The last couple of months of using Twitter have been fun, with me and a few friends sending quick thoughts, observations of our days, bad jokes, interesting quotes etc. and causing quick smiles and impromptu conversations. Twitter hate is fashionable, but I find it a fun service. This has now come to a grinding halt with the discovery that Three classify the Twitter SMS number as international and exclude it from free text bundles, so people have been receiving extremely large bills. I’m on Orange, who classify it as a UK number, but a fair few people have been hit by this and can’t really use the service any more. Twitter recently changed their number, and I’m unclear on whether the old number was international - there are conflicting reports - but the new one certainly is. Damn.

Written ‘live’, so not particularly coherent:

—–

Is anyone else watching Panorama? They’re scaremongering over wifi radiation. The notorious Powerwatch just got a plug, and various permutations of ‘electromagnetic smog’ are turning up every couple of minutes, along with calling routers ‘mini-masts’. It’s pretty strong stuff - some guy just claimed it could cause chromosome damage, cancer etc. - but it’s pretty appalling journalism, imho.

They’re talking to many ‘world-renowned experts’ who are for some reason only available via the internet. They keep throwing out phrases like ‘its safety is not yet proven’. Now they’re talking to electrohypersensitives! This is mixing implausible but vaguely plausible health worries with very fringe ideas. There was just an odd look at a study into whether ‘hypersensitives’ can detect radiation gave ‘inconclusive’ results, which were skipped over in favour of the test subject’s own personal feelings on the matter (she’s installed silver foil all around her bedroom). I have sympathy with ‘electrohypersensitives’ in that they’re clearly suffering, but from what I’ve read the symptoms - headaches, trouble sleeping etc.. - are generic problems that can be caused by many many things. And radiation exposure has been studied a lot. As has electrosensitivity, as people have had exactly the same fears since TV started broadcasting.

We’ve now got (made up) figures indicating over two million UK electrohypersensitives that - profound tone of voice - the government is ignoring. And now we’re slagging off the World Health Organisation in favour of one UK investigator.

They have at least interviewed one of the (apparently) head scientists in charge of setting health limits, but poisoned the well by claiming he’s a controversial figure as he testified on behalf of mobile phone companies who want to place masts in controversial areas. But the danger of such radiation is the very issue being discussed! He claims that the weight of scientific evidence is very much in favour of there being no danger, but the programme is heavily hinting that this is not to be believed. Why aren’t they paying attention to the huge number of studies which show no problem? I thought this was meant to be a serious programme?

—–

I’m glad to see it’s not me being sensitive: the Bad Science forums and now the front page are talking about it. They both want to know why the background of the head scientist was queried, but the Powerwatch guy was given a free ride. There’s also a sensible rebuttal in today’s Guardian.

Thanks you to all the people who’ve left encouraging comments about my receiving an offer for the photography course. I’m still trying to decide what to do, but the support and advice is very much appreciated
I had a great birthday weekend. I’m currently listening to one of my presents: Jarvis. I’ve always admired his voice and songwriting style, although I only have the one Pulp album. I haven’t had a proper chance to get into this, his first solo project, yet, but I’m already in love with “I will kill again”. I also received Rodrigo y Gabriela, which I listened to while driving on Saturday and enjoyed, then played on my proper speakers this morning and was blown away. I can only imagine their guitars were designed for playing doorbell chimes at the gates of heaven. Wonderful stuff - many thanks to Skuds for plugging them on his blog!

Late last week I invited various friends to a party using the following ditty:

The 19th sun of the fifth month - it’s May!
bounds into the sky, screams ‘dude, I’m all yay!’
as at the hour of ten, in Dorridge-based houses
a group they do gather in glorious trousers.

They flee in their whizzers, across the country,
an hour they drive, and celibacy
isn’t a virtue nor even a crime -
forgive me my father I needed the rhyme -

and their journey resembles the Faraway Tree,
but less of dear Moon-Face and more of Monkey
Forest that they find with the use of their (wo)men-thumbs
is swirling and gorgeous and not far from Trentham.

