Re-Creating Art the Modern Way

Asger Jorn: Stalingrad

This large painting is considered the principal work of the Danish artist Asger Jorn (1914-1973), and he worked on it for 15 years. It's impressive, but not one of my favorite paintings. Actually, I have to admit that I'm not an admirer of this rather famous Danish artist. Some - and not only Danes still - see him as a "genius", but if that's the case then I fail to see it.

However, I'm not blind to the fact that he may be a much better artist than I think he was. After all he did make an impact on art critics and fellow artists. He even had his own museum in the Danish city of Silkeborg where he and his five siblings were raised by their mother after the death of their father. 

 

Asger Jorn with Pablo Picasso 

However, right now there is a lot of discussions about one of his works, namely, "Den foruroligende ælling" ("The Worrying Duckling" from 1959) which is a true "Re-Creation of Art" as he made it by painting an extremely ugly duckling on another artist's painting which he had bought in a second-hand shop. Who that artist was nobody seems to know - or care about - and that means that nobody knows how that man or woman would have felt about his or her work being "re-created". Was he/she proud of the painting and loved it as it was before Jorn laid his hand on it? If so what felt he/she at seeing the ugly Jorn duckling covering his/her artwork???? Would he or she have felt like taking him to court over his act of sacrilege or didn't he/she care?????

"The Worrying Duckling" by Asger Jorn (and someone else ...) 

From what I know of these second hand artworks they are not considered art by art critics, but somehow this special, not highly estimated, painting by an seemingly unknown artist attained status by the ugly duckling that was painted on it. The art critics didn't see it as Jorn's attempt to ruin an artwork, but to "better it" and turning it into art. However, recently another - and modern, Danish artist, Ibi-Pippi Orup Hedegaard, did to Jorn's work what he had done to the unknown artist's painting, namely re-created it once more. This time Hell broke lose over something that now was seen as sacrilege, vandalism or a crime to ruin a famous piece of art.

Ibi-Pippi Orup Hedegaard

Now the question is, whether it's fair or not to sentence Ibi-Pippi to pay a fine of almost 2 million in Danish kroner (i.e. circa $292.256,64) for doing what Asger Jorn did? The Jorn painting of the duckling may be ruined for good, but so was the painting he used as a canvas ....

 

https://www.tv2ostjylland.dk/silkeborg/efter-jorn-haervaerk-nu-rejses-erstatningskrav-mod-ibi-pippi 

 

https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2023-01-25-jorn-maleri-fik-skader-for-naesten-to-millioner-ved-haervaerk 

 

Wikipedia 

The Pregnant Man

Sanju Bhagat  as a child and as a grown man
 

In this photo of the Indian farmer Sanju Bhagat he looks pregnant, but how is that possible when he was born a man? As we know it's impossible, so when first I saw this photo I thought that he had some kind of liver failure as that also may give skinny people like Sanju Bhagat a big, bulking belly. The doctors who eventually stepped in and saved the poor farmer at first were convinced that he was suffering from some kind of life threatening tumor. That's why they adviced him to have surgery when at last he was forced to go to hospital because his big belly made it difficult for him to breathe. Up till then he had declined any suggestions of seeing a doctor because he knew that they and their treatments were expensive, also because he would have to take leave from his work. Something he hated even to think of as he was the supporter of his family even though his hard work in the fields brought on back pains and other problems.

Yes, that would be some kind of new sport, but also an impossible feat for the so-called "strong sex". However, some transgender men who were born as women might give birth. Last year that happened for instance for Trystan Reese, but he is not the only transgender man who has had a baby as there are more before him. However, in my optic, this kind of birth can't be seen as a genuine male incidence so I'm still of the opinion that an individual, born as a man, may father children, but he can't give birth as he doesn't have a uterus and a vagina.

