#but i think they also modernized it in the 2003 successfully while still having it feel like strawberry shortcake | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

yuvilee · 5 years

Text

22nd October 2019 Student-led seminar 1

Text: Lefèvre, P. 2008, The Congo drawn in Belgium. The Representation of Congo, Rwanda and Burundi in French-language Belgian Comics, in McKinney, M. (ed.) History and Politics in French-Language Comics and Graphic Novels, Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, pp.166-185.

Table of content:

Introduction: A Short Biography of the Author Main part: Tintin - An unexpected Ambassador Belgium's ninth form of art - Lefèvre's antagonistic examples A Better Representation in Contemporary Narration My personal conclusion Notes: Books and articles Picture(s)

About the author: Pascal Lefèvre, born April 15, 1963 in Belgium is a renowned Belgian comics historian and theorist. His doctorate in 2003 was about 'Willy Vandersteens Suske en Wiske in de krant' (1945-1971) which made him the first to receive a doctor's degree in comics in Flandern. Not only does he publish analytical historical essays and books but he also creates comics himself. He was a researcher with the Belgian Comics Center in Brussels and thus contributed to diverse exhibitions and documentaries.

Tintin - An unexpected Ambassador

Sindika Dokolo(1), a collector of contemporary African art, recently held the exhibition 'InCarNations - African Art as Philosophy' in Brussels, Belgium until the beginning of October this year, with classical and modern pieces chosen from his personal collection. In doing so he is raising a number of questions that do not fade in relevance, such as who gets to portray African art and culture? On this basis for discussion, Belgium is working on its colonial past, of which there is a lot in Belgium and its former colonies, as Pascal Lefèvre delineates in his tract.

Even in the so-called 9th form of art, a similar discourse, tailored to the medium and the narrative, is continuously present.

A more recent example than the one from Great Britain cited by Lefèvre is the controversy that was rekindled in Sweden in 2012. For a long time it dominated (social) media and even spread to media abroad, like The Guardian(2). Its emerged from Hergé's comic ‘Tintin in the Congo’ that was to be removed from a YA (young adult) section in a library due to its naïve and openly racially portrayal of the indigenous people of Congo as they appear cliché and thus suggest an anti-African stance(3).

Hamelberg describes In an interview with The Guardian the problem as

‘(...) there are several layers that are problematic, (...) there are the early books that are blatantly and openly racist, like ‘Tintin in the Congo’. (...) there were things that would have been considered racist today but that were quite normal in Hergé's time.’(4)

In my opinion, Hamelberg has certainly addressed an important point with this statement since the first comic publication of Tintin was in a different time and era. Nonetheless, it is important to process and learn from the past just like France tried semi-successfully with a law in 1949.

Should young readers be denied this critical argument in order to protect them, to present them with a perfect world and shielding them from reality? In my opinion, this discourse should rather be actively encouraged and supported by guardians.

Belgium's ninth form of art - Lefèvre's antagonistic examples

In my point of view, Belgium has produced a large number of fantastic comic artists and boasts openly with its long-established comic culture - yes, they call it culture. Some other more conservative nations, in my opinion, are still having a hard time accepting this, even in the 21st century. That's why I was very pleased to see The New York Times revive their bi-monthly best-seller list for graphic novels due to high demand by readers after taking a 2-year break(5).

The reason why a discourse seems to me more important than ever becomes clearer when Lefèvre compares Hergé's ‘Tintin in the Congo’ with, for example, ‘Blondin et Cirage’ created by Jijé. Here we have a boy and his adoptive brother as equal protagonists - but Cirage is depicted with clown lips that are strongly cliché-oriented and for me, at first glance, appear as a shockingly racist illustration.

There is a striking dissonance between the representation and the narrative, which portrays heroes that are needed nowadays.

But why is the imagery still so caricatural?

A possible aesthetic and representational solution, in my opinion, can be to replace humans with animal shapes, which can be used as an indirect depiction of the problems of racism without resorting to real stereotypes and clichés.

To this point I would like to mention ‘Blacksad’(6) which is similar to ‘Maus’ by Art Spiegelman(7). This graphic novel takes place in an alternative universe similar to an exaggerated post-war period in the USA where Nazi-like propaganda and racial discrimination is omnipresent. The main character, a detective in the guise of a black cat, is confronted with the very same problems of our reality but avoids most of the stereotypes associated with the depiction of human characters.

Above: Blacksad: Arctic Nation, Page 5

A Better Representation in Contemporary Narration

As an illustrator, I am often faced with the question of how to create cliché-free and ethnically correct representation in my stories. Is there ‘the’ right way? I believe not. But there are approaches to different comics, graphic novels, children’s books, and other media such as movies that can be analysed for its reason for success.

Looking at more recent depictions of Afro-ethnic protagonists and their approaches, I would like to talk about Marvel's ‘Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse’(8) from 2018.

The young protagonist Miles Morales is not the first black Marvel character but the first Spider-Man with an ethnic background, as you might imagine it to be a familiar representation of the typical New Yorker.

But has this raised negative headlines? On the contrary I believe. Many reviews of large-scaled and well-established newspapers spoke of this at most in a side note(9). The focus in media reviews was on the narrative, the humour, the ingenious and particularly refreshing animation, and especially the fact how effortlessly the very message comes across that everyone can be a Spider-Man(10).

In my opinion, all those awards(12) such as a Golden Globe were justified for this comic book adaptation. The humorous and encouraging portrayal of an (almost) everyday hero depicts effectively a positive role model, which just happens to be black-skinned, without that fact ever becoming a central topic.

As an artist of narrative stories it is important to always keep this message and task in mind. I always need to think about this as an illustrator while creating my stories, be it a graphic novel, a comic book, or a children’s book. At the same time, I need to be able to talk to my publisher about the best approach and their ethical stance.

What emerged in France after 1949 to be negative self-censorship, I now have to see in reverse as a task to actively counter, to examine my art for equality, gender equality, diversity, and ethnic correctness.

But what are those rules exactly? Are they written down somewhere like the French law mentioned above? Unfortunately, I will never get ‘the’ ultimate correct answer to this question, while my art is at the mercy of many viewers and views.

My personal conclusion

I need to keep the above considerations in mind when creating a narrative to address children and young adults as my target audience. For myself, I see three options:

I do not have to get involved in the discourse and could avoid it altogether. As a responsible artist and adult, I could provide material for educational purposes along with my own work.

The clear opposite would be to create work that decidedly enters the discourse and actively participates in it, which requires a strong voice and a broad-based argumentative basis.

Or I could try the middle ground to go alternative routes such as animal representations to express an opinion but simultaneously avoid direct, confrontational depictions.

All of these options could work or backfire. Due to new media and especially social media, the audience is potentially larger and opinions (whether qualified or not) spread faster than in Hergé's time. See #TintinGate(13).

Although Hergé is put in a bad light here, I will remain a fan of his comics, because even this type of art must exist as part of our culture in order to encourage a discourse, like the one right here, and to serve as a cautionary tale and exemplification.

Notes:

Books and articles

Bozar, 2019, InCarNation - African Art as Philosophy, Bozar, viewed 19 October 2019, <https://www.bozar.be/en/activities/154489-incarnations>

Palme, J. 2012, Tintin racism row puts spotlight on children's literature, The Guardian, viewed 19 October 2019, <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/15/tintin-racism-sweden-row>

Chukri, R., 2012, Vad handlar Tintin-gate om?, Sydsvenskan, viewed 19 October 2019, <https://web.archive.org/web/20121010041224/http://www.sydsvenskan.se/kultur--nojen/vad-handlar-tintin-gate-om/>

cf. Palme, J., 2012, Tintin racism row puts spotlight on children's literature, The Guardian, viewed 19 October 2019, <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/15/tintin-racism-sweden-row>

The New York Times updates and expands its best-sellers lists 2019, The New York Times, viewed on 19 October 2019 <https://www.nytco.com/press/the-new-york-times-updates-and-expands-its-best-sellers-lists/>

Guarnido, J., Canales, J. D., 2004, Blacksad 2: Arctic Nation, Dargaud: Paris. Also available online in english: https://viewcomiconline.com/blacksad-vol-2-arctic-nation/

Spiegelman, A., 2003, Maus : a survivor’s tale. London: Penguin.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse 2018, Blue-Ray, Sony Pictures, Hollywood, Los Angeles, directed by Ramsey, P., Persichetti, B., Rothman, R.

cf: Scott, A. O., 2018, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verseʼ Review: A Fresh Take on a Venerable Hero, The New York Times, viewed on 19 October 2019 <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/movies/spider-man-into-the-spider-verse-review.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fa.o.-scott&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=94&pgtype=collection> Here the only reference to his ethnicity is: ‘But we haven’t seen a Spider-Man like Miles onscreen, which is to say a Spider-Man who isn’t white.”

cf: Loughrey, C., 2018, Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse review: It makes the case animation beats live-action for comic book movies, The Independent, viewed on 19 October 2019, <https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/spider-man-spider-verse-review-live-action-marvel-comic-book-movies-soundtrack-a8679761.html>

Bramesco, C., 2018, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse review – a dazzling animated caper, The Guardian, viewed on 19 October 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/28/spider-man-into-the-spider-verse-review-a-dazzling-animated-caper>

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse was awarded with (samples): Best Animated Feature at the 91st Academy Awards, 2019, Best Animation at the 76st Golden Globe Awards, 2019, Best animated Film at the Critics’ Choice Movie Award, 2019, Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form), Hugo Award, 2019, 46th Annie Awards, won in 6 categories, BAFTA Award for Best animated Movie, 2019, Best animated movie, at the New York Film Critics Circle Awards, 2019, Best animation Movie at the Producers Guild of America Awards, 2019,

#TintinGate: cf. Palme, J.

Picture(s):

Guarnido, J., Canales, J. D., 2004, Blacksad 2: Arctic Nation, p. 5, Dargaud: Paris.

1 note · View note

xtruss · 4 years

Text

On Behalf of Environmentalists, I Apologize For the Climate Scare

"Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem"

— Michael Shellenberger | August 1, 2020 | Anti-Empire | Quillette

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem. I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as expert reviewer of its next assessment report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”

The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”

Climate change is not making natural disasters worse

Fires have declined 25 percent around the world since 2003

The amount of land we use for meat—humankind’s biggest use of land—has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s

The Netherlands became rich, not poor while adapting to life below sea level

We produce 25 percent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter

Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change

Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this, imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.” Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change. Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened. I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress

The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land

The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium

100 percent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 percent to 50 percent

We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities

Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 percent

Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did

“Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 percent more emissions

Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon

The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?

In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism.

Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped. Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.

The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop. The ideology behind environmental alarmism—Malthusianism—has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power. The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, COVID-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.

Scientific institutions including the World Health Organisation and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform. Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables. The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.

I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

— Source: Quillette

1 note · View note

arts-culture-honours-programme · 7 years

Text

“My Red Homeland”: Jewish Contemporary Art

Anna Nesterenko

“The people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when I painted them”

-Mark Rothko

Shooting into the Corner, Anish Kapoor

In many cases, especially connected to the migration and living among the foreign ethnicities, as it is happens widely with the Jews through history and nowadays, categories of ethnicity and nationality serve as principles for organization of life and social contacts. While these categories are socially constructed, they have objective consequences for access to important resources - including housing, political resources, and opportunities in the labor market (Chong, 2011).

These processes occur both outside the community and inside, when its members distinguish themselves from the rest during the interactions, even with the strangers, (Tavory, 2010). Drawing up such boundaries is based on the ascription and evaluation specific characteristics, which are considered to be significant to the group of people or in our case, the group of art (Barth, 1969). According to Bourdieu, these symbolic and cultural factors are very important in the social construction, as far as they contribute to building a hierarchy in society and allow certain agents to occupy a dominant position that can result in symbolic violence - the imposition of their cultural and symbolic practices (Bourdieu, 1984). When it comes to the art, what is considered to be national is always really a question of social boundaries, that can be described as the “conceptual distinctions made by social actors to categorize objects, people, practices and even time and space” (Lamont & Molnár, 2002). However, the attempt to make a certain homogenous image ends in failure because in reality the concept of “national” in reality is always heterogeneous.

Jerusalem, Moshe Mizrachi

In the past, in spite of the doubts about the theoretical possibility of Jewish, acuteness of this question contributed to its unexpected rise in the XX century, when Jewish identity became an increasing concern in the visual arts (Silver & Baskind, 2011). At this time avant-garde Jewish groups, each with its own concept, arose throughout Europe, finally freed from the political oppression: the artists gathered, argued on this topic, founded magazines and exhibitions devoted to Jewish art in Paris, Berlin, Warsaw.

In other words, it was the process of national self-ascription that was accompanied by an explosion of both reflection on this topic and Jewish artistic creation. The names of Marc Chagall or Chaim Soutine are widely heard, but many of the artists who participated in this process (for example, cubist Max Weber in America or avant-gardist El Lissitzky in Russia), later became classics of European modernism, even though their Jewish dimension usually remains understudied, as far as for some of them the passion for avant-garde art reflected a break with Jewish ancestry and Judaism, especially due to the ideology of atheism in the Soviet Union (Orlov, 2008).

Book cover for "Chad Gadya", El Lissitzky

Sabbath, Max Weber

In the XX century, several approaches emerged to how to express the Jewish contribution to art. One of them, which is popular now in Israel, is an exhibition based on the presence in the work of Jewish artists of the “Jewishness” – their very own experience that is the personal history experienced by the artist as a Jew. This story can either enter creativity directly - for example, as the experience of the Holocaust, - or it can also somehow indirectly affect the choice of scenes or style in some complicated way.

Svayambh, Anish Kapoor

“He was antisemitic and I'm Jewish. Who cares?”

-Anish Kapoor on Wagner

In the February of this year the winner of The Genesis Prize, the so-called "Jewish Nobel Prize", which “recognises individuals who have attained excellence and international renown in their fields and whose actions and achievements express a commitment to Jewish values, the Jewish community and the State of Israel”, was announced Anish Kapoor - a British sculptor of Indian-Jewish origin (The Guardian, 2017). Kapoor said that he would donate a million dollars of the prize to help the refugees: “As inheritors and carriers of Jewish values it is unseemly, therefore, for us to ignore the plight of people who are persecuted, who have lost everything and had to flee as refugees in mortal danger” (The Guardian, 2017).

And canceled the rewarding of the Prize because the celebration is “inappropriate” in the face of the war in Syria “on Israel’s doorstep” (The Jewish Chronicle, 2017).

Anish Kapoor was born in Bombay in 1954, in family of Hindu and Iraqi Jewess. His mother’s relatives are Jews, immigrated to India from Iraq in the 1920s. In 1978, his first exhibition was held in London at the Hayward Gallery. Ten years later, he is already an acknowledged artist, a prizewinner at the Venice Biennale, a laureate of the Turner Prize. In September 2009 Kapoor became the first artist whose personal exhibition was organized in The Royal Academy of Arts during his lifetime (The Jewish Chronicle, 2017).

To set an example, of the modern artist suited into the third approach who express his own stories as the Jew, I would like to focus on him and explore the way he represents it in his artworks and how it is perceived by the both Jewish and non-Jewish audiences. Analyzing a number of interviews with Kapoor and the reviews, we can distinguish several main frames used in order to evaluate him and his artworks: the view from within the Jewish community on Kapoor as a Jew, in the first place, regardless of the positivity or negativity of the review; the frame that focused on the artworks themselves; and the one that explore his personal views, mostly political, including ones that are embedded into the artworks.

The authors and magazines, mostly connected to the Jewish community, such as The Jewish Chronicle, Jewcy, Haaretz, Jewish.ru, etc. prefer to focus on the Jewish origin of the Kapoor and emphasize it: “Most notoriously, in 2015, his work at Versailles was defaced several times with anti-Semitic graffiti, and when Kapoor elected to not remove it to highlight underlying problems, a right-wing politician successfully sued to force him to cover up the vandalism” (Jewsy, 2017).

Anish Kapoor, Dirty Corner

Kapoor himself, while not denying the importance of the Jewish question, tries to avoid discussions about the influence of his origin and especially religion on his art:

“-…And you are part Jewish. Were you formally taught these things, were they formally or casually talked about in the family conversation?

-…But my parents were fastidiously a-religious. So while some of this was around, its much more that I feel that the symbolic world, which I insist is the nub of a problem for an artist like me, is latent in most actions I would wish to make as an artist. And the work is to find that latent content” (The John Tusa Interviews, 2003).

This is especially noticeable in publications related to the outrage on the part of Jewish society, when Kapoor were developing a design of sets for the new Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde: “And many of my Jewish relatives and friends say: ‘How can you?’ Honestly, in the end, one somehow has to put that aside” (Jeffries, 2017). He responds to all these criticism: “In the end, who cares if the artist is a nice person?” (Jeffries, 2017). For him, some practical actions are obviously more important, he actively expresses his views on the pressing issues of our time, both personally and in his art.

Thus, other more independent authors focus mostly on his views in the art itself. Such as the support for refugees or protest against the policy of Tramp, when Kapoor altered one of the posters created in the 1974 for the performance “I Like America and America Likes Me” of the artist Joseph Beuys. Kapoor placed his portrait on the poster and changed the title. In his version, it sounds like: “I Like America and America Doesn’t Like Me”. He says: "I call on fellow artists and citizens to disseminate their name and image using Joseph Beuys' seminal work of art as a focus for social change. Our silence makes us complicit with the politics of exclusion. We will not be silent" (ArtDaily, 2017).

Anish Kapoor, I like America and America doesn't like Me

The exhibition “My Red Homeland” in the The Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow also caused a debate about its insert meaning. Because of the current political situation in Russia and strong associations between the red colour and history of the country, a lot of local visitors were looking for the some kind of the hidden message. However, Kapoor states that, “the works point in certain directions, but they’re not prescriptive in their meaning. I think that means that they allow for a possible openness of interpretation and that can be responsive to the time in which the work is shown. It’s not incidental that I’m showing My Red Homeland here in Russia. In one way it’s slightly naughty, and in another way, I quite like the idea of engaging with the questions” (Small, 2017).

Anish Kapoor, My Red Homeland

Nevertheless, even if for the artist the question of his cultural affiliation is open, in his artworks Kapoor emphasizes that the most important things are to be hidden in sight and that a work of art is not a finished form, but an ongoing process.

Above all these issues, in the case of Kapoor, there is still the effect of the social boundaries can be seen, as far as for the reviewers from Jewish community, the emphases of his Jewishness is a subconscious way to claim him authentic and draw the boundary between his art and the rest. At the same time, the definition of the essence of Jewish art no longer has priority over artists and works of art, as we also can see on the example of Anish Kapoor. Art should not be reduced to the biographies of its producers or be analyzed only with respect to the intended audience or limited religious community.

