BY STEPHANIE KEMPLE ’25

Alicia Austin is a costume designer and professor at the JKB Theater Department, with extensive experience designing costumes for both the stage and film. Recently, Newsletter writer Stephanie Kemple had the pleasure of interviewing her about those experiences. She spoke about how she got into theater, her creative process, and the differences between the theater and film industry. Below is the interview:  

Stephanie Kemple (SK): You mention how you were drawn to both costume and set design in college – did you have past experiences in the arts or design that informed that?  

Alicia Austin (AA): I have never taken an art class in my life, which used to be a big problem for me when it came time to do sketches. To this day, it’s my least favorite part of the process. But growing up, I loved helping my dad with building projects, and my mom taught me how to make clothes. My interest initially was just in making. Early on, I did not identify this as creativity because I learned these skills out of utility.  I was never taught to make these things through a creative outlet. That was why studying theater was so enlightening for me. Because suddenly, I could link the creative part I didn’t know I was experiencing to the making of those ideas.  

SK: I’m curious to know, what is your process like for designing costumes, and what would you say is the first step?  

AA: Costume design is all about research, so it is the biggest part of my process. It doesn’t matter what show I’m working on, if the research isn’t correct and authentic, the design will not be successful. But I would say the first step is reading the play and reading it multiple times. I can never grasp a play until I sit down and plot, page by page, everything that is going on. I do it for every play I work on. I take note of everything; time of day, which characters are in each scene, description of each character. As I’m plotting, I write down momentous events that dictate something that could happen to the costume, either psychologically or technically. So, by the time I finish this chart, I know the play like the back of my hand. That information then directs me as I begin my research.  

For instance, I just designed for John Proctor is The Villain. Those characters are quite easy to turn into archetypes, but the message of that play is so real and heavy that those characters deserve to not just be archetypes. They need to be presented as real human beings to drive home the intensity of the subject matter. So, I started by googling a map of Georgia with the county lines, so I could see which counties exist around Atlanta. From there, I found the high schools that existed in those counties, and then I found archived pictures from their 2018 high school yearbooks. From there, I found people in those yearbooks whose first impression would match the characters from the play. Then I found their social media, scrolled all the way to 2018, and I was able to see what they were wearing in exactly that year and season. So that became my final research for these characters. I was able to incorporate so much detail and nuance into those characters that they became real. And it was fun! Realism is fun for me because it is so based on psychology and research, and those are my two “ins” into theater. Which is awesome because it’s usually something costume designers find boring. In the John Proctor production, all these girls ended up having a makeover and they were unrecognizable, which was really satisfying.  

SK: I see that you have worked on a lot of different TV shows, like Only Murders in the Building and Bopkis with Pete Davidson. How is it transitioning from theater to film and getting into those spaces?  

AA: I ended up working on Film and TV because the industry came back sooner than theater did post-pandemic. It was never a pursuit of mine or a goal. It’s funny — you graduate from this elite program, like Yale, and it is inevitable to come back with a little bit of ego. It is honestly how you were taught. But guess what? They do not care. Theater is much more receptive to pedigree than Film and TV, because Film and TV is much more trade based. Film and TV are about putting in your time and building your skills. And so, it was a huge learning curve. It is truly a machine. The process is expedited ten times to reach a conclusive design. I would decide on a character in ten minutes working for TV that I would have spent a month or more working on with a director in theater. It moves incredibly fast. It’s also different in that there are so many distinct levels that make up a design department, and so your job — depending on what role you are in –- is very uncreative.  

SK: What do you mean by that?  

AA: It can be quite clerical because the head designer’s making the big choices. As an assistant designer, you are contributing to the overall aesthetic, but you are also in charge of contacting actors and getting measurements. You are the point person between your production and the department, so it is very managerial. Whereas theater to me is creative. I have also done nothing in theater but design.  

But in Film and TV, you will have years of assisting or a lower lever position, until, if you even ever get asked to be the head designer of a show. The hours are also brutal. You will be on a job for an average of 3 months, with 12-hour days minimum. It is incredibly rigorous. I did it for a year straight once and by the end, I was very unwell. Just mentally, physically, I was like a shell of a human being. 

SK: I thought it would be hard, but I did not think it would involve 12-hour days!  

AA: That is specifically for people who work in the costume department. For the people who work in the art department, their life is not like that, which is about sexism. Art departments are the equivalent of a set design discipline in theater. Those two worlds are male dominated and always have been, whereas costumes are typically associated with women, and have this perceived “domestic” quality about them. Costume departments are consistently understaffed. Our budgets are smaller, and we get paid less for the exact same position as someone in the art department. Even in theater that is still the case, although there have been some attempts at creating equilibrium there. Film and TV are still unequal.  

SK: Wow, that is something to know about the world and wage gaps.  

AA: It is crazy!  

SK: So, I am guessing this is a long-winded way of saying that you prefer theater.  

AA: Oh, yes, I do prefer theater. I find it more artistically fulfilling, and I enjoy the process more. I like that it is more collaborative, whereas Film and TV can become isolating. I get to spend more time figuring out and exploring what makes us who we are in theater. So, I do prefer it, even though it pays less money. 

SK: Yes, there’s pros and cons. So, final question of this interview… how has it been teaching at Skidmore and imparting the skills you have learned back to the students?  

AA: It has been one of the biggest learning curves in my life. This is my first foray into teaching my discipline, so I learn something new every single class that I am in. But at the same time, it is such a gift, and I have been nothing but welcomed. Becoming a mentor figure is something I have always wanted to do. Because if you are as lucky as I am to have people be invested in you as a human being and your development, it is your responsibility to pay that forward. I hope to be a mentor for someone here. 

Photos provided by Alicia Austin

***

Stephanie Kemple ’25 is a Staff Writer for the Skidmore Theater Living Newsletter