Bruges Group meeting

"Brexit: Winning the Peace - Charting a new course" - meeting on Monday, 3rd October 2016
Dickens Conference Room, Birmingham & Midland Institute, Margaret Street, Birmingham B3 3BS
__________________________________________________________
Some notes:

The first speaker was Professor David Myddelton. He said that the EU referendum was a political choice, not an economic one, and went through 6 points on his agenda for us:

1. Complete the process of withdrawal from the EU
2. Make free trade deals
3. Replace the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and fisheries policy with our own
4. Get control of our borders and immigration
5. Withdraw from the European Court of Justice
6. Restore the sovereignty of Parliament

He noted that when in Opposition, both Margaret Thatcher and Jeremy Corbyn had been pro membership of the EU. He also regretted that the Office for Budget Responsibility had been silent during the Referendum campaign, when its founding purpose in 2010 had been to stop economic lying. He said that if anyone were to be foolish enough to try to rerun the Referendum they would get the "biggest raspberry" ever from the public. He cited PWC's campaign forecast that real GDP would rise 29% by 2030 if we stayed in the EU, but 25% if we left: the price seemed well worth it.

He reminded us that Edward Heath had been in favour of ever-closer union, but between a small number of nations with similar living standards. Widening membership militated against this, causing strains between richer and poorer countries. The EU could not survive without reform. He quoted Hume on free trade and how he (Hume) looked forward to it increasing the wealth of other countries also - "even the French".

The Professor sketched out some ideas for reform:

1. The UK to join with other countries outside the EU, e.g. Denmark and Sweden, to form an "EDU" - a European Democratic Union.
2. The EDU to entice other EU countries to join then: Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland.
3. The EU divided nations along several lines: North-South, democratic-authoritarian political cultures, poor-wealthy. We should not put up barriers to the "free movement of labour", but that is what the movement should be about - so perhaps we could have some system for work permits, like the Visegrád Group.

In his view, the Prime Minister's idea to import all existing EU laws into British law, as a temporary measure, was a good one, giving us time to modify them as best suits us.

Next up was Breitbart editor/writer James Delingpole. He noted that after leaving the EU we will still have a framework of regulation, since we will be trading under WTO rules. But we will be able to make our own trade deals more quickly and efficiently, compared with the EU which takes on average 7 years to agree a deal.

He revisited June 24th - his "happy place" - recalling how he had gone to bed the previous night in despair, especially since Nigel Farage was quoted as saying he thought Remain had "just edged it" - and woken to the scarcely-believable news that Leave had won.

So, since all the EU Establishment including "Christine "Ronseal" Lagarde" were united in saying the market would crash, he bought shares, focusing on ones with "British" in their names. He made £500.

What had we learned?

1. After most of a lifetime feeling like an outsider, he had realised "We are the majority."
2. The Establishment elite does not represent us. Remarkably few of the well-breeched and well-educated were on "our" side, despite being landowners, aware of our nation's history and so on. Yet they couldn't clearly explain why they were on favour of Remain - they had no principle or ideology. They were like those ancestors who had wanted to treat with Napoleon, whatever might then happen to the rest of England.
3. The problem of the Remainers was not going to go away. Now it was an attempt to muddy the waters with a newly-minted distinction between "soft Brexit" versus "hard Brexit" - a distinction which, his Google Trends researches told him, was first made by... the BBC.

He had thought there was no hope, what with so many people having become clients of the State. When Jo Cox MP was murdered he had though it was over; but "real people" weren't swayed so easily by events as focus and policy groups might think. The People - the Demos - had spoken and made the right decision.

Last up - or first, as the other two had spoken seated - was Charles Moore. He, too, referred to the hard vs soft Brexit pseudo-debate and quoted a worker at his hotel: "It's got to be divorce."

He told us that Mrs Thatcher had begun to resist the EU in the late 1980s but was told, "This is the way the world is going." It was a ratchet effect. She had realised that EMU would make Germany the supreme power. Sir James Goldsmith's Referendum campaign hadn't succeeded, but politically it had stopped EMU.

The EU was not simply a market, but a "single regulatory regime."

Our national division over the EU referendum needed to be healed; we had to "widen the tent" and Mrs May, who had been "a tepid Remainer", was well placed to do this.

Now, the ratchet effect was in the other direction. Other nations would also wish to leave. Leaving the EU was "the only game in town", as Mo Mowlam had said to him (though he had disliked it) re the Good Friday Agreement.

In questions after, Professor Myddelton was sanguine about Brexit technicalities; he respected Christopher Booker's expertise but noted that the EU gave itself licence when it wished. He was similarly relaxed about global regulatory frameworks such as TTiP and the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement. An audience member involved in defence raised his concern about our relationship with the EU's military.

Comment

My feeling was that the glow of post-Brexit delight has not yet faded sufficiently for the experts to focus on the implications and the national and global issues we still face as we come out of the eye of the financial hurricane. The sovereignty question is, for me, not merely about principle (though that is vital), but about enabling us to begin considering how to restructure our warped and vulnerable economy.

Two Trumps

Here are two interesting attempts to ease Donald Trump into some kind of explanatory narrative.

Firstly we have Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams who sees Trump as a master persuader.

Economies are driven by psychology. If you expect things to go well tomorrow, you invest today, which causes things to go well tomorrow, as long as others are doing the same. The best kind of president for managing the psychology of citizens – and therefore the economy – is a trained persuader. You can call that persuader a con man, a snake oil salesman, a carnival barker, or full of shit. It’s all persuasion. And Trump simply does it better than I have ever seen anyone do it.

Secondly we have James Williams who sees Trump as an undeserving master of clickbait attention seeking.

Trump is very straightforwardly an embodiment of the dynamics of clickbait: he is the logical product (though not endpoint) in the political domain of a media environment designed to invite, and indeed incentivize, relentless competition for our attention. In fact, Trump benefits not only from the attention and outrage of his supporters, but also that of his opponents. So you already are, in a sense, ‘voting’ for Trump every time you click that link to see what zany antics he’s gotten himself into in today’s episode. (Yes, I am aware of the ironic implications of the previous sentence for this article as a whole — more on that shortly.)

Of the two I find Scott Adams more convincing, but that’s mainly because I tend to find him moderately convincing anyway. At least he seems to think through his ideas and tries to remove personal biases.

