It is with some trepidation that I dial the phone number of Brian Sewell, Britain’s most outspoken and controversial art critic. This is a man that has called the Tate Modern “the ugliest museum in Christendom”, Barbara Hepworth “a one-trick pony” and Rachael Whitbread’s work “a pile of rubbish”. He is not one
to mince his words.

We don’t get off to a brilliant start. I tell him that I’m studying Art History at Oxford. “Is that wise?” is the smooth, considered and oh so ironic response that comes from the other end of the phone line. He later elaborates. “I am sick and tired of students who send me their so-called theses to read, because they think I might enjoy them. I don’t”.

But Sewell is not really a philistine. He is fascinated by art. He was encouraged to take an interest from an early age by his mother. She was a painter and took him on trips to the National Gallery. She used to challenge him to run round and find certain types of paintings, such as Spanish or Italian ones. Later, he decided to go to the Courtauld Institute to study Art History. After graduating, he became a specialist in Old Master paintings and drawings at Christie’s auction house. Touchingly, he found that he couldn’t bear to sell the paintings to undeserving clients and so he left the job and tried his hand at writing. Ever since getting his job in 1984 as art critic for the Evening Standard he has never looked back.

His art criticism has many attractions. Firstly, it is always full of evocative description. Rather like Diderot, he brings the works that he describes to life. Take his description of Potiphar’s wife in Orazio Gentileschi’s Joseph in Buckingham Palace: “Gentileschi’s narrative is revealed inch by inch, the sense of buttocks under the blue cloth, a naked back, another naked knee, all continuing the diagonal thrust that began with the toes in the corner, and then a naked shoulder and under an outstretched arm the sight of big high breasts and one proud nipple.”
The same sensuous language is applied in the food criticism that he does occasionally. An oyster dish becomes a platform for drama: “Ruined in a mess of passion fruit and lavender, quail jelly with a parfait of foie gras, and then a bed of moss under another rising Macbeth mist as the setting for a shred of truffle on half a skinny soldier of toast.”
Then there’s the force of personality behind the work. Sewell absolutely loves to be witty. Recently the Standard got him to go and review Heston Blumenthal’s fashionable Fat Duck restaurant in Berkshire. He delighted in labelling the vanilla mayonnaise and green tea mousse a Baroque attempt at the “five senses of the Renaissance”, and also in calling the restaurant’s wildly pretentious owner an insane ‘Mr Fiddle-Faddle’. He also comes up with excellent one-liners. He tells me how he doesn’t go round the art colleges anymore because the chance of discovering someone good is too remote: “There’s no point in inflicting punishment on oneself. And I’m not a masochist”.
Sewell also has a rather naughty sense of humour. Take the focus of his recent television program on channel Five. In it he examines ‘the dark underbelly’ of the supposedly educational tours taken by the English aristocracy in the 18th century. He sheds new light, for example, on James Boswell, a nobleman who made voluminous notes on the tour. He tells the story of how Boswell “suffered spontaneous ejaculation in his trousers, after playing kneesy with a young woman at the opera.” The paintings of the martyrdom of John that feature the saint
with an erection were also a subject on which he wanted to touch. Five didn’t allow it. Such a shame, he explained, “you have only to say the word “wank” on TV and an audience of 300 will roll with laughter”. The references to wanking and ejaculation sound particularly funny when coming from someone so posh. He typically wears an unbuttoned shirt and a smart navy suit jacket with a handkerchief visible in his breast pocket for his television appearances. His silvery grey hair is always carefully combed to one side andhis bi-focals sit half-way down the nose. He looks like a slightly tatty aristocrat. The voice also adds to the image. A normal “so there” is a drawn out “seeuw theeeur”. According to Paul Merton, Sewell is so posh that he makes even the Queen look rough.

His fruity, high-brow tones are so renowned that they have become popular to impersonate. He is imitated by Jon Culshaw on the Dead Ringers comedy show. A track on the 1991 comedy CD Tested on Humans for Irritancy has satirical journalist Victor Lewis-Smith telephoning Sewell and, in Sewell’s voice, asking the critic to appear on a spoof arts program. Naturally, he was not amused by this. And most people seem even to find his anti-populist sentiments quite entertaining. He once offended some people in Gateshead by claiming that an
exhibition was too important to be held only at the Baltic and should be shown to “more sophisticated” audiences in London.

