Skip to main content

IVCA Clarion Awards

Yesterday was the IVCA Clarion Awards at the BFI in London. It spans a wide range of communication media - film, video, TV, radio, posters and... yes, books, all covering areas of social responsibility/ethics/environment.

I went along because my book Ecologic had been shortlisted in the book category. It was an interesting experience. Not too different from your standard awards ceremony as you see on TV, but winners were strongly discouraged from making a speech - they mostly just took the award, posed for a photo and got off, which meant it all went very briskly.

Books were towards the end of the list - while waiting with increasing tension, some of the clips shown of the visual entries were fascinating, particularly a series of short films in the style of The Sims for Holocaust Awareness - brilliantly done - and a viral campaign about child pregnancy.

When it came to the books there were three other strong contenders, so I was genuinely shocked when Ecologic won and I had to go up and collect the award.

Sorry this is such a 'here is what I did' post, but I think I'm still slightly in shock.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Clare Dudman26 September 2009 at 10:31

    Wow, congratulations, Brian!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sue Guiney26 September 2009 at 11:40

    Brian, I'm so glad you told us. How exciting! This is really wonderful for you. Congratulations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wendy Williams26 September 2009 at 13:13

    Well done Brian, that is brilliant news!

    ReplyDelete
  4. John Quirk27 September 2009 at 09:24

    Excellent news, Brian, nice one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian Clegg28 September 2009 at 08:59

    Thanks all for your kind comments.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Angela Saini28 September 2009 at 12:48

    Congratulations Brian! Totally deserved!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cath@VWXYNot?28 September 2009 at 18:54

    Congratulations!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more