Charles Rennie Mackintosh and the Glasgow Style

From William Newton at The Federalist:

The new Walters Art Museum exhibition, “Designing the New: Charles Rennie Mackintosh and the Glasgow Style,” explores the life and career of one of Scotland’s most singular architects and designers, in the wider context of the avant-garde art environment that existed in late-19th and early-20th century Glasgow.

The show tracks not only the life and career of Charles Rennie Mackintosh (1868-1928) but also the development of the Glasgow School of Art to which he belonged, and whose premises he famously designed. The well-publicized destruction of that building in two massive, devastating fires that took place in 2014 and 2018 were a major loss to art history, making the Walters show a highly timely exhibition that’s absolutely worth seeing.
 
Yet even this retrospective helped me to understand a great deal more about Mackintosh than I had previously, particularly in gaining a greater appreciation for the role collaboration played in his work, especially with women artists and patrons. To my mind, he and his set still remain rather ambiguous figures in the history of art.

First off, kudos to the Walters for putting on a splendidly comprehensive show about an architect and his contemporaries, without being able to take us inside one of any of their buildings. Short of actually heading over to Scotland, this exhibition is probably the closest you’ll ever be able to get to fully immersing yourself in the eclectic social and cultural atmosphere of Glasgow, circa 1900.

The museum does an excellent job in showing the work of Mackintosh side by side with the work of other members of his circle, as well as bringing in works that exemplify what was influencing the Glasgow style, what they were reacting against, and thereby giving a great deal of depth and texture to the show. Visitors to the Walters, particularly those who have never heard of either Mackintosh or the Glasgow style before, would otherwise probably have felt a bit lost. (Read more.)

 More about Mackintosh, HERE.  More about the exhibition at the Walters, HERE.
Share

The Rise of Young Black Conservatives

From Larry Elder at Front Page Mag:

What I know is this: Some 400 young blacks recently gathered in D.C., where they heard criticism of Democrats, liberals and the left. Speakers such as former Turning Point Communications Director Candace Owens, now a podcast host for Prager University, questioned blacks' overwhelming allegiance to the Democratic Party, arguing that the party pushes the narrative of systemic, structural and institutional racism for power and votes. After I spoke, young person after young person came up to me and said things like, "You introduced me to economics professors Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams," and, "because of you and your books and videos, I began to question the horrible things I was taught about the 'racist' Republican Party."

These young people did not think of themselves as victims. They recognized their good fortune as Americans living in a country of opportunity where their own future will be bright if they work hard. In my speech, I quoted black liberal Harvard sociology professor Orlando Patterson, who 28 years ago wrote: "The sociological truths are that America, while still flawed in its race relations ... is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to a greater number of black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa."

At last weekend's summit, the narrative of "structural racism" by the police was challenged with facts, studies and data. The Democrats' opposition to private vouchers was questioned, given studies showing that school choice improves reading and math scores, graduation rates and parental satisfaction. Democratic policies of reparations, race-based preferences, government-mandated minimum wage and taxes on job creators were challenged.

I have known Sowell and Williams for nearly 30 years. Their presence loomed large this weekend in Washington, D.C. For years, they were lonely voices questioning blacks' devotion to the Democratic Party. They have long argued that the welfare state has destabilized families, encouraging women "to marry the government" and men to abandon their financial and moral responsibilities. They have long argued against the job-destroying impact of the minimum wage. They have long argued that one's fate is determined not by racism but by one's willingness to invest in oneself through education, hard work and sacrifice. (Read more.)

Share

J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth

From The Imaginative Conservative:

To enter faerie—that is, a sacramental and liturgical understanding of creation—is to open oneself to the gradual discovery of beauty, truth, and excellence.[1] One arrives in faerie only by invitation and, even then, only at one’s peril. The truths to be found within faerie are greater than those that can be obtained through mere human understanding; and one finds within faerie that even the greatest works of man are as nothing compared with the majesty of creation. To enter faerie is, paradoxically, both a humbling and exhilarating experience. This is what the Oxford don and scholar J.R.R. Tolkien firmly believed.

