Tipu’s Tiger (c. 1790)

Between 1767 and 1799 there was a series of wars fought between the British East India Com­pa­ny and the King­dom of Mysore, all part of the ongo­ing strug­gle of the British to con­sol­i­date domin­ion in the Indi­an sub­con­ti­nent and lay the ground for what would become the British Empire. The Fourth, and last, Anglo-Mysore War cul­mi­nat­ed in 1799 with the deci­sive defeat and death of Tipu Sul­tan, the ruler of the Mysore­ans, at the siege of his cap­i­tal, Seringa­p­atam.

Dur­ing the sub­se­quent plun­der of Tipu’s palace, East India Com­pa­ny troops came across an unusu­al and intrigu­ing mechan­i­cal toy in a room giv­en over to musi­cal instru­ments. It was a carved and paint­ed wood­en tiger sav­aging a near life-size Euro­pean man. Con­cealed inside the tiger’s body, behind a hinged flap, was an organ which could be oper­at­ed by the turn­ing of a han­dle next to it. This simul­ta­ne­ous­ly made the man’s arm lift up and down and pro­duced nois­es intend­ed to imi­tate his dying moans and the growls of the tiger. A piece more emblem­at­ic of the Sultan’s antipa­thy towards the British would be hard to find!

The Gov­er­nors of the East India Com­pa­ny sent the inter­est­ing object back to Lon­don, where, after a few years in stor­age, it was dis­played in the read­ing-room of the East India Com­pa­ny Muse­um and Library at East India House in Lead­en­hall Street. It proved to be a very pop­u­lar exhib­it and the pub­lic could not only view Tipu’s Tiger, but crank its han­dle and oper­ate its machin­ery at will. This they did on a reg­u­lar basis, appar­ent­ly, to the deep annoy­ance of stu­dents try­ing to study there. No sur­prise then, that at some point the han­dle dis­ap­peared, and the peri­od­i­cal The Athenaeum report­ed that:

“Luck­i­ly, a kind fate has deprived him of his han­dle… and we do sin­cere­ly hope he will remain so, to be seen and admired but to be heard no more”

In 1880, the Vic­to­ria and Albert Muse­um acquired the piece, and it remains there to this day (the han­dle has of course been replaced, though not for the pub­lic to crank). Tipu was big into his tigers: he had jew­elled, gold­en tiger heads as finials on his throne, tiger stripes stamped onto his coinage, and tigers incor­po­rat­ed into the Mysore­an swords, guns, and mor­tars. How­ev­er, this won­der­ful­ly paint­ed piece is cer­tain­ly the most unusu­al! Do call into the V&A if you get the oppor­tu­ni­ty.

 
Tipu’s Tiger

The Shower Scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960)

In Novem­ber 1957, police in Plain­field, Wis­con­sin, inves­ti­gat­ing the dis­ap­pear­ance of store own­er Ber­nice Wor­den, arrest­ed one Edward Gein. Upon search­ing his house, they found Bernice’s decap­i­tat­ed body hang­ing upside down by her legs and “dressed out like a deer”. In addi­tion, they found a cat­a­logue of gris­ly tro­phies and keep­sakes made from human skin and bones. Gein con­fessed to mur­der­ing two women and, even more shock­ing­ly, exhum­ing up to nine corpses of recent­ly-buried mid­dle-aged women from local grave­yards. The Butch­er of Plain­field, as he became known, would pro­vide inspi­ra­tion for the future mak­ers of the Texas Chain­saw Mas­sacre, The Silence of the Lambs, and – thanks to the 1959 Robert Bloch nov­el of the same name – Alfred Hitchcock’s Psy­cho.

Besides mak­ing peo­ple for­ev­er wary of motel-room show­ers, Hitch­cock­’s Psy­cho con­tin­ues to have an incal­cu­la­ble influ­ence on pop­u­lar cul­ture. It was a clear mark­er in the his­to­ry of cin­e­ma, par­tic­u­lar­ly the psy­cho­log­i­cal thriller, of which Hitch­cock was a mas­ter. It may not have been the first “slash­er movie” (that cred­it has been giv­en to British movie Peep­ing Tom, released just three months pri­or to Psy­cho, or even 1932’s Thir­teen Women) but it was cer­tain­ly the most dra­mat­ic and impact­ful in the pub­lic con­scious­ness.

It is of course the sto­ry of Nor­man Bates (Antho­ny Perkins), the obses­sion­al, split-per­son­al­i­ty psy­chopath of the title, and Mar­i­on Crane (Janet Leigh), the sin­gle female find­ing her­self in very much the wrong place at the wrong time, name­ly Bates Motel. The noto­ri­ous show­er scene, in which Mar­i­on is mur­dered in a fren­zied knife attack, is the piv­otal scene and one of the most stud­ied mon­tages of film edit­ing ever made. It was shot over one week in Decem­ber 1959. The fin­ished scene runs for three min­utes, includes sev­en­ty sev­en dif­fer­ent cam­era angles, main­ly extreme close-ups and fifty cuts.

For Leigh’s blood, which swirled down the show­er drain, Hitch­cock used Bosco choco­late syrup. To cre­ate the sound effect of the knife stab­bing flesh, he sent prop man Bob Bone out to fetch a vari­ety of mel­ons. The direc­tor then closed his eyes as Bone took turns stab­bing water­mel­ons, casabas, can­taloupes and hon­ey­dews (he chose casa­ba). The sound­track of screech­ing string instru­ments was an orig­i­nal and high­ly effec­tive piece by com­pos­er Bernard Her­rmann.

Para­mount had con­sid­ered the movie a high­ly risky project, so Hitch­cock deferred his salary in exchange for 60 per­cent of the net prof­it. The film cost just $800,000 to make, grossed $40 mil­lion and Hitch­cock pock­et­ed some $15 million…so not a bad deci­sion!

Alfred Hitch­cock

Thomas Gray’s Elegy Written In A Country Churchyard (1751)

My broth­er-in-law Phil is a man with style (which I say because it’s true, not because there’s a slight chance he may read this blog) and when I attend­ed his wed­ding back on a Decem­ber day in 2007, I not­ed how typ­i­cal of his style it was that he should have cho­sen, as the site for his nup­tials, the won­der­ful St Giles parish church at Stoke Poges (actu­al­ly, think­ing about it, is was more like­ly to have been Zoe’s choice than Phil’s but let’s not let that get in the way of a good intro). It was a styl­ish choice, for St Giles is a won­der­ful exam­ple of a real­ly old and real­ly quaint Eng­lish vil­lage church, as per­fect for a wed­ding as can be imag­ined. It was also the inspi­ra­tion and set­ting for one of the 18th century’s most famous and endur­ing poems, Thomas Gray’s Ele­gy Writ­ten in a Coun­try Church­yard.

Thomas Gray was an Eng­lish poet and clas­si­cal schol­ar, who lived in Stoke Poges from 1750. The poem is a med­i­ta­tion on death and remem­brance, inspired in turns by the deaths of his friend Richard West and his aunt Mary (not to men­tion the very near death of his friend Horace Wal­pole fol­low­ing an inci­dent with two high­way­men, but that’s anoth­er sto­ry). Gray sent the com­plet­ed poem to Wal­pole, who pop­u­larised it among Lon­don lit­er­ary cir­cles, and it was pub­lished in 1751.

Gray’s Ele­gy quick­ly became pop­u­lar, and was print­ed many times and in a vari­ety of for­mats, and praised by crit­ics. It con­tains many phras­es that have entered the com­mon Eng­lish lex­i­con: for exam­ple “far from the madding crowd” was used as the title of Thomas Hardy’s nov­el, and the terms “kin­dred spir­it” and “paths of glo­ry” also come from this poem (Gray also coined the term “igno­rance is bliss”, though in a dif­fer­ent poem). His ele­gy isn’t tech­ni­cal­ly an ele­gy — not a con­ven­tion­al one at any rate — but it does con­tain ele­ments of the ele­giac genre and it is a thought­ful con­tem­pla­tion on mor­tal­i­ty. It is worth tak­ing the time to read or lis­ten to it, as of course you can below.

Gray is him­self buried in St Giles’ grave­yard, and thus, since I was at the time an enthu­si­ast for the hob­by of dis­cov­er­ing and vis­it­ing lit­er­ary graves (or “stiff-bag­ging” as my sis­ter-in-law indel­i­cate­ly puts it), Phil and Zoe’s choice hand­ed me that one on a plate!

Here is a read­ing of the poem, with the words of the poem below, to fol­low along with:

The cur­few tolls the knell of part­ing day,
The low­ing herd wind slow­ly o’er the lea,
The plow­man home­ward plods his weary way,
And leaves the world to dark­ness and to me.

Now fades the glim­m’ring land­scape on the sight,
And all the air a solemn still­ness holds,
Save where the bee­tle wheels his dron­ing flight,
And drowsy tin­klings lull the dis­tant folds;

Save that from yon­der ivy-man­tled tow’r
The mop­ing owl does to the moon com­plain
Of such, as wand’ring near her secret bow’r,
Molest her ancient soli­tary reign.

Beneath those rugged elms, that yew-tree’s shade,
Where heaves the turf in many a mould’ring heap,
Each in his nar­row cell for ever laid,
The rude fore­fa­thers of the ham­let sleep.

