Sunday 26th April 2026
Blog Page 691

The real emergency

0

In a political world increasingly consumed with Brexit woes, the British government risks neglecting crucial issues which will damage not only our country, but the wondrous planet on which we live. With no foreseeable end to the deadlock over the future of EU-UK relations, environmental issues continue to take a back seat, despite the dangerous persistence of climate change.

“You can worry about Brexit if you want, but you’ll be worrying about the wrong thing,” Sir James Bevan, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency said in a speech on Tuesday.  “If you rank the things that could literally kill us on a scale of one to ten, Brexit isn’t even a one. Climate change is a ten.”

The speech came as activists across London brought the capital to a stand-still for the second day running. The climate-change group, encamped in some of the city’s busiest areas including Parliament Square and Marble Arch, plan to continue in order to force the government to take urgent action, “escalating the creative disruption across the capital day by day.”

Extinction Rebellion, a British group which generated headlines earlier this month for semi-nude protests in the House of Commons, is demanding the complete reduction of carbon emissions by 2025. In a letter to the Prime Minister, the urgency of their cause is evident. “This crisis is only going to get worse…Prime Minister, you cannot ignore this crisis any longer. We must act now,” the group wrote.

With colourful murals drawn on the ground, juggling, vibrant banners unfurling, and dancing to reggae music, activists transformed Parliament Square, a place where, for the past three years, priorities have lain far from the environment.

Home to both Leave and Remain protesters, one man has championed the importance of environmental change for the past two months. Robert Unbranded, who has long been a lone voice in the Brexit ocean, holds a sign which protests the impact of single-use plastic and wears a fluorescent orange vest and cowboy boots.

Decorated with an array of used bottles, the sign reminds passers-by that fifty percent of the plastic produced in the world is single-use disposable plastic, a problem which is simply overwhelming us.

Having campaigned locally in East London for a long time, Unbranded, originally from Aberdeen, took the decision to protest outside the Houses of Parliament because he believes we are approaching a chicken and the egg situation. If there is no human intervention to stop climate change, the inevitable catastrophe could soon overtake us, and it depends which comes first.

“The damage that we’re doing is irrefutable, to marine life, to woodland life, to birdlife, to water and soil too… When I see these things, I couldn’t keep my mouth shut any longer, I had to come down here to get my sole voice heard,” he chuckles at the seemingly impossible task.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) revealed that we have 12 years to limit the catastrophe of global warming, in a report in October 2018.

Despite the gloomy outlook, Unbranded spoke with a glimmer of hope: “When I see people from every country, every skin colour, every language, they all react in the same way.” He has even attracted the attention of the Minister for Climate Change, Claire Perry, who has commended him on his actions.

Believing that change is imminent, the “Plastic Protestor” will remain a symbol of the pressing issues which are being put aside during this period of never-ending Brexit chaos.

“After nearly three years of argument over Brexit, all the polls show that most people want to move on,” James Bevan concluded his speech. “Because while there may or may not turn out to be a Plan B for Brexit, there is no Planet B for us.

Review: Heart of Darkness at York Theatre Royal

Pushing meta-theatre to its limit, ‘Imitating the dog’s’ bold, energetic and innovative reinterpretation of The Heart of Darkness (1899), currently on tour, poses the question — can we retell Conrad’s disturbing critique of exploitation in colonial times without falling prey to racism which even the author couldn’t avoid?

Telling, retelling and reinventing Conrad’s exploration of ‘the horror’ of Belgian Congo, a slave state with genocidal policies of murder and mutilation in pursuit of profit, is an enterprise requiring tact and imagination, of which there was no shortage in the production. While the novella was praised for its presentation of the evils of colonialism, it has been criticised for a Eurocentric view of Africa as a place of savagery, a point made forcefully by projecting Chinua Achebe’s withering assessment on one of the screens in this multi-media show. The play stresses that global capitalism and colonialism were the darkness, not the indigenous population: the ‘heart of darkness’ was not what Marlow found in Africa, but what he left behind in Europe, only seen in all its monstrosity in a different place. This story has modern relevance as well as historic significance; it isn’t too ‘problematic’ for today’s audience.

