Art Hop

I have recently attended an art function in my hometown called Art Hop. Art galleries twice a month open their doors to the culturally curious. The artists are on the premises to talk about their pieces and there are refreshments provided at every location. It is an amazing idea for the culturally starved region and the art that is produced has been of high caliber however in this town there is always something wrong...

The event takes place on the first and third Thursday of every month between 5pm and 9pm. Though this is a fun mid-week entertainment opportunity how regular can attendance or motivation be? I think the premise is good but those hours are difficult to accommodate if the person is working. Unless the person plans to only visit one venue, this is quite restricted.

These venues are also quite small--artist studios or galleries or just exhibits in parks. They are nice to look around but as they are fairly small it would be more reasonable to attend multiple locations and exhibits. The problem here is that they are all scattered throughout the city. Though certain areas are more concentrated than others the need to drive between venues is a large deterrent to attending such functions. Further, a large portion of area residents do not own cars. This is discluding to large portions of the population (probably the population that might benefit the most).

My next note for improvement--artists and sales. This event has turned into more of a sales event for budding artists than exhibits. My most recent participation involved two venues: a watercolor exhibit (with images inspired by Georgia O'Keefe) and an sculpture exhibit (largely tea sets). The artists were on hand to discuss their pieces and it was quite interesting yet, I would rather peruse their work in peace. I felt compelled to ask them questions because they were excited to have anyone looking at their work. Even more so did I feel like I needed to by something because they are standing over me as I look. I felt uncomfortable especially when there were things I did not like (mainly the watercolors). Though artists need recognition and sales, I think that making this event revolve around sales will limit people that legitimately like looking at art.

Though I like the idea there needs to be more appropriate time for the event, closer venues, or shuttle transportation options, and there needs to be a greater emphasis on art education and appreciation than sales. This area is greatly in need of cultural advancement and growth and this idea is moving in the right direction but it unfortunately neglects people from the start.

Renaissance Drawing at the British Museum: from Fra Angelico to Leonardo

I recently went to the British Museum to see the exhibition about drawing during the Renaissance in Italy. As I have never been that interested in the subject I nevertheless, was interested in the historical background and was looking for some answers. Fortunately this exhibition was answering my questions while featuring works by Leonardo da Vinci, Fra Angelico, Jacopo and Gentile Bellini, Botticelli, Carpaccio, Filippo Lippi, Mantegna, Michelangelo, Verrocchio and Titian. In order to gather all these artists in one place, the British Museum pooled into its own collection and into the Florence based Uffizi collection. The Renaissance was a period, starting in Italy in the 15th century and then in Europe, which saw an intense revival of the classical art and learning from the Greek and Roman civilisations. Hugo Chapman, the curator of the exhibition, notices that “marble figures like Bacchus encouraged artists to recognise the sensuality and beauty of the human body. The sculpted Bacchus presents an idealised vision of the perfect male body.” Indeed, amongst these drawings we can see that the artists, such as Leonardo or Raphael, started to draw different subjects of the day-to-day life and that their portraits were focusing on the body and the face of their subjects.

The exhibition begins by focusing its attention on the innovation that developed the profession of artists: the paper. In fact, it points that the Chinese invention of papermaking had been brought to Europe via the Islamic world. The invention of the printing press in Germany in the 1450s gave a huge impetus for papermaking, above all in Italy which was the most literate and urbanised region of Europe. Renaissance paper was handmade from cloth fibres (not wood pulp as today) obtained from old clothes, sails and ropes. To complete the explanation, a video shows how paper was made and visitors are invited to touch different types of papers to feel the differences. This is obviously a detail, but it is a good way to put into its historical context this artistic breakthrough.

The exposition then proceeds to show the evolution of artists’ techniques through the ages and how important were the various Italian city-states. Starting with pioneers religious men such as Fra Angelico or Lorenzo Monaco, the spectators' attentions are then focused on the main cities. Florence, with mainly the Medici and the Tornabuoni amongst others, has been one of the first city were the Renaissance artists could evolve from religious subjects and thus became a pole for them. The powerful Italian families wanted to use their talents to express their wealth and leave behind them a glorious picture. The Vatican was also another major player as it attracted artists such as Raphael or Michelangelo from Florence. There, the most successful of them would receive the most important commission and be able to impose their own style and thus fulfil their ambition as being the best artist. Leonardo Da Vinci’s career, apart from being one the quintessential Renaissance man, shows the important cities and families at this time as he worked for no less than Florence’s Medici, Milan’s Sforza, the Doge of Venice and the Vatican and then Francois 1er of France. However, his career does not reflect the way Renaissance was present in all the Italian peninsula as many lesser cities also employed lesser artists.

 Although I have never been a huge fan of this period artistically speaking, I can still appreciate the precision of these drawings and this exhibition allow the visitors to observe the artists’ talent with their pencil and sometimes even compare these with the finite paints, notably Lorenzo Monaco’s tryptich. The historical side, was an interesting side of the exhibition, showed that artists had a huge ambition and how through this war between them the style of the Renaissance evolved progressively from a religious theme to everything that the artists wanted to show.

