search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
FOCUS 055


Opinion piece


Humankind has historically understood the importance of lighting, but its ubiquity has made us complacent, says Jonathan Rush. We need greater understanding of its relationship with human body and mind, he argues, and a more democratic approach to good lighting


IT WAS NOT until around the 1780s, with the rise of Capability Brown, that the ‘profession’ of landscape architecture turned from providing formal, decorative gardens to ones more aligned with nature. Rolling lawns, clumps of trees and belts of woodland defined Brown’s style much to the chagrin of his contemporaries, who disliked his approach and accused him of ‘encouraging his wealthy clients to tear out their splendid formal gardens and replace them with his facile compositions of grass, tree clumps and rather shapeless pools and lakes’. But Brown understood something that it is now common practice in the world of landscape – that humans have an inherent need for certain stimuli in terms of the physiological reward that nature brings.


A discussion of landscape architecture might seem a bit random if not irrelevant in an article on lighting, but as a profession and branch of design it has much in common with architectural lighting design – for one thing, that appreciation of the fundamental importance of nature, particularly in the latter case, the relationship between human beings and light; for another, its comparatively late arrival and recognition as a profession.


Te metier of the landscape architect was only formalised in the UK with the establishment of the Landscape Institute (LI) in 1929. Before that, its value was informally recognised in the days of Brown and others around the 1700-1800s. Of course, arguably it had existed for thousands of years before – a notable example being the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Te lighting design profession as such has emerged relatively recently (effectively established in the US in the 1960s). But clearly light has been fundamental to human existence since our early development. Our physiological and psychological need for it has driven the desire to shape and create it for our use.


Te discovery of fire and its subsequent development in more controlled forms became more notable as we moved through history, with candles and oil lamps providing a personal and portable method of illumination before, relatively recently, we developed gas and then electrical sources. Where natural light is concerned, our early ancestors worshipped the sun as a giver of light, but this evolved into a more sophisticated understanding of the value of daylight in ancient civilisations.


Te central oculus of the famous Pantheon in Rome allowed sunlight to penetrate the space in dramatic ways, but it also trapped the solar energy within the building, heating the space. Te use of this ‘heliocaminus’ became so popular in buildings within Rome that people started demanding protected views of the sky, which led to what can be described as an early form of the ‘right to light’ legislation familiar to us today.


JACK HOBHOUSE


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125