References:

Anish Kapoor recreates seminal artwork in anti-Trump protest. (2017). ArtDaily. Retrieved from: http://artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=93455#.Wed8DGi0OMo

Anish Kapoor. Artist. Jewish. Color Renegade. (2017). Jewcy. Retrieved from http://jewcy.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/jewish-artist-anish-kapoor

Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. London: Allen & Unwin (‘Introduction’).

Bourdieu, P. (1984) [1979]. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chong, P. (2011). Reading difference: How race and ethnicity function as tools for critical appraisal. Poetics 39 (1): 64-84.

Conversations with Artists, Selden Rodman, New York Devin-Adair. (1957). p. 93.; reprinted as 'Notes from a conversation with Selden Rodman, 1956', in Writings on Art: Mark Rothko (2006) ed. Miguel López-Remiro.

Gutmann, J. (1961). The "Second Commandment" and the Image in Judaism. Hebrew Union College Annual, 32, 161-174.

Hesli, V., Miller, A., Reisinger, W., & Morgan, K. (1994). Social Distance from Jews in Russia and Ukraine. Slavic Review, 53(3), 807-828.

Jeffries, S. (2017). Anish Kapoor on Wagner: 'He was antisemitic and I'm Jewish. Who cares?'. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jun/08/anish-kapoor-on-wagner-he-was-antisemitic-and-im-jewish-who-cares.

Lamont, Michèle & Virág Molnár. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual

Orlov, A. (2008). First There Was the Word: Early Russian Texts on Modern Jewish Art. Oxford Art Journal, 31(3), 385-402.

Prize ceremony for Anish Kapoor cancelled because of Syrian suffering (2017). The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved from: https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/prize-ceremony-for-anish-kapoor-cancelled-because-of-syrian-suffering-1.437797.

Review of Sociology 28 (1): 167-195.

Silver, L., & Baskind, S. (2011). Looking Jewish: The State of Research on Modern Jewish Art. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 101(4), 631-652.

Small, R. (2017). Anish Kapoor Colors Russia Red - Interview Magazine. Interview Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.interviewmagazine.com/art/anish-kapoor-jewish-museum-and-tolerance-center [Accessed 18 Oct. 2017].

Tavory, I. (2009). Of yarmulkes and categories: Delegating boundaries and the phenomenology of interactional expectation. Theory and Society, 39(1), 49-68.

The Guardian. (2017). Anish Kapoor condemns 'abhorrent' refugee policies as he wins Genesis prize. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/feb/06/anish-kapoor-condemns-abhorrent-refugee-policies-as-he-wins-genesis-prize.

The John Tusa Interviews, Anish Kapoor. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00ncbc1

5 notes · View notes

nicoleignn · 6 years

Text

Tate Liverpool

OVERVIEW

Tate Liverpool is an elegant and very modern art gallery displaying modern and contemporary art. The gallery opened to public in 1988 and after 20 years it was named European Capital of Culture and after visiting this gallery for the first time in my life I can understand why Tate Liverpool got such name. The building itself looks fascinating and massive; until 2003, Tate Liverpool was the largest gallery of modern and contemporary art in the UK outside London. I believe that the location of the gallery is just perfect; being surrounded by water adds to the magnificence of the building and make it even more attractive and outstanding.

ARTWORKS

Tate Liverpool can definitely boast about the ability to show modern and contemporary art in various manifestation and hide messages using some curation tricks. Undoubtedly, there were many intriguing and appealing exhibitions and artworks, but I have memorised and taken notes on those I found the most interesting. As regards more traditional way of seeing and digesting art, the gallery had a truly amazing exhibitions to offer: ‘New Times, New Pleasures’ by Fernand Leger. The artist fuses the biological and the mechanical in structures that are as much metaphorical as they are useful. His paintings have their own, weird and beautiful atmosphere; simplified, pneumatic, unsmiling and acrobatic. I was impressed by the way Leger illustrated women in his artworks; even though the facial expressions reminded me of Picasso’s “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon’, their body language is much more discreet and proper, and the colours in the background show inner strength and self-confidence, femininity and power.

Another very impressive piece is a film ‘El Fin del Mundo’ (The End of the World) by Moon Kyungwon and Jeon Joonho. To my surprise, I've managed to interpret this artwork almost exactly as its creators explained it: the world before and after apocalypse, value of the things we take for granted today in the future, art as a vital ritual, beginning of the end and realisation that changes one’s life irreversibly. Two separate screens show different points of time : dedicated artist spending his last minutes of living in front of his emerging artwork and a post-apocalyptic woman exploring the things that survived the catastrophe and trying to understand the way the world existed before that. The moment connecting two screens, to my mind, could also be a reference to parallel universes or either an attempt to say that we are closer to the end than we think: documenting relics of the past, the woman comes across an object that the man incorporated in his artwork and suddenly it switches on. The connection of two protagonists across time challenges to think about the value of the things, both spiritual and material, about our perception of the world and everyday life and how it might change in the near future.

CURATION

In general, I believe that there were some interesting curatorial aspects in Tate Liverpool that made me change my opinion in the artwork itself, since putting it into a particular environment changes its meaning. For instance, putting quite high-brow looking paintings on a grid that looks like birds cage in a farm made me ask myself whether I still consider those artworks to be high-brow. To me, that way of curating was quite weird, in a good sense, because it was also new and interesting. Also, the room with Moon Kyungwon and Jeon Joonho’s artworks was curated in a very unusual and appealing way, it felt like a really contemporary and futuristic space. I think that the sculptures behind the TVs were a very successful decision, because they looked like weird space meteorites from the future and the TVs on them presented modern days, which relates to the film that was shown right next to those exhibits - ‘El Fin del Mundo’, which intertwines modern days and future as well as I have aforementioned. What is more, bring pink lamps in that gallery space added even more to the futuristic and cosmic atmosphere of that gallery space; they were put very low and created a nice bright moonlight on the floor, which reminded me of my favourite band ‘The1975’ and the way they arrange special light effects during their shows, creating funky, futuristic and bright atmosphere while telling the audience how horrible our society is and how we are slowly killing ourselves by killing humanity.

However, some aspects of curation were a bit too obvious and a bit disturbing to me, like putting huge, colourful sculptures in the most visible places and hiding photographs (which I believe were underrated due to the curation) on the walls without proper lighting. I was extremely impressed and inspired by ‘Plank Piece I-II’ by Charles Ray; its atmosphere, mood and the way artist used his body as the sculptural component is very performative; the piece is chaotic and satisfying, showing the balance between weight and gravity, madness and tranquility, the hidden side of being an artist. Also, ‘Stop It’ by David Shrigley, which is a handmade copy of the road sign “STOP” was put in the corner without a good lighting. This work could look quite intriguing and interesting, since it makes you ask yourself what does the artist want to stop and why has he used particular materials, but the work want put in a proper display and wasn't really noticeable.

All in all, I believe that most exhibits were curated successfully, however, some truly interesting works were underrated and put in the wrong location. Some rooms have truly impressed me by the atmosphere and its relationship to the artworks.

SUMMARY

To sum up, it was a great experience to visit such famous and huge gallery and see some new artists in a different curation and atmosphere. The gallery has many different spaces to offer and many artworks that intertwine with the gallery space as well, which I really appreciate and believe makes the artworks more high-brow and conceptual. I would love to visit the gallery again and spend some more time on looking at ‘hidden’ artworks and trying to understand the curation.

0 notes

apadaily · 4 years

Text

New Post has been published on Ashley Parker Angel Daily • APADaily.net

New Post has been published on http://apadaily.net/2020/03/ashley-parker-angel-recalls-making-a-band-in-real-time/

Ashley Parker Angel Recalls Making a Band in Real-Time

Diehard pop fans want nothing more than to feel close to their favorite artists. Twenty years ago this month, ABC and MTV fulfilled that dream with the creation of Making the Band. The reality show is probably best known for its second iteration when Diddy modernized the program with R&B groups like Danity Kane, but in 2000, it was all about boy bands. Lou Pearlman, a manager and con man fresh off successfully creating Backstreet Boys, *NSYNC, and LFO, decided the next step in the lucrative teen pop business was to give fans what they always wanted: day one access, so that they, too, could feel like they participated in the creation of their beloved groups. And it began with O-Town.

After hand-selecting members in a countrywide search, Pearlman assembled O-Town with Ashley Parker Angel, Erik-Michael Estrada, Trevor Penick, Jacob Underwood, and Dan Miller, who replaced Ikaika Kahoano. The success of the show’s debut season inspired the network to continue the series, documenting the entirety of the band’s existence, including their discovery of Pearlman’s financial crimes and rumors of his alleged sexual abuse. O-Town broke up after only three years (a short run, even for the most flash-in-the-pan boy bands) but left the world with two memorable singles—“Liquid Dreams,” and the ballad “All or Nothing”—and a shockingly prophetic show that would influence future reality TV programming.

To mark the 20th anniversary of Making the Band’s premiere, I called up O-Town’s frontman Ashley Parker Angel to talk about the show. Our conversation below is condensed and edited for clarity.

JEZEBEL: On Making the Band, O-Town became television stars before you were music stars, and becoming a music star was the entire point. That feels like a really modern way to pursue a pop career. I guess in 2020, it’s social media instead of TV.

ASHLEY PARKER ANGEL: Me and my acting manager, when the audition came through, we thought [Making the Band] was a scripted TV show. We thought it was going to be scripted the same way the Monkees was a scripted show about a band, and then the Monkees obviously used that TV show to launch a legitimate recording career. Having talked to Lou Pearlman once I actually made the band, I’d come to find out that the Monkees were his inspiration. He wanted to make the next iteration of that, and who better to do that than the guy who just created the two biggest superstar boy bands of the day? *NSYNC and Backstreet were just dominating.

At the time, we didn’t have tons of reality TV. The ones that did exist were like Real World or Road Rules. It wasn’t the most popular format. O-Town was essentially two worlds crossing: the world of reality TV shows and the world of boy bands. Those two worlds emerged into Making the Band as an experiment. Nobody knew if it would work. They would even refer to us as lab rats throughout the whole process. The first season was a full 22 episodes, and by the time 20 episodes had aired and it was a hit TV show, we still did not have a record deal.

Because of the success of the TV show, we were able to get the interest of Clive Davis. Cameras flew with us to New York. We signed the deal the week before the finale was going to air. They very quickly edited in the footage of us signing. If you look at what’s happened now with American Idol and The Voice, I think Making the Band really proved that that format could not only be a successful television series, but it can actually launch a legitimate recording group that could have legitimate hit songs on the radio.

And then other people caught wind. Simon Cowell ended up being in one of the early meetings we had with Clive Davis. Very quickly after that, he goes and does Pop Idol. We’d always heard on the record label side that Simon Cowell had been really inspired by what happened with Making the Band and O-Town—so he started Pop Idol, that becomes a huge success, and then, of course, Pop Idolbecomes American Idol.

Pop music has a storied history with reality TV—like everything you were saying about American Idol and The Voice, but also One Direction 10 years later. They were made on The X-Factor UK, and they lost. The experiment with boy bands and reality TV has continued.

Right. And it doesn’t always work. Just because you have a TV show doesn’t mean it’s going to translate to actual radio play. ABC tried to launch a show based on Making the Band called Boy Band. Nick Carter was a judge on it. Timbaland was a judge on it. There was a big primetime push. And then nothing. Those guys are not around. I don’t think they were able to mount a successful single.

I actually really liked that show, but I also love boy bands.

I did, too. As I watched it, I was like, “Oh, they’re doing Making the Band but with a new spin, those superstar judges, which is going to add that American Idolelement.” But it just didn’t pop.

I was listening to a podcast recently with Paris Hilton and she was talking about The Simple Life, which debuted in 2003. She argued that unlike reality television today, reality TV of the early 2000s wasn’t as manufactured or fabricated. Do you agree with that?

I tend to agree with her comment. Yes, there are things being manipulated behind the curtain when you’re in that world. Yes, good reality TV producers see where the conflict is happening, and they massage your life from behind the scenes to make sure those conflicts occur, but those conflicts are real. They’re capturing real life. Obviously, you can do a lot in editing, but primarily [Making the Band] was a very real situation we were all going through.

We had cameras living with us in the house we were living in as O-Town. We had hidden microphones in the house. In Making the Band, if you had a conversation in the middle of the night, these huge production lights would pop on and some guy, another guy with a boom microphone, and a cameraman would rush in. It didn’t matter what time it was. They would film everything. You couldn’t leave the house without telling them because they wanted a camera crew on you. As it went on, however, even by the third season of Making the Band, there was a lot more soft scripting going on. A lot more of producers saying, “Hey, we need you to have a conversation on camera about this.” They’re really kind of directing it more.

How did O-Town try to differentiate itself from the other boy bands at the time?

Making the Band came about at a time where you had a pretty dense field of pop bands. You had LFO, BBMAK—outside of Backstreet and *NSYNC, you had so many offshoots of bands in that style—of course, 98 Degrees. Without the show, there was a lot of noise in an already crowded room. I think the TV show set us apart because now it’s a window into this life that you would never get from just listening to an album. You’re now living in this world. You get the chance to be a fly on the wall and watch that process in a TV show. It set us apart in a way that would’ve been very difficult had we not had the show. I’m not saying we weren’t talented guys, but we had the benefit of being a part of something manufactured, which allowed there to be a higher degree of talent pulled from all these different cities.

I agree. But also, I think of the pop songs of the era—“Liquid Dreams,” come on, you were the boy band unafraid to get sexual. That separates you.

[Laughs] Thank you! I will add to that, too, we were set to do a fourth season of Making the Band. The TV show was always a hit, even though music changed and started to go more R&B and alternative rock again. The second album didn’t sell what the first album did, but the show was still getting really awesome ratings. So we moved into production for Season 4. At that point, a lot of guys in the band were not as excited to keep living on camera. We had a lot of internal debates about whether or not we should be a TV band or if we should move away from that and try to convince people of the longevity of our career. I, personally, always felt the two were connected. Then things started to change. When we got dropped by our record label, MTV also dropped the show. In the end, [the band] did mutually decide to call it quits for a while and all go our own ways with the idea that maybe we would come back in the future.

For the first two albums, we had this unbelievable hitmaker, Clive Davis, and we had ABC and MTV supporting our careers. Once we kind of lost those things, I could see the writing on the wall.

Not only does that sound like a clean break, but you also have a documentary of the entirety of O-Town in Making the Band. That’s unique to your group—even considering later seasons of Diddy’s revamped Making the Band. I think the only thing that’s comparable might be K-pop boy bands whose social media streaming is archived.

You’re so right; it’s so rare. It’s this little window into your life for three or four years. Who has that? And what a crazy time to have captured: a life-changing moment, and here it is in these well-produced, well-edited snapshots of your life.

At the time, were you cautious about working with Lou Pearlman? The show premiered a year or two after both Backstreet Boys and *NSYNC cut ties with him, so litigation must’ve been going on while you were filming.

There was a really specific 20/20 special that aired that was all about *NSYNC and Backstreet’s legal troubles with Lou. Up until that point, Lou was the most charming businessman you’d ever meet. He was obviously making the careers of young pop stars. He was a fun character to be around. Once it started hitting the mainstream media, and you’re hearing all these legal terms and trouble, that definitely started to throw some salt on the situation. And Lou started getting really pushy about us signing contracts. I’ll never forget the first lawyer we hired to look at our initial contract with Lou and said, verbatim, “In my 30 years of entertainment law, this is the worst contract I’ve ever seen.” That added fuel to the fires of what was already happening with Backstreet and *NSYNC.

Some of that actually ends up spilling out onto Making the Band; some of the storyline gets shared. Things start getting sort of intense because he wants certain things we are not signing. So he cuts off our money supply. There were weird scenarios like that that started to occur. But once Clive Davis came into the picture and we had two managers, we side-stepped a lot of trouble with Lou, whereas Backstreet and *NSYNC were right in it with him. We had a lot of other people around us, caretakers to say, “Hey, by the way, there are some other rumors about Lou. Don’t be alone with him.” Those kinds of things.

I remember at one point we were with Lou in his office, and literally, he said, “Guys, I would love to keep this meeting going, but the FBI are here, so we’re going to have to wrap this meeting up now. Because the FBI are here.” And, no joke, the FBI came in and they investigated the offices while we were there.

What? Where’s that footage?

I know! It’s all come out now. Lou was sharing with me, in private, some of his con man-style tricks. Like, he had pictures of himself in his offices where it looked like there were these 747 airplanes in the back, supposedly he had this airplane company, and he goes, “Look at this picture of me with this airplane on the tarmac. Do you see anything weird about that photo?” And I go, “No, it’s you with your 747 airplane.” And he goes, “That’s a model airplane, hanging from fishing string, held from the right perspective so it looks like a full 747 airplane.” He was using little miniature models, and using little tricks of the eye, to make it look like these little miniature airplanes were real airplanes. He would use pictures like that to convince investors that he had all these companies and airplanes. As an 18-year-old kid, I’m thinking, Wow, this guy’s really smart, but also, Wow, this is so illegal, but he’s bragging to me about it.

I’m surprised he revealed his tricks to you.

It was total Catch Me If You Can, that movie. You’re kind of impressed because it’s this evil genius type of thing, but it’s still lying and fraudulent. Now it’s all coming out after years of being investigated by the FBI. That was when things really started to go South for Lou.

Some of your issues with Lou are documented on Making the Band, but he was also an executive producer and creative consultant. Did he have to approve the storyline? The show doesn’t paint him in the best light, but now it’s well-documented that he was guilty of so much more than what was presented on the show.

I wasn’t there, so this is speculation, but I imagine Lou regretted involving himself on camera and not having complete control of it. Lou didn’t think he did anything wrong. Lou’s giving hope to these young, talented kids that would never have a shot. He’s Mr. Money Bags. He’s coming up with millions of dollars behind the scenes—for rehearsals, styling sessions, and putting demos together to actually get you to the place where you can sign a deal—so he never looked at himself as having done anything wrong. The guy could sell anything to you. He was a master salesman. If you sat in a room with him, he’d have you convinced that he was Mother Theresa. He was very good and very shrewd at business. He was just taking advantage in so many different ways. And yet, he was the Berry Gordy of the Motown era, but it was all in O-Town, this whole new pop phase of music that he ushered in with *NSYNC, Backstreet, Britney, Aaron Carter, O-Town, and LFO. His fingerprint was on all of that, and that was a huge movement in music. It’s too bad that he was as crooked as he was.

How do you view the legacy of Making the Band, 20 years later?

