View allAll Photos Tagged article
M7 30031 is being turned on Bournemouth shed in July 1962. Immediately after this shot, the photographer was unceremoniously escorted off the premises by a plainclothes railway policeman.
Article in the Sunday Mail, using 3 of my photos without my permission, no credit given, no payments made. My 3 are the decent ones, theirs are the 2 rubbish BNP / IRA tags.
Edit: some good ideas and discussion about it at:
www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157594517395848/
Like my photos? Buy me a coffee!
In English, A is the indefinite article. It is also the first letter of the word article, which gives a kind of circularity that Appeals to me.
For Macro Monday "A is for..."
Nouvel article sur ma série "Mortification urbaine" paru dans le journal l'Echo de la Lys du 20 septembre 2018. goo.gl/PkALg3
An article in my latest issue of BUSES Magazine features the Leeds City Transport timetables of the 1960s. During that period, I was a teenager living just outside Hull, some 50 miles to the east. It was my fervent wish then to move down to London as soon as I could. Had the London dream not worked out, Leeds would have been my second choice as a favourite city.
Both London and Leeds were ace bus cities. The red double deckers of London Transport were world-renowned, LT a template for top-quality service provision, running a well-presented fleet mainly comprising AEC RTs and Routemasters. Leeds City Transport was an exemplary municipal operator, AEC Regents forming the backbone of the fleet, but with good numbers of Leyland’s and Daimlers too. The buses mostly carried handsome bodywork by the local supplier, Charles H. Roe of Crossgates Works, Leeds.
Although Leeds City Transport could have showcased more modern vehicles, it chose a bus that had clocked up more than a decade of service for this 1964 timetable. LCT 668 (PUA668) was an AEC Regent III with Roe H58R bodywork, new in 1952. It is seen in one of Leeds leafier suburbs. The bus served with LCT until 1969.
Leeds City Transport, AEC, the Roe Crossgates Works are all gone today. First Group provides today’s bus routes with vastly more modern vehicles. Perhaps transport enthusiasts now growing up will one day view today’s Leeds scene with comparable nostalgia in future decades.
Thanks to fotoswoch My photograph got published in Ostholsteiner Anzeiger newspaper.
Original German
"Seize the moment" nannte Lateefa aus den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten ihr geheimnisvolles Bild. Die 23 Jährige stammt aus dem Emirat Dubai undwurde alsFoto grafin bereits mehrfach preisgekrönt. Über ihr Motive schreibt sie:,,Als junge Araberin benutze ich den Schleier in meiner Arbeit, da er ein wichtiger Teil von mir selbst ist. Dennoch erzählen meine Aufnahmen nicht vom Schleier, sondern von der Frau dahinter - und die ist trotz der Verschleierung wie alle anderen Frauen. "In der linken Hand hält das Modell eine große indische Frucht.
Die Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten, darunter Dubai, und grenzen an Saudi-Arabian, Oman und Katar. Die Binnengrenzen sind nicht exakt festgelegt und die Kustenlinie am Persischen Golf kann nicht genau bestimmt werden, da sie sich durch Verlagerung von Sand und Schlickmassen ständig ändert.
English translation : thanks to Jessica.
' The U.A.E citizen Lateefa has called her mysterious picture 'Seize the moment'. The 23 year old comes from the Emirate of Dubai and has received several prizes for her photography. She writes about her work; 'as a young Arab woman I used the veil in my work - as it is an important part of myself. However my photos aren't speaking about the veil but the woman behind it - and in spite of being veiled, she is the same as all other women. ' In the left hand, the model holds a large Indian fruit. The U.A.E of which Dubai is one emirate, borders with Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar. The internal borders are not precisely marked and the coastline if the Persian Gulf can't be exactly identified as it constantly changes with the movement of sand and sand banks. '
A 2 page article about my night photography / light painting is appearing in the May issue of "Hemmings Classic Car" magazine. A pdf of the full article can be found here.
Camera Lens, a different way…
To make good pictures, you need a good camera with good lenses. Such lenses are expensive in India. “What if we make lens at home?” was the question that came to the mind of Pune based Meghana Kulkarni, an architect by profession. Who went ahead and successfully experimented on making lens at home. Today, she is also known for her lens along with photography.
While studying architecture, Meghana, fell in love with Photography. From here her search for lens with special effects started. While searching the internet, she stumbled upon people in foreign countries who made lens at home. She thought, “What if I made those lenses?” This triggered her experimentation with home made lens for “special” effects.
Till date Meghana has made 3-4 special lenses, like a Macro lens for close up photography and a Lens baby. What’s even more special about these lenses is that she made them using stuff easily found at home: paper, cloth, driller and glass from old magnifying glasses. She has also made a pinhole camera using old cameras.
She publishes information abt her experiments on her website too.
Even though she is an architect, photography has become her passion. Some of her photos have also been published in travel magazines. Such magazines are always open to different types of pictures.
Apart from this, she also wants to try film photography and developing.
Errors:
1. I publish information about my experiements on my blog. I don't have a website... yet
2. I made a pinhole camera out of a sweet shop box and not out of an old camera.
Things I'm unsure about:
1. if a driller is commonly found in every household.
2. If travel magazines really open to different types of photographs.
At Tweet News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Tweet News and how it is used.Log FilesLike many other Web...
Love "The Little Mermaid" Definitely one of the best animated films ever! I really like the way this turned out! The wig is cardboard painted with face paint and then taped to my head with masking tape. Actually i use cereal boxes for my cut outs.
Check out Sept. Readers Digest, article about me on page 112.
Kent State May 4 Shooting Site, Kent State University, Kent, Portage County, Ohio
THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY
BY JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY
On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.
In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4 and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970, at Kent State University.(1)
Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses.(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.
This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4 shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.
WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO KENT?
The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war appeared to be winding down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30, l970, by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a sanctuary.
Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.
Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus.
The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.
WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS?
Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1,000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.
Sunday, May 3 was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1,000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protesters and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus.
WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?
At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3,000 people. Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1,000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1,500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.
Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.
WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY 4?
Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4. At the 1975 federal civil trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.
The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4 rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.
WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?
Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about 10 minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, 28 of the more than 70 Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13-second period.
HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED?
Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.
Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13-second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about 60 feet; he was standing still with Four men sit staring at a candle-lit stage, on which there are portraits of the four Kent State students who died as a result of the firing by the Guard.his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.
WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?
The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.
The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.
The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:
In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.
Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.
We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.
A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."
WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS?
While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13-second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.