The breezy call of incense-breath­ing Morn,
The swal­low twit­t’ring from the straw-built shed,
The cock­’s shrill clar­i­on, or the echo­ing horn,
No more shall rouse them from their low­ly bed.

For them no more the blaz­ing hearth shall burn,
Or busy house­wife ply her evening care:
No chil­dren run to lisp their sire’s return,
Or climb his knees the envied kiss to share.

Oft did the har­vest to their sick­le yield,
Their fur­row oft the stub­born glebe has broke;
How jocund did they dri­ve their team afield!
How bow’d the woods beneath their stur­dy stroke!

Let not Ambi­tion mock their use­ful toil,
Their home­ly joys, and des­tiny obscure;
Nor Grandeur hear with a dis­dain­ful smile
The short and sim­ple annals of the poor.

The boast of her­aldry, the pomp of pow’r,
And all that beau­ty, all that wealth e’er gave,
Awaits alike th’ inevitable hour.
The paths of glo­ry lead but to the grave.

Nor you, ye proud, impute to these the fault,
If Mem’ry o’er their tomb no tro­phies raise,
Where thro’ the long-drawn aisle and fret­ted vault
The peal­ing anthem swells the note of praise.

Can sto­ried urn or ani­mat­ed bust
Back to its man­sion call the fleet­ing breath?
Can Hon­our’s voice pro­voke the silent dust,
Or Flat­t’ry soothe the dull cold ear of Death?

Per­haps in this neglect­ed spot is laid
Some heart once preg­nant with celes­tial fire;
Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway’d,
Or wak’d to ecsta­sy the liv­ing lyre.

But Knowl­edge to their eyes her ample page
Rich with the spoils of time did ne’er unroll;
Chill Penury repress’d their noble rage,
And froze the genial cur­rent of the soul.

Full many a gem of purest ray serene,
The dark unfath­om’d caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flow’r is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweet­ness on the desert air.

Some vil­lage-Ham­p­den, that with daunt­less breast
The lit­tle tyrant of his fields with­stood;
Some mute inglo­ri­ous Mil­ton here may rest,
Some Cromwell guilt­less of his coun­try’s blood.

Th’ applause of list’n­ing sen­ates to com­mand,
The threats of pain and ruin to despise,
To scat­ter plen­ty o’er a smil­ing land,
And read their hist’ry in a nation’s eyes,

Their lot for­bade: nor cir­cum­scrib’d alone
Their grow­ing virtues, but their crimes con­fin’d;
For­bade to wade through slaugh­ter to a throne,
And shut the gates of mer­cy on mankind,

The strug­gling pangs of con­scious truth to hide,
To quench the blush­es of ingen­u­ous shame,
Or heap the shrine of Lux­u­ry and Pride
With incense kin­dled at the Muse’s flame.

Far from the madding crowd’s igno­ble strife,
Their sober wish­es nev­er learn’d to stray;
Along the cool sequester’d vale of life
They kept the noise­less tenor of their way.

Yet ev’n these bones from insult to pro­tect,
Some frail memo­r­i­al still erect­ed nigh,
With uncouth rhymes and shape­less sculp­ture deck­’d,
Implores the pass­ing trib­ute of a sigh.

Their name, their years, spelt by th’ unlet­ter’d muse,
The place of fame and ele­gy sup­ply:
And many a holy text around she strews,
That teach the rus­tic moral­ist to die.

For who to dumb For­get­ful­ness a prey,
This pleas­ing anx­ious being e’er resign’d,
Left the warm precincts of the cheer­ful day,
Nor cast one long­ing, ling’ring look behind?

On some fond breast the part­ing soul relies,
Some pious drops the clos­ing eye requires;
Ev’n from the tomb the voice of Nature cries,
Ev’n in our ash­es live their wont­ed fires.

For thee, who mind­ful of th’ unho­nour’d Dead
Dost in these lines their art­less tale relate;
If chance, by lone­ly con­tem­pla­tion led,
Some kin­dred spir­it shall inquire thy fate,

Hap­ly some hoary-head­ed swain may say,
“Oft have we seen him at the peep of dawn
Brush­ing with hasty steps the dews away
To meet the sun upon the upland lawn.

“There at the foot of yon­der nod­ding beech
That wreathes its old fan­tas­tic roots so high,
His list­less length at noon­tide would he stretch,
And pore upon the brook that bab­bles by.

“Hard by yon wood, now smil­ing as in scorn,
Mut­t’ring his way­ward fan­cies he would rove,
Now droop­ing, woe­ful wan, like one for­lorn,
Or craz’d with care, or cross’d in hope­less love.