There are always going to be gatekeepers, but I think the barriers of entry started coming down with shows like Making the Band. Now you have an opportunity, on a national level, to hear about an audition and show up for it. Making the Band was a shot for someone who would’ve never had a shot. Shows like American Idol and The Voice have continued to take that concept even further.

Making The Band really was the first of its kind. We proved the platform could work because we actually transformed it into a legitimate music career. For young, hopeful, talented people out there, I’m glad that Making the Band could pave the way, and I’m glad there are even more formats like this for young, talented, hopeful people who’d like a shot at success.

SOURCE

0 notes

topicprinter · 5 years

Link

Hey guys!Geez, it has been well over a month since my last update. A lot has happened and a lot has sold.A Look Back at 2019I wrote the first part on January 21, 2019 – almost a year ago to the day. Since then, I took $1,165 and was able to flip it into a final profit of $9,262.28. I sold over $40k worth of baseball and sports cards, and (between eBay fees, inventory purchases, supplies and PSA fees) spent around $42k. I have over $10k of inventory currently. My final gross margin was 43.8% and my final net margin was 23.1%. This was one of the most fun things I have done in this hobby in a while, I very much look forward to continuing in 2020.You can find the previous installment hereA really really really brief recap of the past eleven partsI started in December of 2018 with $1,165. I have since bought and sold over $40k in baseball, football and various sports trading cards. I have had a few great successes ($1,165 into $3,085 before fees - $2,771.20 into $6,200.10 before fees - $1,086.68 into $3,190.54 before fees) and a few duds. I generally sell my cards on ebay, but utilize auction houses every now and then. The biggest bottleneck I face is submitting cards to PSA (a third party grading company), a card might have a 2-4 month turnaround time. To successfully "flip" you need to balance some of these purchases with shorter flips. Right now I have approximately 80% of my inventory with PSA (WHICH IS WAY TOO HIGH).PurchasedThere are usually some late December auctions each year, but generally the holidays are quiet in the baseball card industry. I was able to purchase a few lots from what auctions I found:I bought two multi-year lots from Heritage in late December – the first here and the second here. In total I spent $1,934.95 on the two groups. I am taking a bit of a risk on these, not because I don’t believe I will make money (I should), but because I am sending so many of the cards to PSA. This will likely tie up these funds for 3-4 months (more on that later) and adds an additional cost to the group. I sent 52 cards from these groups to PSA (totaling $542.51). I think there is a lot of mid-grade star power and several cards in the $100-200 range. I am going to auction off the non-graded cards soon and try to recoup some of the funds. I will keep everyone updated on that.I bought another multi-year lot, this one completely made of Yogi Berra cards. I spent $1,452.17 with fees and shipping. The same as above, most of these cards (22) are with PSA right now. This ties up a significant portion of the group and I will need to wait before I can sell these. There are a few cards that I kept, the two signed cards – one I sold for $80.00. The other signed card is listed and the others will be auctioned off.What SoldI sold the deckle edge cards that I was holding on for a while. They did okay totaling $122.71 via auction. That brought the final tally for the lot to a $66.91 profit after fees. Not terrible.The last of the PSA graded cards from the multi-sport group I purchased from Goldin Auctions sold. The final price was $120.85. This brought the final profit on the group to $795.86 after fees. I’m very happy about this result, PSA graded cards are a very quick and easy turnaround.I sold a few more items from the other multi-sport collection I bought from Goldin. Everything that has not been sent to PSA is now sold – the total of the ungraded cards came to $178.10, led by this Clemente for $37.77. The remaining cards that are with PSA I have valued at $500 on the tracker. I think that is very conservative, the 1957 Hornung rookie, the 1972 Julius Erving rookie and the Tiger Woods rookie should come out to a combine $400-500 alone.Wrappers! I sold $847.00 worth of wrappers in the past few weeks and still have $2,683.45 listed. Those $2.6k in wrappers will likely only bring a fraction of that depending on how patient I am. These wrappers were in much worse condition than I anticipated, but there was enough quality to turn a profit. Wrappers rarely do well in auction, so I am going to try to keep these listed for another month or so before I reconsider my approach.From that multi-sport group I purchased from Huggins and Scott, a few cards were sold last night, led by the 1969 Joe Namath. I sent a few of the cards to PSA, I sent the 1978 packs to PSA, I opened the 2003 Ultra Basketball blaster (because it wasn’t sealed and I was bored) and will try to list the remaining items soon. I am predicting to come out ahead, but it’s too early to tell, so I am keeping the tracker at a slight loss.The Parkhurst cards! Those cards are BEAUTIFUL. I sent 30 of them to PSA, and unless they are altered or something, I expect good grades on them. I did sell one of the graded cards last night, one of the checklists sold for $135.50. I sent the other graded cards to PWCC to sell (let’s see if they can do better). The cards that were not sent to PSA will be auctioned off next week.I sold the graded Mickey Mantle cards from that REA auction that I won. The total of those seven cards came out to $1,236.91. I should do very well on this group, I think that the remaining cards I sent to PSA have a conservative value of $1,500-$1,800. I put in $1,000 in the tracker just to be safe. Depending on how they grade I might keep a card (more on that later).PSA UpdateHere is a link to the Google Doc with the status of all of my PSA cards. The spreadsheet also includes a summary of where the project is.There has been absolutely no movement since the last installment. To those unfamiliar, PSA is my bottleneck. Grading has a 2-4 month turnaround, so cards that I sent in December I may not see again until April or May. Right now, I have ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY cards with them. By value, it represents maybe 70-80% of my inventory, it is very frustrating. Hopefully I will see some movement soon though. One thing that is changing is how I account for PSA fees. PSA does not charge my credit card until AFTER the order is finished – previously, I would credit my cash balance on the P&L as soon as I send the cards to PSA. Now, because the amount is material to the project, I am representing the balance as “Accounts Payable,” but still hitting my expense. This way, I can still use the cash while PSA grades my order. Obviously, I will need to be careful about this and to leave myself plenty of wiggle room (which I’m not too worried about).So, to update the summary:ItemCostSoldFeesInventory^Profit1972 Kellogg’s Set$1,165.00$3,085.64($462.85)$1,457.791960’s Mantle Postcards$27.99$82.55($12.38)$42.181966 Topps Lot$20.50$46.00($6.90)$18.601967 Vene. Topps Mantle$432.80$825.00($123.75)$268.451960’s Insert Lot$420.00$1,004.88($150.73)$434.151960’s Empty Boxes$645.00$1,914.60($287.19)$982.411956 Adventure Gum Set$956.13$1,405.40($210.81)$238.461961 Golden Press Set$3,451.20$3,956.15($593.42)($88.47)1957 Topps Partial Set$122.01$190.01($28.50)$39.501909-Modern “Grab-Bag”$796.00$1,092.83($163.92)$132.911936 Goudey R314 Lot*$288.00$714.55($107.18)$50.00$369.371969-1973 Topps Yankees Lot$2,771.20$6,200.10($930.02)$2,498.89Hank Aaron “Odd-Ball” Collection*$1,086.68$3,190.54($478.58)$150.00$1,775.28Pre-WWII card lot w/ Cobb & Mathewson*$1,882.55$467.75($70.16)$1,300.00($184.96)N154 Duke Presidential BB Club Pair$390.20$675.00($33.75)$251.051934-36 Batter Up Low Number (1-80) Complete Set$1,437.81$2,120.35($318.05)$364.49(23) Sandy Koufax 1950's and 1960's card lot*$869.601,315.00($197.25)$250.00$498.151934 Goudey "Big League Chewing Gum" Wrappers Trio$84.00$74.51($11.18)($20.67)1977-1979 Topps Baseball Rack & Cello Packs (6)*$1,090.00$923.00($138.45)$250.00($55.45)Perez-Steele "Great Moments" set w/ 28 signed$570.00$727.49($109.12)$48.37Perez-Steele "Great Moments" set w/ 42 signed$720.00$1,104.52($165.68)$218.841952 Bowman Football Small Signed Lot (38)$1,140.00$2,243.51($336.53)$766.981961-62 Fleer Basketball Oscar Robertson Signed Lot (2)$690.00$886.06($132.91)$63.151969 Topps & Deckle Edge Baseball lot w/ PSA graded$276.00$403.44($60.52)$66.92(5) 1961 Topps Magic Rub-Offs PSA Graded Lot$112.72$371.01(55.65)$202.641957 Swift Meats Baseball Game Complete Set (18)*$800.00$800.00(41) 1933-2001 Multi-Sports PSA-Graded Collection$960.00$2,065.72($309.86)$795.86(36) 1950s-2000s Multi-Sports Collection*$900.00$488.93($73.34)$500.00$15.591933-1989 Multi-Sport Wax Pack Wrapper Hoard of (650)*$980.00$847.00($127.05)$400.00$139.951941-2004 Multi-Sport Treasure Chest (33)*$1,100.00$289.20($43.38)$800.00($54.18)1912 B18 Blanket Find (100)*$1,270.80$1,270.801962-63 Parkhurst Hockey Collection (45+)*$545.40$135.50($20.33)$500.00$69.781953 to 1969 Mickey Mantle Group (16)*$1,800.00$1,236.91($185.54)$1,000.00$251.371956-1959 Topps and Fleer Baseball Collection (48)*$1,130.00$1,130.001961-1969 Baseball Collection (61)*$804.95$804.951948-1965 Yogi Berra Collection (26)*$1,452.17$80.00($12.00)$1,400.00$15.83$33,188.71$40,163.15($5,956.97)$10,605.75$11,623.22*-denotes inventory still on hand (see below).^ -inventory on hand is valued at a conservative estimate of fair market value for remaining items.`-grading fees are expensed when the card is sent to PSA, fees are not paid until PSA has completed the order. Fees that are expensed, but not paid are sitting in Accounts Payable below.Grading Fees`: $2,360.93Current On HandCash: $1,680.15Inventory1936 Goudey Al Simmons (at PSA)1936 Goudey Gabby Hartnett (at PSA)1972 Topps Cloth Hank Aaron (at PSA)1968 Kahn's Wieners Hank Aaron Large-Batting Pose (at PSA)1968 Topps Action All-Star Stickers 10 Hank Aaron (at PSA)1962 Topps Bucks Hank Aaron (at PSA)1970 Topps Super 24 Henry Aaron (at PSA)1971 Topps Super 44 Hank Aaron (at PSA)9 Pre-WWII cards from lot (at PSA)1909-11 American Caramel Co. E90-1 Ty Cobb (w/ PWCC)1964 Topps Photo Tatoos Sandy Koufax Diagonal Band (at PSA)1965 Topps Transfers Sandy Koufax (at PSA)1963 Fleer 42 Sandy Koufax (at PSA)1963 Exhibits Statistic Back Sandy Koufax (at PSA)1964 Topps Giants 3 Sandy Koufax (at PSA)1966 L.A. Dodgers Postcards 67392 Sandy Koufax (at PSA)1979 Topps Baseball Cello Packs (2) (at PSA)1957 Swift Meats Baseball Game Complete Set (18) (in hand)(36) 1950s-2000s Multi-Sports Collection (15 at PSA, 21 sold)1933-1989 Multi-Sport Wax Pack Wrapper Hoard of (650+) (many sold, many listed)1941-2004 Multi-Sport Treasure Chest (33) (4 sold, 15 with PSA, the rest in hand)1912 B18 Blanket Find (100) (in hand)1962-63 Parkhurst Hockey Collection (45+) (1 sold, 3 to PWCC, 30 to PSA, the rest in hand)1953 to 1969 Mickey Mantle Group (16) (7 sold, 9 at PSA)1956-1959 Topps and Fleer Baseball Collection (48) (29 to PSA, the rest in hand)1961-1969 Topps, Fleer and Post Cereal Baseball Collection (61) (25 to PSA, the rest in hand)1948-1965 Yogi Berra Collection (26) (1 sold, 1 listed, 22 to PSA, the rest in hand)ALSO! If anyone is interested in what the financials for this project would look like:As of 1/23/2020AmountCash$1,680.15Accounts Receivable$-Inventory^$10,605.75Accounts Payable`($1,858.62)Initial Capital($1,165.00)Revenue($40,163.15)Cost of Goods Sold$22,582.96Fees (15% of Rev.)$5,956.97PSA Fees$2,360.93I am looking forward to continuing this project in 2020, my official goal is $20,000 profit. Wish me luck!I look forward to continuing to update everyone on this. Hope you enjoy as much as I do.Jason

#/r/entrepreneur #reddit

0 notes

myourworld20 · 5 years

Text

Gods law

THIS IS PART OF MY BOOK FUTURE BOOK MEDI FOR DUMMIES ON MEDIATAION.

there is path of simply yoga

but you need induction such as new company or new organization. so you need induction! and lot of training! like military. !!! don't worry its not hard!!!

start dear one from here

good books

.this is a million dollar statement

GODS LAW ARTICLE START HERE

what I see today young people or student college student spent most of the time in YouTube and TV and what's up chat.

when I was young in 1990 than satellite dish come , & every people watch TV. especially in young ones which I was that time!!!, ythose are lovely days before it was “dordarshan” (Indian national channel) and suddenly satellite dish come , whole culture has changed just like mobile and internet done now today in recent years

there is star TV star movies , zee TV, “ramayan” and “Mahabharata serial” once “ramayan” tv serial starts whole city was watch not much traffic on road., lovely days

that time I watch all the time TV at home when my father came to talk with me I say papa I am busy some other time. that is my answer !!!!!

so I feel sad now that I behave such a way that I don't have time to talk to my father!!!!!!!!

but I wish to see TV serial watch BBC news CNN news and Santa Barbara serial and bold beautiful s no1 serial in star world, Also Phil Donahue talk show by

so when my father wish to talk to me and I am busy not interested. !!!!!!! .

my father mother lives in another island!!!, and I live in another island ( satellite dish is island in drawing room.

now I understand my father and mother who grew me from little kid enjoy and swing me in a cradle when i was a little kid , that I can sleep

and I don't have time to speak to them.!!!!! Amazingly stupid!!!!!

Most horrible! Most sin!

How sad that my father and mother wish to talk to me and I am not interested. !!!!! Amazing ! How much hurt they feel

So kids always have time and love for your father and mother

These underlined sentence is million dollar sentence

So now in this internet world when I wish to talk to my daughter ipsa ,she is busy chatting and whatsup and you tube and “bigboss!!” Indian popilar serial by bollywood indian film star salman khan. And her answer almost same papa don't disturb me. And any more push on matter so things come to question how much earning I make how much successfully money wise.

Sad in this material world

They like aunty means my sister in law from Canada!! Because they give laptop! And also mobile!

So they like aunty but don't have time to papa who grow them from kid and teach and of English and also computer learn by sitting on my lap while i am working making estimating software and learn computer programming languages from 2003 to 2005 don't know exact year but on same years I write.

So my daughter ipsa tell papa don't disturb me I don't want to listen your problem. !!!

The daughter which is close to father and she is so close to my

Heart I left Dubai best city in my life where I stay and enjoy more and most in my life there so I left Dubai and Dubai job because I wish to meet my daughter it's almost 1 year I seperate from India. And come back with one airbag full of chocolates all foreign brand also biscuits from Dubai mall I almost spent Indian RS 10000 us $150 biscuit chocolates and biscuits now it may cost Indian rupees 20000 us dollar 300 .

so bulk

My kids laughing that they see full airbag of chocolates and biscuits

So again repeat above sentence

“Papa don't disturb me I don't want to talk with you.”

Surprise ! Surprise! Roles are reversed! Gods rules apply

In 1990 I don't have time to talk my father and mother father is Mr. MM JOSHI professor in arts college in subject psychology.

So rules apply. God rules apply.

Again mark my word, this under line sentence is million dollar sentence. Reason main I write book that IS because of love for people and let people love and knows god rule.

Gods always repay you what you have done wrong, youR cheating, your beating, your listing, your Money get wrongly

Many religious books and I show in serial

What you sow at seeds you will get same crops or fruits.

I listen religious video from Sikh religion and also,!!! One Islamic guru or a person speak same “what u saw is what you get !!!”

I know my Hindu religion and that I learner before in younger ages. So I never do anything wrong no cheating no money by illegally corruption from my private company never harrassment my worker and always support them.

So I always do good and never do wrong ting that's why I am living with here and talk to you because in 2 year back I got accident on backside of truck while I drive my bike

And got a accident doctor tell my wife and cousin brother when I was in coma that he tell that this guy (me) will not live after 5 days ,maximum he live up to 5 days.

But due doing no wrong thing and by love of God I still live here and to live in need bread and butter!!! So I write my dear friend to write book and that is my personal and selfish motive but by heart I feel that let people knows about god and his rules so I am writing........more

So gods law apply

If I don't have time for my father and mother so did ! my daughter ipsa and Ayush my son don't have time for me!!!

At that time 1990 ,situation and buzz was a satellite dish antenna and in recent times internet, YouTube , whatsup and chat

Many father and mother I talked to them while train journey or any meeting place they say today kids are involved in internet and also games don't forget in USA kids are playing games are crazy and they become violent with a habit of games

Games is main villain for kids got angry and sometimes violent. Over use or exceeds use is bad for you and me and people. Mark my sentence.

So this is modernization what it does to humanity?. A big question to capitalist world .mark my sentence.

Loss of family, family values, friendship and humanity

You talk how much he or she had money by standard.

So I think more and more modernization goes so more value for Indian spiritual science and Indian culture and religion has more value of it and more demand!!!! Big market !!! So jump in this bullish market!!!!

And more relevant to this more world India spiritual science so did yoga and meditation or ashram

Because you are tired and frustrated with this modern world it's not human and no feeling

Again mark my word . This underlined statement I keep price my book on higher side. Sorry readers I this modern world author has to survive in this modern world !!! And eat food and stay in too also !! Again sorry I feel sorry when I charge on higher side . If I was a king I

Just give free to people. Because people I like and I love most. That's why I have good friends in every religion or every country or cast or trade and also with my workers whether it's from India or African people!!!

And when I am rich I give free books may God forgive me and god spare laws on this matter because every person needs to earn for his livings.

So that's is gods law I tell to people of world. Many more laws and knowledge of God come to you by me.

If people like than I may feel to write again and spread my knowledge

Thanks

Josh

Dharmendra joshi

[email protected]

[email protected].

Name : Dharmendra m Joshi, Gujarat, india

0 notes

mathematicianadda · 5 years

Text

Galileo was the first to … what exactly?

Was Galileo “the father of modern science” because he was the first to unite mathematics and physics? Or the first to base science on data and experiments? No. Galileo was not the first to do any of these things, despite often being erroneously credited with these innovations.

