Research Booklet

The Research

Post Modernism //

Post Modernism // Constructivism.

‘ Constructivism can claim a long and prestigious heritage: Dewey, Piaget, Bruner, and, perhaps most importantly today, Vygotsky, are all taken to endorse the constructivist cause. While the influence of postmodernism and constructivism on the field of applied linguistics in general and SLA research in particular are hard to separate, one can easily appreciate how much more strongly the latter impinges on theories of learning. Constructivist learning is based on students’ active participation in problem-solving and critical thinking regarding a learning activity which they find relevant and engaging. They are “constructing” their own knowledge by testing ideas and approaches based on their prior knowledge and experience, applying these to a new situation, and integrating the new knowledge gained with pre-existing intellectual constructs” (Brinner, 1999: 1).

There is nothing particularly worrying about that, one might well think, and indeed I would not challenge the considerable contribution that such a humanistic, liberal, approach to education has made in the past. It is when we come to the epistemological underpinnings of modern constructivist thinkers that we are back in radically relativist territory. Again, it is difficult to generalise, but the modern constructivists, or at least, some of them, adopt a rather more traditional style of academic writing and seem to be more interested in talking to those who take a realist view of things than some of the postmodernists.

Once again, there is an enormous range of views about what constructivism is, and what the implications of a constructivist approach are, among the constructivists themselves. One thing constructivists seem to have in common is their total opposition to the idea of objective truth. Denzin and Lincoln (1998) explain:

“Constructivists are deeply committed to the view that what we take to be objective knowledge and truth is the result of perspective. Knowledge and truth are created, not discovered by mind. They emphasise the pluralistic and plastic character of reality – pluralistic in the sense that reality is expressible in a variety of symbol and language systems; plastic in the sense that reality is stretched and shaped to fit purposeful acts of intentional human agents.

They endorse the view that “contrary to common sense, there is no unique “real world” that pre-exists and is independent of human mental activity and human symbolic language.” (Bruner, 1986) In place of a realist view of theories and knowledge, constructivists emphasise the instrumental and practical function of theory construction and knowing” (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998: 7).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) have proposed a “Constructivist paradigm” as a replacement for what they label the “conventional, scientific, or positivist paradigm of enquiry”. Their constructivist philosophy is idealist (they assume that “what is real is a construction in the minds of individuals”), pluralist and relativist: “There are multiple, often conflicting, constructions and all (at least potentially) are meaningful. The question of which or whether constructions are true is sociohistorically relative” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 85).

Lincoln and Guba assume that the observer cannot (should not) be neatly disentangled from the observed in the activity of inquiring into constructions. Constructions in turn are resident in the minds of individuals: “They do not exist outside of the persons who created and hold them; they are not part of some “objective” world that exists apart from their constructors” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 143) Thus constructivism is based on the principle of interaction. ·The results of an enquiry are always shaped by the interaction of inquirer and inquired into which renders the distinction between ontology and epistemology obsolete: what can be known and the individual who comes to know it are fused into a coherent whole” (Guba: 1990: 19).

Brinner (1999) develops her idea of constructivism from an educational perspective. She says that constructivists reject the realist view of epistemology because it sees knowledge as a passive reflection of the external, objective reality and implies a process of “instruction”: the subject receives information from the environment, it is “instructed”. She continues: “The naive view is that our senses work like a camera that just projects an image of how the world “really” is onto our brain, and use that image as a kind of map, an encoding in a slightly different format of the objective structure “out there”. Such a view runs quickly into a host of conceptual problems, mainly because it ignores the infinite complexity of the world. Moreover, detailed observation reveals that in all practical cases, cognition does not work like that. It rather turns out that the subject is actively generating plenty of potential models, and that the role of the outside world is merely limited to reinforcing some of these models while eliminating others (selection).

Since Constructivism rejects any direct verification of knowledge by comparing the constructed model with the outside world, its most important issue is how the subject can choose between different constructions to select the “right one”. Without such a selection criterion, Constructivism would lapse into absolute relativism: the assumption that any model is as adequate as any other. The two most often used criteria are coherence, agreement between the different cognitive patterns within an individual’s brain, and consensus, agreement between the different cognitive patterns of different individuals. The latter position leads to “social Constructivism”, which sees knowledge solely as the product of social processes of communication and negotiation (the “social construction of reality”).

We reject these positions are unduly restrictive, and take a much more pragmatic stance, where we note that the adequacy of knowledge depends on many different criteria, none of which has an absolute priority over the others. People can very well use incoherent models, over which there is no agreement with others, but which still are valuable for adaptation to a complex world. These criteria will include at least subjective coherence, intersubjective consensus, and (indirect) comparison with the “objective” environment” Brinner 1999: 2).

At least here, Brinner acknowledges that the central issue raised by such a relativist methodology is how one chooses between rival constructions.

Her answer, unfortunately, does not take things very far, although by saying that she does not accept the position of social constructivism she indicates the breadth of views within the camp. Lincoln has this to say:

“Although all constructions must be considered meaningful, some are rightly labelled “malconstruction” because they are incomplete, simplistic, uninformed, internally inconsistent, or derived by an inadequate methodology. The judgement of whether a given construction is malformed can only be made with reference to the paradigm out of which the construction operates; in other words, criteria or standards are framework-specific, so, for instance, a religious construction can only be judged adequate or inadequate utilizing the particular theological paradigm from which it is derived” (Lincoln, 1990: 144).

There is in constructivism, as in postmodernism, an obvious attempt to throw off the paradigmatic blinkers of modernist rationality, in order to grasp a more complex, subjective reality. Perhaps it has led to new insights into human imagination, perhaps poetry or novels or works of art have been created under its influence, almost certainly constructivists feel they know something that those adhering to a rationalist epistemology do not. Nevertheless, I confess that I can find nothing in constructivist writings to persuade me that it is a fruitful attitude to adopt as far as constructing a theory of SLA is concerned; the constructivists’ attempts at developing a coherent epistemology strike me as hopelessly muddled. ’ AplingLink. (2014). AplingLink. Retrieved from https://canlloparot.wordpress.com/sla/postmodernism/.

Post Modernism // Constructivism.

Post Modernism // Binar y Opposition.

Postmodernism Ron Arad, Concrete Stereo, 1983. Stereo system set in concrete. Museum no. V&A: W.7-2011

Martine Bedin (for Memphis), Super lamp prototype, 1981. Painted metal with lighting components. V&A: M.1-2011

Of all movements in art and design history, postmodernism is perhaps the most controversial. This era defies definition; an unstable mix of the theatrical and theoretical, postmodernism was a visually thrilling multifaceted style that ranged from the colourful to the ruinous, the ludicrous to the luxurious.

Postmodernism shattered established ideas about style. It brought a radical freedom to art and design through gestures that were often funny, sometimes confrontational and occasionally absurd. Most of all, over the course of two decades, from about 1970 to 1990, postmodernism brought a new self-awareness about style itself.

Postmodernism was a drastic departure from modernism’s utopian visions, which had been based on clarity and simplicity. The modernists wanted to open a window onto a new world; postmodernism’s key principles were complexity and contradiction. If modernist objects suggested utopia, progress and machine-like perfection, then the postmodern object seemed to come from a dystopian and far-from-perfect future. Designers salvaged and distressed materials to produce an aesthetic of urban apocalypse.

As the 1980s approached, postmodernism went into high gear. What had begun as a radical fringe movement became the dominant look of the ‘designer decade’. Vivid colour, theatricality and exaggeration: everything was a style statement. Whether surfaces were glossy, faked or deliberately distressed, they reflected the desire to combine subversive statements with commercial appeal. The most important delivery systems for this new phase in postmodernism were magazines and music. The work of Italian designers – especially the groups Studio Alchymia and Memphis – travelled round the world through publications like Domus. Meanwhile, the energy of post-punk subculture was broadcast far and wide through music videos and cutting-edge graphics. This was the moment of the New Wave: a few thrilling years when image was everything.

As the ‘designer decade’ wore on and the world economy boomed, postmodernism became the preferred style of consumerism and corporate culture.

Ultimately this was the undoing of the movement. Postmodernism collapsed under the weight of its own success, and the self-regard that came with it.

The excitement and complexity of postmodernism were enormously influential in the 1980s. In the permissive, fluid and hyper-commodified situation of 21st-century design, we are still feeling its effects.

This content was originally written to accompany exhibition Postmodernism: Style & Subversion 1970–1990, on display at the V&A South Kensington 24 September 2011–15 January 2012. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/p/postmodernism/

Male vs Female Subject vs Object Active vs Passive Living vs Dead Power vs Powerless Human vs Machine Black vs White Security vs Fear feminine vs Masculine Sane vs Insane Freedom vs Surveillance Relaxed vs Tense House vs Street Warmth vs Cold Comfort vs Discomfort Good vs Evil Peace vs War Civilised vs Savage Democracy vs Dictatorship First world vs Third world Articulate vs Inarticulate Young vs Old Man vs Nature Action vs Inaction Motivator vs Observer Empowered vs Victim Strong vs Weak East vs West Humanity vs Technology Ignorance vs Wisdom

Modernism //

Modernism // Post-humanism.

-1Keynote presentation at the International Conference “Mapping Trans- and Posthumanism as Fields of Discourses”, Seoul, Ewha Womans University, May 28, 2014 Postmodernism – Posthumanism – Evolutionary Anthropology It is a great pleasure and honor for me to be invited to this conference that explores different facets in the multi-colored field of posthumanism and transhumanism.

The organizers asked me to speak about the relationship between posthumanism and post- modernism. They probably did so because they regard me as an expert of postmodernism, and because they are aware that I have recently developed a conception which, in some respects at least, congrues with posthumanism.

Postmodernism (1): an updated version of modernity In 1987 I published a book on postmodernism. The title was Our postmodern modern (Unsere postmoderne Moderne).1 This book was quite successful.

I was very happy to see it published also in Korean language in 2001. So some of you may know my position on postmodernism. My general thesis is that postmodernism is not a sort of anti-modernism or trans-modernism but is the type of modernism that incoroporates the advanced tendencies of the 20th century (especially those of the arts and the sciences). In this sense, I defined postmodernism as the required form of modernism in the late twentieth century. I still think this was correct.

Postmodernism (2): evolutionary anthropology really transcending the framework of modernity In the years after 1987, however, I began to ask myself what a conception might look like that – in contrast to standard postmodernism (as a variant of modernism) – would really go beyond modernity. Starting in 2000, I have developed such a conception that does transcend the mod- ern way of thinking.

I published four books on the issue in 2011 and 2012.2 This new concep- tion of mine develops a new understanding of the human. It presents so to speak not a human- ist but an evolutionist anthropology.

