Archives For April 30, 2013 @ 12:00 am

The following fifteen photographs were taken in Amsterdam between April and early May. A number of them feature the water and those streets around the top of the Amstel, including Staalstraat, and a view from Groenburgwal towards Zuiderkerk – the church where Rembrandt buried three of his children; and which was painted by Monet on a visit to Amsterdam in 1874.

There is a shot of Le Moulin de Gooyer, an old mill to the east of the centre; there are sunsets in the Vondelpark and along Prinsengracht; a bronze by gold dome and cupola on the Leidseplein, seen from Marnixstraat; the original façade of the Stedelijk Museum; the Museumplein; and a Dutch flag and orange folk on Queen’s Day, more photographs of which may be viewed here.

IMG_1068 IMG_1069 IMG_1236 IMG_1308 IMG_1333 IMG_1360 IMG_1366 IMG_1401 IMG_1538 IMG_1589 IMG_1593IMG_1626IMG_1657 IMG_1678 IMG_1679

Asap1

A$AP Rocky is sometimes considered as one of the most prominent of a group of young artists whose sound has come to be identified as ‘Cloud Rap’. The term – which originated around 2011, associated with Main Attrakionz and Lil B, and is still in the process of emerging – is a useful one, for it suggests the way in which such artists produce and promote their songs, and the atmosphere their songs evoke.

‘Cloud Rap’ artists typically draw creatively from the diversity of influences and the easy accessibility which are characteristics of cloud computing. The interplay between different genres and styles of music, owing to the internet, is now a central facet of so much of what is being made: indeed, it is an ineluctable quality of the music of those who have grown up on the net, making use of file-sharing to listen to an unprecedented range of sources. So Cloud Rap pulls from a diversity of rap sounds and locales – from the East and West Coasts, the Dirty South, and other assorted artists who emerged from Atlanta; from genres closely related to and deriving from hip hop, including drum and bass, grime, and trip hop; and from R&B, dance, indie, rock, and pop music.

Related terms have been coined and have sought to define adjacent and overlapping movements. ‘Swag Rap’ is a label that appears to explicitly refer to A$AP Rocky, and suggests a focus on ostentatious presentation, on fashion, and on lyrics that celebrate material wealth. There are of course many precedents for such an outlook, for instance in some of the most enjoyable works of the Notorious B.I.G. and Jay-Z ; but that the term would seem to limit our conception of the artists it refers to only serves to show its insufficiency. It either dismisses or ignores the musical processes and the musical complexities of these rappers.

‘Lo-fi Rap’ says something more about the sound of those artists who would be subsumed under its heading: positing a new group of rappers who record experimentally, frequently using readily-available digital audio workstations, without studios and the backing of major labels, it suggests the influence of indie music in a lineage from Pavement to Beck to The Microphones, and recent lo-fi developments in forms of R&B by The Weeknd and How To Dress Well. More popularly, the specific influence of Kanye West and some of his working methods – especially his manipulation of the Roland TR-808 drum machine – is made clear in Main Attrakionz titling their two 2011 mixtapes 808s and Dark Grapes and 808s and Dark Grapes II.

In particular, Cloud Rap often utilises looped samples from female singers, and often from those whose voices have an ethereal quality. Imogen Heap has been sampled on numerous occasions by Lil B and by Main Attrakionz; she also features on A$AP Rocky’s Live.Love.A$AP (on the track ‘Demons’), which includes other samples from Karl Jenkins’ new age project Adiemus (‘Palace’), the S.O.S. Band (‘Peso’), and British new wave outfit Kissing the Pink (‘Kissin’ Pink’).

Over such sample loops, the flow of Cloud Rappers is relaxed and rhythmic, allowing plenty of space in which to breathe. Atmospherically, and frequently lyrically, the songs depict the smoking of weed, and the hazy cloud which ensues tangibly and physiologically. Moreover, Cloud Rappers often begin circulating their work via the internet, releasing songs and mixtapes via blogs, SoundCloud, and temporary hosting sites. The very concept of a mixtape seems to have taken new form through and is emblematic of Cloud Rap: releasing a collection of songs as a mixtape suggests a certain fluidity, a lack of the finality and discreteness that is associated with albums.

Clams Casino is one Cloud Rap’s preeminent producers, and his production did much to define Live.Love.A$AP, the mixtape from 2011 which established A$AP Rocky and saw him earn a major deal with RCA. Clams appears again on Rocky’s debut studio album, Long.Live.A$AP, released in January of this year – but his sound is less predominant on this heavier album, which features a medley of producers including Hit-Boy, Danger Mouse, and Skrillex.

Where there has been criticism of A$AP Rocky, it has often centred on his reliance on production and the supposed limitations of his lyrics. This seems to ignore the nature of music as a cohesive whole, a collection of parts, which is never defined solely by those words which can be meaningfully written or typed on a page. The sonic harmony which Rocky achieves – combining production techniques with a supple, languid yet characterful rapping style, and lyrics which express through sound and rolling, repeating rhythm – is a mark of good art. Live.Love.A$AP has become one of my favourite rap albums, one of the most distinctive in its chilled-out feel, and one of the albums I’ve listened to most over the last couple of years; while Long.Live.A$AP counts as one of my favourite records of the year so far.

A$AP Rocky brings the same sustained energy, engaging personality, and cadenced sound to his live performances. His show at the Melkweg last night was boldly confident and encompassing in its generosity. Scheduled several months ago, Rocky was to play a single show in Amsterdam, supported by A$AP Ferg: when the concert quickly sold out, another date was added, and Ferg – who has been busy recently releasing his ‘Work’ remix, accompanied by a music video; and featuring on YG’s new song, ‘Click Clack’ – was replaced as the support act by Joey Fatts and Aston Matthews. Fatts and Matthews gave a brief but lively and suitably crowd-warming opening set.

Rocky – wearing a green flannel shirt which he later removed for the white t-shirt underneath; white Pyrex shorts; football socks; and white trainers – played a balance of songs from across his two albums; some of his earlier works, notably ‘Peso’ and ‘Purple Swag’, perhaps still most familiar and winning particularly strong responses. The audience’s already boisterous enthusiasm was spurred as Rocky repeatedly called for mosh pits, sing-alongs, and the revelation of female breasts; he slapped hands with people in the front row, and threw out bottles of water so that those endlessly bouncing up and down wouldn’t dehydrate. When other members of the A$AP crew (the acronym originates in a Harlem collective of artists, and stands for Always Strive And Prosper), took to the stage, they and Rocky prowled in diagonals reminiscent of The Clash.

While the show possesses nothing in the way of set design, effective lighting – blacks and whites and purples – and Rocky’s lithe and powerful, enthusiastically open, playfully charismatic stage presence make for a hugely entertaining and involving live experience. Towards the close of the show, Rocky took around twenty audience members onto the stage, to jump and dance during the final few songs. Eventually eschewing any rapping, he dove into and wandered amongst the crowd, allowing the party he had avowedly sought and orchestrated to come to the fore, and to persist on after his departure.

________

Towards the end of last week, I revamped those various tumblr. pages which relate to this site. The ‘tumblr’ link in the menu at the top of the site serves as a gateway to these; and they are all linked at the very bottom of the site, in the section suitably headed ‘My Other Sites’.

culturedarm serves to summarise and link to the pieces published here; it contains shorter and slightly looser posts on topics from music to comedy to architecture; audio and video files; and occasional photographs. visualarm provides a sort of visual compendium of what is posted here, at culturedarm, and less frequently amsterdamarm: it allows me to expand visually on whatever I’ve posted elsewhere. audioarm and poetryarm are collections of poetry and music.

