“A well regulated [sic] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The United States has a well-regulated militia, so “the security of a free state” is not endangered except by those who misread the Second Amendment. The ability to purchase and wear firearms infringes upon the “security of a free state.” In other words, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the wearing of deadly weapons as these endanger the “security of a free state.” The American National Rifle Association could be described as a parallel government.
In short, the insufficiently-controlled use of firearms has just led to the death of eighteen (18) innocent children and two (2) teachers. Therefore, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is currently used to threaten the “security of a free state” and promote a social disorder.
My love and sincere condolences to all who have lost a child or a dear one at Uvalde, Texas.
“Harlequin with his hands crossed,” featured above, could well be Picasso’s finest Harlequin. He is not wearing his lozenges. In fact, the colours have bled. Nor is there a mask, except a reminder. Harlequin’s brow is floured.
In the Harlequin featured to the left, no mask is suggested, but the lines are somewhat thicker, barely. The painting is also dated 1923. These two depictions of the Harlequin therefore follow the production of Stravinsky‘s Pulcinella, first performed in 1920. Both characters are zanni, or servants, but Harlequin is the smarter zanno. Picasso’s depictions of Harlequin do not show a theatrical Harlequin. Picasso’s Harlequins are off-stage and the artist’s depictions are portraits of distinguished individuals. It is difficult to associate these Picasso Harlequins with British very comical Harlequinades.
Harlequin as motif: A Family Harlequin
Harlequin is a significant motif in Picasso’s work where he is sometimes pictured with his family. He is also an element of Picasso’s “Mother and Child” motif. In other depictions of Harlequin, a male adult may accompany a child. Picasso also portrayed Harlequin on his death bed.
Technique
Picasso was versatile where his techniques are concerned: oil, gouache, watercolours, india ink. Each technique conveys a meaning to the artwork.
Zanni
The Commedia dell’artezanni are very smart. They may have a love interest. For instance Arlequin loves Columbine who is also Pedrolino’s love interest. But their main function is to help the innamorati overcome obstacles to their marriage. This requires not only physical agility, but a cunning mind. Zanni have to devise stratagems.
Costume
Picasso’s Harlequins dress a little differently from earlier Harlequins. They often wear a collapsed ruff, mixing Pierrot and Harlequin characteristics. This cross-dressing adds piquancy to Picasso’s art. At times, Arlecchino can only be distinguished by his fallen ruff and slender figure.
A World View
In short, a world view is expressed in Picasso’s Harlequins. His Harlequins are consistent with one another. Picasso’s Harlequins do not cry. But they are very human, not marionettes. And they have a family.
I am offering a very small sampling of Picasso’s Harlequins, but they are true representatives of Picasso’s Harlequins. By clicking on the titles of the various artwork, you will be provided with technical details.
Folklore
Stravinsky’s ballet Petrushka (Ballets Russes; 1910-11) shows a somewhat clownish Harlequin-like figure, but it is not Harlequin. Beginning in the early nineteenth century, writers, artists, composers found inspiration in their country’s folklore, which very often was shared by other nations and cultures.
Ballets Russes
Igor Stravinsky and Pablo Picasso were both commissioned to create ballets for Sergei Diaghilev using their respective talents. Picasso drew a number of costumes and designed sets. Both worked on the production of Pulcinella (Polichinelle; Ballets Russes, 1920). It was a Golden Age.
As for Picasso, he found much of his inspiration in the commedia dell’arte and in particular, in the Harlequin.
On Thursday, I went to Montreal to share lunch with a friend of many years. She had come from Ottawa and I, from Sherbrooke. Our friendship dates back to the year I studied in Montreal. We did, of course, discuss the weather and spent an hour or so shopping. But we then found a café and simply talked. We discussed Pauline Marois, the current “separatist” premier of Quebec. I told my friend that a few months ago Pauline Marois had hired someone to identify the wrongs currently inflicted on Quebec by Ottawa. My comment put an end to that part of the conversation. We laughed. However, I have since read that Pauline Marois and Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, “may have just buried” separatism.
We went on to speak about Syria. We were both delighted that an “off-the-cuff” remark by US Secretary of StateJohn Kerry (born 11 November 1943) had led Russian President Vladimir Putin (born 7 October 1952) to call on President Bashar al-Assad (born 11 September 1965) to put his chemical weapons under international control and to destroy them. There is an end to this intervention, which is its main but very real virtue. President Bashar al-Assad has warned that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961) has been described as “ambivalent” by CNN’s Gloria Borger. Given the events of the 2000s: two wars, a huge debt, not to mention the loss of life and limbs, one can understand why President Obama is a reticent warrior. Had there been a strike on Syria, the US would have led an international coalition and no one would have entered Syria, a sovereign country. Yet, a strike is dangerous. President Assad has warned that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
The use of chemical weapons, i.e. weapons of mass destruction, is prohibited under international law. Yet, on 21 August 2013, the Assad regime allowed 1,429 Syrians, including more than 400 children to be gassed to death. Can the international community simply stand by? Assad committed a crime and may have done so to draw the United States into a conflict with Syria and, possibly, with Russia. I would prefer to dismiss the idea of a setup, but I suspect political wranglings on a larger rather than smaller scale.