The last story Tolkien published prior to his death, “Smith of Wootton Major,” follows a normal but charitably inclined man who has been graced with the ability to make extraordinarily beautiful things while metal smithing. Smith, as he is known, discovered the gift of grace on his tenth birthday, when the dawn engulfed him and “passed on like a wave of music into the West, as the sun rose above the rim of the world.”[2] Like the earth at the end of Eliot’s “Wasteland,” Tolkien’s Smith had been baptized, and through this gift he receives an invitation to faerie. While visiting that world, he discovers that in it he is the least of beings. Its beauty, however, entices him, and he spends entire days “looking only at one tree or one flower.”[3] The depth of each thing astounds him. “Wonders and mysteries,” many of them terrifying in their overwhelming beauty and truth, abound in faerie, Smith discovers, and he dwells on such wonders even when he is no longer in faerie.[4] Nevertheless, some encounters terrify him:

He stood beside the Sea of Windless Storm where the blue waves like snow-clad hills roll silently out of Unlight to the long strand, bearing the white ships that return from battles on the Dark Marches of which men know nothing. He saw a great ship cast high upon the land, and the waters fell back in foam without a sound. The elven mariners were tall and terrible; their swords shone and their spears glinted and a piercing light was in their eye. Suddenly they lifted up their voices in a song of triumph, and his heart was shaken with fear, and he fell upon his face, and they passed over him and went away into the echoing hills.[5]

And yet, despite the fact that he portrayed the man Smith in prostration before such grand visions, the rest of the story reveals that it was not Tolkien’s intention to denigrate Smith’s importance, but only to emphasize his place—and therefore the place of humanity in general—in the economy of creation. The English Roman Catholic G.K. Chesterton, who served as a significant source of inspiration to Tolkien when he was a young man, once wrote that “[h]e not only felt freer when he bent; he actually felt taller when he bowed.”[6] Likewise, Tolkien shows in “Smith of Wootton Major” that it is an understanding of the transcendent that allows Smith to fully become a man. This was a teaching to which Tolkien ascribed his entire life. (Read more.)

Share

Princess Alice of Battenberg

From Harper's Bazaar:

Born in 1885 at Windsor Castle, and growing up in the UK, the German Empire, and Greece, Alice was at odds with her royal status, preferring to live without a title and focus her time and efforts on her religion and charity work. Alice, who was born deaf, married Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark in 1903, and when Philip was around 10 years old, she was diagnosed with schizophrenia and sent to a hospital where she was treated by Sigmund Freud.

She had become deeply religious and converted to the Greek Orthodox Church, proclaiming to be receiving divine messages and have healing powers. Freud claimed her so-called delusions spurred from sexual frustration, and recommended she undergo x-rays of her ovaries in order to stave off her libido, and induce an early menopause.

Princess Alice pleaded her sanity, and tried to leave the sanatorium countless times, before eventually being released in in the mid-30s. Meanwhile, Philip was separated from his four older sisters, Margarita, Theodora, Cecilie and Sophie, and was sent to live in England with his uncles, Lord Louis Mountbatten and George Mountbatten, and his grandmother, the Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven. After convalescing, Princess Alice ensconced herself in an itinerant existence, travelling around Europe incognito. Tragedy struck the family again in 1937, when her daughter Cecilie, who was 26, son-in-law Georg Donatus, and two of her grandchildren were killed in an air accident at Ostend. (Read more.)

More HERE. Share

Terror Attacks in France: A Culture of Denial

From The Gatestone Institute:

On October 3, 2019, a knife-wielding Muslim employee of the Paris Police Department Intelligence Directorate stabbed to death four other employees at police headquarters in the center of Paris, before a trainee police officer shot and killed him. While it was not the deadliest terror attack France has experienced in recent years, the fatal stabbings that took place at the Paris police headquarters were perhaps the most worrisome. Its author (a French public servant employed by the police), its highly sensitive target, and the catastrophic handling of the aftermath of the attack reveal the failure of the French institutions. 

As it was the case for all recent terror attacks, French media and authorities first tried to downplay what happened. The attacker was initially described through potentially mitigating factors, such as his handicap (the killer is partly deaf and mute). It took 24 hours before it was eventually revealed that he was an Islamist militant who had carefully planned his attack. 

That a radicalized militant had been able to remain undetected in a critical security institution for years sent shockwaves throughout the country. Members of the parliamentary opposition asked for the resignation of Home Affairs Minister Christophe Castaner, who at first had said that the attacker "had never shown any warning signs or behavioral difficulties." 

