Sir,

I refer to Eve Quellman's IALD column titled 'All dressed up and nowhere to go?' in mondo*arc of October/November 2004 (issue 21) and share the author's concerns.

On one plane the image projection concept and technology to facilitate it may be treated like the discovery of paint and brush which is responsible for kitsch on public spaces, beginning with scribbles on walls, wild verses in toilets or railway compartments to occasional defacement of monuments. On another plane however, paint and brush have given us surfaces, finishes and optical properties that, as the author put it, tell stories through the monuments adorned by them. The same tools have equipped masters to produce the finest in art across centuries. Who knows, one may even see enrichment through image projection, possibly functioning like son-et-lumieres with more impact?

Image projection must therefore be looked at as another set of tools, albeit a very powerful set, that is left to the sensitivity of the ones creating applications from them; whereas, with time, there may need to be some form of regulation by statutory bodies like the various Urban Arts Commissions or industry-level groups who could ensure that the character of a space, be it a building or open ground, especially its historic significance or heritage is duly considered before allowing a particular scheme or theme of image projection.

Further, given the evolving nature of luminary device technology exploiting radiation properties of differrent materials - we now see hi-power LEDs as well as diffraction devices and halide lamps that were once considered bad for the eye - standards, tests and so necessary quality asurance to establish the safety of such illumination both to the viewer as well as the integrity of the composition of the illuminated surface must be studied and taken into cognisance. It would be sad to lose a piece of one's heritage to premature disintegration from a carelessly selected set of effects applied continuously all night and every night. Regulation, monitoring or prior approval based control would be necessary in this aspect too.

Being in India, where a lot of lighting equipment is sold through representatives, branch offices or third parties, product information is invariably sketchy, especially that related to reliability or safety. One manufacturer's rep rattled off the luxage of all his products but when I asked for the Lumen output as I need a watt-to-lumen conversion figure, had the temerity to retort: "Lumens? never heard of them!"

Lastly, although industry comes up with more and more energy-efficient, safe and reliable lighting and projection systems, the total impact on a city's energy demand from mass-scale hi-power image projection could also have an economic impact or likewise, security implications too.

In a sense these concerns are history repeating itself. While glowsigns beginning wth the ubiquitious neon tube showed up some superb effects, memorable ad campaigns, innovations in technique, creativity in graphic design, animation and light effects, these have also been responsible for a lot of wasteful diversion of energy and a lot of nuisance beside electric fires and accidents from cavalier installation practices.

Regards,
Udit Chaudhurim, Electronics Consultant, Project Designers
India