“One morn I mis­s’d him on the cus­tom’d hill,
Along the heath and near his fav’rite tree;
Anoth­er came; nor yet beside the rill,
Nor up the lawn, nor at the wood was he;

“The next with dirges due in sad array
Slow thro’ the church-way path we saw him borne.
Approach and read (for thou canst read) the lay,
Grav’d on the stone beneath yon aged thorn.”

THE EPITAPH
Here rests his head upon the lap of Earth
A youth to For­tune and to Fame unknown.
Fair Sci­ence frown’d not on his hum­ble birth,
And Melan­choly mark’d him for her own.

Large was his boun­ty, and his soul sin­cere,
Heav’n did a rec­om­pense as large­ly send:
He gave to Mis­’ry all he had, a tear,
He gain’d from Heav’n (’twas all he wish’d) a friend.

No far­ther seek his mer­its to dis­close,
Or draw his frail­ties from their dread abode,
(There they alike in trem­bling hope repose)
The bosom of his Father and his God.

Vincent Van Gogh’s Café Terrace at Night (1888)

Vin­cent Van Gogh remains per­haps the most rep­re­sen­ta­tive, in the pub­lic imag­i­na­tion, of the “tor­tured genius”. Nev­er suc­cess­ful as an artist in his life­time, he suf­fered from bouts of psy­chot­ic delu­sions and men­tal insta­bil­i­ty, includ­ing that noto­ri­ous episode in which he took a razor to his left ear. Ulti­mate­ly, he took his own life: in 1890 he shot him­self in the chest with a revolver and died from his injuries two days lat­er. He was 37. But my, what an artis­tic lega­cy he left, and what tremen­dous glob­al fame he would achieve, posthumously…if he had only had an inkling!

Today, when we think of Van Gogh, a num­ber of his paint­ings spring to mind. There is his Sun­flower series (take your pick, there are many dif­fer­ent ver­sions), paint­ed in 1888 and 1889 with the gus­to, in Vincent’s own words, of a “Mar­seil­lais eat­ing bouil­l­abaisse”. There is The Star­ry Night (famous­ly name-checked in the open­ing line of Don McLean’s song, Vin­cent), paint­ed in 1889 and depict­ing the view from Vincent’s room in the asy­lum at Saint-Rémy-de-Provence. There are his many self-por­traits (over 30, with and with­out ban­daged left ear). Or per­haps his won­der­ful­ly (and decep­tive­ly) child-like Bed­room at Arles.

There is one of Van Gogh’s paint­ings in par­tic­u­lar, how­ev­er, that appeals to my imag­i­na­tion the most, and that is his Café Ter­race at Night. Depict­ing a late-night cof­fee house in the Place du Forum in Arles, it brings togeth­er all the ele­ments of Van Gogh’s tal­ents in one won­der­ful­ly evoca­tive scene. Bathed in the light of a huge yel­low lantern, the café looks like the per­fect place to spend a warm summer’s eve, doesn’t it? I could wile away an hour or two there, watch­ing the world go by, no prob­lem!

An intense yel­low sat­u­rates the cafe and its awning, and projects beyond the café onto the cob­ble­stones of the street, which takes on a vio­let-pink tinge. The street leads away into the dark­ness under a blue sky stud­ded with larg­er-than-life stars. Dash­es of green from the tree in the top-right and the low­er wall of the café, along with the orange ter­ra­cot­ta of the café floor, add to the sat­is­fy­ing palette of this paint­ing. Van Gogh wrote that “the night is more alive and more rich­ly coloured than the day”, and on the strength of this piece I can see what he means.

Cafe Terrace at Night

Johnny Cash’s Folsom Prison Blues (1955)

The stock mar­ket crash that hap­pened in the Unit­ed States on 29th Octo­ber 1929 (“Black Tues­day”) pre­cip­i­tat­ed the 20th century’s longest and deep­est reces­sion known as the Great Depres­sion. To com­pound the finan­cial col­lapse, three waves of severe drought through­out the Thir­ties reduced the Great Plains to a “dust bowl”, caus­ing wide­spread pover­ty and famine in states such as Okla­homa, Kansas, and Arkansas. This was the world into which John­ny Cash was born. He was born in 1932, and lived with his fam­i­ly in one of F D Roosevelt’s New Deal colonies in Dyess, Arkansas. From age five he worked with his fam­i­ly in cot­ton fields, and expe­ri­enced their finan­cial and per­son­al strug­gles through­out drought and flood. If a deprived back­ground leads to authen­tic­i­ty in music, then John­ny Cash was sure­ly authen­tic!

