Does technical training hamper creativity?

[Ken Coker]

Of course, one could wonder whether lighting design will ever progress if it is forever discussed/taught as part of the same paradigm as "technical theatre". Graphic design is never thought of as "technical painting"...............

 

 

Ken

 

No, I'm not at all bored backing up my HD across my wireless network

Yes, one could indeed combine a visit to the AC Lighting show with a vist to the James Turrell exhibition.

[Guest lightnix]

That's right, Ken and the best place to wonder about it is in its own thread :(

 

- Topic split :(

 

I understand where you are coming from, but predictably have to disagree a little :)

 

There was a fascinating documentary about Titian on BBC2 last year, where they rebuilt his studio as it (probably) was and set out to recreate a portion of one of his works, using paints and brushes made as they would have been in that time. Many of the paints were made by very carefully grinding and sifting semi-precious minerals, like lapis lazuli and malachite and then mixing them with linseed oil. Unlike the consistent modern tube oils of today, these old-fashioned oil paints each had their own consistency; the presenter commented that it was like trying to paint with runny honey one minute and half-set plaster the next. I say that in order to display his artistic talent to the extent that he did, Titian must have had some kind of technical education in the practicalities of applying paint so effectively. It wasn't just down to talent and practice IMO.

 

And so it is with lighting. Technical constraints on any lighting designer abound e.g. available power, weight loading, the finite number of gels available, the limited number of steps on colour stepper motors, the mere 256 steps available on a DMX channel etc. Every medium has it's strengths and advantages, but also limits and weaknesses; there is no such thing as the 100% truly flexible creative medium which can be anything you want, just like that.

 

 

I argue that any artist, regardless of the medium in which they are working, needs to learn how to use the tools, if they are going to be able to realise their artistic vision. A sculptor has to first learn the technical skill of using a hammer and chisel and a painter how to use a brush to apply paint, if they are to realise their visions. They may use artisans to do the work, just as an LD uses an operator and crew, but regardless of how skilled the artisans are, they will never be able to achieve the impossible.

[bruce]

Nothing to do with lighting, but similar theme. I play in a folk/ceilidh band, and used to occasionally go to the local clubs. You know the type - there's a "guest artist" who gets to do a couple of half-hour sets, and all the locals get to play for 5 mins each. Can be an entertaining night, as long as you arrive after all the "beginners" have had their turn .

 

Anyway - a lot of very talented young players go to these places, to get experience and some exposure. Many are in their mid-teens, others students at RSAMD and Strathclyde on the Traditional/applied music courses. All very technically talented. But some of us were commenting one night that they all sounded very "same-ish". Then we realised that they all went to the same teacher - who is an excellent player, has made many recordings, who teaches at RSAMD etc, as well as taking private pupils. He has a distinctive style. And most of the pupils had styles which were quite similar.

[Dmills]

I tend to the view that you have to know the technology to a fairly high level of detail before it becomes reliably possible to use it creatively.

 

IMHO For this reason, about all that any course below degree level can really hope to teach is the technology (How to calculate power, DMX, Noise, Optics, visual perception...) and how to behave as part of a crew, the creativity just relies too much on understanding this stuff to make being creative (at the same time as knowing how to use the whole range of tools) practical without this sort of basic technical/engineering know how. You need to understand the limits of the tools in a fairly detailed way before you can design with any degree of confidence that what you design will work.

 

Once you have this level of know how then making the decision as to the desirability of doing a specialist design course becomes reasonable, some will chose to become specialist systems techs instead (which can be quite creative in its own way).

 

Now what is interesting is that when you look at some of the very highly respected lighting design courses out there, they often tend not to go for the latest technology, because for what they need to teach, P.743s and Sil 30s are just fine. However these courses must follow something giving broad exposure to the tools and technology available.

 

Note that there is at least one "Performance art" course, that turns out people who are so into the whole "creative" bit, that they have great difficulty actually putting on a show (Very hard work for the poor venue techs), you know who you are (And will be right behind the lawyers when the revolution comes)....

 

Regards, Dan.

[Ken Coker]

Ooh, my own thread...........

 

I think what I most want to see in lighting design is different sytems of thinking. The technology that an LD really has to master is very simple - no LD really has to care about comms protocols or what self-commutation is in a diode. As an ex-Chief Electrician it has taken me a very long time to escape from what might be described as "Chief Electrician Lihghting", that is, always erring on the side of practicality, always falling back on the tried and tested techniques that I learnt from the feet of the Masters - and let me clearly state that I think I had a great education 25 years ago working in a touring house and watching how Mick Hughes, Mark Pritchard, Paul Pyant, Nick Chelton et al did it. (Free Masterclasses every week!).

