More at Cameramusica.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
True Thanksgiving
The legacy of Norman Rockwell
Freedom from Want. By Norman Rockwell, 1943
True Thanksgiving, I think, makes us consider why and how we give thanks. Every nation is in danger of resuming the malignant forces that overtook Europe during the first half of last century. I thought that a simple analysis of two paintings might make this point clearer: Adolf Wissel's Farm Family From Kahlenberg, painted in 1939, and Norman Rockwell's Freedom from Want, painted in 1943.
From a post originally made on October 31, 2005, appropriately mid-way between the American and the Canadian Thanksgiving Holidays.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Family Portraits: Adolf Wissel vs. Norman Rockwell
While doing research on color and the history of modern art, I came across this website which talks about Hitler's abhorrence for modern art, so much so that he would set up degenerate art exhibitions to ridicule these painters.
Instead, he wanted art that glorified his Aryan concept.
Now, this type of commissioned art had nothing to do with artistic requirements, but rather with ways to disseminate Nazi propaganda.
Here is Wissel's strange, claustrophobic, family portrait, which is certainly meant to promote the happy, Aryan family life. It fails on many levels, although artistically, it is a well-composed piece.
Farm Family From Kahlenberg. By Adolf Wissel, 1939
The strangest thing about this portrait is the little boy, who is not quite in the center, and who looks directly at the viewer. Normally, one associates such a bold stare with a mature or heroic character. Not a disconcertingly young, and audacious boy.
But there are many more things going on in this picture:
1. There is no grandfather in the painting, which I'm sure is quite a deliberate omission. As though to say, we don't need our past, but must look into the future alone. It it the child-bearing women (the grandmother is present) who seem to matter more. In other words, create the world anew, by destroying it first - quite in league with the götterdämmerung for a new dawn.
I have manipulated the top picture to centralize the boy.
The bottom picture is the original.
(Click on images to view larger sizes without lines)
2. The boy is not really in the center of the original painting. If he were placed thus, he would be visually separate him from everyone else. His off-center position puts him close to his protective father.
Ironically, the picture with the centered boy is even more claustrophobic than the original, and it is the less successful design of the two.
Yet, this original composition, as well as being better designed, is really true to sentiment and psychology as well.
As the visually centered character, the boy would then really be on his own. I would suspect that the painter is projecting his own immaturity and lack of independence by avoiding this central position for the boy. But the painter still doesn't underestimate the aggressive and audacious character of the boy, making him stare at us with a bold and insolent stare.
This goes quite well with the National Socialists, who never wanted the father figure too far away, being unable to mature into independent and responsible men. But, they were aggressive, demanding and ruthless little boys at heart.
3. The women seem to have an even stronger presence here. The father's connection is with the old woman, presumably his mother. Not with his father, who is absent. And the rather burly young girl on the left is busy with her books, suggesting the more masculine role many Nazi women were to play later on. Of course the wife is the child bearer, producing both the young boy (future leader) and the young girls (a future feminist and a future mother).
4. There is no centered visual hierarchy of people here. Although the father dominates a mini-pyramid of his daughter (to the left) and his son, he is in the background. His wife seems to have some more prominence, being in the foreground, and shaping her own separate triangle. And the father's timid eye-contact with the grandmother seems to make her his center. But as mentioned, it is the staring young boy who really dominates the scene.
Various "centers" in the painting
5. There is a lively dusk sky behind. But any warmth that emanates from the golds and oranges has been negated by the huddled family in its dark clothes and dour expressions.
6. For a farm family, there is very little farm food around. Whatever is displayed is consigned to the small bottom left-hand corner of the picture. The fragile tea-cup and the girl busy with her pen and paper suggest a more sophisticated family rather than down-to-earth farmers. Even the young boy has a delicately carved horse in lieu of the real thing.
7. The horizon seems to have been flattened out as though we’re in some staged interior with a backdrop. So, the exterior may really be an interior portrait gallery, and the family just posing as farmers.
Now contrast this with the Rockwell painting.
Freedom from Want. By Norman Rockwell, 1943
1. The grandfather is the center, both pictorially and actually - there is no ambiguity about that.
2. The picture is designed in the classic pyramidal fashion, with the important figures at the top of the pyramid (grandfather and grandmother) and the rest of family widening out to the base.
3. Unlike the Wissel painting whose nature which we cannot seem to reach, Rockwell has brought nature into to the family, with the turkey, fruits and vegetables all laid out on the table. Rockwell's Nature is really abundant.
4. All the food follows the central and important axis, with the grandfather at the top.
5. Although we are indoors, there is a sense of space and light. The elongated perspective of the table with its white tablecloth connects with the white curtains on the window, which in turn promises to take us out into the sunny mid-day exterior.
6. Finally, this family seems to be fully enjoying the moment. And even the one person looking at us is doing so with a sense of fun and mischief, unlike the dour expression of the young boy in Wissel's painting.
 |
True Thanksgiving, I think, makes us consider why and how we give thanks. Every nation is in danger of resuming the malignant forces that overtook Europe during the first half of last century. I thought that a simple analysis of two paintings might make this point clearer: Adolf Wissel's Farm Family From Kahlenberg, painted in 1939, and Norman Rockwell's Freedom from Want, painted in 1943.
From a post originally made on October 31, 2005, appropriately mid-way between the American and the Canadian Thanksgiving Holidays.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Family Portraits: Adolf Wissel vs. Norman Rockwell
While doing research on color and the history of modern art, I came across this website which talks about Hitler's abhorrence for modern art, so much so that he would set up degenerate art exhibitions to ridicule these painters.
Instead, he wanted art that glorified his Aryan concept.
Now, this type of commissioned art had nothing to do with artistic requirements, but rather with ways to disseminate Nazi propaganda.
Here is Wissel's strange, claustrophobic, family portrait, which is certainly meant to promote the happy, Aryan family life. It fails on many levels, although artistically, it is a well-composed piece.
 |
The strangest thing about this portrait is the little boy, who is not quite in the center, and who looks directly at the viewer. Normally, one associates such a bold stare with a mature or heroic character. Not a disconcertingly young, and audacious boy.
But there are many more things going on in this picture:
1. There is no grandfather in the painting, which I'm sure is quite a deliberate omission. As though to say, we don't need our past, but must look into the future alone. It it the child-bearing women (the grandmother is present) who seem to matter more. In other words, create the world anew, by destroying it first - quite in league with the götterdämmerung for a new dawn.
 |
|
The bottom picture is the original.
(Click on images to view larger sizes without lines)
2. The boy is not really in the center of the original painting. If he were placed thus, he would be visually separate him from everyone else. His off-center position puts him close to his protective father.
Ironically, the picture with the centered boy is even more claustrophobic than the original, and it is the less successful design of the two.
Yet, this original composition, as well as being better designed, is really true to sentiment and psychology as well.
As the visually centered character, the boy would then really be on his own. I would suspect that the painter is projecting his own immaturity and lack of independence by avoiding this central position for the boy. But the painter still doesn't underestimate the aggressive and audacious character of the boy, making him stare at us with a bold and insolent stare.
This goes quite well with the National Socialists, who never wanted the father figure too far away, being unable to mature into independent and responsible men. But, they were aggressive, demanding and ruthless little boys at heart.
3. The women seem to have an even stronger presence here. The father's connection is with the old woman, presumably his mother. Not with his father, who is absent. And the rather burly young girl on the left is busy with her books, suggesting the more masculine role many Nazi women were to play later on. Of course the wife is the child bearer, producing both the young boy (future leader) and the young girls (a future feminist and a future mother).
4. There is no centered visual hierarchy of people here. Although the father dominates a mini-pyramid of his daughter (to the left) and his son, he is in the background. His wife seems to have some more prominence, being in the foreground, and shaping her own separate triangle. And the father's timid eye-contact with the grandmother seems to make her his center. But as mentioned, it is the staring young boy who really dominates the scene.
|
5. There is a lively dusk sky behind. But any warmth that emanates from the golds and oranges has been negated by the huddled family in its dark clothes and dour expressions.
6. For a farm family, there is very little farm food around. Whatever is displayed is consigned to the small bottom left-hand corner of the picture. The fragile tea-cup and the girl busy with her pen and paper suggest a more sophisticated family rather than down-to-earth farmers. Even the young boy has a delicately carved horse in lieu of the real thing.
7. The horizon seems to have been flattened out as though we’re in some staged interior with a backdrop. So, the exterior may really be an interior portrait gallery, and the family just posing as farmers.
Now contrast this with the Rockwell painting.
|
1. The grandfather is the center, both pictorially and actually - there is no ambiguity about that.
2. The picture is designed in the classic pyramidal fashion, with the important figures at the top of the pyramid (grandfather and grandmother) and the rest of family widening out to the base.
3. Unlike the Wissel painting whose nature which we cannot seem to reach, Rockwell has brought nature into to the family, with the turkey, fruits and vegetables all laid out on the table. Rockwell's Nature is really abundant.
4. All the food follows the central and important axis, with the grandfather at the top.
5. Although we are indoors, there is a sense of space and light. The elongated perspective of the table with its white tablecloth connects with the white curtains on the window, which in turn promises to take us out into the sunny mid-day exterior.
6. Finally, this family seems to be fully enjoying the moment. And even the one person looking at us is doing so with a sense of fun and mischief, unlike the dour expression of the young boy in Wissel's painting.
Art as Identity
We're captive to this type of mediocrity with no end in sight
The humorless identity art of half-Muslim
British artist Sarah Maple
Many times, people have asked me: "Why don't you do work that relates to your identity?"
The first time it happened, I was a little irritated thinking: "How boring! There are so many things to work on, and I have to resort to my identity?"
