(The folks at The Guardian had me write a 2008-retrospective piece on what I thought the most significant event of 2008 was. It was to run this week, but they’ve posted all their retrospectives, didn’t include it, and my editor hasn’t told me whether or not its just been tossed or not.

I’m guessing at this point that it has been dumped, so I’m posting it here instead.)

2008 was the year of Obama, and even in light of the worldwide financial collapse, it is the image of the young African American President Elect that personifies the year. But as much as the November election itself, the hurdle Obama needed to overcome to reach this historic milestone was the most intractable hurdle in American culture.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright was never supposed to be a household name. The fiery rhetoric that came from the pulpit of Obama’s former minister was not unique, but it’s unique proximity to the candidate made it problematic – possibly fatally so. When that rhetoric was brought to light at the height of the Democratic Party primary season by his political opponents and amplified by an eager media, Obama was forced to act quickly and decisively – and he did so in March through what will likely be proven to be the speech of his life. A speech that was a turning point, not only for his own campaign, but for the turbulent history of race relations in America – one that will continue to resonate for years after the Obama Administration has come and gone.

The discussion on race in America had atrophied badly since the civil rights era, devolving into crude, purely emotional debates on particular policies (such as affirmative action and hate crimes) or on crime statistics and police behavior; affirmative action couched exclusively in terms of African Americans’ history of suffering, stories of white students supposedly passed over for scholarships, etc. Discussions of crime patterns and police profiling also quickly polarized into yelling matches between angry camps.

In rejecting these terms, Obama recast the discussion of race in America as a dialectic, rather than a simplistic bipolarity. White supporters hoping he would distance himself from the generation-bound, liberational rhetoric of aging civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson found themselves as surprised as many of his black supporters who had hoped he would tell American whites to stop whining, as to both camps of the racial divide he delivered the same, two-pronged message.

First, that your experience, your feelings and your frustrations around race are real. whatever they are, and whoever you may be. Perhaps those feelings are justified, perhaps not, but they are to be acknowledged and respected regardless.

Second, that moving forward in concrete ways would sometimes mean moving on, even without the emotionally satisfying catharsis we might crave as individuals.

Obama came right out and told America that the simplistic, adversarial templates for racial debate left over from the civil rights era had become obsolete.

It should be clear to all that the cultural problems associated with racism – both immediate and legacy-driven – are still significant, but have become more nuanced than they were in the days of Reverend King. That new nuance required new tools. And in the absence of such tools, an increasing number of people were simply choosing not to have those much-needed conversations. For these people – largely white and upper-middle class, but both educated and uneducated, conservative and liberal – the myth of a post-racial America was appealing. Post-racialism would absolve them of their need to engage with these issues at all, and in fact would make it easy to tar those that would engage in such debate as throwbacks.

When Barack Obama stepped forward to address the American people on race, it was within this context, and it was not without risk to this base of support. To many of his white supporters, Obama was the “post-racial” candidate, and in confronting Wright’s comments publicly, Obama had to shatter the myth of a supposedly “post racial” era. In doing so, he was betting against the charge of an anonymous Clinton adviser in January; that Obama’s supporters were simply drawn to him as their “imaginary hip black friend.” By looking racism in the eye and sharing what he saw with the public, he implicitly trusted that his support was more than just the liberal pavlovianism this adviser had suggested.

And he was right.

Obama did something none in his generation and of his stature have done on the issue of race in America; he spoke to us as grown-ups. More than that, he stepped outside the orthodoxy of how race is to be discussed and what the terms of debate are, and he did so with a profound combination of seriousness, clarity, and casual ease. In the process, Obama gave us permission as a nation to grow up on issues of race, and he did so in a way that only a biracial fortysomething, so comfortable in his own multicultural identity, could do. He cast the nation as a rising adult with unresolved childhood issues who needed to begin moving on – even when moving on means not finding closure for every childhood trauma, as justified and righteous as the lingering anger towards such trauma might be.

Obama couldn’t win under the old rules of racial debate, under which he simply would’ve been “the black candidate.” But neither was he able to win without being “the black candidate.” In the end, his path to victory was to ride the same dialectic that he opened up for the country at large in that one historic speech, encompassing and embodying the many contradictions of the nation.

