Mathematical Niceness...

As I seem to be in a number headspace over the last few days...

These are all a bit open source so keep that in mind.

If we assume that it takes approximately 100,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of beef (1) and the average Australian consumes 35.6kg of beef (as part of 49.7kg of red meat in general (2)) per year we can equate that to the Australian population (3) consuming 760 million kg of beef or 776,000 billion litres of water.... likely in the form of nasty sausages.

The beef industry claims to produce a total of 2.1 billion kg of beef and exports 67% of production each year so the 760 million kg marries up.

It does however breakdown in that none of the total Australia water consumption numbers comes close to the 776,000 billion litres that 'should' be somewhere in the data. According to the Government water authority only 79,784 billion is actually 'extracted' each year from the environment.

Anyway... back to the point of all this running around... we were talking tonight about how a 15% reduction in red meat consumption (approx. 1 night 'less' per week) might affect the various numbers.

The average Perth-ite 'officially' uses 264 litres of water each day (4) but if they are each consuming their allocated 'proportion' of beef, they are using an extra 9,750 litres per day to keep up with the Jones.

A 15% reduction would equate to saving 1,000 litres per person per day. It does tend to put water restrictions and Sam Neil's daggy dancing into perspective.

(1) David Pimentel, Cornel University.
(2) Meat and Livestock Australia: http://www.mla.com.au.
(3) Australian Population is currently 21,374,000: World Bank.
(4) Water Corporation: http://www.watercorporation.com.au

They're reading my email ... ?

I don't use freemail services other than when on holiday* or if I'm away from my computers for an extended period. I recently set up a gmail account as it seemed like a bright idea, especially with the whole google docs thing and their extensive storage capacity.

But... it's obvious to me that google is actually 'reading' my email. The 'sponsored links' are disturbingly accurate to the email content. As an example, today I was discussing prices and other details of a specific print job with a client. That is, how many pages, quantities, what size, etc, etc.

Ads appeared that even included prices from different companies for exactly that job.

Whilst G disclaim that 'No humans will read the content of your email in order to target such advertisements or related information' I do find the demographic/statistical aspects a bit haunting.

I've always said that I would tolerate advertising if it was specific to my tastes in order to do/see x cheaper but when I actually encountered such things, I do find it somehow invasive.

More info: http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=6603

* An odd word to type, not sure what it means anymore.

The Genius of Ignorance

I was explaining the various dashes (hyphens, en-dashes, em-dashes, etc) and Elisa suggested they - those mysterious thems - should rename 'hyphen' to 'r-dash'. It all makes sense on paper: m = em-dash; n = en-dash; so r = r-dash

Digital Amputations and Re-Calibration

Just before I get on with my rant, 'Digital Amputation' is not something you should type into google. I've been thinking a lot lately about what's been causing me all this anxiety over the last few months and I seem to have been able to narrow it down a 'bit'.

There are multiple problems and virtues with access and awareness. The most major of which is that I can easily follow the success of others - peers and otherwise. This microstalking does tend to highlight in large, red letters any personal failings.

If not for fear of being 'out of touch', I have seriously considered turning off these taps. I crash heavily when I read about x or y doing this or that whilst I pathetically type a blog entry (aka rant) in my cave.

I try (perhaps not hard enough) not to compare or compete with others around me but I do tend to calibrate my ideas of what 'works' against accomplishments of others.

I really (read REALLY) don't like this model of competing - very much evident in arts funding, awards and other such things - as it's not healthy for those who regularly 'fail'.

We are all told repeatedly to 'not take it personally' but it's inevitable that the failings jolt. Thoughts creep in as to whether the work is unsuccessful and 'needs' to change. This is also extremely unhealthy for a practice, especially if the change is influenced from the 'outside'. Work should evolve naturally and in healthy, creative environments not under outcomes-based pressures.

There is also the issue of opportunity and choice. Growing up in small-town, pre-internet New Zealand, access to information was very much an issue. Something that frustrated me - as others - no end.

Having access to so much can be very rewarding, inspiring, challenging and engaging.

At the other end of the extreme, we are now flooded with so much that we need to work extremely hard to filter out the 'fluff' and avoid distraction.

If you'll excuse the long bow, instead of a single generic can of soup, we now have to choose between not just the aesthetics of the can and the taste of the product but a multitude of other criteria.

We might know that a market in Togo has '...the best tomato soup in the world' and that we are 'foolish' to consume anything less. How do we resolve the 30 cans in front of us at any given moment? Do we taste them all? Have we made the correct decision? Did 14 Dolphins just die because we took a mouthful of this or that? Dare we show our choice to others for fear of ridicule?

There is always this stress (self-imposed) that I should do this or that and if I don't then I feel like I've squandered an opportunity. This fear is something that is widely and financially exploited by a multitude of institutions.

I don't know the solution - personally and otherwise - but I do know that the current cycle I'm in is leaving me so disillusioned that it's extremely hard to pick up the camera.

I did see Kick Starter a few months ago which I appreciate. Even if it's still outcomes-based I think the micro-model opens philanthropy to a different and more excitable demographic than - warning: pomposity - institutionalized, homogenous mediocrity.

Every now and then...

... I stumble upon an image, idea or poignant sentence that changes things. In this case, I was looking around for Death Masks (something I've been interested in for a while) and I found L'Inconnue de la Seine (French for “the unknown woman of the Seine”). It's a fascinating story - irrelevant of it's truth or otherwise - and I like the dynamic of how it's influenced artists, writers and the like.

A few years ago I was playing around with the idea that photographs are like death masks or tombstones. This is similar to an idea that I read (heard?) once where someone in the 19th century equated the photographic image to an Exuviae* - literally a 'pealing' of he/she who has been imaged.

I'm not so sure anymore about the appropriateness or robustness of the analogy but I can still see the virtues of how a mask indicates pose and lack of context and a tombstone/obit might be an ideological construction.

* I've now got another new word that I can't pronounce: 'Exuviae is a term used in biology to describe the remains of an exoskeleton that is left after an arthropod (insect, crustacean or arachnid) has moulted.' (source: wiki)

Strategies of restoration

Elisa and I have discussed at various times how artists, craftspeople and historians engage with the idea of restoration. There is the issue of whether the new should blend into the old or if it should be clearly defined. An example of this would be concrete vs limestone in a restoration of an old building. This is particularly applicable to Elisa's engagement with memory and various ideas I've written about in relation to her work. Rather than it being research-based, she surrenders to the 'holes' in her recollections. Similarly, my work has looked at experience and ambuigity. This replicates - to a certain extent - how we and others confront the world without context and 'appropiate' tools.

The Great Straw Cartel

It seems of late that I am clasping - without luck - for 'them'. My paranoia about any cartel is naïve and unfounded but who else can I blame? Oh yeah... The odd-looking one in the corner.

Yet another gold mine...

In April 1998 - a date easy to remember as I painfully gave up smoking on this break - Elisa and I spent 9 days in Vienna. In amongst the many highlights - not least of which, Klimt's and Schiele's in the flesh - there was a visit to the Museum der Angewandten Kunst (MKA - Museum of Applied Arts).

They had a collection of textiles/laces there that, in hindsight, had a intoxicating effect on Elisa and arguably inspired some of the work she's been doing since.

On a whim I thought this morning to check if they had this particular collection online and ... well ... voila would be a word significantly lacking in syllables to describe what I found. Not only do they have what was on display but other elements that are VERY interesting graphically.

What is by far most extraordinary is that the entire collection is meta-ed up so you can search by colours and a multitude of other criteria.

There are some other collections (posters, design, etc) that can also be viewed online.