Saturday 28th June 2025
Blog Page 865

Communication and confrontation in Brooklyn’s art community

December in New York City was a strange time. Statistically speaking, eight in ten of the people you passed had voted for Clinton in November, and so the slightly haunted, tired look on their faces made perfect sense. The extent to which people felt shaken became even clearer when you spoke to them. I was there for a breakneck three days, going on studio visits with my mother to choose the pieces that will be shown in an exhibition at the Shirley Fiterman Art Center in Manhattan this summer.

Several of the artists are people I’ve known nearly since birth and haven’t seen in a decade, and even so, the first thing on our minds was not attempting to catch up on ten years of gossip but the sense of cataclysm that we all felt.

There’s an argument, and it’s a convincing one, that all art is political and, in the interim period between the election and the inauguration it felt truer than ever. There was an atmosphere of displacement and shifting ground. Between daily revelations about suspicious calls to Russia and plans to defund sanctuary cities (of which New York is one), no one seemed to know where they stood.

For the Brooklyn artists’ community with which I was in contact, this feeling was literalised. At least three of them had just signed a three-year lease with no real idea of where they would go when it was up. Rent prices in Brooklyn are skyrocketing; just two weeks after I was there, it was reported that they had risen over 15 per cent in the last year alone.

To make matters even worse, everyone was certain that come the next budget, the funding for the arts programs they depended on would be slashed. These practical problems aside, the existential angst that seems to suffuse American society bled through to their work. One artist that we approached left our email in her inbox for a while, before eventually replying that she didn’t feel able to make anything new and yet none of her pre-2016 pieces felt right anymore.

Much of art’s connection to politics comes from what people bring to it. Perhaps it’s the best example of the observer effect: what may have seemed neutral becomes political, or the lens with which we see something changes after we come back to a work of art years later.

One of the pieces in this exhibition—Oliver Jones’ ‘The Deceitful Season’ (2014)—involves a collection of battered driftwood upon which an excerpt of a misspelled, garbled poem about the weather is printed, which once might have seemed a more straightforward statement about decay or the environment.

Today, though, it feels like a warning, about our own hubris and the dangers of those who lead us: ‘Those, who go out ont the hill with the stalker, kno who w very little their famed prescience is worth’. These changing meanings also affect those trying to exert control, who often find them threatening, although thankfully the situation in the United States has not (yet) come to active repression of artistic expression. It is at times like these, full of crisis and turmoil, that art seems to be at its most confrontational.

One of my strongest memories is of sitting in the back room of my mother’s gallery in 2002, months after the 11 September attacks. In the following years, that space wasn’t so full of the constant political back and forth that was inescapable during the run-up to the war in Iraq and all the following catastrophes, but still allowed a channeling of fear and emotion, a creation of catharsis.

The art on the walls wasn’t always explicit with its politics, but anyone viewing Duston Spear’s ‘War Night’ in 2003 in all its vast horror and beauty couldn’t fail to think of the constant chaos in the news.

Maybe ironically, the show we’re curating now is being exhibited in the shadow of the new World Trade Center building. As a result, there are certain restrictions. The building can’t accept mail—for security reasons—and everyone involved is hypersensitive to the potential implications of any political statements in the show.

Yet politics are at the forefront of everyone’s minds these days. The exhibition itself is called Text/ure. It is a collection of art relating to texture, language, and narrative, some conceptual and some verging on representational. A theme common to many of the works involved is how texture, literacy, and the legible work as a part of communication—from the swooping arches reminiscent of the practice-marks as a child learns to write in David Henderson’s ‘History of Aviation’ (2010-17), to the illegible written confessions dipped in beeswax and formed into a honeycomb of Brenna Beirne’s ‘Confessional Cells’ (2014-17) which recognize our own complicity in the hurt of the world.

When the concept of the exhibition was proposed many months ago I had not thought of it in this way, but now the question of how to understand one another when communication is hard seems central, in a time of distrust and hostility.

To me, art like this is exceptionally effective at wrenching us outside our comfort zones, or even the ‘bubbles’ that have seen such a great deal of attention lately. Beirne’s work in particular requires a degree of active participation—as visitors are asked to write down their own confessions as they leave. It doesn’t necessarily work if all you do is glance at it. Instead, it forces the viewer to think, to interrogate, to discuss.

Text/ure opens Tuesday 30th May, at the Shirley Fiterman Art Centre, 81 Barclay Street, New York

Pastel pink speculums, embroidered condoms, and art for reproductive freedom

It is a sad state of affairs that women are having to tackle the same issues in their art today as they were 30 odd years ago in the United States. In 1989, Barbara Kruger produced her potent poster in support of women’s reproductive freedoms—‘Untitled (Your Body is a Battleground)’—for the Women’s March on Washington DC that April. The rally took place amidst wider national demonstrations protesting new anti-abortion legislation that undermined the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling (legalising abortion at a federal level in the US, up to the third trimester). Though tied to this specific moment, the image’s scarlet slogan still rings through resonantly today.

