Wednesday 8th October 2025
Blog Page 853

Richardson “sorry” for homophobia row

Jack Hunter
-
1
Richardson “sorry” for homophobia row

Louise Richardson has apologised for the upset caused by her comments regarding homophobia at the University.

Last week, the Oxford vice-chancellor provoked uproar among some parts of the student body for suggesting that it isn’t her job to “make students comfortable” with the homophobic views of university staff.

Her comments prompted an angry backlash, with Oxford SU President Kathryn Cole saying: “Freedom of speech is not an excuse for homophobia.”

But in a letter sent to the Wadham SU executive on Monday, seen by Cherwell, Richardson apologised for her “clumsy” wording and said she was “sorry” for the upset caused.

“I have been completely taken aback by the reaction to my answer to a question on free speech at the THE Summit in London last week,” she wrote.

“I have now seen the transcript of the discussion and can understand why people are upset. In a live Q&A my wording was clumsy and as reported does not reflect my intent at all.”

Her letter, which came in response to the Wadham SU President demanding she clarified her remarks, said: “Let me say how sorry I am to have caused such upset.

“Lest there be any doubt on the subject: I do not tolerate homophobia, I have never tolerated homophobia, and I never will tolerate homophobia in any university to which I am attached.

“You should know that had any student ever come to me to report the homophobic behaviour of their teacher my first response would have been a human one of concern for the student and the second would have been to invoke university policies to protect them.

“The conversations to which I alluded were not conversations with victims of homophobia, but conversations with students about balancing the demands of free speech and the desire not to be offended. In retrospect I wish I had chosen a different example.”

She added that she intended to work closely with Oxford LGBTQ groups in the coming terms.

Richardson’s apology is the most recent attempt to respond to her comments at the THE Summit, which have provoked more than 2000 students, staff and alumni to sign an open letter demanding clarification and a public apology.

In a statement last week, the VC said her comments had been “misconstrued”.

“I might have hoped that my track record over many years of speaking out against discrimination in all its forms would have answered some of those concerns,” she said.

“It is a matter of great regret to me that my words are being used to call into question this impressive, sustained endeavour to make Oxford a diverse and inclusive university.”

The vice-chancellor’s letter to Wadham SU, in full:

I have been completely taken aback by the reaction to my answer to a question on free speech at the THE Summit in London last week. I have now seen the transcript of the discussion and can understand why people are upset. In a live Q&A my wording was clumsy and as reported does not reflect my intent at all.

First let me say how sorry I am to have caused such upset.

Lest there be any doubt on the subject: I do not tolerate homophobia, I have never tolerated homophobia, and I never will tolerate homophobia in any university to which I am attached.

You should know that had any student ever come to me to report the homophobic behaviour of their teacher my first response would have been a human one of concern for the student and the second would have been to invoke university policies to protect them.

The conversations to which I alluded were not conversations with victims of homophobia, but conversations with students about balancing the demands of free speech and the desire not to be offended. In retrospect I wish I had chosen a different example.

I do believe passionately in the principle of free speech and the responsibility of universities to defend it. I also believe that the best education is one that challenges our preconceptions and causes us to question our assumptions, that robs us of our certitudes and makes us feel uncomfortable. But I would never construe those principles as permitting harassment or discrimination in the classroom.

A strong LGBTQ community is a hallmark of a liberal university. I look forward to meeting representatives of Oxford’s LGBTQ groups on my return and you will find that you have no stronger advocate for a university and a society free of discrimination.

Louise Richardson

De Boerexit Means De Boerexit: Have Palace Got it Right?

James Martin
-
0
De Boerexit Means De Boerexit: Have Palace Got it Right?

After just four games of the Premier League season, Crystal Palace’s Frank de Boer has become the first managerial casualty. A record of played four, lost four, scored none, does not make comfortable reading for the Dutchman, but it is nonetheless staggering how quickly the Palace board have opted to pull the trigger.

Roy Hodgson has taken over: aside from shared managerial stints at Inter Milan, the two coaches could hardly be more different. That he is their go-to replacement suggests Palace were never all that invested in rebranding their style of play – de Boer may well feel in hindsight that he was doomed from the start – but the appointment of the one-time England boss could nonetheless prove successful for the London outfit.

Many failed relationships have cited ‘compatibility issues’ as the reason for the breakdown, and in the case of Palace and de Boer this rings true. The Dutch tactician built his considerable success at Ajax around possession – they dominated by stroking the ball around with precision and purpose, transitioning seamlessly from one phase of play to another. How, then, must he have felt upon first walking into the dressing room and seeing the likes of McArthur, Tomkins and Benteke staring back at him?

All are good players in their own right,but to ask them to make up the spine of a de Boer team is absurd. Still, the manager was brought in before pre-season had begun, so there was clearly time to mould the squad a little more into his image and likeness. However, it appears that the powers that be lacked the inclination, or perhaps the resources, to do so: Mamadou Sakho and Jairo Riedewald were the only permanent additions to the squad. Both of these are good defensive additions, particularly Sakho, and both are far more ball-playing than any of the centre-backs already at the club.

