I’ve been programming for about 30 years, so I’ve served many different people over time. I am the kind of person where programming- the keystrokes and concepts- came fairly easily to me. The big struggle has always been People. People are- to me- baffling in a way that no computerized device ever will be. So although I have no clue whether this post will actually be useful to anyone besides someone just like me, here are the four designer archetypes I’ve found so far:
The Architect
The Mad Scientist
The Performance Artist
Godzilla
I’ll attempt to describe their working habits and what techniques I’ve noticed that help serve them best. I acknowledge right up from that most of these types also have equivalents in the Film world, but I feel like there is one more type that exists only among Gaffers. Can’t put my finger on it yet, so I’ll stick to what I know best, which is still live entertainment. And needless to say- you should look at this post as entertainment first and anything else second.
The Architect
Very precise. Incredibly precise. You will never change the value of the intensity of a light so many times. In general, the Architect has a good working knowledge of how consoles work and does their best to speak in command line language. Your primary job when serving them is to execute their commands quickly and precisely- always owning your mistakes if you make any. They don’t often want you to offer collaborative ideas, but I’ve been in a few situations where it was appropriate to offer and they gratefully accepted. The real challenge in serving the Architect kicks in when they are are incredibly f**king fast. I’ve served a few that were capable of slamming so many command into a second that I needed to grab as they came- THE FIRST TIME- and just lash myself to the board. To mix metaphors, I felt like a hamster running on a wheel and I needed to make sure I didn’t let my wheels move faster than my legs and flip me 360. I’ve never worked so many unpaid hours- going over the days work in the hotel to clean up any errors I may have made, redoing layouts and creating new macros to solve slow programming moments so I didn’t hold them up. It was terrifying, but pretty exhilarating when I got it right. I learned a tremendous amount from these Fast Architects, with the biggest being that anyone could actually WORK that fast. I had no clue. I was just the fastest in my community, and I had to learn how fast “fast” could be. These people are the reason I overdo my prep to this day, even if I know the person I’m programming for. This is why I schedule time to go into rental houses (unpaid) to add new fixtures to my template. And finally- this is one of the reasons I write tutorials and teach. To have as many people ask me questions that I’ve never asked myself…so that I’ll be more ready for the next Fast Architect I get paired with.
The Mad Scientist
I love Mad Scientists. They make a huge artistic mess everywhere that somehow turns out to be brilliant. They typically have no clue how any console works, and they don’t care. I’ve never noticed any particular pattern to how they issue commands. When the command is simple, they speak briefly and precisely. But usually, they tell me what they want from the lights, and let me figure it out. I love getting to guess what they will like and in the course of about an hour, refine my guesses based off of what I’ve learned from their corrections or redirections. A simple example:
“Make it pink.” Well, the word pink can apply to hundreds of thousands of possible interpretations. So I pick one. And maybe they say “that’s too magenta”. Great, now I know they favor colors that are indicative of a 3200 CCT source pointing though a gel, and I have a huge library of gel colors in my template. Which I tell them on a break or when there is an appropriate pause. Almost every day feels like a working conversation between friends. The Mad Scientist requires their programmer to provide structure to the data, making sure everything is kept clean and is backed up. They know where the cues are and what numbers they should be, but they may need you to get them out of corners they’ve painted themselves into. A common example is using a moving light for one look and purpose and then using it for a different look and purpose in the next cue.
They are happy to have you fulfill their every creative desire, but once you have earned their trust, they might also delight in you offering up a cool effect/look/technique. I find this is very true when it comes to moving lights and eye-candy lighting. The key is to make sure they never ever feel like you are angling for their gig or their position. You offered the idea because you want THEM to look good. And since it’s always their choice to accept or reject your idea- it’s obviously entirely their design.