Geopolitically reversed, this production is set in an Africa that is stable and civilised, not the colonially ravaged Congo. Their journey to ‘The Heart of Darknessis to a Europe that never escaped the worst aspects of the Second World War. Indeed, its whole civilisation has degenerated into a system of concentration camps. London, the final destination, is the heart of darkness, destroyed and lawless but with eerie echoes of Conrad’s foggy sequences on the Thames. The result is not far-fetched but plays tellingly on our fears for a Europe racked by populism. It is the ultimate story of a journey into the unknown and self-discovery on the winding roads of Europe, rather than a journey up the River Congo.

This is a play of ideas and multiple narratives. Framing the central action is a metanarrative of the cast workshopping the play collaboratively, allowing intensive discussion of many issues of race and identity that inform the production.

The ‘guts’ of the play, has Marlow, updated as a black Congolese woman and classily played by Keicha Greenidge, employed as a private detective — this resolved the cliché of the ‘white saviour’ rescuing the crazed Kurtz from the brutality which had warped his mind. Kurtz, convincingly performed by Matt Prendergast, was still a white man who had worked his way up from within the trading system, showing this was no simple racial allegory.

With a strikingly bare and minimalist set, we were confronted by the story, ideas and messages with no distracting decorative touches. Three large screens hung ominously above the stage broadcasting the action of the play with subtitles. Two large cameras projected live videos of the action as five actors took on multiple roles, seamlessly switching between characters. Digital technology was creatively used throughout, assisting its multi-layered, innovative approach. It was as much cinematic as theatrical. As the story became messier and more violent, so did the relationship between what was on screen and what was presented on stage deteriorate.

The Brechtian use of stage and offstage spaces had characters filming each other at opposite sides of the stage but appearing side by side on the projector screens. Stage directions dictated by the ensemble didn’t result in actions on screen — more was implied off-screen than shown on-screen.  Languages proliferate: Yiddish, French, German and Swedish are spoken but not translated. Breaking and blurring the boundaries of form, style and genre, this play blends live action and film to visceral effect.

This production questions not only how to stage such a story but also explores its contemporary significance. Their answer was the rise of the far right. ‘Imperialism is capitalism in its raw form’, proclaim the characters in a ‘play within the play’. The glorification of the Empire by Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage was referred to with footage of their speeches and of Boris idiotically suspended on a zip wire clutching Union Jack flags. ‘Rule Britannia’ plays in the background. If ever there was a time that we needed reminding that the past isn’t to be viewed with rose tinted spectacles, it is now.

In an ambitious, imperfect, exciting and hard-hitting performance, ‘Imitating the dog’ succeeded in capturing the spirit, rather than the voice of Conrad. Ever unsettling, it reminds us the horrors of the past, challenges us to look at our present, and to reach for a brighter future than ‘the horror’ depicted on stage.

Review: Good Dog – ‘reflects an experience that many can relate to’

0

Arinzé Kene’s Good Dog, written amidst the backdrop of the Tottenham Riots, captures the life of a young black ‘Boy’ growing up in multicultural inner-city London, reflecting an experience that many, myself included, can easily relate to.

The set itself was incredibly minimalistic with its centre occupied by a big tower block structure, evoking the look of a council estate. This is where Boy lives and often gazes down from, watching and commenting on the movements of the people within his community. Kene’s effortless capturing of the rhythm and cadence of multicultural London through Boy (played by Kwaku Mills) allows us to see the world through his eyes. This is further bolstered by the voice recordings which frequently echo around the stage, allowing us to meet different characters: the shopkeeper, Gandhi, who befriends a stray cat; Trevor Senior and his son, who play cricket outside on the estate; the boys who smoke on the corner; and the shoplifting “wot-wot girls”. The choice of having recordings instead of additional actors allowed for the audience to be enveloped in life on the stage and encapsulated the communal nature of life on a council estate.

The journey through Boy’s life is also reflected in the production’s journey through Black British music. From the early noughties and the songs of Ms Dynamite to the beats of Tinie Tempah, I couldn’t stop myself from singing along. Mills effortlessly plays Boy’s childlike innocence with a delicate charm as we watch the optimistic Boy go through years of bullying, which is only remedied by a philosophy handed down to him from his father, that good things happen to good people. The play’s title, and indeed the concept of a ‘good dog’, is something that we watch Boy grapple with throughout his adolescent years as his character progresses from an air of childhood innocence and naivety to a jaded figure. At the end of the play, it is clear that being ‘good’ is not straightforward and there is a clear difference between what is ‘good’ and what makes you feel good.

A memorable scene is when the now an older and jaded Boy towers over the estate, smoking a joint and wearing a suit far too big for him after his girlfriend’s, Jamila’s, funeral. The actor’s growth from boy to man is both chilling and real. The oversized suit seems to remind us of how young he is; yet, at the same time, we get a sense of how much he has been forced to grow up, as the estate which was his playground now becomes a place of dark memories. Like the dog that bites back after being bullied by her bigger neighbour, both Boy and the society he lives in are at a breaking point. This is where the play reaches its climax – the Tottenham Riots. The London riots of 2011 in response to the murder of a black man, Mark Duggan, started in Tottenham and rippled throughout the country, and Kene powerfully captures the frustration and anger that many felt at the time.

The second black writer to have a second West End transfer at Trafalgar Studios with his play Misty, it is clear from Good Dog that Arinzé Kene is both an incredibly talented actor and writer. Leaving the theatre I realised the significance of the protagonist not being given a name – Kene is telling us that ‘Boy’ could be anyone and his disillusionment is evidence of the disillusionment that many young black men in inner-city London face.

EXCLUSIVE: Union term card released for Trinity

0

John Bolton, Katie Hopkins, Anna Soubry, Peter Singer and Lily Allen are among the over 80 speakers listed on the Oxford Union’s Trinity term card, Cherwell can reveal.

The society will also host seven debates, on topics ranging from the role of porn in sex education, the foreign policy of the Trump administration, and the ethics of “no platforming”.

Union President Genevieve Athis told Cherwell: “The Union should be a forum in which members can listen to, challenge and discuss the most pressing issues of the day.

“This is why it is so important that the Union welcomes a range of diverse people and discussions.

“Whether it is listening to Kizza Besigye speak about the challenges of Uganda’s rigged electoral system or attending our Debate about the place of pornography in sex education, I hope that this Trinity there will be something for everyone to enjoy and engage with.”

Diversity

Of the invited speakers and debaters, just over 42% identified as women* an increase of 7% since Michaelmas.

Of the 85 speakers and debaters around 37% are BAME, whilst 60% of the speakers are from international backgrounds.

When asked about the diversity of the speakers invited, Athis said: “I am extremely pleased with the diverse term card my committee and I have put together.

“Ever since the onset of globalisation, international issues and voices have become increasingly important to understanding the world around us and the challenges facing us in the future.

“Our debate on Modi’s government is the first ‘No Confidence’ debate that the Union has ever had on a foreign government. Indeed, it sets the tone for the term which aims to fuse the Union’s traditions with a more modern, global outlook.”

Debates

The Union will play host to seven debates on Thursday evening running from first week to seventh week, with an early emergency debate at 19:45 followed by the main debate from 20:30.

In addition to the seven debates, the Union will also host three panels on Gender Inequality, the Tiananmen Square protests, and who can reclaim the centre ground in Britain.

There will also be a special event on “Voices from North Korea” with human rights activist Ji Hyeona, and former North Korean soldier and head of an NGO which helps the children of North Korean defectors in China.

Athis told Cherwell that “Some of the most important events the Union hosts are those which aim to platform marginalised voices and give the less powerful a podium.

