At last a lighting technology has arrived which can
genuinely do it all. Yes it can save all those maintenance hours changing light
bulbs, it uses less than half the energy consumed by “energy saving” compact
fluorescent technology and because each lighting element is a semi conductor,
it can be controlled with ease. It also projects no Infra red and no Ultra
Violet, the two specific elements which damage art and artefacts. What is more
is that the bit that emits lights is also very, very small. Having said all
that this technology is very, very new.
An art gallery really needs lights that do not need changing
- often the light sources are very high and require at least two people, and
often scaffolding to change one light. They are obliged by law to show their
energy consumption and are therefore keen to reduce that energy bill. They have
a range of items in their collection - some of which would show to best effect
in a warm light, others in a cooler light, all needing to be as near to
daylight in colour accuracy to project the artefacts to best effect. Most
importantly all light sources damage the artwork and so much effort is made to
reduce the amount of light on the actual collections - please see the British
Galleries in the V&A or the Smithsonian Museum of America to witness where
light levels are so poor that the much prized artefacts can be barely made out.
Recognising these enormous benefits the museum and gallery
markets are piling into this new solid state - LED lighting. The energy
reductions are dramatic and the lights do not fail. Furthermore there is no
damage being done to the artwork. And yet to my judgement the galleries where
these are installed completely fail to light the work sympathetically. The
colour temperature is uniformly cold, the narrow beam angles make for a “hot”
spot right in the middle of the cherished art work with much lowers light
levels over the remainder of the work, and the light fittings themselves are
astonishingly ugly with a series of white lights glaring.
How has this come to pass? Given that the technology can
deliver all the stated benefits and that the payback certainly justifies the
investment, why is it that so many sites have bought into compromised solutions? The answer seems to be that the savings
benefit is what has driven the change and not the aesthetic demands nor a
complete understanding of what the technology can offer. It is considerably
easier for a Building Services team to turn to their old supplier of art
lighting and ask them for LED art lighting than it is for them to really learn
up on the technology and understand how to assess what the technology can
deliver and who can deliver it. The real experts on this technology are not the
great brand names of historic lighting but electronics specialists dotted around
the country - yes the UK has some of the very best thinking and expertise in
the world.
The answer must be for the curatorial teams and building
services teams to engage with the thinking of the technology experts. Both
parties can then truly understand what each needs and what each can offer. Once
each understands the other, clear specifications can be drawn up which
determine the criteria required. Only then should we be commissioning LED
lighting which genuinely suits the extraordinary collections we enjoy and the
artworks they hold.
Ian Peter MacDonald, Norwich, June 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment