A well known Hollywood actress has been diagnosed with severe vitamin D deficiency as a result of avoiding sunshine. Gwyneth Paltrow, most famous for her teary over-long Oscar speech and some films that I can’t care enough to remember, was diagnosed after suffering a Tibial plateau fracture… that’s the top of the shin bone for the rest of us. A subsequent bone scan revealed the beginnings of osteopenia, which many medical folks see as the precursor to osteoporosis.
In an attempt to stay young-looking Paltrow has spent a good deal of time avoiding the ageing effects of sunshine by staying indoors on nice days and covering up on the rare occasions that she finds herself outside. Not only has this resulted in an alabaster complexion to die for but, by avoiding the sun, she has become spectacularly deficient in vitamin D which, along with protecting us against some forms of cancer, keeps our bones strong. As well as prescribing massive remedial supplements of the vitamin, her doctors told her to spend more time in the sun.
There are two factors in the desire to stay whiter than white. For centuries white skin has been a goal for many women. Among the aristocracies of China and Europe for instance, swarthy skin was considered vulgar. Renaissance artists celebrated women with translucent marble-like skin. White skin meant good breeding. The efforts to maintain white skin in the past have been as damaging as Paltrow’s efforts in this century. Notoriously, arsenic and mercury were two compounds of choice for whitening skin. They do of course kill you, but that was felt to be a small price to pay for beauty and status.
The other factor is skin cancer. Or, more accurately, the fear of skin cancer whipped up by media reports and ill thought out government campaigns.
Speaking about something that the entire world has experienced daily since the beginning of time and that creates and sustains life on the planet, Paltrow said "I was curious if it was safe, having been told for years to stay away from its dangerous rays”. She doesn’t say exactly who told her to stay away from the sun but we can guess that alarmist media and government advice had something to do with it. The horrors of skin cancer are promoted widely. Certainly in Australia hardly a week goes by without being presented with a TV image or vast motorway poster close-up of a melanoma… lest we forget.
Much less promoted are the benefits of sunlight. Apart from stopping our bones from crumbling, studies also show that optimal vitamin D levels protect against ovarian, pancreatic, lung and breast cancers. A lack of vitamin D can also lead to cardiovascular disease and cognitive impairment in adults.
We spend a lot of time indoors nowadays; probably more than at any other time in history. Even when it’s not raining. Quite what the cumulative effect of our indoor lives will be is only just being uncovered: shorter life expectancy, environmental ignorance and social ineptitude may be the melting tip of the iceberg.
An actress can be forgiven for behaving like this, as the earnings crash that occurs to women in Hollywood at the first signs of wrinkles is usually spectacular. The rest of us have no such excuse.
Get out more, and enjoy responsibly.
Gwyneth Paltrow's original newsletter article
Hormone disruptors and nano-chemicals - latest guide to safe sunscreens
-
Friday, June 18, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
British Life To Change Forever
David Cameron or Nick Clegg warned today that he would change forever the way the British lived. Dismissing accusations of social engineering as “the whining of wound-licking socialist running dogs” he stated “there is no such thing as society, therefore there can be no such thing as social engineering.”
The UK prime minister warned that the cuts to public services would be unpleasant, however the good news was that he would never meet those most affected by the changes at a dinner party. He went on to say that unpleasant things were always good for you, which meant the cuts were Common Sense and the Right Thing to do. The war in Iraq and the medicine his nanny used to give him were proof if proof were needed, he added.
Speaking later at a London private club to an audience of Daily Mail readers bussed in from Middle England David Cameron or Nick Clegg said “in layman’s terms the problem with the NHS and social welfare is that they simply do not make any money.” He then went on to attack the idea that these services were necessary. “I’ve never had to use them, and I can’t see why anyone else would need to either.”
“These cuts are not motivated by ideology, they are simply Common Sense. We plan to close the NHS and stop welfare payments to voters in the North.” He then went on to talk about the importance of continuity, pledging to continue the Labour Party’s policy of donating tax revenue to the banks. “They make excellent profits, and this is Good Business.”
Hitting back at criticism he said “suggestions that public spending can somehow support growth and improve the economy are the insane ravings of the sort of left-wing university intellectuals who never invited me to their parties at Oxford.” Stepping back from the microphone he then punched the air and shouted, "who's the daddy? I own you bitches" before continuing to lay out the government's planned cuts.