And his victory in November is only the first, clearest sign of how much things have already changed.

Recently, over on Daily Kos, I reposted a piece I wrote in December of 2007 about Asch’s work on conformity, and that post provides the framework for today’s personal stories about conformity.  

To recap (with more details in the previous post), in the figure shown here, when asked which line most matches the one on the card, many people were influenced to choose the incorrect answer, even when they were sure that C was correct, through the influence of others choosing the same incorrect answer.

I understood this research long before I read about it, even though I had neither the words nor expertise to explain it.  When I was a kid, I used to try social experiments in movie theaters.  I would, for example, see if I could get other people to applaud when I applauded.  It turns out I could.  Much of the time, it only took one or two other people to go along and then the whole theater was doing it.  

My favorite though, was getting people to laugh.  

This particular trick worked best in comedies that had lots of dramatic moments in them, or dramas which had many funny bits.  This is what you do: make a point of laughing loudly (but not in a fake over the top “I’m acting like someone having fun!” way) at a point in the film where there is nothing funny going on, but after someone has just said something.  

It is common for someone else in the audience to think they’ve missed a good joke and start laughing as well.  In a matter of seconds, you can have an entire theater laughing at something that is not even remotely funny.  

There is an anecdote about Vladamir Horowitz in this regard.  It may be just a story, and it may be true, but it illustrates the point.  Carnegie Hall, the story goes, has people hired to applaud at key points.  These are people who know when the pieces begin and end and when it’s appropriate to applaud.  Classical musicians can be a stuffy lot, and they do not appreciate it when people applaud between movements but before the piece has finished.  The clappers, therefore, provide an informational service, allowing the audience to know when the piece is over and giving them permission to clap.

Horowitz didn’t think this was necessary.  He insisted that there were enough people in the audience that knew classical music that they’d clap when appropriate and the rest of the audience would follow.

Horowitz was, of course, wrong.  He completely bombed at Carnegie Hall.

Which brings us to the story of Joshua Bell’s rush hour violin performance.   Read the article in full– it’s well worth reading, and I don’t want to try to rehash it because doing so would not do it real justice.  It does, however, serve as background for what I’m going to say below.

The short version is that there’s a certain sense of consensus to Bell’s popularity.  Does his music shine through and ring true throughout, regardless of circumstance?  Do people stop and listen to him because he’s a brilliant musician, or do we stop to listen because, socially, enough people have determined that he’s a brilliant musician that we conform to the idea that he’s brilliant once enough people tell us so?  

Mind you: I’m not speaking to the accuracy of the claim of brilliance on Bell’s part.  I’m talking about the perception of it and how that perception comes to exist.

Think about the “popularity” of such people as Paris Hilton.  She’s not famous for anything she’s said or done.  She’s actually a recursive celebrity: she’s famous for being famous, and then people know who she is because other people know who she is.

I’m talking about all this because I think that knowing how conformity works is something we can use to our advantage.  How often do we find the media making claims about what “people” think?  This can create self-fulfilling prophesies, convincing some of us that we’re not conforming.  It doesn’t take a lot of people to swing an election; if you can convince just 10% of the population to conform to a specific idea against their better judgment, you can swing an election.

If you can, as was done in the 1980’s, convince the public that people think of “liberal” as a dirty word and that “card carrying member of the ACLU” is a good attack on a political opponent, you can swing an election.

And if liberals and card-carrying members of the ACLU try to hide from those labels, they behave in a fashion which convinces the public that there’s something to be ashamed of there.

Twenty years ago, I met William Sloane Coffin.  I will never forget one specific thing he said– when Dukakis was being accused using that exact term: “a card carrying member of the ACLU,” Coffin said that it was bad for him to try to shy away from that, that the proper response was “damned right I am.  And here’s my card.”  Coffin understood conformity and knew that when politicians act as though they are not part of the mainstream, they lose voters.  He was right.  

We don’t have to be the majority, but even when we are the majority, we too often act as though we’re not.  We pretend deference to Republicans whom we soundly rejected in the last election. We behave as though we owe them something because so many voters supported them.  