Three decades on, legislation has regressed again and artists like Zoe Buckman, Katrina Majkut, and Niki Johnson are still challenging male-led legislation on women’s reproductive health more overtly than ever in their respective works. With Trump’s executive order to reinstate the Mexico City Policy that terminated federal funding to international groups providing abortions and his explicit pro-life comments in mind, the conversations these works initiate are now more important than ever.

The artists explicitly grapple with choice and ownership of our bodies from the driving seat, and their works put up a visual fight, forming part of the wave of activism now all the more alive in the States, that is presenting a formidable front to the President. Reactionary art of a similar nature has taken the country by storm since the election, typifying the force art possesses when it collides with activism.

Zoe Buckman has recently occupied one of these shows in Project for Empty Space’s new area for political protest art—‘Grab Back: Feminist Incubator Space’—established as a direct result of the ‘travesty of the election’. Her solo-exhibition entitled Imprison Her Soft Hand displays numerous works from her collection ‘Mostly It’s Just Uncomfortable’, which engages unabashedly with reproductive rights and resilience.

Inspired by the changes to Planned Parenthood, the pastel-coloured, powder-coated gynaecological instruments that form part of the series spark discussion about women’s ownership of their bodies, as the artist has reclaimed ownership over these sterile objects by repurposing them in a more friendly and feminine manner. Concurrently, the baby pink speculums and pale blue forceps detract from the cold harsh metal of the objects and equally harsh attitudes surrounding abortion practises. Utilising these objects as (slightly) more welcoming sculptures, Buckman hopes to change negative perceptions of the often life-saving procedures they perform.

Gynaecological instruments are unsurprisingly a common theme in art fighting anti-abortion legislation today, and are similarly depicted in Katrina Majkut’s work. In her series ‘In Control’, the artist artfully cross-stitches images of contraceptives, STI medications, and surgical tools. Much like Buckman, Majkut’s work initiates conversation about ownership and takes back control over women’s reproductive health. Needlework is a traditionally feminine art—her choice of medium stridently highlights the importance of choice, and that men have no place in legislating on women’s reproductive health.

Also part of Buckman’s collection is an antique examination chair—‘The Oxford Chair’—reupholstered in vintage lingerie. Accompanied by a sound piece fusing together clips from the artist at the boxing gym and giving birth to her daughter, it binds femininity with resilience, serving as a powerful symbol of female strength. Similarly, bubble-gum pink boxing gloves, mint green bindings and red metallic mouth-guards cast in resin are intermixed and juxtaposed with the surgical objects. They combine the typically masculine and feminine, and serve as a reminder that far from being passive, women are in control of their bodies, and will come out fighting for their rights.

Resistance is another prevailing theme in much of the activist art attacking anti-abortion legislation. In a commanding nude, Niki Johnson encapsulates the idea that even when torn down, women will rise-up again. ‘Hills and Valleys’, the feminine form in shades of emerald and white, is constructed from Planned Parenthood signs that were collected from the organization’s closed offices in Wisconsin. As it was a hefty task, the artist sent out a request on Facebook for volunteers to help in the work’s production. Created as a group effort, the nude exalts the value we place on women’s reproductive rights collectively and is a symbol of empowerment in the wake of State cuts.

Women’s bodies are still very much a battleground for reproductive rights, but when activism and art collide so forcefully like this, one can be hopeful that this will not always be so. Whether it be Buckman’s pink speculums or Majkut’s embroidered condoms, these works all confront us with the fact that our reproductive health is our choice alone. Putting up a fight, they show no legislation will stop women from claiming back what is theirs. As PES’ new gallery’s name so brilliantly tells, “Grab them by the pussy” Mr Trump, and they’ll grab back.

 

Fighting for the right to life at Oxford

0

On a wintry evening last January, I was in a college room with thirty other people to hear an MP speak and answer questions: not an unusual situation for an Oxford undergraduate. Halfway through the talk, the porters of the college came in with an unusual request: that we close the curtains of the room. There had, they explained apologetically, been complaints from students about what could be seen from outside.

What were we doing in that room that was so shadowy that a mere glimpse of it through a window was unacceptable? We were attending an Oxford Students for Life (OSFL) event, listening to Fiona Bruce speak about against abortion on the grounds of gender and disability. This was what had to be hidden.

Ms Bruce had no PowerPoint presentation, so no one would have been able to tell from the window what she was talking about. All they would have seen was our society’s stand, which says “Promoting a culture of life at the university” in a vaguely Tolkien-esque font. The problem wasn’t any particular thing being said—the problem was the fact that we exist.

But exist we do. We’re a small society: Georgia Clarke and I are co-presidents, and there are currently three other committee members, two women and one man. We run about four events a term—among our speakers this year were the New Wave Feminists, Kelsey Hazzard (of the US-based Secular Pro-Life) and historian Daniel K. Williams (author of a book on the progressive roots of the pro-life movement). We’ve had a debate on assisted suicide between philosophers David Oderberg and Jeff McMahan, and ran a ‘Stump the Pro-Lifer’ event where we invited people to ask us any question they wanted.

