If you think you’re not familiar with John Huntington’s work, you’re probably wrong. Those of us who have been in the industry for a while might remember his erstwhile contributions to industry magazines. Others may remember him from his time at Production Arts Lighting before that company was absorbed by Production Resources Group (PRG). But even those who missed that period quite possibly know his work by way of the hundreds of students who have passed his classes at New York City College of Technology or at the Yale School of Drama where he teaches entertainment technology. Or perhaps you have a copy of his book, Control Systems for Live Entertainment, the third edition of which was recently published by Focal Press.
If you’re still coming up empty, then perhaps you’ve seen his design work at one of the many venues where he actually applies his craft — the annual City Tech Haunted Hotel, his many shows in and around New York, or the ones in Las Vegas. And that, in a nutshell, is what distinguishes Huntington. He practices what he preaches. As an author, teacher, and designer, he’s poised at the top of his game and he’s in a unique position to survey the technology landscape, even if he’s a bit coy about it. In this month’s PLSN Interview, we try to coax Huntington into revealing what’s in store for the industry.
PLSN: How did you get started in the industry?
John Huntington: The day after I graduated from college, I went to work for Bran Ferren (Associates & Ferren). He did special effects for all kinds of media — films, concerts, live theatre. He did the original Frankenstein in the late 1970s, early 1980s. He worked on the original Sunday in the Park with George as well, and I had seen that show. I called them every week asking them to hire me to do anything for them. Then, one week before I graduated, it was literally my last phone call, and they asked if I could weld, and I said yes. Well, I graduated on Saturday, moved on Sunday, and I ended up working there for about three years. I got hired as a welder and then moved into all the control stuff. They were doing pretty interesting things like time code controlled projectors back then — we’re talking about 1985, and they’d do the projectors for the Roger Waters tours and Pink Floyd and a lot of stuff like that.
We got hired on this film called The Manhattan Project. I started as a welder and I ended up wiring a bunch of stuff and even ended up as an extra in the film, operating a laser. We moved on to building computerized motion-controlled camera systems. [What we did] was sort of like what the Myth Busters do today…the type and variety of stuff they do. I was really lucky because it was sort of the end of the mechanical effects days and the beginning of CGI dominating everything. We did most of our effects optically or mechanically, controlled by some sophisticated control system.
What kind of computer technology were you using then?
We were using early, early IBM PCs.
The 8088s and 8086s?
Yes, I think it must have been probably 8088s, actually. The first ones I remember were literally the first PCs, and they had this transportable PC, which was like the size of a suitcase. That’s what we were using with some of these film projectors and stuff.
Were you rewriting assembler code or something else?
Other people were doing most of that; I designed a lot of control systems, and programmed PLCs, programmable logic controllers. PLCs have gotten a lot more powerful and lot cheaper today, but, basically, they are still the same.
How did you move from there to what you are doing now?
It’s interesting. A&F was sort of where it started because that was when I first saw time code and all those type of things. I remember seeing Bran at the 1984 USITT conference and he was telling everybody, ‘Don’t look in the Rosco catalog to solve your problem. Go get the train locomotive lamp catalog,’ or whatever. So I started looking at other places, and I think that is sort of the philosophy I learned from him and still use today. Most of what I have done, I think the rest of my career, has basically just been adapting stuff — lately, more explaining, but still adapting stuff — from other industries into our industry. Why reinvent the wheel? We don’t even have the money to reinvent the wheel.
Then, from there, I went to Yale and I ended up writing my thesis on that same topic. It’s funny because Charlie Richmond just scanned my thesis and put it online. There was some interesting stuff in there about shows at the time, which was the late 1980s — I think Siegfried & Roy was it there and Waterworld is in there.
From there, I worked for Theatre Crafts for a couple years or so. That was a great experience because I had an excuse to call anybody in the industry. I met a lot of the big sound designers in those days, and, I took some of my thesis, edited it, and republished it in the magazines explaining MIDI and those types of things.
Steve Terry was one of the readers of my thesis, and he hired me from Theatre Crafts and I worked for Production Arts for two or three years. I went from there to the sound department of the Metropolitan Opera for about three years. Then, from there, I did consulting with George Kindler at PRG. And since then, I’ve been teaching.
Do you teach now mostly at New York City College of Technology?
Yes, I’m a full Professor in the department of Entertainment Technology. That’s my full time job, and in the spring, I teach one class at the Yale School of Drama, based on my book.
Speaking of your book, Control Systems for Live Entertainment, you’ve recently published the third edition. How did the original version come about?