A man and young boy stare up at a May 4th Memorial.Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about 20 minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.
Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.
The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.
WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?
A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a 14-year-old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.
The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.
John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.
WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE SHOOTINGS?
Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today.
A student holds a candle at night to remember the victims of the May 4th shootings.First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations. However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award-winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students.
Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1,900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students.
Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.
Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State 10 days after Kent State.
WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?
Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4 shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4 events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.
(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?
(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?
(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?
(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?
(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?
(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?
WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?
In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."
The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever Students gather in a circle, holding hands around a May 4th memorial to remember the victims of the Guard shootings.as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4 at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4 at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.
Prints | Facebook | Twitter | G+ | Blog | Music | Ben Heine
_________________________________________________
Printed news article about my projects...
(Enlarge if you wish to read...)
More information: www.benheine.com
Other interviews: www.benheine.com/interviews
_________________________________________________
For more information about my artwork: info@benheine.com
_________________________________________________
(more details later, as time permits)
************************
In late May of 2014, my wife mentioned that she had seen a New York Times article indicating that some interesting sculptures were being installed in Riverside Park South — the stretch of Riverside Park (along the Hudson River, on the western edge of Manhattan) between 70th Street and 59th Street. If you’re interested in checking it out, the article is titled "Sculptors to bring works to city parks,” from the May 29, 2014 issue of the paper.
Of course, I thought that the sculptures might be really interesting, and thus worthy of some photographs; alas, they turned out to be rather mundane (at least from a photographer’s perspective), but there was no way I could know that until I saw them first-hand.
I had been down to this section of Riverside Park once before to photograph — but I was shocked to see that it had been four years earlier, in May 2010. If you’re curious, you can see those photos here on Flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/yourdon/sets/72157624207637080
Here’s an excerpt/summary of what I wrote after that initial May 2010 photo-stroll:
"After lunch [at an outdoor cafe at the base of the pier that extends out into the Hudson River at 70th Street], I was planning to walk north and check out the new pathway [connecting Riverside Park to Riverside Park North] ... but first, there was an old abandoned freight elevator at the edge of the water, which I decided I should photograph. It was just to the south of the 70th-Street cafe, and after taking the photos, I looked a little further south, and saw that there was a broad pathway, carefully mowed grass, and lots of people strolling ... where? further south!
"So I followed the path, and found that it expanded into a complex web of sidewalks, mini-gardens, mini-piers jutting out into the river, wooden-slat chairs, picnic benches, and boardwalks leading through wild grass and flowers that had been carefully planted. All of this continued, block after block after block, down below the elevated West Side Highway, all the way down to 59th Street. And it turns out that that is where "Riverside Park South" actually starts.
"So that's where most of the photos in this set were actually taken. There are some strange sights along the way, because the whole area used to be occupied by working piers that loaded and unloaded ships filled with freight and cargo, on and off railroads that snaked their way along the west side of Manhattan. But as ship-borne cargo was gradually replaced by truck, rail, and air cargo, the piers and docks gradually fell into disuse; and when the Penn Central Railroad went bankrupt, they really fell into disuse.
"It turns out that there was a massive fire along this area back in June of 1971 (a time when I lived in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn, and was more-or-less oblivious to what was going on in Manhattan), and the fire was so hot that it melted and warped the steel girders of many of the docks, cranes, and loading structures. When the whole area was renovated recently (apparently part of a required "civic contribution" by Donald Trump when he acquired the rights to build condos and apartment buildings along the stretch of the far West Side of Manhattan, from 72nd Street to the mid-60s), the city planners initially intended to remove all of the old twisted metal and rotting wooden piers. But local civic groups prevailed upon the city to leave some of it intact, as a reminder of what was there before... I could go on with more details, but you can check it out for yourself here on Wikipedia…”
So, now — in early June of 2014 — I took only a few photos, including two out on the pier that extends into the river at 70th Street. You’ll get a sense of the grass and the trees and the spring season that lent a magical air to everything in the park at that point. But as for the sculptures: yawn. Maybe if I was a “real” artist, I would be better equipped to understand and appreciate them. Maybe the problem is that I really only know how to do “street photography.” Anyway, I’ll leave the sculptures to someone else to capture...
Prints | Facebook | Twitter | G+ | Blog | Music | Ben Heine
_________________________________________________
Printed news article about my projects...
More information: www.benheine.com
(Enlarge if you wish to read...)
_________________________________________________
For more information about my artwork: info@benheine.com
_________________________________________________
The Buran Structural Test article OK-7M (OK-TVA) was displayed in the popular Gorky Park, Moscow, Russia as an attraction from 1995 to 2014. Currently it is displayed at the VDNKh/VVT (All-Russia Exhibition Center) in Moscow. In the bakgound the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour
My write up along with Vijayalayan's photos as Wrapper Article in April 2015 issue of American Tamil Magazine, Thendral
For more details visit: tamilamudam.blogspot.in/2015/04/blog-post_8.html
Best wishes to K.S. Vijayalayan! [ www.flickr.com/photos/clicking-moments/ ]
article complet sur la FIM à lire ici : militaryphotoreport.blogspot.fr/2015/10/la-defense-lhonne...
I still have one or two pictures to post of my stay in Barbezieux, so it is not finished ... but nice surprise, an article in the local press, released today.
J'ai encore un ou deux dessins à poster de mon séjour à Barbezieux, donc c'est pas fini... mais, joli surprise, un article paru dans la presse locale, publié ce jour.
Article complet à lire sur militaryphotoreport.blogspot.fr/2016/04/3eme-rhc-regiment...
Complete article on : militaryphotoreport.blogspot.fr/2016/04/3eme-rhc-regiment...
An article from the "Darling Downs Gazette", 3 April 1911, states "The members of the Ladies' Archery Club were photographed in the grounds of 'Bunya', the residence of Mrs Trevethan, Herries Street, on Saturday afternoon by W. T. Schaefer of the Bain Studio".
(this same photo found on the State Library of Qld site with the above description)
Archana is a Hijra who begs at the Traffic Signals of Bandra , first she begged at Turner Road , but than the cops made it tough now she has shifted to the the Pali Road signal.
She was born a man but decided to live as a woman , she prefers men as her companion..and men are her sexyual preference , but if she is caught soliciting she can be locked up.
I was meeting her after a long time and I was in the rickshah where she begs she asked about me my family ,, as I have been a very good friend of her Guru Laxmi this is not the same high celebrity Laxmi from Thane ..Laxmi is a poor beggar hijra who has been begging at the Turner Road Signal for many years now a devotee of of Lord Tirupati.