Nevertheless, they are not transformative. Riedewald was not a definite starter in de Boer’s brief reign, and Sakho may not even have been the manager’s choice. The former Liverpool man had enjoyed a successful loan spell at the club in the latter half of last season, and following this the club board were set on getting him. In a Trump-esque tweet storm, club chairman Steve Parish admitted that acquiring Sakho blew most of the budget – if this is indeed the case, de Boer was left stranded with a squad completely incapable of executing his philosophy. This was damaging to both club and manager: Parish will need a lot more than 140 characters to explain himself.

Given all of this, the sacking actually appears to be a sensible decision. Granted, it is the first good call in a string of terrible ones made by the Palace hierarchy, but it was probably wise to step in now and attempt damage limitation rather than persevere with a manager they never equipped with the tools to succeed.

Hodgson as the replacement places a considerable ceiling on the ambitions of the team, having proved at Liverpool and then at England that he is utterly useless when entrusted with any squad even vaguely capable of challenging for trophies, but he is more likely to succeed with the current squad than de Boer was. Prior to his catastrophic spell on Merseyside he had impressed with Fulham, and his poor showing with England was preceded by a solid stint with West Brom – it must be conceded that he has some expertise in taking relegation-threatened squads to mid-table safety.

This will hardly enamour Palace fans, but priorities must surely have shifted to staying up after the sacking of de Boer brought the sorry attempt at a rebrand to an abrupt end. Hodgson is not one for the future at the ripe old age of seventy, but he has as good a chance as any of steadying the ship. if he succeeds, then perhaps Palace can try properly investing in a progressive vision in a year or two. For the time-being, Benteke represents an ideal focal point for a coach who is essentially a relic of a bygone era. Combined with traditional wingers in the shape of Zaha and Townsend, the materials are all there for Hodgson to create a goal-scoring outfit that can stay afloat in the top flight.

All that said, Hodgson essentially represents admitting defeat for Palace. The best he can achieve with the squad is good damage limitation, as opposed to positive steps for the future – with de Boer the club had a chance to put building blocks in place going forward, but the chance was comprehensively blown. The board was right to let de Boer go, but for all the wrong reasons. Palace can now only hope that Hodgson does well as a stopgap, and that another promising coach is waiting to join them on the other side. If the board are fortunate enough to see this come to pass, then they must fully invest in the new man – a lesson learned is perhaps the only potential positive to come out of this sorry saga.

North Korea: how will it end?

Jonny Latimer
-
0
North Korea: how will it end?

Trump’s recent boyish rhetoric about North Korea has probably drawn your attention to the generation-spanning ‘long emergency’ occurring on the Korean Peninsula. The President has assured the Kim regime that “fire and fury like the world has never seen” will be shown should it continue to pursue its nuclear ambitions. Do we want this to happen?

I think most of us are right to be worried by such noises. But what other options do we have? North Korea, a cult of personality threatening the annihilation of the West, has become a nuclear power. Our gut reaction is that it is either us or them. Maybe Trump’s suggestion, though we might not want to admit it, is the only way to assure the continued existence of South Korea, Japan and California.

Indeed, it’s true that the United States possesses sufficient ‘fire and fury’ to knock out North Korea with a few swift blows. They could steamroll the North Korean nuclear facilities before they get a chance to respond. So why, so far, has restraint been exercised?

The Korean Demilitarized Zone is the most militarised border on Earth. Tanks, artillery and soldiers stand perpetually on guard, ready for attack. Seoul, the Southern capital, is within 40km of the DMZ, within range of North Korean ordnance. What happens near the DMZ and Seoul when America unleashes its fire and fury on the North’s nuclear grid?

A response in kind. Every inch of Seoul faces a potential barrage of conventional, chemical and biological shells. Mark Bowden, the author of ‘How to Deal with North Korea’, states a few hundred thousand as the minimum amount of people that can be summarily killed in Seoul by Northern artillery. With around 25 million people living in a city three times more densely packed than London, if only a few hundred thousand Seoul residents were sacrificed in this gambit, that would be a strategic miracle, if an actual nightmare. Though lacking a modern nuclear arsenal, the Kim regime still possesses the largest conventional force in the world. A pre-emptive evacuation of the city would be a telegraph to the Kim regime that things were about to happen, and could tip the delicate balance that maintains the tense stability.

Can’t the fire and fury extend to the conventional forces threatening Seoul too? Assuming that it is possible to prevent the gigantic North Korean military (which has 6 million people and is funded by a quarter of the country’s GDP) from flattening Seoul immediately and knocking out its nuclear capabilities, where would that leave us?

Let’s examine the best outcome. Effective strikes and blitz-campaigns paralyse all of North Korea’s military, Seoul is safe and Pyongyang no longer threatens nuclear annihilation. Firstly, millions of North Koreans are dead and displaced. The North Korean state, though misguided, is still composed of people, and their lives must be considered. Are ten million dead North Koreans sufficient for pause? Then comes the occupation. To stabilise the situation, America would have to occupy the ruins of the mountainous North and rule the people they have just obliterated. It would make Iraq seem like nothing.

If ‘fire and fury’ isn’t the right method, what else can be done? One faraway solution is the successful application of economic pressure. Perhaps America could pepper the Kim regime with cyberattacks and a blockade, denying uranium and coal. But this is a huge risk. To North Koreans, this may be indistinguishable from a genuine prelude to the pre-discussed fire and fury. Even with reassurance that the blockades would be just that, why would North Korea accept this as truth from an enemy?

