My favourite Eurovision 2024 song by Portugal — “​Grito” by Iolanda

This is my favourite Eurovision song. I’ve been playing this song for days now!

This singer blew me away. She has an absolutely euphonious gorgeous voice. Elegant, with passionate words (lyrics translation here).

At first, I didn’t “understand” the dancers and found them a bit distracting. But, then I realised that they are translating her fears and after her scream; they vanish from the scene as she is “cured”.

I don’t think she will win ... as quality is not appreciated at the Eurovision. They like “freaky” stuff.

I also found a beautiful acoustic version on Youtube. 

✲✲✲

Our own UK’s eurovision song was by Olly Alexander (“Dizzy”). It’s embarrassing 😒. Underwhelming and utterly generic.

The music was repetitive and boring with no climax. I also don’t really get what all those male dancers add to anything ... generic.

What are the “pro-Palestinian” protesters actually fighting for?

From University of Michigan to Columbia, protests over the war Israel-Hamas conflict continue to rock campuses across the US. And now, it’s moving to England & the University of Cambridge.

But this is not their war. Where are the demands for the return of the remaining hostages? What about demanding that the perpetrators of Oct 7 atrocities be brought to justice? Nope ... didn’t think so. 

There has been a huge outpouring of antisemitism amid these protests — Jewish students being barred from their own campus by pro-Palestinian activist thugs, told to go back to Poland and to the gas chambers, a Jewish student being beaten unconscious in UCLA, Jews told they were the next target for terrorists. When they shout ‘globalise the intifada’, it reminds me of the Brownshirts.

Today’s Cambridge pro-Palestine camp’s spokesman refused to condemn Hamas or describe them as a terror group when questioned by The Telegraph (reported at 3:26pm).

All civilian deaths are abhorrent; but we shouldn’t lose sight of the basic proposition: Hamas’s declared intention is to annihilate Israel and its population – whilst Israel is fighting against a fanatical fascist enemy who prop their own citizens as human shields and then cynically and gleefully propagandise the inevitable collateral casualties. 

✲✲✲

So what are they fighting for?

1. A narcissistic game of pretending to be a revolutionary and pretending to be part of something bigger than oneself. Protesters in the 60s were fighting for CND, Vietnam, gay rights, animal rights, environmentalism etc. Today’s protesters are positioning themselves against the progress made in the 60s onwards. I.e. with Hamas.
2. Antisemitism — Where were these protesters when Syria was wiping out its citizens? Where were they when Iraqi women were protesting against the killing or girls and women? There are no protests against the War in Yemen with over 150k+ direct casualties in that conflict. They only can be bothered to protest against the Jews. 
3. To isolate Israel from the global economy. They want the West to adopt the old “Arab boycott” against Israel in which any kind of business with Israel/Jews is banned. No oil, no gas, no electricity, no food. Essentially, they want to turn Israel into North Korea. This is ironic as they claim that Israel banning of trade with Gaza amounts to “genocide”.
4. They don’t want ceasefire. They want intifada. “Students for Justice” in Columbia — and people like Norman Finkelstein — have endorsed Hamas on October 7 arguing their “resistance” was justified. There is enough toxicity among this “underbelly” that a non-insignificant pro-Hamas sentiment can be easily found. Some are no better than their Holocaust-denying fellow travellers.
5. Decolonisation “settler-colonial” dialectical narratives — At recent protests, they were shouting that Israel are white colonialists oppressing brown people. This offshoot of Marxian traditional class-conflict presents itself in the post-modern “identity-politics” “decolonization” framework which leading universities (whose academics are overwhelmingly left-wing) have been pushing for years now. This shows a serious lack of understanding about Middle Eastern demographics. There are Lebanese & Palestinians who are the whitest people you can see. Meanwhile, there are Israelis who are black, and every shade in between. Essentially, projecting US racial dynamics onto this conflict. 
6. And some are genuinely well-meaning students, albeit mistaken, about the conflict; and have imbibed the media tropes about “genocide” etc. They are decent and would probably be shocked if they knew enough about their comrades. I suspect that most pro-Palestine supporters probably didn’t even know where the Gaza strip was before Oct 7. 

✲✲✲

Some interesting articles:

Michael Powell, in “The Unreality of Columbia’s ‘Liberated Zone’” (The Atlantic). He writes, about the protests at Columbia University:

As the war has raged on and the death toll has grown, protest rallies on American campuses have morphed into a campaign of ever grander and more elaborate ambitions: From “Cease-fire now” to the categorical claim that Israel is guilty of genocide and war crimes to demands that Columbia divest from Israeli companies and any American company selling arms to the Jewish state.

Many protesters argue that, from the river to the sea, the settler-colonialist state must simply disappear. To inquire, as I did at Columbia, what would happen to Israelis living under a theocratic fascist movement such as Hamas is to ask the wrong question. A young female protester, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, responded: “Maybe Israelis need to check their privilege.”

 John McWhorter, in “The Columbia Protests Made the Same Mistake the Civil Rights Movement Did” (NYT), also writes:

What happened this week was not just a rise in the temperature. The protests took a wrong turn, of a kind I have seen too many other activist movements take. It’s the same wrong turn that the civil rights movement took in the late 1960s.

Beyond a certain point, however, we must ask whether the escalating protests are helping to change those circumstances. Columbia’s administration agreed to review proposals about divestment, shareholder activism and other issues and to create health and education programs in Gaza and the West Bank. But the protesters were unmoved and a subgroup of them, apparently, further enraged … Who among the protesters really thought that Columbia’s president, Minouche Shafik, and the board of trustees would view the occupation of Hamilton Hall — and the visible destruction of property — and say, “Oh, if the students feel that strongly, then let’s divest from Israel immediately”? The point seemed less to make change than to manifest anger for its own sake, with the encampment having become old news.

JMW Turner at the National Gallery

Below is a write-up of paintings of Turner’s at the National Gallery. 

If asked about my desert island paintings — Turner would be included. I really love his work, and he’s so important in the history of art. 

Why? Because the sublime 19th century romantic landscapes have the psychological depth and emotion that leave you with a sense of awe. Nature on a grand scale — massive skies, crashing waters, etc., and the sublime.

✲✲✲

The Fighting Temeraire

A beautiful & moving elegy. Slightly mournful but leavened with glory. Turner’s sunsets are so intense. 

A grand old navy sail-ship being scuttled by the new steam-age. The steam-propelled tug tows the old “Temeraire” up the River Thames to a ship-breaker’s yard in Rotherhithe, South London. There is also a white flag on the mast of the tug. 

This painting depicts the final journey of the “Temeraire”, a famous warship sold by the Royal Navy in 1838. So, this was a real ship but probably not as Turner depicted it. The “Fighting” probably refers to her combat in the Napoleonic Wars and at the Battle of Trafalgar. Like us, in our obsolescence, when we too get old and are scuttled off.

