quipx

Fashion to Fiction. Eccentric to Everyday. Style with Substance.

Archive for the month “January, 2013”

Politicians Reach For Their Revolvers

theatre

“You serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of State who appoints you and disappoints you” quipped Dame Liz Forgan, the outgoing Chair of the Arts Council after she was rather unceremoniously sacked from her role by the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. This was before he was politically reincarnated as the Secretary of State for Health. The unforgivable sin she committed was to defend the value and importance of the arts and resist the financial cuts made to arts and culture budgets. Whilst his own trespasses may have been forgiven, he was not prepared to forgive the trespasses of others, especially not for the sake of the arts.

It was Richard Godwin’s excellent piece in today’s Evening Standard titled “You never see our politicians doing culture” that brought the quote to mind and which refers to an incident when Hunt’s replacement, Maria Miller, was asked which cultural events she had been to recently. She was stumped and eventually cobbled together that she had seen “Three Sisters, a Chekhov play at the New Vic”. As Godwin points out, if “the Culture Secretary feels the need to spell out that Three Sisters is a Chekhov play, gets the name of a famous London theatre wrong and needs a special adviser present at all times, it does not say much for this government’s inner life.”

Yet this is nothing new. Almost twenty five years to the day, the BBC screened an episode of Yes, Prime Minister dealing with the same issues. The Prime Minister in the hugely successful series, Jim Hacker, is worried about being attacked by the arts lobby because of the paltry increase in funding his Government is giving to the arts. He invites various actors, critics and directors to Number 10 and suffers the same humiliation as Miller when asked which was the last play he saw at the theatre?

Hacker: “Erm, uh, let me see, er Hamlet.

Critics (malevolently): “Whose?”

Hacker (solemnly): “Shakespeare’s”

Critics: “No, who was playing Hamlet…(mischievously) Henry Irving?”

One could argue this was satirical comedy and ought to be taken in that vein. However, the very fact that a quarter of a century later we have life imitating art with the Culture Secretary demonstrating how little personal interest she takes in the arts herself stands as a representative indictment of the political classes. Lest we forget that Ms Miller’s full title is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The media and sport elements are more democratic. One can always rely on a politician to ingratiate themselves with what they consider to be popular cultural taste. Why run the risk of appearing aloof and out of touch by frequenting the theatre, opera or ballet when you can provide a running Twitter commentary on Britain’s Got Talent, Strictly Come Dancing or X-Factor and flaunt your man/woman-of-the-people credentials to all your followers. As the apocryphal quote attributed to the nineteenth century French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin declares “There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.”  

The folly of this mindset is that Britain really does have talent and much of it is in the arts and cultural sphere. It ought to be celebrated and championed by politicians. The theatre offers politicians a chance to contemplate, reflect and be inspired away from their daily duties.

This week sees the opening of Stephen Simon’s Port at the National Theatre, a play set in Stockport in 1988 which charts a thirteen-year odyssey for two children, Rachael (11) and Billy (6) largely abandoned and growing up in the deprived suburban shadows of Manchester. It has been described as “a celebration of the human spirit as Racheal looks to the future and opts for something better.” When has a politician failed to remind us that they went into politics to make life better?

However, I doubt if many will attend. The attitude is nicely summarised by the theatre critic who chides the hapless Jim Hacker saying: “When you say you believe in the theatre, it’s like believing in God, you mean you believe that it exists.” For a lot of politicians, one gets the feeling they couldn’t be bothered whether it existed or not.

Django Unchained: Potential Unfulfilled

Django Unchained

It is difficult to think of a more fitting backdrop to a film about slavery in nineteenth century America than a day when an African-American solemnly took the oath to serve as President of the United States for a second term. More symbolism, if any was needed, was that it coincided with a day marked to celebrate the most iconic black civil rights leader in twentieth century America. Whilst watching Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained, a spaghetti Western tale encompassing slavery, vendettas and retribution, one could not help seeing aspects of the film through the prism of Barack Obama and Martin Luther King.

Consider the opening scenes of shackled black men, including the eponymous Django (Jamie Foxx) purchased at a slave auction and walking in single file, shivering in the harsh winter with little more than a blanket for warmth and decency. The thought that one day a black man would President of the country they inhabited would have seemed laughable. It took almost a century and a half to see that day and for many the memories of prejudice and subjugation run deep. Many of them believe that Tarantino had no business as a white director using this issue as the basis for his movie. Filmmaker Spike Lee has said he would not see the film, explaining “All I’m going to say is that it’s disrespectful to my ancestors. That’s just me…I’m not speaking on behalf of anybody else”. He later added “American slavery was not a Sergio Leone spaghetti Western. It was a holocaust. My ancestors are slaves. Stolen from Africa. I will honor them.”

Lee said he was only speaking for himself, but there are many who feel that such a sensitive period in American history should not necessarily be in the hands of a maverick, though respected, film-maker known for his quirky humour and gratuitous violence. Conversely, there are those who would not feel inclined to watch a film about racial politics and slavery period but who are there because it is a Quentin Tarantino film. His status guarantees an audience. The key question is how he handles the issue?

Django Unchained is Tarantino at his very best and his worst, with the balance tipped in favour of the former. First and foremost it entertains. The signature repartee that (along with violence) has come to define the term Tarantino-esque permeates the film. From the moment Christoph Waltz, playing bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz, buys Django’s freedom and sets off in pursuit of three fugitives that Django can help identify, you feel that this is a screenwriter on top form (Django Unchained has Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay and Best Film but not Best Director). He has also assembled a cast that rise to the occasion and their performances are much more than the sum of their parts. Foxx and Waltz are excellent as bounty hunters and much of their dialogue deserves to be savoured. For example, when Django is pointing out a fleeing fugitive whilst Schultz lines up his rifle:

Schultz:                You sure that’s him?

Django:                Yeah

Schultz:                Positive?

Django:                I don’t know

Schultz:                You don’t know if you’re positive?

Django:                I don’t know what positive means?

Schultz:                It means you’re sure

Django:                Yes

Schultz:                Yes what?

Django:                Yes I’m sure…(Schultz fires)…I’m positive he dead.

The deeper plot running through the film is Django’s desire to rescue and be reunited with his wife Broomhilda von Shaft (Kerry Washington) who is on a plantation owned by Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo di Caprio). The introduction of Di Caprio as the devilishly charming slave-owner adds a new dimension to the verbal jousting and interplay which is only further enhanced by Samuel L Jackson with a bravura display as the wise, cantankerous Stephen who, in effect, runs the plantation and in recognition of this is given license to be grossly insubordinate, up to a point. The performances of this quartet are at the heart of what makes this such a painfully funny and enjoyable film.

Should slavery be a vehicle for levity and mirth? No, but what Django Unchained does well is the juxtaposition of the comedy and the tragedy. You find yourself laughing along with the badinage and then, suddenly, a glance at the expression on a slave’s face or the pleading of a slave for mercy brings you back to yourself. If it was simply a relentless portrayal of hardship and exploitation, there is a danger that the audience would become inured to it. What Django Unchained does well is repeatedly bringing it into sharp relief. A scene that lampoons the Ku Klux Klan is just one of the many highlights.

Tarantino deserves the credit for this and it makes Django Unchained an almost great film. However, the worst of Tarantino could be summarised by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when he wrote “he had not that supreme gift of the artist, the knowledge of when to stop. He wished to improve that which was already perfect”.

It is an often-repeated criticism of Tarantino that his films are too violent. The first problem here is that the violence is handled in what can only be described as a slapdash manner. Even for a comical Spaghetti Western, the exaggerated splurting of blood everywhere, every time someone is shot is tiresome and childish. This might be forgivable if it didn’t detract from the scenes of violence that are crucial in illustrating just how abominably black slaves could be treated. Scenes where we see a runaway slave branded with a hot iron or another runaway set upon by dogs are almost lost in among the gratuitous violence.