All the subsequent times, I just ignored them.
Well, we will never be rid of "identity art"; moderately talented people chewing over the "who am I" conundrum.
But, if I think more deeply about it, I can see where the obsession arises. "Identity art" is mostly practiced by non-Western artists who just cannot make themselves appreciate Western art. To them, like all the malefactors of the centuries - patriarchy, colonization, capitalism, whites, white men, dead white men - Western art is to be discarded for upstaging all those non-Western arts.
So, rather than appreciate, wonder at and be enchanted with the endless stream of art that is readily available, they would rather close the doors, and forever subject themselves to the mind-numbing mediocrity of finding their non-Western identity. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but their products are being sold to us as the real deal. Keep your identity, and your art, is what I say.
Here is one such practitioner of identity art. Sarah Maple, a half Muslim (non-Western), half British artist paints cartoon-like portraits of herself, celebrities, and provocative Muslim women dressed in their hijabs.
She would be half-good if she invested more time in perfecting her painting style, instead of ruminating on her elusive self.
But, she would also be better off if she made up her mind. Although I think that given the high demands of the Western heritage, she would much rather hide behind her mediocrity, and her grievance.
 |
British artist Sarah Maple
Many times, people have asked me: "Why don't you do work that relates to your identity?"
The first time it happened, I was a little irritated thinking: "How boring! There are so many things to work on, and I have to resort to my identity?"
All the subsequent times, I just ignored them.
Well, we will never be rid of "identity art"; moderately talented people chewing over the "who am I" conundrum.
But, if I think more deeply about it, I can see where the obsession arises. "Identity art" is mostly practiced by non-Western artists who just cannot make themselves appreciate Western art. To them, like all the malefactors of the centuries - patriarchy, colonization, capitalism, whites, white men, dead white men - Western art is to be discarded for upstaging all those non-Western arts.
So, rather than appreciate, wonder at and be enchanted with the endless stream of art that is readily available, they would rather close the doors, and forever subject themselves to the mind-numbing mediocrity of finding their non-Western identity. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but their products are being sold to us as the real deal. Keep your identity, and your art, is what I say.
Here is one such practitioner of identity art. Sarah Maple, a half Muslim (non-Western), half British artist paints cartoon-like portraits of herself, celebrities, and provocative Muslim women dressed in their hijabs.
She would be half-good if she invested more time in perfecting her painting style, instead of ruminating on her elusive self.
But, she would also be better off if she made up her mind. Although I think that given the high demands of the Western heritage, she would much rather hide behind her mediocrity, and her grievance.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Update on Brigitte Gabriel
A recent interview
I found a very recent radio interview, dated September 25, 2008, at World Net Daily of Brigitte Gabriel by WND regular Barbara Simpson. Scroll down to find the embedded audio.
Around the 43 minute point, when asked about moderate Muslims, Gabriel rightly says that the moderate Muslims are "truly irrelevant." But continues to say that "it is the radicals who are driving the agenda...and this is the only group we need to be focused on..." This is the perennial discussion regarding Muslims. And I am resigning myself to thinking that it will always be the argument.
Admittedly monitoring mosques, universities and other centers of congregation for radical activity are ways to decrease what could be potential attacks. This is essentially Gabriel's position, and I have to acknowledge that it is an important one.
By the way, I should add that I much prefer Jihadi rather than radical to describe this violent expression of Muslims since any Muslim can be a potential Jihadi, as mandated by the Koran and Islam. Radical has a more arbitrary association to Islam, putting it outside the periphery of the religion.
Therefore, I wonder if Gabriel remembers the July 2005 London Subway bombings, where 3 out of 4 of the bombers were British born Muslims, with seemingly normal lives, one even running a fish-and-chips shop with his parents? How could the British authorities have ever known that these were "radical" young men? How about the homegrown "terrorists" of Brampton (from the Greater Toronto Area) Ontario in 2006?
Are our lives going to be overwhelmed by endlessly monitoring and reporting on suspicious "radial" activity? How do we know that the corner store doesn't have a basement of Jihadi American or Canadian citizens?
On what basis can we say that Muslims are not allowed to practice their religion? How can we refuse them foot-washing stalls if we have already allowed them their presence here, and that one of our mandates is freedom of religion?
The problem is not radicals, the problem is Islam. And that problem will not go away as long as we keep admitting "peaceful" Muslims, and maintaining the large, vocal and now extremely dexterous Muslim population - with its own "peaceful" lawyers, "peaceful" politicians (elected by their large "peaceful" Muslim constituencies), "peaceful" real estate agents buying up all those buildings for their "peaceful" Madrassas and Islamic centers, out of which come young subway bombers.
So, we are still stuck with "radical" Muslims, even coming from an astute and experienced Gabriel. The other telling thing is that Robert Spencer has also written a new book which he calls: "Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting American Without Guns or Bombs."
As my blog "Our Changing Landscape" shows, as does my article - "Stealthy Islamic Inroads into our Culture" which I had published at Chronwatch.com elucidates, there is nothing radical about these stealthy maneuvers.
They are just the normal, expected behavior of a population which wants to practice its religion and live as it sees fit. With the extra mandate that everyone else do the same.
I found a very recent radio interview, dated September 25, 2008, at World Net Daily of Brigitte Gabriel by WND regular Barbara Simpson. Scroll down to find the embedded audio.
Around the 43 minute point, when asked about moderate Muslims, Gabriel rightly says that the moderate Muslims are "truly irrelevant." But continues to say that "it is the radicals who are driving the agenda...and this is the only group we need to be focused on..." This is the perennial discussion regarding Muslims. And I am resigning myself to thinking that it will always be the argument.
Admittedly monitoring mosques, universities and other centers of congregation for radical activity are ways to decrease what could be potential attacks. This is essentially Gabriel's position, and I have to acknowledge that it is an important one.
By the way, I should add that I much prefer Jihadi rather than radical to describe this violent expression of Muslims since any Muslim can be a potential Jihadi, as mandated by the Koran and Islam. Radical has a more arbitrary association to Islam, putting it outside the periphery of the religion.
Therefore, I wonder if Gabriel remembers the July 2005 London Subway bombings, where 3 out of 4 of the bombers were British born Muslims, with seemingly normal lives, one even running a fish-and-chips shop with his parents? How could the British authorities have ever known that these were "radical" young men? How about the homegrown "terrorists" of Brampton (from the Greater Toronto Area) Ontario in 2006?
Are our lives going to be overwhelmed by endlessly monitoring and reporting on suspicious "radial" activity? How do we know that the corner store doesn't have a basement of Jihadi American or Canadian citizens?
On what basis can we say that Muslims are not allowed to practice their religion? How can we refuse them foot-washing stalls if we have already allowed them their presence here, and that one of our mandates is freedom of religion?
The problem is not radicals, the problem is Islam. And that problem will not go away as long as we keep admitting "peaceful" Muslims, and maintaining the large, vocal and now extremely dexterous Muslim population - with its own "peaceful" lawyers, "peaceful" politicians (elected by their large "peaceful" Muslim constituencies), "peaceful" real estate agents buying up all those buildings for their "peaceful" Madrassas and Islamic centers, out of which come young subway bombers.
So, we are still stuck with "radical" Muslims, even coming from an astute and experienced Gabriel. The other telling thing is that Robert Spencer has also written a new book which he calls: "Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting American Without Guns or Bombs."
As my blog "Our Changing Landscape" shows, as does my article - "Stealthy Islamic Inroads into our Culture" which I had published at Chronwatch.com elucidates, there is nothing radical about these stealthy maneuvers.
They are just the normal, expected behavior of a population which wants to practice its religion and live as it sees fit. With the extra mandate that everyone else do the same.
Act! for America
Brigitte Gabriel's grassroots organization
Brigitte Gabriel was interviewed by Frontpagemag.com on November 21, 2008 where she talks about an organization she has founded called ACT! for America which "has become the largest grass roots movement in the United States focused on national security."
She takes her position one step further than merely informing the public and says that "education must be followed by organized action."
There is more information at her website. But, it mostly looks like a reactionary organization to counter the already existing Islamic presence in the US. In her mission and vision statements, there is nothing concrete about stopping the entrance of all Muslims to the US, since as Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch has explained, there is not telling which Muslims are Jihadists and which peaceful Muslims are potential Jihadists. This after prolonged (and justified) criticism from Larry Auster's View From the Right. ( I actually do think there was cause and effect - i.e. Spencer paid heed to the criticism). So, constant reminder to anti-Jihadists where they fall short is not a futile exercise.
She also has a book out called "They Must Be Stopped, Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It." One reviewer at Amazon.com lists some of her recommendations which includes "tighten borders."
I would have to read this particular chapter to see clearly what her recommendations are. From the list this reviewer gives, it looks more like countering what appear to be terrorists rather than deal with Muslim populations (and immigration) as a whole.
In a September 2006 Frontpagmag.com interview, she does come up with a list similar to the one above:
I think prominent speakers should just come clean and say:
Brigitte Gabriel was interviewed by Frontpagemag.com on November 21, 2008 where she talks about an organization she has founded called ACT! for America which "has become the largest grass roots movement in the United States focused on national security."
She takes her position one step further than merely informing the public and says that "education must be followed by organized action."
There is more information at her website. But, it mostly looks like a reactionary organization to counter the already existing Islamic presence in the US. In her mission and vision statements, there is nothing concrete about stopping the entrance of all Muslims to the US, since as Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch has explained, there is not telling which Muslims are Jihadists and which peaceful Muslims are potential Jihadists. This after prolonged (and justified) criticism from Larry Auster's View From the Right. ( I actually do think there was cause and effect - i.e. Spencer paid heed to the criticism). So, constant reminder to anti-Jihadists where they fall short is not a futile exercise.
