Monday, May 12, 2025
Blog Page 541

Oxford’s weapons research revealed

0

Every day for the past four years, bombs have rained down on Yemen.

Cut off from the outside world by an illegal naval blockade and pummelled with state-of-the-art American and British weaponry, Yemen’s situation is described by the UN as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.

The Saudi-led aerial bombardment has targeted key infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. The war has created three million refugees, and the death toll recently passed the grim milestone of 100,000.

This is just war fatalities – last year, Save the Children estimated that the naval blockade had already killed an additional 85,000 children by starvation. The country is currently experiencing an historic outbreak of cholera, while the UN estimates that ten million people, one third of the country’s population, are on the brink of famine.

In 2017, with the blockade and bombing campaign at its height, Pembroke’s Professor Robert Johnson travelled to the UAE, a core member of the Saudi-led coalition. He was there to speak about Oxford’s ‘Changing Character of Conflict Platform’, a predictive tool which is “aimed at enabling decision makers, policymakers and analysts to anticipate the directions of change in conflict to support strategic planning.”

Professor Johnson was speaking to the leadership of the UAE’s military, ‘professional practitioners’ in the parlance of the field. Nestled in the audience was the oil-rich monarchy’s notorious Prime Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum.

Last year, the Sheikh’s daughter Latifa gained international attention for her doomed attempt to flee the country and subsequent disappearance, leaving only a video alleging torture and abuse by her father.

The day consisted of an advisory lecture, followed by a panel discussion and “individual seminar support and facilitation to help officers and policy makers understand the changes taking place in the character of conflict, and how to prepare for them, ensure national resilience and manage public awareness.”

Professor Johnson told Cherwell: “I have consistently condemned war crimes and I detest war. Yet I have been in enough wars to know things are never black and white and that is certainly true in Yemen. I wonder if you will investigate Iran’s crimes? But why don’t you go there and see for yourself?”

An Oxford University spokesperson declined to say whether any other similar briefings had been given to senior members of the UAE or Saudi governments or militaries, or whether the University keeps any records of such engagements. In response to the findings of this investigation, the University spokesperson told Cherwell: “Oxford University research is academically driven, with the ultimate aim of enhancing openly available scholarship and knowledge.

“All of these research projects advance general scientific understanding, with subsequent civilian applications including climate change monitoring, earthquake detection, energy efficiency and humanitarian relief, as well as potential application by the defence sector.”


It was the evening of her son’s wedding, and Amina Al-Shahb, 50, was in her kitchen making last minute preparations for dinner. It had been a long day, with 500 guests coming for lunch and nearly half as many expecting dinner. The afternoon had been filled by the sound of drums and songs, as the guests broke out into traditional Yemini dances.

“I was in the kitchen, which was about ten meters from the scene of the attack,” Amina later told an investigator from Yemini human rights organisation Mwatana. “In the blink of an eye, I saw fire and I heard a powerful explosion. The ground jolted under me. The drums fell silent, replaced by cries for help.”

She recalled the scene outside: “The men who were filling the place with happiness and dance were in scattered pieces of charred flesh. The blood was everywhere.” All eleven drummers and dancers had been killed – investigators who arrived the following day found their broken drums scattered across the scene.

Amina’s story is just one of a catalogue of horrors painstakingly compiled by Mwatana. Investigators found no evidence of any military justification for the airstrike that struck her son’s wedding, killing twenty-one, including eleven children.


Saudi Arabia and the UAE conduct their bombing raids in British planes, using British bombs and with British training. The RAF recently admitted sending personnel to Saudi Arabia to repair bomber jets in between missions. Others are working in the control centre where bombing targets are selected. (The government says they play no role in selecting targets.)

Last month, the UN warned that the UK government could be complicit in war crimes for its role in the conflict. Since 2015, the UK has made eight times as much revenue from arms sales to Saudi Arabia as it has given to Yemen in humanitarian assistance.

In June, these sales were temporarily halted after the court of appeals ruled them unlawful. The UK government is currently appealing the decision, but recently breached the court order three times ‘by accident’.

A handful of corporations have profited enormously from the carnage. One of the chief providers of missiles to the Royal Saudi Air Force is MBDA, a joint venture by arms giants BAE Systems, Airbus and Leonardo. At £105,000, £709,000 and £2,000,000 apiece respectively, MBDA’s Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Meteor missiles have made a killing in Yemen.

Oxford receives millions of pounds in income from the arms sector every year, funding the research which keeps firms competitive and their clients satisfied.

Prior to joining Oxford, Professor David Limebeer co-wrote two papers with Asif Farooq of MBDA on the operation of air-to-surface missile guidance systems. At Oxford, he led the Vehicular Optimal Control Group (VOCG). Although VOCG’s public engagement focuses on the applications of its research to Formula 1 racing, the group’s website acknowledges that its research is also applicable to the development of missile guidance systems. Professor Limebeer did not respond to a request for comment.

Until June of this year, MBDA was partnering with computer scientists in the next-door building on a £961,000 research project examining ways to cut the costs of missile production. The project successfully developed a verification framework which substantially lowered the costs of developing embedded software for the aerospace sector.