The second indulgence is the length of the film at 2 hours 45 minutes. The last half an hour could and should have been dispensed with and the resolution tied into the remaining time. It serves only as a way to serve up more infantile violence and terrible cameo appearance from Tarantino himself.

Nevertheless, whilst those faults prevent it fulfilling its potential, it is an immensely entertaining film which hopefully also serves as a reminder, to a wider audience, of the appalling treatment black people suffered as slaves. If this message fails to get across, Tarantino has only himself to blame.

London Art Fair

peterblake_highres

London- River Thames- Regatta by Sir Peter Blake (2012) at the Paul Stolper Gallery

2012 was a significant year for anniversaries, most notably the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, only the second British monarch, after Queen Victoria, to have celebrated such an honour during their reign. We also celebrated the bicentenary of Charles Dickens, a man whose name has become a byword for Victorian life, its attitudes and its morals. To hear someone or something described as “Dickensian” (nearly always pejoratively) vividly evokes scenes of prison hulks, debtor’s prisons and orphans consigned to workhouses. This year will not be found wanting for cultural anniversaries either. 2013 marks the bicentenary of the Italian composer Giuseppe Verdi, the German composer Richard Wagner and the centenary of the English composer Benjamin Britten.

This week marked a smaller yet recognisable cultural milestone – the 25th anniversary of the London Art Fair. This fair held in January each year celebrates modern British and contemporary art; its continuing success is demonstrated through the 130 galleries showcasing their work at the fair and encompassing the full spectrum of artistic expression from traditional painting to sculpture, installations, photography and prints.

Few would dispute that the artistic, media and cultural landscape now is very different from 1988. A time when Margaret Thatcher was approaching her dénouement, Germany was divided by the Berlin Wall and little known artist called Damien Hirst, a second year art student at Goldsmiths College, was arranging an independent student exhibition called Freeze, in a disused London Port Authority administrative block in London’s Docklands.  

Twenty five years later and it was Hirst’s name that came up most frequently at the first event I attended at the London Art Fair: a debate organised by The Arts Desk entitled: “Crazy Art Prices” – Do Auction Prices Matter? One of the themes discussed by the panel comprising Mark Hudson and Melanie Gerlis was whether the financial value of a work of art had a bearing on the critical appreciation of that work and if it was possible to completely exclude from one’s mind the prices achieved for works at auction or indeed at a private sale. In an increasingly market-orientated world, could art not simply be regarded as yet another commodity to be bought, sold, traded and leveraged? Gerlis disagreed with this notion. It might fulfil all the criteria applicable to a commodity, but essentially there is something more to art – each work of art is unique. One may profitably sell a number of paintings, all within a particular period, but each one will be individual and have its own inherent value – in essence each work of art could be regarded as forming its own individual market. Works of art have an unerring ability to wrong-foot amateurs and experts alike with respect to their popularity and the prices achieved.

Which bring us to Damien Hirst – the man whose one-man sale of new works at Sotheby’s grossed a record-breaking £111 million; this was in September 2008, days before the global financial crisis precipitated by the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Has the Hirst effect on modern art poisoned the public’s perception of art? Is the money he has made such an overwhelming factor that one cannot view his work without the thought of it creeping into our judgement? Yes and no. For some people Damien Hirst will always be the paradigm of the contemporary artist as con-man. These are the same people who annually scoff and splutter indignantly their way through the Turner Prize or who sneer at Tracy Emin and the shameless effrontery of her unmade bed. For others, Hirst was simply a product of his time; the rising wealth and changing tastes coincided, with a little help from advertising guru Charles Saatchi, to make him phenomenally rich. His art is still his art. However, as art history demonstrates, it is only after a suitable period of reflection that one can tell if an artist like Hirst will be considered a great artist or whether he will fade away; the prices paid for his works will not be the indicator of longevity.

