Monday 7th July 2025
Blog Page 2170

Oxford Union in financial crisis

0

The Oxford Union is in serious financial jeopardy following a backlog of financial mismanagement and a loss of sponsorship.

The accounts of the Oxford Union have shown that were membership or sponsorship to fall, the Society would have insufficient funds to cover its costs for a year.

A backlog of missed targets has resulted in the financial difficulties. In the year leading up to June 2007, the Society lost 18,000. Last year saw only 16,000 of the £20,000 target being raised.

In 2003, its losses totalled £100,000.
One Union spokesperson attributed the losses to “unforeseen maintenance costs”.

However, they are part of a wider problem that the Union faces in getting sponsorship to help fund its yearly expenditure, which in 2007 was over £687,000.
Several committee members have blamed the termly changeover of Treasurer for leading to a purely short-term focus to the Union finances.

Current Treasurer James Langman criticised the “lack of long-term planning on the part of past treasurers”, whilst an anonymous member of the Union has stated that treasurers have purely used the position of Treasurer as a necessary step in the career in the Union.

One committee member said of Roche, who raised less than £1,000 in sponsorship during his time in office and fell well short of the Hilary target of £8,000, that he “didn’t give two figs about the finances, he just wanted to be President”.

Union sponsorship is usually arranged by each Treasurer on a termly basis, and there is currently no on-going sponsorship that might secure the Union finances long term.

The Union’s Bursar, Lindsey Warne, admitted that the situation was not ideal, stating that “in a perfect world, sponsorship would be on-going but most has just been for a term or two”.

Langman, who has so far raised £8,150 in his term and thus exceeded the Hilary target of £8000, has nevertheless expressed fears about the Union’s long-term financial security, stating that “It is one of the things we are quite worried about”.

Warne stated that “it is harder now to find sponsors, when it has already been increasingly difficult over the last few years due to competition”.

Langman reiterated this, adding that the recession had “massively” affected this term’s drive for funding and that attracting sponsors had become “very tough”.
He stated that sponsorship this term had been secured “substantially due to personal contacts”.

He added that competition with other University societies had contributed to the difficulties, saying, “the treasurers in the future are going to have to work harder than treasurer have worked in the past few years, particularly because of the competition that we are facing with other societies. Law Soc, in particular, now attracts more sponsors.”

Due to a backlog of financial failings, the Union’s reserves would be unable to cover its costs if membership and sponsorship were both to fall significantly or if continued to lose money as in 2003.

The Union only owns about one third of its buildings, the rest being owned by the Oxford Literary and Debating Union Trust (OLDUT), a charitable organisation set up in the 1970’s to ensure that the buildings would be saved even if the Oxford Union Society went bankrupt.

OLDUT now sporadically offers grants to the society to help with its running, and in 2005, they paid for building works in the Union library.

Langman stated that the trust is essential to the financial health of the Union, stating that the this year, “there was a small surplus, but only due to a grant from OLDUT”.

However, as it is a charitable trust, OLDUT will only give the Union money for projects that coincide with its objectives, for example the upkeep of the library. They do not fund social events.

Lindsey Warne said that “we are doing everything we can to make sure that the Union doesn’t lose money again”.

Langman explained that the Union has set up an alumni scheme to get donations from ex-presidents, which he stated “should hopefully raise some money”, despite a previous bursar’s destruction of about ten year’s worth of records meaning that the society is “losing out on quite a few people”.

Langman has also had plans approved to form a business team that will operate in a similar way to that of OUSU. He plans to recruit a team of Union members who will work to raise sponsorship over the Easter holiday.

The volunteers will receive commission on any funds that they raise that exceed £20,000.

The Society has also been forced to increase its membership fees, which have risen from £168 to £178 in two years.

The Access Scheme, which is supposed to offer students receiving a full maintenance grant a reduced membership under £100, has been pushed up to £99.

Some students have expressed anger at the rise, suggesting that increased fees would deter future members.
James Maclaine, a Union member and graduate of Lady Margaret Hall college said,

“if I could start my time at Oxford again, I wouldn’t join the Union. I spent so much money on membership and I just didn’t go enough to make it worth it. I bet if membership goes up any more, fewer and fewer people will join”.

 

Animal rights activist on trial

0

Two firms involved in Oxford University’s animal testing laboratory withdrew from the project after an aggressive and threatening campaign by animal activists, a court heard today.