If this sounds a bit different to what you were expecting (“feminists? secular?”), I don’t blame you. There’s a carefully-cultivated stereotype of pro-lifers as hidebound reactionaries who pin up posters of Mike Pence on their walls and drift off to sleep fantasising about Gilead, the fundamentalist, misogynistic dystopia from The Handmaid’s Tale.

In reality, OSFL attracts people of all ideological stripes. I’m a socialist and used to be a member of the Irish Green Party. Ruth Akinradewo, who writes for our blog and has spoken against pro-choice motions at OUSU meetings, was involved with the Rhodes Must Fall campaign. We’ve got Tories and Labour supporters coming to our events, Remainers and Brexiteers, and possibly even the odd libertarian.

What unites pro-lifers is the straightforward idea that every human being is of equal worth, and that this fundamental equality is grounded in their humanness, in their simple membership of the species. We think that attempting to base equality on anything else is inevitably exclusionary—it can’t be race, sex, or sexual orientation that gives us our dignity, but nor can it be cognitive ability (cognitively disabled people are equal), or the capacity for consciousness (coma patients are equal), or physical size. From a scientific, factual and intuitive perspective, it is clear that the fetus is an individual human life, deserving of this basic dignity. Moral progress over the last few centuries has always involved extending the sphere of fundamental dignity outwards, to include more humans. We want to continue this project until it includes all humans.

As with all human rights revolutions, this will require a transformation of society—not towards Gilead but away from it. According to a 2005 study from the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute on abortion in the US, the top reasons given for having an abortion were that a child would interfere with education, work or ability to care for dependents (74 per cent), being unable to afford a baby now (73 per cent), and relationship problems or not wanting to be a single mother (48 per cent).

The reality of abortion is rarely an empowering choice: it’s more likely to be a boyfriend walking away, a labour market that discriminates against pregnant women and mothers with children, and a culture that tells women facing a crisis pregnancy that they have to choose between their child and their future.

In an equal society, women wouldn’t face these trade-offs. It should be the job of pro-lifers to work to make that society a reality, and in the meantime to try to provide as much concrete support as possible for young parents, and for women facing crisis pregnancies. In OSFL we try to help in a small way by passing motions in JCRs and MCRs to make sure that colleges have adequate facilities in place to support student parents.

Confronting products of the subconscious

0

I hate listening to people’s dreams. It’s like flipping through a stock of photographs. If I’m not in any of them, and nobody’s having sex, I just…don’t care”. These are lines from the opening episode of the cynically comic It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. If this rings true for you then stop reading now, or continue reading in the knowledge that this article contains dreams that do not involve you and, at their most sensational, contain only kissing and inconsequential nudity.

Common dream folklore claims that 90 per cent of your dream is forgotten within ten minutes of waking up. However, by dwelling on the few scenes I have in my mind on waking, I have been able to remember them long enough to bore people at breakfast with my night time trials and tribulations.

The best way to remember dreams is to think about them as soon as you wake up. To remember them for a prolonged period of time, keep a pad of paper or notebook by your bed and write them down. For the last couple of weeks, I have kept a dream diary. I started recording them out of curiosity of what my subconscious was dwelling on, since during the day I find myself too caught up in events to consider the subtle impact they have on me.

The dream book is covered by marbled blue tones with white and gold, which form large peacock-like feathers. The edges of the pages have a gold trim and a gold elasticated trap holds it shut. Albeit with different backstories, common themes have played out in many of my dreams. Some believe that dreams are manifestations of subconscious thoughts, most often negative ones such as anxiety. It is not until recently that I accepted this.

For the last two terms, I had been under the impression that my dreams were an outside force that purposefully sought to upset me and cause me pain, during the one time of the day I could escape from my own thoughts. However, it has become clearer to me that, rather than dreams being forced upon me by external demons, they are productions of my subconscious. The upset they caused stemmed from not accepting certain aspects of my life and not facing up to my emotions. It is with this new, potentially more productive, mindset that I began analysing my dreams this term.

“On a snowy mountain—skiing. With Caitlin and Tim. All the ski lifts are for two people only. They scramble to get on together. I am left alone as the ski lift swings in the wind. Abandoned.”

Artwork: Mila Fitzgerald

It was clear to me what this dream was about, as soon as I woke up. The feeling of abandonment and betrayal had been lingering in my conscious mind for a few weeks before this dream. Caitlin and Tim are both close friends of mine with whom I had a tense relationship at this point. This sentiment was repeated in another dream a couple of weeks later. I was sat in a cool, unfamiliar utility room. Caitlin told me that her and my boyfriend’s ex, had eaten my two large Cadbury’s chocolate bars together. One was mint flavoured and the other was Oreo flavoured.

Again, this stirred a deep sense of betrayal. It was not the disappearance of a possible chocolate treat that hurt me but the fact that she did so with someone who, unfoundedly, represents a threat to my happiness. I remember the feeling of anxiety rising up and nauseating me. She seemed completely unaware of how she had made me feel and her innocent smile made that feeling all the worse.

After this dream, I could not deny to myself the way that Caitlin had made me feel in waking life. The dream pain pointed me towards a real pain in my life—a pain that was hurting my everyday existence.