Yet if the election turns out to be close then presumably both Trump and Clinton are master persuaders and both are master clickbait populists. There is no significant predictive power to either position. One goes with them or one doesn’t. It is merely a matter of taste yet the feeling persists that it shouldn’t be.

However - try this from Adams. To my mind this is genuine insight - not a common feature of the Trump Clinton battle.

Pacing and Leading: Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do. Normal people see this as a dangerous situation. Trained persuaders like me see this as something called pacing and leading. Trump “paces” the public – meaning he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest bad-ass on the topic, he is free to “lead,” which we see him do by softening his deportation stand, limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion, and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading, you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That’s how I see him.

Friday Night Is Music Night: Galicia Delicia

JD says: Some music from Luar na Lubre with a couple of links to Wiki and their own web page. Just realised there are seven videos and then thought, why not! :)

No apologies for inflicting more Celtic music upon you because it is wonderful! This time by the excellent Luar na Lubre from Galicia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luar_na_Lubre

http://www.luarnalubre.com/

You will recognise the first two tunes and will enjoy, no doubt, the variations on familiar themes.

Luar Na Lubre - The sailors hornpipe / Pasacorredoiras:



Luar Na Lubre - Romeiro Ao Lonxe (Con Diana Navarro)
(video slightly out of synch):



Luar Na Lubre - Hai Un Paraiso:



Luar Na Lubre - Canto De Andar:



Luar Na Lubre - Chove En Santiago:



Luar Na Lubre - Leabhar Gabhála (Torre de Breoghán)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breog%C3%A1n


Luar Na Lubre - BRITONIA



Hope that pleases everyone :)

Bill Whittle got it wrong about Hillary Clinton

... slightly. And anyway, that's not the point.

He analyses a series of lies by Mrs Clinton relating to her off-site storage of classified information on not one, but many insecure devices, and then quotes the law:

"... the simple admission that she did not turn in all of her work-related documents – for whatever reason -- was an open admission that she was in violation of U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a: which in fact is a felony. And of course, if you’re running for President, a felony looks bad on the resume."

* https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/clinton-lie-ratchet

Here is the paragraph to which he refers:

"(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

But that crack about a résumé is wide of the mark. What Mr Whittle should have quoted is the next paragraph (emphasis mine):

"(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."

* https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

So, if this is proved against Mrs Clinton, no application is needed or wanted.

I'm not American and if I were I should have a hard time choosing between Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump, for different reasons. However, in my view Trump is a symptom and Clinton part of the malaise. The USA and the UK, as well as other Western countries, are in a systemic crisis foreseen long ago by the late Sir James Goldsmith:

* http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/system-part-2-there-really-is-class-war.html

The theatre of the Presidential candidates' debate may make good emo-TV, but the underlying issue of untrammelled "free trade" and its socio-economic effects has its own narrative, irrespective of the Godzilla-versus-x franchise. It seems from reports of last night's set-to that Mrs Clinton is for it and Mr Trump, like President Coolidge's preacher re sin, is "agin' it".

It's still possible, of course, that the egregious Mr Trump could win the national vote and lose the Presidency, thanks to the workings of the Electoral College - he wouldn't be the first.

Time for the real democracy that you and I love so much. Perhaps, if we little Brits could have a referendum on EU membership, Americans  could have one on TPP, TiSA and all the rest? After all, the EU is just a scale model of globalism. And then, like us, you could have the fun of watching whoever takes the leadership try to get out of the plebiscite's result - or be thwarted and subverted in attempts to honour it.

I was getting ready to go down the Ecuadorian Embassy behind Harrod's and ask for asylum - move over, Julian Assange - but June 23rd took me by surprise. In Churchill's words after Alamein: "We have victory - a remarkable and definite victory. A bright gleam has caught the helmets of our soldiers."

Cling on to hope, and remember it's not about them, it's about you.

___________________________________________________________

Also posted at Talkmarkets: http://www.talkmarkets.com/contributor/rolfnorfolk/blog/economics--politics/bill-whittle-got-it-wrong-about-hillary-clinton?post=107440

Why we need to lose 50 MPs

It's the desperate overcrowding:

(Pic source)

Let's call it a cat

As we waited for a traffic light on upper Broadway, I saw a sporting extra headlined with the score of the game. The green sheet was more real than the afternoon itself--succinct, condensed and clear:

PRINCETON CONQUERS YALE 10-3

SEVENTY THOUSAND WATCH TIGER TRIM

BULLDOG

DEVLIN SCORES ON YALE FUMBLE

There it was--not like the afternoon, muddled, uncertain, patchy and scrappy to the end, but nicely mounted now in the setting of the past:

PRINCETON, 10; YALE, 3

Achievement was a curious thing, I thought. Dolly was largely responsible for that. I wondered if all things that screamed in the headlines were simply arbitrary accents. As if people should ask, "What does it look like?"

"It looks most like a cat."

"Well, then, let's call it a cat."

My mind, brightened by the lights and the cheerful tumult, suddenly grasped the fact that all achievement was a placing of emphasis--a molding of the confusion of life into form.

F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Bowl (1928)

An unusually long quote but the context is important - an American football game - muddled, uncertain, patchy and scrappy to the end, but nicely mounted now in the setting of the past. And here again is the conclusion Fitzgerald's character draws from all the tidying up so that everything is nicely mounted.

My mind, brightened by the lights and the cheerful tumult, suddenly grasped the fact that all achievement was a placing of emphasis--a molding of the confusion of life into form.

Not particularly easy to generalise as an insight into the essentially artificial nature of achievement because there are obvious caveats. Eliminating hunger globally would be more than a mere placing of emphasis. So expanding Fitzgerald’s observation to wider achievements is not so easy. As well as the caveats it requires a kind of lateral cynicism, a willingness and even a desire to step away from the social clamour and focus on the artificial aspects of achievement. Perhaps it is also easy to see such an attitude as overdone, as envy or misanthropy taken too far.

And yet... and yet all achievement is a placing of emphasis because it must be. We have to define what counts as achievement and what does not, even if we are eliminating hunger or aiming to cure cancer. We have to emphasise the necessary qualities of achievement before it counts as achievement, even if that emphasis is perfectly obvious to the entire world.

Staying with sporting achievement - suppose the rules of soccer were to be changed. Smaller or bigger pitches, a different number of players, changes to the scoring, kick-ins instead of throw-ins, no offside rule. Whatever we do we have to say how the game is to be won or lost, we have to define the achievement of winning by a placing of emphasis. As we all know the emphasis on winning has become so overblown that even the idea of football as a sporting contest seems naive. The emphasis has shifted.

