Artificial light(ing) or electric light(ing)?

Abstract Researchers and designers use the words “artificial” or “electric” to describe lighting products, design, or research related practices, and there appear to be differing opinions about which is the more appropriate term. Generally, there are challenges with a common use of language and vocabulary in interdisciplinary research and this might be also valid for design and research in lighting design across different disciplines. The authors were educated in opposing practices of using “electric” lighting vs “artificial” lighting; this started a discussion and the conceptualization of this article. The paper explores, summarizes and discusses through literature review and a survey the concepts described and conveyed by both terms in different disciplines. Interestingly we could find differences among and between disciplines and professional backgrounds. This might indicate that the education and nomenclature in the field influences the use of terms. We found a tendency to refer to light sources either in terms of the energy used to generate the light, e.g. electric light or gaslight, but also in terms of the effect that it evokes, e.g. candle light is defined natural. Generally, a common lighting glossary could be developed through continuous discussion and studies. As today’s complex questions are discussed in interdisciplinary teams, a common language might promote effective communication and stimulate sustainable solutions.