My new relationship has undeniably been on my mind. Of the 23 dreams I recorded, seven were about James, my new boyfriend. Two involved people tempting me away from him, but thankfully never succeeding, and two suggested underlying fears that he will hurt me emotionally, or leave. One of the most upsetting of these was a dream that involved me finding my ex-boyfriend sat by a white fence in a wide field of grass. He had asked to meet up and got unsettlingly angry at my hesitation. I was painfully torn.

I had so many questions to ask him but did not trust myself to have the strength of character to spend time with him and not fall back into the unhealthy state of mind that surrounded him and our relationship.

Then there was the question of James. I did not know if it would be betraying him to even talk to my ex. All these emotions were overwhelming in the two seconds of real-time that dragged on for some minutes in my dream. Perhaps it was his anger at my tentative silence that spurred me to push him away. My subconscious had come to a decision and realisation that I am proud of. The dream showed that I really had chosen to move on. However, this did not diminish the numbing sadness on waking. No matter the outcome, an interaction like that, and the real-life events it took its inspiration from, are not nice to dwell on.

Another of these more taxing dreams happened only a few nights ago. I was lying in bed with James and he was propped up on his elbow looking down at me. His frown fills me with the familiar rising feeling of anxiety. It is almost as if my emotions have read the script before any words are spoken. The overriding fear is that he is going to break up with me. He starts to talk. The room is dimly lit and I can only see one half of his face clearly. “I think we should spend less time together” he says in a measured and cold voice.

Tears start to silently fall from the corners of my eyes. I cannot think of anything to say. Instead I lie perfectly still looking up at his vacant face until mercifully I wake up. It turns out the crying had forced its way into reality and I found myself, next to James, warm and comfortable but with tears collected in the corners of my eyes. The sun was making the edges of the blinds glow and the room was light enough for me to see James open his eyes and smile at me. Of course, it was only a dream.

These dreams did make me acknowledge the underlying anxieties that I half-knew I was trying to suppress. They are anxieties and insecurities carried over from a past relationship, and I never addressed them in that previous environment. I was surprised they surfaced so quickly, since everything in reality is fine. I thought it would take a little longer, or at least some kind of disagreement, to trigger the irrational anxiety which stems from insecurities cultivated in past experiences.

Artwork: Mila Fitzgerald

However, I made the decision to address them. I took the step of condemning those worries as the irrational thoughts that they are. I took time to work out where they came from and have explained all of this to James. The other dreams about James were more pleasant though.

“At Iffley Sports Centre. I am about to cycle back to see James. Text him to let him know I am leaving now. See an ice cream stand giving away free ice cream. Get two tubs, with scoops of mint-choc-chip in James’ tub, and put them in the basket of my bike to cycle home.”

I have since discovered that he does not like mint-choc-chip flavoured ice cream but it was a lovely sentiment all the same. What was interesting in this dream is that I could read the text in the message I sent him. This is unusual because often in dreams you cannot read written text, although this is not always the case.

An amusing aspect of thinking back through dreams is all the inconsistencies and impossibilities that you imagine. For example, in one dream, I walked along the train tracks from Gloucester Green tube station to Durham—it only took a couple of minutes. In another, I was in a play set in Saigon with vivid red costumes and a set, which was decorated with gold detail. As I ran through the dry ice haze backstage a security guard stopped me. My internal monologue in the dream thought: “there are so many restrictions at this modelling shoot and catwalk show”.

This made no sense since it was clearly a play. A major plot flaw. Perhaps this was just my brain filling in the gaps randomly. This must have been the case in one dream where I was sat in a car with someone who was moving a tube of smoking liquid towards me. My instinct in the dream told me that they were trying to make me pass out so this substance must have had chloroform properties. My brain inexplicably labelled this substance to be zinc oxide despite it being a powder and the dream clearly depicting a smoking clear liquid.

“Clinging onto a wooden ceiling beam high above a large hall. Ravens swarm around me. But I am not me. I am a young boy. Terrified.”

This dream threw up many questions. In fact, it was the dream that led me down the journey of recording my dreams. It was the only time in all my recorded dreams that I was not myself. The young boy, whose thoughts were my own in the dream, was breathless with terror. The wooden ceiling beam was made from dark wood and square in shape, making it incredibly hard to hold onto. The drop from the vaulted ceiling would have been crippling, potentially deadly, and his legs kicked in the vast openness.

Artwork: Mila Fitzgerald

On waking, the fear was cleared but I was unsure about the significance of the raven. So, I looked up what they meant. There was a mixed answer online. Some said that ravens appear to remind you that you have a choice or that fear is holding you back from reaching your full potential.

Others said that they symbolised misfortunes and failures. Potentially most aptly, some claimed that the raven reminds you of an underlying, yet omnipresent, unhappiness. It therefore seems appropriate that these birds appeared in the dream that spurred me on this reflective journey. The analysis of fears and uncertainties hopefully aid the process of discarding old, negative habits as the raven foreshadows. I am not sure about the pseudo-science surrounding such symbolism, but it is an interesting angle to consider.