A more tricky example might be Jeremy Corbyn winning the general election for Labour in 2020. That would certainly be a remarkable achievement by conventional standards, yet the man probably doesn’t expect to win. His notion of achievement may be centred around a different placing of emphasis, shifting the Labour party towards the more totalitarian politics he and his supporters favour.

The internet is a remarkable achievement by conventional standards, but again we could step aside so that this too becomes a placing of emphasis. The power of almost instant global communication is emphasised over a range of more sedate alternatives such as talking, doing and taking part. This does not imply that the internet is a malign influence. It merely reminds us that popular emphasis is merely that – emphasis - and that one achievement often precludes another. 

Friday Night Is Music Night: Mood Blue

JD writes:

"Can blue men sing the whites?"

That's a very good question. In the late fifties and early sixties many of the British musicians who were part of the 'beat boom' were greatly influenced by America's blues singers and soul singers and this influenced the way the music developed. Some of the more pompous music journalists at the time were scornful of these 'white' boys trying to sing in the style of their idols saying that they were not 'authentic' whatever that means. In response to such silly journalism and possibly agreeing with them, you never quite know with Vivian Stanshall, The Bonzo Dog Band recorded a song called "Can blue men sing the whites?" Very whimsical and very British, of course.

But there are indeed not a few 'blue' men and women who really can sing blues or R&B with great feeling and 'soul' At least three of these singers here earned the respect of, and were fully endorsed by, the very singers they were trying to emulate!

Joe Cocker - Ray Charles said Cocker had one of the best voices he had ever heard.



Ottillie Patterson



Christine Perfect



Bonnie Bramlett was from 1963 to 1966 an 'Ikette', a backing singer for Ike and Tina Turner. She wrote this song with Leon Russell. It was originally recorded as 'Groupie' (with rather more explicit lyrics)



Miller Anderson



And three from Sir George Ivan "Van" Morrison, OBE

Spurious signals

One of the pleasures of modern language is the invention of particularly apt, powerfully descriptive phrases such as ‘virtue signalling’. This seems to be a recent one. According to Google Trends it first appeared as a blip in 2009 then rose from obscurity in 2015. In spite of claims by James Bartholomew it probably originated within signalling theory. Google Ngram Viewer isn’t aware of it at all.

Virtue signalling is the expression or promotion of viewpoints that are especially valued within a social group, especially when this is done primarily to enhance the social standing of the speaker. For example, expressing a hatred of the conservative newspaper Daily Mail might be an example of virtue signalling on the British left. The term is chiefly used by commentators to criticize the platitudinous and empty or superficial support of socially progressive views on social media, but has also been used to describe analogous behaviour in other groups, such as pro-gun rights grandstanding among the American right, and by signalling theorists to discuss conspicuous piety among the religious faithful as well as agnostics and atheists.

A real stonker of a phrase, it is extraordinarily powerful as a concise term for vast swathes of unedifying human behaviour. Yet the idea of signalling is hardly new - Strindberg saw it in art.

...for my art was incapable of expressing a single idea; at the most it could represent the body in a position expressing an emotion accompanying a thought—or, in other words, express a thought at third hand. It is like signalling, meaningless to all who cannot read the signals. I only see a red flag, but the soldier sees the word of command: Advance!

August Strindberg – The Red Room (1879)

In which case and given that it is now so obvious that virtue signalling is a vital aspect of human behaviour, what prevented us from describing it in such a powerfully accessible way before? Perhaps it is because, as we well know, forceful phrases soon become overused, lose their vigour and slip off into the land of cliché.

Which would be handy for those who rely on virtue signalling because it cuts so deeply into the social fabric. It exposes the manipulative mechanisms of power, the screen behind which personal interests hide.

Celebrity culture, mainstream journalism, drama, political allegiances, the EU, the UN, major charities, environmental drama, major sporting events and international businesses all lean heavily on virtue signalling. They cannot say so or folk might expect some genuine virtues instead of being caught up in the nonsense themselves. We can’t have that can we?

Dangerous Gaslight

"I told you to put that cigarette out, but would you listen?"

We've all heard the music, but has anyone seen the film?

Corbyn: if that's fair coverage, I'm one of these

Phrase here, images adapted from here and here

I don't support Mr Corbyn. I don't even vote Labour, yet, though I may if this sort of thing carries on. It's all a bit like Trump: the Establishment is in hysteria at the appearance of a not-business-as-usual candidate.

Judge the OTT language in this tidbit from the Mail on Sunday (pp 12-13):

"Secret... wipe out... plot... savage new purge... stranglehold..."

Oddly, the side article by Simon Walters about Mark Sandell's "Hard-Left plot" to unseat MP Peter Kyle is not available online, as far as I can see.

Now if the Middle East millions killed and made homeless with the help of Mr Blair and Mr Cameron are a success story for centrists, it is difficult to imagine what extremism must be like. Elsewhere (page 27) is a whinge by John Woodcock MP, who complains of being on a "hit list" but who voted for airstrikes in Syria - perhaps he should moderate his language so that real "hitting" can be seen in a true light.

And Dan Hodges! The picture editor had the nerve to repeat the photo online, but here's the truly awful eye-catcher in the print edition (p. 39):

Mr Hodges has his own wordmark; "Incendiary. Incisive. In the corridors of power". Some modern journalists are so far up themselves that they can see through their own back teeth. Incendiary, yes. Insane, perhaps, if he cannot tell the difference between a wet Labour MP and Ivan Denisovich; or between Stalin, as is implied here, and Hitler, as below.