She also has a book out called "They Must Be Stopped, Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It." One reviewer at Amazon.com lists some of her recommendations which includes "tighten borders."
I would have to read this particular chapter to see clearly what her recommendations are. From the list this reviewer gives, it looks more like countering what appear to be terrorists rather than deal with Muslim populations (and immigration) as a whole.
In a September 2006 Frontpagmag.com interview, she does come up with a list similar to the one above:
Close our bordersAgain, this looks more like a strategy to counter terrorists and "extremists" rather than Muslim immigration in general.
Reform the Immigration and naturalization service (INS)
Increase human intelligence
Profile, Profile and Profile
Control education of foreign students of hostile countries
Develop alternative energy sources
Silence any teaching of hate and intolerance against our country
I think prominent speakers should just come clean and say:
Stop all Muslim immigrationOtherwise people like me have to go through their recommendations with a fine-toothed comb, which is time-consuming, and may not even result with the desired outcome of finding a clear, uncomplicated recommendation, two of which I have listed above.
Find ways to decrease the Muslim population which is already here
Little House on the Prairie
Morally and emotionally true
I cannot verify this, but this site says this is a photo of
Laura Ingalls at the Rocky Ridge ravine, MO.
I've been able to catch some reruns of the beautifully crafted "Little House on the Prairie" TV series. I won a prize when I was eight or nine, for which I received Laura Ingalls Wilder's book. I must have read it dozens of times. I even remember the cover well, a dark orange background with an ink drawing of a log cabin on a hill. The dog-eared book is long gone now.
Many will scoff at the TV show as a feel-good nostalgic look of the golden past. But the stories are emotionally, and dare I say morally, so real that nothing from the current TV crop compares to them.
What make so me angry (that is the only honest emotion I can come up with) is how the CBC has appropriated this lovely series, so true and honest, for their prime time "Little Mosque on the Prairie" multi-culti showcase. This Muslim show has nothing to prove other than to affirm the Muslim presence in Canada. And not only that, to show that Muslims are living in the prairies their own Muslim-centered lives, which has nothing in common with the rest of Canada, let alone with the original TV series.
 |
Laura Ingalls at the Rocky Ridge ravine, MO.
I've been able to catch some reruns of the beautifully crafted "Little House on the Prairie" TV series. I won a prize when I was eight or nine, for which I received Laura Ingalls Wilder's book. I must have read it dozens of times. I even remember the cover well, a dark orange background with an ink drawing of a log cabin on a hill. The dog-eared book is long gone now.
Many will scoff at the TV show as a feel-good nostalgic look of the golden past. But the stories are emotionally, and dare I say morally, so real that nothing from the current TV crop compares to them.
What make so me angry (that is the only honest emotion I can come up with) is how the CBC has appropriated this lovely series, so true and honest, for their prime time "Little Mosque on the Prairie" multi-culti showcase. This Muslim show has nothing to prove other than to affirm the Muslim presence in Canada. And not only that, to show that Muslims are living in the prairies their own Muslim-centered lives, which has nothing in common with the rest of Canada, let alone with the original TV series.
Lovely Laura
Innocent as a dove
Detective McPherson in front of Laura's portrait
Otto Preminger's Film Noir "Laura" is shot in muted high contrast black and white film, with very few of the edgy angular shots and harsh shadows characteristic of the genre. But its protagonist, a beautiful, kind and sophisticated young woman, is also not your typical femme fatale.
Laura, who says things like "I never have been and I never will be bound by anything I don't do with my own free will", and who's made a highly successful career in an advertising firm, cannot get it right when it comes to the men she would marry (or frequent).
Everybody loves Laura, from her house help, to her homosexual writer friend and mentor, and finally the detective who first falls in love with her "dead" persona. Each person finds his own reasons for loving her: for the writer Waldo Lydecker, she is someone with whom he can share his sophisticated lifestyle; for the maid, she is a kind and empathetic employer; for her fiancé-to-be Shelby, she is the generous heiress; and even Detective McPherson falls under her spell - albeit apparently dead - since she is someone whom he can rescue (or fantasize about?).
Yet Laura's innocence (purity) is what causes all the mayhem. Her choice of men - the possessive Lydecker and her cheating fiancé Shelby, and even the painter of her portrait (which causes the Det. McPherson to fall in love with her) - are not pleasant characters. Except perhaps for the Det. McPherson. It is her association with these shady men that results in murder.
It is rare that a film portrays a good, kind woman in this manner. Usually, femme fatales are arrogant, conniving women, who deliberately manipulate all those around them.
And this is testament to the sophistication of these earlier films, which were able to tap into the paradox of real characters. Laura never sets out to be destructive, yet she had her own subtle narcissism - "I never have been and I never will be bound by anything I don't do with my own free will" - which set the stage for the disaster that was to follow.
It is like the quote from Matthew 10:16:
 |
Otto Preminger's Film Noir "Laura" is shot in muted high contrast black and white film, with very few of the edgy angular shots and harsh shadows characteristic of the genre. But its protagonist, a beautiful, kind and sophisticated young woman, is also not your typical femme fatale.
Laura, who says things like "I never have been and I never will be bound by anything I don't do with my own free will", and who's made a highly successful career in an advertising firm, cannot get it right when it comes to the men she would marry (or frequent).
Everybody loves Laura, from her house help, to her homosexual writer friend and mentor, and finally the detective who first falls in love with her "dead" persona. Each person finds his own reasons for loving her: for the writer Waldo Lydecker, she is someone with whom he can share his sophisticated lifestyle; for the maid, she is a kind and empathetic employer; for her fiancé-to-be Shelby, she is the generous heiress; and even Detective McPherson falls under her spell - albeit apparently dead - since she is someone whom he can rescue (or fantasize about?).
Yet Laura's innocence (purity) is what causes all the mayhem. Her choice of men - the possessive Lydecker and her cheating fiancé Shelby, and even the painter of her portrait (which causes the Det. McPherson to fall in love with her) - are not pleasant characters. Except perhaps for the Det. McPherson. It is her association with these shady men that results in murder.
It is rare that a film portrays a good, kind woman in this manner. Usually, femme fatales are arrogant, conniving women, who deliberately manipulate all those around them.
And this is testament to the sophistication of these earlier films, which were able to tap into the paradox of real characters. Laura never sets out to be destructive, yet she had her own subtle narcissism - "I never have been and I never will be bound by anything I don't do with my own free will" - which set the stage for the disaster that was to follow.
It is like the quote from Matthew 10:16:
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.It is never enough to be a harmless dove, but also a wise serpent. Laura, in her innocence, and her self-centeredness, never felt it necessary to develop her wisdom. Her intelligence and goodwill (and her beauty) only took her thus far.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Visual Records
Of Islamic takeover
Here is Diana West's incredible photographic record of the Belgian city of Antwerp.
What she took in her summer trip is similar to what I'm trying to do. Visual records don't lie, and when confronted all at once they can be shocking, maybe to the extent of waking us up from our (disturbed) sleep.
It is easier to say, "see, look", than to write a long exposé about Islamic takeover. Although writing is an essential part of the awareness.
You can see my visual records at "Our Changing Landscape."
 |
Here is Diana West's incredible photographic record of the Belgian city of Antwerp.
What she took in her summer trip is similar to what I'm trying to do. Visual records don't lie, and when confronted all at once they can be shocking, maybe to the extent of waking us up from our (disturbed) sleep.
It is easier to say, "see, look", than to write a long exposé about Islamic takeover. Although writing is an essential part of the awareness.
You can see my visual records at "Our Changing Landscape."
Art as the Talmud
A Jewish way of "seeing"
Charles Saatchi is a Jewish, Iraqi-born
art collector
Art auctions have become such unrealistic projections of the quality of the art, that if I ever follow what piece is being sold at what price, it is usually with amusement (or bemusement.) If people are willing to buy Damien Hirsts at million dollar losses, that is, well, their loss.
Of course, I am much more serious about the whole issue, and I'm just trying to find the right vocabulary, and tone, to describe the rather frightening trend that the art world has taken, especially since the latter half of the 20th century.
One of the reasons that I am cautious is that nihilistic or frightening views don't negate talent (and even genius). And many of these artists are genuinely trying to resolve, or introduce, interesting and valid issues. So, I'm trying to be generous.
The article "Agony and Ecstasy: The Art World Explained" discusses Sarah Thornton's book "Seven Days in the Art World". Thornton divides her book into seven chapters, and each chapter deals with different aspects of the contemporary art world (art auctions, art seminars, artists' studios, etc...).
The book will have to wait until later. But what this article mentions and which Thornton doesn't discuss, is that art collectors and "administrators" are heavily Jewish.
Now this shouldn't have anything to do with anything, but the author of the article writes that: "a Turner Prize judge compares art to the Talmud: 'an ongoing, open-ended dialogue that allows multiple points of view.'"
The author goes on to say: "The implicitly Jewish ethos surely feeds into the feeling that the art world is somehow set apart...It also helps explain why the aesthetic of the art world is really an ethic, one that seeks something higher than mere pleasure."
This fits many of the contemporary art that is selling like hotcakes. Damien Hirst, the most successful of all the contemporary artists, for all his mediocre craftsmanship, is really more interested in "dialogue" and "multiple points of view" than in aesthetics, or even visual representation. In his own eccentric (and amoral) way, he is after an ethic.
As I maintain my patience, and silence, and keep digging at the strangeness of modern art, I sometimes come across gems like this, which open up my eyes to the road we've taken to get to where we are now.