Trystan Reese with his newborn baby (2022)

 

No, there are no appropriate suggestions except a Caesarian and - in a way - that's what Sanju Bhagat had when the doctors opened his belly in 1999 and took "the tumor" out of him. However, this "tumor" was something very special as it turned out to be the living, but now dying, unborn baby brother of Sanju Bhagat. Somehow it had been growing within him, sustained by the food he had, just like had he really been pregnant. Looking at the lump of flesh that might have been a child, but ended up as the corpse of a very deformed fetus, one might ask how that was even possible. To me one of the weirdest things is that this fetus is rather developed and that it came out alive which I suppose means that at some point it was living a kind of "life". Maybe it even had thoughts and emotions ....

Yes - in a way  - Sanju Bhagat really was "pregnant"

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/was-famous-pregnant-man-thomas-beatie-now-rcna1328?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yewy2d/an_artificial_womb_that_successfully_grew_a_baby/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02343-7 

 

https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/everything-pregnancy/transgender-man-gives-birth-to-healthy-baby-talks-navigating/ 

 
 

https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/can-men-get-pregnant#TOC_TITLE_HDR_1 

 

https://historyofyesterday.com/the-twin-who-lived-inside-his-brother-for-36-years/?utm_content=cmp-true 

 

 

The Royal Heroine

She looks like a freezing sparrow fledgling, but don't believe that's what she was in her life. When it came to fighting for a honourable cause she grew into something more like a tigress showing real bravery. Her birth name was Noor Inayat Khan (1914-1944) and she was a Muslim princess from India, but in the annals of history she is known by her code name "Madeline" or "Nora Baker". These names she used in WWII when she partook in the fight against Nazis as a very clever and brave British spy.

Noor and her younger brother Vilayat with their father Inayat Khan.

The Germans knew her only as "Nora Baker", a British woman who had gone into occupied France, using the code name of "Madeline". Her skill in carrying her transmitter from safe house to safe house while being trailed by the Gestapo was of great value to her Resistance unit. It's awful to think of the life expectancy of wireless operators like "Madeline" only being six weeks. However, "Madeline", being the last survivor of these immensely brave wireless operators who worked an active link between London and Paris, kept out of the claws of the Nazis for three times as long. At some point she said that she "was having the time of her life", but, as was to be expected, she ended up being caught by the Nazis.

After being captured she made three attempts to flee that showed bravery and intelligence, but in 1944 she was tortured and shot in the Dachau concentration camp. Her last word before being executed was, "Liberté!" Presumably she had been offered some kind of deal to flee, but refused. 

Noor was a clever musician as well as a writer of children's books. As a person she was a convinced pacifist, but chose to fight what she saw as a cruel and inhuman war. There is no doubt that she was a genuine heroine, but - as we know as it happens all too often - her contribution to the fight against the Nazi regime was forgotten. However, in 2006 Shrabani Basu brought her life to light with the biography "Spy Princess". That opened the eyes of may people who understood that she was a quite extraordinary person and should be honoured as such.

Here the author of Noor's biography, Shrabani Basu, is seen with the British princess Anne, unveiling the Noor Inayat Khan statue in 2012. Also there has been issued a special stamp in her honor. The British also gave her The Blue Plaque just as the French awarded her with a posthumous Croix de Guerre. Recently there has been made a movie over her life so one might say that she has gone from being more or less forgotten to shine as a heroic star. 

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/10/28/noor-inayat-khan

 

https://www.london.ac.uk/news-and-opinion/leading-women/musician-author-princess-spy-noor-inayat-khan 

 

Wikipedia

 

Arbejderen: Else Cederborg-indlæg om Elizabeth Magies våben imod kapitalismen, brætspillet "The Landlord's Game"

Rigtig mange mennesker elsker succeshistorier om fattige, der bliver rige, opnår højere social status og bliver “lykkelige”. Det vi forstår ved “lykke” sættes nemlig ofte automatisk lig med rigdom og evnen til at “få styr på livet”, fordi rigmænd selv har penge nok til at bestemme de mest basale ting i deres liv. En drøm, jeg såmænd ikke vil forklejne, selv om den forekommer mig utrolig naiv, fordi den hopper let og (u-)elegant hen over vort samfunds strukturer. Disse kan man se af brætspillet Monopoly, der på mange måder er noget andet og langt mere, end det umiddelbart giver sig ud for at være.

