The Charity Essay

A couple of days ago I was invited to a yummy mummy (YM) coffee morning. As per usual, most of the talk was about dinner parties and the latest volunteer work that the mothers were undertaking. Most of the YM’s in our social circle either work part time or are stay-at-home mothers, and they dedicate huge chunks of their time to voluntary projects such as save the local woodland, save the otter, art for trees and so forth (no I’m not kidding about any of those.)

“What do you do?” I was asked by the head charity YM henchwoman who was dressed head-to-toe in gold chains and Burberry, and who is always terribly busy dedicating all of her “free time” to “worthy causes.”

“I work,” I replied.

“Oh not that sort of work. Other work, I mean. Who do you support?”

“Myself and my family,” I retorted. “If someone comes to our door collecting for charity then I don’t donate.” You could have heard a pin drop. Guess that’s the last invitation I get to a coffee morning for a while.

ifat 1068

I don’t know about in America, but over here in our horribly middle-class social circle, it is de rigeur to boast about how many worthy causes you support. You are supposed to do school fundraisers, church fundraisers, local community fundraisers and anything else that’s deemed a good cause because it is your moral obligation to do so. You’re not part of “the in-crowd” unless you’re ignoring your family and spending serious amounts of time saving the local otter instead. It’s literally a competition to see who can give most, both in terms of time and money.

Unfortunately this hive of supposed generosity is all about personal egos and social pecking orders and much less to do with the individual causes concerned. Most people donate to charity in order to feel good about themselves, to “give something back” in return for having a comfortable standard of living, to appear selfless in their own minds and especially in the eyes of others. A British bishop once confessed that he worried when a volunteer or charitable donor appeared utterly selfless: “Unless I can identify that they are getting back something in return” he said, “be that status, recognition, inner peace or whatever, then I know they won’t be staying for long. Human beings simply must have a payback.”

But is it right that you should pay a monetary debt for leading a privileged life? Is giving to charity critical to a libertarian’s moral principles? I agree that it’s wrong to be greedy, and yes indeedy if no-one gave to charities then millions would starve, but I fundamentally object to being emotionally blackmailed to donate (be it time or money) because charity organisers choose to play on the very human characteristics of guilt and altruism.

Charitable giving results in a form of what economists call “rent exhaustion”: the more you give, the harder they try. However much you give to these people – it’s never enough. There will always be a need for more, more, more. If someone knocked on your door today collecting for Christian Aid, then you would probably find $5 to give them simply because you don't want them to think badly of you. Similarly, instead of watching TV tonight, you could also be out fundraising, saving your local forest, collecting door-to-door yourself and making other people feel guilty about parting with their non-existent money to assuage their guilt. There is always an opportunity to make more money instead of spending time with your family. But you don't, and it’s right that you don’t. You know that your family would rather have you at home, and that you need that extra $5 right now because you have bills to pay.

If capitalism is the best way for society to flourish, why is charity necessary? At what point does you giving $5 more for starving people in third world countries become equivalent to government donations? When you and a friend make it $10, or when you and 280 million people you’ve never met make it $5 billion? Surely it makes more sense to lobby your governments and force them to donate instead, as they should be doing in the first place? Why does society have to rely on the global personal blackmail machine in order to save lives? Why should we use guilt as a weapon to beg struggling middle-class families for money? Shouldn’t it be a personal choice as to whether you decide to donate or not? And even if you assume that each person has a moral obligation to give something back to the poor and needy, then shouldn’t it be up to the individual to decide if, how or when he donates? Why should charity be all about feeding egos not feeding the millions who need it?

ifat 1102

By now you’ll all be shocked out of your chairs and be thinking that I’m a horrible greedy, selfish person. Just to reassure you, that’s not actually true.

There is a way to give back without emotional blackmail, there is a way to help others who really need it.

Recognise the emotional manipulation which is going on here and actively choose to opt out. If you are going to give, then pick the poor people who are expecting it least. Pick a favourite charity and donate to it, but do it quietly. There’s no need to tell anyone, and if you just can’t afford it, then do not under any circumstances feel bad that you can’t. Your family is the most important donation you can make (in both time and money) and let’s not forget that charity starts at home. As for volunteering, if you have a cause you love then by all means go for it, but don’t do it just to prove you’re more noble than your peers. It’s not about you or what others think, it’s about less fortunate people who are genuinely in need of your help.