Plus, I am always intrigued at the really clever and imaginative ways some contemporary artists present their ideas usually by replacing the visual aspect of their work with a more intellectual one. I don't particularly agree with it, though. And I will have to lay the blame on the Jewish way of "seeing."
 |
art collector
Art auctions have become such unrealistic projections of the quality of the art, that if I ever follow what piece is being sold at what price, it is usually with amusement (or bemusement.) If people are willing to buy Damien Hirsts at million dollar losses, that is, well, their loss.
Of course, I am much more serious about the whole issue, and I'm just trying to find the right vocabulary, and tone, to describe the rather frightening trend that the art world has taken, especially since the latter half of the 20th century.
One of the reasons that I am cautious is that nihilistic or frightening views don't negate talent (and even genius). And many of these artists are genuinely trying to resolve, or introduce, interesting and valid issues. So, I'm trying to be generous.
The article "Agony and Ecstasy: The Art World Explained" discusses Sarah Thornton's book "Seven Days in the Art World". Thornton divides her book into seven chapters, and each chapter deals with different aspects of the contemporary art world (art auctions, art seminars, artists' studios, etc...).
The book will have to wait until later. But what this article mentions and which Thornton doesn't discuss, is that art collectors and "administrators" are heavily Jewish.
Now this shouldn't have anything to do with anything, but the author of the article writes that: "a Turner Prize judge compares art to the Talmud: 'an ongoing, open-ended dialogue that allows multiple points of view.'"
The author goes on to say: "The implicitly Jewish ethos surely feeds into the feeling that the art world is somehow set apart...It also helps explain why the aesthetic of the art world is really an ethic, one that seeks something higher than mere pleasure."
This fits many of the contemporary art that is selling like hotcakes. Damien Hirst, the most successful of all the contemporary artists, for all his mediocre craftsmanship, is really more interested in "dialogue" and "multiple points of view" than in aesthetics, or even visual representation. In his own eccentric (and amoral) way, he is after an ethic.
As I maintain my patience, and silence, and keep digging at the strangeness of modern art, I sometimes come across gems like this, which open up my eyes to the road we've taken to get to where we are now.
Plus, I am always intrigued at the really clever and imaginative ways some contemporary artists present their ideas usually by replacing the visual aspect of their work with a more intellectual one. I don't particularly agree with it, though. And I will have to lay the blame on the Jewish way of "seeing."
Let There Be Light
And our shadows on the wall
Here's a thought about God that I recently heard.
Since God's presence would be so overwhelming, that if He were to be directly in front of us, He would overwhelm us, like the sun would a flickering candle.
Still using the metaphor of light as God, then imagine God as the light behind a projector.
The world that includes us is a function of that light shining through the film, and onto the screen.
Without the light, there would be no "us". And we are really the "shadows" on celluloid which form the images that this projection of light magnifies onto the screen.
 |
Here's a thought about God that I recently heard.
Since God's presence would be so overwhelming, that if He were to be directly in front of us, He would overwhelm us, like the sun would a flickering candle.
Still using the metaphor of light as God, then imagine God as the light behind a projector.
The world that includes us is a function of that light shining through the film, and onto the screen.
Without the light, there would be no "us". And we are really the "shadows" on celluloid which form the images that this projection of light magnifies onto the screen.
Enter The Man
As the villain
My brother recently invited me to a theater production of "A Raisin in the Sun."
It is a compelling play that draws you into the various family members and their lives. About 2/3 of it was very engaging, and went very fast.
But, near the last third, I kept losing my concentration. As I told him later, "why did they bring on The Man as an antagonistic character?"
The Man (or the white man), trying to keep this black family away from his neighborhood and community, was seen as a villain by the family (of course) and also by the audience.
His only crime was to say to the black family: "We are a community of like-minded people. I know you won't fit in. Please don't try."
That 1959 story is really the story of America. And he was right, after all. I don't think there are any genuinely integrated communities in the US. And this is because whites and blacks prefer to live apart from each other.
My brother recently invited me to a theater production of "A Raisin in the Sun."
It is a compelling play that draws you into the various family members and their lives. About 2/3 of it was very engaging, and went very fast.
But, near the last third, I kept losing my concentration. As I told him later, "why did they bring on The Man as an antagonistic character?"
The Man (or the white man), trying to keep this black family away from his neighborhood and community, was seen as a villain by the family (of course) and also by the audience.
His only crime was to say to the black family: "We are a community of like-minded people. I know you won't fit in. Please don't try."
That 1959 story is really the story of America. And he was right, after all. I don't think there are any genuinely integrated communities in the US. And this is because whites and blacks prefer to live apart from each other.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Italian Performance Artist
Loses out in real life
Pippa Bacca photographed by Sirio Magnabosco.
[Click photo to see a larger (better) version]
An Italian “artist”, who was doing a "performance art" piece saturated with her ideology, was found raped and murdered in Turkey. She and a female friend had been traveling around Europe, the Balkans and the Middle East in wedding dresses on a peace trip to show a “marriage between different peoples and nations.”
The ironic thing is that it is a commercial photographer - whose name is credited at the bottom of the photo on the New York Times article - who makes the most artistic piece related to her.
The shot is beautifully captured by photographer Sirio Magnabosco. The sepia tone, the perspective shot, the sinewy railings mimicking the ruffles on her dress and the undulating water, light and shadow cavorting on the ground, the light shining up on her (how did he manage that!) giving her a sanctified glow, and the light-grey metallic poles with their own repeated “ruffles” as perhaps a reflection of her, all add up to an atmospheric, richly symbolic portrait. And she's been elevated by standing on a small pedestal. She could be from a silent film (although the colored flag – is it Canadian? – rules this out). And there is an Art Deco element to all this, with the rigid metallic lines and shadows and the garage-like structure at the back, which are nonetheless softened by Magnabosco’s ethereal shot.
While I contemplated this beautiful portrait of hers, I couldn't but be struck at how iconic her photographer has made her. She could be a ship figurine, or one of those luxury car mascots. Or even one of the thousands of Italian saints who stands for something – Our Lady of the Modern Age?
Her gown is reminiscent of the great Paul Poiret designs of the early 20th century, and the couturier designers from Byblos look like they went to some effort to create it.
I went to her official website to see her work (click on "opere" to see samples), and it was nothing but worse than mediocre.
So, this woman, who got regal treatment from her designers and her photographer, was nothing but a mediocre artist, doing the quintessential "performance art" that such artists resort to when they can do nothing else.
Rather than bask in the admiration of the men in her European country – Byblos is an Italian fashion design company whose two chief designers are men, and the photographer is also Italian – she went to a strange land where she was received in the most abysmal way possible for a woman by one of their (foreign to her) men.
Her gown got soiled and her body tarnished, and she lost her life.
 |
[Click photo to see a larger (better) version]
An Italian “artist”, who was doing a "performance art" piece saturated with her ideology, was found raped and murdered in Turkey. She and a female friend had been traveling around Europe, the Balkans and the Middle East in wedding dresses on a peace trip to show a “marriage between different peoples and nations.”
The ironic thing is that it is a commercial photographer - whose name is credited at the bottom of the photo on the New York Times article - who makes the most artistic piece related to her.
The shot is beautifully captured by photographer Sirio Magnabosco. The sepia tone, the perspective shot, the sinewy railings mimicking the ruffles on her dress and the undulating water, light and shadow cavorting on the ground, the light shining up on her (how did he manage that!) giving her a sanctified glow, and the light-grey metallic poles with their own repeated “ruffles” as perhaps a reflection of her, all add up to an atmospheric, richly symbolic portrait. And she's been elevated by standing on a small pedestal. She could be from a silent film (although the colored flag – is it Canadian? – rules this out). And there is an Art Deco element to all this, with the rigid metallic lines and shadows and the garage-like structure at the back, which are nonetheless softened by Magnabosco’s ethereal shot.
While I contemplated this beautiful portrait of hers, I couldn't but be struck at how iconic her photographer has made her. She could be a ship figurine, or one of those luxury car mascots. Or even one of the thousands of Italian saints who stands for something – Our Lady of the Modern Age?
Her gown is reminiscent of the great Paul Poiret designs of the early 20th century, and the couturier designers from Byblos look like they went to some effort to create it.
I went to her official website to see her work (click on "opere" to see samples), and it was nothing but worse than mediocre.
So, this woman, who got regal treatment from her designers and her photographer, was nothing but a mediocre artist, doing the quintessential "performance art" that such artists resort to when they can do nothing else.
Rather than bask in the admiration of the men in her European country – Byblos is an Italian fashion design company whose two chief designers are men, and the photographer is also Italian – she went to a strange land where she was received in the most abysmal way possible for a woman by one of their (foreign to her) men.
Her gown got soiled and her body tarnished, and she lost her life.
Hillary's Lost Moment
Or how she lost her spunk
Hillary Clinton at the " 2008 Glamour Woman
Of The Year Awards." November 10
That old Hillary spunk is not there, the one which came up with the "I could have stayed home and baked cookies" and "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
It looks like Obama has taken the wind out of her sails. She now looks like a matronly grandma, who might just stay at home and bake the cookies.
I think people should fight at the appropriate moments, and know when those moments are. Her moment was when the stories on Obama kept unraveling during the campaign. She backed down. This could have been her victory.
But then, on what principles would she have really fought? I suspect she agrees with much of what Obama says, and also with the public's "first black man as president" euphoria. Maybe her fight would have been so superficial as not to count for much.
In fact, that is just what happened.
 |  |
Of The Year Awards." November 10
That old Hillary spunk is not there, the one which came up with the "I could have stayed home and baked cookies" and "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
It looks like Obama has taken the wind out of her sails. She now looks like a matronly grandma, who might just stay at home and bake the cookies.
