Images have a particular intent & function but do not always achieve dominant or preferred readings. This is what I am experiencing with my practice. The whole point of my project is to act on light pollution and the impact that this has on our climate and night skies. My intent however is somewhat misinterpreted and controversial. The highly pollution areas are artistically pleasing in their presence alone. Therefore, it is hard to change my viewer’s interpretation.
A strategy I will implement will be that of text and sub headings in order of merit. For example, Inner-City: Town-City Transition: Urban: Semi Urban: Semi Rural: Rural: Dark Skies etc. to visually inform the levels of light pollution to my viewers. I am unware if this will be successful or not as I am yet to test the waters.
I was contemplating using more graphical images to show the impact on climate change, this would however move away from my overall proposed project. According to the Colin Fernandez Science Correspondent for The Daily Mail: The amount of artificial light produced at night is growing 6 per cent a year and light pollution is making trees bud a week earlier in cities than the countryside. By keeping the context and positioning of my practice, I am steered to the solution of what can be done? Incorporating images – time lapses of how we can reduce light pollution would be more beneficial. Comparing areas with and without directional light shades, efficient light bulbs but most importantly sensor lighting.
This will inevitably open my practice to more than one subject and could easily be manipulated or used in more ways than one. Ethically speaking I would find it hard for it to be used other than its sole purpose. Depending on future legislations, the impact "could" affect business’s. If they are deemed to be light polluting would have an onset economic impact. But wouldn’t the overall savings in energy and to the climate, surely outweigh the initial financial impact on that said business?