Lately I’ve been seeing a trend, especially
in lighting, where it would seem that technology has become the reason and not
the solution.
As a self-confessed technophile, I am
somewhat ambivalent about this – if the technology exists, use it. Then I see
it being used for no other reason than the fact that it exists and I get a bit
worried.
I have always seen technology as the
solution to a specific problem, take moving heads for example: A stunning
solution to a lot of problems, one being the one-fixture-replaces-many in
respect of colour, gobo, beam size, etc.
Lately I see a lot of lights moving, but
not adding anything apart from making pretty pictures – they don’t actually
light anything.
It may be argued that this is a new style
of lighting, granted, maybe I am just old school, but I still believe lighting
is there to light something, be it performers or sets, just light something.
I grew up in an environment where the LD
looked at the problem: Where is the action, what needs to be lit? He, or she,
then positioned lights to solve those problems. Careful planning and allocation
of fixtures and colours were the rule.
These days it often seems as if placement
of fixtures to create symmetrical beam patterns is the first and most important
step, if it actually lights something, it is a happy accident.
Don’t get me wrong, I have seen shows
lately that were beautifully lit, some I’ve seen only at times, at other times,
just stunning beam patterns.
Is it time for Lighting Designers to
revisit the reason why they exist, or should we redefine the role of the LD?
No comments:
Post a Comment