Friday, May 9, 2025
Blog Page 1590

Meller Merceux awards prize for contemporary art review

0

The Meller Merceux Gallery on Oxford High Street, which specialises in modern and contemporary art, has joined up with Oxford University’s Edgar Wind Society, to offer a prize for the best review of a recent exhibition on modern art.

The Edgar Wind Society, a student established and run society, promotes interest in the visual arts by inviting speakers and holding various other events. Meller Merceux is one of Oxford’s most high-profile commercial art galleries, with recent shows including Picasso and Tribal Art.

On Thursday 22nd November, Times art critic Waldemar Januszczak, attended a black tie dinner at Oriel College, where the prize was awarded and to speak about contemporary art.

Here is the winning review: 

Tim Walker: Story Teller

18th October 2012 – 27th January 2013

East Wing Galleries, Somerset House, London.

Tim Walker, the eponymous fashion photographer at the heart of Somerset House’s current exhibition Tim Walker: Story Teller, is the quirky darling of the fashion world. His meticulously ornate images, with their lush Baroque detailing and gauzy use of light, often appear to be staged on the set-piece of some pastel fairy-tale. Populated with celebrities, models, and the finest haute couture, Walker’s photographs are lauded for transforming sartorial bibles such as Vogue and W into whimsical picture books. 

In Story Teller, the bright-yet-rustic East Wing of Somerset House plays the perfect host to Walker’s world. Just like in the photographs themselves, the exhibition space is beautifully curated; indeed, with its wooden floors, high ceilings and pretty fireplaces, it is exactly the sort of interior in which Walker’s narratives unfold. Emphasising this throughout the exhibition are the numerous props transported from the images themselves – a crashed fighter jet, a swan- shaped sailboat, snails sucking the walls – which form the centrepieces of a number of the rooms and further materialise Walker’s playful vision.

These opening rooms are particularly beautiful, showcasing some of Walker’s more spectacular images: the moody blues of Fantasia on a nautical theme (2010) and David White and his swan (2010); the ornamental porcelains of Laura McCone and Luke Field-Wright as floral figures (2010) and Frida Gustavsson as Meissen figurine (2011); and the pastel fantasy of the Rococo Olga Shearer on blue horse (2007).

Walker’s best photographs are undoubtedly those that take place in these elaborately dressed settings, like the sort of empty, impossible houses that one might find through the looking glass. He often draws on a Carrollian sense of absurdity, innocence, and displacement, as well as a similar fetishisation of childish naivety. Lucan Gillespie takes tea with the honey bee (2012) is almost quintessentially Alice-in-Wonderland-esque, with its primly-dressed blonde waif and her anthropomorphic tablemate.

As compelling as these richly decorated photographs are, however, when Walker strays from this formula – as he does in the second half of the show – his work often falls flat. His celebrity portraits are, for the most part, generic. Lacking his characteristic set dressing (most are shot against a minimalist white background), they also lack his defining imaginative vision and aesthetic signature. When they do stand out, such as some strikingly geometric images of Tilda Swinton and a series of slapstick portraits of Monty Python, it is due to the charismatic force of their subjects and not their creator. Arguably, this is perfect for magazines, in which the photographer is merely a medium for the celebrity at hand and the photograph an accompanying illustration to a written piece, but the associated desire to flip past the images to reach some more substantial content is no less present inside the gallery walls. 

Unfortunately, substance is hard to find in Story Teller. Later rooms show Walker departing further from his trademark style with a road sign-themed fashion shoot, which is as dull and one- dimensional as its inspiration. Similarly, a collection of photographs involving a UFO in quotidian situations is unremarkable, while another involving living dolls is playful but too literal and clichéd.

Even his most striking and successful images, however, despite their beauty and charms, function on this entirely superficial level. In many ways, they are like ornamental china or decorative wallpaper: beautiful, delicate, fragile, but, ultimately, pure surface. While the exhibition tries to eke out loftier themes – death, youth, nostalgia, contemplation of the digital age – Walker’s work rarely ignites serious contemplation.

As a result, as visually exciting as the exhibition can be, it never manages to transcend the circumscription of ‘fashion photography’. Despite aesthetic and theoretical evocations of a number of modern and contemporary ‘art’ photographers, such as Loretta Lux, Cindy Sherman, and even Francesca Woodman, the images that make up Story Teller lack the same emotional and intellectual resonance. Nothing about Walker’s photographs challenges the viewer, conceptions of photography, or the established lexicon of beauty; indeed, some – such as a shoot with Agyness Deyn in the desert accompanied by a tribesman and a cheetah – smack of the kind of primitivist, orientalist, and problematically racist tropes that sadly still pervade the fashion industry. 

The story told by Story Teller, then, is the same one being told in numerous magazines across the world, though perhaps here regaled in more dulcet tones and with a more florid vocabulary. Ultimately, however, it is all style and no substance. This does not mean that it is not captivating, simply that its charms are limited. Walker’s photographs are visual candyfloss: frothy wisps of coloured nothing, puffed up to grand proportions, they dissolve under the slightest scrutiny – but that is not to say that the momentary sugar rush doesn’t have its appeal. 

Interview: Sir Paul Nurse

0

About 50 years ago, sometime after bedtime, a small blonde-haired boy was running maniacally down a street in north London. He was (bear with me here) chasing a flying Soviet dog. He sprinted to the end of the road, panting, as his quarry, hundreds of miles above him, cruised inexorably towards the horizon. Half a century later, the flying canine in question is revered as the first animal to orbit the world – and its spellbound admirer has become the preeminent scientist in Britain.

About 50 years ago, sometime after bedtime, a small blonde-haired boy was running maniacally down a street in north London. He was (bear with me here) chasing a flying Soviet dog. He sprinted to the end of the road, panting, as his quarry, hundreds of miles above him, cruised inexorably towards the horizon. Half a century later, the flying canine in question is revered as the first animal to orbit the world – and its spellbound admirer has become the preeminent scientist in Britain.
There is something engagingly innocent about Sir Paul Nurse, who is determined to tell me that, ever since his space-dog-chasing days, he’s never properly grown up. “Scientists live a prolonged childlike existence,” he enthuses. “I have a passion to know things.”
Childlike or not, I’m convinced that this man might be vaguely superhuman. Variously director of the Rockefeller University, Cancer Research UK, and Oxford’s microbiology labs, he’s been earnestly revolutionising cell biology since 1976 (coolly accepting the Nobel Prize in the process). He is a successor to Newton and Wren as President of the Royal Society, and – almost outrageously – just happens to be in charge of the largest biomedical centre this side of the States.
Small wonder, then, that when I ask which scientific luminary he feels the greatest affinity with, Nurse is particularly enthusiastic about the 19th-century polymath Erasmus Darwin, grandfather to Charles. “I just really like being close to the production of new knowledge,” he says, simply.
Under the smiling exterior, this is a man with a steely vision. And he talks like a prophet. “We’re on the precipice of a new Enlightenment,” he muses, a theme he’s increasingly warmed to in recent months. In a major lecture early this year, he spoke candidly of building a new society inspired by science. “I had just had major surgery, but it was extremely important to get out and say this. Scientists are not getting out there enough. I’m getting a bit ancient, and I have to give something back. That’s my job: providing circumstances for others to have their Eureka moments.”
As he predicts the coming scientific utopia, I wonder if he sees himself as at the frontline of a grand social project, an ongoing programme of cultural awakening to the wonders of black holes and ethidium bromide. He certainly knows who the enemy are. “Some would say we’re suffering a little bit of a Romantic backlash. There’s been some loss of optimism since the ’60s.” He mentions the opposition to genetic modification, with a bewildered grimace. “But,” he says diplomatically, “the Romantics always have something to contribute too.”
This isn’t the narrow scientism of a test tube fanatic. When I ask whether the fashionable emphasis on the so-called STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and maths) is a little one-dimensional, he lights up spiritedly. “It would be a great mistake to crowd out the humanities,” he says, visibly concerned. “They tell us what it is to be human. The humanities need to be intertwined with science. I believe that science is the art of the soluble, and the solutions to the big questions” – consciousness gets a mention – “must take account of the humanities. Science is impinging more and more on areas that have traditionally been theological.”
But is any knowledge sacrosanct – or too explosive to touch? “The acquisition of knowledge has got to be a good thing,” he remarks, bluntly. “It’s naïve to think you can stop it. Trying to impede it smells to me of tokenism and pandering. I’m of the liberal view that the way it’s used is what matters.”
For a high-profile scientist, Nurse is surprisingly direct about politics. American healthcare, he declares unexpectedly, “is a disgrace to civilisation”, while, on the other side of the globe, Chinese scientists are stymied by the overbearing state: “For science to prosper, it has to be a free society.” Closer to home, he laments the fact that the grim “realities of power” seem to have guillotined the Coalition’s lofty green ambitions.
But he reserves a bit of rare venom for those that seek to contaminate science with ideology, especially on environmental issues: “Because climate change requires global action, this naturally removes power and responsibility from individuals and the nation-state. There are some decisions that are counter to a more radical free-market approach. The sceptics don’t like that sort of supra-government action, so they don’t let the science speak for itself.”
I ask what a President Romney would mean for the world (election day was yet to strike). “Yeah,” he says incredibly slowly, gazing grimly out of the window. I get a faint suspicion he isn’t a fan. “The man just seems to want power. He’s got no vision. It’s just a big question mark.”
Science, for Paul Nurse, represents a sort of chaotic purity. “I think anarchy is pretty important in science, because what comes of anarchy is a sort of scepticism. We should encourage anarchy – but that must go along with consensus. You need both. I believe in the power of rationality and critical debate. We are a very creative species. I am fundamentally optimistic about the power of human will combined with curiosity.”
What about the life of Sir Paul, I ask? What’s it like being an oracle? “Terrible.” He looks somewhere between amused and exasperated. “The Nobel title gives you an aura of infallibility. It’s a pretty heavy responsibility. Actually, it’s quite papal.”
The Sun recently described this nonchalantly modest Nobel laureate as “the David Beckham of science”. So who comes off best in the comparison? He laughs disarmingly, and fishes for a suitably self-deprecating remark. “I do. Beckham’s definitely got a better hairdo.”
As I walk back down the vast marble stairs, I hear a call from somewhere above me. The President of the Royal Society has bounced illustriously back into view. “There’s something I forgot to mention,” he says, peering down from an ornate stone balcony. “There’s one thing I really loved about Oxford.” He pauses theatrically. “The students.” What’s not to like about this man?

There is something engagingly innocent about Sir Paul Nurse, who is determined to tell me that, ever since his space-dog-chasing days, he’s never properly grown up. “Scientists live a prolonged childlike existence,” he enthuses. “I have a passion to know things.”

Childlike or not, I’m convinced that this man might be vaguely superhuman. Variously director of the Rockefeller University, Cancer Research UK, and Oxford’s microbiology labs, he’s been earnestly revolutionising cell biology since 1976 (coolly accepting the Nobel Prize in the process). He is a successor to Newton and Wren as President of the Royal Society, and – almost outrageously – just happens to be in charge of the largest biomedical centre this side of the States.

Small wonder, then, that when I ask which scientific luminary he feels the greatest affinity with, Nurse is particularly enthusiastic about the 19th-century polymath Erasmus Darwin, grandfather to Charles. “I just really like being close to the production of new knowledge,” he says, simply.

Under the smiling exterior, this is a man with a steely vision. And he talks like a prophet. “We’re on the precipice of a new Enlightenment,” he muses, a theme he’s increasingly warmed to in recent months. In a major lecture early this year, he spoke candidly of building a new society inspired by science. “I had just had major surgery, but it was extremely important to get out and say this. Scientists are not getting out there enough. I’m getting a bit ancient, and I have to give something back. That’s my job: providing circumstances for others to have their Eureka moments.”

As he predicts the coming scientific utopia, I wonder if he sees himself as at the frontline of a grand social project, an ongoing programme of cultural awakening to the wonders of black holes and ethidium bromide. He certainly knows who the enemy are. “Some would say we’re suffering a little bit of a Romantic backlash. There’s been some loss of optimism since the ’60s.” He mentions the opposition to genetic modification, with a bewildered grimace. “But,” he says diplomatically, “the Romantics always have something to contribute too.”

This isn’t the narrow scientism of a test tube fanatic. When I ask whether the fashionable emphasis on the so-called STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and maths) is a little one-dimensional, he lights up spiritedly. “It would be a great mistake to crowd out the humanities,” he says, visibly concerned. “They tell us what it is to be human. The humanities need to be intertwined with science. I believe that science is the art of the soluble, and the solutions to the big questions” – consciousness gets a mention – “must take account of the humanities. Science is impinging more and more on areas that have traditionally been theological.”

But is any knowledge sacrosanct – or too explosive to touch? “The acquisition of knowledge has got to be a good thing,” he remarks, bluntly. “It’s naïve to think you can stop it. Trying to impede it smells to me of tokenism and pandering. I’m of the liberal view that the way it’s used is what matters.

”For a high-profile scientist, Nurse is surprisingly direct about politics. American healthcare, he declares unexpectedly, “is a disgrace to civilisation”, while, on the other side of the globe, Chinese scientists are stymied by the overbearing state: “For science to prosper, it has to be a free society.” Closer to home, he laments the fact that the grim “realities of power” seem to have guillotined the Coalition’s lofty green ambitions.

But he reserves a bit of rare venom for those that seek to contaminate science with ideology, especially on environmental issues: “Because climate change requires global action, this naturally removes power and responsibility from individuals and the nation-state. There are some decisions that are counter to a more radical free-market approach. The sceptics don’t like that sort of supra-government action, so they don’t let the science speak for itself.

”I ask what a President Romney would mean for the world (election day was yet to strike). “Yeah,” he says incredibly slowly, gazing grimly out of the window. I get a faint suspicion he isn’t a fan. “The man just seems to want power. He’s got no vision. It’s just a big question mark.”Science, for Paul Nurse, represents a sort of chaotic purity. “I think anarchy is pretty important in science, because what comes of anarchy is a sort of scepticism. We should encourage anarchy – but that must go along with consensus. You need both. I believe in the power of rationality and critical debate. We are a very creative species. I am fundamentally optimistic about the power of human will combined with curiosity.”

What about the life of Sir Paul, I ask? What’s it like being an oracle? “Terrible.” He looks somewhere between amused and exasperated. “The Nobel title gives you an aura of infallibility. It’s a pretty heavy responsibility. Actually, it’s quite papal.”

The Sun recently described this nonchalantly modest Nobel laureate as “the David Beckham of science”. So who comes off best in the comparison? He laughs disarmingly, and fishes for a suitably self-deprecating remark. “I do. Beckham’s definitely got a better hairdo.”

As I walk back down the vast marble stairs, I hear a call from somewhere above me. The President of the Royal Society has bounced illustriously back into view. “There’s something I forgot to mention,” he says, peering down from an ornate stone balcony. “There’s one thing I really loved about Oxford.” He pauses theatrically. “The students.” What’s not to like about this man?

Hugh Grant steals hearts at Hertford

0

Hugh Grant took part in a debate at Hertford College over the state of the press in Britain.The debate was part of an event entitled ‘The Press We Deserve’, which was held on the afternoon of Sunday 18th November.

Hugh Grant has been involved in a
debate at Hertford College over the
state of the press in Britain.
The debate took place as part of an
event entitled ‘The Press We Deserve’,
which was held on the afternoon of
Sunday 18th November.
The debate was conducted as a
response to the ongoing Leveson
Inquiry. Lord Justice Leveson is due
to report on the “culture, ethics and
practices” of the British Press at the
end of the month.
Hugh Grant famously appeared
at the inquiry, claiming that he had
viewed papers such as the News of
the World as “harmless fun” until
he was “increasingly scandalised”
by the “toxic” reporting methods of
various newspapers.
Grant said that a series of untrue
allegations were made against him
and described an occasion when
his flat had been broken into by
journalists.
Rachel Pickering, JCR President at
Hertford, felt that it was “good that
Hugh chose to defend the rights of
the general public to privacy from
the media rather than focusing on
the negative impact the media has
had on his personal life and other
celebrities’ lives.”
Alongside Grant, other panel
members included the Principals
of Hertford and Mansfield Colleges,
as well as Paul Connew, the former
Editor of the Sunday Mirror and of
the News of the World. Bill Heine,
a radio presenter for BBC Oxford,
chaired the debate.
In a statement to Cherwell, Will
Hutton, Principal of Hertford
College, stated, “The mood was pro-
Leveson and anxious to secure a more
genuinely publicly spirited press.”
He also noted that participants were
“anxious to guard against risks of
state interference with free speech.”
Baroness Kennedy, who is
currently Principal of Mansfield
College, stated, “Everyone is of one
view – something has to be done.”
She went on to contest the idea
that the issue is clouded by public
right to knowledge or freedom of the
press.
She commented, “I want a vibrant
press. I want strong investigative
journalism. I took no delight in the
closing of News of the World. We
need lots of papers covering all sorts
of stuff.
‘But feasting on people’s misery
after the death of a child or digging
up dirt on a dead soldier son is
ghoulish and vile. It is about profit at
the expense of people.’
A finalist at Hertford said, “Helena
Kennedy is just great and it was
nice to hear Hugh talking about
something he’s obviously really
passionate about.”
However, some students seemed
more excited by the presence of
Hugh Grant at the debate than the
issues being discussed. First year
undergraduate at Hertford Joy Aston
recalled, “Hugh Grant was extremely
exciting, especially when he put his
arm around me for the photo, and
said that it was ‘nice to meet me’
and ‘hoped I had a good night’. Also
he was a fantastic speaker and the
debate was very interesting.”
Baroness described Hugh Grant’s
performance at the debate as
“impressive”.
Nevertheless, James Harrison, a
local publisher who attended the
event, felt that the quality of the
debate was inconsistent. He claimed
that the debate “seemed to veer from
occasionally muffled and indistinct
acoustics (and thought processes)
to stunningly simple and heartfelt
comments that cut through to the
heart of the problem and to the
solution.
‘Having Hugh Grant up close and
at his disarming best was a bit of a
bonus!”
Grant was available after the main
debate for an open conversation
with Mr Hutton, and 100 spaces

The debate was conducted as a response to the ongoing Leveson Inquiry. Lord Justice Leveson is due to report on the “culture, ethics and practices” of the British Press at the end of the month.

Hugh Grant famously appeared at the inquiry, claiming that he had viewed papers such as the News of the World as “harmless fun” until he was “increasingly scandalised” by the “toxic” reporting methods of various newspapers

Grant said that a series of untrue allegations were made against him and described an occasion when his flat had been broken into by journalists.

Rachel Pickering, JCR President at Hertford, felt that it was “good that Hugh chose to defend the rights of the general public to privacy from the media rather than focusing on the negative impact the media has had on his personal life and othe rcelebrities’ lives.”

Alongside Grant, other panel members included the Principals of Hertford and Mansfield Colleges, as well as Paul Connew, the former Editor of the Sunday Mirror and of the News of the World. Bill Heine, a radio presenter for BBC Oxford, chaired the debate.

In a statement to Cherwell, Will Hutton, Principal of Hertford College, stated, “The mood was pro-Leveson and anxious to secure a more genuinely publicly-spirited press.” He also noted that participants were “anxious to guard against risks of state interference with free speech.”

Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, who is currently Principal of Mansfield College, stated, “Everyone is of one view – something has to be done.”

She went on to contest the idea that the issue is clouded by public right to knowledge or freedom of the press. She commented, “I want a vibrant press. I want strong investigative journalism. I took no delight in the closing of News of the World. We need lots of papers covering all sorts of stuff.

‘But feasting on people’s misery after the death of a child or digging up dirt on a dead soldier son is ghoulish and vile. It is about profit at the expense of people.’

A finalist at Hertford said, “Helena Kennedy is just great and it was nice to hear Hugh talking about something he’s obviously really passionate about.”

However, some students seemed more excited by the presence of Hugh Grant at the debate than the issues being discussed. Joy Aston, a first year undergraduate at Hertford, said, “Hugh Grant was extremely exciting, especially when he put his arm around me for the photo, and said that it was ‘nice to meet me ‘and ‘hoped I had a good night’. Also he was a fantastic speaker and the debate was very interesting.”

Kennedy described Hugh Grant’s performance at the debate as “impressive”. Nevertheless, James Harrison, a local publisher who attended the event, felt that the quality of the debate was inconsistent.

He claimed that the debate “seemed to veer from occasionally muffled and indistinct acoustics (and thought processes) to stunningly simple and heartfelt comments that cut through to the heart of the problem and to the solution.

‘Having Hugh Grant up close and at his disarming best was a bit of a bonus!”

After the main debate, Grant had an open conversation with Mr Hutton, with 100 spaces made available for people to attend it.

Photoshoot: Siren

0

SIREN
MODEL SOPHIE STAUNTON
DIRECTOR/PHOTOGRAPHER DANIELLA SHREIR
ASSISTED BY MELANIE GURNEY

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6372%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6374%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6375%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6376%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6377%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6378%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6379%%[/mm-hide-text]

Petition launched against ‘academic racism’ at Oxbridge

0

A petition calling for Oxford and Cambridge Universities to “stop racially excluding black academics from equal job opportunities” has been launched by a group of academics, many of whom work in or have links to Oxford or Cambridge. It has attracted signatures from researchers at Russell Group universities.