I think people should fight at the appropriate moments, and know when those moments are. Her moment was when the stories on Obama kept unraveling during the campaign. She backed down. This could have been her victory.
But then, on what principles would she have really fought? I suspect she agrees with much of what Obama says, and also with the public's "first black man as president" euphoria. Maybe her fight would have been so superficial as not to count for much.
In fact, that is just what happened.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Race and Insurrection
Politically correct is still the rule
Chronwatch has published another article of mine: "Race and Insurrection."
It is about the difficult filmmaker Neil LaBute and his portfolio of brutally honest films, who made a perfect(ly horrible) film about a "conceptual artist", but who couldn't muster the same strength when it came to race.
You can read "Race and Insurrection" here.
Chronwatch has published another article of mine: "Race and Insurrection."
It is about the difficult filmmaker Neil LaBute and his portfolio of brutally honest films, who made a perfect(ly horrible) film about a "conceptual artist", but who couldn't muster the same strength when it came to race.
You can read "Race and Insurrection" here.
Oldies
In the ballroom
One show that I watch weekly, until its "winners" are announced is "Dancing with the Stars." And it's all ballroom dancing!
Foxtrot to the tune of "Lullaby of Birdland" (Starts around the 1:20 spot ) for week 7.
Derek Hough is the Fred Astaire heir of the 21st century. Humorous, precise and very talented. He choreographs (as do all the professional dancers) all the dances. Do excuse the costume, great color and design, but more material is needed - this is television, after all.
Firstly, it is the tremendous amount of effort these "stars" put in to learn something completely new, and very challenging.
Then, it is the drama that goes on. This being a very demanding and athletic type of dance, injuries are frequent, including stress-related ones such as extreme stomach aches that lead to emergency rooms.
Finally, ignoring the over-exposed (in all senses of the word) "Latin" dances - mambo, samba, rumba, even the tango - and concentrating on the real "ballroom", which includes the waltz, foxtrot and quickstep, some of these dancers really do put on elegant numbers, with all those oldies. Lovely songs, with great lyrics, and witty, well crafted tunes.
To be fair to the "Latins", I think the paso doble can take a well-earned place in "ballroom", although it is just a little melodramatic. And the cha-cha-cha was created by a Frenchman in England, so its Latin origins are that the music came from Cuba, not the dance.
I should add that the jive and jitterbug, those quintessentially American dances, in their exuberance and fun, and their incredible speed, are much more sophisticated dances than any of the Latin numbers.
Here are four "oldies" songs out of ten (that is a lot considering we hear zero of them normally) from week eight that were used in that week's competition. I've linked with youtube renditions.
I couldn't find the inimitable Frank Sinatra's "Call me irresponsible", but a young singer Michael Buble, who is actually reviving Sinatra's songs, does a fine job of this one.
1. "Call me irresponsible" - Buble sings Blue Eyes
2. "Puttin' on the Ritz" - Sung and tapped by Fred Astaire
3. "Sweet Pea" - A bluesy, ragtime revival of sorts
4. "Hallelujah I Love Her So" Ray Charles (1955)
Who knew. Television as a medium for sophistication and a return to lovely songs.
One show that I watch weekly, until its "winners" are announced is "Dancing with the Stars." And it's all ballroom dancing!
Foxtrot to the tune of "Lullaby of Birdland" (Starts around the 1:20 spot ) for week 7.
Derek Hough is the Fred Astaire heir of the 21st century. Humorous, precise and very talented. He choreographs (as do all the professional dancers) all the dances. Do excuse the costume, great color and design, but more material is needed - this is television, after all.
Firstly, it is the tremendous amount of effort these "stars" put in to learn something completely new, and very challenging.
Then, it is the drama that goes on. This being a very demanding and athletic type of dance, injuries are frequent, including stress-related ones such as extreme stomach aches that lead to emergency rooms.
Finally, ignoring the over-exposed (in all senses of the word) "Latin" dances - mambo, samba, rumba, even the tango - and concentrating on the real "ballroom", which includes the waltz, foxtrot and quickstep, some of these dancers really do put on elegant numbers, with all those oldies. Lovely songs, with great lyrics, and witty, well crafted tunes.
To be fair to the "Latins", I think the paso doble can take a well-earned place in "ballroom", although it is just a little melodramatic. And the cha-cha-cha was created by a Frenchman in England, so its Latin origins are that the music came from Cuba, not the dance.
I should add that the jive and jitterbug, those quintessentially American dances, in their exuberance and fun, and their incredible speed, are much more sophisticated dances than any of the Latin numbers.
Here are four "oldies" songs out of ten (that is a lot considering we hear zero of them normally) from week eight that were used in that week's competition. I've linked with youtube renditions.
I couldn't find the inimitable Frank Sinatra's "Call me irresponsible", but a young singer Michael Buble, who is actually reviving Sinatra's songs, does a fine job of this one.
1. "Call me irresponsible" - Buble sings Blue Eyes
2. "Puttin' on the Ritz" - Sung and tapped by Fred Astaire
3. "Sweet Pea" - A bluesy, ragtime revival of sorts
4. "Hallelujah I Love Her So" Ray Charles (1955)
Who knew. Television as a medium for sophistication and a return to lovely songs.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Music of Remebrance Day
Bugle calls and bag pipe lament
The "Last Post", "Lament" and "Rouse" of the
Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Michelle's Fashion Sense
ordinary career woman
Michelle's dress choices for two of the most important
events of her life so far: on election night (left) and at the DNC.
But she should really wear higher heels,
and also nylons are more appropriate.
People are talking about Michelle Obama's fashion sense, and how she would be the black Jackie Kennedy of the White House.
In fact, there is really nothing spectacular about how she dresses.
Most women her age, who work in high level positions in large institutions have to dress conservatively, and attractively. Many retail stores also cater to women like her, providing a plethora of work clothes that now look feminine and attractive. And style magazines give thousands of tips and advice on how to acquire some kind of respectable dress sense.
So, Michelle's fashion efforts are not based on her creativity and originality. In fact, there are telling moments, when her coordinates are too matched, or the too-appropriate accessory is reminiscent of "In-Style" dos and don'ts columns.
Of course, she is a little more than ordinary, with a six-figure salary. So despite her insistence that she is frugal, she can still afford some extravagance, which can translate as style.
But what is revealing are the three really unappealing dresses that she chose for the most important days of her life - her DNC appearances, and on election day.
Is the step from quasi-ordinary office woman to wife of the president-elect too much? Is that also any indication that Obama (whose graying hair was carefully dyed at his election night appearance) will also start to cave in now that he has attained the pinnacle of his career?
The strangest thing about that night, though, is the dress of their youngest daughter. Black, from head to toe, on a little girl? Even the black stockings on the older girl are odd. Why not leave her legs bare (like Michelle's, although that is a faux pas by the adult Michelle for such an important event.)
Fashion in the White House really is not a pressing issue. But I wish people would stop comparing Michelle Obama to the inimitable Jackie Kennedy.
 |  |
events of her life so far: on election night (left) and at the DNC.
But she should really wear higher heels,
and also nylons are more appropriate.
People are talking about Michelle Obama's fashion sense, and how she would be the black Jackie Kennedy of the White House.
In fact, there is really nothing spectacular about how she dresses.
Most women her age, who work in high level positions in large institutions have to dress conservatively, and attractively. Many retail stores also cater to women like her, providing a plethora of work clothes that now look feminine and attractive. And style magazines give thousands of tips and advice on how to acquire some kind of respectable dress sense.
So, Michelle's fashion efforts are not based on her creativity and originality. In fact, there are telling moments, when her coordinates are too matched, or the too-appropriate accessory is reminiscent of "In-Style" dos and don'ts columns.
Of course, she is a little more than ordinary, with a six-figure salary. So despite her insistence that she is frugal, she can still afford some extravagance, which can translate as style.
But what is revealing are the three really unappealing dresses that she chose for the most important days of her life - her DNC appearances, and on election day.
Is the step from quasi-ordinary office woman to wife of the president-elect too much? Is that also any indication that Obama (whose graying hair was carefully dyed at his election night appearance) will also start to cave in now that he has attained the pinnacle of his career?
The strangest thing about that night, though, is the dress of their youngest daughter. Black, from head to toe, on a little girl? Even the black stockings on the older girl are odd. Why not leave her legs bare (like Michelle's, although that is a faux pas by the adult Michelle for such an important event.)
Fashion in the White House really is not a pressing issue. But I wish people would stop comparing Michelle Obama to the inimitable Jackie Kennedy.
Canadian Conservatives
Progressive Wannabes
Preston Manning's "The New Canada"
Melanie Phillips writes a commentary on British Conservatives, which I think is fully applicable to Canadian Conservatives:
This is a rather long quote, but I think it is insightful and appropriate. Ever since Harper's government took the helm, this is precisely the erosion of conservatism that we have seen here. And just like Phillips says, "why vote for the progressive wannabes when you can have the real thing?" Record numbers of Canadians who stayed at home rather than vote for these wannabes should have been a wake up call for Harper.
I wonder how a man who used to work with Preston Manning and the Reform Party of Canada becomes the progressive wannabe that he is now? Partly I think it is to do with opportunism, like Phillips says. But also it is that I think Harper has embraced these policies so thoroughly, and in fact believes in them so fully, that he is no longer any type of conservative.
One anecdote I remember well. When Harper was explaining why he is was supporting the government's apology (and redress) for the Chinese Head Tax, he talked about a Chinese acquaintance his wife had. How this Chinese man became a friend of her family's, which now included him. How this man was a hard-working, loyal and good friend of the family. And how this man's family suffered because of this head tax.
