Monday 8 November 2010

Tweeting all over my face

"Caroline Knight loves updating her status." Not quite what one expects from a brotherly Facebook rape. My propensity to regularly update my status seems to rile my brother to the point where he expresses his annoyance both online and in 'traditional' conversation. Why does it irritate him so? Obviously he has not become privy to the option of omitting certain people from his newsfeed.


Status updating, aka tweeting, has become something of a cultural phenomenon and is useful for keeping up to date with what our friends are doing, venting steam, inciting debate and for a variety of pranks. Depending on how much time I spend at the computer, I update my status anywhere from once to five times a day. This probably puts me towards the high end of status update frequency (although a more thorough study is needed to confirm this).  Now that I am a waitress, my opportunity to do has been considerably reduced along with the hours spent staring at a computer screen. At times I hesitate before sharing "what's on (my) mind": have I polluted my page with too many new statuses today; does this status make me look bad; do people actually give a shit? 


Nowadays fewer people write journals and in an age of shortened attention spans and rapidity of information delivery, we now demand and expect news - be it personal or global - to be concise and easy to digest. This is clearly evident by the popularity of 'lite' newspapers like the free Evening Standard and Metro newspapers and the recent arrival of the Indepedent's 'i'.
In some cases, status updating can achieve the same aim as a journal by providing an emotional outlet for anything troubling us. It gives an opportunity for others to offer their support - sometimes congratulatory, other times commiseratory. Status updates get things off our chest. Or they serve to notify large numbers of people of our whereabouts which saves the cost and effort required to make numerous phone calls or send numerous texts. Other times updates are cryptic, a play on words or there purely for comic value.
We can share interesting articles, music and links to videos which has added a whole new, utterly more worthwhile dimension to letting all of Facebook know what is going on in our heads and in our worlds. Being able to tag people in our updates has made them more interesting and less egocentric.


Then there are the tweets which fall into the nauseatingly blithe, the annoyingly smug or relentlessly self-absorbed. There are the tweets which feature grotesque mobile phone images of a recent wound. A new addition to FB allows one to specify one's exact whereabouts on a map. 
Smartphones and Facebook combined have given rise to a habit of people tweeting in every conceivable location: on sunbeds, on dancefloors, on plane runways. I always wonder why people log onto Facebook during social events and when with people - perhaps the party they are at or friends they are with not sufficiently amusing to prevent them renewing their status. Or maybe they are just obsessed with their iPhone.


I have noticed a marked difference not only in update patterns but also reactions to statuses. One particular friend of mine (a smug-blithe updater) always seems to attract "likes" and comments, regardless of how boring or inane the status ("Gym"). I may go days and days without anyone actively noticing my two-penny's worth and then there comes a flurry of conversation on my page. 
I have observed an ebb and flow of who tends to respond to my updates: last year there was a week in which one 'friend' commented on every one of my statuses. I won't lie, I enjoyed the attention. It seems, after talking with others, that having as many "likes" and comments on one's page gives universal satisfaction: we are receiving the recognition we feel our opinions and insights deserve.


So what drives this need to share our thoughts, feelings and daily minutiae, for their is huge variation in the frequency and "flavour" of tweets across my Facebook demographic. Is it a person's need for attention or levels of extraversion, or perhaps boredom? Is there a direct link between an individual's personality outside cyberspace and how they use this Facebook feature: is the answer to this question obvious?


Whatever your tweeting habits, there is no denying the wealth of information they contain en masse...and hence the possibilities to use such information. Do they present companies, governments, organisations  with a potent new market research tool that is (largely) free from response bias or is this social media pandemic nothing but another passing phase?

Friday 5 November 2010

Disease or delinquency?

(October 2010)

If I could wave a magic wand and invent a cure for any disease, I would choose addiction.

While choice may be a driving factor in the early stages of abuse, there is no denying that once addiction takes hold, its victim is powerless against the disease’s urges and requires substantial treatment and time to recover. Research has shown that alterations in brain chemistry take place in sufferers of addiction, suggesting that it is as much a mental illness as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

The causes, like the disease, are complex and misunderstood. A combination of genetic predisposition and personal and social environment can bring about dependence. The myriad of causes means that each individual case is unique, thus requiring unique treatment. The benefits of these are often unclear and unquantifiable, perpetuating the difficulty in curing the disease. Current treatments for addiction include behavioural therapies, medication, counselling and a combination of these. However, a huge number of addicts will not seek treatment for fear of either criminal or social marginalisation.

The sufferer’s mind and body can be torn apart. Addicts may develop other psychiatric conditions, liver disease, lung cancer or malnutrition. They may turn to crime to fund their addiction. A drug-addicted mother may impose irrevocable harm to an unborn baby.
The lives of their family and friends are destroyed, too. An addict’s personality can change drastically, causing intense upset for those around them. As well as emotional turmoil, families of addicts are more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression, migraines and heart problems.

It is estimated that there are 320,000 drug addicts in the UK, 10 million smokers and 1.6m alcoholics – only one in thirteen of which seek treatment for their alcohol dependence. This represents approximately 12 million addicts and does not even account for the numbers addicted to activities such as gambling, sex and crime.