We need to stop this.  We need to do what needs to be done, do the right things as they come up and just act as though everyone supports us, even when they do.  Until Democrats can learn that lesson, we’re going to be allowing Republicans to take too much control of the agenda.  Politics doesn’t need to be about party, but it does need to be about doing what’s right, and it’s pretty clear in the coming months what we need to do.  Step one is to stop pretending that Republicans have or deserve power.  The more we act as though they have power, the more people believe them to have power, and the more power they get.  The more we act as though they are irrelevant, the more people begin to believe it.  

We need to make their irrelevancy manifest, and we need to do it now.

 Loading ...

  I am referring to the struggle to bail out Detroit when DC capitulated to Wall Street in days. I have heard union members, members of congress, and ‘experts’ of all stripe ask this question for a month now and think I can picture definitively what they have been hovering around. I think I can describe both the fundamental principles and the ideological confusion buried in the rubble of this ‘Market Failure’. Since we have a huge clean up challenge before us and ‘money laundering’  has been a mainstay in this market mayhem let me start with a washing machine metaphor.

My washing machine has been acting up for months. It doesn’t always finish the job and it has been wasting hot water and electricity at a noticeable increase. Then three weeks ago it quit and my laundry has been commuting to family and friends while my partner and I debate repair or purchase. Last night the water line froze in my basement and the plumber will be here before noon today to get the water turned back on. So why do I debate for three weeks the pros and cons of washing machines yet hire the first plumber or handy man that can drop everything and come to my aid? The urgency (the legitimate urgency) in both a water supply and money supply crisis is in the reality that they both function as utilities. By utility I mean the dependency that the washing machine has on the water supply and the dependency that Detroit has on the money supply. By utility I mean that without water not only are there no clean clothes but there is no fresh water to drink, no hot showers, no clean dishes, a house full of thirsty pets and plants. By utility I mean that without a ‘liquid’  money supply no Chrystler mini-van, no Kenmore washing machines, corn stops moving from the great American bread basket to hungry mouths of the world, and I can’t trade for the cheap Chinese made bicycle with the American brand name. By utility I mean the power to hold individuals and whole (hole)  societies captive.

Detroit would like to convince us that they are a utility, Wall Street doesn’t want that impression to get off of capital hill. Detroit wants us to believe the whole economy will collapse (indeed it will shudder) so that we will bail them out. Wall Street wants to continue its black mail on capital hill without being recognized and regulated as a utility.

Here is a more pertinent fundamental question, why do we hear so much insistence from congress on “conditions” for the auto makers when Secretary Paulson got a free reign with the financial system? I will go beyond the obvious insider dealing and power politics of a former Goldman-Sachs guru to point the finger at the essential condition necessary to this abuse of power ?your ignorance. Not you alone but our collective, Joe the Plumber, global ignorance of the utility nature of the financial system..

Please don’t be offended by my use of the word ignorance, I am a former school teacher and challenging ignorance is my stock and trade. I know ignorance does not make anyone stupid but it does make one vulnerable. We are ignorant and vulnerable by design and the designers are trying to escape responsibility. For over a century economic doctrine has been driven by special interests and administered by a secular priesthood that has perpetuated superstition  and mystery  quite as successfully as the Wizard of Oz. Only the stupid will continue to encourage them because ignorance can no longer be an excuse. Take a lesson from the Tinman and exercise your own capacity to understand economic reality. Then align yourself with responsible public servants and farsighted public policy that transforms financial markets from parasite to propagator on ‘main street’

I come to this perspective from a life of exploration as teacher, contractor, swine herdsman, EPA intern, house husband and most recently a masters candidate in Community Development and Applied Economics. The University of Vermont allowed me to plumb the depths of money mysteries and the allocation of limited resources while surrounded by economists from 4 schools; business, liberal arts, ag / life sciences, and the Gund Institute of Ecological Economics. I promise to appeal to any and all ideologies as it suits me on behalf of farmers, children, tradesmen, educators and agencies. My explorations are extended by my three sons. I cannot avoid international and corporate concerns. Jordan is interning with a legal office focused on slave labor in India. Preston teaches and certifies English speakers throughout China and is married to his South Korean table tennis coach. (and you thought ping-pong was just a party game.) Rob is a project director for the engineering firm that builds Wal – Mart stores among other things. ( it was several years before he braved the mentioned Wal – Mart to me in the context of LEED Certification and the greening of corporate America).