My revamp essentially saw me replace the four distinct themes which characterised each of the four pages in turn – and which were drawn and edited from various sources – with a single theme, consistent throughout with minor visual differences. I owe to ‘blink and it’s over’ from http://themecloud.co/ for the new theme. I felt like a change, I appreciate the consistency, and I really like the theme’s layout: I think it is lively and engaging yet still structured and clear, and it supports all manner of posts and insertions faultlessly.

culturedarm:

Prnt1

visualarm:

prnt2

audioarm:

prnt3

poetryarm:

prnt4

The appearance of amsterdamarm remains the same:

prnt5

london-attack

These are some of the thoughts I have had, and some of the connections I have made, regarding the attack in Woolwich on Wednesday, in which a man died after being attacked with a machete. Two suspects remain in hospital after a confrontation with the police. My considerations relate more to the reporting of the attack than to the nature of the attack itself; mine is really an attempt to analyse and philosophise the aims and the rhetoric of the reporting.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This epigram – from the French ‘plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose’, authored by the critic Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr – may encapsulate war and warmongering in general, which often seems the continual search for a common enemy, and which has only increased in scope and persistence in the age of the nation state. Yet its play upon the concept of time gives it particular pertinence for me here, and when it comes to terrorist attacks and the War on Terrorism.

The attack in Woolwich was quickly depicted as a terrorist attack; and quickly conceived as demonstrating a new type of terrorist activity in the United Kingdom, owing to its up-close nature and the bold and bloody use of a machete. Keith Vaz, the Home Affairs Select Committee Chairman, called the attack ‘totally unprecedented’; defence experts described it as a ‘departure’ from previous attacks, marking ‘a new round of terror threats in this country’. At the same time, in David Cameron’s press conference upon the attack – given in Paris, alongside François Hollande, whom the Prime Minister was visiting for a scheduled meeting – he stated ‘We have had these sorts of attacks before in our country’, before concluding, ‘and we never buckle in the face of them’.

Thus the Woolwich attack has been portrayed as both new and not-new, something appearing for the first time and something in a process of recurring. Involved here is a sort of emptying out of time which calls to mind Anthony Giddens’ The Consequences of Modernity. For Giddens (the theoretical architect of the ‘Third Way’ in politics), a phenomenon of modern life is ‘time-space distanciation’, whereby time and subsequently space are made ’empty’ in that they are made distinct from any grounding contexts: with the mechanical clock and the standardised calendar, we can know the time without reference to nature and our specific locale; and with such developments as the telephone and improvements in travel (and now again with the internet), we can interact with people without being physically with them, and increasingly conceive the world in a way unlimited by what we see immediately around us.

Time-space distanciation ‘connects presence and absence’; it relates closely to ‘disembedding’, which Giddens defines as ‘the “lifting out” of social relations from local contexts of interaction and their restructuring across indefinite spans of time and space’. In short, disembedded social relations are those no longer embedded in local contexts. Giddens relates two types of disembedding mechanisms: symbolic tokens – for instance, money – which are accepted as possessing value regardless of when they are used and by whom; and expert systems, where – lacking the requisite knowledge ourselves – we rely on the expertise of professionals. Giddens elaborates how the faith we place in expert systems relates to and becomes trust.

As disembedding allows us to operate without the restrictions that were once imposed by time and space, it offers us much in the way of opportunities. More, disembedding is crucial to our functioning in an increasingly complex world – our trust allows us to accept things and practices as real, even if we lack knowledge of their structure, development and coherence. Yet disembedding comes also with dangers, one of which is the acceptance of expert systems which are not expert, but contain flaws or deceits.

When it is stated that the Woolwich attack is both something new and emerging and at the same time something old and persisting, we lose our sense of the specific interaction and the contexts from which it actually emerged. The endeavour is to make us lose our grounding, and to increase our fear: an ambiguous and perverse fear that something will inevitably happen at any moment. This sort of rhetoric is typical in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, and typical of the war on terrorism: there is frequent talk of phases and new stages, with speculation regarding repeat attacks, copycats, and the spiralling of incidents which may prove not to be one-offs. In the process we are encouraged to give ourselves over to expert systems, in this case to politicians and defence experts. One of these, Jonathan Shaw – former head of counter-terrorism and head of cyber security at the Ministry of Defence until last year – has written a piece for the Evening Standard advocating that the intelligence services be allowed to monitor the public’s internet activities; promulgating the ‘snooper’s charter’ which Home Secretary Theresa May is reportedly keen to revive.

Vague and unhelpful definitions and categorisations.

With the vacuum which is a product of a lack of concrete information, distanciated from the individual occurrence by the leading rhetoric of the media and politicians, meta-narratives and broad categorisations move in. In the case of Woolwich, as in the case of many of the attacks which come to be considered terrorist, these categorisations are twofold. Firstly, the attack is categorised as a terrorist attack. This is understandable with regard to Woolwich, given the recorded public pronouncements made by the two suspects; that they were shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and making political statements (‘This British soldier is an eye for an eye…Remove your government’) led government sources to describe the attack as terrorist within ninety minutes of its first report.

Still, what defines a terrorist attack seems somewhat open to interpretation. A simple definition would suggest that it is any attack which is meant to provoke terror, and which carries a political motive. Yet there is no internationally accepted legal definition of what constitutes terrorism: attempts to arrive at a consensus have faltered upon differences of opinion regarding which political motives should be included in a criminal law definition, and which political motives – for instance, motives of self-determination – should not.

The second problem of categorisation is an extension of the first, and it is that where acts are categorised as terrorist, they tend also to be categorised as belonging to a particular terrorist group or organisation. In the immediate aftermath of the Woolwich attack, by late Wednesday evening, even supposedly liberal news sources were proclaiming the perpetrators’ association with al-Qaeda. The Guardian based their connecting of the organisation tenuously on one suspect’s reference to ‘our land’, calling the attack ‘the first al-Qaida inspired attack to claim a life on British soil’ since 7 July, 2005, and terming the suspect’s claims ‘jihadist’. The BBC’s Home Affairs Correspondent wrote a piece balanced in so far as it distinguished between jihadists, political Islamists, and Muslims, and sought to interpret the typical justification for jihadist attacks; yet the concept of the piece was similarly based on an unestablished connection with al-Qaeda, the piece stating that the ‘long-feared attack’ may be rooted to ‘the heart of al-Qaeda’s violent ideology’.

It has since emerged that one of the two suspects, Michael Adebolajo, attended meetings of the Al-Muhajiroun organisation from around 2003, though the extent of his involvement with the group remains uncertain. Al-Muhajiroun claims to be a purely political organisation, focused on promoting Islam and declaiming the state of Israel; but it has links to several people convicted of terrorist activities. The organisation was banned by the National Union of Students in 2001, for disseminating hate literature; and was banned by the government from the UK in 2005. Hours ago, a friend of Adebolajo’s, Abu Nusaybah, alleged during an interview for Newsnight that Adebolajo was approached six months ago to work for MI5, but declined; Nusaybah was arrested on BBC premises shortly after making the allegations.

Other problematic terms, and parallels in Boston.