And evening: once the moon’s a mere whisper,
we’ll eat, therefore laugh (I am no sophister)
we’ll pierce the future with games (or a Ball),
so come one and all to the end of this
poem, with a cute little stanza that employs mis-
direction and know well if you can
come along, this lark it will rock: be better than

Slippy Sarah’s golden gherkin,
a menstrual minstrel’s mouldy merkin,
Roland Rivron’s lucky garter,
all nothing next to Andrew’s parter-y!

Which had the desired effect of appalling people sufficiently that they quickly replied with various levels of abuse, and on Saturday we headed out in an M6 convoy.

Monkey Forest, at Trentham Gardens near Stoke, is a free-range reserve containing 140 Barbary Macaques, of which only 10,000 exist in the wild. There are no barriers - the macaques regularly cross your path as you stroll around the grounds - and it’s surprisingly cheap: £5.50 per person is pretty good when you consider Warwick Castle is £13. I really enjoyed it. As well as the obvious attraction of (not actually) monkeys, the guides were knowledgeable and friendly, and with it being cup final day there were very few people around I took over 150 photos with my cheapo 300mm¹ lens and was happy with some of the results:

One particular macaque took great exception to being photographed. I guess to him I’m the paparazzi. My favourites are, inevitably, the babies:

I wanted to go on the nearby Aerial Extreme rope course, but it turned out to take 90 - 150mins to complete, so I decided against it. I’ll just have to go back! After this it was back to a friend’s house to do very silly things with another of my presents: a remote-control Dalek:

It has a button specifically for ‘EXTERMINATE’. It is fun times.

I had an excellent day, with wonderful company, great cookies and some very exciting presents. I must say a big thank you to the extremely kind online chum who bought me the surreal DVD - I’m very much looking forward to watching it! I am a very lucky person all round.

1. 480mm with my 300D’s cropping factor [↩]

Wasn’t expecting that.

It’s past midnight. Time to level up!

Two chatbots have a conversation:

J: Do you believe in God?

A: Of course I believe in God.

J: Why do you believe in God?

A: The Bible tells us to believe in God.

J: That’s circular reasoning.

A: I’m glad we have that all cleared up.

J: Yes. Would you like to hear a joke?

They may not pass the Turing Test, but they pass the Falwell Test!

Eight of us waited at the university reception, secretly relieved everyone’s portfolio folder was at least A3 and we weren’t going to look like terrible show-offs. A photography lecturer collected us exactly on time and after a brief introduction we were given a tour of the university facilities by a third-year student, followed by a slide presentation on the history of the course. Both of these were similar to the open-day introduction, but interesting enough. We were sent off for lunch, everybody worrying about the afternoon’s presentations.

I chatted to a couple of the other applicants and was happy to find they’d also prepared portfolios in a hurry after receiving the invitation letter. This was a relief, and as we walked to the interview rooms I was confident things would go well. We split into two groups of four, each with two teachers, and were invited to present our portfolios. I’m normally happy to go first in these situations, but somebody got in before me. He’d taken an obviously-advanced photography course, and presented two very impressive projects - one b/w, one colour and both hand-printed - throughout describing his intentions and stylistic choices. He was obviously already a highly accomplished photographer. The woman on his left was invited to go next, and she opened her folder. I started to worry.

She’d travelled extensively, obtained sneaky passes for photographing the red carpet at film premieres and supplied shots of sound/video installations for product catalogues. The incidental work was stylish and cool. I didn’t have one picture in my entire collection to match the pin-sharp, well-composed and completely incidental shots she threw in at the end. She really knew what she was doing.