 

Very recently I worked with a design student on lighting a show. The student knew very little about the technicalities of light, and I worked as her mentor/production electrician/consultant - you know the thing, "Yes, I would advise a little light Hamburg frost three times a day after meals. The student did an excellent job by thinking what quality of light she wanted onstage, and then working backwards to discover what light was needed and then what the required control parameters might be - bright/dim, hard/soft, ect. Also, I swapped desks half-way through the first week and the student didn't give a monkey's - to her it was just a control surface. What the student benefitted from was a clear understanding of the piece, a clear vision of the look she was trying to achieve and a great understanding of the medium she was working in - rather than any deep technicaal knowledge. It might also be argued that she benefitted from 20 hours of one to one tutorials, but that's another point.

 

At the risk of supporting the performance artists, we really ought to look at their thought processes. Why do they want to do shows in telephone boxes or taxi cabs? What is wrong with these really nice buildings full of electricity, flying points and highly skilled staff? I think there are at least two parallel problems. One is that we could be accused in theatre of "curating the past" - that is, that we are always taking care of a pre-written text rather than doing something new. Secondly, in theatre one's vision is constantly being mediated by both the technology and other workers - we find an interesting space to do a show in and we instantly cover it in black and throw a truss up; the whole show then becomes about weight loading and masking rather than some kind of theatrical truth.

 

Oh........I could go on for hours like this.....What might be interesting would be to organise a seminar on this topic with the ALD at PLASA...Anyone interested in this?

 

Right, back to the hard drive........Hey, Lightnix, are those beagles of yours still on 40 a day?

 

Cheers

 

Ken

[Tomo]

There's definately an argument for both approaches.

Unfortunately, there are very few openings for what one might call a 'pure' lighting designer that will actually pay their rent.

 

I'd be willing to bet that none of them are open to an 'artist' coming straight out of college - the LDs who only LD have many years of experience behind them, and have built up the reputation to go with it.

Until you can get that reputation, you aren't going to get paid to do pure design - it doesn't matter how good you are, you don't get hired as an LD without a reputation.

 

So in order to pay the rent, you've got to have some other job, preferably in a situation where you can work to build up that reputation.

This essentially means that any aspiring LD will have to get work in a theatre (or conference) as a lighting technician, as that way you'll work under many LDs and hopefully learn from them, and design the odd smaller show.

 

In order to get hired, you are going to need some of the technical skills.

This doesn't need to go as far as knowing the details of how anything in particular actually works - just the abilities and limitations of them.

 

All that aside, I think you can probably summarise the raw issue like this:

 

If you only have a vision and have no idea on the implementations, you may come up with a simply beautiful idea that cannot be done.

 

If you are very stuck in the details of implementation, then your vision may be diminished.

 

What is required is the middle ground - sufficient flexibility of thought to invent something new and wonderful, but enough grounding in reality to know what can and can't be done, and thus bend the vision into the harsh reality of a limited budget!

[ojc123]

Good training won't hamper creativity. Bad training will hamper creativity.

 

Good training in anything encourages reflection and resourcefulness which are at the root of creativity. Bad training encourages simple copying of existing procedures. Most training will be somewhere between the two.

[Tom_Barton]

Im a final year student at Mountview specialising in lighting and for my part I would say that we don't get 'good lighting design' handed down to us from above like doctrine. We initially learn the theory and practiclaities of light and the effect it can have. i.e. direction, colour, shape, focus etc. As well as the technicalities of actualy using the equipment.

 

So what we end up with after a few months is a grounding in what is achievable through lighting, and how to make it all function. Your then in a position to develop your own creativity and style. There are currently five major lighting students in the final year at Mountview including myself and the shows certainly don't all look the same.

 

Its such a personal thing I don't think the actual creative design can be taught like you teach someone a language, they can speak it but they can't change it. You can give someone the knowledge they need to express their creativity and then what they create will come from them.

 

Thats the theory anyway!

[TNVS2]

Hey Ken.

 

Understand your feelings completley.

I was nearly chucked out of a certain drama college on Gower street, in London, for voicing myself in a similar way!

(20 years ago...)

I am still In much demand, for thinking laterally, and getting that extra mile in a show.