Turner wonderfully contrasts the veteran ship against the blissful & radiant setting sun. Water seems to have no life other than to emphasis the sky, clouds, and smoke. Reflections in the water slow down the energy of the painting. The “Temeraire” also seems ghostly and ethereal while the tug boat is dark and powerful.

The sunset is on the same horizontal level as the Temeraire suggesting an approximation — and slightly obscured by the thick orange-smoke of that tugboat.

✲✲✲

Sun Rising through Vapour

Idyllic, charming.

A warm, reposeful and quiet afternoon by the coast for a fishing community at the fore. 

The calm is accentuated by the stillness of the sea.

Fish on the floor, a man pulling up his trousers.

Rembrandt at the National Gallery

This blog post is a write up of Room 44 at the National Gallery which is an intimate space with some really exquisite & captivating portraits by Rembrandt. Feel free to see my other write ups. I love going to galleries and writing about art.

Rembrandt van Rijn is one of the great masters. His visual art is utterly moving and captivating. I also love his family name “Van Rijn” refers to the river Rhine which flowed through his birthplace Leiden. Beautiful name.

✲✲✲

Rembrandt’s Self Portrait (aged 34) — 1640

Beautiful. Partially-lit in a darkened alcove makes for a very captivating and fascinating portrait.

I believe this was influenced by Titian — or perhaps, the other way round?

There is a certain dignified gravity in his manner. Rembrandt is here clearly wealthy, successful and confident. His use of light reminds me of Caravaggio and the Italian Baroque paintings.

✲✲✲

Portrait of Aechje Claesdr

Wow.

I think this was Rembrandt’s grandmother. It is so lovingly done and moving.

The subject evokes a fragile and tender feeling. Her elegant and delicately-pleated white ruffs balance her compelling face.

I think her unmet gaze, furrowed eyebrows, pursed lips, heavy eyes, bulbous nose create a melancholic face, even forlorn. Makes me feel protective and, as though, I want to embrace her warmly.

Rembrandt paints the deeper character of his subjects, and skillfully depicts the effects of age with some tenderness. 

Middle Temple Library

I’m taking a break from blogging for a few weeks.

More photos:

Sir Horace Avery — very famous judge.

The world wants a ceasefire, but Hamas doesn’t want it

Political theater this week in the United Nations.

I wonder if the UN is aware that there was a ceasefire in place already. And, guess who broke it?

The Biden Administration has thrown a bone to the progressives and China and Russia while burnishing their reputation among the global south to save face. But, I think this has hurt Israel and bolstered Hamas. I don’t think it amounts to a serious shift from America per se; but it’s noteworthy.

From Julian Borger & Lorenzo Tondo, in “Israel isolated as UN security council demands immediate ceasefire in Gaza” (The Guardian):

The UN security council has voted to demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza for the first time since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, after the US dropped a threat to veto, bringing Israel to near total isolation on the world stage.

The vote result sets up the strongest public clash between the US president, Joe Biden, and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, since the war began.

The US abstained and the 14 other council members all voted in favour of the security council ceasefire resolution, put forward by the 10 elected council members who voiced their frustration with more than five months of deadlock between the major powers. Applause broke out in the chamber after the vote.

✲✲✲

Hamas doesn’t want a ceasefire, even if the rest of the world does

Last week, a hostage deal was agreed with Hamas in which they would release 40 Israelis against 800 Palestinian prisoners. (Yes, a joke; but that’s a tangent). Israeli negotiators agreed to it via an American-brokered compromise. But, then, on Monday, the UN General Security Council passed a resolution submitted by Russia and China demanding a ceasefire without stipulating the release of hostages.

Then, Hamas rejected the hostage deal. And just yesterday, Hamas fired rockets into Israel — for the first time in 2 months. They clearly don’t want a ceasefire; but the rest of the world still maintains Hamas somehow wants “peace”.

This resolution has done nothing but to bolster Hamas. The Biden Administration’s abstention has isolated Israel diplomatically; and has shown Hamas that the international community will pivot their pressure against Israel demanding a ceasefire which mentions but doesn’t condition the ceasefire on the release of the hostages. (Mind you, when the US proposed a resolution for a temporary ceasefire with the condition that hostages be released, Russia and China shot it down swiftly). 

The resolution tells Israel that it needs to ceasefire until the end of Ramadan, whether or not the hostages are released. And separately, it also tells Hamas that they need to unconditionally release the hostages. This subtle American shift against Israel is also a message to Hamas that they will get a ceasefire without having to pay anything. And hence, as I have mentioned, Hamas have derailed the negotiations. Afterall, why ‘negotiate’ if you’re already going to get what you want via the UNSC. Namely, their original demands of a permanent ceasefire, troop withdrawal and hostages-for-all-prisoners exchange.

Moreover, there already was a ceasefire in place on Oct 6 which Hamas broke. It was agreed after rocket attacks on 21 May 2021. We’ve always had ceasefires which Hamas keeps on breaking.

There’ll be calls for another ceasefire next week, and probably pressure on Israel to release much more prisoners and accept even worse terms.

✲✲✲

The Yasser Arafat romantic projection

Secular liberals in the West keep projecting onto Islamic terrorist organisations some kind of anti-colonial/imperial rationality which we are more familiar with. There are ‘good guys’ against the ‘bad guys’. We tend to think about this conflict as if we are dealing with charming Yasser Arafat … like an alternate reality. Mind you, Yasser Arafat was anything but charming. As such, big-strong westerners sweep in, rescue the “oppressed”, reverse centuries of resentment and hatred, and put the jewel back in the crown.

✲✲✲

Failure to understand Hamas’ support

A real problem in the West — and particularly among the Left — is to look at the Hamas-Israel war and think it’s just some innocent Palestinians that are getting killed here; and that Hamas is a separate conceptual entity. However, almost every single poll on the issue shows overwhelming support for Hamas among the Palestinians (e.g. “57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching the October attack, the poll indicated”). 

With respect to Hamas, or a majority of the general Palestinian population in greater Israel; when asked in interviews about peoples’ solutions — the average answer was not coexistence. That is the problem. The desire for political autonomy is understandable; but when you see the exultation of ‘martyrdom’, you know you are dealing with a very dangerous and warped outlook.

Palestinians have been lectured, preached, and taught that Israel is only a week or a month away from non-existence. “If you resist a little longer, the Jews will leave ...”. This fascistic guerilla-warfare psychology is not just totally delusional, but presents no clear military path to any kind of victory. Afterall, what was the military object of Oct 7 – besides a bloodletting? They don’t want a two-state solution.