We’ve been approached by door-step charity collectors hundreds of times. We always decline to donate. They frown, they usually get annoyed but very occasionally some of them take the time to ask us why? We quietly explain that we do donate when we can through our day-job business and that we simply can’t afford to donate any more. They always shake our hands and leave with a smile.

It’s not about ego.

Your deeds are as tall as you are.

ifat 1094

All images are of Ifat.

Reality, Fiction and Different Ways Of Seeing

“Photography is the inventory of mortality... photographs show people as being so irrefutably there.”

Susan Sontag, On Photography

ifat 1073

Ifat

cgi-amy 1247

Our latest model shows off her impressive Blowfish lip job

Have a look at the above two photographs. Similar pose, similar lighting, but very different art-forms. Or are they? Without doubt photographers will prefer the photograph, and the CGI artists will prefer the render. But what’s the difference?

Well, I’m entirely new to this CGI thingy, but I’ll have a bash at analysing the two.

The photograph captured the mood and expression of the model in a split second in time. Click. Instant art. On the other hand, the CGI image took three days to get the pose and lighting right and for Rich to create the base image, and then an additional day to render the whole thing, and it’s not even rendered to the highest resolution either. To render this to the best quality that Rich could do it, it would take about forty hours on a quad processor server. At this point, photographers would say, “Why bother? Just take the damn photo instead.”

Because I’ve lived and breathed photography for a couple of years now, my natural bias is towards a photograph being superior to a render. No matter how good the CGI image is, I can always tell the difference. Reality triumphs fiction every time. To me, photographs are real, alive, exact, they record the moment and they capture the mood and emotion of the model in a way that a render never could. The reality of a photograph is, IMO, what makes it such a powerful art-form compared to CGI. However that’s just my uneducated opinion. Rich would just say that the reasons for looking at both are different. They have different objectives. Just because I prefer a photograph doesn’t make it superior, it just means that both types of art communicate a different message and in a different way. Each requires a different way to see.

With a photograph the viewer can imagine himself in the same room as a gorgeous nekkid chick. She’s a real woman, tangible, mortal, he can fantasise about her, admire her as a person rather than an inanimate object. She is shown in the best possible light, the photograph emphasises her beauty and form, and most importantly the image is very personal. In the case of a portrait nude, a photograph would convey emotion, and it would create an emotional response from the viewer. This emphasis on capturing reality is why photography is so darn powerful. A photograph goes way beyond a simple recording device – it communicates both emotion and truth captured in a single moment in time.

None of that reality happens with CGI. The model is quite obviously a work of fiction. It’s more like a painting, a surreal representation that conveys an entirely different message. You don’t fantasise about being with a CGI chick. Instead you might note that the image resembles a real photograph (apart from the lips - clearly they are not of this world), but it is still always “close but not quite.” That doesn’t mean you can’t be moved by a nude render of course. Believe me I’ve seen some CGI erotica that has made me incredibly horny, but I wouldn’t fantasise about being with a character in a render because it’s not real. Instead I would fantasise about being in that scenario myself. My imagination extrapolates and creates the story. How would I feel if it were me doing that?

CGI is in its infancy at the moment. But what happens in the future? I’ve seen how fast this technology is developing, and I’m telling you that after a couple of years (probably less) of Rich practising and developing CGI erotica, the skill, technology and genre will develop to such an extent that you, the viewer, simply won’t be able to tell if the model is real or virtual. Already there are talented photographic artists who use both photographs and rendering to create powerful artistic images, which don’t classify as either photographs or CGI, but a combination of both art-forms. Photoshop was just the start. Every month new software is being developed which will allow artists to further blur the lines between the two. One day, not too far from now, your brain simply won’t recognise that it isn’t a real person in the image, and you will respond to it as you would to a photograph. This bending of reality has major implications for the future of both photography and painting, as well as movies and other mixed media.

