The artistic experience

This has nothing to do with politics, or maybe it does. I went to the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. today. It was intended to be a short visit, mainly to see Roy Lichtenstein's works, my latest passions in terms of art.

The museum itself is fantastic and it's such a privilege that people living here can just walk into so many museums and watch works of art for free, anytime as much as they want. Envy!


Part 1


Roy Lichtenstein is probably one of those artists I turned to after I exhausted my passion for Monet and the impressionists and for the Italian renaissance painters. What stroke me is the idea behind it. I found on youtube this documentary on him and maybe can help you to appreciate the artist and it also reveals its techniques.

Part 2


Pop art is always connected to Andy Warhol. Pop art challenged tradition by asserting that an artist's use of the mass-produced visual commodities of popular culture is contiguous with the perspective of fine art. Pop removes the material from its context and isolates the object, or combines it with other objects, for contemplation.

Part 3


Lichtenstein used oil and Magna paint in his best known works, such as Drowning Girl (1963), which was appropriated from the lead story in DC Comics' Secret Hearts #83. Also featuring thick outlines, bold colors and Benday Dots to represent certain colors, as if created by photographic reproduction.



I love they way he uses bright colors, similar to those used in advertisements and isolates them in order to form artistic pictures. I cannot explain the compelling feeling that his works trigger. But I love it.



I will surely go back to look at it works, maybe copy them, and understand where does my passion for this form of art comes from. And it cannot be compared to Andy Warhol (he appears in part 5 of this documentary) which I am not completely crazy about.

The Great Illusion

On the 11th of November, both in the US and in some European Countries the end of World War I is celebrated. Veterans day or Armistice day. I guess that generally World War II has overshadowed the first world conflict, probably because of the leading roles, where can you find anyone playing the role of the bad guy better than Hitler and his partner Mussolini, and nobody could have come up with a crazier goal as the genocide of the Jews.

A scene from Kubrick's Paths of Glory



How it started

In a nutshell (with Wikipedia's support), this is what happened. On 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian-Serb student and member of Young Bosnia, assassinated the heir to the Austro–Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo, Bosnia. This began a period of diplomatic manoeuvring between Austria–Hungary, Germany, Russia, France and Britain called the July Crisis. Wanting to end Serbian interference in Bosnia conclusively, Austria–Hungary delivered the July Ultimatum to Serbia, a series of ten demands which were deliberately unacceptable, made with the intention of deliberately initiating a war with Serbia.When Serbia acceded to only eight of the ten demands levied against it in the ultimatum, Austria–Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914. The Russian Empire, unwilling to allow Austria–Hungary to eliminate its influence in the Balkans, and in support of its long time Serb proteges, ordered a partial mobilization one day later.[10] When the German Empire began to mobilise on 30 July 1914, France—sporting significant animosity over the German conquest of Alsace-Lorraine during the Franco-Prussian War—ordered French mobilization on 1 August. Germany declared war on Russia on the same day.

The hostilities

The War way really complicated and it's very difficult to tell in a few words how it went and how it developed, including the involvement of all the countries, including Woodrow Wilson's USA.

So, looking at the statistics WWI caused 16,543,185 deaths and cost $125,690,477,000 (in 1914-1918 dollars!)

Thee BBC has a very well done website with short movies explaining the development of the conflict. Check it out here

The end of the War (on the Western Front)

The armistice treaty between the Allies and Germany was signed in a railway carriage in Compiègne Forest on 11 November 1918, and marked the end of the First World War on the Western Front. Principal signatories were Marshal Ferdinand Foch, the Allied Commander-in-chief, and Matthias Erzberger, Germany's representative.

The Armistice was agreed at 5 AM on 11 November, to come into effect at 11 AM Paris time (that is 10 AM GMT), for which reason the occasion is sometimes referred to as "the eleventh (hour) of the eleventh (day) of the eleventh (month)". It was the result of a hurried and desperate process.

Acting German commander Paul von Hindenburg had requested arrangements for a meeting from Ferdinand Foch via telegram on 7 November. He was under pressure of imminent revolution in Berlin, Munich, and elsewhere across Germany.