A petition calling for Oxford and Cambridge Universities to “stop racially excluding black academics from equal job opportunities” has been launched by a group of academics, many of whom work in or have links to Oxford or Cambridge. It has attracted signatures from researchers at Russell Group universities.
The petition, to be delivered to the Vice-Chancellor’s Office, has the aim of “fighting and removing institutional racism” in elite British higher education (HE) institutions.
Campaign volunteer and Oxbridge alumnus Charlotte Goldenberg stressed this was “not the usual Oxbridge-bashing”, telling Cherwell, “The campaign was started by a group of current scholars, alumni, and academics from all racial backgrounds.
“These people love and cherish Oxford and Cambridge and want to see them change in the right direction on equal job opportunities for black and minority ethnic academics.”
The petition claims that black academics are “systematically excluded”, leading to Britain “losing out on highly skilled and intellectually creative black graduates”, who have “no choice” but to go and work abroad.
It describes the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a body established by the 2006 Equality Act to promote and enforce non-discrimination laws, as a ”fangless cobra” on black academics’ rights.
A spokesperson for the University of Oxford described the university as “an international community that has always thrived on diversity”, and stated, “The University is committed to increasing its proportion of black and minority ethnic (BME) staff and always particularly welcomes applications from those staff. Panel chairs must undertake a course on recruitment and selection.”
However, Goldenberg dismissed “positive action statements” as “acting covers for excluding blacks in favour of candidates with similar characteristics to existing white-dominated staff”.

The petition, to be delivered to the Vice-Chancellor’s Office, has the aim of “fighting and removing institutional racism” in elite British higher education (HE) institutions.

Campaign volunteer and Oxbridge alumnus Charlotte Goldenberg stressed this was “not the usual Oxbridge-bashing”, telling Cherwell, “The campaign was started by a group of current scholars, alumni, and academics from all racial backgrounds.

“These people love and cherish Oxford and Cambridge and want to see them change in the right direction on equal job opportunities for black and minority ethnic academics.”

The petition claims that black academics are “systematically excluded”, leading to Britain “losing out on highly skilled and intellectually creative black graduates”, who have “no choice” but to go and work abroad.

It describes the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a body established by the 2006 Equality Act to promote and enforce non-discrimination laws, as a ”fangless cobra” on black academics’ rights.

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford described the university as “an international community that has always thrived on diversity”, and stated, “The University is committed to increasing its proportion of black and minority ethnic (BME) staff and always particularly welcomes applications from those staff. Panel chairs must undertake a course on recruitment and selection.”

However, Goldenberg dismissed “positive action statements” as “covers for excluding blacks in favour of candidates with similar characteristics to existing white-dominated staff”.

When asked why they were targeting Oxbridge specifically, Goldenberg said, “Due to their international status, what happens at Oxford or Cambridge is of great concern and interest to people elsewhere. If they have always led in terms of world-changing ideas, they can be leaders in race relations.”

The University spokesperson asserted, “[We] reject any suggestions that we are systematically excluding black academics from job opportunities, or favouring white candidates. We do recognise that BME groups are under-represented at most academic levels. However, this is true across most leading universities, HE in general, and many other sectors. Oxford is taking steps to encourage applications, offer career support, and monitor progress.”

41 per cent of Oxford academic staff are foreign citizens, and 6.3 per cent of staff describe themselves as UK BME. This compares with 6.7 per cent for academics nationally, and 7 per cent for the entire UK labour force. The University reviews its Race Equality Scheme annually.

MP and former UniversitiesMinister David Lammy spoke toCherwell, indicating support for the petition and describing it as “an area of public life that needs scrutiny”. Pointing to the prominence of black academics such as Condoleezza Rice in the US, he said, “There are real questions about why we’re not seeing that mirrored, particularly in our Russell Group, and why so many black academics tell a tale of woe and discrimination in relation to their progress.”

He called on HE establishments to reassess the exercise of “good faith and goodwill” necessary in Britain, which, unlike the US, does not enact affirmative action policies.