I normally don make my hijra pictures public but this an exception.. and is dedicated to my very good friend Nitin Karani..of Humsafar a fighter for human rights and gender issues and their fight against a draconian law Article 377..
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chapter XVI, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code dating back to 1860,[1] introduced during the British rule of India, criminalises sexual activities "against the order of nature", arguably including homosexual acts.
The section was declared unconstitutional with respect to sex between consenting adults by the High Court of Delhi on 2 July 2009. That judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court of India on 12 December 2013, with the Court holding that amending or repealing Section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary.
377. Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section.[2][3]
The ambit of Section 377, which was devised to criminalize and prevent homosexual sex[citation needed] extends to any sexual union involving penile insertion. Thus, even consensual heterosexual acts such as fellatio and anal penetration may be punishable under this law.
Public perception[edit]
Main article: Homosexuality in India
Support[edit]
In 2008 Additional Solicitor General PP Malhotra said:
Homosexuality is a social vice and the state has the power to contain it. [Decriminalising homosexuality] may create [a] breach of peace. If it is allowed then [the] evil of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to a big health hazard and degrade moral values of society." A view similarly shared by the Home Ministry.[4]
The 11 December 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court, upholding Section 377 was met with support from religious leaders. The Daily News and Analysis called it "the univocal unity of religious leaders in expressing their homophobic attitude. Usually divisive and almost always seen tearing down each other’s religious beliefs, leaders across sections came forward in decrying homosexuality and expressing their solidarity with the judgment."[5]
The article added that Baba Ramdev India's well-known yoga guru, after praying that journalists not "turn homosexual", stated he could cure homosexuality through yoga and called it "a bad addiction”. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad's vice-president Om Prakash Singhal said, “This is a right decision, we welcome it. Homosexuality is against Indian culture, against nature and against science. We are regressing, going back to when we were almost like animals. The SC had protected our culture.” The article states that Singhal further went to dismiss HIV/AIDS concerns within the LGBT community as, “It is understood that when you try to suppress one anomaly, there will be a break-out of a few more.” (Traditionally, Indian culture, or at least Hinduism, has been more ambivalent about homosexuality than Singhal suggests.)
Maulana Madni of the Jamiat Ulema is stated in the article as echoing similar homophobia in stating that “Homosexuality is a crime according to scriptures and is unnatural. People cannot consider themselves to be exclusive of a society... In a society, a family is made up of a man and a woman, not a woman and a woman, or a man and a man.” Rabbi Ezekiel Issac Malekar, honorary secretary of the Judah Hyam Synagogue, in upholding the judgment was also quoted as saying “In Judaism, our scriptures do not permit homosexuality." Reverend Paul Swarup of the Cathedral Church of the Redemption in Delhi in stating his views on what he believes to be the unnaturalness of homosexuality, stated “Spiritually, human sexual relations are identified as those shared by a man and a woman. The Supreme Court’s view is an endorsement of our scriptures.”
Opposition and criticism[edit]
Convictions are extremely rare, and in the last twenty years there have been no convictions for homosexual relations in India. However, Human Rights Watch argues that the law has been used to harass HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, as well as sex workers, homosexuals, and other groups at risk of the disease.[6] The People's Union for Civil Liberties has published two reports of the rights violations faced by sexual minorities[7] and, in particular, transsexuals in India.[8]
In 2006 it came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures,[9] most prominently Vikram Seth. The law subsequently came in for criticism from several ministers, most prominently Anbumani Ramadoss[10] and Oscar Fernandes.[11] In 2008, a judge of the Bombay High Court also called for the scrapping of the law.[12]
Legal battle[edit]
The judgement of the High Court of Delhi of 2 July 2009 declared portions of section 377 unconstitutional w.r.t consensual sex among adults
Main article: Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The movement to repeal Section 377 was initiated by AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan in 1991. Their historic publication Less than Gay: A Citizen's Report, spelled out the problems with 377 and asked for its repeal. A 1996 article in Economic and Political Weekly by Vimal Balasubrahmanyan titled 'Gay Rights In India' chronicles this early history. As the case prolonged over the years, it was revived in the next decade, led by the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, an activist group, which filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court in 2001, seeking legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.[13] The Naz Foundation worked with a legal team from the Lawyers Collective to engage in court.[14] In 2003, the Delhi High Court refused to consider a petition regarding the legality of the law, saying that the petitioners, had no locus standi in the matter. Since nobody had been prosecuted in the recent past under this section it seemed unlikely that the section would be struck down as illegal by the Delhi High Court in the absence of a petitioner with standing. Naz Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court to dismiss the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Court decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a PIL in this case and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on merit.[15] Subsequently, there was a significant intervention in the case by a Delhi-based coalition of LGBT, women's and human rights activists called 'Voices Against 377', which supported the demand to 'read down' section 377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview.[16] The Indian author Rajesh Talwar wrote a satirical play on Section 377 titled 'Inside Gayland' where a young lawyer visits a planet where homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuality is criminalised.[17]
In May 2008, the case came up for hearing in the Delhi High Court, but the Government was undecided on its position, with The Ministry of Home Affairs maintaining a contradictory position to that of The Ministry of Health on the issue of enforcement of Section 377 with respect to homosexuality.[18] On 7 November 2008, the seven-year-old petition finished hearings. The Indian Health Ministry supported this petition, while the Home Ministry opposed such a move.[19] On 12 June 2009, India's new law minister Veerappa Moily agreed that Section 377 might be outdated.[20]
Eventually, in a historic judgement delivered on 2 Jul 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150 year old section,[21] legalising consensual homosexual activities between adults.[22] The essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, stated the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S Muralidhar said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 14 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law.
The two judge bench went on to hold that:
“If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of 'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as "deviants' or 'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised.
Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination. This was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.[23]
”
The court stated that the judgement would hold until Parliament chose to amend the law. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.[21]
A batch of appeals were filed with the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court judgment. On 27 March 2012, the Supreme Court reserved verdict on these.[24] After initially opposing the judgment, the Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati decided not to file any appeal against the Delhi High Court's verdict, stating, "insofar as [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code] criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private [before it was struck down by the High Court] was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the British rulers."[24]
2013 Judgement[edit]
The judgement of the Supreme Court of India of 11 December 2013 did not find enough reason for portions of section 377 to be declared unconstitutional and overturned the Delhi High Court judgement
On 11 December 2013, the Supreme Court of India ruled homosexuality to be a criminal offence setting aside the 2009 judgement given by the Delhi High Court. In its judgment the Supreme court bench of justices G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya stated —
"In view of the above discussion, we hold that Section 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High court is legally unsustainable."[25]
The full decision can be found here.