In the arms sector, embedded software is utilised chiefly in GPS systems and in missiles, where it typically serves as the bomb’s guidance system. The high costs of developing embedded software have, according to the project’s funding proposal, meant “that aerospace is no-longer able to develop embedded software whilst keeping costs to reasonable levels, dramatically affecting the industry’s ability to innovate.”

The researchers behind the project began advising MBDA on the potential applications of their findings to the company’s products in 2016. Both the University and lead researcher declined to say whether this relationship is still ongoing.

Oxford researchers have also worked on technology relevant to missile propulsion systems. At the Department of Materials, across the road from the Engineering Department, researchers were working on a £763,000 project, known as PEICAP, developing passive filters, combinations of inductors and capacitors widely used in electrical control systems, for turbojet engines.

While PEICAP was focused on civilian aerospace, it was led by Safran, a leading manufacturer of turbojet engines for drones and missiles, including Saudi Arabia’s Storm Shadow air-to-surface missiles. The project included research into capacitors based on ultra-thin glass dielectrics, which can withstand extremely high temperatures and are consumed almost entirely by defence markets.

PEICAP was conducted in partnership Raytheon, who use glass dielectric capacitors in a huge variety of defence products including F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, currently engaged in Yemen, and America’s land-based Minuteman nuclear missiles. Raytheon also uses the component in the Freedom-class littoral combat ship which Saudi Arabia is currently purchasing from the United States – potentially for use in the illegal blockade of Yemen’s ports.


When an MBDA missile falls in Yemen, the chances are that it was dropped by one of Saudi Arabia’s 192 Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets.

Eurofighter, a joint venture by the same corporations which form MBDA (BAE Systems, Airbus and Leonardo), has an additional 48 jets awaiting delivery to the Kingdom, where over 6,000 BAE Systems contractors are currently stationed carrying out vital service tasks for the fleet. As one private British contractor in Saudi Arabia told Channel 4: “If we weren’t there in 7 to 14 days there wouldn’t be a jet in the sky.”

A spokesperson for BAE Systems told Cherwell: “We provide defence equipment, training and support under government to government agreements between the UK and KSA [Saudi Arabia]. We comply with all relevant export control laws and regulations in the countries in which we operate. Our activities are subject to UK Government approval and oversight.”

The sale of Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia, which has earned tens of billions of pounds in revenue for BAE Systems, was facilitated by Wafic Saïd, a major donor to Oxford University.

Saïd is one of Oxford’s largest donors, having contributed £20 million to the Saïd Business School at its founding, and more than £50 million since. In 2003 he was awarded the Sheldon Medal, Oxford University’s highest honour for donors, and presented with a bust of himself in the lobby of the Business School.

The Eurofighter Typhoon has proved vital to Saudi Arabia’s air war in Yemen, which has involved targeting civilians “in a widespread and systematic manner,” according to the UN.

One of the Typhoon’s selling points is its reliability, with advanced engine health monitoring systems ensuring that the jets can conduct their bombing raids with little risk to the pilot. This technology, which is also used for civil aviation, was developed with the help of Professor David Clifton at the Department of Engineering.

The Typhoon’s manufacturers also boast of the aircraft’s ability to be fitted with a wide variety of bombs, missiles and other third-party components in what is known as a ‘Plug ‘n’ Play’ weapons architecture.

In developing this system, defence firm QinetiQ has made extensive use of Failures Divergence Refinement (FDR), a refinement checking software tool whose development at Oxford’s Department of Computer Science has been funded in large part by the US Department of Defence. F

DR has had a huge impact in the field of weapons integration. For example, the Royal Navy’s adoption of Tomahawk missiles on its submarines (later used to bomb Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen), “depended crucially” on FDR.

Another selling point is the Typhoon’s advanced on-board computer system, which enables increased autonomous flying. According to manufacturer BAE Systems: “The flight computers fly the aircraft taking inputs from the pilot, freeing the pilot to focus on being the master tactician and principal decision maker.”

The company was recently awarded a $3.1 million contract from the US military to develop artificial intelligence for use in air mission planning. The Oxford’s Centre for Doctoral Training in Autonomous Intelligent Machines and Systems (AIMS), based at the Department of Engineering Science, has received an undisclosed amount from BAE Systems since 2014, as well as arms firms Honeywell and QinetiQ. The company additionally funded a five-year research grant for controlled autonomous systems, which resulted in models expected to be useful for the control of autonomous vehicles.

A spokesperson for BAE Systems told Cherwell: “As a world leader in advanced engineering and technology, we collaborate with academia to develop new technologies through strategic partnerships with prestigious universities in the UK. Our university partnerships help to boost the UK’s defence industrial skills base by supporting the next generation of engineers and scientists.”


Oxford’s involvement in the military-industrial complex is extensive but far from unique. In 2007, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Oxford’s own Fellowship for Reconciliation, based on Paradise Street, published their investigation into academic research for the arms industry, Study War No More.

The report examined 26 universities across the UK, and uncovered more than 1,900 military projects worth over £725 million. Oxford came in third place, behind Loughborough and Cambridge.

The projects outlined here are just a small fraction of Oxford’s total work for the sector. Many research projects funded by the arms industry, in particular Rolls Royce, will be used for both civilian and defence purposes. Since 2015, Oxford has received at least £7.6 million in funding from Rolls Royce.