Let's now turn to a nasty, desperate, unjustifiable piece of innuendo, a touchstone for MSM discussion of radical Labour. On the same double page as the first article there is a smear: A heard B say something nasty about Holocaust ovens to C, and although it has nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn, it is made to sort of appear that it does:

Hard copy - Mail On Sunday 18.09.2016, pp 12-13

Note:

1. The remark was made not at a Labour meeting, but at the Proms!
2. The alleged offender was not a Labour politician or wonk, but Dr Leslie Jones, the deputy editor of a right-wing magazine called The Quarterly Review
3. The alleged victim was Henrietta Foster, a BBC journalist, who is not Jewish, not related to Michael Foster (of whom more below) and not involved in the Foster-related Twitterspit/spat with Mr Bright. However she had appeared in a film, questioning the son of a Nazi, and is writing a book about Hungarian Jews. At a previous reception, she had previously told Dr Jones to "**** off" - because the latter had voted to leave the EU!
4. The alleged witness was Martin Bright, a former Observer journalist and former worker for Tony Blair's Faith Foundation, therefore dubbed in the headline as "Blair aide", i.e. not.
5. Michael Foster - not involved in the incident - is or was a donor to the Labour Party, is Jewish, and compared Jeremy Corbyn's leadership group to the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA), because (so I understand) Mr Foster supports the State of Israel and wishes it to continue in the Middle East; I also understand that Jewishness and "Zionism" are not the same thing and that there are Jews who are also not "Zionists" [for example, please see the True Torah Jews website, run by Orthodox Jews]
6. On an unrelated matter, Mr Bright criticised the suspension of Mr Foster from the Labour Party some days ago and some people said supposedly nasty things to the former on Twitter, such as (a) Mr Foster encourages anti-Semitic sentiment by his actions [? support for Israel and/or intemperate language classing non-Zionists as Nazis] and (b) the suspension was a good decision and Mr Corbyn should also remove other activists for Mr Foster's chosen cause. Looking closely at the "tweets", I cannot see anything actionable in terms of anti-Semitism, but perhaps I do not see things as a lawyer can. Also, though the tweeters are described as "Corbynista", the article does not show that they are members of the Labour Party, Labour voters or indeed that they are Corbyn supporters rather than false-flag trolls. Not, of course that the twittling has anything to do with this particular bit of nonsense, anyway.

So, a person who is politically on the opposite side from Labour is abominably rude to another person who was previously abominably rude to himself because of a completely unrelated issue, and is overheard by a third person who was not, pace the headline, politically a "Blair aide" but an ex-worker for one the ex-PM's private organisations. The offensive exchange was not to do with a suspended Labour Party donor or political differences over the State of Israel. Mr Corbyn and his Parliamentary colleagues and co-workers were not involved in any way.

But by golly the link had to be made, even if it didn't exist. The fake tear-out visual says "Corbyn purges top Jewish donor over MoS article... and reignites race row". It is a moot question whether Jews are a race or a religion; also, exactly what either has to do with a political/nationalist issue called "Zionism"; but this tangential scrap is used to complete a papier-mâché parody of Mr Corbyn and his leadership of the Labour Party.

I assume drink had been taken on all sides, but I begin to wonder about the reporter and editor also!

The article is piffle, and so utterly misleading as to remind one of the term "doublethink". Not surprising, when you consider that the MoS' editor is Geordie Greig, a Scot who campaigned in the MoS for the independence of Scotland and against independence for the UK, and continues to do so now. A bovinely stubborn and logically incoherent Mr Greig; an oxymoron, perhaps.

In the oo-er-perhaps-we-need-to-amend-it-a-bit online avatar of the same article, the body text and tear-out are the same, but the headline is changed, and bullet points added. In an egregious (e-Greig-ious?) piece of weaselspeak, the word "separate" is newly introduced in order to admit in passing that two connected things are not connected:

Holocaust film-maker is told to 'get back in the oven' by literary magazine editor as witness reveals separate anti-Semitic abuse by Corbynistas 

• Dr Leslie Jones, editor of the Quarterly Review Magazine, launched rant
• She told BBC's Henrietta Foster to 'get back in oven' at Proms reception
• Witness Martin Bright said he has been targeted with anti-Semitic abuse
• He criticised Labour Party for suspending Jewish donor Michael Foster 

Online, there is also a lovely photograph of the fashionably tieless and unshaven Mr Bright, adding nothing to the core matter but contributing to that all-important visual miasma of victimhood and social justice, for those who find words difficult to read and interpret.

And, presumably realizing that they may be open to a counterattack because of their possibly libellous implications of anti-semitism (a hate crime) against Mr Corbyn, the editors have now included a video clip of Mr Corbyn condemning it. This is the Youtube link, though it seems it's the same as the one accessed through the Mail:




The MoS: for the deranged, by the deranged. I wouldn't get it at all, except for the column by Peter Hitchens who, by the way, though he supports Israel and does not support Mr Corbyn, respects him. I think the MoS would sometimes like to get rid of Mr Hitchens, too - it did for a while, last year:

http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/spoiled-papers-strange-disappearance-of.html

Milo's sweetly preening video here rejoices in Trump's humiliation of the biased and manipulative mainstream media. As he says (2:19), "Here's what no journalist in America seems to understand: everyone hates you!"



Not just in the USA, dear Milo.

Art on Sunday: JD on "Dysphoria" by Lizzie Rowe

"Dysphoria", by Lizzie Rowe
http://artuk.org/discover/artworks/dysphoria-36375

I first saw this painting two or three years ago. It is hanging in The Laing Art Gallery in Newcastle. The reproductions of it on the net are poor and do not reflect the subtlety of the colours nor the depth nor the mysterious shadowy details upper left. The paint is very thickly applied over most of the surface, especially the whites of the dress which seem to have been almost plastered onto the surface.

A very interesting picture, very visceral and with layers of unknown meanings within it. When I then walked forward to read the label, I was rather surprised to see the name Lizzie Rowe. Surprised because I had previously seen some of her paintings in The Biscuit Factory and they did not engage me at all. I was more impressed by other paintings by Paul Harvey (one of The Stuckists) on display in the same show.

I have not met Lizzie Rowe but I know several people who have and who know her extremely well. On her web page she and others make no secret of the artist's journey from married heterosexual man (and father) to transgendered woman. Knowing the story, or most of it from those who know her, it is obvious that the change was traumatic and very difficult psychologically and this is reflected in part in her paintings. One hundred years from now such biographical details will be but a footnote of little consequence, it is the paintings themselves which are, or should be, the focus of attention.

I went back this morning to have another look at the painting just to see if it still evoked the same response in me. It does. The thickness of the paint is a very striking feature of it. The white semi-circle looks as though it has been applied directly from the tube. The record player, the TV and the ironing board on the right are more vibrant than in the reproductions and the strange ambiguity of the top left is even more mysterious than I remember. Thickly applied paint may suggest a slapdash approach but, in fact, it is very carefully done and the various details are clearly defined.