The German delegation headed by Matthias Erzberger crossed the front line in five cars and was escorted for ten hours across the devastated war zone of Northern France. They were then entrained and taken to the secret destination, Foch's railway siding in the forest of Compiègne.



Despite the incredible loss of lives and the efforts made to create international bodies that would prevent such kind of wars. Nevertheless, a second world war happened and, even after, we never stopped seeing wars around the globe. We didn't learn anything about how war is useless and pointless and how it benefits only a few.

A Great Day for Freedom. Sure, maybe

One of the worst albums of Pink Floyd is without any doubt "The Division Bell", their second album after Roger Waters left the band. I particularly disliked, already from the title the song "A Great Day for Freedom" (On the day the wall came down, they threw the locks onto the ground, and with glasses high we raised a cry for freedom had arrived...). I just couldn't stand this rhetoric of freedom being becoming part of the western capitalist block, and their old gray system being just wrong.



I don't think that the wall should have stayed, I would oppose any wall, like the wall between Mexico and the US, Israel and Palestine, and all the other walls separating people. I do not agree with the fact that, as perceived by most, the fall of the Wall was a victory of Capitalism over Communism. The biggest victory was to get rid of the threat of a nuclear war (if that existed anymore in the eighties). Does Coca-cola, consumism, and triple velvet toilette paper really mean that we live in a better world? Capitalism was a benefit for a big chunk of the population that used to live on the other side of the iron curtain, but not for all. The truth, is probably in the middle.

Recession

It's been over a year now since the biggest recession since 1929 started. I shall not argue on the meaning of recession because it makes my blood to boil, and as I am going to sleep now I would like to stay calm. Just consider this: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) considers periods when global growth is less than 3% to be global recessions. This means that when our already rich countries don't become richer or stay as rich as the year before, that is a recession.



For this reason, in macroeconomic terms, I do not take recession seriously. As we are not getting less rich, we are just not getting richer. Please go forth explaining, the majority of the world population that Europeans and Americans are in big trouble because we decided to hang on a couple more years before changing our cars.

Nevertheless, the recession, on a smaller level can hit us hard, those that loose their jobs, their homes, those that cannot earn their living. But since we live in a rich society, all this will change and things will get better, like the sky after a storm. The clouds at last, drift away... like in the final scene of the film by Aki Kaurismaki, Drifting Clouds (Finnish: Kauas pilvet karkaavat)



The fantastic song on the credits is by Rauli Badding Somerjoki who died, much too young in 1987 (aged 39)

Healthcare as a paradigma of socialism (?)

Operation Coffee Cup was a campaign conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA) during the late 1950s and early 1960s in opposition to the Democrats' plans to extend Social Security to include health insurance for the elderly, later known as Medicare. As part of the plan, doctors' wives would organize coffee meetings in an attempt to convince acquaintances to write letters to Congress opposing the program. The operation received support from Ronald Reagan, who in 1961 produced the LP record Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine for the AMA, outlining arguments against what he called "socialized medicine". This record would be played at the coffee meetings. Michael Moore quoted Reagan's speech in the record in its 2007 documentary, Sicko.

The lobby that Reagan was supporting was basically trying to convince people that if they got free health care, their freedom would be at risk. Here's a long extract from it. Tragic and funny at the same time. But imagine a bunch of housewives sitting in a living room having tea and listening to the famous actor Ronald Reagan.



On 7 November 2009, the US house of representatives passed the bill on health care reform, 220 votes against 215 with one Republican member voting in favor. As the Washington Post says, "Democrats have sought for decades to provide universal health care, but not since the 1965 passage of Medicare and Medicaid has a chamber of Congress approved such a vast expansion of coverage. Action now shifts to the Senate, which could spend the rest of the year debating its version of the health-care overhaul".

As any person that knows that free healthcare and socialism are not closely related, I really hope for the millions of Americans living without health care coverage that the bill passes as soon as possible. One point for Europe, nowadays, nobody would ever think of depriving its citizens from healthcare, although it's not always perfect.