Oxford keeps no public database of military projects. This data was compiled manually from Freedom of Information requests, government databases, corporate press releases and departmental websites.

The UK’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia were declared unlawful in June due to the “clear risk” of such weapons being used in “serious violation of international humanitarian law”. Oxford has yet to reckon with its role in profiting from this grave breach of human rights.

NEXT PAGE: Oxford’s research into drone swarms and nuclear weapons

Liberal Democrats accused of using misleading data in Oxford East campaign

0

The Liberal Democrats have been accused of misrepresenting their position in the polls in certain constituencies, including Oxford East, by using misleading data from an independent pollster in its campaign material for the upcoming election.

On leaflets and other campaign materials, the party has used data from Flavible Politics, which is not a member of the British Polling Council. The data has been criticised for inaccuracy in its technique of taking national polls and then applying them to local areas.

In Oxford East, the party will be represented by Alistair Fernie, the chair of the Department for International Development and a previous human rights campaigner for Amnesty International UK. 

Fernie told Cherwell: “We don’t think our leaflets are misleading. Flavible is a credible organisation with a transparent methodology for making constituency projections based on national polls.

“Our leaflets make clear that these are projections not polls, and give sources. 
Both projections and polls can be unreliable, but people find them interesting. The important thing is not to overstate or mislabel them, which we have not done. 

“The reason we use these projections is that we want to explain to voters that Oxford East is a Lib Dem vs Labour contest in this election:

“Firstly, the Tories can’t win here – they have not won more than 22% of the vote in general elections for nearly 20 years, and have no councillors.

“Secondly, a lot of people in Oxford East are thinking of voting differently to the way they did in the 2017 General Election, because of Brexit and other reasons. We are hearing this on the doorstep, but until there are any Oxford East polls, projections from national polls are the best way to give some sense of what might happen.”

Oxford East is currently a Labour constituency represented by Anneliese Dodds, who managed to keep her seat in the 2017 election with a comfortable win of 65.2% of the vote. This was an increase of 15.2 percent from the previous election, in which Andrew Smith won percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats were the third-most popular party in the last election, winning only 9.1 percent of the vote and lagging behind the Conservatives, who came in second with 22 percent.

The party has been using Flavible projections in York Outer, Esher and Walton, Islington North, Putney, Enfield Southgate, Woking, and Westminster City, as well as Oxford East. The data was earlier used to make bold claims including that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is at risk of losing his seat to the Liberal Democrats. 

The Liberal Democrats remain popular in Oxford West and Abingdon, where Layla Moran narrowly beat the Conservatives to cinch 43.7 percent of the vote. It was the first time the Liberal Democrats had won the seat since the 2005 election, following which it switched to a Conservative hold.

Flavible, which describes itself as “an independent commentator on UK politics, specialising in seat projection and statistical analysis,” and was initially set up as a blogging site by students from the University of Plymouth.

The UK is due to go to the polls on December 12 in what will be the third general election in four years. 

Flavible have been contacted for comment.

Labour selects current Oxford student as candidate for parliament

0

Rosie Sourbut, former Oxford University Labour Club co-chair and current student, has announced she is running as the Labour candidate in Oxford West and Abingdon. 

In a statement posted on Facebook, Ms Sourbut Said, “I’m really excited to announce that I’m standing to be your Labour MP for Oxford West and Abingdon. I can’t wait to fight for a Labour government and the change we need in the wonderful area I’m proud to call home.

A Labour government means better pay, affordable housing and investment in public services.” 

“It means a Green New Deal, a referendum with the option to Remain, and equal pay for women by 2030. It means halving foodbank use in a year, ending the need for foodbanks in three, and stopping the Tories from pursuing their damaging Brexit and eroding workers’ rights.” 

‘Oxford Against Schwarzman’ anticipates billionaire’s arrival with new call to action

0

The ‘Oxford Against Schwarzman’ group has called their followers to act to oppose the University’s announcement of the construction of the Stephen A Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities – made possible by his historically large donation of £150 million.

The two page document published by the group indicts Schwarzman and the Blackstone Group, of which he is the CEO, as driving the “destruction of the environment”, “eliminating affordable housing”, and “supporting authoritarian regimes” worldwide.

They criticise Schwarzman for being what they call “a driving force behind Amazon deforestation” and supporting President Trump.

Group member Tom White told Cherwell: “Stephen Schwarzman has amassed his vast fortune through some of the most socially and ecologically damaging practices of modern capitalism. His decision to give a small proportion of that money to educational institutions in the US and UK is all about burnishing his ego and furthering his political influence, rather than any genuine commitment to the future of the humanities. Oxford risks severely damaging its reputation: why should anyone take seriously the University’s commitments on equality and diversity and its carbon emissions when it glorifies practices that lead to dispossession and exploitation, and that contribute to the climate emergency?

“The complete lack of transparency and accountability regarding the decision also make a mockery of the University’s claim to be one of the most democratically constituted universities in the world. As part of the ‘Oxford Against Schwarzman’ campaign, we’re calling for a new ethical framework for donations, including a democratically-elected deliberative body composed of faculty, students, staff, alumni and local representatives.”

