View allAll Photos Tagged Conceal
... Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.
"Khalil Gibran"
.
.
My Salt Cellar ... :)
.
ARTWORK/PHOTO ART is the topic for 28th July 2011
.
Russell Maliphant Company: Conceal | Reveal
Russell Maliphant Company - Conceal | Reveal opens at Sadler's Wells Theatre from 26-28 November 2015. Conceal | Reveal celebrates 20 years of collaboration between contemporary dance choreographer Russell Maliphant and lighting designer Michael Hulls.
Casting:
«both, and»: Dana Fouras
Piece No.43: Dana Fouras, Adam Kirkham, Carys Staton, Yu-Hsien Wu, Nathan Young
Broken Fall: Adam Kirkham, Yu-Hsien Wu, Nathan Young
photo - © Foteini Christofilopoulou | All rights reserved | For all usage/licensing enquiries please contact www.foteini.com
I hadn't noticed the reflective side on the bee's knee until I looked at this shot on the computer...... To be honest it looks like the blade of a knife (please view large), and now I'm wondering are these guys as harmless as some would make out.... LOL LOL
I do love being able to capture these kinds of photos though. I have such a fear of bees and wasps, but following them around with the 300mm zoom lens makes it a little easier :)
I'm sure someone will see this and explain what the reflective panel actually is - I'm guessing its the empty pollen sack?
Have a great Monday everybody. Another day off work makes it a really great one for me :)
Sung Sot Cave @ Halong Bay, Quang Ninh Province, Vietnam
All Rights Reserved
Use without permission is illegal.
If you like to acquire my works, do drop me an email and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Alternatively, you can license my photos through Getty Images. :)
The Golden Buddha, officially titled Phra Phuttha Maha Suwanna Patimakon (Thai: พระพุทธมหาสุวรรณปฏิมากร; Sanskrit: Buddhamahāsuvarṇapaṭimākara), commonly known in Thai as Phra Sukhothai Traimit (Thai: พระสุโขทัยไตรมิตร), is a gold Maravijaya Attitude seated Buddharupa statue, with a weight of 5.5 tonnes (5,500 kilograms). It is located in the temple of Wat Traimit, Bangkok, Thailand. At one point in its history, the statue was covered with a layer of stucco and coloured glass to conceal its true value, and it remained in this condition for almost 200 years, ending up as what was then a pagoda of minor significance. During relocation of the statue in 1955, the plaster was chipped off and the gold revealed.
The origins of this statue are uncertain. It is made in the Sukhothai Dynasty style of the 13th–14th centuries, though it could have been made after that time. The head of the statue is egg-shaped, which indicates its origin in the Sukhothai period. Given that Sukothai art had Indian influences and metal figures of the Buddha made in India used to be taken to various countries mostly during the Pala period.
Later, the statue was probably moved from Sukhothai to Ayutthaya, about 1403.
Some scholars believe the statue is mentioned in the somewhat controversial Ram Khamhaeng stele. In lines 23–27 of the first stone slab of the stele, "a gold Buddha image" is mentioned as being located "in the middle of Sukhothai City", interpreted as being a reference to the Wat Traimit Golden Buddha.
At some point, the statue was completely plastered over to prevent it from being stolen. The statue was covered with a thick layer of stucco, which was painted and inlaid with bits of coloured glass. It is believed that this plastering-over took place before the destruction of Ayutthaya kingdom by Burmese invaders in 1767. The statue remained among the ruins of Ayutthaya without attracting much attention.
In 1801, King Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (Rama I) of Siam, after establishing Bangkok as a new capital city of the Kingdom, and after commissioning the construction of many temples in Bangkok, ordered that various old Buddha images should be brought to Bangkok from the ruined temples around the country.
At the time of King Rama III (1824–1851), the statue, still covered with stucco, was installed as the principal Buddha image in the main temple building of Wat Chotanaram (Wat Phraya Krai) in Bangkok.
When Wat Chotanaram, located near Chinatown on the site of modern-day Asiatique, fell into disrepair and was closed, the statue was moved to its present location at the nearby Wat Traimit in 1935. At the time, Wat Traimit was a pagoda of minor significance (like hundreds of other Buddhist temples that exist in Bangkok). Since the temple didn't have a building big enough to house the statue, it was kept for 20 years under a simple tin roof. The true identity of this statue had been forgotten for almost 200 years.
In 1954, a new Viharn building was built at the temple to house the statue. It was moved to its new location on 25 May 1955; there are a variety of accounts of what exactly happened next, but it is clear that during the final attempt to lift the statue from its pedestal, the ropes broke and the statue fell hard on the ground. At that moment, some of the plaster coating chipped off, allowing the gold surface underneath to be seen. Work was immediately stopped so that an evaluation could be made.
All the plaster was carefully removed and during the process, photos were taken and are now displayed in the Temple for visitors. Pieces of the actual plaster are also on public display. When all the plaster was removed, it was found that the gold statue actually consisted of nine parts that fit smoothly together. A key was also found encased in plaster at its base, which can be used to disassemble the statue, allowing for easier transportation.
The golden statue was discovered very close to the commemoration of the twenty-fifth Buddhist Era (2500 years since Gautama Buddha's passing) so the Thai news media was full of reports and many Buddhists regarded the occurrence as miraculous.
On 14 February 2010, a large new building was inaugurated at the Wat Traimit Temple to house the Gold Buddha. The building also contains the Bangkok Chinatown Heritage Centre and an exhibition on the origin of the Gold Buddha.
The statue is 3 metres (9.8 ft) tall and weighs 5.5 tonnes (5.4 long tons; 6.1 short tons). (According to another account, the statue measures 3.91 meters from base to top, and 3.10 meters across the lap from knee to knee.) It can be disassembled into nine pieces. The statue was housed in a wat in Ayutthaya until the mid 19th century, and its provenance from Ayutthaya excludes the possibility of it having been made after about 1750.
At US$1,400 per troy ounce, the gold in the statue (18 karat) is estimated to be worth 250 million dollars. The body of the statue is 40% pure, the volume from the chin to the forehead is 80% pure, and the hair and the topknot, weighing 45 kg, are 99% pure gold.
The Buddha is represented in the traditional pose of Bhumisparsha Mudra (touching the earth with the right hand to bear witness Lord Buddha's enlightenment at Bodh Gaya and victory over Mara). The original statues of Sukhothai sit on a common pedestal form. The flame that crowns the ushnisha is an innovation of Sukhothai that symbolises the splendour of spiritual energy. The line of the hairdressing forms a "V" shape in the root of the hairs, underlined by the elegant curve of the eyebrows that join above the aquiline nose, all according to the prescribed rules. The three wrinkles in the neck and the much elongated ear lobes, signs of his former status of prince, also form part of the code, as do the wide shoulders and the chest inflated.
Bangkok, officially known in Thai as Krung Thep Maha Nakhon and colloquially as Krung Thep, is the capital and most populous city of Thailand. The city occupies 1,568.7 square kilometres (605.7 sq mi) in the Chao Phraya River delta in central Thailand and has an estimated population of 10.539 million as of 2020, 15.3 percent of the country's population. Over 14 million people (22.2 percent) lived within the surrounding Bangkok Metropolitan Region at the 2010 census, making Bangkok an extreme primate city, dwarfing Thailand's other urban centres in both size and importance to the national economy.
Bangkok traces its roots to a small trading post during the Ayutthaya Kingdom in the 15th century, which eventually grew and became the site of two capital cities, Thonburi in 1768 and Rattanakosin in 1782. Bangkok was at the heart of the modernization of Siam, later renamed Thailand, during the late-19th century, as the country faced pressures from the West. The city was at the centre of Thailand's political struggles throughout the 20th century, as the country abolished absolute monarchy, adopted constitutional rule, and underwent numerous coups and several uprisings. The city, incorporated as a special administrative area under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration in 1972, grew rapidly during the 1960s through the 1980s and now exerts a significant impact on Thailand's politics, economy, education, media and modern society.
The Asian investment boom in the 1980s and 1990s led many multinational corporations to locate their regional headquarters in Bangkok. The city is now a regional force in finance and business. It is an international hub for transport and health care, and has emerged as a centre for the arts, fashion, and entertainment. The city is known for its street life and cultural landmarks, as well as its red-light districts. The Grand Palace and Buddhist temples including Wat Arun and Wat Pho stand in contrast with other tourist attractions such as the nightlife scenes of Khaosan Road and Patpong. Bangkok is among the world's top tourist destinations, and has been named the world's most visited city consistently in several international rankings.
Bangkok's rapid growth coupled with little urban planning has resulted in a haphazard cityscape and inadequate infrastructure. Despite an extensive expressway network, an inadequate road network and substantial private car usage have led to chronic and crippling traffic congestion, which caused severe air pollution in the 1990s. The city has since turned to public transport in an attempt to solve the problem, operating eight urban rail lines and building other public transit, but congestion still remains a prevalent issue. The city faces long-term environmental threats such as sea level rise due to climate change.
The history of Bangkok, the capital of Thailand, dates at least to the early 15th century, when it was under the rule of Ayutthaya. Due to its strategic location near the mouth of the Chao Phraya River, the town gradually increased in importance, and after the fall of Ayutthaya King Taksin established his new capital of Thonburi there, on the river's west bank. King Phutthayotfa Chulalok, who succeeded Taksin, moved the capital to the eastern bank in 1782, to which the city dates its foundation under its current Thai name, "Krung Thep Maha Nakhon". Bangkok has since undergone tremendous changes, growing rapidly, especially in the second half of the 20th century, to become the primate city of Thailand. It was the centre of Siam's modernization in the late 19th century, subjected to Allied bombing during the Second World War, and has long been the modern nation's central political stage, with numerous uprisings and coups d'état having taken place on its streets throughout the years.
It is not known exactly when the area which is now Bangkok was first settled. It probably originated as a small farming and trading community, situated in a meander of the Chao Phraya River within the mandala of Ayutthaya's influence. The town had become an important customs outpost by as early as the 15th century; the title of its customs official is given as Nai Phra Khanon Thonburi (Thai: นายพระขนอนทณบุรี) in a document from the reign of Ayutthayan king Chao Sam Phraya (1424–1448). The name also appears in the 1805 revised code of laws known as the Law of Three Seals.
At the time, the Chao Phraya flowed through what are now the Bangkok Noi and Bangkok Yai canals, forming a large loop in which lay the town. In the reign of King Chairacha (either in 1538 or 1542), a waterway was excavated, bypassing the loop and shortening the route for ships sailing up to Ayutthaya. The flow of the river has since changed to follow the new waterway, dividing the town and making the western part an island. This geographical feature may have given the town the name Bang Ko (บางเกาะ), meaning 'island village', which later became Bangkok (บางกอก, pronounced in Thai as [bāːŋ kɔ̀ːk]). Another theory regarding the origin of the name speculates that it is shortened from Bang Makok (บางมะกอก), makok being the name of Spondias pinnata, a plant bearing olive-like fruit. This is supported by the fact that Wat Arun, a historic temple in the area, used to be named Wat Makok. Specific mention of the town was first made in the royal chronicles from the reign of King Maha Chakkraphat (1548–1568), giving its name as Thonburi Si Mahasamut (ธนบุรีศรีมหาสมุทร). Bangkok was probably a colloquial name, albeit one widely adopted by foreign visitors.
The importance of Bangkok/Thonburi increased with the amount of Ayutthaya's maritime trade. Dutch records noted that ships passing through Bangkok were required to declare their goods and number of passengers, as well as pay customs duties. Ships' cannons would be confiscated and held there before they were allowed to proceed upriver to Ayutthaya. An early English language account is that of Adam Denton, who arrived aboard the Globe, an East India Company merchantman bearing a letter from King James I, which arrived in "the Road of Syam" (Pak Nam) on 15 August 1612, where the port officer of Bangkok attended to the ship. Denton's account mentions that he and his companions journeyed "up the river some twenty miles to a town called Bancope, where we were well received, and further 100 miles to the city...."
Ayutthaya's maritime trade was at its height during the reign of King Narai (1656–1688). Recognition of the city's strategic location guarding the water passage to Ayutthaya lead to expansion of the military presence there. A fort of Western design was constructed on the east side of the river around 1685–1687 under the supervision of French engineer de la Mare, probably replacing an earlier structure, while plans to rebuild the fort on the west bank were also made. De la Mare had arrived with the French embassy of Chevalier de Chaumont, and remained in Siam along with Chevalier de Forbin, who had been appointed governor of Bangkok. The Bangkok garrison under Forbin consisted of Siamese, Portuguese, and French reportedly totalling about one thousand men.
French control over the city was further consolidated when the French General Desfarges, who had arrived with the second French embassy in 1687, secured the king's permission to board troops there. This, however, lead to resentment among Siamese nobles, led by Phetracha, ultimately resulting in the Siamese revolution of 1688, in which King Narai was overthrown and 40,000 Siamese troops besieged Bangkok's eastern fort for four months before an agreement was reached and the French were allowed to withdraw. The revolution resulted in Siam's ties with the West being virtually severed, steering its trade towards China and Japan. The eastern fort was subsequently demolished on Phetracha's orders.
Ayutthaya was razed by the Burmese in 1767. In the following months, multiple factions competed for control of the kingdom's lands. Of these, Phraya Tak, governor of Tak and a general fighting in Ayutthaya's defence prior to its fall, emerged as the strongest. After succeeding in reclaiming the cities of Ayutthaya and Bangkok, Phraya Tak declared himself king (popularly known as King Taksin) in 1768 and established Thonburi as his capital. Reasons given for this change include the totality of Ayutthaya's destruction and Thonburi's strategic location. Being a fortified town with a sizeable population meant that not much would need to be reconstructed. The existence of an old Chinese trading settlement on the eastern bank allowed Taksin to use his Chinese connections to import rice and revive trade.
King Taksin had the city area extended northwards to border the Bangkok Noi Canal. A moat was dug to protect the city's western border, on which new city walls and fortifications were built. Moats and walls were also constructed on the eastern bank, encircling the city together with the canals on the western side. The king's palace (Thonburi Palace) was built within the old city walls, including the temples of Wat Chaeng (Wat Arun) and Wat Thai Talat (Wat Molilokkayaram) within the palace grounds. Outlying orchards were re-landscaped for rice farming.
