Friday, January 15, 2016
Are You Teaching Relevant Lighting?
Jim On Light: I spend a lot of time on the road, as is obvious from my Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter accounts. When I am on the road talking to people, I often ask them a few questions, especially the younger guys and gals — I just met a super cool girl named Victoria that has no collegiate schooling at all; she was working Merchandise on the road before making her inrow as a lighting intern.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This article is perhaps the most profane thing I've read on this blog. Indeed, I've read tamer YouTube comments. That being said, I loved it. How better to convey the urgency necessitated by widespread instructional shortcomings? I agree with the author of this post on may levels, as both someone who has received insufficient instruction on how to light effectively, and as someone who has had to rectify those shortcomings in less-than-optimal environments. Learning how to program a dimmer box with opening less than 24 hours away and dimmers functioning spottily, to say the least , is not a prime time. Indeed, finding out the gaps in one's expertise at any point in the production process is mildly embarrassing at best, incredibly stressful and possibly destructive at worst. To make my point clearer, instructors can trust that their students will self teach throughout their careers, and modify their own skill sets to fit changing technologies and processes is not unreasonable, but to expect their students to determine their own fundamentals, without a career's worth of experience or professional context is a educational misstep.
So, I’m pretty torn about this article. As a student of lighting design (now, officially) I definitely would jump at any/all opportunity to learn about any gear that the university has to offer, and for all of it, we have a lot of really nice lighting equipment. It’s important to know about the tools that you’re working with in order to utilize them most effectively, that concept is pretty standard. But, that being said, there are merits to conceptual learning that are underplayed in this argument.
Maybe it’s because I’ve been fortunate enough to be around pretty good equipment for a while considering my age, maybe because my reference is CMU Drama, the best place to go for this stuff in the country, but a lot of the stuff listed as things that should be covered are easily researchable online. I get that that doesn’t replace hands on experience, but if this person’s interpretation of the standard education in lighting design is accurate, I feel extremely fortunate to work in a building such as Purnell, regardless of the flaws it may have.
So it’s clear Mr. Jim is pretty passionate about this. Good – it’s an important issue. I do believe that lighting students should have access to modern equipment with which to work. I do see both sides of the issue though. For me, the answer lies somewhere around the middle. Honestly, I have had no experience with the “theoretical design education only” here at CMU in ANY department. I don’t expect that to ever change. I believe there is something to be said for designing things all the way up in your head. I love that. But I also believe it’s crucial to be taught how to realize them with today’s equipment. Furthermore, when this teaching is done correctly, being well-informed about today’s world can push one’s designs to a higher level. The author clearly assumes a lot of teachers are lazy. I cannot imagine this is the case at any large number of educational institutions (certainly not here). I do get Mr. Jim’s point on this from as well. Passionate faculty leads to better results from students. Teachers who care about teaching for student’s success do cause that success. Anyway, I agree with some of the points the author makes, but he could have found a slightly less offensive way to make them.
Post a Comment