Article by Emmanuelle Lejeune, Théâtre de Liège
For its show The Invisible Is Not Nonexistent, the Belgian theatre company Venedig Meer envisioned a lighting system powered by gravity rather than an electrical connection. Starting in 2022, artists, technicians, and engineers collaborated to design four gravity generators, inaugurated during the premiere of the show on September 19, 2024.
In this interview, Emmanuelle Lejeune from Théâtre de Liège talks with Venedig Meer’s co-directors—Florence Minder, Julien Jaillot, and Manon Faure—about their innovative approach.
Emmanuelle Lejeune: Where did the idea of using gravitational force to light your show come from?
Julien Jaillot: It all started with a small gravity lamp called Gravity Light by the company Deciwatt. It’s a device where you place a 12 kg weighted bag, hoist it 1.5 meters high, and it produces twenty minutes of light. We were put in touch with engineers, initially at Safran [1], to explore how to adapt this small device to the scale of theatre. It seemed simple at first, but it was not at all! We quickly realized that we would only have very little light, which steered us towards an aesthetic that we soon described as "a spark." It was fascinating because it transformed how we worked. You could no longer "light" a scene by simply pressing a button; everything took time: weights needed to be raised, the descent awaited... This also greatly influenced Florence in writing the scenes: sometimes, two lines of dialogue had to be cut to match the available light duration. This system pushed us to invent a new approach to technical direction, constantly rethinking how we used our lighting resources. We had to create our own projectors, work with very low light outputs, and constantly adjust filters, as every watt was precious.
EL: Have you measured your energy consumption for this show compared to your previous ones?
JJ: We haven’t calculated the exact figures yet, but the difference is drastic. In our last show, four years ago, we were still primarily using incandescent lamps, which consume a lot. Since then, theatres have modernized their equipment with LEDs, but for this show, about two-thirds of the lighting came from our gravity-powered machines, which produce between 15 and 40 watts. For perspective, a traditional incandescent spotlight consumes between 650 and 5000 watts, so the gap is enormous.
EL: How did the collaboration between the rarely overlapping worlds of artists and scientists unfold? What did you learn from this joint effort?
Florence Minder: Working with engineers wasn’t always easy. They often wanted to know what we were going to do with their system, which could create frustration on both sides. We didn’t always have answers, as the script was evolving simultaneously with the machines' development. This simultaneous process, where both aspects progressed without being fully aligned, was complicated. At times, the technology overwhelmed us, and we needed to focus solely on the performance. We dedicated numerous residencies exclusively to technical work. But this dynamic between technology and creation was interesting to analyze. The engineers, including Baptiste Herregods and Laurent Staudt, really appreciated the fiction we ultimately created, even if they didn’t always understand it during the intermediate stages.
Manon Faure: This project challenged us in every way: in terms of skills, writing, performing, and production. If such a project doesn’t push you to question your practices, then it’s greenwashing. Here, we literally invented a new job: gravity-based technical direction.
EL: You warned me that this wasn’t a show about ecology, yet your show is full of ecological vocabulary—“permacultures,” “wind turbines,” denunciations of airplane pollution...
MF: Shows are often influenced by what we believe in, both individually and collectively. So, of course, ecology is present, even though we quickly decided not to focus our communication around this aspect. We realized that creating a “zero-carbon” show was impossible with the resources we had in terms of budget and time. Even though we spent a lot of time creating this show, even more would have been needed to make its design truly ecological. Take the example of the projectors: building lamps powered by gravity generators requires a lot of technical and electronic materials. If we had wanted to source exclusively from local suppliers using environmentally friendly materials, we would have needed an additional one or two years and tens of thousands of euros more. We are aware of our limits but are trying to anticipate and work on them. That’s why, from the start, we said this wouldn’t be an ecological show in the literal sense, even though the thought of preserving life is present in all our work.
FM: We wanted to avoid creating a show that would be exclusively labeled as “ecological.” That could have overshadowed other artistic or fictional aspects that seemed essential to us. Sometimes this costs us, as current communication trends strongly want to identify the themes of shows. However, we try to address complexity, nuance, and overlapping layers. We don’t propose a single heroic solution. We know very well that gravity won’t be the sole energy of the future in the performing arts world, but we’re here to open possibilities, to offer a fresh perspective.
EL: Artistic freedom and eco-friendly production are often seen as opposites. What’s your takeaway after this project?
FM: I think constraints can be positive, as we saw with this show, but they need to be adapted to each company’s reality. You can’t impose the same requirements on an emerging company as on an established one with a substantial budget. It’s important to avoid creating rigid standards that homogenize practices, like ISO standards in industry, which ultimately harm diversity.
JJ: In our case, the gravity project is an example of how ecological constraints can become creative opportunities, but that doesn’t mean it’s a model to replicate everywhere. What matters is allowing space for varied solutions tailored to different contexts. Some companies may focus on reducing travel, others on set design, and others on resource management and team collaboration. What we need to avoid is creating mandates that ignore these differences and end up restricting artists’ choices. Territorial resilience requires attention to the uniqueness of these territories.
MF: The cultural sector’s ecological transition must be collective. Institutions, funders, and programmers must also be involved. If a company chooses to reduce travel by only touring locally, programmers must be willing to host nearby artists, even if it means less diversity in their programming.
FM: What I find interesting in this discussion is that we’ve reached a conclusion where ecological transition is not only about technology or impact reduction but also about human relationships. It’s how we collaborate and organize collectively that will determine the success of this transition. This project taught us that technology alone is not enough. Just because we developed gravity machines doesn’t mean we solved all problems. It required intense cooperation among artists, engineers, technicians, and technical directors, and it’s this cooperation that made the project strong. Ecological transition demands transforming practices, mindsets, and ways of working. We also discovered that we are capable of reinventing how we work, which is very encouraging for the future. It gives us confidence in our ability to innovate and find solutions.
[1] Safran is a major French industrial and technological group, operating internationally in the fields of aeronautics, space, and defense.