Despite Oxford accepting the donation, the group’s demands in light of the centre being constructed includes a guarantee against jobs losses and a “new ethical framework for donations” to include an elected body charged with reviewing the University’s fundraising practices.

The group highlights Blackstone’s $7 billion investment in oil and gas, its “aggressive evictions” that UN Special Rapporteur Leilani Farha found to violate tenants’ human rights, and his support of Saudi business interests and the Koch brothers – known to push an aggressively right-wing agenda.

Their open letter, amassing over 100 signatures from academics, councillors, students and residents, also places emphasis on the attitudes and environment the construction of the centre may foster, against backdrop of staff contract insecurity and the “underrepresentation of working class and BAME students”.

“The “Schwarzman Centre” will be built with the proceeds of the exploitation and disenfranchisement of vulnerable people across the world”.

When asked about Schwarzman’s reputation, vice chancellor Louise Richardson told the Guardian “Do you really think we should turn down the biggest gift in modern times, which will enable hundreds of academics, thousands of students to do cutting-edge work in the humanities?”.

The Oxford Against Schwarzman group claims that the decision to announce its future plans occurred when “academics were marking finals, and students were sitting exams”, but that further action needs to be taken – and is currently attempting to discuss their demands with the vice chancellor, firmly stating that “The University of Oxford needs investment in people not buildings”.

An Oxford University spokesperson said: “We have very clear policies when accepting gifts that they should not influence academic freedom or content and this gift is no exception. Mr Schwarzman has been approved by our rigorous due diligence procedures which consider ethical, legal, financial and reputational issues.

They added: “The idea of a humanities building has been in ongoing discussion and consultation for more than a decade but we did not have funding for the building until Mr Schwarzman’s gift. We had to maintain confidentiality about the donation until it was approved and signed, including by the University’s Council.”

They added: “The Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities will benefit teaching and research in the humanities at Oxford; its performing arts and exhibition venues will bring new audiences to the University; and it will build upon our world-class capabilities in the humanities to lead the study of the ethical implications of AI.

“The Centre is in its initial phase and we are consulting on the plans with humanities academics and students. We have started fundraising for projects associated with the Centre and we are keen to meet people interested in these opportunities.

“Professor Karen O’Brien, Oxford’s Head of Humanities, is overseeing the development of the building project and we are currently holding a tender process to appoint an architect before submitting a planning application in late 2020.

“Under the guidance of Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt, the Institute for Ethics in AI is seeking industry and academic partnerships and will recruit a director and fellows early next year. We are meeting with other cultural institutions to plan a vibrant cultural programme and we will launch a programme of public events next year.”

A spokesperson for Blackstone told Cherwell: “This transformative project has been widely lauded for the significant benefits it will deliver to thousands of students, faculty, and scholars for many years to come.

“Steve was delighted to make this donation after the University got in touch. We also appreciate the opportunity to show how the claims made by the individuals in the letter referred to are false and wholly without merit.

“Claims that Blackstone and a Brazilian company we’re invested in, Hidrovias, are responsible for the deforestation of the Amazon through the development of an industrial road is a complete myth. Hidrovias does not own, control or have any interest—direct or indirect — in the road in question. In fact the firm has been recognized for their leading environmental & sustainability standards, winning a number of international awards.

“Furthermore Blackstone has been part of the solution to the global housing crisis, contributing to the availability of well-managed rental properties around the world. Since 2012, we have created over 64,000 new rental units globally and have invested over $3.5bn in renovations.

“The letter relies on inaccurate prior “reporting”, but not on basic fact checking, which is inaccurate and irresponsible.”

This article has been updated to reflect the fact that Schwarzman has not spoken out in favour of Trump’s travel ban and the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Preview: The Crucible

0

The term “witch hunt” has recently been misappropriated by the most privileged and least persecuted person in the world. According to The Nation, Donald Trump has tweeted the phrase some 294 times since becoming President (and this is not counting his retweets). At a time when the word is being so grossly misused, Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is a welcome reminder of the history behind it. Miller wrote the play during the anti-Communist scares of the McCarthy era, though of course it historicises this through the infamous witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts between 1692 and 1693. The play explores what happens when the powerful or vindictive use the public’s irrational fears for their own ends. As the story unfolds, we learn that teenager Abigail Williams intends to accuse her lover’s wife, Elizabeth Proctor, of witchcraft in order to have her executed. But Abigail is just a single thread in a cobweb of avaricious intentions and genuine superstitions. Some of the townsmen accuse each other in order to obtain land (all accused are, of course, required to forfeit property), others- such as Anne Putnam, who has lost seven children- find themselves seeking a logic for their personal tragedies in the public hysteria. What ensues serves as a timeless indictment of fear-mongering and the quelling of dissidence. 