Last night I was looking through a book called "What Painting Is" by James Elkins. This is one of the best books about painting that I have ever read.

Elkins says that painting is the act of 'smearing coloured mud onto paper or linen' and that is the cold analytical definition but '... it is also liquid thought.'

That is a very profound statement. He goes on to quote the painter Frank Auerbach who wrote, "As soon as I become consciously aware of what the paint is doing my involvement with the painting is weakened. Paint is at its most eloquent when it is a by-product of some corporeal, spatial, developing imaginative concept, a creative identification with the subject."

What he is trying to say there is that painting, or any creative activity, is not a product of the conscious mind but is an unconscious process. Just like walking - learning to walk requires great concentration and much effort but the more you do it the less you need to think about how you do it.

Elkins continues the theme of the difficulty of explaining the thought processes involved in creating a painting- "Things only get harder to articulate when the religious meanings come into focus, and it begins to appear that the studio work - the labour - really is about redemption."

That may sound grandiose but art and religion are inseparable. They have been intertwined since the dawn of time. There is no religion or belief system in history that does not have its artistic expression.

Elkins uses the word 'religious' but I would suggest that 'spiritual' would be a better word. As I said above, any creative activity is an unconscious process which is what Auerbach was suggesting. The artist or the craftsman, and to a lesser extent the artisan and the tradesman, is involved in a strange synthesis of hand/eye/brain with the thing being created. It involves a physical effort in the act of creation and often produces a spiritual elation. The mundane, secular world calls that 'job satisfaction' but that is to trivialise it with its hint of smug self-gratification. It is not that at all, it is the calm or 'inner peace' which is the result of deep concentration and, as Auerbach notes, identification with the subject.

In the painting, the figure at the centre is deep in concentration in the act of gathering together the pearls from the broken string and that gives a stillness to the picture; a moment of calm between the activity depicted on the right and the strange ethereal quality coming from the top left of the picture. Others may have a different interpretation but that is my own reading of it.

With the reference to religion made by Elkins, we reach a point where the modern secular world closes its mind. It is not the done thing to discuss religion. The case is closed - there is no ghost in the machine!

But art is a perfect link between science and religion, between the secular and the spiritual. As the painter, the late Iain Carstairs says-

'Art is that endeavour in which consciousness imposes an otherwise intangible element of itself onto matter in such a way that it can be decoded by others: it is an alchemy which maths can never analyse or create.'

And the physicist Richard Feynman had this to say-

"I wanted very much to learn to draw, for a reason that I kept to myself: I wanted to convey an emotion I have about the beauty of the world. It’s difficult to describe because it’s an emotion.

"It’s analogous to the feeling one has in religion that has to do with a god that controls everything in the universe: there’s a generality aspect that you feel when you think about how things that appear so different and behave so differently are all run ‘behind the scenes’ by the same organization, the same physical laws. It’s an appreciation of the mathematical beauty of nature, of how she works inside; a realization that the phenomena we see result from the complexity of the inner workings between atoms; a feeling of how dramatic and wonderful it is.It’s a feeling of awe — of scientific awe — which I felt could be communicated through a drawing to someone who had also had that emotion. I could remind him, for a moment, of this feeling about the glories of the universe."

Art is the gateway to the world of spirit, to heaven. If you prefer a scientific explanation you could say it is the gateway to what the physicist David Bohm calls 'the implicate order' from which the material world flows and to which it returns.

"Vita brevis, ars longa."
___________________________________________
References:

http://www.lizzierowe.co.uk/Lizzie_Rowe/Reception.html

https://laingartgallery.org.uk/

http://www.thebiscuitfactory.com/

http://www.stuckism.com/

http://www.jameselkins.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=227:what-painting-is&catid=2:trade-books&Itemid=9

Feynman quote from-
https://iaincarstairs.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/knowing-and-observing/

David Bohm (Wholeness & The Implicate Order)
http://david-bohm.net/

I, Prime Minister

How many people have died as a result of ACL Blair's falling-in with GW Bush's mysterious assault on Iraq? How many others in the Middle East, from DWD Cameron's overt and covert actions in the Middle East?

Thinking of Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics* (and the many related potential conundrums he explored in his stories), I wonder how we might frame general principles for Prime Ministers.

Here is my first and likely heavily flawed attempt:

1. A Prime Minister may not [on aggregate] injure a human being or, through inaction, [on aggregate] allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A Prime Minister must obey the law, Parliamentary conventions, the British Constitution and the outcome of British plebiscites except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A Prime Minister must protect the sovereignty, security and prosperity of the nation as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Any suggestions? And what Asimov-like plot twists could arise?

________________________________

*Or four, as they later came to be: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_robotics#Isaac_Asimov.27s_.22Three_Laws_of_Robotics.22

Friday Night Is Music Night: An Assortment Of Duplessy

JD introduces the eclectic work of a modern composer:

Mathias Duplessy is a French composer of film and TV soundtracks. He is also a musical explorer seeking out other musical traditions from around the world and adapting and fusing these into his own unique blend of music: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Duplessy

Duplessy & the violins of the world: "CRAZY HORSE"



Duplessy & Guo Gan: "LE VOL DU HERON" 


Mukhtiyar Ali & Mathias Duplessy: "Tere ishq natchaya" 



 "Hélas mon cueur n'est pas à moy"


Duplessy & Aliocha Regnard: "The road to east"

The Parliamentary assault on democracy: a sneak preview of coming changes

The British people are inconvenient:

* They lobbied their MPs against the bombing of Syria, thus depriving Mr Cameron of his opportunity to follow Blair's example as condom for the US President's illicit sorties.
* They voted the wrong way in the EU Referendum.
* They persist in the delusion (shared by some of their representatives, e.g. Hons Dennis Skinner, Frank Field, David Davis) that Parliament is there to serve the common man and woman, as though the contemptible riff-raff had ever been intended to share in the rights secured by their betters under Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution.

The time has come to roll back the reforms of 1832 and other similar historical mistakes. Before the Great Reform Act, the MP for Old Sarum was decided by 7 voters. Even after it, the average British constituency size was merely 1,236.

Now, thanks to unrestricted breeding and the extension of the franchise to men of all classes, women and children (some wish the voting age to be lowered to 16), each seat has 71,300 voters, and once 50 of the present 650 Commons seats have been abolished it will be some 77,250.