There are other problematic terms. Referring to suspects as having been ‘radicalised’ takes away their agency and dehumanises them: the phrase evokes Charlie Chaplin’s depiction of ‘machine men with machine minds’, which is evocative and interesting psychologically, but which is neither clear nor balanced news reporting. It is not a rhetoric otherwise used by media outlets; ‘radicalised’ would not be used even for those political leaders who some outlets accuse of leading their countries into illegal Middle Eastern wars. The UK terrorism threat levels are also vague, with the raising of threat levels inciting fear and substituting for substantive information.

There are clear parallels and extensions to be found in the recent Boston Marathon bombings and their aftermath. The decision to charge the surviving suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, with use of a weapon of mass destruction is far from straightforward. A weapon of mass destruction originally referred to a chemical weapon, but now the term has no internationally authoritative definition; to be charged with the use of such can subsume an indiscriminate mixture of more specific offences. Theoretically, the phrase arguably implies a level of indiscriminate destruction greater than that carried out in Boston. Again, the term appears more politically than technically descriptive.

Where broad categorisations are so readily made, so condemnation tends to be broad and absolute. That such an attack is inexcusable and ultimately cannot be justified may be so, but this doesn’t mean that it can’t be better understood; it may surpass the sense many have of what is moral, but there remains a logic which impels such attacks and which cannot be dismissed in the face of the actions of Western states, who have engaged for much of the period since the Second World War in global programmes of regime change, arms dealings, and military action.

Finally Social Media to the Fore!

The Woolwich attack is remarkable in that the two suspects remained on the scene of the crime; with Adebolajo readily, and even casually, with a London accent, being recorded on phone camera by a witness as he made his politicised remarks. Another video has surfaced showing the two men charging towards police officers when these arrived, which resulted in the suspects being shot and detained. That the suspects remained in place and spoke so freely to witnesses meant that information about the attack, and its declared motives, rapidly spread across social media.

Both the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, initially responded to the attack via Twitter: Cameron tweeting ‘The killing in #Woolwich is truly shocking – I have asked the Home Secretary to chair a COBRA meeting’; Miliband tweeting ‘Shocked by appalling events in Woolwich. Whole country will be horrified by what has happened’. Later into the evening, the English Defence League gained a significant number of Twitter followers as they attempted to utilise social media to arrange a series of protests.

________

Giddens, A. The Consequences of Modernity (Polity Press, 2010)

ManShotLibertyValencePoster2

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance – starring James Stewart and John Wayne – is often considered the last great film John Ford directed, in a career that comprised around 140 films over a period of fifty years. Released in 1962, Ford would direct only four more feature-length pictures; including one more with his friend and longtime collaborator Wayne, in 1963’s Donovan’s Reef; and one more with Stewart, 1964’s Cheyenne Autumn.

The total number of films on which Ford and Wayne worked together is difficult to precisely ascertain: Wayne began his career working as an extra, and went unbilled on as many as eight Ford dramas in the late 1920s, just as Ford was making the transition to sound. Some of these films have been lost; for some, it is disputed whether Wayne actually appeared on screen at all. In 1930, with Ford’s support, Wayne obtained the lead role in director Raoul Walsh’s The Big Trail. Despite a vast budget of over $2 million, and shooting in two formats – traditional 35 mm and 75 mm Grandeur film widescreen – the film failed at the box office, and Wayne spent much of the subsequent decade appearing in smaller roles and in B-movies. This persisted until 1939, and Stagecoach. Though he had directed numerous silent Westerns, Stagecoach was Ford’s first Western in sound; and Wayne’s first leading role in a Ford film.

Its success established Wayne as a leading man and as a leading star. From Stagecoach to Donovan’s Reef, Ford directed Wayne fourteen times. Only Harry Carey worked with the director more, serving twenty-five times as Ford’s lead, a fixture in that role in the first three years of Ford’s career from 1917 to 1919. Carey is perhaps best known today for playing the President of the Senate in the James Stewart-led Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, from 1939. Wayne and Carey would also work together and become close. Wayne’s pose in the closing scene of The Searchers – now considered Ford and Wayne’s definitive work, and one of the greatest films of all time; which features Carey’s son as Brad Jorgensen, killed early in the proceedings – was an homage to Carey, who often appeared with the same gesture, his left hand loosely clutching his right elbow.

The plot of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance concerns the end of the Old West, as the society of a small rural town (in this case, the undistinguished town of ‘Shinbone’) transitions towards becoming part of a federal state. This political change implicates for Ford other themes and other contests: it suggests the potential disenchantment of the individual and the end of rugged heroism; and encourages a questioning of the natures of truth and legend.

——

cap4608jt

Senator Ransom ‘Ranse’ Stoddard (Stewart) and his wife Hallie (Vera Miles) arrive in Shinbone via steam train. They are there for the funeral of a local named Tom Doniphon, apparently unknown by much of the town. The editor of the local newspaper, the Shinbone Star, asserts his right for information, and demands of Stoddard, ‘Who was Tom Doniphon?’. It is Stoddard’s response which comprises the remainder of the film, occurring in continuous flashback, recounting events which took place several decades before. This means that for much of the film, Stewart and Wayne – 53 and 54 years old respectively at the time of shooting – portray men in their twenties.

‘A youngster, fresh out of law school; a bag full of law books and my father’s gold watch’, Stoddard journeys to Shinbone – prior to the introduction of the railroad – on stagecoach. The coach is stopped by a group of outlaws, who beat Stoddard when he attempts to prevent a woman losing the broach given to her by her now-dead husband. The leader of the group, the titular Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin), ransacks Stoddard’s bags and finds only ‘Law books? Well I’ll teach you law…Western law!; at which he brutally whips him.

Stoddard is recovered by Tom Doniphon (Wayne), a rancher, and taken to the local eating establishment, the home of Hallie and her Swedish parents, Peter and Nora Ericson. As Stoddard revives, weak and in a daze, he feels he has something he must do: he wants to arrest Valance and his men. Doniphon – calling Stoddard ‘Pilgrim’, an epithet which has become popularly associated with Wayne – is dismissive, telling Stoddard, ‘I know those law books mean a lot to you, but not out here. Out here, a man settles his own problems’. Stoddard equates Doniphon’s   philosophy with the lawlessness which allows Valance to thrive; he argues vehemently, proclaiming ‘The law is the only…the only…’, but collapses to his bed before completing his sentence.

liberty_valance6

Stoddard recuperates and settles in to life in Shinbone, continuing to stay with Hallie and the Ericsons. He works washing dishes and waiting tables in their eatery, and establishes a daily school to teach the locals, including Hallie, how to read and write. Valance continues to menace the town. Doniphon and Hallie have a simmering relationship: the Ericsons initially consider a marriage proposal only a matter of time, but whether it is restraint, a languid style, a certain complacency, or whether he is simply waiting for the right moment, Doniphon proves slow to act. Meanwhile, Stoddard and Hallie grow increasingly close. When Stoddard visits Doniphon’s ranch, Doniphon allows himself to be explicit: he tells Stoddard ‘Hallie is my girl. I’m building that brand new room and porch for her for when we get married’. ‘Well Tom,’ Stoddard responds, ‘I guess everybody pretty much takes that for granted’. Yet Doniphon is never so expressive with Hallie, and fears her developing feelings for the young lawyer.