He was also incred­i­bly gift­ed musi­cal­ly, with that amaz­ing bass-bari­tone voice of his, and after being dis­charged from the US Air Force in 1954, he launched a career that would turn him into one of the best­selling artists of all time and a coun­try music icon. His oth­er defin­ing char­ac­ter­is­tics were his ten­den­cy to mis­de­meanour as a result of alco­hol and drug abuse, and his nat­ur­al com­pas­sion for the under­dogs of soci­ety. The for­mer led to many set­backs from which Cash had to bounce back, whilst the lat­ter led him to activism on behalf of Native Amer­i­cans as well as a series of con­certs in high secu­ri­ty pris­ons.

Of his many come­backs, the biggest was undoubt­ed­ly the 1968 live album John­ny Cash at Fol­som Prison. Record­ed in front of an audi­ence of near­ly 2000 con­vict­ed crim­i­nals, in Folsom’s Din­ing Hall 2, it cement­ed his out­law rep­u­ta­tion and sta­tus as cham­pi­on of the down­trod­den, and it shot him back into the big time. Con­tain­ing defin­i­tive ver­sions of many Cash clas­sics, it’s a mas­ter­piece that’s sold con­sis­tent­ly ever since. He began, appro­pri­ate­ly enough, with Fol­som Prison Blues, the song he had first record­ed back in 1955.

Cash had been inspired to write this song after watch­ing the movie Inside the Walls of Fol­som Prison (1951) whilst serv­ing in West Ger­many in the US Air Force. The song com­bined two pop­u­lar folk styles, the “train song” and the “prison song”. It was record­ed at Sun Stu­dios in Mem­phis, Ten­nessee in July, 1955, pro­duced by the leg­endary Sam Phillips, and the musi­cians were Cash (vocals, gui­tar), Luther Perkins (gui­tar), and Mar­shall Grant (bass). Here is a great per­for­mance of the song by Cash and the Ten­nessee Three on the Jim­my Dean Show in 1964.

I hear the train a comin’, it’s rolling ’round the bend
And I ain’t seen the sun­shine since I don’t know when
I’m stuck in Fol­som prison, and time keeps drag­gin’ on
But that train keeps a rollin’ on down to San Antone

When I was just a baby my mama told me, “Son
Always be a good boy, don’t ever play with guns”
But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die
When I hear that whis­tle blow­ing, I hang my head and cry

I bet there’s rich folks eat­ing in a fan­cy din­ing car
They’re prob­a­bly drinkin’ cof­fee and smok­ing big cig­ars
Well I know I had it com­ing, I know I can’t be free
But those peo­ple keep a‑movin’
And that’s what tor­tures me

Well if they freed me from this prison
If that rail­road train was mine
I bet I’d move it on a lit­tle far­ther down the line
Far from Fol­som prison, that’s where I want to stay
And I’d let that lone­some whis­tle blow my blues away

John­ny Cash and the Ten­nessee Three
John­ny Cash at Fol­som Prison

Giovanni Piranesi’s Imaginary Prisons (1761)

Venice had been one of the great trad­ing pow­ers of medieval and Renais­sance Europe, but by the 18th-cen­tu­ry its polit­i­cal domin­ion was wan­ing. Although past its hey­day, the repub­lic still pos­sessed great appeal to the emerg­ing tourist mar­ket; it was a pre­em­i­nent des­ti­na­tion for the thou­sands of promi­nent young adult males embark­ing on the “Grand Tour”. Cap­i­tal­is­ing on the tourists’ desire to secure a memen­to, there devel­oped the genre of view paint­ing, spawn­ing a pletho­ra of paint­ings of the Rial­to Bridge, the Grand Canal and St Mark’s Square, by the likes of Canalet­to, Bel­lot­to, and the Guar­di broth­ers.

As well as real city views, the artists some­times liked to let their fan­cy fly and paint imag­i­nary views (capric­ci) that placed build­ings, archae­o­log­i­cal ruins and oth­er archi­tec­tur­al ele­ments togeth­er in fic­tion­al and often fan­tas­ti­cal com­bi­na­tions. The name of one such artist, Gio­van­ni Bat­tista Pirane­si, is not par­tic­u­lar­ly well-known these days but nonethe­less left to his­to­ry a series of etch­ings whose influ­ence is felt to this day: the so-called Imag­i­nary Pris­ons (Le Carceri).

These pris­ons of Piranesi’s imag­i­na­tion were dark, labyrinthine depic­tions of a night­mare world. Ever since they were pub­lished — the first edi­tion in the late 1740s, the sec­ond, even dark­er one in 1761 — Pirane­si’s images have inspired design­ers, writ­ers and archi­tects alike. We can see ele­ments of them in Fritz Lang’s Metrop­o­lis and in Michael Rad­ford’s adap­ta­tion of George Orwell’s 1984. The etch­ings fore­shad­ow M C Escher’s play­ful explo­rations of per­spec­tive, and we can even see their influ­ence in the mov­ing stair­cas­es at Hog­warts.

