Okay... ... ...don't panic, but IT'S TRUE!!! PUBS ARE CLOSING DOWN! Whyyyyyyyyyy?
In all seriousness, this really is detrimental to society. As I discussed in a previous post, pub culture is such a big part of European (especially British) life, that its downfall would pretty much cause every individual to plummet into a deep depression. But wait, is that necessarily true? How are people really responding to this? What's causing the meltdown?
First, I'll answer the latter question. The problem is evident: Britain, like the rest of the world, is experiencing a recession. Not only are people being laid off right and left, but according to an article by Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondant, pubs are closing at a rate of 36 per week! Why? Drinkers are opting to buy cheaper alchohol for at-home consumption.
I, personally, can understand this. I went to a few pubs pretty routinely within the first two weeks of my arrival here in London, but after realizing that a) pub prices were breaking my bank account, and b) I could pay the same amount in a convenience store and stock my cabinet for weeks, I decided to ditch the pubs and opt for option B. I mean, it only makes sense, right?
With pubs closing at a rate 9 times faster than they did in 2006, you would think that Londoners would be concerned that their way of life is crashing before their eyes. However, I'd argue that this recession has made people feel as if only the most important aspects of life should be valued...what's the purpose of having a 'cultural activity' around if one can never afford to participate? I believe that more and more, people find themselves admiring the free parks and elaborate buildings contructed by Great Exhibition funds to gain a sense of culture and pride.
Are they wrong? Perhaps if people in America did what many Londoners are forced to do and quit driving the massive SUVs simply because it has become mainstream American pop-culture, we'd be in a better economic and eco-friendly state of affairs now.
Here's another idea: perhaps Londoners just aren't worried. I mean, there are over 8,000 pubs in London alone...what's 36 pubs a week for two years? Do the math, and you should have an approximate closing of about 3744 pubs. Now, that seems like a lot, but even if this trend continued every week for another two years (highly unlikely), London would STILL have over 4,000 pubs to choose from... ... ...
I wouldn't be worried, either.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Irish Nationalism
So we've discussed St. Patrick's Day and how the 'real meaning' has seemed to faded, especially in other cultures (outside Ireland). In that post, I also talked about how that meaning seems unimportant even in the land of the green. Upon pondering this a bit more, a few more questions arise. Is that nonchalant attitude representative of Ireland as a whole? If so, why do the Irish seems more relaxed about their seemingly 'global nationalism'?
Based upon the fact that the United Kingdom can only claim Northern Ireland as territory provides the obvious answer to that question: the concept isn't representative of Ireland as a whole (due to British possession of the north), but it does affect a big part of it. I've heard a lot about tensions between Ireland and Britain, and actually researched this issue. Follow along and hopefully you'll find it just as interesting as I did.
When you think of nationalism, you think of a social or political ideology that comprises a culture. Toss Ireland into the mix, and you get a strong sense of adoration out of it (at least from the Irish). Historically, this socio-political ideology stemmed from a desire to become (and remain) independent from Britain (which, as you can see, has prompted other very strong movements, as America resulted from one).
The 1916 Easter Rising all sparked this 'war of Independence'. I won't go into too much detail about why or how it began, for you can infer based upon reasons behind similar wars of Independence. Ireland not only had a great number of people who didn't agree with British rule, but who wanted their own culture to flourish in the way they believed it should. Thus, after this 'rising', 26 counties in Ireland became the Irish Free State in 1922, while 6 counties remained loyal to the British crown.
Tensions have pretty much ceased to exist since the end of the civil war, and there really isn't a question of whether or not Ireland's sovereignty is threatened. This is mainly because upon Ireland entering the European Union, they are less dependent on Britain politically and economically, since the EU operates with seperate currency and governance. Thus, there is no reason for petty 'quarrel' with Britain, since they are even less dependant on the superpower than before.
This is why one may detect more of a nonchalant attitude from Ireland as a whole: it stems from not having anything to fear. They've essentially won...their culture is now their own, and they are proud of it. Being secure allows for a more celebratory occasion, hence why Irish natinalism has spread to various other cultures (including parts of Britain) with little reaction from the home country itself.
