Artist or Technician?

[NevilleLighting]

Like me, you apparently read these forums. Most of the posts here are technical in nature. Some are artistic. Some of the posts that I see are from young lighting designers struggling with artistic issues but framing their questions in a technical way.

Myself I am a designer. I do not disparage in any way electricians that prefer to be electricians. Quite the opposite. I rely on their expertise. I can barely spell DMX much less understand the intricacies. I come up with ideas and the crew improves upon those ideas and I love that interaction. Theatre is a collaborative art and I don't just mean the artistic meetings that happen in the director's office or production office. It is collaborative all the way down to cable placement.

I know that many of you have to occupy both positions simultaneously. When I wear the design hat I do too. I have to design with the parameters put in front of me with time and budget being high on that list. Crew capability comes way further down the list because if we don't know it we can work to figure it out.

Anyway, one of the things I see slipping these days is designing from the idea down and not from the nuts and bolts up. Would you ever tell a set designer that he has 350 screws and he should design his set for that? However, we in lighting land seem to take that approach in lighting all the time.

Ii would love a no-holds-barred but civil conversation about this. I'd love to hear from you (like me) old-timers. I'd love to hear from you college M.E.'s that have to play both sides of that line.

Light is art. What say you?

 

[cdub260]

I'm one of those bolts up guys when it comes to design work.

I very rarely do design work, but I see lighting design as a combination of art and science. I'm better at the science side than I am the art, so that's the direction I approach my designs from. I don't see the science as being more important than the art. I simply understand my strengths and weaknesses as a designer. While I can come up with creative vision, my true strengths lie in my ability to find a way to bring someone else's vision to life.

I'm a technician who can also do art...

...if I have to!

 

[xander]

Anyway, one of the things I see slipping these days is designing from the idea down and not from the nuts and bolts up. Would you ever tell a set designer that he has 350 screws and he should design his set for that? However, we in lighting land seem to take that approach in lighting all the time.

I would argue that this is 99% budgetary restriction. In smaller community theaters where the budget for the entire show is $500, then you get the same "bottom-up" design approach in every field. This is because you have what you have and you can't afford anything else, no matter how artistic your vision is. If you have three 4x8 platforms and 6 4x8 flats, you can't design a two-story house with molding and doorways, etc. Then, as you move into higher show budgets, that money starts getting fed into the scenery budget. I've worked at a small CORST theater where the show budgets were generally in the $3000 range for scenery, and $200 for lighting...While I fought this every year, theater administrators generally feel like once you buy all the instruments initially, you never have to spend money on lighting again because you just reuse the lights. I've worked in a lot of small regional theaters where budgets were this similarly skewed. Moving up to something like a LORT A theater, you see much much higher budgets and I think you will see that the process becomes much more "top-down." There are budgetary restraints, but you will see much more renting or purchasing of new equipment to satisfy the designer's needs. Then there is NY, which is quite a unique thing. There are a bunch of companies that work a lot like regional in that they have a theater and produce a season with a stock of equipment augmented with rentals. These are generally the not-for-profit outfits like Signature, Vineyard, Public, etc. The for profit world is different. For the most part these productions go into shell theaters. This means that they must produce everything themselves. Everything. Set, tools, soft goods, costumes, dimmers, cables, lights, light board, etc. Right down to the frig and microwave in the green room. In these situations, everybody is restricted by the same thing--budget. There are no, we only have 24 S436s, so that's what you can use. Absolutely everything is rented from a shop, so if you can afford 100 S4s, you can have 70 50s and 30 36s, or 30 50s and 70 36s. It doesn't matter. Need some VLs? Get some. It is the designers decision on where the money is spent. So, yes, there are restrictions, there is a limited amount of money, but you are free to use it as you wish. But, I have also worked on Broadway, where there is a seemingly endless supply of money, and then the designer really gets, quite literally, whatever they want. Including (if you have a good production electrician) some things that defy the laws of physics. I'm not sure what could be more "top-down" than that...