Because Rich is such a mischievous soul, it’s his aim to practise both photography and CGI, but to confuse the two. He intends to continue with his photography for the next few years (hurrah! I’m happy again!) but he also wants to become so darn good at CGI that you fantasise about the render as you would a real woman. With time, (a lot of) effort and technology, he believes that her features will eventually be so realistic that you will barely be able to tell the difference. He wants to blur reality and fiction, combine the two and use both camera and computer as tools to manipulate reality.

A bold claim of course, and he has a long way to go. Let’s see if he can pull it off. Knowing Rich I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

In the meantime, we hope you enjoy the experiment as much as we’re going to.

ifat 1091

Images are of Ifat. One and Three are real (just checking.)

Panem et circenses

Panem et circenses, "bread and circus" games, were the only remaining cares of Roman plebs who had long given up their political freedom. Bread was distributed amongst the poor people but everybody liked the circus games. This strategy was an efficient political instrument in the hands of the Emperors to keep the population peaceful, and at the same time giving the citizens the opportunity to voice themselves via the popular entertainment channels of gladiators, exotic animals, chariot races and sports competitions.

ifat 1096

Recently I came across one of those new fangled CCTV cameras with loudspeakers attached, which barked at me when I got out of my car. It warned me VERY LOUDLY to remove all valuables and lock my car because there were thieves operating in the town that day. Well one assumes that if they were watching me, then they’d watch the thieves too (and apprehend them) so why the need to make me jump out of my skin with fright? A friendly warning from Big Brother, or something more sinister? It was at that moment that it really hit me just how far we had come along the road to totalitarianism.

The US, the UK, China and Russia are "endemic surveillance societies," according to a study last year. The 2007 International Privacy Ranking gave Britain the "black" or "endemic" ranking for the second year in a row. The US fell to the bottom rung for the first time due to increasing government surveillance and decreasing federal oversight.

As I have blogged many times before, the UK is now a totalitarian state. The UK had long been on the razor’s edge between liberty and tyranny and in recent years it has tipped over the edge into an anti-utopia. Through the development of legislation, the media and sophisticated technology, the Government now controls nearly every part of our lives. They tell us how to live, what to do and how to think, all in the interests of national security of course. Citizens are not seen as freedom loving individuals with rights of their own, they are not even seen as citizens. Instead we are all now “consumers.” The Government just have to keep us happy with panem et circenses (bread and circuses) and nobody lifts a finger just as long as they can veg in front of their fave t.v. soap and pig out on pizza. Let's face it, most people don't care whether they are watched by the State because they believe they have "nothing to hide." Who cares if you’re caught on camera an average of 300 times every day? It’s all for your own good right?

Nowadays, cameras aren’t just instruments used to create fabulous images, they are also tools of oppression. Nowhere is this more evident than in China, another surveillance society and the first totalitarian state. In China photography is seen differently than in the western world, less of an expressive art form and more of a way of recording things. Because of the omnipotent role of the State in every aspect of Chinese life, their culture developed differently to ours and the development of cameras was never equated with creating or expressing the character of an individual, or exploring aesthetic views of reality. Forms of artistic expression were originally discouraged because the State was the only one allowed to dictate the development of “freedom of thought.” The role of the camera in Chinese society was to objectify, rather than in our capitalist society, where right from when the camera was first invented, individual artistic freedom was encouraged and the role of the camera rapidly developed beyond a simple recording device into a subjective tool for creating art.

So it will be interesting to see how the current social change will affect the development of photography in the new totalitarian countries like the UK, and eventually the US. How will the photographic surveillance change the way we think about cameras, and what will it mean for the future of photography? As Sontag observed, “any social change is replaced by a change in images.” How will the transformation from freedom-loving capitalist society, where our whole culture is based on images and where art is a subjective form of self expression limited only by one's imagination, translate into a totalitarian state, where cameras are seen as tools of the state, whether to protect or oppress, depending on your point of view?

