Saturday 16th May 2026
Blog Page 2

Hidden Gems: ‘The Storytellers’ at Worcester College

0

I was recently given the opportunity to attend the press view of Worcester College’s new sculpture exhibition, The Storytellers. Set in the college’s breathtaking gardens, the exhibition, expertly curated by Iwona Blazwick and Katie Delamere, is a journey through contemporary figurative sculpture, mostly from the 2020s. It is also a rare example of an exhibition whose setting complements and transforms the artworks. From the first moments, The Storytellers feels unusually thoughtful, generous, and alive. 

The exhibition, which is free of charge, covers a lot of ground, both literally and figuratively. Despite its breadth, though, , The Storytellers is one of the best-curated exhibitions I have seen in a long time. Covering a large area of the college’s gardens, The Storytellers is split into five ‘acts’, each named after a line from Shakespeare, in an homage to the Buskins, the college’s student drama troupe. These acts cover far-reaching themes: “One touch of nature makes the whole world kin” (from Troilus and Cressida) shows sculptures which morph the human with the vegetal, while “Thou, Nature, art my goddess” (from King Lear) delves into cultural tradition with its depictions of totemic deities. This kind of structure could easily have felt forced, but instead it gives the exhibition a theatrical logic.

There was clearly a lot of thought put into the curation of this exhibition, as combined with their intrinsic meaning, each sculpture’s location fits with its aesthetic appearance. Artworks emerge from hedges, sit beside water, or contrast against the college architecture. This makes for a cohesive, engaging, and visually interesting experience, in which every artwork is perfectly and poignantly placed, rewarding both close attention and casual wandering. 

The artists featured are greatly varied, with 14 artists coming from all over the world, all with something vastly different to say in their work. Despite this, The Storytellers doesn’t feel as though it is spreading itself too thin – I found that the overarching theme of ‘human in conversation with nature’ binds together all of the pieces, despite their differences in material, scale, or mood. The artworks vary in quality from ‘nice’ to ‘beautiful’, with no real lowlights, and there are enough highlights for something to resonate with anybody who visits. For me, it was Daniel Silver’s duo of sculptures, Fly With Me and Me, found in the main quad, that were the most striking. Silver has said that he wants to create “something you can look at and feel looked back by”, and these works achieve precisely that. By having all of the sculptures be of figures, the exhibition allows the viewer to engage in dialogue with the artworks, and in Silver’s figures, the reciprocal gaze is palpable.

As if that wasn’t enough, the exhibition is checkpointed by various works of performance art. The first, performed by recent Ruskin graduate Jarad Jackson, was a mesmerising piece of postmodern dance, bringing movement and bodily presence into conversation with the stillness of the sculptures. The second, performed by Lorna Ough, Hazel Dowling, and Lauren Dyer-Amazeen, created a delicate acoustic soundscape against the backdrop of the gardens. These performances felt less like decorative additions than extensions of the exhibition’s central concern of the relationship between bodies, stories, and place, and they helped make the exhibition feel like a living encounter, rather than a static display.

However, the star of The Storytellers is, of course, the gardens themselves. Though I have visited them before for an afternoon stroll, this exhibition made me appreciate the beauty of Worcester College’s natural scenery in a way I never did before. As I travelled across the quads, around the lake, and through the orchard, I felt totally at peace, even on the cloudy day on which I saw it. The sculptures appeared as figures emerging from the setting, rather than objects simply placed there. The Storytellers is an exhibition which is completely dependent on the natural environment around it, and this is one of its greatest strengths. As new flowers blossom in the late spring, and as the sun reemerges from the clouds, the exhibition will change, and the pieces will take on new meaning. Shadows will fall differently; surfaces will catch the light in new ways; the gardens themselves will become part of the storytelling. Few exhibitions make such persuasive use of time, weather, and place. 

I therefore find myself strongly encouraging readers to visit this exhibition this term, before it closes on the 5th of July. If not for the sculptures, which are as varied and thought-provoking as they are nice to look at, then for the gardens, which in the coming few weeks will only get more beautiful to stroll through. At its best, the exhibition does what outdoor sculpture should: it changes the way you look at the space around it. The Storytellers, for me, is both one of Oxford’s hidden gems this term, and one of its most rewarding cultural experiences.

The Oxford Union has a far-right problem

0

The Oxford Union has regularly been the subject of public outrage. From the 1933 ‘King and Country’ debate, upon which the Union, now, regularly looks back with pride, to the fracas surrounding a former presidential candidate’s comments on Charlie Kirk’s assassination, its financial model rests primarily upon attracting attention, an exchange of its establishment credibility and reputation in return for the heady fumes of public prominence. It is on those fumes that YouTube revenues and each year’s membership drives rest. So there is nothing particularly objectionable about the Union seeking speakers who will ignite that public debate and draw that attention, an even harder task in the modern media landscape.

However, with its invitations to controversial YouTuber and former UKIP candidate, Carl Benjamin, and to EDL founder and former BNP member Tommy Robinson, the Union has crossed a line. Benjamin’s invite has now been rescinded, but to invite one of Britain’s leading reactionaries, opposed to both feminism and Islam, to the Union would do nothing more than give him a chance to air his long-held views and gain credibility off the Union’s back. It took Benjamin five years to apologise to Jess Philips, an MP who has been a vocal campaigner against violence against women and girls, for saying he “wouldn’t even rape her”. This is definitive evidence that he is not some right-wing thinker or campaigner, but a provocateur of the lowest order, willing to sacrifice the well-being of others for the advancement of his own, narrow aims. Few have done more to promote the screed of anti-feminism online than his channel, Sargon of Akkad, and at a time when Oxbridge faces a reckoning with its own failure to protect students, his presence was nothing but a detriment to the University – sparking outcry from a number of student societies and organisations.

When contacted for comment, Carl Benjamin stated that, “my views are nothing more than the common-sense views of the average Englishman,” and that he, “appreciate[s] the flattery of the radicals who oppose me”. 

The invitation of Tommy Robinson – which still stands at the time of writing – is even more worrying. Again, like Benjamin, Robinson has been part of the steadily increasing right-wing extremist movement in this country, often targeting Muslims and immigrant communities. His rap sheet of criminal offences is long, and he was a prominent figure in the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally held last year, where Elon Musk spoke, saying: “Violence is coming,” and “you either fight, or you die”. This came after 2024’s protests in the wake of the Southport stabbings, for which Robinson publicly blamed immigrant and Muslim communities. His list of political affiliations is a who’s-who of the far right in the UK, from the BNP to UKIP, and now Advance UK. 

As I said earlier, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Union inviting right-wing or controversial figures; it is both how it has always functioned and how attention is captured. But there seems to be a double standard playing out in British public life, which the Union, as a centre of elite opinion, perpetrates. These extremist right-wingers, who actively promote violence against individuals and whole groups of people, are welcomed into these spaces with little challenge. Comparative figures on the left, or those who might actively challenge them, draw less attention; they don’t bring the same viewer counts and challenge the underlying social structures that maintain privilege. They were happy in 2007 to welcome Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, and David Irving, one of the UK’s most notorious Holocaust deniers, and are more than happy to roll out the red carpet again.

These rightwingers are accepted into respectable institutions like the Union and given the thin sheen of legitimacy under the guise of ‘debate’. Anyone who has watched a Union debate knows there is little chance of these men experiencing a Damascene conversion on the Union’s benches and repenting for their wrongs, or genuinely engaging with the arguments put against them. They are simply there to spout their normal lines, receive polite applause from the besuited ranks of Oxford’s students, and further their dangerous, damaging campaigns.

It might be argued that they are simply speaking into the void – that there is no need for the student body, or wider public, to consider what they say as anything serious. But history would disagree with this blase stance, which could only be held by someone who hasn’t been targeted by these groups. Just a year ago, Robinson whipped up right-wing fury to attack hotels holding asylum seekers, inspiring a broader climate of fear for the UK’s BAME communities. Robinson founded the EDL, the spiritual successor to the National Front that terrorised Black and Asian communities in the 1970s and 1980s.

My own family were harassed by the National Front, my grandfather knocked to the ground whilst out shopping with family. The Union might be a forum of free speech, but this self-serving gratification serves only to deny that it has any role in defining the boundaries of debate in a respectable society. To the Union, the lives of working-class communities, of BAME communities, are fair game for a debate, for something to list on their executives’ CVs.

In a decade, they will likely not remember the debate, but those who have to shelter at home, afraid of the baying mobs on the street, or who feel like they have committed a crime simply by being born with a skin tone below sepia, will remember. Our increasingly fractious and divided society will remember, as institutions like the Union make it clear that if you are a minority of any stripe, they don’t think you matter. Their wellbeing, your livelihoods, can and will be sacrificed for views, for cash, for attention.

Toni Servillo shines in thoughtful assisted dying drama: ‘La Grazia’ in review

0

Does Big Tobacco sponsor Paolo Sorrentino’s films? Almost certainly not, but their money would be worse spent elsewhere. One of the lasting images from Sorrentino’s latest feature, La Grazia, is of Toni Servillo smoking on the parapets of the Quirinal Palace overlooking Rome. Servillo’s expression is enigmatic, the view exquisite. As viewers of Sorrentino’s 2013 Oscar-winning triumph The Great Beauty will know, there are few things eminently more watchable than Toni Servillo slowly dragging on a cigarette.

La Grazia sees Sorrentino reunited with his long-time muse – and what a welcome reunion it is. Servillo plays the ageing, lame duck president Mariano De Santis, a legal expert who is a “jurist”, not a politician (sound familiar?). He would normally be facing his last six months in office with the same detachment and letter-of-the-law rigidity that have earned him the nickname “Reinforced Concrete”. However, a bill passed through parliament on assisted dying must be signed by him to become law, and thus, the president is faced with a dilemma. If he signs, he is an “assassin”; if he rejects the bill, he is a “torturer”. Two petitions for presidential pardons for convicted murderers complicate the picture: De Santis has the power to offer the titular “grace” to those on all types of life sentences, medical and criminal.  

A tired and grieving De Santis (he lost his wife some years before) proves an excellent vehicle for the film’s meditations on life, loss, and legacy. Who better to weigh up the suitability of euthanasia than a man who has seemingly lost all flair for life himself, who falls asleep when he prays and is still obsessed with an extramarital affair his late wife may have had 40 years ago? “Who owns our days?” is the question that De Santis keeps coming back to with the help of his daughter and legal advisor, Dorotea (an effectively exasperated Anna Ferzetti). But the film also asks: “Why should we care who owns our days?” Though De Santis is a genuine Catholic, the existentialism at the heart of the film is reminiscent of the tortured questioning of a lapsed Catholic at confession.

Boy, does Servillo have range. This is not his first time playing an Italian president, yet the contrast with his muted, shuffling Gulio Andreotti in Il Divo, and his exuberant Silvio Berlusconi in Loro is remarkable. He is able to convey a world of emotion in the most subtle of movements. It is no wonder the Venice Film Festival awarded him the Best Actor award.

As in those films, all the hallmarks of a Sorrentino film are here, if rather downplayed. The trademark big set-piece scenes do not disappoint. The Portuguese president’s welcome to the palace in biblical rain is reason alone to head to the cinema. A dinner for veterans of the Alpini, Italy’s mountain regiment, at which De Santis is the guest of honour, is profoundly moving. As ever with Sorrentino, the soundtrack is full of thumping electronic music, although this time with the humorous (you’ll see why) addition of some Italian rap. You will leave the cinema with a host of unexpected, striking images – and a surprising affection for a horse called Elvis.

This is the most melancholic of Sorrentino’s films that I have seen, but it was nonetheless much funnier than I expected from a film about assisted dying. From the reactions of those around me, the Ultimate Picture Palace audience certainly agreed. Much of the comic relief comes in the form of the acerbic Coco Valori (Milvia Marigliano), De Santis’ old friend, whom I could happily watch an entire film about. (Or maybe I already have? As a critic-cum-impresario, she is like a female version of Servillo’s man about town in The Great Beauty.)

If the film fails to fully capture the deep sadness of the assisted dying debate, it is due in part to the at-times clunky dialogue, also, unfortunately, something that can be expected of Sorrentino’s films. The ending might strike some as too saccharine, but if you allow yourself to be swept up by the admittedly contrived plot, you will leave the cinema feeling pleasantly revived. Sorrentino’s more muted direction here might also surprise those who came expecting the bright colours and relentless opulence of The Great Beauty. Sorrentino’s famous maximalism may be gone, but the dry humour is certainly still there, just not wrapped in a bouquet of colour but instead a dull, wintry palette.

Will this be the definitive film about euthanasia? Probably not. But it certainly makes you ponder the similarities between death and justice, and to question the suitability of those who wield such decisions. If nothing else, it is worth going for Toni Servillo’s performance alone.

Formula One’s controversial 2026 regulations

0

Formula One – F1 – is widely regarded as the pinnacle of motorsport, 22 feats of technical excellence racing around the world as drivers push their cars to the limit in pursuit of glory.

At least, that’s what F1 is supposed to be. Under the 2026 technical regulations, however, the sport has turned into a game of Mario Kart, with push-to-pass overtakes, computer programming deciding the outcome of qualifying, and teams turning to the age-old technical trick of ‘switching it off and on again’ when things go wrong.

It would be an understatement to say fans are divided on the new regulations. Even before the season began in Australia, there were concerns about the quality of the overtaking, the sound of the cars, and whether these regulations upheld ‘true’ racing.

And the ‘hybrid’ part is pertinent, as although F1 cars have had electrical boost since 2016 (the ‘turbo-hybrid era’), the 2026 regulations brought radical changes to the power unit. The removal of the MGU-H (a battery component which harvested power from the turbo) and the switch to a 50-50 split between electrical and internal combustion power meant a rethink of the way F1 operates, prompted by a desire to make F1 more sustainable.

Changes to a sport people love are never uncontroversial; imagine how football fans would feel if suddenly teams could score half goals. Historically, any changes to F1’s technical regulations (particularly concerning engines) have never gone down well. 

When V10s were abandoned, F1 fans missed the noise. When the V8 was swapped for the V6 hybrid engines, fans complained about Mercedes’ dominance. Similar complaints are being made now, but the concerns with these regulations stretch far deeper than what noise the car makes (although this is a worry). 

Chief among the problems is the safety risks posed by the way the cars harvest power, with potentially massive differences in speed causing some terrifying accidents, as evidenced by Haas’ Ollie Bearman, who had a heavy crash at the Japanese Grand Prix when approaching the much slower Alpine of Franco Colapinto.

If one driver is entering a corner, lifting and coasting, and the car behind is using ‘overtake mode’, where drivers can push a button to unlock an extra +0.5MJ (Megajoules) of power, the closing speed can be monumental. This was noted by McLaren Team Principal Andreas Stella before the season began, but it has only now been widely noticed due to Bearman’s crash.

Another problem with the F1 regulations is the inauthenticity of the racing, due to the supposed ease of overtaking. Although superclipping – a method of recharging the battery –  is a technical necessity due to the importance of the battery, it has a noticeable impact on racing. Halfway down a straight section of track, there is an audible ‘clip’ to the sound produced by the car as it reduces its speed in order to harvest power.

This has been widely criticised by drivers, with McLaren’s Lando Norris saying, “It still hurts your soul when you see your speed dropping so much – 56 kph down the straight.” Fans are equally unimpressed. Forcing cars to slow down is the opposite of what the pinnacle of motorsport should be promoting.

The new technical regulations also allow overtakes far more easily than previously, with cars passing and repassing each other on the same lap. “Honestly, [during] some of the racing… I didn’t even want to overtake Lewis”, described Norris. It’s just that my battery deploys… I can’t control it. So, I overtake him, and then I have no battery left, so he just flies past. This is not racing, this is yo-yoing.” The idea that drivers are not entirely in control of their cars has produced a ‘computer says no’ racing, where driver inputs do not align with the preprogrammed engine settings and battery deployment, leading to the car doing the opposite of what the driver was expecting. Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc, for example, saw his sprint qualifying lap in China ruined by the engine switching on to a different setting due to Leclerc momentarily lifting off the throttle.

All this aside, we must appreciate that these regulations are an attempt to make Formula One more sustainable. It is no secret that motor racing is not the greenest sport in the world. Flying to 20+ countries to host a motor race is never going to be an environmentalist’s dream. Switching to biofuels and generating 50% of the car’s power from electricity is a step in the right direction. But these regulations are not only designed to protect the future of the planet, but also the future of the sport.

It may seem on the surface that F1 is doing extraordinarily well: Drive to Survive brought a wider fanbase, and the sport is more popular than ever. But, going into the 2026 season, F1 were facing a situation where there could be only two engine manufacturers (Mercedes and Ferrari) in the sport. The 2026 technical regulations were a compromise resulting from discussions between many engine manufacturers, from Honda to Porsche, to Audi and Ford, removing the costly MGU-H and making a raft of changes to encourage more manufacturers into the sport.

Such are the issues with the 2026 regulations that a summit of F1’s teams has been convened to discuss: this includes potential modifications to the rules to solve many of the problems outlined above, particularly those concerning safety. The primary solutions which have been suggested are changing the amount of energy which can be harvested through super-clipping: increasing this to the same amount as that which can be harvested through lifting and coasting, there would be no need to slow down prematurely, which would prevent the gap in closing speeds.

Alternatively, F1 and the FIA are considering reducing the amount of power which can be harvested entirely, bringing the level of harvesting down to 250kW or 200kW. Doing so would slow the cars down, raising the question as to whether fans would prefer slower, better racing, or faster cars, leading to racing that resembles the chaos of Mario Kart.

In a sport where speed is everything, the fact that F1’s governing body is even considering a move which would drastically slow cars down (with reports of this change adding a second per lap to drivers’ laptimes) shows how fundamentally flawed these regulations are. Drivers are unhappy, teams are unhappy, and, perhaps most concerningly for F1’s future, fans are unhappy.

Galliano for the masses (on the Zara sale rack)

The fashion world is mourning the loss of John Galliano. Not a literal death, but something closer to a fall from grace. The designer, who defined an era at Dior, has entered into a two-year partnership with the fast fashion giant Zara. For some, this is a cause for celebration, a Robin Hood-esque democratisation of his genius, so to speak – after all, Galliano’s archival pieces remain some of the most sought after by celebrity stylists and Vinted warriors alike. However, for others, this feels like a betrayal: my initial reaction was admittedly one of shock and a sense of disappointment. God knows I have a weakness for a Zara sale, but surely, even in the current economic climate, Galliano didn’t have to end up here.

Galliano’s work has long existed within the realm of artistry rather than mere design, famously describing “the joy of dressing” as “an art”. His legendary tenure at Dior, spanning from 1997-2011, was known for its theatrical runway shows, with the catwalks being transformed into a stage upon which he paraded fantastical works oozing whimsy and fantasy. He drew inspiration from everything from Ancient Egypt and chinoiserie, to the indulgence and excess of Paris in La Belle Epoque, as can be seen in the pageantry of his Spring/Summer 1997 collection, metamorphosing the runway into a debutante ball at its most dreamy. Put simply, Galliano walked so Carrie Bradshaw and her Dior saddle bag could run. Bringing the same level of creativity to Maison Margiela as to the high street could, in theory, be seen as a kind of fashion egalitarianism. Nonetheless, I would argue that the mixed response to this partnership suggests something more complicated is at play. Galliano is far from an unproblematic figure, facing prosecution for antisemitic comments which ended his tenure at Dior in 2011. Yet I feel as though his appointment is not an isolated incident, but rather representative of a shift in the wider perception of fashion itself.  

What was once an art form has become about consumption and profit – art equals transaction in this capitalist economy. The rise of fast fashion lies at the centre of this tension, a double-edged sword. On the one hand, brands like Zara were the first to replicate the trend-led styles of the runway, making them accessible to a broader socioeconomic audience than ever before. On the other hand, it comes at a significant environmental and ethical cost, one that is becoming harder to ignore in an age of climate awareness and with the increased prevalence of alternatives such as second-hand shopping and conscious consumption. The very speed that makes Zara’s model accessible also depends on overproduction and disposability, with garments designed for short-term wear as opposed to longevity. In this sense, what is initially framed as democratisation begins to look more like a dilution, offering the illusion of participation whilst simultaneously undermining the craft and permanence that once defined fashion as an art form. Perhaps most interesting is the announcement’s wording, which seems to implicitly frame Galliano’s involvement as a form of fashion egalitarianism. After all, the collection’s stated purpose is to bring high fashion and dramatic design to a broader audience through the combination of Galliano’s couture process with fast-fashion capabilities.

This isn’t the first time that Zara has dabbled in the world of high fashion, collaborating with other acclaimed designers such as Narciso Rodriguez and Stefano Pilati, even releasing a capsule collection with Kate Moss. However, this new partnership – between a designer once shunned from his creative industry and a fast fashion giant – speaks to the changing idea of luxury in fashion. These kinds of high-low collaborations have become commonplace in the fashion world since H&M launched its first designer partnership with Karl Lagerfeld in 2004, building an entire business model upon the merging of luxury appeal and mass-market accessibility. This underscores how the industry is rethinking value, access and who gets to buy into trends. Exclusivity is no longer the sole marker of value, with access and immediacy becoming equally important, fundamentally reworking the idea of who gets to participate in fashion and at what cost.

And yet, for all my reservations, I can’t entirely reject the appeal. This is the contradiction at the heart of modern fashion, a growing awareness of its ethical failings, paired with an undeniable pull towards accessibility and trends. Fast fashion no longer thrives on ignorance, but on a kind of covertly conscious complicity. Consumers understand the environmental and ethical costs and yet are still drawn in by the immediacy and affordability. Frankly, if you’re telling me I can stroll into Westgate and buy Galliano without having to forfeit the entirety of my student loan, I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t be tempted.

By Victoria Corfield

A mini-guide to the Italian restaurants of Oxford

Oxford is home to a great variety of Italian restaurants – from casual chains to quieter independent businesses, there are options for everyone. The Cherwell Lifestyle team decided to combine  our forces and put together a mini-guide to the Italian restaurants to suit all of your needs. 

Bbuona – ideal for a light, social meal

Bbuona is an independent café on the edge of Gloucester Green, whose speciality is the oval-shaped ‘pinsa’: a Roman-style pizza alternative which uses a mixture of flours to offer a lighter and more digestible option to the traditional Italian favourite. Bbuona’s sourdough is indeed light and airy, and although somewhat smaller than a traditional pizza, I found made for a very filling meal. The service is extremely friendly, and the dining experience feels closer to sitting in an authentic Italian deli than in the centre of Oxford. The price of a pinsa varies between £9.95 and £17.95, depending on the toppings (all of which consist of a combination of high-quality deli products). There is also a (multi-person) option to try all the toppings for £25pp. I opted for the parmigiana, a pinsa deliciously infused with the tastes of aubergine parmigiana. The table next to us was all sat in their sub fusc and sporting red carnations, and I reckon that with the combination of fresh, filling Italian food, and a chilled aperol spritz on the side, they might have found the perfect post-exam ritual. 

Gusto – a cosy upscale dinner  

The atmosphere was cosy, with flickering incandescent light. The menu was surprisingly extensive, creative too. There are interesting takes on classic dishes, like their signature starter: dough petals. It’s set at a reasonable price point, given that the portion sizes are generous, but not massive. However, it is certainly pricier than more student-friendly options. Perhaps one to opt for when family visits and can pick up the bill. The food comes out quickly, almost too quickly. There is hardly any time to digest in between courses. 

We ordered five dishes in total: two starters and three mains. I had the garlic rosemary focaccia first. The flavour was subtle and light, but the bread was fairly dry. My grandmother reported that her Caesar salad was excellent. The romaine was crisp, and the dressing was rich and flavourful. The salad itself needed to be chopped up a bit more, as it was hard to eat. 

My pollo arabiatta was particularly delicious; the chilli was light and sweet. It was not spicy at all, which I was not expecting, but the flavours more than made up for it. My grandmother’s sea bass was excellent as well, with a non-traditional red sauce, a combination of pine nuts and roasted peppers, creating a unique flavour profile. The fish itself was good, tasting quite like a branzino, flaky and moist. It was cooked perfectly. Finally, my grandfather had lasagna. Once more, the sauce was a unique take on traditional lasagna – closer to a penne alla vodka pink sauce. An unusual, but excellent take on a classic dish. 

Zizzi – a reliable, casual spot

While Zizzi is a chain restaurant, it is not to be overlooked. We left satisfied, full, and happy. The restaurant is very large and open, with lots of dining space, and so we definitely didn’t feel rushed. The service is very friendly. 

The menu is quite large, and we  choose to try two ‘rustica’ pizzas with some fries. These pizzas are much larger than average, stretched by hand to form a thin, crispy base. The ‘primavera’ had an array of fresh vegetables, with delicious Genovese pesto – a lovely vegetarian option for those wanting a change from the basic Margherita. The pepperoni campagna was, as described by my table-mate: “a beautiful blend of two classic pizzas”; the pepperoni worked wonderfully with the mushroom and ham. Both pizzas tasted even better with a generous drizzle of chilli oil. The fries were some of the best we’ve tried – deliciously crispy without being too greasy. 

We appreciated their small touches, like the complimentary paprika pasta crisps we were offered while we waited for our meal, and the small cup of hot chocolate that arrived with the bill. Prices are perhaps higher than other restaurants of a similar standard, with pizzas ranging from around £16 to £18, though there are many offers available (use your Tesco Clubcard points here). 

Actually, Trinifree is a state of mind

0


“Now is the time for joyhealthhappinessmaxxing”, reads the text I sent to my friends before we moved back in for Trinity. Just over two weeks later, it has proven true. Every time someone  has asked how I’m doing, I tell them the truth: it’s my happiest Oxford term yet. And it’s not just me; everyone’s dopamine seems to have tripled. Sure, the beautiful weather is a not-insignificant reason for the drastic mental shift – the other day I stepped out into a middling amount of rain and experienced my first real negative emotion so far this term – but there has to be something more to it. 

So what actually characterises a Trinifree? So far, Trinifree is shaping up to be an attitude, not a fact. This, of course, may ring hollow coming from a second-year English student with no exams to speak of, but materially, I’m only juggling slightly fewer extracurriculars than in Michaelmas or Hilary. Nothing significant seems to have changed. So why the sudden happiness, the abrupt joie de vivre, the renewed zest for life? Where does it stem from?

For me, at least, I’ve chalked it up to no longer overcommitting. It sounds counterintuitive to advise scaling back during a term where most of the humanities students you know are the freest they’ll ever be, but take it from me: I didn’t scale back even when I was at my busiest, and it wasn’t pretty. Filling all my time with committees would be enjoyable, meaningful work, work undertaken in the gardens instead of the library, but work nonetheless. I wanted the time to work and play. This time, going into the vac, I signed up for a normal amount of responsibilities for a normal number of societies. I’m very happy to report my quest for a mentally stable Oxford term has so far been a smashing success. 

Experiencing Trinifree with a proper “Trinittude” (Trinifree-attitude) means the chance to do things I would have considered unfathomable during the past two terms, like take a nap in the afternoon or resolve to never pull an all-nighter in order to finish an essay. Now I have the chance to relax between lectures and talk to acquaintances I’ve always wanted to be closer to,  instead of spending every free moment completing assignments. I’m catching up with old friends and TV shows instead of fitting meetings into my calendar like Tetris blocks, or resorting to a meal deal because I have no time to head back to college (my current meal deal count this term stands at a whopping zero).

Michaelmas was characterised by miserably cold days, Hilary by miserably wet ones. By those standards, anything would be an improvement. But the change isn’t just good relatively, it’s objectively an upgrade. My most convincing anecdotal evidence is how my dreams have shifted from Matt Damon telling me I’d been rejected from all my internships to my current ones about my football club losing the league. 

To clarify, for those wondering: yes, you can be both locked in and Trinifree. Its namesake freedom isn’t about being free of exams or academic commitments; it’s about being free to be spontaneous, to host a podcast, cook a meal that takes more than thirty minutes to make, try new sports, or actually read the books for your essays. Even to sit down and write articles like these. Last week, I did extra reading beyond the starred compulsory ones and was astounded by how good it felt to be on top of things, to have the time to do things because you want to and not because you have to. I’m undeniably Trinifree; I’m also undeniably locked in, even if that locking in doesn’t necessarily happen in the library every day.

So take heart. It’s not impossible to be Trinifree if you have exams; it’s just a little harder. What defines a Trinifree is the resolve to not let anything consume your life, whether it’s revising for exams, summer applications, or society work. It’s a commitment to finding ways to enjoy each day, even if you enjoy some more so than others. All of this begs the question: Is Trinifree timeless? Can one have a Freechaelmas, or a Hilafree? Well, insofar as one can be Trinifree shivering in their puffer on a rainy walk to lectures, I suppose so – although maybe there’s a reason those don’t roll off the tongue quite so smoothly.

‘This isn’t a culture war. It’s a war on culture with a very long history’: Dan Hicks on Rhodes, racism, and the Pitt Rivers 

Professor Dan Hicks is a man at odds with his surroundings. Tucked away at the back of the Pitt Rivers Museum, his office is like that of many Oxford academics, stacked with books, several his own. Looking around, you spot the names of the various universities where he has taught: Oxford, Bristol, Freie, Boston, Stanford. Hicks himself, however, is not your typical Oxford don. Whereas other professors might offer you a drink or a look at a rare book, his form of hospitality is to give us two stickers: one displays a kiffeyeh under the words “Stop BP!” and the other reads: “Non una di meno: Fight Patriarchy”.

Hicks is a Professor of Contemporary Archaeology at the University, a curator of World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum, and a Fellow of St Cross College. He describes his work as an examination of the enduring role of colonialism in the modern world through the framework of the “four As” – archaeology, anthropology, art, and architecture. His book, The Brutish Museums: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence, and Cultural Restitution (2020), brought him international attention for his scathing criticism of British museums and their refusal to return looted artefacts. We speak to him as he’s gearing up for a tour to promote the new paperback of his latest monograph, Every Monument Will Fall: A Story of Remembering and Forgetting (2025), a list of engagements that will take him all around the UK, Ireland, Europe, and as far as Canada. 