The societal impact of addiction can be felt through crimes such as theft and prostitution (to fund an addiction) and the violence that can accompany alcoholism. The British Medical Association estimates that 70% of domestic violence murders are alcohol related. Addiction, in part, fuels drug trafficking that brings with it its own spectrum of damage.

Alcohol dependence costs the NHS £2.7 billion each year; drug addiction costing £16 billion per annum. The charity Addaction has calculated that over the ten years 1998-2008, drug-related crime has cost the UK £100 billion. Then there are the costs of benefits that may be claimed by sufferers if they are unable to find or keep employment.

Regardless of whether one thinks addiction is a disease or a choice, a medical cure for addiction would, most importantly, alleviate the personal and social problems associated with it. It would also drastically reduce the financial costs imposed each year on taxpayers and governments. The quality of life of the millions addicts would increase immeasurably, but so too would the quality of life of the millions more around them.

Do you like it hard or soft? Books vs Nooks

(June 2010)
Five hundred years ago the number of books in circulation exploded. Johannes Gutenberg had just invented a mechanical printing press and with it followed the Printing Revolution. Three hundred years later the Industrial Revolution gave us mass production and extrapolated the number of books further. However, it has taken just under five centuries from Gutenberg’s contraption to now for literacy to get to the level where most of the population (in the developed world, anyway) read, or have once read, books.


Cult leader Steve Jobs paints quite a different picture with his proclamation that “people don’t read anymore”, explaining Apple’s absence, hitherto, from the e-reader market.
Despite this, 130,000 new titles are published every year in the UK (190,000 in the USA), not to mention titles that already exist and have existed for hundreds of years. Apparently, people do still read. The question is how?

With the flurry of touchable touch screen gadgets released in the last year or so the big question has been whether printing will die out, usurped by digital formats. True, more people are accessing news via their mobile phones instead of getting their fingers smudged with ink (although I am not sure if this is still an issue in 2010), but how many have actually abandoned paper pages for a screen?

The latest piece of superfluous technology to hit the market is the 500 dollar iPad, which also serves as an e-reader. The battle of the e-readers now seems to be between E-Ink and iPads/iPhones. E-Ink is the provider of the screens for readers such as the Sony Reader, Amazon’s Kindle and Barnes & Noble’s Nook. The point of the E-Ink screen is to minimize strain on the eyes that comes from staring at a backlit screen for too long. Sony’s Reader E-Ink screen does not have a backlight and thus needs to be read in the light like any normal book we have become accustomed to.

The 200 pound Reader was the first e-reader on the market released in 2006. 4 years later and its rate of adoption has been poor compared to most high technology offerings in the 21st century. The Reader needs to have e-books uploaded to it after downloading from the 45,000 titles available at Sony’s e-book store (rather like downloading then uploading tunes from the iTunes music store to an iPod).

Amazon’s Kindle arrived later but decimated Sony’s hopes of saving face after its walkman lost out to Apple in 2001 when the iPod was released. Not only does the Kindle have wireless connection to Amazon.com – so you effectively have access to a bookstore whenever and wherever you are – but there are 145,000 titles to chose from. Amazon offered its Kindle at an astounding $9.99, making up its lost profits in sales of e-books from its website, so no wonder it did better. Its open source software also means you can view titles bought from a range of devices, including iPods and iPads.

Publishing giant Barnes & Noble have entered the e-reader race with their $249 Nook, which has had extremely positive reviews already. Both the Nook and Kindle weigh in at around the 300g mark which is dainty compared with the cumbersome iPad. The E-Ink screens are ideal for beach reading as they lack said backlight and are sparing on battery consumption, whereas the LED screens of Apple devices chew through power and also make reading in locations outside living rooms very tricky because of their glare-prone screens.

iBooks store on the iPad does come with the advantage that you can select font size which is ideal for the average e-reader demographic (high earning 34-55 year olds according to TechCrunchies) who are beginning to “see” their eyesight failing them.

Then there is the obvious advantage of having thousands of titles at your disposal and all packed into a few cubic inches of metal and plastic. Next is the issue of environmental impact. Printed media apparently costs us 125,000 trees per year. E-readers may save paper but because manufacturers have not revealed how resource-intensive their gadgets are to produce and ship, their environmentally friendly rating has been hard to estimate. There is also the electricity used to keep them charged which doesn’t come without its own share of CO2 emissions.

So why has adoption been so slow? Are real books simply better?
Perhaps it is because the majority of book buyers are the Baby Boomers, now all over sixty. This older age demographic is less likely to buy e-readers: with their approaching retirement it is likely that the Boomers will buy even more books with more time on their hands, thus potentially slowing the predicted demise of printing.

The hefty price tags on any of these readers (bar the Kindle) also make them a luxury afforded only by the well-off. After spending upwards of $200 in an e-reader you do not even benefit from buying books at reduced prices – you pay the same for e-books as you do paper books so there isn’t really any chance of recouping your investment.