Black students at Oxford, however, were wary of such accusations. One second year undergraduate described it as “a serious charge” and said he “never felt race was a barrier”. He said, ‘Universities simply select those best qualified for the position rather than consciously trying to exclude ‘black academics’. What is the petition ultimately seeking? US style race-based quotas? Not a good idea.”

A DPhil student remarked, “My experience with Oxford is excellent. I held a lectureship, and that opportunity had nothing to do with my colour and everything to do with many other factors – chiefly, what I could actually offer.”

Another doctoral student admitted that there was “noticeable sparseness” in staff minority ethnic representation, but highlighted related factors such as “little or no funding for aspiring students” for MAs and DPhils, which “particularly hits able BME students.”

Second year PPEist Victoria Gbadebo commented, ‘Senior academics often conform to the stereotype of the well-off, white, older man. When elite universities accept more people from less well-off backgrounds, numbers of black and minority professors should increase.’

Preview: Pergolesi – Stabat Mater

0

   The opening movement of Pergolesi’s Stabat Mater was the second track I bought when I first installed iTunes, aged fourteen. The first was Right Here, Right Now. There is possibly no better testament to the great work’s emotional power than my deeming of it as a worthy successor to Fatboy Slim’s magnum opus when first compiling my music collection.

   Stabat Mater is a tremendous piece: arguably the most famous setting of the 13th century hymn describing the sorrows of Mary at the cross, it is famed for its evocative depiction of grief and in particular the heart-wrenching ascending suspensions of its opening . The performance of Stabat Mater taking place on the 27th November at St. Peter’s College Chapel should be no different; though in its early stages of rehearsal when I previewed it last Tuesday, it exhibited the potential to be a very engaging production.

   The vocal soloists are the strongest facet of this production. Harrison is superb, especially when given the opportunity to show off her commanding high register. The counter-tenor James Potter is also strongest in his middle to higher register where his tone is gentle yet rich, and highly effective in solo sections of light scoring. Potter did have a tendency to be overpowered in heavier scored passages or sections in which both voices sing together – the dissonant suspensions so characteristic of this piece would occasionally suffer due to this imbalance between the vocal parts, and a few noticeably fell short of their full piquancy – but in general the soloists displayed excellent intonation and stylistic awareness.

   The quartet and continuo provided solid accompaniment under the clear baton of David Todd and produced a reasonably blended sound with appropriate weightiness where necessary despite their small numbers. A couple of movements were undeniably rough around the edges with certain tempi and a good few notes still a little insecure; but this was, as Johanna assured me, not a polished preview performance but ‘just a rehearsal, not even a dress rehearsal’ – one of the string players told me this was the first time they had met as a group. What has been achieved even at this early stage is impressive, and the music will become more assured with rehearsal.

      With purists sure to appreciate the intimate period arrangement, and anyone less familiar with the piece likely to find it a perfect access point to the period’s sacred music, this performance should have something to please everyone. If nothing else, the candle-lit setting of St. Peter’s College Chapel should be spectacular; and the two soloists are certainly vocalists to watch.

An Interview With… Double Edge

0

For tickets go to http://www.oxfordplayhouse.com/btsstudent/

A patchwork of Michaelmas Memories

0

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6363%%[/mm-hide-text]

Sophie Baggott

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6356%%[/mm-hide-text]

Ollie Robinson – “Early morning outing on the river. A very Oxford way to start the day before returning to the library to work.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6357%%[/mm-hide-text]

Hannah Bond- “Living amongst the attractive buildings of Oxford it’s easy to forget there’s lots of beauty in the surrounding countryside.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6358%%[/mm-hide-text]

Ieva Maniustye – “Wandering around Oxford, spending amazing days in a place where dreams can come true; best way to escape from essay crises!”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6359%%[/mm-hide-text]

Ieva Maniustye

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6360%%[/mm-hide-text]

Kathleen Bloomfield – “I took this in Michaelmas of my first year (so three years ago now), but I still remember the colours: the purples and blues of the street and sky and then the yellowy light of the church.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6361%%[/mm-hide-text]

Richard Nias –  ‘I’d taken my camera to london for the weekend, and I was walking back from the station trying to finish the roll so I could get it developed, and ended up taking one of my favourite pictures of the weekend.’