This sentiment is echoed by Ben Street, art historian, writer and curator in the foreword to the Catlin Guide 2013: New Artists in the UK when he says “Only a mug would try to characterise the art of his or her time. Sensible art historians of the past have waited a good century or so before slapping a name on a period”. The Guide is the result of a search to find 40 promising new artists who have graduated from art school and to give them a platform for their work. There is no application process. The artists are initially selected for the ambition, skill and integrity shown in their work during the most recent series of BA, MA, MFA and PG Dip final exhibitions. One of the selected young artists, Conall McAteer, has already been gathering attention with Crate, a painstaking physical reproduction of a the type of wooden crate most often seen in the previous generation of computer games that would be familiar to anyone who remembers the graphics of Street Fighter and Doom. McAteer explains that “the temporality of Crate is designed to evoke a sense of mortality. In the virtual world the recurrent textures are immaculate and immutable, they never wear out. Left unpreserved, the hardwood veneers will age: the walnut will silver, the cherry pinken, and the oak darken. The image and form will possess a life cycle.”

The joy of London Art Fair is that there is such a diverse range of work that, whatever your particular penchant, you are certain to find something that appeals. My love of books drew me to a series of works at the Rebecca Hossack Art Gallery stand by Phil Shaw called Londonensi Subterraneis. Shaw spent a year collecting books which featured the names of every Underground station. Each line is then recreated with each of the books as if on a shelf. It is a wonderfully clever and refreshing take on an institution that celebrates its own 150th anniversary this year. Other highlights include “Spring landscape with a pond and house” by Ivon Hitchens exhibited by Waterhouse and Dodd, a work that has been in the same private collection since it was acquired from the artist in 1975 and is coming to the market for the first time.

A debut appearance from the Brighton-based gallery Ink_d, a set of themed Art Projects spaces and Photo50, an exhibition focusing on British photojournalists and documentary photographers amongst many, many others all serve as a reminder of our vibrant and diverse art scene. Art may be bought and sold for a profit or a loss but its ability to provide aesthetic pleasure, to stir your emotions and to make you reassess how you view the world is the reason it will never be a mere commodity.

 The London Art Fair is on the Business Design Centre, Islington, London, N1 until 20 January 2012.

quipx attended the London Art Fair courtesy of The Macallan Masterclass, one of the sponsors of the event.

Analogue Islington

I have posted below a selection of photographs from my first foray into the world of analogue photography with Lomography cameras. As anticipated, analogue photography, especially on the cult Diana F+ can be pretty unforgiving, as was evident from the number of black and white pictures that failed to show any discernable image at all.

The colour pictures were taken with a Fish-eye camera (named for obvious reasons). All are locations in and around Islington.

Screen on the Green

The Screen on the Green

Chapel Market

Chapel Market

Chapel Market II

Chapel Market II

Camden Passage

Camden Passage

000038

Regent’s Canal

000037

Regent’s Canal II

000033

Regent’s Canal III

Results Day

The moment of truth has almost arrived. Well, not really truth. More like results. The moment of results has arrived. Although that makes me sound like nervous 16 year-old waiting to collect his GCSE results on “Results Day”. This is not the case. Instead, I am about to head off to the Lomography shop in Shoreditch to pick up the photos from my first attempt at analogue photography last weekend taking pictures in and around Islington.

Being absurdly optimistic, I am visualising perfectly balanced black-and-white images with just the right level of creativity, light exposure and tonal variation. In reality, out of the 50-odd pictures I took, I will probably be lucky to get even 5 worthwhile pictures. Nevertheless, the joy of film photography is that one does have a heady rush of expectation as you go off to collect the results. A bit like a GCSE student, actually.

The results will be posted here tomorrow. Probably. Unless they are so poor that I spend the next few days looking morose and mumbling about “retakes”.

No Cup Is Safe

When one think of an advert starring Tiger Woods, it’s hard to look past the painfully embarrassing ones he did for Gillette along with Roger Federer and Thierry Henry. I’ll spare his blushes by not even linking to them. Then again, compared with the slightly larger issue of his much-publicised and widepread adultery, how it threatened to tarnish his wholsesome reputation and the potentially adverse effect on his golf game, it probably doesn’t bother him that much. Regardless of that, he is now back in a new Nike advert with golf’s golden boy, Rory McIlroy and it’s good. Very good.