Stoddard befriends Dutton Peabody (Edmond O’Brien), the founder and sole writer of the Shinbone Star. A growing population means that Shinbone is required to send two delegates to a territorial convention for statehood. While the townspeople are initially wary, Peabody and Stoddard succeed in explaining the benefits statehood would bring the town. An article Peabody writes for the Star highlights the attempts of cattle barons to keep the area an open range; Peabody argues that this is borne of vicious self-interest, and would endanger smaller homesteads; Stoddard is admiring of the piece. He speaks before the town votes for their two delegates, and proclaims that ‘Statehood means the protection of our farms and our fences, and it means schools for our children, and it means progress for the future!’. The townspeople agree. Liberty Valance – whose group of men has grown, backed by the cattle barons who seek to prevent a fair vote – arrives and attempts intimidation, but Stoddard and Peabody are voted as the town’s two delegates.

Soon after, in revenge, Valance and his men assault Peabody. Stoddard silently determines to act. He takes a gun and waits for Valance in the street. When Valance emerges from the town’s bar, the two stalk each other, with Valance shooting Stoddard’s right arm and forcing him to retrieve his gun. Somehow – despite a lack of technique embarrassingly demonstrated earlier by Doniphon – and despite faltering with his weapon, Stoddard triumphs, with Valance shot dead. Witnessing how Hallie tends for Stoddard’s wound, Doniphon first drives Valance’s remaining men from town, then drunkenly heads to his ranch, where he sets fire to the new room he had been building, ultimately engulfing his entire home.

liberty_valance2

At the convention for statehood, the gathered delegates must vote for one man to represent the region at Congress in Washington. Peabody boldly nominates Stoddard. The objections to his candidacy centre on his shooting of Valance: should a Congressman be one who takes the law into his own hands; ought the delegates send Stoddard ‘with bloodstained hands to walk the hallowed halls of government’? These protestations cause Stoddard to leave the delegation in distress and uncertainty. He is halted by Doniphon, who reveals that it was he – hidden in an alleyway across the street – who shot and killed Valance. Doniphon states that he did it ‘in cold blood’ because he knew it would make Hallie happy, and tells Stoddard ‘Hallie is your girl now’. As he departs, he demands of Stoddard, ‘Go on back in there and take that nomination. You taught her how to read and write – now give her something to read and right about’.

Thus Stoddard concludes his recollection and we return to the present day. ‘You know the rest of it’, he tells the young Star journalists: he went to Washington and statehood was achieved; he became the state’s first Governor, serving for three terms; served two terms in the Senate; as ambassador to the United Kingdom; returned for one more term in the Senate; and now stands on the threshold of becoming Vice President. Yet the Star‘s editor throws everything Stoddard has just dictated into the furnace: he does not want its revelation. ‘This is the West, Sir’, he says, ‘When the legend becomes fact, print the legend’.

A train sounds in the distance. Stoddard and Hallie take their leave. On the train back to Washington, Stoddard suggests leaving political life – after passing an irrigation bill – and returning to live in Shinbone. Hallie responds enthusiastically: ‘If you knew how often I’d dreamed of it. My roots are here…I guess my heart is here. Yes, let’s come back. Look at it: it was once a wilderness; now it’s a garden. Aren’t you proud?’. Stoddard’s thoughtfulness is briefly interrupted by the train driver, who promises to expedite the Senator’s journey. ‘Think nothing of it. Nothing’s too good for the man who shot Liberty Valance!’.

E0696730EA981DF5D49899EFE6C1

——

Sergio Leone called The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance his favourite Ford film, remarking ‘it was the only film where he learned something about pessimism’. Locating the sources and specificities of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance‘s pessimism goes a long way towards interpreting the film. Certainly, pessimism can be traced in everything from Liberty Valance’s tyranny over the emerging town; to the careless attitude the press are shown to hold towards fact; to Tom Doniphon’s lonely demise; to the laments which Stoddard and Hallie bear regarding aspects of their own lives. Many critical evaluations of the movie extend these particular concerns into a pessimism that encompasses the whole film; arguing that it serves ultimately as a reflection on the loss of the Old West, Doniphon’s heroism forgotten and foregone, Stoddard the mistaken hero, whose career is based on a lie.

Perhaps this is how Ford and Wayne would have seen the film; perhaps this is the reading Ford endeavoured to provide. Ford’s earlier Westerns typically romanticise the world of the genre, with broad vistas, bold villains and brave heroes. Wayne had teamed with Howard Hawks to make Rio Bravo as a response to High Noon: in High Noon, Gary Cooper’s marshal has to fight a group of murderous outlaws alone, neglected by a fearful townspeople, only aided by his wife, who ultimately shoots one of the outlaws from behind – a plot which Wayne viewed as an allegory of blacklisting and described as ‘the most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life’. In some sense Liberty Valance speaks also to High Noon, possessing in Tom Doniphon another neglected hero. Here, however, that neglect owes to time and to the hero’s own selfless withholding of the truth.

Both within the film and in the apparatus to it, Ford made attempts to affirm Doniphon’s heroism. The film is peculiar in that Stewart was given top billing in its promotional materials, whereas Wayne has top billing in the film itself. This reflects the nature of the film as well as the equal stature of its two stars. Ford admitted to wanting Wayne to be the lead; in an interview with Peter Bogdanovich, he stated that he tried to stress Hallie’s lasting attachment to Doniphon throughout the film in order to assert that character above Stewart’s Ranse Stoddard. At significant moments, the film’s score – otherwise composed by Cyril J. Mockridge – utilises a piece entitled ‘Ann Rutledge Theme’, originally composed by Alfred Newman for Ford’s 1939 film, Young Mr. Lincoln. The composition was evidently kept in mind by Ford for twenty-three years, used in Liberty Valance to express the lost love that characterises Hallie and Doniphon’s relationship.

Hallie’s fondness for Doniphon, and her sense of regret at how things ended between them, is emphasised especially in the film’s framing scenes, set in the present day. When she and Stoddard first arrive back in Shinbone, Stoddard is whisked off by the eager men of the Shinbone Star for an interview; while Hallie – with Link Appleyard, the town’s former marshal – visits Doniphon’s old ranch, never fully restored after the fire. On the way, she points out that ‘the cactus rose is in blossom’. Later, in the body of the film, we see Doniphon present Hallie with a cactus rose as a present; she shows it to Stoddard, proudly acclaiming it ‘the prettiest thing you ever did see’; Stoddard admits its prettiness, but asks, ‘Hallie, did you ever see a real rose?’. Back in the present at the close of the film, Hallie has left a cactus rose atop Doniphon’s coffin – a fact which causes Stoddard some furrow-browed reflection.

It is interesting in this respect to briefly consider the relationships certain directors have shared with their leading men. Ford is attributed as saying, early in Wayne’s career, that Wayne would become the biggest film star ever owing to the public’s sense of him as an everyman. After Harry Carey, Wayne became Ford’s hero; a position that suggests some emotional investment on the part of the director, which may intertwine man and actor, and which might prove difficult to break. Alfred Hitchcock famously called Cary Grant ‘the only actor I ever loved’, and used Grant for his heroic leading parts, whereas Stewart – in Rope, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Vertigo – played the physically inferior, more psychologically troubled roles.

The emphasis given to Hallie’s remaining feelings for Doniphon brings into question her relationship with Stoddard. The development of this relationship is complex. Hallie is frequently Stoddard’s carer, for instance when he arrives in Shinbone after being beaten by Valance, and following the gunfight in which his right arm is injured. On the other hand, intellectually Stoddard is superior to his future wife, and it is arguable that he condescends to her at points: in his surprise at her inability to read and write, and again when he asks her if she has seen a ‘real’ rose. Yet the two do forge a close attachment; Hallie’s choosing Stoddard over Doniphon appears quite definite; and we do not sense that the decades the pair have spent married have been at all unhappy or beset by remorse.