This conception cancels out the guiding axiom of modernity according to which man is the central figure from which one must start in all matters and to which one has to refer every- thing back (as was paradigmatically declared by Diderot in 1755).3 The evolutionary anthro- pology I have in mind is able to refute this – as I call it – anthropic axiom of modernity be- cause it surpasses the early modern decree that there exists an unbridgeable gap between man and world. The anthropic axiom was obviously a result from this decree, for if man has noth- ing in common with the world, then he simply cannot help starting from his own point of view, making it the center of everything. Hence ruling out the early-modern gap thesis also suspends the anthropic axiom of modernity. And evolutionary anthropology does override the 1 Wolfgang Welsch, Unsere postmoderne Moderne (Weinheim: VCH Acta humaniora, 1987; 7th edition Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2008).

2 Wolfgang Welsch, Immer nur der Mensch? Entwürfe zu einer anderen Anthropologie (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2011), Blickwechsel – Neue Wege der Ästhetik (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2012), Mensch und Welt. eine evolutionäre Perspektive der Philosophie (Munich: Beck, 2012), Homo mundanus – Jenseits der anthropischen Denkform der Moderne (Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, 2012).

3 “L’homme est le terme unique d’où il faut partir, & auquel il faut tout ramener” – “Man is the unique concept from which one must start and to which one must refer everything back” (Denis Diderot, “Encyclopédie” [1755], in: Diderot, Œuvres complètes, vol. VII: Encyclopédie III, Paris: Hermann, 1976, 174– 262, here 213).  -2assumption of a fundamental gap between man and world by demonstrating how much man is a world-connected being – a being that originated amidst the evolutionary process of the world and, in its structure and capacities, is shaped by this process.

So this my new conception of an evolutionary anthropology really transcends modernity by cancelling out its basic axiom – the anthropic axiom – and, first of all, the very ground of this axiom – the early modern fantasy of an unworldliness of the human, of the human being a stranger to the world – by showing that we are inherently worldly beings, deeply rooted in the process of evolution and therefore by no means unique and supranatural beings, but by all means occurrences and participants in the process of life sharing a great many traits with other living beings.

Surpassing early and late modernity, this conception of an evolutionary anthropology does, of course, also transcend the standard version of postmodernity that was so popular in the eight- ies and nineties of the last century and that embodied, as I said before, just an updated version of modernity. Evolutionary anthropology represents quite a different and new type of post- modernity – one that might really deserve this name.

Let us now ask how these two versions of postmodernism relate to posthumanism.

Postmodernism (1) and Posthumanism: obvious affinities It is obvious that the first one, the standard version of postmodernism overlaps with posthumanism in some respects. Just remember the slogans “death of the subject” or “death of man” so typical for the standard version of postmodernism. Michel Foucault had, in The Order of Things from 1966, paradigmatically proclaimed the “end of man” (as Heidegger had, already in his Letter on Humanism from 1947, stated the insufficiency and due overcoming of humanism). Foucault had rightly stated that the human as the central figure of epistemology was a typical modern invention,4 and he considered this modern thought-form as ruinous. He argued in favor of a future where “man would be erased, like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea.”5 Posthumanism too tries to set an end to the modern conviction of man’s uniqueness and sovereignty and to overcome traditional modern humanism that had rested on exactly these assumptions. As Stefan Lorenz Sorgner put it: Humanism was characterized by endowing man with a special status – assuming that man differs not just gradually but categorically from all other natural beings; but this position has come under attack; post- and transhumanism try to transcend this traditional type of humanism.6 To be sure: posthumanism comes in many flavors; it is a pollachōs legómenon (as postmod- ernism was). But dismissing the centrality and exclusivity of the human is common to all its variants. Herein lies an obvious congruence with postmodernism. The anti-humanistic touch of postmodernism, one could say, is being continued in posthumanism.7

Modernism // Post-humanism.

Modernism // Gender.

4 Michel Foucault, The Order of Things. An Archeology of the Human Sciences [1966], (New York: Vintage, 1973), 308.

5 Ibid., 387.

6 Cf. the announcement of the book series Beyond Humanism: Trans- and Posthumanism / Jenseits des Humanismus: Trans- und Posthumanismus, edited by Stefan Sorgner, published by Peter Lang Publishing Group.

7 Ihab Hassan, one of the main theorists of postmodernism in literature, linked already in 1977 postmodernism to posthumanism (cf. Ihab Hassan, “Prometheus as Performer: Toward a Postmodern Culture?”, in: Michel Benamou and Charles Caramello, Performance in Postmodern Culture, Madison, Wisconsin: Coda Press, 830–

Modernism generally understood as the period lasting from ca. 1880-1945 but exact time frame is debatable.

http://www2.uni-jena.de/welsch/Papers/Postmodernism-Posthumanism-Evolutionary-Anthropolgy.pdf

Important events just prior and during modernist period

Waning of the British Empire and of cultural sovereignty and certainty, social struggles. See Marx’s definition of modernity: “All that is solid melts into air.”

Contradictions between enormous hopes and embrace of progress, versus cultural pessimism shapes this period—paradox, ambiguity, uncertainty. Cultural pessimism See Beckett quote …

Central cultural controversies and debates surrounding influential theories, e.g. by Marx and Engels Darwin Freud Nordau (“Degeneration”) Philosophy: Nietzsche, death of God; Wittgenstein 2 traumatic international wars: World War I (“the Great War”), 1914-1918; ending the period of modernism: fascism, WW II (1939-1945) industrialization, mass production changed consumer society and had consequences for class structure and politics the movies came of age!

Various radical avant-garde movements that challenged society, views of art’s and literature’s role in culture, religion Rise of consumer culture, figures like the dandy, the new woman, the flapper, the vamp, the flaneur (strolling through the modern urban environment) Feminism (first wave), suffrage movement in Britain and U.S. The rise of sexology (Havelock-Ellis, Weininger ….) and psychoanalysis (Freud) Oscar Wilde trial, Radclyffe Hall trial and various other scandals that brought gender/sexuality questions and homosexuality to the forefront of culture In Literature

Unprecedented experimentation with literary form, non-realism (streams of consciousness technique influenced by Bergson and Freud), fragmentation, unprecedented difficulty of modern poetry, daring avant-gardes with manifestos experimentation with gender roles and sexuality in modern literature often morally or religiously daring topics and styles, a lot of experimentation interest in subjectivity and the self in opposition to or abandoned by society; disintegration and fragmentation of a complex outer world leads to a turn inwards, but none of the old certainties exist.

Samuel Beckett’s famous modernist novel Malone Dies opens with sentence “I shall soon be quite dead in spite of it all” and ends with the sentence “where I am, I don’t know, I’ll never know, in the silence you don’t know, you must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on.”

Modernism and gender

Gender and sexuality were important cultural topics at the time, see above, often in relation with first wave feminism or in the backlash against it.

Marianne Dekoven writes:

“Shifts in gender relations at the turn of the century were a key factor in the emergence of Modernism. The period from 1880 to 1920, within which Modernism emerged and rose to preeminence as the dominant art form in the West (it remained dominant until the end of World War II), was also the heyday of the first wave of feminism, consolidated in the women suffrage movement. The protagonist of this movement was known as the “New Woman”: independent, educated, (relatively) sexually liberated, oriented toward more productive life I the public sphere than toward reproductive life in the home.” (“Modernism and Gender,” in The Cambridge Companion to Modernism, p. 174)

But more abstract reasons as well: the history of how we read modernism and understand it is necessarily gendered as well; style of high modernism often seen as typically masculine and male-authored (difficult, experimental, learned, progressive), so women have traditionally been excluded or marginalized in discussions of modernism (seen as tied to tradition, nature, conservatism), with exception of Virginia Woolf; masculine high culture versus female low/mass culture. Again, see Marianne Dekoven:

“Despite the powerful presence of women writers at the founding of Modernism and throughout its history and despite the near-obsessive preoccupation with femininity in all modernist writing, the reactive misogyny so apparent in much male-authored Modernism continues in many quarters to produce a sense of Modernism as a masculinist movement.” (176) “However, a closer look at Modernism through its complex deployments of gender reveals not only the centrality of femininity, but also, again, an irresolvable ambivalence toward radical cultural change at the heart of modernist formal innovation in the works of both male and female writers.” (175) “Modernism had mothers as well as fathers.” (ibid.)

Two important books: Bonnie Kime Scott, Gender and Modernism (1980s anthology), and Rita Felski, The Gender of Modernity (mid-1990s. But there is a third reason: the merging of modernity and modernist style or topics with the very notions of gender, often flying under the radar but powerfully sharing our notions of modern culture. Example: Joris-Karl Huysmans, excerpt from A rebours (see class handout). https://gendermodernism.wordpress.com/lecture-notes/introduction-modernism-and-gender/

Modernism // Christopher Cox.

Modernism // Jeff Koons.

http://www.creativeboysclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/koons-2.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXo0xE0gSTx9G4zTOQFMQPWhk1sOlpqRbr_Cm0RU-k12ZYA-o7NhepV4L9

http://t-squire1114-dc.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/modernist-and-post-modern-graphic.html

Modernism // Frank Gehr y.

Modernism // Jean Baudrillard.

Vancouver University‘Imagine that you participated in a world where all the objects and all the people seemed real enough to touch but you knew – somewhere in your mind – that what you were experiencing was both constructed, and mediated by technology...

Imagine that you’re watching the news on television and you see angry people raising their fists and yelling something at the camera. Faced with such a display of emotion, you’re convinced the world is indeed a dangerous place and that something needs to be done. You forget, temporarily, that this demonstration has been edited out of its context and framed neatly to fit into a news story sandwiched between commercial messages for the purpose of keeping you watching. The world you are watching through the window of the television is a simulation – real as it may seem – a sort of virtual reality... ...When you participate in an online game like The Sims and you choose your avatar – your personal representative in cyberspace – you spend time interacting with other avatars in a simulation of social interaction. The community you participate in can begin to feel real – almost as real as the RL (real-life) community you actually participate in on a day to day basis. Other examples might include the telepresence of NASA’s Mars rovers sending back images from the surface of the red planet, or virtual tours of cities, museums, and buildings...