Pirane­si’s prison inte­ri­ors have no out­er walls; each vista is cut off only by the frame of the image itself. The spaces are large and con­tin­u­ous: they may not even be inte­ri­ors; this may be a city that has grown into a world, where inte­ri­or and exte­ri­or are no longer defin­able. We see strange devices sug­ges­tive of tor­ture: wheels with spikes, pul­leys, bas­kets big enough to con­tain a per­son. You don’t quite know how they work, or what the think­ing could be behind them. Pris­on­ers under­go mys­te­ri­ous tor­ments, chained to posts, whilst high above them spec­ta­tors gath­er on a ver­tig­i­nous walk­way. It is impos­si­ble to tell at times who is a pris­on­er, who a guard, who a vis­i­tor, and in the end you sus­pect that every­one in this place is a pris­on­er.

Some of Pirane­si’s Imag­i­nary Pris­ons:

…and some exam­ples of their influ­ence in mod­ern cul­ture:

Mary Cassatt’s Young Mother Sewing (1900)

When we think of the Impres­sion­ists, we tend to think about Mon­et, Renoir, Degas, Cézanne…and quite right­ly, because they were titans of their art. How­ev­er, less well-known to us (always the way, unfor­tu­nate­ly, eh ladies?) were “les trois grandes dames” of Impres­sion­ism, name­ly Marie Brac­que­mond, Berthe Morisot and the sub­ject of today’s blog, Mary Cas­satt. These women more than held their own amongst their male coun­ter­parts; all three pro­duced won­der­ful art and exhib­it­ed suc­cess­ful­ly at the Paris Salons.

Mary Cas­satt was a young Amer­i­can artist who arrived in Paris in 1866, hav­ing quit the Penn­syl­va­nia Acad­e­my of the Fine Arts back home, due to the lack of inspi­ra­tion and patro­n­is­ing atti­tude of the male stu­dents and teach­ers there. Although we asso­ciate the birth of fem­i­nism with the ear­ly 1900s, the first wave of fem­i­nism began as ear­ly as the 1840s, and some doors were opened to women, par­tic­u­lar­ly in cos­mopoli­tan Paris, to which Mary was drawn.

Not all doors were opened, how­ev­er: women still couldn’t study art at the pres­ti­gious École des Beaux-Arts so Cas­satt signed up for pri­vate study with Jean-Léon Gérôme, (the Ori­en­tal­ist I wrote about back in March) and she became an advo­cate for women’s equal­i­ty all her life. She became a friend and col­lab­o­ra­tor of Edgar Degas, too. They had stu­dios a five-minute stroll apart, and Degas would reg­u­lar­ly look in at Mary’s stu­dio, offer­ing advice and help­ing find mod­els.

Cassatt’s art cen­tred on the lives of women, and in par­tic­u­lar she paint­ed many works depict­ing the inti­mate bond between moth­er and child. It is that aspect I am show­cas­ing here, with a gallery of pieces fea­tur­ing some often touch­ing depic­tions of moth­er and child, begin­ning with Young Moth­er Sewing, paint­ed in 1900 and pur­chased a year lat­er by influ­en­tial art col­lec­tor and fem­i­nist Loui­sine Have­mey­er, who fit­ting­ly used it to raise mon­ey for the wom­en’s suf­frage cause.


Mary Cas­satt

Edward Lear’s The Owl and The Pussycat (1871)

Every­body knows The Owl and the Pussy­cat, the non­sense poem by Edward Lear. There’s no rule that impels its inclu­sion in the pri­ma­ry school cur­ricu­lum; it is just one of those pieces of our cul­ture that gets passed down and which every­one has heard by the time they’re ten. Per­haps by osmo­sis. Or more like­ly, its appeal to many a nurs­ery school assis­tant charged with enter­tain­ing a room­ful of chil­dren, due to its deli­cious use of lan­guage, rhyme, and imagery.

First pub­lished in 1871 as part of his book Non­sense Songs, Sto­ries, Botany, and Alpha­bets, Lear wrote the poem for the daugh­ter of a friend. And like that oth­er great Vic­to­ri­an pur­vey­or of non­sense verse, Lewis Car­roll, Lear had that exquis­ite tal­ent for choos­ing just the right made-up non­sense words. “Run­ci­ble”, for exam­ple, as in the phrase “which they ate with a run­ci­ble spoon”, was one such coinage, right up there with Lewis Carroll’s ‘galumph­ing’ and ‘fru­mious’ from Jab­ber­wocky. Lear went on to use this won­der­ful­ly mean­ing­less adjec­tive to describe his hat, a wall, and even his cat. “The Run­ci­ble Spoon” would be a great name for a café, wouldn’t it? In fact, there already is one: I came across this in the vil­lage of Hin­der­well, whilst on hol­i­day in Runswick Bay:

