An Artistic Encounter

A long time ago, my friend Cindy sent me a beautiful card. I loved it so much I displayed it in the kitchen, where it has proceeded to get splashed and misshapen from being too close to the sink. At one point I did some ‘net searching, hoping to find a nice print of the image, but came up empty.

Since I recently repainted, I have taken down—and must rehang—all my posters, and while talking about my artwork, this particular print came up in conversation. It reminded me, I said, of Flaming June by Frederic Leighton.

So this morning I decided to try again. And what I found was that I had searched for the wrong name before. (I searched for the name of the card company. d’Oh!) What I was looking for was Dolce Far Niente, by John William Godward.

So I found it! And having found Godward, I found I was quite taken with a lot of his work. I looked at a lot, and some of it reminded me of something.

Maybe fifteen years ago (maybe more), the back cover of Gnosis Magazine had this painting that I loved so much I pulled it off and had it framed. It was the Oracle of Delphi, but in a style that struck me as incongruous, and yet compelling. The Godward paintings reminded me of that, so I did more searching, and you guessed it, it’s a Godward.

This just blows my mind. Here is a painter that I never heard of, and that no one I know has ever mentioned, although he is at least as ripe with Pagan overtones as Waterhouse or Rosetti (another favorite of mine), and yet, I had managed to come across, and save, two different Godward paintings, without even realizing they were by the same artist!

And hey? Here’s the first line of the “Works” section in Wikipedia:

Godward was a Victorian Neo-classicist, and therefore a follower in theory of Frederic Leighton.

You remember Leighton, right? He started this whole train of thought by painting Flaming June.

So all of this teaches me something about the nature of taste, about being drawn to certain things without knowing why, but perhaps that’s a subject for another post.

Dolce Far Niente below the fold. » Read more..

Solutions to Dance Trivia

You guys rock.

» Read more..

Tuesday Trivia: Dance

1. He magically gets the cops to dance to a Latin beat.
Solved by Evn (comment #1) and Roberta (comment #3).

2. A tango at a charity ball, featuring the hero and the villain’s girlfriend.
Solved by MJ Ray (comment #13).

3. He’s supposed to be performing a lovely ballroom dance, but he’s drunk; she covers for him and makes it look like a comedy dance routine.
Solved by Roberta (comment #3).

4. As soon as his parents are out of town, he dances alone to rock & roll.
Solved by Evn (comment #2) and Roberta (comment #3).

5. Her costume is stolen while she’s on break, and she becomes hysterical, but she must return to the dance in dirty clothes.
HINT: Although this movie revolves entirely around dance, and takes place entirely at a dance, it is not a musical.
Solved by Melville (comment #14).

6. The dairyman dances by himself in the barn while tending the animals.
Solved by Ben (comment #10).

7. With garbage can lids on their feet.
Solved by Melville (comment #7).

Monday Movie Review: Breach

Breach (2007) 9/10
FBI agent Robert Hanssen (Chris Cooper) has been spying on behalf of the Russians for many years, and cost the government untold human lives, money, and secrets. Eric O’Neill (Ryan Phillipe) is assigned to work as his assistant while spying on him and reporting to Kate Burroughs (Laura Linney), who is heading the investigation. Based on a true story.

Real spy stories are hard to find, and probably hard to sell as well. Throughout the course of Breach there are no explosions, no high speed car chases, no jaw-dropping stunts, no exotic women slipping themselves between the sheets of secret agents. This is a story about spies with government jobs and paychecks, whose stealth involves slipping a Palm Pilot from a briefcase and then remembering which pocket to replace it in. You can see why this might be hard to make a compelling preview for, but Breach is a fascinating movie.

The movie is largely a character study, exploring the nature of loyalty and secrecy. By the very fact of working for the FBI, Hanssen and O’Neill are expected to be loyal to their country. As O’Neill spends more and more time with Hanssen, he feels loyalty towards him as well, affection for the man, and perhaps just the natural loyalty engendered by covering your boss’s ass. Even knowing the man is a traitor, he finds he admires him.

On the opposite side of loyalty is secrecy. O’Neill’s loyalty to his job requires he keep his investigation secret from his wife (Caroline Dhavernas), and as the Hanssens and O’Neills becomes more and more involved socially, this is increasingly difficult, and strains the O’Neill’s young marriage.

The movie is also about anger and guilt. Hanssen is smart, maybe the smartest guy in his department, and he feels unappreciated and superior. He is obsessed with never having received a window office. He is angry at beaurocrats, angry at routine, angry at stupidity, and angry when his suggestions aren’t acted upon. Is he also guilty? He is a staunch Catholic, a member of Opus Dei, and eager to push religion on O’Neill and his Protestant wife. He attends mass daily and prays often, meanwhile betraying his country and making pornographic videos of his wife without her knowledge. Surely there is guilt there, and surely there is extra motivation to attend mass and confess his sins (although we never see Hanssen in confession; one wonders what, if anything, he ever confessed).

The investigation takes a toll on O’Neill, although that was the least compelling part of the story, perhaps because Phillipe isn’t doing all that much with the part (he’s very good, but I dunno, not great). It is Cooper who is the fascinating one, and Laura Linney is wonderful as usual.

Double O Section offers a good review of the DVD features, which I was unable to watch.

Sunday Meditation: Meditation Room #4

Meditation Room #1
Meditation Room #2
Meditation Room #3

Let’s return to your meditation room. Every time you return there, you reinforce its power and usefulness as a place of meditation, peace, and knowledge.

Ground and center.

Return to your outdoor place, and take a moment to enjoy the serenity and beauty you find there. Notice that you feel renewed just being there.