Every peace negotiation begins with Israel asking: “are you prepared to recognise the sovereignty of Israel?” Israel’s non-negotiable demand is the precise negation of Palestine’s non-negotiable demand. Once Palestinians stop seeing the Jews of Israel through the prism of French rule in Algeria, and drop the ridiculous ‘right of return’ nonsense, then negotiations can finally happen.

✲✲✲

The principle of negotiating with terrorists

Something I’ve been thinking about is what happens once a liberal democracy starts “negotiating” with terrorists? I think you invariably incentivise terrorist activities. You make it profitable. It suddenly becomes attractive to kidnap citizens of a government and hold them ransom. So, while the Israeli government thinks it may be saving lives in the immediate negotiation, that government is putting future Israeli lives at greater risk. As soon as you pay the ransom for one person, it gives an inherent legitimacy to the transaction.  

On the other hand, Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair. Also, the United States has been negotiating with Iran on their development of their nuclear weapons programme? Also, there were negotiations with the IRA. 

So, what is the answer? Should Israel be negotiating the hostages?

In the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, Israel negotiated the soldier’s release in exchange for 1027 prisoners held in Israeli custody. According to wikipedia, of which “two hundred and eighty of these had been sentenced to life in prison for planning and perpetrating various attacks against Israeli targets”. So v. dangerous people were released. Among the prisoners released was Hamas Chief Yehiya Sinwar who is one of the architects of Oct 7.

I think Israel has to ignore international pressures, keep plowing through and get the job done of eliminating Hamas. Israel has a duty to guard its borders and the rest of its Israeli civilians. 

At least, with these new missile launches, Hamas can’t use the excuse of Ramadan anymore.

✲✲✲

Corrigendum (28.03.2024): Above, it said rockets were fired for first time in 2 months. Thanks to Yael, rockets have been fired from Gaza repeatedly.

Princess of Wales undergoing cancer treatment

Poor woman. A young mother faces much more than just her own suffering; and having to go through this publically must be brutal for her and the family. I hope the press give her some privacy which she deserves.

I understand some horrid and unscrupulous type had accessed her medical records in order to sell it to the tabloids. 

It’s pretty awful that she had to release the announcement of her surgery earlier than, I think, she would have wanted because some idiot wanted to make a quick buck.

Must be awful for William too. He lost his own mum at a young age. This has to be heartbreaking for him as well. He finds out his dad has cancer; then, almost immediately, finds out his wife does too. He recently lost his granny, and his brother is an estranged idiot. Poor guy.

Wishing her all the best.

Ceasefire is on the table, but Hamas terrorists don’t want it

In “US president warns of looming Ramadan deadline and tells Israel there are ‘no excuses for not letting aid into Gaza’” (Daily Telegraph):

Joe Biden has said a ceasefire deal is in the hands of Hamas as he urged the terror group to accept an Israeli proposal for a pause in fighting.

“It’s in the hands of Hamas right now,” Mr Biden. “The Israelis have been co-operating, the offer (of a ceasefire) is rational. We’ll know in a couple of days. But we need the ceasefire.”

The talks broke down after Hamas refused to provide a list confirming which hostages in Gaza are still alive.

The deal involves:

Hamas releasing all women, children and wounded hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israel, to a ratio of about one hostage to 10 prisoners.

It also allows for hundreds of aid lorries to enter Gaza during a 40-day pause in fighting.

There seem to be no protests & exhortations calling on Hamas to release the women, children and injured? Indeed, a few days ago, Hamas even “refused to reveal how many hostages are alive” (DT):

Hamas was refusing to hand over the names of living hostages, stalling talks for a ceasefire, on Sunday night.

Israel has demanded to know how many of the roughly 130 hostages that remain in Gaza are still alive as a condition of returning to the negotiating table.

✲✲✲

Israel doesn’t want to be at war; but Hamas wants it

Israel is amenable to a ceasefire — as long as Hamas releases the Israeli civilians being held hostage. Hamas have not only instigated this war; but have refused to observe measures which would bring about a ceasefire — even a modest reprieve for Ramadan. They want to be in a perpetual state of war. 

People will be thinking as they read this: “oh... but is that a reason to be killing civilians?”. But, they need to blame the right people: Hamas. Hamas grabbed these non-combatants; women and children as hostages. They have wrought hell-on-Earth upon ‘their own’ people in Gaza.

A fundamental problem is that people regard Hamas as a vague external actor and not as the government of Gaza. Hamas have somehow managed to shift the responsibility for Gazan citizens wellbeing onto Israel. However, Hamas simply don’t care about the innocent Palestinian civilians. Ismail Haniyeh has called “the blood of women, children, and the elderly of Gaza ... so as to awaken our revolutionary spirit”. They will never prioritise peace, prosperity and wellbeing for the ordinary Gazans. They don’t want a ceasefire because the more the Gazans suffer, the more the West will turn on Israel and Jews in general. There’s also a report of the Hamas leadership citing civilian causalities as a good bargaining chip. 

✲✲✲

As far as I see it, a ceasefire would only ever be entertained by Hamas if it offered a strategic advantage in stopping Israel from winning the war which Hamas declared on Israel & Gaza.

The harsh reality, in my view, is that the kidnapped victims are very unlikely to be released safely. Probably Ever. And, I suspect that the Israeli government knows this.

From a strategic perspective, enacting a ceasefire would now only strengthen Hamas. They are now in a position of an almost defeated enemy, and desperate to regroup. Only Rafah is left in Hamas’ control. I think Israel should go forward with their offensive. A ceasefire called now will, in a few months/years, be another war with heavy civilian casualties against a fascist adversary that cares not for its civilian population. I don’t think Israel is going to stop until they wipe out the capabilities of Hamas. Hamas and their Iranian backers have overplayed their hand on October 7th.

Art vandalism — the painting of Lord Balfour

We have yet another idiot destroying and ruining art — in the service of their “cause”. 

The portrait that was spray-painted and slashed was of Lord Balfour, the former British Prime Minister. This took place at Trinity College in Cambridge by a “pro-Palestinian protester”. 

Cultural vandalism

We have seen this happen to the poor Van Gogh pieces in the National Gallery, or the ‘Mona Lisa’ in Paris; and I think symptomatic of our times: throwing a temper tantrums and vandalising art in museums.

I must admit: I don’t have any special concern for this particular painting. It seems a conventional portrait. What angers me is the fact that anyone can destroy art, of any type.

This kind of vandalism creates a culture that normalises the targeting art for mere self-indulgence. It’s the self-preening attempt to strike the pose as a “great revolutionary”.

I think the very notion of threatening or attacking art and artists — as a mode of political speech — is cultural poison. This rotten stupidity is becoming a regular thing now. Every maniac — acquiped with what they perceive as a political grievance — feels entitled to use works of art to project their anger. 

Yet, these are vertible cultural artifacts; and we have a duty to preserve them for future generations. Works are held in the public trust. This kind of vandalism isn’t anything new; and I really hate it. It’s such arrogance and ignorance. 