It is not just the wit and prose style, then, that gives Sewell the edge, but also this rather delightful sense of snobbish superiority. This is a man that says: I know what I’m talking about and don’t you dare disagree.
This is no more obvious than when he airs his opinions on contemporary art. Sewell thinks that most of it is rubbish. “The so called ‘great artists’ of today”, he explains with conviction, “only have one great idea, with luck two, but certainly not more. Their ideas can be understood in a split second. In the blink of an eye you know everything about the bloody thing”. We move down a list of ‘bad artists’. First is Anthony Gormley, Turner prize winner, maker of the Angel of the North and currently exhibiting at the Hayward Gallery, with his “Blind Light” exhibition. The verdict: “He just rehashes the same old thing. Gormley does what Gormley does… ”. Then there’s Anya Gallaccio, a Turner nominee who makes works out of organic materials: “A lunatic, who’s just
interested in rotting vegetables”. And of course Damien Hirst, best known for The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, the shark in formaldehyde: “A showman with admittedly some kind of wayward intelligence but no knowledge.”

Shocking as these accusations are, they don’t actually mean very much. So I ask him to elaborate. He reiterates that the problem is mainly one of intelligence. According to Sewell, most contemporary artists “don’t realise how dim-witted and shallow they actually are”. And apparently their teachers also suffer from the same problem. A case of the blind leading the blind: “One idiot concept, followed by another idiot concept. Monkey see, monkey do”.
I ask him whether he thinks that, despite this, contemporary art can engage with its public. I’m thinking of Langlands and Bell’s The House of Osama Bin Laden, which tries to tap into contemporary political opinion. No, he tells me, “It has no dialogue with the world around it”. But doesn’t the popularity of contemporary art bear testimony to a dialogue between art and audience? Millions tune in it see the results of the Turner every year and Tracy Emin’s My Bed has become a household name, I point out. But I’ve pushed him too far. “It might be
popular, but so are fish and chips. Would you recommend that everyone should go and look at that?”

The impression that I get with Sewell is that he is a man of the old school; an Ernst Gombrich if you like, who values the art historical trajectory. This is why he likes the Chapman brothers, whom he credits with “real vigour and intelligence”. They reference Goya all the time in their work and other artists, like Hieronymus Bosch, William Blake and Nicolas Poussin. Sewell also likes them because he thinks that they technically are very strong. “They try their hand at a lot of things. They try etching, and produce some very good etchings”.

Technical ability is something he values highly. He recalls, with particular disgust, a situation he encountered at one of the top art colleges a few years ago where he came across a student who wanted to achieve the same kind of effect as Leonardo. The student asked around the teachers and apparently no one could help. “They didn’t even have the slightest inkling. When you have got to this stage”, he says with desperation, “you have got no hope”.

Sewell’s argument against contemporary art extends right into the art world. He’s really thought the whole ‘problem’ through. Firstly, he blames the art colleges. Not only are their teachers unable to teach, (according to Sewell the Head of the Royal Academy could not paint a Christmas card), but they take on too many students, many of whom “they know in their bones are no good”.
Secondly, he blames the art market. He thinks that the creativity of successful contemporary artists is stifled by the amount of money floating around, and so is the critical ability of the dealers who are afraid to rock the market for fear of loosing out. Thirdly, he blames the fact that the contemporary art world is run by a very small clique of people. He cites the case of his predecessor, Richard Cork. He has served as Chair of the Visual Arts Panel at the Arts Council of England, sat on committees such as those in the Hayward Gallery and the British Council, and been on the panel of judges for the Turner Prize. Consequentially the taste of Cork and a few others rule: ‘Nowadays, if you want a piece of public sculpture anywhere in the provinces it has to be a
Gormley or Kapoor. No one else gets a look in”.

Sewell tells me proudly that he sits firmly outside the art establishment. Lots of critics, he points out, judge the prizes, teach the artists and have a say in the allocation of public funding. He, however, “is not a joiner”. But does this really add legitimacy to his criticism? It seems that regardless of the number of committees that men like Richard Cork might serve on, Sewell’s problem with them is that he simply doesn’t like their taste. He has no problem with Poussin and the seventeenth-century French classicists, even though their work came out
of small courtly patronage networks.