Much of Taksin's reign was spent in military campaigns to consolidate the Thonburi Kingdom's hold over Siamese lands. His kingdom, however, would last only until 1782 when a coup was mounted against him, and the general Chao Phraya Chakri established himself as king, later to be known as Phutthayotfa Chulalok or Rama I.
Rama I re-established the capital on the more strategic east bank of the river, relocating the Chinese already settled there to the area between Wat Sam Pluem and Wat Sampheng (which developed into Bangkok's Chinatown). Fortifications were rebuilt, and another series of moats was created, encircling the city in an area known as Rattanakosin Island.
The erection of the city pillar on 21 April 1782 is regarded as the formal date of the city's establishment. (The year would later mark the start of the Rattanakosin Era after calendar reforms by King Rama V in 1888.) Rama I named the new city Krung Rattanakosin In Ayothaya (กรุงรัตนโกสินทร์อินท์อโยธยา). This was later modified by King Nangklao to be: Krungthepmahanakhon Bowonrattanakosin Mahintha-ayutthaya. While settlements on both banks were commonly called Bangkok, both the Burney Treaty of 1826 and the Roberts Treaty of 1833 refer to the capital as the City of Sia-Yut'hia. King Mongkut (Rama IV) would later give the city its full ceremonial name:
Rama I modelled his city after the former capital of Ayutthaya, with the Grand Palace, Front Palace and royal temples by the river, next to the royal field (now Sanam Luang). Continuing outwards were the royal court of justice, royal stables and military prison. Government offices were located within the Grand Palace, while residences of nobles were concentrated south of the palace walls. Settlements spread outwards from the city centre.
The new capital is referred to in Thai sources as Rattanakosin, a name shared by the Siamese kingdom of this historical period. The name Krung Thep and Krung Thep Maha Nakhon, both shortened forms of the full ceremonial name, began to be used near the end of the 19th century. Foreigners, however, continued to refer to the city by the name Bangkok, which has seen continued use until this day.
Most of Rama I's reign was also marked by continued military campaigns, though the Burmese threat gradually declined afterwards. His successors consistently saw to the renovation of old temples, palaces, and monuments in the city. New canals were also built, gradually expanding the fledgling city as areas available for agriculture increased and new transport networks were created.
At the time of the city's foundation, most of the population lived by the river or the canals, often in floating houses on the water. Waterways served as the main method of transportation, and farming communities depended on them for irrigation. Outside the city walls, settlements sprawled along both river banks. Forced settlers, mostly captives of war, also formed several ethnic communities outside the city walls.
Large numbers of Chinese immigrants continued to settle in Bangkok, especially during the early 19th century. Such was their prominence that Europeans visiting in the 1820s estimated that they formed over half of the city population. The Chinese excelled in trade, and led the development of a market economy. The Chinese settlement at Sampheng had become a bustling market by 1835.
By the mid-19th century, the West had become an increasingly powerful presence. Missionaries, envoys and merchants began re-visiting Bangkok and Siam, bringing with them both modern innovations and the threat of colonialism. King Mongkut (Rama IV, reigned 1851–1868) was open to Western ideas and knowledge, but was also forced to acknowledge their powers, with the signing of the Bowring Treaty in 1855. During his reign, industrialization began taking place in Bangkok, which saw the introduction of the steam engine, modern shipbuilding and the printing press. Influenced by the Western community, Charoen Krung Road, the city's first paved street, was constructed in 1862–1864. This was followed by Bamrung Mueang, Fueang Nakhon, Trong (now Rama IV) and Si Lom Roads. Land transport would later surpass the canals in importance, shifting people's homes from floating dwellings toward permanent buildings. The limits of the city proper were also expanded during his reign, extending to the Phadung Krung Kasem Canal, dug in 1851.
King Mongkut's son Chulalongkorn (r. 1868–1910) was set upon modernizing the country. He engaged in wide-ranging reforms, abolishing slavery, corvée (unfree labour) and the feudal system, and creating a centralized bureaucracy and a professional army. The Western concept of nationhood was adopted, and national borders demarcated against British and French territories. Disputes with the French resulted in the Paknam Incident in 1893, when the French sent gunboats up the Chao Phraya to blockade Bangkok, resulting in Siam's concession of territory to France.
With Chulalongkorn's reforms, governance of the capital and the surrounding areas, established as Monthon Krung Thep Phra Mahanakhon (มณฑลกรุงเทพพระมหานคร), came under the Ministry of Urban Affairs (Nakhonban). During his reign many more canals and roads were built, expanding the urban reaches of the capital. Infrastructure was developed, with the introduction of railway and telegraph services between Bangkok and Samut Prakan and then expanding countrywide. Electricity was introduced, first to palaces and government offices, then to serve electric trams in the capital and later the general public. The King's fascination with the West was reflected in the royal adoption of Western dress and fashions, but most noticeably in architecture. He commissioned the construction of the neoclassical Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall at the new Dusit Palace, which was linked to the historic city centre by the grand Ratchadamnoen Avenue, inspired by the Champs-Élysées in Paris. Examples of Western influence in architecture became visible throughout the city.
By 1900, rural market zones in Bangkok began developing into residential districts. Rama VI (1910–1925) continued his predecessor's program of the development of public works by establishing Chulalongkorn University in 1916, and commissioned a system of locks to control waterway levels surrounding the developing city, he also provided the city's first and largest recreational area, Lumphini Park. The Memorial Bridge was constructed in 1932 to connect Thonburi to Bangkok, which was believed to promote economic growth and modernization in a period when infrastructure was developing considerably. Bangkok became the centre stage for power struggles between the military and political elite as the country abolished absolute monarchy in 1932. It was subject to Japanese occupation and Allied bombing during World War II. With the war over in 1945, British and Indian troops landed in September, and during their brief occupation of the city disarmed the Japanese troops. A significant event following the return of the young king, Ananda Mahidol, to Thailand, intended to defuse post-war tensions lingering between Bangkok's ethnic Chinese and Thai people, was his visit to Bangkok's Chinatown Sam Peng Lane (ซอยสำเพ็ง), on 3 June 1946.
As a result of pro-Western bloc treaties Bangkok rapidly grew in the post-war period as a result of United States developmental aid and government-sponsored investment. Infrastructure, including the Don Mueang International Airport and highways, was built and expanded. Bangkok's role as an American military R&R destination launched its tourism industry as well as sex trade. Disproportionate urban development led to increasing income inequalities and unprecedented migration from rural areas into Bangkok; its population surged from 1.8 to 3 million in the 1960s. Following the United States' withdrawal from Vietnam, Japanese businesses took over as leaders in investment, and the expansion of export-oriented manufacturing led to growth of the financial market in Bangkok. Rapid growth of the city continued through the 1980s and early 1990s, until it was stalled by the 1997 Asian financial crisis. By then, many public and social issues had emerged, among them the strain on infrastructure reflected in the city's notorious traffic jams. Bangkok's role as the nation's political stage continues to be seen in strings of popular protests, from the student uprisings in 1973 and 1976, anti-military demonstrations in 1992, and successive anti-government protests by the "Yellow Shirt" and "Red Shirt" movements from 2008 on.
Administratively, eastern Bangkok and Thonburi had been established as separate provinces in 1915. (The province east of the river was named Phra Nakhon (พระนคร.) A series of decrees in 1971–1972 resulted in the merger of these provinces and its local administrations, forming the current city of Bangkok which is officially known in Thai as Krung Thep Maha Nakhon. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) was created in 1975 to govern the city, and its governor has been elected since 1985.
Not all things are to be discovered; many are better concealed.
Sophocles
Sunset in El Cotillo, Fuerteventura
This eagle flew directly over me with a fish. It is funny watching them fly as fast as they can back to a tree to eat before other eagles see they have something. They tuck that fish in under their tail feather and conceal it so they aren't pickpocketed by other eagles. Lets see if they Eagles can steal one away from the Patriots today in Superbowl LII. www.troymarcyphotography.com
Modernism at the Movies: North by Northwest
How Alfred Hitchcock and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer put a Frank Lloyd Wright house on top of Mount Rushmore in spite of common sense, Frank Lloyd Wright and the United States Government. Sort of.
I guess it’s only natural. Since I’m known as a modernism buff, Frank Lloyd Wright fan, movie freak, and Hitchcock addict, I hear the questions all the time: Where is the Frank Lloyd Wright house that was used in "North by Northwest"? Was it a real house? Was it based on a real FLLW design? Is it still on top of Mount Rushmore? Can I visit it?
The Vandamm House looks like a Frank Lloyd Wright design to most people; it isn’t.
The simple answers are no place, no, no, no, and no, but there’s much more to it than that. The house in "North by Northwest" has a history just as fascinating as any "real" dwelling ever built, as you’re about to find out.
The simple truth about the Vandamm house is that it was not a real structure, and that it was not designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. It was designed by MGM set designers for some very specific reasons; some of the reasons had to do with the movie’s plot, some were based in the mechanics of movie-making, and not a few were because Alfred Hitchcock had a point to make.
To understand how the Vandamm house came into "existence", you have to understand the main point of "North by Northwest". The complexities of the famous plot aside, it is about a man who is surrounded by the trappings of wealth, power and prestige- none of which are of any use to him whatever in his incredible adventure. "North by Northwest’s" hero, Roger Thornhill, is a Madison Avenue ad man who is abducted when he is mistaken for a spy. He’s kidnapped from the least likely place on the planet- right out from under the Everett Shinn murals in the Oak Bar of the Plaza Hotel. Having made the point that even the safety of the most famous hotel in New York was useless to his film’s hero, Hitchcock went on to surround Roger Thornhill with example after example of late-1950’s luxury, and kept hammering the point that none of it did Thornhill any good. The assassins take Thornhill to the Phipps Estate on Long Island in a Cadillac limousine. He’s nearly killed later in a Mercedes roadster. He escapes back to the Plaza, then to the new United Nations Building. His adventures take him to Chicago via the Twentieth Century Limited, where he meets a female spy who possesses a Bergdorf Goodman wardrobe, a ruby necklace from Van Cleef & Arpels, and a new 1958 Lincoln Continental Mark III convertible. From there, Thornhill’s adventures culminate in a visit to Mount Rushmore, where he finds the mastermind behind the assassins in a luxurious Modernist eyrie built almost on top of the monument.
Hitchcock had two basic reasons for all this luxe. First was the movie’s theme of isolation amidst luxury, of course. But there was another reason: "North by Northwest" was designed from its inception as a very, very commercial movie. Hitchcock knew the mass audience responded very well to being shown things and places they couldn’t really afford, as long as they were presented in a way that paid that audience the compliment of saying, "of course, you know all about this."
This presented a challenge for Hitchcock- one that, by all accounts, he had a great deal of fun meeting. He was faced with having to find places and things that were universally recognized as belonging to the rich and powerful; that mass audience being targeted by MGM could not be relied on to get the point of discreet luxury. For Hitchcock, this meant pleasurable tasks like personally selecting Eva Marie Saint’s wardrobe at Bergdorf’s- and making sure a Bergdorf label showed in one shot. It meant getting the cooperation of the Plaza and the equally famous Ambassador East in Chicago. And it meant coming up with a house for Vandamm.
Almost alone among the trappings chosen for "North by Northwest", the Vandamm house was a problem- or, rather, multiple problems. First was that it had to fulfill the recognition requirement; the house had to reek of sophistication and luxury. Second, it almost had to be a Modernist house; the rocky hills of South Dakota didn’t lend themselves to traditional architecture. And third, it had to be a Modernist house that was obviously in the same class of expensive good taste as the Plaza and the ruby necklace and the Lincoln and the Twentieth Century Limited. Hitchcock knew that there was only one way to fill these requirements- a Frank Lloyd Wright house. He ran into trouble almost immediately.
Mass-market magazines like House Beautifulkept Frank Lloyd Wright in the public eye with all-Wright issues; there was one in 1955 and this one done in 1959 as a tribute after Wright’s death.
To understand how the Vandamm house came into "existence", you have to understand the main point of "North by Northwest". The complexities of the famous plot aside, it is about a man who is surrounded by the trappings of wealth, power and prestige- none of which are of any use to him whatever in his incredible adventure. "North by Northwest’s" hero, Roger Thornhill, is a Madison Avenue ad man who is abducted when he is mistaken for a spy. He’s kidnapped from the least likely place on the planet- right out from under the Everett Shinn murals in the Oak Bar of the Plaza Hotel. Having made the point that even the safety of the most famous hotel in New York was useless to his film’s hero, Hitchcock went on to surround Roger Thornhill with example after example of late-1950’s luxury, and kept hammering the point that none of it did Thornhill any good. The assassins take Thornhill to the Phipps Estate on Long Island in a Cadillac limousine. He’s nearly killed later in a Mercedes roadster. He escapes back to the Plaza, then to the new United Nations Building. His adventures take him to Chicago via the Twentieth Century Limited, where he meets a female spy who possesses a Bergdorf Goodman wardrobe, a ruby necklace from Van Cleef & Arpels, and a new 1958 Lincoln Continental Mark III convertible. From there, Thornhill’s adventures culminate in a visit to Mount Rushmore, where he finds the mastermind behind the assassins in a luxurious Modernist eyrie built almost on top of the monument.
Hitchcock had two basic reasons for all this luxe. First was the movie’s theme of isolation amidst luxury, of course. But there was another reason: "North by Northwest" was designed from its inception as a very, very commercial movie. Hitchcock knew the mass audience responded very well to being shown things and places they couldn’t really afford, as long as they were presented in a way that paid that audience the compliment of saying, "of course, you know all about this."
This presented a challenge for Hitchcock- one that, by all accounts, he had a great deal of fun meeting. He was faced with having to find places and things that were universally recognized as belonging to the rich and powerful; that mass audience being targeted by MGM could not be relied on to get the point of discreet luxury. For Hitchcock, this meant pleasurable tasks like personally selecting Eva Marie Saint’s wardrobe at Bergdorf’s- and making sure a Bergdorf label showed in one shot. It meant getting the cooperation of the Plaza and the equally famous Ambassador East in Chicago. And it meant coming up with a house for Vandamm.