There has been much talk and excitement over the possibilities of e-readers being used for educational purposes, but reading from a screen may even inhibit note taking and retention. Last autumn, students at Ivy League Princeton rejected a Kindle pilot program for academic titles on those grounds.
Their practicality for use by anyone under 16 or so is pretty low and I doubt any e-reader can give to a small child any of the joy that a large, brightly coloured picture book with chewable paper pages does.

Perhaps the reason why I will never be buying an e-reader is the trouble I have reading off screens which are extremely tiring on the eyes and also a lot less immersive. Somehow words on a screen seem less real, more abstract, than ink on paper. One can connect more with a book you feel the pages of in your hand. With an e-reader you do not get that feeling of accomplishment as you see the pages left to read dwindling as you approach the end. Reading real books also differentiate your reading experience from simply trawling the internet from your mobile or reading emails and texts.

Neither are books simply the sum of the information and words they contain. They can be a collector’s item, an antique. They look pleasing and satisfying on your shelf: a physical representation of your journey through literature. The feel of the actual book and how the pages turn completely affect the reading experience and nothing beats the musty smell of second hand books (a very much acquired taste).

Books don’t mind if you spill tea on them. Neither do they mind the occasional blunt burn. The blank pages at the book’s front and back do wonderfully in toilet paper emergencies.

Yes, 145,000 titles available in e-format on Amazon is staggering and probably more than any person can read in a lifetime, yet there are still many multiples more available in paper. One still sees an overwhelming majority of paper books on planes, tubes and trains. Yes, it is a nice thought that you are carrying around a small library in your pocket but books are not like music, it is not that beneficial to have more than a couple on your person at any given time: you tend to read only one book per (tube) journey whereas with songs, it is now almost crucial that we can shuffle about among thousands of tracks at a press of a button.

After we have finished reading an e-book there is no option of passing it from friend to friend or re-selling it to earn a bit of money. We can’t spend a rainy afternoon wondering between the shelves of a bookstore, reading the books for free with e-books.

Numbers of e-readers sold thus far vary hugely and are very inconsistent with one figure claiming that 22m were shipped in 2009, yet another estimating that only 6m will be sold in 2010. No doubt, technological progress (no matter how redundant) is essential but I still don’t have to like it. I feel sad when I hear that printing will one day be dead. When I am old will I have to switch to e-readers against my will? Or will I have to spend hours hunting for my choice of titles in hard to come by second hand bookshops? Let us hope not.

Thursday 4 November 2010

This is the End....

(June 2010)

Being arts editor has been a wonderful and enlightening part of my life for the last three years. So much so that I thought myself more a journalist and editor than a biochemist or business school student. It is with sadness and reluctance that I write my final editorial for felix arts.

Before going I will impart you with a little “formula” I subconsciously use when considering art:

1-Skill: the skill which has been necesary to and deployed in creating said piece of art.

2-Aesthetic: how beautuful the work of art is to you.

3-Concept: a piece of art may be hideous to look at, but the ingenuity or originality of the idea may be outstanding.

4-Impact: All three of the above criteria may displease you but, somehow, the work of art still stirs something inside you or rekindles a long lost memory.

This is highly subjective and should not by any means be taking too seriously - the beauty of art is that its intepretation is up to the viewer entirely. Art does not know who has an Art degree and who does not.

I hope you have enjoyed reading the arts section as much as I have done creating it. I will leave you with a quotation from a beautiful book - Narcissus and Goldmund by the revered Herman Hesse - as food for thought:

“We fear death, we shudder at life’s instability, we grieve to see the flowers wilt again and again, and the leaves fall, and in our hearts we know that we, too, are transitory and will soon disappear. When artists create pictures and thinkers search for laws and formulate thoughts, it is in order to salvage something from the great dance of death, to make something last longer than we do.”

My Chemical Romance

(May 2009)

Hooray!! Exams are over and the season to wreak havoc is upon us. As I write this I still have a considerable amount of revision to get done before next week, but that should not taint the subject of this piece. I am in surprisingly good spirits despite everyone around me celebrating their lack of commitment and responsibility by intoxicating themselves.

Drugs. Has there ever been a more vague word? The word could be referring to any of the hundreds of thousands of chemicals, man made and naturally-occurring, that grace this planet. However, when people use the term it is usually in relation to chemicals that are used for recreation: for fun.

Part of the reason for voicing my opinion on this subject springs from the recent re-classification of Marijuana. In 2004 it was moved from a Class B to a Class C, which includes other drugs such as Ketamine and GHB. It is now a Class B once again, along with drugs such as Amphetamines and Ritalin, due to the fact that apparently the ‘dope’ gracing our streets nowadays is “stronger” than the stuff circulating in the swinging Sixties. This may be very true, and several friends who are partial to the Green stuff have confirmed this. However, it is very hard to prove something like the chemical composition of illegal plants when there is no system to regulate them.

I am sure the Government would rather just be safe than end up in twenty odd years with a huge NHS bill to pay for the hundreds/thousands of adults developing mental illness on account of excessive use in their teen years. Another colossal blanket statement I heard uttered on the news was that “young people are more at risk of taking drugs because drugs are cheap.” HA! I do not consider fifty pounds for one gram of what is, in reality, only ~10% of Columbian origin to be cheap! The goods available on Camden Bridge are often a variety of cooking herb and the hassle that is required to sequester the more clandestine substances is not symptomatic of a society where our children cannot move for drug pushers.