 

Trinidad’s Doctor’s Office

Trinidad Doctor's Office

Trinidad’s Doctors Office: The Amusing Diary of a Scottish Physician in Trinidad in the 1920s, Vincent Tothill (Paria Classics)

Books should always be judged of their time with due attention to their particular milieu and the prevailing views of the era when they were written. If some of the views that are expressed by Mr Tothill in his book, describing his experiences as a doctor in the Colonial Service in Trinidad, were published in a book written in the twenty first century, there would surely an outcry from the numerous equalities and anti-discrimination lobbying groups. No doubt they would be on the Today programme quoting sections of the text to demonstrate the heartlessness, bigotry and prejudices of White Europeans to those from the Tropics.

They would not have to look very far for choice extracts, for example “The Indians are an amazingly thrifty people, but who knows whether their lives are worth the botheration of living?” Or when a lady enters the surgery splattered with blood and the Doctor asks what happened to her and is told by her husband “Doctor, she humbug me too much. She won’t cook me breakfast, so I give her one lash with my bootoo.” The lady, whilst still bleeding, confirms this with a scream from the couch that “he brutalize me for true”. The Doctor’s response is “Well, I dare say you deserve it”. One might even choose to quote the incident when a lady brings in her brood of children by, quite obviously, different fathers to which the Doctors notes to himself: “An interesting mix grill; one cafe au lait, one high brown with a touch of Chinese, and one black child. It would be interesting to have a sweepstake on the possible colour of any addition to the family”

For those wishing to denigrate the book by quoting extracts such as the ones above, they would not need to look farther than the introductory chapter. If one is offended by such sentiments as above and would misleadingly judge a humorous book written about the 1920s and first published in 1939 by the standards of almost a century later, then you might not enjoy this book.

If that is the case, it would be a shame because when taken as a whole, the book is a painfully funny and poignant account of a young doctor’s time spent treating the people of Trinidad. Far from being racist or prejudiced against them, Tothill has a genuine liking and sympathy for their plight and shares none of the haughty disdain shown by other white colonials living amongst the inhabitants of Trinidad. As a doctor his vantage point is better than many of others and this combined with a shrewd yet sensitive eye allows him to vividly capture in a valuable anthropological and historical document the conditions, lifestyles and attitudes of the period.

This is punctuated throughout though by wry observations, witty repartee and gift for a well-crafted anecdote. For example, when presented with a particularly loquacious woman he notes on her report: SCIPIO, Polypheme, 47 DIARRHOEA (verbal) stating the prescription for her ailment as “Mistura A.D.T”. When a slightly perplexed pharmacist telephones to ask which medicine the abbreviation refers to, Tothill replies “A.D.T Any Damn Thing. It is a well-known London hospital mixture”.

As Owen Rutter, who wrote the foreword to the 1939 edition of “Doctor’s Office”, describes him in his book “A Traveller in the West Indies” (1933, Hutchinson & Co.):

“In an island like Trinidad his frankness must be acutely disconcerting, but he seemed to me one of those rare people who can be downright without being offensive. It is easy enough to be rude and to tell people exactly what you think of them; but Tottie barks out what is in his thoughts in so engaging a way that nobody seems to mind.”

Tothill began his medical adventure in the tropics working on an oil field, tending to the different afflictions of the workers there before he joined another doctor, Mackenzie, in a partnership called “The New Clinic”. Regrettably, the money for their clinic ran out after a year and whilst Mackenzie was able to raise enough funds to go off to Venezuela, Tothill was left with $40 to his name and thousands of pounds worth of debts. He called a meeting of the creditors and explained that he was in no position to pay the debts but sincerely would if he could and hoped at some point to be able to do so.

Prospects were bleak with Tothill concluding his only hope would be to “beg or borrow the passage money to Venezuala” and get a job there. Yet, it is a testament to the decent, good nature of the Doctor that when the local inhabitants of San Fernando heard he was leaving they collectively offered him $300 a month and rent-free offices for six months if he would stay and continue his practice. He accepted and after eighteen months he had repaid all the creditors of the defunct New Clinic and had a thriving medical practice of his own.