I’ve always wondered how many books and how much art was collected and then burned in the “Bonfire of the Vanities” in Florence. We can only imagine. It’s said that over 90% of all religious art was destroyed during the English Civil War. Years ago, Daesh destroyed parts of a Roman Amphitheater in the ancient city of Palmyra. In all cases, society has robbed its progeny of pieces of our common heritage and history.

These vandalisms impose a cost on the gallery visitors.

Museums now respond with barriers, wires and fences that make loud horrible noises when triggered. There are guards and alarms. When we go into a museum and see a beautiful work of art; we now see it through a pane of glass/perspex. It creates an artificial barrier between the art and the viewer. It’s an extra separation between the art and someone — like myself — trying to admire it. 

It’s a necessary evil that is separating us from really “touching” and “feeling” every artwork. I regularly find myself distracted by the pane of perspex distorting the imagine or reflecting the museum’s often bright lights into the painting. It’s so irritating. And to think earlier generations could just walk into the Louvre and see a Da Vinci without any separation. This is also not confined to the most iconic pieces. This ridiculous levels of security is a huge expense to often threadbare budgets (often consumed by conservation costs). Nowadays, in some cases, the actual real objects are not even shown anymore. A facsimile is presented for the masses. And, we all have to be strip-searched just to get into a museum.

Moreover, with some of the soup-splashing; they invariably damage the centuries-old gold-gilded frames which can often be valuable work of art in themselves. Fashioned from antique wood and plaster, they don’t respond well to moisture and acidity.

Then, we must ask, who cares about Lord Balfour in the painting?

We care about the art. We care about who painted it, why, the technique used by the artist, and how it influenced other artworks. The wealthy have always been commissioning artists to do their portraits for centuries, so they can be immortalised. This is an act of disrespect towards the artist and to the history of art itself. Art is a window into contemporaneous perspectives. 

It is also the arrogance of declaring that my personal modern perspective on history allows me to censor art at my discretion. Except we’ve seen examples in history where the contemporary political environment tarnishes a piece of art because of the values of the period. Then, the political environment evolves and changes; and for that censorship to be looked at unfavorably through a longer historical lens. We shouldn’t destroy pieces of historical art because of our current political environment.

✲✲✲

Update: 12 March 2024 — In today’s Daily Telegraph, there is an interesting letter from the Earl of Balfour which I enjoyed reading:

“Jewish Londoners ‘make plans to flee capital’ amid huge antisemitism wave”

This is the headline from the London’s paper: “Jewish Londoners ‘make plans to flee capital’ amid huge antisemitism wave” (The Standard).

Martin Bentham writes:

Growing numbers of Jewish families are considering fleeing London for abroad because of rising antisemitism in the capital, campaigners warned on Tuesday as they demanded tougher action to combat intimidation and hate.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism said some Jewish residents had already left because of fears for their safety.

But it added that the number of those considering leaving London was increasing daily in response to hostility being displayed towards them.

The campaign group has exposed a series of antisemitic attacks in London amid reports of increasing nervousness among Jewish people about their safety.

Gideon Falter, chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, said an earlier opinion survey had already shown that about half of Jewish people were considering moving abroad and that the trend was growing because of continuing hostility from sections of the community.

✲✲✲

This is incredibly depressing. 

As a Londoner, I must admit that I feel this article has somewhat overstated the problem — if not a bit misleading. People are not seriously “fleeing” the Capital.

On the other hand, it is very definitely hostile. For example, at university, Jewish people feel that it is not safe to wear Jewish identifiers:

Jewish students are covering kippahs with baseball caps and hiding Star of David necklaces amid soaring reports of anti-Semitism at UK universities. Undergraduates at some of Britain’s leading institutions have told The Telegraph they feel “afraid” and “on edge” on campus. One student described how she put up posters of hostages taken by Hamas in her university town, only to see them ripped off the wall within 45 minutes. The accounts come as reports of anti-Semitic incidents in the 18 days following the Hamas terror attacks hit a record high.

Ms Schwinger, who admitted sometimes hiding her Star of David necklace when she walked past a pro-Palestine protest or rally, said she and others had reported signs held at such demonstrations, including one that read “Intifada until victory”. (The Daily Telegraph)

Pupils at a London Jewish school have been allowed to not wear their school blazer amid hate crime fears (The Independent). They even had to cancel after school clubs so students can go together on the school buses. And, then, there have been instances of public buses refusing to stop for Jewish school children (The Independent). 

People have been reporting antisemitic graffiti, stickers and posters — often by Jewish schools or Jewish graveyards. One of my own local shops actually had “from the river to the sea” written by its entrance. Disgusting. 

Immediately after the Jews were targeted in an evil attack, antisemitic incidents hit record highs. Why? Where is all the disgust and racism and hatred against Russians? People don’t care about russia because it’s not Jewish.

London isn’t Nazi Germany. But, for me, I think we should be mindful of history. The chants didn’t immediately start by saying “murder all the Jews”. but, people having to hide their Jewish identity is how it all begins. We should be very careful.

✲✲✲

Update: article below from earlier in the week:

Hot chocolate with whipped cream for energy to submit an assignment

To get me in the “study mindset”. 😏

Photo: “Next level” at the library

At my library.

Photo: St Paul’s Cathedral in London

After exams, will go & visit it.

The Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution is now too out-of-reach

Mr Ibish has written the below excerpts in the article “Why the U.S. and Saudis Want a Two-State Solution, and Israel Doesn’t” (The Atlantic):

Amid the war in Gaza, a major crisis has been brewing, largely behind the scenes, between the United States and Israel over the need for a Palestinian state. The two governments’ positions have long diverged—except during the administration of Donald Trump ... Now that divergence has a harder, sharper edge than ever: Washington’s strategic goals in the region require a Palestinian state in the long run and Israeli acknowledgment of that aim in the short run; the Israeli government is having none of it.

Much expectation attends a purportedly comprehensive peace proposal that the U.S. and its most important Arab partners have reportedly been working on, soon to be unveiled and then implemented as the Gaza war winds down. The centerpiece of the plan would be a firm commitment to, and timeline for, the creation of a Palestinian state—a process that President Joe Biden has already mapped out in remarks ...

This contradiction between U.S. and Israeli policies raises troubling quandaries. The Biden administration appears to be working to confront Israelis with the stark choice they face: security through an agreement with Palestinians and normalization with Saudi Arabia (and other Arab and Muslim countries), or inviting further conflict by clinging to occupied Palestinian lands at a heavy cost of antagonized regional relations and declining American sympathies.

Recently, our Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron has commented that the UK is waiting “to formally recognise a Palestinian state” (BBC News).