I was next. I was worried by the quality of the previous presentations, but forced myself to act confidently - there was no point second-guessing what the teachers would think. I showed my pictures of people jumping, shots from dances I’d attended, and two pieces of A-level coursework. The main lecturer asked me whether I’d seen the famous Halsman jumping pictures of the 1950s. I’d vaguely heard of them, and thought he might have been behind the famous Dali picture, but certainly wasn’t sure enough to say so. There were no other questions, in contrast to the other presentations. I sat down.

The next girl presented a series of personal projects. There were beautifully printed images of bands on stage, shots based around birds that recreated famous paintings, and a lovely collection (printed on rare paper she’d imported from Japan) of two plastic owls, gorgeously photographed at various locations around the world, that I’d be happy to buy and put on my walls (I told her so later). I felt increasingly stupid.

We were thanked, given a personal interview slot, and sent to wander the university. I was embarrassed. I’d forced myself to ignore the worries during the presentation, but now they started to fester. Had the others in my group just been particularly good? That seemed unlikely. Every way I looked at it, my pictures and knowledge were amateurish in comparison to theirs. Was this just the blues and I couldn’t appreciate my own work?

The personal interview began with “why do you want to do the degree rather than continue this as a passionate hobby?”. I don’t think it was directed at me - it seems like the kind of question that they’d ask everybody - but it hit home. The rest of the interview took only a few minutes. Who are my influences? What do I see myself doing after the degree? I fumbled answers, staying cheerful throughout, thanked them and left. On the way out I passed the other portfolio group showing their photos to members of mine. There was some great stuff. I wished them good luck and went home, knowing I wouldn’t be back.

I’m not putting myself down: I am ok. I know my way around a camera and can take a decent-looking snapshot. But the other applicants were in a whole other league. I struggled with and made up answers to pre-interview questions regarding my influences and aims - the others had no problem with this because they actually have been influenced and are trying to do or say something with their photography. I haven’t visited many exhibitions. I haven’t read anything of the history of photography since my A-level. I haven’t created personal projects, or branched out into areas in which I have little experience. I just like carrying my camera and documenting the things I do, and most of my good results come about by chance rather than planning. I expected that everybody would be a hobbyist like me - that the degree would be a natural progression from the A-level - but I was completely wrong. It’s at a much higher skill level, one I’m not even close to achieving.

I’m not feeling bad about the whole experience. I’m abashed, my pride is wounded and I’m very glad I’ll never see any of the people in the portfolio group again, but I’m not hating myself. I think it extremely unlikely that I’ll be offered a place, but I couldn’t in good conscience accept one anyway. I’m clearly not ready for it, and at best would be playing catch-up for a long time. In hindsight I was naive, but there’s nothing I should have done differently. I just didn’t understand that I’m not a passionate amateur, I’m somebody who enjoys a hobby. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

There’s no mystery about how to improve: I need to start taking photography more seriously. Personal projects, studying the history, experimenting without being scared to fail, playing with different styles and (shock) maybe even using film. Maybe next year I’ll be ready to apply again. But not this time.

The portfolio presentation and interview didn’t go the way I expected. I’ll write it up properly in the morning, as the 0630 start has caught up with me. Thanks to everyone who sent me good luck messages and has been enquiring this evening - all very kind and much appreciated

On the off-chance s/he’s a reader: thank you! It has arrived ok and shall be opened on Saturday. Most exciting.

At Westminster university. Made me smile.

In the wake of Spider-man III, Marvel have released a ‘comiquette’ of Mary-Jane. ‘Comiquettes’ are small sculptures depicting the character in a particular situation¹ and the Mary-Jane depiction is causing quite the stir. With good reason.

