Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1999 - 14

~~~~t~ ~f ~~m~t~Lt~: LIGHTING PORTFOLIO CONTENTS
For the following group, please number in priority order (with 1 being the highest priority)
those portfolio items which you particularly want to see for someone seeking work with you
as a lighting designer. A blank space will mean that you aren't particularly interested in
whether that item is shown in the portfolio. Please nate that some categories may have subdivisions with additional instructions. If you do not select a porticular category, do not complete any

of its subdivisions.

~ Concept statement

~ Lighting sketches or lighting storyboard

~ Evidence of research for the design

_1_1_ Centerline section

~ Light plot

_1_6_ Magic sheets

~ Hook up sheets and/or instrument schedules

---.1.L

Inventory of lighting equipment available for the light design

123.5 Documentation (In priority order, indicate up to 3 preferred methods of documentation.)
24.5

Published reviews (newspapers, magazines, radio/tv copy, etc.)

Slides

54.5

Photographic prints

OBSERVATIONS

Please indicate the one size you prefer to see
32x5

_ 3 _ 5x7

4x6

_ 2 _ 8x 10

It doesn't maHer

Please indicate the number of photos you prefer to see for each production.
_5_ 1 to 3 photos

More than 6 photos

_8_ 4 to 6 photos __
2_ It doesn't maHer
3

Video tape recording (Please indicate the time or quantity you prefer to see.)
_ _ Complete production

One complete act or scene

_ _ 5 to 10 minutes excerpted from one production
_2_ 5 to 10 minutes excerpted from each of several productions
Other

For the following groups, check the one item in each group which best applies to your situa~on.
We want to see:
16% the above partfolio items for each production shown
21 % the above partfolio items for at least one complete production
58% the above partfolio items, but they can be from different shows
74% work from opera, dance, theatre, etc.
16% only work from theatre
74% realized productions only
16% a combination

of realized and unrealized (project) productions

21 % work from 2 to 3 productions
68% work from 4 to 6 productions
~ work from more than 6 productions

63% work for a variety of spaces (proscenium, thrust, arena, etc.)
26% work primarily for our

type of space or spaces

5% work only for our type of space or spaces
42% evidence of light design and other design/production skills such as:
_3_

Scenic and light design combination

_5_

Light design and master electrician or board operator combination

_3_
1

Lighting design and technical director or production combination
Other
_

In the following group please check those additional items, if any, you particularly would
like to see in a lighting design portfolio.
__1_ Examples of Computer Assisted Drafting

_3__

Shop orders

__3_ Examples of Computer Assisted Paperwork

__
1_

Focus charts

_1_0_ Evidence of experience or familiarity with computer memory lighting consoles

Figure 6. Portfolio contents preferences (smaller theatres only), with weighted sums, percentages and tallies.
12

~PRI~G

1 9

light plot, #-1. concept statement. Such a response was
converted to the follOWing standardized selection priorities, and I\'eighted points were aI\'arded accordingl\': # 1. documentation. #2 light plot. and #3.
concept statement. Acouple of respondents e\'en constructed new options for their priority sequences. One
example I\'as a number two priorit\' to hire a lighting
designer for having been the theatre's master electrician. Such nel\' options were deleted and the priorities
renumbered to include on I\' those prOVided in the
original surver form. Altogether, thirteen of the ninetyt\l'O pages of data had to be converted because of one
or more similar variations in responding.

T O&T

In many wavs the observations paralleled the expectations, and in others ther were contrary to expectations.
The biggest surprise was that relativell little difference
existed bet\l'een the theatres' professed ideal method for
hiring lighting designers and their actual method. In tllis
regard, whether a larger-budget theatre or a smaller-budget theatre, each group's sequencing of the top six or
seven preferred methods never differed bv more than
one position from its actual hiril1g method. Even in those
cases that initially appeared to have differences, a closer
inspection of the numbers showed that there was either
an absolute or an effective tie for contiguous priorities.
Willie many of the respondents clearly indicated "same"
or merely duplicated their rankings from the top to the
bottom portions of the survey forms, other respondents
were equallv specific about a difference between the two
approaches. Yet, despite these individual variations
among theatres, the survey results showed that, as a
group, regional theatres actually llire pretty much the
way they profess they l\'ant to hire lighting designers.
On the other haJld, the larger-budget theatres and
the smaller-budget theatres showed a significant difference for their actual sequenCing of priorities. For example, larger-budget theatres ranked the use of a
director's "preferred" lighting designer as their second
priority. while smaller-budget theatres ranked it IOI\'e 1', at
fourth/fifth priority. Presumably, the smaller-budget theatres prefer to have the opportunity to observe the actual
lighting of a designer. It ma\' also be that guest directors
at smaller-budget theatres simply are not often in a pOSition to select the lighting designer for their own shows.
Another sequencing difference concerned Irorking
for "another respected theatre compal1Y." For largerbudget theatres, this item ranked five. immediately after
the various opportunities for a staff member to actua.ll\'
observe the designer's lighting. However, for the smallerbudget theatres, this option is ranked ninth, suggesting
that smaller-budget theatres much prefer any respected
individual's recommendation to that of another theatre
institution. Alterna.tely. lighting designers for smallel'
budget theatres are more likely to be on their way up.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1999