Aristotle may be the earliest western academic to label and critique the distinction between money for the sake of trade and money for the sake of money. His insight predates Wall Street but illuminates the fundamentals of human nature and a medium of exchange. Aristotle observed that most people traded for goods and services in a barter mentality (main street) but that certain people grasped the abstract nature of money and manipulated it to their advantage at the expense of others (speculators).

http://books.google.com/books?… – PPA157,M1

 Paul Krugman alludes to a ‘special’ function of mega banks and the need for supervision but I think the function is as common as dirt.

http://www.onpointradio.org/sh…

 By money laundering I mean the practice of disguising the underlying source of financial figures. This is simply writing down numbers that might be accurate for transactions that might take place. Ie – my house might be worth half a million dollars and I could sell it. So I will refinance it and take that eco tourist vacation to Costa Rica.

 Liquidity is what 700 BBBBbbbb-billion $ is supposed to restore to the market but as several wise commentators have pointed out, liquidity is a result of TRUST not volume. Like water flowing down hill, money only energizes when it is moving. Just as gravity moves water from high energy state to lower energy state, trust moves money from stagnation into exchange.

 I had difficulty deciding which (w)hole was most fitting as whole refers to the utility nature of the money and hole refers to the institutional vacuum created by superstitious deregulation. It is the ideological fantasy of self regulating markets that created the hole in our social accountability that now puts the whole of society hostage to the financial sector.

 The superstition that GNP  is a measure of our well- being and vitality as a people and its corollary that an ever increasing GNP is both possible and desirable is easily debunked but lingers as a relic of Cold War fear. Wikipedia provides a brief orientation and valuable cross references under the topic Gross National Product – subheading National Income and Welfare Economics as Religion, Robert Nelson

The fundamental ‘mystery’ often obscured by academic discussion and banking privacy is the nature and creation of money in a market system.  Money, whence it came, where it went,  JK Galbraith

Money as Dept http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

It’s a subjective question to be sure, but I’m always interested in looking back and considering what news events of the last year were either barely covered or incompletely covered, given what their real impact is likely to be. It’s easier to ask that question nationally or globally, but when you get down to the state level, it gets a little more challenging and a little more fun.

I’ve included nine I think fit the bill. What do you think? Any to add (or any of these to quiblle with)?

$250 million. Sure, we’re hearing constantly about the economic downturn and the growing budget crisis in the Statehouse, but $250m is a number we’re not hearing very much. Its what some believe the total budget shortfall against previous projections will work out to be when the dust settles. The quick and easy projection here is that the Legislature will pass a reasonably responsible budget that combines cuts, revenues and debt, but it won’t be simple. A lot of go-to revenue sources – most notably the capital gains tax loophole – are not going to perform nearly up to previous projections of their potential, given that capital is not moving very readily. Whatever does happen, expect the Governor to fight anything good, and then take sole credit for whatever gets through.

Checks and Balances dealt a fatal blow? Jim Douglas clearly used state resources for his re-election campaign, and nothing came of it. Nothing. Barely a peep beyond Shay Totten’s coverage, nothing was done, nobody cared. There is no meaningful oversight of the Executive Branch in this state, and unless something dramatic changes (say, for example, Senator Sears’s suggestion is heeded and Legislative committees start issuing subpoenas and taking sworn testimony), there won’t be.

State emails provided for Open Records requests. Unions and reporters asked for – and received – internal emails under the state Open Records Law that revealed untoward things about the Douglas Administration. A conservative blogger made a similar request of the Legislature, but was stymied for pretty crappy reasons that won’t hold up in the long term. It’s a brave new world, and the implications of the open season on state e-communication have only just begun.

Swapping out the Speaker. “Presumed” Speaker Shap Smith and incoming Majority Leader represent what could be a hugely significant changing of the guard in Montpelier, but the response from the traditional media has thusfar largely been a collective yawn. The implications to the political dynamics are considerable, yet reporters have covered little more than the horse race angle of the caucus vote. Trust me, this will be a different Legislature.

