i-eclectica.org

The concept is quite unique and the results in a way spectacular. The German company Artfield uses a concept it calls LandArt, a highly developed medium which combines agricultural land, crops, and natural dyes and materials to create advertising visible from aeroplanes. Rather then seeing a wheat or rape field, passengers see an ad field.

Adverts are layed out close to airports, where they are highly visible during start and landing operations. With the earth/nature being the medium, aesthetics and ecology meet commerce. And if it wouldn’t be for the fact that our economic system is destroying the planet, it would be a great idea - something unfortunately is wrong with advertising Swiss Air, using natural materials when the ecological footprint of flying wrecks the very ecosystems which the plants are part of.

The size of the land needed for advertising ranges from 50,000 to 100,000 qm, and the length of letters can be up to 100 metres. To create the ads, crop and ornamental plants are used, complemented by naturally dyed plant materials. Artfield does not only create advertising but also artistic designs.

For those not familiar with the German Language: this is a marriage proposal.

When it comes to architecture and design, Melbourne beats every other city in Australia by a mile, especially Sydney. And therefore not surprisingly it set another new standard: for sustainable office tower design and building technology. Completed in 2006, Melbourne’s Council House 2 building, or CH2, as it is known, is the first building in Australia to achieve a six star rating for the design stage from the Green Building Council of Australia.

CH2 is a 10 storey, 12,500 square meters (134,500 square feet) office building located at 240 Little Collins Street. It was designed by DesignInc in collaboration with the City of Melbourne as a ‘healthy building’ which minimises its environmental impact, both during construction and throughout its life. Its many innovative and technological features allow for the harvesting of sunlight, night air, water, wind and rain. which in turn create a more sustainable relationship between building and the external natural environment as well as the internal spaces housing 540 City of Melbourne staff. And from a town planning perspective, the building brings vibrancy to Little Collins St, through new shops, cafes and pedestrian connections.

CH2 has been designed to make us of the planet’s ecological cycles, using solar energy, natural light, air and rainwater to power, heat, cool, and provide water to the building. The diagram of the building (see below) schematically shows the many sustainable features incorporated in the building:

Water: CH2 comprehensively recycles and reclaims water; a multi-water treatment plant in the building draws 100,000 litres/day of water from a nearby municipal sewer, and also uses any site-generated waste water; a micro-filtration system creates A-grade clean water suitable for all non-drinking purposes, including on-site water cooling, plant watering, and toilet flushing; the rest is used in other council buildings, city fountains and external plant watering; through this recycling & reclamation approach, the building goes beyond its own needs and actually helps to improve water quality in the city.

Heating & Cooling: CH2’s north façade has 10 dark colored air ducts that absorb heat from the sun; the hot air rises taking the stale air up and out of the building, supported by large wind-powered roof turbines which help cooling the building at night (and generate electricity during the day); the south (shaded) façade has light-colored ducts that draw in 100% fresh air from the roof and distribute it down through the building; the west façade has louvers made from recycled timber that move according to the position of the sun and are powered by photovoltaic roof panels.

Five “shower towers” on the shaded side of the building use evaporative cooling effect to cool air and water; being 1.4 meters in diameter and 13 meters long, they draw air from over 17 meters above street level; inside of them, water droplets evaporate slightly as they use up energy and consequently cool the air around them, lowering air temperature to around 21°C (from around 35°C) and water temperature to 12°C; chilled ceilings help to absorb excess heat from the building and keep it cool and comfortable.

Light: light shelves reflect natural light into the building and enhance the use of natural rather than artificial lighting; glare is also controlled with photovoltaic cell controlled recycled sun-tracking timber louvers (which also help regulating the interior building temperature) and other shading devices; the north facade (in Australia the site of the midday sun) is covered with vegetation to filter sunlight and reduce glare; artificial lighting is controlled by sensors and turned off when adequate natural light is available.

Energy Efficiency: the building’s power systems include photovoltaic cells, rooftop solar hot-water panels, a gas-fired co-generation plant, and rooftop turbines for electricity generation; it consumes 373,012 kWh of electricity and 65,963kWh of gas annually; compared to the previous Council building (c1970), this equals savings of:

• 82% electricity consumption
• 87% gas consumption
• 72% mains water supply
• 4.9% improvement in staff effectiveness as a result of the healthier building (clean fresh air and non-toxic finishes)

Transport: CH2 encourages people not to use their cars when driving to work or visiting Council; underground parking includes only 20 parking spaces, but 80 bike spaces are provided (plus 9 showers for cyclists).

Financial Savings: Total financial savings of $1.45 million annually, including:

• $1.12 million through effectiveness and wellbeing improvement.
• $330,000 in electricity, gas and water

CH2 will pay for its sustainability features, worth $11.3 million, in a decade.

For more information on one of the finest examples of Australian sustainable architecture visit the City of Melbourne CH2 website. The site also includes information on the building cost.

In the wake of the VA shooting, Hardware analysis this week had a couple of articles on government regulation and video game rights. The author argues against government control over any form of entertainment, be it books, television, movies, music or video games. He feels that ratings like those given by Industry bodies (such as the Motion Picture Association of America or the Entertainment Software Rating Board) are all that is needed in terms of regulation. He also believes that sales to minors are already controlled on an individual store level through policies requiring ID checks. To complement the system further, all that is needed is parental guidance and oversight, which would be tailored to their children’s individual maturity levels.