Oxford University Vice-Chancellor John Hood, speaking at the trial of animal rights activist Mel Broughton, told the jury that the then contractor Montpelier had suffered damage to “various assets of the company.” He said that members of animal rights group SPEAK were encouraged to carry out attacks and the company “felt they could no longer fulfil their obligations” as a result of the intimidation.

Broughton, who the prosecution say is the spokesperson for SPEAK, is on trial at Oxford Crown Court in connection with arson attacks to university property in 2006 and 2007.

He is charged on the two counts of conspiracy to commit arson and being in possession of an article with intent to destroy University property.

He denies both charges, relating to a fire that caused £13,000 worth of damage to Queen’s College sports pavilion in November 2006 and explosive devices discovered in the grounds of Templeton College in February 2007.

The head groundsman at Templeton College, told the court that he found the devices under an area of portacabins on the college site.

He had been informed earlier that morning by a colleague that a notice had been posted on the website Bite Back, run by the Animal Liberation Front, mentioning that an attack on the Oxford college was being planned.

He later discovered what seemed to be petrol bombs underneath the portacabins. He called the police, who summoned an army bomb disposal unit to secure the area.

The prosecution say that Broughton’s DNA was found on the incendiary devices planted in the 37 acre site and that sparklers used to construct the fuses of the device were found in the bathroom of his Northampton house.

The prosecution added that whilst they “respected his right to hold a firm opinion” on the matter of animal testing, they had “no respect for those who resort to terror and intimidation” to make their views known.

Broughton has a previous conviction for being in possession of an incendiary device to be planted in the name of animal rights.

Students protest outside BBC HQ

0

A crowd of protesters surrounded the BBC Oxford Studios to express their anger at the broadcaster’s refusal to air an aid appeal for Gaza.

More than 100 demonstrators gathered on Sunday night, followed by a smaller protest the next day. Protesters, both students and locals, chanted “BBC, shame on you!” and waved banners reading “Bloody Biased Corporation.”

The BBC has declined to broadcast an appeal by Disasters Emergency Committee to raise money for injured or homeless people in Gaza as they believe it will compromise the impartiality of their reporting.

Amy Gilligan, a student at Exeter College, said she had joined the protest as part of a wider demonstration against the BBC, “people in London today were standing outside of the BBC studios burning their TV licences because people aren’t willing to put up with the… unwillingness to aid a humanitarian cause any more.”

She accused the broadcaster of “bias broadcasting of the conflict.” She added, “so much more air time is given to the Israeli side of the story.”

A spokesperson for the BBC said, “the BBC decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC’s impartiality in the context of an ongoing news story.”

Protest organiser, Tony Richardson of the Oxford Palestine Solidarity Campaign (OPSC), said that there were “quite a few students present” at the protest. He said, “the local PSC works quite closely with students… We were all together outside the Bodleian arguing the same thing.”

Dominic Williams from St. Catherine’s college said that the protest in Oxford would “make people think about the campaign.” He said that it was important that the BBC showed the appeal because “lots of people watch the BBC and it would raise a lot of money.”

He stressed that it was “a humanitarian appeal” because “people in Gaza need aid.”

He argued that in an effort to show an equal representation of the conflict, the BBC had not properly emphasised the plight of people living in Gaza.

Russell Ingis, a postgrad at St. Hughes, said “we all feel that this decision represents a total failure of compassion and a total lack of humanity.”

The police were present but said they were not expecting any violence.

 

Fire threatens Hertford College

0

A major fire broke out at Hertford College accommodation in the early hours of Tuesday morning, causing considerable damage to college property, and forcing the emergency evacuation of nearly 100 students.

The blaze is thought to have originated at around 4.15am in a waste bin on the public right of way between The Head of the River pub and the Geoffrey Warnock House accommodation on St Aldate’s.

The fire soon spread to the outside of Warnock House, at which stage the emergency services were alerted.
Police began evacuating students from the smoke-filled building, moving them to temporary shelter at the College’s Graduate Centre building on the other side of Folly Bridge.

By the time three fire engines arrived, the fire had broken the windows of the first and second floors.

A nearby gas main that ran under the bins was ruptured by the heat of the blaze. A specialist team from the Gas Board was called to shut off the supply immediately in order to prevent an explosion.