I can't say that I blame them, either. Since when was a universal or global celebration over nationalism and independence ever discouraged? Ireland, like other nations, celebrates it all the time: just view how they live life.
Based upon the fact that the United Kingdom can only claim Northern Ireland as territory provides the obvious answer to that question: the concept isn't representative of Ireland as a whole (due to British possession of the north), but it does affect a big part of it. I've heard a lot about tensions between Ireland and Britain, and actually researched this issue. Follow along and hopefully you'll find it just as interesting as I did.
When you think of nationalism, you think of a social or political ideology that comprises a culture. Toss Ireland into the mix, and you get a strong sense of adoration out of it (at least from the Irish). Historically, this socio-political ideology stemmed from a desire to become (and remain) independent from Britain (which, as you can see, has prompted other very strong movements, as America resulted from one).
The 1916 Easter Rising all sparked this 'war of Independence'. I won't go into too much detail about why or how it began, for you can infer based upon reasons behind similar wars of Independence. Ireland not only had a great number of people who didn't agree with British rule, but who wanted their own culture to flourish in the way they believed it should. Thus, after this 'rising', 26 counties in Ireland became the Irish Free State in 1922, while 6 counties remained loyal to the British crown.
Tensions have pretty much ceased to exist since the end of the civil war, and there really isn't a question of whether or not Ireland's sovereignty is threatened. This is mainly because upon Ireland entering the European Union, they are less dependent on Britain politically and economically, since the EU operates with seperate currency and governance. Thus, there is no reason for petty 'quarrel' with Britain, since they are even less dependant on the superpower than before.
This is why one may detect more of a nonchalant attitude from Ireland as a whole: it stems from not having anything to fear. They've essentially won...their culture is now their own, and they are proud of it. Being secure allows for a more celebratory occasion, hence why Irish natinalism has spread to various other cultures (including parts of Britain) with little reaction from the home country itself.
I can't say that I blame them, either. Since when was a universal or global celebration over nationalism and independence ever discouraged? Ireland, like other nations, celebrates it all the time: just view how they live life.
Monday, 30 March 2009
The Linley Sambourne House
Today, I had the unique opportunity to take a trip to the house that Victorian cartoonist/artist Linley Sambourne lived in. Sambourne was an artist for Punch magazine, and completed many political cartoons that are pretty well-known. I found this house signficant not because an arguably well-known artist lived there, but because it is the only house in London that provides an accurate representation of how a middle-class Victorian family lived.
I bet you're saying something along the lines of, "Come now, Darrion, this can't be the only Victorian middle-class representation in London." While that may be true, I will insist on the Linley Sambourne house being the most accurate representation, as everything down to the furtniture and books have remained virtually untouched.
Our tour guide explained all facets of this breathtaking house, including the type of furniture and wallpaper that adorned it. Inside, one would marvel at the Japanese influence of the time, as much of hte furniture and trinkets were from Japan. This is significant because around 1850, Japan had opened itself up for exploration by outsiders, so Japanese products became a commodity.
Additionally, this house contained furniture that was made of the finest material (oak for the dining room, brass for the beds, etc.). This shows that the Sambourne's, though middle-class, had to stay with the times and have the latest style in their home. In fact, one dresser was valued at 65 pounds, which would be about 3250 pounds today (our tour guide told us to multiply by the Victorian prices by 50 to get an accurate view of how much it would cost now). This wasn't a wallet-breaking purchase either, as Sambourne made roughly 2,000 pounds annually for his work. (note: the Sambourne house costs 2,000 pounds, so Linley spent half a year's paycheck to aquire it; his father-in-law was a wealthy stockbroker and paid the other 1,000.).
As one travels throughout this luxury home, one can gain a clear view of what life was like during the Victorian period for a typical family. Though living inside of his means was important, it's clear that the Sambourne's didn't struggle. However, when compared with the gaudy houses built by his 40,000 pound a year-earning colleagues, Sambourne's lifestyle seemed mediocre.
If you actually tour this place, though, it's hard to view this mult-level house as average. Thus, based upon the alternate lifestyles of both Sambourne and his comrades, it's clear to see that middle and upper-class Victorian families were very materialistic. This actually speaks volumes about the society in general, as Victorians were very adamant about appearances (take the structure Tower Bridge for example).