✲✲✲

I don’t think this is going to work at all. Here are my thoughts:

Firstly, the “now is the time” for a two-state solution bombast is genuinely deranged. How can anyone think that now is the time for that sort of clamouring? In response to a violent attack targeting Israeli civilians, the clever idea is to now pressurise Israel into giving them concessions – thereby proving that slaughtering Jewish civilians is a viable means towards their political ends. I quite want to ask President Biden, why didn’t America give some of its US territory to the Taliban following 9/11?

Secondly, when the two-state solution fails (like every other “peace” deal); it will not be US civilians which Hamas 2.0 will be pouring into to murder.

Thirdly, the flaw in this argument is that there is no meaningful security with (1) Hamas as the terrorist governing authority; and (2) the Palestinian population remaining as radicalised and militant as they are. 

Israel has road-tested the concept of Palestinian sovereignty back in 2005 in Gaza. They effectively pulled Israeli citizens and soldiers out – and gave the keys to the Palestinian Authority. Now, Israel is being prompted to try the exact same thing! The problem here goes way back to the Ottoman Empire in the perception that the land was inherently Islamic and/or Arabic. The repeated Arab rejections of a two-state solution goes way back to 1937. Israel’s first war broke out because the Arab states rejected the UN’s two-state solution. At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered 100% of Gaza; and 73% of the present West Bank. Not good enough for Arafat in 2000, and not good enough for Abbas in 2008 — despite Palestinians being offered almost all of their demands.

In my view, I think it’s deceptively easy to insist on eradicating Hamas. The real thorny problem is the underlying perception among the everyday Palestinian citizens that fighting – and committing acts of terrorism – is the pathway to any kind of peace. As George Deek argued, in order to have a two-state solution, it necessarily requires a serious recognition – by the Arab Palestinians – on accepting the legitimacy of others. Most especially the Jewish state – because it stands strikingly at odds in terms of nationality, religion, and culture.

After all, Egypt, Jordan and other states have signed the Abraham Accords which is a fundamental recognition of this logic. Saudi Arabia will eventually come to terms with this reality. And when the Palestinians realise that they have gained absolutely nothing through intifadas and extremism (apart from misery), then they will consider the alternative approach.

Then, Israel, the Palaestinians, and the whole world, will salute the two-state solution.

Photo: “The Great Indoors”

Taken inspiration from roentare. Photo from my phone :)

Descending Angel Tube Station.

Is Roy Lichtenstein’s Pop Art overrated?

I am not sure I really ‘get’ Lichtenstein – and I don’t think I care for Pop Art either.

If anyone reading this loves his art, please share with me in the comments. Pics below are from the Tate Modern.

To me, Pop Art sounds interesting in theory. But, reflecting the tapestry of the culture around us morphs into visual memes which become part of the cliche. The “Pop Art” movement of the late 1950s placed a heavy emphasis on “found art” and “found objects”. They sought to frame everyday objects and imagery into new settings to imbue them with a renewed significance and power. For me, I am not sure I would call this legitimate “art” … but I can appreciate its historical resonance. 

Reason 1 – No creativity, little artistic merit

Lichtenstein notices a frame within a comic and amplifies it with striking vividness and scale to make the art imposing. His work sits in the Tate Modern as “high-art”. For me, it doesn’t work at all. It’s not a Monet or a Van Gogh. In fact, I hardly see any artistic merit at all. He merely took an image out of a comic book, and painted it on a canvas. Even on a technical level, it is not that impressive either. It is devoid of any creativity. It’s simplified, easy and unimaginative.

This heavy focus on “ready made” art is rooted in Duchamp; and can be seen in Warhol, Johns, Rauschenberg etc. However, I think there is a serious difference. Duchamp’s urinal wasn’t made to be “on display” and looked on as “art”. He made it “art” by putting on display and writing a fake name as a label. It was, in that respect, transformative.

However, Lichtenstein took other peoples’ genuine comic art, edited it, put it on a panel and then made it expansive. It didn’t change the idea of it. Somehow, art galleries then considered it “high-art” which contemporary art critics were not inclined to do with the original comics.

Reason 2 – “But don't forget the conceptual”

Lichtenstein became famous because the regnant philosophy on art, in his time, was the pop art scene. Lichtenstein’s work is popular and catchy because it is so familiar. It’s like a corporate logo. The rest of his earlier oeuvre is mediocre at best.

I often wonder if academics and critics simply read into, embellish, convolute and hype-up art simply because it is on the wall of a museum. In other words, the institutions of art feed themselves their art. People look at a piece in a gallery. It psychically shouts back: “THIS IS IMPORTANT”, and then people feel nervous, anxious and force a narrative that doesn’t correspond to reality. I think a lot of peoples’ instinctive reaction to Roy Lichtenstein should be “rubbish” or “mediocre”.

This brings me to another problem I have. People like Lichtenstein for his paintings – but mostly because of “what he is saying”. In the broader scheme, all art is conceptual. But, to my mind, the best ones are those who don’t treat their art merely as a message. Ideas are great; but, looking in – especially from  the outside – if the ideas seem decent or agreeable; then the general sensation is that you’re not allowed to say that the art is not that great. And why not? Because it’s conceptual. There is no real way for conceptual art pieces to be judged.

This is compounded by another problem.The viewer must get into the head of the artist. The viewer has to divine what kind of idea he/she was trying to convey; and, after all that, we must come to our own conclusions. It is all ultimately subjective.

Reason 3 – Pop Art is condescending to the masses

It is said that Lichtenstein’s work is critiquing Western/US consumerism, and our industrial economic system.

But, to me, it feels like a haughty contempt for the everyday masses who go shopping, buy their mass-produced products and newspapers, take notice of marketing, and live unrefined lives. Perhaps more for Warhol than Lichtenstein? But the work often feel like sanitised pop images suitable for the consumption of elevated wealthy classes.

✲✲✲

Whaam!

✲✲✲

Lichtenstein’s Reflections Series

Below are five works from Lichtenstein’s Reflections print series. Each is supposed to feature one of his earlier paintings which is partly obscured under bands of colour. 

Lichtenstein said: 

"It portrays a painting under glass. It is framed and the glass is preventing you from seeing the painting. Of course, the reflections are just an excuse to make an abstract work, with the cartoon image being supposedly partly hidden by the reflections."

According to the Tate, it is supposed to a wry comment on his own rehashing and reusing of his own work!  That says it all, I think!

Ask yourself, where is the art?

✲✲✲

Reflections on Minerva

✲✲✲

Reflections on Girl

✲✲✲

Reflections on The Scream

✲✲✲

Reflections on Conversation 

✲✲✲

Reflections on Crash

House of Commons debacle around the so-called Gaza ceasefire vote

There has been chaos and outrage in Parliament this week.