His wide-ranging reminiscences cover everything from the different types of food enjoyed by the locals such as crab-backs and the penchant in Creole cooking of tinned butter (“smells rancid”) even though iced packets of New Zealand butter are readily available to the often complicated local hierarchies between the different races in Trinidad society and how they relate and mix with one another, or quite often, their failure to do so. Almost no aspect of life in Trinidad, and occasionally other parts of the West Indies is omitted, and this is what makes the book a valuable record of the time and place from a Westerner’s perspective.

He concludes his panoramic view:

“I would like to put the population of Trinidad into a cocktail jug and swizzle them all up together with an extra large swizzle stick. The resulting cocktail would have plenty of froth in it but all rum cocktails should have a head on them and the cocktail itself would be a nice High Brown with a touch of Bitter in it.”

Before adding:

“Is not bitters the essence of a good cocktail?”

After reading “Tottie’s” happy reminiscences of his life and times in Trinidad, I would drink to that.

The London Library

The London Library Exterior Paul_Raftery - Courtesy of the ize website www.ize.info

“The urge to buy books is a chronic disease, which is cured only by bodily annihilation…I do not claim to have read all or even most of the books I own. Some I read many years after purchase, others never. But I have looked into all of them. I know what they contain. All are for potential use, as well as pleasure. Many are for reference or checking, and it is gratifying how often I refer to them.

(Paul Johnson, “The Art of Writing a Column” [To Hell With Picasso and Other Essays])

Whilst not the Dr Johnson of lexographical fame, the writer, critic and essayist Paul Johnson dons a medical practitioner’s hat to neatly diagnose an ailment that afflicts a great number of us and which, if infected early enough, can lead to a lifetime of bibliographas acquirus. I admit to having contracted this disease in my teens and can testify to its chronic tendencies. I am, quite literally, incapable of passing any form of establishment that sells books without popping in to scan the shelves. Just a quick browse I tell myself. A cursory glance. The merest glimpse of their stock. I know I’m kidding myself. Like the dipsomaniac who tells himself he’s just nipping into the pub to use their loo. I will inevitably emerge with a carrier bag full of assorted hardbacks and paperbacks just as sure as he will stumble out three sheets to the wind. Both of us having sated our respective desires

Sharing Dr P Johnson’s malady means that in any given room in my house I am surrounded by books. Many of them have not yet been read but were bought for curiosity, reference or simply because they happened to have caught my eye and appeared interesting. Such books are never a wasted purchase as, given the appropriate moment, they will be retrieved from their allotted place, dusted down and opened to pour forth their wisdom.

One such moment occurred recently when I was discussing visiting the various upcoming art exhibitions in London. My two companions instantly launched into a scathing attack upon paintings, galleries and, in particular, the scourge that is modern and contemporary art. That meretricious masquerade of abstract conceptual posturing. What John Ruskin, with reference to James McNeill Whistler, described as ‘flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face’. The language that accompanied this diatribe was not so much colourful as eye-wateringly fluorescent. “Or are we wrong?” they both chorused. “We are happy to stand correct, if you can suggest anything”.

I mentally scanned the bookshelves in my house trying to think what could remedy this startling streak of philistinism. A weighty contemporary art tome? No, that would no doubt be flung at my head the moment my back was turned. No, this needed to be an impassioned plea from a proselytiser of the arts, one who appreciated the need for us spread the word of culture. And then I remembered it. A forthright yet engaging series of essays written by E. M. Forster highlighting the importance and virtues of the arts. Hooray for his second volume of collected essays, broadcasts and articles entitled “Two Cheers for Democracy”.

I remembered their titles and instinctively knew that Forster would strike the appropriate conversational as well as enlightening note: “Art for Art’s Sake”, “Does Culture Matter” and “Not Looking at Pictures” were just some of the ones that came to mind. When identifying the problem of convincing those sceptical of culture, he noted [in 1940] how it had changed from a genial indifference, the usual “just ‘not my sort’” type comments into something more worrying. Forster notes “But now the good-humour is vanishing, the guffaw is organised into a sneer, and the typical reaction is “How dare these so-called art-chaps do it? I’ll give them something to do.”’