Victorians of the time wanted to eradicate the former way of living and forge their own identity. By cultivating and implementing their own style into Victorian architecture, they were able to forge that identity with ease. All one needs to do is visit the Sambourne house to support that claim.
Overall, the visit to the Linley Sambourne house was very interesting and very informative. Not only did I finally get to see at least one accurate representation of the past, but I learned much about the era that went beyond teachings in books and beyond the surface level. If you ever have the chance, I recommend this site for a true representation of one of London's greatest eras.
Darrion
I bet you're saying something along the lines of, "Come now, Darrion, this can't be the only Victorian middle-class representation in London." While that may be true, I will insist on the Linley Sambourne house being the most accurate representation, as everything down to the furtniture and books have remained virtually untouched.
Our tour guide explained all facets of this breathtaking house, including the type of furniture and wallpaper that adorned it. Inside, one would marvel at the Japanese influence of the time, as much of hte furniture and trinkets were from Japan. This is significant because around 1850, Japan had opened itself up for exploration by outsiders, so Japanese products became a commodity.
Additionally, this house contained furniture that was made of the finest material (oak for the dining room, brass for the beds, etc.). This shows that the Sambourne's, though middle-class, had to stay with the times and have the latest style in their home. In fact, one dresser was valued at 65 pounds, which would be about 3250 pounds today (our tour guide told us to multiply by the Victorian prices by 50 to get an accurate view of how much it would cost now). This wasn't a wallet-breaking purchase either, as Sambourne made roughly 2,000 pounds annually for his work. (note: the Sambourne house costs 2,000 pounds, so Linley spent half a year's paycheck to aquire it; his father-in-law was a wealthy stockbroker and paid the other 1,000.).
As one travels throughout this luxury home, one can gain a clear view of what life was like during the Victorian period for a typical family. Though living inside of his means was important, it's clear that the Sambourne's didn't struggle. However, when compared with the gaudy houses built by his 40,000 pound a year-earning colleagues, Sambourne's lifestyle seemed mediocre.
If you actually tour this place, though, it's hard to view this mult-level house as average. Thus, based upon the alternate lifestyles of both Sambourne and his comrades, it's clear to see that middle and upper-class Victorian families were very materialistic. This actually speaks volumes about the society in general, as Victorians were very adamant about appearances (take the structure Tower Bridge for example).
Victorians of the time wanted to eradicate the former way of living and forge their own identity. By cultivating and implementing their own style into Victorian architecture, they were able to forge that identity with ease. All one needs to do is visit the Sambourne house to support that claim.
Overall, the visit to the Linley Sambourne house was very interesting and very informative. Not only did I finally get to see at least one accurate representation of the past, but I learned much about the era that went beyond teachings in books and beyond the surface level. If you ever have the chance, I recommend this site for a true representation of one of London's greatest eras.
Darrion
Sunday, 29 March 2009
St. Patrick's Day...European Style!
Now while I did not get the chance to visit Ireland on St. Patrick's Day (like my fiancee) or experience St. Patrick's Day weekend in Ireland pre-Patty's Day (like many of my peers), I do contend that I had a rather enjoyable day (and night).
However, amid the crowds of drunken Londoners and the free flowing rivers of Guinness, it seems as if the meaning of St. Patrick's Day has been lost in the shuffle, or simply forgotten due to the adoption of this new culture of "intoxication". In fact, even I was ignorant to the true meaning behind the day before I grew extremely intrigued (and ashamed for not knowing already). I believe that the aforementioned ignorance has only intensified across time, especially during the 20th century, since secular ideals seemed to heavily influence this period. So, in case anyone out there doesn't know the truth behind the day of green, Guinness, and good luck, I'm here to enlighten, so enjoy.
Saint Patrick's Day is supposed to honor St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, and is a holy day of obligation for Roman-Catholics in Ireland. It is also known as the "holy feast day". That seems simple enough, right? So when did honoring an important religious figure for spreading Christianity throughout Ireland become a day of getting plastered beyond belief with no regard for the religious aspect of the day in question?
