Talk:Architectural lighting design

Quality of Notable Lighting Designer List Questionable

I find it astonishing that names like Richard Kelly (lighting design), Howard Brandston, and Paul Marantz aren't mentioned at all in the notable lighting designers list. These were a few of the fathers of the profession. Your notable lighting designer list appears to be slightly biased with sporadic knowledge of the history of the field. An update is recommended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamlucasking (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess if these people don't have a wikipedia article, they are not listed here. If we make lists in articles like this we only list the people, who do have an Wikipedia article. These persons aren't always the most notable people in the field. So just start an article about them, and add them to the listing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Kelly (lighting designer) does have a Wikipedia page. I started it myself, and following some discussion it has been deemed of sufficient importance to stay up. As such, I've added him to this list. -- Headlessness 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that this list should comprise solely of people and not companies. Does anyone else have a view on this? -- Headlessness 17:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a better question would be: Why are these notable? Convert the section to prose, describing the notable projects or honors that these people received, otherwise remove them. --Thorseth (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Going through WP:GNG and related pages, for this topic the best thumb of rule is to see if they have designed major buildings and structures of significant notability, plus some good press mentions. Lighting design topics and design biographies in general need a lot of work on Wikipedia. Of course there's always some autobiographical stuff to clean up and write from a more neutral point of view. Cheers. Fiatluxmax (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Beatrice Irwin anyone?

For the first time in the history of the Association a convention was addressed by a woman when Miss Beatrice Irwin, an Associate in Arts of Oxford University in England, a member of the IES and the author of several books, one of which is entitled The New Science of Color, spoke on 'Color Effects in Lighting.' Miss Irwin has made a scientific study of all forms of color and is now applying the results of her knowledge to electric lighting. The main features of her talk appear elsewhere in this issue.” Irwin was introduced to the convention by William L. Goodwin, a major figure in the National Electric Light Association and the resulting crowd at her demonstrations "elbowed their way" to watch. … Goodwin underscored her work partly because it was a new entry into the discipline and necessarily brought innovation in styles where most practitioners tended to imitate eachother. "Miss Irwin's work has reached the point where she now has something definite…." And this kind of coverage was echoed in other trade journals including ones authored by her or quotes from her talk.

Smkolins 20:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Suggestions for updating this article

I'm new to this but interested in putting in some time to update this page. In my opinion it deals too much with lighting technology and not architectural lighting design as a profession - its history, its development, its notable practictioners, the scale of the industry and the associated organisations (press, professional organisations, awards, etc). How do I go about suggesting these sort of changes? I did dive in and then realised that was probably a mistake so apologies if my edits are misplaced. Should I copy the whole entry into a sandbox, restructure it and somehow share it back here for suggestions? Any help for a keen newbie would be much appreciated LightCollector (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightCollector: Actually, I'm glad you're feeling ambitious about it. Being bold is sometimes needed, so I don't think anything was misplaced.

I've been watching this article for a few years—ever since tagging it as needing more citations. It certainly had been neglected for awhile before that, and I've lacked the time, historical knowledge, and ambition to rewrite it. Much of the editing activity over the years has been spam—small companies trying to use Wikipedia to promote their products or services. The bias away from history and toward tech might be largely for that reason. It might also be partially my fault for removing large swaths of uncited ramble.

Copying the article into a sandbox would make the edit history hard to follow. It would also deny others a chance to contribute in the meantime. My advice would be to continue working on it piecemeal, as you did in your first edit. I may tweak things daily to adhere to guidelines and all that, but I agree it needs an overhaul so I'm not going to impede. Please just keep citing as you go (ideally each sentence should be referenced). If you need further assistance, we can keep this thread alive. – voidxor 02:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Voidxor: Thanks for the encouragement, would be great to keep this thread alive as I am sure I will need assistance! I'm not sure how I would suggest sections for removal from the article but I will continue as you suggest and tackle that as I get further in.LightCollector (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightCollector: Most Wikipedia articles are about discrete noun topics: people, places, things. This article is about an abstract concept and thus more difficult to pin down what the subject should be (which I think you pointed out above with the history-versus-technical discussion). I think we're at crossroads: the article was mainly about the design of lighting in architecture, but you are (thus far) viewing it as a job title. Maybe that's your experience (I realize). As an electrical engineer doing lighting design, I see it more as a sub-discipline that can be done by the architect (who's more likely to emphasize design choices, like fixture selection), the engineer (who will pay more attention to photometrics and electrical loads), or more commonly (in my experience) coordination between the two.

I'm now wondering if "architectural lighting design" is a stand-alone job title in the UK, but not often in the US. In the interest of globalizing, should we soften that language?

