Cabbages and Kings

My word, but it's been a long time.

Of course, there are many reasons why...dissertation, and the fact that I'd rather be on the couch with my boyfriend in the evenings than at the computer trying to think up useless blog topics not least among them.

So, why am I updating now? Well, for one thing I'm on a new schedule that makes my mornings a bit weird. The classes I teach are all in the afternoon, which makes my day a bit weird. Basically, I get up, work on stuff until about noon, have lunch, head to school, teach, and then I'm back home by 3:30. Unfortunately, at that point, I'm really not in the mood to go back to working on dissertation stuff. Consequently, my work time gets slightly cut down. So I'm blogging now because I just finished one project for the day, but I don't have enough time to start the next one before I have to shower, lunch, and head out the door. The second reason is that, well, I haven't updated in a while and I'm bored. One can only check Google Reader so often for updates, people.

So what's new since the summer? I still haven't graduated for one. That, however, is coming shortly...most likely in March or early April. The boyfriend is going to be an uncle for the second time in the next month or so, so we're planning a trip to the mid-west in the near future. Christmas was lovely, if a bit overextended. We have a new president! I watched the inauguration, and I unexpectedly cried as soon as Chief Justice Roberts said, "Congratulations, Mr. President." Does it seem to anyone else that there's a new bounce in everyone's step?

I'm sure there's lots more, but I'm blanking out. I'm about to turn 30, you know. Since senility is apparently setting in early, consider yourselves updated, because I doubt it will get better.

Happy belated new year, and here's to blogging more regularly in the future.

Culture Corner: Le déjeuner sur l'herbe

Édouard Manet, Luncheon on the Grass, 1863

This piece, by one of the great masters of the later nineteenth century, is one of the most visually arresting pieces I can think of. Not only is it interestingly executed, but the subject matter leaves many questions and hints to numerous possible interpretations.

My favorite way of thinking of this painting is to conceive of it as a photograph in oil paint. The latter half of the nineteenth century saw something of a revolution in the way that images are created. Some of it stemmed from the Realist movement, in which artists sought to eschew previous subjects -- gods, classical antiquity, religious themes, historic events, monarchs -- to focus on the reality of everyday life. The most noted Realist is Gustave Courbet, whose the The Stonebreakers is considered an exemplar of the genre. In this enormous canvas, the dimensions of which were usually only reserved for grand, epic subjects, Courbet painted two men breaking rocks with hammers. Not exactly exciting stuff, but it served something of a political purpose by rhetorically asking, "Why do we glorify men who have achieved greatness only through birth, when there are everyday heroes like these laborers?" Along with Realism, some of the image revolution came from the invention of the camera. With this contraption, "reality" no longer had to be filtered through the eye, the mind, and the hand of the artist; rather, people could get a firsthand account of events as they happened. Such a novel approach created something of a vogue for "real life" that both fueled the Realist painters and the Impressionists as well as much of what constituted urban life in the latter nineteenth century (where going to the city morgue was considered a fun family outing).

Luncheon on the Grass stylistically takes something from these parallel developments. For one, the lighting is completely strange. As opposed to a natural light, which one would get from lunching in the park, the characters appear brightly lit as if from an artificial source beyond our view. Notice, the characters do not cast shadows, nor are there really any shadows in the picture at all. Likewise, the positions of the characters are strange. They seem posed and artificial -- not like a group sharing a picnic at all, but more like mannequins holding the places where actual people should be. The overall effect is to give something of a muddled impression of the "reality" of the scene. Is it staged? Does the photographer really represent life as it is, or does the camera, in fact, lie depending on the operator?

Of course, the most noticeable feature of the painting has nothing to do with lighting or posing, but rather the totally nude woman sitting front and center. Some people have pointed to this as being a possible reference to the rampant prostitution that existed in many Parisian parks in this period. This seems a little too simplistic to me, though. I mean, it is broad daylight, and the rest of the scene hardly suggests "prostitution." Indeed, there is nothing sensual about this painting at all. Notice that the two men do not pay any attention to the woman sitting stark naked in front of them (nor to the semi-clad woman in the water behind them). Even the food, which in many instances represents sensuality, is something of an afterthought. It is not being consumed, it merely lay tossed aside, a remnant of an afternoon's activities. Perhaps the state of disarray of the food suggests a tryst that has already happened, but again the rest of the scene does not suggest this -- the men are fully clothed, the woman appears bored, and there is nothing even remotely sexy about the scene.