-Tim

 

[LXPlot]

Anyway, one of the things I see slipping these days is designing from the idea down and not from the nuts and bolts up. Would you ever tell a set designer that he has 350 screws and he should design his set for that? However, we in lighting land seem to take that approach in lighting all the time.

I don't know about you, but for me half of the fun is finding new and creative ways to use a limited supply of equipment to make awesome designs. Anyone (well, almost anyone) can make exciting lights to go with music when provided with DJ LED's that change color, strobe and move based on what they pick up on onboard mics, but the real art of it, at least to me, is doing something equally awesome with three PAR36s, a pinspot, a shoebox dimmer, and preset board that's who knows how many years old.

 

[jglodeklights]

A lighting design, or for that matter any design, will always kneel to the equipment, space and budget at hand. The "Idea" is simply a guide. The art is in how it is created within those limitations. A 0 limits approach will not necessarily produce better artistry. It is all about scaling, and an understanding of the technical elements and how we can best use them in our design.

 

[Footer]

I've worked at a small CORST theater where the show budgets were generally in the $3000 range for scenery, and $200 for lighting...While I fought this every year, theater administrators generally feel like once you buy all the instruments initially, you never have to spend money on lighting again because you just reuse the lights. I've worked in a lot of small regional theaters where budgets were this similarly skewed. Moving up to something like a LORT A theater, you see much much higher budgets and I think you will see that the process becomes much more "top-down."

I've spent two summers working for David (the OP). In that company, I spent more on building racks for our scenery to pack nicely into trucks then his entire lighting budget (correct me if I am wrong... though I have a feeling I am not). Its pretty standard to give 4x to 10x as much money to scenery as lighitng. Its also pretty standard to see TD's make more the ME's, Scenic artists and welders make more then Electricians (carps not included, they always get the short end of the stick), and Scenic Designers make more then LD's. Its not just you, its everywhere that you see this.


Now, getting back to the point. I have not done a design that started with 5 design meetings, which produced research images, which then produced renderings, which finally produced a light plot, since college. The reasons for that are two fold. First, none of the design work I have done has paid well enough for me to dump that amount of time into. Instead, when I would have been doing that work I was working other gigs that actually pay the bills. It sucks, but thats life. Second, the rest of the designers and the director would not know how to do a concept driven show if I tried... so... I didn't (You can tattle on me to my professors if you please).

Now, at my "new" job, its a totally different world. We work with a 400 unit rep plot. Every place you can cram a fixture, there is one. Its all individually circuited... but we only have 124 dimmers... some 12k, some 6k, and some 2.4k. Because of the number of shows we do and the labor required to hang full plots, we force every group that comes in to stay in rep. We will re-color, re-patch, swap barrels/lamps, and refocus to your hearts content but we don't move fixtures. We have groups that come in that hit this issue and fight it tooth and nail. We have others that come in and accept it and get amazing designs out of this plot. I think the reason for this is exactly what David is talking about. IE... a designer that looks at the plot as the design and the designer who looks at what is happening onstage as the design.

We constantly ask designers who are running into the wall "What are you trying to achieve... we can help you figure out how to do it". Rarely, do they actually answer us. Instead, they fight that they need 6x12's in the FOH cove instead of 6x16s. Our space is weird, we have fixtures where we have them for a reason.... because it works there. So, when we have a show come in with a designer that things about the looks first, they tend to have a "does it produce light... OK... throw a color in front of it and point it over here". They can do that because they are not trapped in what the fixture is, what the wattage is, or how its hung. They care about what it is doing on the stage and nothing else. It is those designs that look great on that stage. Unfortunately, the ones that really do fight the plot tend to look worse then if they would have just stayed to total rep and left started cueing.

 

[chausman]

I think it is a form of art, but using technical expertise to actually make it work!

I guess I didn't quite understand the "question". I would say that art is something that you can't just ask about on an online forum. The tech, thats what CB is for isn't it? Art can be a collaboration, but not from people on the other side of the country.

 

[xander]

Perhaps I have completely misunderstood the question.