It’s with this that our conversation starts. Every Monument Will Fall is an intervention into the raging debate about what to do with the statues, buildings, and museums dedicated to colonial figures. It’s a sweeping narrative that is both local and international. “The book uses Oxford as a point of departure for a wider set of conversations that have importance here in Oxford, in the University, in the museums, but actually across Europe and around the world”, Hicks explains. He takes the reader on a kind of walking tour of the physical reminders of the city’s colonial legacies, from the statue of Cecil Rhodes that commands a domineering view from Oriel College to the museum at which he works. But it also examines efforts to reckon with the legacy of the Confederacy in the American South and the toppling of Rhodes’ likeness in Zambia and Zimbabwe in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively, situating the modern debate within the context of a much older, global anti-racist struggle.

“All these movements”, Hicks explains, “whether it’s about objects in museums, whether it’s about statues in the streets – from Edward Colston to the unfallen Cecil Rhodes here in Oxford – whether that is in the seminar rooms and the libraries and the reading lists of the universities where the the call has been to decolonise or to shift the citation practises, are responding to a single historical entity”. He has coined it “militarist realism”: a term he uses to describe a political movement in the arts and culture in the 1870s-1920s which set out to celebrate the “great men” on the imperial project, upholding in pedagogic contrast a supposedly civilised Britain against primitive colonial cultures. 

“This isn’t a culture war”, Hicks says. “It’s a war on culture with a very long history. It’s a history of the weaponisation of culture, the taking of objects from the battlefields and the putting of them on to display in museums, or the putting up of images of the colonisers and the enslavers.” Hick argues that, if we recognise that these monuments were erected, not in an effort to accurately document history, but in an attempt to bolster a political agenda which sought to consolidate colonialism, it alters the fundamental nature of the modern debate about what to do with them. 

“The book is not called ‘All Monuments Must Fall’”, he points out. “It’s a statement – every monument will fall – of archaeological reality. We hold on to a historic built environment, memory culture, if we choose to maintain it and conserve it. People say: ‘Oh, you’re cancelling history.’ No, this is about the democratic right to choose who is remembered and who isn’t; who is centred and who’s taking up space.”

Every Monument Will Fall is manifestly the product of a career spent participating in the debates around the memorialisation of Britain’s colonial history. After completing his Bachelor’s in Archaeology and Anthropology at St John’s College, Oxford, Hicks studied for a PhD at the University of Bristol, where he would later work as a lecturer. It was here that he witnessed the local campaign for the removal of a statue of Edward Colston, the 17th-century slave-trader. As Hicks tells it, Colston was a case of the unmistakable will of a community to overhaul the monument undermined by bureaucracy and vested interest – particularly by the organisation the Society of Merchant Venturers, the guardians of Colston’s endowment to the city. 

So when Hicks moved back to Oxford in 2007, he felt that “it was my generation that failed to remove that image of Edward Colston”. Soon, he witnessed a parallel local struggle: the Rhodes Must Fall Oxford movement, beginning in 2015. Taking its cue from a similar campaign at the University of Cape Town, the initiative sought the removal of the statue of Rhodes on the Oriel facade. In the face of backlash from both the national media and the University, however, Oriel College could not be persuaded to take action. 

Then, in 2020, the murder of George Floyd in the United States and the subsequent resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement reignited the public debate around monuments and the glorification of slave traders. In Bristol, the statue of Edward Colston, immovable during Hicks’ time there, proved fallible when it was toppled and pushed into the harbourside. 

As Hicks tells it, it looked like that might be the moment when progress would begin to be made in Oxford: “There were protests… and a vote at Oriel College, who said they were going to relocate the statue in the summer, shortly after Edward Colston’s image had been removed. That decision was reaffirmed a year later in 2021.” He pauses: “And then, very slowly, nothing happened. So it’s the unfallen status of the Rhodes statue that makes the writing of this book possible. How is it still there? Why is it still there? What is the process?”

Moving to Oxford came with a new responsibility, curator at the Pitt Rivers Museum –  a job that made abundantly clear to Hicks Oxford’s central role in Britain’s violent colonialism. He explains that, in 2019, he was asked by Worcester College to investigate the origins of a human skull which was regularly used as a chalice at the College’s formals until 2015. Circumstantial evidence suggested the identification of its owner as an enslaved woman from the Caribbean. To Hicks, the disparity between the extremely limited information available about the woman whose skull it was and the celebration of the man who gifted it to Worcester College – George Pitt Rivers, the eugenicist grandson of the museum’s namesake – epitomised everything wrong with how Britain remembers colonialism. 

Consequently, in Every Monument Will Fall, Hicks seeks to highlight that, unlike the wealthy perpetrators, those victimised by colonialism “are not memorialised. In fact, their memories, their names, even, are actively redacted. This is a book about holding this unnamed, denamed, abused, posthumously abused woman up alongside the hyper-centred, hypervisible, dead white men in an institution like Oxford”.

“The fact that that tradition, invented by the fascist grandson of Augustus Pitt Rivers in 1946, could carry on as late as 2015, reminds us that, if that can carry on, what else is surviving?” 

So what has Hicks done to put his anti-colonial values into practice in his capacity as curator of the Pitt Rivers? The first task, he says, is simply understanding which artefacts museums have and where they came from. “So much of what we’re talking about in our museums is not what you see in the galleries. It’s what’s hidden away in the storerooms.” He points to an estimate that between 35-40% of the items in storage at the British Museum are not even on a public database. The Pitt Rivers has made progress in this respect, for instance, working with the Guardian to figure out the quantity of human remains held in Oxford’s archives.

The second is providing the essential context of how artefacts made their way from their origins to being displayed in a museum. “Walk into any museum and read any label. There are two dates on that label.” One is when the object was made and the other is the date that it came into the museum’s possession. The job of an archaeologist is to understand what happened in between. “These are two different timelines”, he says. “There’s an hour hand and a second hand. And one of those is catching up with the other.”

“Some people would accuse this work of presentism. But, of course, as an archaeologist, I work on what survives in the present. Archaeology is the science of human duration. We work on the most recent layer and we dig downwards. We work with the fragments that survive. The risk isn’t presentism, it’s historicism. It’s that you simply reduce objects in museums to a certain historical narrative that doesn’t talk about ‘actually how did they get here?’”