I don't think this painting is about sex in the conventional way. I think it is meant to suggest something about Victorian models of respectability. The nude woman is obviously a breach of bourgeois morality in her stark nudity; the men completely ignoring her upholds the idea of masculine restraint. Perhaps Manet is questioning a social structure that tells men to uphold an impossible ideal, such that they ignore a completely beautiful naked woman for the sake of each others' company. In this, perhaps Manet is suggesting something of a homosocial/homosexual undertone -- that bourgeois morality is, in fact, dandifying and emasculating the true nature of male sociability.

Anyway, the overall effect is somewhat disconcerting, and that's what draws me to it. Any art that raises more questions than it gives is good art in my book.

Culture Corner: Les Bergers d'Arcadie

Nicolas Poussin, The Shepherds of Arcadia, 1638

This work by Nicolas Poussin has aroused some controversy of late because of some completely irrational conspiracy theories concerning the bloodline of Christ and other such conspiratorial gibberish. It seems that ever since The DaVinci Code, people have been obsessed with historical mysteries and are convinced that there's a worldwide conspiracy to keep these things hidden. Can't people just accept that there are some things that have been lost to time and leave it at that? It makes things so much more fun than having all the answers, doesn't it?

Anyhow, it seems that all of this Priory of Sion business has come about because of some very tortured interpretations of this work, mainly centering around the inscription on the tomb in the painting: "Et in Arcadia ego." Traditionally, this phrase has been translated as "Even in Arcadia, I exist," with the intended inference being that Death is the speaker. Arcadia is a mythological reference that is meant to inspire pastoral beauty and utopianism; thus, if the speaker is Death, the phrase points out that even in paradise, mortality will take its toll. The conspiracy nuts claim that the phrase is an anagram that points to the bloodline of Jesus. That only makes sense with some very twisted logic. And 'shrooms.

The painting itself is an interesting commentary on the phrase. The shepherds are clearly meant to invoke the bucolic paradise that Arcadia references; the contrast of the images of utopia with the cold stone tomb points to the inevitability of death. The actions of the shepherds, however, comment on the idea of mortality and the possibility that it may be overcome. If you look closely, the kneeling shepherd in front of the tomb has a shadow that is cast over the stony façade, a common artistic trope that is meant to evoke the idea of mortality. His companion to the right, however, is tracing the shadow with his finger. Possibly, this is a reference to the creation of art. To do so on the wall of the tomb is a symbol of the artist's triumph over death. For these shepherds, even if the kneeling figure were to die, his image would be left behind in a grab at immortality; thus, the overall impression is that the artist is able to conquer death through the immortalization of images, people, and events. So, while death may exist even in Arcadia, no one need be forgotten when they are gone.

Interestingly, this painting is a reworking of an earlier painting by the same painter. In The Shepherds of Arcadia from 1627, Poussin makes the point all the more clearly. In this version, there is a skull atop the tomb, clearly pointing to Death as the speaker of the infamous line. The figures in the painting are much more Baroque in their execution, with the strong use of shading, emotion, and visual motion to evoke a more powerful image. The later representation is more in the classical style with very staid, emotionless figures, geometrical composition, and austerity of execution. While the Baroque era was known for its extravagance and its drama (being the favored style of absolutist rulers like the Popes or Louis XIV of France), perhaps Poussin thought that the statement he was trying to make was too heavy for such a lighthearted, almost Rococo style.

In any event, the mysterious painting can still inspire thought without being tied to the lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists, and its cold, detached presentation can still give it the air of creepiness that, perhaps, many people find titillating. I certainly don't begrudge anyone their religious faith, and if it makes them happy to continually search for evidence of Christ, then certainly that is their right. By leaving the possibility of physical evidence of Jesus out of it, though, doesn't it make the painting -- and Christianity -- more inspiring?

He said WHAT?