Having, rather contentedly, retrieved the book, adding an extra cheer whilst doing so, I began flicking through some of the other essays and articles when unexpectedly I came across two articles on libraries that I had forgotten were in the volume.

The first, “In My Library”, is personal tour of his own collection of books which he invites us to “politely term the library” and which “so far as I have created it, is rather a muddle”. Muddle or not, here we can see someone who, like us disease-ridden folk, enjoy the pleasures of being surrounded by books:

“Only at night, when the curtains are drawn and the fire flickers, and the lights are turned, do they come into their own and attain a collective dignity. It is very pleasant to sit with them in the firelight for a couple of minutes, not reading, not even thinking, but aware that they, with their accumulated wisdom and charm are waiting to be used, and that my library, in its tiny imperfect way, is a successor to the great private libraries of the past”

One imagines the reference is to the innumerable private libraries in the stately homes of England. To a large extent is probably is. However, there is one very different private library that Forster is also alluding to and which provides the subject of the essay that follows entitled “The London Library”.

You may say that there are any number of libraries in London ranging from local borough and municipal libraries to the libraries attached to the London Universities or those sequestered within the Inns of Court for the benefit of legal practitioners and students. That is undoubtedly true, but this one is unique and as a result richly deserves the accolade of the definite article.

The Art Room of The London Library by Paul Raftery

So what is the London Library? It is a private subscription library founded in 1841 by Thomas Carlyle whose vision was of an institution which would allow subscribers to enjoy the riches of a national library in their own homes. As he said in a speech to promote the venture [considered to be his only speech]:

“The founding of a Library is one of the greatest things we can do with regard to results. It is one of the quietest of things; but there is nothing I know of at bottom more important. Everyone able to read a good book becomes a wiser man. He becomes a similar centre of light and order, and just insight into the things around him. A collection of good books contains all the nobleness and wisdom of the world before us.”

Many of the great and the good were of a similar mind for among his supporters were The Earl of Clarendon, the enlightened early-Victorian politician and the Library’s first president, William Makepeace Thackeray was its first auditor; William Gladstone and Sir Edward Bunbury were on the first committee and early members included Charles Dickens and George Eliot.

Thomas Carlyle

Whilst it is located amongst the smart gentleman’s clubs in the St James’s district of London, tucked away in the corner of St James’s Square, there is no sense of sniffiness, snobbery or exclusivity. It is open to all who wish to join with no need “to be proposed by at least seven members”, “to have had one’s great-grandfather on the Wine Committee”, “to have demonstrated prowess on the Fives Court at Eton” or any guff like that. The only requirement, in addition to paying the membership fee, is to provide the name of an independent referee to confirm your name and address if requested.

What you receive in exchange is access to a bibliophile’s paradise. The building is beautiful in itself but its contents, set over six floors, and numbering over one million books, some dating back to the sixteenth century are the beating heart and soul of the library. Remarkably, all but the most rare and delicate books are available on open shelving to browse. Approximately 8,000 new books are added every year and the Library maintains current subscriptions to around 850 periodicals. Arranged according to theme, one can easily while away countless hours at a time just wandering among the rows and rows of books and almost all available to borrow.

I can say from my own experience that membership to no other club, body or organisation has given me as much pleasure as the London Library. I was initially drawn to it because of the difficulty I had in finding a copy of E.W Hornung’s “A Thief In The Night”, the sequel to “The Amateur Cracksman” which introduced us to the dishonest exploits of A. J. Raffles. However, once I was a member, whenever I came across a reference to a book, no matter how obscure, one could be fairly sure that somewhere along the shelves of the London Library there would be a copy awaiting its own ‘appropriate moment’.