Students were allowed back into the building at 7.45am.
John Nixon, Incident Commander for Oxfordshire Fire Service, said that it was fortunate that the students were alerted by the building’s smoke alarms and able to evacuate the building so quickly.

He said, “this particular incident is an example of what potentially could have been a serious fire, if the county council’s Fire and Rescue Service had not attended so promptly.”

Police originally expressed suspicions that the fire had started as a result of an arson attack, but they have now ruled out the possibility of the fire being started deliberately.

Sergeant Russel Simpson from Oxford CID said, “we are now satisfied that there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the cause of the fire at the property and that the fire was not started deliberately.

“Four student rooms have been damaged by the fire and the students have been moved to a house on Banbury Road on a temporary basis.

One fourth year who lives in the damaged accommodation said, “the police were suspicious of arson but no one saw any one hanging around” and added she believed the fire had most likely been caused by a cigarette butt that had been thrown into the waste bin before being properly extinguished.

Hertord student, Josef Sadowski alerted the emergency services after seeing that “One of the big wheely bins was on fire and the other was beginning to catch light” below his bedroom window.

He explained that by the time he had called dialed 999, his room was “thick with smoke”. He went on to stress the danger of the College’s frequent “false alarms” that mean that “people don’t always respond”, adding that we had to “make it clear that this was not a drill”.

Various members of the College authorities and the student body have praised the actions of the emergency services.

Simon Lloyd, the College Bursar, stressed how much more serious the incident could have been, and thanked the emergency services for responding so quickly. He said, “the college is grateful for the quick response of the emergency services as this incident could have been more serious”.

William Hartshorn, Hertford’s JCR president, reiterated the college’s gratitude to the emergency services and extended thanks to the members of the college who quickly raised the alarm.

He added that the JCR was working to avoid any unnecessary disruption to the student body caused by the forced relocation.

 

 

5 Minute Tute: Guantanamo Bay

Why was Guantanamo Bay set up?

The detention camps were set up in 2002 to house individuals (captured or handed over in Afghanistan and elsewhere) who were believed to be involved in terrorism or unlawful armed activity, primarily against the United States; many were claimed to be members of al-Quaeda or the Taliban. Around 800 inmates from 40 countries have been held there. Inmates were interrogated for ‘intelligence purposes’, and where sufficient evidence was obtained, it was intended that they would be tried on site.

Why is it so controversial?

Guantanamo Bay rapidly became synonymous with unlawful interrogation techniques, including sensory deprivation, sexual abuse, humiliation, and torture, in particular, through ‘waterboarding’. The Bush Government also argued that the detention centre was beyond the jurisdiction of US courts, that those held were not protected by the law of armed conflict (being for the most part ‘unlawful combatants’), and that human rights did not apply. Over 500 inmates have been held and then released without charges.

What are the trial proceedings, and are they legal?

The Bush Government established so-called ‘military commissions’ to try detainees. Many noted that these failed to meet basic fair trial requirements, lacking independence and impartiality, denying access to the evidence, refusing the participation of independent lawyers (except under stringent conditions), being closed to the public, and subject to no effective review. Senior British judges (Lord Steyn and Lord Bingham) and Lord Falconer (as Lord Chancellor, but speaking for the Government) all severely criticised Guantanamo.

The Bush administration decided that as ‘unlawful enemy combatants’, detainees were unprotected by international prisoner treatment standards, specifically the Geneva Convention. A 2006 ruling by the Supreme Court overturned this, thus establishing minimum-treatment standards, in particular, by reference to Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Although their future operation is now in doubt, the tribunals established by the Bush Administration in 2006 are made up of between 5 and 12 armed forces officers with a qualified military judge. To convict the accused at least two-thirds of the commission members must vote in favour. In order to decide the death penalty – which can be sought if death resulted from the actions of the accused – all 12 members must vote in favour. Appeals lie to a Court of Military Commission Review and thereafter to the Supreme Court. Evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible, although ‘coercion’ is considered acceptable and ‘waterboarding’ was not defined as torture by the Bush administration.

Why is it so difficult to close?

There are several reasons. One of the most recent to emerge is the failure to compile comprehensive single files on every detainee, which will hamper case review. Another is finding countries willing to accept those released; while many will go home, others may not be ‘returnable’ to their countries of origin because of fear of persecution or torture (which itself may arise from simply having been detained, irrespective of the evidence).

