View allAll Photos Tagged Respect
The pay off a week off work, and a stroll out of my bedstead. And today nature was everywhere. A good healthy environment. Where the dragons fly, and as such they are all over the river system. If you miss them, then you are else where. I blog here, because I believe you need a picture or an image. I do not comitt crime, because the fear of being banged up is a knightmare, Knowone should have there wings clipped.
©All photographs on this site are copyright: ©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams) 2011 – 2021 & GETTY IMAGES ®
No license is given nor granted in respect of the use of any copyrighted material on this site other than with the express written agreement of ©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams). No image may be used as source material for paintings, drawings, sculptures, or any other art form without permission and/or compensation to ©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams)
.
.
I would like to say a huge and heartfelt 'THANK YOU' to GETTY IMAGES, and the 46.402+ Million visitors to my FLICKR site.
***** Selected for sale in the GETTY IMAGES COLLECTION on Monday 11th September 2023
CREATIVE RF gty.im/1671604437 MOMENT ROYALTY FREE COLLECTION**
This photograph became my 6,070th frame to be selected for sale in the Getty Images collection and I am very grateful to them for this wonderful opportunity.
©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams)
.
.
Photograph taken at an altitude of Three hundred and forty six metres at 11:53pm on Thursday 7th September 2023 off the B3357 at Two bridges in Yelverton, Devon. This is one of the two bridges over the West Dart River.
Nikon D850 Single-lens reflex digital camera F Mount with FX CMOS 35.9mm x 23.9mm Image sensor 46.89 Million total pixels Focal length: 24mm Shutter speed: 1/80s (Mechanical shutter) Aperture f/13.0 iso250 Handheld with Nikkor VR Vibration Reduction enabled Image area Full Frame FX (36 x 24) NEF RAW L 45.4Million pixels (8256 x 5504) 14 Bit uncompressed AF-C Priority Selection: Release Nikon Back button focusing enabled 3D Tracking watch area: Normal 55 Tracking points Exposure mode: Manual mode Metering mode: Matrix metering White balance on: Natural Light Auto, 0, 0 Colour space: Adobe RGB Picture control: (SD) Standard (Sharpening +3.00/Clarity +1.00)
Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR. Nikon GP-1 GPS module. Hoodman HEYENRG round eyepiece oversized eyecup. Black Rapid Curve Breathe strap. My Memory 128GB Class 10 SDXC 80MB/s card. Lowepro Flipside 400 AW camera bag. Nikon EN-EL15a battery.
LATITUDE: N 50d 33m 27.70s
LONGITUDE: W 3d 57m 58.70s
ALTITUDE: 346.0m
RAW (TIFF) FILE: 130.00MB NEF: 94.3MB
PROCESSED (JPeg) FILE: 31.40MB
PROCESSING POWER:
Nikon D850 Firmware versions C 1.30 (21/07/2023) LD Distortion Data 2.018 (16/01/20) LF 1.00 Nikon Codec Full version 1.31.2 (09/11/2021)
HP 110-352na Desktop PC with Windows 10 Home edition AMD Quad-Core A6-5200 APU 64Bit processor. Radeon HD8400 graphics. 8 GB DDR3 Memory with 1TB Data storage. 64-bit Windows 10. My Passport USB 3.0 2TB portable desktop hard drive. Nikon NX STUDIO 64bit Version 1.2.2 (08/12/2022). Nikon Capture NX-D 64bit Version 1.6.2 (18/02/2020). Nikon Picture Control Utility 2 (Version 2.4.5 (18/02/2020). Nikon Transfer 2 Version 2.16.0 (08/12/2022). Adobe photoshop Elements 8 Version 8.0 64bit.
New stop motion video now live at youtu.be/k5s35UdpO0c
#Lego #legocity #legopolice #minifigure #minifig #afol #macro #closeup #handcuffs #police #cops #lawenforcement #crimedoesntpay #carchase
175
Lugar+Citadino
Corredor de Transporte Público "Esquina Blanca"
Comuna de Maipú
Santiago
Chile
Este texto pertenece a Sebastián Arce, un amigo que redactó un texto para el sitio Web "El Quinto Poder".
El sistema de transportes "Transantiago" ha causado bastantes dolores de cabezas para quiénes vivimos en Santiago, cómo también la contraposición de dos formas de ver el sistema y respectivamente, darle mejoras. Mientras tanto, expertos en ingeniería de transportes señalan que volver al sistema de las "Micros Amarillas" es prácticamente lanzar una bomba atómica sobre esta ciudad, incluyendo lo que muchos ciudadanos de manera silenciosa piensan, que a pesar de las enormes dificultades experimentadas durante los primeros años, de ninguna manera desean volver a esa dictadura amarilla.
El tema en este caso es que como todos sabemos, una nueva administración ha llegado a conducir los hilos del transporte público, con un marcado énfasis en la denominada "flexibilización de malla". Sí, tal como escribí algunas líneas atrás el nuevo énfasis es la llamada competencia. Cosa que a muchos -me incluyo- no nos gusta para nada.
Y es a partir de este texto cortesía de un amigo, que quisiera expresar el porque esta gestión no me gusta para nada.
___________________________________________________________________________
El texto en cuestión
Escrito por Sebastián Arce Padilla
Hace algunas semanas, el titular de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones, Felipe Morandé, anunció 15 medidas para mejorar el Transantiago, aquel plan de transporte urbano aplicado en Santiago, que desde su implementación ha sido un dolor de cabeza para autoridades, usuarios y trabajadores del transporte. Tanto así que el actual ministro lo califica como "mega error de los gobiernos anteriores".
No haremos el análisis político de quién tiene la culpa o qué cosas fallaron, ya que se ha desperdiciado bastante teclado en eso, con comisiones parlamentarias, opinólogos del transporte público, etc. Mejor, preocupémonos en las ideas anunciadas por el secretario de Estado y cómo estas no calzan con las ideas de "mejor transporte" y más inclusivo:
1) Vamos a iniciar un inédito proceso de participación ciudadana, para responder a lo que necesita la gente, no desde un escritorio, sino con los usuarios.
Esto se realiza desde el diseño del plan, en el 2006. Actualmente el conducto regular empieza por los municipios, que proponen ideas de acuerdo a lo solicitado por los vecinos. Luego, las propuestas se evalúan técnicamente (a través de SECTRA) y luego de calcular la real utilidad del servicio, se crea y sale a la calle. El problema, es que muchas veces los mismos vecinos NO hacen uso del nuevo recorrido, y siguen haciendo transbordos o vueltas absurdas. Hay servicios que luego de siete meses de funcionamiento, recién empiezan a tomar público.
2) Vamos a duplicar la capacidad fiscalizadora, para bajar la evasión.
Mientras no exista un factor disuasivo real, no sacamos mucho con llenar de fiscalizadores. Además, el actual proyecto de ley dejó fuera la propuesta de incluir a evasores en una base de datos tipo DICOM, que los excluyera de recibir beneficios fiscales si son sorprendidos metiéndose a los buses gratis. Y también se deja fuera a la mala utilización de pases escolares, una evasión encubierta, pero más masiva de lo que se cree.
3) Vamos a mejorar 150 recorridos para eliminar los trasbordos innecesarios y obligatorios que tanto afectan a las personas.
El trasbordo es LA forma para hacer más eficiente el transporte público. Sólo basta afinar un poco las frecuencias y enseñarle a la gente a utilizar los buses. No sacamos nada alargar recorridos al lote, ya que eso baja las frecuencias de los buses y dispara los costos operacionales. En treinta años el Metro no ha tenido conexión directa entre Gran Avenida y Estación Central y no he visto a nadie reclamar porque tiene que bajarse en Los Héroes para cambiarse de línea. Y ojo, que en la época de las micros amarillas existían recorridos eternos, que una fracción muy pequeña de pasajeros utilizaba completos.
4) Vamos a avanzar en tener frecuencias fijas durante las noches y los fines de semana. Para limitar los tiempos de espera y que la gente sepa cuánto tiempo puede esperar un recorrido.
Eso se intentó en 2007, el problema es que no existe sistema perfecto y siempre hay factores internos o externos que afectan las frecuencias. Y actualmente las frecuencias en la noche y fines de semana son fijas, pero no se publican abiertamente a los usuarios.
5) Vamos a construir la primera vía rápida del Transantiago, que atravesará 4 comunas para tener viajes más cómodos y directos.
Esta "vía expresa" es nada más ni menos que... Avenida Grecia. Este corredor de buses fue construido por el SERVIU y la Municipalidad de Ñuñoa en 1998 y mejorado para Transantiago entre 2007 y 2008. No tiene mayor sentido realizar una obra que ya está hecha y funcionando al 100%. También hay que avisarle al Ministro que hay hartas vías expresas de Transantiago operando (Pedro Aguirre Cerda-Esquina Blanca, Las Rejas Sur-Suiza, Santa Rosa, Pajaritos Oriente, Anillo Intermedio, Vicuña Mackenna, etc). El problema radica en que este mismo Ministro junto con la Subsecretaria Gloria Hutt anunciaron que se estaban reevaluando la construcción de nuevos corredores en carpeta por el SERVIU (Mapocho, San Pablo, Alameda, Providencia, los tramos pendientes de Las Rejas Norte y Departamental, etc), ya que quieren evitar las peleas con los vecinos por el siempre delicado tema de las expropiaciones.
6) Vamos a completar la renovación de más de 800 buses entre 2010 y 2011 para mejorar la comodidad y seguridad de los viajes, permitiendo una mayor accesibilidad a las personas, especialmente para la tercera edad y personas con movilidad reducida.
La renovación depende ÚNICA Y EXCLUSIVAMENTE de las empresas. En el caso de los troncales, tienen tiempo por contrato hasta diciembre para eliminar los "enchulados". Y los alimentadores, no están obligados a hacer renovación total de flota.
7) Vamos a mejorar la información de los viajes, instalando 10 mil nuevas señales de paradas y distribuyendo 800 mil mapas para mejorar la información sobre los recorridos. Porque sabemos que la señal de parada es hoy el lugar de información más importante para las personas.
En enero se empezó una colocación de cenefas en paradas con información, la cual ya estaría obsoleta según el nuevo Manual de Normas Gráficas, diseñado por la Universidad Católica. O sea, un despilfarro de recursos que da vergüenza ajena. A esto hay que sumar que nuevos diseños de paradas elimina información vital como el punto de término del servicio y el horario de funcionamiento del servicio (hay servicios cortos, expresos o nocturnos que no toda la gente conoce en qué horarios y días funcionan).
8) Vamos a mejorar el diseño de las 120 zonas pagas que hoy existen en la ciudad. Para que los usuarios puedan subir a los buses de manera más rápida y segura.
Promesa que se viene dando desde la administración de René Cortázar, y todavía no hay un proyecto claro de cómo mejorarán el diseño. Lo ideal sería que funcionaran 24 horas y los siete días, pero factores como el vandalismo y la seguridad ponen en duda este proyecto.
9) Vamos a informar por mensajes de textos los horarios de llegada de los buses en todos los troncales y un alimentador para que la gente sepa a qué hora viene el bus que le sirve. Porque sabemos que la gente quiere saber a qué hora viene el bus que necesita; lo que le permite administrar mejor su tiempo y tomar decisiones con certeza.
Este sistema opera desde octubre de 2009, estuvo funcionando para todos los servicios hasta abril, y luego se relanzó como "Plan Piloto". El problema, es que no se guía mucho por los GPS de los buses, sino por la programación previa de los servicios, que no siempre coincide.
10) Vamos a hacer más exigente la medición de las frecuencias asignadas y la regularidad para que terminemos con los “trencitos” de buses que provocan esperas innecesarias de las personas. Para controlar que las empresas cumplan con sus recorridos y horarios y los usuarios reciban un mejor servicio.
Terminar con trencitos y desórdenes de frecuencia a través de fiscalización no es suficiente: hay muchos factores que influyen en esto, pasando por el erróneo cálculo de tiempo de recorrido en algunos servicios, la falta de una infraestructura adecuada, generando que los buses compitan por espacio con los autos, la mala instalación de paraderos sólo por dejar contenta a la gente (hay servicios troncales que tienen un paradero por cuadra, aumentando tiempos de viaje de forma innecesaria), y la falta de compromiso de los conductores por cumplir frecuencias dentro de la ruta. A esto, hay que sumarle que el sistema de gestión de flota no funciona como corresponde, y a pesar que se realizó una licitación internacional para implementar dicha tecnología (la que ganó la alemana IVU, que ha realizado este trabajo en ciudades como Londres), la actual administración está pensando descartar a IVU y dejar dicha gestión a cargo de cada empresa operadora. Sobre esto, ya hay un operador que instaló su sistema paralelo, la empresa SuBus Chile (Troncal 2), que le va informando al conductor a cuánto tiempo va de acuerdo a la programación del bus, pero no ayuda a mantener una regularidad de los tiempos de espera.
11) Iniciaremos la instalación de 670 nuevos refugios en distintos puntos de la ciudad para que la gente tenga esperas más cómodas.
El problema de esto es el vandalismo: algunos paraderos han cumplido el récord de durar 24 horas en buenas condiciones: techos rotos, mapas rayados o tapados de carteles e incluso se roban el metal de los asientos.
12) Vamos a instalar mejor información dentro de los buses para entregar más información a las personas que están viajando y favorecer el acceso de personas con movilidad reducida y tercera edad.
El mismo Manual de Normas Gráficas mencionado en nota anterior indica que los buses no son una buena plataforma de información, debido a que una misma máquina pasa por todos los servicios de una empresa (hay troncales con 40 servicios) y no alcanza para colocar los datos de todos los recorridos.
13) Vamos a ejecutar un macro plan a largo plazo para rediseñar el Transantiago para que el sistema logre ser un proyecto financieramente viable que responde a las necesidades de la gente.
Transantiago más que un rediseño radical, necesita afinar ciertos elementos. Lamentablemente, Morandé pretende cambiar todo en pos de la competencia y reducción de costos, como buen neoliberal. El problema es que esto no busca un mejoramiento en el servicio, sino pregúntenle a quienes sufrieron por el mal servicio de las micros amarillas, donde la competencia y la reducción de costos eran la premisa principal.
14) Vamos a luchar por que este año no suba más la tarifa para que la gente no tenga que pagar demás.
El tema financiamiento ha sido el GRAN problema de Transantiago, pero nadie ha mencionado que una parte importante de la torta se la lleva la AFT, la Administradora Financiera de Transantiago, conformada por los Bancos Estado; Chile; BCI; Santander; CMR Falabella y Sonda, asociación la cual ha funcionado de forma deficiente: la gestión de flota ha funcionado pésimo, las cámaras y medidas de seguridad de los buses no las han implementado. Lo extraño del asunto (y sin ánimo de meterse en chanchullo politiquero), es que SONDA es propiedad de Andrés Navarro, amigo íntimo de Sebastián Piñera y parte de su círculo de asesores personales. Otras cosas que hacen dudar del real estado económico del plan, son algunos gastos innecesarios realizados por este Gobierno, como la aplicación del nuevo Manual de Normas Gráficas (que incluye cambio total de letreros, paradas, información en paradas y buses, etc.), o el pago a artistas callejeros para que musicalicen las Zonas Pagas durante la primera quincena de septiembre.
15) Vamos a seguir trabajando con un equipo profesional de excelencia para tomar buenas decisiones técnicas, operativas y financieras.
A título personal (tanto de quién escribió el artículo como mío), tengo serias dudas sobre la capacidad y la excelencia de los equipos profesionales del Ministerio de Transportes. Si se lanzan ideas como la de eliminar los buses articulados sin argumentos de peso (la excusa del rendimiento dada por Morandé no sirve, al hacer el cálculo de "kilómetros por litro" entre rígidos y articulados, y la capacidad de transporte de esos), incluir a los colectiveros en el negocio (cuando son éstos los que generan congestión innecesaria, los que utilizan pistas exclusivas y paraderos para buses bloqueando a los vehículos mayores), y sobre todo, creer que incentivando la competencia entre empresas se va a tener una mejora sustancial en la calidad del servicio, cuando fue precisamente este factor el que hizo colapsar al antiguo sistema de transportes, las "micros amarillas", odiadas por la gran mayoría de los habitantes de Santiago, y que tenían estos mismos problemas del Transantiago y otras externalidades negativas, olvidadas por los medios y las actuales autoridades (competencia extrema en las calles, alta tasa de accidentes, maltrato a pasajeros, evasión encubierta, nula mantención o renovación de flota, situaciones ilegales, delincuencia, etc). Y lo peor de esto, es que cuando se ha aplicado el factor competitivo en Transantiago, en casos puntuales, no ha servido de nada.
En Vitacura, desde julio de 2009, que lo tienen más que claro por la "competencia" entre los servicios 405 y 502, la cual no existe en la práctica.
En resumen, el gran problema de Transantiago es que todos tenemos claro el diagnóstico, pero nadie, clara la solución.
Felipe Morandé y Gloria Hutt no son mi copiloto.
________________________________________________________________________
Espero que este articulo haya sido un gusto
Nos vemos hasta la proxima
Saludos a todos
Felipe Burgos Alvarez
Lugar+Citadino
Octubre de 2010
A tener en cuenta:
Es importante respetar el Copyright de esta fotografía, considerando que existe un trabajo desinteresado detras de esta obra.
Respect our copyright. Don't steal our pictures, just ask to use them.
past & future editions : Extrema Outdoor
join our community : Facebook CyberFactory
our rave & festival selection : CyberFactory party agenda
*** Please NOTE and RESPECT the Copyright ***
© Gary Prince - All Rights Reserved
This image may not be copied, reproduced, published or distributed in any medium without the expressed written permission of the copyright holder.
In picture is Mr. Khasapa. He was untangling the white prayer flags to let them fly freely in the wind.
Chelan County Sheriff Deputies. Leavenworth, Washington. Check out the homepage for the AJM STUDIOS Northwest Police Department! Visit the Northwest Law Enforcement Association. Visit the Northwest Law Enforcement Association Homepage. 2012.
The NYPD --- contrary, perhaps, to the Starsky and Hutch image we foreigners have --- use a small fleet of Smart cars for traffic management. And here some of them are, parked for the night up near West 34th Street, with yet another new tower of millionaire apartments, rising in the background.
A sign reading, “silence and respect” sits near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery, May 6, 2015, Arlington, Va. (U.S. Army photo by Rachel Larue)
僕の写真の原点です・・・
It is a starting point in my photograph ･･･.
Gallery on the homepage was renewed after a long time ･･･.
click hear
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
YouTube
click hear
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Unchanged in every respect throughout the Streetview era www.google.com/maps/@51.3519573,-2.0138273,3a,75y,16.48h,...
Please respect copyright! All images are protected under UK copyright law and the Berne international copyright convention and are visibly and/or invisibly watermarked. No images are within the public domain. images may not be reproduced, copied, used or altered in any way, by any method, without written permission
©soundimageplus soundimageplus.blogspot.com/
Leica X1
First impressions at:-
soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2010/05/leica-x1-first-impres...
©All photographs on this site are copyright: ©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams) 2011 – 2021 & GETTY IMAGES ®
No license is given nor granted in respect of the use of any copyrighted material on this site other than with the express written agreement of ©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams). No image may be used as source material for paintings, drawings, sculptures, or any other art form without permission and/or compensation to ©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams)
.
.
I would like to say a huge and heartfelt 'THANK YOU' to GETTY IMAGES, and the 38.911+ Million visitors to my FLICKR site.
***** Selected for sale in the GETTY IMAGES COLLECTION on May 11th 2021
CREATIVE RF gty.im/1317432184 MOMENT ROYALTY FREE COLLECTION**
This photograph became my 4,976th frame to be selected for sale in the Getty Images collection and I am very grateful to them for this wonderful opportunity.
©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams)
.
.
Photograph taken at an altitude of Fifty seven metres at 08:20am on a showery morning on Tuesday 11th May 2021, off Chessington Avenue in Bexleyheath, Kent.
Here we see a pair of juvenile Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), brought down this morning by parents from their nests up on the house chimney stacks. Here we see them learning to hunt for insects.
Starlings are Passerines and often found in noisy flocks where squabbling and stealing food from one another are common traits. They run along the ground and are capable of mimicking many sounds around them and despite being a common sight in UK gardens, their decline elsewhere sees them on the red conservation list.
.
.
Nikon D850 Focal length 600mm Shutter speed: 1/320s Aperture f/6.3 iso1000 Tripod mounted with Tamron VC Vibration Control set to position 3. Image area FX (36 x 24) NEF RAW L (4128 x 2752). JPeg basic (14 bit uncompressed) AF-C Priority Selection: Release. Nikon Back button focusing enabled. AF-S Priority selection: Focus. 3D Tracking watch area: Normal 55 Tracking points Exposure mode: Shutter priority mode Metering mode: Spot metering White balance on: Auto1 (4570k) Colour space: RGB Picture control: Neutral (Sharpening +2)
Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2. Nikon GP-1 GPS module. Lee SW150 MKII filter holder. Lee SW150 95mm screw in adapter ring. Lee SW150 circular polariser glass filter.Lee SW150 Filters field pouch. Hoodman HEYENRG round eyepiece oversized eyecup.Manfrotto MT057C3-G Carbon fiber Geared tripod 3 sections. Neewer Carbon Fiber Gimble tripod head 10088736 with Arca Swiss standard quick release plate. Neewer 9996 Arca Swiss release plate P860 x2.Jessops Tripod bag. Mcoplus professional MB-D850 multi function battery grip 6960.Two Nikon EN-EL15a batteries (Priority to battery in Battery grip). Black Rapid Curve Breathe strap. My Memory 128GB Class 10 SDXC 80MB/s card. Lowepro Flipside 400 AW camera bag.
.
.
LATITUDE: N 51d 28m 27.98s
LONGITUDE: E 0d 8m 10.84s
ALTITUDE: 38.0m
RAW (TIFF) FILE: 130.00MB NEF FILE: 92.5MB
PROCESSED (JPeg) FILE: 44.00MB
.
.