The destruction of Vermont’s campaign finance laws. With that single vote that left the Legislature shy of a veto override, Vermont’s campaign finance laws were largely trashed, and the AG’s office is pretending otherwise. The pretense was given a new lease on life when Judge Sessions ruled in favor of Anthony Pollina’s challenge to that “law” on its own terms, rather than issuing a decision as to whether or not the law itself was still standing. But nothing has changed – we’re still in a campaign finance wasteland. Eventually, someone will call the bluff if it isn’t fixed.

Libel suit against iBrattleboro based on user comments was thrown out. Maybe not earth-shattering, as it wasn’t exactly news (anyone who paid more than perfunctory attention to the law saw it coming), but still worth mentioning. While not a surprise, the coverage of the case reached heights of absurdity and self-parody, with outlets like the Rutland Herald and WCAX revealing their own antipathy towards new media by eagerly suggesting that this non-case would find its way to the US Supreme Court. Sorry guys, even if that fantasy were true, it wouldn’t help solve traditional media’s problems.

Prog peak? For the first time since they started winning House seats, the Progressive Party actually lost ground in the statehouse, meaning the Progs are entering a new phase in their institutional existence, especially given that their success in the State Senate was attained through a Democratic Party primary. What next?

Symington crushed. The floor for Democratic candidates in Vermont has been about 35% for some time, and until the last month of the election season, the polls showed Gubernatorial candidate Gaye Symington bouncing around that floor. Then, in the blink of an eye, her disapproval ratings tripled and that floor was blown apart. Was the brand further damaged as well, or was this simply Vermonters voting for or against the candidate?

Yankee coverage. Windham County residents have long fumed that Vermont Yankee’s continued, duct taped existence has been an issue that folks outside the county simply will not take seriously. It’s news that mishaps and sneaky financial tricks at Vermont Yankee are now getting much wider coverage, as 2008 was the year it truly became a statewide issue.

There are certainly others that I would have liked to mention, but which frankly dance too close to personal interest-conflicts. Others?

I was away last week when this news broke, but I still think it's something that we need to keep our attention on.

I'm talking about the perennial question of where we're going to get our energy, and specifically electricity.

We have a somewhat robust renewable energy community here in Vermont, comprising a lot of effort in efficiency,  small hydro, and wind.

Wind, of course, has been the most controversial, largely because people driving around the countryside don't have to look at compact fluorescent light bulbs, or small dams, but they are very concerned that they will have to look at giant wind turbines.

So even if you accept the claim that wind turbines are ugly (I don't, but let's go with it for the sake of discussion), tell me which you think is uglier.

This:

More after the jump.

Or this:

( – promoted by odum)

“We can count on state government to do less and less to help even those in dire need. “

This is a truly radical and disturbing statement. The Free Press sees the state government as something wholly detached from an obligation to care for the citizens,especially, by their logic in a recession “And the only talk coming out of Montpelier seems to be about the enormous budget deficit that threatens to swallow Vermont..” In their editorial titled, with no irony, Core principle: we’re all in this together, the “we” they speak of does not include our state government. No one can dispute the need for community, family and associated networks, but the retreat of the state government in the face of what the paper is calling dire need is an insult. They declare that one of the defining characteristics of Vermont is its sense of community, isn’t state government an integral part of that community?

This is the monologue of drivel the Democratic legislature is failing to get out in front of.

The last year ended with the hard realities of the recession crashing down upon us, and 2009 is sure to bring even more challenges. The economic decline continues, with no one predicting a rebound anytime soon. News about layoffs keeps coming. And the only talk coming out of Montpelier seems to be about the enormous budget deficit that threatens to swallow Vermont.

We can count on state government to do less and less to help even those in dire need. Food shelves and emergency shelters report increased demand they are having trouble meeting. Social service agencies warn that less money will mean people losing the support they need in their daily lives

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

(I echo Doug’s comment: nicely done.  It’s good to start the news cycle of 2009 with something of substance. – promoted by JulieWaters)

“…a lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies”

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

In a recent editorial (December 29) the Rutland Herald asserts that “Given that we have far more state employees per capita than other New England states, it’s hard to imagine there’s no fat to be trimmed from the state budget.”