This is proceeding most satisfactorily. Already, the people must combine and it takes all of them, including the voice of the littlest Who, to be heard by Horton:

Image adapted from
http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/jh4kjh4.png

But it must be admitted. even that was an impertinence. As the Duke of Wellington remarked when cheered by his men at the Battle of Waterloo,"It comes dangerously close to an expression of opinion."

As so often, we can learn from the Bard:

A Gentleman informs me, that doing away with 1/13th of MPs is merely the first stage in the national plan. I can exclusively reveal several future developments:

1. Progressive reduction in Commons numbers to two, one for the Government and one for HM loyal Opposition. The draft constituency boundaries are illustrated on the map below.

2. In divisions, each of the two MPs' votes will be weighted according to the number of votes cast for them in the previous General Election. Votes of no confidence will be pointless, since the Government will have a permanent majority.

3. Initially, General Elections will continue on the basis of "one person, one vote". But since the seats roughly represent Wealth Creators and Parasites, the system will at some stage be altered to "one pound, one vote." The expected revenues raised in this way may enable the Government to abolish income tax altogether.

4. The House of Lords to be abolished; their Lordships will be granted automatic membership of the Groucho Club or an alternative London club of their choosing. They will continue to receive their allowances, which will help defray their expenses at the buttery and cellar of their club.

5. Parliament to remove to a UK central location and the Palace of Westminster sold to developers fainting with greed and gratitude.

Where should the new Parliament be sited? The centre of the UK's population is said to be Appleby Magna in Leicestershire; of England (the only country of any importance), Meriden in Solihull. Neither of these is suitable: where is the room for civil servants, policy wonks, paid liars, lobbyists, hairdressers, restaurateurs, mistresses, whores, rent-boys etc?

Fortunately, a planned high-rise building in Birmingham could provide the necessary space and access to exploitable human dross:

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/business-news/plans-birminghams-tallest-office-building-9890130

The top floor might accommodate both MPs and the Speaker, plus office retinue; upper floors could contain the other workers mentioned above; lower floors, the online and on-phone Customer Service Representatives who will perform the functions of the now-redundant constituency MPs' offices; security on the ground floor; and the army of spies where they belong, in the many-tiered basement levels, away from natural light and air.

The savings on taxis and ministerial cars will in themselves be sufficient to fund the move.

Far more efficient, and far less fuss.

Little-Known Facts 1: Laughter in Mesopotamia

One of the most popular features in the Sumerian equivalent of “Reader’s Digest” was a merry look at military life entitled “Humour in Cuneiform”. A sample is shown below:

The text reads: "What's an Elamite urn?" - "Thirty karsha silver* a year."

*(Regarded as a good wedge, in those days.)

The magazine throve because it was light reading - the monthly issue could be borne by a single yoke of oxen.

Ultimately it became a victim of its own success when the increased weight of advertising significantly diverted logistical resources during the Elamite siege of Ur, leading to the fall of the city, the abduction of King Ibbi-Sin and, of course, the slaughter or enslavement of its subscribers.

Choose your battles

Never contend with a Man who has nothing to Lose; for thereby you enter into an unequal conflict. The other enters without anxiety; having lost everything, including shame, he has no further loss to fear.

Baltasar Gracian - The Art of Worldly Wisdom (1647)

Why did Theresa May choose to resurrect the battle over grammar schools and selective education? She may feel strongly about it as many do, but the issue is controversial and Jeremy Corbyn should have no trouble making political capital from it.

Unfortunately for May, she has now engineered a situation where she must contend with a Man who has nothing to Lose. 

Friday Night Is Music Night: A Night At The Operetta

JD serves up a tapas assortment of tunes:

Here is another selection of music which reminds me of my good old daze in Madrid :)

Many years ago there was a bar in Madrid who would have, every five or six weeks, a musical evening. There would be three or four singers plus a piano and they would belt out a few operatic arias and popular songs from Zarzuela which is a Spanish style of operetta similar to Gilbert & Sullivan. The bar was always packed with customers who enjoyed a splendid evening's entertainment. And in the early hours we would meander homewards full of joy and good cheer! I say meander because who walks in a straight line when they are happy? The bar is still there but under new ownership so I don't know if they still have musical evenings. I hope they do and here follows a sample of what we enjoyed on those splendidly convivial evenings.



This next one may look like "The Good Old Days" on BBC TV but the costumes worn on stage can be seen on the streets of Madrid during the Fiesta de San Isidro, 15th May every year (actually a nine day festival)

ART: "Las Tres Gracias", by Alejandra Hernández

Source: http://www.gallerialaveronica.it/artworks/alejandra-hernandez-038-las-tres-gracias/#&gid=1&pid=1
Reproduced with the kind permission of the artist

This is a new work by the Colombian-born artist (1), part of a solo show at Marseilles entitled "Art-O-Rama". (2)

There are many things that attract and interest me about this painting, which I think is a masterpiece.

In the first place, it is women's nudity seen by a woman, and does not have that Peeping Tom feeling of so much conventional nude art, in which the models often seem to be irritated, resentful, uncomfortable. By contrast, I don't think there is much in men's art to match e.g. Zinaida Serebriakova's portraits of her daughters, clearly proud of them physically, in their entirety, and also full of love for them as her children and as extensions of that very confident, sexy and determined self that was apparent in her early dressing-table self-portrait. (3).

With Hernández's painting here, too, the figures are unembarrassed yet not showing off to a male eye. Not knowing at first the circumstances, I had the impression of flatmates in a hot climate, passing through the most enervating part of the day.

As Catherine Beaumont has observed to me, the girl at centre is not staring back at us directly, and this allows the eye to rove around the picture and explore the objects (the artist encouraged sitters to bring artefacts of personal significance with them). I love the innocent absorption on the face of the melodica player and she introduces another dimension - sound - which teases us to imagine what she may be playing and what the timbre might be like (and the puzzle of the grey fingers - a potter, perhaps?) I'm also drawn to the creature - a piranha? - with savage teeth; the fly-whisk; the rather young-child's toy at bottom right; the items on the wall; the studio light.