I also take exception to the abundance of ignorance that exists in relation to illegal drugs. I, being a biochemist, am aware of exactly what happens to the body when certain chemicals hit our blood and brains (although, I still struggle with the equation of a line). Friends of mine have sent me into apoplectic frustration when they make comments such as “drugs make you thirsty and so you drink so much water you die”. I doubt your average punter has any clue as to the effects of most substances and more should be done to educate people: giving them unbiased information with which they can make informed, adult decisions.

 What so many people forget is that alcohol is a drug, one to which Britain is hopelessly addicted. In every form of media, it is referred to in isolation from the big, bad drugs, many of which are just as harmful or even less harmful than alcohol.

“Do not mix drugs and alcohol”. This is sound advice as ingesting a cocktail of chemicals (whatever the type, be it prescribed, Boots-bought or otherwise) is never wise given the risk of drug interactions. Does this mean we should not mix alcohol with alcohol? Probably, as mixing one’s drinks can often lead to a hangover bad enough to make you wish you were Muslim.

When you compare the data of the Two E’s (ethanol and ecstasy) it is quite clear that from both a medical and social point of view, Ecstasy is ‘better’ for you. At the mention of Ecstasy people have the nineties-painted stereotype of sweaty, water-swigging ravers hugging each other and chatting bollocks to strangers. But compare 10 deaths per annum from Ecstasy to 22,000 related-deaths from alcohol. Admittedly, there are many, many more ethanol users than that of ecstasy but I am sure if you calculated deaths as a percentage of users alcohol would come out worse.

There is no heart, liver or cardiovascular disease associated with MDMA (ecstasy’s chemical name) and absolutely no negative social impact from it either. All the brawls, vomit, glass and kebab detritus are from alcohol abusers. Again, I am a hypocrite. I do enjoy a tipple or two but I have NEVER caused a fight, eaten a kebab or dirtied the street in anyway in my drunken state.

Currently, medical research is underway to examine MDMA as a tool in psychotherapy and marriage counseling on account of its effects which induce an increased empathy for one’s peers, breaking down barriers that years of resentment could have built up. Indeed, shortly after its creation by Alexander Shulgin in Germany, it was being used as a “truth serum” in WWI (to no great success).

I have tried and tried, to no avail, to find research papers that describe the long and short-term effects (both on the body and on the brain) of LSD. It seems the only risks associated are ‘flashbacks’ (rare in any case) and impaired judgments whilst under the influence, exactly like alcohol. Oh, and one shouldn’t take it if pregnant because it may cause uterine contractions. Not really an issue for most: any woman considering any drugs while pregnant is pretty unwise.

Whatever be your poison, moderation and balance is key. People who think that taking one pill a few times a month is worse for you than heavy drinking several times a week are gravely mistaken. However, if the bi-monthly pill is having an effect on your work/life/relationships/health then it is time to stop.

For a lot of people, exercising moderation is beyond them, hence Britain’s binge drinking epidemic. But for now, exams desist, spirits are high (pun completely and utterly intended) and I bid you a fantastic summer.

Love vs Atheism?


(May 2009)

In my last year at school, Richard Dawkins came to give a talk. I don’t recall the subject of his talk but it was illuminating and got the intellectual juices flowing nonetheless. Question time approached and I had the perfect question to challenge this brilliant, albeit arrogant, mind. If we are simply the sum of our chemical parts - the DNA that wants only to propagate its existence indefinitely - then why does love exist? Animals and human beings have proved since the days of Caligula and before that love is not required to get sperm to egg (or otherwise), so what can Dawkins’ explanation be for this elusive four letter word? Alas, I crumbled under the pressure of addressing this prestigious figure and my question was left unanswered.

Love is undoubtedly one of the most sought after and ethereal things in our world if one is to go by painting, poetry, prose and the hoards of internet dating sites promising the stuff. It is the thing which keeps us from despairing and keeps us persisting, a thing of comfort or of immense pain. Love comes in many forms – Eros (romantic, passionate), Ludus (one played as a game), Storge (friendship), Pragma (undemonstrative), Mania (obsessive), Agape (motherly). Anyone reading this will have experienced at least one type, although it is Eros that is the most idolised.

 I must make a distinction between love and lust for the two are quite different. Lust has us beautifying, slimming, pumping iron, flirting, drinking, networking – in short anything that will ultimately end in the exchange of bodily fluids. Love makes us want to do the above but then also makes us want to stay for time afterwards to talk, listen, comfort and enjoy time with that person we have chosen.

I have always wondered about Dawkins’ wife - both of them, for he got divorced from the first one. If your husband firmly believes that we are only here as a result of our genes’ insatiable drive to persist and that the whole purpose of our existence is to produce offspring, then that does not leave much room for any fanciful notions such as romance and reasons for spending a fulfilling life with someone.

