Exploring topics and being part of the debate using photographs

[Donald]

One of functions that photographs and photography can have is to prompt debate. The objective of the Contemporary Group of the Royal Photographic Society (RPS) is: -Photography that conveys ideas, stimulates thought and encourages interpretation; photographs "about" rather than "of".

This takes us far from producing 'one off' prints and into the realms of explorations (or projects).

That is the way I have taken my photography of late. Hot on the heels of my exploration of the newly commissioned 'power super highway' running across the country and its impact on the land, I have turned my attention to renewable energy. Scotland prides itself on being a champion of renewable energy - land and sea-based wind farms; tidal; wave; and solar.

However, much as renewable energy is needed as we fight to tackle climate change, wind farms in particular have the ability to generate wildly differing views and hotly debated arguments. For example, in response to an image I published in an online forum dedicated to that part of Scotland that is overrun, some will argue, by wind farms, I got:- "HORRIBLE. They represent the rape of our beautiful Caithness landscape + the prostitution of members of the community who are unable to voice opposition as they fear ridicule if they were to make use of projects funded by these things."

I think photography should be used as part of debate, either to prompt opinion or to voice opinion. This is not about producing fine art images for the wall. Nor is it, I think, photo-journalism. Perhaps it is best placed in a photo-book. But is a challenge and fun to do.

[billtils]

... For example, in response to an image I published in an online forum dedicated to that part of Scotland that is overrun, some will argue, by wind farms, I got:- [I]"HORRIBLE. They represent the rape of our beautiful Caithness landscape + the prostitution of members of the community who are unable to voice opposition as they fear ridicule if they were to make use of projects funded by these things."

Like you say Donald, they are widely and hotly debated, and whether I find them attractive, ugly, or none of these, matters not, but I do think that they are more attractive and better for the environment everywhere (including Caithness) than are the traditional means of power generation (and the not so traditional one of nuclear plants).

[Chataignier]

@billtils I do so agree. It is hypocritical to claim to be pro renewable energy and then to reject the means of achieving it. Caithness and other parts of Scotland benefited for years from energy generated by ugly and polluting coal fired power stations located in someone else's back yard.
I was horrified recently when our local council here in France, elected on a green ticket, voted against a wind turbine project arguing that it would be unsightly. Fortunately the project went ahead with support from the département and other bodies.

[Manfred M]

I think I would include this image in the "interpretive documentary" category. You are definitely documenting what you saw but have done so in a style that grabs the viewers attention in a way that pure documentation or photojournalism does not, viewing these rather mundane structures as something worthy of discussion from an artistic, rather than purely documentary standpoint.

The debate about any impact of any human impact on the local environment always brings out the proponents and opponents with simple slogans and arguments that boil things down to the "you are either with us or against us" views. Reality is much more complex, but these discussions rarely happen because the loudest voice, delivered by the most charismatic speaker tends to win the day. That is unfortunate as people should understand the true impact in order to have a meaningful opinion on these subjects.

As a photographer / artist, we can approach these challenging societal issues from a number of directions. If we are for or against, these views can be expressed fairly simply. If we are trying to invoke a meaningful debate, a lot more subtlety is required as a more balanced view showing the pros and cons might be the way to go. A single image is toughest as it gives the viewer very little to work with; a series often helps clarify. At exhibitions, the "artist's statement" helps a lot as it can help guide the viewer with some guidance on top of just the images.

Let's not forget that other forms of energy production were viewed as being positive when they were first introduced. Burning fossil fuels provided inexpensive and reliable power the enabled providing the population with clean water and waste removal; the electric trolleys got those messy horses off the street. Dams provided clean, renewable energy, but made a massive impact on the environment, impacted both human and wildlife habitats. Nuclear energy was once touted as clean and non-polluting...

[DanK]

On this side of the pond, we have an acronym for this: NIMBY, and NIMBYism: "not in my back yard." One answer to such people is: "by what other means would you prefer to have your electricity generated?"

We have a row of them on a mountain ridge in Western Massachusetts. Personally, I find them majestic, but I would be pleased to see them even if I found them ugly. That much less C02 screwing up the world for my grandkids.

We have had solar panels on our roof for almost 6 years and have generated roughly 95% of the total amount of power we have consumed. When we have talked with friends and neighbors about this, most are enthusiastic--most not enthusiastic enough to purchase their own--but some say they won't consider doing it because solar panels are "unsightly". My response has been that I never found asphalt shingles attractive, but it doesn't matter: the electricity has to come from somewhere, and when one considers its effects, conventional generation is very ugly indeed.

But back to photography: I think Donald's point about moving from single prints to projects is an important one. Taken by itself, this single image, which I find stunning, could be "of" as well as "about." As part of a series, it would move more in the "about" direction.

