|
|
Before our very eyes, the enigmatic criteria for lighting quality is changing. Lighting designers used to be satisfied with lovely images of artfully lighted interiors framed by a dusk-filled sky. Daylight was what we avoided so that we could appraise our beautiful electric lighting fixtures with their precise distribution and elegant shielding. We employed multiple exposures to re-create spaces which were merely containers for these glowing edifices, where windows only held a view of dramatic sunsets. In the recent past, lighting design was in the business of selling architectural pornography as quality.
When I first read Robert Pirsig’s “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” I was struck by the main character’s futile search for a definition of “quality.” In one passage he states that “What I mean (and everybody else means) by the word ‘quality’ cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct.” In lighting design, we have struggled to define, document, analyze and demonstrate quality lighting in a meaningful way. Far too often, we are seduced by pretty pictures with little substance. We coordinate photo shoots of our projects, and have waited with our cameras on tripods for that magic moment when our designed lighting would be in perfect balance with the darkening sky. But maybe we missed what we truly should have been paying attention to—the dynamic beauty and significance of daylight and darkness stretched over time.
NEW SCHOOL
Teaching lighting quality has also changed. Students are no longer content with the old lighting premise that says that understanding lamp technology is the beginning of all lighting design. Today the concerns about lighting run deeper than mere technology. Students demand that we teach them about daylight, perception, energy and even photobiology. Students are entering a world where energy is a limited resource full of polluting carbon. In this cradle-to-cradle reality, lighting designers have a responsibility to specify locally produced materials with low embedded carbon, while being mindful of how these materials will be reused or recycled at the end of their lives. This makes the field of lighting more relevant to the concerns of society, but it also confuses the criteria for lighting quality even more.
 Chris Meek, professor and daylighting expert at the Integrated Design Lab in Seattle says, “The big difference between teaching daylighting and electric lighting is conveying the extreme variability and the level Lighting Research & Education of control the designer can exert over those light sources. With electric lighting you can control optics and light output down to the footcandle. With daylight, you shape space around prevailing conditions, but your distribution is always subject to changes in weather, time of day, and the cycle of day and night, so there is far less predictability about what the luminous condition is likely to be at any given point in time. That is always a challenge, but it’s also the wonderful thing about lighting space with daylight—the deep connection with the site and climate.”
As daylighting and electric lighting are folded into the singular study of architectural light(ing), how do we discern lighting quality? Is a singular definition of lighting quality even necessary in order to teach the next generation of lighting designers? Should energy concerns trump aesthetics? In class, students are shown IES and IALD award-winning lighting projects to inspire them. Yet in the last several years of IALD and IES lighting design awards, which have typically been judged on attractiveness and technical savvy, new categories of awards have emerged that promote energy efficiency and sustainability. There are even attempts at a basic lighting quality metric that could be adopted by the USGBC as a LEED credit (LD+A, August, “Visions of V4”).
One useful way to look at lighting quality is to determine whether a project made the best use of the resources that are available. Quality lighting design is inseparable from quality architectural design. Light (and shadow) is nothing without form, color and texture to reflect from, or transmit through. So quality in lighting is wholly dependent upon the quality of architecture, which requires equally creative collaboration and strong relationships. Quality design also involves an integrated design process that considers light(ing) from the very beginning of a project. The light(ing) goals of any project, including costs, energy budget, daylight criteria and visual criteria, should be considered as early as possible, and as an integral part of a project.
My experience has shown that there is a direct correlation to how early light(ing) is considered on a project and the success of that project, lighting or otherwise. Yet today we are challenged by a parametric mindset that advances “zero-net” or “carbon-neutral” project goals, where lighting energy use is discouraged during the day with very little used at night. Electric lighting is often seen as an unwanted load that must be reduced, regardless of the consequences. Aggressive energy goals without consideration for the visual outcome can produce bland, uninspiring spaces, regardless of whether they are lighted with daylight or electric light.
FIELD TRIP
One of the simplest ways to teach students about lighting quality is for them to go and explore a site and have them evaluate it for themselves. They can analyze the light levels and luminance distribution for electric lighting and daylighting, but most importantly, they can record how they feel in the space over time, noting the time of day and weather conditions. Bruce Hostetter, a lighting designer and the living building outreach director for the International Living Building Institute, put it this way: “We begin by teaching them to fall in love with light and shadow. We do that by taking them to places that will move them. Quality is all about the heart, we need them to realize that how they feel in a space is as important, if not more, than knowing how to use AGI32.”
Even though the criteria for lighting quality is changing, as lighting educators we need to be at the forefront of the effort to define lighting quality. It is our role to push students to respond to new trends in architecture, technology, perceptual and biological research, and even society. These influences will continue to shape our understanding of lighting quality and how we teach the next generation of lighting designers to redefine it.
September 09
|
