By: Paul Pompeo

In the first two installments of our LIGHTING25 series, our honorees considered what future generations of lighting professionals may one day question—and what aspects of modern lighting practice have become more complicated than they need to be.

For our third and final installment, we asked them to step back even further and consider how lighting itself is perceived and valued—not just within our profession, but by the broader world.

“If you could permanently change one thing about how lighting is valued, discussed, or understood by the broader world, what would it be?”

LEE BRANDT: …that the lighting design profession would be widely recognized as an essential design element that continually enhances human experience in the built environment and not seen as an optional enhancement applied only when budget allows.

LAUREN DANDRIDGE: I would change everyone’s generally accepted idea that lighting is a binary bound utility. It’s the basis of everything that we hold as beautiful and timeless.

COLLEEN HARPER: I’d shift lighting from a “finishing touch” line item to recognized infrastructure—-valued alongside HVAC and structural systems as essential to occupant health and safety.

NAOMI MILLER: I’d like to see more recognition that lighting affects human health, comfort, and visual joy!

ROGIER VAN DER HEIDE: I would value light less by fixtures and performance metrics, and more by its ability to make architecture, material and place reveal meaning.

CHRISTINA HALFPENNY: Lighting is amazing for humans, but it also has far-reaching impacts on the environment and ecosystems. I would love to see equal consideration in how we value and discuss light beyond the human centric lens.

RUSKIN HARTLEY: That [people would recognize that] darkness is a resource worth protecting, like clean water. Light became so cheap it’s effectively free, and what feels free gets overused without anyone asking the cost.

MARTIN LUPTON: I would eliminate the concept of ‘value engineering’— the fact that a client would accept a contractor’s recommendation for a significantly cheaper and lower quality lighting solution after paying for an expert to give them the best solution speaks volumes about the value the rest of the world places on light.

CHRISTOPHER KNOWLTON: I wish the broader public had a vocabulary for light. Most people carry genuine intuitive knowledge about it—they have strong preferences, emotional responses, physical reactions. But without the words to describe what they’re experiencing, they can’t participate in the conversation about the spaces being designed for them. That’s a loss for the profession as much as it is for the public.

CHIP ISRAEL: I would like to see greater contact with the ownership team. Too many times, the lighting designer is “under” the architect and we must rely on them to relay and present the lighting, even though it is the ownership group that will ultimately use the space.

ACHARAWAN CHUTARAT: Lighting should reflect cultural identity and create resilient with respect to ecological balance.

MARIANA FIGUEIRO: Melanopic lux! Sounds scientific [laughs], but not as useful or accurate as one would think.

JOHN PALK: That’s a tough one [pauses]. I would say that if we could change one thing, it would be that lighting—and controls strategies—would be seen by the broader world as a communication vessel. Lighting can help physically guide us, create dramatic experiences as well as feelings of safety. Lighting (and controls) can enhance a learning environment or call a group to attention. Good lighting design and appropriate application can help communicate a story, the purpose, and enhance the value of the built environment.

ANDREA HARTRANFT: Anyone can cook an egg [laughs]. Chefs understand all properties of the egg—how it enhances food, quality ranges, effects of production on the environment, effects on human health. These understandings, coupled with creativity, education and experience, are why people pay top dollar to experience an omelet from a master chef. Change the world view— lighting designers are master lighting chefs.

JEFF PARKER: LIGHTS HUMAN IMPACT: I’d like lighting to be recognized as an investment in human experience rather than simply a construction cost. Good lighting shapes how we feel, work, learn, and connect, yet its value is often invisible until it’s done exceptionally well—cc or exceptionally poorly [laughs]. The more we educate people on its impact, the better spaces we’ll create.

LEELA SHANKER: If we cultivated a light culture that embraced lightlessness alongside lightfulness, we would also cultivate a greater appreciation of how the medium is applied as a precious, transformative source.

RANDY BURKETT:  It would be to bring a common sense understanding to the harmful aspects of poorly designed lighting environments. Glare, circadian disruption, melatonin suppression, flicker, outdoor environmental impacts such as sky-glow, light trespass, glare as examples. The industry must elevate this discussion to reach a more meaningful level.

SHARON STAMMERS: It would be to impart the knowledge that light is life, that we need it, that we should value it and that we should use it sparingly.

KNOWLTON: The other thing I’d want people to understand is that light doesn’t work alone! The human visual system is the other half of the equation, and it changes across a lifetime. The brightness and color that felt energizing and comfortable at twenty may be genuinely wrong for the same person at sixty! Our biological relationship with light shifts as we age, and a profession serious about human-centered design has to hold that truth at the center of its work.

AMY OLIVER: My goal is to inspire responsible lighting practices across the board to protect darkness as an essential and rapidly disappearing natural resource through conversations and actions toward continuous balance and appreciating what both light and light’s absence provide.

With that, we conclude our three-part LIGHTING25 series. Our sincere thanks to Lee Brandt, Randy Burkett, Acharawan Chutarat, Lauren Dandridge, Mariana Figueiro, Christina Halfpenny, Colleen Harper, Ruskin Hartley, Andrea Hartranft, Chip Israel, Christopher Knowlton, Martin Lupton, Naomi Miller, Amy Oliver, John Palk, Jeff Parker, Leela Shanker, Sharon Stammers and Rogier van der Heide for generously sharing their perspectives with us for this series.

We also thank Charles Stone, Nancy Stathes and Jean Jacques, whose thoughtful discussions and deliberations as our independent selection committee helped identify the original LIGHTING25 honorees.

Most of all, we hope these three conversations have offered something worth continuing: thoughtful questions, differing perspectives and a deeper discussion about where lighting is today and where it might go next.

The Author: Paul Pompeo, is president of Pompeo Group, an executive recruitment consultancy in lighting, electrical, and controls.