For the record, this "very normal behavior" included cutting down to a bare minimum communication with women (he had for months being avoiding all women but his wife), attending a notoriously radical mosque, and having a phone full of Islamist contacts. His colleagues reported that already in January 2015, he had cheered the murderous Islamist terror attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in front of other police employees. In many countries, a mistake of this scale would be enough for a government minister to resign, but not in France. (Read more.)

Share

When Family Dinners Are Silent

From Return to Order:

Stagnant and sterile silence dominates so many households. This is the conclusion of a recent survey in the U.K. about family habits there. These same bad habits are quite present in America, probably in similar proportions. They can also be found in differing degrees all over our globalized world. One particularly tragic finding of this survey of 2,500 U.K. citizens is that a third of the families sit in complete silence during meal times. A further three in ten respondents report they have problems finding topics for dinner conversation.

Of course, there is also the problem of getting people to eat together in the same place at meals. About four in ten parents generally do not have meals together with their children at the same time. Ten percent of the respondents say they never have meals together as a family. (Read more.)

The death of fine dining. Also from Return to Order:

 Eating in front of screens has gone on for years. When television first entered the home in the fifties, people ate as they watched their favorite shows. They served factory-prepared frozen meals called T.V. dinners on T.V. trays. The Swanson company even pictured its offerings in a frame that simulated the cabinet of a television.

Today, the survey notes that forty-nine percent of Americans say that they regularly watch television while eating. On the other hand, average Americans only eats three meals per week at their kitchen tables. Twenty-two percent of Americans zombie-eat lunch in front of their office computers. “Zombie eating is something most of us can relate to – we’re busy, we’re productive, and we’re constantly on the move,” says Pretzel Crisps’ Senior Brand Manager Syreeta Norwood.

A surprising amount of research is available about social eating patterns. Food plays a huge role in social life.  In the 1995 book, Food and Nutrition, P. Fieldhouse says that “food is a vehicle for expressing friendship, for smoothing social intercourse, for showing concern. It is also ridden with status symbolism and is manipulated, subtly or blatantly, to demonstrate differences in social standing. There might almost be a dictum which says where two or more people gather together then let there be food and drink.”

Eating in groups, especially families, is healthier than zombie eating. Christie Wilcox, a contributor to Nutrition Wonderland, cites statistics in the United Kingdom. She points out that “married women with children are the healthiest group of people, followed closely by married men.” She adds that “the mortality rate for single men between 30 and 59 is 2.5 times higher than their married counterparts.”

Living alone is a major cause of zombie eating. More Americans live alone than ever. USA Today reported that U.S. Census Bureau figures from 2010 show that “The sheer number of Americans living alone has more than tripled since 1970 to 33.2 million.” More than one household out of four is occupied by only a single person. (Read more.)

Share

Blessed Karl: “Poor in Spirit”

From Blessed Karl of Austria:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3) 

Blessed Karl was a king who viewed himself as a servant of his people. He did not view himself as an entitled “royal” or as someone who deserved to be given special treatment. He did not isolate himself from his subjects. Instead, Karl was a self-sacrificing man who recognized his kingship as a form of public service to others. Truly, Blessed Karl was a remarkable example of the heroic attribute Jesus described on the Sermon on the Mount as “poor in spirit.”

Karl went out of his way to meet others around him, no matter who they were, to learn of ways he could help their situation. He treated everyone with kindness. Karl did not surround himself with fashionable celebrities or fans of royalty; he did not cut himself off from common people and shrug off the problems of society around him. Unlike other rulers, Karl personally visited and interacted with ordinary people in his country—no matter who they were, what status they lacked or what religion or ethnicity they belonged to. Karl was humble and interested in improving the lives of others around him. His unpretentious approach became especially apparent during World War I. Karl committed himself to personally interacting with all levels of society during the war in order to address their needs—he appeared in so many places at such short notice that people gave him the nickname, “Karl the Sudden.”  

Karl actively practiced charity. Since his youth, he was dedicated to almsgiving and assisting the underprivileged. During World War I, Karl was determined that he and his family should equally share the burdens faced by impoverished Austrian citizens. He denied himself any extra comforts or extra provisions during the war. He gave away his personal belongings, including his clothing, to people in need. Other kings might have demanded more special treatment during this hard time. Not Karl. Even his methods of transportation were simple. While constantly traveling to the frontlines and visiting citizens in far-off places, Karl traveled with his family on ordinary troop transport trains instead of luxury accommodation. Karl stands as an example of courage and humility to all of us. His openhearted and undemanding behavior, especially during times of hardship and distress, is worthy not only of praise but of imitation in our own lives. Blessed Karl was a living witness of Jesus’s words in Chapter 20 of Matthew’s Gospel: “Whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.” In the same Gospel chapter, Jesus also said the unforgettable words: “The last will be first, and the first will be last.” (Read more.)

