On Oct 1, 10:30*pm, Bored Borg
wrote:
With you on all this, sir. I'm not experienced enough with wood per se to
know a lot of this stuff, but I can spot it as a layman.

Reminds me of the problem with art galleries. The lighting design is ALWAYS
****. No reason why it should be if folk understand what it is they are
installing, designing and using, but it is because they don't. Some instances
really hilight this.
A while back I took a couple of kids to a major city gallery to see an
exhibition aimed at children, and as soon as I walked in the doorway I
spotted a problem, just from the lighting position. I called the head curator
over - even before I walked in the exhibition room - and asked him to follow
me in. Once in the room *i asked him to crouch down so his head was on the
approximate level of an eight year old's head, and to tell me what he saw..
*Just as I suspected, he reported back, sheepishly, that he couldn't see ANY
of the paintings on show because at that level, the glass was reflecting the
lighting straight back at the viewer. All he could see was light bulbs. All
any kid visitor would be able to see would be light bulbs. Kinda made a
nonsense of the exhibition theme.
The point is that anyone doing the JOB rather than paying lip service to a
job description would have prevented this, either at architect level,
contract level or in picture hanging, and the jobs are being done - and
overseen - by people who don't know their stuff or worse, don't give a damn.

All it needs is for people to be aware of the _purpose_ of what they are
doing. It really is that simple. Unfortunately workers often just don't know
because those handing them instructions don't feel it necessary for them to
_understand_, or, as is becoming more common, decision makers don't
understand the purpose themselves because their perceived role is to shift
more units rather than to minister to a particular need.

Local pub was being expensively sign-written - all gold leaf and pin
striping. It was still at the chalking out stage when I cheerily pointed out
to the bloke with the chalk a couple of spelling mistakes and the gratuitous
apostrophes littering the wording. He equally cheerily showed me his wording
brief, and said that the regional manager overseeing the refurbishment was
actually inside. I discreetly looked him out, explained there was a problem
with the wording. He came and looked over the layout then announced he
couldn't see anything wrong. I gently pointed out the four or five glaring
mistakes. He looked at it again, looked at me, shrugged and announced "It'll
do!" and then he strode of back to his self-congratulatory group at the bar.

Houston, we have a problem.

I've loads more examples from personal experience, but life is short and my
blood pressure is up so I'll have a generic rant.

Education now seems to be about inculcating a new jargon set rather than
skills. Training follows a similar pattern. This is called "professionalism"
by those who are quite happy to have a workforce not understand the elements
of their craft so long as they wear nicely coordinated uniforms and spout the
nonsense that they have been trained to spout at an appropriate time.

Meanwhile, the ship's sinking 'cos everyone is very, very qualified but
no-one understands the basics anymore. I love progress...






When I lived in Manhattan during the early eighties I had the happy
opportunity to work on crew for a John Lee Beatty set that was lit by
Dennis Parichy at Circle Rep. Lest you be thinking that I was the
only person in Manhattan doing something for free, my intent was to
ingratiate myself to the degree that I might have a small play that I
had written read by their august company. This did transpire.

Back to the lighting thing - Mr. Parichy thought about light the way
that painters think about light.

It has its degrees, it has its force, it has its charm, or lack of
same. It has its angles and it has the places where it can not go -
which particular attention must be paid to, because the light must go
there to see the play.

You would think that a painterly man like this would think of color
first but Parichy thought of color as being a quality of the light,
rather than a quality all its own.

If you have never had the pleasure of seeing a space lit by this man,
you should correct this defect at your earliest opportunity.

I remember seeing a play at Circle that began in the morning and ended
at the end of the day. Dennis lit this in such a way that in each
scene we saw the changing angle of the light, without noting it
particularly but it added to the general experience and at the end of
the play, when the character stared into the sunset - and had language
to support it - we bought it - and applauded.


t.