Something for me to think about. My work has definitely been in the "of" camp, but the idea of spending time on the "what" end of the continuum is very appealing.

[LePetomane]

We have a row of them on a mountain ridge in Western Massachusetts.

Can you see them from your home?

[xpatUSA]

On this side of the pond, we have an acronym for this: NIMBY, and NIMBYism: "not in my back yard." One answer to such people is: "by what other means would you prefer to have your electricity generated?"

I am also amused by the self-satisfied attitude of folks when plugging in their electric vehicles - thereby causing some coal-fired power station up North to belch more SO2 into the atmosphere or a gas turbine to send more NOx up it's exhaust stack.

But back to photography: I think Donald's point about moving from single prints to projects is an important one. Taken by itself, this single image, which I find stunning, could be "of" as well as "about." As part of a series, it would move more in the "about" direction.

Something for me to think about. My work has definitely been in the "of" camp, but the idea of spending time on the "what" end of the continuum is very appealing.

Most of my photography is for the purpose of illustrating technical points, often resulting in some really bad images, so I guess that I always had an "ongoing project" ...

[Manfred M]

I am also amused by the self-satisfied attitude of folks when plugging in their electric vehicles - thereby causing some coal-fired power station up North to belch more SO2 into the atmosphere or a gas turbine to send more NOx up it's exhaust stack.

Depends where in the world this is happening, so the "cleanness" of electric vehicles does vary. The USA seems to be getting better (based on 2018 data) as is much of the rest of the developed world. There are a few corners of Europe (the Baltic State, if I recall correctly) where there is still a high reliance on coal powered plants. Much of the developing world, especially India and China (although I understand that China is getting cleaner), perhaps not.

Unfortunately, a lot of people still hold what you have written as being correct, even if it is not. Coal fired plants in the USA are not producing competitively priced electricity, versus natural gas, with the cost of transport being the main factor. Put the coal fired plant right on top of a coal mine, then the answer is a bit different.

You might find the map in the attached article of interest.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmu...-yes-heres-why

My interest is both academic and practical as I spent my first 2-1/2 years after getting my degree in mechanical engineering (early 1980s) working in the nuclear and fossil fuel generating equipment industry.

[Tronhard]

Donald, I think the photo you presented is a beautiful, artistic and informative image. Along with those of other power sources - such as hydro, coal, nuclear etc. such images could contribute to a good discussion on the risks, drawbacks and benefits of our power generation methods. I think that photography has a huge and influential part to play in the debate of many of the issues facing us right now - we are an image-centric society.

A classic example of how photography has made a significant contribution to issues of climate change is the landmark film "Chasing Ice" where photographer James Balog and his team on the Extreme Ice Survey assembled a multiyear chronicle of the planet's rapidly melting glaciers. They positioned cameras on the edge of glaciers and took millions of time-lapse images to graphically demonstrate how the glaciers are receding as the climate warms. They had a far greater impact for many (including fossil-fuel workers) than did charts and tables. The film is worth watching:
https://www.npr.org/2012/11/08/16423...change-on-film
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/movies/chasing-ice-documents-the-work-of-james-balog.html

In another film, Chasing Coral, the same director was engaged to cover the process of doing the same kind of thing to highlight the deaths of our coral reefs. Films such as these and Manufactured Landscapes are necessary to present the realities of how the resources that support our lifestyles are sourced.

In case someone brings it up, the propaganda about the manufacture of EVs creating huge environmental damage is untrue, and Manfred and Ted's comments are certainly applicable as much depends on how the electricity is generated. * Here in NZ we are lucky that 84% of our energy is renewable (it would be 100% if they shut down a foreign-owned aluminium smelter). Most of the energy is generated from hydro-electric dams built in the last century, plus geo-thermal, plus wind and solar farms. That means that for us, electric vehicles are good for the environment (see below) but that would be less true in the US for example, where a much higher proportion of energy is generated by dirty sources such as coal and oil. Over here, we have the potential to vastly increase our energy supply by more geothermal stations (there have to be some benefits to living on a tectonic junction)! The problem is providing a distribution network - the pylons and overhead cabling for which are at least as ugly as the wind generators and they can "leak" a lot of energy over long distances. Logically, it makes sense to have houses generate their own supply, and at least some of that could come from solar panels - there is a debate to make them mandatory on all new builds. The issue is energy storage...**

* Numerous academic and science-based studies have debunked the word from fossil-fuel mouthpieces. see:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/19...missions-myth/ and:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesel.../#716ba9d876d2