Share

Trump Wins Every Democratic Debate

 From Bobby Jindal at the WSJ:

 The Republican National Committee should offer to be the official sponsor of a weekly Democratic presidential debate. There would be no better advertisement for President Trump’s re-election. Every time the Democratic presidential contenders gather together, it’s a contest between the merely delusional, the vaguely vindictive and the patently absurd.

There are funny moments, like when Andrew Yang risked the ire of the political-correctness police and told us, “I am Asian, so I know a lot of doctors.” There are substantive moments, like when former Vice President Joe Biden reversed himself on China, apparently now agreeing with Mr. Trump that intellectual-property theft is a serious problem. The debates would make for entertaining television, were the ideas discussed not so dangerous.

John F. Kennedy challenged and inspired the nation by exhorting: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Today’s Democrats seem to believe JFK got it backward. They compete to see who can borrow and spend more money to give away more “free” government benefits. Mr. Yang brilliantly cuts out the middleman and, channeling his inner game-show host, showers cash on lucky supporters.

Jeb Bush famously remarked that he might have to “lose the primary to win the general.” Today’s Democrats have reversed that proposition—they seem intent on losing the general election to win the primary. Their radical ideas include open borders, confiscating guns, paying reparations for slavery, adding trillions of dollars in new government spending, taking away employer-based health care and restructuring the entire economy through the Green New Deal.

When it comes to health-care policy, some of the Democratic candidates are lying and some are merely confused, but all are deceiving the American people. President Obama falsely promised that Americans could keep their health care plans if they liked them. Today’s Democrats disagree on whether to kill private insurance quickly through Medicare for All or gradually through a government-run public option. They may differ on candor and strategic timing, but they all seem to want to take away consumers’ ability to choose and keep private health insurance.

Aside from Sen. Bernie Sanders, who at least is honest about how disruptive his plans would be, Democrats won’t tell doctors, hospitals and other providers that Medicare for All will cut their reimbursement rates by at least 11% on average, according to the socialists themselves, and by as much as 40% compared with private insurance rates. Democrats won’t tell taxpayers about the $33 trillion in new government spending projected over 10 years, or the only way to pay for it, which is higher taxes on the middle class.

Mr. Biden is trying to position himself as the moderate alternative to Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders while avoiding the gaffes and unforced errors for which he’s known. This campaign strategy is like a football team playing prevent defense in the first quarter. It’s never a good sign when campaign staffers admit their plan is to hide the candidate from the voters. Upon closer inspection, however, Mr. Biden isn’t the moderate he claims to be. Judging by the policies he now supports, the Joe Biden of 2019 is much more liberal than Hillary Clinton or any other previous Democratic nominee.

Mr. Biden recently remarked that “nobody should be in jail for a nonviolent crime.” That’s excellent news for Paul Manafort and Bernie Madoff. The former vice president now opposes the death penalty and wants to reverse key parts of his own 1994 crime bill. Like the other leading Democratic contenders, Mr. Biden wants taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortion. He wants to spend $1.7 trillion over 10 years to zero out America’s carbon emissions by 2050 and create a public option open to all, not just those on the ObamaCare exchanges. With more than a year to go before the election, there’s plenty of time for Mr. Biden to come out in favor of abolishing the Electoral College or packing the Supreme Court.

When 60% of Democrats want a nominee even more progressive than President Obama, it’s fair to say that these are dangerous times. Only Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders could make the Obama years seem like the good old days. Mr. Trump recently said, “Whether you love me or hate me, you’ve got to vote for me,” implying that otherwise the left-wing radicals will destroy the country.

Many voters will be happy to vote for Mr. Trump because they approve of what he’s accomplished—cutting taxes, deregulating the economy, unleashing domestic energy production, investing in the military, appointing conservative judges and supporting Israel. There will, however, be voters who are not particularly fond of him but will choose him over the Democrats. Far better to bear four more years of Mr. Trump’s mercurial temperament, these voters will rightly conclude, than risk it all on the Democrats’ radical and destructive policies. (Read more.)

Share