Transcript

Galileo is “the father of modern science,” people would have you believe. But why? What exactly did he do that was so new that he fathered the entire concept of science? Was Galileo the first to bring together physics and mathematics? Was he the first to base science on data and experiments, or to give practical experience more authority than philosophical systems?

The answer to these questions is: no, no, no. Galileo was nowhere near the first to do any of these things. But he is still often credited with these innovations, even in scholarly sources. So I’m going to run down the list and prove point by point why these people are wrong.

The notion that Galileo was somehow “the father of modern science” remains a standard view among modern historians. For instance, the Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science published in 2003 flat out says that Galileo “may properly be regarded as the ‘father of modern science’.” This view is considered so unassailable that even the very Pope once conceded that Galileo “is justly entitled the founder of modern physics.” Pope John Paul II said this is 1979.

But there is less agreement on what exactly Galileo did to deserve this epithet. As Dijksterhuis says in his classic history of mechanics: “No one indeed is prepared to challenge [Galileo’s] scientific greatness or to deny that he was perhaps the man who made the greatest contribution to the growth of classical science. But on the question of what precisely his contribution was and wherein his greatness essentially lay there seems to be no unanimity at all.”

So let’s go though all major attempts at capturing Galileo’s alleged greatness, and criticise them one by one.

First: Mathematics and nature.

It is a common view that Galileo was the first to bring together mathematics and the study of the natural world. I could give you long list of scholars who have said exactly this. For this to make sense, one must obviously maintain that, before Galileo, mathematics and natural science were fundamentally disjoint. This assumption is plainly and unequivocally false. In Greek works by mathematically competent authors, there is zero evidence for this assumption and a mountain of evidence to the contrary. “We attack mathematically everything in nature” said Iamblichus of Greek science, and he was right. This is a commonplace, explicit methodological program in Greek science, as the The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World points out: “Hellenistic natural philosophers often took mathematics as the paradigm of science and sought to mathematize their study, that is, to ground all its claims in mathematical theorems and procedures, a goal shared by modern scientists.” This is the exact opposite of the claim that the ancients were unable to conceive the unity of mathematics and science.

How can so many historians get it exactly backwards? By ignoring the entire corpus of Greek mathematics and instead relying exclusively on philosophical authors. Thus we are told that, following “the classification of philosophical knowledge deriving from Aristotle,” a sharp division prevailed among “the Greeks” between “natural science (or ‘physics’), which studied the causes of change in material things,” and “mathematics, which was the science of abstract quantity.” Well, this was perhaps a problem for philosophers who spent their time trying to classify scientific knowledge instead of contributing to it. But I challenge you to produce one single piece of evidence that this division had any impact whatsoever on any mathematically creative person in antiquity.

The alleged divide doesn’t exist in Aristotle’s own works either, for that matter. Aristotle lived well before the glory days of Greek science, and he was clearly no mathematician. But even Aristotle lists mechanics, optics, harmonics, and astronomy as fields based on mathematical demonstrations. He even explicitly calls them “branches of mathematics.” How can anyone infer from this that Aristotle saw the very notion of mathematical science as a conceptual impossibility? That’s nuts. But historians in fact do so, by insisting that these fields are mere exceptions. Here’s a typical quote, from A Short History of Scientific Thought published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2012:

“Previous assumptions [before Galileo], encouraged by Aristotle and scholastic philosophers, held that mathematics was only relevant to our understanding of very specific aspects of the natural world, such as astronomy, and the behaviour of light rays ([that is to say] optics), both of which could be reduced to exercises in geometry. Otherwise, mathematics was just too abstract to have any relevance to the physical world.”

The implausibility of this view is obvious. If, as Aristotle himself clearly states, mechanics, optics, harmonics, and astronomy are four entire fields of knowledge that successfully use mathematics to understand the natural world, who in their right mind would then categorically insist that, nevertheless, other than that mathematics surely has nothing to contribute to science. It makes no sense. If mathematics has already given you four entire branches of science, why close your mind to the possibility of any further success along similar lines? It is hard to think of any reason for taking such a stance, except perhaps for someone who themselves lack mathematical ability and want to justify their neglect of this field.

The strange habit of writing off the numerous branches of mathematical science in antiquity as so many exceptions is necessary to maintain triumphalist narratives of the great Galilean revolution. For example, we are told that “it was Galileo who first subjected other natural phenomena to mathematical treatment than the Alexandrian ones.” In other words, except mechanics, astronomy, optics, music, statics, and hydrostatics, Galileo was *the very first* to take this step. That is to say, if you ignore all previous mathematicians who did this exact thing in great detail, Galileo’s step was completely revolutionary.

Another strategy for explaining away the obvious fact of extensive mathematical sciences in antiquity is to discount them as genuine science on the grounds that they were abstractions. Thus some claim that, despite ostensible applications of mathematics in numerous fields, “mathematical theory and natural reality remained almost entirely separate entities” due to the “high level of abstraction” of the mathematical theories, which meant that they were “barely connected with the real world.”

Supposedly, Galileo broke this spell — an absurd claim since this critique is all the more true for his science: even Galileo’s supposedly “best” discoveries are often way out of touch with reality: his law of fall, his law of parabolas, they obviously fail experimentally. Not to mention Galileo’s many erroneous theories, which were even more disconnected from reality for obvious reasons. Meanwhile, Greek scientific laws of statics, optics, hydrostatics, and harmonics concern everyday phenomena that can be verified by anyone in their own back yard using common household items. Indeed, they are still part of modern physics textbooks — and high school laboratory demonstrations — to this day. Take optics, for example. Heron of Alexandria proved the law of reflection, which anyone with a mirror can readily check, using the distance-minimisation argument still found in every textbook today. Light travels along the shortest path from point A to point B via the mirror. Diocles demonstrated the reflective property of the parabola and used it to “cause burning” by concentrating the rays of the sun with a paraboloid mirror: a principle still widely applied today, for example in satellite dishes and flashlights. Ptolemy demonstrated the magnifying property of concave mirrors, such as modern makeup mirrors. These kinds of results, which are not atypical, are clearly not disconnected from reality by any means.

The false notion of a divide between mathematics and science also rests on a conception of mathematics itself as a purely abstract field. Here’s a quote expressing a typical view:

“Traditionally, geometry was taken to be an abstract inquiry into the properties of magnitudes that are not to be found in nature. Dimensionless points, breadthless lines, and depthless surfaces of Euclidean geometry were not traditionally taken to be the sort of thing one might encounter while walking down the street. Whether such items were characterized as Platonic objects inhabiting a separate realm of geometric forms, or as abstractions arising from experience, it was generally agreed that the objects of geometry and the space in which they are located could not be identified with material objects or the space of everyday experience.”

This is again a view expressed by philosophers only. Nothing of the sort is ever stated by any mathematically competent author in antiquity. On the contrary, mathematicians routinely take the exact opposite for granted. Allegedly “abstract” geometry is constantly applied to physical objects in Greek mathematical works without ado. The long list of Greek mathematicians who studied the natural world always took for granted the identification of geometry with the space and material objects around us. And why shouldn’t they? For thousands of years geometry had been used to delineate fields, draw up buildings, measure volumes of produce, and a thousand other practical purposes — exactly “the sort of thing one might encounter while walking down the street.” Every single theorem of Euclid’s geometry can be verified by concrete measurements and constructions with physical tools and materials. So why would mathematicians suddenly insist that their field is completely divorced from reality? What could possibly be their motivation for doing so? It accomplishes nothing and creates tons of obvious problems when one wants to apply mathematics far and wide in numerous areas, as mathematicians always did. The only people with any motive to take such an extremist stance are philosophers with an axe to grind.

Only those ignorant of the vast tradition of Greek mathematical science can maintain that the unity of mathematics and science in the 17th century was in any way revolutionary. However, even if one accepts this completely wrongheaded view, credit still should not go to Galileo. Some recent historians have begun to stress that “the mathematization of the sublunary world begins not with Galileo but with Alberti,” who wrote on the geometrical principles of perspective in painting in the 15th century.

“The invention of perspective by the Renaissance artists, by demonstrating that mathematics could be usefully applied to physical space itself, [constituted] a momentous step toward the general representation of physical phenomena in mathematical terms.”

These historians correctly challenge the narrative of Galileo as the heroic visionary who united mathematics and the physical world, but they retain the erroneous underlying assumption that this unification was revolutionary to begin with. Perspective painting is fine mathematics, but it wasn’t a “momentous step” “demonstrating” that mathematics could be applied to the world, because that had already been demonstrated over and over again thousands of years before. Vitruvius, to take just one example, had pointed out the obvious: “an architect should be instructed in geometry,” which “is of much assistance in architecture.” Certainly a strange thing to say if the “momentous” insight that geometry is relevant to “the space of everyday experience” is still more than a thousand years in the future! No, the absurd notion that the application of geometry to physical space was somehow a Renaissance revolution can only occur to those who spend too much time reading philosophical authors pontificating about the divisions of knowledge instead of reading authors actually active in those fields.

The restriction to “the sublunary world” in the above quotation is also telling. The allegedly profound conceptual divide between heaven and earth in this period is a standard trope among historians, as we have discussed before. Of course, the Greeks mathematised the sublunary world too, but you have to read specialised works to find out much about that. Astronomy, on the other hand, is such an obvious example of an extremely successful and detailed mathematisation of one aspect of reality that even philosophers and historians cannot ignore this elephant in the room. Hence they rely on the qualifier that the allegedly revolutionary step was “the mathematization of the *sublunary* world.��

Aristotle did indeed make much of the difference between the earthly, sublunary world and the world of heavenly motions. But this is one particular dogma of one particular school of philosophy. There is no reason for any mathematician to accept it, nor is there any evidence that any mathematically competent person in the golden age of Greek science did so. The Aristotelian dichotomy is far from natural or necessary: in fact, “Aristotle argues, *against his predecessors*, that the celestial world is radically different from the sublunary world,” as one historian has observed. For that matter, even if Aristotle’s dogmatic and arbitrary dichotomy is accepted, it would still be madness to acknowledge the undeniable success of mathematics on one side of the divide, yet consider its application on the other side of the divide a conceptual impossibility.

Ptolemy, the ancient astronomer, speaks in Aristotelian terms when he contrasts astronomy with physics. The subject matter of astronomy is “eternal and unchanging,” while physics “investigates material and ever-moving nature situated (for the most part) amongst corruptible bodies and below the lunar sphere.” This is arguably more of a fact than a philosophical commitment: planetary motions are regular and periodic, whereas falling bodies, projectile motion, and other phenomena of terrestrial physics are inherently fleeting and limited to a short time span. It is conceivable that someone might seize on this dichotomy to “explain” why mathematics is suitable for the heavens only, and not for the sublunary world. This, however, is definitely not Ptolemy’s stance. He unequivocally expresses the exact opposite view: “as for physics, mathematics can make a significant contribution” there too.

In sum, the Aristotelian dichotomy between heaven and earth was never an obstacle to mathematicians. And this with good reason. The whole business of emphasising the dichotomy in the context of the mathematisation of the world is a figment of the imagination of historians, who find themselves having to somehow explain away astronomy as irrelevant when they want to claim that there was a mathematical revolution in early modern science. We do not need to resort to such fictions if we instead accept that the unity of mathematics and science had been obvious since time immemorial.

Another argument for Galileo as the unifier of physics and mathematics consists in stressing that other mathematicians of his day were often more concerned with pure geometry than with projectile motion and the like. For instance, in France there were highly capable “new Archimedeans” like Descartes, Roberval, and Fermat, but their focus differed from that of Galileo. Here’s a quote from a recent book expressing this view:

“They were indeed good mathematicians, but they did not consider mathematics as a method for understanding physical things. Mathematical constructions were only abstractions to them, with which it was fun to play, but which were not to be confused with what really happened in nature. Moreover, they were not interested in the ways in which motion intervened in natural processes.”

In my view, Galileo would have loved to have been this kind of “new Archimedean” too if only he had been capable of it. And it is not true that these Frenchmen ignored motion and the mathematisation of nature. We have already noted that Descartes studied the law of fall, and that Fermat corrected Galileo on the path of a falling object in absolute space. Both Descartes and Fermat also wrote on the law of refraction of optics, deriving it from physical considerations regarding the speed of light in different media. Also, Descartes explained the motion of the planets, and the fact that they all revolve in the same direction about the sun, by postulating that they were carried along by a vortex. So these mathematicians were clearly not ignorant of or averse to studying how “motion intervened in natural processes.”

So it is not attention to motion per se, but the study of projectile motion specifically, that sets Galileo apart from these mathematical contemporaries. Does Galileo deserve great credit in this regard? I don’t think so. Why is projectile motion important? With Newton, projectile motion took on a fundamental importance because he saw that planetary motion was governed by the same principles. Galileo had no inkling of this insight. With Newton, projectile motion is also fundamental as a paradigm illustration of the principles — such as inertia and Newton’s force law — that govern all other mechanics. In Newtonian mechanics this is the basis for understanding phenomena such as pendulum motion. Galileo, however, got this wrong, so he cannot be celebrated for this insight either.

Thus we see that praising Galileo for studying projectile motion is anachronistic. Galileo got lucky: the topic he studied later turned out to be very important for reasons he did not perceive, so that in retrospect his work seems much more prescient and groundbreaking than it really was. He himself in fact motivates the theory of projectile motion almost exclusively in terms of practical ballistics — a nonsensical application of zero practical value, which one cannot blame other mathematicians for ignoring.

So those are my rebuttals of the various ways in which Galileo has been praised for mathematising nature in innovative ways.

Another way in Galileo was supposedly innovative is in his emphasis on an empirical scientific approach.

The Cambridge Companion to Galileo expresses this view clearly: “Galileo became (and still is) the model for the empiricist scientist who, unlike the natural philosophers of his day, sought to answer questions not by reading philosophical works, but rather through direct contact with nature.” This is an image Galileo eagerly (but dishonestly) sought to promote, as we have seen. Recall the story of the Babylonian eggs cooked in a sling for example, and also Galileo’s rhetoric against Aristotle on the law of fall.

Praise for Galileo in this regard naturally goes hand in hand with “the verdict that Greek science suffered from an overdose of rash generalizations at the expense of a careful scrutiny, whether experimental or observational, of the relevant facts.” In other words, “Greek thinkers generally overrated the power of unchecked, speculative thought in the natural sciences.” So many people have claimed.

In reality, an empirical approach to the study of nature is not a newfangled invention by Galileo but just common sense. It was obviously adopted by the Greeks, especially the mathematicians. Even Aristotle, who practiced “speculative thought in the natural sciences” to a much greater extent than mathematicians, was a keen empiricist, and his followers insisted on this as one of the key principles of his philosophy. Aristotle’s zoology largely follows a laudable empirical method quite modern in spirit, such as braking open lots of bird eggs at different stages to study the development of the embryo and many other things like that. The same approach was applied by his immediate followers in botany and petrology, including for example cataloging extensive empirical data on how a wide variety of minerals react to heating.

This was far from forgotten in Galileo’s day, where one often encounters passages like these from committed Aristotelians:

“We made use of a material instrument to establish by means of our senses what the demonstration had disclosed to our intellect. Such an experimental verification is very important according to [Aristotelian] doctrine.” That’s Piccolomini, an Aristotelian philosopher, writing well before Galileo, in the 16th century.

Not infrequently, Galileo’s Aristotelian opponents attacked him for being too speculative while they saw themselves as representing the empirical approach. For example, one critic writes to Galileo:

“At the beginning of your work, you often proclaim that you wish to follow the way of the senses so closely that Aristotle (who promised to follow this method and taught it to others) would have changed his opinion, having seen what you have observed. Nonetheless, in the progress of the book you have always been so much a stranger to this way of proceeding that all your controversial conclusions go against our sense knowledge, as anyone can see by himself, and as you expressly say yourself, speaking of the theory of Copernicus, which was rendered plausible and admirable to many by abstract reasoning although it was against all sensory experience.”

It is true that there were also many spineless “Aristotelians” in Galileo’s day who preferred hiding behind textual studies rather than engaging with actual science. But this was one perverse sect of scholasticism, not the overall state of human knowledge before Galileo. A contemporary colleague of Galileo put is well:

“The Science of Nature has been already too long made only a work of the Brain and the Fancy: It is now high time that it should *return* to the plainness and soundness of Observations on material and obvious things.”

That’s Robert Hooke. Note that word choice: “return” — “return to observation.” Not: Galileo invented this new thing, empiricism. Rather: empiricism is the natural and obvious way to study nature, and the departure from it in certain philosophical circles is a corrupt aberration.

The misconception that the Greeks were anti-empirical stems from a foolish reading of the mathematical tradition. Galileo fan Stillman Drake put it like this:

“Archimedes never appealed to actual measurements in any of his proofs, or even in confirmation of his theorems. The idea that actual measurement could contribute anything of real value was absent from physics for two millennia.”

Or again:

“The mathematics of Euclid and the physics of Archimedes were necessary, but not sufficient, for Galileo’s science. They leave unexplained Galileo’s repeated appeals to sensate experience.”

On a superficial reading this may indeed appear so. Open, say, Archimedes’s treatise on floating bodies and you will find no mention of any measurement or experiment or data of any kind, only theorems and proofs. It may seem natural to infer from this that Archimedes was doing speculative mathematics divorced from reality, and that he had no understanding of the importance of empirical tests. This is what it looks like to historians who insist on an overly literal reading of the text and lack a sympathetic understanding of how the mathematical mind works. The fact of the matter is that Archimedes’s theorems are empirically excellent. It makes no sense to imagine that Archimedes was reasoning about abstractions as an intellectual game, and that his extremely elaborate and detailed claims about the floatation behaviour of various bodies given their shapes and densities just happened to align exactly with reality by pure chance. Archimedes doesn’t have to point out that he made very careful empirical investigations, because it is obvious from the accuracy of his results that he did.

Here is a better way of putting the relation between mathematics and empirical data, from The Oxford Handbook of the History of Physics:

“Mixed mathematics were often presented in axiomatic fashion, following the Archimedean tradition. In this tradition, experiments were often conceived of as inherently uncertain and therefore they could not be placed at the foundation of a science, lest that science too be tainted with that same degree of uncertainty. To be sure, experiments were still used as heuristic tools, for example, but their role often remained private, concealed from public presentations.”

So the point is not that empirical data is neglected, but that it is a mere preliminary step. Anyone can make measurements and collect data. Self-respecting mathematicians do not publish such trivialities. Instead they go on to the really challenging step of synthesising it into a coherent mathematical theory. Galileo did not have the ability to do the latter, so he had to stick with the basics, and pretend, nonsensically, that this was somehow an important innovation. Then as now, there were enough non-mathematicians in the world for his cheap charade to be successful.