PROCESSING POWER:
Nikon D850 Firmware versions C 1.10 (9/05/2019) LD Distortion Data 2.018 (18/02/20) LF 1.00
HP 110-352na Desktop PC with AMD Quad-Core A6-5200 APU 64Bit processor. Radeon HD8400 graphics. 8 GB DDR3 Memory with 1TB Data storage. 64-bit Windows 10. Verbatim USB 2.0 1TB desktop hard drive. WD My Passport Ultra 1tb USB3 Portable hard drive. Nikon ViewNX-1 64bit Version 1.4.1 (18/02/2020). Nikon Capture NX-D 64bit Version 1.6.2 (18/02/2020). Nikon Picture Control Utility 2 (Version 2.4.5 (18/02/2020). Nikon Transfer 2 Version 2.13.5. Adobe photoshop Elements 8 Version 8.0 64bit.
Two days after the terrible events at Manchester Arena, GWR 6959 Modified Hall 4-6-0 No.6990 Witherslack Hall shows respect by having a wreath on the smoke box door. The photograph was taken on the 24th May 2017 at Bury Bolton Street Station which is just outside Manchester. The railway is part of the East Lancashire Railway.
Ganesha, also spelled Ganesh, and also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is a widely worshipped deity in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations. Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.
Although he is known by many attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As the god of beginnings, he is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies. Ganesha is also invoked as patron of letters and learning during writing sessions. Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.
Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors. He was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya arose, who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity. The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.
ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES
Ganesha has been ascribed many other titles and epithets, including Ganapati and Vighneshvara. The Hindu title of respect Shri is often added before his name. One popular way Ganesha is worshipped is by chanting a Ganesha Sahasranama, a litany of "a thousand names of Ganesha". Each name in the sahasranama conveys a different meaning and symbolises a different aspect of Ganesha. At least two different versions of the Ganesha Sahasranama exist; one version is drawn from the Ganesha Purana, a Hindu scripture venerating Ganesha.
The name Ganesha is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words gana, meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system and isha, meaning lord or master. The word gaņa when associated with Ganesha is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of the retinue of Shiva. The term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. Some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of created categories", such as the elements. Ganapati, a synonym for Ganesha, is a compound composed of gaṇa, meaning "group", and pati, meaning "ruler" or "lord". The Amarakosha, an early Sanskrit lexicon, lists eight synonyms of Ganesha : Vinayaka, Vighnarāja (equivalent to Vighnesha), Dvaimātura (one who has two mothers), Gaṇādhipa (equivalent to Ganapati and Ganesha), Ekadanta (one who has one tusk), Heramba, Lambodara (one who has a pot belly, or, literally, one who has a hanging belly), and Gajanana; having the face of an elephant).
Vinayaka is a common name for Ganesha that appears in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. This name is reflected in the naming of the eight famous Ganesha temples in Maharashtra known as the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka). The names Vighnesha and Vighneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) refers to his primary function in Hindu theology as the master and remover of obstacles (vighna).
A prominent name for Ganesha in the Tamil language is Pillai. A. K. Narain differentiates these terms by saying that pillai means a "child" while pillaiyar means a "noble child". He adds that the words pallu, pella, and pell in the Dravidian family of languages signify "tooth or tusk", also "elephant tooth or tusk". Anita Raina Thapan notes that the root word pille in the name Pillaiyar might have originally meant "the young of the elephant", because the Pali word pillaka means "a young elephant".
In the Burmese language, Ganesha is known as Maha Peinne, derived from Pali Mahā Wināyaka. The widespread name of Ganesha in Thailand is Phra Phikhanet or Phra Phikhanesuan, both of which are derived from Vara Vighnesha and Vara Vighneshvara respectively, whereas the name Khanet (from Ganesha) is rather rare.
In Sri Lanka, in the North-Central and North Western areas with predominantly Buddhist population, Ganesha is known as Aiyanayaka Deviyo, while in other Singhala Buddhist areas he is known as Gana deviyo.
ICONOGRAPHY
Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art. Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time. He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down or on an elevated seat, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.
Ganesha images were prevalent in many parts of India by the 6th century. The 13th century statue pictured is typical of Ganesha statuary from 900–1200, after Ganesha had been well-established as an independent deity with his own sect. This example features some of Ganesha's common iconographic elements. A virtually identical statue has been dated between 973–1200 by Paul Martin-Dubost, and another similar statue is dated c. 12th century by Pratapaditya Pal. Ganesha has the head of an elephant and a big belly. This statue has four arms, which is common in depictions of Ganesha. He holds his own broken tusk in his lower-right hand and holds a delicacy, which he samples with his trunk, in his lower-left hand. The motif of Ganesha turning his trunk sharply to his left to taste a sweet in his lower-left hand is a particularly archaic feature. A more primitive statue in one of the Ellora Caves with this general form has been dated to the 7th century. Details of the other hands are difficult to make out on the statue shown. In the standard configuration, Ganesha typically holds an axe or a goad in one upper arm and a pasha (noose) in the other upper arm.
The influence of this old constellation of iconographic elements can still be seen in contemporary representations of Ganesha. In one modern form, the only variation from these old elements is that the lower-right hand does not hold the broken tusk but is turned towards the viewer in a gesture of protection or fearlessness (abhaya mudra). The same combination of four arms and attributes occurs in statues of Ganesha dancing, which is a very popular theme.
COMMON ATTRIBUTES
Ganesha has been represented with the head of an elephant since the early stages of his appearance in Indian art. Puranic myths provide many explanations for how he got his elephant head. One of his popular forms, Heramba-Ganapati, has five elephant heads, and other less-common variations in the number of heads are known. While some texts say that Ganesha was born with an elephant head, he acquires the head later in most stories. The most recurrent motif in these stories is that Ganesha was created by Parvati using clay to protect her and Shiva beheaded him when Ganesha came between Shiva and Parvati. Shiva then replaced Ganesha's original head with that of an elephant. Details of the battle and where the replacement head came from vary from source to source. Another story says that Ganesha was created directly by Shiva's laughter. Because Shiva considered Ganesha too alluring, he gave him the head of an elephant and a protruding belly.
Ganesha's earliest name was Ekadanta (One Tusked), referring to his single whole tusk, the other being broken. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The importance of this distinctive feature is reflected in the Mudgala Purana, which states that the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. Ganesha's protruding belly appears as a distinctive attribute in his earliest statuary, which dates to the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries). This feature is so important that, according to the Mudgala Purana, two different incarnations of Ganesha use names based on it: Lambodara (Pot Belly, or, literally, Hanging Belly) and Mahodara (Great Belly). Both names are Sanskrit compounds describing his belly. The Brahmanda Purana says that Ganesha has the name Lambodara because all the universes (i.e., cosmic eggs) of the past, present, and future are present in him. The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms. Many depictions of Ganesha feature four arms, which is mentioned in Puranic sources and codified as a standard form in some iconographic texts. His earliest images had two arms. Forms with 14 and 20 arms appeared in Central India during the 9th and the 10th centuries. The serpent is a common feature in Ganesha iconography and appears in many forms. According to the Ganesha Purana, Ganesha wrapped the serpent Vasuki around his neck. Other depictions of snakes include use as a sacred thread wrapped around the stomach as a belt, held in a hand, coiled at the ankles, or as a throne. Upon Ganesha's forehead may be a third eye or the Shaivite sectarian mark , which consists of three horizontal lines. The Ganesha Purana prescribes a tilaka mark as well as a crescent moon on the forehead. A distinct form of Ganesha called Bhalachandra includes that iconographic element. Ganesha is often described as red in color. Specific colors are associated with certain forms. Many examples of color associations with specific meditation forms are prescribed in the Sritattvanidhi, a treatise on Hindu iconography. For example, white is associated with his representations as Heramba-Ganapati and Rina-Mochana-Ganapati (Ganapati Who Releases from Bondage). Ekadanta-Ganapati is visualized as blue during meditation in that form.
VAHANAS
The earliest Ganesha images are without a vahana (mount/vehicle). Of the eight incarnations of Ganesha described in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesha uses a mouse (shrew) in five of them, a lion in his incarnation as Vakratunda, a peacock in his incarnation as Vikata, and Shesha, the divine serpent, in his incarnation as Vighnaraja. Mohotkata uses a lion, Mayūreśvara uses a peacock, Dhumraketu uses a horse, and Gajanana uses a mouse, in the four incarnations of Ganesha listed in the Ganesha Purana. Jain depictions of Ganesha show his vahana variously as a mouse, elephant, tortoise, ram, or peacock.
Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse, shrew or rat. Martin-Dubost says that the rat began to appear as the principal vehicle in sculptures of Ganesha in central and western India during the 7th century; the rat was always placed close to his feet. The mouse as a mount first appears in written sources in the Matsya Purana and later in the Brahmananda Purana and Ganesha Purana, where Ganesha uses it as his vehicle in his last incarnation. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa includes a meditation verse on Ganesha that describes the mouse appearing on his flag. The names Mūṣakavāhana (mouse-mount) and Ākhuketana (rat-banner) appear in the Ganesha Sahasranama.
The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome. According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāma-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence. Martin-Dubost notes a view that the rat is a symbol suggesting that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.
ASSOCIATIONS
OBSTACLES
Ganesha is Vighneshvara or Vighnaraja or Vighnaharta (Marathi), the Lord of Obstacles, both of a material and spiritual order. He is popularly worshipped as a remover of obstacles, though traditionally he also places obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked. Paul Courtright says that "his task in the divine scheme of things, his dharma, is to place and remove obstacles. It is his particular territory, the reason for his creation."
Krishan notes that some of Ganesha's names reflect shadings of multiple roles that have evolved over time. Dhavalikar ascribes the quick ascension of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon, and the emergence of the Ganapatyas, to this shift in emphasis from vighnakartā (obstacle-creator) to vighnahartā (obstacle-averter). However, both functions continue to be vital to his character.
BUDDHI (KNOWLEDGE)
Ganesha is considered to be the Lord of letters and learning. In Sanskrit, the word buddhi is a feminine noun that is variously translated as intelligence, wisdom, or intellect. The concept of buddhi is closely associated with the personality of Ganesha, especially in the Puranic period, when many stories stress his cleverness and love of intelligence. One of Ganesha's names in the Ganesha Purana and the Ganesha Sahasranama is Buddhipriya. This name also appears in a list of 21 names at the end of the Ganesha Sahasranama that Ganesha says are especially important. The word priya can mean "fond of", and in a marital context it can mean "lover" or "husband", so the name may mean either "Fond of Intelligence" or "Buddhi's Husband".
AUM
Ganesha is identified with the Hindu mantra Aum, also spelled Om. The term oṃkārasvarūpa (Aum is his form), when identified with Ganesha, refers to the notion that he personifies the primal sound. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa attests to this association. Chinmayananda translates the relevant passage as follows:
(O Lord Ganapati!) You are (the Trinity) Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa. You are Indra. You are fire [Agni] and air [Vāyu]. You are the sun [Sūrya] and the moon [Chandrama]. You are Brahman. You are (the three worlds) Bhuloka [earth], Antariksha-loka [space], and Swargaloka [heaven]. You are Om. (That is to say, You are all this).
Some devotees see similarities between the shape of Ganesha's body in iconography and the shape of Aum in the Devanāgarī and Tamil scripts.
FIRST CHAKRA
According to Kundalini yoga, Ganesha resides in the first chakra, called Muladhara (mūlādhāra). Mula means "original, main"; adhara means "base, foundation". The muladhara chakra is the principle on which the manifestation or outward expansion of primordial Divine Force rests. This association is also attested to in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa. Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Ganesha holds, supports and guides all other chakras, thereby "governing the forces that propel the wheel of life".
FAMILY AND CONSORTS
Though Ganesha is popularly held to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, the Puranic myths give different versions about his birth. In some he was created by Parvati, in another he was created by Shiva and Parvati, in another he appeared mysteriously and was discovered by Shiva and Parvati or he was born from the elephant headed goddess Malini after she drank Parvati's bath water that had been thrown in the river.
The family includes his brother the war god Kartikeya, who is also called Subramanya, Skanda, Murugan and other names. Regional differences dictate the order of their births. In northern India, Skanda is generally said to be the elder, while in the south, Ganesha is considered the first born. In northern India, Skanda was an important martial deity from about 500 BCE to about 600 CE, when worship of him declined significantly in northern India. As Skanda fell, Ganesha rose. Several stories tell of sibling rivalry between the brothers and may reflect sectarian tensions.
Ganesha's marital status, the subject of considerable scholarly review, varies widely in mythological stories. One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as an unmarried brahmacari. This view is common in southern India and parts of northern India. Another pattern associates him with the concepts of Buddhi (intellect), Siddhi (spiritual power), and Riddhi (prosperity); these qualities are sometimes personified as goddesses, said to be Ganesha's wives. He also may be shown with a single consort or a nameless servant (Sanskrit: daşi). Another pattern connects Ganesha with the goddess of culture and the arts, Sarasvati or Śarda (particularly in Maharashtra). He is also associated with the goddess of luck and prosperity, Lakshmi. Another pattern, mainly prevalent in the Bengal region, links Ganesha with the banana tree, Kala Bo.
The Shiva Purana says that Ganesha had begotten two sons: Kşema (prosperity) and Lābha (profit). In northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha. The 1975 Hindi film Jai Santoshi Maa shows Ganesha married to Riddhi and Siddhi and having a daughter named Santoshi Ma, the goddess of satisfaction. This story has no Puranic basis, but Anita Raina Thapan and Lawrence Cohen cite Santoshi Ma's cult as evidence of Ganesha's continuing evolution as a popular deity.
WOSHIP AND FESTIVALS
Ganesha is worshipped on many religious and secular occasions; especially at the beginning of ventures such as buying a vehicle or starting a business. K.N. Somayaji says, "there can hardly be a [Hindu] home [in India] which does not house an idol of Ganapati. [..] Ganapati, being the most popular deity in India, is worshipped by almost all castes and in all parts of the country". Devotees believe that if Ganesha is propitiated, he grants success, prosperity and protection against adversity.
Ganesha is a non-sectarian deity, and Hindus of all denominations invoke him at the beginning of prayers, important undertakings, and religious ceremonies. Dancers and musicians, particularly in southern India, begin performances of arts such as the Bharatnatyam dance with a prayer to Ganesha. Mantras such as Om Shri Gaṇeshāya Namah (Om, salutation to the Illustrious Ganesha) are often used. One of the most famous mantras associated with Ganesha is Om Gaṃ Ganapataye Namah (Om, Gaṃ, Salutation to the Lord of Hosts).
Devotees offer Ganesha sweets such as modaka and small sweet balls (laddus). He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra. Because of his identification with the color red, he is often worshipped with red sandalwood paste (raktacandana) or red flowers. Dūrvā grass (Cynodon dactylon) and other materials are also used in his worship.
Festivals associated with Ganesh are Ganesh Chaturthi or Vināyaka chaturthī in the śuklapakṣa (the fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of bhādrapada (August/September) and the Gaṇeśa jayanti (Gaṇeśa's birthday) celebrated on the cathurthī of the śuklapakṣa (fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of māgha (January/February)."
GANESH CHATURTI
An annual festival honours Ganesha for ten days, starting on Ganesha Chaturthi, which typically falls in late August or early September. The festival begins with people bringing in clay idols of Ganesha, symbolising Ganesha's visit. The festival culminates on the day of Ananta Chaturdashi, when idols (murtis) of Ganesha are immersed in the most convenient body of water. Some families have a tradition of immersion on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 7th day. In 1893, Lokmanya Tilak transformed this annual Ganesha festival from private family celebrations into a grand public event. He did so "to bridge the gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and find an appropriate context in which to build a new grassroots unity between them" in his nationalistic strivings against the British in Maharashtra. Because of Ganesha's wide appeal as "the god for Everyman", Tilak chose him as a rallying point for Indian protest against British rule. Tilak was the first to install large public images of Ganesha in pavilions, and he established the practice of submerging all the public images on the tenth day. Today, Hindus across India celebrate the Ganapati festival with great fervour, though it is most popular in the state of Maharashtra. The festival also assumes huge proportions in Mumbai, Pune, and in the surrounding belt of Ashtavinayaka temples.
TEMPLES
In Hindu temples, Ganesha is depicted in various ways: as an acolyte or subordinate deity (pãrśva-devatã); as a deity related to the principal deity (parivāra-devatã); or as the principal deity of the temple (pradhāna), treated similarly as the highest gods of the Hindu pantheon. As the god of transitions, he is placed at the doorway of many Hindu temples to keep out the unworthy, which is analogous to his role as Parvati’s doorkeeper. In addition, several shrines are dedicated to Ganesha himself, of which the Ashtavinayak (lit. "eight Ganesha (shrines)") in Maharashtra are particularly well known. Located within a 100-kilometer radius of the city of Pune, each of these eight shrines celebrates a particular form of Ganapati, complete with its own lore and legend. The eight shrines are: Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, Ozar and Ranjangaon.
There are many other important Ganesha temples at the following locations: Wai in Maharashtra; Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh; Jodhpur, Nagaur and Raipur (Pali) in Rajasthan; Baidyanath in Bihar; Baroda, Dholaka, and Valsad in Gujarat and Dhundiraj Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Prominent Ganesha temples in southern India include the following: Kanipakam in Chittoor; the Jambukeśvara Temple at Tiruchirapalli; at Rameshvaram and Suchindram in Tamil Nadu; at Malliyur, Kottarakara, Pazhavangadi, Kasargod in Kerala, Hampi, and Idagunji in Karnataka; and Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh.
T. A. Gopinatha notes, "Every village however small has its own image of Vighneśvara (Vigneshvara) with or without a temple to house it in. At entrances of villages and forts, below pīpaḹa (Sacred fig) trees [...], in a niche [...] in temples of Viṣṇu (Vishnu) as well as Śiva (Shiva) and also in separate shrines specially constructed in Śiva temples [...]; the figure of Vighneśvara is invariably seen." Ganesha temples have also been built outside of India, including southeast Asia, Nepal (including the four Vinayaka shrines in the Kathmandu valley), and in several western countries.
RISE TO PROMINENCE
FIRST APEARANCE
Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Shanti Lal Nagar says that the earliest known iconic image of Ganesha is in the niche of the Shiva temple at Bhumra, which has been dated to the Gupta period. His independent cult appeared by about the 10th century. Narain summarizes the controversy between devotees and academics regarding the development of Ganesha as follows:
What is inscrutable is the somewhat dramatic appearance of Gaņeśa on the historical scene. His antecedents are not clear. His wide acceptance and popularity, which transcend sectarian and territorial limits, are indeed amazing. On the one hand there is the pious belief of the orthodox devotees in Gaņeśa's Vedic origins and in the Purāṇic explanations contained in the confusing, but nonetheless interesting, mythology. On the other hand there are doubts about the existence of the idea and the icon of this deity" before the fourth to fifth century A.D. ... [I]n my opinion, indeed there is no convincing evidence of the existence of this divinity prior to the fifth century.
POSSIBLE INFLUENCES
Courtright reviews various speculative theories about the early history of Ganesha, including supposed tribal traditions and animal cults, and dismisses all of them in this way:
In the post 600 BC period there is evidence of people and places named after the animal. The motif appears on coins and sculptures.
Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations about the role elephants had in early India but concludes that, "although by the second century CE the elephant-headed yakṣa form exists it cannot be presumed to represent Gaṇapati-Vināyaka. There is no evidence of a deity by this name having an elephant or elephant-headed form at this early stage. Gaṇapati-Vināyaka had yet to make his debut."
One theory of the origin of Ganesha is that he gradually came to prominence in connection with the four Vinayakas (Vināyakas). In Hindu mythology, the Vināyakas were a group of four troublesome demons who created obstacles and difficulties but who were easily propitiated. The name Vināyaka is a common name for Ganesha both in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. Krishan is one of the academics who accepts this view, stating flatly of Ganesha, "He is a non-vedic god. His origin is to be traced to the four Vināyakas, evil spirits, of the Mānavagŗhyasūtra (7th–4th century BCE) who cause various types of evil and suffering". Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. According to Ellawala, the elephant-headed Ganesha as lord of the Ganas was known to the people of Sri Lanka in the early pre-Christian era.
A metal plate depiction of Ganesha had been discovered in 1993, in Iran, it dated back to 1,200 BCE. Another one was discovered much before, in Lorestan Province of Iran.
First Ganesha's terracotta images are from 1st century CE found in Ter, Pal, Verrapuram and Chandraketugarh. These figures are small, with elephant head, two arms, and chubby physique. The earliest Ganesha icons in stone were carved in Mathura during Kushan times (2nd-3rd centuries CE).
VEDIC AND EPIC LITERATURE
The title "Leader of the group" (Sanskrit: gaṇapati) occurs twice in the Rig Veda, but in neither case does it refer to the modern Ganesha. The term appears in RV 2.23.1 as a title for Brahmanaspati, according to commentators. While this verse doubtless refers to Brahmanaspati, it was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is still used today. In rejecting any claim that this passage is evidence of Ganesha in the Rig Veda, Ludo Rocher says that it "clearly refers to Bṛhaspati—who is the deity of the hymn—and Bṛhaspati only". Equally clearly, the second passage (RV 10.112.9) refers to Indra, who is given the epithet 'gaṇapati', translated "Lord of the companies (of the Maruts)." However, Rocher notes that the more recent Ganapatya literature often quotes the Rigvedic verses to give Vedic respectability to Ganesha .
Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha, and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club, is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin". However, Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions. Thapan reports that these passages are "generally considered to have been interpolated". Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity".
Ganesha does not appear in Indian epic literature that is dated to the Vedic period. A late interpolation to the epic poem Mahabharata says that the sage Vyasa (Vyāsa) asked Ganesha to serve as his scribe to transcribe the poem as he dictated it to him. Ganesha agreed but only on condition that Vyasa recite the poem uninterrupted, that is, without pausing. The sage agreed, but found that to get any rest he needed to recite very complex passages so Ganesha would have to ask for clarifications. The story is not accepted as part of the original text by the editors of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, in which the twenty-line story is relegated to a footnote in an appendix. The story of Ganesha acting as the scribe occurs in 37 of the 59 manuscripts consulted during preparation of the critical edition. Ganesha's association with mental agility and learning is one reason he is shown as scribe for Vyāsa's dictation of the Mahabharata in this interpolation. Richard L. Brown dates the story to the 8th century, and Moriz Winternitz concludes that it was known as early as c. 900, but it was not added to the Mahabharata some 150 years later. Winternitz also notes that a distinctive feature in South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata is their omission of this Ganesha legend. The term vināyaka is found in some recensions of the Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva that are regarded as interpolations. A reference to Vighnakartṛīṇām ("Creator of Obstacles") in Vanaparva is also believed to be an interpolation and does not appear in the critical edition.