What will America do with the suspects, and with suspects in the future?

There are a number of options. If there is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct, then the detainee may be prosecuted in a regular court in the United States, where the usual procedural protections will apply; any evidence obtained by torture, for example, will be excluded. It is reported that about 80 of the current inmates could be tried under terrorism charges. The US might also seek to detain without trial others considered to be a security risk, again in the US. New laws will be required and such forms of detention are generally inconsistent with constitutional principle. Fifty of the inmates have been cleared for release but cannot be returned to their home countries for fear of torture or persecution. A number of European countries are currently considering whether to take some of the prisoners in order to expedite closure of the camp.

The treatment of future ‘unlawful combatants’ and terrorism suspects will require serious consideration and, where the US is operating overseas, close cooperation with local governments on the basis of full respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights standards.

What has President Obama decided to do?

President Obama has always been opposed to Guantanamo Bay. He has ordered a moratorium on prosecutions for 120 days, and he has ordered that the centre be closed within a year. However, there are also major detention, interrogation and treatment problems to be dealt with in Afghanistan (at the prison on the US airbase at Bagram).

He has also ordered the intelligence community to follow the US Army Field Manual, which clarifies the interrogation techniques that are classified as torture and therefore prohibited.

 

 

Freedom’s Call

0

Oxford Christian Union’s annual mission arrives next week, and with the title ‘Free’ it comes with the ambitious promise to lift some of the shackles of financial crisis and global uncertainty amongst the student population.

The British media has gone well and truly credit crunch crazy in the past few months, with endless tales of how the crisis may affect our lifestyles. What’s been noticeably absent, however, has been any attempt to understand some of the deeper effects on British society. With banks collapsing, jobs disappearing and the seeming certainties of international capitalism out the window, the founding tenets of many people’s lives have come under fresh scrutiny as questions of ultimate value and guidance gain new significance.

This sense of moral re-evaluation may be creating an intriguing space for religion, for so long ignored and supposedly left behind on our secular march of progress, but now suddenly finding itself with much to offer to a population trying to remember just why they get out of bed in the morning.

Americans have recently celebrated hope reborn through the inauguration of Barack Obama, and it was fascinating to see just how religious the whole ceremony was, with prayer abounding and the new President himself quoting Scripture and describing the ” source of our confidence” as “the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.”

In Europe, all eyes have been on Kaka and his offer of £500,000 a week just to kick a ball. Certainly footballing decisions were important in his eventual choice, but who can deny the self-confessed significance of his Christian faith in persuading him to forsake the kind of wealth that all but a handful could even dream of?

It is perhaps in such a context that Free will take on a special significance. The choice of the title is surely an indication that this will not be the caricature bible-bashing-fire-and-brimstone-fest of yester year. Instead guest speakers Joe Boot and Rice Tice will be speaking on topics like ‘free from guilt’ and even ‘free to choose’.

Martin Luther once described evangelism as being like “one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread”. The credit crunch might not quite have got to that yet, but perhaps such words will inspire student believers and non-believers alike to share core values and motivating influences in a place when all are still learning and defining themselves. God knows we’re going to need them.

For more information visit www.free09.co.uk
The main talks will be in the Town Hall throughout 3rd Week

See the People

0

Georgia Sawyer’s Mankind is a modern adaption of a medieval morality play which, in its original context, was designed to instruct its audience in appropriate Christian behaviour. It is peopled with a wide variety of allegorical figures from the austere Mercy (Tom Bishop) who offers Mankind (Matt Monaghan) the chance for redemption while the forces of temptation including the devil Titivillus (Eva Tausig) try to bring about his damnation.

While this would seem to suggest a strait laced moral lecture the theatrical experiance is almost manic in its variety and vivacity. The whole production is charged with intense passion for the subject matter and determination to bring it to life for a modern audience. While the evil creatures Newguise, Nowadays and Nought are on the stage the action relies heavily on the simple, physical comedy of the pantomime and barely a moment passes without a bawdy double entendre, a suggestive pelvic thrust or a knowing wink. Live music is constantly woven in and out of the play and is performed with aplomb by the cast and the motion of the characters on the stage always borders on dance, in line with their allegorical natures each moves with a sense of deeper purpose: the devils low to the ground, Mankind uncertain yet sensitive, Titivillus langorous and sensual and Mercy with his hands firmly clasped in prayer.

