RD: I think that is critical. What drives academic programs in universities is accreditation. I have not verified this myself, but I want to. I have heard from several people that architectural accreditation today requires three weeks of lighting, and that is all that is required to have an accredited architecture program. One big distinction is the architectural engineering programs versus architectural education. When most of us talk about lighting programs, we are thinking of Penn State and Colorado, the places that have historically put people in the industry. That is what has everyone concerned right now. It is the engineering side of the equation that just keeps getting smaller and smaller. I’m not sure there is a future in that side. However, I think there is a lot we could be doing with architectural education.
PZ: Are you telling me that you are concerned about the future of the architectural engineering programs? As far as I know, when students graduate, they have more job offers than they can handle.
RD: Yes. The problem is that these lighting programs depend on the one or two faculty people that are there. When they retire or move to another school, what happens to the program?
ER: I’m hearing a lot about technical training. What about the art part of design equation? Is there enough design in lighting programs?
CKH: I think it varies on the program. Working in HLB’s New York office for many years, as a firm in search of new hires, we struggled with all of the programs in their current states. There are pros and cons of just taking a design approach or just taking a technical approach. Students have to have exposure to both sides.
RD: That is the critical question. What is it that we really need? People that have had two years of calculus and physics and then assume that design firms will teach the rest?
PZ: Things are changing now because the lighting industry is changing. In principle, we have always wanted to hire designers. Our clients are looking for wonderful solutions to make their architecture the best it can be. You can train someone in the techniques of lighting, but you cannot train someone to be a designer. They have it or they do not. In the past, we have taken a lot of pain to hire and find the perfect person, but today because of the pressure to produce work faster and faster we have loosened up. We can hire someone who has a couple of years of experience and who may not want to be a lighting designer for the rest of their life. We let go of this idea that we have to mold each new employee to be a quintessential lighting designer. It has changed the whole way we work and put teams together.
CKH: In New York, there are something like 55 lighting design firms. Is anybody not busy? No. Perhaps a person’s background does not matter so long as people develop the passion for lighting. I do not think that there is a definition of where a lighting designer needs to come from. We have been thinking about how do you increase promotion about our industry. Do you need to go to the 25-year-old architects, people not registered yet who are exploring their choices and say to them very blatantly, “Are you sick of drawing bathroom details? Learn more about lighting.” Maybe. The industry needs to invest in providing some very inexpensive educational opportunities on weekends like an all-day Saturday workshop. Are there creative means to get more people into the industry?
RD: We have tremendous pool of people later in their career—Peter Ngai, David DiLaura, and Bob Levine—who are the mentor models. We should be getting them to speak to young architects to get them interested in pursuing lighting design.
ER: What about a documentary that could be shown on NOVA or the History Channel? You could do a whole series on the history of lighting that could reach a huge audience.
PZ: Imagine if lighting could get a documentary filmmaker like Ken Burns to produce a feature about lighting!
ED: Does this require there be a “face” of lighting design that the public could respond to?
PZ: But the question is who is the face of lighting design for whom? The American public? For architecture? For the lighting industry? There are different audiences. Ultimately, I think the face of architectural lighting is published work that inspires people to say, “Wow. What an amazing building.” If they really get and appreciate that lighting was part of that solution, that is our face.