The bench of justices G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya however noted that the Parliaments should debate and decide on the matter. A bench of justices upheld the constitutional validity of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code that makes anal sex a punishable offense.[26] The central government has filed a review petition on 21 December 2013. In its review petition the Centre said: “The judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, and is contrary to well-established principles of law laid down by the apex Court enunciating the width and ambit of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.” The IPC, when enacted in 1860, was justified; but with the passage of time it had become arbitrary and unreasonable, the petition added.[27] Naz Foundation has also filed a review petition against the Supreme Court order on Section 377.[28] On January 28, 2014 Supreme Court dismissed the review Petition filed by Central Government, NGO Naz Foundation and several others, against its December 11 verdict on Section 377 of IPC.[29] [30]
Responses[edit]
Days later and influenced by the Devyani Khobragade incident, former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha called for the arrest of same-sex companions of US diplomats, citing the Supreme Court of India's recent upholding of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.[31][32] The recriminalization of gay sex comes under fire from World leaders. The United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay[33] voiced her disappointment at the re-criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in India, calling it “a significant step backwards” for the country.In the wake of Indian Supreme Court's ruling that gay sex is illegal, UN chief Ban Ki-moon[34] stressed on the need for equality and opposed any discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals.[35]
Congress party President, Sonia Gandhi asked Parliament to do away with section 377. Congress Party vice-President Rahul Gandhi also wanted section-377 to go and supported gay rights.[36] However, Prime minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders have stated that homosexual acts are wrong and are unlikely to bring legislation to repeal the law.[37]
Protest on social media[edit]
Actor Imran Khan took action in order to disabuse homophobic people from their mistaken notions of homosexuality in a satire video.[38] Aamir Khan, Celina Jaitley, Twinkle Khanna, John Abraham, Karan Johar, Farhan Akhtar, Riteish Deshmukh,[39] Shruti Haasan, Sonam Kapoor, Anushka Sharma, Amitabh Bachchan,[40] Amartya Sen, Vikram Seth commented against the ruling. Many other well known persons protested against section supreme court ruling.
Find this collection of images from the Royal Visit to Expo 88 in our catalogue:
www.archivessearch.qld.gov.au/items/ITM436213 Dept No CN88-695B
The Birth of South Bank (or, why one should always read the legislation)
Anthony S Marinac
This article speaks only of the modern history of the area now known as South Bank. The author respectfully acknowledges the Yuggera and Turrbal people, who first occupied the lands now constituting South Bank.
As we press towards 2020, it has become difficult to imagine a Brisbane without the South Bank parklands. The parklands have become the city’s playground; a garden and exercise space; a space for public performance; an important restaurant quarter; and an urban beach for a city which has ideal beach weather, but which lacks a Bondi or a St Kilda. With the release of the 1988 Queensland cabinet papers, it has become possible to take a deeper look at the genesis of this key feature of modern Brisbane. In reality, South Bank began with three key events which live in Brisbane’s historical memory: the 1974 floods, the 1982 Commonwealth Games, and the 1988 World Expo.
Early history
For much of its early European history, the southern side of the Brisbane River’s city reach was a commercial hub. The interstate railway terminal was located adjacent to where the South Brisbane railway station still stands, and the southern side of the city had wharves, and warehouses, and the infrastructure which went along to support them, including some of the less legitimate types of business: “Between the wharves and the interstate railway station built in the 1880s, were streets of sly grog and loose women, dance halls and theatres, a place where local mixed with foreign. In the years after the second world war, however, the area fell into something of a decline. 3 By the later 1960s, there were plans to redevelop part of the area into a cultural precinct. The Exhibition Building on Gregory Terrace, which housed the Queensland Art Gallery and the Queensland Museum, had been well and truly outgrown, and was damaged by winds in Brisbane’s 1974 flood crisis. The South Brisbane site was purchased in 1969, and the Art Gallery opened there in 1982.
The Queensland Performing Arts Centre followed in 1985, the Queensland Museum in 1986, and the State Library of Queensland in 1988. The latest addition, the Gallery of Modern Art, opened in 2006. During the era of the cultural centre’s development, the South Brisbane area lost its centrality as a transport hub, when the interstate rail terminus shifted to the Roma St Transit Centre in 1986. To make matters worse, South Brisbane was inundated by the cataclysmic Brisbane River flood in 1974. Following the flood, it was clear that some form of redevelopment was going to be necessary in the South Brisbane area, well beyond the cultural centre. In 1982, Brisbane hosted the Commonwealth Games, a major international event which began the city’s transition into a modern, world city. One of the defining moments of the Commonwealth Games was the victory, in the Marathon, of Australia’s Robert de Castella. The marathon began and ended on what is now South Bank, in the shadow of the cultural centre. 5 Almost immediately after the Commonwealth Games, bolstered by the confidence engendered by the games itself, planning began in earnest for the World Exposition – Expo.
Expo
The Queensland Parliament passed the Expo ’88 Act 1984, which created the Expo Authority, properly titled the “Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority” although virtually everyone, it seems, immediately forgot the second half of the title. The authority, under the leadership of former Liberal leader Sir Llewellyn Edwards, had extensive powers to enable the Expo to be undertaken, including the power to resume land. Many of those who were moved on for the purpose of Expo were essentially voiceless, however close to the opening of Expo, the Courier Mail newspaper gave attention to renters in the surrounding areas of South Brisbane and West End, who were being squeezed out of rental markets by demand from, for instance, delegation staff from overseas. Section 30 of the Expo ’88 Act 1984 gave the Expo Authority the power to dispose of the lands resumed for the purpose of Expo. During initial planning for the Expo, these land sales were expected to form a substantial proportion of the income which would make Expo financially viable, hence the requirement that the Expo authority “secure for itself the maximum return that is reasonable to expect at the material time.”
Even in the immediate leadup to Expo, there was widespread concern about its potential success or failure. It was, however, a triumph, and a halcyon moment for the city. Its success appeared to occur at two levels: as a purely commercial venture it was successful, both in its own terms and in terms of generating longer term investment; but at a social level, Expo became a place to meet and socialise, particularly for the many thousands of Brisbane residents who had purchased season passes. Somewhere along the line, Queenslanders became proprietorial about Expo itself, and there was a substantial public desire to retain something of the spirit of what had become, in essence, an open and beloved public space.
