A busy week in Sydney's art world, with many openings, and the annual Archibald prize (portait painting, from life, AU$35K) going to a surprise winner, Marcus Wills, for his painting 'The Paul Juraszek monolith' (after Marcus Gheeraerts). The Archibald Prize is now in its 85th year and excites more interest from the general public than any other event in the Australan art calendar, with its own 'Salon de Refusées' at the S.H.Ervin (National Trust) Gallery, and even a satirical spin-off, 'The Bald Archies'. It was won last year by John Olsen. My own favourite was Ben Quilty's diptych of fellow-painter Adam Cullen. Quilty also has a solo show on, see below.
Finalists for two other important prizes, The Wynne Prize (landscape) and The Sulman Prize (genre painting), are always exhibited simultaneously, and I had entries in each of these, but alas did not make the cut (or even the Salon de refusées). That puts me in my place.
Although there are some that like to sneer at The Archibald, and it is definitely a bit of a circus, I can't think of anything comparable in any other country, and I think it is an indicator that Australians at large do actually have an interest in art - the crowds certainly flock to the exhibition, which tours the country after its Sydney season, and everyone seems to have an opinion. This doesn't quite equate with the Daily Mail or The Sun's jeering about the Turner Prize (UK) - it's something uniquely Australian. There is a strong affection here for the figure of 'the larrikin artist', or even 'the eccentric caroonist' (eg Michael Leunig) and there could be no better illustration of this than Pro Hart, 'artist of the people', who died today, and will be given a state funeral in Broken Hill, even though his work is deemed a bit too kitsch for The National Gallery. Importantly he's not, or wasn't, a realist - and his popularity interests me far more than his work. In my opinion the whole Mambo tradition owes the old fella more than a passing nod. Anyway, RIP Pro.
Also at AGNSW is a major blockbuster called 'Self-Portait', and at the MCA (Museum of Contemporary Art) a whole lot more portraiture, including BritBrat-ess Sam(antha?) Taylor-Wood's series of crying celebrities. I don't think they will stand the test of time, but there's no denying she understands the artistic zeitgeist, the cult of celebrity etc. Masquerade - Representation and the self in contempoarary art, is a rather better show - an eclectic international review investigating aspects of self-portaiture across a wide range of cultures, again featuring Ms Taylor Wood (weak), along with good stuff from the late Martin Kippenberger, the late Claude Cahun (France), the very much alive Samuel Fosso (Cameroon/Central African Republic), Cindy Sherman, Shigeyuki Kihara and many others. Well worth a look. Included are Australian Mike Parr's deadpan photographs of jackets We are all monochrome now seen at Sherman Galleries a couple of years ago. And still at the MCA and still on a self-portaiture theme, downstairs is a killer Mike Parr solo show VOLTE FACE - prints and Pre-Prints 1970-2005. Parr's obsession with himself results in an astonishing body of work, mainly intaglio, all on a huge scale. He is one of the best printmakers in the world in my opinion.
On the Sydney commercial circuit, more huge drawings and prints by Mike Parr at Sherman Galleries, and a seductive new show by Pat Brassington at Stills. Stunning big oils of utes (Australian for pickups/trucks/vans) by Ben Quilty at GrantPirrie. And a lovely, evocative name for the show - "Ache".
In Melbourne the Commonwealth Games, which ended with a suitable bang on Sunday night, has no doubt eclipsed everything else, but there is what looks like an excellent coincident show 'Contemporary Commonwealth' at the NGV Australia (National Gallery of Victoria at Fed Square), featuring 22 artists from diverse counries, as well as an indigenous show 'Landmarks', which I believe features the inimitable contemporay Melbourne artist Clinton Nain, among many others. Willam Kentridge's homage to George Meliès is at the NGV International (St Kilda Road). The Pissarro blockbuster, ex AGNSW, is also at the NGV International - not to be missed if impressionism is your thing. never mind impressionism - he was simpley a great painter, with some of his early, pre-impressionist works being among my favourites.