Almost alone among the trappings chosen for "North by Northwest", the Vandamm house was a problem- or, rather, multiple problems. First was that it had to fulfill the recognition requirement; the house had to reek of sophistication and luxury. Second, it almost had to be a Modernist house; the rocky hills of South Dakota didn’t lend themselves to traditional architecture. And third, it had to be a Modernist house that was obviously in the same class of expensive good taste as the Plaza and the ruby necklace and the Lincoln and the Twentieth Century Limited. Hitchcock knew that there was only one way to fill these requirements- a Frank Lloyd Wright house. He ran into trouble almost immediately.
Mass-market magazines like House Beautifulkept Frank Lloyd Wright in the public eye with all-Wright issues; there was one in 1955 and this one done in 1959 as a tribute after Wright’s death.
In 1958, when "North by Northwest" was in production, Frank Lloyd Wright was the most famous Modernist architect in the world. His magnum opus, "Fallingwater", was conceivably the most famous house anywhere. His renown in the Fifties was such that mass-market magazines like House Beautiful and House & Garden devoted entire issues to his work. If Hitchcock could put a Wright house in his movie, that mass audience was going to get the point right away. Wright was absolutely the man to fill the bill Hitchcock needed filled, but there were some snags along the way.
The biggest was that Frank Lloyd Wright was expensive, even by Hollywood standards. Wright had been approached by Warner Bros. in 1949, for "The Fountainhead"; the story of a Modernist architect cried out for Wright-designed sets. Wright was perfectly agreeable to doing the job, but talks broke down when he set his fee. He asked for a fee of ten percent- the standard architect’s fee he asked for any design. The Warners' people told him that a fee of ten percent of the set budget was high by their standards, but that they’d meet it- whereupon Wright coolly informed them that he’d meant ten percent of the movie’s budget. End of discussions. "The Fountainhead" ended up with sets by Edwin Carrere, and Wright never designed for any Hollywood movie.
Taking a page from Warners' book, Hitchcock seized upon the idea of having MGM staff design a house in Wright’s manner. It was a sensible idea; Wright used materials and themes in his designs that could be conveniently appropriated. All those magazine articles had already conditioned the audience to know that those materials and themes meant "Frank Lloyd Wright" and nobody else. Hitchcock would get the look and the recognition- without the expense.
Designing the house was one thing; building it would be quite another. Despite the plausibility of "North by Northwest’s" plot, its final sequences atop Mount Rushmore contained a major untruth. Far from being an area where a spy could build a mountaintop mansion, the top of the monument was considered so ecologically fragile that MGM researchers had to have special permits and U.S. Park Service escorts to visit. Building anything up there was absolutely out of the question. The research team photographed and measured, and came back with a plan.
The house would be created entirely in Culver City, where MGM was located. It would consist of a few sections built at full-scale, as movie sets. The exterior shots would depend on special effects. Certain shots would blend the sets together with the special effects, to create the illusion that the house was real.
The set designers on "North by Northwest" were Robert Boyle, William A. Horning, Merrill Pye, Henry Grace, and Frank McKelvey. It has not been possible to sort out exactly which of these men was responsible for the house design, but whoever did it did his homework. The final design was of a hilltop house of limestone dressed and laid in the manner made famous by Wright, along with a concrete cantilever under the living room area. The house was correctly situated just under the top of its hill; Wright was famous for saying, "of the hill, not on top of the hill." The house’s massing- heavy with limestone in the rear where the house met the hillside, light with glass and concrete at the free end of the cantilever- was also correctly Wrightian. To the knowing, the design contained one element that would not have been used by Wright; there were steel beams supporting the cantilever. Wright would almost certainly have come up with an unsupported cantilever, as he did at "Fallingwater", but very few viewers would know that. It is also possible that the mass audience requirements for "North by Northwest" dictated the use of the beams; Hitchcock may have felt that a true Wright cantilever would distract audiences from the plot, making them wonder what on earth was holding the house up, instead of focusing on the action. In the event, the beams also served the plot by giving Cary Grant a way to climb into the house.
The portions of the house that were actually built were the living room, part of the bedroom wing, the carport, and a bit of hillside under the living room where the cantilever beams were. Most of the construction was of interiors only, but certain areas like the outside of the bedroom wing had their exteriors finished, so that they could be shot from inside looking out, or outside looking in. The interiors were masterpieces of deception: nearly nothing was what it appeared. The limestone walls were mostly plaster, real limestone was used in a few places where the camera would be very close. The expanses of window were mostly without glass; glass reflects camera crews and lights. For a few shots where reflections were needed, and could be controlled, glass was used in some places. And in the best tradition of movie-set building, some of the walls were "breakaways"- walls that looked perfectly real and solid, but were capable of being unbolted and taken away to accommodate the bulky VistaVision ® cameras used in 1958. An enormous black velvet cyclorama surrounded the sets, to give the illusion of a deep South Dakota night. All the house sequences were deliberately done as nighttime ones, because the special effects needed to create the house’s exteriors would be best concealed that way.
The luxurious Modernism of the house extended to its furnishings.
The living room set was dressed in the best of 1958’s furniture and art, and it makes a very interesting point. The furniture is largely Scandinavian Modern. There is Chinese art, and a Pre-Colombian statue figures prominently in the action. Greek flokati rugs are on the floors. Vandamm’s spying is meant to set the nations of the world at war, but it seems they co-exist peacefully enough under his roof!
The exterior sequences were done using a pre-digital technique called ‘matting’. In matte photography, a real location or set is combined with a painting; the real portion is then made to appear part of a larger area that does not actually exist. A very famous example is when Dorothy and her friends run toward the Emerald City in "The Wizard of Oz". The foreground with the actors and the deadly field of poppies is a set; the background is a painting. (See the sidebar article below for pictures and a simplified explanation of matting.)
And there it is- the truth about the Vandamm House. It’s not real, and it never was. It’s imagination and technology and our dreams, all wrapped up together. It’s exactly where we wanted a Hitchcock villain to live. And if it never existed in Rapid City, South Dakota, it is real where it counts- in the minds of the millions who have seen it, and loved it, and coveted it for their own.
And I like to think that Frank Lloyd Wright deserves at least part of the credit for that.
Reel and Unreal: Matte Photography for the Novice
It’s an old story; a film script contains a scene that cannot possibly be filmed as written. Maybe it’s impossible to get permission to film where the scene is to take place, or maybe the place does not exist. Today, CG (computer-generated) effects can solve the problem, showing us everything from Roman arenas in "Gladiator" to dinosaurs in the "Jurassic Park" movies. In the old days, they did it with a process called matte photography.
Fig.1 - First, you film Cary Grant walking along a real road somewhere
Fig. 2 - ...then you paint the rest of the scene
Fig. 3 - ...and combine both images in the lab.
To simplify, matte photography, or matting, combines a real scene shot on a real location or a set, with fictional elements. Usually the fictional part of the image is what is known as a matte painting; it’s photo-realistic. The process of matting begins with shooting a scene like Cary Grant walking on a real road. In the lab, part of the image is removed, leaving a blank space (Fig. 1). A matte painting is prepared; it contains the rest of the desired image, such as Vandamm’s house in the background (Fig. 2). The matte painting has a blank area where the "real" image is to go. Film lab techniques combine the two images, and the illusion of Cary Grant walking toward a Frank Lloyd Wright house is complete (Fig. 3). Mattes are difficult to do, because so much depends on the quality of the painting and the precision of the match between real and painted areas. If you’ll look closely, Fig. 2 looks much less "real" by itself than it does on the screen; the reality of the foreground fools the eye into accepting the fake background.
Author’s Note: The images shown here are not the original matte elements used in "North by Northwest"; those elements may not even exist any more, because MGM broke up and sold off all its physical properties beginning in 1969. These images are digital approximations of what those original elements probably looked like.
The simple answers are no place, no, no, no, and no, but there’s much more to it than that. The house in "North by Northwest" has a history just as fascinating as any "real" dwelling ever built, as you’re about to find out.
The simple truth about the Vandamm house is that it was not a real structure, and that it was not designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. It was designed by MGM set designers for some very specific reasons; some of the reasons had to do with the movie’s plot, some were based in the mechanics of movie-making, and not a few were because Alfred Hitchcock had a point to make.
To understand how the Vandamm house came into "existence", you have to understand the main point of "North by Northwest". The complexities of the famous plot aside, it is about a man who is surrounded by the trappings of wealth, power and prestige- none of which are of any use to him whatever in his incredible adventure. "North by Northwest’s" hero, Roger Thornhill, is a Madison Avenue ad man who is abducted when he is mistaken for a spy. He’s kidnapped from the least likely place on the planet- right out from under the Everett Shinn murals in the Oak Bar of the Plaza Hotel. Having made the point that even the safety of the most famous hotel in New York was useless to his film’s hero, Hitchcock went on to surround Roger Thornhill with example after example of late-1950’s luxury, and kept hammering the point that none of it did Thornhill any good. The assassins take Thornhill to the Phipps Estate on Long Island in a Cadillac limousine. He’s nearly killed later in a Mercedes roadster. He escapes back to the Plaza, then to the new United Nations Building. His adventures take him to Chicago via the Twentieth Century Limited, where he meets a female spy who possesses a Bergdorf Goodman wardrobe, a ruby necklace from Van Cleef & Arpels, and a new 1958 Lincoln Continental Mark III convertible. From there, Thornhill’s adventures culminate in a visit to Mount Rushmore, where he finds the mastermind behind the assassins in a luxurious Modernist eyrie built almost on top of the monument.
Hitchcock had two basic reasons for all this luxe. First was the movie’s theme of isolation amidst luxury, of course. But there was another reason: "North by Northwest" was designed from its inception as a very, very commercial movie. Hitchcock knew the mass audience responded very well to being shown things and places they couldn’t really afford, as long as they were presented in a way that paid that audience the compliment of saying, "of course, you know all about this."
This presented a challenge for Hitchcock- one that, by all accounts, he had a great deal of fun meeting. He was faced with having to find places and things that were universally recognized as belonging to the rich and powerful; that mass audience being targeted by MGM could not be relied on to get the point of discreet luxury. For Hitchcock, this meant pleasurable tasks like personally selecting Eva Marie Saint’s wardrobe at Bergdorf’s- and making sure a Bergdorf label showed in one shot. It meant getting the cooperation of the Plaza and the equally famous Ambassador East in Chicago. And it meant coming up with a house for Vandamm.
Almost alone among the trappings chosen for "North by Northwest", the Vandamm house was a problem- or, rather, multiple problems. First was that it had to fulfill the recognition requirement; the house had to reek of sophistication and luxury. Second, it almost had to be a Modernist house; the rocky hills of South Dakota didn’t lend themselves to traditional architecture. And third, it had to be a Modernist house that was obviously in the same class of expensive good taste as the Plaza and the ruby necklace and the Lincoln and the Twentieth Century Limited. Hitchcock knew that there was only one way to fill these requirements- a Frank Lloyd Wright house. He ran into trouble almost immediately.
Mass-market magazines like House Beautifulkept Frank Lloyd Wright in the public eye with all-Wright issues; there was one in 1955 and this one done in 1959 as a tribute after Wright’s death.
In 1958, when "North by Northwest" was in production, Frank Lloyd Wright was the most famous Modernist architect in the world. His magnum opus, "Fallingwater", was conceivably the most famous house anywhere. His renown in the Fifties was such that mass-market magazines like House Beautiful and House & Garden devoted entire issues to his work. If Hitchcock could put a Wright house in his movie, that mass audience was going to get the point right away. Wright was absolutely the man to fill the bill Hitchcock needed filled, but there were some snags along the way.
The biggest was that Frank Lloyd Wright was expensive, even by Hollywood standards. Wright had been approached by Warner Bros. in 1949, for "The Fountainhead"; the story of a Modernist architect cried out for Wright-designed sets. Wright was perfectly agreeable to doing the job, but talks broke down when he set his fee. He asked for a fee of ten percent- the standard architect’s fee he asked for any design. The Warners' people told him that a fee of ten percent of the set budget was high by their standards, but that they’d meet it- whereupon Wright coolly informed them that he’d meant ten percent of the movie’s budget. End of discussions. "The Fountainhead" ended up with sets by Edwin Carrere, and Wright never designed for any Hollywood movie.
Taking a page from Warners' book, Hitchcock seized upon the idea of having MGM staff design a house in Wright’s manner. It was a sensible idea; Wright used materials and themes in his designs that could be conveniently appropriated. All those magazine articles had already conditioned the audience to know that those materials and themes meant "Frank Lloyd Wright" and nobody else. Hitchcock would get the look and the recognition- without the expense.
Designing the house was one thing; building it would be quite another. Despite the plausibility of "North by Northwest’s" plot, its final sequences atop Mount Rushmore contained a major untruth. Far from being an area where a spy could build a mountaintop mansion, the top of the monument was considered so ecologically fragile that MGM researchers had to have special permits and U.S. Park Service escorts to visit. Building anything up there was absolutely out of the question. The research team photographed and measured, and came back with a plan.
The house would be created entirely in Culver City, where MGM was located. It would consist of a few sections built at full-scale, as movie sets. The exterior shots would depend on special effects. Certain shots would blend the sets together with the special effects, to create the illusion that the house was real.
The set designers on "North by Northwest" were Robert Boyle, William A. Horning, Merrill Pye, Henry Grace, and Frank McKelvey. It has not been possible to sort out exactly which of these men was responsible for the house design, but whoever did it did his homework. The final design was of a hilltop house of limestone dressed and laid in the manner made famous by Wright, along with a concrete cantilever under the living room area. The house was correctly situated just under the top of its hill; Wright was famous for saying, "of the hill, not on top of the hill." The house’s massing- heavy with limestone in the rear where the house met the hillside, light with glass and concrete at the free end of the cantilever- was also correctly Wrightian. To the knowing, the design contained one element that would not have been used by Wright; there were steel beams supporting the cantilever. Wright would almost certainly have come up with an unsupported cantilever, as he did at "Fallingwater", but very few viewers would know that. It is also possible that the mass audience requirements for "North by Northwest" dictated the use of the beams; Hitchcock may have felt that a true Wright cantilever would distract audiences from the plot, making them wonder what on earth was holding the house up, instead of focusing on the action. In the event, the beams also served the plot by giving Cary Grant a way to climb into the house.
