Documentary and Photojournalism - JM1303

A Day in the Life of Homeless Jack 

          A Documentary Photographic Profile by Nicola South 

A Day in the Life of Homeless Jack showcases my experiences with the homeless person that is Jack. I met Jack in my time of working in Winchester. My experiences with Jack have been very emotional for me and they have changed they way I feel about life day to day. I gained a particular appreciation for having somewhere to go at the end of each of each day, unlike Jack. I have learned that living life on the street is unpleasant and unsafe, as you probably expect. I hope my photographic profile will open your eyes to a new understanding of the homeless. I must make it clear that I had full permission from Jack before I made this profile.

A cold start to the day is something Jack faces every morning

Alone. . . 

Some people were generous. . .Today

When night falls, it becomes even more lonely.

Trying to find that moment of escape is the only way for Jack to get through

Sleeping rough really isn't comfortable or warm

I hope that my snapshots have given a brief understanding of homeless life.

William Cobbett

During the 19th century England was experiencing a period of great change which would lead to one of the biggest revolutions in history- the industrial revolution. Agriculture began to decline leading to mass famine and new cities such as Birmingham and Manchester started to emerge as the industrial centres. During the revolution nearly all traces of agriculture and farming were destroyed. The army known as the “Red Coats” destroyed the land all across Britain so that farmers were unable to produce crops or use the land for grazing. Scotland was particularly hit by this as most of their trade came from wool and hunting; when this particular industry was destroyed they were left helpless and forced many Scottish farmers to migrate to either lower parts of the country such as Hampshire to farm or to Canada and The USA.

William Cobbett who was an English Journalist produced a series of articles relating to this change which were published in his 1830 book “Rural Rides”. This article documents Cobbett’s journey around the lower parts of England detailing how bad the situation for farmers had become from the point of view of the farmer. He witnessed tens of thousands of peasants who were struggling to survive and had no option but to migrate to the cities to find factory work.  All this change was due to Corn Laws. Corn Laws were laws brought in to help protect the price of corn, barley, wheat and oats in Britain against that of foreign imports. Through the influence of his papers, he helped to change the Corn Laws and abolish them. In 1844 a law was introduced whereby people were forced to find work in cities otherwise they would be placed in a workhouse where they would eventually starve and die.

Also at the time of Cobbett, we see the growth of socialist philosophies and other movements.
Dickens's voice was one of many helped bring about these changes. He did this through many of his stories on London and how people lived, for example, workhouses and children’s lives in Oliver Twist and the state of the roads and buildings and the idea that people had to sweep the pavements so women could cross them, in Bleak House.

Prometheus? Beethoven? Shelley? Keats?

Having a guest Lecturer for today’s lecture gave me a new perspective on the history of journalism. In today’s lecture, Dr Gary Fennell explained how poetry, music and literature played a vital role in the development of what we call ‘journalism’ today.

A key point of his lecture was the mythological figure that is Prometheus. Prometheus, in Greek mythology, was the ‘Titan’ who created mankind. This was a task given to him by Zeus; he was to create a ‘being or person’ with clay and water in the image of the gods that could have a spirit breathed into it. Prometheus taught man to hunt, how to read and heal themselves if they were unwell. But Prometheus tricked Zeus into believing that mankind would be able to give the gods some sort of offering, Zeus kept fire from mankind. Prometheus, being the creature, took back the fire from Zeus to give to man. This is where he gets the name ‘Bringer of Fire’. Zeus punished him by chaining him to a rock where a vulture would slowly peck out his liver for an eternal sentence, only would he be free when Hercules released him. Because Prometheus was one of the gods, he was immortal; therefore his liver would grow back each day for the vulture to peck away. Some see Prometheus as the champion of oppressed human kind and he was the saviour, liberating the people by giving them fire. The story of Prometheus is a central part in most important literature and musical works.

Beethoven, the German Composer, wrote a ballet called Creatures of Prometheus in 1801. This particular Ballet was highly regarded in the Romantic period. Some called it a master piece others said it lacked originality. The combination of devices that expressed classical style and devices that a commonly found in the Romantic period, I feel, links it to Prometheus because it is an expression of freedom and that is what Prometheus did for the people by giving them fire, even though the action of doing so got him severely punished. Beethoven could have ruined his musical reputation by experimenting in this way, but it didn’t stop him.