Most comic-book artists and writers are, for whatever reason, male. For this reason you find a large number of thin-ish male superheroes who look relatively realistic - if the average guy went to the gym all day every day for a year, he could probably get a similar physique - and female superheroes who definitely don’t. Finding actresses to play Wonder Woman is really, really difficult, because no woman actually looks like that. Plenty of people object to this. I’m rather conflicted. Sometimes I think it’s harmless fun and that the average comic geek is perfectly capable of understanding it’s all fantasy, and sometimes I think it’s a bit much. I just read what seems to be a reasonable position: there’s no problem with any particular female superhero being permanently sexy and dressing in revealing outfits, but there’s a problem when they’re all this way

So what’s the fuss with the Mary-Jane figure? Firstly, she’s posed like a Playboy model. With incredibly long, vertical legs and bending over with low-riding jeans and visible thong, Kylie has nothing on her. Move around to the front and she has a cleavage that looks like she’s kidnapped Right Said Fred. If it stopped there I’d think it was tacky. It’s excessive and they’d get some deserved criticism - even if your aim is openly to make a sexy sculpture, you could be far classier about it - but I could possibly be convinced that your average teenage boy would get some entertainment out of it without thinking real women hang around in such poses. It might make an amusing joke-present, too. But it doesn’t stop there. There’s a reason she’s bending over: she’s washing Spider-man’s costume.

I’ll say it again: she’s washing Spider-man’s costume. Barefoot. Pictures here.

Clearly, you can’t defend that. There’s nothing inherently wrong with fantasising over looks - even if every comic geek is in fact only attracted to non-existent Supergirl-lookalikes, that still needn’t imply a lack of respect for women² - but adding a clear element of subservience to the fantasy is unambiguously demeaning. I’m aware there’s worse out there, but this isn’t some small company run by some guy with a broken sense of humour, it’s one of two major players in a huge industry. What were they thinking?!

1. I don’t actually have any, but wouldn’t be averse to getting one if they upped the quality - it’s a geek thing [↩]
2. although I can appreciate the argument that it does, as a side-effect [↩]

My pictures were indeed ready to pick up at 1000, and upon getting them home I realised my mistake. Genius Boy here ordered 10×8 prints of 3:2 ratio photographs, and the default setting is apparently to zoom-and-crop rather than add borders. This wasn’t a total disaster: there were a couple of fortuitous crops that looked as good as (ok, maybe better than) the original image, and I could use them all to choose my final selection. I needed six 12×8 prints, and headed down to Jessops for their 1hr service.

It turns out that web-based printing is far, far, cheaper than in-store printing. The 10×8 prints were £1.40 each. The 12×8s £5.99! Six 12×8s cost more than twenty-four 10×8s! The online service doesn’t offer 12×8, unfortunately, or I’d have saved money by waiting until tomorrow morning. I reluctantly placed the order, mentally kicking myself in the head, and started looking for an appropriate display book. I finally found something in the local stationery store: an A3 ringbound book with black, thick paper.

Gluing the photographs in place took five hours - I’ve no clue how - and is now, thank goodness, complete. I’m already second-guessing myself over image choices (I like the energy of this one very much, but it’s actually out-of-focus…argh!) but it’s too late now. Tomorrow I have to fill in the likely-to-sap-time questionnaire, then get to Harrow for 1030 Wednesday morning.
I haven’t actually minded putting the portfolio together - it’s been good fun, in a hassled sort of way - but next time, should there be one, I’m choosing the pictures immediately and having them printed into a book by Lulu / Qoop / Photobox. Far less hassle, better quality, and much cheaper!

Michael Meacher dropped out of the Labour leadership race. This is sad. It would have been fun:

Why weren’t fighter jets sent up? Why wasn’t the laptop examined? Why were the hijackers seen with stormtroopers only days before? Exactly the sort of person we want running the country, wouldn’t you say?

Incidentally John McDonnell appears to think that copyright protection should be extended from fifty years to ‘the whole of their life plus a further 70 years’. Not as bad as being a 9/11 conspiracy nut, nor quite so funny, but a bit 1985.