Director Cesca Echlin’s interpretation of the play is austere, with basic black costumes, minimalist music, and a pared-down set. These are all choices made to emphasise that the Salem witch hunts took place in a time of privation and Puritanism, an era- like ours- when fanaticism fed on lean resources. The play will be showing in the Pilch, a wise selection since the intimacy of the space will heighten the claustrophobic tension the work imparts. The three main characters have been cast with insight. Abby McCann infuses Abigail with a vulnerability that matches her vindictiveness, and her angst and anger at John Proctor are played with a grieving, tremulous menace. Echlin seems attuned to the complexities of the character, and allows us a few moments of understanding her before we are alienated by her final, horrific actions. Alex Marks brings a refreshing dynamism to the character of John Proctor, playing him as both abusive and tormented, a product of his time as much as he is a victim of it. Very occasionally both McCann and Marks’ dialogue delivery seems a little hurried, but that might just be this American reviewer’s slow ear for the accents. Maddy Page plays Elizabeth Proctor with restraint and steely anguish; her confrontation with her husband is as defined by silences as Abigail’s was defined by words.

In a brief interview after the preview, Echlin elaborated on her vision of the play, and her wish to see the layers to each character: Abigail’s traumatic past, her youth, and her subservient position in the Proctor household; Elizabeth’s fierce passion for Proctor and her adherence to an unsparing ethical code, and finally, Proctor’s abuse of power and the abuse he faces from the more powerful. The play’s verdict on its time and ours is exactly what we need to hear, and this production promises to make you listen. 

Cai Quo-Qiang: Gunpowder Art

0

Cai Guo-Qiang is one of the most sought-after contemporary artists, something that becomes pretty evident whilst viewing the introductory video at the beginning of the Ashmolean’s current exhibition, Cai Guo-Qiang – Gunpowder Art. Perhaps best known to Western audiences as the man behind the outstanding pyrotechnic display of the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony, Cai boasts an impressive CV of solo exhibitions (the Met, LAMOCA and The Prado to name a few), prizes (including the Venice Biennale’s coveted Golden Lion) and even his own Netflix documentary.

The theme of process is central to this exhibition and well-illustrated throughout the space. Refined over decades, an example of Cai’s process might begin with sprinkling gunpowder onto a canvas before positioning fuses at its edge. Then, to control the explosion and ensure it only scorches the canvas rather than burns it, cardboard is placed on top and held down with weights or bricks, before the fuses are lit. Once the explosion and smoke has disseminated, the weights and cardboard are removed to reveal the piece. Cai’s Poppy series usefully guides one through the stages and labour behind the development of a piece, documenting his experiments with varying degrees of gunpowder and colour.

Cai, who has been working with gunpowder as medium and material since the mid 1980s, traces his obsession to his childhood during the Cultural Revolution and a period of tense cross-strait relations. Growing up in the south-eastern coastal city of Quanzhou, Cai recalls how he would often hear gunfire and explosions as the civil war between the People’s Republic of China (mainland China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) played out. The symbolism of gunpowder, itself a substance invented in China, offered Cai an opportunity to reclaim the idea of destruction and re-brand it as an embrace of uncontrollability, unpredictability and chance. Cai revels in the idea that, despite months of planning, testing, experimenting and construction, the event is over in a matter of seconds.

Clips of Cai shown in videos across the exhibition, beaming and cheering on the explosions, are testament to this childlike nature. The works chosen for this exhibition serve to display the multiple mediums Cai has used over the years as a surface on which to capture his explosive practice. As well as detonating the gunpowder on canvas, Cai has used paper, silk, porcelain and, more recently, casts of classical statues taken from Pompeii in a fascinating project he described as sending an explosion back to Vesuvius.

However, whilst viewing the diverse range of charred and scarred objects, I couldn’t help but feel that I had missed the best part – the explosion itself. Cai’s practice provokes questions like, what exactly is ‘the artwork’? Is it the process, the testing and the experiments? Is it the fleeting seconds following the lighting of the fuse? Or is it the relic of the explosion which violently burns its existence onto canvas? Is it painting? Is it performance? Is it installation? How should art that resists categorisation in this way, that is loud, aggressive and totally dependent on time and space, be exhibited in a museum?

It’s hard not to get fomo when watching the videos of the viewers jumping back from the vivid bursts of fire, smoke and colour as Cai joyfully watches on like a child with a big box of fireworks. However, one piece in particular made me rethink how displaying Cai’s practice in an exhibition space offers what the explosive performance can’t. In Search of El Greco No. 8 was made as part of a project Cai undertook at the Prado in Madrid in 2016. Looking closely at this work is almost like experiencing the explosion in slow motion, capturing on canvas each stage of the gunpowder’s transformation in just a few seconds. One can trace the explosion from the moment the fuses were lit, following their singe marks to the site of detonation in the centre, from which is sprayed a deep azure and black splatter. More intriguing is the imprint of the smoke, which seeps and stains the white canvas like adding ink to water. The stretching, languid forms of the smoke confirms that the artistry of Cai’s practice is not limited to the single moment of ignition but encompasses the afterlife of the bang.

Whilst yes, viewing his works in a gallery means a loss of the drama, anticipation and excitement of viewing the explosion itself, it does allow viewing the event at one’s own speed and thus a greater appreciation of the beauty in chance and unpredictability that drives Cai’s practice. Perhaps a fitting visit for a week including Bonfire Night.

Cai Guo-Qiang – Gunpowder Art is on display at the Ashmolean Museum until 19 April 2020.

Photo:

Review: Talking Maps

0

The first wall of this Weston Library exhibition focuses on Oxford, offering the visitor visions of Oxfords which could have been, where a Merton Mall ran through Christ Church, and those which remain in the past, where the Cutteslowe walls separated Council tenants and a private housing development.

There are several works questioning what it means to map a post-Brexit Britain, cutting up and painting over the British Isles. Grayson Perry’s Red Carpet maps through words more than images, demarcating ‘us’ and ‘them’ and surrounding the ‘Westminster bubble’ with ‘pay per view’ and ‘Uber’. ‘Tax evasion’ floats off land. Brexitland (Stephen Walter) submerges areas which voted for Remain beneath water. Boris Johnson’s Water Bus floats through Oxford, which is bordered by ‘substantial reforms’. Surely when these pieces were created several years ago, the artists would not have imagined that a post-Brexit Britain would still be a landscape realised only in our imaginations.

The exhibition is structured and compact, covering fields from military maps to C.S.Lewis’s cartography. I would have enjoyed more maps relating to literary texts, but perhaps after putting on a whole exhibition about Tolkien the curators wanted to explore other avenues. The exploration of maps in which artistic or tactical concerns superseded geographical accuracy was particularly interesting.

A Political Pirouette

0

On October 17th this year, Prima Ballerina Assoluta and choreographer Alicia Alonso passed away aged 98 – the last living star of 20th Century Ballet. She and other dancers who shared the prestigious title, like Maya Plisetskaya and Margot Fonteyn, have shaped modern ballet, keeping it constantly moving and alive. With the death of these symbols of progression in the art form, the question arises: is ballet dying?

Alicia Alonso encapsulates the energy of 20th Century ballet. The last century saw the renovation of the historic art form, with figures like New York’s Balanchine, Britain’s Ashton and Russia’s Vaganova, who transformed Ballet, exciting audiences around the world. The century was full of radical innovation, from the Ballet Russes’s ‘Rite of Spring’ whose premier in 1913 shocked audiences worldwide, to Balanchine’s development of the neoclassical style. Alicia Alonso’s career shows the active, energetic nature of 20th Century ballet inspiring movement beyond the stage. Alicia Alonso was born in Havana, Cuba, and began dancing at an early age. After becoming pregnant aged 15 by fellow dancer, Federico Alonso, her family scorned her and they soon left for New York, a move that would mark her international career. There she began training at the School of American Ballet, later dancing on Broadway and touring with Balanchine and Kirstein’s company, the roots of the famous New York City Ballet. By the age of 20, she joined Ballet Theatre, (now known as ABT) and quickly landed principal roles, most famously, Giselle. Thus, though Cuban, she became the star of American Ballet, and gained international fame.

This wasn’t without obstacles. Aged 19 she was diagnosed with severe retinal detachment, causing her to partially lose her vision, with doctors believing she would soon become blind. Indeed, for the majority of her career, she was partially blind, needing lights to guide her on the stage. Between joining the company and her first Giselle, she underwent three major eye surgeries, learning the role from a hospital bed. Yet she is remembered as the best Giselle of the 20th Century.

Not only was she one of the greatest dancers of the century, she brought ballet to Castro’s Cuba, founding the Ballet Alicia Alonso in 1948, now known as Ballet Nacional de Cuba. This created a distinct, innovative Cuban style of dance, with an energy which charmed the world. It is this company which placed Cuba at the forefront of international ballet, becoming one of the most prestigious companies worldwide. In the context of Cuba’s revolutionary politics, the company highlights the power of ballet as a movement capable of reflecting external, political movements. In an interview for magazine Gramilano in 2017, Alonso showed her support for revolutionary Communist Cuba, stating: “In 1959, we had no economic or moral support from the state, and it was the revolution which gave us everything … Fidel Castro was an immense leader who continues to be a presence in the lives of Cubans with his example of patriotism and dignity.” Although established during Batista’s presidency, backed by US military and finance, Alonso emphasizes the importance of Castro, his funding and the communist ideology in creating a national style of ballet, as she states: “A famous Cuban writer once said that our Cuban Ballet was a democratic strength that never tired.” Throughout the 1950s, before the 1959 Revolution, Alonso’s international recognition reached new heights, being the first western artist to be invited into the Soviet Union’s prestigious stages, dancing with Moscow’s Kirov and Bolshoi ballet.
Even this connection with the USSR, shows how ballet was being used as a political tool, forging relations between Cuban and Soviet ballet whilst the USSR was simultaneously establishing a stronger presence in Cuba through Castro. As soon as Castro succeeded in his 1959 Communist revolution to overthrow Batista’s regime, Alonso returned to Cuba and renamed her company the National Ballet of Cuba, as it is known now.

Following the USSR’s use of ballet for political means, Castro was fundamental in the growth of the company because of his financial aid. Alonso received $200,000 from Castro to fund a new dance school and develop the company, alongside a promise of annual government funding. The Company recruited its dancers from across the island, regardless of class or monetary background, deconstructing what is known as an elite art form into a socialist framework. Despite the USA’s isolation of Cuba through their economic sanctions, Alonso’s already established international status allowed the company to continue growing under a global spotlight, producing internationally recognized dancers like the Royal Ballet’s Carlos Acosta – an icon of Cuban and english ballet. However, despite fomenting this new, distinctive ballet style, it is precisely its uniqueness which led many established Cuban dancers to deflect from Cuba and the Company to join ballet companies overseas. Now, Cuban dancers extend across the world’s most prestigious companies, spreading Alicia Alonso’s legacy.