Inspired by the public apology given recently by Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, for the excessive cuts of his predecessors David Cameron or Nick Clegg announced that the UK government would quickly form a Canadian-style Star Chamber of Private Sector experts to make government more efficient. “The speed with which BP have dealt with the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico should be a lesson to us all” he shouted over rapturous applause from the Daily Mail readers.
After the speech James Kirk, a Daily Mail reader from Penge said “finally we have a government with Common Sense. It’s about time those scroungers in the North stopped taking out of the taxpayer’s pocket. If they want health care they should cash in some of their investments to pay for it like I do.”
“At last we've got a proper English government that we can look up to instead of all those fucking Jocks.”
A hommage of sorts to the Daily Mash
The UK prime minister warned that the cuts to public services would be unpleasant, however the good news was that he would never meet those most affected by the changes at a dinner party. He went on to say that unpleasant things were always good for you, which meant the cuts were Common Sense and the Right Thing to do. The war in Iraq and the medicine his nanny used to give him were proof if proof were needed, he added.
Speaking later at a London private club to an audience of Daily Mail readers bussed in from Middle England David Cameron or Nick Clegg said “in layman’s terms the problem with the NHS and social welfare is that they simply do not make any money.” He then went on to attack the idea that these services were necessary. “I’ve never had to use them, and I can’t see why anyone else would need to either.”
“These cuts are not motivated by ideology, they are simply Common Sense. We plan to close the NHS and stop welfare payments to voters in the North.” He then went on to talk about the importance of continuity, pledging to continue the Labour Party’s policy of donating tax revenue to the banks. “They make excellent profits, and this is Good Business.”
Hitting back at criticism he said “suggestions that public spending can somehow support growth and improve the economy are the insane ravings of the sort of left-wing university intellectuals who never invited me to their parties at Oxford.” Stepping back from the microphone he then punched the air and shouted, "who's the daddy? I own you bitches" before continuing to lay out the government's planned cuts.
Inspired by the public apology given recently by Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, for the excessive cuts of his predecessors David Cameron or Nick Clegg announced that the UK government would quickly form a Canadian-style Star Chamber of Private Sector experts to make government more efficient. “The speed with which BP have dealt with the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico should be a lesson to us all” he shouted over rapturous applause from the Daily Mail readers.
After the speech James Kirk, a Daily Mail reader from Penge said “finally we have a government with Common Sense. It’s about time those scroungers in the North stopped taking out of the taxpayer’s pocket. If they want health care they should cash in some of their investments to pay for it like I do.”
“At last we've got a proper English government that we can look up to instead of all those fucking Jocks.”
A hommage of sorts to the Daily Mash
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Regeneration Nightmares Vol 1
Part of the day job is working with folks who don't get much of a say in how their environment is built and managed.
Part of what we do is host events that are accessible, fun and create a casual atmosphere that enables people to voice their opinions on decisions that will affect their places. We take these opinions and ensure they influence the planning decisions from the beginning of the project.
This is a cartoon I made a while back which we were going to use in a piece of promo that didn't quite come off.
It is, of course, a work of fiction and no resemblance to any real person, living or dead, or any public art project, is intended or implied.
Part of what we do is host events that are accessible, fun and create a casual atmosphere that enables people to voice their opinions on decisions that will affect their places. We take these opinions and ensure they influence the planning decisions from the beginning of the project.
This is a cartoon I made a while back which we were going to use in a piece of promo that didn't quite come off.
It is, of course, a work of fiction and no resemblance to any real person, living or dead, or any public art project, is intended or implied.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Red Dot or Not
Three and a half easy ways to earn a living as an artist
The Red Dot is the goal of many artists. The Red Dot confers on the artist (after a suitable wait for the gallery to process the payment and remove their commission) almost superhuman powers such as the ability to pay rent or their overdue electricity bill. In quantity the Red Dot can produce a kind of mania and artists who have the Red Dot can be seen in supermarkets spending lavishly on basic food items that are not on special or near their sell-by date. This all sounds great but beware. Artists who have too many Red Dots may be seen by commercial galleries as “product”. Do you really want to be painting the same picture in ten years time? And remember, you’re only as good as your last show.