Any economic solution must involve China – a country North Korea desperately depends upon for economic support. China has a monopoly on North Korean trade, and can withdraw exports to cripple Pyongyang. This is preferable to American warships getting involved. However, what will it take to get China on board, and what if North Korea prides it’s nuclear ambition over Chinese support? The answer to the first question is the abandonment of South Korea to Chinese influence, and the evacuation of American military bases in Korea – a constant worry to China. If the Kim regime decides to affirm the latter question, then it’s likely back to fire and fury.

Boredom in High Places

Chloe Dootson-Graube
-
0
Boredom in High Places

When being interviewed for the release of his new collection under the label Blue Roses, Edward Meadham claimed that he was “really bored,” with everything in fashion at the moment. This comes in the wake of the closure of Meadham’s joint project with Benjamin Kirchoff in 2015, Meadham Kirchoff. As a brand, Meadham Kirchoff was notable for its avant-garde approach to couture – every collection was a chaotically coloured celebration of decadence, in both the collections themselves and the theatrical approach to fashion week showings. Whilst this submission to decadence drew acclaim nearly unanimously from all corners of the fashion world (adored alike by devotees of Dazed and Confused and Vogue – two very different creatures) it failed to be financially lucrative, leading to the aforementioned dissolution of the label in 2015.

One could easily attribute the closure of Meadham Kirchoff to the fact that haute couture is inherently unsustainable. Pricing items so highly means that the pool of people able to buy them is inherently narrowed, and having some of the main facets of said clothes be, for example, tampons (SS15 ready to wear) or Courtney Love (SS12 ready to wear) lookalikes, is a risky venture. Admittedly, a lot of people don’t like and aren’t willing to wear either tampons or Courtney Love related paraphanelia – but it seems suspect to blame Meadham Kirchoff’s failiure solely on economics or the particular vitriol that people hold for certain aspects of their subject matter. Returning to Meadham’s comments about his very real boredom with just about everything in fashion and having reiterated the same comment equally emphatically in pretty much all the publication for the release of Blue Roses, questions are raised: is fashion, in particular high fashion, becoming stagnant? The fact that creativity so widely lauded as Meadham Kirchoff failed to be nurtured would certainly suggest so.

Is there then a correlation between this stagnation and the people making the clothes? A link between such stasis and the fact that the majority of major fashion houses are still in the process (and indeed, the early stages of said process) of installing their first female heads of houses? Does this stagnation have anything to do with the fact that the majority of creators are white men drawn from a very narrow pool of influence? Perhaps that can that be put down to demographic coincidence.

This could certainly be argued in the case of Gucci. In early 2016, following the installation of Alessandro Michele as head of house, Vogue published the article ‘Michele’s Gucci Coup’ chronicling his success in said role. It was noted that under his leadership, both financially and in terms of critical reception, the brand is on an upward spiral. The collections almost instantly became more colourful, more kitschy and unique. Perhaps the catalyst in this improvement is Michele himself; Vogue pointed out that it was under Gucci’s previous leadership, notably the proteges of Tom Ford (such as Frida Gianini in his own particularly lucrative stint at the company), that this aforementioned stagnation set in. However, it must be conceded that Michele himself is from very much the same stock as Gianini and Ford, having worked his way up through Gucci in a similar manner to the former.

Indeed, more recently, Michele has been footing claims of plagiarism for his sci-fi inspired AW17 collection. An online rumbling of discontent made the allegation that Michele’s collection was eerily similar to the work of Pierre Louis Auvray, a womenswear student at Central Saint Martins. While Michele has made attempts to refute the claim, instead citing Star Trek and alien movies from the 70s as his influences, the appropriation of ‘youth culture’ has long been a criticism of Gucci under the new leadership, especially the employment of Petra Collins for various campaigns. As a photographer known for her soft and emblematic depictions of youth, Gucci received complaints of attempting to plunder the aesthetic without making its products actually accessible to the people from whom they drew their influence.

This is not necessarily an unfair comment. It’s not as if I, a youth, sit here writing this article head to toe in haute couture (something which may well contribute to the somewhat morose tone this article has taken). It should be further noted that such declarations have not just been levelled at Gucci; a common nit pick directed at Dior’s collections under the new leadership of Maria Grazia Chiuri is that they have been too conscious of indulging street style (especially in the form of the branded waistbands and t-shirts) to the detriment of the label’s image. Instead, incorporating these influences has lead to some change. For example, the hyper-femininity of the brand has taken on a more human tone. Even the classic hourglass silhouette of the 1950s New Look silhouette has softened.

Yet is this a bad thing? Certainly, yes, if, as Pierre Louis Auvray claims, young creators aren’t being given credit. But this freshness appears to have exempted certain brands from the boredom that Meadham condemns. Going back to Dior, the hyper-femininity that was once imagined solely by men has been diminished with this new found looseness of t-shirts and waistbands into something more ironic, more ‘obnoxiously feminine’ – something distinctly more fun. The aforementioned silhouette has indeed softened, and in the process been desexualised – taking the emphasis away from bust and hips to simply a neat waistline has made it more androgynous, less restrictive, and as a result, more modern. I would argue that this is generally something positive.The same can be said of Gucci – it is rarely said that the output of either brand recently has been boring.