Sewell, of course, is never going to change is mind. In terms of his own popularity, there is really no reason why he should. There are a huge number of people who agree that contemporary art is rubbish, and many more who are at the very least rather puzzled by it. His arguments are always quoted in the Turner debate. This year he added a twist to his stance by choosing to ignore it completely; even this was noted.

What is rather admirable though about the latter decision is that it shows how much Sewell cares. He is simply so annoyed by the Turner that he does not want to profit from the annual hype by making angry comments. He is a man of much conviction.

He’s also praying that one day they’ll have an effect. Strikingly, he touches on this when he’s describing the prospects for Damien Hirst’s career. “Someone will say in 20 or 30 years time that Hirst is a load of rubbish. The prices will begin to drop and no one will want one”. Will he be the one to bring everything crashing down? Unfortunately not, the clock is ticking. “I shall be dead”, he says matter-of-factly “but somebody like me will begin to convince the art market that these supposedly great figures are no good”.

Picture this. You’re out with the lads on a typical night out at Park End. A beautiful girl (give or take a few pints) is looking your way and you’re reciprocating. She struts over and makes it very clear that she’s very interested. That same stunning girl who walked into the club, getting stared at by every guy there is now grinding against you and states explicitly that she wants you tonight. You should be ecstatic! You’ve pulled the hottest girl
there, gaining you instant kudos among your mates. However, as she’s grinding harder you realise that she has noticed you aren’t quite as turned on as she  apparently is. She tries to ‘help you out’ but still the blood isn’t flowing. So you make your excuses and leave; heart pounding, head dropped in shame and the same
daunting questions going round and round your head.
I used to think I was the only confused guy, but I’ve come to realise that I’m actually one of many. People in Oxford think too much and expect too much. There is constant pressure from tutors, friends, team mates and even family who are never satisfied with how far you’ve come. If you haven’t come out as gay or bisexual before university, it seems you have missed the boat. Anywhere other than Oxford, people can go out, get drunk, wake up the next morning with their best mate naked in their bed and just laugh it off. After all, university is meant to be the time to experiment and enjoy yourself, to discover who exactly you are. Two guys could have a short fling, secret or not, and if they like it, could continue batting for the other team. And if they don’t, they could just be happy that they did experiment, knowing their friends won’t have changed their opinions of them.

In Oxford, shagging your best mate at the end of a drunken evening just cannot happen. The atmosphere here isn’t conducive to experimentation. The Oxford bubble feeds off the newest and dirtiest pieces of gossip. So for me – someone who enjoys sport and being one of the lads – being exposed as bisexual or gay would undermine the social life I’ve built up. Not only would the ridicule in scrums be unbearable, but the elitism that pervades Oxford would become even more pronounced.

It’s not just the team mates, it’s everyone. I was friends with a guy in first year who came out towards the start of this year. My friends in college were merciless, directing their ‘banter’ directly at him. This is clearly completely
wrong. But the underlying fear of losing my friends or being excluded as he has been means that I haven’t felt comfortable coming out. He has been ostracised  by the straight/cool college circle. But why? He hasn’t changed as a person. He doesn’t act any differently now. The stereotypes still hold true and that’s why I will leave Oxford undoubtedly feeling regret and uncertainty, probably more confused than I was when I arrived.

The image of success and achievement that you manage to pull off is central to how popular you are in Oxford. Maintaining this image is hard enough, let alone if you happen to gay or bisexual and therefore permanently paranoid and insecure. I may be straight, bi or a “straight-acting” gay, but I do not want to be labelled until I have worked it out in my head first. But I know that if I just kissed a guy, my peer group’s perceptions of me would be fundamentally altered. So I keep quiet, feel like I’m keeping some deep dark secret from my friends and remain horribly confused.

I understand why my friends would react this way. They’ve been brought up to believe that gay men are unnatural. To deviate from the norm is something incomprehensible to them. I am happy that I’ve formed the friendships I have. Perhaps they’re stronger as I’ve not been distracted by relationships. My peers
aren’t bad people, just ignorant. Unfortunately, whilst I realise the sporty lad stereotype doesn’t fit them entirely, I have no doubt that they would struggle to separate the gay stereotype from me.