It is something I wonder, too, about atheists. I am referring to the hardcore, nihilistic types and not agnostics who have not decided either way. How are these atheists able to bring themselves to do anything, find purpose in anything, get up in the morning if we are indeed nothing and will eventually be even less after we die. Why bother at all?

I was raised a Catholic and so I have a sort of ‘instinct’, which has been instilled in me by my parents, that there is something greater at work, something going on behind the scenes. Or perhaps it is arrogance on my part and I refuse to accept that I am only flesh and bones and blood and a few chemicals that are released at convenient times to make me believe I am angry, sad, and joyful or in love.

Scientists have come up with a molecular mechanism for “falling in love” (actually falling in lust) which identifies hormones, pheromones and dopamine as some of the factors which bring about that heady rush of passion. Is that all it is –our body, driven by our genes, deciding it wants to sow/receive a seed and then tricking our minds into thinking something greater is at work? Indeed, there is little doubt about chemical changes that occur in the body when our senses behold the one we love, but why should a scientific explanation extinguish any possibility that something deeper and unexplainable is going on?

The gradual shift from having God as the basis of our faith to Science as our faith (certainly among many in the western world) has brought about a general consensus that it is either or and that there can be no symbiosis between the two.

Falling in love, even if there is more to it than dopamine, may not be an indication or proof of God, but if you can not believe that you are with your love because of something more profound and special than as a by-product of innate biology then it makes the notion of love a rather dismal and futile one. Perhaps the reason behind the end of Richard’s first marriage is more obvious now.

Wednesday 3 November 2010

Your mamma so fat

 (November 2008)

Scientists have discovered a gene which is thought to be linked to obesity. The gene in question is one that encodes the G-protein coupled receptor, Melacortin 4 (MC4R), involved in relaying intra-cellular messages within the hypothalamic cells in the brain. Activation of this receptor leads to the inhibition of food intake and so a mutation in this gene and subsequent fault in how the receptor functions could lead to the excessive consumption of food. Obesity here we come.
Blaming the obesity pandemic on genetics is a convenient way of making humankind feel as if the affliction is beyond our control and eliminates the need for us to take responsiblity for our own actions.

"Genetics" (I use the inverted commas as the term is thrown about rather too liberally in non-scientific literature), that is to say our genome, precisely what genes we are made up of, has been the key factor in our physical manifestation since the dawn of time, since that beautiful double-stranded, right-handed, 3.4 base pair per turn DNA molecule came to be.

If genes were the deciding factor in our weight and the amount of delicious cheese topped calories we masticate and devour had little significance, then our obesity rates would not have changed over the last hundred (plus) years. (I write this hypocritically, stomach replete after enjoying a 12" four cheese pizza).

This is assuming our genes have NOT changed. Perhaps the rate of mutations in this particular gene have augmented over the last century (due to increasing carbon emissions, perhaps?) and so the increase in people with voluminous derrieres is because of those devilish nucleic acids. Until the mass change in our genetic make up can be proved let us assume that the population's 'genetics' has remained more or less constant.

Mutations in the promoter of the gene (that is the sequence preceding the gene that controls its expression) were 30% more common in Indian Asians rather than European lineage. How is is then that America (and Britain in close competition), with only 0.5% of its population Indian-Asian, suffers most profusely from excessive adipose tissue?

Lifestyle is the answer. And that is the factor which has not remained constant these hundred odd years. I needn't elaborate on why lifestyle has changed and how it has changed. (Go figure.) Only to say we Westerners eat more as more is available; we eat food pumped full of crap; we move less because of our jobs. Once ensconced in our daily habits it is hard to break them especially if greater priorities do not allow it. Some people are not aware of what a healthy lifestyle entails: their parents have brought them up on T.V. dinners and sloth and they have only ever encountered fibre in the form of a wilted lettuce leaf drowning in the viscous embrace of a ketchup doused burger. For others it is not for want of trying. If you are trying to juggle a hectic career in order to sustain a family, pilates will not be top of your 'to-do' list.

Perhaps I am a little/lot jaded in my view of things. I suffer none of these misfortunes: I have access to a wealth of healthy food and exercise options and being a student I have endless hours at my disposal to work on my tush. I am also very fortunate to be educated so that I know exactly what happens to my endocrine system when one heavenly mouthful of cream and jam laden scone pervades my ileum. Others do not.

However, in a few years (and maybe as of now) due to the government vehemently campaigning for healthy living, the ignorance excuse will not hold. This government aims to have free swimming for all by 2012 to encourage exercise. As far as I am concerned every able bodied person has access to round the clock free exercise: walking. Again, my abode in cosy SW6 allows me to amble carelessly. My young, single female counterparts in SW9 are not in such an easy position. As advised in a previous column, bedroom raving is another option if the streets outside your door are crack-addict addled. (Warning to those living in W14: lots of crack addicts around that area apparently, as I was so informed walking there late last week).

