Sunday, February 28, 2010

Brenda Kim Christiansen

http://brendakim.com/

Sherri Chaba

http://www.sherrichaba.com/

British firms face onslaught from tar sands campaigners

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/28/canada-tar-sands-investor-protest

British firms face onslaught from tar sands campaigners

Lobbyists bid to turn RBS, BP and Shell annual meetings into green referendums

Tar sands protesters, Canada House, London

A protester wearing a mask of Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper brandishes a barrel of oil over protesters dressed as penguins outside Canada House in Trafalgar Square, London. Photograph: Teri Pengilley

British companies spearheading the drive to exploit the Canadian tar sands will come under renewed assault this week from an increasingly vocal group of shareholders and environmentalists who are planning to turn the forthcoming BP, Shell and Royal Bank of Scotland annual meetings into a referendum on these controversial operations.

The Co-operative and the Fair Pensions lobby group are releasing a special briefing paper designed to counter recent statements by the oil companies that sought to justify their involvement in carbon-intensive oil extraction in Alberta on the basis that it was needed to meet rising oil demand.

Friends of the Earth, Platform and other green groups are publishing a new report, Cashing in on Tar Sands – RBS, UK Banks and Canada's Blood Oil, which claims RBS has provided loans of $7.5bn (£4.9bn) in the past three years to companies carrying out this kind of mining in North America.

There are signs the oil companies and the Canadian government are becoming increasingly concerned about the reputational damage that could be inflicted on them: a special "tar sands day of learning" was held at the headquarters of the Royal Bank of Canada in Toronto on 1 February to bolster the confidence of fellow bankers and investors.

The Co-op's investor briefing, designed to rally further opposition, warns institutional investors with highly diversified portfolios that allowing BP and Shell to pursue their costly tar sands extraction could undermine their holdings in other areas of the economy.

"The issue for many large investors is not just whether the macroeconomic conditions necessary to ensure the profitability of oil sands production are in place, but whether the continued expansion of oil sands production could aggravate climate change, thereby putting at risk gross domestic product growth and the performance of their portfolio as a whole," says the new document.

Fair Pensions last week announced the establishment of a new web tool allowing individual pension holders to lobby their fund managers, who are big investors in BP and Shell. More than 1,200 people have taken advantage of it on www.countingthecost.org.uk.

The Friends of the Earth and Platform report is being released tomorrow, on the day a coalition of non-governmental organisations seeks a judicial review against the Treasury over its willingness to allow RBS to finance companies alleged to be exacerbating climate change and disregarding the human rights of local indigenous peoples. RBS is now largely publicly owned and the NGOs believe the government could stop it from acting in ways that are counter to its climate-change policies.

Tar sands oil has soared up the investment, political and environmental agenda since the Copenhagen climate change summit highlighted the need for a clampdown on the most carbon-intensive activities that are the biggest threat to global warming.

Shell, a leader in the tar sands business, had shown signs of backtracking in recent months, with new chief executive Peter Voser saying: "We look at them as being developed, but at a much slower pace." But the company will still go ahead with plans to increase production by 100,000 barrels a day, which it is said will raise CO2 emissions from its current level of 3.7m tonnes a year to 5m by 2015.

BP is more bullish than ever: chief executive Tony Hayward said it could be getting 100,000-200,000 barrels a day from tar sands by 2015 and was already preparing two US refineries specially to process this kind of crude.

Despite mounting opposition from politicians, as well as some investors and non-governmental organisations, Hayward is convinced: "Canadian heavy oil is going to be a very important part of America's energy."

But not if the Co-op and Fair Pensions can help it. They have had a resolution accepted for BP and Shell's AGMs, asking both companies to undertake reviews on the risk of tar sands extraction, with reports to be made to the 2011 AGMs.

The BP resolution wants details of "assumptions made by the company in deciding to proceed with the Sunrise [tar sands] Project regarding future carbon prices, oil price volatility, demand for oil, anticipated regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and legal and reputational risks arising from local environmental damage and impairment of traditional livelihoods".

Both BP and Shell insist that they can extract oil from tar sands in a responsible way, with the latter arguing that CO2 emissions can be minimised by using carbon capture and storage (CCS) techniques. Shell says a planned CCS plant in Edmonton, Alberta would take more than 1m tonnes a year out of the atmosphere by 2015 and could be expanded in future.

Tar sands, or oil sands, are deposits of sand and clay saturated with bitumen, which is oil in a solid or semi-solid state. The region where they have been found, in the ancient forests of Alberta, is said to cover an area bigger than England. When the bitumen is close to the surface it is excavated in an opencast mine. The land is cleared and the bitumen-soaked sand is dug out with mechanical shovels and loaded on to trucks to be taken to a separation plant.