PURANIC PERIOD
Stories about Ganesha often occur in the Puranic corpus. Brown notes while the Puranas "defy precise chronological ordering", the more detailed narratives of Ganesha's life are in the late texts, c. 600–1300. Yuvraj Krishan says that the Puranic myths about the birth of Ganesha and how he acquired an elephant's head are in the later Puranas, which were composed from c. 600 onwards. He elaborates on the matter to say that references to Ganesha in the earlier Puranas, such as the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, are later interpolations made during the 7th to 10th centuries.
In his survey of Ganesha's rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature, Ludo Rocher notes that:
Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa concentrate on an unexpectedly limited number of incidents. These incidents are mainly three: his birth and parenthood, his elephant head, and his single tusk. Other incidents are touched on in the texts, but to a far lesser extent.
Ganesha's rise to prominence was codified in the 9th century, when he was formally included as one of the five primary deities of Smartism. The 9th-century philosopher Adi Shankara popularized the "worship of the five forms" (Panchayatana puja) system among orthodox Brahmins of the Smarta tradition. This worship practice invokes the five deities Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Surya. Adi Shankara instituted the tradition primarily to unite the principal deities of these five major sects on an equal status. This formalized the role of Ganesha as a complementary deity.
SCRIPTURES
Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism, some Brahmins (brāhmaṇas) chose to worship Ganesha as their principal deity. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.
The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana - and their dating relative to one another - has sparked academic debate. Both works were developed over time and contain age-layered strata. Anita Thapan reviews comments about dating and provides her own judgement. "It seems likely that the core of the Ganesha Purana appeared around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries", she says, "but was later interpolated." Lawrence W. Preston considers the most reasonable date for the Ganesha Purana to be between 1100 and 1400, which coincides with the apparent age of the sacred sites mentioned by the text.
R.C. Hazra suggests that the Mudgala Purana is older than the Ganesha Purana, which he dates between 1100 and 1400. However, Phyllis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. She bases her reasoning on the fact that, among other internal evidence, the Mudgala Purana specifically mentions the Ganesha Purana as one of the four Puranas (the Brahma, the Brahmanda, the Ganesha, and the Mudgala Puranas) which deal at length with Ganesha. While the kernel of the text must be old, it was interpolated until the 17th and 18th centuries as the worship of Ganapati became more important in certain regions. Another highly regarded scripture, the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, was probably composed during the 16th or 17th centuries.
BEYOND INDIA AND HINDUISM
Commercial and cultural contacts extended India's influence in western and southeast Asia. Ganesha is one of a number of Hindu deities who reached foreign lands as a result.
Ganesha was particularly worshipped by traders and merchants, who went out of India for commercial ventures. From approximately the 10th century onwards, new networks of exchange developed including the formation of trade guilds and a resurgence of money circulation. During this time, Ganesha became the principal deity associated with traders. The earliest inscription invoking Ganesha before any other deity is associated with the merchant community.
Hindus migrated to Maritime Southeast Asia and took their culture, including Ganesha, with them. Statues of Ganesha are found throughout the region, often beside Shiva sanctuaries. The forms of Ganesha found in Hindu art of Java, Bali, and Borneo show specific regional influences. The spread of Hindu culture to southeast Asia established Ganesha in modified forms in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand. In Indochina, Hinduism and Buddhism were practiced side by side, and mutual influences can be seen in the iconography of Ganesha in the region. In Thailand, Cambodia, and among the Hindu classes of the Chams in Vietnam, Ganesha was mainly thought of as a remover of obstacles. Today in Buddhist Thailand, Ganesha is regarded as a remover of obstacles, the god of success.
Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan had close cultural ties with India, and the adoration of both Hindu and Buddhist deities was practiced. Examples of sculptures from the 5th to the 7th centuries have survived, suggesting that the worship of Ganesha was then in vogue in the region.
Ganesha appears in Mahayana Buddhism, not only in the form of the Buddhist god Vināyaka, but also as a Hindu demon form with the same name. His image appears in Buddhist sculptures during the late Gupta period. As the Buddhist god Vināyaka, he is often shown dancing. This form, called Nṛtta Ganapati, was popular in northern India, later adopted in Nepal, and then in Tibet. In Nepal, the Hindu form of Ganesha, known as Heramba, is popular; he has five heads and rides a lion. Tibetan representations of Ganesha show ambivalent views of him. A Tibetan rendering of Ganapati is tshogs bdag. In one Tibetan form, he is shown being trodden under foot by Mahākāla, (Shiva) a popular Tibetan deity. Other depictions show him as the Destroyer of Obstacles, and sometimes dancing. Ganesha appears in China and Japan in forms that show distinct regional character. In northern China, the earliest known stone statue of Ganesha carries an inscription dated to 531. In Japan, where Ganesha is known as Kangiten, the Ganesha cult was first mentioned in 806.
The canonical literature of Jainism does not mention the worship of Ganesha. However, Ganesha is worshipped by most Jains, for whom he appears to have taken over certain functions of Kubera. Jain connections with the trading community support the idea that Jainism took up Ganesha worship as a result of commercial connections. The earliest known Jain Ganesha statue dates to about the 9th century. A 15th-century Jain text lists procedures for the installation of Ganapati images. Images of Ganesha appear in the Jain temples of Rajasthan and Gujarat.
WIKIPEDIA
Diver letting an Olive Sea Snake (Aipysurus laevis) go by.
Snake Pit dive site on the Great Barrier Reef.
Once a professor at a respected university, Thomas Silvio found himself becoming increasingly obsessed with advanced mechanics, and the prospect of a bipedal mechanical walker. After finding reliable sources of funding and power, he immersed himself in his mission, abandoning family, career, and any of life's other little distractions along the way. After years of tinkering he finally achieved his goal, but what he will do with this amazing new technology is anyone's guess.
Ganesha, also spelled Ganesh, and also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is a widely worshipped deity in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations. Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.
Although he is known by many attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As the god of beginnings, he is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies. Ganesha is also invoked as patron of letters and learning during writing sessions. Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.
Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors. He was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya arose, who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity. The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.
ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES
Ganesha has been ascribed many other titles and epithets, including Ganapati and Vighneshvara. The Hindu title of respect Shri is often added before his name. One popular way Ganesha is worshipped is by chanting a Ganesha Sahasranama, a litany of "a thousand names of Ganesha". Each name in the sahasranama conveys a different meaning and symbolises a different aspect of Ganesha. At least two different versions of the Ganesha Sahasranama exist; one version is drawn from the Ganesha Purana, a Hindu scripture venerating Ganesha.
The name Ganesha is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words gana, meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system and isha, meaning lord or master. The word gaņa when associated with Ganesha is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of the retinue of Shiva. The term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. Some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of created categories", such as the elements. Ganapati, a synonym for Ganesha, is a compound composed of gaṇa, meaning "group", and pati, meaning "ruler" or "lord". The Amarakosha, an early Sanskrit lexicon, lists eight synonyms of Ganesha : Vinayaka, Vighnarāja (equivalent to Vighnesha), Dvaimātura (one who has two mothers), Gaṇādhipa (equivalent to Ganapati and Ganesha), Ekadanta (one who has one tusk), Heramba, Lambodara (one who has a pot belly, or, literally, one who has a hanging belly), and Gajanana; having the face of an elephant).
Vinayaka is a common name for Ganesha that appears in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. This name is reflected in the naming of the eight famous Ganesha temples in Maharashtra known as the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka). The names Vighnesha and Vighneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) refers to his primary function in Hindu theology as the master and remover of obstacles (vighna).
A prominent name for Ganesha in the Tamil language is Pillai. A. K. Narain differentiates these terms by saying that pillai means a "child" while pillaiyar means a "noble child". He adds that the words pallu, pella, and pell in the Dravidian family of languages signify "tooth or tusk", also "elephant tooth or tusk". Anita Raina Thapan notes that the root word pille in the name Pillaiyar might have originally meant "the young of the elephant", because the Pali word pillaka means "a young elephant".
In the Burmese language, Ganesha is known as Maha Peinne, derived from Pali Mahā Wināyaka. The widespread name of Ganesha in Thailand is Phra Phikhanet or Phra Phikhanesuan, both of which are derived from Vara Vighnesha and Vara Vighneshvara respectively, whereas the name Khanet (from Ganesha) is rather rare.
In Sri Lanka, in the North-Central and North Western areas with predominantly Buddhist population, Ganesha is known as Aiyanayaka Deviyo, while in other Singhala Buddhist areas he is known as Gana deviyo.
ICONOGRAPHY
Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art. Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time. He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down or on an elevated seat, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.
Ganesha images were prevalent in many parts of India by the 6th century. The 13th century statue pictured is typical of Ganesha statuary from 900–1200, after Ganesha had been well-established as an independent deity with his own sect. This example features some of Ganesha's common iconographic elements. A virtually identical statue has been dated between 973–1200 by Paul Martin-Dubost, and another similar statue is dated c. 12th century by Pratapaditya Pal. Ganesha has the head of an elephant and a big belly. This statue has four arms, which is common in depictions of Ganesha. He holds his own broken tusk in his lower-right hand and holds a delicacy, which he samples with his trunk, in his lower-left hand. The motif of Ganesha turning his trunk sharply to his left to taste a sweet in his lower-left hand is a particularly archaic feature. A more primitive statue in one of the Ellora Caves with this general form has been dated to the 7th century. Details of the other hands are difficult to make out on the statue shown. In the standard configuration, Ganesha typically holds an axe or a goad in one upper arm and a pasha (noose) in the other upper arm.
The influence of this old constellation of iconographic elements can still be seen in contemporary representations of Ganesha. In one modern form, the only variation from these old elements is that the lower-right hand does not hold the broken tusk but is turned towards the viewer in a gesture of protection or fearlessness (abhaya mudra). The same combination of four arms and attributes occurs in statues of Ganesha dancing, which is a very popular theme.
COMMON ATTRIBUTES
Ganesha has been represented with the head of an elephant since the early stages of his appearance in Indian art. Puranic myths provide many explanations for how he got his elephant head. One of his popular forms, Heramba-Ganapati, has five elephant heads, and other less-common variations in the number of heads are known. While some texts say that Ganesha was born with an elephant head, he acquires the head later in most stories. The most recurrent motif in these stories is that Ganesha was created by Parvati using clay to protect her and Shiva beheaded him when Ganesha came between Shiva and Parvati. Shiva then replaced Ganesha's original head with that of an elephant. Details of the battle and where the replacement head came from vary from source to source. Another story says that Ganesha was created directly by Shiva's laughter. Because Shiva considered Ganesha too alluring, he gave him the head of an elephant and a protruding belly.
Ganesha's earliest name was Ekadanta (One Tusked), referring to his single whole tusk, the other being broken. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The importance of this distinctive feature is reflected in the Mudgala Purana, which states that the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. Ganesha's protruding belly appears as a distinctive attribute in his earliest statuary, which dates to the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries). This feature is so important that, according to the Mudgala Purana, two different incarnations of Ganesha use names based on it: Lambodara (Pot Belly, or, literally, Hanging Belly) and Mahodara (Great Belly). Both names are Sanskrit compounds describing his belly. The Brahmanda Purana says that Ganesha has the name Lambodara because all the universes (i.e., cosmic eggs) of the past, present, and future are present in him. The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms. Many depictions of Ganesha feature four arms, which is mentioned in Puranic sources and codified as a standard form in some iconographic texts. His earliest images had two arms. Forms with 14 and 20 arms appeared in Central India during the 9th and the 10th centuries. The serpent is a common feature in Ganesha iconography and appears in many forms. According to the Ganesha Purana, Ganesha wrapped the serpent Vasuki around his neck. Other depictions of snakes include use as a sacred thread wrapped around the stomach as a belt, held in a hand, coiled at the ankles, or as a throne. Upon Ganesha's forehead may be a third eye or the Shaivite sectarian mark , which consists of three horizontal lines. The Ganesha Purana prescribes a tilaka mark as well as a crescent moon on the forehead. A distinct form of Ganesha called Bhalachandra includes that iconographic element. Ganesha is often described as red in color. Specific colors are associated with certain forms. Many examples of color associations with specific meditation forms are prescribed in the Sritattvanidhi, a treatise on Hindu iconography. For example, white is associated with his representations as Heramba-Ganapati and Rina-Mochana-Ganapati (Ganapati Who Releases from Bondage). Ekadanta-Ganapati is visualized as blue during meditation in that form.
VAHANAS
The earliest Ganesha images are without a vahana (mount/vehicle). Of the eight incarnations of Ganesha described in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesha uses a mouse (shrew) in five of them, a lion in his incarnation as Vakratunda, a peacock in his incarnation as Vikata, and Shesha, the divine serpent, in his incarnation as Vighnaraja. Mohotkata uses a lion, Mayūreśvara uses a peacock, Dhumraketu uses a horse, and Gajanana uses a mouse, in the four incarnations of Ganesha listed in the Ganesha Purana. Jain depictions of Ganesha show his vahana variously as a mouse, elephant, tortoise, ram, or peacock.
Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse, shrew or rat. Martin-Dubost says that the rat began to appear as the principal vehicle in sculptures of Ganesha in central and western India during the 7th century; the rat was always placed close to his feet. The mouse as a mount first appears in written sources in the Matsya Purana and later in the Brahmananda Purana and Ganesha Purana, where Ganesha uses it as his vehicle in his last incarnation. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa includes a meditation verse on Ganesha that describes the mouse appearing on his flag. The names Mūṣakavāhana (mouse-mount) and Ākhuketana (rat-banner) appear in the Ganesha Sahasranama.
The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome. According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāma-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence. Martin-Dubost notes a view that the rat is a symbol suggesting that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.
ASSOCIATIONS
OBSTACLES
Ganesha is Vighneshvara or Vighnaraja or Vighnaharta (Marathi), the Lord of Obstacles, both of a material and spiritual order. He is popularly worshipped as a remover of obstacles, though traditionally he also places obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked. Paul Courtright says that "his task in the divine scheme of things, his dharma, is to place and remove obstacles. It is his particular territory, the reason for his creation."
Krishan notes that some of Ganesha's names reflect shadings of multiple roles that have evolved over time. Dhavalikar ascribes the quick ascension of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon, and the emergence of the Ganapatyas, to this shift in emphasis from vighnakartā (obstacle-creator) to vighnahartā (obstacle-averter). However, both functions continue to be vital to his character.
BUDDHI (KNOWLEDGE)
Ganesha is considered to be the Lord of letters and learning. In Sanskrit, the word buddhi is a feminine noun that is variously translated as intelligence, wisdom, or intellect. The concept of buddhi is closely associated with the personality of Ganesha, especially in the Puranic period, when many stories stress his cleverness and love of intelligence. One of Ganesha's names in the Ganesha Purana and the Ganesha Sahasranama is Buddhipriya. This name also appears in a list of 21 names at the end of the Ganesha Sahasranama that Ganesha says are especially important. The word priya can mean "fond of", and in a marital context it can mean "lover" or "husband", so the name may mean either "Fond of Intelligence" or "Buddhi's Husband".
AUM
Ganesha is identified with the Hindu mantra Aum, also spelled Om. The term oṃkārasvarūpa (Aum is his form), when identified with Ganesha, refers to the notion that he personifies the primal sound. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa attests to this association. Chinmayananda translates the relevant passage as follows:
(O Lord Ganapati!) You are (the Trinity) Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa. You are Indra. You are fire [Agni] and air [Vāyu]. You are the sun [Sūrya] and the moon [Chandrama]. You are Brahman. You are (the three worlds) Bhuloka [earth], Antariksha-loka [space], and Swargaloka [heaven]. You are Om. (That is to say, You are all this).
Some devotees see similarities between the shape of Ganesha's body in iconography and the shape of Aum in the Devanāgarī and Tamil scripts.
FIRST CHAKRA
According to Kundalini yoga, Ganesha resides in the first chakra, called Muladhara (mūlādhāra). Mula means "original, main"; adhara means "base, foundation". The muladhara chakra is the principle on which the manifestation or outward expansion of primordial Divine Force rests. This association is also attested to in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa. Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Ganesha holds, supports and guides all other chakras, thereby "governing the forces that propel the wheel of life".
FAMILY AND CONSORTS
Though Ganesha is popularly held to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, the Puranic myths give different versions about his birth. In some he was created by Parvati, in another he was created by Shiva and Parvati, in another he appeared mysteriously and was discovered by Shiva and Parvati or he was born from the elephant headed goddess Malini after she drank Parvati's bath water that had been thrown in the river.
The family includes his brother the war god Kartikeya, who is also called Subramanya, Skanda, Murugan and other names. Regional differences dictate the order of their births. In northern India, Skanda is generally said to be the elder, while in the south, Ganesha is considered the first born. In northern India, Skanda was an important martial deity from about 500 BCE to about 600 CE, when worship of him declined significantly in northern India. As Skanda fell, Ganesha rose. Several stories tell of sibling rivalry between the brothers and may reflect sectarian tensions.
Ganesha's marital status, the subject of considerable scholarly review, varies widely in mythological stories. One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as an unmarried brahmacari. This view is common in southern India and parts of northern India. Another pattern associates him with the concepts of Buddhi (intellect), Siddhi (spiritual power), and Riddhi (prosperity); these qualities are sometimes personified as goddesses, said to be Ganesha's wives. He also may be shown with a single consort or a nameless servant (Sanskrit: daşi). Another pattern connects Ganesha with the goddess of culture and the arts, Sarasvati or Śarda (particularly in Maharashtra). He is also associated with the goddess of luck and prosperity, Lakshmi. Another pattern, mainly prevalent in the Bengal region, links Ganesha with the banana tree, Kala Bo.
The Shiva Purana says that Ganesha had begotten two sons: Kşema (prosperity) and Lābha (profit). In northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha. The 1975 Hindi film Jai Santoshi Maa shows Ganesha married to Riddhi and Siddhi and having a daughter named Santoshi Ma, the goddess of satisfaction. This story has no Puranic basis, but Anita Raina Thapan and Lawrence Cohen cite Santoshi Ma's cult as evidence of Ganesha's continuing evolution as a popular deity.
WOSHIP AND FESTIVALS
Ganesha is worshipped on many religious and secular occasions; especially at the beginning of ventures such as buying a vehicle or starting a business. K.N. Somayaji says, "there can hardly be a [Hindu] home [in India] which does not house an idol of Ganapati. [..] Ganapati, being the most popular deity in India, is worshipped by almost all castes and in all parts of the country". Devotees believe that if Ganesha is propitiated, he grants success, prosperity and protection against adversity.
Ganesha is a non-sectarian deity, and Hindus of all denominations invoke him at the beginning of prayers, important undertakings, and religious ceremonies. Dancers and musicians, particularly in southern India, begin performances of arts such as the Bharatnatyam dance with a prayer to Ganesha. Mantras such as Om Shri Gaṇeshāya Namah (Om, salutation to the Illustrious Ganesha) are often used. One of the most famous mantras associated with Ganesha is Om Gaṃ Ganapataye Namah (Om, Gaṃ, Salutation to the Lord of Hosts).
Devotees offer Ganesha sweets such as modaka and small sweet balls (laddus). He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra. Because of his identification with the color red, he is often worshipped with red sandalwood paste (raktacandana) or red flowers. Dūrvā grass (Cynodon dactylon) and other materials are also used in his worship.
Festivals associated with Ganesh are Ganesh Chaturthi or Vināyaka chaturthī in the śuklapakṣa (the fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of bhādrapada (August/September) and the Gaṇeśa jayanti (Gaṇeśa's birthday) celebrated on the cathurthī of the śuklapakṣa (fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of māgha (January/February)."
GANESH CHATURTI
An annual festival honours Ganesha for ten days, starting on Ganesha Chaturthi, which typically falls in late August or early September. The festival begins with people bringing in clay idols of Ganesha, symbolising Ganesha's visit. The festival culminates on the day of Ananta Chaturdashi, when idols (murtis) of Ganesha are immersed in the most convenient body of water. Some families have a tradition of immersion on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 7th day. In 1893, Lokmanya Tilak transformed this annual Ganesha festival from private family celebrations into a grand public event. He did so "to bridge the gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and find an appropriate context in which to build a new grassroots unity between them" in his nationalistic strivings against the British in Maharashtra. Because of Ganesha's wide appeal as "the god for Everyman", Tilak chose him as a rallying point for Indian protest against British rule. Tilak was the first to install large public images of Ganesha in pavilions, and he established the practice of submerging all the public images on the tenth day. Today, Hindus across India celebrate the Ganapati festival with great fervour, though it is most popular in the state of Maharashtra. The festival also assumes huge proportions in Mumbai, Pune, and in the surrounding belt of Ashtavinayaka temples.
TEMPLES
In Hindu temples, Ganesha is depicted in various ways: as an acolyte or subordinate deity (pãrśva-devatã); as a deity related to the principal deity (parivāra-devatã); or as the principal deity of the temple (pradhāna), treated similarly as the highest gods of the Hindu pantheon. As the god of transitions, he is placed at the doorway of many Hindu temples to keep out the unworthy, which is analogous to his role as Parvati’s doorkeeper. In addition, several shrines are dedicated to Ganesha himself, of which the Ashtavinayak (lit. "eight Ganesha (shrines)") in Maharashtra are particularly well known. Located within a 100-kilometer radius of the city of Pune, each of these eight shrines celebrates a particular form of Ganapati, complete with its own lore and legend. The eight shrines are: Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, Ozar and Ranjangaon.
