#biddle gen: 6

[planetarysims]

These two seem a little sad to be saying goodbye to Appaloosa Plains :(

[samuel28-7]

"God" by Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven and Morton Schamberg

“In the spring of 2017 the Philadelphia Museum of Art told the same old story about an alleged scandal caused by a urinal. In its ignorance what the museum didn’t address was the part played by itself and other venerable Philadelphian institutions in the actual birth of American modern art, for it was in the Quaker City, and nowhere else, that on the day that America declared war on Germany in the first week of April 1917 a chain of events was triggered by an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer that lead to a spring offensive, not in Flanders, but at the Grand Central Palace on Lexington Avenue in New York City: an offensive whose offensiveness continues to resonate in world culture. Those institutions were the aforementioned Museum of Art, the Franklin Institute, the plumbing supply house, Haines, Jones and Cadbury, aka Hajoca, the master plumbers of Philadelphia and, critically, the fulcrum around which these agencies would unwittingly dance, the Philadelphia Inquirer. Whilst it would be on April 2 that Woodrow Wilson would ask a special joint session of the US Congress for a declaration of war, to which Congress responded positively on the 6th, it was in the pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer on April 1 that anticipation of this momentous event coincided with a notice announcing the opening of an open modern art exhibition in New York on the following Tuesday, the 10th. This was the inaugural exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists (S.I.A.,) some 50 of whose members would hail from Philadelphia and Pennsylvania – some famous, such as Robert Henri, Charles Demuth, Morton L. Schamberg and George Biddle and some completely unknown - such as a certain Richard Mutt who, whilst never making it into the exhibition, but whose corporeality was never questioned at the time, certainly made it into the annals of modern art. And it just so happened that on that same 1 April, a singular German artist, who had fled New York on January 7, found herself as a consequence in Philadelphia, not returning to the capital until twelve months later. Astonishingly, this was the daughter in law of the Kaiser’s Chief of Staff, Gen. Lt. Hugo Freiherr (Baron) von Freytag Loringhoven, the most celebrated military strategist in Europe: none other than the Baroness Elsa von Freytag Loringhoven, who had been christened plain Hildegard Plötz, of Swinemünde (Świnoujście) Pomerania.. One of the Baron’s descendants would be in Hitler’s bunker at the end: another is presently Head of Intelligence for NATO. Funny old world. Ironically, on February 6, Elsa could have read in The Inquirer an interview with her father-in-law published under the headline ‘Militarism a Myth, Says German officer: General von Freytag-Loringhoven Denies Germany Started Out for Conquest – Says Allies Spent More on Military.’ Elsa’s response is not on record. An artist’s model who had also been arrested many times for public obscenity, the ‘colourful’ Elsa had left New York in a hurry, having been arrested once again of shoplifting – this time, of a box of chocolates and a bottle of olive oil from a drug store at Broadway and 110th St. on the 5th. But, hijacking the police wagon that was taking her to the Harlem jail on the 6th, Elsa paused at the Lincoln Arcade apartments’ only to collect her Pekingese dog, Pinky, as the police entered front door at 65th Broadway (no. 1947) as Elsa left through by back, proceeding thence to the Pennsylvania Station from whence, in a few minutes, she would have simultaneously crossed under the Hudson River and over the state line into New Jersey, beyond the reach of the New York Police Department and the jurisdiction of the Penal Code. As a repeat offender she was up for a maximum of $1000 fine and/or 12 months: her bail, which she couldn’t meet, was a whopping $300. As news reports confirm, three weeks later the police were still staking out the apartment of the individual they considered the craftiest shoplifter and ‘quick-change artist’ in Manhattan: not that it did them any good; she’d long gone. But Elsa, who when not in disguise was, for a variety of reasons, busy taking her clothes off, was also an artist, the most radical of the New York avant-garde, and in Philadelphia she would create the two most important early works of American Dada, which today, by chance, embellish the Arensberg Collection in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. One appears, by proxy, in the form of a so-called ‘replica’- a urinal signed R. Mutt: the other is what the curators of the museum apparently imagine to be a simple plumbing trap, made of iron, which could not be further from the truth, on both counts. The first is still misattributed to Marcel Duchamp: the latter was re-attributed to Elsa only in the 1990s. Quite simply, these two works demonstrate Elsa to be the lost genius of American avant-garde art, written out of the boys club but whose sojourn in Philadelphia in 1917 would completely rewrite the history of modern art, as it will again. Elsa’s reaction to the declaration of war on her beloved Germany would result in the unannounced arrival at the Grand Central Palace on the 9th of April, 1917, of a urinal that was summarily rejected because the artist apparently responsible for sending it in, one Richard Mutt, had no right to exhibit since had he neither joined the society, paid his fees and dues, registered his entry or delivered his work on time. And two reports of the ensuing argument over whether it should be accepted or not, published in the New York Sun and the Herald on April 11, stated plainly that Mutt’s Fountain and its author hailed from Philadelphia, its author “shipping from the Quaker City a familiar object of bathroom furniture manufactured by a well known firm of that town.” And how did they know - because its source would have been obvious from the details on the way-bill inevitably attached to its shipping crate, without which it couldn’t have moved an inch, and from the supplier’s brand and logo on the crate and the urinal itself, which both bore the image of a Quaker derived from the celebrated statue of William Penn, enclosed within a banderol declaring the company’s name, and crossed by its logo. This was Haines, Jones and Cadbury (aka Hajoca,) then, as now, the most venerable plumbing supply house in Philadelphia. Both the reporters had even given Mutt the initial’s ‘J.C.,’ the capital letters of Jones and Cadbury. Beginning its life as a manufacturer of plumber’s ground key brass work in 1885, like every other major jobber of plumbing goods in the US, the Hajoca diversified into a one-stop shop, eventually manufacturing porcelain-enameled plumbing fixtures itself but never double fired vitreous ceramic ‘china’ equivalents, such water closets, lavatories and baths, or the urinal that Elsa would acquire from a local plumber: only the jobbers could buy from the manufacturers, and only in bulk; the plumbers had to buy from them. These vitreous ceramic (‘china,’ or ‘porcelain,’) plumbing