 

We, as lighting designers also seem to currently fulfill the roles of:

 

Accountant

Electrician

Caterer

Rigger

Truck driver

HSE

Tour manager (when he slips up)

(some knowledge of sound)

Set builder's assistant

lighting camera person

Pyro consultant

Security

RAC

POLOTICIAN.!!

The list goes on...

 

Important to keep your mind on the job in hand, and make others realise you may well be the person in the middle of things, but you are primarily there to point lights.!

 

Call it climbing a ladder.....

 

On your left side is all the books you have read, thoughts, tunes and bands you are into, movies you loved, and the melting point of ideas, and energy, and all you want to achieve.

 

On your right side is all the certification, experience, degrees, legislation, common sense, crafty tricks, knowing how things work, and stuff that sometimes holds you back...

 

If the left side becomes heavier than the right...

 

Get it wrong, and the ladder may fall over, to the left, or to the right.

 

You just have to keep on climbing, but, the higher you get, the greater the fall!

 

(Words from someone greater than me.)

 

happy easter. K.

 

Don't loose track of your love of lighting, one of my own quotes.."bugger it, let's do it"!

[LeeStoddart]

To deliver appropriate lighting designs takes many skills and experience. I think technical training on the physics of lighting equipmant is essential. But more important to produce something with "style" is some artistic skill. This is much harder to teach or learn - it comes from experience, experimentation and close observation of what works well in others work.

 

I don't think it's essential that an LD can work out power consumption, rig lanterns, wire a plug, program a dozen different desks, coil cables, unload the truck or operate a show. But if you actually want to start working in this industry you need to be able (or at least willing) to do all those things because being hired as an LD without a reputation or portfolio of succesful experience just isn't going to happen.

[TNVS2]

Ken. just reading the reply I got.

 

seems all LD's are as pedantic, stroppy, and dictating as myself! But not un-willing to give up well kept knowledge.

There is no LD masonic handshake yet, but I am sure it will come!

 

Keep looking around, watching light, taking in ideas, listening to others, AND making your own mind up.

Live, eat, breathe, your latest idea.

 

I am currently sat on the seashore with my laptop, watching the harbour lights, and thinking ideas for my next show. (and nicking a few ideas from the movie I just watched)!!

 

Takes an awful lot of work, many years of experience, brilliance in your art, and knowing how to be humble, and have respect, and understanding, for those around you.

A very special kind of person to earn the title of LD.

 

(maybe I should not have typed that lot, but it is from the heart, and I am not known for keeping me gob shut! and it is correct.)

K.

 

To deliver appropriate lighting designs takes many skills and experience. I think technical training on the physics of lighting equipmant is essential. But more important to produce something with "style" is some artistic skill. This is much harder to teach or learn - it comes from experience, experimentation and close observation of what works well in others work.

 

I don't think it's essential that an LD can work out power consumption, rig lanterns, wire a plug, program a dozen different desks, coil cables, unload the truck or operate a show. But if you actually want to start working in this industry you need to be able (or at least willing) to do all those things because being hired as an LD without a reputation or portfolio of succesful experience just isn't going to happen.

An artist who can't use all his tools because he/she doesn't know how they all work?

 

Have had to deal with too many idiots like this, already, who think they are "it".

Mostly design students, straight out of college, with an attitude problem.

[Dmills]

Ooh, my own thread...........

 

I think what I most want to see in lighting design is different sytems of thinking. The technology that an LD really has to master is very simple - no LD really has to care about comms protocols or what self-commutation is in a diode. As an ex-Chief Electrician it has taken me a very long time to escape from what might be described as "Chief Electrician Lihghting", that is, always erring on the side of practicality, always falling back on the tried and tested techniques that I learnt from the feet of the Masters - and let me clearly state that I think I had a great education 25 years ago working in a touring house and watching how Mick Hughes, Mark Pritchard, Paul Pyant, Nick Chelton et al did it. (Free Masterclasses every week!).

 

Not disagreeing, and I certainly tend to do the same sort of "chief LX lighting design" if I am not very careful, but in terms of training at the beginning of a career, I still contend that we would do a severe disservice to our trainees by teaching an overly pure lighting design course, because most (all?) of them will at least initially work gigs where they have to design, rig, focus, plot, operate, drive the truck....