Cabinet’s approach to redevelopment
At this point, we turn to the Cabinet documents, and things become somewhat odd. In 1986, expressions of interest were invited for the redevelopment of the site by private development consortia.8 Based on the Expo ’88 Act 1984, one would have expected those expressions of interest to have been assessed by the Expo Authority, most likely with input from the Brisbane City Council.9 However Cabinet called for these expressions of interest – it is not clear by what authority – and Cabinet established a committee to evaluate those proposals and to report back to Cabinet. The Committee was chaired by the Director General of the Premier’s Department, and included the Under Treasurer, the Chairman of the Expo Authority, and the Town Clerk of the Brisbane City Council. It is worth noting, as an aside, that the Council’s concerns were quite different from those of the Expo authority. Had South Bank become a rival commercial precinct across the river from the Brisbane CBD, there was the possibility of massive reductions in the commercial viability of office space in the CBD. The Council’s later push for open public space may therefore not have been entirely altruistic. The fact that Cabinet had absolutely no authority to call for, or assess these tenders, and that the Expo Authority had the right, if it wished, to simply proceed with the disposition of the land, does not seem to have occurred to anybody. Indeed the legislation itself is not mentioned anywhere in the Cabinet submission. Four submissions were shortlisted by the committee and considered by Cabinet: they were offered by the Kern Corporation, the CM Group, the World City 2000 Consortium, and the River City consortium. Cabinet considered the pros and cons of each submission, but it was always clear that budget considerations would take priority. At this stage (February 1988) it was not yet known whether Expo would be a success, and budgeting for the event required site sales of $150 Million in order for Expo to break even. Ultimately Cabinet settled on the proposal by River City 2000 consortium. The consortium included the Roma Street Development Group, Kern Corporation (which had also put in a separate bid), and the Conrad Hilton/Conrad Jupiters Group. The net present value of the offer was $136.83 Million, to be made as $200 Million in staged payments between 1989 and 1995. The general proposal was for two harbours and a substantial canal to be cut into the foreshore at South Bank, and the spill to be used to create a large island, to be called Endeavour Island, on the southern side of the river. Endeavour Island was to be dominated by an exhibition and convention centre, a hotel, a casino, and a proposed World Trade Centre. The shore-side of the canal was to include further office buildings, and the southern end was to include residential complexes. There were three immediate complications with this proposal. First, there were reservations expressed by the Brisbane City Council about the total amount of commercial and office floor space which was proposed by the River City consortium. Second, Cabinet had no capacity to influence the location of a World Trade Centre in the city. The World Trade Centres Association had granted to a company called the Fricker company the exclusive right to develop a world trade centre in Brisbane. Fricker was examining a number of sites in the Brisbane CBD and on Kangaroo Point. Cabinet could (and did) encourage the Fricker company “to examine the possibility of developing [a] World Trade Centre or associated facilities on the Expo site”10 but that was as far as Cabinet could go. Third, there was little appetite in the conservative Cabinet for a new casino. The Jupiters Casino had opened on the Gold Coast in 1985, and held a guarantee that no other casino would be developed in south-east Queensland until at least 1992 (although this may not have been insisted on since Conrad Jupiters were part of the River City consortium). Instead, Cabinet decided:
That no action be taken at this time to enter into any arrangement with the “preferred developer” for granting a casino licence for the site, but that the “preferred developer” be required to [include] provision for a casino facility within the site, at a location and under conditions acceptable to the Government. That the Under Treasurer be asked to investigate all aspects of the granting of a casino licence for the site and report back to Cabinet through the Cabinet Budget Committee.
Public reaction to the proposal was swift and negative. Neither the committee proposal nor the cabinet process had included any public consultation at all; the Endeavour Island concept failed to capture the public imagination; and the Courier Mail newspaper led a campaign sharply critical of the proposal. The title of its editorial said it all: South Bank – selling the city’s birthright. Sir Llew Edwards tried to distance the Expo Authority from the decision, but the Courier Mail was having none of it – and clearly journalist Don Petersen had read the legislation: The seven-member board of the Expo Authority meets today to vote on the State Government’s preferred developer for the post-Expo site … Authority Chairman Sir Llew Edwards said last week the vote was not necessary because responsibility for the decision rested with the Governor in Council. This is strange since the Expo 88 Act of 1984 specifically charges the authority with “disposing” of the land in an endeavour to gain the best possible price that might reasonably be expected. Public reaction became even more important after Expo commenced at the end of April 1988. As noted above, Expo exceeded all possible expectations, and despite its entry fees, the expo park became in essence a public space, with the many season pass holders making repeated visits. The lack of public input into the plan was a decisive aspect of its eventual downfall. The other key feature was the conduct of the River City consortium itself. Despite section 30, Cabinet continued to be the lead agency on behalf of government, and the River City consortium began immediately to push for government commitments in relation to both the World Trade Centre and the casino. Just a week after the initial decision, Cabinet made a curious decision, on the basis of an oral submission by the Premier, that the initial cabinet decision “be confirmed” and that “the River City 2000 Consortium be advised accordingly.” Once can only surmise that Cabinet had been asked to review its earlier decision, Cabinet not being in the habit of routinely reaffirming earlier decisions. Initially, Cabinet had set a deadline of 18 February 1988 to finalise agreement with the River City Consortium on outstanding issues. On that date, a two week extension was granted. A further extension was granted on 29 February 1988, setting the deadline at 8 April, and when it became clear that this deadline, too, would be missed, the Premier returned to Cabinet with a substantive report. Unsurprisingly, two of the three outstanding matters were:
negotiations with Fricker Developments regarding a World Trade Centre or a component thereof on the site; (iii) the interpretation of Cabinet’s decision regarding a Casino facility on the Expo site. The Premier asked for the timing of negotiations to be left to his discretion “in view of my continuing personal involvement in the negotiations, which I consider is necessary now.”