I would argue that society’s view of the camera is starting to change already, as is evident in the new hostility to street photography, which is still legal (so far) but is increasingly viewed with aggression by the general public. As in Orwell’s vision, citizens are starting to turn against each other. Nowadays, people carrying cameras are viewed as suspicious and street photographers are treated as potential pervs. Society considers it perfectly acceptable for the government to use cameras to watch people, but definitely not O.K. for the general public to use cameras for the same purpose. What does this mean for the future of photography, I wonder? And what will happen to us, the photographic art community?

But not to worry, Comrades! Cheer up! No need for sad faces! Our Government has our best interests at heart you know, and it wants to protect you from those fearsome terrorists who are attacking your precious freedom.

And what better way to stop terrorism than to eliminate "freedom" in the first place? Simple, sensible and effective. And coming soon to a town near you.

Think about that the next time you are pigging out on pizza in front of the telly.

ifat 1071

Images are of Ifat

The Second Dark Age

Look around you and most of what you see will be created either from or using crude oil. Oil is used as a fuel in production, as a base component of plastics, in transportation of good and raw materials. There is no aspect of the western world that is not directly impacted by oil.

It's not difficult to see why. One barrel of oil is the equivalent to 46 gallons of gasoline, with an energy of 6 billion Jules of heat. That's the equivalent of five labourers working 12 hours a day, every day, for a year.

That black stuff is truly a wonderful thing and without it there would not have been the rapid growth of prosperity that powered the 20th century. But, even ignoring the problems of greenhouse gases there is a big problem with oil.

It's running out.

Currently mankind is using about 87 million barrels of oil a day, which is about 10 billion litres and, while there is quite a lot of oil left in the world, we are very close to the limit of the rate at which we can extract it. This peak rate, called 'peak oil', indicates the point at which we can no longer increase supply to meet demand and at which production will actually start to drop. Current estimates for this indicate it will be around 2010.

Think about that. Historically, as the population has grown, and we have found new and wonderful things to do with oil, we have simply pumped more of it out of the ground. More people = more demand = more oil = more prosperity. What happens when we can't pump more oil?

ifat 1067

This is not something the world has had to face before. In the past, as demand increased, pressure was applied to the oil producers and they increased 'production' to satisfy the demand and keep the prices down. But when we reach the peak oil level there is no more slack in the system. Every litre pumped is used. Any disruption is immediate.

As it currently stands any disruption to oil production could well have a severe impact on the way that we in the developed world live, eat, heat our homes, and travel to work. Terrorism is a serious threat. Hurricanes are a serious threat. Accidents are a serious threat. Is it any surprise that Ras Tanura on the Persian Gulf, the largest oil terminal in the world, is defended like a high security military base.

But what of future growth?

Its expected that by 2050 the world will contain nearly 9 billion people. But there will be no extra fuel produced! I would expect that by then fuel will be rationed. But between now and then we are going to see supply drag behind demand by an ever growing margin. Given that 70% of current oil production is used in transport is easy to see that transport and heating fuel prices will simply rise uncontrollably until transport demand falls to a manageable level.

It looks pretty bleak. Most of the western world is based upon rapid road transport of goods, as the fuel prices continue to grow it will cause transport costs to rocket and the price of the good transported to rise in step. As the fuel supply becomes limited the general transport infrastructure used during the growth of the last 50 years will grind to a halt. Commuting to work will simply stop as pay will not be able to keep up with escalating transport costs.

What can be done to solve the problem?

With the main use of oil being in transport, this should be the primary focus of any attempted solution. Several alternatives have been suggested over recent years including bio-fuels, hydrogen and electricity. However, each of these has its problems. Bio-fuels currently use food stocks which results in food shortages and high food prices, Hydrogen from renewable sources has problems with storage and transport, and electricity is usually generated from fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas and has major greenhouse gas implications.

What is needed is for the governments of the developed world to get off their collective asses and begin to fund some serious development of technology and infrastructure to resolve the problems. Market forces are not enough to solve this problem. Only a concerted multi-government action will do this. It will require a concerted effort to rapidly create a new fuel source and make it available globally in a very short timescale. The world's oil infrastructure has been growing since the end of the 19th century; I don't think we can wait another hundred years for market forces to do the job for us.

The time for governments to act is now. Failure to do so may well result in the whole world falling into a new dark age.

ifat 1082

Images are of Ifat.