But it must be noted that this exemption from the aforementioned tepidity is not a universal thing. But it does appear to be on an upward swing, albeit a flawed one, if one considers that one of the main impetus for change has been unattributed reference – though the result may be good, the fact that much of the inspiration is seemingly drawn without credit bodes less than well for the industry as we know it.

Three Strikes and you’re onto a very enjoyable TV show

Susannah Goldsbrough
-
0
Three Strikes and you’re onto a very enjoyable TV show

Full disclosure: the fact that large parts of J.K Rowling’s detective novel were filmed twenty metres from my front door may mean that I found this BBC adaptation more exciting than it objectively was. It’s hard to be critical of the show I have to thank for lining my walk to school with artificial snow in the middle of spring. And, to be entirely honest, it’s possible that I missed some crucial scenes, what with my dad making snarky comments about our neighbour’s flashy yellow sports, everyone arguing over whether that ugly block of flats was Imperial College accommodation or a swanky housing development off Hyde Park, and the concentration it took to carefully inspect the face of every extra in an attempt to spot my own, undeniably photogenic, features. (The search was unsuccessful, in case you were wondering, but who knows, my big break could be just around the corner.)

Conflict of interest aside, I really do think Strike: The Cuckoo’s Calling is worth a watch. I first encountered the surly war-veteran turned private detective Cormoran Strike when his author was known to the world as Robert Galbraith, back in 2013. But Galbraith was soon revealed to be no more than a pseudonym for the genius behind the infamous wizarding world herself, thanks to one very astute Sunday Times book reviewer and the magical software of Hertford philosophy professor Peter Millican (proving once for all that Oxford is the Hogwarts of the real world). Rowling has since expressed disappointment at so soon losing the freedom afforded her by the pseudonym. But I doubt she complained much when the BBC snapped up the three-book trilogy for a lucrative Sunday night slot.

Casting Tom Burke as the eponymous detective was a good move. He’s got the whole hairy-and-grumpy-yet-oddly-attractive thing down pat. Strike is a compelling character: principled, damaged, sexy.  So although the scene where he graciously allowed a super model to seduce him might have been taking things a little far, Burke’s wisecracking charisma as he stomps round London did full justice to Rowling’s creation. Holliday Grainger and her perpetual pout was equally convincing as Strike’s assistant, Robin, whose chirpy northern charms are saved from being irritating by an ever-present undercurrent of dry humour, and her willingness to do fairly offensive imitations of suspects over the phone.

The mystery itself isn’t the most original thing ever, pill popping blondes, secret wills and long lost parents all make an appearance, but no one I watched it with who hadn’t read the book saw the twist coming (but, then again, my sister can be a bit slow about these things). Anyway, as with many detective shows, I don’t think solving the crime was really the point. The point was Strike’s one-liners: “My dad’s a Cypriot from Swansea and my mum’s a West Indian Scouse.” Pause. “Must have been a nice quiet wedding”. The point was the shots of the shiny dark-chocolate interior of Victorian pubs, the sexual chemistry between Burke and Grainger, and the equally blatant chemistry between their long wool coats, (which neither of the characters could possibly afford by the way, but I’ll forgive the fashion directors because they were just so god damn beautiful). The television show, like the novels, was about compelling characters and London locations, and both elements were spot on.

In cutting a five hundred-page novel into a three part series, things were inevitably lost. E.M Forster called the novel form ‘life by time’ and that is not a description that translates easily into a three hour TV adaptation. The slowly solidifying friendship between Strike and Robin, Strike’s skill in gradual melting the resistance of truculent interviewees, and Rowling’s almost Dickensian knack for evoking the streets of London were all slimmed-lined for the format. However, such is the nature of putting decent literature on the small screen and I’m not going to complain about it too much. Principled, damaged and sexy is exactly what I’m looking for in a TV show. If you too feel like there’s a hole in your life this Sunday evening, what with the lack of Downton or David Attenborough, give the second and best story, The Silkworm, a watch. My street probably won’t appear this time, but don’t let the disappointment put you off.

‘SiX’ at the Fringe review – “the best hour of comedy I saw all week”

Emily Beswick
-
0
‘SiX’ at the Fringe review – “the best hour of comedy I saw all week”

One of the many charms of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe is getting to watch superb theatre in the unlikeliest of venues. My week had already taken me from Methodist churches to pub basements, so why not the venue known as “Sweet Grassmarket”, which turned out to be the conference rooms of the rather posh Apex Grassmarket hotel?

Recommendation seemed to have spread by word of mouth, and there was quite a buzz around the first original musical toured by Cambridge University’s Musical Theatre Society. The slightly surreal premise of SiX – Henry VIII’s wives form a 6 piece girl band – had me, and the audience, racking our brains for any previous knowledge.

I imagine that for most of us, it boiled down to the saying we all learnt in primary school: “divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived”. Even at degree level (as fellow historians might attest), there’s not much written about Henry’s wives beyond their infamous endings. SiX flipped all of that around with their hilarious opening number, “Divorced, Beheaded, Live!”