I know in a very small number of cases obesity is completely out of the control of the individual. Conditions such as Bardet-Biedl syndrome are characterised by obesity. Jordan's son Harvey is thought to suffer from septo-optic dysplasia which has an effect on movement and so his weight gain is unavoidable. These are rare cases and anyone who is in a position to loose weight should. Let me clarify about whom I speak. I am not thinking of the people with a little bulge here and there. I mean the critically obese. A little bit of a belly can be quite cute and attractive in many cases. What i fear for is people's health. When the sheer effort of walking is too much and lethargy leadens each lumbering footstep, that is when one should rethink the way one lives one's life. Our appearance says a lot about us and the way in which we operate. I know of a CEO who never employed the over-weight secretaries because they exuded an air of slowness. Harsh, but possibly true.

So, the solutions. There exist drugs which target these mutated, malfunctioning proteins. Tensofensine, was seen to reduce weight by 10% over a six month period by altering appetite-controlling neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline.

These are indeed solutions but they do not teach people moderation and how to lead a healthy lifestyle. Why bother eating less and exercising if we can just pop a pill? It will take time to undo the bad habits which have crept up on us, and even longer to being the incidence of obesity back down but we must start towards this goal.

Fashi-on or fash-off?

(October 2008)

A fashion is merely a form of ugliness so unbearable that we are compelled to alter it every six months. And wasn’t Oscar Wilde right. But fashion is meant to be a beautiful thing. Something that allures us, entrances us and helps us achieve anything from elevated self-esteem to making a statement, from making us more attractive to the opposite sex to competing with the same sex. If fashion were not something attractive and tasteful then why would we buy it in the first place and why would there be a need for such sharp changes at the turn of every season? Of course, the why is a combination of keeping things fresh and to avoid the feeling that our clothes are stagnating on our backs. The other, more obvious reason, is a money making one used by the fashion houses and designers, for it is essentially these people who hold the fate of our apparel in their hands.

The return of plaid shirts to this winter’s fashion landscape is an example of a recent trend. But who decided it was to be a must-have? Some designer at one or another brand would have come up with the idea, made it a feature of the shop’s inventory and a few articles and features in the magazines later we are all grappling for them. This would apply to plaid as well as any en vogue colour, style of trouser or shirt, shoe, ensemble etc.

Why did designers choose to bring back long tops that drown anyone shorter than 5’7”? This question is pretty unanswerable and would involve traveling to the core of a particular designer’s psyche to find these answers (perhaps he saw some despicable celebrity wearing one at Mahiki.) The point I am trying to make is that a season’s trends are essentially dictated by the clothing shops and the people who design clothes for them and the subsequent “fashionistas” who expound these trends as law in the magazines.

So, we have our shops full of attire for our choosing and buying. Why do we just happen to like what is in the shops? A lot of us don’t, such as I. I would love to pull off a plaid shirt as I have seen people look gorgeous in them, but it just won’t happen. I deplore the style of coats around at the moment a lot of which are a relatively good fit around the chest and shoulders and then expand out like a triangle, again, making the wearer look pregnant unless they have a BMI below 10. I am in a position to comment on this season’s coats having wasted a great deal of time on the high street only to find a long, green coat, ten years my senior, in a vintage shop at a fraction of the price. And I look amazing in it.

A fashion then becomes fashionable because a substantial number of people adhere to it following indoctrination by the brands. Perhaps the small minded nature of man is brought out in us when it comes to fashion as we go along and copy how those around us are dressing. Maybe it is an inherent instinct to fit in and be accepted. I hope this is not the case, although, one would be forgiven for doing so as it is easy to underestimate the colossal pressure exerted on us by society thanks to an endless access to media.

Obviously, not everyone follows fashion. And there is not just one fashion, there are many tributaries of fashion along which to ride and to which we are at liberty to switch on a daily basis. The clothes I wear are entirely indicative of my mood, how I feel about myself, and what sort of look I want to work, not having found a niche I am completely comfortable with. I would fall more into the fashionisn’ta category. A rise in vintage shops means we are much more able to choose our own fashion as we have access to those from yesteryear, as my recent shopping trip demonstrated.

What may be trendy and flattering on one person could be a disaster for another. Most cuts of top, trouser and dress at the present moment are all detrimental for my figure. At only 5’4” it is sensible for me to wear short skirts and dresses to make me look less tiny. I am also more comfortable baring my legs (not necessarily out of vanity). However, all the short dresses and skirts are designed for taller people and so fall to my knees rather than mid thigh. Most ‘normal’ length tops fall well past my hips which is something else I hate. One redeeming quality of Topshop is their ‘petite’ section: a dream come true for me as I am able to find those short, tight tops I love.

So, why do a lot of us just happen to like what is in fashion and what makes us look back on it with hindsight in disgust? The 90s were abhorrent (not just in a fashion sense), so why did we ever sport greasy curtains (the men at any rate), denim jackets, baggy t-shirts with leggings (of which I am guilty but excused of due to eight-year-old folly) and tie-dye? In ten years I am pretty sure the thought of Ugg boots will be recoiled at; I already do. Don’t even get me started on Crocs. Fashion is a fickle thing but not as fickle as our tastes. Getting to the roots of what exactly it is that makes us like something is still an issue under much study by anthropologists and neuroscientists alike.

