More Lumen Instead of Concept

Over the past two decades, modern stage lighting has undergone a questionable development. Ever brighter individual fixtures dominate the proceedings, while the actual art of differentiated lighting design is increasingly pushed aside. What used to be a highly precise craft, the deliberate placement of light and shadow, the targeted work with contrasts, is now often replaced by a simple solution: more lumen. The technical possibility of deploying powerful, omni-functional light sources tempts people to dispense with considered planning. Instead of engaging closely with the physics of light, the effect on the space and efficiency, light is misused as a kind of “insurance” against planning uncertainty.

This phenomenon points to a deeper problem: the creeping erosion of expertise in luminaire knowledge. The trend is for lighting designers and lighting operators to occupy themselves almost exclusively with the console, instead of developing a deeper understanding of the physical and optical properties of light sources. This shift is problematic not only for creative lighting design but also brings very practical disadvantages: excessive light exposure for the audience, inefficient use of energy and a loss of creative quality through excessive brightness.

There are, however, counter-arguments: lighting designers might object that extreme brightness can also be used deliberately as an artistic device. Indeed, some performances, particularly in electronic music and at large festivals, rely on an immersive flood of light. In this case the excessive brightness serves as a deliberate means of creating an overwhelming atmosphere in which the audience literally “immerses” itself in the light.

But this is exactly where the decisive difference lies: a stylistic device is only an artistic tool if it is used deliberately, not if it results from a lack of planning. When extreme brightness is employed as a dramaturgical decision, it can have a targeted emotional effect. If the light only gets ever brighter because it is technically possible, or to conceal planning uncertainty, however, it loses its actual creative function.

A further problem is that the perception of brightness is relative. In an environment constantly lit at maximum intensity there are no points of rest, no contrasts and no dramaturgical dynamics any more. When everything is bright, ultimately nothing is truly visible, a paradoxical effect. Especially in performances that are narrative or atmospheric in character, this exaggerated uniformity of light intensity destroys a decisive part of the visual tension.

This raises an important question: could lower brightness lead to better perception? Excessive light intensity can lead not only to glare and eye fatigue but, paradoxically, also to less sharp perception of detail. Finely tuned lighting with deliberate dark phases and moderate brightness could strengthen contrasts, improve the sense of depth and make orientation in the space easier. Instead of flooding the eye with maximum light energy, more targeted and differentiated lighting could help forms, colours and movements to be perceived more clearly and more intensely.

In this context it would make sense to question the assumption that “more light” automatically means “better visibility”. Instead, intelligent light management with variable brightness levels could not only enrich the visual aesthetic but also relieve the audience and enable a more focused and more conscious perception of what happens on stage.

Beyond that, the effects on health and ergonomics should not be underestimated: extremely bright luminaires can be uncomfortable or even harmful for the audience. Especially in the front rows, excessive luminance can lead to eye strain, headaches or excessive tiredness. Light should therefore be regarded not only as a design element but also as a comfort factor for the audience.

One of the central reasons for this development is the structural deficit in the training of lighting technicians. Particularly problematic is the one-sided orientation of the professional associations, which restrict themselves exclusively to the criterion of work at the console. This means that only those who already work at the console are supported, while essential aspects such as luminaire physics, light distribution, beam angles, colour rendering and technical comparisons of luminaires are left out of account entirely.

This self-limitation is questionable not only from a technical point of view but also actively prevents the urgently needed professionalisation of the sector. Genuine training in lighting technology cannot begin at the control level alone. The right first step would be to create an occupational profile specialised in luminaire planning: a professional specialist in light sources who has comprehensive knowledge of luminaire technology, can carry out precise calculations and can assess the efficiency of different luminaire systems. Only on this foundation does specialisation in working with lighting control systems make sense.

The lack of an independent and structured system of further training is another major shortcoming of the industry. Development cycles for stage luminaires are getting ever shorter. New technologies, new light sources, improved optics and advanced functions change the market at ever shorter intervals. This means that continuous further training is not only sensible but absolutely necessary.

Yet this is precisely where a firm structure is missing. While in other technical professions it is a matter of course that specialists regularly attend training and renew their certifications, lighting has no clearly defined obligations for further training. As a result, even experienced lighting designers and technicians are often not up to date with technical developments. For this reason, a solid training initiative for luminaire knowledge should not offer a one-off course alone but establish a system that makes further training a mandatory standard.

The future of lighting design cannot simply consist of maximising lumens. What is needed is a fundamental change of course that puts technical knowledge of luminaires, the physical laws of light and purposeful planning back at the centre. Instead of concentrating only on control at the console, a solid training must be created that covers the entire field of lighting technology.

This includes:

• The introduction of a professional specialist in luminaire knowledge who not only understands light sources but can also analyse their practical use.
• Criticism of the self-limitation of precisely those professional associations that set the wrong direction with their focus on consoles and lead the lighting industry into a dead end.
• The obligation to continuous further training, because technology develops in ever shorter cycles and, without regular further training, even experienced professionals quickly fall behind the technical possibilities.

The lighting industry must say goodbye to the comfortable mindset of “more lumen is better”. Light is not only a question of intensity but also an art of purposeful design. Those who do not understand this reduce light to a functional necessity, to its physical properties, and thereby lose the most important element: its emotional, creative and dramaturgical power.