Such emotionalism and personal reasons do not make for good policy and political decisions. The head tax was a governmental decision to protect the Canada of the past. Harper made the whole thing into a guilt trip which the nation had to overcome. How liberal is that?
 |
Melanie Phillips writes a commentary on British Conservatives, which I think is fully applicable to Canadian Conservatives:
The British Conservatives think that, to regain power, they have to show they have broken with cultural conservatism and go instead with the way society has changed — gay rights, green politics, anti-racism. What they have failed to grasp is that such change has turned values such as right and wrong, good and bad on their heads and has produced a sentimentalised, cruel, oppressive and perverse society — one where burglars go scot-free but householders are prosecuted for putting the wrong kind of garbage in the trash can, and where people are too frightened to protest at the erosion of British, Christian, or Western values because of the opprobrium that will follow.
The Conservatives don’t realize that by embracing such "change" they are endorsing a kind of enslavement. They don’t realize that the first duty of a conservative is to conserve that which is precious and protect it against attack. The result is that millions feel betrayed and abandoned by the absence of conservatism, and yet more still think the Conservative party is just a bunch of opportunists who don’t have any principles. Why vote for the progressive wannabes, after all, when you can have the real thing?
This is a rather long quote, but I think it is insightful and appropriate. Ever since Harper's government took the helm, this is precisely the erosion of conservatism that we have seen here. And just like Phillips says, "why vote for the progressive wannabes when you can have the real thing?" Record numbers of Canadians who stayed at home rather than vote for these wannabes should have been a wake up call for Harper.
I wonder how a man who used to work with Preston Manning and the Reform Party of Canada becomes the progressive wannabe that he is now? Partly I think it is to do with opportunism, like Phillips says. But also it is that I think Harper has embraced these policies so thoroughly, and in fact believes in them so fully, that he is no longer any type of conservative.
One anecdote I remember well. When Harper was explaining why he is was supporting the government's apology (and redress) for the Chinese Head Tax, he talked about a Chinese acquaintance his wife had. How this Chinese man became a friend of her family's, which now included him. How this man was a hard-working, loyal and good friend of the family. And how this man's family suffered because of this head tax.
Such emotionalism and personal reasons do not make for good policy and political decisions. The head tax was a governmental decision to protect the Canada of the past. Harper made the whole thing into a guilt trip which the nation had to overcome. How liberal is that?
The Angst Within
Homosexuals as the epitome of narcissists
Portia de Rossi "married" to Ellen in 2008, dating Ellen in 2005, pre-Ellen (closeted) days in 2003
Here she is (left) while still married to a man, Mel Metcalf in 1997.
She still has a strange look.
Above are some photos of Portia de Rossi, Ellen Degeneres' "wife", and how she looked before she was dating Ellen, and during two episodes of her life with Ellen.
Her " Ellen" photos show an unresolved angst in her demeanor. But what is even more surprising is how strange she looks in her pre-Ellen photos. In the 2003 photo, she looks as though she is beckoning the devil to just come and get her. Cocky, and with a nice smile, but there is something about her eyes which is off-putting.
In the one when she was married to a man (which some biographies of hers say she did to get a green card), she still has an androgynous, uncomfortable, unfeminine look about her, although she is still a very "feminine" lesbian, compared to Ellen, at least.
Most of these "celebrity" lesbians, have strange, rebellious childhoods. I don't know if that translates to "ordinary" lesbians, although I don't see why not. For example Portia changed her very plain (to her) Anglo-Australian name Amanda Lee Rogers to the more exotic Portia de Rossi when she was fifteen. Later on, she also developed an eating disorder. She now claims that was all due to her lack of identity, and not knowing that she was really a lesbian. I don't buy that. She just sounds stubborn and self-centered. Eating disorders are about control and manipulation, anyway. The only outlet these stubborn girls have to "rebel", by turning their family life upside down, and getting attention.
That is why I think all this lesbianism business (and homosexuality in general) is to do with a narcissistic personality bent.
 |  |  |
 |
She still has a strange look.
Above are some photos of Portia de Rossi, Ellen Degeneres' "wife", and how she looked before she was dating Ellen, and during two episodes of her life with Ellen.
Her " Ellen" photos show an unresolved angst in her demeanor. But what is even more surprising is how strange she looks in her pre-Ellen photos. In the 2003 photo, she looks as though she is beckoning the devil to just come and get her. Cocky, and with a nice smile, but there is something about her eyes which is off-putting.
In the one when she was married to a man (which some biographies of hers say she did to get a green card), she still has an androgynous, uncomfortable, unfeminine look about her, although she is still a very "feminine" lesbian, compared to Ellen, at least.
Most of these "celebrity" lesbians, have strange, rebellious childhoods. I don't know if that translates to "ordinary" lesbians, although I don't see why not. For example Portia changed her very plain (to her) Anglo-Australian name Amanda Lee Rogers to the more exotic Portia de Rossi when she was fifteen. Later on, she also developed an eating disorder. She now claims that was all due to her lack of identity, and not knowing that she was really a lesbian. I don't buy that. She just sounds stubborn and self-centered. Eating disorders are about control and manipulation, anyway. The only outlet these stubborn girls have to "rebel", by turning their family life upside down, and getting attention.
That is why I think all this lesbianism business (and homosexuality in general) is to do with a narcissistic personality bent.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
New Post and Side Column Links
At "Our Changing Landscape"
I have put two new posts at "Our Changing Landscape: Putting a Stop to the Islamization of the West."
One is how stealthily and cleverly Muslim groups are "borrowing" our beloved logos for their own purposes, in this case using the logos from the "Little House on the Prairie" for the almost identical "Little Mosque on the Prairie."
Secondly, on the side (and more permanent column) I link to Lawrence Auster's articles on the "rollback, isolate, and contain" strategy he has developed for dealing with Muslim presence in the West.
I have put two new posts at "Our Changing Landscape: Putting a Stop to the Islamization of the West."
One is how stealthily and cleverly Muslim groups are "borrowing" our beloved logos for their own purposes, in this case using the logos from the "Little House on the Prairie" for the almost identical "Little Mosque on the Prairie."
Secondly, on the side (and more permanent column) I link to Lawrence Auster's articles on the "rollback, isolate, and contain" strategy he has developed for dealing with Muslim presence in the West.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Nadya Suleman, The Inadvertent Cybele
Nadya Suleman started her adult life with a modicum of normality. She was an only child and was married at twenty-one for eight years. But her marriage was fraught with miscarriages and fertility problems, and ended in childless divorce. She worked for a number of years in a psychiatric ward, only to leave with back injuries after a patient riot, receiving a worker’s compensation award of around $165,000. She has earned a bachelor’s degree in child counselling, and still plans to go on for her masters in counselling.
She says that she had always wanted siblings growing up, and felt that having children of her own would satiate that emptiness she felt as an only child. She eventually saved enough money, about $100,00, to have her fourteen children through In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Her octuplets, born on January 26, 2009, catapulted her into the public’s eye.
Technology and the compliance of doctors assisted Nadya in her decision to have children. She used IVF to overcome her past reproductive problems. She found a willing donor to fertilize her eggs, and she went to an anonymous fertility clinic which didn’t ask too many questions, and which performed the quasi-dangerous procedure of implanting her last remaining six embryos that resulted in the unprecedented eight births (with two sets of twins).
Nadya, dubbed the Octo-mom, has been receiving constant negative reaction from the media throughout the news of her ocutplets. Newspaper op-eds, pundits and bloggers decried what they called her selfish, narcissistic behavior, some calling her evil and even crazy. The news in general portrayed her as a disorganized, unemployed, child-obsessesed woman who is scamming the government. Some of this information is incorrect, since for many years she lived off her $165,000 worker’s compensation and student loans (which she rationalizes she will pay back). The welfare she receives was just in food stamps and disability checks for three of her children. She has also lived with her mother and has the help of both her parents.
Still, since the outbreak of her octuplet news, enough people have quietly supported her to provide the necessary provisions for her expanded family. It is still not clear how much she receives for her various public appearances on television and her stories in tabloid magazines. Some calculate it to be in the hundreds of thousands. But whether it is raw fascination or some kind of empathetic curiosity, there is no doubt that she has garnered the public’s interest.
Nadia has a profound confidence that the most natural, the most normal, thing a woman could do is to have her own children. She just wanted lots of them. In her own honest way, she had things properly planned out. All the children would be from the same donor (father), and she would avoid “killing” any of her embryos, hence her insistence on having them all implanted during her final IVF. She admits that she made up the name for the babies’ donor father from the Bible, calling him David Solomon, two personalities who themselves are joined together in family. She even tried to change her own last name to Solomon, presumably to legitimize her actions and give her children a united mother and father, albeit in her fertile imagination.
Her social environment provided her with the means to fulfill her plan and she simply convinced many people, including her parents, the IVF doctor, the sperm donor (apparently there are two donors, although one never had the chance to fertilize her eggs), and a crew of hospital staff to follow her lead.
So what is it that repulsed people, or at least those writers and TV hosts who continue to denigrate her? It certainly is not the illegitimacy of her children. After all, the unplanned infants of teen mothers and single, career women who use anonymous donors, and even of movie stars, are acceptable. Her lack of funds was not at issue with her first six as she has indicated that much of her worker’s compensation provided for several years of upkeep. And as people are belatedly presented with her explanations, they realize that she only expected one or two from her final IVF . Still, writers and commentators just wouldn’t give her any slack. Where did Nadya go wrong?