However, I am sure of the personal benefit of reflecting on the more immediately obvious emotions within the dream and who they are associated with. In all honesty, what I found was no real surprise to me. They were my own deep seated emotions in a film-like form after all. Despite this, it has been healthy to accept that these recurring emotions clearly show that certain events have had an impact on me.

By reflecting and embracing what I discover, I believe that I can use this awareness to guide my waking hours. That’s what this article boils down to. I encourage you to do as I have done and record your dreams, read back over them after a couple of weeks and see for yourself what your subconscious is trying to tell you.

Has a recent argument unsettled you more than you thought? Is exam pressure making you more anxious than you have time to realise during the day? Are certain people in your life constantly being linked to negative or positive emotions?

Ask yourself questions of this manner and decide for yourself whether to act on the answers. This discussion of subconscious wellbeing is something that is becoming more widely accepted. I personally believe that by accepting, addressing and acting upon emotions reflected repeatedly in my dream, I have been able to put certain events into perspective and overall have found it to be a positive experience.

As Prospero says, in The Tempest, “we are such stuff that dreams are made on”. The recording of my dreams has led me to the realisation that this is all too true.

Artwork: Mila Fitzgerald

All names have been changed.

SnapShot: Crewdate

0

If there’s one thing that Cherwell staff take more seriously than headlines and hacking, it’s crewdating. And, not content with the arduous trek to deep dark Cowley for our usual venue, this week we took a three and a half hour Megabus to Cambridge to crewdate (sorry, I mean ‘swap with’) our Tab counterparts, Varsity.

On arrival, we were shown to our respective hosts’ rooms and I immediately admonished 17-year-old Emma for her blatant mistake on her UCAS form. My host was nice, sure, but her room was incredible and outdid, in every capacity, the majority of hotels I have ever stayed in (Edinburgh Travelodge, eat your heart out.)

Apart from a few arguments over the rules of pennying (reader, if you do learn anything today, make it Cambridge’s ‘an empty glass is a full glass’ rule) the night was classic crewdate territory—think sconces over allegations of libel, and a certain editor declaring he has one shoe for red wine, and one for white.

We then headed to the biggest Wetherspoons in Europe which taught me only that even if you have two stories, a dancefloor, and a smoking area, a Spoons is still a Spoons and there will inevitably be people drinking from pitchers with a straw, someone drunkenly spilling the details of their personal life to anyone who will listen, and one girl crying down the phone outside. All of them were me.

The night progressed to a slightly swankier bar, although that wasn’t exactly difficult, where I apparently was under the illusion that Cambridge spending is not real spending. I haven’t checked my bank balance yet so I might be right but I have a strong suspicion that I will be living off pesto pasta for the rest of the month.

As the night drew to a close, people started to divide off and go back to their hosts, and one former editor took the current Varsity editor under her wing, presumably to pass on her sage editorial advice and InDesign tips. How nice.

So, if you prefer drinking from shoes with the tabs instead of actually shoeing them, then you’re in for a treat. Just make sure your editor has sick bags and a change of clothes for the Megabus home.

Politicising terror in an attack on Muslims is morally bankrupt

In the wake of each terrorist attack, the discussion re-emerges around how these incidents should be handled by the political classes, that is, whether it is sensible or inappropriate for the issues surrounding them to be debated by politicians. The recent attack in Manchester crystallised this problem due to its nature as a targeted attacked against young children and teenagers, and its timing in the middle of campaigning for Theresa May’s snap election.

In these circumstances, it is easy to critique the approach of politicians to this event, and to get the impression that they are using deaths as bargaining chips in a game to win points against other parties. The current state of politics and publicity makes the need for a statement and policy position inevitable, and to refuse comment would be inappropriate. It seems to me that by requiring politicians to make a comment, we reveal that a terrorist attack is by nature a political event, and one that the government and opposition are expected to respond to. By carrying out the attack, the terrorist makes a political statement and in a deeply public way. It is a cliché to describe these incidents as an assault on British people but in many ways it is true—we give up personal freedom to the government in return for order and protection, an agreement which terrorism threatens to undermine, resulting in a need for politicians to reassert themselves in response to these acts.

This is not to say that to discuss terror attacks as political events is always necessary and is always done well. Particularly with the upcoming election, negotiating this discussion is a minefield and any party leader can point at another and yell that their response was inappropriate. Beyond this, political discussion of terrorism in the current climate is dominated by a tendency to fall into the rut of having the same points made over and over again—whether or not immigration causes terrorism, whether Islam is an intrinsically violent or intrinsically peaceful religion, et cetera.

These debates have become almost redundant. In the Manchester attack the attacker was a British citizen. ISIS have just claimed responsibility for an attack made on the first day of Ramadan, proving their distance from Islamic teachings.  Yet these are still the areas of discussion recycled by politicians.