The set and costume reflect the stark moral landscape through which the play moves, with little ostentation either with props and all the characters dressed in black and distinguished only by their shoes. All of these confusing factors taken together add up to a deliciously various but slightly chaotic product. The play is signposted as ‘high art’ through the doffing of costume in favour of black clothing yet seems to rely heavily on the ‘low art’ techniques of pantomime and burlesque. For me this juxtaposition felt interesting but I could equally see how it could infuriate someone with strict ideas of theatrical propriety. Mankind represents an authentic gesture towards a different sense of theatre, one where the lines between audience and actors are thin and often crossed- the smoke filled atmosphere of the medieval tavern perhaps or the wagon of a band of travelling performers.

2nd Week: Ever indier

0

This is becoming something of an irksome habit; tempting new albums at my side, rather more appealing than a clutch of well-known or unpromising singles. This week, it’s Franz and Bruce who gaze with eyes of puppies from my desk…so on, Christian soldiers, on!

TV On The RadioHalfway Home *****

Another new habit; the free weekly download from iTunes. I don’t need to spend any more of your time reiterating how truly godly this band and album are; this, its opening track, is a towering example of how guitar music may still be great.

Lily AllenThe Fear **

This is a far better song if she means what she’s saying. As in, this is clearly an insider dig or satire of the celebrity lifestyle. But the verses are far more appealing if you take them literally: ‘that’s what makes my life so fucking fantastic’. Besides that, ‘I am a weapon of mass consumption’ is a decent line. Musically, Lily’s return is lilting and lightweight; a glossy bubble of bubblegum pop, infinitely moe knowing and polished than early hits such as ‘LDN’. A grown-up, cynical piece of pop song-writing masquerading as a teen in a frilly frock. Underwhelming.

Bloc Party – One Month Off *

You know how Intimacy was a mix of brilliant, tuneless, forward-thinking tracks like ‘Mercury’, and crap attempts to rock out? This is neither. Instead, it’s that record’s obligatory single-that-sounds-suspiciously-like-‘Helicopter’ – remember ‘Hunting For Witches’? Just like that. There’s a diverting ten second techno break, and a seriously annoying key change towards the end, but really, this is a tiresome retread of past excellence.

Fleet Foxes – Mykonos ****

Clearly released in an attempt to make all the people who bought Fleet Foxes after reading end-of-year reviews also buy their first release, Sun Giant EP. But there’s no shame in that: everyone should be made to buy it. Then they can hear beautifully crafted, breezy, earthy, sunny, and generally elemental songs of genius such as this Greek-inflected marvel. It manages to be both timeless and extremely ‘now’.

Little JoyNo One’s Better Sake ****

Little Joy have cunningly validated the fact that their singer sounds exactly like Julian Casablancas by drafting in fellow Stroke Nick Valensi on this laid-back, ‘vintage’ sounding single. Add Devendra Banhart to the mix and you have a major indie love in. Despite which some music actually gets made: a woozy, organ-drenched shuffle of a song that makes me really really want to be on a Caribbean beach. Charming.

Ida Maria – Oh My God *

Any song with this title is bound to benefit from association with Kaiser Chiefs. Problem is, this aspiring pop ‘vixen’ manages to look a lot like one of them. Shame. Propelled by a relentless snare and humming, nattering tangles of guitar, there’s not much substance to this aggressive piece of power-pop. Nor much of a tune. There’s nothing offensive about it, but could someone explain to me why it exists? What musical function does this possibly serve?

Something Old, Something New

Suede – Dog Man Star

1993 may not have been that long ago, but I feel 16 years sanctions pointing out this, the second album from London’s finest rock band, Suede. You may not realise this, but it’s actually the greatest album ever made. Ever. After scoring a Mercury success with their romantic, sex-drenched, dark debut Suede, the band went a tad self-indulgent. This album’s creation cost them Bernard Butler, one of the all-time great guitarists, enjoying far more lucrative success these days as one of the world’s hottest producers. But it was worth it: operatic, hedonistic, melodramatic and camp, whilst maintaining integrity, menace and tunes to die for and to. The musicianship is practically unparalleled. Please, if you haven’t bought this before, then trust me.