There are many other important Ganesha temples at the following locations: Wai in Maharashtra; Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh; Jodhpur, Nagaur and Raipur (Pali) in Rajasthan; Baidyanath in Bihar; Baroda, Dholaka, and Valsad in Gujarat and Dhundiraj Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Prominent Ganesha temples in southern India include the following: Kanipakam in Chittoor; the Jambukeśvara Temple at Tiruchirapalli; at Rameshvaram and Suchindram in Tamil Nadu; at Malliyur, Kottarakara, Pazhavangadi, Kasargod in Kerala, Hampi, and Idagunji in Karnataka; and Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh.
T. A. Gopinatha notes, "Every village however small has its own image of Vighneśvara (Vigneshvara) with or without a temple to house it in. At entrances of villages and forts, below pīpaḹa (Sacred fig) trees [...], in a niche [...] in temples of Viṣṇu (Vishnu) as well as Śiva (Shiva) and also in separate shrines specially constructed in Śiva temples [...]; the figure of Vighneśvara is invariably seen." Ganesha temples have also been built outside of India, including southeast Asia, Nepal (including the four Vinayaka shrines in the Kathmandu valley), and in several western countries.
RISE TO PROMINENCE
FIRST APEARANCE
Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Shanti Lal Nagar says that the earliest known iconic image of Ganesha is in the niche of the Shiva temple at Bhumra, which has been dated to the Gupta period. His independent cult appeared by about the 10th century. Narain summarizes the controversy between devotees and academics regarding the development of Ganesha as follows:
What is inscrutable is the somewhat dramatic appearance of Gaņeśa on the historical scene. His antecedents are not clear. His wide acceptance and popularity, which transcend sectarian and territorial limits, are indeed amazing. On the one hand there is the pious belief of the orthodox devotees in Gaņeśa's Vedic origins and in the Purāṇic explanations contained in the confusing, but nonetheless interesting, mythology. On the other hand there are doubts about the existence of the idea and the icon of this deity" before the fourth to fifth century A.D. ... [I]n my opinion, indeed there is no convincing evidence of the existence of this divinity prior to the fifth century.
POSSIBLE INFLUENCES
Courtright reviews various speculative theories about the early history of Ganesha, including supposed tribal traditions and animal cults, and dismisses all of them in this way:
In the post 600 BC period there is evidence of people and places named after the animal. The motif appears on coins and sculptures.
Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations about the role elephants had in early India but concludes that, "although by the second century CE the elephant-headed yakṣa form exists it cannot be presumed to represent Gaṇapati-Vināyaka. There is no evidence of a deity by this name having an elephant or elephant-headed form at this early stage. Gaṇapati-Vināyaka had yet to make his debut."
One theory of the origin of Ganesha is that he gradually came to prominence in connection with the four Vinayakas (Vināyakas). In Hindu mythology, the Vināyakas were a group of four troublesome demons who created obstacles and difficulties but who were easily propitiated. The name Vināyaka is a common name for Ganesha both in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. Krishan is one of the academics who accepts this view, stating flatly of Ganesha, "He is a non-vedic god. His origin is to be traced to the four Vināyakas, evil spirits, of the Mānavagŗhyasūtra (7th–4th century BCE) who cause various types of evil and suffering". Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. According to Ellawala, the elephant-headed Ganesha as lord of the Ganas was known to the people of Sri Lanka in the early pre-Christian era.
A metal plate depiction of Ganesha had been discovered in 1993, in Iran, it dated back to 1,200 BCE. Another one was discovered much before, in Lorestan Province of Iran.
First Ganesha's terracotta images are from 1st century CE found in Ter, Pal, Verrapuram and Chandraketugarh. These figures are small, with elephant head, two arms, and chubby physique. The earliest Ganesha icons in stone were carved in Mathura during Kushan times (2nd-3rd centuries CE).
VEDIC AND EPIC LITERATURE
The title "Leader of the group" (Sanskrit: gaṇapati) occurs twice in the Rig Veda, but in neither case does it refer to the modern Ganesha. The term appears in RV 2.23.1 as a title for Brahmanaspati, according to commentators. While this verse doubtless refers to Brahmanaspati, it was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is still used today. In rejecting any claim that this passage is evidence of Ganesha in the Rig Veda, Ludo Rocher says that it "clearly refers to Bṛhaspati—who is the deity of the hymn—and Bṛhaspati only". Equally clearly, the second passage (RV 10.112.9) refers to Indra, who is given the epithet 'gaṇapati', translated "Lord of the companies (of the Maruts)." However, Rocher notes that the more recent Ganapatya literature often quotes the Rigvedic verses to give Vedic respectability to Ganesha .
Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha, and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club, is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin". However, Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions. Thapan reports that these passages are "generally considered to have been interpolated". Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity".
Ganesha does not appear in Indian epic literature that is dated to the Vedic period. A late interpolation to the epic poem Mahabharata says that the sage Vyasa (Vyāsa) asked Ganesha to serve as his scribe to transcribe the poem as he dictated it to him. Ganesha agreed but only on condition that Vyasa recite the poem uninterrupted, that is, without pausing. The sage agreed, but found that to get any rest he needed to recite very complex passages so Ganesha would have to ask for clarifications. The story is not accepted as part of the original text by the editors of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, in which the twenty-line story is relegated to a footnote in an appendix. The story of Ganesha acting as the scribe occurs in 37 of the 59 manuscripts consulted during preparation of the critical edition. Ganesha's association with mental agility and learning is one reason he is shown as scribe for Vyāsa's dictation of the Mahabharata in this interpolation. Richard L. Brown dates the story to the 8th century, and Moriz Winternitz concludes that it was known as early as c. 900, but it was not added to the Mahabharata some 150 years later. Winternitz also notes that a distinctive feature in South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata is their omission of this Ganesha legend. The term vināyaka is found in some recensions of the Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva that are regarded as interpolations. A reference to Vighnakartṛīṇām ("Creator of Obstacles") in Vanaparva is also believed to be an interpolation and does not appear in the critical edition.
PURANIC PERIOD
Stories about Ganesha often occur in the Puranic corpus. Brown notes while the Puranas "defy precise chronological ordering", the more detailed narratives of Ganesha's life are in the late texts, c. 600–1300. Yuvraj Krishan says that the Puranic myths about the birth of Ganesha and how he acquired an elephant's head are in the later Puranas, which were composed from c. 600 onwards. He elaborates on the matter to say that references to Ganesha in the earlier Puranas, such as the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, are later interpolations made during the 7th to 10th centuries.
In his survey of Ganesha's rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature, Ludo Rocher notes that:
Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa concentrate on an unexpectedly limited number of incidents. These incidents are mainly three: his birth and parenthood, his elephant head, and his single tusk. Other incidents are touched on in the texts, but to a far lesser extent.
Ganesha's rise to prominence was codified in the 9th century, when he was formally included as one of the five primary deities of Smartism. The 9th-century philosopher Adi Shankara popularized the "worship of the five forms" (Panchayatana puja) system among orthodox Brahmins of the Smarta tradition. This worship practice invokes the five deities Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Surya. Adi Shankara instituted the tradition primarily to unite the principal deities of these five major sects on an equal status. This formalized the role of Ganesha as a complementary deity.
SCRIPTURES
Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism, some Brahmins (brāhmaṇas) chose to worship Ganesha as their principal deity. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.
The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana - and their dating relative to one another - has sparked academic debate. Both works were developed over time and contain age-layered strata. Anita Thapan reviews comments about dating and provides her own judgement. "It seems likely that the core of the Ganesha Purana appeared around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries", she says, "but was later interpolated." Lawrence W. Preston considers the most reasonable date for the Ganesha Purana to be between 1100 and 1400, which coincides with the apparent age of the sacred sites mentioned by the text.
R.C. Hazra suggests that the Mudgala Purana is older than the Ganesha Purana, which he dates between 1100 and 1400. However, Phyllis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. She bases her reasoning on the fact that, among other internal evidence, the Mudgala Purana specifically mentions the Ganesha Purana as one of the four Puranas (the Brahma, the Brahmanda, the Ganesha, and the Mudgala Puranas) which deal at length with Ganesha. While the kernel of the text must be old, it was interpolated until the 17th and 18th centuries as the worship of Ganapati became more important in certain regions. Another highly regarded scripture, the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, was probably composed during the 16th or 17th centuries.
BEYOND INDIA AND HINDUISM
Commercial and cultural contacts extended India's influence in western and southeast Asia. Ganesha is one of a number of Hindu deities who reached foreign lands as a result.
Ganesha was particularly worshipped by traders and merchants, who went out of India for commercial ventures. From approximately the 10th century onwards, new networks of exchange developed including the formation of trade guilds and a resurgence of money circulation. During this time, Ganesha became the principal deity associated with traders. The earliest inscription invoking Ganesha before any other deity is associated with the merchant community.
Hindus migrated to Maritime Southeast Asia and took their culture, including Ganesha, with them. Statues of Ganesha are found throughout the region, often beside Shiva sanctuaries. The forms of Ganesha found in Hindu art of Java, Bali, and Borneo show specific regional influences. The spread of Hindu culture to southeast Asia established Ganesha in modified forms in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand. In Indochina, Hinduism and Buddhism were practiced side by side, and mutual influences can be seen in the iconography of Ganesha in the region. In Thailand, Cambodia, and among the Hindu classes of the Chams in Vietnam, Ganesha was mainly thought of as a remover of obstacles. Today in Buddhist Thailand, Ganesha is regarded as a remover of obstacles, the god of success.
Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan had close cultural ties with India, and the adoration of both Hindu and Buddhist deities was practiced. Examples of sculptures from the 5th to the 7th centuries have survived, suggesting that the worship of Ganesha was then in vogue in the region.
Ganesha appears in Mahayana Buddhism, not only in the form of the Buddhist god Vināyaka, but also as a Hindu demon form with the same name. His image appears in Buddhist sculptures during the late Gupta period. As the Buddhist god Vināyaka, he is often shown dancing. This form, called Nṛtta Ganapati, was popular in northern India, later adopted in Nepal, and then in Tibet. In Nepal, the Hindu form of Ganesha, known as Heramba, is popular; he has five heads and rides a lion. Tibetan representations of Ganesha show ambivalent views of him. A Tibetan rendering of Ganapati is tshogs bdag. In one Tibetan form, he is shown being trodden under foot by Mahākāla, (Shiva) a popular Tibetan deity. Other depictions show him as the Destroyer of Obstacles, and sometimes dancing. Ganesha appears in China and Japan in forms that show distinct regional character. In northern China, the earliest known stone statue of Ganesha carries an inscription dated to 531. In Japan, where Ganesha is known as Kangiten, the Ganesha cult was first mentioned in 806.
The canonical literature of Jainism does not mention the worship of Ganesha. However, Ganesha is worshipped by most Jains, for whom he appears to have taken over certain functions of Kubera. Jain connections with the trading community support the idea that Jainism took up Ganesha worship as a result of commercial connections. The earliest known Jain Ganesha statue dates to about the 9th century. A 15th-century Jain text lists procedures for the installation of Ganapati images. Images of Ganesha appear in the Jain temples of Rajasthan and Gujarat.
WIKIPEDIA
Midtown, Manhattan, New York City, New York, United StatesSummaryBuilt in three stages between 1912 and 1932, the New York Times Building reflects both the development of the Times Square neighborhood and the history of one of the most highly-respected newspapers in the United States. Founded on Nassau Street in 1851, the Times moved to West 42nd Street in 1905, constructing a skyscraper headquarters at the crossing of Broadway and Seventh Avenue, which had been named Times Square the previous year. The newspaper quickly outgrew the so-called Times Tower and in 1912-13 the eleven-story Times Annex was constructed about two hundred feet away on the north side of West 43rd Street, between Seventh and Eighth Avenues. Architect Mortimer J. Fox, of the firm Buchman & Fox, closely patterned the tripartite neo-Gothic elevations on the 1905 building, designing a limestone base and brick shaft, crowned by a richly embellished terra-cotta cornice and parapet.The Annex became the newspaper's headquarters, accommodating editorial and executive departments, as well as new printing presses and mechanical equipment. The editors christened their new headquarters the "monarch of Times Square" and claimed it was the largest newspaper plant in the world.In 1922, the Times filed plans to double the plant's capacity. Ludlow & Peabody designed the one hundred-foot long addition, which consisted of an expanded staff entrance, five identical bays to the west, and a five-story setback attic level in the style of the French Renaissance. At the center of the hipped roof attic, which extended across both buildings, was a seven-story tower, capped by a pyramidal roof and slender lantern. This Chateauesque feature gave the expanded Annex a dignified and conspicuous presence in an increasingly incandescent Times Square, making the building visible from all comers of the entertainment district.The west wing was constructed in 1930-32. Albert Kahn, the noted Detroit-based architect, designed the plan and maintained the building's primarily neo-Gothic vocabulary, adding three additional bays, a second lobby, and roof-top studio. In recognition of its importance to the newspaper, the Annex was renamed the New York Times Building in 1942.The New York Times Building is one of Times Square's oldest and best preserved non-theatrical structures. Extending 318 feet along the north side of West 43rd Street, the extenor survives largely intact, and the building continues to serve as the newspaper's editorial and business offices.DESCRIPTIONThe New York TimesFor one hundred and fifty years, The New York Times has been one of the world's best-known and highly respected newspapers. Established by Henry Jarvis Raymond, George Jones and Edward B. Welsey in 1851, the newspaper flourished in a series of increasingly prominent Manhattan structures, including sites in the financial district, along Park Row, and since 1905, in Times Square. The Times initially leased space at 113 Nassau Street, but it soon moved to a larger structure at the southeast corner of Nassau and Beekman Streets. In 1856, the owners acquired the Old Brick Presbyterian Church and graveyard "at the northern apex of the triangle formed by Park Row and Nassau and Beekman Streets," which they replaced with a five-story, eighty-foot tall, building designed in the Italianate style by the architect Thomas R. Jackson (1826-1901). The floor plan provided a model for future Times structures: the heavy presses and printing equipment were housed in the basement, while staff offices were located above, on the first, fourth, and fifth stories. To provide space for future expansion, the second and third stories were temporarily leased to outside tenants.The early 1880s were a prosperous period for the Times and in 1886 George Jones proposed to build "the largest and handsomest newspaper office in the world."3 With few sites available in the immediate area, he decided to construct an entirely new building at the same location while retaining as much of the existing structure as possible. Credit for this technological feat went to the architect-engineer George B. Post (1837-1913) who planned and supervised construction of a twelve-story building without interfering with daily operations. Completed in 1889, the granite and limestone Romanesque Revival headquarters (a designated New York City Landmark) was described in King's Handbook of New York (1892) as "the Times expressed in stone."4The Times struggled financially during the early 1890s due to competition from "penny" papers, such as the Journal and World, as well as the financial panic of 1893. Despite hopes that rental income from vacant floors would supplement circulation revenue, in 1893 the newspaper was sold to the New York Times Publishing Company, a corporation headed by Times editor Charles R. Miller. Three years later, in August 1896, Adolph S. Ochs (1858-1935) became publisher, and by August 1900, the company's major shareholder.Soon after taking full control of the Times, he added the familiar slogan "All the News that's Fit to Print" to the masthead, signaling his intention to maintain the newspaper's traditional high standards.Times SquareNew York City's population experienced a dramatic rise in the last decades of the nineteenth century, inspiring fierce competition among daily newspapers. While some lowered prices and ran sensational headlines to attract readers, others, like the Tribune, built lofty skyscrapers to provide office space and rental revenue, as well as to serve as highly visible symbols of each company's success.In the late 1890s, Ochs developed plans to build a new headquarters. As publisher of the Chattanooga Times, Ochs undertook a similar, though far more modestly-sized project in 1891, constructing the city's tallest structure. Crowned by a domed corner pavilion, the six-story Romanesque Revival building attracted considerable attention in Chattanooga and ten thousand people attended the dedication.5 Ochs recognized that a new Manhattan headquarters would offer numerous benefits. In addition to providing additional office space, an impressive structure would generate invaluable publicity for the Times.Several sites were considered, including a large plot on lower Broadway, between Barclay and Murray Streets, but escalating real estate prices in the City Hall area convinced him to choose a less costly location. The Herald was the first major newspaper to abandon Printing House Square, acquiring a full-block site bounded by Broadway and Sixth Avenue, West 35th and 36th Streets. Constructed in 1892-95, the two-stoiy Renaissance Revival structure (McKim, Mead & White, demolished) was notable for its height and handsome glazed loggia, which permitted views into the pressroom.In July 1901, Ochs assembled a similarly prominent trapezoidal site at the center of Longacre Square. Real estate developers were the first group to recognize the area's potential. During the 1850s, brownstone rowhouses and churches began to dominate the blocks west of Broadway, attracting a "superior class of residents."6 Modest hotels and multiple dwellings followed, as well as a large concentration of stables, harness shops, and carriage manufacturers. Because of these establishments the neighborhood became known as Longacre Square, recalling a similar commercial district in London. In 1882, the Metropolitan Opera House (J. C. Cady, demolished) opened on Broadway, between West 39th and 40th Streets. The presence of this elite institution, filling an entire city block and accommodating more than three thousand listeners, would help Longacre Square become the city's primary entertainment district.In subsequent years, a significant group of theaters were built close-by, including the Casino (Francis H. Kimball & Thomas Wisedell, 1882, demolished), the Broadway (J. B. McElfatrick, 1887-88, demolished) Hammerstein's Olympia (J. B. McElfatrick, 1895, demolished), and the New Amsterdam (Herts & Tallent 1903, a designated New York City Landmark and Interior), as well as such luxury hotels as the Astor (Clinton & Russell, 1904-9, demolished) and the Knickerbocker (Marvin & Davis with Bruce Price, 1901-6, a designated New York City Landmark).These new buildings, along with construction of the IRT subway, between 1901 and 1904, convinced Ochs that his new headquarters would stand at the center of a major urban crossroads.7 Measuring 58 feet at the southern end, 20 feet at the northern end, and 138 and 143 feet on the sides, the wedge-shaped building would be located at the intersection of Broadway and Seventh Avenue, between West 42nd and 43rd Streets. The architects Eidlitz & McKenzie (C. L. W. Eidlitz and Andrew C. McKenzie) were responsible for the design, and it was, for a brief period, the city's second tallest structure. Consisting of a twenty-five story shaft set on a sixteen-story base, the so-called Times Tower was constructed by the George A. Fuller Company, with Purdy & Henderson as structural engineers,8 Inspired by "Giotto's Tower" (begun 1334) in Florence, Italy, the limestone, brick and terra-cotta elevations originally featured neo-Gothic and Renaissance Revival details, produced by the Perth Amboy Terra Cotta Co.9The tower's upper stories housed editorial offices, while the lower stories were divided between various departments and outside tenants. Due to the building's slender profile and small footprint, there were few interior rooms and most offices had two windows. The Times claimed that "There is probably not another building in New York City, probably in the world, so saturated with fresh air and sunlight."10 In the basement were various presses as well as the platforms of the recently completed IRT subway. On April 8,1904 the New York City Board of Alderman named the station and the "previously nameless" intersection Times Square, forever linking the newspaper with the neighborhood."The Times AnnexThe Times quickly outgrew the 42nd Street tower, with no possibility of expansion onto an adjoining site. Despite escalating real estate prices in the immediate neighborhood "it did not occur to anyone to suggest that the [newspaperj should desert Times Square."12 The owners viewed the midtown location as "strategic" — at the center of the entertainment district and at the intersection of various existing and proposed transit routes.In 1912, the New York Times Company acquired two lots on the north side of West 43rd Street, between Seventh and Eighth Avenues, including a one hundred by one hundred-foot lot purchased from Lee Shubert for $300,000 -- a "record price for property west of Broadway in the Times Square District" — and a forty-three by one hundred-foot lot leased from the Astor estate.13The Times Annex would be the newspaper's sixth building. It was designed by Mortimer J. Fox (1874-1948) of the architectural firm Buchman & Fox.14 Albert C. Buchman (1859-1936) and Fox founded their partnership in 1899. A native New Yorker, Fox studied at the College of the City of New York (now City College) and at the Columbia School of Mines (later the Columbia School of Architecture). The firm was responsible for many private residences and commercial buildings, including Saks & Company (1901-2, altered, now Herald Center), the Leonori Apartments (1901, part of the Upper East Side Historic District), and the terra-cotta clad World's Tower B uilding (1914) on West 40th Street.15 In 1917, Fox left the firm to become a director and vice president of the Columbia Bank (later part of Manufacturer's Trust). After ten years, he retired to pursue a successful career as a landscape painter. Buchman, a graduate of Cornell University, was associated with Ely Jacques Kahn after 1919.16Fox designed the Annex in the neo-Gothic style, patterning the general configuration and decorative vocabulary on that of the Times Tower. In September 1911, an unidentified Times writer declared:No one will be able to doubt after the most cursory glance that the Times Building and its Annex are related, and that, separated though they be by Seventh Avenue, they yet house branches of the same institution.17Rising to a height of 170 feet, the building consisted of an eleven-story tower set beside a four-story extension.18 This "mounted" tower configuration, like that of the Times Tower, not only gave the Annex the appearance of greater height, but it ensured employees that their new offices would "enjoy as much light and air" as their previous ones. The elevations that were most visible from Broadway - the south and east facades - were treated identically, clad in Indiana limestone, light-colored Kittanning-faced brick and mat-faced terra cotta. The crown, marked by a multistory arcade, projecting cornice and parapet, was the building's most prominent feature, closely resembling that of the former headquarters. To accentuate the relationship between the Times Tower and the Annex, the upper stories were encrusted with identical terracotta tablet flowers, composite capitals, shells, and scroll-like reliefs. The fenestration was also similar, juxtaposing groups of triple one-over-one double-hung windows with deep reveals to single one-over-one double-hung windows with label moldings.Construction began in March 1912 and was completed in August 1913.19 The George A. Fuller Company, the contractor for the Times Tower, again served as builder. Established in Chicago in 1882, the firm specialized in steel-frame construction, erecting such distinguished commercial structures in New York City as the Fuller (aka Flatiron) Building (1901-3), Pennsylvania Station (demolished), the Plaza Hotel (1905-07, 1921) and the Seagram Building (1955-58). At the time of construction, the Fuller Company was among the most successful builders in the United States, with offices in seven cities.The Annex had a considerably larger footprint than its predecessor, with a total of 170,000 square feet of space. Staff and visitors passed through a neo-Gothic portico with revolving doors into a