Drawing on familiar reality TV tropes, the wives announced their intention to battle out for the title of most suffering wife, who would subsequently become the leader of the band. This was all about the queens, Henry no longer the subject, but object of their mockery, vitriol (and occasional) sympathy. The musical not only debunked tired historical stereotypes with enthusiasm, but was the best hour of comedy I saw all Fringe.

Megan Gilbert as Catherine of Aragorn and Ash Weir as Anne Boleyn oozed sass as implacable archenemies, united by their common loathing of their ex-husband. But perhaps it was the other four wives – the ones often forgotten about – whose personalities were given a greater chance to shine. Generally remembered by posterity as “the one with the son”, Jane Seymour (played by Holly Musgrave) sang heartbreakingly of a missed life with her newborn baby.

Poor Anne of Cleves has the misfortune to be labelled as the “ugly one”; here Matilda Wickham played a strong, independent woman who enjoyed using her royal pension to the full. Annabel Marlow was a defiant Katherine Howard, unapologetic in her sexuality, while Catherine Parr (Shimali de Silva) recounted a tragic choice between love and duty.

Behind all the one-liners was a relevant message that was skilfully delivered without ever sounding preachy. Six women sang about replacing “history” with “herstory” – a struggle every gender historian knows well, and one every historian needs to engage in.

The show’s writers, Toby Marlow and Lucy Moss, deserve credit for sparkling, witty lyrics that wore contemporary references lightly on their sleeve. “Come on ladies, let’s get in Reformation”, sang Anne Boleyn – and surely she would have channelled Beyoncé way back in 1536?

Perhaps my one criticism would be a lack of staging, but the production team did well to overcome the unglamorous surroundings, with eye-catching costumes that captured the individuality of each wife.

The choreography was a tongue-in-cheek tribute to every Noughties girl band and performed with amazing energy for a 60-minute running time. To quote a favourite reality show phrase, they really did “give it their all”. Part revisionist history, part Spice Girls “Girl Power”, SiX had all the hallmarks of a Fringe classic.

University Challenge – the insider’s story

Maxim Parr-Reid
-
0
University Challenge – the insider’s story

Have you seen the film Starter for 10? I have, and it formed the basis of my interest in competing on University Challenge. Like Brian Jackson, the film’s protagonist, I would sit at home ticking off answer after answer – don’t we all? Bellowing answers at the television is one thing, going on the show is quite another.

But, unfortunately, I lack Brian Jackson’s charm and dress sense. The journey from sofa to studio is quite a leap, and, unlike in Starter for 10 (set in 1985), there always exists danger of becoming a meme.

Getting on to University Challenge was almost as challenging (pun intended) as getting into Oxford in the first place. I exaggerate, of course, but the process is a long one. Believe it or not, lots of people want to go on television and make fools of themselves – as I did just this week.

Not one but two stages of internal selection – let’s call it bootcamp – lay between me and my dream of becoming an Internet meme. Two rounds of quizzing done and we had a college team, but we were still not on the show by any means. There was more to come.

Next, the interview, in which we met the people who would decide whether we were telegenic enough. Add to that more quizzing (no idea why). Somehow we got chosen for this thing – it must’ve been my bright red cords which convinced them that we’d gain traction in the Twittersphere.

That and the fact that, unlike the goliaths of this competition (*cough* Magdalen *cough*), Trinity – despite its three Prime Ministers and world-beating deep fried brie – hadn’t competed on the show since 2006.

We hadn’t reached the final since 1971 either, so you can see why we had cause for optimism as we headed to MediaCityUK, Salford.

So we arrived at that concrete jungle, MediaCity, home to ITV as well as two BBC departments. All the clichés I’d heard about Manchester being a rainy place were not belied by our trip that day – the weather seeming more than ominous.

The hour or so before our match, we met the opposing team. It was surreal, sort of like interviews where you want to make small talk but are keenly aware of who your rivals are.

Then we met him – Paxo. With the light of the studio beaming down on us, Paxman entered coolly. “Shall we give this a go then?” he asked, almost sanguinely. The following 30 minutes were the greatest adrenaline rush you’re ever going to get.

This was where the class of 2017 had sat (Eric Monkman, even Freddy Potts). We were standing (or, rather, sitting) in the shadows of giants.

Memes were made – I’ve even been compared to Postman Pat. Apparently my facial expression is one you have only when someone isn’t sharing a box of Maltesers with you. My floppy hair being compared to that of University Challenge presenter Bamber Gascoigne. Jokes aside though, it was a fantastic experience, and something I would wholeheartedly encourage you to apply for.

‘It’s even kind of morale boosting, in a Lana kind of way’

Nicola Dwornik
-
0
‘It’s even kind of morale boosting, in a Lana kind of way’

Lana Del Rey has always reminded me of the taste of flat lemonade. She’s bitter yet blunted, the dampener of her own acidity, and best consumed with some naivety. I’ve always loved the taste. In 2012, Born to Die pronounced Lana Del Rey as the self-crowned queen of melodrama. Since then, three albums have passed. Through grainy vocals and emotionally battered narration she has become the glamoriser of the depressive, and yet simultaneously forced smiles in the face of the shattered American dream. Lust for Life marks the fifth studio album of this narrative.

Some have gone so far as to say that Lust for Life marks the beginning of a new age of Lana. She’s grinning on the album cover for a start. A radical statement given that her last three album covers, when arranged horizontally, create a triptych titled The Headshots of the Despondent.

So, what’s new? Firstly, there’s the long guest list – this is not the one-woman Lana show we’re used to. A synoptic duet with The Weeknd is a title track which, amid all the engineered catchiness and electric beats, exudes a degree of genuineness and gold. Appearances from A$AP Rocky and Playboi Cati help lift Lana out from bottomless melancholic chasm of video-gaming, and give her tracks a bit more substance. Sean Lennon features too. As does a wealthy scattering of nods to music’s past – ‘Lust for Life’ is stolen straight from Iggy Pop, “Don’t worry baby” from The Beach Boys, and “I’ll be your tiny dancer” from an embarrassing teenage journal amongst other places.

But this album isn’t just Lana crooning over vintage vinyl, doing what she’s been known to do best – singing sad songs, thinking about sad boys, taking sad drugs. In Lust for Life, Lana seems to look beyond internal angst for lyrical inspiration. Somewhat watery and self-indulgent vibes dissipate, dejection and cynicism remains.

‘God Bless America – And All The Beautiful Women In It’ is a call for unity. It’s a milky folk-like ballad, an anaesthetic for 2017 (a pretty grey year all-round for women and politics). Whilst penned before the Women’s Marches, Lana taps into the defiant fervour and solidarity that populated our streets last January – “I could tell they [the marches] were going to happen” she says. It’s a far cry from the women that starred in the chorus of ‘This Is What Makes Us Girls’ of 2012, who viciously proclaimed: “we don’t stick together because we put love first”. Her ode to women is followed by ‘When the World Was At War We Kept Dancing’. It’s a lingering melody, with sinister light percussion, and a warning to stay alert during disorientating times – “Is it the end of America?” she asks. Copious amounts. More dazed and drugged each time.

Lust for Life ends on a chirpy note. The barebones piano track ‘Change’ doubles as an anthem of personal empowerment and, with a calm and danceable vibe, ‘Get Free’ is a modern manifesto, encouraging one to to stay positive and not turn into a gloomy piece of fruit. Something like that anyway. Whilst apprehensive about the future, Lana is resilient in taking a positive attitude towards it. It’s even kind of morale boosting, in a Lana kind of way.

But, despite all of this, the album still radiates the Del Rey trademarks we’ve come to expect. Often set in a pastel and chewy paradise, Lust for Life is a sensory overload for even the moderate stoic – sweet, rich and corrupting. Set in a background of heavy strings and tap drums, ‘Cherry’ is an invitation to picnic in the paradise of “cherries, wine, rosemary and thyme”. The album also begins with a song titled ‘Love’. Whilst the sunny strings make Lana sound as happy as we’ve probably ever heard her, she’s still just drooling over some guy. Adios, wider world-view.

All in all, the album tastes positively of Lana lemonade. There’s a subtle reinvention in terms of content – this is not just a constructed line of internal emotion, left purposely exposed to a naked flame, and smoked by Lana for the length of an album. Lust for Life goes beyond that, has a bit more edge, and brings in some optimism. But, at the same time, the tracks (particularly those at the beginning) still do feel as if they’ve been dunked in a pool of sepia ink, caked with sugar, and left to painfully dry on a suburban mantelpiece. Nevertheless, it’s October. And, if someone’s going to bring the summer drinks and disillusion wrapped in a honeycomb glaze to the party, it’s going to be Lana.

My naked truth

Jessica Brown
-
0
My naked truth

Who tells everyone she meets that she wants to life model in a desperate bid to sex up her meagre summer job prospects? Who clicks ‘interested’ on about seven life drawing classes a term and attends about one? Who sticks up their own shoddy life drawings on their wall?

Reader, it has been I. And probably will continue to be. The world and his wife seems to agree that life drawing is timelessly cool, and I intend to capitalise on this easy kudos until I am physically forced out of the studio for lack of talent.

Life drawing is one of those activities which has been appropriated by the smart set, from the art set, via, one assumes, shameless posers like myself. Yet in recent years, and this summer especially, the dignified purpose of life modelling has, it seems, been somewhat besmirched by such gimmicks as Bristol’s “absinthe-fuelled life drawing” and “mermaid life drawing” in Chelsea (Fishmonger’s offcuts? Cunning drapery? All suggestions welcome).

Ever since the heady car crashes of GCSE art (my final piece was a silhouette fashioned out of chopped up celery…) I’ve loved life drawing: the contained concentration on the model, the explosion of marks and shading on the paper, the still body, and the racing hands. Sure, I was no Da Vinci, indeed most of my drawings have been interpreted as the incorrect sex by encouraging observers, but gender norms are nothing these days, and I still drag myself to life drawing at Oxford more regularly than I do to my compulsory lectures. I’ve seen intricate sketches discarded as soon as the session ends. I’ve sat so close to the model I can practically smell them for want of room in the studio. I’ve battled a noteworthy lack of talent on my part to sporadically keep up this hobby while ballet, Brownies and piano lessons fell to the winds.