The fall of River City and the birth of the South Bank Development Corporation
The Premier’s involvement turned out to be decisive. Somewhere along the line, after the Premier became personally involved, someone finally seems to have fully grasped the importance of section 30 of the Expo ’88 Act. The Premier met with Sir Llew Edwards, and then returned to Cabinet to sound the death knell for River City 2000: Arising from my detailed involvement in the negotiations, I have become very much aware of the legislative requirements regarding the disposal of the Expo site. These requirements, in effect, are that the Expo authority shall dispose of the site in a way which will achieve a net financial result that will not impose a burden of cost on the Government of Queensland … in dealing with these details, I questioned why the Government is, in fact, embroiled in much of this public debate and criticism, when in fact most of the matters should be negotiated between the Expo Authority, Brisbane City Council, and the preferred developer, for submission in due course to the Government.19 Cabinet decided to withdraw preferred developer status from River City 2000, and to instruct the Expo Authority to commence the tender process all over again. This second process was to be based on the clear understanding that the Government had no capacity to influence the location of a World Trade Centre, and that any question of a casino licence would be completely divorced from South Bank redevelopment. This approach relieved pressure on the government in terms of the casino and World Trade Centre, but there remained the issue of public expectations. By this stage, Expo was well underway, and the enthusiasm of the people of Brisbane was a key element in its success. Expo forecasts required approximately 8 million visitors through the gate in order to meet its budget; it quickly became apparent that this number would be comprehensively surpassed. In the end, more than 18 million visitors passed through the gates. This, in turn, relieved financial pressure on the sale of the site. Thus the people themselves, in the process of falling in love with Expo, had helped to create the economic circumstances which allowed the government to seek a path other than a real estate fire sale. After the Expo Authority took responsibility for the tender process, it “subsequently became apparent that under this [tender] approach, it would be very difficult to meet public expectations for significant open space on the site with minimal commercial development together with the need for a financial return sufficient to enable the Expo Authority to break even.”
Instead, at the end of June 1988, the Premier joined with the Expo Authority Chairman and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane to announce the formation of the South Bank Development Corporation, which would take possession of both the assets and the liabilities of the Expo authority, including the land space, and which could then develop the site. Having learned from the first process, the Expo Authority produced a:
Statement of Development Principles for the South Bank together with some graphics showing the conceptual proposal for development of the main Expo site plus a land use proposal for the broader area. This material together with further graphics will be presented to the public as a set of eighteen display panels of which it is proposed that ten such displays be manned at various centres throughout Brisbane for a month within which the public will have the opportunity of commenting on the proposals. A press and media campaign will complement the static displays.
The public reception on this second occasion was far more positive, and the following year, Ahern introduced the South Bank Corporation Bill. In his second reading speech, he stated that the Act: provides the necessary statutory foundation from which the Expo South Bank area in particular, as well as the surrounding area, can be developed to produce a result of outstanding merit. Such a result will bring benefits not only to the City but to the State as a whole through tourism and its ability to identify Queensland to the World.
It need hardly be stated that this was far from the end of the South Bank story. The legislation has been repeatedly amended, and South Bank itself has continued to evolve in the three decades since its foundation. It is, however, well to remember the fact that the site was very nearly sold to private developers, and that the South Bank of today exists in its current form only because some anonymous angel on Ahern’s staff remembered to read the relevant legislation, and discovered section 30 of the Expo Act.
Story source: Queensland State Archives: 1988 - The birth of Southbank
One of several "inserts" in a JM asbestos product marketing folder discussing use of asbestos fiber in asphalt road application. This is a two-page article reprinted from a 1965 industry publication.
The article is Here
Also I have updated my pages on boatbuiding, restoration and repair methods.
For a long time now we have been fans of eliminating permanent fastenings in boats. We use plasterboard/drywall screws to hold the parts of the boat together until the glue sets up then remove them.
There are several good reasons.
1/ Fastenings always act as a potential way for water to get from one part of the structure to another. With epoxy construction there is always a waterproof glueline between the parts that make up the boat - but a fastener will always pierce that glueline.
2/ Often you launch a new boat but after a few years you can see the outlines of the fasteners - they can even crack the paint sometimes which allows water to penetrate the structure.
3/ The reason we are looking at in this article is that having no fastenings make it really easy to remove large parts of boat with high speed tools like routers, powerplanes and circular saws without the risk of hitting a fastening with them and risk damaging the blade the timber around the fastener or the operator. www.storerboatplans.com/boat-building/materials/plywood/f...
Article in this months American Bungalow magazine. Authentic period fashions from Syacuse University's Sue Ann Genet Costume Collection with styling by Jeffrey Mayer, curator. Mannequin makeup by Dash-N-Dazzle.
via WordPress bit.ly/2WWtl13
I’ve recently finished replacing the wiring harness on my P5B Coupe with a ‘New Old Stock’ harness, so it seems a good time to cover this in some detail in an article. I also plan to write a series of articles explaining how each of the main circuits of the Rover P5 electrical system works, but that’s for the (near) future.
Why???
Before we begin, it’s worth mentioning why I took this drastic step. My car, like many classics of the period, had numerous places where the insulation on the old harness was fraying and cracked. This is obviously a fire hazard and needed repairing. My original plan was to re-terminate wires and/or splice-in new sections. That would be the simplest thing, and if done properly would have been fine.
However, my car had suffered a small engine fire a few years before I bought it. The fire had damaged the engine and ancillaries, but had been extinguished before doing too much damage, although the wiring in the engine had been damaged. The repairers had cut the old harness at the 4 places it passes through the firewall, and connected parts of another harness in the engine bay.
Unfortunately not only had they used the wrong harness with inconsistent wire colours (and hadn’t removed redundant wires), but they spliced the two harnesses together using about 60 bullet connectors, which are not the most reliable electrical connectors. Again, I could have crimped and soldered these properly, or replaced the engine wiring with the correct wires, but the whole thing would have been a patchwork and a definite weak point.
There was also the related issue that the engine-bay was looking very tired and dirty, and there was a lot of surface-rust in places, so sorting that was important as well.
As I contemplated my options, a New Old Stock (NOS) harness for a P5B Coupe popped-up on eBay. I also could have ordered a new harness from Autosparks, but the eBay harness was ¼ of the price, so I ordered it. This could have been a mistake, as old wiring will still degrade with age even if not fitted to a car, but when it arrived the harness was almost as new. It was slightly the wrong year, so a couple of wires were wrong, but as I wanted to fit some additional components anyway, I could easily fix this. I’d then have a period-correct harness, adapted to exactly how I want it.
I’ll talk more about how I adapted the harness a little later.
Recommended Reading
Whilst re-wiring my car and researching this topic I’ve found the following book invaluable, and thoroughly recommend you obtain a copy:
Classic British Car Electrical Systems
“Your guide to understanding, repairing and improving the electrical components and systems that were typical … from 1950 to 1980.”