Immigration was essentially created as a problem to solve in politics, something that the public could be told was a problem in right-wing media and that the governing body could take concrete steps to ‘fix’. This discourse becomes increasingly unhelpful when they speak over the nuances of a particular attack, as with the Pulse shooting in Orlando when news outlets described it as “an attack on the West”, replicating the dichotomy of regressive Middle East against progressive West rather than acknowledging the shooter’s record of homophobia.

This leaves out other necessary elements of discussion, topics which might be more helpful in reducing radicalisation and terror attacks in the first place. These include the alienation of Muslim communities from ‘British identity’ and how racism and institutional bias leads to resentment and vulnerability in these communities, as well as youth unemployment. Youth unemployment in particular demonstrates the issue of a race gap in the data—in 2012 there was a 13 per cent discrepancy in the rates of unemployment between those from white backgrounds and those from BME backgrounds. Far more could be done to remove the environmental difficulties that cause pockets of radicalisation, rather than putting in legislation such as preventing and capping immigration.

Attacking Muslim or immigrant communities and treating them like they are the threat is only likely to create greater alienation. This has become an even greater problem with the high-profile terrorist attacks of recent years. In the media, terrorism has become a buzzword with specific connotations, most notably with how it is almost entirely applied to acts committed by radicalised Muslims.

Just last week, a young white man planted a nail bomb on the London tube and was arrested, but he was not described as a terrorist by the papers, rather as a “student”, by the Independent, Guardian, and Sky. We are familiar by now with the narrative of the weird, lonely, mentally unstable white man committing violent attacks, yet these are never categorised as terrorism on the same scale as those claiming justification from Islam. It is amazing how, in a few decades, there has been such a shift from the idea that all Irishmen were terrorists to that all Muslim men are, with the groups being similarly mistreated.

Thus, the discussion of terror attacks in mainstream politics is lacking, and will continue to fail until it addresses terrorism as an issue beyond the immigration debate. Such incidents are innately political, and the reduction of the threat is an important point in policy, and so they must be discussed by politicians. Nonetheless, to do this at the expense of immigrant communities is more likely to propagate the problem, and to frame the discussion in such a way as to to win points in a general election is morally corrupt.

OxFilm: “An hour—and a £3—very well spent”

A follow-up to the Summer Showcase, the Oxford University Filmmaking Foundation’s Easter Projects consisted of the screening of four films—most of which had been shot over the Easter Vacation with funding from OUFF.

Once again, event organiser Oscar McNab had to battle against the inherent reluctance of filmmakers to meet such arbitrary things as deadlines, as well as some serious technical issues in order to put the showcase together.

One wouldn’t have realised this from the event itself, however, which ran, on the whole, rather smoothly. Despite some problems with sound engineering—which did have a minor impact on the more dialogue-oriented productions—the overall quality of the screening remained very high.

The first film, entitled Windows, was a quiet meditation on death and the abruptness of loss. It is easy to overlook, due to our habituation to cinematic and narrative conventions, the fact that a character death is usually part of an arc—occurring at a particularly timely (or conveniently untimely) moment in a story. Here, the conspicuously absent character leaves behind only rather banal reminders: a text conversation and a potted plant. (The plant plot device reminded me very much of a similar symbol used to great effect in Léon: The Professional). The focus of the film is the character’s efforts to reach some kind of internal resolution.

The second short film shown, Object Permanence, was my favourite of the evening. Its camerawork, lighting, and shots were all relatively simple, but very effective nonetheless. It follows three friends as they drift apart, driven by the emotional fallout after they discover one of the trio’s eating disorder. The film offers a series of visual metaphors for the characters’ emotional landscapes, including the eponymous concept of ‘object permanence’. The acting was impressive, especially during the scenes in which one of the protagonists is seen staring into a bathroom mirror in bleak colour, fighting a lonely battle with the difficult emotions which have arisen in the wake of this troubling revelation.

Intelligence Quotient, the third offering, was meanwhile particularly adept in its manipulation of visual language, making excellent use of symbolism, particularly in its considered use of a cinematic colour palette in various sequences. Written by Elena Malashenko, its premise was an interesting take on a dystopian film, depicting a future in which the wealthy rent the intelligence of the impoverished. It is a shame then that the poor sound quality of the showcase was felt most keenly during the showing of this film: with exposition being necessary to establish the premise, it was very easy to miss important information at the beginning of the film.

The final film was a sci-fi thriller called Yellow Grass. Written by Sam Zwolinski and directed by India Opzoomer, Yellow Grass was a short film grappling with time travel and shot in desolate settings, reminiscent of classic examples of post-apocalyptic cinema. The actors perfectly conveyed the characters and their deep distrust and discontent while the impressive sets and general bleakness of the mise-en-scène contributed to the piece’s grim, gloomy atmosphere. A disorienting chase scene and chilling twist book-ended the tautly made film. It was a worthy ending to the showcase, making it an hour—and a £3—very well spent.

 

Profile: Laurie Penny

0

The day I meet Laurie Penny is the day after the atrocious terrorist attack in Manchester. It’s a strange day to be travelling into London, and I’m oddly apprehensive. Nervous, as much about the interview as I am about the mood of the country. I needn’t have worried on the first count. As I’m heading into London I get a message from Penny to confirm where we’re meeting and checking that I am ok, after the “awful news today”. For someone who is, in her own words, “difficult” and “obstreperous”, she seems remarkably kind and caring via email. This is a trait that becomes even more evident in person.