The next step, thought I, was to try modelling out for myself. Partly, I felt like I ought to give back what I was getting. Partly, I needed a zero hours job and naively assumed that life modelling more or less amounted to getting paid to be motionless (a specialty of mine) on my own terms, which was an attractive prospect. Beneath it all was my burning curiosity – what would it be like being looked at, but not really seen, by all those people? I’ve written before about how comfortable I feel being naked in front of friends – but the discerning eyes of amateur artists? I felt like I should test my limits.

Sadly, this is not an exposé on my experience of life modelling, because I never went through with it. The lightest spattering of research revealed to me that life models are in fact woefully undervalued, underpaid, and underrepresented in their profession. The Guardian categorised the profession under “wage slaves” in 2002, with Vic Stevens of the Register of Art Models confirming that “You’re not going to be asked to just lie on a mattress and fall asleep”. Woe is me: beyond this my skill set extends no further. Tales of health and safety nightmares, and lack of contracts, sick pay, and rules on touching models show a grim underbelly to what seems like a glamorous bohemia.

A further perusal of the ‘Register of Art Models’ quickly exposes dubious ads for models such as “looking for woman (aged 30+) for whom life modelling is an escape, a hobby and secret (or not so secret) pleasure that is separate from their daily responsibilities/job/life. This will initially be an interview which we will use to pitch for an advertising campaign documentary style short film for a chocolate brand.”

In many of the job proposals there was a demand for more than just the exposed body, but for an exposure of how the model felt about their body – even for a project as trivial as a chocolate advert. Unlike an actor, an athlete, a sex worker, or any other profession that requires the body to be shown in conjunction with character, art modelling is vague, as lacking in guidelines, and definitions as art itself. And while I do, of course, recognise the necessity for such ambiguities (though not the deficient legal, financial and health-related protection) I found myself unable to surrender myself to art: it might not require just my body, it seemed, but also my brain. I’d wanted life modelling to be, as that weird ad put it “a secret… separate from daily life”. And it clearly wouldn’t be.

This, and the gross yuppie art trends emerging left right and centre, dimmed the pre-Raphaelite glow of life drawing for me. I’ll continue my pursuit of poorly charcoal-ed sketches, but I’m yet to conquer my qualms of modelling. I’ll no doubt shout about it if I do, but I think it takes more than a few exhibitionist pretensions.

Oxford Reacts: The Vice-Chancellor’s Comments

Cherwell Comment
-
1
Oxford Reacts: The Vice-Chancellor’s Comments

Katt Walton, President of the Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society

As the President of the LGBTQ+ Society, I was shocked and dismayed by Vice-Chancellor Richardson’s comments. I have experienced varying levels of homophobia as a student here from peers and staff which have, without doubt, affected my academic and personal life, sometimes to the point of not feeling safe within my own college, stopping me from using the library or going to dinner. Richardson’s comments expose a nefarious lack of concern for Oxford’s LGBTQ+ community which goes far further than students feeling “uncomfortable”.

As the President of the Society, I have a duty to LGBTQ+ students to safeguard welfare and make sure Oxford is as welcoming and inclusive as possible and as a queer student myself I have a right to feel safe in my home and place of education.

This is a reminder that homophobia has no place in this University because it endangers LGBTQ+ students and disadvantages them (under the Equality Act 2010). I am disgusted with Richardson’s attempt at rectification and I implore the University to realise the effect that homophobic opinions can have and not stand behind the words of Vice-Chancellor Richardson

Flora Pery-Knox-Gore, Bi/pan rep of the OUSU LGBTQ+ Campaign committee

I’m fairly sure Louise Richardson didn’t mean to endorse homophobia, or to dismiss the concerns of the LGBTQ+ community so flippantly, but I don’t think that matters anyway. The effect of her words on the LGBTQ+ community was immediate. I felt compelled to reassure freshers that their tutors were likely to be very tolerant – though the Vice-Chancellor stated she’d had many conversations with upset students – and that if any issues did arise, there are mechanisms in place to protect the rights and safety of students. Her comments show that she’s severely out of touch with the values of the student body. Every college recognises tutors ought to be held accountable for their treatment of minority students. This isn’t an issue of free speech – tutors can hold whatever opinions they want, but some sentiments just aren’t appropriate for a tutorial setting and students shouldn’t be forced to defend their right to exist on a daily basis.

To imply that LGBTQ+ students might profit intellectually from debating homophobes is ridiculous. When I get harassed on the street for holding hands with a girl, my first reaction isn’t gratitude for the learning experience. Just because hatred comes from a tutor doesn’t mean it’s any more rational. That Professor Richardson sees homophobia as something that can be debated shows a dangerous misunderstanding of the nature of hatred. It’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that the only reason people hate, based on sexuality, is that no one’s debated them properly. This issue is really troubling for me and my community, and we await her response eagerly.

Claire Heseltine, Oxford University Rainbow Peer

The idea that homophobia is merely a question of being ‘uncomfortable’ is what confuses me most about the VC’s comments. It’s almost as if she was looking the other way during last year’s vigil for Orlando that took place on the RadCam’s steps, or that she forgot to read the Equality Policy of her own university. Her suggestion that LGBTQ+ students should engage in debate with homophobic academics is naïve and ignorant at best, harmful at worst. She does not seem to realise that what she is asking these students to debate is whether the people who hate them have a point, whether their existence is ‘moral’, and whether they are worth protecting from homophobic violence and hate speech. I would encourage the VC to step out of her own comfort zone and listen to the experiences of LGBTQ+ students (both home and international students) at her University. As she clearly values education so highly, she should be happy to try and learn something.

