Theatre Design & Technology - Summer 2009 - 11

letters to
the

editor

load circuit cables plugged right into the receptacles. These were available from many manufacturers starting in the 1940s.
When they started to build theatres and T.v. studios after World War II, the standard dimmers were 2,500-, 5,000- or 6,000-watt
auto-transformer dimmers. They almost always had patch panels associated with them. That was the compromise. designers wanted to
be able to place a light wherever he or she felt one was needed. The architect, owner, electrical engineer, and theatre consultant all realized that for proper stage lighting the designer did need to be able to place a lighting instrument anywhere. That meant a large number of
outlets placed all over the facility. There was no way that any one or group of operators could reasonably manage such a dimmer board.
The answer was patch panels. Patch panels were developed as a compromise between dimmer-per-outlet and a having a dimmer board
that could be operated. The patch panel shown in Mr. Gress' article had about 300 load circuits. When the facility was designed there
was no way to control 300 dimmers at one time. The only answer was a lesser number of control circuits (in this ease 42) and a patch
panel. The front end or control console probably was a Century-Izenour 10-scene pre-set system: console with 42 control channels and
a pre-set wing with 10 rows of 42 pots each.
Theatre architecture has nothing to do with lighting being "viewed as a design element, equal to scenery and costumes." Nor has
the digital age "diminished" the art of lighting. I recognize that we must handle all elements in the process of architectural budgeting
and schematic design the same way. That is to create the best possible space for the existing budget. Or to tell the owner to change his
program or to get more money. No theatre designer would design a theatre today with a lighting patch panel. Today system designs and
manufacturing methods can provide a system with 300 2kw dimmers for far less than they could provide a system with 42 6kw dimmers
and a 300-way patch panel. Additionally, today's control consoles enable the lighting designer to be much more creative with 300
control channels than with 42 plus a patch panel. Two things are responsible for the elimination of patch panels. One is the greatly
reduced cost of dimmers. The other is the development of computer-based control consoles which provide the ability to handle very
large numbers of dimmers.
How can Mr. Gress write that "the development of dimming lagged between 1950 and 1975"? during that time George Izenour
developed the thyratron tube dimmer systems, the 10-scene preset console, magnet amplifier dimmers came and went, SCR dimmer
systems were developed, and computer-based control consoles became the norm at all levels of stage lighting control. Mr. Gress goes on,
''Though the patch panel had significant flaws, it also allowed a generation of young designers to understand and manipulate angle in
meaningful and delightful ways." This doesn't make sense to me. One thing had nothing to do with the other.
I also don't understand Mr. Gress' continuing references to 96 dimmers. In the Ohio Wesleyan theatre, if there were no patch panel
there would have been four racks of dimmers. Also no competent designer ever designs an installation where the main feed equals the
total of the capacity of all the dimmers. There is always a diversity factor used.
I believe that Mr. Gress' article is a perfect example of "Publish or Perish." I am surprised that TD&T published it.
Sonny Sonnenfeld

response from Jeffrey Gress
I appreciate the many people who have engaged me with their thoughts about my article "How your dimmers define your world...."
both those in support and those who passionately dispute my ideas have added to the discussion that I hoped to foster. Through these
discussions I understand that I did not always effectively communicate the core thesis of my article. As a teacher and consultant I am
often frustrated by the process of designing new spaces and with the product of that process in existing spaces. My article was specifically
intended to address deficiencies in the planning and design for venues intended to provide young designers with their first experiences
working with light.
If one does not normally experience novice lighting designers and technicians as they struggle to learn the art form by working
on productions in middle schools, small community theatres, and modest houses of worship, it might be difficult to fully appreciate the
weakness of these facilities and the lasting impact they have on students and community members. An analogy might be found in youth
sports. I have worked at the developmental level for soccer for more than ten years. Teaching sport to a young person new to a game is
often best done on a smaller scale with a limited number of players so that each can receive quality technical instruction. Their first experience with small-sided games builds their enjoyment and lays a fundamental groundwork for skill and knowledge development. Many
of our introductory theatre spaces are akin to teaching soccer in a storage room with shiny posters on the wall of the great players-a
too-early introduction to the flash and a thoroughly inappropriate space for technical and expressive development.
Each of us has had unique early experiences that set us on our career path. As a theatre community we have an obligation to do
better and the ability to see past technical convenience towards better artistic expression for our young and developing practitioners just
setting out on theirs.
Jeffrey Gress
S U M M E R

2009

theatre

design

technology

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Summer 2009