fixtures were almost exclusively manufactured an hour away by rail, in Trenton, New Jersey, and one of the companies from which Hajoca are known to have sourced their vitreous ceramic fixtures was the Trenton Potteries Company (TPCo) which manufactured the model of urinal that Elsa/Mutt send to the Independents, which would not be attributed to Marcel Duchamp until 1935, and who could not have bought it in 1917 from where in 1966 he would say he had - from the J. L. Mott Iron Works at the corner of Fifth Avenue and Seventeenth St, N. Y. C - since the design of the urinal was unique, its identity and origins unmistakable – as long as you know what you’re looking at, which helps. Neither was it made nor factored by Mott’s: nor was it available for retail purchase at that address, since this was a set of showrooms, dedicated solely to display. And neither was the urinal in the Mott catalogue current in 1917: the only manufacturer’s catalogue in which it could be found at that date was the Trenton Potteries ‘Blue Book’ Catalogue ‘R’ of 1915, although of course it appeared in catalogues issued by plumbing supply houses such as Hajoca from no later than 1906 to at least 1922. But not in Mott’s. Whilst sourcing their vitreous ceramic urinals from the TPCo, Hajoca had the option of having that firm’s ‘star-in-the-circle’ trademark replaced with their own, described above, a practice they adopted for all fixtures and fittings they sold, whether manufactured by themselves or not. The Hajoca logo was what the two New York journalists had seen at the vernissage on 9 April. Two days after the urinal was rejected, Duchamp admitted in a letter to his sister in Paris that not he but a female friend had “sent” it “in,” a typically routine observation that never entered the public domain until fourteen years after Duchamp’s death, in 1982, by which time the false attribution to himself had, in complete ignorance of this admission, become embedded in an establishment myth that persists to this day. And the only female friend of Duchamp’s with whose existing practice Mutt’s submission imbricated seamlessly was Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, Duchamp’s only female friend in Philadelphia, the only individual in North America capable of conceiving and executing Mutt’s gesture - and with good reason to do so since, at a stroke, on April 6, Elsa had become an enemy alien whilst Marcel joined the allies who had already embraced him, and rejected her. Not that that was the only reason. These events explain why the urinal appeared out of the blue at the Grand Central Palace on April 9. For Elsa had left New York three weeks before the first notices of the ensuing exhibition began to appear - in the New York press, on the subway, and the ‘El,’ announcing the forthcoming exhibition, inviting artists to join the society – on January 20. Since no such notice appeared in any Philadelphia newspaper, the first Elsa would have known about the show would have been on the April 1st, when a note to prospective visitors to the show – not artists intending to submit works: it was too late for that - informed Philadelphia that all members of the society would exhibiting up to two works, but omitted to mention that membership of the organisation was obligatory, a condition which, therefore, Elsa could not have known. And if the plumber’s shop from which Elsa procured the urinal had been as typical as those habitually described in the plumbing press, then, in the corner Elsa would have found the plumbing trap that would become Exhibit B now on display at the Philadelphia Museum, and known as ‘God.’ Since – as its condition then as now demonstrates, at least to plumber, but not, thus far, any self-regarding orthodox Duchamp scholar - it was useless junk, Elsa would probably have got it for nothing: the urinal would have cost her no more than $10, probably less, because it too was no use to a plumber, since it had suffered a fault during its manufacture. Unlike its description on the Philadelphia Museum current website – a plumbing trap made of iron – Elsa’s ‘God (made, as any Joe the Plumber, then and now, knows, from brass,) was in fact a Bennor Anti-Syphon Globe Trap, the original form of which had been patented in 1883, whilst the more refined design (properly ‘pattern’) exhibited by ‘God’ first appeared in a Hajoca catalogue ten years later, alongside its ancestor. This original – not, as in he case of Mutt’s urinal, a ‘replica’ - had been awarded a Scott Premier Medal by the Franklin Institute in 1894, for manufacturing ‘novelties.’ Like the aforementioned museum, that same Franklin institute is today unaware that the sole surviving example of Joseph Bennor’s design can be found a stone’s throw down the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. The significance of Elsa’s ‘God’ does not so much reside in the contribution that Bennor’s design made to the history of sanitation – his anti-syphon globe trap being one of the most successful anti-sewer gas and anti-siphon designs marketed between 1884 and 1914, when it disappeared from the inventory – but in the fact that, after 1883, it was made exclusively – in Philadelphia - by Haines, Jones and Cadbury, the company that had also factored – in Philadelphia - the urinal that Elsa would submit – from Philadelphia - to the Independents’ exhibition, providing the final nail in the coffin of the attribution of Mutt’s urinal to the oeuvre of Marcel Duchamp. The confirmation of the de-attribution from Duchamp ‘s oeuvre of Mutt’s urinal, and its re-attribution to that of Elsa, confirmed by the identification of the genealogy of Bennor’s Anti-Syphon Globe Trap, has profound implications for the legitimacy of the most radical and ubiquitous form of avant-garde art practice of the second half of the twentieth century, Conceptual Art. For the legitimacy of its theorisation, by Joseph Kosuth, in 1969, depended on assumptions that no longer retain any validity. These are as follows. That Mutt’s urinal had been submitted by Marcel Duchamp as a work of art in the form of a Readymade, for the express purpose of demonstrating that the definition of art was the prerogative of the artist, which the urinal’s exhibition had validated. But the common origins of Elsa’s ‘God’ and Mutt’s urinal prove that none of these assumptions are correct. That the propitious conjunction of the critical events described here, circumscribing this narrative, occurred in Philadelphia, and nowhere else, makes the Quaker City the true cradle of America Dada, and its progenitor, not Marcel Duchamp, but Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. Thanks to Philadelphia, the ‘father’ of modern American art was in fact a ‘mother’: and so much for the attribution of the Philadelphia Museum’s ‘replica’ urinal to Marcel Duchamp. Anybody thinking that the institutions cited above would be interested in this subject would be advised to think again. (Further reading, by the author. 'Elsa in Philadelphia.' Summerhall, Edinburgh, Summer 2017. 'Only in Philadelphia.' Moore College of Art Philadelphia website: Moore Women Artists. 'Duchamp's Urinal? The Facts Behind the Facade.' Wild Pansy Press, Leeds University, 2015.)”  - author unknown