marble-clad lobby. Immediately east of this entrance were three loading bays, two storefronts, and a twenty-five foot wide arcade leading to Weber & Field's Music Hall (William Albert Swasey, 1911-12, demolished) on West 44th Street.20 To alleviate street congestion, the three bays opened onto a fifty-eight by thirty-eight-foot brick paved freight hall where wagons could be loaded and unloaded from raised platforms. The name of the newspaper was found in four locations, carved into the cornice between the second and third stories, on an illuminated sign above the main entrance, on globe-shaped lighting fixtures between each of the loading bays, and on the roof where one-story-tall letters, facing east, spelled "TIMES ANNEX."The first issue was printed in the Annex on March 3, 1913. Once the new plant was fully operational, the newspaper's link to the Times Tower became primarily symbolic. With nearly all floors leased to outside tenants, only the publication and subscription offices remained in the former headquarters, which were connected to the Annex by means of a four hundred-foot long concrete conduit beneath Seventh Avenue, housing steam and electric cables, as well as a pneumatic tube.22 The Times, nonetheless, chose to retain ownership of the Times Tower until 1961, using it as a highly visible venue for such special events as the annual New Year's celebration, as well as to display various illuminated signs and the world-famous electronic news zipper.23A staff of six hundred persons worked in the Annex, making the Times one of the largest employers in the area. As in the Times Tower, the executive and editorial offices were located in the crown. At the eleventh story was Ochs' private office and an assembly hall for lectures and large meetings. On the tenth story was the main library and subject "morgue." The fifth story was devoted to recreation, with showers and dining rooms, and the sixth, seventh, and eighth stories were "reserved for growth." Of particular significance was the steel frame, which was engineered at "above code standards" to support additional floors should they be required.24Ludlow & Peabody and the 1922-24 AdditionCirculation continued to grow throughout the late 1910s, reaching 331,000 copies a day in 1921. While rival newspapers built large printing plants in areas where property values were significantly lower, such as the New York American and Evening Journal (Charles E. Birge, 1927) at 210 South Street, the Evening Graphic (1927) at 346 Hudson Street, the New York Evening Post (Horace Trumbauer, 1926) at 75 West Street, and the Daily News (Raymond M. Hood, 1929-30, a designated New York City Landmark) at 220 East 42nd Street (near Second Avenue), the Times remained committed to publishing in the heart of Times Square and the Annex would become a significant expression of the newspaper's presence and influence.25 In January 1922, the Times filed plans with the Department of Buildings to double the plant's printing capacity. Six years earlier, the newspaper had acquired five five-story flats on 43rd Street, immediately west of the recently completed Annex. These structures were subsequently demolished, providing a one hundred by one hundred foot lot for a " 14 story fireproof storage + workroom + office" structure. The architectural firm Ludlow & Peabody was hired to design the addition. William Orr Ludlow (c. 1871-1954) was trained at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey. After graduating in 1892, he joined the firm of Carerre & Hastings where he worked as a draftsman until 1895. From about 1895 to 1908 he was associated with Charles A. Valentine and Lawrence Valk. In 1909, he formed a partnership with Charles S. Peabody (1880-1935). A native of Brooklyn, Peabody studied architecture at Columbia University and the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris. Their partnership lasted for more than twenty years, with the firm designing numerous residential, corporate and institutional buildings throughout the United States.27 In New York City the firm was responsible for the Prospect branch of the People's Trust Company in Brooklyn (1919-20), the Johns-Manville Building at 292 Madison Avenue (1924), forty-eight-story 10 East 40th Street (1928), and thirty-eight-story Chase National Bank Headquarters (1928) at 20 Pine Street.The scale and density of Times Square increased dramatically following construction of the Annex. Grand movie palaces like the Capitol (1914, demolished) and Loew's State (1920, demolished) lined both sides of Seventh Avenue and Broadway, seating as many as five thousand persons. Many prominent skyscrapers were also built in the area during this period, such as the neo-Gothic World's Tower and the Spanish Renaissance-style Candler Building (Willauer, Shape & Bready, 1914-20) on West 42nd Street. Notable for their height and sumptuous use of terracotta ornament, these light-colored towers may have provided inspiration for the upper stories of Ludlow & Peabody's addition.Construction began in January 1922 and was completed in October 1924.28 The addition featured an eleven-story base and a four-story attic level surmounted by a seven-story tower. Clad in limestone, brick and terra cotta, the one hundred foot-long addition was designed to give the impression that the two structures had been built at the same time. To accomplish this effect, Ludlow & Peabody obtained permission to build a five-bay structure that would match the height of the Annex and to extend the projecting cornice onto the new facade.29 The terra cotta used to clad the base and the lower floors was closely modeled on the Annex,30 which explicitly referred back to the Times Tower. For reasons that are unknown, the facade's consistency and reference to the original Times Tower and Annex was diminished by the fenestration, in which steel three-over-three double-hung windows were installed instead of the one-over-one double-hung windows used in the Times Tower and Annex. This choice of windows somewhat undermined the intended coherence of the 43rd Street elevations.Above the base was the four-story attic level extending across both structures. This part of the 1922-24 addition, which is largely hidden from view on 43rd Street because of the deep setback and parapet, was designed in the style of the French Renaissance. At the center of the hipped roof is a seven-story tower with balconies, capped by a pyramidal roof and slender lantern. The Chateauesque feature gave the expanded Annex a dignified and conspicuous presence in an increasingly incandescent Times Square, making it visible to the thousands who congregated in the entertainment district each night. On the four sides of the seventeenth story were one-story tall neon letters that spelled out "TIMES" and at the top of the lantern was a flagpole that flew the newspaper's logo.The expanded Annex enclosed nearly 318,000 square feet of floor space.32 Inside, the general floor arrangement was retained. Most of the lower floors continued to function as offices and the new fourteenth story became the executive wing, with spacious mahogany-paneled offices for Ochs and various vice presidents, as well as a library and private dining room.33Albert Kahn and the West WingTimes Square reached its zenith in the late 1920s. The district became nationally famous, celebrated in both Hollywood films and live musical revues. The Times prospered and circulation increased, reaching 431,000 daily copies in 1929. Many editorial improvements were made to the newspaper during these years, including expanded coverage of financial news, as well as the introduction of a Sunday magazine supplement and book review section.Despite a modest decline in readership following the stock market crash of October 1929, and a significant drop in advertising lines, Ochs continued to develop plans for a $2 million plant on Third Avenue, between Pacific and Dean Streets, in downtown Brooklyn, as well as a seventy-five foot long addition to the Annex.35 Both buildings were designed by Albeit Kahn, Inc., Architects and Engineers. Founded by Albert Kahn (1869-1942) in 1902, the Detroit-based firm specialized in industrial buildings, producing such important works as the Ford River Rouge Plant (1917-1939) and the Chrysler Corporation Half-Ton Truck Plant (1938). The firm also designed several newspaper plants, including the Detroit News (1915), Detroit Free Press (1925) and Detroit Times (1930).36 In March 1930, Moritz Kahn, a member of the firm, published an essay on the design of newspaper buildings. While much of the discussion focused on interior planning, considerable attention was also paid to decoration and construction materials. He advised:The newspaper publisher... is under a certain obligation to the public so far as the appearance of his plant is concerned. There is, to a certain degree, a bond between architecture and newspaper publication in that both are chroniclers of current events. Both are of importance in moulding the character and developing the culture of the public. Consequently, while the planning of the interior of a newspaper building must be done with a keen eye for efficiency, the exterior of the building should possess architectural merit.By the late 1920s, West 43rd Street had changed considerably. The Annex was flanked by two large structures, the fifteen-story Times Square Hotel to the west, and the south elevation of the thirty-three-story Paramount Building (Rapp & Rapp, a designated New York City Landmark) to the east. Crowned by a two-story tall clock with faces on four sides and an illuminated glass sphere that flashed to indicate the hour, the Paramount Building became one of the most visible structures in Times Square, overshadowing the Annex, the recently completed addition, and even the Times Tower.In August 1930, the newspaper filed plans to alter and expand the Annex. The west wing was built on the former site of the Yandis Court Apartments, located between Ludlow & Peabody's 1922-24 addition and the Ascension Memorial Church and rectory (both demolished). Directly across the street, the site faced the Lyric (Victor Hugo Koehler, 1903), Apollo (Eugene DeRosa, 1920), and Selwyn (George Keister, 1918, demolished) theaters, as well as the Hotel Dixie (later Carter Hotel).Construction commenced November 16,1930 and was officially completed January 7, 1932.40 The fifteen-story west wing, which cost more than $1 million, exclusive of equipment, was designed to "permit the expansion of practically all departments... without rearrangement of space in the present structure."41 While Kahn used a modern classical vocabulary in the award-winning Brooklyn plant, on 43rd Street his firm adopted a more contextual approach, duplicating the neo-Gothic crown, shaft, and base of the earlier Annex and addition.In contrast to many recent office towers, his design emphasized the building's horizontal character, directing the eye rhythmically west along the projecting cornice, rather than toward the sky. Perhaps in anticipation of future construction, the building's west facade was treated sparely, with unadorned fenestration and simple two-tone brickwork. Only minor changes were made to the elevations', above the two entrances, between the third and fourth floors, a neo-Gothic clock was installed in 1931, as well as a series of glass globe lighting fixtures beside each delivery bay.With opening of the west wing in August 1931, the Annex stretched 318 feet along West 43rd Street. Times' historian Meyer Berger described the building as "a spreading white monument."43 Eighteen stories tall, 221 feet high, it was valued at $3.05 million. In recognition of the building's importance to the newspaper, the Annex was renamed the New York Times Building in 1942.44Subsequent HistoryUnder Ochs' successor, Arthur Hays Sulzberger (1891-1961), the east section of the building was expanded to the north, occupying the former site of the 44th Street Theater, which the Times acquired in 1943.45 Designed by the architects Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, the 1947 addition (not part of this designation) obscured much of the north elevation which was mostly dismantled to link the structures. At this time, fifteen new presses were installed in the basement increasing the plant's capacity by fifty percent, and bedrooms were built on the fourteenth floor to provide overnight accommodations for executives during emergencies.46 The main entrance was redesigned by the architects Shreve, Lamb & Harmon in 1946. In addition to stripping the west and center porticos of various neo-Gothic arches and other details, a third public entrance (with expanded lobby) was added to the east, replacing a single delivery bay. The new entrance had a revolving door and a grid of windows, surmounted by an Art Deco relief. Removed from the facade of the Brooklyn plant, which closed in the mid-1930s and was sold to the Brooklyn Eagle in 1945, the bronze sculpture depicts two muscular figures flanking an image of the earth with the motto "ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO PRINT" below.In December 1946, a simple ceremony marked the opening of the redesigned entrance. It was reported at the time that no key could be found to lock the original 1913 entrance and that an "old-timer" recalled that when the Annex opened "it was decided to throw the key away on the theory that the Times would never close its doors."47 The radio station WQXR, which was purchased by the Times in 1944, moved to new studios on the ninth and tenth stories in 1950. A new auditorium was also constructed on the ninth story, designed by Shreve, Lamb & Harmon.48After World War 13, Times Square entered an significant period of decline. Hurt by the middle-class exodus to the suburbs and the growing popularity of television, the entertainment district began to lose its luster. Despite such changes and plans for construction of a new three-block long printing plant on the Upper West Side (Egger & Higgins, 1957-59), the Times continued to publish the daily paper on West 43rd Street.49 A pamphlet, issued by the newspaper, dramatically described each evening's activity:... on the ground floor of its building in Forty-third Street, is a fleet of trucks, waiting to speed the paper to readers in all parts of the world ... So when the presses start and the papers start coming up the carriers in a swift stream . . . becomes a maelstrom of activity . . . . Out of the doors on the street roll the trucks no matter what the weather... some to catch planes, some to catch trains, some to meet other trucks and divide up their burdens for runs into the country, some for local delivery - all of them hastening on schedule, loaded with news of the world.50To better manage the growing number of delivery trucks, in 1951 the roadbed on West 43rd Street was re-paved and widened by two feet, and in 1962 the seven delivery bays to the west were also widened (Egger & Higgins). Large quartz floodlights were installed over each bay in 1967. The stone facing on the rusticated columns was removed, and east of the entrances the arches were squared-off and the columns replaced by steel pillars.In 1963, a fire destroyed the original clock which was replaced with a seven by seven-foot tall digital "jump" clock. Two years later, in 1965, the building was recognized by Sigma Delta Chi, a society devoted to professional journalism, as an "Historic Site in Journalism." As the twenty-first site identified by the society, the members placed a rectangular bronze plaque dedicated to Ochs between the west and center entrances.During the 1980s, the west end of the attic level was altered to enclose an audio visual center and auditorium. At this time, a large window wall was cut into the attic's north face. In 1997, the presses came to a halt and the balance of printing operations were moved to a new printing plant (Polshek Partnership, 1994-97) at 26-50 Whitestone Expressway in College Point, Queens. The Times is currently planning to build a new skyscraper headquarters on the east side of Eighth Avenue, between West 40th and 41st Streets, designed by the Italian architect Renzo Piano. DescriptionThe New York Times Building occupies a 318 by 100 foot site on West 43rd Street, between Seventh and Eighth Avenues. Based on French Gothic, and French and Italian Renaissance sources, the eighteen-story structure is faced in Indiana limestone, tan brick, and cream-colored terra cotta. The building is divided into three major parts: a four-story east section, an eleven-story main section (1912-13, 1922-24, 1930-32), a five-story set-back attic level and seven-story tower (1922-24). The fenestration in the 1912-13 portion of the building consists of one-over-one double-hung, steel stash. The 1924 and 1931 additions have a combination of mostly three-over-three and six-over-six double-hung, steel windows. Replacement windows are either steel or aluminum.The south elevation faces West 43rd Street and consists of a two-story limestone base, a brick shaft, and richly-embellished terra-cotta crown. The first story is divided into sixteen bays, of which twelve are used as delivery bays. These twelve bays have been stripped, widened, and framed by non-historic steel columns (c. 1962). To the west of the entrances, the arches above each bay have been retained, while to the east, they have been squared. Attached to each column is a globe-shaped lighting fixture (c. 1962) modeled on those installed before 1922. The non-historic delivery bay doors are painted blue. Most of the second-story windows, except for one at the west end and four at the east end, are arranged in pairs and share a common sill. These windows are surmounted by a continuous shell frieze and cornice. Non-historic lighting fixtures are attached above the cornice and directed toward each delivery bay.Three entrance porticoes are located at the center of the first story. Whereas the two unused entrances at the west are framed by the original porticoes and pilasters (1930-32), the east or main staff and visitors entrance (1946) consists of two revolving doors surmounted by a grid of six windows and a rectangular bronze relief. The west entrance is flanked by globe-shaped lighting fixtures, while to either side of the main entrance are non-historic slender bronze-and-glass lighting fixtures (1985) attached to the wall. A bronze plaque dedicated to Adolph S. Ochs is attached to the facade between the main and center entrance. The west and center entrances have bronze doors surmounted by windows. Above the left door of the west entrance is an air conditioner. Above each entrance, at the second story, are three recessed triple-hung windows, surmounted by a frieze with relief panels, each with a pair of griffins grasping a shield. Two flagpoles extend from each sill above the center and main entrance. A single gargoyle projects between the west and center entrance. Between the third and fourth stories, aligned between the west and main entrance is a digital "Times" clock (1967) projecting over the sidewalk.The four-story east section (1912-13) is clad in brick above the second story. It has three single-hung windows on each floor. The fourth story windows are crowned by ogee moldings with finials. Above the fourth story is a richly embellished terra-cotta cornice supported by four decorative corbels. A terra-cotta parapet extends across roof.Floors 3 through 9 are clad in brick. From east to west, the fenestration is arranged as follows: a single window with ogee molding, three pairs of recessed windows, a single window with ogee molding (1911), a single window with ogee molding, three pairs of recessed windows, a single window with ogee molding (1922-24), three recessed windows, and a single window with ogee molding (1930-32). Between the ninth and tenth story extends a continuous entablature interrupted by decorative terra-cotta capitals with small cartouches crowning brick pilasters that rise from the base of the third story.The tenth and eleventh stories are treated as a single composition in terra cotta, with three groups of three triple windows framed by arches springing from decorative capitals and flanked by pilasters faced with tablet flowers. To accentuate the southeast comer, these pilasters repeat near the end of the south and east facades. The triple windows are divided by thin metal columns resting on squat pedestals. At the eleventh story, the windows rest on decorative metal spandrels. Each group of windows is flanked by a single window at the tenth story and a single window with balcony crowned by an ogee molding with finial at the eleventh story. Crowned by a continuous bracketed terra-cotta cornice, the eleventh story is surmounted by a decorative shell frieze, which extends onto the east facade. A decorative parapet, alternating three-dimensional decorative relief panels and pedestals, extends across the roof.Set back from the street is the five-story attic level (1920-22) with a hipped roof and dormer windows. The fourteenth story is faced with fleur-de-lys reliefs within raised interlaced diagonal bands. Directly above is a bracketed terra-cotta cornice, a decorative frieze, and parapet. Atop each of the parapet's pedestals is a small obelisk. Towards the west end of the fourteenth story, a section of the parapet has been removed and a small addition has been made into the roof (1985). The hipped roof is covered to give the appearance of standing seam teme metal.The tower is divided into the three bays. At the seventeenth story, each window has a small balcony and is crowned by a ogee molding. In the central bay, a single (sealed) window rises from the fourteenth to the fifteenth story. The fifteenth and sixteenth story is faced with low fleur-de-lys reliefs set within raised interlaced diagonal bands. The tower sets backs at the eighteenth story and is enclosed by a terra-cotta parapet with three-dimensional relief panels. Behind the parapet, each facade has three arched windows between pilasters. The eighteenth story has a pedimented dormer on each facade, flanked by scrolls and finials. The pyramidal roof, covered to give the appearance of standing seam teme metal, rises to a slender lantern, enclosed by an arched railing resting on shell-like objects. Directly below the lantern, on all sides, aligned with the pedimented dormer, is a round-arched dormer.The brick east elevation (1912) is visible above the four-story extension. From east to west, the fenestration is arranged as follows: a single window with ogee molding, three pairs of recessed windows, and a single window with ogee molding. The tenth and eleventh stories are faced in terra cotta and treated as a single composition, with three groups of triple windows framed by arches springing from decorative capitals and flanked by pilasters faced with tablet flowers. The triple windows are divided by thin metal columns resting on squat pedestals. At the eleventh story, the windows rest on decorative metal spandrels. Each group of windows is flanked by a single window at the tenth story and a single window with balcony crowned by an ogee arch with finial. The eleventh story is crowned by a continuous bracketed cornice, surmounted by a decorative shell frieze. Extending across the roof is a decorative parapet, alternating squat pedestals with sets of five three-dimensional decorative panels.The attic level sets back at the twelfth story. At center, a section of the parapet has been replaced by a pair of non-historic windows. The thirteenth and fourteenth stories have paired central windows with ogee moldings flanked by a single window with sills. The fourteenth story is faced with fleur-del-lys reliefs set within raised interlaced diagonal bands. The east facade is crowned by a bracketed terra-cotta cornice, a decorative frieze, and parapet. Obelisks rise from each of the pedestals. At the north end of the parapet rises a terra-cotta-clad chimney with chimney cap.The west elevation (1930-32) is visible above the adjacent garage and from Eighth Avenue. Brown and beige brickwork frames the double and triple hung windows, as well as the blind windows, on the fifth through eleventh stories. At the top of the eleventh story is a terra-cotta parapet and decorative reliefs. The attic level sets back at the twelfth story. The thirteenth and fourteenth stories each have a single two-over-two window at either end. At the fourteenth story, the windows and a wide central panel are decorated with fleur-de-lys reliefs set within raised interlaced diagonal panels. Decorative parapets mark the base of the fifteenth and sixteenth stories. Above the fifteenth story is a small tower capped by a hipped roof treated to give the appearance of standing seam terne metal with a metal dormer containing three round-arched double-hung windows. Below each window are decorative chevrons. Small finials mark the top of the dormer and roof.The north facade visible above the ninth story. Up to the eleventh story, the facade is clad in light-colored brick or terra cotta. The windows are arranged in groups of three, with delicate sills and lintels on the eleventh story. The eleventh story is crowned by a simple comice with a decorative shell frieze. The attic level sets back at the twelfth story. Across the thirteenth and fourteenth story, from west to east, the fenestration is arranged as follows: a single window with ogee molding, three groups of triple windows with shared sills, a single window with ogee molding, three pairs of windows with sills, a single window with sill, and two slender windows (the windows to the east are not visible). The fourteenth story is faced with fleur-de-lys reliefs set within raised interlaced diagonal bands, and crowned by a bracketed terra-cotta cornice, a decorative frieze, and parapet. Atop each of the pedestals is a small obelisk. Near the east end rises the central tower (see previous description). The upper stories of the tower only are visible from the north end of Shubert Alley, at 45th Street. Toward the west end of the facade, several sections of the parapet have been removed and replaced by glass walls (1985). The small tower has a single window, squat chimney, and hipped roof rising from the parapet at the sixteenth story.- From the 2001 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report
Ganesha, also spelled Ganesh, and also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is a widely worshipped deity in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations. Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.
Although he is known by many attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As the god of beginnings, he is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies. Ganesha is also invoked as patron of letters and learning during writing sessions. Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.
Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors. He was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya arose, who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity. The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.
ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES
Ganesha has been ascribed many other titles and epithets, including Ganapati and Vighneshvara. The Hindu title of respect Shri is often added before his name. One popular way Ganesha is worshipped is by chanting a Ganesha Sahasranama, a litany of "a thousand names of Ganesha". Each name in the sahasranama conveys a different meaning and symbolises a different aspect of Ganesha. At least two different versions of the Ganesha Sahasranama exist; one version is drawn from the Ganesha Purana, a Hindu scripture venerating Ganesha.