These, to my mind, are the ten greatest quotes of 19th- and 20th-century American history. They have been chosen for their historical significance, their eloquence, their wit, or their cattiness. They are in no particular order. They are not chosen on the basis of ideology or partisanship. They are simply the ones that I enjoy the most. I give you:

THE TEN GREATEST QUOTES OF 19th and 20TH-CENTURY AMERICA

1. Context: United States UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson addresses Soviet Ambassador Valerian Zorin (who has one of the BEST names of all time), questioning Zorin about his country's placing of missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1961. Stevenson asked if Zorin's country was installing missiles, to which he abruptly added this gem,

"Don't wait for the translation, answer 'yes' or 'no'!"

Sock it to 'em, egghead.

2. Context: The 1988 Vice Presidential debate between Sen. Dan Quayle (Republican running mate of George H. W. Bush) and Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (Democratic running mate of Michael Dukakis). The campaign highlighted Quayle's relatively short time in the Senate as a marker of his inexperience, should he ever be elevated to the presidency. In rebuttal, Quayle often compared himself to John F. Kennedy by saying that Kennedy had no more experience than he had when Kennedy sought the presidency, to which Bentsen replied,

"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy; I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

Meow, baby.

3. Context: The 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, at which Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., adressed the crowd from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. and gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. This is classic, and should be read in its entirety by ALL Americans.

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

Obviously.

4. Context: In 1954, during the Army-McCarthy hearings in which Sen. Joseph McCarthy was attempting to weed out communists from the Army. During some aggressive questioning from the Army's lawyer, Joseph Welch, McCarthy fired back that Welch should be more concerned with tending to his own organizations. He specifically referenced an attorney from Welch's Boston law office, Fred Fisher, who had come under suspicion because of his involvement with the National Lawyers' Guild, an organization suspected of being a communist front. In a pre-trial agreement McCarthy and Welch had agreed not to bring Fisher up because the matter was already under investigation. When McCarthy violated this agreement in mentioning Fisher, Welch fired back with this classic retort.

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator... You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

I use this one myself sometimes. The reference usually gets lost on most people.

5. Context: The Minnesota State Fair in 1901, at which Vice President Theodore Roosevelt articulated what's known as "Big Stick Diplomacy" in which the United States had the right to not only oppose European intervention in the Western hemisphere, but also to use forceful means to head it off. Examples are mostly from United States involvement in Latin America and the Caribbean.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick."

Weirdly, President McKinley would be assassinated twelve days later, giving Roosevelt the chance to implement his policy as 26th President of the United States.

6. Context: December 8, 1941, the day after the Empire of Japan bombed the US Naval installation at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. President Franklin Roosevelt stood before the assembled Congress to ask for a declaration of war.

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."

7. Context: The 1832 Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia. At the time, Georgia required any white person living in Native American territory to be licensed by the state. Several missionaries refused to obtain the license on the grounds that the state of Georgia had no right to enforce laws on sovereign Indian nations. They contested the law all the way to the Supreme Court. In a surprise decision, the Court (under the stewardship of Chief Justice John Marshall) struck down the Georgia law, effectively acknowledging the existence of sovereign Indian communities within the United States. President Andrew Jackson, who nearly always took an unfavorable view towards Native Americans, and is credited with something of a Native American holocaust with his Indian removal policies, expressed his reaction to the decision.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

8. Context: At the height of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln traveled to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania several months after the Union armies decisively defeated the Confederacy in the Battle of Gettysburg. To commemorate the battle, and those lost in it, Lincoln gave the now-famous Gettysburg Address, which many a grade-schooler ever since has been obliged to memorize.

"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

9. Context: The 1925 Scopes trial, in which Tennessee schoolteacher Thomas Scopes was brought to court for teaching the theory of evolution in defiance of state laws the prohibited the teaching of any theory that denied the story of divine creation presented in the Bible. In a famous turn of events, the defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, called for an expert on the Bible, a call that was readily answered by the prosecuting attorney and influential politician, William Jennings Bryan. During the questioning, Darrow attempted to show that belief in the historicity of the Bible was unreasonable and should not be taught as science.

"You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion. [...] We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."