It’s clear he feels that his role comes with an enormous responsibility. To Hicks, museums do not only shape collective memory, but help to define who that collective is. “There isn’t just something called ‘the public’ out there. You make publics.” He argues that museums are particularly influential in creating this sense of community “because they’re always making choices about who they speak to and who they don’t”.

The moment, as well, could not be more important. “We’re having this conversation at a time when cultural studies is under attack, in the form of cuts across Europe and North America. The humanities are being salami-sliced as we watch, but we’ve never needed these disciplines more”. Hicks worries that, if we lose our ability to discern the agendas that motivated the creation of many of our monuments and museums, we risk uncritically accepting them as unbiased accounts of history.

“There’s so much memory culture that at the moment is imposed upon cities, imposed from the past, rather than remade in the present. So we need to take this seriously, and we need to care for art and culture in ways, which sometimes, I’m afraid, means refusing to inherit what is here.”

As if to more directly communicate these ideas, Hicks makes use of the second person in his book: addressing the reader as if they are walking around Oxford with him. This goes beyond direct address, however. At times, Hicks puts words into the mouth of the reader, as if he is recalling an actual conversation and casting us in the role of interlocutor. He explains, when asked, that much of the book is based on the conversations he had with Professor Mary C. Beaudry, a “dear friend who died over lockdown” with whom Hicks collaborated on several books.

In fact, Hicks tells us that the arc of writing his book was framed by instances of personal loss. “My father died right at the beginning, and then my mother died in the middle, and then my sister died right at the process of the final edit. So I lost, over the course of writing, the whole family that I grew up with.” The second-person voice, therefore, was only fitting for a book about the ways in which we memorialise those who lived before us. “The vocative is a voice we use when saying a prayer or for addressing the dead”, he explains. Every Monument Will Fall, then, is a book written to pay tribute not only to Professor Beaudry, but also Hicks’ family, and the unnamed, forgotten victims of British colonialism – all those who have not been afforded the same memorialisation as such glorified figures as Rhodes and Pitt Rivers.  

There is another reason for this stylistic choice. “I don’t just want to give a lecture with this book”, he says. “I want it to be a conversation.” With the upcoming tour, he wants to “build a community”. “There’s a transformational potential here on the page that’s maybe relevant for the whole world. That’s the hope.”

After the conversation wraps up, we exit Professor Hicks’ office into the grand, colonnaded hall of the Pitt Rivers Museum. It’s difficult to ignore the contradiction – the dedicated anti-racist curator at the heart of a museum whose very displays are still organised by the legacies of 19th-century racism. Heading along Parks Road, the Rhodes House draws our attention from the side, and then the figure of Cecil Rhodes himself as we turn right and head up the High Street. Any Oxford student knows about Rhodes’ crimes, and the controversy his memorialisation continues to cause. But Every Monument Will Fall asks you to see these buildings and statues in a new light, not only as evidence of Oxford’s colonial past, but as a continued exercise in myth-making that aggrandises deplorable men. After a conversation with Dan Hicks, one does not look at Oxford in quite the same way again. 

Is there such a thing as a break-up season?

0

I think that, in our own minds, and with our intimate knowledge of the people closest to us, it is easy to zoom in, to overanalyse the incompatibilities, circumstances, and personal factors of all the break-ups we experience and observe. However, when we step back to see these turbulent, seemingly singular occurrences in the wider context of the lives of people we might only brush against, I believe a pattern arises that warrants the consideration of a break-up season.

While the word ‘season’ is used figuratively, I think we can see a direct correlation between romantic or relational seasons and the seasons of the year. The seasons correspond to the growth and harvest seasons of crops, or the dry and wet seasons of tropical climates, migratory patterns of birds, hibernation of mammals. They dictate the behaviours of the natural world, to the extent that humans have even personified them as gods. And although it can be easy to think that we humans are not at the mercy of these forces, with man-made inventions often allowing us to live a consistent life year-round, there is much evidence to the contrary. Seasonal depression is a commonly recognised disorder of the colder months. Across the UK, the collective shift in mood when the sun illuminates every street, when the warmth allows us to shed the smothering puffer and adorn ourselves in colour and flowy fabrics, is so profound and so predictable, that we might secretly be solar-powered creatures. It is not such a leap, then, to say that this fleeting happiness has a domino effect, and in the warmer months we are more open to new connections and to seeing the beauty which was always there, but perhaps lay dormant or buried during the winter. Along with the nature which surrounds us, we ebb and flow under the sway of the seasons.

Autumn has a reputation for being the season of introspection. As our summer openness begins to draw in, so too do we begin to turn away from new things to relish the warm familiarity of what we know. This reputation is, of course, founded in autumn’s natural significance – that of harvest, reaping the results of the past two seasons of growth, before the ground hardens (and later freezes). This evokes a nostalgia for what was growing, now that the time to cut it down is upon us. This synesthesia between seasonal, sensory experience, and our emotional understanding of our personal relationships, is also reflected in music. A song we often associate with Autumn is ‘Sweater Weather’ by the Neighbourhood, which expresses the vulnerability and tenderness brought on by the cold. A song explicitly set in autumn, which continues these themes, is Taylor Swift’s ‘All Too Well’, a break-up anthem, referencing falling leaves, and describing the fragmentation that occurs after parting ways with a lover.

One reason I believe SZA (mistakenly) declared cuffing season as winter (in her 2022 SNL skit song ‘Big Boys’), is that the cold and the darkness, which make us retreat indoors are mellowed, even thawed, by the close presence of a lover or a friend. However, this desire for closeness is at odds with the cold, which, after months of exposure, seeps into our very being. We don’t stay out as late, plans become less spontaneous – teeth chattering and full-body shivers aren’t exactly conducive to the wide smile and gracious small talk that meeting new people and making first impressions requires. The highlight of the season is Christmas, an occasion centred on family, and which might indirectly overlook a need or desire for romance or friendship (though any Scot will tell you the latter theme is brought to the forefront come New Year’s).