I was working at Theatre Crafts covering an AES show here in New York. Some person came around from Focal Press looking for reviewers for a manuscript. One of the questions on the form was, “If you were to write a book, what would it be about?” And, I wrote “show control,” or something like that. They called up and said, “Oh, this sounds very interesting,” and it went from there. From the time I submitted the manuscript to the time it went to print was about a year, which is just unbelievable. I mean, I did the production work and just sent them a PDF of this version and it was in print about six weeks later.
I had a contract for the first edition before I even started writing. I thought that the thesis would end up being a lot more of the book, and it really ended up being about 25% or something like that.
It sounds like you wrote the original version before you started teaching. Is that right?
Yes. I was working at Production Arts and did it on nights and weekends. I didn’t have much of a personal life for about a year.
When you started teaching, did that change your concepts of what should be in the book or how the book should be approached?
Yes, definitely. The interesting thing to me was, when that first edition came out [in 1994], it seemed obvious to me that this is the way everything was heading, [but] at first, the book had almost no impact at all, and I was kind of disappointed. But things were moving much more slowly back then. So, it took a few years for it to get some momentum. The stuff I wrote about was already happening. It wasn’t that far ahead of the market, but it took a while for people to see the potential. Now, I think people really understand how important this stuff is.
I think one of the reasons I decided to go into teaching was, having done a bunch of workshops at LDI and places like that, it became clear that for the real interactive potential of control to be realized, it was probably going to take a generational shift — the people who have come up with computers and networks and are comfortable with them, it’s going take that, to get to that level.
I think Cirque du Soleil’s Ka is probably the most technologically advanced show that’s ever been done. What’s interesting is that I think my hypothesis, about that sort of generational shift, was probably true because on that show you have this guy, Robert Lepage, a creative genius who is not afraid of technology, and an awesome technical staff comfortable enough with these ideas that they can take the risk and do something as spectacular as that. Now we need some of the established people to stop thinking in the old ways and allow some of these new ways to do things to make it interesting. That’s a major shift that needs to happen.
So you think that networks are more important today. Will there be more jobs in that area within our industry?
This is the dilemma if you’re coming into the industry right now — the thing no one knows is how much specialization there will be. Are we going to end up more like the film industry where you’re just a camera operator, or grip? Or, will everybody work on everything? Because working on a variety of things is what makes it interesting for me. But if you’re the person who knows [networking], or you’re an expert in it, then that’s another way to help guarantee that you’ll get work.
In the new edition, you’ve got a chapter on network systems, you’ve got a chapter on Ethernet, you’ve got a chapter on network utilities, and, then, you go into protocols and such. Is that a reflection of what’s going on in the industry?
Yes, it’s a huge. Ethernet was in the first edition 15 years ago, but it was like five pages. Then, in the second edition, it was a chapter. Now, it’s like 75 pages. Ethernet has come, in that time, to dominate everything else. That’s why it is in the order I have it in for this new edition of the book — you have to understand how you get data from one place to another and then it is just a matter of agreeing on the protocol. And then you get something like ACN, which then takes us up a whole level, which is immensely complicated under the hood but should be very easy for users.
Speaking of ACN, it seems like it’s taking a little while for it to gain traction in the industry. Can you explain that?
I think, unfortunately, it might take a professional generation of people to make this happen, because right now, I don’t think people understand the compelling reasons to do it. The technology is ready, but the manufacturers are going to do what the designers ask them to do. I don’t think anyone has explained to the designers what the potential is. I think the designers need to realize what’s possible and start demanding it.
Your book has a lot of good information that everybody industry needs to know, not just people entering the industry, but also people who have been in the industry for 25 years. What advice would you give to people to keep up with all these changes in technology? In addition to reading your book, what can a person do to keep up?
One way or another, people are going to have to educate themselves. Your career depends on it. Networking stuff is complicated. I wrote my book to try to make it as easy as possible to understand, but it does take some time, and it’s probably going to take some classes and stuff, at some point.
Being in the position that you’re in — you’re teaching the technology, you’re out using the technology — do you get a sense of where the industry might be in 20 years from now?
It’s interesting, because I was just reading back from my thesis what I wrote as a prediction in 1990, and while I wasn’t totally wrong, I was wrong enough to know that I learned my lesson, not to predict anything anymore.
What I’m hopeful for is that sophisticated interactive technologies like ACN will get accepted, because if that happens, it opens up enormous possibilities, and then it’s up to the creative community to challenge those of us on the technical side to see what’s possible. That’s exciting.