An Invaluable guide for any classic car electrical system, taking the reader from basics of car electrical theory to a complete understanding. What makes this especially good for us is that it covers many of the Lucas components that the P5 uses, so is very relevant. Its well written, detailed, and logically laid-out.
Classic British Car Electrical Systems
Classic British Car Electrical Systems: Your guide to understanding, repairing and improving the electrical components and systems that were typical ... from 1950 to 1980 (Essential Manual Series)
by Rick Astley [Veloce Publishing Ltd.]
Price: £26.00
Wiring Diagram
A good wiring diagram is an absolute necessity. The diagram in the Workshop manual is quite poor as it’s small, has errors and isn’t in colour. There is a free PDF available from the Rover P5 Club for members, but as I wanted to make some changes I decided to create my own full-colour circuit diagrams of the complete P5B electrical system. This was rather time-consuming, but invaluable in understanding the wiring and planning the changes I wanted.
The overall layout I used is somewhat similar to the free PDF version as that seems the most logical layout, so thanks are due for inspiration to the Club Member who created that version. My version is quite different in detail, and has lots of additional information as well. It’s 3-pages in total, and is correct for a 1968 P5B (both Saloon and Coupe), although Rover sometimes made running changes, so I can’t guarantee everything is correct for your car.
To make things easier, I’ve had the standard version of my diagram professionally printed at A3 size, and these are available to buy in the website Shop and also below here, in full colour, both on plain-paper and also laminated. A3 is a great size as there is so much information packed-in, and they look really smart (I may be biased). The A3 laminated prints look great on the garage wall as well!
RoverP5.com Wiring Diagram
Rover P5B Saloon and Coupe Wiring Diagram (A3, Plain Paper)
£8.00
Rover P5B Saloon and Coupe Wiring Diagram (A3, Laminated)
£20.00
Recommended Tools and Consumables
In order to work on Rover P5 and P5B electrics to a standard similar to original, whether replacing the harness or re-terminating a wire, there are a few general tools you’ll need, plus a few specialised tools that I strongly recommend you buy – they will transform the quality of the final result.
General Tools
Wire Cutters
Wire Strippers
Knife
Soldering Iron (I tend to use a propane gas iron, which saves the need for a power connection, but that’s a personal preference. Any soldering iron of about 30W upwards should be fine).
Specialised Tools
Multi-Meter
I recommend a pen-type meter, as they allow you to see the display next to where you’re probing – much less chance of the probe slipping as you turn to look at the display. You want a meter with at least D.C. voltage measurement and an audible continuity check. I bought and used this one – I recommend it: amzn.to/2BhmYvR
It’s also very useful if one lead is extra-long (I’d suggest 3 metres), with a clip rather than a probe. This allows you to, for example, clip the meter to a wire in the engine bay, then take the meter inside the car to probe for continuity behind the dashboard. I made my own using a crocodile clip, some flexible wire and 4mm banana plug.
Lucar-type Crimp Tool
You can get cheap crimping tools, but often the jaws don’t align properly and the quality of the crimp will be poor. I recommend this one – the crimped connectors look as good as the factory:
www.vehicle-wiring-products.eu/product.php/269/ratchet-cr...
Bullet Crimp Tool
These aren’t as widely available as the above, but they are vital and well worth buying if you’re doing any work on a Rover P5 or P5B electrical system, which uses a great may Bullet connectors:
www.vehicle-wiring-products.eu/product.php/272/bullet-cri...
Bullet Closing Tool
These aren’t essential, but they do make inserting bullet connectors into connection blocks much easier, especially in confined areas, and you won’t damage the crimp or the cable (which pushing on the cable often does):
www.vehicle-wiring-products.eu/product.php/336/bullet-clo...
Consumables
I recommend buying a selection of ‘Lucar’ (6.3mm) crimp connectors and Bullet crimp connectors for different wire sizes. These come either plain brass and tinned brass – tinned brass are probably the most durable. Don’t use the pre-insulated Lucar terminals – they look terrible and don’t crimp or support the wire insulation properly. Vehicle Wiring Products can supply the right ones.
I also recommend that if you need to replace any wiring, try to source the correct colour-coded wire of the same or larger conductor size. Vehicle Wiring Products supply every colour cable in PVC insulation, and Autosparks can supply the correct coloured braided cable. Most modern PVC cable is ‘thin-wall’ type so it takes-up less space in the harness – this is perfectly OK for classic cars as long as the conductor rating is correct.
You might also need a selection of bullet connector blocks. These are made for 1, 2, 3 and 5 cables. Just be aware that the 2 and 3 cable types are for connecting all 3 wires together – they aren’t multi-pole. The 5 cable version is multi-pole. Again, available from Vehicle Wiring Products and Autosparks.
Re-usable ‘Velcro’ Cable Ties: These are really handy if you need to unwrap any of the harness to get to wires – you can keep the harness together using these, and can easily move and re-use them as needed. H&S 100 Reusable Cable Ties: amzn.to/2Df7iJJ
Harness Tape. Whatever you do, don’t use insulation tape to re-wrap the harness! The adhesive degrades rapidly and you end-up with a horrible, sticky mess. You should use proper harness tape that doesn’t have any adhesive and can be removed easily if needed. I recommend Tesa H5160803 Wiring Harness Harness Tape 19 mm x 15 m Roll: amzn.to/2D8aPtA
The P5 Wiring Harness
Over the years numerous changes occurred to the P5 wiring and electrical components – too many to list. The number of fuses and general complexity increased over time. Most changes happened at the major model changeovers between Mark I / IA / II / III / P5B, but between these there were lots of running changes, not all documented in the Workshop Manual.
This series of articles focuses on an early P5B from 1968 with a ballasted coil and an alternator rather than dynamo, but earlier and later P5B’s are broadly similar with only relatively minor incremental changes each year.
The biggest change to be aware of was the change from positive to negative earth in 1965 – its really important you know whether your P5 is positive or negative earth. P5B’s are simple in this regard – all were negative earth, and all P5B’s used an alternator, not a dynamo.
Most P5 and P5B harnesses seem to use a combination of braided wire and PVC-insulated wire. The braided wire was mainly used on the ‘supply’ side of the fusebox. Perhaps Rover used this as an extra layer of protection against wire damage on the unfused supply wires? I’m not sure as it seems like a significant complication, but Rover were very-much engineering-led at this time, so that may be the case. To maintain originality I recommend getting the correct braided wire from Autosparks if your car had this originally – little details like this are an interesting part of the cars history.
Crimp or Solder?