Whilst I understand the difficulties the gay guys face in Oxford, I myself am afraid of being identified as part of that culture. I have come to accept the stereotype that gay men are promiscuous or camp myself even though I realisethat this is not always the case. For me, it’s just easier to not come out. I don’t have to incessantly prove myself to the lads that I am actually good at sport and that shopping isn’t that big a fixation of mine. If I knew for sure that I was gay or bisexual, I would be more inclined to come out and enjoy being me. I don’t know what I am and for that reason I haven’t explored my sexuality.

I will leave Oxford unsure, regretting never having experienced an emotionally honest relationship. In my mind it was a sacrifice which had to be made in order to maintain the façade and friendship groups which I had established. I’ll go along with the cliche and say that my time at univesity was the best time of my
life. But I will always regret not being able to be truly happy. 

OUT AND ABOUT Harry Cooper
Once, whilst attempting to get through a sixth pint of lager (not a cocktail with one of those umbrellas languishing in it), I was pounced upon by a rather brash girl. “Oh my god, are you actually gay?” she asked. “Erm, yes,” I replied.“That is SO cool, we MUST go shopping,” she squealed enthusiastically. Aside from feeling rather bewildered at being accosted in such an aggressive manner bya complete stranger, it got me thinking about what exactly I’m meant to be, as a gay individual.

When asked to write this article, I was initially hesitant. I loathe to be labelled as a ‘gay’, in the same way, no doubt, that a girl who happened to be lucky enough (or not) to be born blonde would feel annoyed at being the butt of countless jokes. Conjure up the image of a gay. Do the same for someone straight. While the gay stereotype springs to mind immediately, the latter seems harder to define. On what grounds does this stereotyping of gays rest? Why has a sexual preference for men become inextricably tied up with the ‘gay
stereotype’?

Of course, straight stereotypes do exist. The emotionally unstable blond bimbo or the aggressive loudmouth lager lout are just two examples. But who actually assigns straight people these stereotypes on meeting them? Almost nobody. I decided that writing this article would, in fact, be the ideal chance to make the point that being sexually attracted to men does not reflect on an individual’s personality. Anyone who does not want to be identified as gay, but is attracted to the same sex, is immediately locked away in the proverbial closet. Many fear that their group of friends might decide that that their sexual preference clearly has some fundamental influence on who they are. Stereotypes are destructive and misleading. They only encourage prejudice. To
my mind, there are three main stereotypes that have come to dominate mainstream society’s perception of gay men.

The first is the so-called gay best friend. The lovely lady I mentioned above clearly expected me to respond with, “That would be so amazingly cool, I would be like the perfect accessory.” The idea lies in the belief that girls don’t feel threatened by gays, and that, as a gay, you are still privy to the mysterious world of men. It’s an unfortunate misconception that every gay guy will, by definition, love shopping and gossiping. Of course, some men do, and that’s absolutely fine. But this generalisation shouldn’t be accepted as the norm.

The second relates to the supposed promiscuity of gay men, who are, apparently, notorious for being promiscuous and overtly sexual. Of course this completely ignores the fact that there are many gay men who are monogamous. And ironically sexual activeness is something many straight men would probably envy. The promiscuity of a straight man is often lauded as an achievement, whilst gay men are regarded as in some way sexually predatory. A room mate at school once told me he had thought, for about two years, that I was going to try to rape him during the night. This type of irrational fear was responsible for much of the isolation I felt for much of the time before I came to Oxford.

The last stereotype equates being gay with being camp. Let me emphasise that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being camp. Still, it is inaccurate to classify such a diverse group of people as all sharing the same personality traits. It would probably surprise a significant number of people that an individual is just as likely to be gay if they play on a rugby team as they would be if they worked in a flower shop. It’s no wonder these stereotypes exist, given their media reinforcement. Think Daffyd, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy or, closer to home, the Wadham Queer Bop.

Having said all this, it must be said that our generation no longer suffers from the appalling discrimination still in existence around the world. We are reaping the benefits of the work activists did in the 60s, 70s and 80s and it seems that homophobia is thankfully at last receding. I feel incredibly lucky to live in Britain, and especially Oxford, rather than Iran, where only a few months ago two 19 year olds were stoned to death for the ‘abomination’ they had committed. Put into context, being stereotyped pales into insignificance. But this doesn’t make life any easier for those still struggling to come out for fear of being identified in a particular way. The gay scene, whilst allowing individuals to feel comfortable and free from harassment, can encourage the entrenchment of stereotypes and segregation between gay men and mainstream society. That a gay man was beaten up by a group of homophobic drag queens at a bop meant to celebrate the tolerance of ‘queer’ society is testament to the hypocrisy and paradox of modern prejudice and acceptance. It has become increasingly apparent to me that the ignorance and prejudices concerning gay men will not be dispelled until both gay and straight realise that such stereotypes are unfounded and extremely dangerous.