If we look at what the first cave men started to wear (fur mainly: I am a massive fan, to hell with the ethics of it) up until what “civilised” man wears, we can look at it as a sort of evolution. What influences this evolution? Certainly not survival of the fittest or fur coats would be in. Environment, the weather (sort of), culture, popular culture influenced by everything from politics, albeit perhaps very tenuously, music, art and, I am loathe to say it, famous people all play a part.

As much as I have disparaged fashion’s fickleness in this piece, there is no denying the pleasure of appreciating the wider body of fashion – that is all the clothes, shoes and accessories available to us in the world - just as we might appreciate the craft and skill that has gone into creating a truly glorious sculpture or painting.

Getting high on paint fumes

(May 2008)

Drugs and Art. It is very easy to start thinking about the hoards of artists, musicians and actors who have been dedicated followers of the narcotic tradition that seems to often follow a rise to fame: every rock star in the sixties, seventies and eighties; Jim Morrison, the Stones, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, the whole of Guns ‘N Roses… ad infinitum. Nowadays things seem to have cleaned up, so much so that there are only a few true party animals that spring to mind (Winehouse and Doherty). Here I consider not artists who take drugs, but instances where drugs have influenced art’s creation in various forms. The ingestion of chemicals, prescribed or not, is seated deeply in human nature, society and culture, necessarily giving rise to a huge number of such examples.
Since the dawn of time, civilisations have taken drugs to enhance mood, bring people together, awaken inner thoughts and emotions and as part of religious ceremonies. It is, therefore, obvious how such things can aid one in the plight of artistic creation.

The Wooster group was a performing arts troupe from New York who in 1984 took LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide, discovered in 1938 by Albert Hofmann) in rehearsal and filmed themselves performing a play. Afterwards, they emulated their actions whilst on the drug and it became “L.S.D. (…Just the High Points…)”. Among the actors were Willem Dafoe (Spiderman) and Steve Buscemi (Conair). This is an example of drugs being used as an artistic aid to bring something new to a performance and to shed new light on ideas which the creators had for the play.

Another instance where “art” has been carried out under the influence of the same drug is in a US Government experiment during the 1950s. A patient is given 50 micrograms of LSD and instructed to draw his doctor at hourly intervals. As time progresses the drawings become more and more minimalist and less representative of the subject matter. Obviously, the influence of drugs on an artist and their work comes from memory of a drug experience. As can be seen from the drawings done under the influence of LSD, if artists were to create art whilst on a drug, their works would be shambolic and unlikely to convey the artist’s intended meaning.

A literal example of drugs making art is Pill Wheels by Fred Tomaselli. In 1996 he created patterns using assorted pills and capsules, acrylic and resin on a wood panel. It had to be removed from a museum in New York due to the potential risk of drug addicts trying to sequester the pills from the surface of the wood panel. It also posed a problem at airports when immigration officials saw it s a possible method of drug smuggling. Some of the more ridiculous critics also saw it as a way of condoning drug use. Another of Tomaselli’s works is a collage made up of plasters and nicotine patches; perhaps this work was seen as a waste of patches which could have otherwise been used to cure smokers of their cigarette addiction.

Reams of singers have immortalised and praised their beloved heroin in songs so much so that heroin seems a very unoriginal subject matter for… any type of art. The Rolling Stone’s Brown Sugar; Guns ‘N Roses’ Mr. Brownstone and Strangler’s Golden Brown. My more innocent mind, aged ten, initially thought Brown Sugar was but an ode to a particularly lovely Black girl. In some ways, infatuation with a person may be akin to a drug addiction. Both are damaging in different ways. Jimi Hendrix, guitar God and genius, sang of Purple Haze (LSD infused marijuana).

Authors and poets have also used their trips to gain inspiration for literary pieces. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the founder of the Romantic movement, was an avid nitrous oxide user and also harboured an opium addiction. His poem Kubla Khan is an extract from a particularly vivid opium-induced dream he once had. It is also rumoured Lewis Caroll ingested the ergot fungus (from which Hoffmann derived LSD) which lent ideas for his classics Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through the Looking Glass.

It begs the question, do people take drugs because they are creative or are they creative because of the experiences they have had on drugs? Definitely not the latter – creativity is not conjured simply from drug taking, as attractive as that idea is. Instead, perhaps creative people are more open to ideas and experience and so are more likely to try drugs and use them as a catalyst to art. That is not to say one needs drugs to enhance our artistic capabilities. And so thought Salvador Dali. “I don’t do drugs. I am drugs. Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic.” Indeed, his paintings are very surreal and anyone wishing to trip out without polluting their blood and brains should take a look at his art.

The notion of “taking” a human being was taken to the extreme by Keith Richards when he snorted his father’s ashes. No small feat by any means: an urn full of ashes would have taken tens, or hundreds, of sessions to finish, I am sure and would not have gone down as well as other snortable illegals. However, that has nothing to do with art, only the eccentricities of an artist.