I, unfortunately, cannot answer that. What I do know is that the meaning has obviously been lost, for just by looking at the festivities that take place on the day, you wouldn't assume it had anything to do with appreciating a saint. In fact, if the word 'saint' didn't precede Patrick, many individuals may simply assume that Patrick was a man who set the record for chugging the most pints of Guinness in 60 seconds.
To continue, there are two additional practices that have deviated from the original meaning. First, the color associated with Saint Patrick was blue, not green. What? Oh my, we've been bamboozled! Yes, it's true. Green came to be known as the color due to the phrase "wearing the green", which alluded to wearing a Shamrock on one's clothing to show Irish nationalism. However, it was not the color associated with St. Patrick, as was mentioned previously.
So the shamrock doesn't bring good luck? Well great, I searched field upon field at the tender age of seven, hoping that I would find a four-leaved clover to bring good luck, in addition to that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Moreover, if I really wanted to find the right clover to celebrate the day, I was looking for the wrong one. A three-leaved clover is the one to look for, for this is the tool that Saint Patrick used to explain the Holy Trinity to the pre-Christian Irish.
So yes, my friends, if you didn't know this, you have been celebrating St. Patrick's Day simply for the hell of it, which can't be frowned upon, for most people just follow the bandwagon anyway. However, next year, you can attempt to do some justice to the holiday by drinking a pint of Guinness in the name of St. Patrick and sharing with your comrades the origin of your day of drunkenness.
I'll be sure to do the same. : )
Until next post,
Darrion
However, amid the crowds of drunken Londoners and the free flowing rivers of Guinness, it seems as if the meaning of St. Patrick's Day has been lost in the shuffle, or simply forgotten due to the adoption of this new culture of "intoxication". In fact, even I was ignorant to the true meaning behind the day before I grew extremely intrigued (and ashamed for not knowing already). I believe that the aforementioned ignorance has only intensified across time, especially during the 20th century, since secular ideals seemed to heavily influence this period. So, in case anyone out there doesn't know the truth behind the day of green, Guinness, and good luck, I'm here to enlighten, so enjoy.
Saint Patrick's Day is supposed to honor St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, and is a holy day of obligation for Roman-Catholics in Ireland. It is also known as the "holy feast day". That seems simple enough, right? So when did honoring an important religious figure for spreading Christianity throughout Ireland become a day of getting plastered beyond belief with no regard for the religious aspect of the day in question?
I, unfortunately, cannot answer that. What I do know is that the meaning has obviously been lost, for just by looking at the festivities that take place on the day, you wouldn't assume it had anything to do with appreciating a saint. In fact, if the word 'saint' didn't precede Patrick, many individuals may simply assume that Patrick was a man who set the record for chugging the most pints of Guinness in 60 seconds.
To continue, there are two additional practices that have deviated from the original meaning. First, the color associated with Saint Patrick was blue, not green. What? Oh my, we've been bamboozled! Yes, it's true. Green came to be known as the color due to the phrase "wearing the green", which alluded to wearing a Shamrock on one's clothing to show Irish nationalism. However, it was not the color associated with St. Patrick, as was mentioned previously.
So the shamrock doesn't bring good luck? Well great, I searched field upon field at the tender age of seven, hoping that I would find a four-leaved clover to bring good luck, in addition to that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Moreover, if I really wanted to find the right clover to celebrate the day, I was looking for the wrong one. A three-leaved clover is the one to look for, for this is the tool that Saint Patrick used to explain the Holy Trinity to the pre-Christian Irish.
So yes, my friends, if you didn't know this, you have been celebrating St. Patrick's Day simply for the hell of it, which can't be frowned upon, for most people just follow the bandwagon anyway. However, next year, you can attempt to do some justice to the holiday by drinking a pint of Guinness in the name of St. Patrick and sharing with your comrades the origin of your day of drunkenness.
I'll be sure to do the same. : )
Until next post,
Darrion
Pub Culture?
It's been a long day at the office. Your boss has gotten on your last nerve. You call up your best pal and head to a bar to forget your worries. You order a few shots, down a couple of beers, catch the final score of the basketball game, then leave. Just another night out, right?