 

[NickVon]

Footer I think makes an excellent point. We had a small yet excellent theatre program at my College. Limited technology compared to much large better funded schools and departments. Yet we won numerous awards for what we staged for our area award committees. I was trained with "here are you 35 lights, 20 dimmers, and your two scene preset..... now, make magic" And we did. Repatching in the middle of scenes running some lights with manual resisitance dinners etc. In my current space we have lights and hung in place for very specific reasons. We have alot of odd angles for FOH positions. Now unlike footers space we only have 56 dimmers, 75 some instruments . I do allow multiple weekend running shows the option to move and change the light plot, provided they help me put it back afterwards (since it's just me.) For shows that have a week of tech for even a single weekend i'll allow the refocusing or rehanging of about 8 circuits and instruments that i consider Special/Flexible use.

A challenge i think with putting the Art before the Technology might be the lack of fulfilling the basic purpose of a LD job which is to let the Audience see the performers . there are numerous times in my own space when designing lights for a group that I say to myself. "if i took these lights and colored them this and threw this gobo in here it would be awesome." but. "now I loose my DC area wash." I think that if (for community and college theatre) you can't look at the design afterwards and go. With "x" resources i would have done "y" then there was never any art in the design at all. I find that i can change whole looks of a show buy simply sharpening or fuzzing the focusof the S4's.

More to come perhaps as think a bit more on this

 

[Footer]

One more reason for this occurring of the technology comes first....

Its easier to teach technology then to teach design. In reality, it is impossible to teach someone to have an artistic eye. However, it is possible to teach someone how to hang a light, how a dimmer works, and how to patch a console. Its easy to grasp at... easy to test... and easy to write a book about. Therefore, its usually the first thing taught in most colleges. So, we produce technicians and try to turn them into designers. I personally see no problem with that. However, its hard for some people to make the leap out of the technician and into that of a designer. Some people never do, and thats great because odds are they are fantastic technicians. I personally have issues with making this leap... its one of the reasons I never had the passion or drive to attempt to support myself as a designer.

I remember in college doing a project where you had to light a poem with stuff out of your dorm room. No color media, no theatrical fixtures, no dimmers. We did some pretty crazy things with bed lights, desk lamps, laptops, computer monitors, and whatever we could steal from the common rooms. It did help explore what you could do with nothing. I threw this same project to my students when I was teaching High School and got horrific results. They simply could not get by the technology and focus on what the light was doing.

So, David, how do you take your students from being a technician and into that of a designer?

 

[JChenault]

Like me, you apparently read these forums. Most of the posts here are technical in nature. Some are artistic. Some of the posts that I see are from young lighting designers struggling with artistic issues but framing their questions in a technical way.

<snip>

Light is art. What say you?

I would say that it is easier in a forum to talk about technology than it is to talk about art - and that this is one of the reasons you see more technical posts than artistic ones.

 

[Ric]

Anyway, one of the things I see slipping these days is designing from the idea down and not from the nuts and bolts up. Would you ever tell a set designer that he has 350 screws and he should design his set for that? However, we in lighting land seem to take that approach in lighting all the time.

If you're saying that your 'screws' are lighting fixtures then I'd say your analogy breaks down pretty quickly.

I'd more liken your lighting fixtures to coloured pencils/pens. You're limited by the number but not how they're used, or where, or which combinations.

As has already been pointed out, budgetary (how many and what sort) and physical constraints ( no bars, obstructions, lamps throw, size etc.) are the real limiters to your capability and use of what exists. Usually these are good to know before starting a design, sort of like 'how large is my canvas, where are it's edges?'

Even in a stadium show, where things can be hung as required, there will be limitations that restrict your design.

I think the true artist works with these limitations and manages to find a way to use them to best advantage, not see them as restrictions at all!

Cheers,
Ric

 

[JD]

Artist or Technician?

Even an artist that paints with oil colors needs to know a bit about how his paints will react with his canvas and each other. The two cannot be separated in the real world. With an unlimited budget, you could design a show from the top down with little care about the technical aspects, although you would still need to know how different instruments interacted with your canvas, the stage.