What about the experimental method? Was that Galileo’s special contribution and insight?

Some say so. Empiricism, which we just discussed, is mere passive observation. The real innovation was active experiment. A famous supporter of this view is Immanuel Kant, who wrote as follows in the Critique of Pure Reason:

“When Galileo caused balls to roll down an inclined plane, a light broke upon all students of nature. Reason must approach nature in order to be taught by it. It must not, however, do so in the character of a pupil who listens to everything that the teacher chooses to say, but of an appointed judge who compels the witnesses to answer questions which he has himself formulated.”

Modern historians have expressed the same idea. Here is one example:

“The originality of Galileo’s method lay precisely in his effective combination of mathematics with experiment. The distinctive feature of scientific method in the seventeenth century, as compared with that in ancient Greece, was its conception of how to relate a theory to the observed facts and submitting them to experimental tests. [This feature] transformed the Greek geometrical method into the experimental science of the modern world.”

In reality, the use of experiment in Greek science is abundantly documented to anyone who bothers to read mathematical authors.

Greek scientists knew perfectly well that “it is not possible for everything to be grasped by reasoning, many things are also discovered through experience,” as Philon said. This quote refers to the precise numerical proportions needed for the spring in a stone-throwing engine. The same author also offered an experimental demonstration that air is corporeal. Ptolemy experimented with balloons (or “inflated skins” as he says) to investigate whether air or water has weight in their own medium. Does a balloon full of water sink in water, or float or what? Indeed, Ptolemy “performed the experiment with the greatest possible care,” according to Simplicius. Heron of Alexandria gives a detailed description of an experimental setup to prove the existence of a vacuum. He explicitly states that “referring to the appearances and to what is accessible to sensation” trumps abstract arguments that there can be no vacuum. Such arguments had been given by Aristotle, but here we have a mathematically minded author saying “no way, that’s nonsense” and proving as much with experiment. In optics, Ptolemy explicitly verified the law of reflection by experiment. He also studied refraction experimentally, giving tables for the angle of refraction of a light ray for various incoming angles in increments of 10 degrees for passages between air, water, and glass.

Archimedes caught a forger who tried to pass off as pure gold a crown that was actually gold-coated silver. By an experiment based on hydrostatic principles, he was able to expose the crown as a knock-off without damaging it in any way. This discovery was the occasion for him to reportedly run naked through the streets yelling “eureka” in excitement. Such was his love of empirical, experimental science — yet many scholars keep insisting that, like a second Plato, all he really cared about was abstract geometry. Evidently, even running naked through the streets and screaming at the top of one’s lungs is not enough for some people to open their eyes. It is hard to imagine what else one can do to draw their attention to the obvious: namely that Greek mathematicians embraced experimental method through and through.

Ok, so I have argued that Galileo wasn’t the first to apply mathematics to nature, nor the first to base science on data, nor on experiment. So we’ve ruled out those three but we’re still only halfway down the list of things that Galileo supposedly pioneered. We will have to go through the other ones next time.

from Intellectual Mathematics from Blogger https://ift.tt/2Ii0MVZ

#Blogger

0 notes

biofunmy · 5 years

Text

The Dolphins Are Awful. Brian Flores Is Fine.

DAVIE, Fla. — Before agreeing to become the head coach of the Miami Dolphins last winter, Brian Flores consulted his former high school coach in Brooklyn. The response was, sure you’ll have to face New England twice a year, but even Bill Belichick has to retire at some point.

“They won’t be great forever,” Dino Mangiero, who coached Flores at Poly Prep Country Day School, advised him. “Miami might be a really good place to land.”

And at some point for Flores, it might be. It is impossible to judge an N.F.L. head coaching career that consists of two games with a franchise that has gutted its veteran talent and is rebuilding with fragile youth and the hoarding of draft picks.

But after losing to New England by 43-0 on Sunday — the Super Bowl champion and A.F.C. East rival for whom Flores worked the previous 15 seasons — the winless Dolphins have been outscored in two games, 102-10. The team might not be merely bad, but historically futile.

To many observers, Miami’s front office seems to be tanking to secure the first overall pick in the 2020 draft. Safety Minkah Fitzpatrick, the team’s No. 11 draft selection in 2018, asked out and was traded to Pittsburgh on Monday. Every position, Flores said recently, is up for evaluation.

On Sunday, the team’s owner, Stephen Ross, told reporters that he remained committed to rebuilding for long-term success. The Dolphins have five first-round picks and four second-round picks over the next two drafts. Flores, 38, has a five-year contract.

“I think he’s the right guy to lead us through these times,” Chris Grier, Miami’s general manager, said Tuesday.

Still, black head coaches tend to have the most precarious hold on jobs with the most vulnerable teams and the most limited opportunities for a second chance helming a staff elsewhere. Last season, five African-American head coaches were fired.

So far, Flores has shown a rare ability to remain even-keeled during one of the rockiest starts to an N.F.L. head coaching career, with no outward sign of anguish or regret. That stoicism is fitting perhaps for someone whose life has been built on a refusal to despair. He is the son of Honduran immigrants, born to a family who lived in the frayed Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, where violent crime has declined but where official neglect, gang feuds and ruthless poverty have been corrosive.

It is one thing to lose football games. It is another to grow accustomed, as Flores has said he did, to helping his mother carry groceries up 20 flights of stairs when the elevators failed at the Glenmore Plaza housing project.

“I’m very prepared for difficult moments,” Flores said Monday. “I learned resiliency at a very early age.”

Flores and three of his four brothers have master’s degrees. And Brian appears to have become only the eighth N.F.L. head coach in the modern era from New York City, — no one’s idea of a football hotbed — according to the Elias Sports Bureau, the league’s official statistician.

Flores possesses a singular identity in professional football — black and Latino at a time when there are only two other African-American head coaches (Mike Tomlin of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Anthony Lynn of the Los Angeles Chargers) in the N.F.L. and one other Hispanic coach (Ron Rivera of Carolina).

While Belichick, Flores’ mentor, is the epitome of a gruff, taciturn coach who reveals little, Flores possesses a blunt candor. During a training camp practice, he played eight consecutive songs by Brooklyn-born Jay-Z as a rebuttal to then-Dolphins receiver Kenny Stills, a social activist who criticized the rapper as being tone-deaf after he formed an entertainment and social justice partnership with the N.F.L.

But Flores also gave an impassioned defense, rarely done by the league’s coaches, of the right of Stills and the ostracized quarterback Colin Kaepernick to kneel during the national anthem in protest against racial inequality and police brutality.

“They’re bringing attention to my story,” he said. “I’m the son of immigrants. I’m black. I grew up poor. I grew up in New York during the stop-and-frisk era. I’ve been stopped because I fit a description before. So everything these guys protest, I’ve lived it, I’ve experienced it.”

The Flores family story reflects the classic American immigrant experience. Yet his ascent in America’s most popular sport comes as the Trump Administration attempts to bar most Hondurans leaving a Central American country overwhelmed by poverty and violence from seeking asylum in the United States. The administration has also tried to end the protected status of some 57,000 Honduran immigrants, many of whom have been in the U.S. for more than 20 years.

“What’s interesting about Flores is that he’s part of multiple identities,” said Danielle Clealand, an associate professor of politics and international relations at Florida International University who studies Afro-Latinos in Miami.

As an N.F.L. coach in a sport fundamental to American identity, Flores has challenged the notion in a divisive political climate that immigrants do not belong in the United States, Clealand said.

“We have to think of the diversity in those communities and how they have integrated into our society, ” she said.

Asked what he thought of the President Trump’s plan to severely restrict Hondurans from entering the United States, Flores said Thursday through a team spokesman, “My journey is the answer to that question.”

With Flores on the sidelines, the Dolphins, are the only N.F.L. team with a black head coach and a black general manager, Grier. Ross, the team owner, is the founder of a nonprofit called RISE — the Ross Initiative in Sports For Equality — whose mission is to use sport to help improve race relations.

But Ross’s reputation for progressiveness grew complicated in August when he held a re-election fund-raiser in the Hamptons for President Trump. Stills, the receiver, criticized Ross via Twitter, writing, “You can’t have a nonprofit with this mission statement then open your doors to Trump.”

When Stills also criticized Jay-Z and Flores responded with his calculated playlist, the move drew mixed reaction. Mangiero, who coached Flores in high school, said he chuckled at Flores’s feistiness.

But the Miami Herald responded harshly on its editorial page, saying that Flores’s musical choice was insensitive and “looked like a smirking taunt, giving the back of his hand to a real-life American plague.”

Flores said he was challenging Stills to perform at a higher level and to not become distracted by events outside the team. Whatever scrutiny he received, Flores said at the time, he would continue to coach his own way. “If anybody’s got a problem with that, we’ve just got a problem,” he said. “We’re going to agree to disagree.”

Days later, the Dolphins traded Stills, an extremely popular player, and Laremy Tunsil, an emerging star at left tackle, to Houston. Asked if the trade was personal or political, Flores told reporters, “Not at all.” The compensation received by the Dolphins, which included two first-round draft picks and a second-round pick, “was something we couldn’t turn down,” Flores said.

He seemed taken aback by the widespread attention paid to the Stills/Ross/Jay-Z controversy. To Richard Lapchick, the founder and director the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida, Flores attempted to perform a delicate balancing act. In playing the Jay-Z songs, Prof. Lapchick said, Flores appeared to be “toeing the company line.”

But Flores’s plea for social justice was something few coaches outside of the N.B.A. ever address, Lapchick said, excepting the mass demonstration of solidarity that occurred across the N.F.L. on Sept. 24, 2017, after President Trump criticized protests during the national anthem.

“He realized, ‘My players do have opinions,’ and if he wants to successfully coach them, he can’t be dismissive, as the playlist seemed to indicate he was,” Lapchick said.

As a New Yorker, Flores is another sort of rarity in the modern N.F.L. His only current compatriot is Jacksonville’s Doug Marrone. Other New Yorkers who have coached include the legendary Vince Lombardi and the less than legendary former Jets and Eagles coach Rich Kotite, with his career record of 41-57.

Flores’s parents — Raul and Maria — immigrated from Honduras in the 1970s, speaking no English, seeking a better life, and his father spent as many as 10 months each year away as a merchant seaman. An uncle, Darrel Patterson, then a Brooklyn firefighter, became a father figure, taking the Flores brothers bowling and on trips to a video arcade. Traveling home one evening when Brian was 12, he said he spotted a Pop Warner game and asked his uncle if could play.

Patterson, 66, and now a fire safety educator, remembers the football origin story somewhat differently: He visited the family’s apartment in Brownsville on a beautiful fall weekend, only to find the brothers watching television. When asked why they were indoors, Brian or one of his siblings, replied, “Mom doesn’t want us outside; she thinks it’s too dangerous.”

Patterson said he took the brothers in his station wagon to a youth league game in Howard Beach, Queens. Brian ran an impressive 40-yard dash and was pointed to the team equipment van, where he grabbed a helmet and shoulder pads. But no one in his family had ever played football and the shoulder pads felt awkward.

“He had the pads on backward,” Patterson said. “We turned them around and from there he excelled.”

Flores received a scholarship to Poly Prep Country Day, an elite academic and football school, commuting more than an hour across Brooklyn by bus and subway. He struck Mangiero, his coach, as Flores strikes many people — serious, driven.

At Boston College, Flores played safety and linebacker, but a leg injury in 2003 ended any slim chance of playing professionally. So Flores famously wrote to every N.F.L. team looking for a job. He took an entry-level post in the Patriots’ personnel department in 2004. His duties included getting coffee and picking up dry cleaning. He slept on an air mattress in a friend’s attic for a time. He climbed from scout to assistant coach, to the de facto defensive coordinator last season as New England won its sixth Super Bowl.

Miami players describe Flores as New England players did. Quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick: “He’s been great being upfront.” Linebacker Vince Biegel: “Steady Eddie.”

Flores often recalls his mother, Maria, who died of breast cancer in March, shortly after the Dolphins named him head coach, forcing him to practice his reading when he was little and wanted to cut the lessons short. She would grab him by the ear and tell him, “We’re going to do this right now.” So that is how he plans to rebuild the Dolphins: Move forward. Persevere.

“You always know that if you put your head down and work hard,” he said, “things normally turn around and get better.”

Alain Delaqueriere contributed research.

Sahred From Source link Sports

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2O9ZDDR via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