In all cases, an immersive, interactive experience helps you to forget you’re in a simulated and constructed sensory environment. Cultural critics such as Jean Baudrillard fear that our ability to live in simulated environments – what he call the simulacrum – threatens to cut us off from the realites of existence... ...Baudrillard in 1981 wrote a book called Simulacrum and Simulation, the first book directly devoted to this concept. Baudrillard claimed that the simulacrum was inescapable because simulacra have become more real than the reality itself. Simulacra, for Baudrillard, have stopped being projections of reality, they have become a separate realm of symbols which exist regardless of reality. These symbols, these shadows on the wall now are more important than objects casting them...’ http://www.media-studies.ca/articles/vr.htm

http://www.civilprojectsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Disney-Concert-Hall.jpg

City in Flux //

City in Flux // The Research. ‘ Otto Eckmann was a German painter and graphic artist, he was a prominent member of the “Floral” branch of Jugendstil. He created the Eckman typeface, which was based in Japanese Calligraphy. Otto Eckmann was born in Hamburg, Germany in 1865, however he passed away at the age of 46.’

Otto famously designed books, covers and intials for numerous publishing houses, including E.A. Seemannn. His most famous typefaces (right) I feel is an amazing font for Calligraphy and for a book theme, however it probably won’t fit in that well with a Citythem however if I do go down the revolution idea this font will work well with the traditional village theme.

Tom Purvis is a British painter and commercialposter artist, who was around the same time as Otto Eckmann, he took a different approach at design compared to Otto, as Otto studies mainly typographic design, where as Tom focuses on advertising. He worked for Mather and Crowther for six years, before he turned into a freelance designer, he worked with bold flat colours so then he could detail the imagery more, the image below is for a savings committee designed in 1940, just 19 years before his passing. I could corporate this into my concepts by desiging postcards, in this style with flat bold colours that is two dimensional. I feel I could recreate this poster by line drawing a photgraph I’ve taken and using acrylic paint to get a similar design.

Joserf Muller-Brockmann, was born in 1914 and he was a swiss graphic designer and teacher. He studied architecture, design and the history of art at University and Kunstgewerbeschule in Zurich at the same time. He opened his own Zurich studio for graphic design, exhibition design and photography in 1936. In 1952 produced concert posters for the Tonehall in Zurich. Seven years later he went on to work alongside R.P. Lohse, C.Vivarelli and H. Neuberg for the ‘new graphic design’ in which he became a founding editor. He went on to be appointed as a European design consultant in 1966 for IBM (International Buisness Machines Corporation), which deals with Amertican multinational technology and consulting corporation. In which its head offices is based in NYC, with its logo being made the most recognisble worldwide. He went on to become the author of books such as, ‘The Graphic artist and his design problems’ and ‘Grid systems in Graphic Design’ with his most famous written book ‘history of the poster’ written in 1971 and the follow up book ‘visual communication’. He is most recognisable for his clean use in typography.

City in Flux // The Research.

City in Flux // The Research.

“Sagmesiter & Walsh is a NYC Based deign firm that creates identities, commercials, websites, apps, films, books and objects for cliences, audiences and ourselves.

Clients include: Corporate - Function engineering, Standard chartered bank, Aishti department stores, 20/30 Apartment Building Beirut, Levi’s, P.F.O, Lobmeyer, Joik, HBO Studio Productions, Toto, Red Bull and many more.

Arts - Institute of Contemporary Art Philadelphia, Deitch Projects, Muesuem Plaza, Guggenheim Museum, Vilcek, Casa da Musica and many more.

Publishing & Editioral - Other criteria, ArtAdiaPacific publishing, Random house publishing, Departure vienna, Abrams publishing, Seed magazine, The New York Times, Appleton paper and many more.

Educational - Columbia university, School of visual arts, Massachusetts institute of technology and Rhode island school of design.

Music - Lou Reed/Sister Ray enterprise, Universal Music/Jay-Z, Warner brothers records inc, Atlantic Recors, Rhino records, David Bryne/Brian Eno and Capital Records.

Non Profit - Buisness Leaders for Sensible Priorities, One Voice, Azuero Earth Project.”

Stefan Sagmeister is a graphic designer based in New York, he is a lettering artist and is the co-founder of Sagmesiter & Walsh inc. He is currently still working at the age of 52 in America however he was originally born in Breganz, Austria. His main image which made me want to look into his work is this image which he designed for Lou Reed’s album cover, it’s a pictuure of the artist with many words written across his face and it looks like new style graffiti. This inspires me if I go down the identity route as I feel that if everyone has an identity can’t we challenge the stereotypes? I could work this by photographing people close up and far away and then scanning it in, layering and disorting the image. I want to test this and challenge myself however by photographing other images such as food, drink and buildings.

Mark Wigan became a subject leader of illustration in 1993, at the Camberwell College in the UK, he then went on to become a lecturer of illustration at Hull College, UK. He has written many books such as: ‘Thinking visually for illustrators’ This one book alone with 184 pages discusses everything from getting started to a career in illustration. It shows many aspects such as diverse visual language, techniques, skills, context and ideas. Many illustrators have also written their own personal experiences through visual language. I personally am using Mark Wigan to help me with the theory side to Graphic Design as he challenges every aspect and looks at illustration and Graphics from every angle. “ If a picture pains a thousand words Wigan’s drawings are worth an entire library of professional works on pop culture ” - The Independant.

City in Flux // The Research.

City in Flux // The Research.

Propaganda was used world wide during the war, to influence and communication with the public that were back at home. They use to say things to help sell going into the War and promoting it. They use to make it sound good and exciting and then they would challenge the other countries by making them look evil, obviously no phones were used during the war so people could only be told things through media such as newspapers and posters so people were only believeing what they were told. They would show hard-hitting imagery that showes colour to represent countried, mainly with French and Great Britain they would use red, blue and white to show their flags through posters. Many posters showed females being out and working, being strong and independent as they did the male roles as they were out in the war. The most famous world war poster was the one below which was recognised to get men and young boys to sign up for the army, designed by Alfred Lette in 1914, he designed and illustrated Lord Kitchener to be placed on the poster on behalf of the British Secretary of State for War.

“ A slogan is a memorable motto or phase used in a political, commercial, religious and other context as a repetitive expression of idea or purpose.”

Many companies use slogans as a form of marketing for example, Mcdonalds famous slogan is... i’m lovin it. If they were to do a radio jingle in which you can’t see their famous logo they would say there slogan and people would know instantly what the brand is that is trying to market a product. Another famous slogan is ‘just do it’ by Nike. With this slogan they put it on their clothing ranges such as hoodies and bags, so people know it is a nike bag without the famous logo. The majority of companies when producing their company come up with 2 main aspects of Graphic Design. A logo, a slogan/strap-line. The one featured on the left is the process of Subway, world wide, fast food restaurant that serves freshly prepared sandwiches.

I feel I would use small capitals when I needed to make something look fun but serious and to grab someones attention without using colours. I like the way small capitals work as it can take the edge of visuals such as posters. Here are some examples taken from websites such as... www.dafont.com

City in Flux // The Research.

City in Flux // The Research.

Ceri Ampheellet is a freelance designer based in the UK she gets commisoned for work as well as designing and producing work for her own well visited website http://www.ceriamphlett.co.uk/about.htm. She has gone on to work for many companies such as; BBC, Levi’s, Sony, The Guardian and The Independent. Her latest exhibition, was at Falmouth in 2013, ‘The Temporary Whims’ was shown at ‘The Fish Factory’ it features many artists such as Nathaniel Russell and James Edson. In her past she studied at Kingston University in which she graduated in 1999. She then went on to study at the RSA in 2000-2002, she then moved to Southampton.

Kate Gibb is a London based Graphic Designer that works with silk-screen and illustration, originally working and trained wiith printed textiles, she then found love in colour and pattern and started working with illustration, she has gone on to work with music related album cover artwork, famously she has worked for companies such as; Apple, Sony, Nike, Panasonic and many more companies which you can find listed on her website... www.kategibb.co.uk. Working with silk screen and scanning in her work can help her to layer her work and create different imagery from single visuals. Her most famous piece of work she created is the one featured top right, it is called ‘work in progress’ this one caught my eye the most as it links in with my section of research call process and production I like seeing work half finished as I feel it will show the best quality of work when it is half finished, the products used to create an image give more of an effect compared to when an image is fully painted in my eyes.

Peter Kennard is a form of photographer based in London, UK. He used a technique called ‘photomontage’ in which you get a photo and layer it on with other photo’s and create a whole new image. He is a senior tutor of photography at the Yoral College of Art, his most famous work is his collection called ‘@ earth’ in which it shows items such as gas masks covering the earth, it shows powerful messages and everyone takes away different opinions on the for example my own personal statement towards the image is that its showing how the earth needs to wear a gas mask due to all the CO2 emissions being produced and all the other dangerous gases polluting our skies, it shows missiles of gas coming out of the mouth which symbolises there is more gas being produced than the earth can commit to. His work is influenced from artists such as Picasso, Sutherland and Giacometti. He has gone on to write 5 book; No nuclear weapons, Unwords, images for the end of the century, domesday book and his most recent autobiography, dispatches from an unofficial war artist. He sells his work online at his website... http://www.peterkennard.com/main/sales_gallery/salesgallery_set.htm

I feel Architecture fits into the project ‘City of Flux’ as it is a main theme of what you see throughout various cities. The way you can tell that the cities are more modernised is when the structure looks more modernised for example the bottom hand left picture taken from the architect weekly magazine, shows that the newer upcoming cities have stranger building structure. This photo is taken inspired by Bauhaus’ structural systems. The photo in which I took the bottom right hand side image is also from ‘Architect Weekly’ which I wanted to compare to the Bauhaus inspired building. The photograph was taken in Turkey which up until 1980’s, they didn’t modernise any of their buildings the old style barchitecture which was built in the 16th Century, features main shapes such as circles, squares and triangles and nothing much else to it, it was built out of marble and stone to keep it strong and last a long time without remodeling. New stone ‘Red Brick’ used on common housing estates in the UK as it’s cheap and effective on new builds however within 10 years, owners find it breaking away and it may need repointing and other common problems in which it needs extending or replacing. For looking into different forms of Architecture I have mainly used the website... http://www.architectweekly.com. I feel that this is the best website for all my different comparisons on new and older buildings. Dubai has changed a lot in the past 30 years, it’s construction industry is now one of the most proficient in the world, and most buildings appear to hold some Record Breaking title, from World’s Tallest Building (Burj Khalifa), to the most luxurious hotel (Burj Al Arab). It’s no surprise then that, due to the endless amounts of money and investment available, architects are able to try out new groundbreaking designs, with limited risk.