Close reading of many articles, whose writers start off by voicing their concern for the funds required to raise the children, or who are irate over the slack the government would have to take, shows one thing in common: Fourteen! is the exclamation point. Some (deep in their articles) have referred to the babies as “litter” or “freakish”. One writer described Nadya as a Third World Muslim Jihadist set to out-breed the American population, even though Nadya has indicated that she is a Christian and was born in America. A female writer talks about Nadya as “the maternal equivalent of a cat collector” with an “out-of-control female body”. And an op-ed columnist has called her behaviour “motherhood psycho kind of thing”.
Sarah Palin and her five, and the Duggar family with its eighteen, have received similar, although less vitriolic, reactions. Even ordinary families with more than four children (why is that the cut-off point?) have to deal with the derision of family and friends for having more than the expected two or three children.
Movie stars like Angelina Jolie, who has only three of her own, and Mia Farrow who has four, have more than doubled their children by salvaging babies from third world countries or providing homes for disabled children. Their fans find this expansion through “rescuing” (rather than birthing) a worthy and admirable behavior.
Nadya’s fourteen are all hers, with photos of her enlarged belly carrying all eight fetuses to prove it. If she had culminated with the seven or eight she expected after her last IVF, there would have still been room for criticism, but not nearly as much as what she gets with her fourteen.
Modern people are disturbed by large numbers of children and by unabashed displays of motherhood. And Nadya is not at all shy about hers, something which we don’t see with Jolie and Farrow. Nadya has a voluptuously generous post-natal body, unlike the scrawny and gaunt Jolie whom many incorrectly say she tries to resemble. She is constantly hugging and kissing any one of her six children in abundant motherly love. She sings individualized songs to the eight that are still in hospital. Her quick mind is constantly thinking of her offspring, often coming up with unconventional ways to provide for them. And Nadya says things like, “I believe you expand your love…I’m trying to make myself bigger” for her fourteen children.
Nadya is a modest regeneration of Cybele, the Great Mother (of the gods and men), the Magna Mater, the fertility goddess, whose story is full of the powers and secrets of womanhood. Cybele is flanked by lions and worshiped by castrated men, and reigned over ancient cities. She has a strange resonance with the insouciant Nadya, whose breeziness camouflages a will of steel. Jolie tried to win this role, but her strange, detached demeanor and her lanky body makes her an unlikely candidate.
The avant-garde filmmaker Man Ray even made a surrealist film on Cybele with his L'Étoile de Mer, where he simultaneously showed his fear of castration by her vagina dentata (toothed vagina) and his great admiration of her being: “Si Belle! Cybèle?”. André Breton, founder of the surrealist movement, has uncanny references to the modern-day Nadya in his novel Nadja, whom he depicts as some mad woman, which is how the media (incorrectly) has been portraying our current Nadya. He even sites a film The Grip of the Octopus in Nadja which film critic P. Adams Sitney says refers to the vagina dentata of Man Ray’s fears, the cloying, grasping tentacles pulling unsuspecting men towards the all-engulfing female.
The world of art and myth often collide to embellish and elucidate our strange daily lives.
Nadya’s men did indeed symbolically castrate themselves for her by providing their seeds for her progeny without the sexual act. One has even publicly presented himself as her emasculated benefactor, risking all humiliation to show his adulation, saying that he is the donor and father of her fourteen children (although according to Nadya, he is not). What real man publicly announces that he is a sperm donor?
Still, other mothers, like Angelina Jolie, the sperm-donor conceiving working women, and the five-time-mother Sarah Palin, are behaving in “Cybele-lite” fashion, although it is clear that for them motherhood does not take precedence, unlike the home-bound Nadya. Their men, whether it is those anonymous sperm-donors, trailing partners like Jolie’s Brad Pitt, or even Sarah Palin’s accommodating husband Todd Palin, are forced to dance to their tune, like Cybele’s emasculated men. Todd, despite his macho snowmobile treks, is forced to live around his wife’s political career and act as a babysitter when she’s not around, and Pitt is a partner in the adoption crime fulfilling the occasional donor-giving qualities built into the contract.
In a twist of media attention, which surprisingly didn’t happen sooner, Nadya, our reluctant Cybele, was asked if she would star in a pornographic film, where she would have eight different partners in eight different scenes. The gripping octopus from André Breton’s novel was coming to life – a crude interpretation of her powerful fecundity (eight babies from eight tentacles?) as the Great Mother into some kind of erotica. Nadya coyly didn’t refuse this offer at the beginning, perhaps sensing the subliminal and mythic nature of the whole situation. And a million dollars is a lot to contemplate.
Ordinary people, not distracted by indignant TV hosts and priggish newspaper columnists, do understand the iconic nature of Nadya the Octo-mom. One should read the tabloids, not the New York Times, to gauge Nadya’s popularity. Nadya the Octo-mom, mother of fourteen and Magna Mater, is a force of nature. She even had the intrusive and opportunist Dr. Phil, the TV mega-host and mega-man himself, momentarily ineffectual (a pattern here?) when he beseeched to his audience to support his accusations that “she has done wrong.” Nadya finally said “yes”, she did wrong, but not without telling us first a thousand reasons why she did right. She nonetheless got Dr. Phil on her side, securing his on-TV declaration that he will do all he can to help her children.
Nadya’s dealings with the labyrinthal, heathen, modern world has given her more than she bargained for. Now, it’s time to bring some propriety to her family. Throwing all myth and poetry aside, she should persuade, in her talented way, the Biblically named father of her children David Solomon to do the right thing by marrying her in a proper church manner, perhaps at the one she was filmed attending with her children. She might even convince the public that it’s fine to have more than two or three children – God provides in mysterious ways, as is happening to her. For all her mythic possibilities, I suspect all Nadya wanted was a house full of children with the right man to take care of her and them.
She says that she had always wanted siblings growing up, and felt that having children of her own would satiate that emptiness she felt as an only child. She eventually saved enough money, about $100,00, to have her fourteen children through In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Her octuplets, born on January 26, 2009, catapulted her into the public’s eye.
Technology and the compliance of doctors assisted Nadya in her decision to have children. She used IVF to overcome her past reproductive problems. She found a willing donor to fertilize her eggs, and she went to an anonymous fertility clinic which didn’t ask too many questions, and which performed the quasi-dangerous procedure of implanting her last remaining six embryos that resulted in the unprecedented eight births (with two sets of twins).
Nadya, dubbed the Octo-mom, has been receiving constant negative reaction from the media throughout the news of her ocutplets. Newspaper op-eds, pundits and bloggers decried what they called her selfish, narcissistic behavior, some calling her evil and even crazy. The news in general portrayed her as a disorganized, unemployed, child-obsessesed woman who is scamming the government. Some of this information is incorrect, since for many years she lived off her $165,000 worker’s compensation and student loans (which she rationalizes she will pay back). The welfare she receives was just in food stamps and disability checks for three of her children. She has also lived with her mother and has the help of both her parents.
Still, since the outbreak of her octuplet news, enough people have quietly supported her to provide the necessary provisions for her expanded family. It is still not clear how much she receives for her various public appearances on television and her stories in tabloid magazines. Some calculate it to be in the hundreds of thousands. But whether it is raw fascination or some kind of empathetic curiosity, there is no doubt that she has garnered the public’s interest.
Nadia has a profound confidence that the most natural, the most normal, thing a woman could do is to have her own children. She just wanted lots of them. In her own honest way, she had things properly planned out. All the children would be from the same donor (father), and she would avoid “killing” any of her embryos, hence her insistence on having them all implanted during her final IVF. She admits that she made up the name for the babies’ donor father from the Bible, calling him David Solomon, two personalities who themselves are joined together in family. She even tried to change her own last name to Solomon, presumably to legitimize her actions and give her children a united mother and father, albeit in her fertile imagination.
Her social environment provided her with the means to fulfill her plan and she simply convinced many people, including her parents, the IVF doctor, the sperm donor (apparently there are two donors, although one never had the chance to fertilize her eggs), and a crew of hospital staff to follow her lead.
So what is it that repulsed people, or at least those writers and TV hosts who continue to denigrate her? It certainly is not the illegitimacy of her children. After all, the unplanned infants of teen mothers and single, career women who use anonymous donors, and even of movie stars, are acceptable. Her lack of funds was not at issue with her first six as she has indicated that much of her worker’s compensation provided for several years of upkeep. And as people are belatedly presented with her explanations, they realize that she only expected one or two from her final IVF . Still, writers and commentators just wouldn’t give her any slack. Where did Nadya go wrong?
Close reading of many articles, whose writers start off by voicing their concern for the funds required to raise the children, or who are irate over the slack the government would have to take, shows one thing in common: Fourteen! is the exclamation point. Some (deep in their articles) have referred to the babies as “litter” or “freakish”. One writer described Nadya as a Third World Muslim Jihadist set to out-breed the American population, even though Nadya has indicated that she is a Christian and was born in America. A female writer talks about Nadya as “the maternal equivalent of a cat collector” with an “out-of-control female body”. And an op-ed columnist has called her behaviour “motherhood psycho kind of thing”.
Sarah Palin and her five, and the Duggar family with its eighteen, have received similar, although less vitriolic, reactions. Even ordinary families with more than four children (why is that the cut-off point?) have to deal with the derision of family and friends for having more than the expected two or three children.
Movie stars like Angelina Jolie, who has only three of her own, and Mia Farrow who has four, have more than doubled their children by salvaging babies from third world countries or providing homes for disabled children. Their fans find this expansion through “rescuing” (rather than birthing) a worthy and admirable behavior.