The eldest of three sisters, Laurie Penny is a political feminist writer, thinker, and activist, who is known for her perceived fierceness on feminist and leftist issues (although, as she points out “in person I’m quite shy, and I think, quite fluffy”). She is an alumna of Wadham College, Oxford, and was the youngest ever person to be shortlisted for the prestigious Orwell Prize for political writing. Penny writes for (amongst other publications), the Guardian; she is a columnist and Contributing Editor at the New Statesman; and Editor at Large at the cult New York Literary project The New Inquiry. Oh, and she’s written six books. She’s outspoken and loud, “a bit too much” if you listen to some of her critics, but over the last decade in her career as a journalist, Penny’s voice has been instrumental in ensuring that women’s and minorities rights have stayed on the agenda, and that the conversation over equality continues to evolve.

I’m meeting Penny to discuss, at least in part, her forthcoming book Bitch Doctrine:
Essays for Dissenting Adults—a collection of essays taken from Penny’s writings over the
past few years. It’s a dizzyingly clever, warm, and witty compilation of essays covering
topics which range from the 2016 US presidential election, to writing which explores
the notion of gender—it looks at the nature of relationships and examines the current culture we find ourselves in. I ask Penny how the collection came about.

“I just realised I had so much material and that I wanted to get some of it out there in a more permanent form… I wanted to reach the same people as Unspeakable Things” [Penny’s first book]. “Most of these pieces have been online and I picked the ones that had the most impact, that were most popular… And there’s stuff that I’ve done that I would like to be accessible by people who aren’t linked in to those communities online in the same way”. As Penny herself writes in the introduction to the collection, all she’s “ever wanted to achieve with writing is to move the world in small ways with words”. She tells me as we chat that “if you read a book it’s a chance to be with some ideas in a less immediate way”.

One of the ideas present in the book, and one which Penny talks about when we meet, is the notion of reclaiming words, and owning what and who you are. “It’s about owning the provocative. My whole life people have told me that I’m a bit too much, and yell a little bit too loud about stuff. And I never really worked out why… but I may as well own it”.

One of the things about the collection that jumped out to me, when reading it, is that it seems calmer and more considered, less raw than her first book. I mention this to Penny and she agrees that that’s the case. Although she does note that her first book was finished after the sudden death of her father. “So that whole process of finishing it was all mired up in a very emotional time, and you know, very raw time.”

Of Bitch Doctrine, she says that she’s “a bit more grown up. I’m still cross about stuff… but yeah, I’ve definitely become more self-assured and happy in myself… and I’m just, I just give a lot fewer fucks”. She’s quick to point out that she’s aware that contentment can result in a situation where “you stop being quite so angry at the world. But I’ve got people who check me for that, and fortunately I have the internet who let me know if I’m ever lax on anything! Thanks guys”. It’s worth noting that this is all said unironically. She seems genuinely happy that there are people out there who will pick up her up on mistakes or errors. “I’m quite happy to own up when I’ve fucked up, in fact, more than happy.”

Ah, the internet. Penny has an active Twitter presence with over 160,000 followers, and it was for work on her blog ‘Penny Red’ that she was shortlisted for the aforementioned Orwell Prize. For all of this online success though, she has endured more than her fair share of vitriol and abuse via the internet. “So early this year… it was really bad. I was wiped out for a few weeks just being like ‘I can’t deal with this’”. And yet, Penny is optimistic about the internet. “I mean, I’ve not met one person who has been the target of any of this stuff, who would say ‘oh the internet is evil, I wish I’d never gone on it’. What I hear more, is regret that they can’t engage more and that they can’t be more, be more present in those spaces, and have to watch what they say more.” We chat about how things would have been different, if the Internet had been the place it is now, when Penny was younger: “I can’t imagine if 15-year-old me had had access to the Internet. It might have been brilliant, but it might also have been terrible. Yeah, there’s a lot, there seems to be a lot at stake in every conversation. I feel like there are more consequences now, for young people, for everything. I don’t envy that at all. There’s both more and less freedom.”

When you get Penny talking about something she cares about, she is passionate, interesting, and thoughtful. The words seem to tumble out of her mouth almost quicker
than her brain can process the thoughts. But it’s clear, when we discuss feminism and the
outlook for the future in light of Brexit and Donald Trump, that these are issues she has
thought long and hard about. The tumbling over her words is simply because she has so
much to say, and we have so little time to discuss everything.

It feels as though Penny has moved on slightly from the shock and anger which followed the US election results in November last year. She tells me that the introduction to the collection had to be rewritten in the wake of Trump’s surprise victory. In fact, her plans for the whole year had to change. “The plan for this year was to spend the year, holed up writing this novel, with maybe the occasional column about how Hillary Clinton wasn’t going far enough in her women’s rights agenda.