The portions of the house that were actually built were the living room, part of the bedroom wing, the carport, and a bit of hillside under the living room where the cantilever beams were. Most of the construction was of interiors only, but certain areas like the outside of the bedroom wing had their exteriors finished, so that they could be shot from inside looking out, or outside looking in. The interiors were masterpieces of deception: nearly nothing was what it appeared. The limestone walls were mostly plaster, real limestone was used in a few places where the camera would be very close. The expanses of window were mostly without glass; glass reflects camera crews and lights. For a few shots where reflections were needed, and could be controlled, glass was used in some places. And in the best tradition of movie-set building, some of the walls were "breakaways"- walls that looked perfectly real and solid, but were capable of being unbolted and taken away to accommodate the bulky VistaVision ® cameras used in 1958. An enormous black velvet cyclorama surrounded the sets, to give the illusion of a deep South Dakota night. All the house sequences were deliberately done as nighttime ones, because the special effects needed to create the house’s exteriors would be best concealed that way.
The luxurious Modernism of the house extended to its furnishings.
The living room set was dressed in the best of 1958’s furniture and art, and it makes a very interesting point. The furniture is largely Scandinavian Modern. There is Chinese art, and a Pre-Colombian statue figures prominently in the action. Greek flokati rugs are on the floors. Vandamm’s spying is meant to set the nations of the world at war, but it seems they co-exist peacefully enough under his roof!
The exterior sequences were done using a pre-digital technique called ‘matting’. In matte photography, a real location or set is combined with a painting; the real portion is then made to appear part of a larger area that does not actually exist. A very famous example is when Dorothy and her friends run toward the Emerald City in "The Wizard of Oz". The foreground with the actors and the deadly field of poppies is a set; the background is a painting. (See the sidebar article below for pictures and a simplified explanation of matting.)
And there it is- the truth about the Vandamm House. It’s not real, and it never was. It’s imagination and technology and our dreams, all wrapped up together. It’s exactly where we wanted a Hitchcock villain to live. And if it never existed in Rapid City, South Dakota, it is real where it counts- in the minds of the millions who have seen it, and loved it, and coveted it for their own.
And I like to think that Frank Lloyd Wright deserves at least part of the credit for that.
Reel and Unreal: Matte Photography for the Novice
It’s an old story; a film script contains a scene that cannot possibly be filmed as written. Maybe it’s impossible to get permission to film where the scene is to take place, or maybe the place does not exist. Today, CG (computer-generated) effects can solve the problem, showing us everything from Roman arenas in "Gladiator" to dinosaurs in the "Jurassic Park" movies. In the old days, they did it with a process called matte photography.
Fig.1 - First, you film Cary Grant walking along a real road somewhere
Fig. 2 - ...then you paint the rest of the scene
Fig. 3 - ...and combine both images in the lab.
To simplify, matte photography, or matting, combines a real scene shot on a real location or a set, with fictional elements. Usually the fictional part of the image is what is known as a matte painting; it’s photo-realistic. The process of matting begins with shooting a scene like Cary Grant walking on a real road. In the lab, part of the image is removed, leaving a blank space (Fig. 1). A matte painting is prepared; it contains the rest of the desired image, such as Vandamm’s house in the background (Fig. 2). The matte painting has a blank area where the "real" image is to go. Film lab techniques combine the two images, and the illusion of Cary Grant walking toward a Frank Lloyd Wright house is complete (Fig. 3). Mattes are difficult to do, because so much depends on the quality of the painting and the precision of the match between real and painted areas. If you’ll look closely, Fig. 2 looks much less "real" by itself than it does on the screen; the reality of the foreground fools the eye into accepting the fake background.
Author’s Note: The images shown here are not the original matte elements used in "North by Northwest"; those elements may not even exist any more, because MGM broke up and sold off all its physical properties beginning in 1969. These images are digital approximations of what those original elements probably looked like.
This article was originally posted on June 5th, 2001. Republished March 19, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Copyright (c) 2001, 2015, D.A. "Sandy" McLendon and Joe Kunkel, Jetset - Designs for Modern Living. All Rights Reserved.
PERIYAR E.V.RAMASAMY and WOMEN RIGHTS
With regards to marriage, Periyar has stated that it is one of the worst customs in India. He claimed that the marriage principle, briefly, involves the enslavement of a woman by her husband and nothing else. This enslavement is concealed under the cover of marriage rites to deceive the women concerned by giving the wedding the false name of a divine function.[7]
There have been numerous papers in South India reporting how husbands have killed their wives, suspecting immoral behavior. The husband's suspicion of his wife's character has often led to murders. Those who believe in the divine dispensation, according to Periyar, do not have the knowledge to ask themselves why marriages conducted according to religious rites and the approval of God end in this fashion.[7]
Periyar further states that the very idea that the only proper thing for women to do is to be slaves of domesticity, bear children and bring them up, is a faulty one. As long as these restrictions are imposed on women, we can be sure that women have to be subservient to men and depend on men for help. If women have to live on terms of equality with men, they must have the liberty, like men, to have the kind of education they like and also to do unhampered, any work suitable to their knowledge, ability and taste.[8]
Furthermore, Periyar objected to terms like "giving of a maid" and "given in marriage". They are, "Sanskrit terms" and treat woman as a thing. He advocated the substitution of the word for marriage taken from the Tirukkual "Valkai thunai" or "life partner".[9]
Expenses[edit]
With marriage comes the expenses. Periyar stated that in our country, and particularly in Hindu society, a marriage is a function causing a lot of difficulties and waste to all people concerned. But those who conduct the marriage function and those who are getting married do not appear to notice the attendant difficulties because they think that social life necessitates wasteful expense and many difficulties and therefore they must necessarily face those inconveniences and hardships.[10]
Wedding feast, jewels, expensive clothes, procession, pandal, dance, music—money is spent on all these to satisfy the vanity of the organizers. Whatever may be the amount of money spent on the wedding and however pompous each of the items may be, the mirth and jollity associated with these are over in two or three days. In a week's time the prestige and honor connected with these are forgotten.[10] But the wedding expenses leave many families crushed; for many poor families these expenses leave an enormous burden and the debts remain uncleared for a number of years.[11]
However, if the money intended for the wedding expense is not borrowed and belongs to either of the marriage parties, then that amount could be used by her to bring up her children and to educate them. Such a procedure would be highly beneficial to her.[12]
Arranged marriages[edit]
In South Asia we mostly hear of arranged marriages as part of custom, heritage, and religions. Periyar thought that the Aryan wedding methods were barbarous because of the Aryan religion and art: Vedas, Sastras, Puranas, and Epics belong to the barbaric age. He further stated that is the reason why their wedding methods involve the parents giving the girl, prostituting the girl children and some stranger carrying the girl away by force or stealth.[13]
Arranged marriages in general were meant to enable the couple to live together throughout life and derive happiness, satisfaction and a good reputation, even years after the sexual urge and sexual pleasure are forgotten.[14]
But, with the selfish manipulation of this pact, Periyar claimed that women find 'pleasure' in slavish marriage because they have been brought up by their parents without education, independence and self-respect and because they have been made to believe that marriage means subordination to males. The inclusion of such slavish women in the group of 'chaste' women is another lure to them, leading them to find pleasure in such marriages.
Because a man is also married before he has understood the nature of life, its problems and its pleasures, he is satisfied with the slavish nature of the wife and the sexual pleasure she gives. If he finds any incompatibility, he adapts himself to his partner and the circumstances and puts up with his lot.[14]
Love marriages[edit]
Love marriages, claims Periyar, on the other hand will suit only those who have no ideals in life. Such a wedding gives primacy to sexual union along and it is doubtful if it indicates an agreement between the couple for good life. Sexual compatibility alone does not ensure happy married life; the couple should be able to live together cheerfully. Suitability for life or living together can be determined only if the man and woman get used to the company of each other, and are satisfied with each other. Only then, they can enter into an agreement to live together.[13]
Periyar further states that love marriages can give pleasure only as long as there is lust and the ability to satisfy that lust. If there is no compatibility between the partners in other respects, such marriages end only in the enslavement of women. The lies of such women resemble the lives of bullocks which are tied to a cart, beaten up and made to labor endlessly until they die.[14]
Therefore, there is a proverb stating, "A deeply loving girl is unfit for family life; a suitable life partner is unfit for love." Periyar believed that the agreement between partners to live together will constitute a better marriage than a love marriage.[14]
Self-respect marriages[edit]
In a leading article of Viduthalai, Periyar states that a self-respect wedding is based on rationalism. Rationalism is based on the individual's courage. Some may have the courage to conduct it during the time which almanacs indicate as the time of the planet Rahu and that, particularly in the evening. Some others may have just enough daring to avoid the Brahmin priest and his mother tongue - the Sanskrit language.[15] Some may feel nervous about not keeping the traditional lamp burning in broad daylight. Some others may have the rotten thought that conducting a wedding without 'mangala sutra' is disgraceful.
Still, the self-respect weddings conducted during the past thirty years have some basic limits. They are: Brahmins and their mantras should be utterly avoided; meaningless rituals, piling mud pots, one on another, having the traditional lamp during day time, ritual smoke - all these should be avoided. Rationalism does not approve of these. Periyar then asks why can't the government pass an Act that legalizes weddings which avoid the above-mentioned superstitious practices. If all these details cannot be accommodated in the Act, the latter can legalize weddings which don't have Brahmin priests, the Sanskrit language and the so called holy fire.[16]
Thus, marriages styled as Self-Respect marriages carried a threefold significance: a) replacing the Purohit, b) inter-caste equality, c) man-woman equality. Periyar claimed to have performed Self-Respect marriages unofficially since 1925 and officially since 1928.[17] Self-Respect marriages were legalized in 1967 by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Government.[18]
Widow-remarriage[edit]
On the remarriage of widows, Periyar states that among the atrocities perpetrated by the Hindu male population against women, here we have to consider the treatment meted out to widows alone. If a girl loses her husband, even before knowing anything of worldly pleasures, she is compelled to close her eyes to everything in the world and die broken-hearted. Even in Periyar's community at the time, there were widowed girls below the age of 13 years. Periyar stated how it is a touching sight to see the parents of those widowed children treating them like untouchables.[19]
He goes on to say that whatever may be the reason for the present state of the Hindu society, my firm belief that the low position given permanently to widows may prove to be the reason for the utter ruin of the Hindu religion and the Hindu society.[20]
If we try to find the reason for such conduct, we will have to conclude that they instinctively feel that women are slaves, subservient to men and that they must be kept under control. That is why these people treat women like animals. They seem to feel that giving freedom to women is equivalent to committing a very serious crime. The result of this attitude is that there is no independence or freedom to one half of the human race. This wicked enslavement of half of the human race is due to the fact that men are physically a little stronger than women. This principle applies to all spheres of life and the weaker are enslaved by the stronger.
If slavery has to be abolished in society, the male arrogance and wickedness which lead to the enslavement of women must be abolished first. Only when this is achieved, the tender sprouts of freedom and equality will register growth.[21]
One of the reasons why Periayr hated Hinduism and the orthodoxy practiced in the name of Hinduism was the practice of child marriage. Many of the girl children who were married before they were ten or twelve years old became widows before they knew the meaning of the word. According to the 1921 All India Census the details of the child widows reported living in the country that time were as follows:[22]
1 year baby widows - 497
1 to 2 year child widows - 494
2 to 3 year child widows - 1,257
3 to 4 year child widows - 2,837
4 to 5 year child widows - 6,707
Total number of widows - 11,342
5 to 10 year young widows - 85,037
10 to 15 year young widows - 232,147
15 to 20 year young widows - 396,172
20 to 25 year young widows - 742,820
25 to 30 year young widows - 1,163,720
Total number of widows - 2,631,238[22][23]
Periyar was deeply disturbed when he realized that among the widows in India, 11,892 were little children below 5 years and that young widows below 15 years numbering 232,147 were denied the pleasures of life.[24]
With regards to the re-marriage of widows, Periyar stated that it is the practice of our people to refer to such a wedding as "a widow's marriage". Such an expression is used only with reference to women and in connection with men. Just as this lady is marrying another husband after the death of the first husband, many men marry again after the death of the first wife. But the second marriage of a man is not referred to as "a widower's marriage", though that is the proper thing to do.
Periyar himself was a widower. After becoming one, he took a second wife. He claimed that in the ancient days, both men and women in the country had this practice. There were numerous instances in sastras and puranas of women getting married again after the death of their first husband. Periyar further stated that this is not an unusual practice in the rest of the world though it might appear strange for us at the present time. Christian and Muslim women marry again after the death of the first husband. 90 percent of women in Muslim countries get married again soon after the death of the first husband. This may be unusual in certain sections of Indian societies. But it is a common practice in certain other sections of our society which are called very backward communities.[25]
Further, inter-caste marriages and remarriage of widows are on the increase in India. Brahmins oppose these because they are afraid that they cannot exploit the people any more in the name of sastras. For the same reason they oppose the Sharada Act which is necessary for social well-being.[26]
Child marriage[edit]
In all the meetings of the non-Brahmins and the Self-Respectors, Periyar condemned child marriages and emphasized the need for educating all girl children and giving right to young widows to get married again.
Periyar has been very much against child marriage and stated that it reflects the cruelty to which innocent girls were subjected by their well-meaning parents. Periyar asked that if these parents can be considered civilized in any sense of the term. There was no other leader other than Periyar who reacted against this practice of child marriage.[24]
Those who supported child marriage were strongly against Periyar's condemnation of this act. Take for example, the Sharada Act. Those who opposed this Act say that it was against the Sastras to conduct the marriage of a girl after she has attained puberty. They further say that those who conduct such marriages are committing a sin and therefore will go to hell.[27]
Chastity[edit]
Periyar claimed that "household duties" have risen out of the foolishness of people and were not natural duties.[28] He went on to say that it was our selfish greed which has multiplied our household work. Nobody need worry that without household work, the women will lose their "chastity". On chastity, Periyar went on to say that it is something that belongs to women and is not a pledge to men. Whatever, chastity is, it was something that belonged to individuals.