The name Ganesha is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words gana, meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system and isha, meaning lord or master. The word gaņa when associated with Ganesha is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of the retinue of Shiva. The term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. Some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of created categories", such as the elements. Ganapati, a synonym for Ganesha, is a compound composed of gaṇa, meaning "group", and pati, meaning "ruler" or "lord". The Amarakosha, an early Sanskrit lexicon, lists eight synonyms of Ganesha : Vinayaka, Vighnarāja (equivalent to Vighnesha), Dvaimātura (one who has two mothers), Gaṇādhipa (equivalent to Ganapati and Ganesha), Ekadanta (one who has one tusk), Heramba, Lambodara (one who has a pot belly, or, literally, one who has a hanging belly), and Gajanana; having the face of an elephant).
Vinayaka is a common name for Ganesha that appears in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. This name is reflected in the naming of the eight famous Ganesha temples in Maharashtra known as the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka). The names Vighnesha and Vighneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) refers to his primary function in Hindu theology as the master and remover of obstacles (vighna).
A prominent name for Ganesha in the Tamil language is Pillai. A. K. Narain differentiates these terms by saying that pillai means a "child" while pillaiyar means a "noble child". He adds that the words pallu, pella, and pell in the Dravidian family of languages signify "tooth or tusk", also "elephant tooth or tusk". Anita Raina Thapan notes that the root word pille in the name Pillaiyar might have originally meant "the young of the elephant", because the Pali word pillaka means "a young elephant".
In the Burmese language, Ganesha is known as Maha Peinne, derived from Pali Mahā Wināyaka. The widespread name of Ganesha in Thailand is Phra Phikhanet or Phra Phikhanesuan, both of which are derived from Vara Vighnesha and Vara Vighneshvara respectively, whereas the name Khanet (from Ganesha) is rather rare.
In Sri Lanka, in the North-Central and North Western areas with predominantly Buddhist population, Ganesha is known as Aiyanayaka Deviyo, while in other Singhala Buddhist areas he is known as Gana deviyo.
ICONOGRAPHY
Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art. Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time. He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down or on an elevated seat, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.
Ganesha images were prevalent in many parts of India by the 6th century. The 13th century statue pictured is typical of Ganesha statuary from 900–1200, after Ganesha had been well-established as an independent deity with his own sect. This example features some of Ganesha's common iconographic elements. A virtually identical statue has been dated between 973–1200 by Paul Martin-Dubost, and another similar statue is dated c. 12th century by Pratapaditya Pal. Ganesha has the head of an elephant and a big belly. This statue has four arms, which is common in depictions of Ganesha. He holds his own broken tusk in his lower-right hand and holds a delicacy, which he samples with his trunk, in his lower-left hand. The motif of Ganesha turning his trunk sharply to his left to taste a sweet in his lower-left hand is a particularly archaic feature. A more primitive statue in one of the Ellora Caves with this general form has been dated to the 7th century. Details of the other hands are difficult to make out on the statue shown. In the standard configuration, Ganesha typically holds an axe or a goad in one upper arm and a pasha (noose) in the other upper arm.
The influence of this old constellation of iconographic elements can still be seen in contemporary representations of Ganesha. In one modern form, the only variation from these old elements is that the lower-right hand does not hold the broken tusk but is turned towards the viewer in a gesture of protection or fearlessness (abhaya mudra). The same combination of four arms and attributes occurs in statues of Ganesha dancing, which is a very popular theme.
COMMON ATTRIBUTES
Ganesha has been represented with the head of an elephant since the early stages of his appearance in Indian art. Puranic myths provide many explanations for how he got his elephant head. One of his popular forms, Heramba-Ganapati, has five elephant heads, and other less-common variations in the number of heads are known. While some texts say that Ganesha was born with an elephant head, he acquires the head later in most stories. The most recurrent motif in these stories is that Ganesha was created by Parvati using clay to protect her and Shiva beheaded him when Ganesha came between Shiva and Parvati. Shiva then replaced Ganesha's original head with that of an elephant. Details of the battle and where the replacement head came from vary from source to source. Another story says that Ganesha was created directly by Shiva's laughter. Because Shiva considered Ganesha too alluring, he gave him the head of an elephant and a protruding belly.
Ganesha's earliest name was Ekadanta (One Tusked), referring to his single whole tusk, the other being broken. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The importance of this distinctive feature is reflected in the Mudgala Purana, which states that the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. Ganesha's protruding belly appears as a distinctive attribute in his earliest statuary, which dates to the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries). This feature is so important that, according to the Mudgala Purana, two different incarnations of Ganesha use names based on it: Lambodara (Pot Belly, or, literally, Hanging Belly) and Mahodara (Great Belly). Both names are Sanskrit compounds describing his belly. The Brahmanda Purana says that Ganesha has the name Lambodara because all the universes (i.e., cosmic eggs) of the past, present, and future are present in him. The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms. Many depictions of Ganesha feature four arms, which is mentioned in Puranic sources and codified as a standard form in some iconographic texts. His earliest images had two arms. Forms with 14 and 20 arms appeared in Central India during the 9th and the 10th centuries. The serpent is a common feature in Ganesha iconography and appears in many forms. According to the Ganesha Purana, Ganesha wrapped the serpent Vasuki around his neck. Other depictions of snakes include use as a sacred thread wrapped around the stomach as a belt, held in a hand, coiled at the ankles, or as a throne. Upon Ganesha's forehead may be a third eye or the Shaivite sectarian mark , which consists of three horizontal lines. The Ganesha Purana prescribes a tilaka mark as well as a crescent moon on the forehead. A distinct form of Ganesha called Bhalachandra includes that iconographic element. Ganesha is often described as red in color. Specific colors are associated with certain forms. Many examples of color associations with specific meditation forms are prescribed in the Sritattvanidhi, a treatise on Hindu iconography. For example, white is associated with his representations as Heramba-Ganapati and Rina-Mochana-Ganapati (Ganapati Who Releases from Bondage). Ekadanta-Ganapati is visualized as blue during meditation in that form.
VAHANAS
The earliest Ganesha images are without a vahana (mount/vehicle). Of the eight incarnations of Ganesha described in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesha uses a mouse (shrew) in five of them, a lion in his incarnation as Vakratunda, a peacock in his incarnation as Vikata, and Shesha, the divine serpent, in his incarnation as Vighnaraja. Mohotkata uses a lion, Mayūreśvara uses a peacock, Dhumraketu uses a horse, and Gajanana uses a mouse, in the four incarnations of Ganesha listed in the Ganesha Purana. Jain depictions of Ganesha show his vahana variously as a mouse, elephant, tortoise, ram, or peacock.
Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse, shrew or rat. Martin-Dubost says that the rat began to appear as the principal vehicle in sculptures of Ganesha in central and western India during the 7th century; the rat was always placed close to his feet. The mouse as a mount first appears in written sources in the Matsya Purana and later in the Brahmananda Purana and Ganesha Purana, where Ganesha uses it as his vehicle in his last incarnation. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa includes a meditation verse on Ganesha that describes the mouse appearing on his flag. The names Mūṣakavāhana (mouse-mount) and Ākhuketana (rat-banner) appear in the Ganesha Sahasranama.
The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome. According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāma-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence. Martin-Dubost notes a view that the rat is a symbol suggesting that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.
ASSOCIATIONS
OBSTACLES
Ganesha is Vighneshvara or Vighnaraja or Vighnaharta (Marathi), the Lord of Obstacles, both of a material and spiritual order. He is popularly worshipped as a remover of obstacles, though traditionally he also places obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked. Paul Courtright says that "his task in the divine scheme of things, his dharma, is to place and remove obstacles. It is his particular territory, the reason for his creation."
Krishan notes that some of Ganesha's names reflect shadings of multiple roles that have evolved over time. Dhavalikar ascribes the quick ascension of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon, and the emergence of the Ganapatyas, to this shift in emphasis from vighnakartā (obstacle-creator) to vighnahartā (obstacle-averter). However, both functions continue to be vital to his character.
BUDDHI (KNOWLEDGE)
Ganesha is considered to be the Lord of letters and learning. In Sanskrit, the word buddhi is a feminine noun that is variously translated as intelligence, wisdom, or intellect. The concept of buddhi is closely associated with the personality of Ganesha, especially in the Puranic period, when many stories stress his cleverness and love of intelligence. One of Ganesha's names in the Ganesha Purana and the Ganesha Sahasranama is Buddhipriya. This name also appears in a list of 21 names at the end of the Ganesha Sahasranama that Ganesha says are especially important. The word priya can mean "fond of", and in a marital context it can mean "lover" or "husband", so the name may mean either "Fond of Intelligence" or "Buddhi's Husband".
AUM
Ganesha is identified with the Hindu mantra Aum, also spelled Om. The term oṃkārasvarūpa (Aum is his form), when identified with Ganesha, refers to the notion that he personifies the primal sound. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa attests to this association. Chinmayananda translates the relevant passage as follows:
(O Lord Ganapati!) You are (the Trinity) Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa. You are Indra. You are fire [Agni] and air [Vāyu]. You are the sun [Sūrya] and the moon [Chandrama]. You are Brahman. You are (the three worlds) Bhuloka [earth], Antariksha-loka [space], and Swargaloka [heaven]. You are Om. (That is to say, You are all this).
Some devotees see similarities between the shape of Ganesha's body in iconography and the shape of Aum in the Devanāgarī and Tamil scripts.
FIRST CHAKRA
According to Kundalini yoga, Ganesha resides in the first chakra, called Muladhara (mūlādhāra). Mula means "original, main"; adhara means "base, foundation". The muladhara chakra is the principle on which the manifestation or outward expansion of primordial Divine Force rests. This association is also attested to in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa. Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Ganesha holds, supports and guides all other chakras, thereby "governing the forces that propel the wheel of life".
FAMILY AND CONSORTS
Though Ganesha is popularly held to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, the Puranic myths give different versions about his birth. In some he was created by Parvati, in another he was created by Shiva and Parvati, in another he appeared mysteriously and was discovered by Shiva and Parvati or he was born from the elephant headed goddess Malini after she drank Parvati's bath water that had been thrown in the river.
The family includes his brother the war god Kartikeya, who is also called Subramanya, Skanda, Murugan and other names. Regional differences dictate the order of their births. In northern India, Skanda is generally said to be the elder, while in the south, Ganesha is considered the first born. In northern India, Skanda was an important martial deity from about 500 BCE to about 600 CE, when worship of him declined significantly in northern India. As Skanda fell, Ganesha rose. Several stories tell of sibling rivalry between the brothers and may reflect sectarian tensions.
Ganesha's marital status, the subject of considerable scholarly review, varies widely in mythological stories. One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as an unmarried brahmacari. This view is common in southern India and parts of northern India. Another pattern associates him with the concepts of Buddhi (intellect), Siddhi (spiritual power), and Riddhi (prosperity); these qualities are sometimes personified as goddesses, said to be Ganesha's wives. He also may be shown with a single consort or a nameless servant (Sanskrit: daşi). Another pattern connects Ganesha with the goddess of culture and the arts, Sarasvati or Śarda (particularly in Maharashtra). He is also associated with the goddess of luck and prosperity, Lakshmi. Another pattern, mainly prevalent in the Bengal region, links Ganesha with the banana tree, Kala Bo.
The Shiva Purana says that Ganesha had begotten two sons: Kşema (prosperity) and Lābha (profit). In northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha. The 1975 Hindi film Jai Santoshi Maa shows Ganesha married to Riddhi and Siddhi and having a daughter named Santoshi Ma, the goddess of satisfaction. This story has no Puranic basis, but Anita Raina Thapan and Lawrence Cohen cite Santoshi Ma's cult as evidence of Ganesha's continuing evolution as a popular deity.
WOSHIP AND FESTIVALS
Ganesha is worshipped on many religious and secular occasions; especially at the beginning of ventures such as buying a vehicle or starting a business. K.N. Somayaji says, "there can hardly be a [Hindu] home [in India] which does not house an idol of Ganapati. [..] Ganapati, being the most popular deity in India, is worshipped by almost all castes and in all parts of the country". Devotees believe that if Ganesha is propitiated, he grants success, prosperity and protection against adversity.
Ganesha is a non-sectarian deity, and Hindus of all denominations invoke him at the beginning of prayers, important undertakings, and religious ceremonies. Dancers and musicians, particularly in southern India, begin performances of arts such as the Bharatnatyam dance with a prayer to Ganesha. Mantras such as Om Shri Gaṇeshāya Namah (Om, salutation to the Illustrious Ganesha) are often used. One of the most famous mantras associated with Ganesha is Om Gaṃ Ganapataye Namah (Om, Gaṃ, Salutation to the Lord of Hosts).
Devotees offer Ganesha sweets such as modaka and small sweet balls (laddus). He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra. Because of his identification with the color red, he is often worshipped with red sandalwood paste (raktacandana) or red flowers. Dūrvā grass (Cynodon dactylon) and other materials are also used in his worship.
Festivals associated with Ganesh are Ganesh Chaturthi or Vināyaka chaturthī in the śuklapakṣa (the fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of bhādrapada (August/September) and the Gaṇeśa jayanti (Gaṇeśa's birthday) celebrated on the cathurthī of the śuklapakṣa (fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of māgha (January/February)."
GANESH CHATURTI
An annual festival honours Ganesha for ten days, starting on Ganesha Chaturthi, which typically falls in late August or early September. The festival begins with people bringing in clay idols of Ganesha, symbolising Ganesha's visit. The festival culminates on the day of Ananta Chaturdashi, when idols (murtis) of Ganesha are immersed in the most convenient body of water. Some families have a tradition of immersion on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 7th day. In 1893, Lokmanya Tilak transformed this annual Ganesha festival from private family celebrations into a grand public event. He did so "to bridge the gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and find an appropriate context in which to build a new grassroots unity between them" in his nationalistic strivings against the British in Maharashtra. Because of Ganesha's wide appeal as "the god for Everyman", Tilak chose him as a rallying point for Indian protest against British rule. Tilak was the first to install large public images of Ganesha in pavilions, and he established the practice of submerging all the public images on the tenth day. Today, Hindus across India celebrate the Ganapati festival with great fervour, though it is most popular in the state of Maharashtra. The festival also assumes huge proportions in Mumbai, Pune, and in the surrounding belt of Ashtavinayaka temples.
TEMPLES
In Hindu temples, Ganesha is depicted in various ways: as an acolyte or subordinate deity (pãrśva-devatã); as a deity related to the principal deity (parivāra-devatã); or as the principal deity of the temple (pradhāna), treated similarly as the highest gods of the Hindu pantheon. As the god of transitions, he is placed at the doorway of many Hindu temples to keep out the unworthy, which is analogous to his role as Parvati’s doorkeeper. In addition, several shrines are dedicated to Ganesha himself, of which the Ashtavinayak (lit. "eight Ganesha (shrines)") in Maharashtra are particularly well known. Located within a 100-kilometer radius of the city of Pune, each of these eight shrines celebrates a particular form of Ganapati, complete with its own lore and legend. The eight shrines are: Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, Ozar and Ranjangaon.
There are many other important Ganesha temples at the following locations: Wai in Maharashtra; Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh; Jodhpur, Nagaur and Raipur (Pali) in Rajasthan; Baidyanath in Bihar; Baroda, Dholaka, and Valsad in Gujarat and Dhundiraj Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Prominent Ganesha temples in southern India include the following: Kanipakam in Chittoor; the Jambukeśvara Temple at Tiruchirapalli; at Rameshvaram and Suchindram in Tamil Nadu; at Malliyur, Kottarakara, Pazhavangadi, Kasargod in Kerala, Hampi, and Idagunji in Karnataka; and Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh.
T. A. Gopinatha notes, "Every village however small has its own image of Vighneśvara (Vigneshvara) with or without a temple to house it in. At entrances of villages and forts, below pīpaḹa (Sacred fig) trees [...], in a niche [...] in temples of Viṣṇu (Vishnu) as well as Śiva (Shiva) and also in separate shrines specially constructed in Śiva temples [...]; the figure of Vighneśvara is invariably seen." Ganesha temples have also been built outside of India, including southeast Asia, Nepal (including the four Vinayaka shrines in the Kathmandu valley), and in several western countries.
RISE TO PROMINENCE
FIRST APEARANCE
Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Shanti Lal Nagar says that the earliest known iconic image of Ganesha is in the niche of the Shiva temple at Bhumra, which has been dated to the Gupta period. His independent cult appeared by about the 10th century. Narain summarizes the controversy between devotees and academics regarding the development of Ganesha as follows:
What is inscrutable is the somewhat dramatic appearance of Gaņeśa on the historical scene. His antecedents are not clear. His wide acceptance and popularity, which transcend sectarian and territorial limits, are indeed amazing. On the one hand there is the pious belief of the orthodox devotees in Gaņeśa's Vedic origins and in the Purāṇic explanations contained in the confusing, but nonetheless interesting, mythology. On the other hand there are doubts about the existence of the idea and the icon of this deity" before the fourth to fifth century A.D. ... [I]n my opinion, indeed there is no convincing evidence of the existence of this divinity prior to the fifth century.
POSSIBLE INFLUENCES
Courtright reviews various speculative theories about the early history of Ganesha, including supposed tribal traditions and animal cults, and dismisses all of them in this way:
In the post 600 BC period there is evidence of people and places named after the animal. The motif appears on coins and sculptures.
Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations about the role elephants had in early India but concludes that, "although by the second century CE the elephant-headed yakṣa form exists it cannot be presumed to represent Gaṇapati-Vināyaka. There is no evidence of a deity by this name having an elephant or elephant-headed form at this early stage. Gaṇapati-Vināyaka had yet to make his debut."
One theory of the origin of Ganesha is that he gradually came to prominence in connection with the four Vinayakas (Vināyakas). In Hindu mythology, the Vināyakas were a group of four troublesome demons who created obstacles and difficulties but who were easily propitiated. The name Vināyaka is a common name for Ganesha both in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. Krishan is one of the academics who accepts this view, stating flatly of Ganesha, "He is a non-vedic god. His origin is to be traced to the four Vināyakas, evil spirits, of the Mānavagŗhyasūtra (7th–4th century BCE) who cause various types of evil and suffering". Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. According to Ellawala, the elephant-headed Ganesha as lord of the Ganas was known to the people of Sri Lanka in the early pre-Christian era.
A metal plate depiction of Ganesha had been discovered in 1993, in Iran, it dated back to 1,200 BCE. Another one was discovered much before, in Lorestan Province of Iran.
First Ganesha's terracotta images are from 1st century CE found in Ter, Pal, Verrapuram and Chandraketugarh. These figures are small, with elephant head, two arms, and chubby physique. The earliest Ganesha icons in stone were carved in Mathura during Kushan times (2nd-3rd centuries CE).
VEDIC AND EPIC LITERATURE
The title "Leader of the group" (Sanskrit: gaṇapati) occurs twice in the Rig Veda, but in neither case does it refer to the modern Ganesha. The term appears in RV 2.23.1 as a title for Brahmanaspati, according to commentators. While this verse doubtless refers to Brahmanaspati, it was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is still used today. In rejecting any claim that this passage is evidence of Ganesha in the Rig Veda, Ludo Rocher says that it "clearly refers to Bṛhaspati—who is the deity of the hymn—and Bṛhaspati only". Equally clearly, the second passage (RV 10.112.9) refers to Indra, who is given the epithet 'gaṇapati', translated "Lord of the companies (of the Maruts)." However, Rocher notes that the more recent Ganapatya literature often quotes the Rigvedic verses to give Vedic respectability to Ganesha .
Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha, and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club, is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin". However, Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions. Thapan reports that these passages are "generally considered to have been interpolated". Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity".
Ganesha does not appear in Indian epic literature that is dated to the Vedic period. A late interpolation to the epic poem Mahabharata says that the sage Vyasa (Vyāsa) asked Ganesha to serve as his scribe to transcribe the poem as he dictated it to him. Ganesha agreed but only on condition that Vyasa recite the poem uninterrupted, that is, without pausing. The sage agreed, but found that to get any rest he needed to recite very complex passages so Ganesha would have to ask for clarifications. The story is not accepted as part of the original text by the editors of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, in which the twenty-line story is relegated to a footnote in an appendix. The story of Ganesha acting as the scribe occurs in 37 of the 59 manuscripts consulted during preparation of the critical edition. Ganesha's association with mental agility and learning is one reason he is shown as scribe for Vyāsa's dictation of the Mahabharata in this interpolation. Richard L. Brown dates the story to the 8th century, and Moriz Winternitz concludes that it was known as early as c. 900, but it was not added to the Mahabharata some 150 years later. Winternitz also notes that a distinctive feature in South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata is their omission of this Ganesha legend. The term vināyaka is found in some recensions of the Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva that are regarded as interpolations. A reference to Vighnakartṛīṇām ("Creator of Obstacles") in Vanaparva is also believed to be an interpolation and does not appear in the critical edition.
PURANIC PERIOD
Stories about Ganesha often occur in the Puranic corpus. Brown notes while the Puranas "defy precise chronological ordering", the more detailed narratives of Ganesha's life are in the late texts, c. 600–1300. Yuvraj Krishan says that the Puranic myths about the birth of Ganesha and how he acquired an elephant's head are in the later Puranas, which were composed from c. 600 onwards. He elaborates on the matter to say that references to Ganesha in the earlier Puranas, such as the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, are later interpolations made during the 7th to 10th centuries.
In his survey of Ganesha's rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature, Ludo Rocher notes that:
Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa concentrate on an unexpectedly limited number of incidents. These incidents are mainly three: his birth and parenthood, his elephant head, and his single tusk. Other incidents are touched on in the texts, but to a far lesser extent.
Ganesha's rise to prominence was codified in the 9th century, when he was formally included as one of the five primary deities of Smartism. The 9th-century philosopher Adi Shankara popularized the "worship of the five forms" (Panchayatana puja) system among orthodox Brahmins of the Smarta tradition. This worship practice invokes the five deities Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Surya. Adi Shankara instituted the tradition primarily to unite the principal deities of these five major sects on an equal status. This formalized the role of Ganesha as a complementary deity.
SCRIPTURES
Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism, some Brahmins (brāhmaṇas) chose to worship Ganesha as their principal deity. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.