Fourteen animal rights protesters were acquitted on Wednesday following a month-long trial, after the judge ruled that police had acted unlawfully to stop their demonstration.
The activists were cleared of disobeying police orders when demonstrating at the University’s Encaenia ceremony outside the Sheldonian Theatre in July 2006.
During the trial at Bicester Magistrates’ Court, a taped conversation between police officers was played that referred to members of animal rights group Speak as “c***s”. The conversation, recorded when a dictaphone was accidentally switched on without the officers’ knowledge, included comments that officers wanted to “prosecute the shit out of them”.
One officer boasted to colleagues that activists were powerless to fight against the University. “The problem is, the protesters do not realise how powerful the University is,” he said. “It’s a sleeping giant, it’s got masons, it’s got you…[it has] influence with MPs, masons, barristers.”
Other comments recorded on the tape led to accusations of collusion between the police force and the University. The officer states that the “feedback from the University [about the arrests] was… that they were really impressed with it.” Another police officer replies, “Well that’s the main thing isn’t it.”
The same officer later added that he felt “deep joy” when he heard that Speak leader Mel Broughton’s car had been given a parking ticket following his arrest. He also used the phrase “persecute him, wage a dirty war” in reference to Broughton, while also labelling him “a cock”.
Another officer is heard on the tape as saying, “We knew we were going to take bodies today. We knew that was going to happen.”
Two officers, including the Chief Inspector, discussed encouraging people with double pushchairs to walk around the protesters so they could be arrested for obstruction.
He added, “They [Oxford University] have also got more evidence for their review of their injunction. Every time they review it they can say, well actually you can’t be trusted to behave.”
Five arrests were made while the remaining protestors were led away from the Sheldonian Theatre. One officer described the police actions as “a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut”, while the Chief Inspector  used the term “draconian”.
Following the arrests, the police Superintendent was recorded as saying, “Now we prosecute the shit out of them.”
District Judge Deborah Wright cleared all fourteen defendants of offences under section 14 of the Public Order Act. She ruled that the offences had been imposed unlawfully, the recording having showed that police officers planned to make arrests from the outset.
In her ruling she stated, “Although the [recorded] conversations were made away from the public, all the officers were on duty.” The judge also criticised the police for placing the protesters under “a metaphoric microscope” that included four officers filming the protesters, one taking still photographs and several acting as spotters.
“Only lip-service was paid to one of the [police] objectives, namely to facilitate legal protest. There was nothing in the demeanour of the protesters to suggest that they would be disorderly. Whoever was responsible for making the decision that this prosecution should proceed in light of the tape may well have made a serious error of judgment,” she said.
Speak co-founder Mel Broughton called for an investigation into what he believed was evidence of “police corruption”. Referring to police comments about the University, he said, “These two extremely powerful institutions are prepared to get into bed with each other to frustrate lawful protest.”
He added that their relationship was “unnaturally close” and “aimed at stopping any opposition at all. One can only be very, very worried at that sort of development. I’m very angry at the way the police have behaved but it’s fitting a pattern of police behaviour.”
Robert Cogswell, also co-founder of Speak, added, “At Speak we will be insisting on high level talks with Thames Valley Police officers in order to make sure that this sort of political and clearly biased policing is a thing of the past.”
A spokesperson for the University said that while the University is in contact with the police force, the relationship is not inappropriate. “The University continues to cooperate with Thames Valley Police to ensure that its students and staff can carry out their everyday activities without fear of intimidation or harassment.
“While we are in regular dialogue with the police, operational matters are entirely within their jurisdiction, and are not a matter for the University,” he said.
Deputy Chief Constable Alex Marshall also claimed that the police force was not unduly influenced by the University, saying, “I am confident that the way our organisation works with the University is entirely impartial. Whilst a dialogue between both organisations is essential during such a long-term, high profile and resource intensive operation, retaining Thames Valley Police’s independence is crucial.
“I expect professionalism from my officers at all times and those involved have been advised accordingly. The language and nature of some of the comments are regrettable.”
During the conclusion of the court case two of the protesters, Pauline Broughton and Fran Cornwell, were convicted of obstructing and assaulting a police officer. However, the judge handed down an absolute discharge in both cases, awarding the defendants seventy-five per cent of costs.
Billy Kenber 