Mary Shelley was a substantial part of influencing writing throughout British history. Her famous novel Frankenstein was highly influenced by the Greek myth that is Prometheus as it is considered as a ‘modern’ Prometheus (it’s also the novel’s subtitle). This is due to the ‘warning’ that Shelley is alluding to throughout this novel to the Industrial Revolution and how intelligent mankind will become. This sort of intelligence is similar to that in which we gained form Prometheus giving us fire. Prometheus in the stories parallels Victor Frankenstein. Victor's work by creating man by new means reflects the same innovative work of the Prometheus in creating humans. Victor, in a way, stole the secret of creation from God just like Prometheus stole fire from Zeus to give to man. Both Prometheus and Victor were punished for their creations. Victor loses people close to him as a result of his ‘monster’ and has to suffer a death by him.

Mary’s father Percy Shelley was also an influential writer of this period. One of his famous works is the sonnet Ozymandius. Although this has nothing to do with Prometheus, Ozymandius was a powerful man and Shelley’s writings about him influenced journalism today. Ozymandius, or as we know him Rameses II, was an Egyptian ruler from the 13^th Century BC. He was a proud “King of Kings”. The British museum has sculpture of Ozymandius which was the inspiration for Shelley’s Sonnet. Because the statue in the museum is broken in places, this symbolises Ozymandius’ empire not being his anymore. It is a common quality of a sonnet to celebrate a subject, the celebration in this sonnet links to the irony that his empire is now a blank and empty landscape. Parts of this poem also allude to the power of the British Empire. The inspiration for this poem came from the British Museum, where this statue, a symbol of power has been encased like a prisoner, showing more power by the British. Lines such as “Half sunk, a shattered visage lies” could also be linked to the events in Egypt today with the Egyptian Revolution and the fall of the Egyptian Dictator Hosni Mubarak.

Thanks to another visit to the British Museum we have another influential piece of poetry, this time from the famous English poet John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn. This time however, the inspiration for this poem came from The Townley Vase, a Roman vase from the 2^nd Century BC found in a Roman Villa in Monte Cagnolo. The poem is written in the form of an Ode, divided into five stanzas made up of ten lines each. The ode contains a person’s perspective on a series of designs on the urn. A common quality of an Ode is to signify a self conscious cleverness and wit through artistic creation, it takes a great deal of skill to write a good one and Keats used this one as an opportunity to write a piece of poetry that would have the same value or purpose as a painting or work or art and demonstrate his poetic skills. The poem ends with the notion of beauty and truth. These last two lines are as if the urn is talking to the reader. And on a final point about the poem, it is, similarly to Mary Shelley’s poem, it is a response to the Industrial Revolution. 

The Dreyfus Affair and Emile Zola's J'Accuse

The news, especially lately with the death of Osama Bin Laden, is littered by conspiracy theories from various sources, some with evidence, others with some barmy – un educated - American telling us what they ‘think they saw’. From today’s lecture I learned that conspiracy theories haven’t just appeared in the last few years. Even back in the 19^th Century, they made something of an impact. The great farce that was the Dreyfus Affair, which I’m ashamed to say I’d never heard of until today’s lecture, is a prime example of this. Whilst listening to Brian tell the tale of this disgraceful miscarriage of justice, I truly remember thinking “How can the French Government AND Army let this happen? More to the point, how could they be behind such a thing?” 

Alfred Dreyfus was at epicentre of possibly the biggest miscarriage of justice in French and European history. When important French documents were found in a waste paper bin in the German Embassy, the French Army knew they had a traitor amongst them; someone in the Army was giving away classified information to their German opponents.  To solve this case the French army looked for someone to blame. This is where Dreyfus comes into the equation. Although he was a hard working officer for the French Army because of his Jewish faith he was chosen to have the blame pinned on him. Alfred Dreyfus, once convicted, was to suffer some of the worst punishment any human being could endure, let alone an innocent man should ever go through.  He was sent to Devil’s Island, a deserted piece of land in which they’d built a roofless cell for him to rot in. In his time in the almost hellish prison, he was chained whilst he slept, fed appalling amounts off mineral-less food and was prevented the freedom to talk causing him to lose the ability of speech. To top it off for Dreyfus before being sent to what could have been his death, he was publicly humiliated. When he was charged, the French Army leaders took his medals away from him and broke his sword in front of the rest of military staff. This is possibly the most degrading thing for a soldier to endure. The sentencing of Dreyfus caused France to almost separate into two sides; the side to prove the innocence of Dreyfus, and the side against his freedom, the Dreyfusards and the anti-Dreyfusards.