Has ballet lost its energy and momentum in the 21st Century? In the same week of Alicia Alonso’s death, the innovative Victor Ullate Ballet company in Madrid closed down. Meanwhile, the New York City Ballet scandal in light of the #MeToo movement surrounding Balanchine’s protégée Peter Martins, has brought the out-dated hierarchies of ballet under scrutiny. Notwithstanding, there is choreographic innovation, seen for example in Wayne McGregor’s ground-breaking works for The Royal Ballet, the Nederlands Dans Theatre’s constant experimentation since its inauguration in 1959, or the increase in diversity through companies like Ballet Black or The Dance Theatre of Harlem. However, in the new age of social media and technology, the prospect of going to the ballet has declined, much like the fall of the Cinema or the stage in the last decade. Ballet seems more expensive and elitist than ever, as prices have inflated drastically, making it an art form for the rich. Although all major ballet schools, much like Alonso’s in the 1960s, offer scholarships and aid to less-privileged dancers, ballet is nevertheless catered as an elite experience to an elite audience, losing the political and social energy that Alicia Alonso embodied.

The influence of social media on the art form itself has turned it into a show-reel of tricks, with Instagram pages reposting inhuman flexibility stunts and innumerable turns, that replace the artistry of the form to a short, 30 second video. Ballet should look to dancers like Alicia Alonso, who’s artistry and uniqueness inspired and changed the art form. It should not fall under the monotony and homogeneity of social media, but nevertheless use the platform to reach new audiences. YouTube broadcasting of rehearsals of the main global companies during World Ballet Day for years now have spread the artistry of ballet to worldwide audiences. Ballet must inspire new audiences if it wants to remain alive and moving. Much like how Alicia Alonso’s dancing and choreography was intrinsically linked to her contemporary world, society, and culture, ballet should adapt to contemporaneity. Ballet can’t be stuck in a retrospective representation of the traditional ideals. Core to the art form is movement: not only physical, but social and political too.

In Vogue

0

Vogueing is having a moment. Again.

The last time saw Madonna’s 1990 hit “Vogue” soar to the top of the charts in America and was supposed to herald a period of greater exposure for the New York ballroom community. It didn’t. Now vogueing has a new lease of life thanks to programmes like RuPaul’s Drag Race and extensive usage in fashion campaigns and advertising. No longer the domain of the underground, vogueing is rapidly reasserting itself as a valid artform, but as this happens it’s worth dwelling on the origins of this iconic dance and its potential future. Is vogueing just going to disappear again, or is it here to stay?

Developed by the African American and Latinx LGBTQ+ communities of New York during the 1980s, vogueing is a dance that mirrors the poses found on the front cover of Vogue magazine, hence the name. Dance sequences don’t tend to be prepared; they are improvised to a pounding beat. Vogueing, like any other art form, has changed dramatically since its conception. Where the icons of the 1980s elegantly strutted and posed, modern voguers are more like acrobats. The arena for vogueing competitions is the ballroom, but ballroom isn’t just about vogueing. The balls were created to appreciate the talent of poor, LGBTQ+ people of colour in New York and have been thriving there in various forms since the 1920s. To put it far too briefly, queer people gather in groups called houses, which often act as family units for people who have lost their own. These houses carry elaborate, iconic names like Xtravaganza and LaBeija, and the balls are the battlefield on which they compete for notoriety. Voguing is just one of the ‘categories’ in these balls, others include attempts to serve ‘realness’ or runway walks.

Originally underground to the point of being invisible, ballroom has a history of informing popular culture in return for virtually nothing. In 1990 “Vogue” was the song of the summer, and the voguers of New York were supposed to get the opportunities that they had been denied for years. On the surface it seemed to be a total success for ballroom; vogueing was mainstream and dancers like Willy Ninja became international dancing sensations overnight. This success was, however, tainted by the link that was established between vogueing and Madonna. When Madonna’s summer hit faded out of the limelight, so did vogueing. Vogueing had mainstream appeal, but it failed to forge an identity of its own before the song sank below the waves of popular culture. Vogueing would not have another big break until most of its creators had died of AIDS, and the iconic dance would forever be tied to Madonna’s name and image.

As vogueing hits the mainstream again it is worth reflecting on how we can avoid repeating history. The worrying aspect of vogueing’s current fame is the lack of understanding of its origin and nature in the media. This misunderstanding inevitably leads to appropriation, which is particularly harmful in a situation when those performers whose artform is being exploited are from extremely marginalized communities. How is it that Dolce & Gabbana’s fashion shows start with a vogueing performance when some of the dance’s leading lights literally have to beg to be paid for their performances? If the link between the dance and the community that founded it is broken it makes vogueing the property of everyone, and while this is what many of vogueing’s founders want it to be, it also opens the door to appropriation. As people outside the ballroom community learn how to vogue it detracts from the very few opportunities available for the people within it. Drag Race has the potential to forge a similar cultural link to vogueing as Madonna, where people assume that because Drag Race presents an idea or art, it must be at its origin.