“From our Voices of North Korea Event, to our Tiananmen Anniversary Panel, to our frank discussion about Gender Inequality in the modern world, this term we aim empower often forgotten voices through meaningful discourse.”

She also highlighted the importance of the Union’s new “Trailblazer” events, saying “A key focus of this Term Card is on trailblazers who have paved the way for progress throughout the generations.

“From the founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, to the first female Prime Minister of Barbados, we aim to shine a light on people who have challenged the status quo and taken steps to overturn it.”

List of Debates

1st Week, 2nd May “This House Rejects Traditional Masculinity”

2nd Week, 9th May “This House Supports No Platforming”

3rd Week, 16th May “This House Has No Confidence in Modi’s Government”

4th Week, 23rd May “This House Prefers Trump’s Foreign Policy to Obama’s”

5th Week, 30th May “This House Believes That Justice Has Been Done”

6th Week, 5th June “This House Believes it is Immoral to be a Billionaire”

7th Week, 13th June “This House Believes that Porn has a Place in Sex Education”

List of Panels

21st May 20:00 “Voices from North Korea”

22nd May 20:00 “Unfinished Business: Gender Inequality in the 21st Century”

31st May 20:00 “Remembering Tiananmen: 30 Years On”

6th June 20:00 “Reclaiming the Centre Ground”

The complete term card is available here, and is also available on the Oxford Union App for Android users for the first time this term.

Tragedy for Teddy Hall in Uni Challenge final

0

St Edmund Hall has lost out to Edinburgh in the final of the 2018/2019 University Challenge series.

This is the first ever victory for Edinburgh University in the competition, and would have been the sixth consecutive year an Oxbridge college has taken home the trophy.

Ten points behind with four minutes on the clock, Teddy Hall player Marceline Bresson secured a set of bonuses that put St Edmund Hall ahead, but they were unable to hold the lead. The final score read 155-140.

The final saw questions on Iron Maiden, the Chinese Periodic Table and national flag colours appearing in popular music.

Teddy Hall reached the quarter final after defeating the University of York, Clare College, Cambridge and Bristol. Following a quarter final win against the impressive Emmanuel, Cambridge, they saw off Darwin, College to reach the final.

Teddy Hall captain, Freddy Leo, has been described as “the fastest on the buzzer ever”, answering questions on topics far removed from his own historical studies. The star is the highest scoring player this season and been the subject of much discussion on social media, drawing flack from The Times for his “combative style”.

Netanyahu’s immortal government

0

Last week’s election in Israel was, as ever, in a class of its own. It was in a class of its own for being the only democratic election in the Middle East; for the over three-dozen parties whose names filled the ballot boxes; and for the comically large number of victory speeches made – both Benjamin Netanyahu and his main rival, Benny Gantz, declared victory soon after the polls closed

There are no shortage of cynical theories about why Netanyahu was able to win a fifthterm in office – a hard ask for any leader, especially one in such an antagonistic political climate. Some are claiming media bias, some are claiming miscounted votes, others think Netanyahu just has too muchsupport from influential donors. 

The more compelling – and far more intriguing – explanation for Netanyahu’s success, though, seems to be something entirely different, and something within the bounds of democracy:

It’s that Netanyahu is conveniently trapped in a negative feedback loop, whereby he is moderated but never undone by his opposition. And that’s because every time his or Israel’s opponents make a move, they misstep. And they don’t just misstep, they cataclysmically trip over themselves.

First, the Israeli left – Jewish and Arab alike – missteps when it prioritises a nebulous, long run peace over immediate preventative security measures. That’s because more people in Israel value security far above appearance, brand name, or other domestic issues. Their primary criterion, when selecting a leader, it seems, is who can keep knives out of Jerusalem, mortars out of the Golan, and rockets out of Ashdod. 

That makes a good deal of sense for a people who have seen the failure of diplomacy in the Oslo Accords, the damage caused by lax military defence and one-way ceasefires during the Second Intifada during the early 2000s, and who have been continually aggravated by rocket attacks from Hamas-ruled Gaza, stabbings from the P.A.-ruled territories of the West Bank, and tunnel drilling from Hezbollah-ruled Lebanon. 

For young voters especially, who disproportionately favoured Netanyahu this election, an image of failed peace and necessary military strength is all but domineering.

The upshot of this is that, even though Netanyahu has not freed Israel to bask in the glory of pacifism, he has brought to it a degree of comfort and security that was lacking in earlier decades. That explains both why voters continually side with him rather than untested centrist candidates, and why the left (more than ever Israel’s Labor party) now capitulates time after time.

Secondly, other parties misstep by trying to be the anti-Netanyahu. You’d be remiss not to ask yourself after this election how a very centrist, charismatic, and experienced military leader like Gantz could possibly lose to an almost-centrist man about to front court on corruption charges. Very rationally, Netanyahu and his policies take a basic political science lesson and appeal to about as broad a base as possible:

He was never going to win over the two-staters voting Labor, but his last minute promise to formally recognise settlements as Israel did allow him to capture some of the right and take enough votes away from smaller right wing offshoots like the New Right. His liberal social policy similarly wasn’t going to win over hardline social conservatives, but they were going to vote for Orthodox parties anyway, and with them he took votes from the weed-smoking Zehut supporters.

For better or for worse, then, the policy and leadership preferences of Israelis is embodied starkly by Benjamin Netanyahu. His most feared opponent would have to be someone who is functionally himself, minus the corruption charges. 

The fact Gantz performed so well makes sense on this thesis: he was closer to the image of Netanyahu than most candidates – not close enough, of course, but closer. Anyone who distances themselves from that ideal is, at least for now, distancing themselves from the Prime Ministership.

Thirdly, the rest of the world missteps every time it inordinately condemns Israel at the UN, every time it tries to engage in unjust boycott, and every time it votes-in governments which aggressively oppose the Israeli state. The reason is straightforward. The people of Israel do not want to be left isolated, especially the wealthiest, most politically active members of its society, who require global reach.

A leader with some track record of diplomacy is therefore ultimately desirable for Israel. That explains why Netanyahu’s diplomatic connections to other powerful nationalist leaders – think Narendra Modi or Donald Trump – help his cause so greatly. It’s why travelling through the major cities of Israel, you’d struggle to miss the giant billboards featuring Trump and Netanyahu’s contrived handshake. 

More interestingly, the prominence of Netanyahu’s connections on his campaign trail also reveals an incumbency bias inherent to Israel right now. While most democratic countries are holding onto their leaders for less and less time, Israel is about to break its own record with Netanyahu. Israelis are so risk averse right now because they feel isolated that they disproportionately favour stable leadership, and that’s what voting for Netanyahu gives them.

Regardless of ideology, all signals indicate that Israel’s democracy is as alive as ever (read: very). Yes, Netanyahu is continuing to provide a much sought after certainty to his country, and he’s reaping the rewards at the ballot box and breaking term records while he’s at it. And yes, really, despite all the build up to this election, it looks as though Netanyahu’s next term will closely resemble the last one. But the Middle East’s only democracy is responding exactly as we should expect it to do, and exactly as we rationally should have predicted. 

Gagging clauses: Oxford used “more than one a week” last year

0

Oxford used 68 non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in 2017-18, according to data obtained by The Times under the Freedom of Information Act.

Warwick University used the most out of any other Russell Group institution in this period (339), followed by Exeter at 159. Both these universities reportedly said that their NDAs referred to confidentiality clauses in “research-related commercial agreements with companies.”

The news comes after an investigation by the BBC last week alleged that NDAs, also known as “gagging” clauses, were used by higher education institutions to stop accusations of “bullying, discrimination, and sexual misconduct” being made public.

Speaking to The Times, a music professor at the University of Liverpool stated that “she felt like she was treated as a “burden” and “bullied out” of her ten-year job after being diagnosed with cancer.”

MPs have allegedly criticised the widespread use of NDAs, alleging that they can be used for legitimate commercial reasons, but also to hide details of “sexual harassment or bullying.”

