Glaurm Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Hello, I'm currently writing an essay about the changing role of the lighting operator for Exeter University and was hoping to get some opinions from some of you! The general argument is whether, and I'm wary of my words here, lighting operators require less skill than previously due to massive leaps in technology over the past few decades from the introduction of Fred Benthams "Light Console" right up to the introduction of computer control and perhaps to even look to the future of the role. Obviously in many ways the precision that a computer can gave you should be preferable but in my eyes it seems to take away from the performativity of lighting. I mean no offence by my comments and if I am on the wrong line then it would be great to get your opinions! Thanks. Or equally if anyone knows of any articles that I might want to look at then that would be of fantastic help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GridGirl Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I'd argue that a lighting operator hasn't become less skilled, just differently skilled. Gone are the days of having to wrangle multiple massive dimmer handles, but knowing how to program a media server feeding a video wall, triggered by the lighting desk, is a skill that probably wasn't even thought about thirty years ago. If you don't know how to use the technology properly, you're no good as a lighting operator (this is presuming that the operator does the programming). As for the "performativity", well, it would be hard to argue that pushing a GO button is the same as cross-fading sliders, so I won't try! But, as a stage manager who is often stuck in prompt corner, unable to see the show except on a monitor, yet still tasked with keeping the show at a certain level, I rely on my lighting operator to be my eyes sometimes. As the show's rhythms change - which they inevitably do on a long run - sometimes cue timings will need changing. Easy on a preset fader board, and you don't even realise you're doing it half the time; but on a GO button desk you have to go in and alter the timing. I've been lucky enough to work with a fantastic operator on almost all my major shows over the last five years; he has no problems in saying to me "I think that cue point needs to be tweaked slightly as XXX is saying that line much faster now, the fade doesn't fit like it did." So I think the art is still there, but in a different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Another interesting topic for an essay. A couple of thoughts: Firstly, Does it take less skill to get light on stage? Yes, but you can get any dummy to push the go button, but making it look decent is completely different. Also, What happens when things go wrong? What if a performer skips their lines, resulting in six pages of cues being skipped? How fluid can they make this seem? What if the performers miss their marks and they need to quickly grab the closest light and bring it up subtly.I think there is now a lot more of a need to be knowledgeable on the data side of lighting as well, and getting the data from the console to the lights is often via a long, complicated route. My AU$0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I'm currently writing an essay about the changing role of the lighting operator for Exeter University...Surely only someone at Exeter University can write that essay! Does this operator only operate theatrical lighting or does he operate lighting elsewhere on the campus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glaurm Posted April 18, 2011 Author Share Posted April 18, 2011 I'm currently writing an essay about the changing role of the lighting operator for Exeter University...Surely only someone at Exeter University can write that essay! Does this operator only operate theatrical lighting or does he operate lighting elsewhere on the campus? Well I'm a student at the University studying Drama and Theatre Studies and am coming to the end of a Digital Theatrecrafts module! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Coker Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 performativity of lighting. You don't mean this; "performativity" has a very specific philosophical meaning and I would point you towards J.L Austin to find out what it is. You might find some value in thinking about Bentham's view of colour music and it's relationship to modern "live" consoles. Rob Halliday always writes interesting stuff in this area; http://www.onstagelighting.co.uk is worth a look; Brad Schiller's book is Ok; and there is a book on Stage Lighting Control by a Swedish guy...I can't be arsed to go upstairs and look, but a misplaced sense of professionalism has forced me to do an Amazon search...Ulf Sandstrom is his name. Personally, I caused a furore at RADA in the early 80s when I stopped teaching manual board operation. It struck me that it had as much relationship to modern theatre as double de-clutching to passing the driving test. KC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
son of lx dad Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 oh dear.... Please reread your original question as quoted in Brian's post. You seem to pose the question from only a theatrical point of view, surely you concede that the lighting operator is not confined to the theatre? Since you are unspecific I would prepare yourself for a world of people pointing out that technology has opened up the expression available in many other genre. I think you may need to be more specific in your question. In the theatre one might opine that it was never the operators job to be expressive but to facilitate the expression of the LD. The example of FB and the light organ is all very well if the person playing the organ is also the LD however at that time there was no such thing as an 'LD'. But you ask about the Lighting Operator which I can only take in the modern sense. I don't think I am making myself very clear, but I think your question needs refinement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandMA_the_2nd Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Have you considered that there are actually 2 roles - operator or "typist" as I call them and programmer. The role of an op is purely an interface for the LD whilst a programmer is a creative and proactive person and is often considered associate LD. Theatre very much uses the former with an LD pretty much calling button presses whilst TV, rock and roll and large scale events use the latter which is a highly skilled creative role. This has become more and more important with large rigs of moving lights, led arrays and video servers. A programmer will also find themselves moving from genre to genre on a daily basis adapting their console use for each type of show, whilst a theatre operator sits quietly in the stalls waiting for the next command.