Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 2009 - 35

a large project with adequate planning resources, this process
is informed with the expertise of theatre consultant. On smaller
projects with limited resources, this information often comes
to the architects and engineers by way of an equipment manufacturer's representative.
Manufacturers' representatives exist to match clients' purchasing power as defined by their budgets with the supplier's
available equipment. I have worked with a variety of lighting
reps. All have been skilled, but their job is to sell equipment,
not to use it. These professionals define through their work
how the next generation of lighting designers will be trained by
the limits they place on facility capabilities they specify. Limitations in the representatives' skill create the limitations for all
those who use the facility after construction is complete.
There is a certain chicken-and-egg process to laying out
lighting positions during the design of a new space. If you set
the equipment budget first, then
there is no reason to design angle
options for which there are no
circuits available. But if you design the lighting positions first,
then total up the needed circuitry,
and then formulate the budget,
you lose the front-end control of
spending and make harder the
fund-raising process. Currently
the budget setting trumps the design in the initial phase-at least
when you are talking about lighting, desks and carpeting. That is
not true for the process of acoustical design and the specification
of the sound equipment. In my
experience as a consultant, I don't
recall anyone ever saying to the acoustician that his recommendations had to fit within a preset budget for treatments. Rather,
the facility design and construction budgets were adapted to
accommodate the acoustical needs. That doesn't typically happen for stage lighting.

Light distribution options
Today's directors want specificity and significant visual variety.
This means multiple systems of fixtures for each design idea.
I typically do two front lights for each area, a front wash, a
couple of diagonal washes, high sides balanced, three colors
of back and an odd angle, say back right diagonal. For a normal fifteen-area show, that is, on average, eight fixtures in each
angle or 120 fixtures. Take away ten dimmers from your ninetysix-rack for house lights. In a DPC house, almost all of the show
lights are single circuited. Even if you gang the washes, you are
still over ninety-six dimmers. Add in specials, cyc, practicals,
and your dimmer count is inadequate. But think about it-
because of DPC, you have purchased and provided power for

2400 watts per circuit, but for the most part only used a quarter each circuit's capacity. You have soft-patched units to make
systems rather than hard patched in a bay. Tremendous waste,
no gain. That was the advantage of a patch panel. The goal for
designing facilities-regardless of size or cost-should be to
find ways to accommodate the director's needs, the aesthetic
requirements for the various production forms, and to support
the art. An important tool to accomplish this goal is to provide
a variety of light distribution options.
I put in my time as a shop manager for Morpheus Lights in
the mid-1980s. At that time many West Coast companies were
competing to offer domestically produced moving lights and
control systems to compete with Vari-Lite. Morpheus was at the
forefront of that effort. I experienced directly the benefits in
terms of cost, flexibility, and spectacle that automated fixtures
and color changers created over fixed systems. I was also fortu-

a Century Strand
patch panel at
ohio Wesleyan
University.

nate to work with one of the first installations of the new Strand
Light Palette console as an undergrad when it was first introduced. I now appreciate the revolution of digital technology as
someone who rode the wave of innovation and continue to explore its potential in my art and in my teaching. I have come to
view our reliance on automated equipment technologies equally as a bold opportunity and a crutch supporting and extending
weak design. I see the design of our facilities responding to the
availability of digital technologies by limiting light distribution
and backfilling with improperly placed and over-used technical
self-expression in place of thoughtful dramatic response.
I believe, at the most fundamental level, that our job as
designers is to support the actors in an empathetic way. We
bridge the gap between the actor on stage and the audience by
providing contextual information, visibility, and emotional resonance. I teach my students that if, under most circumstances,
the lighting is obvious, we have failed to support and interceded
where we don't belong. We move from empathy for to competition with the performers. The audience may love the moments
the lights create, yet automation overhead may do as much to

W I N T E R

2009

theatre

design

technology

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