[clusterassets]

New world news from Time: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis Says Victory in Afghanistan Will Now Be ‘Political’ Instead of Military

(KABUL, Afghanistan) — U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday he believes victory in Afghanistan is still possible — not necessarily on the battlefield but in facilitating a Taliban reconciliation with the Afghan government.

Mattis spoke shortly before arriving in Kabul, where security concerns were so high that reporters traveling with him were not allowed to publish stories until his party had moved from the Kabul airport to the U.S.-led military coalition’s headquarters. That was the first such restriction on coverage of a Pentagon chief’s visit in memory. Mattis said he would be meeting with President Ashraf Ghani and top U.S. commanders.”We do look toward a victory in Afghanistan,” he said, adding, “Not a military victory — the victory will be a political reconciliation” with the Taliban, which has achieved a stalemate in recent years and shown little interest in conceding to the Kabul government.Mattis, a retired Marine general who commanded U.S. troops in southern Afghanistan in the opening weeks of the war in 2001, said getting the Taliban to reconcile en masse may be “a bridge too far.” So the emphasis is on drawing in Taliban elements piecemeal.

He described this approach as an effort to “start peeling off those who are tired of fighting,” after more than 16 years of war.

“We know there is interest on the Taliban side,” he said.

He defined victory in Afghanistan as a political settlement between the Taliban and the government, and an Afghan military that is capable of securing the country largely on its own. At that point, he said, Afghanistan would not be “a haven for attacks internationally” as it was when al-Qaida used the country as a launching pad for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

U.S. intelligence officials are predicting the war will remain stalemated as the traditionally most intensive fighting season begins this spring.

The visit is Mattis’s second since President Donald Trump announced last August that, despite his instinct to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, his administration would take a more aggressive approach to the conflict, now in its 17th year.