Architect Dr. David Fisher, Founder of Dynamic Architecture has envisaged a slightly different future for the construction industry in Dubai, than what can currently be seen. He sees a way for buildings and skyscrapers to be able to become self reliant, constantly changing, and all whilst providing the comfort and home necessities that Dubai’s elite have come to expect. The firms latest innovation, known simply as ‘Dynamic Tower’, is a 80 floor, 420 metres high skyscraper, which is capable of generating it’s own electricity via the output of 48 wind turbines mounted between each floor level. Our only concern would be how loud these wind turbines actually are, as the ferocious desert winds flow through the building. I feel that over the past Decade, Dubai has become more famous for its amazing Architecture including buildings such as ‘Rotating Skyscraper’ (see left) and The ‘Burj al Arab’ (see right). These two buildings got into the news as soon as it was announced they were being made, noone could believe that they could create a rotating skyscraper, and the ‘Burj Al Arab’ was the tallest at the time building created by Tom Wright and Carlos Ott. It has over 200 bedrooms and has a helipad on top of the hotel so many various people can fly into the hotel. The Rotating skyscraper was designed by David Fisher in, 2008 however David released a statement in 2009, saying the building would be ready in 2010. As to date it still hasnt started being constructed as they want to keep it a surprise where the building will be. Many people are arguing as the building will stand at 80 floors high, so many people are stating ‘How can it be hidden from us’.

City in Flux // The Research.

City in Flux // The Research.

Farming begun over 13,000 years ago, with animals starting to be used within farming over 10,000 years ago. It first originated in western asia and it still happens today with the largest farm being in Saudi Arabia which owns 37,000 cows. The largest farming buisness is call smithfields in America, which has over 1,200,555 sows. There are many different variations of farming in which i’m not aware of however with my research I read up on:

Fashion is constantly changing in the city, originally in the 16th Century women wore a certain style outfit which keeps them covered up and looking modest (see top left). Through the centuries they got more stylish (Middle left). By 1900’s the patterns stopped and a plain style came about experimenting which colours and patterned fabric became cheaper and affordable for people to make their own clothes so a lot of people that lived in poverty or to dave monmey for their families benefit.

As we have reached the 2000’s clothes have got less modest with thousands more designers being released everyday women are now objectified due to their fashion sense which is on sale around the world. Britney Spears (bottom right), struck critiscism when she dressed as a schoolgirl for her hit music video ‘hit me baby one more time...’ which had millions of copies sold however her age range of listeners at the time was around 8years old-14 years old females. People put in complaints in the thousands and it struck media and dicided the way people thought however, since then we have been released to more objectifying from the way Fashion is changing by Miley Cyrus (middle right), who wanted her appearance to be dramatically changed by cutting off 24” from her hair, performing naked and in hardly any clothes as she thinks you should be allowed to dress how you like. Many cities host a clothing show of fashion week every year such as Milan, Paris, New York and London in which many A-Listers and fashion designers are incited and are now streamed live over the internet to get the hottest season trends.

Intensive farming uses heavy uses of fertilizers.

Whippletree uses horse pulling.

Crop rotation is shown top left.

Mechanised Agriculture was introduced in 1940.

Argricultural Machinery uses tractors.

City in Flux // The Research.

City in Flux // Finals.

City in Flux // Finals.

City in Flux // Finals.

City in Flux // Finals.

Ear th Ar tifact //

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

Pioneers 10 and 11, which preceded Voyager, both carried small metal plaques identifying their time and place of origin for the benefit of any other spacefarers that might find them in the distant future. With this example before them, NASA placed a more ambitious message aboard Voyager 1 and 2-a kind of time capsule, intended to communicate a story of our world to extraterrestrials. The Voyager message is carried by a phonograph record-a 12-inch gold-plated copper disk containing sounds and images selected to portray the diversity of life and culture on Earth. The contents of the record were selected for NASA by a committee chaired by Carl Sagan of Cornell University, et. al. Dr. Sagan and his associates assembled 115 images and a variety of natural sounds, such as those made by surf, wind and thunder, birds, whales, and other animals. To this they added musical selections from different cultures and eras, and spoken greetings from Earth-people in fifty-five languages, and printed messages from President Carter and U.N. Secretary General Waldheim. Each record is encased in a protective aluminium jacket, together with a cartridge and a needle. Instructions, in symbolic language, explain the origin of the spacecraft and indicate how the record is to be played. The 115 images are encoded in analogue form. The remainder of the record is in audio, designed to be played at 16-2/3 revolutions per minute. It contains the spoken greetings, beginning with Akkadian, which was spoken in Sumer about six thousand years ago, and ending with Wu, a modern Chinese dialect. Following the section on the sounds of Earth, there is an eclectic 90-minute selection of music, including both Eastern and Western classics and a variety of ethnic music. Once the Voyager spacecraft leave the solar system (by 1990, both will be beyond the orbit of Pluto), they will find themselves in empty space. It will be forty thousand years before they make a close approach to any other planetary system. As Carl Sagan has noted, “The spacecraft will be encountered and the record played only if there are advanced space-faring civilizations in interstellar space. But the launching of this bottle into the cosmic ocean says something very hopeful about life on this planet.”

The definitive work about the Voyager record is “Murmurs of Earth” by Executive Director, Carl Sagan, Technical Director, Frank Drake, Creative Director, Ann Druyan, Producer, Timothy Ferris, Designer, Jon Lomberg, and Greetings Organizer, Linda Salzman. Basically, this book is the story behind the creation of the record, and includes a full list of everything on the record. “Murmurs of Earth”, originally published in 1978, was reissued in 1992 by Warner News Media with a CD-ROM that replicates the Voyager record. Unfortunately, this book is now out of print, but it is worth the effort to try and find a used copy or browse through a library copy.

“In the upper left-hand corner is an easily recognized drawing of the phonograph record and the stylus carried with it. The stylus is in the correct position to play the record from the beginning. Written around it in binary arithmetic is the correct time of one rotation of the record, 3.6 seconds, expressed in time units of 0,70 billionths of a second, the time period associated with a fundamental transition of the hydrogen atom. The drawing indicates that the record should be played from the outside in. Below this drawing is a side view of the record and stylus, with a binary number giving the time to play one side of the record - about an hour.“ The information in the upper right-hand portion of the cover is designed to show how pictures are to be constructed from the recorded signals. The top drawing shows the typical signal that occurs at the start of a picture. The picture is made from this signal, which traces the picture as a series of vertical lines, similar to ordinary television (in which the picture is a series of horizontal lines). Picture lines 1, 2 and 3 are noted in binary numbers, and the duration of one of the “picture lines,” about 8 milliseconds, is noted. The drawing immediately below shows how these lines are to be drawn vertically, with staggered “interlace” to give the correct picture rendition. Immediately below this is a drawing of an entire picture raster, showing that there are 512 vertical lines in a complete picture. Immediately below this is a replica of the first picture on the record to permit the recipients to verify that they are decoding the signals correctly. A circle was used in this picture to insure that the recipients use the correct ratio of horizontal to vertical height in picture reconstruction. “The drawing in the lower left-hand corner of the cover is the pulsar map previously sent as part of the plaques on Pioneers 10 and 11. It shows the location of the solar system with respect to 14 pulsars, whose precise periods are given. The drawing containing two circles in the lower right-hand corner is a drawing of the hydrogen atom in its two lowest states, with a connecting line and digit 1 to indicate that the time interval associated with the transition from one state to the other is to be used as the fundamental time scale, both for the time given on the cover and in the decoded pictures. “Electroplated onto the record’s cover is an ultra-pure source of uranium-238 with a radioactivity of about 0.00026 micro-curies. The steady decay of the uranium source into its daughter isotopes makes it a kind of radioactive clock. Half of the uranium-238 will decay in 4.51 billion years. Thus, by examining this two-centimeter diameter area on the record plate and measuring the amount of daughter elements to the remaining uranium-238, an extraterrestrial recipient of the Voyager spacecraft could calculate the time elapsed since a spot of uranium was placed aboard the spacecraft. This should be a check on the epoch of launch, which is also described by the pulsar map on the record cover.” “ In the upper left-hand corner is an easily recognized drawing of the phonograph record and the stylus carried with it. The stylus is in the correct position to play the record from the beginning. Written around it in binary arithmetic is the correct time of one rotation of the record, 3.6 seconds, expressed in time units of 0.70 billionths of a second, the time period associated with a fundamental transition of the hydrogen atom. The drawing indicates that the record should be played from the outside in. Below this drawing is a side view of the record and stylus, with a binary number giving the time to play one side of the record – about an hour. The information in the upper right-hand portion of the cover is designed to show how pictures are to be constructed from the recorded signals. The top drawing shows the typical signal that occurs at the start of a picture. The picture is made from this signal, which traces the picture as a series of vertical lines, similar to analogue television (in which the picture is a series of horizontal lines).

Picture lines 1, 2 and 3 are noted in binary numbers, and the duration of one of the “picture lines,” about 8 milliseconds, is noted. The drawing immediately below shows how these lines are to be drawn vertically, with staggered “interlace” to give the correct picture rendition. Immediately below this is a drawing of an entire picture raster, showing that there are 512 (29) vertical lines in a complete picture. Immediately below this is a replica of the first picture on the record to permit the recipients to verify that they are decoding the signals correctly. A circle was used in this picture to ensure that the recipients use the correct ratio of horizontal to vertical height in picture reconstruction. Colour images were represented by three images in sequence, one each for red, green, and blue components of the image.

A colour image of the spectrum of the sun was included for calibration purposes. The drawing in the lower left-hand corner of the cover is the pulsar map previously sent as part of the plaques on Pioneers 10 and 11. It shows the location of the solar system with respect to 14 pulsars, whose precise periods are given. The drawing containing two circles in the lower right-hand corner is a drawing of the hydrogen atom in its two lowest states, with a connecting line and digit 1 to indicate that the time interval associated with the transition from one state to the other is to be used as the fundamental time scale, both for the time given on the cover and in the decoded pictures.”

What is NASA? NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA is a United States government agency that is responsible for science and technology related to air and space. The Space Age started in 1957 with the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik. NASA was created in 1958. The agency was created to oversee U.S. space exploration and aeronautics research.

What does NASA do?

Many Americans may be aware of some of NASA’s major responsibilities. Astronauts in orbit conduct scientific research. Satellites help scientists learn more about Earth. Space probes study the solar system, and beyond. New developments improve air travel and other aspects of flight. NASA is also beginning a new program to send humans to explore asteroids, Mars and beyond. In addition to those major missions, NASA does many other things. The agency shares what it learns, so that its information can make life better for people all over the world. For example, companies can use NASA discoveries to create new “spin-off” products.

NASA’s Education Office helps teachers to prepare the students who will be the engineers, scientists, astronauts and other NASA workers of the future. They will be the adventurers that will continue the exploration of the solar system and universe in the years to come. NASA has a tradition of investing in programs and activities that inspire and engage students, educators, families and communities in the excitement and discovery of exploration. NASA offers training to help teachers learn new ways to teach science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The agency also involves students in NASA missions to help them get excited about learning.