In practice, there are very few applications like that. Budget does play a roll, and power limitations are at some point a factor. For most of us, the "art" of a show is not like painting a picture, it is more like assembling a jigsaw puzzle! How do we best come up with the look we want with the inventory we have? What locations and areas can equipment be located at? How many circuits are available in that area? What are the physical limitations of the dimmers, boards, and the instruments themselves? How could this show be packaged and taken on the road? What budget do we have to rent what we don't have? What great ideas will we give up because they are not cost effective?

Hard to separate the two aspects of the profession.

 

[DuckJordan]

I'm going to be echo'ing quite a few people here. Its easier to ask a technical question than an artistic question as its easier to control variables from that perspective. That said, I don't think I've ever met a designer that has no clue about their fixtures abilities and limitations. Now including DMX and such into a design is odd as I haven't ever thought about that when I design a show. Its my ME's job (or my own later on) to figure that end of the design out. My job is to give the directors vision color and light. Its the ME's job to figure out how to get there. Now fixture usage is as much of a design choice as is color, and a good example of that is on our show from this year from Evita we chose to light Evita with some older colortran zooms because the amber drift was much more appealing to the eye than the source 4's.

Also, as quite a few people have said, Budget is a huge issue with us, with shows only being able to use up $40 a show including color lamps if they happen to go out and a few other extra's. Fortunately we have built up quite a vast arsenal of equipment but it still has limitations.

So As much Technician post as has been said in mine, I still think its a mix of the two leaning more towards Artist who knows his tools Technician.

The analogy of the painter using different brushes comes to mind.

 

[MNicolai]

Working within constraints is as important to design as creating a concept for your design. Without constraints, you're just a guy spouting ideas without a practical component of how you're going to accomplish your design. Without a concept, you're just a guy pointing lights at a stage.

There's a certain level you can get to where you don't have to worry about the practical component as much; however many extension cables are needed will provided, however many fixtures of whichever types will be provided, and all you to be able to do is make a list of your demands for someone else to worry about executing.

We're not on Broadway though -- I don't have 40 extra fresnels in the shop; every single fresnel I have is in the air and if you want one more for something, you've got to remove it from what its doing or find a way to get a fresnel from somewhere else.

A crucial part of design is setting priorities. When I say priority, I don't mean knowing what's important to you and what isn't; I mean knowing how much more important one thing is over something else.

For example, feeding myself so that I don't starve to death is important to me. Feeding my dog so that she doesn't starve to death is also important to me. Making a priority is (gun to my head), knowing when I need to stop feeding my dog so that I can afford to feed myself, because feeding myself so that I stay alive is more important that feeding my do so that she stays alive. Priorities are decisions that define what we'll allow to stay alive at the expense of something else dying.

Working within constraints involves setting lots of priorities; those priorities define which parts of your design you'll keep alive in exchange for letting other parts of your design die. It's knowing that you've only got 40 fresnels for wash fixtures and that there are no other decent fixtures that you can substitute that will be suitable for that effect, which means you have to sacrifice a fixture from somewhere else and lose part of another effect to prevent this other effect from dying.

Designing within constraints is knowing that in exchange for losing your perfect lighting positions of a custom light plot that'd have to be hung from scratch, you can save a lot of time on the hang by adapting a rep plot and having it look 80% as good as your custom plot.

Just because you've got ideas doesn't make you a good designer (unless you're fortunate to have an endless supply of labor, money, and authority over telling other people that they're ideas have to die so that yours can prosper). On the flip side, just being able to tally up the number of fixtures in your plot versus what the venue provides also doesn't make you a good designer. What certainly helps though to balance between the art and the technology is having the ability to clearly define your priorities and knowing when your design can afford to have compromises made to it and when it cannot.