Terminals on the standard Rover harness were mainly both crimped and soldered, and that’s what I’d recommend if you replace any terminals. Crimping (done correctly) should give the best electrical connection, but there is a chance for water to get into the joint through capillary action. That will increase resistance over time. Soldering is watertight, but will normally have a slightly higher resistance than a crimped joint. Doing both is best – crimp first, then solder.
Replacing the Wiring Harness
Now, finally we can cover the process of replacing the harness.
Step 1: Label the New Harness
It may be tempting to jump-in and start ripping wires out of your car, but I strongly advise taking your time and doing Step 1 first. It makes fitting the new harness much easier and less error-prone. This is what I did, and at the same time I made a number of modifications to the harness (see later). My car started first-time after connecting the last wire of the harness – even I was surprised by that.
The main reason I recommend labelling the harness first is that if there are things you’re unsure of at this stage, either in the wiring diagram or new harness, you still have a functioning harness in your car that you can refer to. This can be invaluable, and save you a great deal of heartache later.
I worked through every wire in the harness checking against the wiring diagram, checking it with the continuity tester on my multimeter, and making sure the wire colour-code matched the diagram. Any discrepancies were noted on the diagram, and checked against my car. I found a couple of wires in the NOS harness that were different to the diagram – perhaps some of Rover’s undocumented running changes, or expediency by the harness supplier.
To make this easier, and since it was Summer, I hung the harness on nails hammered into the garden fence! Obviously any wall would do, although a fence makes this very easy. I hung the harness in the approximate layout it would sit in the car. This made things much easier, and I got a sun tan at the same time.
As I checked each wire, I labelled the end with a flag of PVC insulation tape. In permanent market I wrote the component it was connecting to with the terminal number if appropriate. Underneath that, in brackets, I wrote what was as the other end of the cable. So one of the tape tabs on a cable might look like this:
HEADLAMP MAIN LHS
(FUSEBOX F14)
At a glance I could then see this wire was to be connected to the Headlamp Main Beam on the left-hand-side (nearside). In case of problems, I can also see the other end connects to the Fusebox terminal 14. This made troubleshooting much easier, and once tested in the car I removed most of the flags (I left a few that were hidden – you never know if they may be useful in the future).
Not only does this step check your harness against the wiring digram, it makes re-connecting the harness quite simple and familiarises you with the harness itself. And you’re not upside down under the dashboard when doing this, but standing comfortably getting a suntan in your garden.
OK, I think this part is long enough. Here’s a video I’ve posted about the whole re-wiring – well worth a watch (and a subscribe!), and you’ll get a sneak-peak of what will be covered next.
In Part 2 I’ll cover in some detail the process to actually replace the harness in a Rover P5B. This should be published on the website in a few days.
Large picture shows completed piece, Ihad great difficulty deciding when this was 'finished' It would have been easy to just go on and on.
... or something like that.
I don't remember the particulars on the slant of the article.
Late on a Monday, the art director called in a panic with a rush job. Could I do an illustration for a publication that was going to press on Wednesday. We had to shoot it, approve it, scan it, get it separated and into the layout in a day.
Sure, we can do that. She faxed over the page layout and the ideas for the shot and we went out to get the props instead of heading to dinner. (You gotta have a very understanding spouse in this business.)
I started out at the local hardware store and they had the scoop thing, as well as some very course fertilizer. They also had some very nice work gloves that I bought. I had an idea, but I know I needed gloves anyway, so I got them and we headed back to the studio.
On the way, I dropped in on a local nursery down on Baseline and about 32nd St and made one of the guys an offer. Trade the brand new gloves for his pair of ratty old gloves. Well, it was a deal he couldn't turn down.
So back to the studio and it was now going on 6. The AD was waiting and we got going on the shot.
She wanted:
Black and white.
"Gritty and Earthy"
Vertical
It will be framed by copy.
Small area bottom right to be used for copy (call out).
I suggested we use black and white Polaroid Type 55PN and keep the edges of the negative rough and 'earthy' to help with the overall look she wanted. It would also allow her to leave the studio with finished art to drop by the printer for scanning and separating.
The small piece of plant was provided by the long suffering plants in the lobby area of the studio. and the old wood was from our prop area. An old beat up pallet for shipping was used. (It had set outside for a couple of years so it was a wreck. Woo Hoo.)
We set up the still life on a short table (2 ft) and brought over the camera, a Toyo 4x5 Monorail with a 210MM Schnieder F5.6 lens.
Neither of us were happy with the softlight shot we started with... it looked way too 'straight' and commercial. We needed something a little more gritty for the lighting... where the lighting becomes part of the image.
I took two Norman heads and grid-spotted the 12inch reflectors. Bringing them to the same height of the set allowed me to 'rake' the light from bottom right and top left. That proved to be a little too contrasty for me. so I inserted a spun glass diffuser in the grid-spot. That worked.
Now I was able to light the glove from both sides... not a main/fill look, but something very much more interesting. The tool was then becoming a problem... it looked too 'generic' and boring. A silver spade and light wood handle didn't say anything about anything.
I suggested we do something with the spade to make it look more like the hero. It is the spade that was able to deliver the fertilizer/pesticide or whatever it was we were trying to illustrate, so we needed it to be 'heroic'.
I painted it white with quick drying spray paint. I always kept a few cans of white, black, silver, gold, gray and red. (I was quite the 'tagger' you know... ;-)
The light simply lit that spade up like crazy and we loved the look. We added a tall piece of wood taped to a background stand to the front of the light camera bottom, right and that shadow added a bit more mystery to the light.
We settled on the image after working with the props, and in total I think I shot about 12 or so images. Processing them and clearing/fixing them right there on set.
As she was pulling together some notes and helping my assistant clean up the shoot set, I went to the darkroom and made a few contact prints of this negative.
After fixing the image, I started thinking about some toning. We always kept a lot of different toners in the darkroom, so with a sponge I started to blend some copper and green tones into one of the prints. I really liked how it looked, so I showed it with the regular one to the AD and she sighed.
When the article came out, they had actually run the multi-toned print... springing for the color scan and separation. She told me later how happy everyone was with the lightly colored image.
Making split decisions and drawing on your creativity is the most empowering feeling you can experience.
I coulda shot it and given her a black and white print from the Polaroid and be done. There was no mandate to do a split toned black and white, one-off image for an editorial page where the money was nothing spectacular either.
But that is what we do. We try to create solutions that go above and beyond the expectations of the client.
At least I do.
(This image is 24 years old)