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6362%%[/mm-hide-text]

Richard Nias – “I like the colours. Even though it’s quite a busy shot, the lamppost really stands out against the ugliest building in Oxford.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6364%%[/mm-hide-text]

Sophie Baggott 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6365%%[/mm-hide-text]

Amy Rollason 

Getting it right

0

In 1633, the Roman Inquisition formally charged the astronomer Galileo Galilei with heresy for holding the belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Church’s qualms, of course, were not with the accuracy of Galileo’s evidence or the methodology used to gather and analyze it; rather, Papal authorities saw the heliocentric model of the universe as an ideological affront. In a letter to his contemporary Kepler, Galileo complained that many of the Jesuit astronomers who objected to his theories refused even to look into his telescopes, despite frequent invitations to do so.

Though it took until 1992, the Church has reversed its condemnation of Galileo. However, the collection and presentation of objective data are still being confused with the ideological advocacy of the data’s implications. Nowhere in recent memory has this conflation been more apparent than in the United States presidential election.

Former baseball statistician Nate Silver made a name for himself by correctly predicting the winner in 49 of 50 states in the 2008 election – as well as the winner of every senate race – on his blog FiveThirtyEight. The principle difference between his method and those utilized by nearly every other pundit and talking head in the political media is that instead of relying on “gut feeling” and other subjective cues, Silver relies solely on numbers.

Amazingly, the stunning accuracy of Silver’s 2008 predictions did not cause other pundits to rethink their methodologies and phase out forecasting based on subjectivity and superstition. In 2012, the reality was quite the opposite. When reliant on subjective cues, a forecaster can use a prediction to reaffirm his or her ideology, and that’s exactly what happened. Republicans pundits predicted a Republican win, not because they had access to different data, but instead because that’s what they wanted to happen.

Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan made the following case for a Romney landslide in a Wall Street Journal blog post: “All the vibrations are right.” She asks, “Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us?” Rather than data on paper, she cites the number of Romney yard signs she saw on a trip to Florida, the energy of the Republican’s supporters at rallies, and Obama’s distracted look at a charity dinner.

Countless other conservative media figures made similar predictions. “The average pollster is either biased or has terrible gut instincts” wrote Wayne Allyn Root in the Washington Times. “I have a history of predicting political winners and losers without ever taking a poll. I just take the pulse of the thousands of people I know… What I see and hear is a coming Mitt Romney landslide.”

Patent dismissals of polling data allowed these pundits to make whatever prognostications best served their belief systems. Many high-profile members of the conservative media ignorantly assumed Silver was doing the same. Like Rome to Galileo, they likened his objective data to an ideological manifesto based on the data’s implications. Because Silver had long predicted an Obama win, conservatives attacked Silver as a partisan demagogue, attempting to advance liberal agenda through his predictions. Referring directly to Silver, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough remarked that “anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they’re jokes.” Scarborough cites his “gut” in a Politico column as a source for the tossup analysis. On top of disputing the possibility that Silver would repeat his 2008 success, UnSkewedPolls.com’s Dean Chambers noted that “Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the ‘Mr. New Castrati’ voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program.” Chambers predicted a comfortable Romney win. David Brooks of the New York Times charged, “If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen… I think you think you are a wizard.”

Legitimate complaints about Silver’s methodology were vanishingly rare. The reactions to Silver’s predictions betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of data and mathematics. Comments indicating poor comprehension of statistics were common, and those that conflated data with ideological advocacy were ubiquitous.

Brooks got it wrong. Silver was not the self-assessed wizard. If a pundit could make an accurate prediction based on “vibrations” or “gut feeling,” a letter from Hogwarts might be in order. No, Silver’s predictions were not the stuff of magic. He simply aggregated polling data and converted the figures into probable electoral votes, with no room to factor in either his personal politics or his indigestion.

And yet it moves. The Earth revolves around the sun, and Silver correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states. This was a landslide in the contest of mathematics versus superstition. Gut feelings most likely will not graciously concede defeat anytime soon, but there are glimmers of progress. Sales of Silver’s book The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail – But Some Don’t have skyrocketed in recent days. Quantitative election analysts Drew Linzer and Sam Wang, whose predictions proved almost as accurate as Silver’s, have also benefitted from increased visibility. Perhaps a heightened interest in data science will afford the public a better understanding of predictions. Most importantly, Obama’s affordable healthcare laws should allow more Americans to cure those curious premonitory feelings of the gut.

 

Photoshoot: Tales of Corruption

0

 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6351%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6352%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6353%%[/mm-hide-text]