The Run­ci­ble Spoon cafe, Hin­der­well

But is ‘The Owl and the Pussy­cat’ meant to mean any­thing? Is it sim­ply delight­ful fan­ta­sy with its owl and pussy­cat that can talk and sing songs, a pig that engages in finan­cial trans­ac­tions, and a turkey offi­ci­at­ing at a wed­ding? Should we read any­thing into the fact that they have to sail the seas for a year and a day, trav­el­ling to the land of the Bong-Tree, in order to get a ring? Or is it mak­ing a com­men­tary on Vic­to­ri­an soci­ety, sub­vert­ing its norms and mores? I don’t think we need to know. Sim­ply enjoy the ver­mo­nious use of words (ver­mo­nious? I just made it up, of course!).

The Owl and the Pussy-cat went to sea
In a beau­ti­ful pea-green boat,
They took some hon­ey, and plen­ty of mon­ey,
Wrapped up in a five-pound note.
The Owl looked up to the stars above,
And sang to a small gui­tar,
“O love­ly Pussy! O Pussy, my love,
What a beau­ti­ful Pussy you are,
You are,
You are!
What a beau­ti­ful Pussy you are!”

Pussy said to the Owl, “You ele­gant fowl!
How charm­ing­ly sweet you sing!
O let us be mar­ried! too long we have tar­ried:
But what shall we do for a ring?“
They sailed away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the Bong-Tree grows
And there in a wood a Pig­gy-wig stood
With a ring at the end of his nose,
His nose,
His nose,
With a ring at the end of his nose.

“Dear Pig, are you will­ing to sell for one shilling
Your ring?” Said the Pig­gy, “I will.“
So they took it away, and were mar­ried next day
By the Turkey who lives on the hill.
They dined on mince, and slices of quince,
Which they ate with a run­ci­ble spoon;
And hand in hand, on the edge of the sand,
They danced by the light of the moon,
The moon,
The moon,
They danced by the light of the moon.

Christopher Guest’s This is Spinal Tap (1984)

When I was young, not yet a teenag­er, I inher­it­ed from my elder sis­ters a num­ber of vinyl LPs, among them David Bowie’s The Rise and Fall of Zig­gy Star­dust and the Spi­ders from Mars, Cat Stevens’ Teas­er and the Fire­cat, the Moody Blues’ In Search Of The Lost Chord, and an album that appar­ent­ly didn’t need much of a title: Led Zep­pelin II. Although I loved all of these records, it was the lat­ter album that informed my imme­di­ate direc­tion in music; riff­ing gui­tar, crash­ing drums, shriek­ing vocals: what was not to like?

Soon I would encounter Deep Pur­ple, Thin Lizzy, UFO, AC/DC and Black Sab­bath, and by my mid-teens, a (large­ly young male) cross-sec­tion of the coun­try would be in the grip of the so-called “New Wave of British Heavy Met­al”. Seem­ing­ly all of a sud­den, there was a super­abun­dance of bands com­pris­ing long-haired, leather‑, den­im- or lycra-clad rock­ers: Judas Priest, Sax­on, Iron Maid­en, Def Lep­pard, Angel­witch, Pray­ing Man­tis, the list went on and on. And oh, the gigs! I attend­ed many of those. You would find your sens­es assault­ed by very loud music, bright lights, dry ice, a seething crowd of head­bang­ing fans, the smell of sweat and patchouli oil – it was cer­tain­ly a thrilling expe­ri­ence. How­ev­er, the idio­syn­crasies of the genre, along with some of the bands’ increas­ing­ly the­atri­cal stage shows and themes, would make them ripe for satire.

Enter Christo­pher Guest, a British-Amer­i­can screen­writer, actor, and come­di­an who would become known for his series of com­e­dy films shot in mock-doc­u­men­tary (mock­u­men­tary) style, and begin­ning in 1984 with his hilar­i­ous take on the heavy met­al move­ment, This Is Spinal Tap. Direct­ed by Rob Rein­er, it stars Guest, Michael McK­ean, and Har­ry Shear­er as mem­bers of fic­tion­al British heavy met­al band, Spinal Tap, and we fol­low them on their Amer­i­can tour. The film sat­i­rizes the behav­iour and musi­cal pre­ten­sions of rock bands, and to those with an inside view of the British heavy rock scene, the result is a painful­ly accu­rate and utter­ly hilar­i­ous pas­tiche.

Let’s start with the band mem­bers’ names, all great choic­es: David St. Hub­bins (McK­ean) and Nigel Tufnel (Guest) on vocals and gui­tar, bassist Derek Smalls (Shear­er), key­boardist Viv Sav­age, and drum­mer Mick Shrimp­ton. Most of the film’s dia­logue was impro­vised and dozens of hours were filmed, and giv­en that the prin­ci­pal actors were Amer­i­can, the fideli­ty to the British­ness is out­stand­ing.