Science has fuelled inspiration for art when, in 1954, maverick scientist John Lilly conducted a set of experiments based on sensory deprivation research in isolation tanks. He was administered a variety of drugs including the obvious LSD and also ketamine. He was injected with 2-hourly doses of the “horse tranquiliser” for 3 weeks during which he claims to have communicated with alien and god-like entities. (Ketamine is actually used in combination with other sedatives on the elderly, children and small animals, although the idea of a horse tranquiliser is more amusing.) The research was the basis for the plot of the 1980 Ken Russell film Altered States. “In the province of the mind there are no limits”, said Lilly. And he is completely right. So complex is our brain that we have not even scratched the surface of possibilities and by using drugs which alter perceptions and shed a new light on everything, we can only but increase the realms of possibility. However, this is not an advocation to abuse them; anything used to excess for long periods of time will have a detrimental affect on the brain.

One person who did encourage the use of mind-altering psychedelics was Timothy Leary, psychologist and author of Turn on, Tune in, Drop out. The phrase was thought up by Leary as a catchy means to promote the benefits of LSD; the book a compilation of essays spanning religion, neurology, educational psychology, politics and, of course, drugs. During the sixties when LSD was still legal, the youth often misinterpreted the phrase to mean turn onto drugs, tune into the counterculture and drop out of school. Instead, Leary meant turn on/activate your neuronal and genetic equipment; tune into and act harmoniously with the world around you; drop out and detach from convention.

 Given the myriad of chemicals out there, and yet to be discovered, coupled to the infinite possibilities from a multitude of human brains, it is a comforting thought to know that we will never run out of inspiration for that something which makes life, and our world infinitely more pleasing and beautiful – art.

Generation Web 2.0

(May 2008)

Bebo, Faceparty, Facebook, Myspace, Myface: social networking seems to be the thing we do best nowadays. Rewind ten years and the dark and dodgy world of chat rooms was still very much taboo and regarded as unsafe and slightly seedy. However, with our ever-growing dependence on technology we have overcome this reticence and are now embracing it whole-heartedly. 

My first, brief experiences with online ‘networking’ began through AOL online chat where chat rooms are themed, aimed towards particular interests and pursuits. People were only identifiable by their screen name and a very limited profile covering ‘a/s/l’ and perhaps a few details of other hobbies. On the one hand the risk of assuming a false identity was made easier, although the absence of pictures and information regarding friends, family and associates made it slightly harder for you to be tracked down.

Facebook profiles are a stalkers dream come true: addresses and phone number are accessible (if the user chooses to divulge such information) but for the most part ‘facebookers’ exercise caution in what they chose to share and privacy options.

What worries me is the apparent time that teenagers spend on socialising silently and alone. On a recent chat show involving 15-18 year olds, it seemed that the time spent online was a daily average of 5 hours! It is no wonder this government is in an uphill battle against obesity and heart disease. Apart from the obvious detriment to one’s health if such a large portion of the day is spent sedentary, I find that after even a few hours of looking at a computer screen my eyes are strained and I am left with a headache.

The young people interviewed protested that it was for lack of anything better to do that they resorted to hours mesmerised by the comings and goings of their peers. The drinking age of 18 stops them spending those valuable hours in the park after dark damaging their livers and so the Internet is required. Who raised these unimaginative children? What about the wealth of authors, poets, artists to which we have free access in museums and libraries? How about a walk along the South Bank, in Hamsptead Heath or a boogie in your bedroom with iPod blasting if the thought of actual human contact has you breaking out in a sweat.

Another thing I despair for is the caliber of grammar and general use of the English language adopted by many online, not all of them without basic G.C.S.E. English.  Unless you have learned the incorrect spelling of words (“sez”, “skool”, “’avin’”) surely it is easier to use the correct spelling rather than take those extra few seconds to work out how they are spelled phonetically? Some of the spellings do not even minimise the number of times the fingers need to come into contact with the keyboard (“choon” for example). However, we live in a society of freedom of speech (for now) and so people must be able to spell as they wish.

Back to the subject in hand: Facebook. I use this example, as it is the only site I am held hostage by. My feelings towards my captor are mixed, perhaps even edging towards Stockholm Syndrome. I hate the fact my heart leaps when I see I have 3 new notifications and maybe even a message or two. A little sad, perhaps, but I use it solely for entertainment value and ease of communication rather than looking for new friends. My total daily use is never more than  one hour. It means I do not have to take pictures anymore: I rely on my more camera savvy friends to post theirs up and I can browse happily, or ashamedly, as last nights memories come back).

The arsenal of modes of communication at our disposal has certainly complicated human relationships and dynamics immensely. Text messages, emails and msn conversations are scrutinised in minute detail; the lack of a response is hailed as a bad omen as is the speed of a reply. One person I knew took offense to the number of kisses I left at the end of text.

The heroines of Jane Austen novels were spared much daily tension, quite content with hearing from their loved one once a month, by letter. Today, the removal of someone’s relationship status can cause jubilation or heart ache for those involved.

One thing Facebook will prove useful for in the future is the analysis of societies, examining theories such as the 6 degrees of freedom: a sociologist’s dream come true. But for now it comforts, amuses, irritates, exposes, wastes time and lowers grades. But will these social networking sites fade out like mini disks or are they here to stay?