Who runs NASA? The administrator of NASA is Charlie Bolden. Before becoming the head of NASA, Bolden was an astronaut who flew into space four times. He commanded two space shuttle missions. Bolden has worked both for the government and for private companies. He has a bachelor’s degree in electrical science and a master’s degree in systems management. The NASA administrator is nominated by the president and confirmed by a vote in the Senate.

Who works for NASA? NASA’s Headquarters is in Washington, D.C. The agency has ten field centers and seven test and research facilities located in several states around the country.

More than 18,000 people work for NASA. Many more people work with the agency as government contractors. Those people are hired by companies that NASA pays to do work for it. The combined workforce represents a wide variety of jobs. Astronauts may be the best-known NASA employees, but they only represent a small number of the total workforce. Many NASA workers are scientists and engineers. But people there hold many other jobs, too, from secretaries to writers to lawyers to teachers.

What has NASA done?

When NASA started, it began a program of human space-flight.

The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs helped NASA learn about flying in space and resulted in the first human landing on the moon in 1969. Currently, NASA has astronauts living and working on the International Space Station.

NASA’s robotic space probes have visited every planet in the solar system and several other celestial bodies. Telescopes have allowed scientists to look at the far reaches of space. Satellites have revealed a wealth of data about Earth, resulting in valuable information such as a better understanding of weather patterns. NASA has helped develop and test a variety of cutting-edge aircraft.

These aircraft include planes that have set new records. Among other benefits, these tests have helped engineers improve air transportation. NASA technology has contributed to many items used in everyday life, from smoke detectors to medical tests.

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

In the annals of exploration, the achievements of the two Voyager spacecraft are unprecedented. The piddling journeys of Columbus and Magellan spanned a few tens of thousands of miles on the watery surface of one small world. Voyagers 1 and 2 have travelled billions of miles through the ocean of space, exploring dozens of new worlds along the way and revolutionizing our knowledge of the solar system in which we live. And as a gift of the brilliant mission design, these robot ships are no longer bound by the Sun’s gravity. They have passed the outermost planets and are on their way to the cold, dark near-vacuum that constitutes interstellar space.

Nothing can stop them. Their radio transmitters are unlikely to work beyond the year 2020. Thereafter, they will wander silently and forever in the realm of the stars. Who knows who’s out there? Perhaps the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy is populated by desolate, wasteland worlds circling a hundred billion stars. Or maybe the Galaxy is rich in life forms and intelligence and technology much further beyond our reach than the Voyagers are beyond the reach of Columbus and Magellan. Someday - maybe millions of years in the future - one of these ghostly, derelict ships may be detected and captured by the representatives of some devastatingly advanced interstellar culture. They will wonder about the shipbuilders. If you could send a long message to such extraterrestrial beings - words, pictures, sounds, music what would you say? How would you describe us? What would you leave out? Could you communicate intelligibly to very different beings with a wholly independent evolution? In 1977, at NASA’s behest, a few of us had a remarkable opportunity to attempt such a (one-way) communication. Frank Drake suggested not a plaque, but a phonograph record. As described in the book, Murmurs of Earth, we designed and prepared the record to carry a rich message to the stars - 116 pictures and diagrams about our global civilization and our species, greetings, samples of the world’s great music, the brain waves of a young woman in love and much else. The Voyager mission has already become the stuff of myth, the premise for many works of science fiction. Brief excerpts from the Voyager record have been heard in films, television and radio. But the record itself has never before been available to the public, because of corporate rivalries and copyright restrictions. Warner New Media has broken through the logjam. Those of us who created the interstellar record - well-aware that different people would have made different selections - are delighted to help bring this message to you, essentially complete, as carried by Voyager. This is what the extraterrestrials will learn about us, should the spacecraft - now the fastest and farthest machines ever launched by the human species - one day encounter someone else in the depths of space. A billion years from now, when everything on Earth we’ve ever made has crumbled into dust, when the continents are changed beyond recognition and our species is unimaginably altered or extinct, the Voyager record will still speak for us. CARL SAGAN was the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences and Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University. He played a leading role in the American space program since its inception. He was a consultant and adviser to NASA since the 1950’s, briefed the Apollo astronauts before their flights to the Moon, and was an experimenter on the Mariner, Viking, Voyager, and Galileo expeditions to the planets. He helped solve the mysteries of the high temperatures of Venus (answer: massive greenhouse effect), the seasonal changes on Mars (answer: windblown dust), and the reddish haze of Titan (answer: complex organic molecules). For his work, Dr. Sagan received the NASA medals for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and (twice) for Distinguished Public Service, as well as the NASA Apollo Achievement Award. Asteroid 2709 Sagan is named after him. He was also awarded the John F. Kennedy Astronautics Award of the American Astronautical Society, the Explorers Club 75th Anniversary Award, the Konstantin Tsiolkovsky Medal of the Soviet Cosmonauts Federation, and the Masursky Award of the American Astronomical Society, (“for his extraordinary contributions to the development of planetary science…As a scientist trained in both astronomy and biology, Dr. Sagan has made seminal contributions to the study of planetary atmospheres, planetary surfaces, the history of the Earth, and exobiology. Many of the most productive planetary scientists working today are his present and former students and associates”). He was also a recipient of the Public Welfare Medal, the highest award of the National Academy of Sciences (for “distinguished contributions in the application of science to the public welfare…Carl Sagan has been enormously successful in communicating the wonder and importance of science. His ability to capture the imagination of millions and to explain difficult concepts in understandable terms is a magnificent achievement”). Dr. Sagan was elected Chairman of the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, President of the Planetology Section of the American Geophysical Union, and Chairman of the Astronomy Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. For twelve years he was the editor-in-chief of Icarus, the leading professional journal devoted to planetary research. He was co-founder and President of the Planetary Society, a 100,000-member organization that is the largest space-interest group in the world; and Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. A Pulitzer Prize winner for the book The Dragons of Eden: Speculations of the Evolution of Human Intelligence, Dr. Sagan was the author of many best-sellers, including Cosmos, which became the best-selling science book ever published in English. The accompanying Emmy and Peabody award-winning television series has been seen by a billion people in sixty countries. He received twenty-two honorary degrees from American colleges and universities for his contributions to science, literature, education, and the preservation of the environment, and many awards for his work on the long-term consequences of nuclear war and reversing the nuclear arms race. His novel, Contact, is now a major motion picture. In their posthumous award to Dr. Sagan of their highest honour, the National Science Foundation declared that his “research transformed planetary science… his gifts to mankind were infinite.” Dr. Sagan’s surviving family includes his wife and collaborator of twenty years, Ann Druyan; his children, Dorion, Jeremy, Nicholas, Sasha, and Sam; and grandchildren.

James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr. served as the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981. He was awarded the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for work to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.

Jimmy Carter aspired to make Government “competent and compassionate,” responsive to the American people and their expectations. His achievements were notable, but in an era of rising energy costs, mounting inflation, and continuing tensions, it was impossible for his administration to meet these high expectations.

Carter, who has rarely used his full name--James Earl Carter, Jr.--was born October 1, 1924, in Plains, Georgia. Peanut farming, talk of politics, and devotion to the Baptist faith were mainstays of his upbringing.

Upon graduation in 1946 from the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, Carter married Rosalynn Smith. The Carters have three sons, John William (Jack), James Earl III (Chip), Donnel Jeffrey (Jeff), and a daughter, Amy Lynn. After seven years’ service as a naval officer, Carter returned to Plains. In 1962 he entered state politics, and eight years later he was elected Governor of Georgia. Among the new young southern governors, he attracted attention by emphasizing ecology, efficiency in government, and the removal of racial barriers.

Carter announced his candidacy for President in December 1974 and began a two-year campaign that gradually gained momentum. At the Democratic Convention, he was nominated on the first ballot. He chose Senator Walter F. Mondale of Minnesota as his running mate. Carter campaigned hard against President Gerald R. Ford, debating with him three times. Carter won by 297 electoral votes to 241 for Ford. Carter worked hard to combat the continuing economic woes of inflation and unemployment. By the end of his administration, he could claim an increase of nearly eight million jobs and a decrease in the budget deficit, measured in percentage of the gross national product.

Unfortunately, inflation and interest rates were at near record highs, and efforts to reduce them caused a short recession. Carter could point to a number of achievements in domestic affairs. He dealt with the energy shortage by establishing a national energy policy and by decontrolling domestic petroleum prices to stimulate production.

He prompted Government efficiency through civil service reform and proceeded with deregulation of the trucking and airline industries. He sought to improve the environment. His expansion of the national park system included protection of 103 million acres of Alaskan lands. To increase human and social services, he created the Department of Education, bolstered the Social Security system, and appointed record numbers of women, blacks, and Hispanics to Government jobs. In foreign affairs, Carter set his own style. His championing of human rights was coldly received by the Soviet Union and some other nations. In the Middle East, through the Camp David agreement of 1978, he helped bring amity between Egypt and Israel.

He succeeded in obtaining ratification of the Panama Canal treaties. Building upon the work of predecessors, he established full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China and completed negotiation of the SALT II nuclear limitation treaty with the Soviet Union. There were serious setbacks, however. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan caused the suspension of plans for ratification of the SALT II pact. The seizure as hostages of the U. S. embassy staff in Iran dominated the news during the last 14 months of the administration.

The consequences of Iran’s holding Americans captive, together with continuing inflation at home, contributed to Carter’s defeat in 1980. Even then, he continued the difficult negotiations over the hostages. Iran finally released the 52 Americans the same day Carter left office. The Presidential biographies on WhiteHouse.gov are from “The Presidents of the United States of America,” by Frank Freidel and Hugh Sidey. Copyright 2006 by the White House Historical Association.