“That got tabled, and I’m very cross about that. It’s not the worst thing Donald Trump has done, but it makes it personal.” Her description of the current President of the United States in her book’s introduction, as “a craven billionaire real-estate mogul and reality television shyster” who was “elected to the presidency of the United States, swept to power by a wave of racist rage and violent populism”, is both amusing and terrifying. When we talk about Trump (neither of us are able to bring ourselves to refer to him with his proper title), Penny’s position seems to have mellowed slightly.

“There’s a sense that there’s been a dark shadow passing over and I feel like, not that it’s lifting, things are still really terrible, but I feel like the possibility is now creeping in that things might not be as terrible as we thought they were going to be.

“There’s this air, from last June onwards of, ‘oh my God, everything is terrible, the world is going to end’. And it’s not. It’s very important to be cautious, to be angry, but actually, you know, if you look at the turnarounds that have happened in Europe… the pushback is still happening in the US.

“And now in the UK… May might not get that majority… it sort of feels like there’s more, stuff is unwritten. The future is very unwritten. And I think that’s not necessarily the horror that it was, even a few months ago.”

For somebody who is so often labelled as angry, somebody who’s writing is often held up as a war cry against those who seek to oppress the weak, Penny is surprisingly optimistic about what’s to come. “Terrible, terrible things are always going to happen but I feel like, I don’t know, I feel like resignation and rage are not the only possible options.”

Perhaps there can be a little hope for the future after all. And what of the future for the
formidable but “fluffy” Laurie Penny?

“Fiction… fiction is what I’d love to do”.

Laurie Penny’s forthcoming essay collection, Bitch Doctrine: Essays for Dissenting Adults
is published by Bloomsbury and will be available from August. It can be pre-ordered now
from Amazon UK and all good book stores.

OxView: Best of Cannes

The Square

A satire on the world of high art, Ruben Ostlund’s The Square follows gallery director Christian (Claes Bang) as he readies his gallery for an exhibition (the titular Square) which intends to instil an altruistic disposition in the public. Meanwhile, Christian’s personal life collapses as he seeks to recover his possessions after an unorthodox mugging. While not originally tipped to be a winner, this satire promises to be, in the words of Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw, ‘thrillingly weird’.

You Were Never Really Here

Based on the novella of the same name by Jonathan Ames, You Were Never Really Here is a gripping yet deeply painful exploration of the morality of revenge. It follows veteran Joe (Joaquin Phoenix), a man paid by private clients to rescue children from sex rings. Director Lynne Ramsay (We Need to Talk About Kevin) delivers a film that doesn’t fetishize violence, but doesn’t shy away from it in connection to the depravity of revenge. Winning both best actor and best screenplay, You Were Never Really Here promises an emotional experience you’ll find hard to forget.

The Beguiled

Set during the American Civil War, Sofia Coppola’s The Beguiled follows the journey of John McBurney (Colin Farrell) an Irish Unionist soldier who finds himself a deserter and wounded in Confederate territory. Nursed back to health in a southern seminary home, John begins to draw the attentions of several of his female carers. Coppola, however, is careful to put a twist on the 1966 novel on which the film is based, adopting a feminist lens, and doing away with the sexualised fantasy of the original work. A feminist drama (which happens to feature a rather impromptu surgery with a hacksaw), The Beguiled is not to be missed.

Christ Church win Floorball Cuppers

0

On Saturday afternoon, an extremely close Floorball Cuppers tournament took place at the Iffley Road Sports Centre.

A little-known sport, floorball is a form of indoor hockey popularised in Scandinavia and Central Europe. As many beginners who turned up soon discovered, the game requires an amount of coordination and stamina.

Despite this, Luke Shore, a beginner competing for the Christ Church side, thought the sport was surprisingly easy to learn. “It’s great! I really improved as the day went along,” he told Cherwell.

Having beat a strong Queen’s College team after a penalty shootout in their semi-final, the favourites Christ Church, who improved steadily throughout the day despite some inexperienced members, were placed against the wiley Wolfson College.

Christ Church took an early lead in the final, only to be denied by a late Wolfson equaliser. In the ensuing penalty shoot-out, Christ Church hero Dan Zaitsev calmly dispatched the ball into the top corner, and victory celebrations followed for Christ Church.

Despite Christ Church’s relative inexperience, enthusiastic defender Jack Bara thought the secret to his team’s success was past experience of ALTS ice hockey, which requires similar stick-handling skills.

This marked to the end to a very successful day for Christ Church, who became Head of the River and also prevailed in Water Polo Cuppers.

Although competition for the Cuppers trophy was fierce, many had come to Iffley simply to try something new or to have a fun afternoon. Milan Fowkes, captain of the runner-up Wolfson side, was not only proud of his team’s performance, including nail-biting victory against Green Templeton in the other semi-final, but was also happy with how everyone played a part. “We all contributed along the way; it wasn’t an individual effort that stood out,” he told Cherwell.

Lucas Buzaglo, who played for Keble, emphasised the friendly atmosphere, but stressed his disappointment about the result. “Everyone was friendly with each other. That being said, all of us would have liked to take the Cuppers trophy home.”