Mr Hudson

A heads-up: the very wonderful and talented and nice Ben Hudson, one-time Eng. Lit. student of St Anne’s, has shed his ‘Library’. This is a shame, as their steel drums, jazz piano and soul vocals helped make a brilliant debut album, A Tale Of Two Cities. But fear not, for far from disappearing, he has been collaborating with Kanye West and making a new album. And he’s back in Oxford on Wednesday of 8th week to open his new tour. Get tickets here.

Till next time…

Theatre Expert: a third of all West End theatres may go bankrupt

0

A third of West End theatres are likely to go bankrupt in the next two years, an expert on London theatres has told Cherwell in an interview. Bob Blackman, the Conservative deputy leader of Brent council in London and a former member of the Greater London Assembly also predicted that many theatres could need government loans, some might become owned by charitable foundations and that empty theatres could become practice spaces for London drama schools.

Blackman wrote a report in late 2007 for the GLA which concluded that many theatres, especially playhouses which do not put on more profitable musicals, were unable to afford necessary structural modifications and needed to try to find new ways of raising funds; he now describes his report as having been written ‘when times were pretty good’ compared to now and said that one of his suggestions, a restoration levy on tickets would not work now: ‘you’ve got to fill the theatre’, and that owners had been ‘standoffish’ and unwilling to take risks.

In his interview with Cherwell, he argued that even though theatres are private companies, there is a need for government investment to protect tourism provided there is a long-term return: "You may come once. If you have a bad experience, you probably won’t come again…you can’t afford for it to fail. The knock-on effect would be that restaurants go out of business. The hotels go out of business. The other tourist attractions start to suffer." He suggested that bankrupt theatres might end up under the control of charities which, according to government policy, are able to receive more government funds than profit-making theatres.

These remarks come as London theatres declared record audiences, though many tickets are now sold at heavy discounts. Any form of bailout would also be hampered by a lack of money: apart from the credit crunch, the government is already diverting money from the arts in London to fund the Olympics, while Crossrail and any Heathrow expansion add up to billions of pounds of government spending on London.

Delfont Mackintosh and Really Useful Theatres, the two largest owners of theatres in London, declined to comment, while Nimax theatres pointed to an increase in revenues and audiences in the last year. An analysis of Blackman’s interview with Cherwell is available at http://www.cherwell.org/content/8406

Look Closely

0

Five stars
Information: 3rd-7th Feb at 19:30, Burton Taylor Studio. Price £4.

Yasmina Reza may be one of the internationally most performed living playwrights, but her fortunes are more uneven in her native France, where left-leaning critics often dismiss her as irredeemably bourgeois.
Her comedy Art is a case in point; in it, three comfortably off men are facing up to mid-life crisis and spend most of the play bickering about art and suffering at the hands of each others’ egos. The MacGuffin of the play is a completely white canvass, which one of them, Serge, buys for 20,000 francs, only to incur the contempt and ridicule of his more conservative friend Marc. Not only then does Reza commit the crime of setting her play in a completely unsubversive environment, she also dares to belittle the aesthetic worth of contemporary art.

This assessment, however, is unfair. As Reza herself pointed out once in an interview, it is the “subversive” contemporary art, which is the mainstream now, and if anything, going against the grain consists of querying its value rather than blindly lauding it.

This production, directed by Guy Levin, promises to give Art an enjoyable staging, thanks particularly to the strong performances of the three-strong cast. Matt Osman is especially convincing as the traditionalist Marc, bitterly resentful that his friend Serge (Jonathan Rhodes) has taken a liking to pretentious art and the unqualified use of fashionable intellecutalist terms, like “deconstruction”. Serge, on the other hand, can’t stand Marc’s oppressive, patronising attitude. Caught in the middle is Yvan (Frankie Parham), the bubbling, but spineless clown of the group.

Much of the humour derives from the snide asides that the increasingly infuriated friends make about each other and the comedy of their imperfect characters. Parham’s Yvan is quite hilarious in his hyper-active, affected manner, while Serge’s high-minded artistic ideals are exposed as narcissism when he muses that the Pompidou has three paintings by the same artist (incidentally, I’ve been to the Pompidou recently and there actually are three completely white canvasses there, by Robert Ryman).

It might not be in-yer-face theatre or body-art, but Art tells us a good deal about the confusions and frustrations of contemporary society, even if mostly of the segment that is middle-aged and middle-class. It might even provide its audience here with a taste of things to come. But, whatever it may be, it is far from being reactionary: Art is a clever, watchable and witty piece and deserves to be seen.