Thank you for your contributions and keep up the good work! – voidxor 00:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Voidxor: I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this as I've realised editing is a lonely path! I think that you make a really good point. I came across the page in looking for a definition of the profession (which is definitely global albeit small and relatively young) but I do agree that architectural lighting design is both a process and a profession. The process of designing lighting within an architectural environment can be done basically by anyone, and anyone can call themselves a lighting designer (which is part of the reason the profession wants definition and recognition). I also agree with your description of the approach of the other disciplines - you could also add in lighting manufacturers with their in house design teams and (in the US) their agents or representatives who might lean towards a design driven by luminaire sales in the more unscrupulous ends of the market or but definitely driven by availability of products in their range and electrical contractors.

I would estimate that 5-10% of lighting is designed by designers whose so job is purely lighting design (those who would or could be members of IALD, APIL,etc) and would describe themselves as an architectural lighting designer, (but I don't think i would be able to back this statistic up with a reliable reference!). Perhaps the introduction should be re-written to reflect this sort of thinking - ie its a process and these people are the ones usually involved? That would align with Engineering being a process and Engineer being a profession as it is covered in Wikipedia. Included in that list of people who do the process would be the "Architectural Lighting Designer" but that is not defined in Wikipedia - do i need to request and entry for Architectural Lighting Designers and that were the role of it as a profession should be addressed?

I was planning to start expanding the history (maybe new sections) by looking at the design schools that offer qualifications in architectural lighting design (of which there a several - 2 or 3 in the US, 2 in UK, 2 or 3 in Germany, 1 or 2 in Sweden, 1 in holland and I will probably find some more as i start to look) but i guess that is more profession than process? LightCollector (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightCollector: Agreed on all points (including regular loneliness). However, I can't speak to what percentage of those designing lighting are dedicated "architectural lighting designers", as opposed to architects or engineers. I'm sure the percentage would vary widely by country, and that such data is probably not easily obtainable (i.e. it would have to be calculated from labor data). The IES and other professional societies have survey data on their membership, but membership statistics are not synonymous with career statistics.

Don't worry about a separate Architectural lighting designer article just yet—we are a long way from a split being necessary. I'll take a go at rephrasing the lede section within the next couple hours. I think a level-2 section heading should be dedicated to the designer job title; I'll start that as well. That will give you a section to expand upon these topics. It will also keep the job title (and thus the section I'm about to create) in proportion to your estimate of 5–10% of the industry (and thus the overall article). If there turns out to be regional differences, we could then create subsections for "In the United States", "In the United Kingdom", etc. – voidxor 17:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@voidxor: I hope this amount of back and forth is normal and acceptable! Having read it back I think I disagree with the "field within" approach. A field could be taken to be the same as a profession - the field of architecture for example. It is also a field within electrical contracting, landscape architecture, luminaire supply and probably a few others. I think in this context it is best to refer to architectural lighting design as a process. Then, if required, reference the people who can be involved in that process. I will have a go at that for you to review and comment on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LightCollector (talk • contribs) 20:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightCollector: I don't think there's a such thing as too much coordination; this article needed an overhaul and we're choosing a direction for it.

I see you're actively working on it so I'm not going to touch the article for the remainder of today. However, I would caution that citations should link to web pages (or reference page numbers and the like for books, print magazines, print newspapers, etc.) that actually backup the facts that we are stating (paraphrasing and not plagiarizing, of course). Linking to the home pages of organizations that simply deal in the given topic is not quite enough. The idea is that readers can easily verify any claim on Wikipedia. Thanks again for your hard work. – voidxor 21:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@voidxor: Thanks for the pointers. I think I understand your point - I referred to the MFA at Parson (as an example) to give a reference for definition of architectural lighting - I assumed that the way it is taught in established, respected education would enforce the definition eg Parsons they deal with "the human experience, sustainability, and the social impact of lighting design." I am happy to change approach where necessary so please let me know which aspects you think need review and I can explain my rationale for better guidance if that works. LightCollector (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you've been doing great work, actually. A couple of other thoughts have occurred to me, though:

• After sleeping on it, I favor describing architectural lighting design as a "field" rather than a "process". Many readers land on Wikipedia articles after searching for a subject, and only stick around long enough to read the lead section—possibly only the first sentence. Thus, we need to capture the topic in a nutshell. A "process" means "a step-by-step workflow" to me, and this topic is obviously broader than that. By contrast, a "field" can be a field of study or a field of work, and you've highlighted how it's certainly both of those. The rest of your rephrase looks good, except you may consider reinstating "within architecture, interior design, and electrical engineering" as well. We ought to have links to those articles, as the vast majority of architectural lighting design occurs in those firms. Even if "architectural lighting designer" is a job title for some, they're still within the broader architecture industry.
• What would you think of starting an Education section? You could put it after the As a Profession section, perhaps. You've already mentioned the existence of school programs, and that it's becoming more of a thing. So it's probably worth a mention. I'd just be careful not to make it appear to be advertising certain schools. – voidxor 22:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with a "field" and agree with work/education rationale but I don't think it should be "within" the others as it is not within them - someone could be neither electrical engineer, architect or interior design but still could work in the field. You would then also have to list all other related fields - landscape architecture, electrical contractor, luminaire manufacturer, etc. The links are included in the as a profession section later. I was planning to either expand this a bit or add another new section that deals with the process of lighting design (feasibility, concept, etc) so think this could fit well here. Agree on education section and was thinking along those lines. There are several independent lists, although none seem totally comprehensive, but I could reference this. Is there a preferred way of doing it? I could also add a list of as many as i know about - does that work? LightCollector (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You make good points; I forgot I restored those links to the Profession section.