 

Very recently I worked with a design student on lighting a show. The student knew very little about the technicalities of light, and I worked as her mentor/production electrician/consultant - you know the thing, "Yes, I would advise a little light Hamburg frost three times a day after meals. The student did an excellent job by thinking what quality of light she wanted onstage, and then working backwards to discover what light was needed and then what the required control parameters might be - bright/dim, hard/soft, ect. Also, I swapped desks half-way through the first week and the student didn't give a monkey's - to her it was just a control surface. What the student benefitted from was a clear understanding of the piece, a clear vision of the look she was trying to achieve and a great understanding of the medium she was working in - rather than any deep technicaal knowledge. It might also be argued that she benefitted from 20 hours of one to one tutorials, but that's another point.

 

Sounds like an excellent student, however, given that the job of a lighting designer out there in the big bad world involves drawing the rig plans as an absolute minimum and may involve specifying the instruments, do we not need to be teaching the tools as well as the art? I agree that we sometimes go too far into the interesting details of the technology, when it may not actually matter for the purposes of design, but given that most (all?) designs are a compromise on many levels we need to be teaching how to get the effect with what is available and that requires at least some detailed knowledge of the limits of the tools.

 

I pose a question, is there a difference between a "lighting director" and a "lighting designer", and would the world benefit from making a distinction? The director in my model would be very much your student, with the designer (read - production electrician) having a mostly technical (detailed design and drafting) role until the show can be passed off to the venues electrics department. This would allow a more specialised artistic role which could be distinct from the "production electrics" that we expect designers to do today?

 

At the risk of supporting the performance artists, we really ought to look at their thought processes. Why do they want to do shows in telephone boxes or taxi cabs? What is wrong with these really nice buildings full of electricity, flying points and highly skilled staff? I think there are at least two parallel problems. One is that we could be accused in theatre of "curating the past" - that is, that we are always taking care of a pre-written text rather than doing something new. Secondly, in theatre one's vision is constantly being mediated by both the technology and other workers - we find an interesting space to do a show in and we instantly cover it in black and throw a truss up; the whole show then becomes about weight loading and masking rather than some kind of theatrical truth.

 

Possibly, if they were a little less inclined to get a found space and then ask you to turn it into a black box (Grumble - sore point)!

 

One of the best shows I have ever seen was done by torch (stick, rag, paraffin variety) light, with the audience sat on stripped logs, it was the tempest with a set consisting of an A frame ladder and a few old tea chests. It would not have worked in a theatre, but the whole production worked really well in its environment.

 

What was interesting is that the design & direction were done by one person, and the thing worked as a cohesive product. I loose count of the number of shows I see where the lighting or set does not match the action because someone has just had to play with the latest toy....

 

A question for the lighting students, how much time do you get on other elements of design, set, sound, costume, makeup..... Just curious. Could there be a place for a "Theatrical design" course (probably not below degree level), this would have to teach he bare minimum of tech and concentrate on production design (Scenography?).

 

Oh........I could go on for hours like this.....What might be interesting would be to organise a seminar on this topic with the ALD at PLASA...Anyone interested in this?

Right, back to the hard drive........Hey, Lightnix, are those beagles of yours still on 40 a day?

 

Cheers

Ken

 

Me too, but please don't restrict the seminar to the ALD (Us electricians sometimes get conned into design too).

[TNVS2]

Ken, seems like we may have cracked onother can of worms here!

I love passing knowledge down the line, as I/we will not be here forever, and already have several little me's under my wing!

It would be great if they could learn stuff coming from other folk.

 

The topic discussion at PLASA is a great idea.

K.

[robloxley]

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'd be interested how many lighting design applicants/students eminate/have a strong background in 'design' rather than just in the 'technical' side of things?

Is there a difference in the result for 'designers' who have been taught the technicalities as opposed to 'technicians' who have been taught about design?

How much can you teach creativity? As with the example student above you can certainly help a non-technical person put their creative ideas successfully in practice.

I'm sure we've all seen good and bad designs from coming from both angles - I certainly have.

Just tossing some ideas about!

[Beanzy]

No, as long as you don't get lost in technology and jargon:

 

http://www.I-dat.org/go/about

 

http://www.aurorafeast.net/

 

We've just got to lift our heads above the barriers other people say exist. I know that sounds waffly and artsy fartsy, but that doesn't mean it's not true. To truly advance artistically using technology you need to inspire the technologists and enable the artists by motivating them to collaborate. It will only be the rare and very fast learning artistic talent who could achieve great technology based work alone.