It’s hardly surprising – given the paucity of honest analysis regarding the current economic crisis – that no evidence is provided by the Rutland Herald to support this claim.  

No matter:  true or not, I’m sure that this assertion will be trotted out more than once over the next few weeks to justify the proposed cuts in state government.

Well, is it true that Vermont has far more state employees per capita than other New England states?

It’s only a half truth and therefore, the blackest of lies:  Don’t believe it!

It is true that Vermont has a relatively high number of state employees per capita.  I emphasize “state”, because based on my analysis of the US Census bureau data released in November (http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apes.html), when education is excluded, Vermont is 35th among states in the number of government employees per capita (combined state and local).  That places Vermont fourth among New England states, after Rhode Island, Maine, and Massachusetts.  The drop in standing from 6th place to 35th place among U.S. states is simple:  Vermont is 50th – dead last –  among states in local government employees per capita (excluding education related employees).  (Note:  Vermont’s spending on education is a valid issue for discussion, but one that is entirely separate from the current debate about cutting state workers).

Comparing state government employees per capita among the 50 states is thorny because the different states vary greatly in their apportionment of services among state and local (county and municipal) jurisdictions. Unlike many other states, Vermont lacks a significant county-level government structure and, as already noted, has few municipal employees per capita.  The burden falls at the state level:  many Vermont towns rely on significant state government services (e.g. state police rather than municipal police force).

So, the Rutland Herald’s assertion is misleading and irresponsible.

To quote Doug Hoffer:  “Wouldn’t it be nice if important public policy debates were based on facts?”

There is a child in Florida who has a dream. His name is Damon Weaver, an elementary school student who wants nothing more than to interview President-elect Barack Obama.

In pursuit of his dream, Damon has put his skills to work, and shown incredible initiative:

There’s a fundraiser to send Damon and a caregiver to Washington DC for the Inauguration.

Checks or money orders to help Damon get to DC should be made out to:

KEC/Canal Point Elementary

And mailed to:

KEC/Canal Point Elementary

Attention: Brian Zimmerman

37000 Main Street

Canal Point, FL 33438  

Let’s help this kid get the chance to interview the next President of the United States!

The state is using a new miracle road de-icer,but what does it contain? Three newpaper articles and one radio report later no one has said what exactly is in this stuff that “wets” salt,or sodium chloride to make it melt ice more readily at low temperatures.Called “Brine” it is an”oatmeal-like” mixture made in a new distillery in Colchester . “When the temperatures dip, “brew” masters can also add different chemicals to help melt the ice and now. The chemicals are agricultural by-products, so VTRANS said they are recycling what would otherwise go to waste. The brine is not only environmentally friendly, and more effective, but it also could save the agency millions of dollars,” according to administrator of VTRANS District Five Gil Newbury. Unnamed agricultural chemical by-products poured onto state highways .What are these chemical agricultural by-products spread on the roads? With all the trouble in Lake Champlain with phosphorus runoff,all the hazardous waste rgeulations and such why wouldn’t someone in the press ask a simple question ? Probably,assume it is harmless but,I for one am curious and its always good to know what is in an oatmeal mixture.

Distillery Is State’s Newest Winter Weather Tool

COLCHESTER, Vt. – Treating the roads for a storm has gone high-tech. The Vermont Agency of Transportation is now using and experimenting with spraying a new product that is more efficient, making the roads safer.

The new product is called a brine, a mixture of salt and water. It’s made in a new salt brine distillery at the Chimney Corners Maintenance Garage in Colchester. “It’s old school, but the new technology really helps us out,” said Ed Boucher, who has started spraying the brine from his newly-outfitted VTRANS truck. The administrator of VTRANS District Five, Gil Newbury, said the new product can be used in several ways. He said the distillery can make a liquid brine that is mostly water, or a thicker substance that is more like an oatmeal.

“If we went with straight liquid, we could actually put the brine down days ahead of a storm, and just let it soak in and stay there. Oatmeal mix, we should stay within about four hours before a storm. So, two different applications, one is more versatile, but one lasts longer,” said Newbury.

He said the “oatmeal-like” mixture is more versatile and that is the product VTRANS would really like to concentrate on. He said despite its thickness, drivers won’t really be able to notice it on the roads.