Then there are the different attitudes, again informal and demonstrating the unconsciously beautiful suppleness of the female body (I'm reminded of a favourite D H Lawrence word, "flexuous"). A series of meetings and conversations paved the way for the palpable atmosphere of relaxation and trust. There is clearly a sense of familiarity and engagement with their emotionally charged objects, with each other and the artist herself. In this nurturing one sees a parallel with Rubens' nude portrait of his young wife in a fur coat - her slight smile and shining eye said, as my wife noted, that she trusted him. (4)

There is humour in the extravagant, abandoned inversion of the girl on the left and its juxtaposition to the tensed concentration of the middle girl, while the one on the right is bored or patient, half-dreaming and with (if I see right) rather modern tattooed eyebrows. All are natural in their own way, but in a way not often seen in art, and merit the term Graces.

And the energizing colours! I love that milky blue, the sort of hue chosen to make you feel less oppressed by heat, yet contrasting with the sharp reds on the shawl and some of the other items.

The girls are self-possessedly adult and yet, because of the socks and some of the items they have chosen to accompany them, also still very young, a picture of transition, a group that will soon separate: I think of Larkin's trainful of people arriving at the final destination - "A sense of falling, like an arrow-shower / Sent out of sight, somewhere becoming rain." (4)

(1) Her site: http://alejandrahernandez.com/
(2) http://alejandrahernandez.com/gallery/art-o-rama-marseille-solo-show-with-galleria-laveronica/
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Serebriakova#/media/File:Serebryakova_SefPortrait.jpg
(4) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_Het_pelsken_1636-1638.jpg
(5) "The Whitsun Weddings" - https://www.poetryfoundation.org/resources/learning/core-poems/detail/48411

Japan threatens Britain

"Brexit: Japan warns firms may move European HQ out of Britain" -  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37270372

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-256

Russia And Korea In Free-Trade Talks: Oceania, Meet Eurasia And Eastasia

Latest article on TalkMarkets, here:

http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/economics--politics/russia-and-korea-in-free-trade-talks-oceania-meet-eurasia-and-eastasia?post=105194

Globalism: The Final Conflict Looms

The EU is just a model village of globalism. Leaving the EU - not that we've done it yet - is only the very beginning, tough as that was.

Now comes the big fight, against TPP, TiSA, TTIP etc.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/09/the-most-brazen-corporate-power-grab-in-american-history.html

"These three agreements solidify the creeping corporate coup d’état along with the final evisceration of national sovereignty. Citizens will be forced to give up control of their destiny and will be stripped of the ability to protect themselves from corporate predators, safeguard the ecosystem and find redress and justice in our now anemic and often dysfunctional democratic institutions. The agreements—filled with jargon, convoluted technical, trade and financial terms, legalese, fine print and obtuse phrasing—can be summed up in two words: corporate enslavement. 

"The TPP removes legislative authority from Congress and the White House on a range of issues. Judicial power is often surrendered to three-person trade tribunals in which only corporations are permitted to sue. Workers, environmental and advocacy groups and labor unions are blocked from seeking redress in the proposed tribunals. The rights of corporations become sacrosanct. The rights of citizens are abolished."

Friday Night Is Music Night: A Good Night Innes

JD introduces the genius of Innes:

Some more music for your friday slot. This time it is Neil Innes; all good stuff :)

Often overlooked by the cognoscenti, Neil Innes is a very talented musician who contributed a great deal to the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band. He also provided the music for Rutland Weekend Television and then had his own TV series the Innes Book of Records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Innes









He did a song with the Bonzos called "can blue men sing the whites?" You may remember it. That set me thinking and I found quite a few 'blue' men and women who really can sing the 'whites' and so another music post was born for later :)

Sackerson adds a couple of bonus tracks: the first ("My pink half of the drainpipe") was featured yesterday on Bill Sticker, and the other one ("Cat meat conga") has given me a friendly wave in my head on and off for decades:

A pint of Pol Roger please

From the Daily Telegraph we hear

One of the world’s oldest champagne makers is preparing to sell the fizzy drink in pint bottles – Winston Churchill's favourite measure – after Britain leaves the European Union, the Telegraph can disclose.

Pol Roger wants to sell champagne in imperial measures for the first time since 1973, when Britain’s decision to join the European Economic Community meant only metric measurements were allowed.

Seems reasonable, but will it have a decent head on it?

ART: JD on Hieronymus Bosch's "The Garden Of Earthly Delights" (c. 1490-1510)

JD explores the mystery of Bosch's painting:

By Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1450–1516) - Galería online, Museo del Prado., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45147809

I found this on one of the BBC web pages about the painting "The garden of earthly delights" by Hieronymus Bosch: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160809-hidden-meanings-in-the-garden-of-earthly-delights

It is mainly about a musical notation painted on the posterior of a naked body in the right hand panel of the triptych. The music was transcribed in 2014 by Amelia Hamrick, a music student at Oklahoma Christian University. Here is the music (played by Jim Spalink):



The convention among art scholars and critics is that the three panels of the triptych are read from left to right as Paradise; this world; a vision of hell. The music is in the panel showing hell but it doesn't sound hellish to me... quite the opposite in fact. But there is another, choral version of the same music which sounds much darker:



I have stood or sat in front of that painting many times in the Prado and it is baffling and fascinating. So what do I know about it? Well, I know that Phillip II acquired the painting at auction in 1591. He also owned this painting by Bosch:

By Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1450–1516) or follower - www.museodelprado.es : Home : Info : Pic, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1170708

- which was used as a table top in his private rooms at El Escorial. They are both now on display in The Prado.

What does it all mean? Well, nobody seems to know. The medieval mind inhabited a very different universe. There are many theories; alchemical references, biblical references, hermetic references as well as the idea that Bosch was on a 'psychedelic trip' because at that time a great deal of the bread was contaminated with the ergot fungus. LSD is distilled from ergot so eating such bread could possibly induce similar effects. I am not entirely convinced by that last one.

Alchemical? Lots of books devoted to the idea but Adam McLean is less than convinced:

http://www.alchemywebsite.com/bosch/alchemy.html

Christianity? Certainly Bosch was a devout Christian and the painting is believed to have been commissioned by Engelbrecht II of Nassau, in or shortly after 1481, when he attended the Chapter of the Order of the Golden Fleece, this Order being a Roman Catholic Order of Chivalry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Golden_Fleece

Another link from the BBC page is to art critic Kelly Grovier who points to the existence of an egg at the centre of the painting:

"To find it, one’s eyes need merely draw an ‘X’ from the four corners of the work and an egg marks the spot, smack before us at the dead centre of the painting. Suddenly, the tempestuous vision collapses into a mystical vanishing point. Through the timeless symbol of the unhatched egg, Bosch offers us a way out of his troubled work: the hope of a birth that’s evermore about to be." 