Then there are artists who shun the Red Dot. For them it is a symbol of a system that forces artists to sell their souls and prostitute their abilities to produce meaningless gewgaws for the bourgeoisie. They are the Cutting Edge, challenging the concepts and conceits of Art and refusing to sell out to the system. They remain true to themselves by competing for official government support in the form of grants and residencies. Filling out application forms and lobbying decision makers can often be time consuming and in many cases these artists see grant applications and social networking as part of their art form.
The third way to earn a living as an artist is to earn a living doing something else. What that might be depends on the artist but it is often wise to choose something that offers flexible hours and does not involve creativity so that can be saved for making art. Administration and hospitality are popular choices. Infantry soldier and trawler fisherman less so. Nightshifts can be handy for artists who prefer to work in daylight. Aside from the ability to eat and pay rent, a big advantage of this method is that it allows artists to experience "real life" which in turn can give their art more "meaning". Experiencing real life, along with a working class background and claiming an indigenous great-grandmother are essential for any artist who wants to be written about in a lifestyle magazine. Being attractive and/or having a nice house can also help.
For artists at the beginning of their "career" (as it’s been called since the 80’s) it should be noted that none of these methods is guaranteed to net financial success. In only a few cases will the Red Dot sales approach make the artist permanently wealthy. Government agendas change often and only artists adept at predicting fashions can rely on grants. The third method is not without danger too. The seductive lure of eating regularly and being able to socialise with friends who have proper jobs can lead to voluntarily taking on more hours until there is little time left for art making. So the “three-and-a-halfth” method, and the most sustainable, is to do all three, in a balance that suits.
A final sober word of caution. Many students at Art School (or “university” as it’s been called since the 90’s) view the idea of doing nothing but make art as a sort of holy grail. When you’re surrounded by other people making art in a social atmosphere it’s easy to imagine doing just that for the rest of your days. The reality is that often art-making is a very solitary occupation and anyone considering being an artist for the rest of their lives should consider how they might balance that with other activities that keep them human. Even if you don’t need the money, maybe that barista job is a good idea.
The Red Dot is the goal of many artists. The Red Dot confers on the artist (after a suitable wait for the gallery to process the payment and remove their commission) almost superhuman powers such as the ability to pay rent or their overdue electricity bill. In quantity the Red Dot can produce a kind of mania and artists who have the Red Dot can be seen in supermarkets spending lavishly on basic food items that are not on special or near their sell-by date. This all sounds great but beware. Artists who have too many Red Dots may be seen by commercial galleries as “product”. Do you really want to be painting the same picture in ten years time? And remember, you’re only as good as your last show.
Then there are artists who shun the Red Dot. For them it is a symbol of a system that forces artists to sell their souls and prostitute their abilities to produce meaningless gewgaws for the bourgeoisie. They are the Cutting Edge, challenging the concepts and conceits of Art and refusing to sell out to the system. They remain true to themselves by competing for official government support in the form of grants and residencies. Filling out application forms and lobbying decision makers can often be time consuming and in many cases these artists see grant applications and social networking as part of their art form.
The third way to earn a living as an artist is to earn a living doing something else. What that might be depends on the artist but it is often wise to choose something that offers flexible hours and does not involve creativity so that can be saved for making art. Administration and hospitality are popular choices. Infantry soldier and trawler fisherman less so. Nightshifts can be handy for artists who prefer to work in daylight. Aside from the ability to eat and pay rent, a big advantage of this method is that it allows artists to experience "real life" which in turn can give their art more "meaning". Experiencing real life, along with a working class background and claiming an indigenous great-grandmother are essential for any artist who wants to be written about in a lifestyle magazine. Being attractive and/or having a nice house can also help.
For artists at the beginning of their "career" (as it’s been called since the 80’s) it should be noted that none of these methods is guaranteed to net financial success. In only a few cases will the Red Dot sales approach make the artist permanently wealthy. Government agendas change often and only artists adept at predicting fashions can rely on grants. The third method is not without danger too. The seductive lure of eating regularly and being able to socialise with friends who have proper jobs can lead to voluntarily taking on more hours until there is little time left for art making. So the “three-and-a-halfth” method, and the most sustainable, is to do all three, in a balance that suits.