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 There is indeed a case for the theatre operator having no skill whatsoever, just the ability to push a single button on instruction, repeatedly. Obviously, this is extreme - but many of us have either done it, seen it done, or been put in the position that there was no choice but to use somebody with two minutes training to make a show happen. We all know the potential problems with this, but in the 'old' days, before go buttons were invented, it would not have been possible for anyone to run a show without specific skills. Looking back to my teens, with a Junior 8 and then Mini 2, you had to be able to write down what to do, and sometimes, how to do it - a stranger would have not been able to just take over. So operating could be seen as simpler, actually, much simpler - but we spend more time pre-production, in the operating department. The job has changed so much, a question like this doesn't have a simple answer - there's a context needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Coker Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 The example of FB and the light organ is all very well if the person playing the organ is also the LD however at that time there was no such thing as an 'LD'. Without wishing to be a pedant; lighting designers were credited on Broadway from about the mid 1930s. In the UK, Nigel Morgan's PhD thesis,("Who Started this Racket? Stage Lighting in Britain: the Emergence of the Lighting Designer, 1881 -1950), tells us there was a credit for "lighting arranged by George Devine" in 1938. Bill Lorraine was a freelance lighting designer by 1947, and Michael North was a freelance LD by 1950. (Morgan has also published a version of his thesis as a book and the late Michael Northern published an autobiography. The latter is out of print but the former can be found at http://www.etbooks.co.uk/.) KC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColourBlack Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 As grandMA the 2nd said, there are different requirements in different genres. When everything was still 'manual' - from the days of the GrandMaster to Piano Boards in the USA there was a great level of skill required -both in the notating of levels as you plotted, and the dexterity required to playback the cues. As memory control developed, the setting of levels became easier - and of course you then had the power of a processor to recall exactly what you'd stored - down to a button press (or moving a fader). Memory control in the US developed the concept of the commandline, so the LD can see what the operator is typing (I believe there was a union issue whereby the LD can't operate). So in that case, yes the Operator is a typist. However, these days (since the advent of moving lights) there is the role of a programmer. The programmer not only has the technical skill to control the equipment, but always serves as another pair of eyes for the LD; and with a great deal of artistic input, where required (and knowing when to be quiet). In an ideal situation, both the LD and Programmer are working in harmony to create the lighting for the production. When Vari*Lite was developed, there was an intensive training course so that you became an expert in the system - when you worked with the LD, you knew what could be achieved. The equipment was a new concept, and so you needed someone who knew everything about the system, so that the LD got the best out of the lights. Anyone can just press a button; the skill a programmer brings is a) knowing what to do when it goes wrong, and b) where required, serves as a key member of the LD's team, artistically. It's no coincidence, that there are a great many pairings of LD and programmer in the business - the LD working with the same programmer, because they trust and value the input the programmer provides. Now, the programmer can create the show, and hand over to a show operator - but they still need the skills to maintain the system they control. For more on the role of the programmer, I suggest checking out Brad Schillers' book on Programming - he details the 5 possible relationships a programmer can have with an LD. And to reiterate what Paul said...I started at my local theatre, calling up channels on the Strand Gemini - I was in my early teens, and one day suggested that I should run a show (it's only pressing a button, I said). The reply was 'yes, it is only pressing a button. But what happens when it goes wrong?'. My Chief LX was dead right, and developing that skill set was what started me on the path to being a programmer. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
son of lx dad Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I fully accept your pedantry Ken. As I said, I wasn't making my point very well, but then neither was the OP. To the OP please note you've now had answers from 2 of the very top Lighting Programmers in the world, so jump on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyld Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 See now, this is a particular area of interest of mine and I'd really like to get involved with this discussion but there have already been many learned answers here that have pretty much covered what I would say. It sounds at first like an interesting question for further study but the more one considers it, the more obvious the conclusion becomes as to negate argument: No, the requirement for skilled work from lighting operators / programmers / performers is not dying out with the advance of technology and complexity!!! Assuming a field that is wider than simple cue stack reliant "replayed" performance, the answer is even plainer. In addition to considering the work of the celebrated GrandMA fiddlers, the OP might take a trip to a little local festival or medium sized club and watch the palid fingersmith that presides over the relatively ancient Avo Pearl therein. The beauty of observing those kind of live shows is that the resulting lighting requires a lot less in terms dreaming up macros or other data related wizardry, but certainly no less skill and feel for lighting as a performance. http://www.onstagelighting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/KeepLightingLive.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glaurm Posted April 18, 2011 Author Share Posted April 18, 2011 I fully accept your pedantry Ken. As I said, I wasn't making my point very well, but then neither was the OP. To the OP please note you've now had answers from 2 of the very top Lighting Programmers in the world, so jump on board. Well I apologise for a slight lack of grammar in my original question but I feel the point was made! To the whole group: Would it be fair to say that the programmer has taken over the role of the operator or do you believe that they are two very different positions? Obviously this is going to be different depending on circumstance of individual theatres but in general terms? My intentions for this essay were to analyse the varying role of the operator over time, focussing specifically on the Strand innovations (mostly just because this will allow for the relatively short word count) and to now perhaps come to this idea that GridGirl raised of the operator being differently skilled? It still needs some thought of course but all your inputs have been highly useful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Coker Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 To the whole group: Would it be fair to say that the programmer has taken over the role of the operator or do you believe that they are two very different positions? Obviously this is going to be different depending on circumstance of individual theatres but in general terms? My intentions for this essay were to analyse the varying role of the operator over time, focussing specifically on the Strand innovations (mostly just because this will allow for the relatively short word count) and to now perhaps come to this idea that GridGirl raised of the operator being differently skilled? It still needs some thought of course but all your inputs have been highly useful! Now you've spoilt it.....what I would do is read the Schiller book and the Sandstrom book, they're not very long, and get a feel for the skill set required and the nomenclature used. Part of your answer will indeed be what GG suggests, but you have to provide evidence to this effect.I, personally, would not stick with one manufacturer - you'll see why when you read Sandstrom. No matter what anyone else might tell you, Strand's Lightboard M was abysmal....nearly as bad as Vari*Lites Mini-Artisan.....but no other control platform could be quite that bad. As for the first point, there are no "general terms". Theatres, especially, buy lighting desks for the oddest of reasons - and I would point you to the interminable "What desk should I buy?" discussions that are on the BR. KC KC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.