The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana - and their dating relative to one another - has sparked academic debate. Both works were developed over time and contain age-layered strata. Anita Thapan reviews comments about dating and provides her own judgement. "It seems likely that the core of the Ganesha Purana appeared around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries", she says, "but was later interpolated." Lawrence W. Preston considers the most reasonable date for the Ganesha Purana to be between 1100 and 1400, which coincides with the apparent age of the sacred sites mentioned by the text.
R.C. Hazra suggests that the Mudgala Purana is older than the Ganesha Purana, which he dates between 1100 and 1400. However, Phyllis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. She bases her reasoning on the fact that, among other internal evidence, the Mudgala Purana specifically mentions the Ganesha Purana as one of the four Puranas (the Brahma, the Brahmanda, the Ganesha, and the Mudgala Puranas) which deal at length with Ganesha. While the kernel of the text must be old, it was interpolated until the 17th and 18th centuries as the worship of Ganapati became more important in certain regions. Another highly regarded scripture, the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, was probably composed during the 16th or 17th centuries.
BEYOND INDIA AND HINDUISM
Commercial and cultural contacts extended India's influence in western and southeast Asia. Ganesha is one of a number of Hindu deities who reached foreign lands as a result.
Ganesha was particularly worshipped by traders and merchants, who went out of India for commercial ventures. From approximately the 10th century onwards, new networks of exchange developed including the formation of trade guilds and a resurgence of money circulation. During this time, Ganesha became the principal deity associated with traders. The earliest inscription invoking Ganesha before any other deity is associated with the merchant community.
Hindus migrated to Maritime Southeast Asia and took their culture, including Ganesha, with them. Statues of Ganesha are found throughout the region, often beside Shiva sanctuaries. The forms of Ganesha found in Hindu art of Java, Bali, and Borneo show specific regional influences. The spread of Hindu culture to southeast Asia established Ganesha in modified forms in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand. In Indochina, Hinduism and Buddhism were practiced side by side, and mutual influences can be seen in the iconography of Ganesha in the region. In Thailand, Cambodia, and among the Hindu classes of the Chams in Vietnam, Ganesha was mainly thought of as a remover of obstacles. Today in Buddhist Thailand, Ganesha is regarded as a remover of obstacles, the god of success.
Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan had close cultural ties with India, and the adoration of both Hindu and Buddhist deities was practiced. Examples of sculptures from the 5th to the 7th centuries have survived, suggesting that the worship of Ganesha was then in vogue in the region.
Ganesha appears in Mahayana Buddhism, not only in the form of the Buddhist god Vināyaka, but also as a Hindu demon form with the same name. His image appears in Buddhist sculptures during the late Gupta period. As the Buddhist god Vināyaka, he is often shown dancing. This form, called Nṛtta Ganapati, was popular in northern India, later adopted in Nepal, and then in Tibet. In Nepal, the Hindu form of Ganesha, known as Heramba, is popular; he has five heads and rides a lion. Tibetan representations of Ganesha show ambivalent views of him. A Tibetan rendering of Ganapati is tshogs bdag. In one Tibetan form, he is shown being trodden under foot by Mahākāla, (Shiva) a popular Tibetan deity. Other depictions show him as the Destroyer of Obstacles, and sometimes dancing. Ganesha appears in China and Japan in forms that show distinct regional character. In northern China, the earliest known stone statue of Ganesha carries an inscription dated to 531. In Japan, where Ganesha is known as Kangiten, the Ganesha cult was first mentioned in 806.
The canonical literature of Jainism does not mention the worship of Ganesha. However, Ganesha is worshipped by most Jains, for whom he appears to have taken over certain functions of Kubera. Jain connections with the trading community support the idea that Jainism took up Ganesha worship as a result of commercial connections. The earliest known Jain Ganesha statue dates to about the 9th century. A 15th-century Jain text lists procedures for the installation of Ganapati images. Images of Ganesha appear in the Jain temples of Rajasthan and Gujarat.
WIKIPEDIA
“Tell me again how you think God will judge others for who they love, and not judge you for hating someone you’ve never met?”
Con respecto al resto del equipo, que incluye a los concejales del Ayuntamiento de Sevilla Alberto Moriñas y Joaquín Díaz, está formado por Victoria Olías, Alejandro Guerra, Marina Cortés, José Manuel Girela, Rosario Crespo, Eloy López, Lucrecio Fernández, Javier Fernández Hernández, Adela Castaño, Enrique Cousinou, Nieves Martínez, Juan Carlos Ruiz, Luis Navarrete, Eva María Díaz, Carmen Lora, Manuel Llorente, María Dolores Fernández, Antonio Rodríguez, Francisco Páez, Evaristo Troya, Macarena Sánchez, Yolanda de la Bandera, Blanca García, Juan Miguel Bazaga, Elena González, Carmela Gálvez, Rocío García, Virtudes Sánchez, Trinidad Camacho y Micaela López Donoso.
Don't use this image on websites, blogs or other media without my explicit permission. Please respect "My Copyright ©2014" - All rights reserved.
I tried it! It took a lot of trial and error, and the results are mostly a bit sketchy.
Attempting this gave me new respect for our very talented pad print artists out there. (CB, I'm looking at you)!
I used the butterfly on one brick because it is the plate with the finest detail. The striped plate was used to demonstrate a pattern, but doing it with the black paint (which is too thin) meant lots of brick showing through (it still looks pretty neat IRL, but far from perfect. And of course, I had to demo on a Brickarm too.
But back to the method itself, some of the challenges I had to overcome:
Getting the right paint is critical - I thought I could use supplies on hand, but I ended up ordering special paint in white. You can tell that it prints much better than the black. But here's the thing - the paint can't be too thick or too thin or the image will either blur or transfer incompletely. Then it has to dry in the right amount of time. If it dries too fast, you'll get no print transfer. And since it's a single, very thin layer, it has to be very pigmented, so you can't just water down paint that's not the right consistency.
The first kit I bought had a silicone pad that was way too slick and firm. You can't get around any curves if the pad won't bend enough and it didn't want to leave the imprint on plastic at all. Even with a softer pad on a Brickarm, it wasn't flexible enough to get into the recesses. I only had success on smooth areas.
On a good, clean transfer, the result is an even, thin coat of paint that is slightly raised to the touch. For durability, it is about the same as paint - useful for display or light play only.
Real pad printers, I think, use special inks that set under heat or light to make them vastly more durable.
Plate (design) selection is very limited too - there just aren't that many designs
or patterns small enough to use on Lego and the vast majority of them are not things most builders and customizers would find useful.
So what is this good for? The only good use I can imagine is factions. If you found a symbol you liked, you could transfer it consistently onto figures, bricks and accessories.
And here's the doozie...where did I get little plates and silicone pads?
Well...there are kits for "stamping" fingernail designs that are really just an at-home version of pad printing by hand. You get steel plates with 6 or 7 designs engraved on each, a silicone pad and special paint to work with the kit (regular fingernail polish doesn't work well at all). It's
not very expensive, but then again, the results aren't exactly stellar!
-Bebs
Please respect copyright! All images are protected under UK copyright law and the Berne international copyright convention and are visibly and/or invisibly watermarked. No images are within the public domain. images may not be reproduced, copied, used or altered in any way, by any method, without written permission
©soundimageplus soundimageplus.blogspot.com/.
panasonic lumix GF1 20mm F/1.7 pancake lens micro four thirds m4/3
© István Pénzes.
Please NOTE and RESPECT the copyright.
9 February 2013
Hasselblad 503CW
Carl Zeiss Distagon 4.0/50
Fuji Neopan 400
Emofin
Imacon Flextight 343
By respected architect Archibald Elliott (Edinburgh), 1823. Model castellated jail built on site of former Jedburgh Castle (demolished 1409). Sham battlements with small towers at angles (entrance in NE tower) enclosing a D-plan site at top of Castle Gate. At centre of site square 2-storey 3-bay Gaoler's House with towers at each corner; flanked by rectangular 2-storey 5-bay cell blocks. Walls enclosing quadrants between blocks serving as exercise yards. Buildings and walls of cream sandstone rubble with ashlar dressings; buildings and fortifications with battlemented parapet and moulded ashlar coping; quadrant walls with plain semi-circular coping. Base course and string courses above ground floor and below parapet. All windows with deep splayed reveals.
Jedburgh old Castle Jail is a fine example of a purpose built early 19th century jail with a complex double walled layout, demonstrating some fine castellated stone detailing, and prominently sited to the head of the town’s main street on the mound of the demolished Jedburgh Castle. It is contemporary and in the same style as the larger Stirling Old Town Jail, although Jedburgh is a more refined plan layout and design.
Jedburgh castle had been demolished by the Scots in 1409 to prevent the English using it during the Border wars, and all that remained was fragments of masonry. The mound on which it stood was largely covered by trees, and was the site of the town gallows. Archibald Elliott, the architect of Edinburgh's Calton Jail, was chosen to design the new jail and by 1834 the Parish Minister John Purves remarked that there was "no more comfortable place of confinement in Scotland.” In 1847 the jail was altered to come into line with the Prison Acts of 1839 which stipulated separate cells. The Bridewell, having been originally built with separate cells anyway, is therefore the least altered part of the complex. Jedburgh jail at one point moved someone to poetry:
I'd rather lie in the belly o' a whale
Than spend a nicht in Jethart Gaol.
www.twitter.com/Memoire2cite #recherche #archives #Banlieue #socialhousing #logement #Collectif #Copropriété #Habitation #Habitat #HLM #Quartier #Béton #immeuble #Cité #Moderne #Europe #World #Mémoire2Cité #Mémoire2Ville @ Les 30 Glorieuses . com l' #Urbanisme d'Antan, et ses belles cartes postales @ mais aussi les clichés d'Archilaid, comme les "prix citron" de la France moche.. ou encore la laideur architecturale en Françe et Ailleurs. Dans le triste sillage des cités de banlieue construites ds les années 50, 60, 70... @ l'apres guerre.. dans l'urbanisation massive des territoires via l'industrialisation du logement @ le Logement Collectif* 50,60,70's dans tous ses états..Histoire & Mémoire de l'Habitat / Rétro-Villes / HLM / Banlieue / Renouvellement Urbain / Urbanisme @ De grandes barres d’immeubles, appelées les grands ensembles, sont le symbole de nos banlieues. Entrée Libre revient sur le phénomène de destruction de ces bâtiments banlieue89 ANRU1 ANRU2 bientot ANRU3 @ le Renouvellement urbain, la rénovation urbaine, des "Ensembles Tout Béton" qui reflètent aujourd’hui la misere www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCqHBP5SBiM L'urbanisation à marche forcée des années 60 est devenue synonyme de bétonnage et d'enlaidissement. Dans L'Express du 23 août 1971 @ "La loi du 7 juillet dernier relative à la liberté de la création, à l'architecture et au patrimoine a ainsi créé un label spécifique permettant de veiller sur cet héritage architectural récent, que le Comité du patrimoine mondial de l'Unesco vient lui aussi de mettre en lumière", ajoute la ministre de la Culture.
Pas un village, dans la plus reculée des provinces, qui ne soit atteint. C'est comme une lèpre qui, peu à peu, prolifère sur l'épiderme du paysage urbain français. Un des plus beaux du monde, disait-on. Agressive médiocrité des bâtiments publics, des écoles, des postes, des administrations, monotonie concentrationnaire des grands ensembles, prétention et passéisme débile des maisons individuelles : le bilan architectural des dix dernières années est, en France, catastrophique. Jamais on n'a autant construit. Jamais si mal, si pauvre, si triste. A de rares exceptions. Cela devient si flagrant à la lumière de l'été, que même l'O.r.t.f. s'en est ému. Après Vivre aujourd'hui, l'émission de Jacques Frémontier (dimanche, consacrée à "la rue"), La France défigurée, de Michel Péricart et Louis Bériot, a donné l'alerte : par milliers, des témoignages ont afflué. Les Français prennent conscience du mal et s'interrogent : "Comment, pourquoi, en est-on arrivé là ?" Spéculation Que "cet avachissement, cet avilissement de la qualité architecturale", comme le définit M. Michel Denieul, directeur de l'Architecture au ministère des Affaires culturelles, ne soit pas l'exclusivité de la France, personne ne le conteste. Le monde entier connaît un malaise architectural. Après avoir, des siècles durant, bâti pour le seigneur, le prince, le mécène, l'architecture ne sait pas encore bâtir pour la masse, le peuple, "l'innombrable", comme le dit l'architecte Emile Aillaud. En Grande-Bretagne, en Allemagne, en Italie, aux Etats-Unis, aussi, elle tâtonne. Ce n'est pas une consolation. Ni une raison suffisante pour admettre comme une fatalité la piètre architecture française. Ni pour excuser ceux qui l'ont laissée pousser comme les mauvaises graines, à tous les vents. Le premier des responsables, avant les architectes dépassés (voir page suivante l'opinion de Pierre Schneider) et les promoteurs avides, c'est l'Etat. Qui, par le jeu des servitudes, des permis de construire, etc., contrôle et, le plus souvent, paralyse la totalité de ce qui se bâtit en France. Qui est lui-même le premier client des architectes, le premier maître d'ouvrage des nouveaux édifices (hôpitaux, écoles, logements sociaux). Qui, à ce titre, aurait pu, et ne l'a pas fait, promouvoir une politique de l'habitation qui soit une politique d'embellissement. "Construire beaucoup, c'est une occasion d'embellir", dit Bertrand de Jouvenel.Au lieu de cela, que voit-on, en dépit de la réaction amorcée depuis quelques années par le ministère des Affaires culturelles ? La médiocrité primée, la création handicapée, la spéculation triomphante. Les grands ensembles sont une erreur, mais nous ne savons pas pourquoi. Colin Davidson, professeur à l'Ecole d'architecture de l'université de Montréal.Dans un vieux pays comme la France, pour lutter contre la laideur, il y a deux méthodes : une stratégie de choc qui favorise la qualité architecturale ; une stratégie défensive qui prévient la détérioration du patrimoine ancien. La première n'a jamais été définie. Comment s'étonner des résultats ? On ne s'est même jamais soucié d'en jeter les bases en pratiquant une politique d'urbanisme conséquente. "Une ville comme Paris, dit M. Denieul, se caractérise par une propension à accorder les permis de construire, quand ils sont demandés, au coup par coup. Et cela, faute de documents d'urbanisme suffisamment précis, souples et contraignants en même temps."Appréciation Contre ce système du n'importe quoi, n'importe où, n'importe comment, M. André Malraux avait voulu réagir. Il avait demandé à l'architecte urbaniste Gaston Leclaire d'étudier l'aménagement du quartier de la rotonde de La Villette, et spécialement des abords du bassin, appelé à devenir le pôle d'attraction d'un site urbain peu connu et insolite. L'étude a été menée à terme, mais ses conclusions sont restées lettre morte. De telles études, faites systématiquement, auraient pu freiner bien des désastres, non seulement à Paris, mais sur la Côte d'Azur, autre victime notoire d'une urbanisation désordonnée. Et servir de tremplin à une architecture raisonnée, sinon réussie, alors que celle dont nous souffrons n'est ni l'un ni l'autre. C'est aussi M. André Malraux qui, par la loi du 4 août 1962, dite des secteurs sauvegardés, tenta de consolider la stratégie défensive. De fait, à l'intérieur des quartiers préservés, au voisinage des monuments historiques on ne peut construire ni détruire n'importe quoi. Un immeuble tout en verre où se reflète la cathédrale d'Amiens ? Soit : le mélange des siècles n'est pas prohibé, au contraire, c'est la vie même des villes. A condition que les deux architectures soient, comme c'est le cas, bien intégrées l'une à l'autre. La R.a.t.p., en revanche, n'a pas reçu le droit de construire sur les quais de la Seine, déjà si meurtris, une tour de bureaux qui viendrait s'inscrire entre celles de Notre-Dame. Il y aurait donc sauvegarde sans le drame des dérogations laissées à l'appréciation des administrations. A cause d'une de ces dérogations, va s'élever, rue de l'Université, l'immeuble de bureaux réservé aux membres de l'Assemblée nationale. On le verra, de la place de la Concorde, se profiler derrière les deux étages de l'hôtel de Lassay, résidence du président de l'Assemblée. Dérogation aussi pour la barre massive des immeubles de Maine-Montparnasse et la tour de 200 m qui les couronnera : quand la maquette fut présentée devant la Commission des sites, un ministre et cinq préfets étaient présents pour l'appuyer de leur autorité politique. Il n'y eut pour ainsi dire pas de discussion. Quant à la tour de la Halle aux vins, autre pont aux ânes architectural, c'est l'enfant bâtard d'un grand projet : une flèche hélicoïdale, construite par l'architecte Edouard Albert, et couverte de mosaïque par Georges Braque. Hélas ! Albert et Braque sont morts, et les Parisiens n'ont sous les yeux que la tour sans génie d'Henri Coulomb. Bénédiction A Strasbourg, c'est le maire lui-même, M. Pierre Pflimlin, qui s'est obstiné à permettre la construction, à deux pas de la cathédrale, d'un complexe immobilier de 60 m de haut et de plus de 60 millions de Francs. La Commission départementale des sites, les Monuments historiques, la direction départementale de l'Equipement ont émis un avis défavorable. Les P.t.t. aussi, car cette tour fera écran aux liaisons hertziennes entre Strasbourg et Paris. Rien n'y a fait. M. Pflimlin a gagné. Les P.t.t. devront déplacer le relais de leurs ondes hertziennes, situé à Saverne, et la flèche rose de la cathédrale, point de ralliement de toute l'Alsace, se verra fâcheusement disputer le ciel. La Côte d'Azur regorge, hélas ! d'exemples tout aussi significatifs. Le dernier en date n'est pas le moins accablant. A Mandelieu-La Napoule, sur un terre-plein de 10 ha gagné sur la mer, vient d'être construit un "complexe" d'une quinzaine d'immeubles, hauts de sept étages, et d'une médiocrité affligeante, qui dépare un des plus beaux panoramas de la Côte, entre le massif de l'Esterel et les îles de Lérins. Avant de voir le jour, ce projet a reçu toutes les bénédictions officielles. Quinze organismes différents ont été consultés par le Conseil municipal, et, parmi eux, la Commission des sites. Pas un souffle de protestation ne s'est élevé. L'affaire est remontée à Paris. Finalement, le ministre de l'Equipement lui-même a signé le permis de construire et la concession d'endigage du port. Aujourd'hui, l'Association pour la défense des sites de Cannes et des environs distribue la photo du chantier à des milliers d'exemplaires. "Ce que nous voulons empêcher désormais." Et Mme Louise Moreau, élue maire de La Napoule aux dernières élections, est formelle : "Si, alors, j'avais été maire, je n'aurais jamais permis cela."
Répétition D'une part, l'Etat protège peu ou mal, d'autre part, loin de promouvoir la recherche et la qualité, il impose les normes d'une architecture concentrationnaire. Ainsi par le système des Cos (Coefficients d'occupation des sols), dans Paris et dans les grandes villes, où la pression de la rentabilité est énorme, on construit au maximum, même si c'est dépourvu de toute plausibilité, même si, du point de vue architectural. c'est une hérésie. "Il faudrait, dit M. Denieul, créer des zones de discontinuité : des Cos de 3 à un endroit, et, à d'autres, des Cos de 0 à 5, ce qui donnerait au faciès urbain un modelé, un relief. Au lieu de cela, le mot d'ordre est de 'bourrer' partout. Et le XVIe arrondissement de Paris, entre autres victimes, devient un immense chantier où se multiplient les surélévations intempestives." A quoi M. Jean Chapon, directeur du cabinet de M. Albin Chalandon, rétorque : "Il faut bâtir au maximum, sinon, où logera-t-on les milliers de gens qui affluent dans les villes ?" On touche, ici, au coeur du problème. Parce que les besoins étaient immenses et impérieux, on a construit beaucoup. Très vite. Sans se préoccuper du plaisir de vivre des futurs habitants. Comme si un environnement harmonieux était un luxe, cet environnement que les arbres et les champs fournissaient naturellement aux gens d'autrefois. Comme si l'on ne savait pas que la laideur monotone sécrète l'ennui, la morosité, le désespoir. Était-il impossible, au même prix, de construire bien ? Les réussites d'Emile Aillaud, par exemple, à Grigny-la-Grande-Borne, ou de Michel Andrault et de Pierre Parat à Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois prouvent le contraire. Même avec les crédits limités des H.l.m., même en respectant les normes étouffantes de l'urbanisme réglementaire, on peut créer des habitations à l'échelle de l'homme, du paysage, des architectures favorables à la détente et au bien-être. Ce n'est pas une question de crédits, ni de servitudes ni de préfabrication. C'est une question d'audace, d'invention. Malheureusement, les inventeurs, en cette époque de conformisme, sont rares, et on les encourage peu. Sauf dans les cas où l'obstination d'un créateur a réussi à vaincre les résistances pour modeler un univers vraiment neuf, on s'est contenté d'additionner, de juxtaposer les machines à vivre, les cités dortoirs, de confondre industrialisation et répétition, fonctionnalisme et monotonie. Multiplication "Quand je me promène autour de Paris, disait, peu de temps avant sa mort, le grand architecte américain Richard Neutra, j'ai l'impression que ceux qui bâtissent n'ont jamais été à l'école maternelle. Ils ne savent pas où le soleil se lève, ni où il se couche. Ils ont oublié que l'homme a besoin de chlorophylle comme les arbres et d'espace comme les oiseaux. Ils ne savent faire que des prisons." Le ministère de l'Equipement, pour sa part, est fier d'avoir mis au point un catalogue de grands ensembles --boîtes géantes et tours de tous calibres -- qui permet aux maires et aux offices d'H.l.m. de choisir sur photos et sur plans des immeubles types, spécialement étudiés par des architectes (certains sont renommés) qui en garantissent la qualité de la fabrication et le prix. Au ministère de l'Education nationale qui, à lui seul, dépense 3 milliards par an pour construire 4 millions de m2 (un C.e.s. par jour), on prône la préfabrication (sauf dans les établissements de l'enseignement supérieur). Chaque année, parmi les propositions des trente-cinq entreprises agréées, qui se sont engagées à ne pas dépasser le prix plafond de 520 Francs le m2, on choisit trois ou quatre types nouveaux de C.e.s. On les expérimente en petite série l'année suivante. Puis, on se lance dans la fabrication industrielle. En soi, le système pourrait être bon. S'il n'aboutissait pas à la multiplication de bâtiments déprimants. Même à Cajarc (Lot), cher à M. Georges Pompidou, le C.e.s. offense la vue. L'Education nationale, à qui incombe, entre autres tâches, le soin de former l'oeil et le goût des enfants, ne s'en émeut pas. "Elle n'accepte, dit un haut fonctionnaire, aucun conseil, et se drape dans sa dignité de gros consommateur d'architecture." Subvention Le ministère de l'Agriculture n'agit pas avec plus de discernement. Il n'impose pas de modèles. Mais les prix plafonds des bâtiments agricoles ont été calculés si bas (en partant de la tôle ondulée et du parpaing non enduit) que l'agriculteur qui souhaiterait construire convenablement ne peut le faire, sans risquer de perdre le bénéfice de la subvention. Ainsi, la campagne française s'est couverte peu à peu de bergeries et d'étables qu'on dirait échappées de bidonvilles. Aucun site n'est épargné. Ni la Bretagne ni la Lozère. Si le classement de Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises n'était pas intervenu à temps, un hangar de tôle ondulée serait venu boucher la perspective historique qui s'étend devant la Boisserie... Une grande part de ces diverses calamités est due à l'incompétence des maîtres d'ouvrage - fonctionnaires et élus - desquels dépend la commande publique. "Le sens de l'architecture est aussi rare chez eux que le bon sens", disait quelqu'un qui les pratique. Et Raymonde Moulin, dans sa récente étude sur l'Etat et les architectes, l'a noté : "L'intérêt pour la qualité architecturale appartient sinon à l'ordre du rêve, du moins de ce qui peut être considéré comme un hasard heureux." Les promoteurs privés ne sont pas plus royalistes que le roi. Pas plus que l'Etat, ils ne se soucient d'apporter aux Français le plaisir que procure un heureux agencement de l'espace. Pour la plupart, ils se contentent d'appâter avec du clinquant - baies vitrées, travertin dans le hall, céramique dans la salle de bains - et offrent des immeubles de (faux) prestige, mal insonorisés, mal compris, étriqués, qui n'ont que de lointains rapports avec l'architecture, même s'ils portent des signatures connues.
