Abstract
The author examines the training and practice of those chiefly concerned with providing lighting in buildings (the architect and the lighting engineer), to try to identify the weaknesses which may be responsible for any lack of co-operation between them, caused by mutual misunderstanding of each other's approach.
The R.I.B.A. examinations are shown virtually to ignore lighting, whilst those of the City and Guilds might be said to consist of theoretical and applied physics insufficiently related to the practical and aesthetic aspects of architecture.
The author suggests additions to the syllabuses to restore a balance which it is thought would assist in reaching a common understanding, and finally ensure closer co-operation. He outlines the educational methods which might be employed.
It is the author's belief that the criteria for lighting design should be under constant review, and that both architects and lighting engineers have a valuable contribution to make towards this. The paper concludes with a brief analysis of existing lighting practice, pointing out limitations and suggesting that the answer lies in an improved relationship between the architect and the lighting engineer, revised educational requirements, valid criteria related to man's total needs, and an increased professional status for the lighting engineer, whose first obligations should be similar to those of the architect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.