I can't refer to the Commonwealth Games without noting the presence here of Tony Blair - the first British PM ever to address a joint sitting (or any sitting?) of the Australian Parliament, would you believe? No longer 'Bambi'-like, he seems to have acquired gravitas, and has been at pains to praise John Howard (steadfast ally etc) and defend the invasion of Iraq. None of this is surprising really, but there is a weirdness to it - the two men (Howard and Blair) are supposedly from opposite ends of the political specrtrum, but it's Labour Leader Kim Beazley, Blair's old mate from Oxford, that is suddenly on the 'other' side, pushing for withdrawal of Australian troops.
Next visit is the Chinese Premier, to do a deal to buy Australian uranium. Watch this space.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Condoleeza Rice's Pax Americana
'Condi' is in town, Sydney Australia that is, meeting with her Australian counterparts and with the 'outspoken' Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso.
Polls indicate that she enjoys an approval rating of 52 percent in the USA, compared with George W Bush's 33 percent (and falling). And the macabre jokes about Condi versus Hillary in 2008 are starting to look increasingly like reality.
"There is one, and only one, figure in America who can stop Hillary Rodham Clinton," writes Dick Morris, the former political adviser to Bill Clinton, in his book Condi vs Hillary. "If there is a Hillary, there must be a Condi. One will spawn the other."
I've often wondered what makes this rather scary woman tick, and how someone so obviously intelligent could be party to the Middle East policies of GW Bush - policies that I am convinced will be seen in retropect as the biggest collective strategic blunder in the history of the USA, Vietnam included. It may well be that Bush is not nearly so dumb as he appears. Perhaps the silly walk, the stilted diction, the mispronunciations, the malapropisms and so forth are a strategy to endear himself to the people, to appear unpatrician, a regular dude - unlike the "almost French" John Kerry for instance. But he comes over as stoopid, the fall-guy for comedians around the world. Rice, by contrast, is plainly very bright, has studied history and politics at doctoral level, and has been known to draw parallels between the Roman Empire's 'Pax Romana' and America's stated policy of exporting Western-style democracy to the rest of the world.
Taking this desire at face value for a moment, putting aside the cynical vew that it's all to do with oil and that vile dictatorships are tolerated where oil and other strategic advanteges exist for the USA, you'd still have to seriously question the judgement behind the invasion of Iraq.
Or maybe not. Whether USA Middle East policy is ultimately seen as mistaken all depends on what the game plan is. There are some, including Southeast Asian leaders, that do not regard the Vietnam debacle as ultimately a failure, despite the effective military defeat of the USA.
I have always been convinced that the 'overt' plan for Iraq - the phantom WMDs, removing a vile dictator (so recently a valued ally), the establishment of a democracy, has always been a front for the real game plan - establishing a permanent force of 350,000 or so American soldiers at the heart of the Middle East, between the Sunni 'West' - The Arabs (and the 60-odd year old settlement that is modern Israel) and the Shiite 'East' - the non-Arab Iran, the old Persian Empire.
The reasons for this? The stakes that have plainly factored in an 'acceptable' American death toll of perhaps a thousand soldiers a year for the foreseeable future? I recenty saw the excellent 'Syriana', and the Matt Damon character, in answer to just such a question by a young Emir-in-waiting, says something like "Isn't it obvious? It's RUNNING OUT! THE OIL! THEY THINK IT'S RUNNING OUT!".
So far so obvious. But oil cannot be the whole answer. USA policy is surely concerned with far more than just Iraq's oil reserves. Saudi Arabia has to be an imporatant part of any Middle Eastern geopolitical equation. The House of Saud is one of America's staunchest allies in the region, and I believe that everyone knows it is only a matter of time before that regime colapses, an outcome to which Osama Bin Laden has dedicated himself. The American troops there are, I suspect, being quietly withdrawn.
And then there is Iran - a non Arab country also with significant reserves of oil, but more alarmingly perhaps for the USA, the apparent means to build nuclear weapons, combined with a wish to export its religious revolution. Apart from the protection of Israel and other USA client states in the region, is this what the large standing US force in Iraq is really about? Are we seeing the same inexorable move towards war with Iran as we saw with Iraq in 2003, Are Tehran's WMDs also phantoms?
And where, in all this, is Condi's 'Pax Americana'?
Paul McGeogh, writing for Australia's Fairfax Press last week, quoted former US and UN envoy Peter Galbraith lamenting what he describes as a little noticed consequence of America's failure in Iraq: "We invaded Iraq to protect ourselves against nonexistent WMDs and to promote democracy. Democracy in Iraq brought to power Iran's allies, who are in a position to ignite an uprising against American troops that would make the current problems with the Sunni insurgency seem insignificant."
