatre system. In the classroom we learn that we can change it; in the broader system we put those lessons into practice by implementing measures of accessibility, inclusivity, and equity.
Could you tell me more about the state of the profession and equity?
A big part of the problem is historical gatekeeping, which can’t be fixed by creating a list of designers who a company could hire based on their identities, then hiring those people, because doing so would inadvertently preserve the broader system.
And that’s where the real problem lies.
The system as it has existed benefits folks who come from wealthy backgrounds. These are the people who can sustain unpaid internships and apprenticeships, take low-paying jobs that aren’t enough to cover rent in the cities where productions are happening, or even work at a loss. It also benefits people who don’t have family commitments, and people who started their career younger and don’t yet have established responsibilities. And of course, the biggest beneficiaries are people who have ‘ins’ with existing networks, even if that just means sharing identities with people who are already integrated into those networks.
All that having been said, there’s a solid intent to make the field more inclusive. Companies are changing their pay structures, lengthening their calendars, and offering more flexibility for everyone. One of the complex things that knits this conversation together is ensuring that workers gain more agency, and that this new agency comes from a person-centered perspective, even if it just means creating a space in which people can say ‘no’ to exploitative arrangements without putting their careers in jeopardy.