Constraints are a very real part of crafting a design, because knowing what is and is not available to you is the first step to figuring out where you need to make compromises to get your design off of the ground. If you haven't crafted your design around the constraints given to you, then you have really done any real design work and you cannot call yourself a designer (at least not to me). Any idiot can step forward, hang light fixtures, and point them at the stage, just like any idiot can demand that they have x number of fixtures when they've been told three times that only y number are available. Just because the demand is made doesn't mean if can be fulfilled, and just because the lights were pointed at the stage doesn't mean they'll look any good.

For the 99% of us who do have constraints to work around, "art" will never happen until some balance and coordination is struck between the abstract concept of a design and the practical component of how that design should be executed. Anything that happens to work out without taking both the abstract as well as the practical components into careful consideration isn't art, it's luck.

 

[shiben]

I remember in college doing a project where you had to light a poem with stuff out of your dorm room. No color media, no theatrical fixtures, no dimmers. We did some pretty crazy things with bed lights, desk lamps, laptops, computer monitors, and whatever we could steal from the common rooms. It did help explore what you could do with nothing. I threw this same project to my students when I was teaching High School and got horrific results. They simply could not get by the technology and focus on what the light was doing.

I think i would fail that project just because currently in my room I have 8 PAR cans, 4 LED cans, a control console, 2 shoebox dimmers, and some color media. They might not like that, eh? Actually the computer monitor thing is clever, its like a DJ LED!

 

[blackisthenewblack]

Actually the computer monitor thing is clever, its like a DJ LED!

Just got me thinking about how many creative ways we try to fake TV's and Computers on stage with different play back methods and by gutting out TVs. It is simple enough now to run a VGA with Powerpoint to create the same video effects, without going to all of the work of creating all kinds of fancy LX FX.

 

[LXPlot]

I think i would fail that project just because currently in my room I have 8 PAR cans, 4 LED cans, a control console, 2 shoebox dimmers,

Yeah, I feel you there. Although I do know that if it came to this, I would demonstrate Mcandless using an incandescent desk lamp (warm), an LED maglite (cold), and another flash light with a beam somewhere in the middle. Oh, and a lot of gaff.

 

[Footer]

That's not the point. The point of the excerxise is to light something simple with simple means. It's not about theories of lighting or beam spreads. It's about seeing how to work with junk tools and still make art. It's there to teach you that it's not about the tools you have, it's how you use them.

...... Something involving tapatalk.......

 

[NevilleLighting]

There are some really great ideas being posted here. I love the conversation. I will respond to a few of them.

Kyle, you had some great points about money. Yes, quite often other trades are paid more. Set designers are paid much more than me but also have to spend much more time on the project. You talked about making the "leap" from technician to designer. I sometimes feel that is an artificial goal put somewhat in place by our university educational system.

Many of you talk about the gulf the exists between the extreme limitations and designing with no limitations. I wouldn't say that a "no limitation" situation really exists. Myself, I do find that the fewer limitations I have the harder it is to get started. Give me 24 dimmers or 240 dimmers and I will probably spend the same amount of time on the plot. Tell me I have $500,000 to spend any way I want and I'm frozen in place with no idea where to start.

Others mentioned the difference between the plot and the cue process. I think any professional designer will tell you that 90% of the "art" comes in the cueing. Also, let me assure you, no production manager, director or producer has ever looked at my plot and spoken to me about it. They could care less. They would only care about the final cost and how that relates to the picture on the stage.

Others also mentioned the science and I agree. You HAVE to understand the science. Your lights are your paint brushes and you must understand them. That being said please don't ask me to explain a dimmer. It makes the electricity bigger and smaller. You know how I fix a dimmer? I get my a** on the phone and make calls.

I don't think that there is any design I can do without keeping in mind somewhat the practical component. Primarily, I have to keep in mind control, that is how many dimmers and/or channels do I have? Second, how much time and labor? How much tech time? If I have 100 moving lights but only have one 5 hour tech rehearsal (with no pre-programming time) then what's the point? I will never have time to cue all those lights. They will become overpriced color changers.

I often am asked to look at young lighting designer's shows and they always apologize for not having much equipment. I never look at the amount of lights as having anything to do with the quality of the design. The important issue is how good are the choices you made with what you have.