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

1. Tonight’s the Night (Gonna Be Alright), Rod Stewart 2. I Just Want to Be Your Everything, Andy Gibb 3. Best of My Love, Emotions 4. Love Theme (From “A Star Is Born”), Barbra Streisand 5. Angel In Your Arms, Hot 6. I Like Dreamin’, Kenny Nolan 7. Don’t Leave Me This Way, Thelma Houston 8. (Your Love Has Lifted Me) Higher and Higher, Rita Coolidge 9. Undercover Angel, Alan O’Day 10. Torn Between Two Lovers, Mary MacGregor 11. I’m Your Boogie Man, K.C. and The Sunshine Band 12. Dancing Queen, Abba 13. You Make Me Feel Like Dancing, Leo Sayer 14. Margaritaville, Jimmy Buffet 15. Telephone Line, Electric Light Orchestra 16. What’cha Gonna Do?, Pablo Cruise 17. Do You Wanna Make Love, Peter McCann 18. Sir Duke, Stevie Wonder 19. Hotel California, The Eagles 20. Got to Give It Up, Pt. 1, Marvin Gaye 21. Gonna Fly Now (Theme from “Rocky”), Bill Conti 22. Southern Nights, Glen Campbell 23. Rich Girl, Daryl Hall and John Oates 24. When I Need You, Leo Sayer 25. Hot Line, The Sylvers 26. Car Wash, Rose Royce 27. You Don’t Have to Be a Star (To Be In My Show), Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis Jr. 28. Fly Like An Eagle, Steve Miller Band 29. Don’t Give Up On Us, David Soul 30. On and On, Stephen Bishop 31. Feels Like the First Time, Foreigner 32. Couldn’t Get It Right, The Climax Blues Band 33. Easy, The Commodores 34. Right Time of the Night, Jennifer Warnes 35. I’ve Got Love On My Mind, Natalie Cole 36. Blinded By the Light, Manfred Mann’s Earth Band 37. Looks Like We Made It, Barry Manilow 38. So In to You, Atlanta Rhythm Section 39. Dreams, Fleetwood Mac 40. Enjoy Yourself, The Jacksons 41. Dazz, Brick 42. I’m In You, Peter Frampton 43. Lucille, Kenny Rogers 44. The Things We Do for Love, 10cc 45. Da Doo Ron Ron, Shaun Cassidy 46. Handy Man, James Taylor 47. Just a Song Before I Go, Crosby, Stills and Nash 48. You and Me, Alice Cooper 49. Swayin’ to the Music (Slow Dancin’), Johnny Rivers 50. Lonely Boy, Andrew Gold 51. I Wish, Stevie Wonder 52. Don’t Stop, Fleetwood Mac 53. Barracuda, Heart 54. Strawberry Letter 23, Brothers Johnson 55. Night Moves, Bob Seger and The Silver Bullet Band 56. You’re My World, Helen Reddy 57. Heard It In a Love Song, Marshall Tucker Band 58. Carry On Wayward Son, Kansas 59. New Kid In Town, The Eagles

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

60. My Heart Belongs to Me, Barbra Streisand 61. After the Lovin’, Engelbert Humperdinck 62. Jet Airliner, Steve Miller Band 63. Stand Tall, Burton Cummings 64. Way Down, Elvis Presley 65. Weekend In New England, Barry Manilow 66. It Was Almost Like a Song, Ronnie Milsap 67. Smoke from a Distant Fire, Sanford Townsend Band 68. Cold As Ice, Foreigner 69. Ariel, Dean Friedman 70. Lost Without Your Love, Bread 71. Star Wars Theme / Cantina Band, Meco 72. Float On, The Floaters 73. Jeans On, David Dundas 74. Lido Shuffle, Boz Scaggs 75. Keep It Comin’ Love, K.C. and The Sunshine Band 76. You Made Me Believe In Magic, Bay City Rollers 77. Livin’ Thing, Electric Light Orchestra 78. Give a Little Bit, Supertramp 79. That’s Rock ‘n’ Roll, Shaun Cassidy 80. Love So Right, The Bee Gees 81. Rubberband Man, The Spinners 82. I Never Cry, Alice Cooper 83. Nobody Does It Better, Carly Simon 84. High School Dance, The Sylvers 85. Love’s Grown Deep, Kenny Nolan 86. Ain’t Gonna Bump No More (with No Big Fat Woman), Joe Tex 87. I Wanna Get Next To You, Rose Royce 88. Somebody to Love , Queen 89. Muskrat Love, Captain and Tennille 90. Walk This Way, Aerosmith 91. Cherchez la Femme / Se Si Bon, Dr. Buzzard’s Original Savannah Band 92. Year of the Cat, Al Stewart 93. Boogie Nights, Heatwave 94. Go Your Own Way, Fleetwood Mac 95. Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word, Elton John 96. Don’t Worry Baby, B.J. Thomas 97. Knowing Me, Knowing You, Abba 98. How Much Love, Leo Sayer 99. Main Title Star Wars, London Symphony Orchestra 100. Devil’s Gun, C.J. and Co. American Statistics in 1977: Yearly Inflation Rate USA 6.5% Interest Rates Year End Federal Reserve 7.75% Average Cost of new house $49,300.00 Average Income per year $15,000.00 Average Monthly Rent $240.00 Cost of a gallon of Gas 65 cents

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

“I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud -- And I am proud to visit the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed. Two thousand years ago -- Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was “civis Romanus sum.”¹ Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is “Ich bin ein Berliner.” There are many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world.

“THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction. And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

Let them come to Berlin.

There are some who say -- There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future.

Let them come to Berlin.

And there are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, we can work with the Communists.

Let them come to Berlin.

And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress.

Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen.

Let them come to Berlin.

Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect. But we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in -- to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say on behalf of my countrymen who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride, that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope, and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system -- for all the world to see -- we take no satisfaction in it; for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together. What is -- What is true of this city is true of Germany: Real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you, as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind. Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we look -- can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades. All -- All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin And, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner.””

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family. We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies. Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot. Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world. And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body. For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda. Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity. Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people. Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates. The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded. So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice. We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day. Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores. And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people. The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place. Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.”

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

“I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity. But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children. It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. *We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: “For Whites Only.”* We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until “justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; “and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.” This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning: My country ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing, Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim’s pride, From every mountainside, let freedom ring, And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

I was one of the first on the scene. The Afghan security forces normally shut down a suicide bombing like this pretty quickly. I was able to get to the epicentre of the explosion. It was carnage, there were bodies, flames were coming out of the buildings. I remember feeling very scared because there was still popping and hissing and small explosions, and the building was collapsing. It was still very fresh and there was a risk of another bomb. It was one of those situations where you have to put fear aside and focus on the job at hand: to watch the situation and document it. This woman was escorted out of the building and round this devastated street corner. It epitomised the whole mood – this older woman caught in the middle of this ridiculous, tragic event. I wish I could have found out how her life unravelled, but as soon as the scene was locked down, I ran back to the office to file. As a photographer, you feel helpless. Around you are medics, security personnel, people doing good work. It can be agonisingly painful to think that all you’re doing is taking pictures. When I won a World Press award for this photograph, I felt sad. People were congratulating me and there was a celebration over this intense tragedy that I had captured. I reconciled it by deciding that more people see a story when a photographer’s work is decorated.

I personally feel this image is more emotional than more imagery of war. I felt that this image shows how the war didn’t stop; I could easily use iconic imagery from both the World War’s however the war has continued and many children aren’t tought on the present, unless they read the news this image was taken by photographer Adam Ferguson. The image shows a true meaning to photography; willing to take risks. If it wasn’t for these photographers, journalists and news reporters, we wouldn’t know what is trully going on in these various countries. We wouldn’t learn about what our soldiers are doing as they can’t phase the things they see, as I have realised from reading the book ‘American Sniper’ by Chris Kyle. In the image we see a servicemen helping civilians, one women is crying as you see blood pouring down her face, she looks injured by what could possibly be the suicder bomber mentioned in the briefing by Adam. There is a fire starting in the background and the buildings are all falling apart, it looks like this could of been where the women and man (not in the Khaki) may have worked or lived.

“Steve McCurry Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs takes an unprecedented look at the work of Steve McCurry, one of today’s finest and most daring imagemakers.

This is the first book to fully explore how the world-renowned photographer finds, takes and develops his uniquely iconic photographs. Presenting a personal archive of material, Steve McCurry Untold features the very best of McCurry’s most beautiful and powerful photo stories, taken from around the world over the last thirty years. Each story is illustrated with never-before-seen notes, images and ephemera – saved by McCurry from his extensive travels – and over 100 lavish, full-colour photo plates of McCurry’s most significant work. Brought to life by newly commissioned essays, the stories offer a critical narrative and give new insight and ideas into the background, experience and ideas behind McCurry’s unparalleled photography. Together, these fascinating documents reveal a new and exciting view of the story behind the story.

Tracing the narrative behind 14 of McCurry’s most important assignments, each story provides a behind-the-scenes look at McCurry’s adventures, from first publication to their afterlife in the world, creating a documentary record of his remarkable career. The featured work covers his entire oeuvre and focuses on a broad range of themes, such as rail travel in India (1983), the plight of the Tibetan people (2000–6), the effects of the Monsoon (1984) and the events of September 11th (2001), alongside his lesser-known bodies of work on the Hazara Tribe in Afghanistan (2007), Yemen (1999), and the environmental fallout from the Gulf War in Kuwait (1991). Richly illustrated and explained, this book provides an inside perspective on Steve McCurry, creating a living biography and archive of one of photography’s greatest legends.”

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

Chris Kyle is an American Sniper that fought as a SEAL for 10 years, from 1999-2009. In this time he has over 160 confirmed kills. His story is explained briefly in this extract taken from http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/death_of_an_american_sniper/ however his book I really recommend as I have just finished reading it and it was amazing! The autobiography or if your not a reader then definatley catch the film, then you don’t have to understand the guns (insert wink face). However this extract will be a brief overview of both the film and book so spoilers are in this; you’ve been warned!

ity that opponents of the war also wanted to save American lives. War and politics: difficult to separate even when you’re hellbent on denying the connection. Kyle finally sobered up. (It was totaling his pickup that did it, but he also missed one of his kids’ birthday parties because was in jail for a bar fight.) By all accounts, he had begun to wrestle with the war’s toxic legacy, establishing a nonprofit that donated in-home fitness equipment to veterans suffering from the physical and psychological toll of battle. Kyle’s dedication to his fellow fighters was admirable and selfless, and exercise can be great therapy. Still, the preference for activity over rumination and consideration remained a persistent theme. Eddie Routh, the veteran who shot Kyle and his friend Chris Littlefield, had reportedly been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his experiences in the war. In the immediate aftermath of Kyle and Littlefield’s murders, many people expressed incredulity at the notion of taking a person troubled with PTSD to a firing range. One-time presidential candidate Ron Paul provoked a firestorm of criticism by questioning this choice and tweeting, “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” (Word of advice: Twitter, like video games, is not an appropriate forum for complex argument.) In fact, controlled exposure to triggering stimuli is an established TREATMENT FOR PTSD. It works much like phobia therapies that have patients, under a therapist’s guidance, first imagine and then gradually encounter the objects of their fears. Over time, the triggers can be desensitized. But Routh also appears to have had other underlying MENTAL HEALTH and substance abuse issues. He’d been hospitalized multiple times for threatening to kill both himself and family members. He may have had problems that pre-existed his service or that were exacerbated by it. Furthermore, there’s no indication that Routh was receiving any kind of psychotherapy or that Kyle and Littlefield had run the firing range idea past a therapist who was familiar with his case. Why should they? What would some egghead, like the brass and the politicians, who had never been in the shit, know about it, anyway, compared to someone like Kyle who had actually been there? Routh was not just an American, but an American soldier, a person who was by definition incapable of doing anything evil.