I’m a big believer in art.  Art, from my point of view, is not exactly about product or, really necessarily anything at all.  It’s more about simply interacting with the world in a different fashion than people expect.  

For me, there are two primary forms of art that engage me the most: music is one, and I’ll talk about that some other time.

The other is light.

Lots of people take photos of light.  Photos are, at their core, the rendering of light.  It’s common to do shots of night, with the movement of natural lights.  Here I’m going to quote from a book I put together while I was recovering from surgery, The Book of Light:

…what happens when you are not merely photographing the events as they occur at night, but instead focus on light that you yourself manipulate? There are lots of sources of light that make fairly bright images in the darkness, and some of them will create very cool effects by actively changing colors or pulsating while you use them…

I take photos of light, moving and shifting in different fashions.  These aren’t Photoshop effects or digital manipulations after the fact.  These are photos, taken in a single exposure, of various events that involve light.  

The above photo, for example, was an exposure that lasted 7 minutes and 22 seconds.  During that time, I turned a light on and off in different locations and positions in order to create a tunnel effect.  When I looked at the photo later, I thought the color was okay, but the black and white really grabbed me.  That’s the only role that Photoshop played here: the choice to render it in black and white after the shot was taken.

Note: all the photos here are smaller versions; clicking on them gets you to larger versions with details.

Another few photos:

This one…

…was a 6 minute, 39 second, exposure.  In the upper left, you can see a small streak in the sky.  That’s a planet.  On a different night, you would be seeing stars streaking through as well.

I created that photo by using a rope light, putting it in different positions, turning it on for a moment, turning it off again, moving, and repeating the process.

This one…

…was an even longer exposure: 8 minutes, 16 seconds.  It was taken on a snowy night, also using rope lights to create the strange object shown.  The streaking lights on the right and in the background are lights from the plow going back and forth.  The light structure itself didn’t take long at all, but I left the shutter open longer just to get that plow going by.

I particularly love this shot:

It uses two different rope lights.  In this case, I didn’t actually turn them off while shooting.  Instead, I would hold them in place for 4-8 seconds at one point, move them, and then hold them in place again.  This is why you get that motion blur with the lights from one position to the other.  It was a relatively short exposure for this sort of work: just over 6 minutes, but effective.

This next shot is 8 minutes, 41 seconds:

And this one is a whopping 12 minutes, 3 seconds:

And this one is a very short exposure, just over a minute:

It’s not a light drawing, but I like the shot a lot and just took it on the 30th so I figured I’d include it.  It’s the moon and (I think) the planet Venus, framed by trees and traffic patterns.

I’ll close with one more photo: an extremely long exposure:

This was a 17 minute, 52 second, exposure.  The idea was that I would use one camera to take this photo while using the other to do a fairly complex light drawing.  I’ll have to try that again another time, as the light drawing in question suffered from what we in the trade call the “protezione di obiettivo” problem.  This loosely translates to: “I left the lens cap on.”  Yes: twelve minute exposure, all sorts of really cool lights doing all sorts of stuff and then when I checked the exposure, I realized that there was nothing there.  

Oh well.  I will try again.

By the way, if you are at all familiar with astronomy in the Northern U.S., you’ll actually be able to recognize a specific and well known constellation in this shot.  Anyone able to tell me what it is?  

I do this work for a variety of reasons, but I think part of it is because it helps me to feel engaged with something beyond myself.  There is a truth to it, a brightness to the night that illuminates the world around it.

I also do this because there’s something captivating about engaging the night, especially in winter, when most of us are actually a bit afraid of it.   It ties back into the natural world, in ways that are difficult to explain well.

But, really, it’s just something I love to do.  I like the sense of serenity I get from doing this; there’s a quiet calm to it.  I like the sense of creating something that’s uniquely mine.  Plenty of people do night photography and manipulated light photography but no one actually does it the way I do.  I was originally inspired to do this by Eric Staller, who is amazing, but my work is nothing like his.  It was the idea of the manipulated light that got me going in this direction, and little else.

So, that’s my story about art and what it can mean to me.  What does it mean to you, and what are the rest of you thinking/doing as far as the new year goes?