Germany at this time, had just won the war. This, along with the problems amongst the French Army (the reason Dreyfus was wrongly accused and sent to Devil’s Island), would make France a very miserable place for a very long time. Germany wanted Alsace Lorraine, a place on the border almost in which was originally German owned but became French territory. During this time, the rich people of Paris fled to other places, leaving the poor people to survive and pick up the pieces of broken Paris. The poor people were being robbed of everything, forced to eat street animals such as rodents to survive. When the rich returned to France, the poverty stricken population were to take another pounding. The rich expected their tenants to pay rent for the time they’d been away and the up and coming month.  This led to the people starting a group called The Paris Commune. They did this as a way to find a new order of running things the way they wanted them to be run. This ‘council’ reminded me of the Bohemians from the musical We Will Rock You in that they were trying to rebel against the higher authority to stand up for what they believe in and do what’s best for the country. This Commune allowed the workers to take over and run the city. Socialists majorly made up the group and wanted to separate the state from the church in order to achieve things like making nurseries and abolish working at night. This didn’t sit well with the French Army and they targeted the working class when they went on a giant killing spree. They shot majority of the population but most of their victims were women, mainly because they were either a feminist or suspected of being a feminist, and even children. This is a fine example of how ruthless and cruel the state can be if they want to be. 

At the end of this fighting period in Paris, another officer in the French Army, Lt. Col. Georges Picquart, accused Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, another member of the French army, based on finding letters with the same handwriting of that on the important documents found in the German Embassy. Esterhazy was later taken to court based on this evidence.  He was then acquitted; regardless of the fact he was guilty. He was acquitted because the court in which he was put in front of were of French Army status and if he was found guilty the whole French Army, especially the top officers that were responsible for covering up this scandal and sending Dreyfus to that god-forsaken-island, would have to also be punished causing an even greater humiliation than they put upon Dreyfus. To achieve this, a member of the council forged documents to ensure his safety and Lt. Picquart was sent to serve in Africa to ensure his silence.

This is where Émile Zola, a French writer comes into the Dreyfus affair. Shortly after the hearing with Esterhazy, Zola wrote an article that would flip the case on its head and hugely impact journalism today. Zola was utterly infuriated by this miscarriage of justice and so wrote the famous article that is J’Accuse. J’Accuse, meaning I accuse, was aimed at the high officials that sent Dreyfus to Devil’s Island without finding true evidence against him accusing them of obstruction of justice and anti-Semitism. This article risked his entire career as he found out after the article succeeded on the front page of the Paris Daily L’Aurore.  Zola was brought to trial for criminal libel in 1898, and was convicted, sentenced and removed from the Legion of Honor (a legion established by Napoleon for those who show “excellent civil or military conduct delivered, upon official investigation”). To avoid going to prison however, Zola fled to England and returned to France in 1899. Because of all the chaos that J’Accuse had caused Dreyfus was ordered back to France for a re-trial. This re-trial was one of the biggest and most circulated of media events. Many countries had representative reporters to get coverage of the trial. It was so intense that Dreyfus’s solicitor was shot in the back during the trial; the culprit was un-obtained as the police refused to help Dreyfus’ supporters.  During this media circus Dreyfus was found guilty again with “extenuating circumstances” meaning there is no evidence to prove that he did or didn't do it. Eventually Dreyfus was pardoned but this left his followers in turmoil as they then questioned why they followed him in the first place as he accepted the pardon and fight even further for the truth to be found. This wasn't the end however, the far right part of France were to become even more racist than and just as cruel as the Nazis. They wanted to be as extreme as the Nazis were with the Jewish, Dreyfus was just the start. And just to add salt to the wound, later in the Second World War Dreyfus’ granddaughter died in Auschwitz.

