I was talking with my girlfriend last night and the subject of lighting design came up. Specifically I was working on the hookup for an upcoming show and started explaining what the database is and how it works. I got into describing different ways of organizing the lighting information for a show and that got me to thinking about how the organization of the lighting itself impacts the final design and composition.
What does this mean?
I am not referring here to the placement of lights in space, or where they point or color or shape or anything physical to do with the lighting instruments at all. What I am talking about is wholly behind the scenes. Under the hood as it were. A lighting designer must divide the playing space up into various areas. Certainly this is true in the United States where the preference and thus the majority of the lighting equipment lends one to use lots of little spotlights working in concert to fill an entire stage. So let us imagine a small dance space, a nice rectangle that can be broken up into a simple 5 by 4 grid. Five areas across by four deep.
This leads to a stage that can be represented thusly:
(16) (17) (18) (19) (20)
(11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
( 6 ) ( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 ) ( 10)
( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 ) ( 5 )
Some designers like everything to start in the same are so that the first light in every system is Downstage Right, or Area 1. This is good when the design is about creating distinct and discreet areas of light that follow the performer’s and action around the stage. It also means that looking at a computer display you can rapidly determine where a particular light is landing, or supposed to land, without reference to a cheat sheet of any kind.
Another common way to organize this information is with symmetrical systems. This means that if the Crosslight from Stage Right starts at Area (1) then the Crosslight from Stage Left begins at Area (5). This style of organization is often most useful when a more holistic composition is wanted. When the entire stage is lit as whole environment, rather than the more mechanistic sectioning off of areas.
There are of course many and various permutations and variations to these two main systems, but as general categories they work quite well. What fascinates me is that based upon how the EXACT SAME INFORMATION is organized, the compositions created from them can vary wildly.
I will vary the organizational structure of the lighting for a play or ballet depending upon the final composition I am looking to create. Some of the organization has to do with ease of access. Saying “Channel one at full” is easier than saying “channel two-oh-six at full.” Thus it makes more sense to place the lights being used primarily for a show lower in the Channel Hookup than accent lights.
So much of the design is based upon the non-physical aspects of light. In fact the organization of the lighting control has no direct impact on the quality of light itself and in theory it should have little to no bearing on the final composition. Yet, it is a powerful and important player in the negotiation toward the final composition.