courtneytincher · 5 years

Text

How We Can Stop Global Money Laundering

As economies become more interconnected and globalized and the borders between countries and jurisdictions effectively disappear, the complexity of financial transactions is reaching new levels. The fundamental difference between the current stage of globalization and the previous one that unfolded in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries consists of both the direction of capital flows and the entities they originate from. If one looks back, then one might realize that between 1870 and 1913 the major European nations (Great Britain and France) invested abroad 6.5 and 3.7 percent of their GDP respectively. In the case of Great Britain, this amounted to approximately 34 percent of its total capital investments). However, there was virtually no money from “peripheral” countries that was deposited in British and French banks, and there were only a few dozen properties that were owned by investors from these countries. Moreover, if there were cases of wealthy overseas entrepreneurs or noblemen bringing money to the most developed nations of the time, they were well-known, with their properties being perfectly documented. In our day, everything has changed in this regard: every year $800 billion to $2 trillion, or roughly 10 percent of the combined GDP of the European Union, arrives to global financial capitals like London, New York, or Zurich from “developing” countries, many of which are labelled so by mistake. Most of this money comes through various “off-shore” jurisdictions that were created after the famous decision by the Bank of England in 1957 that authorized the holding of the deposits in pounds outside Britain, with its owners unknown.In recent decades, a completely new industry has emerged which is focused entirely on processing these funds and putting them in safety outside the countries where they were “harvested.” It includes the investment bankers who attract the money and either deposit it or place it into different investment funds and SICAVS (open-ended, collective investment schemes); the lawyers which oversee a large network of offshore and shell companies, trusts and SPVs which regulate in accordance with current regulation; the crowds of nominal directors and legal owners; the real estate agents and luxury developers who sell the overpriced assets to the super-rich; the producers of exclusive goods from jewellery and watches to luxury cars and megayachts; and even the government officials who elaborate different “citizenship-for-investment” programs. The scope of this group is rather small; I would argue with great certainty that it doesn’t exceed twenty thousand people all around the world. The impact of this new industry on the global economy is enormous. Today, about a third of all multinational corporations’ FDI goes through different tax havens which results in massive tax avoidance; the figures for the corporate sector are unknown, but the most conservative assessments for tax evasion amongst individuals reach $1 trillion per year. The investment funds and large banks which claim to be completely transparent, are often sued for violating different money-laundering acts or sanction regimes—and if are accused and fined, the average fine they agree to pay has skyrocketed from $22 million in the mid-2000s to $1.6 billion in 2014–2015. The largest fine, at $9 billion, was paid by BNP-Paribas when it settled its dispute with the U.S. Justice Department in June 2014. But how can the legal banking business repay such substantial amounts and manage to stay afloat? What operations aren’t uncovered that allow such funds and banks to prosper? People should not be fooled about their nature as more than $230 billion was laundered in 2007–2015 by the Estonian subsidiary of Danske Bank, which represented a nation with a GDP that is eight times smaller than this sum, and which is proudly ranked eighteenth in the 2018 Global Transparency Index and sixteenth in the Doing Business 2018 survey. Around thirty-five thousand houses and apartments in London, as it was recently revealed, are owned by companies whose real beneficiaries remain unknown, and in New York City, close to 250,000 apartments in residential buildings are unoccupied, with at least half being bought in the name of offshore companies. I’m not addressing the issue of where the world’s superyachts or business jets are registered—more than 80 percent of these “luxury toys” carry flags of countries with low taxes.All of this depicts the reality of the modern money laundering business that has become part of today’s “financial capitalism.” Many left-wing writers argue that it devastates the peripheral nations—and I agree with that argument—but what’s much more important, I believe, is to mention that this new reality harms developed nations just as similarly as developing nations.The “traditional” arguments include the main thesis about “plundering” the peripheral countries from where the money originates and of “enrichment” of already wealthy nations where the money is directed—but such a statement is not sufficient. First of all, the inflow of dirty funds from the global “South” distorts the normal functioning of European and American business. The cities to which the super-rich flock are becoming too expensive for the locals and their economy often becomes disrupted and is pushed to the brink of crisis. More and more city dwellers are squeezed into suburbs, and the local authorities must invest more money into affordable housing. In London, these allocations rose to £3.15 billion which are to be spent on new ninety thousand affordable homes between 2017 and 2020. The financial system is overloaded by laundered funds and bubbles become more widespread and common. As I mentioned earlier, in some cases, illicit dealings with money flows from the global periphery lead to claims and penalties by the authorities, which in turn only push the bankers to take a higher-risk business strategy to cover the losses. The governments of European countries are facing dilemmas with the new capital inflows: on the one hand they should encourage them but on the other they feel obliged to defend their political and judiciary system from corruption. But with three-fifths of the United Kingdom’s richest residents being either foreign nationals or foreign-born (as are thirty-five out of fifty-five billionaires residing in London), it becomes more problematic from year to year.But there is another side of the issue which is much less studied. As poorer nations become more corrupt and their politicians and businessmen try to channel their capital to Europe, the quality of life in these countries decreases even further, and desperate people start to emigrate. Of the top ten countries that have seen the highest levels of emigration into the EU in the 2010s, eight (Pakistan, Ukraine, Iran, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Syria) are found at the lowest ranks (from 117 and 178) in the 2018 Corruption Perception Index. So by accepting hundreds of millions of dollars into European banks, the European authorities must pay dozens of billions of euros to accommodate new migrants while also facing growing social tensions caused by this inflow. Moreover, I would add that emigration from the peripheral nations, which is caused by the corrupt governments, jeopardizes their development since it deprives them of their best human capital, which has resulted in many cases in ethnic and civil conflicts which often descend into full-scale civil war (this was the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo after Mobutu Sese Seko, one of the world’s corrupt dictators, fled to France where his fortune was kept, in 1997). Western countries are then forced to spend additional billions to provide food, medical care, and even armed humanitarian assistance to the nations ruled by the most renown kleptocrats. This is a very high price for the joy of allowing several thousand people to manage money laundering operations from their luxury offices in London or Zürich—and I would also argue that this joy contributes to an “import of corruption” from the global periphery to the core (I am reminded of the well-known story of a Scottish-based “laundromat” that allowed the Azerbaijani political elite to squeeze billions of dollars from its country and to use it, inter alia, to cover legitimate lobbying for Azerbaijan and its state-owned companies in European capitals).But why does the fight against this evil appear so ineffective? Why are the people that stripped their states of their taxpayers’ money, presided over the largest deliberate bank failures, or those engaged in looting the natural resources of their countries, all still living in Europe without experiencing any consequences? I think at least four systemic problems exist that make this possible. First, I would argue that the main focus these days is made on one issue—on the so called “problematic jurisdictions” which the West’s authorities believe are either engaged in offshore banking or lack the necessary financial regulations. Many lists of these countries were drafted in recent years, with the American “Financial Action Task Force” (FATF) and the European Union’s list being the most well-known. As of Jan. 1, 2012, the first one comprised forty states and territories, and the second as of March 2019 has sixteen. Both do not include, for example, either Russia nor China. Russia was successfully removed from the FATF list back in 2003 and has never appeared on the European Union’s list—even though it’s a common point that the Russians are among the largest final beneficiaries of companies that own real estate in the UK, Spain, and some other European countries. China never appeared on both lists while the offshore companies controlled by the Chinese are among the most active buyers of expensive mansions in the United States. At the same times, there are many countries on the list that might harbour terrorists and jihadis, but do not possess either the funds to be laundered nor the modern banking systems that would allow to transfer these money into the European banks. The excessive attention to the “intermediate” countries rather than to the places from where the money really originates is, I believe, the first tremendous challenge the fight against money laundering faces today.Second, the control over the allegedly dirty money in the “recipient” countries is quite weak. I would say that the very term “due diligence” shouldn’t be used for the description of what’s going on in Europe and in the United States. One can remember the most famous cases—like the case of Arthur Andersen insisting on Enron’s firmness five months prior to its bankruptcy; the case of Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch drawing the AAA ratings to the “subprime” mortgage-backed securities in the wake of the 2008 crisis; the case of Wachovia which laundered close to $500 billion of drug cartels affiliated money in 2000s, etc. If it comes to purchases of the expensive real estate, as one can see, remaining in the shadows is even easier. The “investments” into the wealthy countries are welcomed by their governments—today, even the EU nations effectively sell citizenships or permanent residencies in hundreds of ways with the cheapest ones (as in Malta, Cyprus or Bulgaria) requiring not more than Є1.2-2.0 million to attain citizenship. The British, who introduced “unexplained wealth orders” as part of the Criminal Finances Act of 2017, used this tool to prosecute only one person since the orders went into force—and I would remind that there are thirty-five thousand real estate units in London with a value of around $70 billion, which were paid for by unknown sources and belong to undisclosed owners. A total revision of the banking accounts owned by foreign residents and/or companies, as well as the real estate bought by such entities should be under way—but in most cases the local authorities prefer only to levy additional taxes on such objects rather than find the sources of money that bought them.Third, I would say that there’s a fascinating multitude of laws and regulations that are applied to tracking money flows in different countries. No pan-European register of real estate exists; the banking regulations in Switzerland differ greatly from those in the EU countries; special regimes like the Liechtenstein-based trusts or Sociétés civiles d’immobilier founded in Monaco or Luxembourg are used for acquiring objects throughout Europe; British law is different from the continental one and will become even more different after Brexit is finalized. At the same time, all these jurisdictions are considered “safe”—so if someone sells a mansion in the UK or transfers funds from his Swiss bank account there will be no formal procedures in place to verify money’s origins. Without all these rules being standardized, if not unified, any progress in combating money laundering practices seems to be a pipe-dream—but I would say that in recent years the legislation is becoming rather more diversified than normalized. Of course, in some cases there might be expectations—like the one that happens today with the Russians who become extremely “toxic” if it comes to opening new banking accounts or acquiring property; but I would argue it happens not so much because of the spread of corruption in Russia or since Russia’s “presence” is too obvious in Europe, but exclusively due to the sanctions against Russia that were introduced because of the violation of international law and interference into other nations’ domestic affairs.Fourth, there is another issue which deals with the growing problem of “state capture” on the world’s periphery. I’m addressing the very simple fact that most countries, if their authorities suppose some money parked in their banks or used for acquiring some property there, used to ask the authorities of those states where either the money or its owner originated from, and about his criminal records or/and the nature of the mentioned funds. If the originating country is not only corrupt, but acts as a state totally “captured” by its ruling elite where money is easily exchanged for power, and vice versa, its authorities would prove the absence of any wrongdoings. Some authors argue that these days the political elites in many countries have completely merged with the business ones, and call such nations a business-states—so in all these cases the Western judiciary looks almost impotent in addressing the most vital money laundering cases. The renowned international bodies, like, e.g., Interpol, are also acting on the same basis and will not hunt anyone in case the national bureaus initiate the search. So I would say once again that if some wealthy person from a deeply corrupt state with good political connections launders money in Europe or the United States, there is highly unlikely she or he will be accused of any wrongdoing (even if regimes collapse, nothing may change—e.g., Ukrainian authorities after the Euromaidan did virtually nothing for chasing the funds of corrupt officials from the previous government owned in the European countries).So what is to be done in such circumstances?I would argue that what we need is an institution that is able to confront money laundering activity and all types of corruption globally, or at least for the sake of all developed countries where dirty money are accumulated and invested. Therefore, we need an international organization that can either establish new rules for fighting illegal financial operations or at least use the existing ones on its own, without needing to ask governments for approving its actions. If one takes all these points into account the only option that suits them all will be to create an International Financial Court since the judiciary is the branch of authority that acts independently from the executive. Such an International Financial Court might possess several crucial features.To start with, the court can be established by several nations and blocks which consider themselves as “transparent” and “doing their best” to fight financial fraud. The European Union, the United Kingdom (in case Brexit finally happens), Japan, Canada, and some Asian countries relatively free from corruption might become the founding signatories to its statute (another approach may be based, for example, on involving all the OECD nations into the new venture—and if the countries that benefit the most from these schemes, like the United States or Britain, will oppose the measure, it could be introduced either by France or even by some of the peripheral countries). The major idea behind this move is that the court may first make its rulings based on national legislation (e.g., the British law about Unexplained Wealth Orders), but these rulings will have an equal power in all the states that ratified the court’s statute. In the long run, therefore, the anti-corruption and anti-money laundering practices of all the “transparent” and “decent” nations will move closer to one another and may eventually even merge into one code of conduct. There is a long story in the West telling us how effective the courts had been in implementing laws and treaties that were adopted by executive authorities. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring equal rights for African Americans in 1868, was de facto enacted by the 1954 Supreme Court ruling in the Brown v. The Board of Education case, while the provisions of the Treaty of Rome which established the European Communities in 1957 became fully implemented only after European Court of Justice’s landmark Cassis de Dijon ruling of 1979. The courts, I would argue, have a powerful say in putting into action the laws and rules that already exist but are easy to be avoided, and this is the major reason why I am advocating for a new international judicial institution to combat these problems.What makes the new anti corruption vehicle so different from any other international organization?First of all is its independent character. The International Financial Court might be able to nominate independent counsels, prosecutors and investigators not reporting to the national law enforcement agencies, with their powers covering the territory of all participating states. Its rulings, as I already noted, should have universal reach—that means that, in due course, they will be implemented into the national legislation. Both features greatly enhance the court’s reach and authority.The next crucial point is the system of claims behind the cases the court investigates and deliberates. These claims might be filed by any private or corporate person who considers itself a complainant or aggrieved—and in this case the set of actors might be very wide, beginning from any taxpayer in the country where money originates or from a client of any bank ruined by its owners. The claims would be directed towards any citizen of the country where the money goes whose rights have been violated by the decreasing level of decency in his country’s governing authorities caused by the inflow of “dirty funds.” This means the proposed option is able to overcome the negligence of the national investigators who, for different reasons, might be disinclined from launching an inquiry into the nature of unexplained funds or its uses inside the receiving nations’ financial domains.Yet what may become the court’s greatest advantage is its powers to block and arrest the funds and assets owned or controlled by the citizens of the countries which did not become signatories of its Statute, but whose funds and assets are on the territory of its member nations. This very fact might undermine the fundamental principle of safety that today motivates corrupt individuals and entities from around the world to hide their property abroad: just imagine how senseless such a move will become if an anti-corruption activist’s documented claim sent from the country where the money was stolen, can cause the seizure of funds in the country where either the real estate was acquired or the bank deposit was opened. Even though the court may not become a well functioning institution overnight, it can be anticipated as a crucial danger by anybody engaged in corrupt and illicit financial operations around the world, therefore, greatly curb the inflows of “dirty money” from the peripheral nations to the developed ones.Moreover, and this is extremely important for the revitalization of the global civil society, the anti-corruption activists across the globe would, for the first time, get a proper global partner whom they might appeal. Organizations like the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, not to mention less renown national groupings who will submit a substantial number of duly verified claims, might get special representation with the court. Furthermore, people concerned with growing corruption around the world will get additional reasons for uniting and working together since they will get a clear addressee for their work. I believe that this issue cannot be overestimated: In most countries plagued with rampant corruption, citizens remain passive first of all because they are discouraged by the lack of response from both the national regulators, law enforcement agencies, and even from international investigators since corrupt officials possessing either accounts in Panama or real estate in London don’t feel any pressure inside their own countries.The last advantage of the International Financial Court might become its records which—unlike the records and databases of either Interpol or national law enforcers—will be open to the public and electronically accessible from any place in the world. This would contribute to the emergence of the first truly global database of corrupt officials, doubtful jurisdictions, banks involved in processing “dirty money,” as well as the law offices and attorneys most closely linked to money laundering operations. Such an open database may, as I believe, erode the very foundations of the secrecy that allows the international corruption and money laundering to flourish in today’s world.To make one final observation, I would contend that governments in all nations across the world will face very powerful pressure from their citizens to sign the International Financial Court’s statute and to become the part of that global body. In the case that the largest global powers—the United States, China, and Russia—are not participating in the International Criminal Court, it will be much more difficult for those authorities to explain to their subjects why they should remain outside the new system, especially if they are pretending they are doing their best to eliminate corrupt practices inside their own borders. It might be framed as the debate over war crimes—which in many nations are believed to be a “natural part” of the respective countries’ “real sovereignty” (a term widely used in Russia and coined by former Deputy Defense Minister Andrei Kokoshin)—but the negative attitude to corruption and the misuse of power transcends national borders and ideological fractures. Thus, the dissenters in many parts of the globe will get a very simple “foothold,” on which they might hope to make things change.Alexander Lebedev, a Russian entrepreneur and philantropist, is the primary shareholder of the National Reserve Corporation in Moscow and the financial backer of both The Independent and The London Evening Standard in London.Image: Rueters

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

August 21, 2019 at 12:44PM via IFTTT

#Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

1 note · View note

dubaicarsshowroom · 6 years

Text

Prestigious Car Showrooms – From Lamborghini to BMW Dealerships

Car showrooms tend to be impressive, be it Ford dealerships in London, BMW dealerships in Glasgow or Jaguar dealers in Cardiff. But some dealerships have not only made their showrooms into glamorous spaces but have also selected excellent geographical spots, where many passers by will see their high octane machines of desire. So what makes a truly impressive showroom?

In the UK some of us might recall sitting on a bus in Park Lane or walking along Mayfair and being struck by spacious showrooms with sparkling examples of the motor industry’s finest cars. Of course it’s not only the financially draining Ferraris and Aston Martins that find their way to the capital’s most desirable thoroughfare – Mini, Audi and BMW dealerships have also successfully pitched their wares here.

The more well heeled among us may have actually been in one of these showrooms – be it eying up a Ferrari or thinking of something more modest in one of the Mini or BMW dealerships. Despite the economic downturn, these showrooms remain popular among the Kensington and Chelsea elite, out looking for their next tractor – or possibly combine harvester. Of course, you rarely see an actual farmer in these places.

If you really want to see where the cash rich go to find their wheels, try Old Brompton Road where the impressive Lamborghini showroom is located. Opened in 2003, it has been designed and built to exacting Lamborghini standards and is in fact the exclusive UK importer of this fabulous Italian brand. Even in times of recession it could be argued that the high net worth customer targeted by such automakers is still around – to a degree. But news last December that Aston Martin was to cut a third of its workforce perhaps suggests otherwise.

Even more affordable brands such as those proffered by Mini or BMW dealerships have been adversely affected, but will perhaps fare well when the economic upturn comes – because consumers are more likely to walk with a BMW than run with a Bugatti. But whatever the brand, showrooms invariably share the same basic themes of wide open spaces, clean and ultra-modern. Immaculate environments in which to persuade you and I to make that final decision – and buy a brand new car.

Whether we’re sauntering round Vauxhall showrooms or a BMW dealerships, it’s difficult not to be impressed – not only by the shiny new models in red, blue or green – but by the whole atmosphere and experience of finding oneself in such a space.

The meccas of glass and metal along the UK’s finest avenues are not simply a reason for us to go green with envy – they give us a glimpse of these beautifully designed autos. And, after all, isn’t that the point of these machines – to impress the passerby? The car is for us to look at, while the impressed expressions of passersby are for the lucky driver to enjoy!

For many of us these fantastic showrooms, with their beautifully designed lumps of metal alloy, rubber and leather will remain distant objects of desire. Showrooms across the land, from BMW dealerships to Ferrari super-dealers seem to promise a glittering future. What was simply a way to get from A to B to some, becomes a potent symbol of financial success – and more importantly, fun!

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/2329536

car dealers in dubai aston martin Dubai lamborghini Dubai ferrari Dubai car showroom in Dubai

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2DWbluV via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

emmagreen1220-blog · 6 years

Text

New Post has been published on Literary Techniques

New Post has been published on https://literarytechniques.org/hyperbole-in-a-sentence/

Hyperbole in a Sentence

Hyperbole is funny: just think of all those “yo mama” jokes (so ancient and universal that you can find some even in the Bible and in Shakespeare) or Monty Python’s “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch (Reference). Hyperbole is also passionate: it is, quite possibly, the literary device angry young men and new lovers tend to use most frequently. Finally, hyperbole is often the only way one can express the extent of his admiration for one person or the degree of his disapproval for another. Witness all of these functions—and then some—in the 10 sentences we’ve selected and analyzed for you below.

10 Examples of Hyperbole in a Sentence

#1: Cicero, Against Verres V.56.145 (70 BC)

After long lapse of years, the Sicilians saw dwelling in their midst, not a second Dionysius or Phalaris (for that island has produced many a cruel tyrant in years gone by), but a new monster with all the old ferocity once familiar to those regions. For, to my thinking, neither Scylla nor Charybdis were ever such foes as he to the ships that sailed those same narrow seas.

This is one of the examples Quintilian uses in his Institutes of Oratory to illustrate the power of hyperbole (Reference). It is taken from one of Cicero’s speeches against Gaius Verres, a former governor of Sicily with a notoriously bad reputation, during his trial for corruption and extortion. Cicero hyperbolically describes Verres as not merely a “second Dionysius or Phalaris” (both Sicilian tyrants themselves) but as a “monster” even more ferocious than Scylla and Charybdis, two mythical creatures that posed an unavoidable trait to sailors. Needless to add, even Verres’ defense advocate didn’t bother to stand up for his client after this kind of an accusation; really, he didn’t.

#2: John Keats, “A Letter to Fanny Brawne” (July 3, 1819)

I know not how to express my devotion to so fair a form: I want a brighter word than bright, a fairer word than fair. I almost wish we were butterflies and liv’d but three summer days—three such days with you I could fill with more delight than fifty common years could ever contain.

When you are passionately in love with someone, there’s no other way to express your emotions but in an abundance of hyperboles. John Keats uses them so often in his letters to his betrothed Fanny Brawne that scholars haven’t stopped at merely identifying them, but they have also tried categorizing them (reference). For our example, we’ve decided to go with one of his positive hyperbolic intensifications and, arguably, the most beautiful of them all. As you can see, Keats himself comments in the first sentence above that ordinary language is not enough for him to articulate how deeply he is devoted to Fanny. And that’s always a cue for a hyperbole; in this case, one as romantic as any formulated before or since.

#3: Captain William Mattingly, “A Reply to a Truce Offer” (October 13, 1863)

I will fight until Hell freezes over and then fight on the ice.

At about 4:30 AM, on October 13, 1863, a Confederate army of 800 people led by William Lowther Jackson secretly attacked the strategic fort at Bulltown, West Virginia, guarded by Captain William Mattingly and his 400 Union soldiers. After successfully advancing against the fort, and entirely convinced in his own superiority, Jackson sent a flag of truce with a demand to surrender or face annihilation to Mattingly. Mattingly declined; a few hours later, Jackson repeated his offer. This time, even though already wounded in the thigh, Mattingly replied with the words quoted above. “I will fight until Hell freezes over” is hyperbole in itself, awash with dogged willpower; however, the addition “and then fight on the ice” brings both the hyperbole and Mattingly’s determination to a whole other level. Unsurprisingly, after 12 hours of fighting, it was Jackson who had to step back.

#4: Eugene Field, “A Society Note” (1882)

Colonel G.K. Cooper went swimming in the hot water pool at Manitou last Sunday afternoon, and the place was used for a skating rink in the evening.

Eugene Field is now best remembered as the “Children’s Poet,” the author of such tender and beautiful poems as “Wynken, Blynken, and Nod,” “The Duel,” and “The Little Boy Blue.” However, in his time, he was also a feared journalist, famed for his sarcasm and wit. This is how he described the aloofness of a certain Colonel G.K. Cooper, a local dignitary, on the pages of The Denver Tribune. You have to agree that the sentence depicts Cooper’s coldness in such a hyperbolic manner that it sounds as if taken out of a modern stand-up comedy show or even a roast.

#5: Fred Allen, “A Letter to Kenny Delmar” (1950s)

All the sincerity in Hollywood you could stuff in a flea’s navel and still have room left to conceal eight caraway seeds and an agent’s heart.

Fred Allen was one of the most popular American comedians during the Golden Age of the Radio. The sentence above—taken from a now-lost letter—is an excellent example of how skillfully he could build a hyperbole upon hyperbole to make absurdist claims which, nevertheless, reveal something essentially true. There is also a slight allusion here to Matthew 13:32 where Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds; apparently, you can put eight of them in the navel of a flea—in addition to “all the sincerity in Hollywood” and “an agent’s heart.”

#6: John Kennedy, “Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Prize of the Western Hemisphere” (April 29, 1962)

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of human talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House—with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

“There is in all men a natural propensity to magnify,” claims Quintilian, and it seems that this is especially true in cases when one wants to say how exceptional or admirable another human being is. At an April 29, 1962 dinner honoring 49 Nobel Prize winners of the Western hemisphere, then-US President John F. Kennedy greeted his distinguished guests with the remark above. There is already an exaggeration in the first part of Kennedy’s statement (made subtler by the use of “I think”), but it is the ironical twist in the second sentence which makes this such a quotable and unforgettable hyperbole.