As part of an effort to bolster Afghan fighting strength, the U.S. in recent weeks sent an Army group of about 800 soldiers, accompanied by several hundred support troops, to advise the Afghans closer to the front lines. The U.S. also shifted A-10 attack planes and other aircraft from striking Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan as part of Trump’s new approach. These and other moves boosted the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by at least 3,500 to a total of more than 14,000.

Mattis has said that the U.S. goal is to enable Afghan forces to weaken the Taliban to the point where the Afghans can manage their own security. Put another way, the aim is to convince the insurgents they cannot win on the battlefield, thus driving them to reconcile with the Afghan government.

Stephen Biddle, a George Washington University political science professor and longtime observer of the Afghan conflict, is skeptical that the new U.S. strategy will make a decisive difference militarily, although he sees “glimmers of hope” for progress toward a peace settlement. He noted that both the Taliban and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani have spoken recently of pushing for reconciliation. In late February, Ghani called on the Taliban to take part in peace talks to “save the country,” offering security and incentives such as passports to insurgents who are willing to join the negotiations.

Alice Wells, the State Department’s top official for South and Central Asian Affairs, said Friday at the United States Institute for Peace that Ghani’s approach is more accommodating toward the Taliban than previous overtures by Kabul and deserves a thoughtful response from the Taliban.

Trump, however, said on Jan. 29 that he sees no basis for peace talks as long as the Taliban are “killing people left and right.”

The Taliban stance is that talks for a conflict-ending compromise must take place with Washington, not Kabul.

U.S. officials have conveyed messages to Taliban political representatives in Qatar urging the group to negotiate with the Afghan government. Neighboring countries are doubtful about America’s commitment to a political resolution. Pakistan, Iran and Russia are thought to maintain ties to militant proxies inside Afghanistan in case the war-ravaged country collapses.

On the military front, U.S. officials assert that years of effort to build a credible and effective Afghan army and air force are beginning to pay off. At the same time, it has become harder to gauge such progress because the American-led military coalition has stopped releasing information such as the size of the Afghan army and rates of attrition in its ranks. The number of Afghan combat deaths also is withheld by the Afghan government.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee late last month, Gen. Joseph Votel, the head of U.S. Central Command, said the Afghan security forces are getting better. He said they do not, however, have the ability to “prevent the insurgency from maintaining a rural presence and occasionally threatening a population center” or important roadway.

In Votel’s view, the greatest risk to stability in Afghanistan is the Kabul government’s “uncertain political situation” as it prepares for planned July 2018 parliamentary elections.

Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the head of U.S. European Command, told a congressional panel on March 8, just days after visiting Afghanistan, that the Army’s newly deployed brigade of advisers are expected to provide “a great boost for the mission” by operating more widely and closer to the front lines.

U.S. intelligence agencies are taking a less optimistic view of the war’s likely path in 2018.

“We assess the overall security picture will … modestly deteriorate in the coming year and Kabul will continue to bear the brunt of the Taliban-led insurgency,” Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, told a Senate committee on March 6. Afghan forces, while “unsteady,” probably will maintain control of most major population centers in 2018, he added.

Testifying at the same hearing, Army Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, offered a mixed outlook. While he forecast that Afghan forces this year will continue to develop offensive combat power, he predicted the Taliban will “threaten Afghan stability, undermine public confidence by conducting intermittent high-profile attacks in urban areas,” increase its influence in rural areas, and threaten district centers.

In a late-February report, the Pentagon’s special inspector general for Afghanistan reported that the Afghan government’s control of the country is at its lowest recorded level since the end of 2015 and that Taliban control it at its highest.

March 13, 2018 at 01:01PM ClusterAssets Inc., https://ClusterAssets.wordpress.com

[planetarysims]

Scout Biddle Loner | Clumsy | Equestrian | Dramatic | Diva

End of gen 7!

[planetarysims]

They’re in love or whatever.

[planetarysims]

This boy is going to break hearts in Starlight Shores

[planetarysims]

[planetarysims]

It’s Milo’s birthday!

[planetarysims]

Literally an hour after being adopted, Flapjack aged up. 

FLAPJACK: But...I just got here D:

[planetarysims]

Milo Biddle Good | Genius | Dog Person | Rebellious | Social Butterfly LTW: Master Magician 

[planetarysims]

Mango does not like Ace at all.

ACE: I came out to have a good time and honestly I’m feeling so attacked right now

[planetarysims]

TOAST: A baby brother!? For me!? 

[planetarysims]

Milo immediately adopted a puppy, who he named Flapjack.  He reminds me a lot of a chicken nugget but I’m here for it.

[planetarysims]

ACE: So how does this ‘double heir’ thing work? You’re going to live with your brother, and your spouse, and whoever their spouse is, and your kids, and his kids? 

SCOUT: …yup.

ACE: I want to formally decline my nomination as spouse.

[planetarysims]

Kate and Alison both wanted another kid but they’re just going to have to settle for a kitten instead. This is Mochi!

[planetarysims]