My work straddles non-objectivist and abstractionist approaches to art production. Abstraction uses the real to interpret and reinterpret the known world, while a non-objective method refuses the real and instead uses the elements of art to make art, disregarding the actual.  This construct is similar to the relationship between popular, classical music, and jazz. Difference here is presented through these forms. Why is abstraction misunderstood and jazz so readily understood? I suggest that because African Americans invented jazz its non-objectivity and abstraction are taken for granted and abstraction is presumed a European construction  Abstraction in the visual and plastic arts is misrecognized as incomprehensible when in fact, abstraction in the visual is imbued with similar elements as jazz; elements such as call and response, movement,, and color create, and orchestrate a compositional whole that results in a musical composition or a two dimensional composition of color, lines, and shapes.

There continue to be few African American artists involved in abstraction because of its poor reception by multiple communities.  I assert that non-objective art was developed out of African motifs, (remember Picasso’s appropriation of African motifs for Les Demoiselles d’Avignon?).  Aaron Douglas was the first American, and African American, to make use of African motifs. His work should be understood as non-objective in design and abstract in content. Earlier I stated that abstraction refers to the real, Douglas’ stylized figures were abstract, and his background geometric forms non-objective. Contemporary African American abstract/non-objective art’s historicism is grounded in the work of Aaron Douglas.

It has always been a penchant of mine to look at the particulars of what I see around me and reinterpret them. I use various scientific theories developed out of astrophysics, microbiology, space-time and mathematics. I wonder about cognitive science and how the eye interprets what we see; what do those signs and signifiers mean? Can the signs we take for granted be understood in some other way?

In my latest work, “The Butterfly House” and “Hoot and Holler,” I use natural forms. The forms lend themselves to becoming other than that which they are. Rocks have their own history and evolutionary processes; they make their way up to the surface by natural forces, or by human beings unearthing them. They are heavy, smooth, rough and bound, too, by gravity. Yet in the mind and hands of someone like me, rocks can fly through the air, through space. What is the color of a rock? Can the color of a rock that flies, leaving the earth’s orbit, change its nature, its color? In the hands and mind of some, that rock laden and buried attains agency, and with the help of an artist whose effort is to make something a little bit interesting opens a door to a new way of being, thinking and looking.

Research on psychedelic substances is re-emerging. Here we review chemical and physiological effects in addition to medical uses for psychedelic substances. The most common substances included here as psychedelics are lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin, and peyote. Safety is the priority underlying the majority of the following studies.