BP stresses it does not get involved in such controversial strip-mining, but bringing the oil out from deeper deposits has its own serious problems: it requires power and steam-generating plants that use a lot of energy and water. In some cases, steam has to be injected into wells to encourage the bitumen to flow.

BP claims the method of production used in the Sunrise Project only emits 5% more greenhouse gases than commonly imported conventional fuels. But the Co-op says the Jacobs report, which is quoted by the oil company in support of these figures, is "subject to challenge" because it has not been peer-reviewed.

"Peer-reviewed studies and US government studies show that the relative emissions of oil sands are much higher than BP claim," says the briefing paper, which questions the companies' assumptions that global oil prices will remain high enough in future to justify the heavy investment costs of bringing oil out of the ground in this way.

Analysts at Deutsche Bank recently pointed out that continuing high oil prices – currently close to $80 per barrel – could trigger a permanent switch to more efficient oil use and low-carbon alternatives: "The value of high capex [capital expenditure] intensity, long lead time, currently undeveloped oil such as undeveloped Canadian heavy oil sands … could be far lower than the market expects."

The involvement of a major investor such as the Co-op in the campaign against tar sands is relatively new, but back at its 2008 annual meeting Shell was accused by an individual shareholder of "selling suicide on the forecourt".

Comment, page 52

Thursday, February 25, 2010

How to Watch a Documentary

http://www.utne.com/Arts/How-to-Watch-a-Documentary.aspx

How to Watch a Documentary

Take it from a pro: What you don’t see matters

Watch a documentary
image by Brian Hubble / www.brianhubble.com
Article Tools
Bookmark and Share

During my first year as a documentary producer, my brother went to Africa as an aid worker, packing a video camera to cover the civil war in Sudan. I volunteered to construct a documentary from his footage, partly out of love for my brother and partly to assuage my guilt for engaging in a consumer-driven industry often at odds with the values we learned from our Christian hippie parents. My brother sent tapes and I spent many late-night hours trying to condense a complicated civil war into 30 minutes.

RELATED CONTENT

The color correction process was directed by a colleague who loved hard rock. I checked on his progress one night and found him jamming out to Led Zeppelin while images of people in crisis flashed across the screen. “Take a look,” he said, pointing to an aerial image of Sudan’s dusty savanna. Adjusting the color saturation to green, he asked, “Would you like it to look lush and fertile, or,” changing it to harsh brown, “dry and desiccated?”

That moment was a turning point for me. I realized that humanitarian subject matter didn’t make a film immune to manipulation. Every image was persuasive text. Every creative decision was an ethical judgment. Every opportunity to move viewers was also a chance to manipulate them. With a powerful medium in my hands, I was playing with portrayal and perception—the portrayal of war victims whose complicated story ended up in my hands, and the perception of the viewers who had no idea what went on behind the wizard’s curtain of documentary production.

I committed then to studying the medium. I read media studies literature, continued work on the Sudan documentary, and wrestled with the ethics of filmmaking. Two basic categories of analysis emerged.

First, juxtaposition and decontextualization. Russian filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein defined the idea of “dialectical montage” in film editing. He composed his theory in part using the Kuleshov Experiment in which the same image—an actor’s face with unchanged expression—was shown in juxtaposition with other images. When the face appeared next to an image of food, the test audience said that it was expressing hunger. When the same face was shown next to the image of a woman in a coffin, the audience interpreted the facial expression as grief. Eisenstein concluded that two unrelated images put together in collision create a new, third “idea.” Placing shots in a new context is part of what makes editing a creative process, and a potentially misleading one.

In the Sudan piece, I cut together an image of a girl hiding behind a tree, crying, with an image of gun-carrying soldiers. When they are combined, these images give an impression of human vulnerability in the face of war.

What young activists and student journalists can teach the old guard....

Did those scenes occur in the same spatio-temporal zone? No. Was I creating a false impression? Yes—but for the purpose of evoking emotion about the effects of war. Did I breach ethical bounds? The answer to that question is part of the great ethical complexity of being a documentary filmmaker and a film viewer. As a critical viewer, you have to know how to step into and out of the constructed emotions of a film.

The second category of analysis is inclusion and exclusion. In his book Introduction to Documentary, author Bill Nichols analyzes the way in which documentaries convey information and seek to persuade an audience. Images make arguments. In the Sudan documentary, I made the argument that the North was oppressing the South. I excluded a statement from an interviewee sympathetic to the North (who said “child abduction [by Northern soldiers] is an unfounded myth”) while including a statement from an interviewee sympathetic to the South (who said “child abduction is going on”). I illustrated the statement with footage that gave the impression of slavery.