Nadya’s fourteen are all hers, with photos of her enlarged belly carrying all eight fetuses to prove it. If she had culminated with the seven or eight she expected after her last IVF, there would have still been room for criticism, but not nearly as much as what she gets with her fourteen.
Modern people are disturbed by large numbers of children and by unabashed displays of motherhood. And Nadya is not at all shy about hers, something which we don’t see with Jolie and Farrow. Nadya has a voluptuously generous post-natal body, unlike the scrawny and gaunt Jolie whom many incorrectly say she tries to resemble. She is constantly hugging and kissing any one of her six children in abundant motherly love. She sings individualized songs to the eight that are still in hospital. Her quick mind is constantly thinking of her offspring, often coming up with unconventional ways to provide for them. And Nadya says things like, “I believe you expand your love…I’m trying to make myself bigger” for her fourteen children.
Nadya is a modest regeneration of Cybele, the Great Mother (of the gods and men), the Magna Mater, the fertility goddess, whose story is full of the powers and secrets of womanhood. Cybele is flanked by lions and worshiped by castrated men, and reigned over ancient cities. She has a strange resonance with the insouciant Nadya, whose breeziness camouflages a will of steel. Jolie tried to win this role, but her strange, detached demeanor and her lanky body makes her an unlikely candidate.
The avant-garde filmmaker Man Ray even made a surrealist film on Cybele with his L'Étoile de Mer, where he simultaneously showed his fear of castration by her vagina dentata (toothed vagina) and his great admiration of her being: “Si Belle! Cybèle?”. André Breton, founder of the surrealist movement, has uncanny references to the modern-day Nadya in his novel Nadja, whom he depicts as some mad woman, which is how the media (incorrectly) has been portraying our current Nadya. He even sites a film The Grip of the Octopus in Nadja which film critic P. Adams Sitney says refers to the vagina dentata of Man Ray’s fears, the cloying, grasping tentacles pulling unsuspecting men towards the all-engulfing female.
The world of art and myth often collide to embellish and elucidate our strange daily lives.
Nadya’s men did indeed symbolically castrate themselves for her by providing their seeds for her progeny without the sexual act. One has even publicly presented himself as her emasculated benefactor, risking all humiliation to show his adulation, saying that he is the donor and father of her fourteen children (although according to Nadya, he is not). What real man publicly announces that he is a sperm donor?
Still, other mothers, like Angelina Jolie, the sperm-donor conceiving working women, and the five-time-mother Sarah Palin, are behaving in “Cybele-lite” fashion, although it is clear that for them motherhood does not take precedence, unlike the home-bound Nadya. Their men, whether it is those anonymous sperm-donors, trailing partners like Jolie’s Brad Pitt, or even Sarah Palin’s accommodating husband Todd Palin, are forced to dance to their tune, like Cybele’s emasculated men. Todd, despite his macho snowmobile treks, is forced to live around his wife’s political career and act as a babysitter when she’s not around, and Pitt is a partner in the adoption crime fulfilling the occasional donor-giving qualities built into the contract.
In a twist of media attention, which surprisingly didn’t happen sooner, Nadya, our reluctant Cybele, was asked if she would star in a pornographic film, where she would have eight different partners in eight different scenes. The gripping octopus from André Breton’s novel was coming to life – a crude interpretation of her powerful fecundity (eight babies from eight tentacles?) as the Great Mother into some kind of erotica. Nadya coyly didn’t refuse this offer at the beginning, perhaps sensing the subliminal and mythic nature of the whole situation. And a million dollars is a lot to contemplate.
Ordinary people, not distracted by indignant TV hosts and priggish newspaper columnists, do understand the iconic nature of Nadya the Octo-mom. One should read the tabloids, not the New York Times, to gauge Nadya’s popularity. Nadya the Octo-mom, mother of fourteen and Magna Mater, is a force of nature. She even had the intrusive and opportunist Dr. Phil, the TV mega-host and mega-man himself, momentarily ineffectual (a pattern here?) when he beseeched to his audience to support his accusations that “she has done wrong.” Nadya finally said “yes”, she did wrong, but not without telling us first a thousand reasons why she did right. She nonetheless got Dr. Phil on her side, securing his on-TV declaration that he will do all he can to help her children.
Nadya’s dealings with the labyrinthal, heathen, modern world has given her more than she bargained for. Now, it’s time to bring some propriety to her family. Throwing all myth and poetry aside, she should persuade, in her talented way, the Biblically named father of her children David Solomon to do the right thing by marrying her in a proper church manner, perhaps at the one she was filmed attending with her children. She might even convince the public that it’s fine to have more than two or three children – God provides in mysterious ways, as is happening to her. For all her mythic possibilities, I suspect all Nadya wanted was a house full of children with the right man to take care of her and them.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Postponed deliveries
And fathers as birth assistants
The astute and persistent Chris Wallace of Fox New asked Obama's campaign manager David Plouff whether he was planning to be at his child's birth on election day, if that happens to be the day of the delivery. Plouff says: "Absolutely." Wallace goes on to say: "Boy, there are a lot of people in the Beltway are going to question your priorities, David."
There was a time when such a question wasn't even entertained. No father would relinquish an important (public) engagement to sit at his wife's hospital bed to help deliver his child.
Of course, this is the other side of the coin where women now (enter Sarah Palin) will prolong delivery (by what miracle, I wonder) to make scheduled speeches as full-time careerists.
If women can act like men, why not men act like women? In the mean time, who exactly is running the country?
The astute and persistent Chris Wallace of Fox New asked Obama's campaign manager David Plouff whether he was planning to be at his child's birth on election day, if that happens to be the day of the delivery. Plouff says: "Absolutely." Wallace goes on to say: "Boy, there are a lot of people in the Beltway are going to question your priorities, David."
There was a time when such a question wasn't even entertained. No father would relinquish an important (public) engagement to sit at his wife's hospital bed to help deliver his child.
Of course, this is the other side of the coin where women now (enter Sarah Palin) will prolong delivery (by what miracle, I wonder) to make scheduled speeches as full-time careerists.
If women can act like men, why not men act like women? In the mean time, who exactly is running the country?
The Monsters
Of Art and Science
Max Ernst, The Fireside Angel, 1937
This past summer, I was in Ottawa at the National Gallery of Canada's summer show "The Making of the New Man", where works from important artists of the turn of the 20th century such as Kandinsky, Max Ernst, Salvador Dali and many others, were exhibited showing their version of "The New Man."
What was intriguing about these visions was that they were almost all of them deformed in some way or other. Max Ernst, in his meticulous paintings, perhaps articulated this best. His "new man" was an amalgam of parts, some imaginatively created by Ernst himself, others he appropriated from animals or other familiar sources. But in the end, his "new man" was a monster.
In an article entitled "Listening to Frankenstein", The Center for Vision and Values' Andrew J. Harvey writes about the monster that Mary Shelley's main character, Victor Frankenstein, creates. This creature was never given a name, but we know him as "Frankenstein."
Harvey describes Victor's mindset as that of the modern scientist, and especially today's research scientist, where the pursuit of pure knowledge without its ethical or moral implications can land us with many Frankensteins.
Since this is an art blog, I will just briefly focus on art. Max Ernst's monsters were also created in the pursuit of pure art, where the artist becomes the creator and uses his inner imagination to design his own unique world. Just as the scientist can use his knowledge to make his world - three-legged chicken, tomatoes from green beans - so can the artist create his own by just using his palette and his imagination.
Modern artists who searched into the depths of their imagination, and who believed that they have it within them to make new and great creations, found either an emptiness, as Rothko realized. Or, they found monsters and inhuman concoctions, just as Max Ernst demonstrated. The idea that artists can create something out of nothing - by simply using their imagination - is a modern phenomenon. Previous generations used nature, the Bible and myths and stories to create their paintings to much better success.
There is no "new man", as the scientist Victor found out. But modern artists are slow to catch on, even though Mary Shelley wrote Victor's experiment as a novel rather than as a scientific document.
 |
This past summer, I was in Ottawa at the National Gallery of Canada's summer show "The Making of the New Man", where works from important artists of the turn of the 20th century such as Kandinsky, Max Ernst, Salvador Dali and many others, were exhibited showing their version of "The New Man."
What was intriguing about these visions was that they were almost all of them deformed in some way or other. Max Ernst, in his meticulous paintings, perhaps articulated this best. His "new man" was an amalgam of parts, some imaginatively created by Ernst himself, others he appropriated from animals or other familiar sources. But in the end, his "new man" was a monster.
In an article entitled "Listening to Frankenstein", The Center for Vision and Values' Andrew J. Harvey writes about the monster that Mary Shelley's main character, Victor Frankenstein, creates. This creature was never given a name, but we know him as "Frankenstein."
Harvey describes Victor's mindset as that of the modern scientist, and especially today's research scientist, where the pursuit of pure knowledge without its ethical or moral implications can land us with many Frankensteins.
Since this is an art blog, I will just briefly focus on art. Max Ernst's monsters were also created in the pursuit of pure art, where the artist becomes the creator and uses his inner imagination to design his own unique world. Just as the scientist can use his knowledge to make his world - three-legged chicken, tomatoes from green beans - so can the artist create his own by just using his palette and his imagination.
Modern artists who searched into the depths of their imagination, and who believed that they have it within them to make new and great creations, found either an emptiness, as Rothko realized. Or, they found monsters and inhuman concoctions, just as Max Ernst demonstrated. The idea that artists can create something out of nothing - by simply using their imagination - is a modern phenomenon. Previous generations used nature, the Bible and myths and stories to create their paintings to much better success.
There is no "new man", as the scientist Victor found out. But modern artists are slow to catch on, even though Mary Shelley wrote Victor's experiment as a novel rather than as a scientific document.