** One thing that is often touted is that batteries become hazardous waste: well they can be recycled for their component parts, but there is now a whole new market in using ex-EV batteries for house energy storage. Basically a vehicle battery may not be able to perform in providing the output to move a vehicle at speed, but it has more than enough capacity to hold energy from solar panels for domestic use.
see:
https://www.driven.co.nz/news/how-us...tic-solar-use/

[DanK]

I am also amused by the self-satisfied attitude of folks when plugging in their electric vehicles - thereby causing some coal-fired power station up North to belch more SO2 into the atmosphere or a gas turbine to send more NOx up it's exhaust stack

It's a very complicated question, but the data aren't on your side. First, the gasoline you use if you don't use an electric car doesn't spring out of the earth at your local gas station fully formed. It takes a lot of energy to extract it, transport the crude to a refinery, and transfer the finished product to you. All of that has to come from somewhere, and all of that generates emissions. Second, internal combustion engines are far less efficient than electric cars, effectively recovering only a fraction of the energy content of the fuel and completely wasting the energy required to brake (since they lack regenerative braking). And, of course, all of that, even the wasted fuel, generates emissions. As an indicator of relative efficiency: the US EPA estimates that energy consumption of my electric car is equivalent to 133 mpg. For those of you who are not familiar with the old system of measures, my non-electric car, which is a relatively efficient one, gets about 22 mpg around town and about 34 under optimal road conditions. Third, electric cars move some of the generated pollution away from population centers, conveying a substantial net health gain. Fourth, an increasing share of electricity is generated by clean sources, including wind, mass solar, and distributed solar like my own, and an increasing share of the fossil-fuel-based electricity is produced by natural gas, not coal. AFAIK, we have zero coal-based plants remaining in my region of the country.

Put this all together, and you get the results in the links that Manfred posted--a very large reduction in total emissions--in addition to health benefits.

Finally, in my experience, the people with electric cars are among those most supportive of policies that lead to cleaner energy production.

So, yes, I feel very satisfied when I glide silently down the road in my electric car. And I feel particularly satisfied when I am stuck in traffic and, while other cars idle and spew totally pointless emissions into the air, mine just sits there peacefully, consuming virtually no energy at all.

The US is unfortunately backward in terms of moving away from fossil fuel. Germany and Denmark, for example, produce a sizable share of their total electric consumption from wind and solar.

Ted, here's a site about the incentives for solar installations in your state: https://www.energysage.com/solar-pan...incentives/tx/.

[Round Tuit]

One of functions that photographs and photography can have is to prompt debate.]

It looks to me like it is working

[Tronhard]

I had to laugh when I overheard a bemused viewer of some very complicated tables and graphs on the relationships between emissions, gases, temperatures etc. She said "one picture is worth a thousand nerds". Love it!

[DanK]

I had to laugh when I overheard a bemused viewer of some very complicated tables and graphs on the relationships between emissions, gases, temperatures etc. She said "one picture is worth a thousand nerds". Love it!

I love it.

[LePetomane]

All of this talk about electric cars makes me appreciate this even more. BMW 440i, 300+ HP and my son. He loves driving this.

[billtils]

... BMW 440i, 300+ HP and my son. He loves driving this.

I would too if I were 25 years younger. Nowadays the X1 is just fine ...

[DanK]

you want torque and acceleration, go electric. Electric motors, unlike internal combustion engines, have high torque at low speeds. My first experience was in a friend's Tesla S, without "ludicrous mode", and I was amazed, even though I had read the stats. But even my little Toyota is fast off the line.

I have no idea how they get the cars to test, but even one of the Model 3 types beats the 440i

BMW

Tesla

Not that I have any use for this...

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by LePetomane ... BMW 440i, 300+ HP and my son. He loves driving this.

I would too if I were 25 years younger. Nowadays the X1 is just fine ...

Bill's 300HP and up a hundred!



The truck has a bored-out V8 with long-stroke crankshaft and fancy heads, 400+ bhp. To further lower the gas-mileage, it has a high-ratio limited-slip differential. Known here as a "sleeper" with no external signs of all that torque. At 80 yrs old, I still enjoy laying "scratches" on the road occasionally.

To "balance" matters a little: the Jeep is a diesel, clattering along at 25-30 miles per U.S. gallon and - oh look! - solar panels ...

[DanK]

Ted,

You are without exception the only person I know who owns both solar panels and a 400 bhp truck.

Dan

[LePetomane]

Ted,

You are without exception the only person I know who owns both solar panels and a 400 bhp truck.

Dan

My daughter in Montana drives a Porsche, her husband drives a pickup truck and their home has solar panels.

[Manfred M]

I think I belong to a totally different class of drivers; my wife and I drive an 8-year old Volvo (120,000 miles on it, so just barely broken in) and my daughter is hoping that her 11-year old Hyundai lasts a few more years...