A final sober word of caution. Many students at Art School (or “university” as it’s been called since the 90’s) view the idea of doing nothing but make art as a sort of holy grail. When you’re surrounded by other people making art in a social atmosphere it’s easy to imagine doing just that for the rest of your days. The reality is that often art-making is a very solitary occupation and anyone considering being an artist for the rest of their lives should consider how they might balance that with other activities that keep them human. Even if you don’t need the money, maybe that barista job is a good idea.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Breathing New Life into an Old Routine
There’s a new coalition government in the UK and it seems there are commentators in the press who are worried that the ConDem Alliance will somehow fail the country. They worry that a government of two halves will not be able to make timely and accurate decisions, will compromise, fudge issues and fail to deliver on its election pledges. Surely not?
Aside from lobbyists having to work twice as hard with twice the budget it should be business as usual. What the press commentators fail to remember is that England has a long history of such alliances stretching back nearly a century. From Flanagan and Allen through Morecambe and Wise, Cannon and Ball to Reeves and Mortimer, the double act is a tried and tested method for pleasing the punters and should do well in the House of Commons. Here’s what Wikipedia says about it:
“The template for the modern double act began in the British music halls and the American vaudeville scene of the late nineteenth century. Here, the "straight man" was a necessity as he would repeat the lines of the "comic". This was done simply because the audience would be noisy, and repeating the joke gave the audience a fighting chance of hearing the joke and the comedians a fighting chance of getting a good reaction. Soon the dynamic developed so that the "straight man" became a more integral part of the act, setting up jokes that the comic could then deliver the "punchline" to.”
Which one will be the straight man? Who will get the louder laughs? It’s an exciting time in English politics and it’s all still up for grabs.
More about the double act on Wikipedia
Aside from lobbyists having to work twice as hard with twice the budget it should be business as usual. What the press commentators fail to remember is that England has a long history of such alliances stretching back nearly a century. From Flanagan and Allen through Morecambe and Wise, Cannon and Ball to Reeves and Mortimer, the double act is a tried and tested method for pleasing the punters and should do well in the House of Commons. Here’s what Wikipedia says about it:
“The template for the modern double act began in the British music halls and the American vaudeville scene of the late nineteenth century. Here, the "straight man" was a necessity as he would repeat the lines of the "comic". This was done simply because the audience would be noisy, and repeating the joke gave the audience a fighting chance of hearing the joke and the comedians a fighting chance of getting a good reaction. Soon the dynamic developed so that the "straight man" became a more integral part of the act, setting up jokes that the comic could then deliver the "punchline" to.”
Which one will be the straight man? Who will get the louder laughs? It’s an exciting time in English politics and it’s all still up for grabs.
More about the double act on Wikipedia
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Root of All Evil
I read an article recently about a bicycle "upcycling" (the sexier added-value marketing version of recycling) operation in Daylesford, Victoria where the author claimed that any technology developed after the Stone Age was to blame for the planet being “in a mess”. This sort of woolly thinking is pretty common amongst the rank and file of the environmental movement, and the article finally prompted me to pull some of it apart for closer inspection.
Now, first off, unless the author is citing the Flintstones as his primary source material, the wheel is not a Stone Age technology. The oldest known wheel was built by the Sumerians in 3500 BC. I’ll also skip the fact that double-butted steel tubing, aluminium alloy, and the pneumatic tyre are also considerably more contemporary and, especially in the case of aluminium, hardly enviroguilt-free.
Then there’s the tacit assumption that the world is “in a mess”. It isn’t. Globally we have never been so healthy, wealthy and peaceful. Yes, there is suffering aplenty still going on. There is inequity, repression and violence in some parts of the world, but there are also large parts of it that are stable, reasonably peaceful and allow their citizens more freedom, food and subsidised dentistry than at any time in history. The fact that this is built to an extent on the inequity, repression and violence in other parts of the world is part of this post so stay with me, I’m not finished.
A lot of the world isn’t in a mess. In fact in so-called-developed countries the thought of losing our pleasant lifestyle is part of what makes so many of us afraid of the future. Our lifestyle allows us sufficient leisure time to create and nurture fears and it’s these fears, often stoked by the media and manipulated by the institutions of power, that turn any ring of change into the clanging chimes of catastrophe. The world isn’t in a mess, but it seems there’s always a mess waiting for us just around the corner. There must be, the thinking goes, because it’s nothing less than we deserve for being so comfortable. Sod’s Law.
Climate change may well be upon us. A large majority of climate experts agree that it is, and it seems reasonable to accept that is the case. Regardless of whether the cause is part of a natural cycle or the fact that we left the lights on last night, there’s a probability of some large changes in the world in the next few decades as populations shift, and it’s up to us to figure out ways to accommodate these changes.
Some folks fear change, others embrace it, and these two camps break down in the climate debate into adaptation and mitigation. Change isn’t bad, it’s how the world works whether we like it or not, and large scale change can offer us chances to make things better for many more folks in the world… if we’re smart and can grasp them. In the face of the perceived threat of climate change there’s the potential for unprecedented cooperation between nations, the opportunity to scrutinise and pick apart the iniquitous and exploitative systems that the global economy is built upon (see, I said I'd come back to it), and a million chances to do things better individually, as a community, nationally and globally. And the great thing about making these changes is that, even if climate sceptics are right, the effort won’t have been wasted because our world will be a better place than it was before. Win win.
Now on to the belief that technology is evil. Technology is not to blame for climate change any more than language is to blame for bad diplomacy. Laying blame on abstract concepts like technology which have no inherent will, agenda or direction is woolly thinking at its finest. Merino thinking.
Damning technology as the cause of the world’s ills is as pointless as holding it up to be the saviour of our future. Technology will be with us for as long as we are here, and every new invention will bring associated benefits and costs. Witness sustainable power generation. Solar? Wind? Hydro?Tidal? Flooded valleys, noise pollution, high production costs… nothing is free, nothing is without consequence. It’s up to us to debate and decide which consequences we can live with.
Those who believe in technology as a saviour seek comfort in a consequence-free future of time travel, anti-matter and fusion reactors. Those railing against technology comfort themselves by feeling they are opposing the institutions, governments and corporations that shape the development and deployment of technology. However, railing against technology plays into the hands of the capitalist system, giving producers new avenues to diversify their market, producing so-called “green” or “environmentally friendly” versions of the same product. Put “Eco” in front of the name and you can shift another million units of pretty much any old crap.
Problem or solution, any debate about technology is a distraction from more important questions. Harder questions. We would be better to examine our use of technology. We could examine technology’s unholy relationship with the institutions of power that have shaped the direction technology has taken; we could examine the marketing of technology and the confection of wants. Then we could dig deeper. We could examine our needs and desires. We could question our greed, our sense of fulfilment, our need for status or power. We could ask ourselves which pieces of the technology story, good or bad, we are willing to ignore when we tell it.
It seems we have a talent for filtering self-examination out of issues. Many folks today misuse the Christian New Testament quote when they say “money is the root of all evil”, neatly scapegoating yet another non-deterministic concept. Add back “the love of” to the quote and we have a much more penetrating critique. Let’s do the same for our relationships with technology, with power structures and with each other. Then we can start a conversation that’s going somewhere.
Friday, November 20, 2009
When The Drugs Don't Work
A recent review [i] ordered by the Department of Health in the UK on the use of anti-psychotic drugs on dementia sufferers states that as many as 144,000 people are being given the drugs unnecessarily. The report, authored by Sube Banerjee, professor of mental health and ageing at the institute of psychiatry at King's College London, reveals that excessive use of the medication causes an estimated 1,800 deaths and almost as many strokes among older people every year.
The drugs, used as “chemical restraints”, are given to people with dementia in care homes in order to reduce common behaviour patterns such as wandering, shouting and repeated questioning which make it difficult for staff to maintain an orderly and calm working environment. Anti-psychotics for older people? Like failed anti-histamines that made you too drowsy repositioned in the market as “sleep aids”, could this possibly be a re-branding of a drug based on a market gap rather than efficacy? Surely not! But wait, this isn’t a Big Pharma rant.
The care services minister, Phil Hope, accepted all the recommendations in the review and promised a fundamental change in the treatment of those suffering from dementia, however it seems that the focus will be on monitoring the use of the drugs, rather than real fundamental changes. This is unfortunate and a missed opportunity as the issue here is not more appropriate administration of chemical restraints.
Care homes are often places unlike anything that we have lived in before. Efficiently medical, the environment offers few cues to engagement, fewer clues to the activities we might perform as residents. Small wonder that folks are found to be shouting, questioning and wandering. Where’s the kitchen? Where’s my armchair? Why can't I make myself a cup of tea? The environments do not cause dementia, but I would like to see a study to plot the rate of deterioration in residents versus folks living “on the outside”. Morgan Spurlock, the maker of Super Size Me, should spend a month living in a care home as some residents do and measure his grip on reality. There has to be a movie in there somewhere.
The issue is that the environments we are forced into as we get older contain no emotional meaning for us. Why should that matter when the focus should be on medical care? Emotional meaning is held in a part of the brain that is one of the last to be damaged by dementia. Dr. John Zeisel who runs a care home network in the United States, writes that those living with dementia can still connect to the world around them, and those who love them, through art, music, touch and facial expression. According to Dr. Zeisel building care home environments that support a life with meaning has been proved to be at least as effective at reducing stress and anxiety as the anti-psychotic drugs.
Dr. Zeisel is one of the consultants on the Creative Spaces project. Run by Sensory Trust, the project brings people with dementia back together with members of their community to redesign the outdoor spaces in care homes run by Cornwall Care in the UK. This three year project seeks to create meaningful outdoor, semi-public spaces around care homes and to give residents the chance to reconnect emotionally both with the environments and with the community.
One in three of us will die with some form of dementia, and those with dementia live on average for four and a half years with the condition [ii]. If the creation of more meaningful environments can improve the quality of life for those with dementia, their families, carers and staff, surely that is the fundamental change we should see in care provision?
The drugs, used as “chemical restraints”, are given to people with dementia in care homes in order to reduce common behaviour patterns such as wandering, shouting and repeated questioning which make it difficult for staff to maintain an orderly and calm working environment. Anti-psychotics for older people? Like failed anti-histamines that made you too drowsy repositioned in the market as “sleep aids”, could this possibly be a re-branding of a drug based on a market gap rather than efficacy? Surely not! But wait, this isn’t a Big Pharma rant.
The care services minister, Phil Hope, accepted all the recommendations in the review and promised a fundamental change in the treatment of those suffering from dementia, however it seems that the focus will be on monitoring the use of the drugs, rather than real fundamental changes. This is unfortunate and a missed opportunity as the issue here is not more appropriate administration of chemical restraints.
Care homes are often places unlike anything that we have lived in before. Efficiently medical, the environment offers few cues to engagement, fewer clues to the activities we might perform as residents. Small wonder that folks are found to be shouting, questioning and wandering. Where’s the kitchen? Where’s my armchair? Why can't I make myself a cup of tea? The environments do not cause dementia, but I would like to see a study to plot the rate of deterioration in residents versus folks living “on the outside”. Morgan Spurlock, the maker of Super Size Me, should spend a month living in a care home as some residents do and measure his grip on reality. There has to be a movie in there somewhere.
The issue is that the environments we are forced into as we get older contain no emotional meaning for us. Why should that matter when the focus should be on medical care? Emotional meaning is held in a part of the brain that is one of the last to be damaged by dementia. Dr. John Zeisel who runs a care home network in the United States, writes that those living with dementia can still connect to the world around them, and those who love them, through art, music, touch and facial expression. According to Dr. Zeisel building care home environments that support a life with meaning has been proved to be at least as effective at reducing stress and anxiety as the anti-psychotic drugs.
Dr. Zeisel is one of the consultants on the Creative Spaces project. Run by Sensory Trust, the project brings people with dementia back together with members of their community to redesign the outdoor spaces in care homes run by Cornwall Care in the UK. This three year project seeks to create meaningful outdoor, semi-public spaces around care homes and to give residents the chance to reconnect emotionally both with the environments and with the community.
One in three of us will die with some form of dementia, and those with dementia live on average for four and a half years with the condition [ii]. If the creation of more meaningful environments can improve the quality of life for those with dementia, their families, carers and staff, surely that is the fundamental change we should see in care provision?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