• A motion that was tabled by a minority party, the SNP, in Parliament to back an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza.
• The Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, decided to go against official advice and selected a Labour amendment to a motion reserved for the SNP.
• Our constitution is convention-driven. The Convention states that the Government's amendment is adopted; as opposed to the opposition's. Instead, the rules were changed. He explained that he wanted to give MPs “the widest possible range of options”. 
• Tory MPs felt the Speaker had been bullied and cajoled into helping the leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, who was facing another huge revolt by many of his MPs. The Labour party has a longstanding problem with antisemitism. Nick Watt, BBC Newsnight political editor, wrote that there had been some blackmail to undermine Parliament's conventions to get Labour out of a hole:

"Senior Labour figures tell me @CommonsSpeaker was left in no doubt that Labour would bring him down after the General Election unless he called Labour’s Gaza amendment. The message was: you will need our votes to be re-elected as Speaker after election, with strong indications this would not be forthcoming if he failed to call the Labour amendment.

✲✲✲

My thoughts:

1. Israel will rightly ignore all of this grandstanding. Can you imagine some other country’s politicians dictating to us when, and on what terms, we are allowed to defend ourselves!
2. This ceasefire vote has nothing to do with Gaza. The SNP wanted to create trouble within the House of Commons. It has everything to do with rising levels of antisemitism. Hoyle cited Labour MPs fear that they would be physically attacked by Hamas and Islamist supporters in England if they weren’t visibly voting against Israel! So, Starmer applied emotional pressure on Hoyle and the Speaker suddenly upturned convention and rules to pander to the mobs.

Update: Amended as per comments.

Comparing Israel with the Nazis, Holocaust and genocide is outrageous

Brazil’s President Lula has likened Israel’s war in Gaza to the Holocaust:

“What is happening in the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian people has no parallel in other historical moments. In fact, it did exist when Hitler decided to kill the Jews,” Lula told reporters during the 37th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem said it would summon the Brazilian ambassador for a reprimand over the remarks, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as “disgraceful and grave”.

Outrageous. 

Lula is just an idiot – a complete ignoramus. 

But, in other contexts, I would argue that this jibe would be a nasty antisemitic slur. It seeks to align the Jewish state – as the successors of the Holocaust’s victims – into the perpetrators of a second Holocaust. This is not only ahistorical and ignorant – it is also very disrespectful to Israeli’s legacy and Jews. In fact, I think it is venomously antisemitic. It amounts to accusing the Jews & Israelis of serving as Hitler’s willing executioners!

✲✲✲

Part 1 – Why is the comparison wrong?

Because what matters is both the scale and especially the intent, and reserving the term ‘genocide’ for genuine genocidal acts. 

The Nazis killed around 65% of European Jewry, and about 40% of all Jews in the world. During a two-day period at Babi Yar, approximately the same number of Jews – compared to the number of Gazans killed over 4 months in a given combat zone – were corralled, stripped naked, laid down in rows along a 500ft ravine, and shot in the neck. Survivors were buried alive. The Nazis deliberately sought to kill as many civilians as possible such that they built dedicated murder camps to make it more efficient and effective. 

With respect to Israel and the IDF – and any comparisons to Nazis, Holocaust or genocide etc. – the critical and obvious difference is that the Hamas attack (Oct 7) was trying to intentionally kill civilians. Israel is retaliating against this barbaric enemy, who uses human shields. They are not even remotely the same. There is an obvious and gigantic consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. Israel is surrounded by religious fanatics who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards Israelis. The charter of Hamas makes genocide – against the Jews – explicit.

✲✲✲

Part 2 – A brief note in defence of Israel

People will look at this conflict and say: “my gosh … the IDF are hitting civilian targets …”.

Hamas have been using human shields with the object of mixing legitimate targets with civilian ones – as they always have. But, the Geneva conventions have always forbidden deploying military (defensive or aggressive) installations under civilian areas. It is against the historic rules of war for any government to build bunkers under any civilian areas – with the calculated understanding that any attempts to target their military forces will engender huge civilian casualties. They even used a hospital (the Al-Shifa hospital) as their base of command. That is sick.

What is Israel to do under the circumstances? 

Some 134 Israeli citizens – who were kidnapped as hostages and dragged back, like a Viking raid – remain captive by these maniacs. Hamas could have released them, if they were concerned about the Gaza death-toll. But they obviously are not concerned. In fact, the civilian deaths are the desired military object of Hamas. Hamas makes it necessary for Israel to kill Gaza non-combatants to destroy their enemy. In so doing, they can – through international pressure – seek to compel Israel to ‘negotiate’ (presumably) on Hamas’s own terms. After all, Hamas are holding they key bargaining chips, namely the hostages. 

The calculus is that if the human cost becomes so high, international pressure will be increased on Israel. So, the only way Hamas can “win” is if Israel becomes isolated diplomatically and internationally from materials and weapons purchases, and aid. But, if Israel were to accede to that, it would establish a precedent that if you want to change Israeli policy, then go and invade their country: behead, murder and rape their civilians, uploading these videos online, and kidnap as many innocent people as possible. 

The IDF cannot put boots on ground in any area of civilian population. This would be urban warfare. The key personnel with any serious power in all organisations in Gaza have been vetted by Hamas. They do what Hamas orders - including stealing food & diverting medical aid to prioritise Hamas operatives over the civilian population. In many ways, it reminds me of Stalin. He was able to use the vast populations of Russia to act as fodder against the Nazis. And, of course, Hamas doesn’t wear military insignia and uniforms – as required under the Geneva conventions. They blend in with the civilian population to make it impossible to tell who is Hamas. 

Hamas cannot take on the might of the IDF in any open battlefield. They have to rely on the moral calculus of people around the world getting outraged at the death-toll. War involves the breakdown of values. But we shouldn’t lose perspective here. Israel is a liberal democracy. They engage in warfare according to the rules of war. Israel could completely obliterate the Gaza strip at any moment, if they want – but they clearly don’t want to do that. But, if Hamas could; we all know they would (as is literally carved in their Hamas charter).

And, more importantly, release the Israeli hostages.

✲✲✲

Update: this came in the post recently:

The irony of a war between a people with the means to commit genocide but not the desire; versus people with the desire to commit genocide but not the means.

Antisemitism on the rise (and its relationship with anti-Zionism)

Part 1 – I think anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitism

Firstly, once people assert anti-Zionism is unacceptable etc.; then they invariably hold Israel to ridiculous & absurd standards - well beyond any other country. And certainly not to a commensurable standard as the Palestinian side. 

Secondly, the concept of an ethnic nation would suggest that they are entitled to self-determination as an independent nation state. For Jews, that nation state is Israel – not (only) on the grounds of a genuine historical provenance, but on the grounds of international law via UN resolution. 