EM Forster

E.M. Forster wrote his article celebrating the centenary of the London Library when Britain was still in the ravages of war against Nazi Germany. In the midst of falling bombs and debris of conflict, Forster admirably captures its spirit and place in the cultural and literary consciousness of the nation:

“All around it are the signs of the progress of science and the retrogression of man. Buildings are in heaps, the earth is in holes. Safe still among the reefs of rubbish, it seems to be something more than a collection of books. It is a symbol of civilisation. It is a reminder of sanity and a promise of sanity to come.”

Who among us could not do with a little more sanity?

Where Are We Now?

An apt question at the best of times and in this case a most welcome one with David Bowie surprising almost everyone with the news that he has recorded a new album of material (due out in March) and a new single and video released today on his birthday. Whether it is those trademark vocals or the black and white footage played on a projector, the experience can be captured in a single word: haunting.

The Canon

Red Lion Square

When one thinks of a canon, it may be a reference to the biblical canon encompassing all the books considered to be authoritative scripture or a literary canon delineating the authoritative works of an author which then provide the basis for judgment and scholarship. Aficionados of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle will be more than familiar with what is termed the Holmes canon, comprising the 56 short stories and 4 novels written about The Great Detective.

Whilst normally I would abide by the canonical rules, such as Sherlock Holmes above where the sixty stories mark the ones actually written by Sir Arthur there is one particular body of work in which I have marked out what I personally consider to be the canon. It is the work of the late John Sullivan and, to be more specific, his epic comedy series Only Fools and Horses. If you are considering why such a series needs any form of such classification, I shall elucidate. The starting point is thankfully straightforward. The travails of the Trotter family began with the screening of “Big Brother” (in the literal as opposed to Orwellian sense) on 8 September 1981. If one were being pedantic, it ended with “Sleepless in Peckham” which aired on Christmas Day 2003. Except, it didn’t. For me, the canon ends with the 1996 trilogy which concluded the saga and in which, after watching Del Boy, Rodney, Grandad and Uncle Albert through births, deaths and marriages over the course of 25 years, they finally become millionaires. The long cherished goal finally achieved. The final episode “Time on our Hands” still holds the record for the highest number of viewers to this day: 24.3 million viewers. The three subsequent specials are so poor in terms of plot, dialogue and comedy that they disgrace and I do not use that word lightly, the previous 59 episodes. On this interpretation, the Holmes Canon and the Trotter Cannon would both be three score.

Incidentally, the reason it was called “Time on our Hands” is because they make their fortune when Del’s father-in-law notices that the old, dirty pocket watch laying on top of a gas stove is the fabled “Lesser Watch” by John Harrison who “was just about the most famous watchmaker of his time, of any time”. Considering Only Fools and Horses was such a critical part of my childhood and that I know nearly every episode verbatim, John Harrison has retained a particular place in my memory.

Therefore, when in my most recent incarnation I worked at the law firm Mishcon de Reya in a striking art-deco building in Red Lion Square in London, I was genuinely thrilled to learn that the John Harrison had lived in a house built on the site of our offices. Yet, it wasn’t one of my colleagues that imparted this information, it was the discreet blue plaque on the side of the building that noted “John Harrison, 1693 – 1776, inventor of the Marine Chronometer lived and died in a house on this site”. So unobtrusive and yet so iconic and whilst perhaps no one else in the building cared or does care that it has this particular historical link, it would make me smile every time I walked past.

The announcement today that English Heritage, which has run the Blue Plaque scheme since 1986 (the actual history of the blue plaques dates back to 1866 making it one of the oldest of its kind in the world) was suspending its approval scheme due to cash shortages appalled me. Not only are plaques iconic but they need a body such as English Heritage to administer it so that there is a judgment made and it doesn’t become a free for all. As the Guardian’s art critic Jonathan Jones said in his blog today:

“London is at a turning point in its history. The nation’s capital is about to see its skyline become a jumble of badly designed skyscrapers, in an amnesiac destruction of its architectural identity. Do we want this city to lose all sense of its past? Blue plaques are one of the most charming ways a capital has ever found to preserve historical memory.”

Tucked away in a side street in Holborn, there will always be one that remains especially in my memory.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers

%d bloggers like this: