[SML] [spam] Re: The future of luminaires

[e-mail frank.wood95]

Nor I.

The whole question of luminaires depends a lot on the style of the
show, and of the LD.

Most of my work has been in lighting straight plays, in
straightforward, more or less realistic sets. Creating real spaces for
actors to work in. I like to think that I can do this fairly well. I
am quite happy if my lighting is unobtrusive, as long as it fulfills
the needs of the play, the director, and the audience. If you were to
ask me to light a modern musical, or a rock show, I should decline. I
have not the skills.

I suspect that some, at least, of my detractors belong to a different
school of thought, with a much more obtrusive design philosophy. Yes,
I am rather old-fashioned. I have been lighting shows like this for
fifty years, and only retired when I started to have physical
difficulty doing a 'rig and focus' to my own satisfaction. While I can
still paint pictures with light, I am less confident about my ability
to programme a modern board.


On 6 September 2015 at 05:31, Mt. Angel Performing Arts Center via
Stagecraft <stagecraft at theatrical.net> wrote:
> On 9/5/2015 3:30 PM, Dave Vick via Stagecraft wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, September 5, 2015, Paul Marsland via Stagecraft
>> <stagecraft at theatrical.net <mailto:stagecraft at theatrical.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     May I respectfully say, blah, blah, blah.
>>
>>
>>
>> You may, but if you do you'll sound like Frank.
>>
>
> I have read this message several times and for the life of me I do not see
> how this comment adds to the discussion of the future of luminaries.
>
> Carla
>
>
> 'It is good to rub and polish our brain against that of others.' ~ Montaigne
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> For list information see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> Stagecraft mailing list
> Stagecraft at theatrical.net
> http://theatrical.net/mailman/listinfo/stagecraft_theatrical.net



-- 
Frank Wood