When someone says “I’m anti-Zionist ... not an antisemite”, they are accepting and tolerant of the Jew if he’s consigned to his role as the “wandering jew”. Otherwise, they are not entitled to a collective nationhood, the preservation of their history and archaeological sites. There would be no government on Earth ever prioritising Jewish safety. The anti-Zionist wants the Jew to resigned as a perpetual stranger in a country, nothing more. 

Today, 11 pro-Palestine (or, more probably, pro-Hamas) protesters were arrested as thousands marched to Israeli embassy in London. The idiot below was photographed in the march. 

✲✲✲

Part 2 – Antisemitism is on the rise in England

Partly the fascists islamists - “poor Hamas ...!” and the left-wing identity politics groups who see Jews as white and privileged (despite being a minority that has historically been the target of discrimination).

In a recent article in The Telegraph:

Anti-Semitism hit an all-time high last year in an “explosion of hatred” against the Jewish community following the Hamas terror attacks on Israel, official figures show.

The Community Security Trust (CST) said the surge in anti-Jewish attacks, threats and abuse amounted to a “celebration” of Hamas’s October 7 massacre by anti-Semites whose own hatred was fuelled by the brutality of the attacks.

Its annual report said that there were 4,103 anti-Semitic incidents in the UK last year, nearly double the previous record in 2021, covering all types of “hate” against Jewish people.

Mark Gardner, the CST chief executive, said: “British Jews are strong and resilient, but the explosion in hatred against our community is an absolute disgrace.”

Another article recently by Danny Cohen showing the nasty sides of antisemitism:

Post-exam relaxation at Northampton Square

Finished an exam earlier this week. Afterwards went for hot chocolate and some relaxing around Northampton Square in central London. 

Amazing photo shot!

Northampton Square bandstand, with squirrels around.

Strolling around and chilling out.

I loved this door.

Subterranean flowers.

King Charles talking about cancer

Very recently, King Charles announced that he was diagnosed with cancer:

The type of cancer has not been revealed - it is not prostate cancer, but was discovered during his recent treatment for an enlarged prostate.

The King began "regular treatments" on Monday and will postpone public duties during it, the Palace said.

The Monarch, 75, "remains wholly positive about his treatment and looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible," it added.

No further details are being shared on the stage of cancer or a prognosis.

I think this is big news.

For many years, the policy of the Crown has been not to mention any condition that a member of the Royal Family was suffering from. This revelation – alongside the Duchess of York's skin cancer – seems to have increased discussion and/or awareness of health issues:

• "Visits to the NHS webpage on melanoma skin cancer saw an increase in visits of 741% following the recent announcement from the Duchess of York."
• "Macmillan Cancer Support, of which the King is patron, saw a dramatic spike in visits to its information and support pages on Monday, after his cancer diagnosis was revealed."

I think we are v. scared of hearing the c word. We automatically think of chemo and dying, but after reading and learning more about cancer in the past few days, and how survivable it is (e.g. prostate and testicular cancers can be as high as 99%); I think we can 'relax' perhaps a bit more over this subject.

The Execution of Lady Jane Grey by Paul Delaroche – Amazing.

My last blog post concerned romantic painters in the National Gallery – but this particular painting is extraordinary. 

'The Execution of Lady Jane Grey' painted by Paul Delaroche in 1833 which depicts the Queen who reigned for a mere 9 days. 

I think French painter Delaroche was able to depict this moment so beautifully with all its tragedy and sorrow. And, leavened with a noble strength and resolve in the face of such a downfall. She was coerced into accepting the Crown; and must have only been 16 years when she was executed. The fragile vulnerability of Lady Jane Grey (needing support and help) is matched by her elegance and beauty. Also, what a striking counter-position: to be executed among the enveloping darkness of a cold damned crypt, and with hay grass on the floor. The executioner asked for her forgiveness before beheading her:

The executioner asked her forgiveness, which she granted him, pleading: "I pray you dispatch me quickly." Referring to her head, she asked, "Will you take it off before I lay me down?", and the axeman answered, "No, madam."

Lady Jane was deposed by supporters of the Catholic Queen Mary. Lady Jane was executed because she represented a potential claimant to the English Crown against Queen Mary as long as she lived. Queen Mary had intended to pardon her but, following an attempted revolt and rebellion over the Spanish marriage, she probably felt Lady Jane was too dangerous. King Henry VIII dictated that the throne of England would pass Edward VI, and only then Queen Mary should inherit the throne. Instead of the Crown passing directly onto Mary (as per Henry VIII), Edward VI tried to control the passing of the Crown onto Lady Jane (his protestant cousin).

She was beheaded at the Tower of London.

The Post Office scandal – biggest miscarriage of justice in British history

There is a huge scandal in Britain at the moment. 

In 2019, the High Court ruled that the Post Office's Fujitsu's Horizon IT system contained inherent bugs, glitches and errors which had erroneously flagged up account shortfalls. However, by this point, the Post Office had forced at least 4,000 sub-postmasters – the individuals running local branches – to make repayments based on this data.

The Post Office, their investigators, and Fujitsu employees, essentially lied to cover up the widespread problems with Horizon. This cover up was instrumental in this miscarriages of justice which resulted in malicious wrongful convictions and resultant fatalities, and ruination of lives. There probably needs to be a criminal prosecution of certain Post Office management and relevant Fujitsu individuals. They knowingly instigated vexatious litigation, misled the courts, and appropriated serious sums of money from the sub-postmasters who 'repaid' money that was never missing. Then, they received bonuses on the money they stole and the tax they reclaimed. (More info: BBC News)

The government is trying to pass the Post Office exoneration bill to overturn these convictions.

The problem with a legislative approach is as follows: 

• It creates two kinds of precedents:
• When the next scandal comes along, there will be a political clamour for 'something to be seen to be done'. If the government of the day simply refuses, and leaves it for the courts to correct; then inconsistency will lead to accusations of favouritism. 
• It gives government latitude to interfere by fiat with other things best left to the courts, e.g. declaring that an landlocked African country was safe when it was not. Other examples could follow in due course. What if, as opposed to exoneration; a future Parliament passes a law that maligns a given group as being 'guilty' of some crime? 
• There is also a rule of law problem with laws that have retrospective effect. It would entail changing the law of, let's say, assault which would lead to previous convictions being reassessed. The rule of law requires that legislation doesn't move in that direction.
• Some of the sub-postmasters may be guilty. What if, in due course, an investigation reveals that around 10% of all blanket-acquittals were actually guilty? It would taint the acquittal of the 90%.
• Some innocent defendants might fall through the net, depending on how the Act is drafted.

What is really needed is for the government to ensure resources allow these cases to be heard quickly by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Whether via the Criminal Cases Review Commission (which refers cases back to the Court of Appeal) or through a special legal unit that acts as solicitors to the convicted postal workers, or a combination of the both, is a matter of detail. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has been chronically under-resourced. Presently, without their prior approval, none of these old convictions can be sent to the Court of Criminal Appeal. 