The boom of Asian universities could threaten Oxford’s world class status and financial security if its funding mechanisms are not radically overhauled, according to warnings from key higher education figures this week.
Jan Figel, European Commissioner for Education, claims that the ambitions of institutions in India and China could see them overtaking Europe’s top universities in world rankings within a matter a years.
Figel said that as Asian institutions improve, high-ranking European universities like Oxford will become less appealing to overseas students.
Britain allocates 1.1 per cent of its GDP to higher education, compared with China’s plans to increase funding allocation for education to four per cent in the future.
“If you look at the Shanghai index, we are the strongest continent in terms of numbers and potential, but we are also shifting into a secondary position in terms of quality and attractiveness,” Figel told The Times.
“If we don’t act we will see an uptake or overtake by Chinese or Indian universities. Indian technology is seen as the third best in the world. China itself decided it wants several top universities by 2015.
“Overseas students don’t come to the UK or Europe, our students are attracted elsewhere and then if you’ve got the students going elsewhere the businesses go elsewhere,” he said.
The Commissioner’s warnings came as Chris Patten, Oxford’s Chancellor, stated that the University’s development was already stifled by restrictions on raising money and that British universities were falling behind their international competitors.
“Universities here, and indeed in most of Europe, are left in a no man's land in which they neither get enough funding from the state nor are they allowed to raise money themselves beyond the ridiculously low limits of the tuition fee,” Patten wrote in a Guardian comment piece. “Universities today get 1.1 per cent of GDP in this country, compared with America's 2.6 per cent… and while we are resting on our laurels we must remember that China and India are coming up on the outside.
In 2003, eight Chinese and Indian universities featured in the top 500 Academic Ranking of World Universities and this had increased to 11 by 2006, with many institutions climbing the table every year. Increased prestige of universities closer to home could provide a greater incentive for overseas students to study there. Beijing University is ranked fourteenth in the world according to the QS Top Universities ranking, which cites the University’s average undergraduate course fee as $641 per year.
Dr Frank Pieke, Position Director of Oxford’s Institute for Chinese Studies, estimated that there are around 550 Chinese undergraduates studying at Oxford. Collectively, they may be contributing up to £10m in University and college funding each year.
“The Chinese government has now been investing for a while in higher education after years of neglect,” he said. “The impact of an increase in standards of Chinese universities may mean that Oxford finds it more difficult to recruit Chinese students.”
Shenxiao Tong, a former professor at Nanjing Shifan University in China, believes that increased investment in the country’s higher education system has caused undergraduate numbers to swell in recent years.
“Chinese universities are definitely improving,” he said. “A very high percentage of young people in cities now go to university.”
Although they have not yet overtaken Oxford and its leading European counterparts, Tong insists that China’s universities are developing the ambition and academic potential to rank among them.
“They don't have this ambition yet, but Beijing and Tsinghua are working very hard to be among the top universities in the world,” he said. “Beijing is ranked number one in Asia and fourteenth in the world. The competition for places is extremely high in China because of its One Child Policy. Parents want to give their children the best education possible, so they are pushed very hard. What Chinese science students learn in school is equivalent to our undergraduate level.”
Lan Wu, President of the Oxford Asia-Pacific Society, predicted that the number of Asian students choosing to study at Oxford would fall in the future.
“The rise of Chinese education will mean that Europe will become less attractive to Chinese students,” she said. “I think Asian students will be less attracted to Oxford as a result.”

A University spokesman stressed that Oxford must fight to maintain its status in the face of increasing competition from better funded international rivals.

“Oxford will have to continue to evolve to attract the best staff and students from around the world, and those who will benefit the most from our unique environment,” he said.
“In response to what is clearly a challenging funding environment, Oxford will continue to seek additional funding from a range of sources, including research grants, its own investments and philanthropy.”
James Teasdale