Monthly Archives: January 2018

On Cloisonnism – to make your paintings “pop…”

Vincent van Gogh‘s painting of “Père Tanguy” – done in what the French call Cloisonnism

*   *   *   *

Welcome to the “Georgia Wasp…”

This blog is modeled on the Carolina Israelite.  That was an old-time newspaper – more like a personal newsletter – written and published by Harry Golden.  Back in the 1950s, people called Harry a  “voice of sanity amid the braying of jackals.”  (For his work on the Israelite.)

That’s now my goal as well.  To be a “voice of sanity amid the braying of jackals.”

For more on the blog-name connection, see the notes below.

In the meantime:

Donald TrumpI’m taking a break from doing posts on politics (As currently illustrated at right.)  Instead, this post will be on painting, as in oil painting and/or acrylic painting.  That’s what I do when I’m not working on my blogs.

I recently skimmed through the book, Van Gogh (Gramercy Great Masters), and ran across this on page 25.  It was about two paintings Van Gogh did in 1868:*

In the first of these, he used the technique of cloisonnism, the name of which was derived from a French word meaning “divided.”  This approach was typical of [Paul] Gauguin, but was also used by many Symbolist painters, and consisted of surrounding every object with a distinct outline.

Anyway, the basic idea is – as noted – to “surround every object” in the painting “with a distinct outline.”  And on the theme of great minds think alike, I thought to myself, “That’s what I’ve been doing!”  Or at least that’s an idea I’ve developed in my recent painting.

I’m 66 and semi-retired, and so can now spend my time on things I enjoy doing, rather than things I have to do to make a living.  I was a public defender for 24 years in Florida, but I was originally an art major.  (For my bachelor’s degree.)  But as graduation grew near I thought it would be better to major in something that would help me get a job.  (Rather than, “You want fries with that?”)  And ultimately I ended up in law school.

But I never totally gave up on my art.  The problem?  I wondered why my paintings always looked so blah, and – in the fullness of time – finally found out why.  I never outlined anything, so all the objects in my paintings pretty much blended together.

Gauguin Il Cristo giallo.jpgFor example, if you look closely at Van Gogh’s “Portrait of Pere Tanguy” – at the top of the page -you’ll see that Père* is surrounded by bright red outline.  Or – speaking of Paul Gauguin – you can see a much more exaggerated version in his The Yellow Christ (“one of the key works of Symbolism in painting.”)

Gauguin relies heavily on bold lines to define his figures…  The bold outlines and flatness of the forms in this painting are typical of the cloisonnist style.

And just as an aside, some sources say the word – “after the French for ‘partition'” – was a style of expressionism featuring large patches of bright color “enclosed within thick black outlines, in the manner of medieval cloisonné enamelling or stained glass.”  Also, “The word ‘Cloisonnism’ is used interchangeably with the term ‘Synthetism,'” although artists “like Gauguin did not use the thick black outlines which are the hallmark of cloisonnist paintings.”

Whatever          (But only in the sense that “it’s about time this post came to an end.”)  

So anyway, that’s what the French call Cloisonnism.  Which leads me to say,”Boy, those French have a fancy name for everything.”  Or as Professor Henry Higgins said in My Fair Lady, “The French don’t care what they do actually, as long as they pronounce it properly!”

Words of wisdom to live by…

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Portrait of Père Tanguy – Wikipedia.  Other sources – for paintings and text – include Cloisonnism: History, Characteristics – Art EncyclopediaArtworks by style: Cloisonnism – WikiArt.orgCloisonnism – Wikipedia, and 124 best Art – Cloisonnism images … Paul Gauguin.

“Note” also that an asterisk in the main text indicates a statement supported by a reference detailed further in this “notes” section.  Thus as to the two paintings Van Gogh did in 1868:  They were L’Arlésienne and Portrait of Armand Roulin.  (One of several versions.)

Re: Père.  According to Wiktionary, the term can mean either a “priest of the Roman Catholic Church, especially a French one,” or in the alternative the term is used “after a proper name that is common to a father and his son to indicate that the father is being referred to rather than the son; juniorfils.”  See also Père | Definition … by Merriam-Webster.

The lower image is courtesy of Rex Harrison: Professor Henry Higgins – IMDb.

*   *   *   *

Re:  The Israelite.  Harry Golden wrote and published it from the 1940s through the 1960s.  He was a “cigar-smoking, bourbon-loving raconteur.”  (Another way of saying he told good stories.)  That also means if he was around today, the “Israelite would be done as a blog.”  But what made Harry special was his positive outlook on life.  As he got older but didn’t turn sour, like so many do today.  He still got a kick out of life.  And for more on the blog-name connection, see “Wasp” and/or The blog.

Movie review: “The Post” – It wasn’t REALLY 6-3!

Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and “The Post” staff get news from an old-timey (3-channel) TV…

*   *   *   *

The Post (film).pngI just went to see The Post, the “2017 American political thriller” featuring Meryl Streep as Katharine Graham and Tom Hanks as Ben Bradlee (The publisher and executive editor of the Washington Post – respectively – at the time in question.)

It brought back a lot of memories.

The film – set in June 1971 – covered the month when both the Washington Post and the New York Times ran afoul of the Nixon Administration.  Specifically, both newspapers ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court, charged – essentially – with treason.  At stake – also essentially – was the future of freedom of the press in the United States(You know, that pain-in-the-ass part of the First Amendment of the Constitution?)

