WHY SHOULD WE CARE?
light. But, we may need to take a hard look at ourselves and our industry and join a dialogue for meaningful change.
This morning as I sat talking to my partner over coffee, I shared a bit of what I was hoping to say in these pages. She helpfully pointed out that not everyone wants to help the poor, and that should be okay. I agree. This is not really about helping the poor; it is about helping everyone, rich or poor, by opening our mysterious profession and making good lighting more accessible for all.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: OF WHOSE INTEREST?
Why should we care about light and justice at all? If we collectively support the scientific discovery of the last few decades, then we believe that too much light at night and too little light in the daytime causes harm, even shortening lives. Many of us believe that human productivity and well-being can be negatively affected by the wrong light. Many of us believe that too much light is contributing to planetary degradation. Many of us believe that light can help us heal faster, or score higher on tests, or reduce the symptoms of aging. If these are true, then they are true for everyone on the planet. That is reason enough for us all to care about helping others with
When I entered the lighting design profession several decades ago, I absorbed what seems to be a central tenet of our industry: lighting designers should profit only on their expertise and time, never on product. As I understand it, prohibiting ourselves from selling fixtures avoids the potential of mistrust with the public. I was – and still am – proud to tell my clients that they can trust me because it makes no financial difference to me if I specify one ten-dollar fixture or one hundred hundred-dollar fixtures. On the surface, this is a solid requirement to protect the value of our profession and the integrity of its members. Yet, this belief may also strengthen the divide between upstairs and downstairs, between the advantaged and the disadvantaged. A designer abiding by this rule can only really help those with the means to pay a consultant, and that dramatically restricts the designer’s client list. Of course, a designer could choose to donate their services in a pro bono fashion, but this relegates the receiver to the charity column. Justice, at least as I understand it, is not about charity. It is about equity. If a designer decides to profit from the sale of the fixtures, which is likely the only revenue stream available in lighting for lower-cost projects, they may be shunned by the profession. This model is still relevant and viable – indeed, it is how our company survives – but it may be time to look for a third way between elite work and charity.
THE SOLUTION: THE END OF OUR PROFESSION? Lately, I have been toying with an unusual ten-year professional goal: obsolescence. We often hear clients say, “We love the new lighting in our home,” but, in this case, I also want to hear, “And we did not pay you a dime for it.” As I mulled the Light + Justice tenets in the weeks after LightFair, it occurred to me that true equity in light could only be achieved when the disadvantaged have access to great lighting. In our current economic structure, this can only happen when it is free or extremely low cost. Our company’s studios will design lighting for several hundred homes this year, nearly all of which will be for clients with significant means. Some of our projects will be enormous, some will be small, some will be average, but all will be high-dollar projects compared to the vast majority of homes built or remodeled this year. As a team, we spend time puzzling over the
To help more than a fortunate few, we must provide plug-in solutions that deliver not just light, but good light. 56
designing lighting