In society, it was believed that if people lose their chastity, they will get divine punishment. Others are not going to get that punishment. Referring to the doctrines of institutionalized orthodox religions, he went on to say that men need not to worry themselves that women are committing a sin by not doing household work. Thus, let men realize that women are not slaves and that men are not their masters or guardians. Women should be allowed to develop the competence to protect themselves and their chastity and men need not be their watchdogs. He also believed that it was derogatory for men to play such a role.[citation needed]
It was said by the orthodox[who?] that women will develop diseases if they lose their chastity. The disease that a woman gets affects the husbands also. If we[who?] educate the women, they will develop the capability to keep themselves and their husbands pure. Thus, Periyar stated in the Kudi Arasu for the society to think deeply about taking a decision and do the right thing for their sisters and girl children.[29]
Periyar kindled the thoughts of everybody by also ridiculing the use of the word chastity only with reference to women. (Periyar-Father of Tamil 32) He stated that character is essential for both men and women and that speaking of chastity only with reference to women degraded not merely women but men also. He extended this thought and said that in any sphere of activity, civilized society cannot think of one law for men and another for women. He also said that the way most men treated their women was far worse than the way the upper class people treated the lower class, the way in which rich men treated the poor and the way in which a master treated his slave.[30]
Education[edit]
On education, Periyar stated that some foolish parents believe that if girls get educated, they will correspond with their secret lovers. That it is a very foolish and mischievous notion. No parent need be anxious about it. If a girl writes a letter, it will only be to a male. We can even now caution men not to read any love letter addressed to them by a woman and, even if they read it, not to reply to it. If men do not listen to this advice, they, as well as the girls who write them must be punished. It will be a hopelessly bad thing, if parents keep their girl children uneducated for this reason.[29]
At a speeched delivered by Periyar at the Prize Distribution function in the Municipal School for Girls at Karungal Palayam, Erode, he stated that girl children should be taught active and energetic exercises like running, high jump, long jump,and wrestling so that they may acquire the strength and courage of men. Their time and energy should not be wasted in light pastimes like Kummi (groups going in a circle, clapping their hands rhythmically) and in Kolatam (striking with sticks rhythmically).
In ancient Tamil literature, poets have stressed the value of education for women. In a famous verse, a poet by the name of Naladiar stated that, "What gives beauty to a woman is not the hair style or the patter of her dress or the saffron on her face but only education".[31] In a verse of Eladhi it states, "Beauty does not lie in the style of wailing or in the charm of a blush but only in the combination of numbers and letters (education).[32]
In a 1960 issue of Viduthalai Periyar stated that "There should be a drastic revolution in the desires and ideals of Indian women. They should equip themselves to do all types of work that men are doing. They should have good domestic life without allowing nature's obstacles in their own lives. Therefore, there should be a welcome change in the minds of our women. The administrators also most pay special attention to the advancement of women".[33]
Armed forces[edit]
Periyar advocated for women to be given weapons to protect themselves in reply to a question put in the Central Legislature. He stated that we have no hope that the state governments will do anything in this sphere because most of the state ministers hold the orthodox belief that women are slavish creatures.[34] Though here and there we[who?] find women also as ministers, they are old-fashioned traditionalists who will say, "We don't want any kind of freedom. We are perfectly happy with slavery".[33]
In Periyar's time he explained that ""Indian" women had no self-determination in any sphere of life like education property and marriage. They thought that modern civilization meant dressing themselves like British and American women and adorning themselves. Even our educated women do not entertain any thought that they must enter the police and army departments and learn to pilot airplanes like the women of Russia and Turkey. Just as modern education has made men cowards an book-worms, it has made our women decoratie [sic] dolls and weaklings".[33]
In a leading article written by Periyar in Viduthalai in 1946, he claimed that unless there is a drastic, fundamental and revolutionary change in our[who?] administrative machinery, it is impossible to make our women independent beings.[33]
Periyar goes on to explain that in our country also, there are thousands of women with the courage, competence and desire to work in the police department. Just as girls going to school was considered wonderful and cycle-riding by girls was considered funny, a few years ago, women on police duty may appear to be wonderful or strange for a few years. Then, in course of time, this will be considered natural.[33]
We[who?] need methods that will effect an astounding revolution in the world of women. Until we acquire those methods, we will be moving forward like a tortoise and writing and talking about Drowpath and Sita.[35]
Periyar, in a 1932 article of Kudi Arasu, explained that "women should develop physical strength like men. They must take exercise and get training in the use of weapons. They must acquire the ability to protect themselves when any sex-mad person tries to molest them. They should get the necessary training to join the armey [sic] when need arises and fight the enemy. This is the view of all civilized people. Women also wholeheartedly support this view. When the general view in the world is like this, who can accept the statement of some people that there is no use in giving higher education to women?"[33]
Birth control[edit]
"Others advocate birth-control, with a view of preserving the health of women and conserving family property; but we advocate it for the liberation of women."[36]
In the Kudi Arasu of 1932, Periyar explained the basic differences between the reasons given to us for contraception and the reasons given by others for this. We say that contraception is necessary for women to gain freedom. Others advocate contraception taking into consideration many problems like the health of women, the health and energy of the children, the poverty of the country and the maintenance of the family property. Many Westerners also support contraception for the same reasons. Our view is not based on these considerations. We recommend that women should stop delivering children altogether because conception stands in the way of women enjoying personal freedom. Further, begetting a number of children prevents men also from being free and independent. This truth will be clear if we listen to talk of men and women when their freedom is hampered.[33]
He went on to say how birth control does not aim at preventing the birth of children altogether, but aims only at limiting births. A man and his wife may have two children, or at the most, three children. This birth control policy is against bringing forth an unlimited number of children.[37]
While Periyar and the Self-Respect movement were advocating for birth control, Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachariar) very strongly opposed it. Others who opposed birth control was Thiru Adhithanar, the publisher of an extremely popular newspaper, Dina Thandhi at the time. In response to Rajaji's stand against birth control, Periyar explained that he was against this since he was of the Vedic Brahmin community that staunchly engrossed in the Manu Dharma. Thus, limiting births of overpopulation would limit diseases and death from many and therefore leave Brahmin priests without a job of doing ceremonies for the sick and funerals. In a 1959 article of Viduthalai he exclaimed that "If people like Rajaji discover new islands, make the forests habitable, do propaganda for the birth of more and more children and have farms for the upbringing of children, we may be in a position to understand them."[38]
During the late 1950s, 80 percent of the men and 90 percent of the women in Tamil Nadu were illiterate. Siriyar argued in a 1959 article in Viduthalai that "in this situation, if birth control is not practiced and people are allowed to have any number of children, the result will be the multiplication of castes among the "Sudras", like washermen, barbers, pot-makers, kuravas or gypsies, hunters, fishermen, famers [sic], toddy tappers, padayachies, pillars, cobblers, pariahs, and a thousand others and a limitless increase in population. The increase in population will force the 'Sudras' to preserve themselves from starvation by standing with folded hands before lazy fellows and calling them 'swami', 'master' and 'landlord'. What good result can we expect if birth control is not adopted?"[39]
Previously in a 1933 article of the Kudi Arasu, Periyar, in his words, explained that "even a High Court Judge in India does not know the amount of trouble that a mother takes to bring up a child. If a husband is kind to his wife and shows concern for her health and happiness, he must adopt the contraceptive method. Otherwise, he must be one who could manage to see that in delivery and in the brining [sic] up of children, she does not have much trouble. Therefore, the proper thing to do now is to drastically cut the expenses mentioned above and spend money on the proper upbringing of children with the help of nurses."[40]
Property rights and divorce[edit]
With regards to property rights for women, Periyar stated that there was no difference between men and women. He went on to say that like men, women should have the right to own property and enjoy its benefits. With regards to divorce or separations, he advocated that a woman can lie away from her husband if he is an undesirable person and if he has nay virulent disease. When a woman has to live apart from her husband in these circumstances, she is entitled to maintenance allowance and a claim on the husband's property. Even if a widow gets remarried, she must be given the right to claim a share of the first husband's property.[41]
On February 4, 1946, the Central Legislature passed an Act giving the right the Hindu married woman to get from her husband in certain circumstances a separate place to live in and a maintenance allowance. Periyar explained how that it was a useless Act. since it seems that the members of the Hindu Mahasabha and Sanadahnis agitated against the grant of even this right.[42]
Dowry[edit]
On the Dowry system practiced widely throughout the Indian sub-continent not only by Hindus but Christians too, Periyar calls it a "serious disease that was spreading fast amongst Tamilians". He went on to state that the disease was also found in its virulent form among the Andhras and the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu. Periyar also argued that if a man with property worth one lakh has three daughters, he has to become a beggar by the time these daughters are married. In the name of dowry, the parents of the young men who marry the three daughters, squeeze the man's property out of him.[43]
In the 1959 issue of Viduthalai, Periyar stated that, "according to a new legislation, women have the right to a share of the parents' property. Therefore every girl will definitely get her legitimate share from the parents' wealth - if the parents are wealth. It is inhuamane [sic] on the part of the parents of a boy to dump on him a girl whom he does not like and to plan to such as much as they can from the property of the girl's father. There is basically no difference between selling education and love for money and selling one's chastity for money. 'Prostitute' is a germ of contempt for a woman; a boy should not be reduced by his avaricous [sic] parents to get the name, 'a prostituted boy' or 'a boy that has been sold'. A father-in-law who has means, however miserly he may be by nature, will not be indifferent when his daughter suffers out of poverty. Therefore, it is very shameful on the part of the bridegroom's parents to demand from the bride's father that at the time of the marriage he should gie jewels worth so many thousands along with so many thousand rupees as dowry and that he should provide the bridegroom with a house and a care. The fact that another party makes such demands at the time of his daughter's marriage does not justify any parent's demands at the time of his son's wedding. All people must realize that both demanding and giving dowry are wrong and they must boldly declare this when occasion arises."[44]
Periyar calls the dowry an evil and exploitative practice depriving tens of thousands of talented and beautiful young women with sound character remaining spinsters without any chance of getting married.[45]
Devadasis[edit]
Among the atrocities the Tamil society committed against women was the practice of keeping some women attached to temples as Devadasis. Dr. Muthulakshmi proposed the resolution at the Madras Legislature that the Devadasi system should be abolished. The Government wanted comments on that from all important people. Periyar in his statement pointed out that the Devadasi system was a disgrace to Hindu religion. The fact that, in the name of a temple or a god, some women are kept as common property is an insult to all the women in the society. He also remarked that the prevalence of this system encouraged immorality among men and thus set the pattern for unprincipled life in many families. This was stoutly opposed in the Assembly by Satyamurthi Iyer, an orthodox Congress member, under the pretext of safeguarding the Hindu traditions. It should be said to the credit of Dr. Muthulakshmi and the leaders like Periyar that the proposal of the Doctor was accepted and a law was enacted against the Devadasi system.[30]
Periyar's example of the degradation of women in the Devadasi system is explained that "if a man's physical passion is aroused when his wife is not with him, he immediately goes to a prostitute. Rough stones are planted where cows and bufaloes [sic] graze to facilitate the animals to rub against the stones when they feel like it.[46] Likewise, Devadasis served in temples and in all villages rough stones planted on the borders and they say that these two (employing devadasis and the planting rough stones) are aamong [sic] the 32 dharmas mentioned in the sastras. When we consider why his kindness to the suffering and also the 32 dharmas are all bogus".[46]
Resolutions passed[edit]
As the Self-Respect conference held in Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu in 1929, the following were among the many resolutions passed with regards for women's rights:
Women should be given equal right along with men for the family property.
There should be no objection to employing women to any job for which they are qualified.[47]
Schools, particularly schools, should try to employ only women teachers.
At the conference held in Erode in 1930, the same resolutions were passed again reminding the delegates and others that the interest of women was still uppermost in Periyar's mind. M.R. Jayakar who presided oer the Erode conference was greatly impressed by the progressive views of Periyar and other members. He was particularly happy that the movement included not merely non-Brahmin Hindus but Christians and Muslims too. He pointed out that the Self-Respect movement was more progressive than Congress. Furthermore, at the Virudhnagar conference the women members held a separate conference and passed some resolutions demanding that women should have the right to select their life partners without any consideration of religion or community and that weddings should not involve wasteful expenditure and elaborate ceremonies.[47]
The matrimony carousel (also called marriage well), actually Hans-Sachs fountain, is an extensive architecture fountain in central Nuremberg, close to the White Tower.
History
The fountain was designed on behalf of the City of Nuremberg in 1977 to 1981 by the Brunswick sculptor Jürgen Weber and built in 1984. The purificating waterworks was developed at the Leichtweiß-Institute of the Technical University of Braunschweig (professor Führböter). The reason was a circular underground ventilation shaft, which is hidden in the middle of the fountain. From the former Nuremberg planning officer Otto Peter Görl stemmed the idea to conceal the shaft opening with a fountain.
Due to the expressive figurative representations that were considered by parts of the population and the press in part drastically vulgar, but also because of substantial budget overruns the artwork was initially highly controversial. The dispute about the artist, who was accused of "pseudo-baroque sensualism" inflamed again with the preparation of the Ship of fools fountain, also by Weber, in 1988. The fountain is now considered one of the most important modern artworks in the city and a tourist attraction.
Fountain architecture and range of characters
Poem
Detail: heart with "Rose bush", made of green and pink veined marble
Inspired by the written for the wife of the poet poem The bittersweet married life of Hans Sachs, shows the well in six larger than life groups of figures pictorially overdrawn the different scenes from the ups and downs of married life - from the first passionate love over marital discord to death. The fountain consists of painted and partly fire-gilded bronze figures. On a pedestal is also the author of the topics giving text, Hans Sachs, shown.
The Baroque-style pool enclosure consists of white-gray marble, parts of the base are made of colored marble. The marble sculpture Rose bush on the west side consists of green and pink veined Portuguese marble. Weber has carved out of the green sediments rose petals, of the rose-colored ones the blossoms.
Current state
The fountain by bestriding and climbing about has encountered sporadic damages, especially smaller demolitions on the marble parts. The mercurial gilding is mostly rubbed off. The designed by the artist iron fence around the fountain - which would have protected against vandalism - was not commissioned by the city of Nuremberg.
Das Ehekarussell (auch Ehebrunnen genannt), eigentlich Hans-Sachs-Brunnen, ist ein großflächiger Architekturbrunnen im Zentrum von Nürnberg in unmittelbarer Nähe des Weißen Turmes.
Geschichte
Der Brunnen wurde im Auftrag der Stadt Nürnberg in den Jahren 1977 bis 1981 von dem Braunschweiger Bildhauer Jürgen Weber gestaltet und 1984 aufgebaut. Das aufreinigende Wasserspiel wurde am Leichtweiß-Institut der T.U. Braunschweig (Prof. Führböter) entwickelt. Anlass war ein kreisrunder U-Bahn-Entlüftungsschacht, der sich in der Mitte des Brunnens verbirgt. Vom damaligen Nürnberger Baureferenten Otto Peter Görl stammte die Idee, die Schachtöffnung mit einem Brunnen zu kaschieren.
Wegen der expressiven figürlichen Darstellungen, die von Teilen der Bevölkerung und der Presse als teils drastisch vulgär angesehen wurden, aber auch wegen erheblicher Budgetüberschreitungen war das Kunstwerk zunächst heftig umstritten. Der Streit über den Künstler, dem „pseudobarocker Sensualismus“ vorgeworfen wurde, flammte erneut mit der Aufstellung des Narrenschiffbrunnens, ebenfalls von Weber im Jahr 1988, auf. Der Brunnen gilt jetzt als eines der bedeutendsten neuzeitlichen Kunstwerke in der Stadt und als touristische Attraktion.
Beschreibung
Brunnenarchitektur und Figurenprogramm
Gedicht
Detail: Herz mit "Rosenstock", gearbeitet aus grün-rosa gemaserten Marmor
An das für die Frau des Dichters geschriebene Gedicht Das bittersüße eh'lich' Leben von Hans Sachs angelehnt, zeigt der Brunnen in sechs überlebensgroßen Figurengruppen bildhaft überzeichnet die unterschiedlichen Szenen aus dem Auf und Ab des Ehelebens – von der ersten leidenschaftlichen Liebe über Ehestreit bis zum Tod. Der Brunnen besteht aus bemalten und zum Teil feuervergoldeten Bronzefiguren. Auf einem Podest ist auch der Verfasser des themengebenden Textes, Hans Sachs, dargestellt.
Die barockisierende Beckeneinfassung besteht aus weißgrauem Marmor, Teile der Basis sind aus farbigem Marmor. Die Marmorskulptur Rosenstock auf der Westseite besteht aus grün und rosé gemaserten portugiesischem Marmor. Weber hat aus den grünen Sedimenten die Rosenblätter herausgearbeitet, aus den roséfarbenen die Blüten.
Heutiger Zustand
Die Brunnenanlage hat durch das Besteigen und Beklettern vereinzelt Schäden davongetragen, insbesondere kleinere Abbrüche an den Marmorteilen. Die Feuervergoldung ist größtenteils abgerieben. Das vom Künstler entworfene Eisengitter um den Brunnen - das auch vor Vandalismus geschützt hätte - wurde von der Stadt Nürnberg nicht in Auftrag gegeben.
In the open position drawers and side-tables float over the floor on heavy duty metal slides. The actual bed touches the floor lightly on concealed legs.
A collaboration between our firm and Workshop Neirman-Smith.
The bed is like the hollow hull of a boat, with the storage down below and the sleeping quarters up top on the platform.
The design harvests what is normally dead space under the frame with retractable drawers and side tables with hinged tops. The tapered shape of the bed, which sits on rails, minimizes the actual mass, so that the hidden volumes beneath are revealed only when the drawers slide out.
Russell Maliphant Company: Conceal | Reveal
Russell Maliphant Company - Conceal | Reveal opens at Sadler's Wells Theatre from 26-28 November 2015. Conceal | Reveal celebrates 20 years of collaboration between contemporary dance choreographer Russell Maliphant and lighting designer Michael Hulls.
Casting:
«both, and»: Dana Fouras
Piece No.43: Dana Fouras, Adam Kirkham, Carys Staton, Yu-Hsien Wu, Nathan Young
Broken Fall: Adam Kirkham, Yu-Hsien Wu, Nathan Young
photo - © Foteini Christofilopoulou | All rights reserved | For all usage/licensing enquiries please contact www.foteini.com
On the fifth day of our hike from Wamena toward the Yalimo territory of the Dani, we crossed a swampy plateau - pools, large and small, sometimes concealed by the grasses until I was about to step into the water, some small enough to hop over, some so large that they forced me into a detour - at this point, after stepping into a hole and suffering a minor sprain to add to my blisters, I regretted every unnecessary step. Having said that, the waterlogged terrain was soft underfoot and a joy to traverse and the vegetation otherworldly. We had first considered climbing down the cliff that afternoon but the risk of rain was high and the descent too risky to rush, so we chose to camp on top. The terrain near the edge was too wet and we climbed onto an elevated position - that unfortunately was not much better as the ground was waterlogged and sponge-like. I stood on ground that appeared to be dry and within a minute the brush and earth had compacted under my weight and the water had risen over my feet. I amde sure to lie as flat as possible in my tent...
[Siepe di Copertura > 对隐瞒绿篱 > Сокрытие живая изгородь > 隠し生垣]
Location: Rostock (Germany), Lichtenhagen.
Subject: This is a detail of the so-called Sunflower Tower, a gigantic condominium built during the GDR era, adorned with big sunflower pictures. There, in 1992 (shortly after the Reunification), it took place a notorious uprising. During the riots, bands of hooligans assaulted the building, wherein the authorities squashed thousands of immigrants (many of them Asian) waiting for the asylum visa and living in precarious conditions. The hooligans were supported by part of the local inhabitants. On the ground floor, beneath balconies as the one depicted, there are recesses where some of those immigrants without dwelling were living. Nowadays, many of those recesses are concealed by hedges as such.
Check my 500PRIME store and license my pictures (full and/or editorial use).
❐ ❐ ❐
Visit my website > 请访问我的网站（它是用英文和意大利文) > Пожалуйста, посетите веб-сайт (На английском и итальянском языках) > (英語とイタリア語を）私のウェブサイトをご覧ください > gianlucavecchi.blogspot.it
Per ulteriori informazioni: guardate il mio profilo > For further information: check my profile > 欲了解更多信息 : 阅读我的个人资料 > Для получения дополнительной информации: читать мой профиль > の詳細については：私のプロフィールを読んでください
James A. Garfield Memorial
1st Street and Maryland Ave. SW
Architect: Richard Morris Hunt
Date: 1887
Medium: Bronze
---member of the Society of the Army of the Cumberland
---at Society’s annual reunion in Chattanooga, TN (Sept 19, 1881) the Society learned Garfield had died, before adjourning they voted to establish a Garfield Memoria Committee to establish a memorial in the nation’s capital
---the opening prayer at the reunion had been for Garfield’s recovery after having been shot by Charles Guiteau eleven weeks earlier in Washington
---fund raising was difficult and slow, in 1882 Congress contributed $7500. Major money appeared only after the Garfield Memorial Fair was held that year. Organized by committeemen, but runby their wives the event raised $15,000. The Society raised another $25,000 while Congress appropriated an additional $30,000 for the monuments base in 1884.
---at the 1883 reunion of the Society of the Army, New York Sculptor John Quincy Adams Ward selected as sculptor and paid $60,000 for statue and pedestal
---the committee and Ward had worked together before on the equestrian statue of General H. Thomas in Thomas Circle which this Society had also commissioned
---Ward had another thing in his favor, one year older than Garfied, they had grown up together on the Ohio frontier and had much in common
---Ward’s previous works included not only Gen. Thomas in Thomas Circle, WDC but also the 1861 Freedman Monument in Lincoln Park/DC. His first statue was the 7th Regiment NY Infantry Memorial in NYC’s Central Park which was followed by his statue of Major John F. Reynolds at Gettysburg, where he had fallen. Ward also worked on an equestrian statue of Gen. Phillip Sheridan that had been intended for Washington, but was cast after he died and finally erected in Albany, NY. Ward died in 1910 at age 80 after having just completed his 3rd equestrian statue of Gen. Winfield Scott for Fairmont Park in Philadelphia
---Ward worked with his friend and partner architect, Richard Morris Hunt who designed the base
---Garfield stands 9’ tall on the pedestal and looks as though he is pausing in the middle of an address
---Garfield is holding his text across his chest, his gaze is direct and steady--into space, not to an audience
---This statue is considered on of Ward’s best
---the three larger than life bronze figures seated at the base represent the three phases of Garfield’s life:
First: the scholar: his career as student, professor, and school principal before the war…the figure is contemplative, barefoot, draped in sheepskin, reading from a an unrolled parchment
Second: the soldier
…the powerful, bearded warrior with a furry wolfskin draped over his head and
shoulders as he warily looks over his shoulder, clutching the hilt of his sword
Third: the statesman representing the Congressman and President
…a mature man in a toga and sandals, his right foot resting on a stack of books,
holding a tablet inscribed “Law-Justice-Prosperity”
---Ward labored the longest on these three figures causing him to fall behind on the deadline for casting to make the absolute deadline set by the Society for its dedication on May 12,1887. Many extensions were granted but the deadline was a firm one which he made
---May 12, 1887 dedication day…parade formed at 11am, marched down Pennsylvania Ave to foot of Capitol Hill where the statue was concealed behind huge American flags.
---The Society of the Army of the Cumberland showed up in mass and filled the first rows
---many dignitaries were present: President Grover Cleveland, Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen, Ward, Hunt, most of Garfield’s cabinet, Garfield’s sons (James and Henry), his wife Lucretia sent her regrets and thanks, Civil War General J. Warren Keifer who gave the main address and Phillip Sheridan, president of the Society of the Army of Cumberland
Baia das Pedras, Southern Pantanal | Brazil
This crocodilian species is only found in northeastern Argentina, Uraquay, southeastern Peru, eastern Bolivia, central and southwest Brazil, and the rivers of Paraguay. In the Pantanal alone there are estimated to be in excess of 10 million Yacare Caiman, which is believed to be the largest single crocodilian population on earth. They’re relatively small with most adults only growing to 2 or 2.5m in length, although occasionally you’ll see a bigger specimen. There have been reports of certain individuals being close on 4m, but they’ve not been verified. Their typical prey is fish or the odd heron, but larger individuals will also have no hesitation in grabbing a Capybara. Like all crocodilians, they are adapted for hunting by stealth. Otherwise submerged and concealed, they float with just their eyes and nostrils protruding above the surface of the water. This allows them to both see and breath, so that they can either remain perfectly still and undetected or move very carefully towards potential riverside prey. They will then slowly submerge, lowering flaps over their throat, nostrils and ears to prevent water entering, and protecting their eyes with transparent lids. They will then move with astounding speed launching themselves, mouth open, at their prey. On many occasion we’ve been alongside them in a boat when they’ve suddenly decided to turn and dive, and despite being ready for that to happen, the speed at which they do it always takes you by surprise.
Buick Invicta 4 door Hardtop (1st Gen) (1959-60) Engine 6600cc V8 Nailhead
Registration Number BSK 866 (Inverness)
BUICK SET
www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/sets/72157623635632257...
The Invicta series was introduced as a full line of body styles for model year 1959 between the entry-level LeSabre or top level Electra models, Available as a 2 or 4 Hardtop, 2 door Convertible and 4 door Station Wagon, and with either a 364 cu in or 401 cu in Nailhead V8 engine mated to a 2 Speed Twin Turbine Automatic or a 3 speed Triple Turbine Automatic. The Invicta continued the tradition of installing Ventiports on the front fenders from the Century.
For 1960 the Invicta was restyled with twin parallel front lights rather than the canted angle lights of 1959, the got concave vertical bars rather than the 1959 square blocks
According to Robin Moore's 1969 book The French Connection, "the 1960 Buick Invicta had a peculiarity in body construction conducive to the installations of...extraordinary, virtually detection-proof traps concealed within the fenders and undercarriage" that made it a popular model for international heroin smugglers
This car appeared at 5/7/2015 Can-Am Car Club of Devon gathering at Cofton Farm Holiday Park, Dawlish, Devon, UK driven in by rock legend Jerry Lee Lewis - Photo by John Southall
www.classiccar-photos.net/images/pf-classic-car/15411.jpg .
Many Thanks for a fan'dabi'dozi 30,767,200 views
Shot 167.11.2014 at The National Exhibition Centre, Classic and Sportscar Show Ref 103-360
Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (10 November 1565[1] – 25 February 1601), is the best-known of the many holders of the title "Earl of Essex." He was a military hero and royal favourite of Elizabeth I, but following a poor campaign against Irish rebels during the Nine Years' War in 1599, he failed in a coup d'état against the queen and was executed for treason.
Essex was born on 10 November 1565 at Netherwood near Bromyard, in Herefordshire, the son of Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex and Lettice Knollys. His maternal great-grandmother Mary Boleyn was a sister of Anne Boleyn, mother of Queen Elizabeth I, making him a cousin of the Queen, and there were rumours that his grandmother, Catherine Carey, a close friend of Queen Elizabeth's, was Henry VIII's illegitimate daughter.[3]
He was brought up on his father's estates at Chartley Castle, Staffordshire and at Lamphey, Pembrokeshire in Wales and educated at Trinity College, Cambridge.[4] His father died in 1576, The new Earl of Essex became a ward of Lord Burghley. On 21 September 1578 his mother married Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, Elizabeth I's long-standing favourite and Robert Devereux's godfather.[5]
Essex performed military service under his stepfather in the Netherlands, before making an impact at court and winning the Queen's favour. In 1590 he married Frances Walsingham, daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham and widow of Sir Philip Sidney, by whom he was to have several children, three of whom survived into adulthood. Sidney, Leicester's nephew, died at the Battle of Zutphen in which Essex also distinguished himself.
Essex first came to court in 1584, and by 1587 had become a favourite of the Queen, who relished his lively mind and eloquence, as well as his skills as a showman and in courtly love. In June 1587 he replaced the Earl of Leicester as Master of the Horse.[6]
He underestimated the Queen, however, and his later behaviour towards her lacked due respect and showed disdain for the influence of her principal secretary, Sir Robert Cecil. On one occasion during a heated Privy Council debate on the problems in Ireland, the Queen reportedly cuffed an insolent Essex round the ear, prompting him to draw his sword on her.
After Leicester's death in 1588, the Queen transferred to Essex the royal monopoly on sweet wines, which the late Earl had held; by this Essex could profit from collecting taxes.
In 1589, he took part in Sir Francis Drake's English Armada, which sailed to Iberia in an unsuccessful attempt to press home the English advantage following the defeat of the Spanish Armada; the Queen had ordered him not to take part in the expedition, but he only returned upon the failure to take Lisbon. In 1591, he was given command of a force sent to the assistance of King Henry IV of France. In 1596, he distinguished himself by the capture of Cadiz. During the Islands Voyage expedition to the Azores in 1597, with Sir Walter Raleigh as his second in command, he defied the Queen's orders, pursuing the treasure fleet without first defeating the Spanish battle fleet.
Essex's greatest failure was as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a post which he talked himself into in 1599. The Nine Years War (1595–1603) was in its middle stages, and no English commander had been successful. More military force was required to defeat the Irish chieftains, led by Hugh O'Neill, the Earl of Tyrone, and supplied from Spain and Scotland.
Essex led the largest expeditionary force ever sent to Ireland — 16,000 troops — with orders to put an end to the rebellion. He departed London to the cheers of the Queen's subjects, and it was expected that the rebellion would be crushed instantly. But the limits of Crown resources and of the Irish campaigning season dictated another course. Essex had declared to the Privy Council that he would confront O'Neill in Ulster. But instead, Essex led his army into southern Ireland, fought a series of inconclusive engagements, wasted his funds, and dispersed his army into garrisons. The Irish forces then won several victories. Instead of facing O'Neill in battle, Essex had to make a truce with the rebel leader that was considered humiliating to the Crown and to the detriment of English authority.
In all of his campaigns, Essex secured the loyalties of his officers by conferring knighthoods, an honour which the Queen herself dispensed sparingly. By the end of his time in Ireland, more than half the knights in England owed their rank to Essex. The rebels were said to have joked that "he never drew sword but to make knights." But his practice of conferring knighthoods could in time enable Essex to challenge the powerful factions at Cecil's command.
He was the second Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, serving from 1598 to 1601.
Relying on his general warrant to return to England, given under the great seal, Essex sailed from Ireland on 24 September 1599, and reached London four days later. The Queen had expressly forbidden his return and was surprised when he presented himself in her bedchamber one morning at Nonsuch Palace, before she was properly wigged or gowned. On that day, the Privy Council met three times, and it seemed his disobedience might go unpunished, although the Queen did confine him to his rooms with the comment that "an unruly beast must be stopped of his provender."
Essex by Isaac Oliver, c. 1597
Essex appeared before the full Council on 29 September, when he was compelled to stand before the Council during a five hour interrogation. The Council — his uncle William Knollys included — took a quarter of an hour to compile a report, which declared that his truce with O'Neill was indefensible and his flight from Ireland tantamount to a desertion of duty. He was committed to custody in his own York House on 1 October, and he blamed Cecil and Raleigh for the queen's hostility. Raleigh advised Cecil to see to it that Essex did not recover power, and Essex appeared to heed advice to retire from public life, despite his popularity with the public.
During his confinement at York House, Essex probably communicated with King James VI of Scotland through Lord Mountjoy, although any plans he may have had at that time to help the Scots king capture the English throne came to nothing. In October, Mountjoy was appointed to replace him in Ireland, and matters seemed to look up for the Earl. In November, the queen was reported to have said that the truce with O'Neill was "so seasonably made… as great good… has grown by it." Others in the Council were willing to justify Essex's return to Ireland, on the grounds of the urgent necessity of a briefing by the commander-in-chief.
Cecil kept up the pressure and, on 5 June 1600, Essex was tried before a commission of 18 men. He had to hear the charges and evidence on his knees. Essex was convicted, was deprived of public office, and was returned to virtual confinement.
In August, his freedom was granted, but the source of his basic income—the sweet wines monopoly—was not renewed. His situation had become desperate,and he shifted "from sorrow and repentance to rage and rebellion." In early 1601, he began to fortify York House and gather his followers. On the morning of 8 February, he marched out of York House with a party of nobles and gentlemen (some later involved in the 1605 Gunpowder Plot) and entered the city of London in an attempt to force an audience with the Queen. Cecil immediately had him proclaimed a traitor. Finding no support among the Londoners, Essex retreated from the city, and surrendered after the Crown forces besieged York House.
On 19 February 1601, Essex was tried before his peers on charges of treason. Part of the evidence showed that he was in favour of toleration of religious dissent. In his own evidence, he countered the charge of dealing with Catholics, swearing that "papists have been hired and suborned to witness against me." Essex also asserted that Cecil had stated that none in the world but the Infanta of Spain had right to the Crown of England, whereupon Cecil (who had been following the trial at a doorway concealed behind some tapestry) stepped out to make a dramatic denial, going down on his knees to give thanks to God for the opportunity. The witness whom Essex expected to confirm this allegation, his uncle William Knollys, was called and admitted there had once been read in Cecil's presence a book treating such matters (possibly either The book of succession supposedly by an otherwise unknown R. Doleman but probably really by Robert Persons or A Conference about the Next Succession to the Crown of England explicitly mentioned to be by Parsons, in which a Catholic successor friendly to Spain was favored). Essex, however, denied he had heard Cecil make the statement. Thanking God again, Cecil expressed his gratitude that Essex was exposed as a traitor while he himself was found an honest man.
Essex was found guilty and, on 25 February 1601, was beheaded on Tower Green, becoming the last person to be beheaded in the Tower of London. (It was reported to have taken three strokes by the executioner to complete the beheading.) At Sir Walter Raleigh's own treason trial later on, in 1603, it was alleged that Raleigh had said to a co-conspirator, "Do not, as my Lord Essex did, take heed of a preacher. By his persuasion he confessed, and made himself guilty." In that same trial, Raleigh also denied that he had stood at a window during the execution of Essex's sentence, disdainfully puffing out tobacco smoke in sight of the condemned man.
Some days before the execution, Captain Thomas Lee was apprehended as he kept watch on the door to the Queen's chambers. His plan had been to confine her until she signed a warrant for the release of Essex. Capt. Lee, who had served in Ireland with the Earl, and who acted as go-between with the Ulster rebels, was tried and put to death the next day.
Devereux's conviction for treason meant that the earldom of Essex was forfeit, and his son did not inherit the title. However, after the Queen's death, King James I reinstated the earldom in favour of the disinherited son, Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex.
PERIYAR E.V.RAMASAMY and WOMEN RIGHTS
With regards to marriage, Periyar has stated that it is one of the worst customs in India. He claimed that the marriage principle, briefly, involves the enslavement of a woman by her husband and nothing else. This enslavement is concealed under the cover of marriage rites to deceive the women concerned by giving the wedding the false name of a divine function.[7]
There have been numerous papers in South India reporting how husbands have killed their wives, suspecting immoral behavior. The husband's suspicion of his wife's character has often led to murders. Those who believe in the divine dispensation, according to Periyar, do not have the knowledge to ask themselves why marriages conducted according to religious rites and the approval of God end in this fashion.[7]
Periyar further states that the very idea that the only proper thing for women to do is to be slaves of domesticity, bear children and bring them up, is a faulty one. As long as these restrictions are imposed on women, we can be sure that women have to be subservient to men and depend on men for help. If women have to live on terms of equality with men, they must have the liberty, like men, to have the kind of education they like and also to do unhampered, any work suitable to their knowledge, ability and taste.[8]
Furthermore, Periyar objected to terms like "giving of a maid" and "given in marriage". They are, "Sanskrit terms" and treat woman as a thing. He advocated the substitution of the word for marriage taken from the Tirukkual "Valkai thunai" or "life partner".[9]
Expenses[edit]
With marriage comes the expenses. Periyar stated that in our country, and particularly in Hindu society, a marriage is a function causing a lot of difficulties and waste to all people concerned. But those who conduct the marriage function and those who are getting married do not appear to notice the attendant difficulties because they think that social life necessitates wasteful expense and many difficulties and therefore they must necessarily face those inconveniences and hardships.[10]
Wedding feast, jewels, expensive clothes, procession, pandal, dance, music—money is spent on all these to satisfy the vanity of the organizers. Whatever may be the amount of money spent on the wedding and however pompous each of the items may be, the mirth and jollity associated with these are over in two or three days. In a week's time the prestige and honor connected with these are forgotten.[10] But the wedding expenses leave many families crushed; for many poor families these expenses leave an enormous burden and the debts remain uncleared for a number of years.[11]
However, if the money intended for the wedding expense is not borrowed and belongs to either of the marriage parties, then that amount could be used by her to bring up her children and to educate them. Such a procedure would be highly beneficial to her.[12]
Arranged marriages[edit]
In South Asia we mostly hear of arranged marriages as part of custom, heritage, and religions. Periyar thought that the Aryan wedding methods were barbarous because of the Aryan religion and art: Vedas, Sastras, Puranas, and Epics belong to the barbaric age. He further stated that is the reason why their wedding methods involve the parents giving the girl, prostituting the girl children and some stranger carrying the girl away by force or stealth.[13]
Arranged marriages in general were meant to enable the couple to live together throughout life and derive happiness, satisfaction and a good reputation, even years after the sexual urge and sexual pleasure are forgotten.[14]
But, with the selfish manipulation of this pact, Periyar claimed that women find 'pleasure' in slavish marriage because they have been brought up by their parents without education, independence and self-respect and because they have been made to believe that marriage means subordination to males. The inclusion of such slavish women in the group of 'chaste' women is another lure to them, leading them to find pleasure in such marriages.
Because a man is also married before he has understood the nature of life, its problems and its pleasures, he is satisfied with the slavish nature of the wife and the sexual pleasure she gives. If he finds any incompatibility, he adapts himself to his partner and the circumstances and puts up with his lot.[14]
Love marriages[edit]
Love marriages, claims Periyar, on the other hand will suit only those who have no ideals in life. Such a wedding gives primacy to sexual union along and it is doubtful if it indicates an agreement between the couple for good life. Sexual compatibility alone does not ensure happy married life; the couple should be able to live together cheerfully. Suitability for life or living together can be determined only if the man and woman get used to the company of each other, and are satisfied with each other. Only then, they can enter into an agreement to live together.[13]
Periyar further states that love marriages can give pleasure only as long as there is lust and the ability to satisfy that lust. If there is no compatibility between the partners in other respects, such marriages end only in the enslavement of women. The lies of such women resemble the lives of bullocks which are tied to a cart, beaten up and made to labor endlessly until they die.[14]
Therefore, there is a proverb stating, "A deeply loving girl is unfit for family life; a suitable life partner is unfit for love." Periyar believed that the agreement between partners to live together will constitute a better marriage than a love marriage.[14]
Self-respect marriages[edit]
In a leading article of Viduthalai, Periyar states that a self-respect wedding is based on rationalism. Rationalism is based on the individual's courage. Some may have the courage to conduct it during the time which almanacs indicate as the time of the planet Rahu and that, particularly in the evening. Some others may have just enough daring to avoid the Brahmin priest and his mother tongue - the Sanskrit language.[15] Some may feel nervous about not keeping the traditional lamp burning in broad daylight. Some others may have the rotten thought that conducting a wedding without 'mangala sutra' is disgraceful.
Still, the self-respect weddings conducted during the past thirty years have some basic limits. They are: Brahmins and their mantras should be utterly avoided; meaningless rituals, piling mud pots, one on another, having the traditional lamp during day time, ritual smoke - all these should be avoided. Rationalism does not approve of these. Periyar then asks why can't the government pass an Act that legalizes weddings which avoid the above-mentioned superstitious practices. If all these details cannot be accommodated in the Act, the latter can legalize weddings which don't have Brahmin priests, the Sanskrit language and the so called holy fire.[16]
Thus, marriages styled as Self-Respect marriages carried a threefold significance: a) replacing the Purohit, b) inter-caste equality, c) man-woman equality. Periyar claimed to have performed Self-Respect marriages unofficially since 1925 and officially since 1928.[17] Self-Respect marriages were legalized in 1967 by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Government.[18]
Widow-remarriage[edit]
On the remarriage of widows, Periyar states that among the atrocities perpetrated by the Hindu male population against women, here we have to consider the treatment meted out to widows alone. If a girl loses her husband, even before knowing anything of worldly pleasures, she is compelled to close her eyes to everything in the world and die broken-hearted. Even in Periyar's community at the time, there were widowed girls below the age of 13 years. Periyar stated how it is a touching sight to see the parents of those widowed children treating them like untouchables.[19]
He goes on to say that whatever may be the reason for the present state of the Hindu society, my firm belief that the low position given permanently to widows may prove to be the reason for the utter ruin of the Hindu religion and the Hindu society.[20]
If we try to find the reason for such conduct, we will have to conclude that they instinctively feel that women are slaves, subservient to men and that they must be kept under control. That is why these people treat women like animals. They seem to feel that giving freedom to women is equivalent to committing a very serious crime. The result of this attitude is that there is no independence or freedom to one half of the human race. This wicked enslavement of half of the human race is due to the fact that men are physically a little stronger than women. This principle applies to all spheres of life and the weaker are enslaved by the stronger.
If slavery has to be abolished in society, the male arrogance and wickedness which lead to the enslavement of women must be abolished first. Only when this is achieved, the tender sprouts of freedom and equality will register growth.[21]
One of the reasons why Periayr hated Hinduism and the orthodoxy practiced in the name of Hinduism was the practice of child marriage. Many of the girl children who were married before they were ten or twelve years old became widows before they knew the meaning of the word. According to the 1921 All India Census the details of the child widows reported living in the country that time were as follows:[22]
1 year baby widows - 497
1 to 2 year child widows - 494
2 to 3 year child widows - 1,257
3 to 4 year child widows - 2,837
4 to 5 year child widows - 6,707
Total number of widows - 11,342
5 to 10 year young widows - 85,037
10 to 15 year young widows - 232,147
15 to 20 year young widows - 396,172
20 to 25 year young widows - 742,820
25 to 30 year young widows - 1,163,720
Total number of widows - 2,631,238[22][23]
Periyar was deeply disturbed when he realized that among the widows in India, 11,892 were little children below 5 years and that young widows below 15 years numbering 232,147 were denied the pleasures of life.[24]
With regards to the re-marriage of widows, Periyar stated that it is the practice of our people to refer to such a wedding as "a widow's marriage". Such an expression is used only with reference to women and in connection with men. Just as this lady is marrying another husband after the death of the first husband, many men marry again after the death of the first wife. But the second marriage of a man is not referred to as "a widower's marriage", though that is the proper thing to do.