#7: Mary McCarthy, “An Interview on the Dick Cavett Show” (October 18, 1979)

Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’

Mary McCarthy was a popular American female author of the war- and post-war period; and so was Lillian Hellman. However, the former couldn’t stand the latter, thinking that Hellman was not only “tremendously overrated” writer, but also—and this part bothered her the most—“a dishonest writer.” How dishonest? Well, apparently so much that she had to further inflate the numbed-down conventional exaggeration (“every word she writes is a lie”) with the caustically funny: “including ‘and’ and ‘the.’” Mary McCarthy’s memorable one-liner shows, yet again, how hyperbole is oftentimes a companion of wit.

#8: William Safire, “The Fumblerules of Writing” (The New York Times, November 4, 1979)

If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times, resist hyperbole.

The above is one of the numerous so-called “fumblerules of writing” compiled by William Safire for the November 4, 1979 issue of The New York Times (specifically, for the “On Language” column). In the introduction, Safire describes these “never-say-neverisms” as “perverse rules of grammar,” because, as is clear from the example, each of them is written in a way which is a blatant violation of the rule it states. Perhaps his point is that, well, rules are meant to be broken; you get bonus points if you can make people laugh while doing it.

#9: Katie Wales, A Dictionary of Stylistics (1989)

Hyperbole is often popularly assumed to distinguish female from male speech… But there is no firm evidence that women exaggerate more than men do. It’s an absolutely preposterous claim.

Ever since Samuel Johnson made fun of his own job by defining the word “lexicographer” in his monumental Dictionary of the English Language as “a harmless drudge,” many compilers of glossaries have tried replicating the act, planting quite a few hilarious Easter eggs in their, otherwise, exhaustingly unbiased works. It is always great when one happens upon such an example in these much-necessary compendiums of knowledge. The above sentence, for instance, is taken from the entry for “hyperbole” in Longman’s Dictionary of Stylistics. The funny thing about it is the enigmatic incongruity between the neutral style of the first two sentences and the personal tone of the third one. Namely, after pointing out matter-of-factly that “there is no firm evidence that women exaggerate more than men do,” the author concludes the paragraph with an exaggeration utterly unusual for a dictionary: “It’s an absolutely preposterous claim.” But the author of the book is a woman—and that makes this hyperbole just about outrageously funny.

#10: Robert A. Harris, Writing with Clarity and Style (2003)

Nevertheless, it can still be an effective tool of writing, if used carefully. In fact, hyperbole is the most important, most powerful, most useful rhetorical device ever invented, a billion times more impactful than any other device, so you absolutely must learn and use it all the time or your writing will be a futile exercise in tragic banality, mocked and scorned by every reader on the planet, to put it mildly.

Here’s another funny example similar in manner and tone to the previous two—though out-hyperbolizing both. After pointing out that “we are exposed to constant barrage of hyperbole and have become numb toward much of it,” Robert Harris suddenly makes the strangest of claims in his handbook Writing with Clarity and Style; namely, that hyperbole is “the most important, most powerful, most useful rhetorical device ever invented.” It is only after the obligatory second of confusion and bewilderment—”what about metaphor or simile?”—that a reader can realize that Harris is merely pulling his/her leg, using hyperbole after hyperbole to illustrate his previous point; the real icing on the comical cake, however, must be the lovely four-word appendage: “to put it mildly.”

0 notes

fashiontrendin-blog · 6 years

Text

Please, Don’t Let ‘Set It Up’ Be the Future of Rom-Coms

http://fashion-trendin.com/please-dont-let-set-it-up-be-the-future-of-rom-coms/

Please, Don’t Let ‘Set It Up’ Be the Future of Rom-Coms

Everyone’s talking about Netflix’s newest romantic comedy, Set It Up. Some are heralding it as the return of the romantic comedy. It’s hard to find a negative review, which is why I’ve spent the 24 hours since I saw it wondering if I watched a different movie. I understand the appeal of its unapologetic cheerfulness, even if it didn’t speak to me specifically, but I’m struggling to wrap my head around the idea that it somehow moves the rom-com needle, as so many are claiming it does. If this is progress, I think we need to expect more.

Admittedly, the last romantic comedy I remember being excited to see was Obvious Child, which came out in 2014. Before that, it was Easy A, in 2010. There was a time though — you could say my entire adolescence — when rom-coms were my drug of choice. I owned and watched How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Two Weeks Notice, Notting Hill, Win a Date With Tad Hamilton, You’ve Got Mail, 50 First Dates, The Wedding Planner and most of their generational counterparts enough times to memorize each of their male protagonist’s romantic speeches, which usually appear about 95 percent of the way through the film, always to win back the girl. Sometimes I started them over immediately after the credits rolled, just to rewatch them with the director’s commentary. (R.I.P. DVD extras.) It wouldn’t be unfair to say that the late-’90s-early-aughts rom-com boom played a large role in shaping how my younger self saw the adult world. It informed how I identified myself, who I wanted to be when I grew up, how I flirted. I’d resent that if I hadn’t been such a willing participant.

While it’s true that even commercially successful rom-coms have rarely received critical acclaim, there was a time when the genre carried a certain cultural cachet and was capable of making A-list stars out of B-list actors, shaping romantic attitudes and generally steering the zeitgeist. That was over a decade ago. In the years since, the original mid-budget rom-com has been pushed out by multi-hundred-million-dollar extended-universe sequels and reboots and remakes. But it’s not just about money — tastes have changed, too. Some blame Hollywood’s disinterest in stories about women (or Katherine Heigl, generally); others blame a lack of depth and nuance. Regardless, the classic rom-com formula that guaranteed success in the early aughts came to look and feel old-fashioned, both in its technical execution and especially in the tropes it traded in.

But in the past couple years, rom-coms have regained some of their lost footing in popular culture, with people like Emily Nussbaum, Mindy Kaling and Chrissy Teigen defending the genre as a valid art form. At the forefront of this neo-rom-com revolution, as you might expect, is Netflix. According to IndieWire, Set It Up, which stars Lucy Liu and Taye Diggs, is the seventh rom-com the media service-cum-production studio has put out in 2018. And for some reason, it hit a feel-good nerve the others didn’t.

“Set It Up is remarkably refreshing,” writes Elena Nicolaou for Refinery29. “The movie marks the first time the classic rom-com format has been shaped around our particular moment in history, and made specific to the millennial experience.”

“This film has it all — at least by the standards of a fun, disposable romantic comedy, the likes of which Hollywood rarely bothers to release anymore,” writes David Sims for The Atlantic. “Set It Up might just feel like a fluffy rom-com, but it could also be the start of a genuine realignment within the industry.”

“It’s not perfect, certainly, but it’s an emotional support blanket of a film, an old-fashioned rom-com led by stars with palpitating chemistry. I see myself putting it on every so often, scanning to hit my favorite scenes,” writes Esther Zuckerman for Thrillest.

My Set It Up movie-watching experience more closely resembled a vigorous exercise class than an emotionally supportive snuggle. As in, my cohorts spent the duration groaning or calling it quits, while my sister, who suggested it, apologized profusely for what she’d done. She swore she saw positive reviews, but maybe they’d been satires? Turns out they were not, but the joke was still on us.

Written by Katie Silberman and directed by Claire Scanlon, Set It Up follows Harper (Zoey Deutch) and Charlie (Glenn Powell), two overworked assistants who work for high-powered, high-maintenance bosses: an ESPN journalist named Kristen (Lucy Liu) and a venture capital executive named Rick (Taye Diggs). When Harper and Charlie meet-cute in the lobby of the New York high-rise building they all work in, they conspire to set up Kristen and Rick in the hopes that love might make their bosses less ambitious and thus free up their schedules.

The story is cheesy, full of plotholes, and generally predictable, but that’s to be expected in a rom-com. In fact, people who know the genre better than I do have broken down exactly why Set It Up lives up to its predecessors so successfully. What confounds me most are the myriad claims that Set It Up retains what’s great about the classic rom-com, nixes the more offensive qualities and updates it for today. With all due respect, I do not agree.

To the movie’s credit, it is distinct from the rom-coms of the aughts in a few ways. For one, it is technically more racially diverse than its forbearers, with Liu and Diggs in two of the four lead roles. It also makes an attempt at subverting gender stereotypes by casting a man and woman as a cowering assistant and intimidating boss, respectively. Unfortunately, the execution of these decisions ultimately reveals more about the creators’ awareness of how to check boxes than actually be progressive. The story and characters are just a groan-inducing as, say, those in The Wedding Planner, albeit more unlikeable, in my opinion.

Take the movie’s handling of race. Set It Up may star Liu and Diggs — for which it’s been applauded — but race is never addressed as a part of the modern experience, and the story is actually about their two assistants, played by white actors Deutch and Powell, whose personalities are given more attention and nuance. Casting people of color is a good first step, but it’s worth remembering that representation in movies is also about giving those characters nuance, telling their stories and placing their stories in a world where race exists — especially if it’s set in modern-day New York City. It’s hard to imagine that ever being done well as long as the vast majority of movies continue to be written, cast and directed by white people, as Set It Up was.

Sexism and gender, however, is addressed, at least in small moments — possibly the result of the film being written and directed by women. Unfortunately, this doesn’t guarantee success either. As Glenn Kenny wrote for The New York Times in her review of the movie, “[T]he expectation that a female-written, female-directed effort would yield something refreshingly different is scotched within the first few minutes.” The female characters mostly fall flat. Harper is rom-com-recognizable in that she’s beautiful but doesn’t know it, lives in a huge apartment but is an assistant, loves pizza more than her friends, and loves sports. She’s a classic Gone Girl-style “cool girl.” Kristen is a frigid, sexless career woman who, despite knowing how to handle herself professionally, is totally clueless about dating. And then there’s Charlie’s girlfriend: a beautiful model who has no personality. None of it makes me angry; it just makes me yawn. But my ears perk when someone calls the movie “specific to the millennial experience.”

Not every piece of media has to be seamless and say something meaningful; some might argue rom-coms are best when they do neither. But shows like Insecure and Dear White People and movies like The Big Sick and Bridesmaids prove that the marriage of romance and comedy can be delightful, digestible and feel distinctly new, even if it isn’t always perfect or realistic. To me, modernizing the genre has less to do with making the white female protagonist like sports and have career aspirations (How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days did both in 2003) and more to do with telling stories we haven’t heard before through characters we haven’t met before.

Maybe rom-coms just want to be fun popcorn flicks and I’ve simply lost my taste for them. And that’s fine! I’m happy to skip the next one. But when they’re reviewed as beacons of progress or watched en masse and become cultural touchstones, like Set It Up has, I think it’s worth asking if our expectations are high enough.

Feature photo via Netflix.

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

0 notes

gloriageng-blog · 6 years

Text

Unit 2: 3000 words essay

The connection between the success of these two puppet shows (War Horse and The Lion King) and the different forms puppetry is taking in the 21st Century

The state of health of contemporary puppetry has the subject of deliberation. However, most critics agree that puppetry is still alive and strong. Kaplin (1999) claims that at the end of the last century. 'puppetry has been transformed from a marginalized and over looked of child's folk performance to an integral part of contemporary theatre, film, and television.'（Kaplin, 1999 p.18). For Kaplin, then, puppetry exists as an important part of contemporary theatre. This paper will firstly examine Kaplin's claim in the light of recent innovate puppet shows. War Horse (2007) reported record box office takings. (Billington, 2011) and Taymor's The Lion King (1994) has demonstrated a similar trend (Benedict, 2009). This paper will secondly examine whether there any connection between the success of these two innovative puppet shows and the different forms puppetry is taking in the 21st century.

I will look at the current state of puppetry in the UK and China, which as a reference. Secondly, I will take the example of War Horse (2007), The Lion King (1994) and other famous pieces to illustrate contemporary innovation of puppetry expression in the 21st century. Meanwhile, I will try to explain how these innovations affect audiences. And I will use the research to draw conclusions about the future of puppetry design.

Taking War Horse and The lion King as successful puppetry examples in the 21st Century is the first part of the essay. 'Since its debut in London’s West End, War Horse has galloped away with a stream of accolades, including the 2011 Tony Award for Best Play'. (Bowen, 2013, War Horse is an Unbridled Success). 'War Horse has played more than 3,000 performances and been seen by 2.7 million people in London and 7 million worldwide' (Brown, 2015, National Theatre to end War Horse despite runaway success). It indicated that War Horse might obtain a huge success in the mainstream theatre in 21-st Century.

'War Horse, the uniqueness of the productions is partly a function of audience both seeing and not seeing the puppeteers who have become fully realised performers...'(Taylor, 2009, p. 38). Taylor also said: "Tom Morris's inclination, as a director of puppets, is toward the non-literal. He likes to utilise the human body of the actor and those found objects that are part of the set." So, audiences seeing both puppet and puppeteer at the same time may be one of the reason of the success. 'When the puppeteer is visible, a similar relationship between puppet, puppeteer and audience occurs with a similar result of transcendence.' This theory is supported by Mendus who states that the triangular dialogue brings the spectator "Symbolically face to face with God" (Mendus 1990, p.8), and also by Schecher who described it as: "... a double magic: you can see the puppet and the puppeteer together. In that universe, God is visible. (Schechner 1999, p. 43). This dialogue is evident in War Horse. Indeed, these references support the argument which puppets and puppeteers appearing at the same time in front of audiences can be a reason why War Horse was so popular at that time.

After an analysis of techniques expression of War Horse, it can be argued that the production is successfully with a particularly mystical quality which the spectators can read as well as participates in. This conclusion can be improved by Joes from Handspring Company: "There is something transcendent ... that we didn't expect to see," says Jones, "...the transformation of this object into a real and living animal is so complete it has a mystical quality that takes me completely by surprise and still brings tears to my eyes." (Montague, 2011). Meanwhile, Bowen who is a famous arts editor in England described the puppet of War Horse in his article, "Joey is an elaborate creation — handmade by over a dozen people, he is 120 pounds, roughly 10 feet long and eight feet tall. He is framed in cane and aluminum. Leather drapes his back and a hosiery-like fabric comprises his skin. But he is imbued with life." We can find what the "horse" was made of and why it need to be acted by three puppeteers. All of these could make the show become more vivid and appealing.

In order to continue the argument that visible puppeteers and mystical qualities have been the key to War Horse's popularity, it has to make clear why an audience would be drawn to this form of production over others. 'A condition of theatre is that it should reflect the society, it is created in' (McGrath 1981, p. 83), and 'Popular theatre in particular is "created by and for the response of the audiences' (Schechter, 2003, p.8). 'The first thing to consider would be what role the mystical plays in both the current social climate and human psyche.' (Freudian). 'In spite of current society's apparent irreligious nature' (Nelson,2003, p.20), which suggested human believe in the supernatural in blood. 'Religion as an Adaptation' (McNamara 2006, p.246) might indicate this. Towards to the contemporary society, however, when the supernatural and religion become more and more marginalised, people need to find a medium to release the suppression.

Returning back to the War Horse, Joey as a personification horse has his own thought and "he" makes audiences to participate his world, which accumulate the spectators believe he is alive and they are toughed deeply. They would cry, laugh and consider. War Horse's heightened spiritual quality has been established, and so it can serve as an outlet for people's suppressed belief. 'Generation X and the Millennial generation... have a yearning for spirituality over and against reason alone' (Long, 2004,p.53) as a theory to propose that although science occupied the mainstream of modern society, people still prefer to find spiritual shelter. And War Horse might transfer the "Spiritual Shelter" to the public. Therefore, to sum up, War Horse is a successful puppetry in the modern world.

The Lion King can be another transcendent puppet example. Excepting the reason of the successful of War Horse that I mentioned, The Lion King has other factors to obtain success. It is possible that the puppet aesthetic of Julie Taymor's The Lion King gives audiences an illusion world and makes them enjoy it. 'Julie Taymor' s work is highly visual, lush even, saturated with color, pulsing with rhythmic movement.' (Schechner, 1998). As we can see from this, the piece of The Lion King might innovate that the visual expression of puppetry and built the connection between puppets' aesthetic and symbolism. For example, the Gazelle Wheel in the show can represent this. 'The wheels with gazelles that leap. With one person moving across the stage...In traditional puppet, the atre, there is a black-masking or something that hides the wheels, and the little gazelles going like that...let's just get rid of the masking, then even though the mechanics are apparent, the whole affect is more magical...Gazelle Wheel is the circle of life. So then over and over again.' (Taymor, 1998). It can be argued that this expression of puppetry can be a reason to appeal audiences. "The fact that as a spectator you're very aware of the human being with the things strapped on, and you see the straps linking the actor to the stilts, that there's no attempt to mask the stilts and make the animal- like shape---that is why people cry." Taymor responded to the interview of Schechner might support this opinion effectively. 'Using puppetry and costume conventions from across the globe, Taymor has given the show both an exotic feel and a unique diversity, bringing such an array of visual treats together into one epic, that the story could be told without the music or the dialog. '(Newman, 2013).

Both of the two successful puppet show were introduced to China. “The Chinese version was a great challenge for both sides,” said Lisa Burger, executive director of the National Theatre in London. ' "It is totally different from our traditional Chinese puppetry. They want to create a real horse. To have us make our puppet alive and breathing," Liu Xiaoyi who is the puppeteer of the head of Joey enthused. ' (Zhang, 2016). For Liu Yang, one of the two directors on the Chinese team, "This actually is an evolved version of the original," Liu told the Global Times, "We've changed a few things to make the play better suit the tastes of Chinese people. We've also made our own improvements to the way the show is run."

Finally, she just recalled her opinion. 'She said he is still impressed by the UK team's systematic way to manage the show, which she thinks is the most significant contribution War Horse has made to Chinese theater.' Meanwhile,' "Production teams working on stage plays in China can be very emotional when it comes to problems. But the UK team has a very organized management system that helps every department work together very actively and effectively, while maintaining the crew's passion for creativity," Liu told the Global Times.' (Zhang, 2016).

It can be argued that the introducing of War Horse in the theatre of China subverting people's recognized to traditional Chinese puppetry. Furthermore, 'The rough-around-the-edges Chinese accent is one of several localized elements that infuse a Mandarin-language production of “The Lion King” at the new 1,200-seat Walt Disney Grand Theater. ' (Qin, 2016, New York Times). “The Monkey King is China’s favorite character,” said Julie Taymor, “These little touches of familiarity are absolutely what you have to do. It makes the show recognizable.” As we can see that the key of the success of The Lion King is flexible. It could change some elements which relate to the native culture to attract audiences from all over the world.