WRONG. If you ever referred to going out to a bar (known here in Britain as a 'pub') as just another night out in front of a member of the U.K., I may just have to fear for your life. Why? Because a night out at the pub isn't just a fun thing to do on a Friday or Saturday night. It's a way of life...a culture, if you will.
London alone has over 8,000 pubs, and the people are very proud of them. You see, when you enter one of these amazing venues, you not only find hilarious drunken individuals, but you stumble upon camaraderie. It's like going to a black-tie event for your job, but with people you actually enjoy spending time with.
Pub culture offers more than just having a drink. For example, many pubs in London offer the option of singing karaoke while you're getting toasted. Others have trivia nights, so that you can test your knowledge of fun and random facts while intoxicated (provided that you can remember them). Moreover, according to an official pub website, citypublife.co.uk, some pubs even offer speed dating!
Now, the fact that pub culture has an official website lets you know how serious it is here. I'm sure there would be mass riots if even one of the 8,000 pubs in London shut down. Okay, so maybe it's not that serious, but you get the drift.
So the next time you go into a bar, realize that you're doing more than simply forgetting your problems...you're participating in a way of life. That way, if you've never been anywhere outside your city's limits, you can still tell your peers that you are cultured. Do try to visit an actual European pub, though. The experience is definitely unforgettable!
Darrion
WRONG. If you ever referred to going out to a bar (known here in Britain as a 'pub') as just another night out in front of a member of the U.K., I may just have to fear for your life. Why? Because a night out at the pub isn't just a fun thing to do on a Friday or Saturday night. It's a way of life...a culture, if you will.
London alone has over 8,000 pubs, and the people are very proud of them. You see, when you enter one of these amazing venues, you not only find hilarious drunken individuals, but you stumble upon camaraderie. It's like going to a black-tie event for your job, but with people you actually enjoy spending time with.
Pub culture offers more than just having a drink. For example, many pubs in London offer the option of singing karaoke while you're getting toasted. Others have trivia nights, so that you can test your knowledge of fun and random facts while intoxicated (provided that you can remember them). Moreover, according to an official pub website, citypublife.co.uk, some pubs even offer speed dating!
Now, the fact that pub culture has an official website lets you know how serious it is here. I'm sure there would be mass riots if even one of the 8,000 pubs in London shut down. Okay, so maybe it's not that serious, but you get the drift.
So the next time you go into a bar, realize that you're doing more than simply forgetting your problems...you're participating in a way of life. That way, if you've never been anywhere outside your city's limits, you can still tell your peers that you are cultured. Do try to visit an actual European pub, though. The experience is definitely unforgettable!
Darrion
A Purely Political Post... ...(enjoy the alliteration?)
For a quick semi-historical re-cap, read further:
9/11/2001 - U.S. WTC attacks.
9/12/2001 - Bush declares war on terror.
9/16/2001 - Britain declares war on terror.
3/18/2009 - Darrion finds out that this war has consumed much of the Parliament's focus for the past 8 years... ...wait, what?
Yes, you read correctly, America hasn't been the only country affected by her decisions (how surprising...). A couple of weeks ago, I had the unique opportunity to speak with a member of the British parliament, Graham Brady. When asked what the biggest issue was that British MP (members of parliament) concerned themselves with over the past 10-12 years, Brady (in office for 12 years) replied with "the Iraqi War."
Really? Amid an ever-growing financial crisis, Britain has had the "luxury" of adding the weight of another country on their shoulders. If this is the biggest issue that has come across the parliament's desk in the very early 21st century, then maintaining satisfactory foreign alliances must be a very high priority among these two superpowers.
Now, I don't mean to imply that this war is pointless, deprived of focus, or unbearably costly... ... ...okay, maybe I am, but in addition, I was simply shocked at how much thought Britain actually put into it. Tony Blair (then Prime Minister of Britain) even took the liberty of holding public debates and votes before taking his beloved country to war (though, as PM, he possessed the power to do so without consultation).
Perhaps American politics influences and affects eastern society more than what we know. For example, not only have I encountered many Brits talking among themselves about how President Obama will definitely change their world, but I have even experienced excitement about Obama in countries like Greece, who are farther away from America than Britain.
