So, I'm currently taking a Fine Art Class on Contemporary Photography Processes. Last week our assignment was to create a conceptual image. In class we'd reviewed the work of the feminist Barbara Kruger, who was not so much known for her photography, as she was known for the images that she put together to portray a message.
I didn't go into my assignment intending to emulate her style, however this image is very strongly influenced by many of her works.
I decided to touch on the topic of compact florescent's... are they worth it? We personally have refused to purchase them for our household, and I see no logical reason why we ever would. Why?
To name a few reasons:
#1. They Contain Mercury
#2. Because of reason number one, to properly clean up after a broken bulb, a hazardous waste removal team needs to be contracted out, on average costing about $2,000
#3. They cause the same radiation poising as Ultra Violet Rays (there is research that suggests this is minimalized through an added protective layer of glass, however I'm not sure I'm convinced enough to still go through with these)
#4. They emit a very unpleasant color tone
#5. They take a while to warm up
#6. They are not 'environmentally' safe to dispose of, and very difficult to dispose of properly
Not all of those are major reasons, however reason enough for a product I'm paying for, and living with in my home. There is a larger list of reasons, but this is the quick version.
Therefore I chose the slogan, 'Dying to save', proposing the perplexing irony of the potential risks that are presented, within a well accepted 'energy saver'.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-dangerous
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110706144459.htm
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23694819/#.URy99hG9KK0