Meanwhile, this innovation expression of puppetry also affected the spectator in China. It seems like that they would like to appreciate this innovate puppetry in the theatre. For instance, Papa’s Time Machine producing by Liang Ma is an innovated puppetry for Chinese audiences. It was played in China in 2017 firstly. 'And it had already played in ISPA(International Society for the Performing Arts) in America, Shanghai International Theatre Festival, Wuzhen Theatre Festival, Beijing International Theatre Festival.' (Cao, 2017, Minnan Newspaper).

The story explores the love between father and son, the nature of memory and death. As the father descends into Alzheimer’s Disease, the son tries to create a machine that will help him preserve his happy memories of their time together. 'Ma invented his own puppetry system with a unique visual style and structure. The adult puppet (160cm) is composed of 1252 parts, while the child puppet (112cm) is composed of 1028 parts. Maleonn also created the many extraordinary creatures for the puppets’ world.'(Biennal, 2016). Chan Qu who is the famous culture journalist reported in Culture Creativity in Asia, "Ma has created an innovative and playful project that expands the notion of puppetry. He has pushed the boundaries of puppet theatre, and in the process, transformed the dying art form into a compelling and contemporary performance piece." It is suggested that people admit this genre puppetry. And it might affect people's traditional knowledge of puppetry to make them feel interesting.

Figure 1. (2016) The stage photo of Papa's Time Machine

Secondly, it will illustrate that the current state of puppetry in the UK and China. 'A few dedicated puppet theatres survive in Britain, often in the face of financial indifference from local authorities, but puppetry in 21st-century Britain is also finding new audiences with companies and productions incorporating puppetry into their work.' (V&A, year) It is possibilities that puppet practitioners try to explore new ways to make puppetry keep fresh and alive in the UK in the 21st Century. In addition, ‘British puppetry is alive and thriving but where is it happening most, what are the hotspots, opportunities and trends across the country?’ This question was produced by the Puppet Centre Trust as part of the Suspense festival (London’s ‘first festival of adult puppetry in 25 years’ which took place at various venues October-November 2009). And the institution had invited most of puppetry companies and artists from the UK to share their thoughts. The panel comprised: Simon Hart, Puppet Animation Scotland, Clive Chandler, Puppeteers UK, Joy Haynes, Norwich Puppet Theatre, Alison Duddle, Horse + Bamboo Theatre, Helen Hodge, Blind Summit and Rachel McNally, Bristol Festival of Puppetry. Meanwhile, Dorothy Max Prior who has over 30 years experience in the performing arts – as a performer, choreographer, teacher and writer reported that in her essay, " It was noted by numerous people that there was a need to value traditional puppetry skills: acquiring expertise takes time and money...Peter Glanville concluded the debate with a reflection that the world was ready for a new level of engagement with ‘the whole idea of puppetry’ ".

Therefore, all of the references indicates that puppetry in Britain might be innovating and abundant. As we can see from the report, there are many people focusing on the development of puppetry. As a result, to some extent, puppetry in Britain can keep a good development because people still innovate and introspect.

Towards to China, the current state of puppetry might be still marginalised, although some puppetry did some innovation and obtained little attention. 'There were three sorts of Chinese marionettes---those moved by strings, those manipulated by sticks from below, and the hand puppets.' (Boehn, 1972, p. 134). Those are the classical puppetry in China.

In addition, shadow puppetry also belongs to the puppetry family of China. Those plays have already gained the National Cultural Heritage. Fulin Luo, who is the puppeteer working in Guangzhou Puppetry Company reported an essay in the academic of journalism, "After China's economy reform, and the establishment of China Puppetry Institution, the puppetry of China has developed a high aptitude...However, puppetry is meeting a big challenge in China because the most audiences towards to the entertainment of new media...The purpose of the puppetry of China in the future is focusing on the children and young adolescents." And from the official website of Shanghai puppet Theatre, " The aim of the company is serving for the children." There are also many books to focus on the history of puppetry in China.

However, scholars and puppeteers in China might not centralize the innovation of puppetry expression. And the public in China may not recognise the puppetry has already been an important part of the contemporary theatre in the 21st Century. Most of them have not changed their inherent attitude to puppetry. It is possibilities for them to ignore that adults can also appreciate the puppetry. "The art of the puppet theatre appeals not only to young people, and the imaginative effort and sense of participation which a good performance inspires in its audiences are fundamentals of success not always appreciated at their true value." Beaumont (1958) mentioned in his book, "Indeed, the possibilities of the puppet theatre, not to mention its application as in education and therapy, are capable of immense development.". So, public and puppetry practitioners might not realize the view of Beaumount. Although the puppetry in China has been protected by many ways, most people may not appreciate it expect some children and puppetry practitioners.

After exploring their differences between in China and the UK and analysing the two successful puppets show in the 21 Century, there are a plenty of views towards to the puppetry in the future. As a theatre designer who is also keen on puppetry, I will try to demonstrate the valuable information from the angle of a designer in this essay. Firstly, puppetry designer may need to connect with other different fields arts, and then build various vision expression of puppetry.' "The internationally successful ''Figurentheare" of Frank Soehnel (Germany) and the Handspring Puppet Company with William Kentridge (South Africa) mix different visual languages." (Eruli, 1995) ' (Francis, 2012, P. 141).

Indeed, it is important for puppet designers to combine other fields arts to express the multicultural vision languages. There is also a very strong example to support it, The Faulty Optic Puppetry was founded in 1987 by Liz Walker and Gavin Glover. According to the official website of Faulty Optic puppetry, "The Faulty Optic Puppetry was founded in 1987 by Liz Walker and Gavin Glover. Their interest in 3D film animation (Jan Svankmejer, Quay Brothers) automata (Paul Spooner), mechanical and scrap sculpture (Tinguely) and mime to produce a bizarre puppet theatre for adults." And Lyn Gardner wrote the review in The Guardian Newspaper, " It burrows into your brain and conjures imaginary times and places that seem intimately connected to the real historical world of early 20th-century London. Strange, surreal and curiously affecting."

Secondly, designers need to take care of the whole theatre instead of only appearance of puppets. 'Soviet producer-director Obraztsov (1901~1992) writes in My Profession:

[The designer] must imagine not only the puppets' movement in space, but also the work of the 'mechanism' which controls them. This mechanism is the actor [...] If the designer only thinks about the production's external appearance without its constructive features, he cannot be a designer for a puppet theatre, in which construction not only influences the artistic image, but often determines it.(Obraztsov, 1981: 23).' (Francis, 2012, p. 87). It possible to know from that a puppet designer not only care about the external design, but also focus on the harmony of the whole puppetry. Meanwhile, Francis also mentioned Julie Taymor as an example to support this, " In all the work of Julie Taymor one may perceive the eye and sensibility of the puppeteer, even if a puppet per se is not present." (Francis, 2012, p. 86).

In addition, to be precisely, towards the current state of Chinese puppetry, the possibility of the puppetry designers and practitioners not only focus on protecting the ancient puppetry, but also pay attention the innovations of different puppetry. Appreciating the famous and successful puppet show around the world as much as possible might be a good idea. For instance, when the innovation puppets show were introduced to China, like The Lion King and War Horse, designers should consider and analyse the show all-around. Then, absorbing the advantages from that to develop puppetry in China.

In conclusion, it seems possible that there are some connection between the success of these two innovative puppet shows and the different forms puppetry is taking in the 21st century. Since the current state of puppetry in different areas has lasted and innovated. And through the success of War horse and the lion king in the world in the 21st-centry, there might be three facts of that, firstly it might be the innovation of the relationship between the puppets and puppeteers; secondly, it might be the mysterious quality and then, it seems to be the current social climate and human psyche. In addition, the innovate vision expression could be a reason as well. In my opinion, as a puppetry designer, we may need to take care few points. For instance, puppetry designer may need to connect with other different fields arts, and then build various vision expression of puppetry. Next, designers need to take care of the whole theatre instead of only appearance of puppets. Finally, as a designer from China, focusing on the current state of puppetry in China, the possibility of the puppetry designers and practitioners not only focus on protecting the ancient puppetry, but also pay attention the innovations of different puppetry. As a result, these information and references could be support the connections.

Bibliography:

Bell, J. (2001) Puppet, Masks, and Performing Objects, London, England: The MIT Press.

Boehn, M. (1972) Puppets and Automata, New York, USA: Dover Publications.

Brecht, S. (1988) The Bread and Puppet Theatre Volume One, London: Methuen Drama, Michelin House.

Brown, M (2015) National Theatre to end War Horse despite runaway success. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/sep/17/national-theatre-to-end-war-horse-despite-runaway-success (Accessed: 7th, May 2018).

Chen, J. (2015) War Horse leaps onto the Beijing stage. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/china-watch/culture/11939024/war-horse-leaps-onto-beijing-stage.html (Accessed: 7th, May 2018).

Dolby, W. (1978) The Origins of Chinese Puppetry. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/615625?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (Accessed: 7th, May 2018).

Eruli, B. (ed.) (1995) 'Ecritures et Dramaturgies' in PUCK: La marionette et les autres arts, no 8, Charleville-Mezieres: Edition Institute International de la Marinotte.

Francis, P. (2012) Puppetry: A reader in theatre practice, London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gardner, L. (2005) Press reviews for Horsehead. Available at: http://www.faultyoptic.co.uk/Horseheadpage.htm (Accessed: 7th, May 2018).

Gritten, D. (2014) How The Lion King became the most successful stage show of all time. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/11161597/How-the-Lion-King-came-to-reign.html (Accessed: 7th, May 2018).

Hinsbergh, g. (2017) Four Forms of Chinese Puppet Theatre. Available at: https://www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/culture/puppet-plays.htm (Accessed: 7th, May 2018).

Luo, FL. (2010) Communicating about the heritage and development of puppetry in China. China: Economy and Socialism Journalist.

Mendus, M. (1992) In search of aesthetics for the puppet theatre. New Delhi: Gandhi National Centre for Arts.

McGrath, J. (1981) A Good Night Out. London: Eyre Methuen.

Nelson, V. (2001) The secret life of puppets. Cambridge: Harvard university press.

Schechner, R. (1999) Julie Taymor: From Hacques Lecoq to the 'The Lion King' : an interview. TDR, Vol.43, NO. 3, PP. 36-55. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1146767?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. [Acessed 10 May 2018]

Schechter, J. ed. (2003) Popular Theatre: a sourcebook. London: Routledge.

Taylor, J. (2009) Handspring Puppet Company, South Africa: David Krut Publishing cc.

Tillis, S. (1992) Towards an aesthetic of the puppet : puppetry as a theatrical art, USA: Greenwood Press.

Uۀ�4 #��J#]

0 notes

fitono · 7 years

Text

How to Train the Modern Celebrity

There’s an old rule about success: You have to be before you can do, and you have to do before you can have.

Personal trainers understand it intuitively; it’s hard to act like you know your way around the gym if you don’t. That’s why so many successful trainers start out as athletes and gym rats, and more often than not look like it.

But those who successfully train famous people develop qualities that go far beyond their appearance, knowledge, and experience.

If you’ve ever thought about working with celebrities—whether they’re superstars who’d be recognized anywhere in the world or a local newscaster who’s just famous enough to get a sideways glance in Safeway—here are five key factors that you’ll need to consider.

1. Be Visible

I’ve known Chad Waterbury, DPT, since 2005. Back then, he was still living in Tucson, where he’d gotten his master’s degree at the University of Arizona. But he was planning to move to Los Angeles—in part, he told me, because he wanted to work with A-list clients.

Today, after 11 years in L.A., he’s trained a long list of them, ranging from elite athletes to mostly forgotten reality stars. It all started with proximity. “This is the most important tip I would give anyone,” he says. “You have to get yourself, physically, around the people you want to work with.”

Waterbury first learned this lesson in the ’90s, when he did an internship at the gym in Chicago where legendary strength coach Tim Grover trained NBA stars like Michael Jordan.

“At that time, being a huge Bulls fan, I thought that was the best place to go, and he was the best person I could be around,” he says. Although they never worked together directly, he got to observe Grover working with his all-star clients, taking note of how he interacted with them.

At the end of the internship, he says, Grover told him he was on the right path and predicted he’d do well in the fitness industry. “It was like being a computer programmer and getting a pat on the back from Bill Gates,” he remembers.

Location, Location, Location

There’s more than one way to be visible, as Chad Landers discovered in 2003. After working as a personal trainer in L.A. for 10 years, he opened Push Private Fitness in the Toluca Lake neighborhood. Not only do a lot of entertainers live nearby, his gym is in the heart of the industry itself. Disney, Warner Bros., CBS, and NBC Universal all have studios within a couple of miles.

“It wasn’t like I set out to train celebrities,” he says. “But being in a good location set me up for that. Once I got somebody from the area, they started referring me to their friends.”

Like Waterbury, he’s trained a lot of famous people, few of whom he can talk about on the record. (More on that in a moment.) Unlike Waterbury, though, his entertainment-industry clients tend to be “working” actors and musicians. “It’s like, they were on a show, and now they’re between shows, but they still need to look good so they can get the next one,” he says.

And sometimes they have to look really good, really fast. Which brings us to the next point.

2. Be Ready for Anything

Imagine this conversation with a client:

“I need to lose 30 pounds.” “Okay. How much time do we have?” “Three weeks.”

Crazy? Sure. But when you train actors, it’s part of the deal. In this case, Landers’ client had shot a pilot for a TV series years before. When the series was unexpectedly green-lighted, the actor learned he had less than a month to lose the weight he’d gained in the interim.

They used a protein-sparing modified fast to take the weight off. “I don’t want to have to do things like I did with him,” Landers says. “They were happy with the way he looked, but it was a little bit unhealthy.”

And that’s not even his most extreme example. Landers was training Corbin Bleu, an actor who at the time was best-known for the three High School Musical movies. He’d been cast in a horror movie that included a nude scene, calling for a level of leanness that few trainers outside the world of physique competition ever have to worry about.

Landers helped him drop 14 pounds, getting him lean but not ripped. For the final push, they used what Landers calls the “crazy bath,” which I described in this article in 2013.

The night before Bleu shot the nude scene, they filled a tub with the hottest water a human can tolerate, along with three or four bags of Epson salt and four to six bottles of rubbing alcohol. Bleu sat in the bath as long as he could tolerate it. (He told me it felt “like hell.”)

The goal was to lose as much water as possible without risking his health, and it worked: Bleu lost seven pounds overnight, got shredded for the scene, and suffered no consequences from the short-term dehydration.

Those two examples certainly aren’t typical, but they illustrate one of the challenges of working with clients whose livelihood is so entwined with their appearance. Most working actors go through boom-and-bust cycles, Landers says. Even successful ones get cash-strapped between roles.

“I’ve had situations where they had to stop training until they could book something,” Landers says. “But it’s a catch-22, because they have to look good to book something. When they have the time to come in, they don’t have the money. When they have the money, they don’t have the time.”

3. Be Discreet

I have a friend who works almost exclusively with celebrities. It’s no secret; you can’t miss them on his social media, where they sometimes demonstrate exercises for quasi-instructional videos. But he didn’t want to be interviewed for this story because he doesn’t want his famous clients to think he’s taking advantage of his association with them.

Waterbury didn’t want to talk about any of the celebrities he’s trained, even though we coauthored a book with one of them.

And Landers can only talk about a few of his well-known clients, including Bleu, Duff McKagan from Guns N’ Roses, and actress Sarah Hyland from Modern Family.

But even if he could talk about the most famous ones, he wouldn’t necessarily want to. “If I started promoting that I train this person or that person, the paparazzi would be here all the time,” he says. “I don’t mind that people don’t know all the people I train. It’s not about me, and that’s okay.”

4. Be Pleasant

Most of the people I know who train celebrities didn’t grow up in big cities. Waterbury and Landers, coincidentally, are both from small towns in Illinois, where being nice to people is the norm. Turns out, those small-town manners are an important tool if you want to work with famous clients.

No matter where you’re from, Waterbury believes How to Win Friends and Influence People is the most important book for trainers in his line of work. “You can’t be an asshole, or a nutcase,” he says. “You have to be someone you’d want to hang around.”

You still have to push those clients, some more than others. But in Waterbury’s experience, the more famous people become, and the more pressure they face to produce hits and make money for them and their partners, the less bandwidth they have for cynicism and snark. “Celebrities never have negative people around them,” he says, “especially here in L.A.”

5. Be Flexible

Over the years I’ve interviewed a handful of celebrities for Men’s Health magazine, usually because they’d transformed their physiques for a particular role. That means I also interviewed their trainers, who told me stories of traveling thousands of miles to help their clients prep for a shirtless scene, or stay in shape for physically demanding roles.

It’s the last thing most trainers would think about when they get a chance to work with a celebrity, but with some clients it’s the most important part of the job. If you don’t do it, someone else will, and guess who’s going to take credit for the client’s physique?

But it’s not just travel. There’s also the day-to-day chaos of a famous person’s life. Here’s how one trainer, who asked not to be quoted by name, explained it to me:

“If you want to work with celebrities, the number-one hardest thing, by far, is scheduling. It’s normal for them to show up late and still want their one-hour session. Or they’ll want to reschedule. The trainer is used to a structured world, but now he has to step into the celebrity’s world and deal with the chaos. You just couldn’t stack eight celebrity clients in a day. I can’t work with more than three a day. It’s too stressful.”

The one bright spot, the trainer told me, is that you can charge them more. Sometimes a lot more. But then again, if they didn’t pay you more you’d lose money because of all the clients you can’t train while you accommodate the celebrities’ chaotic schedule.

Bonus Tip: Treat Everyone Like a Celebrity

“I don’t call myself a celebrity trainer, and I didn’t set out to train celebrities,” Landers says. “I’m training anyone who walks in the door and who’s willing to put in the work. It doesn’t matter if they’re a celebrity or an average person. Except the average person isn’t going to have to do a nude scene, or be naked on a billboard.”

There’s the rub for trainers who work with famous people, whether it’s something they set out to do or something that just kind of happened. You have to treat everyone the same, even though some will demand more of your time and attention than others.

“I’m not going to say it’s not cool to work with famous people,” Landers says. “But at the end of the day, there are two people whose stories I share.”

One is an elderly woman who started training with him in her late 80s. By the time she passed away in her mid 90s, she was still able to get up and move around on her own.

The other is Barbara Garmon, who became a world-champion powerlifter in her 70s, after surviving cancer and a freak accident that shattered her left arm. Her extraordinary story was told in this article, which blurs the lines between his famous and non-famous clients.

When a trainer helps an “average” person do something worth celebrating, is there really that much difference?

The post How to Train the Modern Celebrity appeared first on The PTDC.

How to Train the Modern Celebrity published first on https://medium.com/@MyDietArea

0 notes