Thus, maybe it shouldn't come as a shock that issues like the war in Iraq dominate British discussion behind Parliament's walls. The only sad part is, you don't often see that same discussion occurring on the western end unless we've directly been affected. Look at how long it took the U.S. to stand up to German expansion in WWII. The war raged on for three years before we took a stance, which happened to be after the French were captured and after the deaths of millions of Jews.
However, just five days after the 9/11 attacks, Britain declared its allegiance.
There's food for thought...are our priorities in the right place? You be the judge.
Until next time,
Darrion
9/11/2001 - U.S. WTC attacks.
9/12/2001 - Bush declares war on terror.
9/16/2001 - Britain declares war on terror.
3/18/2009 - Darrion finds out that this war has consumed much of the Parliament's focus for the past 8 years... ...wait, what?
Yes, you read correctly, America hasn't been the only country affected by her decisions (how surprising...). A couple of weeks ago, I had the unique opportunity to speak with a member of the British parliament, Graham Brady. When asked what the biggest issue was that British MP (members of parliament) concerned themselves with over the past 10-12 years, Brady (in office for 12 years) replied with "the Iraqi War."
Really? Amid an ever-growing financial crisis, Britain has had the "luxury" of adding the weight of another country on their shoulders. If this is the biggest issue that has come across the parliament's desk in the very early 21st century, then maintaining satisfactory foreign alliances must be a very high priority among these two superpowers.
Now, I don't mean to imply that this war is pointless, deprived of focus, or unbearably costly... ... ...okay, maybe I am, but in addition, I was simply shocked at how much thought Britain actually put into it. Tony Blair (then Prime Minister of Britain) even took the liberty of holding public debates and votes before taking his beloved country to war (though, as PM, he possessed the power to do so without consultation).
Perhaps American politics influences and affects eastern society more than what we know. For example, not only have I encountered many Brits talking among themselves about how President Obama will definitely change their world, but I have even experienced excitement about Obama in countries like Greece, who are farther away from America than Britain.
Thus, maybe it shouldn't come as a shock that issues like the war in Iraq dominate British discussion behind Parliament's walls. The only sad part is, you don't often see that same discussion occurring on the western end unless we've directly been affected. Look at how long it took the U.S. to stand up to German expansion in WWII. The war raged on for three years before we took a stance, which happened to be after the French were captured and after the deaths of millions of Jews.
However, just five days after the 9/11 attacks, Britain declared its allegiance.
There's food for thought...are our priorities in the right place? You be the judge.
Until next time,
Darrion
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Zionism, Art and Monet
Panic! Britain, like the rest of the world, is experiencing economic hardship!!! What ever should we do??? I know! Let's blame the Jews!
Unfortunately, this has historically been the approach taken just as soon as most things went wrong in the world, dating back to early 20th century Europe and continuing throughout the period. Jewish bankers were first blamed for the economic stagnation in the early 1900s, and were also blamed for Germany's defeat in WWI.
Yes, yes, we all know the basics. However, what I did not know was how many areas of life were affected due to anti-semitism and the opposing Zionist movement. Anti-semitism affected many areas of life, including those that are subtly influential, like the art realm.
Nevertheless, before we delve further into how exactly 20th century art was affected, it's important to know the background behind the Zionist movement and the anti-semitism that was responsible for its creation.
The Zionist movement was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1896 a response to racial ant-semitism.. Its goal was to create a seperate Jewish state in Palestine, for Herzl did not believe that the government could protect the Jews in Europe. Why did Herzl possess this belief? Because of one event that influenced more people than just Herzl...the Dreyfus affair.
The Dreyfus affair was a collection of occurrences that showed the extent of anti-semitism in France. Alford Dreyfus was a Jewish captain in the French army who was tried for high treason in 1894. Why? Apparently, bits of ripped and subsequently reconstructed paper that contained French military secrets for the Germans were found in Dreyfus's trash can. Despite there being no plausible evidence to tie Dreyfus to this note, he was tried anyway because the government needed a scapegoat. Who else better to try than a Jewish man? They were apparently at fault for everything!