“I am not a fan of politics,” wrote Chris Kyle, the 38-year-old former Navy SEAL sniper who was shot and killed with a friend at a Texas firing range on SATURDAY. Yet, in his best-selling memoir, “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History” — originally published last year and currently experiencing a sales bump in the aftermath of Kyle’s death — the commando also wrote, “I like war.” The problem, as Kyle would have known if he’d read his Carl von Clausewitz, is that the two aren’t separable; war, as Clauswitz wrote, is the CONTINUATION of politics by other means.Chances are, though, that Kyle never heard of Clausewitz; certainly there’s nothing in “American Sniper” to suggest that he ever thought very deeply about his SERVICE, or wanted to. The red-blooded superficiality of his memoir is surely the quality that made it appealing to so many readers. Well, that and Kyle’s proficiency at his chosen specialty: He boasted of having killed over 250 people during his four deployments as a sniper in Iraq. While Kyle’s physical courage and fidelity to his fellow servicemen were unquestionable, his steadfast imperviousness to any nuance, subtlety or ambiguity, and his lack of imagination and curiosity, seem particularly notable in light of the circumstances of his death. They were also all-too-emblematic of the blustering, tragically misguided self-confidence of the George W. Bush years. A self-described “regular redneck,” Kyle grew up in Odessa, Texas, and spent his YOUTH hunting, collecting guns and competing in rodeos until he found his life’s purpose in the Navy SEALs. “American Sniper” lovingly recounts both the rigors of the special-operations force’s training program and the extravagant hazing to which new members are subjected. (Kyle was handcuffed to a chair, loaded up with Jack Daniel’s, stripped and covered with spray paint and obscene marking-pen tattoos by his buddies on the night before his wedding. Presumably his bride got the message about whom he really belonged to.)

ADVERTISEMENT When the action-hungry commando finally got to Iraq during the initial push of the war in 2003, he was confronted for the first time with the soldier’s prime directive: to kill the enemy. In Nasaria, Kyle shot his first Iraqi (an incident that opens the book), a woman he spotted on a road pulling a grenade from her clothing to throw at an advancing Marine foot patrol. “I don’t regret it,” he writes. “The woman was already dead. I was just making sure she didn’t take any Marines with her.”

It is both cruel and perverse to reproach soldiers for killing the enemy when that’s what they’re sent to war to do, and when they do so in defense of their own lives and the lives of their comrades. Nevertheless, you can expect soldiers to kill and still recoil when they kill blithely and eagerly. In “American Sniper,” Kyle describes killing as “fun” and something he “loved” to do. This pleasure was no doubt facilitated by his utter conviction that every person he shot was a “bad guy.” Fallujah and Ramadi, where he saw the most action, were certainly crawling with insurgents and foreign Islamist militants, and Kyle swears that every man he picked off with his sniper rifle was manifestly up to no good. But his bloodthirstiness and general indifference to the Iraqis and their country don’t suggest that he was highly motivated to make sure. “I don’t shoot people with Korans,” Kyle retorted to an Army investigator when he was accused of killing an Iraqi civilian. “I’d like to, but I don’t.”

Later in “American Sniper,” he announces, “I couldn’t give a flying fuck about the Iraqis.” “I hate the damn savages,” he explains. What does matter most to him are “God, country and family” (although much of the friction in his marriage arose from his ordering of those last two items). As Kyle saw it, he and his fellow troops had been sent to war in this contemptible place “to make sure that bullshit didn’t make its way back to our shores.”

In Kyle’s version of the Iraq War, the parties consisted of Americans, who are good by virtue of being American, and fanatic Muslims whose “savage, despicable evil” led them to want to kill Americans simply because they are Christians. (Later in his service, Kyle had a blood-red “crusader cross” tattooed on his arm.) While he describes patriotism as the guiding force in his life, Kyle’s patriotism is of the visceral, Toby Keith variety. It consists of loving America — specifically, being overwhelmed emotionally by the National Anthem and flag, and filled with a desire to dedicate one’s life to such symbols — rather than a commitment to tangible democratic principles, such as civilian oversight of the military. That Iraqis, too, might have been patriotically motivated to defend their own country against foreign invaders like himself does not appear to have ever crossed Kyle’s mind. As for Americans, they come in two varieties: “badasses,” of which Navy SEALs are the premiere example, and “pussies.” The latter could be anyone from congressmen who impose onerous restrictions on, say, a SEAL sniper’s freedom to shoot anyone he deems a “bad guy,” to journalists who present unflattering reports on military activities. The recurring designation of “bad guy” suggests just how profoundly Kyle’s view of the conflict was shaped by comic books and video games, where moral inquiry takes a back seat to heroics, exhibitions of skill, gear and scoring. (In Ramadi, Kyle and another sniper, egged on by their superiors, hotly competed to be the one to officially kill the most people.) In the world of the video game, there’s no difference between a reason to kill people and a pretext for doing so; the point of the game is to kill, and the reason (they’re “bad guys”) is just an excuse. In real life, the reason is everything (unless, that is, the killer is a psychopath). A soldier almost always has an excellent reason: protecting himself and his comrades. But when soldiers are part of an invading army, the more thoughtful among them usually end up asking why they and their buddies have been put in mortal danger to begin with. That’s why so many Iraq War memoirs resolve in bitterness and betrayal. The heroism and sacrifice of the troops were very real, but the war itself was based on lies.All such questions about the origin of wars amount to “politics,” and they’re a bummer if what you really want is to read about exciting house-to-house battles, amazing long shots made with lovingly described high-end weapons and anecdotes celebrating the strutting prowess of elite American commandos. To get that sort of book, you need that oxymoronic thing, an unthoughtful writer. “American Sniper,” which was produced with two ghostwriters, is a work that would never have existed were it not for Kyle’s own glamorous, mediagenic reputation because he sure wasn’t going to produce it on his own; you get the impression that he exerted enormous efforts not to reflect on what happened in Iraq and why. You’ll find no mention of Abu Ghraib, the WMD fraud or the pre-war absence of al-Qaida operatives in these pages.

Kyle’s account of his return home suggests that it was not just the rationale for the invasion that messed with his simplified, sentimentally patriotic conception of the Iraq War. He went from one drunken brawl to another, including an alleged altercation with Jesse Ventura. Kyle’s description of that led to a libel suit: Ventura says the fight never happened. The former Minnesota governor has always forthrightly expressed his opposition to the Iraq War, but Kyle claimed that Ventura had insulted American troops. To judge by other passages in “American Sniper,” Kyle doesn’t seem to have understood the difference, or to have considered the possibil-

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

Painter, printmaker. After studying in Dresden, joined Brücke group in 1906 at invitation of Karl Schmidt-Rottluff. Moved to Berlin in 1908, but continued to spend time with fellow Brücke artists in Dresden and at rural retreats. Expelled from Brücke in 1912 for breaking policy of only exhibiting as a group when he submitted paintings to the Berlin Secession. Regarded as the paradigmatic Expressionist in 1910s and 1920s to the ire of other Brücke members. Interested in “primitive” cultures and traveled to Palau Islands in South Pacific in 1914; interned by Japanese with outbreak of World War I. Returned to Germany and was drafted into army in 1915. Saw action at Somme; had nervous breakdown. In 1918 was instrumental in founding the Novembergruppe, a left-wing artists’ group demanding artist involvement in new social policies. In posters supporting fledgling republic, united Expressionist aesthetics with socialist propaganda.

I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right honourable friends.

At the outset I say: it is right that this house debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain. And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.

This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set. I believe we must hold firm. The question most often posed is not why does it matter? But why does it matter so much? Here we are, the government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first cabinet resignation over an issue of policy. The main parties divided. People who agree on everything else, disagree on this and likewise, those who never agree on anything, finding common cause. The country and parliament reflect each other, a debate that, as time has gone on has become less bitter but not less grave.

So: why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.

But first, Iraq and its WMD. In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD. Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than hitherto thought. This issue was identified by the UN as one for urgent remedy. Unscom, the weapons inspection team, was set up. They were expected to complete their task following the declaration at the end of April 1991.

The declaration when it came was false - a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. So the 12-year game began. The inspectors probed. Finally in March 1992, Iraq admitted it had previously undeclared WMD but said it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed but found little. In October 1994, Iraq stopped cooperating with Unscom altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1995, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1995, Iraq was forced to admit that too was false. In August they provided yet another full and final declaration.

Then, a week later, Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive BW (biological weapons) programme and for the first time said Iraq had weaponised the programme; something Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening whilst the inspectors were in Iraq. Kamal also revealed Iraq’s crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in 1990.

Iraq was forced then to release documents which showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1995, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles that could be used for WMD. In June 1996, a further full and final declaration was made. That too turned out to be false. In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites. In September 1997, another full and final declaration was made. Also false. Meanwhile the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, something always denied by the Iraqis.

In October 1997, the US and the UK threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. But obstruction continued. Finally, under threat of action, in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did. For a few months.

In August, cooperation was suspended. In December the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam’s lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of WMD remained unaccounted for.

The US and the UK then, in December 1998, undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facilities as we could. In 1999, a new inspections team, Unmovic, was set up. But Saddam refused to allow them to enter Iraq. So there they stayed, in limbo, until after resolution 1441 when last November they were allowed to return.

Over career, made more than nine hundred prints, mostly lithographs and woodcuts between 1906 and 1923. During Brücke years, most were self-printed in tiny editions. Beginning early 1910s, collaborated with several leading Berlin-based publishers, including Fritz Gurlitt, who commissioned some seventeen portfolios and illustrated books.

After 1933 expelled from the Prussian Academy of Arts, was forbidden from painting, and lost teaching post in Berlin. Nazis removed 326 works from public collections.

Selected Bibliography Krüger, Günter. Das druckgraphische Werk Max Pechsteins. Tökendorf, West Germany: R. C. Pechstein-Verlag, 1988.

Moeller, Magdalena M., ed. Max Pechstein im Brücke-Museum Berlin. Exh. cat. Berlin: Brücke-Museum, 2001.