In terms of video game rights resistance against regulation is organised in pressure groups such as the Video Game Voter’s Network, which keeps tabs on video game regulation laws that pass and fail in the United States. The group points for example to decisions by US courts that have deemed certain video game regulation bills unconstitutional; they also back up their arguments by studies showing the rate of violent crime in the US decreasing (especially amongst young people) while the popularity of video games is on the increase. The VA shooting is consequently seen as the action of a mentally disturbed individual, representing an aberration amongst the vast majority of peaceful video gamers who use violent games as entertainment and to relax by letting off steam. In other words: ‘blasting some aliens to goo or blowing up a few robots’ actually deters crime and violence by providing a safe outlet for aggressive emotions.

There is evidence that these views are as simplistic as the opposite one blaming video games for acts of violence such as the one seen in Virginia. Our individual views as well as those of public opinion shapers generally are driven by personal agendas and the sexy packaging of our beliefs. Gaming magazines will interpret research to prove that video games are harmless - because they are interested in people buying the games and their magazines. On the opposite end of the scale we have the ordinary mass media and populist politicians, both wanting to sell themselves. And since most of the public likes to jump to simplistic conclusions that on the surface seem obvious, their message that violent video games are dangerous easily finds mainstream acceptance.

Reality though is that we are dealing with a complex issue. Extreme acts of violence almost never occur in the absence of multiple risk factors, and there is a considerable body of research backing up this statement. For example, researchers say that focusing on the role of youth-oriented entertainment could mask deeper, intractable issues such as child abuse, poverty, suburban alienation, declining parental involvement and shrinking school budgets that result in fewer nurses and counselors who might interrupt the cycle of violence. Some psychologists also point out that new medications and treatments for psychiatric disorders mean that vulnerable kids are making it to campus in greater numbers than ever before.

And the complexity does not end here. We also live in a world which justifies and encourages acts of violence in many ways. Video games for example are not the only media purporting it as an answer to resolving conflicts. The very TV stations that broadcast their messages against violent video games subject us daily to movies and news items with a high content of violence. Talking about news: politicians constantly justify military and police violence and aggression in wars they wage against those that share beliefs contrary to their own.

To make matters worse: when this rationalised and glorified violence is exactly replicated in video games or movies, the same politicians all of a sudden become peaceful protectors of so-called family values. Media, politicians and other public institutions (such as churches) constantly produce mixed messages, which does not just create confusion; it actually allows people to pick and choose when it comes to making decisions for or against acts of violence, and it does not help that it is easy to accuse our public institutions of hypocrisy.

But even research is adding to the complexity of the issue. Far from being value-free, it is often driven by political and other ideological agendas. The scientific process itself is questionable because it is impossible to recreate complex realities in a laboratory environment. For example, psychology under-graduates often used in research projects, do not represent a cross section of the public; studies also have difficulties predicting the effect of games on people who consistently choose to play violent games.

Where does all that leave us in terms of understanding the effects of video games on expressions of violence in our society - without drowning in post-modernist apathy? While the notion of common sense can easily be discredited because of its lack of objectivity, maybe we could find answers in our personal intuition when looking at research evidence (and acknowledging its limitations). And it seems to me that there is no clear case against violent video games because the crux of the matter seems to lie in the synergies created between the nature of the games, the individual personalities and circumstances of the players, and the structure of our society.

One research outcome is that mild-mannered people seem to be much less affected by the games than very angry people. These findings are not surprising; they were reported also in other studies of media-related aggression. They also seem to correlate with our life experience: if we provoke an angry person he or she are going to lash out, whereas if we provoke a non-angry person they’re not. Something similar seems true for violent video games: there is a good chance that when an ‘angry’ player is ‘virtually’ provoked, he is much more likely to lash out at targets that aren’t directly related to that provocation once the game controller is switched off.

Other research outside of video games also suggests that violent games do not neutralise aggression. The opposite seems to be the case: ‘punching a pillow’ strategies for example make people more upset in the long run. If the opposite would be true, there wouldn’t be a need for therapists - we could just bash a pillow or play a game and we’re cured or at least fine.

So, what’s a possible bottom line? Staying away from video games if your child or you are angry; they can potentially lead to more violently reactions outside the game - at least in the short term. Seeing and taking part in virtual violence does not desensitise but makes us more upset, which can be dangerous for people with internal violent tendencies. That’s the small picture.

The big and important one though is our value system plus the ways we build, structure and evolve our society. In other words, as long as we continue to propagate poverty, reproduce social and economic injustice, breed racial and religious hatred and wage wars under the banner of delusionary self-importance and economic greed, we will have violence and crime. And since there are no signs for radical systemic change globally and next to no inspiring examples on local levels, we will just have to live with these acts of violence for a long time to come. Our scientific and technological intelligence evolution seem to move forward in big strides, but our sensitivity, compassion and peacefulness still lives in the dark ages.

Some useful links

Games Do Cause Violent Behavior (But Not Much)

Virginia Shooting Restarts Media Blame Game

Psychologists Publish 3 New Studies On Violent Video Game Effects On Youths

Video Game Violence: A Review of the Empirical Literature

The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance …

Video games and aggression (Penn/Tags)