Perhaps, seeing Doniphon’s coffin, and then on the train journey home, Hallie is simply in grief, and understandably feeling some guilt for Doniphon’s isolated later years. Likewise, if Stoddard appears disconcerted at her enduring feelings for Doniphon, perhaps this is only natural, philosophical and fleeting. To attribute truth and permanence to the emotions we see here is to give them a symbolism and a finality which other parts of the film cannot bear. If Ford did, in a few notable ways, engineer a certain preeminence for Wayne and Doniphon, his film is by no means unequivocal in proclaiming Doniphon’s person and his values over Stoddard’s.

The climax of the film arrives with the convention for statehood and Stoddard’s nomination for Congress; which is entwined with the twist which reveals Doniphon, not Stoddard, as Liberty Valance’s killer. The crux of some interpretations of the film is that this revelation upholds Doniphon and undermines Stoddard’s future successes, showing that they have a dishonest foundation. This interpretation is seemingly confirmed by the film’s ironic closing line, ‘Nothing’s too good for the man who shot Liberty Valance!’. However, what we are shown during the convention challenges such a straightforward reading. Stoddard has earned the respect and friendship of his nominator, Dutton Peabody, and the people of Shinbone not through force, but owing to his personal warmth, his generous intellect, and a sense of morality which prioritises law and the equality of all. The belief that he shot and killed Valance – far from establishing his credentials – serves as the sole barrier to his nomination; allowing those opposing him to cast him as heedless and blood-stained.

Stoddard realises himself that Valance may continue to define him: he says to Doniphon, ‘Isn’t it enough to kill a man without…without trying to build a life on it?’. This deeply-felt remark is more ambiguous than it may first appear: it can be read implicating Valance’s death as a springboard, or as something which makes a successful career more difficult or even irrelevant. Regardless, what we see in the convention and elsewhere renders it plausible that Stoddard’s career could have thrived without his reputation for shooting Valance.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance was based on a short story by Dorothy M. Johnson, published in her 1953 collection Indian Country. There, Doniphon and Stoddard share a closer relationship, Doniphon proactively mentoring the younger and less experienced man. The screenplay – adapted for Ford by James Warner Bellah and Willis Goldbeck – has the effect of placing the two men in contrast; but it also makes the character of Doniphon more ambiguous, and less sympathetic. Ford shot in black and white, a decision which has been both criticised and praised; it is debated whether his choice was enforced by a limited budget, or whether he deliberately forewent wide landscapes and colour for an atmospheric black and white, rich in shadow, and well suited to the film’s close study of character. Others have posited that the black and white photography served to mask the makeup used to make Stewart and Wayne appear young men. Still others suggest that the film’s casting has its own thematic function: that Stewart’s age is evident in the body of the film despite makeup, but this reflects the fact that he is recollecting for us, looking back on his youth as a much older man, with the story we see unfolding marked by his age, an inevitably subjective account.

Despite the lack of scenery, the film is still evocative of a past time, but it cannot be reduced to an easy allegory asserting the wilderness over civilisation, or even the individual over society. That statehood and the rule of law genuinely represent progress – in a positive, unsatirical sense of the term – is not significantly argued against. To view Doniphon as a forsaken hero, Stoddard as an impostor, is to limit the film’s scope; it would be for us to accept the legends of the West, and to some degree of Wayne and Ford, rather than facing the film’s particular set of facts. It would, in a word, render us guilty of printing a narrow legend.

Nor is it sufficient to argue that the movie’s conflicts lack meaning because they lack resolution, or that they are the products of a sometimes confused film. Great works of art require our openness as viewers: their flaws and conflicts are, after Joyce, the portals of discovery and ought to be accepted and investigated rather than dismissed. It remains to appreciate The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance through its complexities: its demonstrating of the irreconcilability of different truths; the inevitability of chance; and the nuanced, small but decisive ways in which societies and personal relations run their course.

With its range of markets – particularly the Saturday and Monday markets on Noordermarkt – and its galleries and shops along Spiegelgracht, there are plenty of opportunities in Amsterdam for buying Japanese prints. Here are three I bought recently:

DSC_0391-3 DSC_0396-3

The first two prints are by Hiroshige, from his series One Hundred Famous Views of Edo (Meisho Yedo Hiakkei), which he completed in the final two years of his life, from 1856 to 1858. The series in fact consists of 119 ukiyo-e prints, plus a title page; print 119 is by Hiroshige II – Hiroshige’s student and adopted son – and it is believed that three other works in the series may have been finished by him. All of the prints were created in the oban tateye format: the ‘oban’ indicating their size of 39cm x 26cm; the ‘tateye’ their portrait orientation.

The series was first published between 1856 and 1859 by Uoya Eikichi, and proved so popular that a deluxe edition soon followed. Vincent van Gogh, who developed a passionate relationship with Japanese woodcuts after moving to Antwerp in November 1885, was especially inspired by One Hundred Famous Views of Edo. His Japonaiserie: Flowering Plum Tree and The Bridge in the Rain (both 1887) were copies after numbers 30 (Plum Park in Kameido) and 58 (Sudden Shower over Shin-Ōhashi bridge and Atake).

The first of the prints above is number 78 in Hiroshige’s series, entitled Teppōzu and Tsukiji Monzeki Temple (Shiba Shinmei Zōjōji’). Two sails lead the view across the lively water towards the Hongan-ji Temple, set against a pattern of birds and a pink-purple sky.

The second is number 82 in the series, Moon Viewing (also called Moon Promontory; ‘Tsuki no Misaki’), showing a late evening view over the Edo (now Tokyo) Bay. The vibrant green of the room’s flooring contrasts with the calm water upon which the room looks out; boats are moored, and a full moon rises, crossed by a flock of birds. The remnants of a meal lie on the floor of the room, while a lady changes behind the screen in the corner.

DSC_0409-3

A version of this third print appears in various forms across the internet, most frequently attributed to 1870 and with its creator unspecified. The Library of Congress, for instance, lists a version under the title Owl and magnolia (‘Kobushi ni mimizuku’); noting that its magnolia blossoms are embossed.

The print above is more richly colored, with a green hue, and with its magnolia blossoms a lovely progression of lavender and pink. The V&A Museum reveals it as a work by Kubo Shunman (1757-1820), made around 1800, and an example of surimono – a genre of woodcut privately commissioned for special occasions, and often featuring poems. The given title is Owl on a Flowering Magnolia Branch. Shunman’s ukiyo-e are characterised by such a restrained, subtle use of colour.

PastaPork11-2

Who will this feed and with what haste?

The following ingredients will serve comfortably you plus another; and can be prepared and cooked in around twenty minutes (say, ten minutes for the pasta and mushrooms, five for the pork, and another five for your fiddling).

Ingredients

  • 250g farfalle pasta
  • 100g chestnut mushrooms
  • 225g pork belly
  • 1 egg
  • 1 clove garlic
  • Knob of butter
  • Salt
  • Black Pepper
  • Extra Virgin Olive Oil

Notes pertaining to these ingredients

The pork pictured above is in fact something called ‘zuurkool spek’, that is, ‘sauerkraut bacon’: a sort of unsliced bacon common in the Netherlands; very cheap (a 225g-275g slab can cost less than $1); better than much of the bacon many shops sell; and also a good alternative to a typical cut of pork belly, which is hard to procure in the country except for in thin and excessively fatty slices. In fact, if you braise this cheap cut slowly over several hours, colouring the outside very briefly then adding water and perhaps a little red wine, it will become wonderfully tender; but simply frying it works well too. I like the fattiness of belly pork, but a leaner cut of pork would be perfectly adequate, and would allow you to cancel your gym membership, or do away with your running shoes, or eat many candies and chocolates without pausing to care.

Chestnut mushrooms possess a slightly stronger flavour than white or button mushrooms, but those would taste pleasant also; and you could even add some porcini mushrooms, fresh or dried. I think this dish is liable to taste similarly well regardless of what pasta you use. If you like, add a little rosemary to the pork.

Method

  • Fill a pot or large saucepan with water and bring to the boil; add salt, then throw in the pasta
  • Slice the mushrooms, removing the stalks if you desire, and sauté in a pan with the butter
  • Finely chop the clove of garlic, and add it to the pan of mushrooms
  • Season the mushrooms with salt and a little pepper
  • Once the pasta is al dente, drain the water; restore the pasta to the pot, adding olive oil and lightly seasoning
  • Add the mushrooms to the pasta, and why don’t you crack an egg, and throw this in too, coating the pasta with the egg
  • Slice thickly the pork
  • Pan fry – with oil and some rosmary and red wine if you desire – at a high heat for a couple of minutes on each side

A Considerate Tip

Use the same pan for the pork that you already used for the mushrooms! Enjoy your food, but don’t put it all inside your mouth at once! Look out of the window occasionally while you eat – the movements of passers-by will aid the movements of your digestive system.

529993532

After The Telegraph‘s Mark Ogden reported late last night that Alex Ferguson was considering his imminent retirement from his position as manager of Manchester United; amidst betting patterns that were taken to suggest just such a possibility, and a flurry of speculation on Twitter; Manchester United and Ferguson announced this morning, at around 9:20 am BST, that this season will indeed be his last. He has managed Manchester United for almost twenty-seven years, since 6 November, 1986; and has achieved unparalleled success with the club.

After leading them to their first Premier League triumph – and their first league title in twenty-six years – at the end of the 1992-93 season, Ferguson’s Manchester United have gone on to claim thirteen Premier League titles in total across twenty Premier League seasons. Their most recent title success was secured a couple of weeks ago, after a 3-0 home victory against Aston Villa rendered United’s closest challengers, Manchester City – last season’s title winners – a long way behind, incapable of catching their rivals, and distinctly second best. To these league titles Ferguson added two Champions League victories – in 1999 and 2008; five FA Cup wins; four League Cups; a UEFA Cup Winners’ Cup; a UEFA Super Cup; an Intercontinental Cup; a FIFA Club World Club; and ten Community Shields.

It is difficult to find a way to put such achievements into perspective: their extent is so great, they have been so varied in their fruition, and Ferguson’s longevity not only unmatched but barely approached in the modern game. One suggestive statistic is that, before he became their manager, Manchester United had seven English football league titles to their name: one more than Sunderland; the same number as Aston Villa; fewer than Everton and Arsenal; and a seemingly impossible distance behind Liverpool, who then ruled English football, and had eighteen. Ferguson felt, upon taking the United job, that his mission was to ‘knock Liverpool off their fucking perch’ – something which had long since occurred by the time he led United to their nineteenth title a couple of seasons ago. The club’s twentieth overall title in the twentieth season of the Premier League is more than an icing – it represents a satisfactory way for Ferguson to depart, having avenged last season’s last-day disappointment at the hands of their local rivals. Manchester United were still a big club when Ferguson arrived back in 1986 – but they were by no means the preeminent club in English football, nor the global force which they have become under his bold and forceful management.

Yet for all these triumphs, Ferguson’s legacy ought to be contested. Perhaps it will be among many football supporters, for whom Ferguson’s Manchester United have been a force to define oneself against. The English football media, predominated as it is by former British players, will surely be effusive in their praise. Though Ferguson has always seen the press as a tool to be used to his benefit, dismissive of the notion that he bears any responsibility regarding whom he talks to and when; nevertheless the English media has remained in his thrall, and he has had a powerful impact on football reporting. His apparently endless string of trophy successes have made trophy success the demarcator of all success in the eyes of many pundits and commentators; and increasingly in the eyes of many of the football-following public. Much of his win-at-all-cost mentality has entrenched itself within the English game. Ferguson, by various accounts a decent person with a strong moral code away from the game, has viewed the realm of football as one without ethics, a game to be played to win regardless of feelings, regardless of propriety, often dismissive of a set of rules which he sees fit only for lesser figures and lesser clubs. It is this conception and its manifestations which mean Ferguson’s legacy should be lamented as much as it is acclaimed.

There are some qualities of Ferguson’s tenure which cannot be disputed. It is truly remarkable and genuinely admirable that he has produced such strong sides over such a prolonged period of time. Many of the top managers of the last twenty years – take, for instance, Fabio Capello, Louis van Gaal, José Mourinho, Pep Guardiola –  have determined to move clubs on a regular basis, once a cycle of players comes towards a natural end, citing burnout and the difficulties of motivating themselves and others season upon season. Through the same span of time, Ferguson has maintained Manchester United’s elite position largely without falter, progressing cycle after cycle, improving and enhancing a constant stream of new recruits to his squad, and adapting astutely to changing tactical modes. He has challenged and usually bettered managerial adversaries through Kenny Dalglish, Kevin Keegan, Arsène Wenger, José Mourinho, Rafa Benítez, and Roberto Mancini.

The 1999 treble-winning side may be viewed, in the broad perspective of the future, as the embodiment of Ferguson’s managerial career. This will be for its three trophies – unique in the English game; for it marking Ferguson’s first Champions League win – and the first in English football for fifteen years; but also for the team’s style of play. Ferguson’s 1998-99 side was a truly adventurous, proactive and accomplished attacking unit, with diversity on the wings in Ryan Giggs and David Beckham; an ideal central midfield combination featuring Roy Keane’s ball-winning and energy box-to-box, alongside Paul Scholes’ nuanced, creative passing and goalscoring; and with Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke a perfect forward partnership, both players sharing an acute understanding, dynamic pace, exceptional movement, and clever ball control and finishing. These were abetted by the consistent Gary Neville alongside the experienced Jaap Staam, Ronny Johnson and Dennis Irwin; Peter Schmeichel in goal; and a squad comprising Teddy Sheringham, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Nicky Butt, Jesper Blomqvist, Henning Berg, Phil Neville, Wes Brown, and David May.

The image of Ferguson’s Manchester United as an attacking side has not always been accurate. His teams of the 1990s were routinely attacking, utilising traditional wingers in first Giggs and Kanchelskis, then Giggs and Beckham; with forwards who might harry, but whose main roles were in creating and scoring goals. In the 2000s, up against Wenger’s Arsenal then Mourinho’s Chelsea, Ferguson became more defensive and reactive, at least in the big domestic and European ties. The team that won him a second Champions League in 2008 was built upon a solid, defensive foundation and the attacking threat of Cristiano Ronaldo: Wayne Rooney and Carlos Tévez, provisionally the team’s forwards, were obliged to support the midfield with a great deal of back-tracking defensive work, allowing Ronaldo the space to cut in and take chances.

Another aspect of the 1999 side – and another facet which has been broadly viewed as epitomising Ferguson’s management – was its significant reliance on homegrown talent, with a number of its players brought through the club’s youth academy. Giggs, then a generation including Scholes, Beckham, Butt, and the Nevilles, were all Manchester United products. Gary Neville completed his playing career with the club, and the playing careers of Giggs and Scholes continue on, though they now inevitably feature in diminished roles. Even Beckham, Butt and Phil Neville – all of whom eventually moved elsewhere – completed well in excess of 200 first-team appearances. This group of players, who emerged and progressed from the mid-90s, have not been repeated. United’s squad has been bolstered since more sporadically by the academy graduates Wes Brown, John O’Shea, Darren Fletcher, Tom Cleverley, and Danny Welbeck.

Ferguson has certainly excelled throughout his career in establishing and improving young players, and in orchestrating a high level from his players over a sustained period. On the other hand, it must be remembered that he has also spent a great deal in the transfer market – attaining success as much through money as through a wise harnessing of youth. This has been the case since the 1992-3 season when, in December 1992, Ferguson spent £1.2 million on Eric Cantona, months after Cantona had won the league title with Leeds. Cantona quickly became the focal point of Manchester United’s early title wins. In the summer of 1993, Ferguson broke the British transfer record with the £3.75 million purchase of Roy Keane; and he repeated the feat a couple of years later, buying Andy Cole for £7 million. He has continued to spend big, especially on players from English competitors: after £28 million on Juan Sebastián Verón and £19 million on Ruud van Nistelrooy in 2001, there came £29 million on Rio Ferdinand, from Leeds, in 2002; £26 million to Everton for Wayne Rooney in 2004; £18.6 million in 2006 and £30 million in 2008 for Michael Carrick and Dimitar Berbatov of Tottenham; and last summer’s £23 million to Arsenal for Robin van Persie. The generation which Ferguson is proudly leaving behind has been bought more than nurtured, David de Gea and Phil Jones costing £18 million and £16 million respectively, and significant fees also going on Ashley Young, Shinji Kagawa, Chris Smalling, and Javier Hernández.

Thus we may bring into question the conceptions of Ferguson as a manager devoted to attacking sides, who created his title-winners singularly organically. It may in turn be asked to what extent Ferguson encouraged – rather than merely reacted to – the spiralling wage demands of top players. The thoroughly unpalatable side of Ferguson’s tenure shows in what may generously be termed the ‘gamesmanship’ about his person and of his teams. Other phrases which could stand in for this ‘gamesmanship’ include dishonesty, viciousness, arrogance, and willingness to cheat. The ‘mind-games’ which Ferguson has famously engaged in have frequently possessed an abusive, inescapably personal edge; and his reaction to defeat has typically been one of blame and vitriolic anger. He and his sides have led the way in English football when it comes to haranguing and abusing referees. His teams have possessed far more than their share of players who systematically foul the opposition; deliberately hurt the opposition; repeatedly dive; and transgress the rules in the most flagrant and obnoxious of ways.

As a Newcastle United supporter, my own sense of Ferguson stems from 1995-96 – when Manchester United overcame a twelve-point deficit to pip Newcastle to that season’s title. The abiding piece of video from the season remains Kevin Keegan’s notorious ‘I’d love it’ speech, made live on a Monday night on Sky Sports after a 1-0 victory away to Leeds. Newcastle’s twelve-point lead had slipped away, but with the two sides still in contention for the title, Alex Ferguson had implied before the game that Leeds might take it easy on Newcastle owing to their stronger rivalry with his club. More, Newcastle had agreed earlier in the year to provide the opposition for Stuart Pearce’s testimonial match with Nottingham Forest, scheduled to take place after the season’s close; and with Newcastle and Forest still to play each other in the league, Ferguson suggested these friendly relations might serve to secure Newcastle a comfortable result. Keegan’s remarks that night, and his declaration ‘I’d love it if we beat them – love it!’, have been characterised by the overseers of the game since as a meltdown, a manager wilting under pressure; rather than as an emotional but dignified and rational response to skulduggery.

Still, I had actually favoured Manchester United in the previous season’s title race, preferring their football to that of Blackburn Rovers under Dalglish; and 1996 by no means marked the peak of my dislike. After enjoying the football of the side that reached its pinnacle in 1999, it was the Manchester United of the early 2000s who confirmed my animosity for Ferguson and his club: with Keane and Giggs leading the onslaught upon referees week after week (the same Ryan Giggs who appears to have gone unnoticed as one of the most spiteful and cheating characters in the game); Van Nistelrooy star-jumping his way to countless unwarranted penalties and free-kicks; and Paul Scholes committing the violent, largely uncensored assaults which have remained central to his career.

Ferguson exacerbated the wrath many Newcastle fans felt towards him earlier this season. After halting the match to berate the officials after Newcastle scored their second, legitimate goal in an eventual 3-4 defeat, Ferguson’s comment that ‘I’m the manager of the most famous club in the world. I’m not at Newcastle, a wee club in the north-east’ demonstrated his contempt for supporters of other football clubs; and evinced his belief that he and his club are beyond the rules, more deserving as entities and as people than others. Indeed, it is easy to feel that this has been the case for much of the last twenty years: Manchester United treated differently – from decisions and appeal procedures to ‘Fergie-time’ – because their rise has entwined with and supported the rise of the Premier League.

English football will undoubtedly be different without Ferguson, and at times it may be difficult to feel that his presence isn’t being missed. For Manchester United, there exists no replacement who obviously shares Ferguson’s attributes: David Moyes is the strong favourite and seems set for the role, but his record for Everton against the top clubs is abysmal and he lacks European experience; Jose Mourinho is capable of building the same siege mentality around the club, but he is an even more polarising figure, whose teams play in a different way and without the same emphasis on youth. Fans of other clubs may cheer Ferguson’s departure – but even they may celebrate upcoming victories a little less heartily, wishing they’d been measured against his reign.

Altogether, if there are those within football with serious reservations about some of Ferguson’s impact upon it – and I’m not inclined to think there are many such figures, so much has Ferguson’s mentality won out – then the expression of these reservations remains difficult, for it is easy to see it as amounting to the stamping on one’s own livelihood. Yet the game will be for the better if, alongside proclaiming Ferguson’s positives, it reflects on his many vices and endeavours to withdraw them from the sport.

VG3

The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam reopened after seven months a few days ago, 1 May – the culmination of a renovation process which I briefly discussed over at amsterdamarm. The new exhibition which marks the museum’s reopening is entitled Van Gogh at Work, and is the product of eight years of research undertaken by the Van Gogh Museum, the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, and researchers from Royal Dutch Shell. This research has brought various confirmations and some new insights regarding Van Gogh’s working practices, his artistic techniques, and his use of materials. We now know, for instance, that during Van Gogh’s two years in Paris, he bought his canvases from the same shop as his colleague Toulouse-Lautrec; and have gained a sense of the frequency with which he recycled canvases, painting over works or utilising both canvas sides.

The research also extends and establishes our understanding of the way in which some of Van Gogh’s pigments have changed and faded through the course of years. The resulting change in the colour of some of Van Gogh’s paintings is the central theme of articles written about the reopening in The New York Times (‘Van Gogh’s True Palette Revealed‘) and The Guardian (‘Van Gogh’s true colours were originally even brighter‘).

Vincent_van_Gogh_-_De_slaapkamer_-_Google_Art_Project

The New York Times piece discusses in particular Van Gogh’s The Bedroom (or Bedroom in Arles). The title refers to three oil paintings: the first painted in Arles in October 1888; the subsequent two painted after the original, in September 1889, whilst Van Gogh was a patient at the asylum of Saint-Paul-de-Mausole, in Saint-Rémy. The New York Times focuses on the initial painting, held by the Van Gogh Museum; and explains that, whilst its ‘honey-yellow bed pressed into the corner of a cozy sky-blue room’ is so familiar to us today, in fact Van Gogh originally painted the walls of the room in violet. The red pigment which he used to mix this violet has faded over time, leaving only the blue. Marije Vellekoop, the Van Gogh Museum’s head of collections, research and presentation, comments, ‘For me, the purple walls in the bedroom make it a softer image. It confirms that he was sticking to the traditional colour theory, using purple and yellow, and not blue and yellow’.

This diminishing of pigment is less evident in the two Saint-Rémy paintings. The second version of The Bedroom, in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago, shows more intense, cornflower-blue walls. This version is on loan from Chicago for the duration of the Van Gogh Museum’s exhibition, displayed side-by-side with the Arles rendition. The third version of the painting, held by the Musée d’Orsay, bears more trace of the original violet, the colour of its walls approaching lavender.

Vincent_van_Gogh_-_The_Bedroom_-_Google_Art_ProjectVincent_van_Gogh_-_Van_Gogh's_Bedroom_in_Arles_-_Google_Art_Project

The emphasis in the New York Times on these particular colour combinations – on violet and yellow becoming blue and yellow – relates to my series on Van Gogh, inspired by the previous collection of his works at the Hermitage Amsterdam. The first piece in that series, published early last month, is titled ‘Gauguin’s Chair and La Berceuse: Conceptualising Red and Green in the Art of Van Gogh‘. The second piece, published at the start of this week, discusses ‘Van Gogh in Paris: The Radicalising of a Palette and a Brush‘. In it, I depict the months he spent in Antwerp, between late 1885 and early 1886, as crucial to Van Gogh’s artistic development. It was in Antwerp that he studied colour theory and began to broaden his palette; inspired as he was upon arriving in the city by the busy, varied life of its docks, and by the Japanese woodcuts he found on sale there.

This, the third piece in my series, considers precisely the occurrence of a violet and yellow contrast becoming a contrast of yellow and blue. Namely, I want to view Van Gogh’s Still Life: Vase with Irises Against a Yellow Background, and compare it with Johannes Vermeer’s The Milkmaid.

WLANL_-_artanonymous_-_Irissen

Still Life: Vase with Irises Against a Yellow Background was one of the last paintings Van Gogh worked on in Saint-Rémy. He completed it in May 1890, before leaving the hospital and moving to Auvers-sur-Oise; where – after achieving dozens more canvases, including his innovative double-square paintings – he would die at the end of July. In marked contrast with the rest of his artistic career, Van Gogh painted relatively few still lifes during his time at Saint-Rémy, painting instead outdoors, in the hospital’s gardens and then in the surrounding countryside. Though he frequently appreciated the order imposed by life at the hospital, and painted prolifically, he continued to experience periods of deep anguish and physical illness.

After suffering what the director of the asylum described as an ‘attack’ on 22 February, Van Gogh kept painting, but wrote few letters over the next two months (he received letters meanwhile from Theo and Gauguin among others; his paintings had recently been shown at Les XX’s annual exhibition in Brussels, and with the Artistes Indépendants in Paris, to the warm acclaim of his fellow artists). This attack motivated his decision, made in early May, to leave for Auvers. Vase with Irises Against a Yellow Background was therefore presumably undertaken with his move already firmly in mind. In a couple of letters, Van Gogh writes of working in a ‘frenzy’ during his last few days in Saint-Rémy.

He had completed two studies of irises, out in the garden of Saint-Paul, the previous May, soon after committing himself to the asylum following his time in Arles. Theo greatly admired these, and submitted them to the Société des Artistes Indépendants’ annual exhibition in September. Vase with Irises Against a Yellow Background was one of two still lifes with irises which Van Gogh painted a year after these studies. In his own words, in a letter to Theo,

At the moment the improvement is continuing, the whole horrible crisis has disappeared like a thunderstorm, and I’m working here with calm, unremitting ardour to give a last stroke of the brush. I’m working on a canvas of roses on bright green background and two canvases of large bouquets of violet Irises, one lot against a pink background in which the effect is harmonious and soft through the combination of greens, pinks, violets. On the contrary, the other violet bouquet (ranging up to pure carmine and Prussian blue) standing out against a striking lemon yellow background with other yellow tones in the vase and the base on which it rests is an effect of terribly disparate complementaries that reinforce each other by their opposition.

The crisp contours of the leaves and the Japanese-influenced diagonals of the flowers are set against a background which moves thickly around them. Indeed, Van Gogh painted this background last, after the flowers and vase. Yet in the painting as it appears today, the carmine – that pure, rich red which Van Gogh mentions as a facet of it – only faintly remains. As with The Bedroom‘s walls, the violet flowers have turned blue. In this manner, Van Gogh’s art makes explicit the idea that all art is involved in a continual process of becoming. In the particular case of Vase with Irises Against a Yellow Background, Van Gogh’s painting has become a perfect Vermeer: echoing in its current form Vermeer’s predisposition for the bold and brilliant use of yellow and blue.

Johannes_Vermeer_-_Het_melkmeisje_-_Google_Art_Project

Vermeer’s The Milkmaid evinces both this predisposition for colour and his strikingly modern painterly techniques. It was painted around 1668, when Vermeer was just twenty-five years old. In some respects Vermeer is a difficult artist to analyse, for only 34 paintings remain attributed to him, and there is a dearth of material and information relating to his studies and preparatory methods. He appears about 1665 already remarkably accomplished and mature. Broadly, there is something readier, a little rougher, more captured than composed about his earlier works.

Yellow and blue are the dominant colours of The Milkmaid. In the organisation of these, Van Gogh’s Vase with Irises Against a Yellow Background appears like The Milkmaid reversed. The distinguishing feature of Vermeer’s palette, when contrasted with those of his contemporaries, was his use of expensive natural ultramarine: this gives his blues here an exceptional vividness, in tune with his similarly luminous handling of lead-tin yellow. Yet the colour combinations in The Milkmaid are complex and various, and not limited to yellow and blue. The contrast in these colours is repeated in the rich contrast between the green of the tablecloth and the maid’s carmine-red skirt.

The same green depicts the milkmaid’s rolled oversleeves, which Vermeer painted alla prima (wet-on-wet), mixing and working the yellow and blue of the maid’s shirt and apron. This method was not uncommon amongst Early and Golden Age Dutch painters: it was adopted by Jan van Eyck and by Rembrandt for several of their compositions. It became a characteristic of many Impressionist and Post-Impressionist paintings, aided by the new availability of pigments in portable tubes, which allowed artists like Van Gogh to go out into nature and paint rapidly en plein air.

A further aspect which links Vermeer to the art of the Impressionists is his use of a pointillé technique – patterns of small dots which, to a modern eye, evoke the pointillism of Seurat and Signac, with which Van Gogh experimented. Collections of small, white dots add texture and suggest the play of light in Vermeer’s painting, noticeable especially on the bread and on the top of the maid’s apron; highlighting also her cap, oversleeves, and the lip of the jug with which she pours. They enhance the atmosphere of softly diffusing light which characterises this brilliant but gentle, boldly restrained, most harmonious of works.