I mange år mente man, at det var blevet skabt af en fattig, arbejdsløs mand ved navn Charles Darrow, hvis opfindelse gjorde ham rig og berømt. Sandheden er dog, at den oprindelige skaber af det spil, der udviklede sig til Monopopy, var en vaks og meget original feminist ved navn Elizabeth Magie (1866-1948). Hendes indflydelsesrige journalist-far, der så sandelig også var både vaks og progressiv, havde i sin tid rejst rundt med Abraham Lincoln, og det var ham, der oplærte sin datter i den ideologi, der kommer til udtryk i det tilsyneladende så uskyldige brætspil.

Baggrunden for hans undervisning af Elizabeth var den amerikanske journalist, økonom og filosof Henry Georges ideologier og hans best-seller, “Fremskridt og fattigdom” (“Progress and Poverty”, 1879). Her påpegede Henry George blandt andet, at fattige mennesker i visse højt udviklede byer havde det meget værre end i mere landlige områder. Grunden til dette så han som et resultat af, at næsten al den velstand, der skabes af sociale og teknologiske fremskridt i en fri markedsøkonomi, bliver opsuget af jordejere og monopolister. Dette system skabte den støt stigende fattigdom via et fordelingssystem, som Henry George sammenlignede med tidligere tiders slaveri. Derfor ønskede han et skattesystem, der kunne beskatte de ellers godt beskyttede, velhavende jordbesiddere og husejere.

Elizabeth Magie, der som mange andre kvinder ernærede sig som stenograf, gjorde oprør imod fagets magre lønninger ved at opføre et “bryllupsshow”, hvor hun falbød sig selv som en “young woman American slave”, for ægteskab var anset for den bedste måde for kvinder at få sig en form for “karriere”. Faktisk blev det anset for den eneste hæderlige måde, kvinder kunne skabe sig et levebrød. Noget, der i høj grad forargede hende, da kvinder, som hun udtrykte det, “ikke er maskiner”. Dette var hun selv et bevis på, da hun både skrev lyrik, noveller, opfandt diverse små-maskiner og optrådte på scenen. Sin fritid brugte hun til at skabe brætspillet “The Landlord’s Game”, der var en forløber for Monopoly. Hun optog patent på sin nyskabelse i 1904 og lagde ikke skjul på, at det var skabt som en protest imod rigmænd som Andrew Carnegie og John D. Rockefeller, der havde skaffet sig rigdomme gennem et system, hvor deres arbejdere blev udbyttet.

Faktisk var “The Landlord’s Game” et moralsk, ideologisk spil, der via sin indbyggede dualisme afslørede svaghederne og de mange uretfærdigheder i det samfund, hun levede i. Disse afsløringer fremgik især ved at lange ud efter de uretfærdige skattelove, der gjorde det let for rigmændene at grabse til sig på de fattiges bekostning. Man kan sige, at “The Landlord’s Game” var en form for lærebog i spilformat, fordi det demonstrerede, hvordan systemet i sig selv tog fra den ene samfundsgruppe og gav til den anden. Når man sad med spillet, var der underforståede sociale og økonomiske regler, der pludselig gik op for spillerne, fordi det demonstrerede dem på en letforståelig måde. At æren for opfindelsen af dette spil gik til Charles Darrow mere end tredive år efter, at Elizabeth havde optaget patent, blev først afsløret i 1973. På det tidspunkt var også andre “usynliggør-kvinden-luskerier” blevet opdaget, så hun var ikke det eneste offer i denne form for kønskamp, men det føles meget uretfærdigt den dag i dag, fordi hun virkelig lagde krop og sjæl i skabelsen af dette pædagogiske spil.