The Washington Post was perhaps best known for its coverage of Watergate scandal:

[From 1972 to 1974], in the best-known episode in the newspaper’s history, reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein led the American press’ investigation into what became known as the Watergate scandal; reporting in the newspaper greatly contributed to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

However, The Post (film) covers an earlier time:  June, 1971.

That was when first the New York Times, then the Washington Post began running a series of articles based on the Pentagon Papers (The 47-volume, 7,000-page assessment of the history of the Vietnam War.  It was ordered in 1967 by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, and ultimately concluded that the war was “unwinnable.”  The papers were “turned over (without authorization) to The New York Times by Daniel Ellsberg, a senior research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for International Studies.”) 

 The Nixon Administration charged Ellsberg with conspiracy, espionage, and theft of government property – i.e., the Pentagon Papers – for which he faced a possible 115 years in prison.  And the substance of The Post (film) is that “Kate” Graham herself faced criminal prosecution, not to mention personal bankruptcy and the loss of the “family paper.”  (The Post (newspaper

An aside:  The paper had been “in the family” since 1933.  That’s when Katharine’s father – Eugene Meyer – bought the paper in a bankruptcy action.  “In 1946, Meyer was succeeded as publisher by his son-in-law, Philip Graham” – Katharine‘s husband – who died in 1963.  (Which itself offers some interesting drama…) 

The point being that Katharine Graham had a lot to lose…

I could write a lot about The Post as both film art and a commentary on how history tends to repeat(My original title for this “article” – to avoid a redundant “Post post” – was “Movie review: ‘The Post’ – and history repeating itself…”)  And I will do more “posts on ‘The Post'” in the future.

But for today I’ll focus on journalism and its place in American law.

All the President's Men book 1974.jpgFor one thing, I majored in journalism because of “Woodstein” and the film All the President’s Men.  For another, after graduation in 1976 I went to work for the St. Petersburg Times – now the Tampa Bay Times – for five years.  Then I  went to law school intending to become a reporter specializing in the law and legal proceedings.

Which could explain my focus for today’s review.

Near the end of the film, the staff of the Washington Post got a telephone call – on a rotary phone, no less – announcing the Supreme Court’s decision.  At stake was not only freedom of the press, but also the personal and financial future of Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee (U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell was quoted as saying, “Katie Graham’s gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if that’s published.”)

The announcement?  “We won, 6-3!”  (Or words to that effect…)

My first reaction?  That the scariest part of the movie was that – back in 1971 – three Supreme Court Justices seemed to agree with the Nixon Administration.

And if that was true back then, what would happen today if the Trump Administration took a similar stand, from its own Enemies List?  Or worse, if Trump goes on to pack the Court?  But –  after further review – it turned out that Chief Justice Warren Burger – together with Justices John Harlan and Harry Blackmun – dissented only because of the “haste of the proceedings:”

[Burger] argued that in the haste of the proceedings, and given the size of the documents, the Court was unable to gather enough information to make a decision…  The Chief Justice did not argue that the Government had met the aforementioned standard, but rather that the decision should not have been made so hastily.

Which doesn’t mean the dissenters favored the government.  It only meant they thought the decision should not have been made so quickly.  (See New York Times v. United States.)

To give some perspective, the Times published its first article on June 13, 1971, while the Washington Post began publishing its own articles on June 18.  The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the various parties on June 25 and 26, and rendered its decision on June 30, 1971.

Which means the whole process – from the first publishing to the government’s law suit to the final decision by the Supreme Court – took less than three weeks.  But in normal certiorari proceedings, “cases take approximately 12 to 24 months from the day they are petitioned until the Supreme Court issues a decision.”

On the other hand, the average schmuck trying to fix a decision in a state court must first “exhaust all state remedies” – which can take years – and such cases are rarely granted review.

At any rate, the fact that the three dissenting justices only felt the decision was rendered too quickly made me feel a bit better, and not so panicky.

At least for now…  In the meantime, consider this from one Thomas Jefferson:

…were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. 

I’ll be writing more reviews of The Post in the future.

*   *   *   *

Official Presidential portrait of Thomas Jefferson (by Rembrandt Peale, 1800).jpg

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of The Post (2017) – IMDb.  Text and/or images were also gleaned from  The Post (2017) – IMDb and Pentagon Papers – Wikipedia.

RE:  “That pain-in-the-ass part of the First Amendment.”   That Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;  or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Re:  The Pentagon Papers saying the Vietnam war was “unwinnable.”  The study also indicated that presidential administrations beginning with Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower also routinely lied to the American people as to why the war was necessary in the first place.

The photo to the right of the paragraph “To give some perspective,” is captioned “The Monday, July 21, 1969, edition, with the headline ‘The Eagle Has Landed’‍ – Two Men Walk on the Moon.” 

Re:  The “normal” length of time for Supreme Court proceedings.  See How long does a US Supreme Court case take – Answers.com:  “More commonly, cases take approximately 12 to 24 months from the day they are petitioned until the Supreme Court issues a decision.”  Re:  “Average schmuck” and “exhausting state remedies.”  See SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, (courtesy of “law.cornell”), and U.S. Supreme Court: Failure to Exhaust Remedies Is an Affirmative Defense.  

And as another aside, Chief Justice Warren Burger also argued that the Times should have discussed the possible societal repercussions with the Government prior to publication of the material.

The lower image is courtesy of Thomas Jefferson – Wikipedia.  As to the quote, see also Jefferson’s preference for “newspapers without governmentJefferson on Politics & Government: Freedom of the Press, and/or Jefferson’s Warning to the White House | Time.com.