As a viewer, you can’t see inside the edit suite, but analyzing what might have ended up on the cutting room floor matters as much as analyzing what you see on screen. Viewers should ask: What has been included, and why? What has been excluded, and why? Who gets the final say? Does the director have a strong agenda? What argument is being made by the images?

Media theorist Marshal McLuhan famously said “the medium is the message.” The image-based medium offers a paradigm that operates largely on impression and emotion; its moving im-ages deliver not only raw data but also an entire experience that can shape our fundamental perspectives about life. Getting inside the gears is part of becoming active thinkers and critical viewers.


Excerpted from Geez (Fall 2009), a playful yet profound Canadian magazine that was honored for best spiritual coverage in the 2009 Utne Independent Press Awards. www.geezmagazine.org


Oilsands output ramping up Syncrude, Imperial planning for 20% production increases

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Oilsands%20output%20ramping/2611174/story.html

Friday, February 19, 2010

Thursday, February 4, 2010

The Three Functions of Public Art

http://hewittandjordan.com/work/vitrine.html


The Three Functions
are:
The economic function of public art is to increase the value of private property.
The social function of public art is to subject us to civic behaviour.
The aesthetic function of public art is to codify social
distinctions as natural ones. *




Riley's Bar and Snooker Hall, Cross Belgrave St, Leeds

This is the first time the three text works that form the Three Functions have been presented together.

We have been working on the Three Functions for over a year.We did not set out to make this a long-term project; in fact the first function felt like a culmination of a previous project rather than the beginning of a new one. The project began as the second phase of a commission for Public Art Forum’s (now ixia) annual conference in April 2003. The first part of the commission, a work called I won an artist in a raffle, was concerned with initiating a debate about the commissioning of public art; conference delegates were entered into a raffle in which they might win the opportunity to commission us to make a new work within their home or work place. The winner was Allia Ali, who after some discussion on how we might collaborate, said “just make a work for me, you can make what you like”. We went on to write and display The Economic Function of Public Art. The text became a billboard poster, sited in Sheffield, and a contribution to the book Desirable Places: The Contribution of Artists to Creating Spaces for Public Life. The subject of the Three Functions is public art. The aim of the work is to examine the tensions and contradictions that exist within public art practice; to explore how public art is integral to our culture and therefore how it functions in support of the dominant ideology. In order to reveal the hegemony within culture, we chose to describe how public art functions in the broadest of cultural contexts: economic, social and aesthetic. The Three Functions state - in the direct and reductive manner of a one line slogan - ideas of public and private, social responsibility and expected good behaviour as well as divisive forms of knowledge, like taste. The Three Functions attempt to initiate a discourse around how art maintains cultural division.



Leeds City Art Gallery



Merrion Centre, Merrion Street, Leeds

For Vitrine, the Three Functions are three posters that exist both within this book and as a series of window displays in Leeds city centre.

The great thing about text works is that they are easy and cheap to reproduce. They can also take many forms, use a range of media and they can exist almost anywhere. We would like the posters in this publication to be removed and used; for us, the more often the texts are distributed, copied and discussed the better.

A major contribution to this work is the essay Sloganeering by artist Dave Beech, in which he asks the question, most cogently, “Public art exists. What does it do?” We would especially like to thank Dave for his collaboration on the development of the Three Functions project.

The Three Functions are:
The economic function of public art is to increase the value of private property.
The social function of public art is to subject us to civic behaviour.
The aesthetic function of public art is to codify social
distinctions as natural ones. *

Andy Hewitt and Mel Jordan

The Three Functions poster publication including the three posters and Dave Beech's essay was printed in an edition of 500. It is available from publications@hewittandjordan.com for £5.00 plus postage.

Sloganeering by Dave Beech (download pdf, 60kb)

Click on an image to download a pdf of the poster




* The Aesthetic Function of Public Art is in collaboration with Dave Beech


Vitrine is an 18-month curatorial project for Leeds by Pippa Hale and Kerry Harker. From November 2004 to April 2006, they are staging a series of contemporary visual arts exhibitions in ‘vitrines’ (glass display cabinets) in public spaces around the city centre. The project aims to provide new exhibition and commission opportunities to artists based in the city and the region, to engage with siting art in non-gallery spaces and to explore the role of art in public space.

Three Functions has been commissioned by Vitrine and will be on show from 13th May - 8th July 2005. This will coincide with Situation Leeds: Contemporary Artists and the Public Realm, 16th - 29th May 2005.

Vitrine