If there are more than a few schools now offering programs (and it sounds like there are), I would advise against trying to list them all. Such a litany would be listcruft—unencyclopedic and difficult to maintain. Instead, I would start with a high-level overview. I took the liberty of starting, using the IALD as a reference. My alma mater and my professors made their list; how cool!

Feel free to rearrange sections if there's a more logical order that I'm not seeing. The Overview and History sections should remain first and second, though, as that's somewhat of a Wikipedia standard. You said something earlier about wanting to eliminate certain sections. Let me know which ones, when you get to it; I see a couple sections that aren't adding a lot of value. You're making me think critically about this article, and I'm on the fence about much of it. – voidxor 16:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. On closer inspection the IALD list is pretty comprehensive to be honest. I will add the CIBSE list as a second reference as that also covers some distance learning options and ones the IALD doesn't pick up. I am not sure what else would need to be added to this section. Is it best just kept as a simple statement in respect of being encyclopedic? In terms of sections that I feel could be moved (probably to electric light) I would suggest - Fixtures (as the container for a light source), Correlated color temperature, Categorizing different lighting and Lamp types. I'm on the fence about Methods and Photometric studies at the moment. Both are a part of the design process and probably overly descriptive for the value they add. I'm not sure what the design media section is but the terminology could be useful if expanded and made a bit more international. LightCollector (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I have started a process section but wasn't sure if it was actually an appropriate addition - would appreciate your thoughts. LightCollector (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. I made some tweaks, with explanations in my edit summaries.

If you're asking me what would be encyclopedic in the Education section, I'd say anything that keeps it as a high-level overview. The only thing I would steer clear of would be a litany of all the schools. We've already captured that such degree programs are growing in popularity, and that many schools now offer them—or at least some individual courses. Like you, I'm not sure what more we need. I demoted it from a level-2 section heading to level-3 when I nested it under the As a Profession section, so that effectively reduces any feelings that it might be too small.

I'm Wikipedia'd out for now. I'll look at your suggestions for merging and eliminating sections another day. – voidxor 23:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightCollector: Sorry for the delay while I spent the last month doing cleanup on various lighting articles little by little. I also created a much-needed article for the International Association of Lighting Designers. Hopefully I didn't do anything to deter you in late January; I've been very grateful for all of your help and inspiration on these articles. As far as moving sections around, I will continue to work on it largely per your suggestions. I started by removing the Categorizing Different Lighting section, which was uncited and largely redundant of other sections. – voidxor 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Voidxor: Sorry for the delayed response and lack of input. Still here and still keen to help. Since January I was involved with the Women in Lighting project and setting up an online conference. Thats all done now so ready to start again even though I feel like I have forgotten everything! Will try to get back in this week. LightCollector (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Lighting technicals

Maybe we need new section called architectural lighting design techniques and summarize them together.--Polyesterchips (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Polyesterchips: "If you want anything done properly around here, you have to do it yourself". So how about you draft some text, put it here for comment and if it is agreed to be neutral and based on wp:reliable sources (and not your own wp:original research), then it can go in the article. Welcome to Wikipedia! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This article used to be largely that, but the article as a whole was very messy at the time, largely uncited, and half of the edits were coming from people in the lighting industry trying to promote their products or services. See the beginning of my above discussion with LightCollector. It's not that it can't be done, if you are so committed, but to John's point above, it should be encyclopedic and well cited and not promotional. Let us know if you have a proposal. – voidxor 22:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sadie.Eggleston (article contribs). Peer reviewers: YawnChick.

— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@NigelForest and Sadie.Eggleston: Welcome! I've been watching this article for a few years; it used to be a total mess. FYI, it's had several attempts were at revamping the whole thing. The previous iterations failed to properly cite it, and thus there's been a lot of reverting and back-and-forth. LightCollector and I rewrote and reorganized circa January 2021, and ever since then, the article has been much more stable. However, I realize that there's still a lot of room for improvement. For instance, some of the subtopics are in need of expansion. That's mostly a result of me having cut out much of the previous uncited ramble. I'm going to try to stand down and avoid stepping on Sadie's toes this semester. In return, I only ask that you (1) cite as you go, and (2) don't try to revamp from scratch (which would be a little disrespectful of our efforts to converge on a consensus thus far).

With that word of warning, know that I'm really glad to have a neutral student try to carry the torch a little further. If I can be of any help or guidance, feel free to reach out on this talk page or mine. I have 17 years of editing experience on Wikipedia, and over 5 as an engineer working on lighting design professionally. Again, welcome and thanks for taking this on! — voidxor 20:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)