Moeller, Magdalena M., ed. Max Pechstein: Sein malerisches Werk. Exh. cat. Berlin: Brücke-Museum, 1996.

Max Pechstein’s deliberately crude execution—rough gouges, simplified forms, and contrasts of color—heightens the primitivist atmosphere of his subject, an African dance. The closed-eyed flutist is totally given over to the raw power of the music. The dancers move ecstatically to the beat of the drum, with their heads thrown back and feet pounding the earth, completely in touch with nature.

Pechstein, like his fellow members of the Brücke, embraced the arts of Africa and other non-European cultures as more authentic and uncorrupted antidotes to the stultified refinement of German society. These performances, however, were no less artificial or commercialized than cabarets featuring European performers. Pechstein based this print, for example, on a Somali dance he saw at an ethnographic show in Berlin or Dresden. These Völkerschauen, products of colonialism that were usually held in zoos, displayed the lives of “natural peoples” for the entertainment of European audiences.

What is the claim of Saddam today? Why exactly the same claim as before: that he has no WMD. Indeed we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance finally resulting in the inspectors leaving in 1998, seven years in which he hid his programme, built it up even whilst inspection teams were in Iraq, that after they left he then voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.

When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme. We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.

1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December. I won’t to go through all the events since then - the house is familiar with them - but this much is accepted by all members of the UNSC: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself is a material breach. Iraq has made some concessions to cooperation but no-one disputes it is not fully cooperating. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.

On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, detailing all the unanswered questions about Iraq’s WMD. It lists 29 different areas where they have been unable to obtain information. For example, on VX it says: “Documentation available to Unmovic suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX ...

“Mustard constituted an important part (about 70%) of Iraq’s CW arsenal ... 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for ... additional uncertainty with respect of 6526 aerial bombs, corresponding to approximately 1000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard.

“Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq’s potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres ... Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.” On this basis, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the security council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach. What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes there are concessions. But no fundamental change of heart or mind.

But the inspectors indicated there was at least some cooperation; and the world rightly hesitated over war. We therefore approached a second resolution in this way. We laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441 or be in material breach. Not an unreasonable proposition, given

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research.

the history. But still countries hesitated: how do we know how to judge full cooperation? We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.

So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue. There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support. Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.

Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam. Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.

That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.

So we must demand he disarm but relinquish any concept of a threat if he doesn’t. From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to inspect anything in Iraq. For four years, not a thing. What changed his mind? The threat of force. From December to January and then from January through to February, concessions were made. What changed his mind? The threat of force. And what makes him now issue invitations to the inspectors, discover documents he said he never had, produce evidence of weapons supposed to be non-existent, destroy missiles he said he would keep? The imminence of force. The only persuasive power to which he responds is 250,000 allied troops on his doorstep. And yet when that fact is so obvious that it is staring us in the face, we are told that any resolution that authorises force will be vetoed. Not just opposed. Vetoed. Blocked.

The way ahead was so clear. It was for the UN to pass a second resolution setting out benchmarks for compliance; with an ultimatum that if they were ignored, action would follow. The tragedy is that had such a resolution issued, he might just have complied. Because the only route to peace with someone like Saddam Hussein is diplomacy backed by force. Yet the moment we proposed the benchmarks, canvassed support for an ultimatum, there was an immediate recourse to the language of the veto. And now the world has to learn the lesson all over again that weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.

Looking back over 12 years, we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil. Now the very length of time counts against us. You’ve waited 12 years. Why not wait a little longer? And indeed we have. 1441 gave a final opportunity. The first test was the 8th of December. He failed it. But still we waited. Until January 27, the first inspection report that showed the absence of full cooperation. Another breach. And still we waited.

Until February 14 and then February 28 with concessions, according to the old familiar routine, tossed to us to whet our appetite for hope and further waiting. But still no-one, not the inspectors nor any member of the security council, not any half-way rational observer, believes Saddam is cooperating fully or unconditionally or immediately. Our fault has not been impatience. The truth is our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years ago. Even now, when if the world united and gave him an ultimatum: comply or face forcible disarmament, he might just do it, the world hesitates and in that hesitation he senses the weakness and therefore continues to defy. What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world’s diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them.

That is why this indulgence has to stop. Because it is dangerous. It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us. Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace, against us. Dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity; when in fact, pushed to the limit, we will act. But then when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. Iraq is not the only regime with WMD. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating.

But, of course, in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and that 1441 implies action in such circumstances. The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life.

There are glib and sometimes foolish comparisons with the 1930s. No one here is an appeaser. But the only relevant point of analogy is that with history, we know what happened. We can look back and say: there’s the time; that was the moment; for example, when Czechoslovakia was swallowed up by the Nazis - that’s when we should have acted.

But it wasn’t clear at the time. In fact at the time, many people thought such a fear fanciful. Worse, put forward in bad faith by warmongers. Listen to this editorial - from a paper I’m pleased to say with a different position today - but written in late 1938 after Munich when by now, you would have thought the world was tumultuous in its desire to act.

“Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind. And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up from the continent to confuse us.” Naturally should Hitler appear again in the same form, we would know what to do. But the point is that history doesn’t declare the future to us so plainly. Each time is different and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight. So let me explain the nature of this threat as I see it. The threat today is not that of the 1930s.

It’s not big powers going to war with each other. The ravages which fundamentalist political ideology inflicted on the 20th century are memories. The Cold war is over. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically.

But the world is ever more interdependent. Stock markets and economies rise and fall together. Confidence is the key to prosperity. Insecurity spreads like contagion. So people crave stability and order. The threat is chaos. And there are two begetters of chaos. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam. Let me tell the house what I know. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology. I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise.

I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing. We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major countries. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages. Thousands have died in them.

The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further terror. Round the world it now poisons the chances of political progress: in the Middle East; in Kashmir; in Chechnya; in Africa. The removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan dealt it a blow. But it has not gone away. And these two threats have different motives and different origins but they share one basic common view: they detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life. At the moment, I accept that association between them is loose. But it is hardening. And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgement, a real and present danger.

And let us recall: what was shocking about September 11 was not just the slaughter of the innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists’ rejoicing. Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometre of a city. Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of Anthrax. 10,000 litres are unaccounted for. 11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.

Faced with it, the world should unite. The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other course. To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all. And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? No wonder Japan and South Korea, next to North Korea, has issued such strong statements of support.

I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the UN’s future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid. But there will be, in any event, no sound future for the UN, no guarantee against the repetition of these events, unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda we can unite upon. What we have witnessed is indeed the consequence of Europe and the United States dividing from each other.

Not all of Europe - Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Portugal - have all strongly supported us. And not a majority of Europe if we include, as we should, Europe’s new members who will accede next year, all 10 of whom have been in our support.

But the paralysis of the UN has been born out of the division there is. And at the heart of it has been the concept of a world in which there are rival poles of power.

The US and its allies in one corner. France, Germany, Russia and its allies in the other. I do not believe that all of these nations intend such an outcome. But that is what now faces us.

I believe such a vision to be misguided and profoundly dangerous. I know why it arises. There is resentment of US predominance.There is fear of US unilateralism. People ask: do the US listen to us and our preoccupations? And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11th September. I know all of this. But the way to deal with it is not rivalry but partnership. Partners are not servants but neither are they rivals. I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the US. With one voice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism and WMD and we will help you meet it.

We will mean what we say in any UN resolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam fails to disarm voluntarily; but in return we ask two things of you: that the US should choose the UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importance of re-starting the MEPP (Middle East Peace Process), which we will hold you to.I do not believe there is any other issue with the same power to re-unite the world community than progress on the issues of Israel and Palestine. Of course there is cynicism about recent announcements. But the US is now committed, and, I believe genuinely, to the roadmap for peace, designed in consultation with the UN. It will now be presented to the parties as Abu Mazen is confirmed in office, hopefully today.

All of us are now signed up to its vision: a state of Israel, recognised and accepted by all the world, and a viable Palestinian state. And that should be part of a larger global agenda. On poverty and sustainable development. On democracy and human rights. On the good governance of nations. That is why what happens after any conflict in Iraq is of such critical significance. Here again there is a chance to unify around the UN. Let me make it clear. There should be a new UN resolution following any conflict providing not just for humanitarian help but also for the administration and governance of Iraq. That must now be done under proper UN authorisation.

It should protect totally the territorial integrity of Iraq. And let the oil revenues - which people falsely claim we want to seize - be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN. And let the future government of Iraq be given the chance to begin the process of uniting the nation’s disparate groups, on a democratic basis, respecting human rights, as indeed the fledgling democracy in Northern Iraq - protected from Saddam for 12 years by British and American pilots in the no-fly zone - has done so remarkably. And the moment that a new government is in place - willing to disarm Iraq of WMD - for which its people have no need or purpose - then let sanctions be lifted in their entirety.

I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441. That is our legal base. But it is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and strong heart. I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia. Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on food aid.

Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine. Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.

The brutality of the repression - the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented. Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others. I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam.

“But you don’t”, she replied. “You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear.” And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To

Ear th Ar tifact // The Research. suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live. We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means - let us be clear that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.

And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then? What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that? That the will confronting them is decaying and feeble. Who will celebrate and who will weep? And if our plea is for America to work with others, to be good as well as powerful allies, will our retreat make them multilateralist? Or will it not rather be the biggest impulse to unilateralism there could ever be. And what of the UN and the future of Iraq and the Middle East peace plan, devoid of our influence, stripped of our insistence?

This house wanted this decision. Well it has it. Those are the choices. And in this dilemma, no choice is perfect, no cause ideal. But on this decision hangs the fate of many things: Of whether we summon the strength to recognise this global challenge of the 21st century and meet it. Of the Iraqi people, groaning under years of dictatorship. Of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear. Of the institutions and alliances that will shape our world for years to come.� I can think of many things, of whether we summon the strength to recognise the global challenge of the 21st century and beat it, of the Iraqi people groaning under years of dictatorship, of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear - of the institutions and alliances that shape our world for years to come. To retreat now, I believe, would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, turn the UN back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East; leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better. Tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our determination that Britain faltered. I will not be party to such a course. This is not the time to falter. This is the time for this house, not just this government or indeed this prime minister, but for this house to give a lead, to show that we will stand up for what we know to be right, to show that we will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show at the moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing.

I beg to move the motion.

Ear th Ar tifact // Finals.

T ypog raphy //

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

When creating my first font, I decided to do rough sketches of different letters, paint and brush strokes.

However when I scanned them in and went onto illustrator to edit them, half of the letters didn’t show up, therefore I created an A4 paper each per letter instead of 5 per A4 page. This is how the letters turned

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // First Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.

T ypog raphy // Second Text.