That being said, the situation is improving. Ryan Murphy’s ‘Pose’, and other programmes such as Viceland’s ‘Our House’ are helping to combat this lack of understanding by displaying the origins and development of vogueing, as well as its importance to the ballroom community. Videos of the most iconic balls that are available on Youtube regularly gain thousands of views and social media allows people who are passionate about vogueing to follow the best dancers as they develop their styles of performance. Ballroom legends like Leiomy are getting a huge amount of work nowadays, and as the world becomes more open to trans rights there is definitely room for optimism. Even Drag Race, for all its faults, does work in the ballroom community’s favour. Constant references to ‘Paris is Burning’ from Ru and the contestants are guiding more queer people towards educating themselves on ballroom and its influences, and without the show it is safe to say that many people wouldn’t even have heard of vogueing. It is, naturally, up to the viewer to educate themselves further on how queer, AfricanAmerican and Latinx communities have influenced popular culture, but it is also evident that Drag Race and other popular TV shows are providing a good base from which to educate ourselves on the contributions of the balls to popular culture.

Vogueing never expected to be popular. It isn’t a dance form that has been developed over hundreds of years, and it doesn’t have prestigious schools to educate the performers of tomorrow. The current generation of voguers learned their craft in the balls of Harlem and New York, something which lends an almost incomparable authenticity to the dance. The original idea for vogueing was the imitation of modelling poses that the LGBTQ+ community of New York could never hope to strike on real covers, and in that sense vogueing almost loses its meaning when it is appropriated by white models, actors, and actresses who are imitating a career that has always been open to them. Vogueing’s future is anything but certain. LGBTQ+ culture is having a moment in the sun, but we shouldn’t forget that these moments are always fragile, fleeting and fickle. Even if vogueing can cement itself in popular culture, history has shown that it may not be the inventors of the iconic dance form who benefit. The ballroom community will still have to fight injustice and inequality, but there may finally be room for these performers to step into the spotlight they deserve.

Photo: RuPauls Drag Race UK © @RuPaulsDragRaceUKBBCThree

Mr Gorbachev, Tear Down This Protest Art

0

Thirty years ago, the Berlin Wall came down. Any art fan should celebrate that. Not just because it represented a profound triumph for free expression against the forces of authoritarianism and censorship, but because the thing was a bloody eyesore. The grey concrete was awful enough, but then the Berliners went and covered it in sodding graffiti.

Still, we should definitely celebrate. Because the fall of the Wall wasn’t just a monumental, wonderful moment in human history. It also makes an important point about art and protesting. Or, more accurately, the lack of it. And it starts with how artists have tidied up what the former GDR left over.

What’s remaining of the wall is now the world’s largest graffiti gallery. Some of the murals are great. Dmitri Vrubel’s ‘Fraternal Kiss’ of Brezhnev snogging East German President Erich Honecker is iconic and endlessly imitated. Birgit Kinder’s mural of an old Soviet Trabant car breaking through the wall is a powerful reminder of those who desperately tried to flee the East. Even though I’m generally sceptical of the value of graffiti, I can’t help but love them. Perhaps it’s my rampant Berlin-ophilia and an innate love of all things cheeky, but I think they’re a wonderful reminder of how far the city and her people have come in thirty years, and just how precious freedom can be.

But as much as I like the murals, they do make me uneasy. They’re certainly a brilliant celebration of free expression on an infamous example of its denial. But they also remind us just how useless all the East Berliners’ graffiti was when the wall was up.

Spray cans didn’t bring the wall down. The Stasi saw to that. Instead, amongst other things, it was a complex inter-relation of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Hungarian economy, a grocer’s daughter, the limitations of Marxist thought and a dozen other things. It wasn’t some east Germans defacing a wall. Symbolically powerful as it was, protesting through art made little or no difference.

What was true of graffiti in the old East Germany is the same of protest art today. We’ve seen a lot of it in Britain these last couple of years. I’m reminded of a photographic project by Swedish artist Jonas Lund in London earlier this year called “Operation Earnest Voice”. It was designed as an “influencing office” (whatever the hell that is) in the interests of reversing Brexit. You can agree or disagree with the politics behind it, but you can’t quibble with the truth that the whole thing was utterly pointless. The project may have been intended as a protest, but it ended up preaching entirely to the converted.

And that’s the trouble with modern “so-called” protest art. It fills the Royal Academy and competes for the Turner prize, but its actual impact is minimal. Why? Because it’s “protesting” to people who agree with it. Does anyone seriously believe that the high-ups of the London art world are Brexiteering Trump fans, with sidelines in supporting Benjamin Netanyahu and cutting down the rain forest? I didn’t think so. At least the Wall’s graffiti was standing up against something, however futile. Whatever the rights and wrongs of their opinions, contemporary protest art instead represents a collective self-indulgence on the part of an art world with homogenous political beliefs.

So, here’s a truly radical idea. Let’s cut the political posturing and protesting and go back to just trying to produce something beautiful. Simple as that. How hard can it be?

After all, the seemingly impossible does sometimes happen. The Berlin Wall came down, for example.