jessrees

{disclaimer: this entry does not claim to be scientifically accurate in any way}
this is part of an installation i did for the installation class I'm in. its a model loosely based off of the chemical reaction that occurs in photosynthesis. this involves co2, h20 and light on one side (the light is represented by the transparent window which allows light to pass) and 02, h20 and c6h612 or something like that on the other side. this whole thing produces simple sugars which are the lowest level of energy needed for higher animal lifeforms. plants have the highest efficiency in using energy from its source, which is the sun. each time an animals eats plants 10 percent of the original energy formed by the plant is gained by the animal. each time an animal eats an animal that ate plants, 10 percent of the energy in the animal is gotten, so only 10 percent of 10 percent... and so on up the chain. apparently this is why we should all be vegetarian and thus we will will save the world but not wasting energy by raising animals to eat.

anyway.. the project
i was going for amateur science project, which i think went across well. i also did a bit of light research (that is apparently a pun). So perhaps this could be seen as bit of a science project. so that brings up the question about 'why is it art, not a science project?" well i think the answer there is that i created it with art in mind, not science. however... i did not like the outcome much. i dont think it represents my better work and i will not pursue this project any longer.


also.. is there a difference between subtlety & nuance and flying under the radar?
i think so. right?