Pile driving associated with the removal and reconstruction of a jetty was monitored at a busy harbor in the North East of Scotland, adjacent to an important Atlantic salmon river. The main concern was with the impact of noise upon salmon migrating through the lower part of the river estuary. Pile driving was allowed to proceed subject to an agreed program of works to monitor sound levels and ensure least disturbance to salmon. Both percussive and vibratory pile driving took place. Sound-pressure levels from both were measured. Percussive pile driving involved the repeated striking of the head of a steel pile by a double-acting hydraulic hammer, with a 5 tonne ram weight operated with a mean stroke of about 1 m. Vibratory pile driving was achieved by means of a variable eccentric vibrator attached to the head of the pile. The majority of piles were initially driven into the substrate by vibration, over a period of several minutes. Each pile was then subsequently driven to its full depth with a sequence of repeated hammer blows. Steel facing piles were inserted adjacent to the quayside and subsequently backfilled to provide a new frontage to the quay. Diagonal-bearing piles were also inserted well behind the quay to strengthen the adjacent roadway. Sound pressure levels generated by pile driving in water were measured using a calibrated hydrophone suspended 1 m above the bottom. The hydrophone was connected to a low-noise amplifier, which controlled the signal gain and bandwidth. The output was connected to a laptop PC by a digital audio interface. When recording at close range, where sound levels were especially high, a less-sensitive hydrophone transducer was used, connected directly to the audio interface. All sound recordings were made as 16-bit WAV files. For some of the piles, particle-velocity amplitudes were measured by means of an assembly of three orthogonally mounted, calibrated geophones placed on the seabed. The sound-pressure levels (SPL) of the background noise and vibro-piling noise were measured as a root-mean-square (rms) level expressed in decibels relative to a reference level of one micro Pascal (dB re 1μPa). The shorter-duration impulsive sounds generated by the individual blows of the pile-driver hammer were measured in several different ways: the peak pressure reached during the impulse, the rms pressure measured over the time period that contained 90% of the sound energy (rms impulse), and as the sound-exposure level (SEL) expressed in dB re 1μPa2-s. The latter was defined as the constant sound level of 1s duration that would contain the same acoustic energy as the original sound. Sound levels were converted to source levels (SL), i.e., normalized to an equivalent noise level at a distance of 1 m. In all SL calculations, it was assumed that the spreading loss was represented by the expression 15 log R where R was the distance in meters. Received sound level in water may be expressed in terms of sound pressure, particle velocity, or intensity, all of which can vary with time over the duration of the sound. In this study, the majority of measurements were expressed in terms of sound pressure. However, it was recognised that it was really necessary to determine the particle velocities as this is the stimulus which is received by the ear of a fish like the salmon. On a few occasions, the particle velocities were measured and the acoustic intensity calculated. Background-noise levels within the harbor and even within the river itself were high, within the range 118 – 149 dB re1μPa rms over a bandwidth of 10 Hz-10 kHz. Much of the noise derived from manoeuvring and stationary ships. The sound-pressure levels generated in water by percussive pile driving were very high, but variable depending on the pile type, the substrate being penetrated, the distance from the source, and whether the bubble curtain was in operation. Within the harbor, they ranged from 142-176 dB re 1μPa peak, with sound exposure levels (SELs) of between 133-154 dB re 1μPa2-s, without the bubble curtain in operation. Estimated source levels ranged from 177-202 dB re 1μPa peak. Within the river, more than 220 meters away from the pile driver and separated from it by a spit of land, the soundpressure levels reaching the fish ranged from 162-168 dB re1μPa peak, with SELs of between 129-145 dB re 1μPa2-s. Sounds measured at a distance from the source within the harbor consisted of a low-frequency pre-pulse, followed by the main sound pulse. In this case, and in the river itself, the sound was propagated through the substrate, as well as the water, perhaps accompanied by flexural waves at interfaces between strata. Particle velocities within the harbor and in the river reached 110 dB re 1 nms-1, mainly in a vertical direction, and intensities of up to 0.023 Wm-2 were registered. Chapter 2 22 ICOET 2005 Proceedings The main energy generated by the percussive pile driver extended up to and above 10 kHz close to the source, with most of the energy below 2 kHz. By the time the sound reached the river the higher frequencies had been removed and the predominant frequencies were below 1 kHz, still with considerable energy within the hearing range of salmon (which declines above 250 Hz). Vibro-piling also generated high sound levels in water, with sound-pressure levels within the harbor ranging from 142- 155 dB re1μPa rms and source levels between 173-185 dB re 1μPa rms. Levels in the river ranged from 140-143 dB re 1μPa rms. A bubble curtain was successful in reducing the peak amplitude of the sound from the pile driver by up to 5 dB and in reducing the high-frequency content of the sound. The bubbles therefore reduced the likelihood of damage or injury to fish. However, they did not reduce energy at the lower frequencies to which fish are sensitive, especially at a distance from the source. The principal purpose of monitoring the pile driving was to assess the impact upon salmon. There is some controversy and uncertainty about the actual levels of pile-driving sound which affect fish adversely. It is evident that sound affects different species to a differing degree. Thus, although in some instances a level of 180 db re1μPa has been adopted as a standard, above which sounds are likely to kill or cause damage to fish, this is a very uncertain figure which is open to question. It was concluded that the sound pressure levels (SPLs) and sound exposure levels (SELs) generated by percussive pile driving within the harbor were not likely to have killed fish, whether the fish were within the river or the harbor itself. However, the sound levels were high enough close to the pile driver to injure or induce hearing loss in some species of fish. The noise from pile driving in the harbor was certainly high enough to be detected by salmon in the river at considerable distances from the source. The levels of sound from both percussive and vibro-piling were well above the hearing thresholds of the fish. As salmon could not be observed during this exercise, it was not possible to determine whether salmon reacted adversely to the sounds. However, there was a risk that their upstream migration may have been delayed or prevented with consequent effects upon spawning populations. The measurements indicated that any pile driving within the river itself would have the potential to injure or induce hearing loss in salmon and might have adverse effects upon their behavior. During this exercise, trains of low frequency ‘thumping’ sounds were recorded within the River Dee, similar to those made by fish. The sounds may be emitted by European eels, which are common at the location.

Aim Geographic variation in the species richness of birds has been shown to be strongly associated with annual water and energy levels (actual evapotranspiration, AET) at the global scale. However, the gradient in eastern North America appears to be anomalous, because richness is greatest around the Great Lakes, whereas AET is highest in the south-eastern US. Here I examine if birds may be responding to vegetation produced during the breeding season rather than to annual production. Location North America east of longitude 98degrees W. Methods The bird richness pattern was examined using climatic variables, remotely sensed estimates of annual and seasonal plant biomass, and time since areas were exposed by the retreating Laurentide ice sheet from 20,000 to 6000 yr BP. Results Average summer GVI (Global Vegetation Index, derived from NDVI) was found to be positively linearly associated with richness, explaining 82% of the variance, whereas the relationships between richness and annual measures of both AET and GVI were curvilinear. The pattern of retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet explained an additional 6% of the variance in richness, consistent with a previous analysis of Canadian birds. Main conclusions In eastern North America, a seasonal variable associated with plant production explains the diversity gradient rather than the annual measures, but it does not undermine a general conclusion that bird diversity is closely linked with plant biomass. Further, both contemporary and historical factors appear to influence the gradient, and an association between bird richness and the geographic pattern of glacial retreat is detectable in both climatic and plant-biomass models of bird diversity.