Periyar himself was a widower. After becoming one, he took a second wife. He claimed that in the ancient days, both men and women in the country had this practice. There were numerous instances in sastras and puranas of women getting married again after the death of their first husband. Periyar further stated that this is not an unusual practice in the rest of the world though it might appear strange for us at the present time. Christian and Muslim women marry again after the death of the first husband. 90 percent of women in Muslim countries get married again soon after the death of the first husband. This may be unusual in certain sections of Indian societies. But it is a common practice in certain other sections of our society which are called very backward communities.[25]
Further, inter-caste marriages and remarriage of widows are on the increase in India. Brahmins oppose these because they are afraid that they cannot exploit the people any more in the name of sastras. For the same reason they oppose the Sharada Act which is necessary for social well-being.[26]
Child marriage[edit]
In all the meetings of the non-Brahmins and the Self-Respectors, Periyar condemned child marriages and emphasized the need for educating all girl children and giving right to young widows to get married again.
Periyar has been very much against child marriage and stated that it reflects the cruelty to which innocent girls were subjected by their well-meaning parents. Periyar asked that if these parents can be considered civilized in any sense of the term. There was no other leader other than Periyar who reacted against this practice of child marriage.[24]
Those who supported child marriage were strongly against Periyar's condemnation of this act. Take for example, the Sharada Act. Those who opposed this Act say that it was against the Sastras to conduct the marriage of a girl after she has attained puberty. They further say that those who conduct such marriages are committing a sin and therefore will go to hell.[27]
Chastity[edit]
Periyar claimed that "household duties" have risen out of the foolishness of people and were not natural duties.[28] He went on to say that it was our selfish greed which has multiplied our household work. Nobody need worry that without household work, the women will lose their "chastity". On chastity, Periyar went on to say that it is something that belongs to women and is not a pledge to men. Whatever, chastity is, it was something that belonged to individuals.
In society, it was believed that if people lose their chastity, they will get divine punishment. Others are not going to get that punishment. Referring to the doctrines of institutionalized orthodox religions, he went on to say that men need not to worry themselves that women are committing a sin by not doing household work. Thus, let men realize that women are not slaves and that men are not their masters or guardians. Women should be allowed to develop the competence to protect themselves and their chastity and men need not be their watchdogs. He also believed that it was derogatory for men to play such a role.[citation needed]
It was said by the orthodox[who?] that women will develop diseases if they lose their chastity. The disease that a woman gets affects the husbands also. If we[who?] educate the women, they will develop the capability to keep themselves and their husbands pure. Thus, Periyar stated in the Kudi Arasu for the society to think deeply about taking a decision and do the right thing for their sisters and girl children.[29]
Periyar kindled the thoughts of everybody by also ridiculing the use of the word chastity only with reference to women. (Periyar-Father of Tamil 32) He stated that character is essential for both men and women and that speaking of chastity only with reference to women degraded not merely women but men also. He extended this thought and said that in any sphere of activity, civilized society cannot think of one law for men and another for women. He also said that the way most men treated their women was far worse than the way the upper class people treated the lower class, the way in which rich men treated the poor and the way in which a master treated his slave.[30]
Education[edit]
On education, Periyar stated that some foolish parents believe that if girls get educated, they will correspond with their secret lovers. That it is a very foolish and mischievous notion. No parent need be anxious about it. If a girl writes a letter, it will only be to a male. We can even now caution men not to read any love letter addressed to them by a woman and, even if they read it, not to reply to it. If men do not listen to this advice, they, as well as the girls who write them must be punished. It will be a hopelessly bad thing, if parents keep their girl children uneducated for this reason.[29]
At a speeched delivered by Periyar at the Prize Distribution function in the Municipal School for Girls at Karungal Palayam, Erode, he stated that girl children should be taught active and energetic exercises like running, high jump, long jump,and wrestling so that they may acquire the strength and courage of men. Their time and energy should not be wasted in light pastimes like Kummi (groups going in a circle, clapping their hands rhythmically) and in Kolatam (striking with sticks rhythmically).
In ancient Tamil literature, poets have stressed the value of education for women. In a famous verse, a poet by the name of Naladiar stated that, "What gives beauty to a woman is not the hair style or the patter of her dress or the saffron on her face but only education".[31] In a verse of Eladhi it states, "Beauty does not lie in the style of wailing or in the charm of a blush but only in the combination of numbers and letters (education).[32]
In a 1960 issue of Viduthalai Periyar stated that "There should be a drastic revolution in the desires and ideals of Indian women. They should equip themselves to do all types of work that men are doing. They should have good domestic life without allowing nature's obstacles in their own lives. Therefore, there should be a welcome change in the minds of our women. The administrators also most pay special attention to the advancement of women".[33]
Armed forces[edit]
Periyar advocated for women to be given weapons to protect themselves in reply to a question put in the Central Legislature. He stated that we have no hope that the state governments will do anything in this sphere because most of the state ministers hold the orthodox belief that women are slavish creatures.[34] Though here and there we[who?] find women also as ministers, they are old-fashioned traditionalists who will say, "We don't want any kind of freedom. We are perfectly happy with slavery".[33]
In Periyar's time he explained that ""Indian" women had no self-determination in any sphere of life like education property and marriage. They thought that modern civilization meant dressing themselves like British and American women and adorning themselves. Even our educated women do not entertain any thought that they must enter the police and army departments and learn to pilot airplanes like the women of Russia and Turkey. Just as modern education has made men cowards an book-worms, it has made our women decoratie [sic] dolls and weaklings".[33]
In a leading article written by Periyar in Viduthalai in 1946, he claimed that unless there is a drastic, fundamental and revolutionary change in our[who?] administrative machinery, it is impossible to make our women independent beings.[33]
Periyar goes on to explain that in our country also, there are thousands of women with the courage, competence and desire to work in the police department. Just as girls going to school was considered wonderful and cycle-riding by girls was considered funny, a few years ago, women on police duty may appear to be wonderful or strange for a few years. Then, in course of time, this will be considered natural.[33]
We[who?] need methods that will effect an astounding revolution in the world of women. Until we acquire those methods, we will be moving forward like a tortoise and writing and talking about Drowpath and Sita.[35]
Periyar, in a 1932 article of Kudi Arasu, explained that "women should develop physical strength like men. They must take exercise and get training in the use of weapons. They must acquire the ability to protect themselves when any sex-mad person tries to molest them. They should get the necessary training to join the armey [sic] when need arises and fight the enemy. This is the view of all civilized people. Women also wholeheartedly support this view. When the general view in the world is like this, who can accept the statement of some people that there is no use in giving higher education to women?"[33]
Birth control[edit]
"Others advocate birth-control, with a view of preserving the health of women and conserving family property; but we advocate it for the liberation of women."[36]
In the Kudi Arasu of 1932, Periyar explained the basic differences between the reasons given to us for contraception and the reasons given by others for this. We say that contraception is necessary for women to gain freedom. Others advocate contraception taking into consideration many problems like the health of women, the health and energy of the children, the poverty of the country and the maintenance of the family property. Many Westerners also support contraception for the same reasons. Our view is not based on these considerations. We recommend that women should stop delivering children altogether because conception stands in the way of women enjoying personal freedom. Further, begetting a number of children prevents men also from being free and independent. This truth will be clear if we listen to talk of men and women when their freedom is hampered.[33]
He went on to say how birth control does not aim at preventing the birth of children altogether, but aims only at limiting births. A man and his wife may have two children, or at the most, three children. This birth control policy is against bringing forth an unlimited number of children.[37]
While Periyar and the Self-Respect movement were advocating for birth control, Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachariar) very strongly opposed it. Others who opposed birth control was Thiru Adhithanar, the publisher of an extremely popular newspaper, Dina Thandhi at the time. In response to Rajaji's stand against birth control, Periyar explained that he was against this since he was of the Vedic Brahmin community that staunchly engrossed in the Manu Dharma. Thus, limiting births of overpopulation would limit diseases and death from many and therefore leave Brahmin priests without a job of doing ceremonies for the sick and funerals. In a 1959 article of Viduthalai he exclaimed that "If people like Rajaji discover new islands, make the forests habitable, do propaganda for the birth of more and more children and have farms for the upbringing of children, we may be in a position to understand them."[38]
During the late 1950s, 80 percent of the men and 90 percent of the women in Tamil Nadu were illiterate. Siriyar argued in a 1959 article in Viduthalai that "in this situation, if birth control is not practiced and people are allowed to have any number of children, the result will be the multiplication of castes among the "Sudras", like washermen, barbers, pot-makers, kuravas or gypsies, hunters, fishermen, famers [sic], toddy tappers, padayachies, pillars, cobblers, pariahs, and a thousand others and a limitless increase in population. The increase in population will force the 'Sudras' to preserve themselves from starvation by standing with folded hands before lazy fellows and calling them 'swami', 'master' and 'landlord'. What good result can we expect if birth control is not adopted?"[39]
Previously in a 1933 article of the Kudi Arasu, Periyar, in his words, explained that "even a High Court Judge in India does not know the amount of trouble that a mother takes to bring up a child. If a husband is kind to his wife and shows concern for her health and happiness, he must adopt the contraceptive method. Otherwise, he must be one who could manage to see that in delivery and in the brining [sic] up of children, she does not have much trouble. Therefore, the proper thing to do now is to drastically cut the expenses mentioned above and spend money on the proper upbringing of children with the help of nurses."[40]
Property rights and divorce[edit]
With regards to property rights for women, Periyar stated that there was no difference between men and women. He went on to say that like men, women should have the right to own property and enjoy its benefits. With regards to divorce or separations, he advocated that a woman can lie away from her husband if he is an undesirable person and if he has nay virulent disease. When a woman has to live apart from her husband in these circumstances, she is entitled to maintenance allowance and a claim on the husband's property. Even if a widow gets remarried, she must be given the right to claim a share of the first husband's property.[41]
On February 4, 1946, the Central Legislature passed an Act giving the right the Hindu married woman to get from her husband in certain circumstances a separate place to live in and a maintenance allowance. Periyar explained how that it was a useless Act. since it seems that the members of the Hindu Mahasabha and Sanadahnis agitated against the grant of even this right.[42]
Dowry[edit]
On the Dowry system practiced widely throughout the Indian sub-continent not only by Hindus but Christians too, Periyar calls it a "serious disease that was spreading fast amongst Tamilians". He went on to state that the disease was also found in its virulent form among the Andhras and the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu. Periyar also argued that if a man with property worth one lakh has three daughters, he has to become a beggar by the time these daughters are married. In the name of dowry, the parents of the young men who marry the three daughters, squeeze the man's property out of him.[43]
In the 1959 issue of Viduthalai, Periyar stated that, "according to a new legislation, women have the right to a share of the parents' property. Therefore every girl will definitely get her legitimate share from the parents' wealth - if the parents are wealth. It is inhuamane [sic] on the part of the parents of a boy to dump on him a girl whom he does not like and to plan to such as much as they can from the property of the girl's father. There is basically no difference between selling education and love for money and selling one's chastity for money. 'Prostitute' is a germ of contempt for a woman; a boy should not be reduced by his avaricous [sic] parents to get the name, 'a prostituted boy' or 'a boy that has been sold'. A father-in-law who has means, however miserly he may be by nature, will not be indifferent when his daughter suffers out of poverty. Therefore, it is very shameful on the part of the bridegroom's parents to demand from the bride's father that at the time of the marriage he should gie jewels worth so many thousands along with so many thousand rupees as dowry and that he should provide the bridegroom with a house and a care. The fact that another party makes such demands at the time of his daughter's marriage does not justify any parent's demands at the time of his son's wedding. All people must realize that both demanding and giving dowry are wrong and they must boldly declare this when occasion arises."[44]
Periyar calls the dowry an evil and exploitative practice depriving tens of thousands of talented and beautiful young women with sound character remaining spinsters without any chance of getting married.[45]
Devadasis[edit]
Among the atrocities the Tamil society committed against women was the practice of keeping some women attached to temples as Devadasis. Dr. Muthulakshmi proposed the resolution at the Madras Legislature that the Devadasi system should be abolished. The Government wanted comments on that from all important people. Periyar in his statement pointed out that the Devadasi system was a disgrace to Hindu religion. The fact that, in the name of a temple or a god, some women are kept as common property is an insult to all the women in the society. He also remarked that the prevalence of this system encouraged immorality among men and thus set the pattern for unprincipled life in many families. This was stoutly opposed in the Assembly by Satyamurthi Iyer, an orthodox Congress member, under the pretext of safeguarding the Hindu traditions. It should be said to the credit of Dr. Muthulakshmi and the leaders like Periyar that the proposal of the Doctor was accepted and a law was enacted against the Devadasi system.[30]
Periyar's example of the degradation of women in the Devadasi system is explained that "if a man's physical passion is aroused when his wife is not with him, he immediately goes to a prostitute. Rough stones are planted where cows and bufaloes [sic] graze to facilitate the animals to rub against the stones when they feel like it.[46] Likewise, Devadasis served in temples and in all villages rough stones planted on the borders and they say that these two (employing devadasis and the planting rough stones) are aamong [sic] the 32 dharmas mentioned in the sastras. When we consider why his kindness to the suffering and also the 32 dharmas are all bogus".[46]
Resolutions passed[edit]
As the Self-Respect conference held in Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu in 1929, the following were among the many resolutions passed with regards for women's rights:
Women should be given equal right along with men for the family property.
There should be no objection to employing women to any job for which they are qualified.[47]
Schools, particularly schools, should try to employ only women teachers.
At the conference held in Erode in 1930, the same resolutions were passed again reminding the delegates and others that the interest of women was still uppermost in Periyar's mind. M.R. Jayakar who presided oer the Erode conference was greatly impressed by the progressive views of Periyar and other members. He was particularly happy that the movement included not merely non-Brahmin Hindus but Christians and Muslims too. He pointed out that the Self-Respect movement was more progressive than Congress. Furthermore, at the Virudhnagar conference the women members held a separate conference and passed some resolutions demanding that women should have the right to select their life partners without any consideration of religion or community and that weddings should not involve wasteful expenditure and elaborate ceremonies.[47]