 

Wikipedia

Monopoly’s Lost Female Inventor: Women’s History, September, 2018

https://landlordsgame.info/ 

 

The Shame of Giving Birth

Giving birth has been considered noble in patriarchy for ages. However, unfortunately, this notion, being part of a wide-spread ideology, has played its part in subduing women in all kinds of societies. "Have many children, preferably blonde and blue-eyed" was the message to German women in the 1930-1940s as it had been before in former historical settings. No matter where or when, some babies were not seen as the "bonus" of having sex because they were born without the consent of the patriarchal society: Women had to get married to have sex, and children born out of wedlock were considered illegitimate which would reduce their - as well as their mother's - status in these patriarchal societies. Strange to think of some famous and wealthy women who were children of unwed mothers. That goes e.g. for the singer and actress Eartha Kitt who in her heydays was considered one of the sexiest women on this planet.

When Eartha was born in 1927 her Mom was 16 years old, and, presumably, she didn't know who the father of her daughter was. The child grew up with her aunt and didn't even know that she wasn't her birth mother. This seems to have been the most common way of deluding the world when it came to illegitimacy, but the children still had to bear the sting of "not having a father". That's ridiculous as nobody is without a father, even though they may not know his name. In Eartha's case there were rumours that this elusive - and spoilt! - male was either a Chinese or a white man who may have raped her mother.  

When it comes to Loretta Young she had a daughter, Judy Lewis, after a date rape by the "King of Hollywood", Mr. Clark Gable. He never acknowledged her allegations of either rape or fatherhood, and I've even seen some denials by his great-grandson that seems ridiculous to me as the girl was his spitting image.

The "shame" of giving birth to this out-of-wedlock-daughter forced Loretta to deny everything concerning her existence. She "wasn't her daughter, but a child she had ADOPTED". Poor Judy, both of her parents lied, but as far as I know she had a good and loving childhood with her mother when she was adopted by her. However, the fact that her mother felt obliged to deny her daughter speaks strongly against the patriarchal rules when it comes to giving birth. They were more than double-tilted towards saving the man and his reputation while ruining the social standing of the woman: "Give birth, but only on our terms, and you shall be rewarded with a social status." That's not ruling with the rod, but with the carrot, and it worked for ages ....

Merle Oberon was a stunning figure in Hollywood, but also a mystery woman to many people. For instance, who was that Indian woman who served her as her lady's maid? Why was she with her, doing her biddings? The truth was that this Indian woman was the mother of the beautiful star, Merle Oberon, and that she had given birth to her when she was only 12 years old. Her father - as is usual in these cases - had disappeared long ago, but no matter who he was he must have been a pedophilia, taking advantage of a child of 11-12. To conceal what had happened, Merle grew up believing that her grandmother was her mother, and her birth mother was her sister. Like in the case of Eartha Kitt and Loretta Young the name of the English pedophilia who had fathered her was blotted out on her birth certificate: The system protected him, but the women had to fend for themselves which they did by denying her race as well as her ancestry. Disgusting that that was necessary to get accepted by society ....

 

Wikipedia

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2468832/Eartha-Kitts-daughter-mothers-attempt-father.html

Take GOD to court???

 

The very idea of taking "God" to court looks like a joke, but sometimes it's not, and what's more, many feel that "he" deserves it because they blame "him" for wars, earthquakes, gruesome death, etc., etc.. Actually, Betty Penrose didn't only find it reasonable to blame God for various personal grievancies and difficulties in her life, but she really took "him" to court. However, as far as I can see there never was any God-given promises of an easy life, because what humans were asked - or rather demanded to do - was to serve their God, not to enjoy their own individual lives. An easy and pleasureable life is something we humans expect as our birthright, but it was not part of the deal until modern man began to see "God" as some kind of "Santa". We should know better, because "he" is not ....

OK, then is it possible to sue someone over one's own un-fulfilled expectations when these never was part of a legal agreement? Naaahhh, not really, still Betty did just that:

Most likely Russel T. Tansie made this complaint on behalf of Betty who was his secretary, tongue in mouth: He knew all along that "God" wouldn't turn up in court and that "he" never felt guilty no matter what disasters "he" was under suspicion for having orchestrated. It was a joke - and at the same time a serious complaint about a grave accident.

I suppose that if you see your "God" as a father then it's natural for you to expect protection and a lot of good things from "him". When you receive none of what you covet as a human being then it's very understandable that you feel let down, yeah, even cheated. However, that seems to happen to all kinds of people so you are not the stepchild of your "Sky-Daddy" ....

https://ng.opera.news/ng/en/others-natural-disaster/244cfdf5be149ab204ebae0acd0ebd74

 

 

WHY did Lawrence Singleton dismember 15 Year Old Mary?

Mary Vincent was a lovely, young girl of 15 who lost both her hands because a man three times her age decided to cut them off after having raped her. What had she done to deserve that? NOTHING, except maybe being a little naive and too trustworthy when she climbed into his truck, attempting to hitchhike from Las Vegas to California. After this attack on the young teenager the attacker, Lawrence Singleton, left her for dead, even though she hadn't died, but only fainted. After coming to she managed to stumble away from the cruel scenery, holding her stumped arms up to keep the blood from gushing out. Luckily enough she met two women who helped her get to a hospital. After being attended by doctors she told the police what had happened to her and who did it. Contrary to Lawrence Singleton's belief in his ability to escape the law he was soon found and arrested as his neighbour recognized him from Mary's description of him.

Lawrence Bernard "Larry" Singleton (July 28, 1927 – December 28, 2001) who became nicknamed the "Mad Chopper" in the media, was an abominable American criminal, but behaving well while in jail he only served eigth years of his fourteen years sentence before being released. Sadly enough that was what gave him the chance of committing another crime, this time both rape and murder of a lovely, young mother of three kids, Roxanne Hayes. The authorities thought he was reformed when he behaved so nicely in jail, but no, he was the same sadistic rapist as before going to jail. 

Roxanne Hayes 

To think of this ugly and disgusting man with either of the two women he molested is difficult as it obviously is a "Beauty versus Beast"-situation. None of these women would have had anything to do with him on their own and now they were forced into submitting their life and/or health to him and his weird urges. It's both disgusting and crazy, but it made me think of a claim that we hear from many young men these years: "See me, sleep with me, be MINE!" Many of these men will be able to find a girlfriend or maybe a wife in the future, but some are so physically or mentally non-attractive that they will find such an exploit impossible. The point is, that that has been the fate for many women who ended up as "spinsters" which was considered "low class" for women.

This man, Lawrence Singleton, is not in any way lovable which means that he can't claim love of women who didn't chose him, but whom he still felt that he had the right to use for sex. In court over the Vincent-case he postulated that the young girl of 15 was a $10 hooker, and that someone else who, according to him, also was named "Larry" had been with her in his car, abusing and maiming her. He, on the other hand, "was totally innocent of all crimes". In court he was overheard threatening Mary, assuring her "that I will finish the job even if it takes the rest of my life!" 

Luckily enough that threat came to nothing. Mary lived to have a son, but all her life she fought to handle her handicap as best she could. From what I've read about her she is someone I would deem a "beautiful soul", whereas the thoroughly evil and selfish Lawrence Singleton is the opposite of her. 

However, asserting that doesn't solve the riddle of some men's feelings about their "right" to expect love from women who don't in the least feel attracted to them. When Mary asked him to "set her free" after being tied up and raped by him he changed from a rapist to a monster. Both her arms were chopped off when she said that and he tried to kill her, but didn't succeed. It makes me suspect that he was offended by her wish to get away and that that was the reason for his behaviour. Many other rapists and/or murderers, like e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer, behave in the same manner, and in my opinion that's very weird, especially as I suspect that it may be part of the male psyche as it has become ....