Oxford University told Cherwell: “The University does not keep a record of the number of settlements or agreements which contained confidentiality or non-disclosure clauses, and this information could only be determined by examining each agreement individually, which just isn’t feasible within a weekend / bank holiday timeframe.”

It’s 9:30 pm. The cathedral is on fire.

0

Around 9:30 pm local time on Monday, with the world watching in horror, Jean-Claude Gallet, commander general of the Paris Fire Brigade, declared that “the next hour and a half will be crucial” for determining whether the structure of Notre-Dame could be saved. I, along with millions of others watching, was forced to grapple with the very real possibility that in the next few moments the magnificent cathedral, an emblem of humanity’s capacity for artistic and spiritual achievement, might crumble to nothing before our very eyes.

At 9:30 pm I couldn’t help but wonder, will I never be able to take my future children there to pray? Will they grow up in a world in which Notre-Dame is nothing but a memory preserved only in photographs and history books?

The tears, the panic, the shock — these were all appropriately visceral reactions when confronted with the fragility of the greatest of human works. None of us had ever had to consider the thought that we might outlive Notre-Dame; a week ago, such an idea would have been patently absurd. But the Notre-Dame fire warns us of the dangers of our thoughtlessness: in the modern, developed world we have become so accustomed to the enduring stability of civilization that we have mistaken present stability for permanence.

But the world is increasingly unstable. As Greta Thunberg, the inspiring 16-year-old Swedish climate activist, said Tuesday in a speech to the European Parliament, our house is on fire, and we need to panic. An authoritative doomsday report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sounded a fresh alarm last October, saying the world has only 12 years to radically alter the entire world economy to avoid some of the most catastrophic consequences of climate change.

As terrible as it may sound, Notre-Dame was in a way fortunate among UNESCO World Heritage Sites: the threat to its survival came swiftly and visibly, prompting immediate, uncompromising action. It was saved, and with money pouring in from all corners of the globe, it will be rebuilt. But the same cannot be said for other sites around the world. A changing climate, rising seas, more severe weather, and the social threats of climate-driven mass migration and conflict put the treasures of human civilisation at risk.

A recent report in Nature studying the 49 World Heritage Sites located in low-lying coastal areas of the Mediterranean — such as Venice, Ephesus, Dubrovnik, Pisa, and Tyre, to name just a few — found that “already today” 37 are at risk of catastrophic flooding and 42 are threatened by coastal erosion. These dangers are as real as a fire, yet because the destruction is occurring in slow motion, they receive none of the same attention as the fire of Notre-Dame.

If St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice were to catch fire, I imagine the worldwide reaction would be similar to that seen on Monday. Every effort would be made to save the spectacular and historically important church. But with the entirety of that fairytale city in danger of being submerged by rising seas unless we act now, the worldwide response is virtually nonexistent. Wealthy from tourism, Venice may (or, facing mismanagement and corruption, may not) be able to implement a colossally expensive system of barriers in its lagoon to avoid the worst of climate change, but other sites are not so fortunate.

The loss of cultural landmarks is only the tip of the melting iceberg. Whole cities and nations, whole species and ecosystems are being wiped out, some slowly and some more quickly, all while the world looks the other way. Perhaps it is our animal psychology that prevents us from seeing past the problems that are right in front of us. But isn’t our human intellect supposed to be able to overcome those baser instincts? Thunberg rightly implored European leaders to use “cathedral thinking” to see beyond the petty concerns of today and envision the bold steps that must be taken right now to build a civilisation that can endure for centuries.

The next 12 years will be crucial for determining whether the structure of human civilisation can be saved, for determining whether future generations will be able to see Venice and Ephesus, Shanghai and Mumbai, Miami and New Orleans, and my home city of Houston with their own eyes, or whether these will exist only in history books.

It is 9:30 pm, and the scientists of the world are telling us these are the final moments to save our cathedral.

It is 9:30 pm, and our politicians are nowhere to be found.

It is 9:30 pm, and our corporations continue throwing gasoline on the fire in their mad rush for profits.

It is 9:30 pm, and people, companies and countries congratulate themselves for fighting the fire with buckets instead of teaspoons, when what is needed is fire hoses.

It is 9:30 pm, and countries are wasting time squabbling over who will have to pay what to put out the fire.

It is 9:30 pm, and the people of the world go about their daily lives, downplaying, ignoring, or denying the reality of the danger.

It is 9:30 pm, and human civilisation, all that we have built, is burning down.

The clock is ticking. Where is our urgency?

Unstoppable and unassailable: Sean Scully is an artistic force of nature

Towards the end of Unstoppable: Sean Scully and the Art of Everything (BBC4), the acclaimed artist describes himself revealingly as “the left-wing Donald Trump of the art world.” Although there isn’t much that is “left-wing” about the rampant commercialism on display, we know what he means. This brilliant film shows how Scully, like the current president, is an embodiment of self-creation, whose unbridled ego, chutzpah, and endless self-publication has helped him singlehandedly forge a place in history; but whose legacy will perhaps best be judged after the passage of time.

Although we are given some perspective on the artist, thanks to comments from critics, curators, and gallerists, the chief contributor is Scully himself. The film works by allowing us to see through the carapace of his proclaimed self-belief, his fortress-like self-aggrandisement, and his apparent indifference to the opinion of others, to reveal what he is most protective of: the fragility of his reputation and the judgement of posterity.

The film opens with split-screen images of the boiler-suited artist work in the present day, broad brush in hand and liberally sloshing horizontal stripes onto a large canvas. He stands alone within his cavernous studio. Underscored by the fifties hit ‘Softly Softly’, Scully’s very different formative years are evoked in counterpoint. Looking for all the world like a particularly aggressive plasterer (a pre-celebrity occupation he briefly held), Scully is shown provocatively as taking little care about the application of paint. His brush strokes splatter the walls either side, the effect almost echoing some bloody crime scene (he later describes his paintings as “knockabout” and “rough and ready”).

This is cleverly intercut with scenes from a 2018 Phillip’s auction in London, where the bidding for his Landline Green Sea quickly escalates to £1m. Although since the days of Jackson Pollock, we have become accustomed to disentangling notions of care, effort, craft, and time from what justifiably constitutes ‘Art’, it is nevertheless arresting to see what is apparently so casually created achieve such astronomic value. This is essentially a film biography that shows us how this trick is achieved, through Sean Scully’s performance of his artist-as-persona. The character presented to us is as much a part of the finished artwork as the pigment on the canvas.

The cameras follow Scully as he revisits the places of his infancy, from the poverty and squalor of his early years in Dublin, to teenage gang membership in Highbury, all sharply contrasted with his current day-to-day life of constant international air travel for retrospectives, sales, and general Scully PR. The self-mythologising is relentless: “from Inchicore to his own private jet”, Scully comments at one point, as if to underscore the trajectory of this narrative of hardships overcome and establishments confounded.

At the time of filming, there were fifteen exhibitions of his work around the world, and the film quotes one critic on Scully as “the greatest living artist of our time.” His undoubted success is described more than once as miraculous; there is something of the divine implied in this astonishing achievement. The film shows us that it is Scully’s drive that is most responsible for his success, and it is this Trumpian quality – this ability to promote and spin, to argue, to implacably persevere despite setbacks – that has propelled him onto what William Feaver describes as his “meteoric streak.”

The film itself serves as a career retrospective, presented as a series of artistic epiphanies. The first occurs when he sees Van Gogh’s Chair at The National Gallery, where he comments “it’s so simple even I can do it.” Much later, his predilection for stripes and grids is born after exposure to Islamic art and pattern on a trip to Morocco. Rejected by more prestigious art schools, Scully finds a place at Croydon School of Art, and is inspired by the German expressionist Kirshner.

He later moves to Newcastle University where he reports himself as more preoccupied by the space he is given – his “real-estate” – than he is with anything else. With the commandeering of a corridor at Newcastle begins his relentless desire for the monopoly of space. His frequent and generous donations to galleries (interestingly often suggested by the artist, rather than the institution), his retention of work to facilitate exhibitions and retrospectives, and even his learning Spanish in order to gain sway over Latin American markets, all speak of a desire to mark territory – to achieve dominion over it.

Above all, Scully is a salesman. He enjoys the schmoozing of openings. Unlike other artists, he’s sociable, fit (we see him still practising martial arts at the age of 73), and he charms the camera and his audiences with his down-to earth, deliberately unrarefied language (“enough of this shit” he says at one point, when he recalls his desire to “return abstraction to the people””. He is also suitably disparaging about the London art scene in comparison to the USA, where his aggression feels more at home.

But this apparent democratising instinct towards art appears to be a cover for a more hard-headed commercial savviness and a sensitivity to the fickleness of art fashion. After success in the mid-eighties, Charles Saatchi offloaded eleven of Scully’s pieces which the artist describes as akin to the dumping of shares in the stock market. Painting had lost out to conceptual art, and one critic described his work as “like very expensive wallpaper.”

Typically, Scully claims not to have cared, and feeds off the opposition to his output. He is determined to be regarded as “the greatest abstract artist of my generation” (despite the opinion of his former student Ai Wewei, who inconveniently thinks Scully’s earlier work was better than his current offerings). Through a process of clever control over supply and demand, combined with an ability to sell himself, Scully is shown to have re-made his career and reputation.

The film is strong on biographical detail but doesn’t dwell on the art itself. We are given brief ‘art-speak’ disquisitions: the paintings represent “mute eye music that finds tranquillity amid the chaos … a sounding board for the soul”, but, perhaps deliberately, we aren’t given much more on their essential artistic quality. The viewer is left to question whether this is because the life is more interesting than the work.

Is shallowness the point, particularly when we learn that the canvases are the perfect shape for an iPhone? In the end, the programme acts as an exposé of the 21st century art market, of art as a career choice or as a business, and in this way echoes Netflix’s recent satire Velvet Buzzsaw. Scully is at various points compared to Turner, Warhol, and Matisse, and yet tellingly, at no point are the more obvious comparisons made – to Rothko or Hodgkin – perhaps because such comparisons would be inimical.

William Feaver makes the most insightful comment when he describes Scully’s self-belief as based on self-doubt; he argues that Scully’s character would collapse if he wasn’t a great artist. As with Donald Trump, the observer is left to wonder at what so much front and output is really about, or what it compensates for. There is no doubt that Scully is an artistic global phenomenon – but, as the film asks and leaves open to its viewers, is his work any more than an empty expression of his own unstoppability?

Unstoppable: Sean Scully and the Art of Everything is available on BBC iPlayer. Scully’s new exhibition Sea Star is at the National Gallery until 11th August.

Oxford shopkeeper imprisoned for selling fake cigarettes

0

A local shopkeeper has been sentenced to twelve months in prison after being charged with selling fake cigarettes.

Karzan Rostam, who owned Cowley Road Department Store on Cowley Road near St Hilda’s, pled guilty to 25 charges of supplying or possessing fake cigarettes totalling around £5,000.

His shop was raided by the county council on May 20th 2018, and on July 18th of the same year. Both raids discovered illegal cigarettes and tobacco, mainly hidden behind a false wall in the property’s kitchen.

It is the third time he has been convicted for similar offences. He served a four-month jail term in 2016.

Fake cigarettes have been found to include pesticides, arsenic, and rat poison, with an estimated 45 billion smoked every year. Jody Kerman, Oxfordshire County Council’s Trading Standards operations manager, said: “This sentence sends a strong message to anyone thinking about getting involved in the illegal tobacco trade… this public health menace.”

Alongside four months imprisonment for offenses under the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations and the Tobacco & Related Products Regulations, and eight months imprisonment under the Trade Marks Act, Rostam has been fined £600 and ordered to pay £1,500 in costs.