The film is packed with great scenes of on and off­stage antics and dra­ma, but to keep it down I have select­ed three clas­sics for your amuse­ment: the scene where­in Nigel Tufnel takes us on a back­stage tour of this gui­tars and amps (includ­ing the ones that “go up to eleven”); the scene where­in the band get lost try­ing to find the stage door; and the hilar­i­ous Stone­henge scene, in which the band, play­ing its set-piece epic, is flab­ber­gast­ed to see the expect­ed 18-foot-tall stage props of “Stone’enge” descend to the stage at the cru­cial moment in dimen­sions con­struct­ed erro­neous­ly and under­whelm­ing­ly in inch­es. Price­less.

 

Spinal Tap
Spinal Tap

Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy (1320)

“Aban­don hope, all ye who enter here”. No, not to this blog (though it’s a con­sid­er­a­tion) but to the entrance to Hell, this inscrip­tion appear­ing on the gates there­of in the ear­ly part of Dante Alighieri’s Infer­no, Book I of his Divine Com­e­dy (Div­ina Com­me­dia). Thus begins an epic jour­ney through the Infer­no (Hell), the Pur­ga­to­rio (Pur­ga­to­ry), and the Par­adiso (Heav­en). And we are talk­ing epic here: 14,233 lines of terza rima (three-line rhyming scheme in the pat­tern aba bcb cdc ded etc), begun in 1308 and com­plet­ed in 1320, a year before Dante’s death. It is wide­ly recog­nised as one of the great­est works of world lit­er­a­ture; indeed, in T S Eliot’s esti­ma­tion, “Dante and Shake­speare divide the world”.

The nar­ra­tive describes Dan­te’s trav­els through Hell, Pur­ga­to­ry, and Heav­en, alle­gor­i­cal­ly rep­re­sent­ing the soul’s jour­ney towards God. He is accom­pa­nied through­out by a guide: in Hell and Pur­ga­to­ry it’s the great Roman poet, Vir­gil, whilst in Heav­en it’s Beat­rice, thought to be Dante’s “ide­al woman” and based on a real Flo­ren­tine woman he had admired from a dis­tance.

In Hell, Vir­gil shows Dante the poor souls suf­fer­ing a pun­ish­ment direct­ly relat­ed to the nature of their sin. This is con­tra­pas­so (“suf­fer the oppo­site”): for exam­ple, the pun­ish­ment for sooth­say­ers and for­tune-tellers (who had tried to see the future by for­bid­den means) is to walk with their heads on back­wards so that they can­not see what is ahead. The lust­ful, who allowed their pas­sions to blow them astray, are now con­stant­ly buf­fet­ed back and forth by stormy winds. Such poet­ic jus­tice is sim­i­lar­ly met­ed out to the glut­to­nous and greedy, the wrath­ful and vio­lent, the fraud­u­lent and hyp­o­crit­i­cal, and to the heretics and blas­phe­mers. Many real per­son­ages of Dante’s time are named and shamed, damned by their incon­ti­nence in life. It paid to live an upright life in Dan­te’s day!

Pur­ga­to­ry is con­ceived as a ter­raced moun­tain to climb, rep­re­sent­ing spir­i­tu­al growth. Dante dis­cuss­es the nature of sin, vice and virtue, and moral issues preva­lent in the Church and pol­i­tics of the day. The 13th cen­tu­ry was a rich time for medieval the­ol­o­gy and phi­los­o­phy, and Dante draws heav­i­ly from the body of work pro­duced by philoso­phers such as Siger of Bra­bant, Bonaven­ture and Thomas Aquinas.

The third and final part, Heav­en, is depict­ed as a series of con­cen­tric spheres around Earth, and here, Beat­rice takes over the role of guide from Vir­gil, rep­re­sent­ing divine knowl­edge super­sed­ing human rea­son. Here we encounter the car­di­nal virtues, such as pru­dence, for­ti­tude, jus­tice and tem­per­ance, and ever upward, Dante final­ly has a vision of the ulti­mate and in a flash of under­stand­ing that he can­not express, he sees God him­self.

If you’re imag­in­ing that a read­ing of the Divine Com­e­dy could be a great adven­ture, you’d be right, but if you’re baulk­ing at its length, an excel­lent alter­na­tive is to seek out the audio book nar­rat­ed by (of all peo­ple) John Cleese, who does a smash­ing job of nar­rat­ing this great poem.

 
Dante by Bot­ti­cel­li

Commentaries on excellence in art, music, film, and literature