And if you're an American doctor, don't worry, you won't be starving.

Hagiography

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Hagiography as the (1) biography of saints or venerated persons; (2) idealizing or idolizing biography. A biography is usually written on the achievements of one person. It seems, thought that the 44th (and current) American president Barack Hussein Obama II, is such an extraordinary character that get praise for what he will do, before he has even done anything (or, let's say, is far from having done something very substantial).

A few weeks ago, Obama won the nobel peace prize, and despite the fact that it came from a foreign country it was just difficult to understand. After all the emphasis on Obama, the cool president, the president of change, racially ecumenical, progressive and modern, this was felt here as something too much. Why did he get the prize? What did he do? He has good intentions, he demonstrated great intentions during his campaign, but now, all America, and the world wants, is change: jobs, no war, environmental protection. So far we haven't seen much (although there is a lot going on) And even the guys from SNL are pushing it.
Check this out


Almost one year and nothing to show for it. Guantanamo is still open, Iraq is still a problem, Afghanistan not better, etc...

Nevertheless we have a few hagiographies: "By the people" by Ed Norton on the electoral campaign, and the book "Art for Obama". I hope the change, the good one will arrive before the mid term elections.

Mr Smith in Washington

Funny,
the title of this blog came was inspired on a Frank Capra movie, where the naive Jimmy Stewart is sent to the US senate by some expert politicians sure to be able to manipulate him. I always thought that Brussels would be the correspondent of Washington for Europe: a large amount of people moving to the capital looking for jobs related to the political offices.

Well, due to my job, I was actually sent to Washington and for a couple of months I will be able to discover how it is like. Well, I ain't no politician, neither in DC nor in Brussels and probably I am not even that naive, but Mr Smith is now in Washington and the experience has been good so far.

You can wath the vull movie, right from here. Courtesy of the library of Congress of the US:



It's the city of Obama, and it's a very special time for this country. I'll try to organize my thoughts in my next plots. I'm been having lots of ideas lately, but as you know, I am "out of focus". I'm trying. Not hard.

Impossibility

In Venice they have a very prestigious film festival since many many years. Being a film fan I finally decided to go. I watched several movies but two were the most striking. Persecution and Adrift (Choi voi). The Vietnamese one is surely the best film I've seen there.

In both films the characters have one problem: love. It may sound banal, but the problem is not finding love, being betrayed or breaking up. The problem is loving: what is the shape of love? How are we supposed to behave with the loved one? What do we want them to do? The answer in Persecution is that at some point we must stop struggling and accept happiness. Adrift shows loves in its many faces: the official one (a married couple with different needs), the unspoken love (a writer in love with her friend, the married girl), the passionate love (between the inexperienced wife and an expert lover) and the innocent love (between the distracted young husband and the neighbor).

Love can be anything, less one. Cannot be defines, there is no correct way to love and we should not let the schemes that our society built, superseed our own, personal way to love.

Destiny

Sometimes, things happen to you and, even though you are sure about your (non) believes, coincidences make you shake. That how I feel sometimes and that's why my (non) believes are not very strong. I don't think I will ever start to believe in god, or become superstitious in any way. But I think I will always keep on having doubts.

I listened to this story, told by Boris Karloff in a Peter Bogdanovic, and it gave me the creeps



Appointment in Samara

There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said: "Master, just now when I was in the market place I was jostled by a woman in the 'crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening gesture; now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me." The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the market place and he saw Death standing in the crowd and he went to Death and said: "Why did you make a threatening gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning?" "That was not a threatening gesture," Death said, "It was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight... in Samarra."

Surveys

How much surveys correspond to the truth?
Whenever we look at newspapers, especially online ones, there is always a title revealing that a certain percentage of people do this and that, and obviously every data is different from the other. On the other hand, the question made is crucial.

If the question is "How many carrots you eat during the week?" it is unlikely that most of the people would lie unless they work for the potato industry and want to boycott the data.

But if the question is: "are you a serial killer" there is a higher chance that the people interviewed would be thoroughly truthful. Some would say yes even if they are not and, believe it or not, some serial killers wouldn't admit it despite being anonymous.