McGeogh goes on to quote an unnamed Jordanian source: "Iran has wanted to control the Sunni Arabs for 1000 years and they are doing it now. Ayatollah Khomeini tried - and failed - to export his revolution for 15 years, but Bush has done it for him in just two years", and adds 'The US did Tehran a giant favour by invading Iraq, because Saddam Hussein was the Sunni bulwark against Iranian Shiite ambition. Now, in his absence, Iran is winning a place in Sunni hearts and minds across the region by assuming the fallen dictator's manipulative interest in the Palestinian cause. Given the bungled US effort in Iraq, neighbouring countries are wary and weary of speculation that Washington might attempt military intervention - if only by bombing from beyond Iran's borders - in its efforts to thwart Tehran's well-developed nuclear ambitions.'
McGeogh then quotes democracy analysts Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers writing in Foreign Policy late last year: "Promoting democracy throughout the Middle East will require doing away with the fantasies of a sudden US-led transformation of the region and taking seriously the challenge of building credibility with Arab societies. Moreover, if the US is to play a constructive supporting role, it must seriously revise its cosy relations with autocratic regimes and show a sustained ability to apply nuanced diplomatic pressure with well-crafted and wellfunded assistance."
I wonder if Condoleeza Rice is listening. The future of our planet may depend on it.
Polls indicate that she enjoys an approval rating of 52 percent in the USA, compared with George W Bush's 33 percent (and falling). And the macabre jokes about Condi versus Hillary in 2008 are starting to look increasingly like reality.
"There is one, and only one, figure in America who can stop Hillary Rodham Clinton," writes Dick Morris, the former political adviser to Bill Clinton, in his book Condi vs Hillary. "If there is a Hillary, there must be a Condi. One will spawn the other."
I've often wondered what makes this rather scary woman tick, and how someone so obviously intelligent could be party to the Middle East policies of GW Bush - policies that I am convinced will be seen in retropect as the biggest collective strategic blunder in the history of the USA, Vietnam included. It may well be that Bush is not nearly so dumb as he appears. Perhaps the silly walk, the stilted diction, the mispronunciations, the malapropisms and so forth are a strategy to endear himself to the people, to appear unpatrician, a regular dude - unlike the "almost French" John Kerry for instance. But he comes over as stoopid, the fall-guy for comedians around the world. Rice, by contrast, is plainly very bright, has studied history and politics at doctoral level, and has been known to draw parallels between the Roman Empire's 'Pax Romana' and America's stated policy of exporting Western-style democracy to the rest of the world.
Taking this desire at face value for a moment, putting aside the cynical vew that it's all to do with oil and that vile dictatorships are tolerated where oil and other strategic advanteges exist for the USA, you'd still have to seriously question the judgement behind the invasion of Iraq.
Or maybe not. Whether USA Middle East policy is ultimately seen as mistaken all depends on what the game plan is. There are some, including Southeast Asian leaders, that do not regard the Vietnam debacle as ultimately a failure, despite the effective military defeat of the USA.
I have always been convinced that the 'overt' plan for Iraq - the phantom WMDs, removing a vile dictator (so recently a valued ally), the establishment of a democracy, has always been a front for the real game plan - establishing a permanent force of 350,000 or so American soldiers at the heart of the Middle East, between the Sunni 'West' - The Arabs (and the 60-odd year old settlement that is modern Israel) and the Shiite 'East' - the non-Arab Iran, the old Persian Empire.
The reasons for this? The stakes that have plainly factored in an 'acceptable' American death toll of perhaps a thousand soldiers a year for the foreseeable future? I recenty saw the excellent 'Syriana', and the Matt Damon character, in answer to just such a question by a young Emir-in-waiting, says something like "Isn't it obvious? It's RUNNING OUT! THE OIL! THEY THINK IT'S RUNNING OUT!".
So far so obvious. But oil cannot be the whole answer. USA policy is surely concerned with far more than just Iraq's oil reserves. Saudi Arabia has to be an imporatant part of any Middle Eastern geopolitical equation. The House of Saud is one of America's staunchest allies in the region, and I believe that everyone knows it is only a matter of time before that regime colapses, an outcome to which Osama Bin Laden has dedicated himself. The American troops there are, I suspect, being quietly withdrawn.