The Dreyfus affair was a key example of how powerful the media can be and how the media is a voice for the people. One opinionated letter changed history. I don’t think one voice could be that powerful or influential today but i do believe the media educate and sway the minds of the public more than higher authority, like the government, do. Newspapers today were responsible for the MPs expenses exposé which changed the entire public opinions on our government. If the media didn’t do that, this country would be in more of a mess than they are now. The media may be cruel sometimes but it does what is needed, just like Zola did. He spoke up for what he believed in.

The Romantic Period

‘Romantic’ is a word that is usually associated with love, passion and the heart. So surely that is to be expected of the Romantic Period? Umm. . . No, not really. A major theme of the Romantic period that I gathered from the lecture was the idea of being free, or having ‘pure’ freedom. A main contributor to this idea, or theory if you like, was Jean- Jacques Rousseau. 

Rousseau’s main inspiration for his theories came from his love of nature. He believed that was the answer to everything that humans searched for. Whilst spending a lot of his time at the mountains in Switzerland, he developed the idea that the ‘real’ cannot be found in books, it can only be found in nature. 

Rousseau was completely anti-reason. From his experiences with nature he believed true reason and real truth was developed from emotion and feeling. Also from his experiences with nature, he believed civilisation has corrupted people and people need to lose traits like manners, fashion and manufacturing of items to achieve true freedom, innocence and beauty. People without civilisation or the influence of these things are pure and fully human. This, to Rousseau was what people or human kind should be like.

In order to have his theories and ideas heard, he sent his book to Voltaire. Voltaire was a French Enlightenment writer, historian and philosopher famous for his advocacy of civil liberties, including freedom of religion and free trade. Voltaire responded by saying “After reading your book, one feels as if one should walk on all fours”.  The idea of having no civilisation would send me down the same trail of thought. Becoming primitive sounds like my idea of hell but Rousseau believed that this was true freedom and it was the only way he would be happy.

Although he believed all this, he understood and accepted that there was no going back to this original, almost Neanderthal state of being. It takes a lot for someone to admit when they are wrong, but Rousseau pointed out flaws in his theory as well as suggesting that this was the way people should live. He said the major flaw in his theory was self-esteem. Self-esteem is what stops us from walking about naked without feeling a sense of embarrassment. He says self-esteem is responsible for constantly putting us down therefore not giving us the confidence to accept who we are naturally.

I think Rousseau’s theory meant well and possibly could work in small areas of the world such as tribal parts of the Amazon etc, but people are far too comfortable with civilisation, they won’t want anything other than what they consider as ‘normal’. 

Journalism Week 4 - Seminar on Kant

What we already know from the chapter:

            Locke

·         Believed that there were three way of clarifying what we class as knowledge

o   The ability to be Intuitive of our own knowledge

o   The ability to be demonstrative of God’s knowledge

o   The ability to be sensitive of things present to sense

·         Simple ideas are the product of things operating on the mind in a natural way

·         And what I can gather from the chapter, being inconsistent helps develop ideas

Berkeley

·         Only minds and our ideas are what is real

·         Wanted to abolish the physical, external world

·         Didn’t deny god’s knowledge but was held back from doing so because of his own feelings towards the religion

Hume

·         Denied the idea of ‘self’

·         Felt doubts in the idea of induction and causation (ignoring common cause)

·         He accepted Berkeley’s idea of abolishing physical matter

·         Couldn’t argue that impressions or experiences give knowledge

Rousseau

He came at a time when people, especially men (that’s what the book said before anyone thinks I’m making a sexist comment) were growing tired of hearing about reason. Rousseau believed in letting the heart decide or answer questions the head found doubtful. Because of this outlook, as of 1750, letting the heart make decisions that the head couldn't became more and more popular with great thinkers. However under the

power of Napoleon the head AND the hearts were silenced.

This idea links to the song "Head and the Heart" by "Chris De Burgh" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB7NVlPPXsk

 

The reason I have mentioned all of the above is because they all were great influences in the way that Kant created his theories and ideas.

Kant

            MAIN PHILOSOPHY = HEART OVER HEAD 

Kant is considered a great importance throughout modern philosophy.