Prep tends to be challenging for these types. They don’t make reasonable demands- they don’t want to. So I always front load my prep for these people. I’ve never regretted doing prep on my own time to make sure I’m ready for them. Cleaning up the cue list and performing “data maintenance” when they hit the wall and need to take a walk or when they take a call at the tech table is important. It’s our job to neaten things, so take every moment you can to do so. The mad scientists tend to be great story tellers with a wicked sense of humor. They are a blast to work for.
The Performance Artist
This type is harder to define. They tend to work in a manner that implies every cue you write (and rewrite) is a narrowly-avoided disaster. They THINK they know how the console works, but they are the epitome of the statement “don’t give them what they asked for, give them what they want”. They will call for groups that don’t exist, color palettes that don’t exist, cues that don’t exist…even though they specified all of these things themselves. They tend to be short tempered while trying to seem to be the chillest person ever. If I may put on my pop-psych hat, I think these are people that struggle strongly with linear events- making them (cues) and being in them (tech). They are all about the details, but the details confound them. Very specifically, most of the ones I’ve worked with will change a single cue so that we just made and discarded about ten fairly fully realized design ideas before they settle on something.
Serving these folks is challenging for me. They often are late getting me paperwork (plots and lighting schedules), which cuts into my time to prep for them…and they need a LOT of prep. Since cueing a show is a structured event and they are not structured thinkers, I find that calmly providing details they need when appropriate (meaning- when no one else can hear you but them) can be experienced as supportive. I tend to give them a tour of my template at the top of programming, while we are waiting for some last thing for the electrics team to finish. I’ve found they like how I organize my show file and find it easier to work in than what they are used to. I almost never correct them on the group that doesn’t exist, or anything like that. I keep my eyes away from the console and instead focussed on their work. That way, I can almost always guess right on what they meant to call for.
Beware of letting them mix a color themselves. They will want to do it, and they will forget the one rule of additive color engines, which is ONE EMITTER MUST REMAIN AT FULL. Otherwise, you’re just giving up intensity for no reason.
They will fight turning over trust, but if you are capable and take good care of them, over time they might actually relax when they work with you. I admit it’s very satisfying each time I win another one over.
Godzilla
I honestly wanted to exclude this one from my list, but a trusted friend convinced me to include it. This is a designer that walks in expecting to be disappointed in you (and everyone else in the room) and will do anything to confirm that negative view. Misery is their only focus and they will ruthlessly pursue it. Nothing you do will change their mind. They are fairly hateful people and they are always in search of a new programmer, assistant, whatever…since they burn them alive throughout each show. The true heartbreak of the Godzilla is they tend to be truly brilliant designers. The only thing you can do with these people is:
- Decide whether you REALLY need this money/job.
- If you don’t- leave now. Right now. Yes, I know you’re in the middle of tech. Leave.
- If you can’t leave- do your work to the best of your ability and try to reward yourself a little each day for staying professional even as they abuse you. Take your breaks outside, call your loved ones (especially those with no connection to the entertainment biz) and schedule something fun for every day off you get.
Wrapup
I know human beings are unique and have complex nuance. But I also know patterns. Since patterns are useful to me (and people are confusing), I see value in trying to figure out what kind of designer you have so you can serve/deal with them best. As I look back on the people I’ve served, I feel like the only designers who don’t fit into one of these classifications are super-new designers who probably haven’t fully developed their personas. Maybe I’ll see if I can look up some of the ones I programmed for long ago and see if I can figure out what they’ve developed into.
Does anyone have a cool tip/trick/copying mechanism for any of these types that I didn’t mention? Share in the comments so we can all benefit.
***
Mark LaPierre is a programmer in film and television based out of Albuquerque. He grew up in live entertainment and has been a designer/programmer for musicals, concert dance, live music, circus and corporate. Mark is a proud member of IATSE, an ETC Eos trainer and an enthusiastic trainer of many other platforms and subjects. If you enjoy his content, please consider commenting on his posts on the website to appease the Algorithm.
Featured Image Photo by Ivan Kazlouskij on Unsplash