Despite its debt, the United States remains a “superpower” and it has a formidable arsenal. But it is a weary superpower and, by and large, US citizens oppose any action that could lead to yet another war. Consequently, President Obama had been seeking the support of Congress and that of his nation before entering into a military engagement: a strike. But there has now been an agreement. Russia has called on Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control and to destroy them and Syria has agreed to do as President Putin proposed. So why is President Putin entertaining the thought of a possible strike?
The Security Council
Russian President Vladimir Putin is indeed urging the US to “‘obey’ international law and not strike Syria without the approval of the United Nations.” On Thursday, 12 September 2013, he in fact “used the editorial pages of the New York Times to make his own personal address to the American people.” How very noble, but confusing! Again, hasn’t Russian President Vladimir Putin persuaded Syrian President Assad to put his chemical weapons under international supervision and to destroy them?
As I wrote in my last post, Syria on my Mind, the UN may serve rather than hinder Assad’s regime. If the Security Council votes in favour of a strike, Russia can veto that decision. Moreover, China is one of the five nations that may veto “punitive” — I do not like that word — action against Syria. The US owes China a fortune.
I may be wrong, but I sense a motivation on the part of Russia to make itself a superpower intent on obstructing another or other superpower(s). Therefore, it may be prudent on the part of the United States to concentrate on making sure Syria puts its chemical weapons under international supervision and destroys them, as President Assad has agreed to do. I believe it would be wise on the part of the United States to insist that Assad keep his word or forever be mocked for lying to the world.
In other words, it would be my opinion that the US may be well-advised to pare the problem down to its smallest, yet enormous and central, component: the use of chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. It just could be that Secretary of State John Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark can be used as an off-the-hook opportunity.
The Shoe is on the other foot
On my way home, I kept thinking that it was hugely arrogant of President Assad to be warning the international community that “after a strike, one can expect anything.” The shoe is on the other foot. President Bashar al-Assad has violated an international law by using chemical weapons to kill indiscriminately 1,429 citizens of his country. It therefore seems that it is now the international community’s turn to tell President Assad that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
Conclusion
Yet, as I wrote above, I believe that an intervention on the part of the United States should be limited to insisting that President Assad keep his word and put his chemical weapons under international supervision, ensuring they are destroyed. As I have noted above, Secretary of State John Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark and Assad’s compliance just may take the United States “off the hook.” John Kerry’s suggestion — that President Assad put his chemical weapons under international control — targets the offense, i.e. the use of a weapon of mass destruction, which, in my opinion, makes it an appropriate response. Not only does such an intervention have a foreseeable end, but it also addresses Assad’s warning that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
_________________________
[i] Olga Khokhlova, a Ballets Russes ballerina, married Pablo Picasso in 1918 and is the mother of his son Paulo. The marriage was not a happy one. The two separated in 1935, but Picasso would not consent to a divorce as Olga was entitled to one half of his wealth. Olga died in 1955.
—ooo—
Frédéric Chopin (1 March 1810 – 17 October 1849)
Nocturne No. 11 in G Minor, Op. 371
pianist: unidentified
I have written a post where Bluebeard is compared to an “animal.” So I feel compelled to come to the rescue of man’s best friends: cats and dogs. If treated kindly, they grow into affectionate members of the household. In fact, your house becomes their house. You’re just a happy tenant!
So I thought I would send you images of animals, Pablo Picasso‘s animals.
How can one understand senseless tragedies such as the one that has forever blemished the face of the Boston Marathon. Yet, they keep happening. We kill and we maim. We have a very bad reputation.
When someone is the victim of a needless tragedy, I want to trade places with the aggrieved individual. Send me to the gas chamber, but spare my neighbour. It’s a silly reaction, but it’s my first reaction.
Second, I hear myself say: “I’m so sorry. I’m so very sorry. How can I help?” But I’m alone. No one can hear me and there is very little I can do.
Third, I’m indignant. “How dare you? Isn’t life hard enough? Why make matters worse?”
There are so many things we cannot change. We do our best to predict earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, devastating hurricanes. Yet they happen. We fight diseases, epidemics, pandemics, but all too often these defeat us. There are so many ways in which we are powerless.
But tragedies such as the Boston bombings need not happen. They are man-made tragedies. So this we can change. This we must change, if we really want to…
There are so many ways in which we are powerful.
But, at the moment, I simply want to say that I feel very sorry for the victims of Monday’s bombings and for their families and friends. I would like to be with them and comfort them.
Yesterday, searching through works by Picasso, I found this portrait. I went looking for it today and could not find it until I watched a short video by Philip Scott Johnson.
I therefore looked at several works by Picasso. Many show distortions and metamorphoses.
The video is very revealing. It is like a key to a mystery.
© Micheline Walker
14 September 2013
Micheline's Blog 