There are many instances of ostrich eggs hanging from the ceilings of cathedrals as well as in Mosques or Temples of other religions both east and west. There were still two hanging in Durham Cathedral as late as 1780.

The second painting mentioned above is called "The seven deadly sins" and is very explicitly Christian. It is painted in the form of an eye with the 'sins' arranged on the periphery. In the centre, in the pupil is a small painting showing Christ rising from the tomb. Around it are written the words 'Cave Cave Deus Videt' - "Take care, God is watching!" Note also the significance of placing Christ in the pupil of the eye. There are several Biblical references along those lines including Deuteronomy 32:10, Zechariah 2:8, Psalm 17:8, Proverbs 7:2.

Hermetic? Phillip and his two principal architects of the Escorial were very well versed in The Hermetica. The new palace of El Escorial was designed to be a replica of Solomon's temple so he and they would see something in the paintings which is now hidden to us with our different perceptions, education and experience.

It is worth pointing out that Phillip, like Bosch, was a devout Catholic but at that period people would not differentiate between Christianity and magic. Phillip's nemesis, Elizabeth of England, was of like mind. One of her most trusted advisors was the Magus John Dee.

I have been looking again at one of my books called "The Mercurian Monarch" and it occurred to me that this was an age when both Phillip of Spain and Elizabeth of England believed in the divine right of Kings as being very real. They believed in a divine succession through Adam, Moses and Solomon to themselves and thus had a direct connection to God which is why they felt able, even obliged, to defy ecclesiastical authority. (The king and queen on the chessboard rank higher than the bishops.)

The established Church itself was extremely hostile to any such heresy although looking at the Gothic Cathedrals or much of Renaissance art one wonders if such hostility was genuine.

I bought this book in the bookshop at El Escorial and it is extremely informative- https://www.amazon.com/Arquitectura-Magia-Biblioteca-Sumergida-Spanish/dp/8478441344 (Originally published in English but I have never seen an English version.) The book is dedicated to Rudolf Wittkower, which brings me to another book I have with the title "Allegory and the Migration of Symbols" by Wittkower: http://thamesandhudson.com/Allegory_and_the_Migration_of_Symbols/9780500274705

I looked through the last chapter "Interpretation of Visual Symbols" and it echoed the thoughts of Ernst Gombrich in his "Art and Illusion." What we see depends on perception and interpretation. Wittkower refers to the chronicles written by Marco Polo after his travels. He was widely denounced as a liar and a fantasist because those who read his stories had no concept of the things he described, they were unable to interpret his descriptions in any meaningful way because such descriptions were outwith their own experience. If you have never seen an elephant or a camel for example then you will regard a drawing of such as pure imagination or fantasy - or the product of a hallucination.

You might like to look at the illustrations from the "Livre des Merveilles", several of which are reproduced in Wittkower's book:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=livre+des+merveilles+du+monde&biw=1152&bih=611&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE8LvlmMHOAhWZOsAKHdQRAHYQ_AUIBigB

As you can see the landscapes are very stylised in the manner of Bosch and there are some very strange looking creatures in there too. Some of the images shown are of Marco Polo's book but, as the Wiki entry says, they should not be confused with Jean de Mandeville's book- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livre_des_merveilles_du_monde

There is also the way in which the accepted meaning of symbols changes over time. The most obvious example is the swastika which is a symbol of good fortune in Tibet and parts of India but is now a symbol of evil in the western world.

Another and probably more serious handicap in trying to interpret and understand the painting came with the invention by Brunelleschi of single point perspective in architectural drawings and in paintings. This changed painting forever and also altered how we now look at not just paintings but the world around us. Via photography, cinema and television we have been subtly and unintentionally brainwashed into looking without seeing. We see paintings now as if through a window, it is 'framed' and therefore we are some how set apart from the scene; peeping through a keyhole as it were.

Over the years a few painters tried to highlight the absurdity of perspective; Piranesi, Hogarth, Picasso and Escher among them. Velazquez turned it around with his painting "Las Meninas" and El Greco ignored it altogether. So it is now very difficult and almost impossible to 'see' the painting in the way that Bosch and his contemporaries saw it.

Your best guide to what it all means comes from the American painter Frank Stella who said "What you see is what you see." In other words it depends on your own perception and an interpretation based on your own experience of life which is where education becomes a handicap rather than a help - anything other than the orthodoxy of received wisdom is regarded as heresy.

Make of it all what you will but always remember the famous phrase from the Tao Te Ching: "Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know" (Lao Tzu). That includes me, so what I have written above should be taken with a grain of salt. Ignore any and all experts. The best way to understand anything, anything at all is to work it out for yourself. Start with your intuition and filter that through your reason and you will arrive at something approximating to the truth.

Note: There is currently in the Prado, Madrid an exhibition of the paintings of Bosch. It ends on 25th September. Go and see it if you can!

https://www.museodelprado.es/en/whats-on/exhibition/bosch-the-centenary-exhibition/f049c260-888a-4ff1-8911-b320f587324a

______________________________________________________________

References (other than those cited in the text):

1) "Architecture, Mysticism and Myth" by W.R. Lethaby, [1892] http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/amm/amm03.htm

2) "the apple of his eye" http://biblehub.com/zechariah/2-8.htm

3) "Hermetica" - by Walter Scott (Translator) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hermetica-Trismegistus-Hermes/dp/0877733384

4) The Mercurian Monarch" by Douglas Brooks-Davies https://www.amazon.com/Mercurian-Monarch-Magical-Politics-Spencer/dp/0719009545

5) Symbolism in chess http://enchantedmind.com/html/creativity/techniques/creative_chess.html

6) "Art and Illusion" - by E H Gombrich https://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Illusion-Psychology-Pictorial-Representation/dp/0714842087

7) Tao Te Ching http://taotechingdaily.com/tao-te-ching-chapter-56-essay/

8) "The Mysteries of Chartres Cathedral" by Louis Charpentier https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mysteries-Chartres-Cathedral-Louis-Charpentier/dp/0902103164

9) "That's the Way I see It" - by David Hockney https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thats-Way-See-David-Hockney/dp/0500280851

10)"The Object Stares Back" - by James Elkins https://www.amazon.co.uk/Object-Stares-Back-Nature-Seeing/dp/0684800950