-C

The Lessons of Afghanistan?

The interview from General McChrystal, Commander of the US army and NATO forces in Afghanistan, in the magazine Rolling Stone showed his frustration and the gap growing between what the politicians want and what the military commanders want to do. I believe that he fully knew the consequences of such an act and wanted out. It also another sign of the values’ change compared to before, yet people expect the same results. Indeed, the lessons of the decolonisation, Viet-Nam and others have not been learnt. 

Does this gap between the two men shows the limit of the American war machine? It is obvious that if a developed army can win a battle against some partisans is not a trouble, winning the war against them is different. People at home do not want to hear about casualties but they still want to “win” the war. It is really odd because wars invariably involve casualties on both. It seems as if it was paradoxical. Interestingly many political figures such on both side the American political spectrum talk about winning the war and being patriotic and how they believe in freedom. Yet they have no trouble, imposing their own value on a different people leaving thousands of kilometers away from them. Is it the condition of winning the war? That’s not really democratic, it reminds me of the time of colony where western nations would “educate” other nations. The prime intention of letting people being master of their destiny is praiseworthy, however it is really hard to implement, let alone in a country prone to tribal war as it is a conflict between idea where education play a big role. The problem in this war is that the conditions of a victory are blurry. How are the strategists in the field supposed  to meet these requirements?

Then what can be the role of an army, how will it help a wannabe superpower to assert its influence and ambitions: I would think that this army wouldn't retaliate heavily, should be ready to take loss and reacting accordingly: no massive show of firepower, compassionate answer since political correctness is all over the place, rendering everything less natural and genuine. So are we back to Louis XV and the War of the Austrian Succession where France would be the peace maker of Europe while asking for nothing in return bar glory? However nowadays, soldier’s lives are much more valued this day making it hard to continue that kind of enlightened war.

And that is the trend as developed nations or at least western nations are less and less inclined to suffer human losses which make the exercise of war even harder. This will give the opportunity to others developing states to try the same: China in Africa, it is too early to get any lesson from its involvement there but it s not too glorious either, they benefited from an immaculate picture and used their own principles without adapting too much to the locals, it gets the job done but it doesn't make a country live if the workers are foreigners and do not integrate.

In conclusion, the role of an army shifted heavily toward a humanitarian pattern, it should rather defend and develop than attack and destroy, this is a frustrating position for the army now as they are being asked the double tasks of winning the war and bearing the brunt of the casualties while reorganising civil life.

I think that the Afghanistan war was started out of revenge and its goal was poorly designed. I do not put into question its motive and fully agree with it. However, the West and  chiefly the USA should have focused on continually eradicating Taliban leadership and their drug field without trying to get involved too much in the politics of this country not yet suited for democracy, instead they chose to achieve the impossible in spite of the previous lessons. Much easier said than achieved. And would have it been possible from a moral point of view? certainly not. However now, the coalition must go on.

-C

German Nationalism

A Wall Street Journal article last week (not available online) presented a somewhat alarming story It chronicled an immigrant to Germany who began flying the German flag in recognition of his World Cup pride. This article claims that liberal youths took the German flags that he had hung. This liberal movement appears anti-nationalistic and my guess, shows that there is shame or embarrassment about Germany's past. My research is not extensive however, I have opinions and questions on the subject.

I have had an extensive conversation with a German friend about German nationality. Though this is only one account, I find it convincing. She claims that Germany cannot show nationalism because people, the world, still hold them accountable for their history. This is nothing that Germany should be proud of. The Germans have conducted treacherous acts and they should not be proud of that. They need to distance themselves as much as they can from German history.

One of my responses is, 'how can young generations be held accountable for something they had no influence over'? A young German person today cannot be happy to be German because their great-grandparents were in the wrong place at the wrong time? German citizens were asked--told--to defend--improve--their country. The citizens had little liberty on the matter.

Though I am not trying to praise the Germans for their World War actions, but I wonder what committee judged them and who established the standard? Ethics in international affairs is a tricky business but where is the line drawn for what is 'good war' and what is 'bad war'. War is unfortunate and ugly but all sides in every conflict cannot conduct themselves virtuously. The victor writes the history and the history says that Germany is 'bad'. Russia is scarcely seen as a peaceful country yet they are allowed to show their pride. The ethics scale is hypocritical and subjective.

However there are signs of returning German assertiveness. An article comparing and contrasting the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the French President Nicolas Sarkozy detailed the growing rift between the two countries. For the last fifty years Germany has largely accommodated European (French) interests in an attempt to 'play nice' and support peaceful, unified directions (even in conflict with Germany's individual interests). The Greek credit situation has pushed the buttons of German generosity. The point is that Germany has so much to be proud of and it is starting to see that. Merkel is standing up to France in defense of its personal stability, profitable exports, and more higher ranking football team.

I argued with my friend for an entire evening over how much stronger Germany would be outside the EU. She however never agreed with me. Now, I think we were both right. She knew Germany, and many German citizens, could not yet face its past. However, I had an outside perspective of how strong the nation really is and how much it could accomplish. Should Germany be nationalistic, yes. Can Germany be nationalistic, slowly.

~PB