Dreyfus was found guilty by the court and was subjected to military degradation and deportation. During the four years that Dreyfus was in exile, the French army found the 'real' traitor but rigged the trial so that an innocent verdict was reached to avoid admitting fault at having mistook Dreyfus for the traitor. Dreyfus had a re-trial in 1899 (remember this date), but was found guilty yet again (due to government's desire to remain 'correct'). However, instead of facing more jail time, Dreyfus was 'pardoned' of his 'crime'.
Yes, in all actuality, he did nothing and the government finally recognized it, so I presume 'pardoning' was their way of saying 'sorry we screwed up'. However, I'd rather have my good name than to be freed and forced to accept a crime I did not commit. Evidently, other individuals like Claude Monet, famous impressionist painter, agreed with how I currently feel, for after the Dreyfus affair, Monet vowed to never paint another Frenchman. Recall the date I told you to remember? 1899 - Dreyfus' re-trial and 2nd guilty verdict. 1899 - the production of Monet's 'Bridge over water lilies', which served as the beginning of a new focus for the notorious artist.
Before that, frenchmen could be found rather commonly in Monet's paintings. It interesting how much racial movements can affect the great minds and works that we all treasure today. Who would've thought that a portion of Monet's inspiration for his 'water lilies' set could arguably be attributed to the Zionist movement?
Interesting, no?
Until next time,
Darrion
Unfortunately, this has historically been the approach taken just as soon as most things went wrong in the world, dating back to early 20th century Europe and continuing throughout the period. Jewish bankers were first blamed for the economic stagnation in the early 1900s, and were also blamed for Germany's defeat in WWI.
Yes, yes, we all know the basics. However, what I did not know was how many areas of life were affected due to anti-semitism and the opposing Zionist movement. Anti-semitism affected many areas of life, including those that are subtly influential, like the art realm.
Nevertheless, before we delve further into how exactly 20th century art was affected, it's important to know the background behind the Zionist movement and the anti-semitism that was responsible for its creation.
The Zionist movement was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1896 a response to racial ant-semitism.. Its goal was to create a seperate Jewish state in Palestine, for Herzl did not believe that the government could protect the Jews in Europe. Why did Herzl possess this belief? Because of one event that influenced more people than just Herzl...the Dreyfus affair.
The Dreyfus affair was a collection of occurrences that showed the extent of anti-semitism in France. Alford Dreyfus was a Jewish captain in the French army who was tried for high treason in 1894. Why? Apparently, bits of ripped and subsequently reconstructed paper that contained French military secrets for the Germans were found in Dreyfus's trash can. Despite there being no plausible evidence to tie Dreyfus to this note, he was tried anyway because the government needed a scapegoat. Who else better to try than a Jewish man? They were apparently at fault for everything!
Dreyfus was found guilty by the court and was subjected to military degradation and deportation. During the four years that Dreyfus was in exile, the French army found the 'real' traitor but rigged the trial so that an innocent verdict was reached to avoid admitting fault at having mistook Dreyfus for the traitor. Dreyfus had a re-trial in 1899 (remember this date), but was found guilty yet again (due to government's desire to remain 'correct'). However, instead of facing more jail time, Dreyfus was 'pardoned' of his 'crime'.
Yes, in all actuality, he did nothing and the government finally recognized it, so I presume 'pardoning' was their way of saying 'sorry we screwed up'. However, I'd rather have my good name than to be freed and forced to accept a crime I did not commit. Evidently, other individuals like Claude Monet, famous impressionist painter, agreed with how I currently feel, for after the Dreyfus affair, Monet vowed to never paint another Frenchman. Recall the date I told you to remember? 1899 - Dreyfus' re-trial and 2nd guilty verdict. 1899 - the production of Monet's 'Bridge over water lilies', which served as the beginning of a new focus for the notorious artist.
Before that, frenchmen could be found rather commonly in Monet's paintings. It interesting how much racial movements can affect the great minds and works that we all treasure today. Who would've thought that a portion of Monet's inspiration for his 'water lilies' set could arguably be attributed to the Zionist movement?
Interesting, no?
Until next time,
Darrion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)