On Being an Independent Lighting Designer

Backstage at the Harrisburg Community Theater is where the light caught me first. And so my philosophy of what it means to be an independent lighting designer was formed rather accidentally from theatrical roots.

The theatrical lighting designer walks about with rolls of drawings and sheets of schedules on clipboards, never touching the light fixtures themselves. The shop order lists in fine detail the hardware to be delivered to the stage and the light plot provides detailed instruction as to the deployment of every bit of the hardware. In all of this there is a bright line between the supervisory role of the designer and the hands on role of the suppliers and stagehands. The designer's responsibility is to the play - well the producer and the director and to the text itself. The producer and only the producer pays the designer.

This view of the role of the theatrical designer easily overlays my firm's practice of architectural lighting design in New York City. We hold the interests of our clients above all others. We labor in the service of architects and building owners one project at a time. We strive to inhabit the mind of the architects to understand their vision of the luminous environment of their project.

We practice our art and craft on a fee for design service basis - without commissions or kickbacks, without financial arrangements of any kind 'on the side'. We serve the client and we work only for the client.

It is a bit like the notion of separation of church and state. The challenge and question before the IALD is how to help our membership to articulate and indeed to prove the value of this proposition to our clients. The IALD is examining the 'bright line' that separates independence from a commercial model of design services. Does it matter to your client that you are independent? It should matter that you hold the client's interests above all others: that is the path to excellence. While it is perhaps a noble notion to choose only clients that so value this independence, is this a realistic business proposition for our profession? I believe that independence is a core value of our profession. One of our most important jobs at the IALD is to get this message out to the world. We bring the beauty of light to the architect's visions. Beauty has value. Tell your friends and clients today.
Charles G. Stone II IALD president elect 2003

To an extent I am going to play devils advocate to Charles Stone's views as expressed above - I do so in the knowledge that he agrees with my view that the way in which lighting design is developing as a service around the world varies greatly from one region to another. I also hope that by positing a slightly contentious viewpoint, some debate and response may ensue...! Since background is also that of the 'independent professional' stage lighting designer I agree that 'independence' is a worthy status - it is clean and easily understood - it aligns with the status that architects and many other building services professionals work to. It speaks of honesty, integrity and putting the client's interests before those of the consultant. In short it is the status that is perceived to be that of the professional. If you operate in a world where the value of professional advice is both understood and respected there is no doubting that a relatively new branch of design such as architectural lighting design will enhance the perception of its service, and acceptance thereof, if it adopts the mantle of a profession and the obligations that are incumbent upon those who engage in it.

What happens however if the lighting designer aspires to offer a professionally based service in a climate where the status of the professional has come to be distrusted or devalued or, conversely, where the culture does not yet (and perhaps never will) perceive a need for the status of professionalism to extend to the realm of 'secondary' consultants in the building design business? I argue that in the western world the status of the building design professional has undergone a major decline over the past 10-15 years. This is partly due to the emphasis on materialism and economic rationalism - a world that 'knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing'. Also, it appears that the architectural profession dropped the ball somewhere by losing the confidence of clients in its ability to control costs and value for money - hence the increasing predominance of the 'design and construct' industry and the virtually unassailable influence of the project manager. In this environment the emphasis is on getting the job done at optimum cost in terms of money and time - 'optimum' frequently translates as 'lowest' with maximum profit to the design and construct contractor.

In other, non-western, countries the design and construct profession is being built upon foundations that do not have a strong legacy of indigenous professionally lead building design. Here the socially embedded tradition of bargaining for the lowest cost is engaged upon within a culture that is frequently blind to the benefits of 'good design' as perceived in western terms. I contend that within either of these contexts it is particularly difficult to both promote a service as esoteric and intangible as lighting design and do so from a platform that overlays the additional values of independence and 'professionalism'.

I believe that the lighting design community has some interesting questions to ask itself:

1. In view of the environment within which it finds itself working, what is 'professionalism' and, by extension, what is it that clients are really looking for from a lighting designer?

2. In a situation where the client's financial interests are often those of the contractor or where those interests are well looked after by the client himself or his project manager, is it really necessary for the designer to do anything other than work within an agreed lighting budget to deliver a design that the client is happy with?

3. If the lighting design community does believe that 'independence' is a core value, as Charles proposes, how should it be promoted, how should a consistent link between 'independence' and design excellence be proved and how does the independent designer secure an adequate income whilst these questions are being explored?

information : www.iald.org