Panorama are tomorrow night broadcasting an investigation into the ‘church’ of Scientology. The ‘church’’s response has been to post a youtube clip of the show’s reporter, John Sweeney, ‘losing it’ during an interview. It’s not pleasant to watch. He shouts at a clearly hostile representative of the ‘church’ in a rather undignified way. If anybody were to get the impression from this that the reporter is biased and his investigation flawed, it’s a shame. I actually don’t think the clip reflects all that badly upon the reporter: it’s unprofessional, but he only lost his temper and shouted. That’s it. He wasn’t abusive or violent, and as breaches of reporter’s conduct go, it’s fairly minor.

Publishing such a clip is a pretty pathetic way to rebut claims you’re a brainwashing cult, if you ask me. I’m hoping this week’s papers will be full of articles detailing the problems surrounding Scientology, but you don’t need much more than this: imagine the concept of a religion that grants knowledge on the basis of money received. It’s like Christianity refusing to tell you of the resurrection until you’d paid hundreds of thousands of pounds. Most people would immediately agree that this is clearly a con. It’s obvious, and was brilliantly mocked by South Park a couple of years ago. When eventually you do reach the upper tiers, you get this:

[...]75 million years ago, an evil galactic warlord named Xenu controlled seventy-six planets in this corner of the galaxy, each of which was severely overpopulated. To solve this problem, Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion beings and then flew them to Earth, where they were dumped into volcanoes around the globe and vaporized with bombs. This scattered their radioactive souls, or thetans, until they were caught in electronic traps set up around the atmosphere and “implanted” with a number of false ideas — including the concepts of God, Christ and organized religion. Scientologists later learn that many of these entities attached themselves to human beings, where they remain to this day, creating not just the root of all of our emotional and physical problems but the root of all problems of the modern world.

Levels higher than this apparently allow the acquisition of superpowers. It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad. This is all from L. Ron Hubbard, a man who once said “[t]he way to make a million dollars is to start a religion”.

If the interview clip encourages more people to watch the show, it’s definitely worth it. Scientology is revolting, and spreading the word can only help. Having read up on the ‘religion’, I find it an utterly repulsive organisation. I can completely understand how a decent person could be so upset by an investigation into Scientology that they would lose perspective in this way. Rolling Stone’s 2006 article on Scientology is the best piece I’ve read on the subject. Scientology-lies.com goes much further, appearing to back up its disturbing claims with links to court records. It is difficult to get any impression other than that Scientology is a cult engaged in despicable practices that border on abuse.

Scientology isn’t violent, nor is it an imminent threat to society. But it’s a sinister, creeping organisation who’ve cowed the US media via litigation. It turns people against their families, and treats those who would leave as the worst kind of scum. Its pseudoscientific teachings say psychiatry is evil, and it uses massive movie stars to dupe the young. There was a Scientology tent at the Cavalcade festival of 2006, and genuinely interested people were being given ’stress tests’ and flogged copies of Dianetics. I don’t blame John Sweeney for losing it, especially when you hear of the kind of harassment he and his family suffered after he began his investigation. The further the word is spread the better.

I’m slowly putting together a portfolio for Wednesday’s interview. The guidelines recommend some images form a project/series, and I was struggling with this until Lynsey reminded me of my A-Level coursework. It was all hand-printed in a darkroom, and I think its lack of binary content resulted in my forgetting it existed! My Dad dug the large boards out of a cupboard this afternoon, and upon inspection it’ll do nicely¹. I’ve chosen 24 of my favourite digital images that look good on-screen and I think will look ok printed. I only need 10, but I don’t want to risk choosing something that turns out to have less impact on paper. Unfortunately my printer is broken, and given the little time remaining I’ve ordered 10×8 enlargements of each. I’m wincing at the expense, but I want to have an impressive a portfolio as possible. I’ll pick the best ten prints, and put the rest on my walls
I’m impressed with the speed of delivery: Snapfish.co.uk allow you to pick up prints from a local Jessops, and claim that an order placed at 2330 on a Sunday evening will be available to collect at 1000 on Monday morning. Pretty swish, if true. The Express service takes the cost of each print from £1.20 to £1.40, which isn’t all that excessive.

1. Ben - you are once again a star [↩]