And then there is Iran - a non Arab country also with significant reserves of oil, but more alarmingly perhaps for the USA, the apparent means to build nuclear weapons, combined with a wish to export its religious revolution. Apart from the protection of Israel and other USA client states in the region, is this what the large standing US force in Iraq is really about? Are we seeing the same inexorable move towards war with Iran as we saw with Iraq in 2003, Are Tehran's WMDs also phantoms?
And where, in all this, is Condi's 'Pax Americana'?
Paul McGeogh, writing for Australia's Fairfax Press last week, quoted former US and UN envoy Peter Galbraith lamenting what he describes as a little noticed consequence of America's failure in Iraq: "We invaded Iraq to protect ourselves against nonexistent WMDs and to promote democracy. Democracy in Iraq brought to power Iran's allies, who are in a position to ignite an uprising against American troops that would make the current problems with the Sunni insurgency seem insignificant."
McGeogh goes on to quote an unnamed Jordanian source: "Iran has wanted to control the Sunni Arabs for 1000 years and they are doing it now. Ayatollah Khomeini tried - and failed - to export his revolution for 15 years, but Bush has done it for him in just two years", and adds 'The US did Tehran a giant favour by invading Iraq, because Saddam Hussein was the Sunni bulwark against Iranian Shiite ambition. Now, in his absence, Iran is winning a place in Sunni hearts and minds across the region by assuming the fallen dictator's manipulative interest in the Palestinian cause. Given the bungled US effort in Iraq, neighbouring countries are wary and weary of speculation that Washington might attempt military intervention - if only by bombing from beyond Iran's borders - in its efforts to thwart Tehran's well-developed nuclear ambitions.'
McGeogh then quotes democracy analysts Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers writing in Foreign Policy late last year: "Promoting democracy throughout the Middle East will require doing away with the fantasies of a sudden US-led transformation of the region and taking seriously the challenge of building credibility with Arab societies. Moreover, if the US is to play a constructive supporting role, it must seriously revise its cosy relations with autocratic regimes and show a sustained ability to apply nuanced diplomatic pressure with well-crafted and wellfunded assistance."
I wonder if Condoleeza Rice is listening. The future of our planet may depend on it.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Bundeena Blog Debut Posting
I read yesterday that a new blog is added to cyberspace every second. That's a lot of information.
In addition I had an induction session at the library at COFA (University of New South Wales College of Fine Arts), where I am studying for Master of Fine Arts, and glimpsed the thousands, or perhaps millions of specialist databases and repositories of knowledge that are out there. And thought that there really is far too much informatrion coming at us - an unthinkable, unimaginable torrent (of junk for the most part). And here am I, adding to it with these banal thoughts!
But yesterday I also located a rare out of print book - Jack Burhnam's seminal seventies collection of essays 'Great Western Salt Works', lurking on a shelf on the main campus, and ordered it. And numerous times lately I've used Google's astonishing Book Search tool. For the first time in human history it seems, all the information in the world is there, accessible at the touch of a button.
So, the challenge becomes not finding it, but keeping it at bay, or perhaps filtering it so that only the information we want to reach us, does reach us. And yet allowing for the random, the chaotic, the unexpected link, the metaphorical 'shout in the street'.
Watch this space.
In addition I had an induction session at the library at COFA (University of New South Wales College of Fine Arts), where I am studying for Master of Fine Arts, and glimpsed the thousands, or perhaps millions of specialist databases and repositories of knowledge that are out there. And thought that there really is far too much informatrion coming at us - an unthinkable, unimaginable torrent (of junk for the most part). And here am I, adding to it with these banal thoughts!
But yesterday I also located a rare out of print book - Jack Burhnam's seminal seventies collection of essays 'Great Western Salt Works', lurking on a shelf on the main campus, and ordered it. And numerous times lately I've used Google's astonishing Book Search tool. For the first time in human history it seems, all the information in the world is there, accessible at the touch of a button.
So, the challenge becomes not finding it, but keeping it at bay, or perhaps filtering it so that only the information we want to reach us, does reach us. And yet allowing for the random, the chaotic, the unexpected link, the metaphorical 'shout in the street'.
Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)