Eimer McAuley, Second year English student, St. Peter’s

Professor Louise Richardson became something of a role model for me when I read the headline of her Guardian interview: Tackling Elitism can be done, I mean, I went to a rural school in Ireland. Not only was she the first woman to hold the post of Vice Chancellor, she’s achieved it all coming from a rural, nationalist Irish background – not dissimilar to mine. Perhaps that’s why I found her recent remarks particularly disheartening, and the message she’s sent to not only Oxford’s queer students, but by extension all students who face discrimination at the hands of tutors. The message is quite clearly, it’s up to you to tackle homophobic, or any other discriminatory attitudes and not the institution.

This approach to the responsibility of an institution for the attitudes and actions of its representatives is far too reminiscent of what Ireland has seen so many times in the Northern Ireland parliament, it’s an approach which takes no responsibility for the damage those actions can do. The reluctance of leaders to condemn or take responsibility for the homophobic rhetoric of representatives in turn legitimises homophobia on a wider scale in society. From this perspective, the Vice Chancellor’s remarks are reminiscent of so many made by Arlene Foster. Their inability to condemn makes bigots feel comfortable, and the people they represent and have a duty towards, not only uncomfortable but alienated and put at risk.

Roan MacKinnon Runge, Former LGBTQ+ rep, Exeter College

What the Vice Chancellor fails to understand is that homophobia is more than just offending a student. Homophobia does not foster academic debate between an LGBTQ+ student and a homophobic professor. Rather, it shuts down the student’s feeling of being able to speak and their space for learning. No environment for learning is encouraged when one member of the debate is in a position of power and is asking the other—who is younger and less experienced in the adult and academic world—to justify their existence. The outcome is that the LGBTQ+ student feels frightened and invalidated. As the Oxford SU has so well outlined, this has awful impacts on the mental health of LGBTQ+ students.

As a former LGBTQ+ rep for Exeter College, as a person with intent to care for this community, these remarks are frightening. They set a precedent of dismissal of LGBTQ+ feelings and fears as trivial, of our identities as up for debate, of our safety as unimportant. I fear for the effect this will have on current and incoming students and their feeling of belonging here at Oxford.

Dr Eden E L Tanner, Postdoctoral Researcher in Physical and Theoretical Chemistry

I was dismayed to read VC Richardson’s comments at the Times Higher Education Summit. Whilst I understand that she was trying to make a comment on the nature of free speech in higher education, the example she chose to use was completely unacceptable. As an LGBTQ+ researcher at the University, I deserve to work for a University that abides by its Equality Act duties in keeping me safe at work. As a supervisor and a teacher, it’s essential that my students feel like their complaints about harassment will be taken seriously, and Richardson’s comments completely undermine that aim. The ‘apology‘ we were issued failed to take responsibility, and woefully misunderstood the nature of the harm caused.

Teddy Jennings, Second-year Classicist at St Hilda’s

Besides the obvious direct harm Louise Richardson’s comments cause for the LGBTQ+ community, what often is even more distressing is this trope of ‘challenging homophobia through intellectual debate is the best way to beat it.’ When I came out I remember people telling me that my sexuality made them physically uncomfortable, and I always asked them ‘why?’ and they always responded that they didn’t know. Homophobia isn’t a position or stance decided upon from critical thinking and intellectual rigour – it’s a knee-jerk response. Debating homophobia will give you about as much success as debating your gag reflex.

The tutorial system is meant to challenge you, yes, but in the sense of my tutor asking me about Plato’s theory of forms not in the sense of them invalidating my rights as a human being. That Louise Richardson would advocate putting LGBTQ+ students at this university in that position is so incredibly irresponsible, and her reduction of systemic oppression to a matter of feeling ‘uncomfortable’ also neatly lets her pretend that this has nothing to with structural problems within Oxford and the university elite, and everything to do with ‘easily offended’ university students.

Jenyth Evans, Access Rep, Jesus College

There is a whole generation of Oxford students who are excited to have just received their places. Many of them will be following Oxford prolifically on media and news, just as I did before I came to university. And, just like I did, many will face questions about their future at this university from friends and family at home. Personally, I have never felt unable to report anything, and the support from my college has always been fantastic, but the Vice Chancellor’s callous comments feed into harmful stereotypes about Oxford. Many potential applicants have concerns and worries, and I speak to lots from all sorts of backgrounds at Open Days and student tours. They ask if tutors in interviews will try and corner them, and they worry about fitting in when here. One to whom I recently spoke was an LGBTQIA+ potential applicant, who was so excited to hear of the campaigns, events and support for the community at our university. I can’t help but think of them now, and how it must feel to have a senior member of the University say she doesn’t care if a tutor discriminates against them. Her comments are destructive to much of the hard work put in by JCRs, Access Fellows and the outreach network at Oxford.

1...852853854...2,524Page 853 of 2,524

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by Jamie Ashley