10. Context: The 1949 Supreme Court case Terminiello v. Chicago, in which a priest had been convicted under a Chicago ordinance for breach of peace. Terminiello was convicted of breaching the peace at a rally where his anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi ranting incited quite a large protest (understandably). Terminiello appealed, and on review Justice William Douglas wrote the majority opinion overturning Terminiello's conviction and striking down the city ordinance as unconstitutional. According to Douglas, no matter how inflamatory, free speech must be protected:

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper is doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."


And there you have it, folks!

Take THAT dissertation committee!

I actually just wrote the following sentence in my dissertation:

In the case of a man who claimed he was anally raped by a dog, Lacassagne’s extensive analysis of the shape and size of a dog’s penis, the methods through which one can arouse a dog’s desire, and the mechanics involved in the actual perpetration of the canine “pederasty” served only to elucidate the grotesque details for the voyeuristic reader.

I am the most awesome intellectual. EVAR.

Edited to add: I just realized that posting that will probably get me all kinds of hits from people searching for "anal rape" and "dogs" together. I love the internet.

"Happy, happy birthday baby..."

Lots of activity in the past couple of days, kids.

This weekend was Bryan's birthday, so we went to New York City to celebrate. We spent the weekend hanging out with one of my best friends from high school, and she dutifully took us out-of-towners where we wanted to go. But, first things first.

We got there after a grueling 6 hours in traffic and parked the car near my friend's Brooklyn apartment before taking the subway into the city. Of course, we had to stop at the Apple Store on 5th Ave., as it's kind of a holy place for Bryan. Also, it's right next to F.A.O. Schwarz, so we could pick up some toys for the new nephew and the soon-to-be-daughter of one of Bryan's good friends.

After dinner, we met up with my friend at her workplace. She took us to the roof of her building in Herald Square (which, as a matter of fact, is where the above picture came from). After she got off of work around midnight, we went to Lincoln Center to see this art installation. The theory behind it is cool. The artist filmed dancers performing, but slowed the frame rate way down so it looks like they're floating in mid-air and holding leg extensions for eons. It was very cool, and quite relaxing to watch as we lay on the cement of the plaza.

On Saturday, we spent the whole day at Coney Island for the Siren Music Festival. I had never been to Coney Island before, and all the impressions I get of it from the media are of a drug-ridden former paradise. It was actually kind of charming in certain respects, although it was VERY crowded and VERY hot, with no shade. Being the delicate flower that I am, I was slathered in sunscreen and sought shade at every possible opportunity. The highlight of Coney Island was riding the Cyclone roller coaster. It was fun, I guess. If you like being beaten to a bloody pulp. The ride was so rough, Bryan has bruises all over his body (I guess he's the delicate flower in that scenario). Later that night, some other friends of mine came in for a birthday dinner at the Park Slope Alehouse.

Sunday we left Brooklyn after eating a couple of burritos the size of our heads, and we had dinner with my family in Connecticut at one of the best seafood restaurants in the state before heading home. All in all, it was a good weekend, and Bryan enjoyed his birthday which is all I really cared about in the first place.

Next week, we're off to Indiana to visit the new nephew and experience the heartland, so I'm looking forward to a week of chain restaurants and fast food joints.

If you can't say anything nice...

This meme looks really interesting, and is very different from a lot of the memes out there. I thought I'd give it a try.

List ten things you want to say to 10 people you know, but never will for whatever reason. Don't say who they are. Use each person only once and only use one sentence.

1. You are quick to point out the things you see as faults in others, but you are absolutely incapable of seeing those exact same traits in yourself.
2. I am severely disappointed that you didn't even call me on my birthday.
3. You used our friendship to manipulate me because you knew you could.
4. You intimidate me as much as you inspire me.
5. I will never forgive you for what you did to me.
6. I'm capable of far more than you think I am, but you never give me the chance.
7. Our friendship is one of the things that I cherish most in my life.
8. Were you to ever not be in my life, I would experience the biggest, deepest, saddest sense of loss I have ever known.
9. I'm almost a Ph.D., and you sell shoes for living, and I don't feel at all badly that I'm gloating about that.
10. I hate your significant other.