Step up to the cottage door. As usual, the key is in your pocket. Take a moment to look around and assure yourself that this is your beautiful and safe place.

Today we’ll spend time outdoors, so go back outside and look at the exterior of your cottage. You have been approaching the cottage from the front, but now, walk around the left side to the back. It’s really beautiful here. Take a moment to examine what it’s like. Is it wild and unkempt? Manicured and gracious? Is it sunny? Shaded? Spend time learning the nature of this outdoor place that is a part of your meditation cottage.

Notice that there is a perfect place for you to sit. It may be a lawn chair, or a stone, or a soft spot on the ground. It is exactly what you wish it to be, and when you walk up to it and sit down, you are exquisitely comfortable.

As you look around from this seat, breathing in the comfort and beauty of the place, notice that you see one or more paths leaving your back yard and going off into the distance. Whenever you want to, you can explore those paths, and know that you can always return to the safety of your cottage.

Sometimes, when doing guided meditations, you are instructed to start at a path. You can always choose one of these paths, and it will always take you where you set out to go.

Spend as much time as you like in your back yard, noticing plants, listening to bird song, inhaling the scent of wild or cultivated herbs or flowers. When you are ready, walk around the other side of the house, back to the front, and then return on your usual route home.

Friday Catblogging: Hypnotism

I’M AT UR FEET HYPNOTIZNG UR MIND
With my skeery skeery green eyes

» Read more..

Harrassment in an Elevator

Karen of Girls Read Comics (And They’re Pissed) shares her experience of attending a feminist con, and of a brief moment in an elevator when she left the safe space of the con. (Backstory; she is attending a costume party dressed as the Black Canary, which is to say, in a black bodysuit, fishnets, and a blonde wig.)

Until, going to the bathrooms on the second floor alone, I stepped into the elevator. It was filled with men who were all taller than me, and not wearing WisCon badges. They looked surprised and pleased as I got in. And I felt uneasy and self-conscious before I had time to think of why.

“Well, hey, now,” one guy murmured. “Hey there.”

“Yeah,” another chuckled.

“Second floor, please,” I said.

“Hey!” someone else said. “What’s going on on that floor?”

“Costume party.”

“Well, can we go?”

They laughed appreciatively. I said “No.” And I got out.

And that was it. They didn’t say anything foul, they certainly didn’t touch me, and it wasn’t even close to harassment by the standards of our society. So why was I shaky and scared and angry afterwards?

Two things:

1) At the costume ball, my clothing – fishnets, black leotard, blonde wig – was coded “superhero”. In the elevator, it was coded “stripper”.

2) Everyone is conditioned to assess women primarily by how sexually attractive and/or available they appear to be. Making that assessment clear is normal. Vocalizing that assessment is normal. Blaming women for others harassing or abusing them based on how attractive they are or what they were wearing at the time is normal.

If you’re gearing up to say something like “But nothing really bad happened!” or “Well, what did you expect?” or “Come on, weren’t you looking for attention?”, or “They were just being nice!”: don’t.

I know that those men almost certainly meant me no harm; they probably thought expressing a wish to follow me to a party was a compliment. It is entirely possible that none of them have ever imagined being in an enclosed space with a group of big strangers eyeing you up and asking if they can come with you could be a frightening experience. Our culture is set up so that they’ve never had to.

This and like incidents have happened to me, like many women, time and time again: strange men telling me to “smile!”; strange men shouting “Show us your tits!” as they drive past; strange men groping my breasts and ass in crowded train carriages.

(Women also buy into the patriarchal imperative to judge women primarily by their physical appearance, and that is also extremely unpleasant. However, as it is far less likely that women will follow such assessment with rape or other violent crime, it is generally much less threatening when a woman says, “You look like a whore.”)

If a woman doesn’t want to be viewed – for some weird reason – as a sex object, her choices are limited. She can be visibly angry or ignore harassment, in which case she is a FRIGID BITCH who can’t take a COMPLIMENT from NICE GUYS. Or she can be pleasant in an attempt to show them she’s actually a human being, in which case she may be ASKING FOR further “compliments” with her MIXED SIGNALS.

Or she can stay at home.

This is a perfect condensation of female experience and of the threat of sexual violence that permeates women’s lives. It’s so ordinary. The only thing extraordinary is that Karen writes about it, and writes well, and understands what it means. What it means, and the experience, is invisible. Like water to fish. Unless we write and talk about it. And of course, if we write and talk about it, we take the same risks; of being called bitches, being subjected to Denial of Service attacks, being told we’re overreacting, being marginalized, dismissed, or attacked more. Those are the conditions of the patriarchy in which we live.

And yet me must speak, and keep speaking, and speak so often that it is the deniers who sound marginal and meaningless.

Answers to Love Is Strange Trivia

With a late-night save by Melville, we have 100% solved! We have two ties, one where the posts overlapped, one where the correct answer was provided and trapped by spam filters, and then solved by someone else. So please share your award.

» Read more..

Strange Love Hints

Right here.

More fear-mongering

Today Skeletor Michael Chertoff announced he has a “gut feeling” that we’re going to be hit by terrorists this summer. There’s no specific evidence, he just feels it.

It is obvious to me that this is just another “nexusmoment; a shiny scary object to distract us from the news of the day. Which today includes “testimony” by a former White House aide who will refuse to answer actual questions, at the President’s orders, as well as the news of yesterday’s testimony by former Surgeon General Richard Carmona about how the Surgeon General’s office has been politicized and functionally destroyed.

These items, as well as the increasing bad news from Iraq and the dissent within Bush’s own party about it, are the real “gut” indicators towards terror. Except that this is such old news, such a repeated cry of Wolf, that hardly anyone is even bothering to point it out.