3rd December- Finishing The UKCCRA- Reflections
3rd December
Finishing The UKCCRA
Since november I have been trying to rewrite a government document. The UK climate risk assessment 2017. I had fully analysed and research the document prior to beginning this task. This is what seemed to take the majority of time as there were many other committee's and alike involved in producing the document. Understanding all of these and th loopholes created in government writing was another aspect of this. The way in which government documents are written is very specific. This is done to avoid many things including failure, the positive nature in which the way the document is written means that the aspects named are all seemingly under control. The restating of many reports repeatedly and committees means that the following information of the document, e.g the research will not come back to the government if found to be incorrect. There is also an avoidance of blame within the document that means the government are not accepting full responsibility for what is happening. The action of people to protect themselves is stated few times, specifically regarding personal health and flood management. It is interesting that the mass investment and use of fossil fuels by corporations is not mentioned throughout the report. The reduction of this would be our best hope of not having to face these apparently inevitable future likelihoods. The close relationship between government and private sector influence is also apparent. With use of phrases such as 'other parties' and 'independent' research systems. Therefore, throughout the entire document you find yourself asking about the level of trust that can be held in these words and by who they were written under what influences and beliefs. After analysing the document, I interestingly found that the words resilience, opportunity and adaptation were used repeatedly throughout. This is shocking as it suggest that instead of tackle to causes we will worry for the effects. Something that not only harms the environment but the ecosystem and animals around us. This is done because the economic value of climate change is minimal and the short term capitalist gain will not be lucrative if we were to re shape our economic system.
I have found this task frustrating. The actual rewrite has taken me 7 hours so far, I have done this is a chunk of time with short breaks every so often. This is so I am sure not to repeat myself and keep track of what words I choose to remove. I was originally hoping to rewrite the document using only words from within the document however I have found this difficult as certain words do not appear at all such as corporations, a word that needs o be spoken of when discussing climate changes and risks. Therefore, I have kept the tone the same. Positive and where I have pointed out stark issues in the tet it is hopefully written ironically. This work will be displayed side by side to the original version. Therefore people can interact with them bot. I hope this interaction takes place as then they may notice how the wool is fully being pulled over societies eyes. These documents are quietly releases and then when changes are made we are told me had been warned. Although I have focused on climate change in my work and the ethics surrounding practice. I more wish to highlight the opportunities of societal change and of rethinking the things we are told and taught to be true. I have been reading the political Unconscious by Fredric Jameson and certain concepts that internally feature there have been very insightive. I have been applying much of this to the government documents that I have been reading and quoting from. What are the implications and connotations of that as an 'author', is there any authorship in these words that I am reading or is it a robotic voice covering a non humane system. I feel that much of my art is suspended between action and commentary on our current fragmented time. I hope this work engages the viewer and endears them to not only hold their own opinion but to act upon that also.
I am hoping to finish this work this evening. I will then edit the work further to ensure that the formatting is all the same as the government document. I will be sure to use government blue and match their colour scheme. Ensuring that the covers are the same is a tool of repetition, the fact there will only be two of 'the same' may will certain people to open either and question the difference. This interactive work will be set on a desk, the installation feel of this would also lend itself to a performance or possibly a areading. I am hoping that my inspiration for what next will come through visual and word based experimentation.
Finishing The UKCCRA
Since november I have been trying to rewrite a government document. The UK climate risk assessment 2017. I had fully analysed and research the document prior to beginning this task. This is what seemed to take the majority of time as there were many other committee's and alike involved in producing the document. Understanding all of these and th loopholes created in government writing was another aspect of this. The way in which government documents are written is very specific. This is done to avoid many things including failure, the positive nature in which the way the document is written means that the aspects named are all seemingly under control. The restating of many reports repeatedly and committees means that the following information of the document, e.g the research will not come back to the government if found to be incorrect. There is also an avoidance of blame within the document that means the government are not accepting full responsibility for what is happening. The action of people to protect themselves is stated few times, specifically regarding personal health and flood management. It is interesting that the mass investment and use of fossil fuels by corporations is not mentioned throughout the report. The reduction of this would be our best hope of not having to face these apparently inevitable future likelihoods. The close relationship between government and private sector influence is also apparent. With use of phrases such as 'other parties' and 'independent' research systems. Therefore, throughout the entire document you find yourself asking about the level of trust that can be held in these words and by who they were written under what influences and beliefs. After analysing the document, I interestingly found that the words resilience, opportunity and adaptation were used repeatedly throughout. This is shocking as it suggest that instead of tackle to causes we will worry for the effects. Something that not only harms the environment but the ecosystem and animals around us. This is done because the economic value of climate change is minimal and the short term capitalist gain will not be lucrative if we were to re shape our economic system.
I have found this task frustrating. The actual rewrite has taken me 7 hours so far, I have done this is a chunk of time with short breaks every so often. This is so I am sure not to repeat myself and keep track of what words I choose to remove. I was originally hoping to rewrite the document using only words from within the document however I have found this difficult as certain words do not appear at all such as corporations, a word that needs o be spoken of when discussing climate changes and risks. Therefore, I have kept the tone the same. Positive and where I have pointed out stark issues in the tet it is hopefully written ironically. This work will be displayed side by side to the original version. Therefore people can interact with them bot. I hope this interaction takes place as then they may notice how the wool is fully being pulled over societies eyes. These documents are quietly releases and then when changes are made we are told me had been warned. Although I have focused on climate change in my work and the ethics surrounding practice. I more wish to highlight the opportunities of societal change and of rethinking the things we are told and taught to be true. I have been reading the political Unconscious by Fredric Jameson and certain concepts that internally feature there have been very insightive. I have been applying much of this to the government documents that I have been reading and quoting from. What are the implications and connotations of that as an 'author', is there any authorship in these words that I am reading or is it a robotic voice covering a non humane system. I feel that much of my art is suspended between action and commentary on our current fragmented time. I hope this work engages the viewer and endears them to not only hold their own opinion but to act upon that also.
I am hoping to finish this work this evening. I will then edit the work further to ensure that the formatting is all the same as the government document. I will be sure to use government blue and match their colour scheme. Ensuring that the covers are the same is a tool of repetition, the fact there will only be two of 'the same' may will certain people to open either and question the difference. This interactive work will be set on a desk, the installation feel of this would also lend itself to a performance or possibly a areading. I am hoping that my inspiration for what next will come through visual and word based experimentation.
Comments
Post a Comment