One of the typical survey is over fidelity and although this is where most people would lie about. Nevertheless according to the New York Times the landscape of fidelity has been changing and the main change in data has been noticed for old couples (due to sex enhancing medicines they say) and in couples under 35 (probably due to a changed perception of normal behavior).

Is this true? You can read the entire article here

All different, unequal

It's funny to see the results of the European Elections. A lot of far right parties in Europe gained votes. Too many votes. Many say that there is a phantom traveling through Europe, the phantom of the right, the phantom of xenophobia. Even worse, I see there is a phantom of disinterest, of egoism. Many people and many cultures lost their memory of the past.

I see formers socialist countries happy about being in the EU, about being in a democratic and capitalistic system, but the voting turnouts are ridiculously low. I see western and eastern countries that vote parties that speak like people from the Ku Klux Klan. I see important leaders declaring that their country doesn't want to be multicultural, but 10% of their gdp is produced by immigrants, i see populations that a few years ago were asking for democracy being indifferent to the basic democratic tools.

Are they all to be blamed? Maybe

On the other hand I see socialist parties supporting anti-immigrant laws, endorsing the repression of civil rights for whatever reason, supporting wars, denying fundamental rights like marriage between homosexuals. They are no alternative to the right.

There is a barbaric culture that is coming forward, made of egoism, profit and indifference. There are too many parties and too many politicians that have positions that are just silly. I know things will change, eventually. I hope we don't get to a situation like this, where we have the silly party, the slightly silly (socialists?) and the very silly party. At least these lads are funny.

Out of focus

Ok,
I'm not very good in this, yet. Probably it's because I had too ambitious goals, telling about the European Union, politics and links to cinema. True, I am interested in all this stuff, but probably not enough to be a commentator.

In the last 2 months I've been to cinema ZERO times, and I've watched a couple of movies at home. Not enough. As for the politics, I've been mainly following the Berlusconi saga in the Italian media and trying to campaign for a new left wing party.

At the same time, I've been doing things. I had a few trips, went to theater a couple of times, spend time fixing bicycles. But just a bit of time for all these activities. Not enough dedicated to any. I also (re)started to write. I have an outline for 4 short stories. I will let you (hypothetical you) know if I ever develop them.

Surely what I do a lot is writing, and thinking. So, I will betray my nice initial idea to write post about politics or political decisions. I still think it was a nice idea, but I'm not focused enough.

So I will write about whatever comes to my mind (sex, politics, movies, metaphysics, etc). Maybe I'll get more focused or I'll end up like Robin Williams in that Woody Allen movie.

Password

So, I wrote the first post for this blog quite some time ago. Then nothing. I couldn't access the blog anymore because I didn't remember my passwords/username combination. The blog was about to end up in the blog cemetery, together with millions of blogs of million of bloggers that every day decide to tell a bit more about themselves and what they think on the internet, like anyone really cared.

In any case, I just forget passwords all the time. Then it suddenly pops up back in my mind because passwords are usually obvious, perhaps not to everyone but to yourself. Sometimes passwords are really really obvious, like those that put their birthday as email password or the name of their mother. My favorite is 12345, like the default one for some sim cards or for suitcases. Like in this film.

Start

How do you start a blog? Isn't it like starting to write a book? An empty page that probably nobody will ever read but that satisfies some need of the writer. These are my intention for this blog, write to myself, collect some information (not always the most useful). Probably it's like having a place to think outside my brain. The blog will be mainly in English. But Italian (my native language), and the other languages that have contaminated me in these years may appear.

I'll try to limit the scope to cinema, politics and Brussels (Where I live and where important decisions for Europe are taken). That's the meaning of the title.

Here's my first political-cinematographic quote. It applies to all of us. When we decide to work for someone, are we making an endorsement to their views, policy, etc? Are you with Randall or with the roofer?



How free are we to choose our job based on personal politics in today's economy? Sure, I wouldn't go to work as a contractor for the talibans, but can I avoid working, even indirectly for other evildoers?