Power to the people

click photo to enlarge
Sometimes I get home from a bit of photography, review my shots on the computer screen, and then realise the oppotunities I missed. Often that prompts me to return to the same location and look anew for images. I did that the other day when I went to a wind farm that has a large electricity sub-station and wildlife reserve nearby.

The line of electricity pylons that passes through this particular part of the Fens links to this sub-station, perhaps to transform the voltage or for some other reason of which I am ignorant. Whatever happens there takes place behind large metal and electric fences that are liberally festooned with bright yellow "Danger of Death" signs. Peering through an unelectrified fence you can see ranks of machinery with insulators that sit and hum. A shot I'd casually taken the previous day included the shadows of this fence, so for my second visit I went later in the day and looked for a shot that included it to greater effect. Today's image is the result. I suppose it is one of those that has limited appeal, but I quite like it, not least for my shadow pressed against the fence as I placed the camera lens between the bars.

I called this post "Power to the people" not solely because it depicts an electricity installation, but because as I was going about my photographic business I was pondering some words of President Obama in relation to the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, an event that has happened in part because of mankind's insatiable thirst for cheap power. He said that it would have an effect on the government and people's approach to the environment of the same magnitude that 9/11 did to the approach to national security. He may well be right. But he should be wrong! There have been other man-made environmental disasters with the magnitude to have been a wake-up call to the world, such as Minimata or Chernobyl, but the event that definitely should have caused a rethink on industry and the environment, happened in 1984, and not in the U.S.A., but in India. The Bhopal disaster was caused by a leak of chemicals at the U.S.-owned Union Carbide pesticide plant. Half a million people were exposed to the chemicals, and though precise figures are disputed, it is widely accepted that about 8,000 died soon after, and a futher perished 8,000 later from gas-related diseases (the Indian government says 3,500 within days and 15,000 in subsequent years) . A large area of land remains contaminated to this day. Moreover, the compensation given to the bereaved and injured, and for the cleaning up of the pollution was pitiably small, and legal action continues with limited effect twenty five years later. Regrettably it doesn't take a great deal of thought to work out why that was the case then, in India, and why there is a different scenario being played out now over the oil spill off the U.S. coast.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 11mm (22mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/500
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Power, politics and PR

click photo to enlarge
A long time ago I heard Tony Benn, a Labour MP, remark that in politics it should be policies, not personalities, that are important. As the UK's general election campaign has followed its course over the past few weeks that thought has resounded in my head more than once.

The US-style TV "debates" featuring the leaders of the three largest parties have, in my view, been an unmitigated disaster for British politics. They have trivialised it in an entirely predictable way. The news media's headlines after each of the three events were all the same,"Who won last night's debate?" Why any rational, intelligent person should think that a matter of any importance is beyond me. The qualities necessary to make a presentation and to answer questions on TV are not those required by people whose job it is to formulate and implement policies that will take a country forward. There are those who believe that the character of the person leading a country is important. It is, but we are never going to know very much at all about the true character of our leaders. On TV and elsewhere we will only see that which the PR people, "handlers", managers and others show us (gaffes excepted). One would think that the example of Winston Churchill would resonate for the British. He has been variously described by biographers and historians as a drunkard, a mysoginist, a racist and much more. He was excellent with a prepared speech, but would have found a TV debate much more difficult. Yet, for all his failings, he clearly had the personal and political qualities necessary to steer the country in its darkest hour.

It seems to me that too many of the voting and non-voting public come to their decisions on the basis of flim-flam - "it's time for a change", "I don't like what this government has done for the last 5 years", " I like the sound of him". How many, one wonders, have read the election manifestos of the contending parties? How many have compared the policy proposals? How many realise that the best we can ever do is cast our vote for the least worst option! Perhaps my condemnation of these debates is excessive. As I write this piece most of the votes have been counted, and the party of the person widely judged to have done best on TV hasn't improved its standing. Maybe the British public treated them like "The X Factor" except that they didn't flock to the stores and buy the records!

What has any of this to do with my photograph of a London office block? The answer is "power." Looking at the image it reminded me of the cinematic cliche whereby a director wishing to emphasise the powerful, aloof nature of characters in business or politics, has the camera swing upwards to a gleaming, sun-lit office block with a grid of faceless windows. "But", you might be saying, "this block is in shadows". Yes it is, but that reflects my downcast demeanour at the probable outcome of the election. They say that people get the government they deserve. Well, I'm not aware of having done anything so awful that I deserve a government led by an ex-PR man who appears to be a political naif, and so lightweight as to be in danger of floating away in a cloud of his own hot air.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 11mm (22mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/250
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -0.7 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Knowledge and power

click photo to enlarge
"Knowledge is power"
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher and author

In his book, "Powershift", Alvin Toffler maintains that there are three routes to power - violence, wealth and knowledge. He argues that in the distant past violence was used to achieve power and amass wealth, that the Industrial Revolution saw the middle classes produce wealth and use it to take power from the nobility, and that today power increasingly flows from the acquisition and use of knowledge.

And he may well be right (though plenty of governments and the wealthy find that bombs and dollars still do the trick.) But, here's the paradox. Whilst countries and companies might benefit from a knowledge economy, the extent to which the individual can become more powerful through knowledge is highly questionable. Many will disagree with that statement citing the internet, broadcasting and publishing as the means by which more knowledge than ever before is available. But therein lies the problem. Whatever your point of view you can find support for it somewhere; and today people are increasingly encouraged to consume the knowledge that they choose or that is sold to them. Consequently, despite the plethora of information, many are less exposed to a wide range of subjects and viewpoints than formerly, when information was less widely available. The post-modern idea that truth depends on context is also rampant. It's not that there isn't objectivity in the fund of available knowledge, it's that it is so much harder to find and discern. If you want knowledge about global warming the arguments are there, for and against, equally vehemently expressed, with interest groups lining up on either side. Try to find knowledge about, say, crime in society, and you'll find different versions massaged by the media, politicians and the police to support their respective agendas. Many newspapers bend the truth to sell copy, and increasingly report as news mindless trivia about television, celebrities and the like. I'm sure that if Karl Marx was alive today he would change his famous dictum to "Celebrity is the opium of the people." Some may not see a problem with this sort of "fun" reportage, but it displaces the kind of important and democratically useful news that the media traditionally purveyed, and without that knowledge we are less free and more easily manipulated - we have less power.

This photograph, that inspired today's ramblings, shows the blue on/off button (and the red hard drive activity LED) on my computer case. I decided to capture the electric blue and glowing red with a hand-held shot where I deliberately moved the camera during the long exposure in order to produce blur. The shot was taken in the evening in my study so the exposure was slightly longer than I envisaged - 8 seconds! Still, I quite liked the 3D effects that were produced.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 35mm macro (70mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f5
Shutter Speed: 8 seconds
ISO: 200
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: Off