As we move into spring, there is a conscious step towards optimism, and a newfound potential for growth after the inactive winter. Just as the blossoms begin to bud, and everything seems just that bit greener, so too are we encouraged to venture out of our own shells, and dare to go to that event or party. It helps that any sorrows are immediately cushioned by the longer, warmer days, and the ever-present pint prerogative. Saint Etienne’s ‘Spring’ makes the important distinction between spring and summer, which is also often identified as being a happier season. It represents spring’s inherent whimsical energy, which is perhaps born from the transition from winter, the beginning stages of our metamorphosis into our full social potential. As a result, spring is a time for social opportunities: first dates which go nowhere, interesting people you meet once and promise to meet again. Yet somehow three weeks go by before you realise that you are so focused on how the life you already have is blooming, that you neglect the chance to further expand your garden.

Summer, of course, is the much-anticipated, most glorified time of year. How can you be anything but giddy when it is 20 degrees, and you can feel the sun’s warmth radiating through the air? I would argue, though, that the social and relational mood of your summer is largely dictated by your spring. Conversely to winter, where companionship acts like a safety blanket, in summer, we are empowered and happy, and this feeling is reinforced by our everyday surroundings. We don’t need to rely on the comfort of a relationship for happiness, because all of a sudden, what we have is bathed in gorgeous light. We are delightfully open to new people in all sorts of ways, simultaneously allowing for more frivolity and freedom in general. While the new connections of spring flourish further, I think in this time of year (especially in the splendour that is Trinity in Oxford), we are less like plants and more like bees. We derive pleasure from both the comfort of the hive and the undertaking of pollination, dashing around, diversifying our days, and conversations.

I write this coming up on a year of being in a relationship, which began to sprout and bud in May last year, and so one could say that this is simply an outsider’s view of the cycles of love. But to that, I would ask you to look around, as we exit the abundance of spring to launch into the joy of summer.  Don’t you see a culture of friendliness and positivity thriving, as we throw caution to the wind and jump into the river once more?

Hospitable cultures exist because women exist

I dedicate this piece to my maternal grandmother, to her tired eyes and overworked hands.

When guests and families sit, talk, and laugh, one person is always excluded. The same person who wakes up earlier and sleeps later than everyone else. As someone who comes from a collectivist culture, cooking, breaking bread, raising each other’s children, and caring for the elderly are embedded in our way of life. In our individualistic Western society, this is rare, hence I’d distinguish this part of my identity by how generous and welcoming my hospitable Eastern culture is. But I’ve come to realise that all this hospitality does not come from culture. It comes primarily from women. In most households, from one woman. 

Let’s think about every hospitable home that we’ve eaten and slept in, including our own. Who cooked for us? Who cleaned the house before we arrived? Who made sure that we were served and had everything we needed ? Who laid the table? And most disappointing of all, who was given the last seat on that table? 

I’m ashamed to say that, like many others, after benefiting from the unpaid labour of the women in my household, I’d instead credit and praise my culture for our family’s hospitality. 

However, it is women who are the reason why our hospitable cultures have survived. They are the reason why culture, at all, has survived. National dishes and homemade remedies can be traced back to women’s hands. Cultural attire with distinct embroidery and symbolism can be traced back to women’s hands. Songs sung to children, fables, poetry and folklore surviving generations, can be traced back to women narrating and teaching them to their offspring. 

But it is much more than this; we don’t just owe the survival of our culture to women, but our very own survival. Every homemade meal, tender embrace, wiped tear, wrapped gift, handwritten card, wise word of advice, and lullaby has raised and nourished us. With regards to the hospitality that defines our collectivist cultures, it comes with a huge sacrifice of time, energy, effort, and labour, which is almost always paid by our mothers, grand and great. They continue to make this sacrifice unpaid, unappreciated, and unnoticed. 

If roles were reversed, and a man were to prepare the home, welcome, cook for, and serve guests, we all know he’d be praised, called progressive, exceptional. His wife would be called “lucky”. So, when women do this daily, how often do you even say thank you? How often do they receive thanks from every single person who sat at the table she laid and ate the meal she prepared?

University was the first time I moved away from home. It was my mother with whom I was on the phone throughout the term. It was my mother who would text to see if I had eaten when I was away. It was my grandmother who always had a meal ready whenever I’d visit home. It was my mother who would drive me to and from Oxford, again and again, even though I could have taken the train. Before my year abroad, it was my grandmother who taught me how to cook (a proper) meal, knowing I could no longer rely on college dinners. When I came back from my year abroad, it was my aunty, who, despite having recently given birth, planned a party and “Welcome Home” cake.

While I could easily, and would love to, write an article about men’s role in sustaining the family, and the importance of the role fathers play in our wellbeing and development as adults, I write this first. Because while the survival of a family or society depends on both men and women working together, the part that women play is rarely acknowledged or appreciated. 

Across time and place, including now, “providing” is considered a masculine role, but, on the contrary, it is not a single role nor one carried out by a single person. It has always been shared, with women providing a great deal by managing the emotional and logistical labour of the household. It is their advice and comfort that provides emotional support. It is their meals that have provided physical support and nourishment. It is their commutes to and from their children’s school, clubs, and activities that have provided educational support, and facilitated the lifelong friendships that we have formed in these spaces. 

Still, women continue to provide for and look after everyone, from young babies to elderly parents and in-laws. It is their care that contributes to sustaining our families, subsequently holding wider society together. And despite all this, society continues to perpetuate the narrative that it is only men who provide, and support women.

It also seems to me that most women don’t carry all this mental and emotional strain because they want to, like to, or because they just really love guests that much. No, they do so because if they took a break from these daily tasks that keep the family home, and subsequently wider society, running and thriving, it would have consequences. The house would remain unkept, the household would remain unfed. Society has imposed this burden and an unfair sense of obligation solely upon their backs. A woman’s value has been tied to her productivity and how much she contributes to her family. God forbid these women take a break, they’d be labelled a failing mother and wife. 

It is one of my deepest desires to, even if for just one day, relieve all women, specifically our mothers, from our homes. I don’t want to see them cooking, cleaning, serving, or managing. I doubt any family would survive. I doubt any hospitable home that we take pride in would last even 24 hours. 

To quote the Lebanese poet Khalil Gibran: “All houses are dark until the mother wakes up.”