However, judges can be remarkably innovative when the need arises. I wouldn't be surprised if a vehicle arises (e.g. an individual appeal) to take the findings from the Horizon Inquiry and make a generally binding decision; namely, that postmaster convictions based on Horizon evidence were fundamentally flawed and unsafe, and that an individual conviction could only stand if the case was re-prosecuted.

I was struck by a comment from Nicholas Cooke KC in an interesting article in the Guardian:

I am very concerned that the proposed legislation will have the effect of covering up the extent to which failings in the criminal justice system allowed this appalling miscarriage of justice to occur.

If this is swept under the carpet, the courts won't adjust to account for this blind spot. Perhaps a judicial direction to a jury?

It is far preferable that court cases are dealt with by the courts.

Academic and romantic painters of early 19th century – National Gallery

This blog is a write up on room 45 of the National Gallery. 

The art here focuses on the academic teaching of executing compositions of historical, mythological and religious subjects in the romantic tradition. 

The overall Romantic movement - which includes artists like Francisco de Goya, Eugene Delacroix etc. - have a psychological and emotional depth that is evoked. For me, I have always been drawn to the 19th century romantic landscapes (e.g. JMW Turner). It's art trying to reach the sublime - that sense of awe when observing mankind against the power and majesty of nature shown in grand scale. In Europe, it was partially a response to the Industrial Revolution, and a yearning to return to the 'simplicity' of the open-air countryside, a form of escapism. When it comes to people; Francisco de Goya, as a great example, was able to exhibit humanity as a sublime force of its own.

✲✲✲

Monsieur de Norvins by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres

Captivating - even beguiling.

There is a lot of depth to this painting.

The sitter is Monsieur de Norvins. He was made Chief of Police in Rome in 1811 - when it was painted. I.e. before Napoleon's fall in 1814.

His face is fascinating; body at an angle, his head and especially the eyes scrutinizes and studies us. Eyes seem to narrow slightly, and his lips closed and pursed, as if to curse. One eyebrow raised just slightly? I love his thick raggedy hair - quite dashing even. Altogether, he strikes me as being a somewhat guarded and even forbidding character. That red ribbon marks him as a Chevalier (Knight) of the Légion d'Honneur, which was the highest French distinction for military and civil accomplishments created by Napoleon. 

The vibrancy in the colour is striking and sumptuous. Those 18th century silky-white shirts and neckerchief-cravats really look beautiful against his black greatcoat and opulent silky red-maroon curtains.

According to the NG:

Norvins was a supporter of the Emperor Napoleon – and later wrote a very successful four-volume biography of him – and his political allegiance is shown by the Napoleonic gesture of placing his left hand inside his jacket.

There is a very interesting article which delves into the later-concealed pentimentos of the Napoleonic period. The fall of Napoleon and the shift in power to the Bourbon monarchy meant it was dangerous to exhibit overt loyalties to the former Emperor.

✲✲✲

Don Andrés del Peral by Francisco de Goya

An engaging portrait - vulnerability and frailty leavened by a certain comfortable elegance. 

The languid eyes, grey wispy hair, the left side of his face slightly drooping (perhaps an illness?).

It makes for an intriguing persona. It seems Peral - along with Goya - was employed at the royal court in Madrid. So, they must have known one another.

I am not sure if he's drawing something out of a pocket though. That's a classic Napoleon stance.

✲✲✲

The Duke of Wellington by Francisco de Goya

This is Arthur Wellesley. He was born in Dublin and became the first Duke of Wellington.

I think this painting captures something of Wellington. A certain cautiousness. Alertness. He is certainly not short of military awards.

After defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington purportedly broke down in tears due to the appalling loss of the battle, and didn't care to be congratulated on his victory.

Here he is depicted after his liberation of Spain from the French at the battle of Salamanca in 1812. 

✲✲✲

The Emperor Napoleon I by Horace Vernet

I really do love Napoleon.

The background smoke is apt. Those lone wisps of hair seem a bit peculiar on Napoleon; but Vernet captures a guy who isn't the most dashing - but has the feel of 'au destin'.

To me, it's his rags-to-riches story which is entwined in his legacy.

On the one hand, I know that Napoleon was very careful at curating his own image. He regularly misreported his losses among his men in battles, and frequently exaggerated the losses of his enemies. He was alive at a time when propaganda played a significant role in the upper echelons of military life and around the time of revolution. In other respects he was quite lucky because - by the time he began to rise - the French revolution had killed huge portions of the senior military officers. Also, a common misconception still resonates about Napoleon's supposed height. But this can be attributed to us, in Britain, pushing the idea that he was short, among other things.

On the other hand, he seems to have been genuinely remarkable - esp. during the time of Romanticism in art. He revolutionized warfare and military leadership through meritocracy and the corps system. Napoleon defeated coalitions of other European major powers - alone - during France's most extreme tumult & unrest. He lead expeditions to Egypt (giving us all the Rosetta stone), and then coronated himself as emperor. 

The romantic fate: where, at the end, he lost everything and was imprisoned on a small island.

✲✲✲

Afternoon in the Tuileries Gardens by Adolph Menzel

Lovely.

What is very striking to me is how Adolph Menzel can capture the visual aesthetics of a summery French afternoon. Reminds me a bit of impressionism in this Paris gardens.

Adolph Menzel is an artist I don't know much about. I did a Google search and his other works seem v. beautiful.

Sheer detail: two children playing under their father's legs, a girl in the back crying, the shadow of the trees' branches and leaves.

✲✲✲

Rienzi vowing to obtain Justice for his Brother's Death by William Holman Hunt

You cannot mistake the subject of this painting.

Cola di Rienzi (1313-54) was a Roman who declared the reestablishment of the Roman Republic. He sought to represent the populace of Rome against the wily machinations of the nobles that dominated the city. Here, his youthful and indomitable spirit is clear. Clinched fist, youthful champion of the peoples against the barons; only to be counterposed by the horses' backsides against them.

The brother as blond and youthful, innocent-like, with wreath of flowers in his hand. Strange that the brother is the only one furious. The other soldiers - towards the fore - merely observe nonchalantly and whisper to themselves.

Signifying the end of innocence?

✲✲✲

Evening on the Lake by Camille Corot

Evokes the quiet, gloomy and elegiac. 

The unwinding of a lovely sunny afternoon (boat coming into shore) - with its inherent nostalgia - as the sun sets, and darkness creeps in. I really do love the calm & unruffled waves painted across this lake and its shimmering reflections.

It's unsettling a bit; and a bit peaceful.

I like that red dot, a red chapeau on the fisherman's head?

I think we can see Corot's influence on impressionists and the en plein air style. I remember he was Berthe Morisot's art teacher.