An important feature of Kant’s life is that he abandoned his education of the Leibniz’s Philosophy. He did this because of the influences of Rousseau and Hume, namely the concept of causality.

Kant admired Rousseau’s work and often described it as beautiful. In the chapter, it states that he had to read his works several times over because he was distracted by the beauty of the presentation and structure. Kant’s main philosophy was clearly influenced by Rousseau as it is practically the same.

His principle: ‘there can be nothing more dreadful than that the actions of a man should be subject to the will of another’

Kant’s early works were more concerned with science than Philosophy. For example, he wrote a theory on Earthquakes after an earthquake in Lisbon.  This was part of his most important scientific writings “General Natural History and Theory of Heaven (1755)”. Also in these writings he talks about Laplace’s Nebular Hypothesis and he discusses a possible origin of the solar system. He believed all planets were inhabited and the furthest away planets had the best inhabitants. However, he couldn’t support any of his theories with scientific evidence, leading people to over look his statements.

As well as writing scientific theories, he wrote treatise on the sublime and beautiful, much like Rousseau. He had these examples to explain his beliefs on what was sublime and what was beautiful:

·         Night is sublime and day is beautiful

·         Sea is sublime and land is beautiful

·         Man is sublime and woman is beautiful

Baring in mind that the definition of beautiful is “very pleasing and impressive to look at, listen to, touch, smell or taste” and the definition of sublime is “so awe-inspiringly beautiful as to seem almost heavenly” these statements, I feel, can be questioned but they are however relatively true.

The most important book Kant has written is the “The Critique of pure Reason”. This books purpose was to prove that although we cannot get more knowledge without experience, it is existing in the mind independently (a priori) and we draw conclusions influenced by our experiences.

The part of our knowledge that is ‘a priori’ embraces logic. He believed that there were four types of propositions.

Analytic Propositions: something that describes an action or quality of an object. E.g. A tall man is a man. The aim of an analytic proposition is so it cannot be contradicted.

Synthetic propositions: ones that aren’t analytic – things we know only through experience are synthetic. E.g. “Tuesday was a wet day”

Empirical Propositions: something we find out through another’s perception. Facts of history or geography or laws of science are empirical as our mind relies on observational data.

‘A priori’ propositions: something we learn from experience, but are used so frequently we no longer require an example to refer from. For example a child may learn 2+2=4 by using 2 marbles and putting them together with another 2 marbles. The child will eventually grasp this concept of maths and no longer need marbles to count and apply maths to them.

His view on God:

Kant believed it is a practical necessity to have a belief in god. God cannot be separated from the relation to happiness. He is the supreme God. He believed religion to be natural or naturalistic. He saw reason as a natural thing and parts of Christianity are based loosely on reason and morality, therefore this provided his religious beliefs. He sometimes however questioned this idea too. He believed that Christianity is natural but can be un-naturalistic because it fails to allow room for the belief of the super-natural.

“if god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him”

England Rich. . Ummm. . .How?

Empiricist Adam Smith questioned England’s sudden increase in wealth. Too right. If you don’t ask, you don’t know right? He questioned this in his book Wealth of Nations, the first book of economic theory and proclaimed “a manifesto for the private property, free trade and free markets”. The American Revolution in 1776 led to the American Declaration of Independence where the phrase: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." can be found. The English Civil war was based on freedom of people making their own fortune for themselves not the state, which came from this phrase. The English fought against taxation believing there should be no taxation; people should keep the wealth they earn. Before the Civil War there was a ship tax to build new ships. This meant each ship built was owned by the King and could only be used for his purposes e.g., transporting goods. This also meant these ships were big, heavy and slow. This, along with the fall of mercantilism, was abolished as a result of the English Civil War.

This then brings me back to Adam Smith, the founding father of capitalism. Smith argued that, just like in the Civil War that wealth created by an individual should be used by that said individual, rather than giving it to the King and the State. This could possibly be seen as selfish but Smith argued that the natural greed of people would cause the money to flow back into the economy and other parts of the community. He also argued that whatever the government do, no matter how well they mean to do, it never seems to have the public’s best interests at the centre. This applies today, especially with the student finance nonsense. So well said Adam Smith, for predicting to us how our government would be.