Impulsion Peut-on enrayer l'épidémie de laideur ? Alertés par les avertissements de la Commission du VIe Plan, les Pouvoirs publics semblent vouloir secouer leur torpeur. Pas question de définir une politique. "On ne peut imposer une architecture officielle, comme en U.R.S.S., se défend M. Chapon. Nous sommes en pays de liberté." Mais on éprouve la nécessité d'agir. Premier essai de stratégie dynamique : le plan-construction, lancé, en mai, conjointement par MM. Chalandon, Jacques Duhamel et François-Xavier Ortoli. Son objectif avoué : rechercher un habitat qui réponde mieux au besoin de l'homme d'aujourd'hui. En fait, il s'agit de trouver des remèdes à l'échec des grands ensembles.
Au ministère des Affaires culturelles, dans la même foulée réformatrice on prépare deux projets de loi : l'un sur la profession d'architecte, l'autre sur les conditions de la commande publique. Toujours sous l'impulsion de M. Duhamel, la Fondation de France finance un concours d'architecture agricole qui sera lancé à l'automne en Franche-Comté, en Bourgogne et en Bretagne. Enfin, une étude a été menée pour voir de quelle façon on pourrait, dès l'école maternelle, sensibiliser les enfants aux problèmes de volumes et d'espaces. Il reste à convaincre l'Education nationale d'inscrire cet enseignement nouveau à ses programmes.A la direction de l'Architecture, malgré les faibles moyens financiers dont il dispose, M. Denieul souhaite influer plus directement sur la qualité de la construction, en développant les services de la création architecturale. Dans les trente prochaines années, la France va construire autant de logements qu'il en existe actuellement. Il est temps de se souvenir que le degré de civilisation d'un peuple se juge à la qualité des édifices qu'il laisse à la postérité. "La France n'est ni belle ni laide", Vasarely "La France n'est ni belle ni laide. C'est le point de vue où nous nous plaçons qui décide. Celui qui se promène à New York ne voit qu'une ville chaotique et sale. Mais si, le soir, on arrive de l'aéroport, on découvre les gratte-ciel illuminés qui émergent au-dessus du fog. C'est un spectacle inoubliable. La Courneuve ou Sarcelles, vues d'avion, présentent des aspects intéressants.""Remédier à la laideur est une tâche extrêmement complexe qui se place sur d'innombrables plans, sociologiques, psychologiques, esthétiques. Le gouvernement actuel est favorable à l'esthétique, mais peut-on imposer la beauté comme on a imposé la vaccination obligatoire ? Actuellement on construit partout des habitations du genre clapier. Ce phénomène est universel. Sarcelles et Saint-Denis ressemblent à Sydney ou à Tokyo." Le droit à la beauté, par Pierre Schneider Le mot "esthétique" a mauvaise presse. Mais l'esthétique, dans la bouche des architectes, c'est ce que font les autres... En réalité, jamais l'architecture n'a été plus préoccupée de beauté. Elle peut prendre les formes les plus diverses. Ici, elle est dans l'intense présence d'un édifice ; là, dans un agencement heureux de l'espace obtenu par des moyens insignifiants. Tantôt harmonieuse, tantôt agressive. L'élégance du chemin le plus court, mais aussi l'extravagance du chemin des écoliers : Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe ne nie pas Antonio Gaudi. L'essentiel est de ne pas se soumettre passivement aux idées reçues, d'exprimer son temps - fût-ce en s'efforçant de le réorienter. "Lorsqu'une oeuvre est à son maximum d'intensité, de proportions, de qualité d'exécution, de perfection, il se produit un phénomène d'espace indicible, les lieux se mettent à rayonner, physiquement. C'est du domaine de l'ineffable." Cette définition du beau est due au père du fonctionnalisme : Edouard Le Corbusier. L'absence de volonté créatrice se traduit par des formes inertes. Et l'inertie démoralise. Le jour n'est pas loin où le plus fanatique des technocrates sera contraint d'inclure le droit à la beauté dans ses frais généraux. A quelques exceptions près, l'histoire de l'architecture moderne - celle du dernier quart de siècle, surtout - ne s'est pas écrite en France. Pourquoi ? La raison la plus évidente est qu'elle n'a pas voulu ou su produire des architectes. La faute en incombe, en premier lieu, à l'Ecole des beaux-arts. La formation, ou plutôt la déformation qu'elle dispensait à ses élèves, était, depuis cent cinquante ans, résolument passéiste : on se référait à Versailles ou au Parthénon, oubliant que leur pouvoir de fascination venait de ce qu'ils avaient été, en leur temps, des bâtiments modernes. Le premier travail des élèves utilisant l'acier, le verre, fut présenté à l'Ecole en 1950.Vers 1956, un groupe d'élèves qui proposaient à Nicolas Untersteller, directeur de l'Ecole, d'organiser une exposition Mies Van der Rohe, s'entendirent répondre : "Je ne connais pas cette demoiselle." Un promoteur définit assez brutalement le produit de cet enseignement figé : "Les architectes ? Ils se croient des artistes. Ils ignorent la vie." Effectivement, l'Ecole n'a pas su assimiler la révolution industrielle. Vers 1840, un divorce s'opère entre architecte et ingénieur. Le premier n'a que mépris pour le second. Lorsque, au début du siècle, Fulgence Bienvenüe, ingénieur en chef du métropolitain, veut enseigner aux élèves de l'Ecole la technique du béton armé, ceux-ci le chahutent au cri de : "Tu nous prends pour des entrepreneurs ?" Bibliothèque nationale, Halles de Baltard, viaduc de Garabit - les chefs-d'oeuvre de la construction industrielle du XIXe siècle sont si peu considérés comme de l'architecture, que le premier d'entre eux à avoir été classé monument historique fut la tour Eiffel. Depuis quelques générations, les architectes apprenaient les techniques modernes, mais comme un mal nécessaire. "Un tuyau, ça se cache", dit l'un d'eux. Ils acceptaient de construire une usine ou une H.l.m. - il faut bien vivre - mais leur rêve restait de bâtir pour un prince. Aucune place n'était faite, dans l'enseignement, à l'économie, à la sociologie - en un mot à la donnée humaine qui est à la fois le grand problème de l'époque et sa chance de renouvellement : les nombres. Que pèsent ces rêveurs anachroniques en face de gens qui ont le sens des réalités - ceux-là mêmes qui les font travailler : les promoteurs ? Rien. Dans les pays anglo-saxons, l'architecte est respecté ; chez nous, c'est le pauvre type qui oublie un escalier. Un promoteur explique : "Comment je choisis un architecte ? C'est simple : je prends celui qui fait ce que je veux." Et ce qu'il veut, c'est ce qui se vend, c'est-à-dire le "standing". Il n'y a pas de grand architecte sans grand client, note l'architecte Michel Bezançon. Or, à l'encontre des Etats-Unis ou de l'Italie, en France, l'architecture ne se vend pas comme image de marque." M. Claude Alphandéry, P.d.g. de la Banque de la construction et des travaux publics, confirme : "Les gens d'affaires français ne considèrent pas encore l'architecture comme le bon signe extérieur de la réussite." Créer, dans ces conditions, tient du miracle. L'architecture abdique ou se condamne à périr de faim. Dans le secteur public, l'accueil à l'architecture vivante n'est pas meilleur que dans le privé. L'architecte, pour faire aboutir un projet, doit avoir l'obstination des personnages de Kafka. Un disciple connu de Le Corbusier se voit refuser une commande parce que, selon les mots du financier désolé, "il n'a personne dans sa manche". Savoir se débrouiller est plus important que savoir créer. "Le secteur public est démembré en parties qui doivent négocier entre elles", explique M. Alphandéry. D'excellentes réalisations, toutes dues à la volonté d'individus, soulignent d'autant plus cruellement la formidable indifférence des hommes politiques (qu'ils soient de droite ou de gauche) et des technocrates à "la dimension poétique". Les ministres se préoccupent de pouvoir proclamer à la fin de l'année qu'on a construit tant de logis, mais II ne vient à l'idée de personne de supposer que ces logis devraient, en toute justice, tomber sous le coup de la loi qui interdit de déposer des ordures sur la voie publique. Pourtant, il est des raisons d'espérer. La principale est l'apparition d'une génération d'architectes pour qui l'industrie n'est plus l'ennemi - pas plus que la panacée - mais un instrument. Un instrument qui, bien utilisé, peut libérer l'architecture de ses servitudes. Ici et là, surgissent des bâtiments, des ensembles dont la réussite démontre qu'aujourd'hui les contraintes techniques et budgétaires ne sont plus que l'alibi facile des médiocres. L'imagination est humainement nécessaire. Elle est techniquement possible. A nous de savoir l'exiger. www.lexpress.fr/culture/1971-architecture-et-urbanisme-la... Métamorphoses des villes : d'hier à aujourd'hui L'oeuvre de Le Corbusier classée au patrimoine mondial de l'Unesco Marseille, d'hier à aujourd'hui Lille d'hier à aujourd'hui... www.lexpress.fr/culture/en-images-l-oeuvre-de-le-corbusie... Dix-sept réalisations de l'architecte franco-suisse, dont dix situées en France, sont désormais inscrites au patrimoine mondial de l'organisation. Une proposition adoptée par consensus et sans changement par le comité en charge du classement. La troisième aura été la bonne. Après deux tentatives infructueuses, l'oeuvre architecturale de Le Corbusier a été inscrite au Patrimoine mondial, a annoncé dimanche l'Unesco. La décision a été prise lors de la 40e session du Comité du patrimoine mondial de l'Unesco à Istanbul. Cette réunion a été suspendue samedi en raison de la tentative de putsch militaire, avant de reprendre dimanche matin. Le classement porte sur dix-sept réalisations de l'architecte franco-suisse dans sept pays. Dix d'entre elles sont situées en France. Parmi elles figure la Maison de la Culture de Firminy A ces réalisations s'ajoutent les Maisons La Roche et Jeanneret à Paris, la Villa Savoye et loge du jardinier à Poissy, l'Immeuble locatif à la Porte Molitor à Boulogne-Billancourt, la Manufacture à Saint-Dié-des-Vosges, le couvent Sainte-Marie-de-la-Tourette à Eveux. Le Corbusier : hommage au virtuose de la modernité www.cotemaison.fr/chaine-d/deco-design/le-corbusier-un-ar... frontières françaises, d'autres créations de Le Corbusier ont également été classées. L'immeuble Clarté à Genève, la petite villa au bord du lac Léman à Corseaux (Suisse), la maison Guiette à Anvers (Belgique), les maisons de la Weissenhof-Siedlung à Stuttgart (Allemagne), la Maison du Docteur Curutchet à La Plata (Argentine), le musée national des beaux-Arts de l'Occident à Taito-Ku à Tokyo (Japon) et le complexe du capitole à Chandighar (Inde)."Cette bonne nouvelle survient après plus de dix ans de travail, de concertation et deux échecs", s'est félicité dans un communiqué Benoît Cornu, premier adjoint à Ronchamp (Haute-Saône), qui préside depuis 2016 l'Association des Sites Le Corbusier créée en 2010. Le Corbusier: hommage au virtuose de la modernité Interrogé par Le Monde, le même interlocuteur considère que Icomos, le Conseil international des monuments et des sites, avait par le passé jugé la série proposé "trop pléthorique et éclectique, et surtout, déploré l'absence du site de Chandigarh en Inde, qui révélait la dimension urbanistique de l'oeuvre". En intégrant ce site qui comprend un quartier, sa maison de la culture, son stade, sa piscine et son église -le plus grand conçu par l'architecte- les promoteurs du dossier de candidature ont tiré parti des expériences passées. La ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, Audrey Azoulay, s'est réjouie de la décision de l'Unesco, en relevant qu'elle soulignait "l'importance de la préservation et de la valorisation du patrimoine récent, de moins de cent ans". l'architecture moderne au rang d'art majeur. L'occasion de revisiter son oeuvre architecturale avec notamment la Cité radieuse à Marseille, sans oublier son parcours de peintre et de designer. L'Express Styles est aussi parti à la rencontre d'artistes comme India Mahdavi ou Ora-ïto qui s'en sont inspirés... Découverte ! L'architecte de tous les possibles est aussi celui de tous les paradoxes. Mort en eaux troubles - on a retrouvé son corps noyé sur la plage de Roquebrune-Cap-Martin le 27 août 1965 -, Le Corbusier est, aussi, l'homme solaire qui a accouché de la Cité radieuse et un "visionnaire persuadé de pouvoir apporter la joie de vivre", affirme Sylvie Andreu, directrice de collection du livre Cher Corbu... (1). Cinq décennies après sa disparition, son aura continue de briller et son héritage est intact, de la villa Savoye, à Poissy (Yvelines), à l'unité d'habitation de Firminy (Loire), en passant par la chapelle de Ronchamp en Franche- Comté ou la ville nouvelle de Chandigarh en Inde. Et pourtant, l'homme n'a pas que des admirateurs... La Cité radieuse à Marseille.La Cité radieuse à Marseille.SDP La ville nouvelle de Chandigarh, en Inde, construite en 1947.La ville nouvelle de Chandigarh, en Inde, construite en 1947.Narinder Nanu/AFP
Critiquant ses excès et sa mégalomanie, ses détracteurs lui reprochent également, encore aujourd'hui, son approche fonctionnaliste trop radicale et d'être à l'origine de l'urbanisme des banlieues. Autant dire que le mystère autour de Charles-Edouard Jeanneret- Gris, dit Le Corbusier - né en Suisse en 1887 -, reste entier. Qui était vraiment cet autodidacte insatiable et obstiné dont l'oeuvre attend toujours son classement à l'Unesco, au titre de sa "contribution exceptionnelle au mouvement moderne"? Un virtuose de l'architecture bien qu'il n'ait pas le diplôme (il a quitté l'école à 13 ans) ? Un grand designer ? Un peintre compulsif ("Le dessin est fait avant que je ne l'aie pensé") ? Un sculpteur majeur ?
De toute évidence, un artiste surdoué et protéiforme "qui a profon dément marqué le XXe siècle et bouleversé notre façon d'habiter, explique Sylvie Andreu. Il sera guidé toute sa vie par l'esprit nouveau de son époque et n'au ra de cesse de combattre les conservatismes". A partir du 29 avril 2015, l'exposition du Centre Pompidou propose une relecture de ses créations - plus de 300 dessins, tableaux, sculptures, photos, meubles, dont certaines pièces réalisées dès 1923 avec Pierre Jeanneret... - qui seront présentées via le prisme de la mesure du corps humain. La villa Savoye (1928-1931), à PoissyLa villa Savoye (1928-1931), à PoissyArcaid/Corbis
Empreinte du modulor dans le béton, visible a Rezé (Loire-Atlantique)Empreinte du modulor dans le béton, visible a Rezé (Loire-Atlantique)SDP "L'homme a toujours été au centre de ses préoccupations, explique Jacques Sbriglio, architecte urbaniste et commissaire de l'exposition organisée à Marseille, en 2013, Le Corbusier et la question du brutalisme. Il a inventé un langage et fait basculer l'architecture dans le XXe siècle. Chacune de ses réalisations inter - rogeait le rapport de l'homme aux usages quotidiens. Quand il dessinait les plans d'une ville, il indiquait l'échelle, mais aussi le temps de déplacement d'un point à un autre." Et Olivier Cinqualbre, commissaire de l'exposition du Centre Pompidou, d'ajouter : "La cellule d'habitation pensée par Le Corbusier est petite mais pratique, à taille humaine. Pour épouser les mouvements du corps, le mobilier devient réglable (dès 1929), modulable ou encastrable." La chapelle Notre-Dame-du-Haut (1950-1955), à RonchampLa chapelle Notre-Dame-du-Haut (1950-1955), à RonchampCalle Montes/Photononstop
Avant-gardiste, ce bâtisseur souhaite libérer l'individu des contraintes, du mal-logement, de l'inconfort. Car, ne l'oublions pas, au lendemain de la guerre, chaque mètre carré compte! Pour modifier la perception des volumes, il use en plus de couleurs franches. Là aussi, il connaît sa palette... Depuis qu'il s'est installé à Paris en 1917, il peint tous les jours et manie le nuancier avec finesse. Voilà qui explique sans doute qu'il ait autant d'influence auprès des créateurs tous azimuts : designers et stylistes de mode! La preuve, ci-contre, en cinq témoignages... . Le Corbusier. Mesures de l'homme, du 29 avril au 3 août 2015, Centre Pompidou, Paris (IVe), www.centre pompidou.fr
Chandigarh, 50 ans après Le Corbusier, du 11 novembre 2015 au 14 mars 2016 à la Cité de l'architecture et du patrimoine, Paris (XVIe). www.citechaillot.fr
"Cher Corbu" Recueil de témoignages de 12 architectes contemporains sur le grand homme, dans lequel chacun lui écrit une lettre."Cher Corbu" Recueil de témoignages de 12 architectes contemporains sur le grand homme, dans lequel chacun lui écrit une lettre.SDP
(1) Cher Corbu..., un ouvrage collectif qui recueille le témoignage de 12 architectes contemporains sur le grand homme : de Paul Chemetov à Odile Decq en passant par Elisabeth de Portzamparc ou Claude Parent, qui lui ont chacun écrit une lettre. Bernard Chauveau éd., 48 p., 22,50 ?
Ils se sont inspirés du Corbusier...India Mahdavi, amoureuse d'innovation
India Mahdavi, architecte d'intérieur et designer. Vient de terminer le restaurant I Love Paris pour Guy Martin.India Mahdavi, architecte d'intérieur et designer. Vient de terminer le restaurant I Love Paris pour Guy Martin.SDP
L'Express Styles : Que représente pour vous le Corbusier ?
India Mahdavi : C'est un révolutionnaire et un provocateur, qui a fait renaître l'architecture moderne en mettant l'homme au centre de la vie et de la ville. Il a eu l'intelligence de s'interroger sur les modes de vie des gens bien avant tout le monde. Son rapport aux proportions m'a imprégnée. Sur mes chantiers, j'utilise aussi le Modulor. Ses références sont devenues les miennes. Il a cassé les normes bourgeoises de l'habitat. L'Express Styles : En quoi a-t-il inspiré vos créations ? India Mahdavi : J'aime beaucoup sa façon d'appliquer la couleur en aplats pour redessiner les volumes, rythmer les espaces, marquer les perspectives. C'était un formidable coloriste. L'ouvrage Le Corbusier. Polychromies architecturalesest d'ailleurs une de mes bibles. Il référence toutes les nuances et permet, grâce à une réglette, de les associer harmonieusement. C'est un outil dont je me sers sur tous mes chantiers.
L'Express Styles : Quelle est pour vous la pièce ou le bâtiment culte ? India Mahdavi : Le tabouret à poignées, en chêne, qu'il a conçu pour son cabanon, d'après une caisse à whiskys. On peut évidemment s'asseoir dessus, mais on peut surtout l'empiler pour séparer une pièce, le transformer en chevet ou en table basse. Il n'y a pas de meuble qui résume mieux son oeuvre. Le Corbusier : hommage au virtuose de la modernitéSDP Ora-ïto et sa fascination pour la minutie
Ora-ïto, architecte designer. Propriétaire du toit terrasse de la Cité radieuse à Marseille.Ora-ïto, architecte designer. Propriétaire du toit terrasse de la Cité radieuse à Marseille.SDP L'Express Styles : Que représente pour vous Le Corbusier ? Ora-ïto : Il est l'inventeur de la modernité. Pour chacune de ses réalisations, il a établi un vrai scénario de vie. La Cité radieuse en est le plus bel exemple. Tout y est pensé au millimètre près et à bonne hauteur grâce au Modulor-une grille de mesures qu'il a inventée et représentée par la silhouette d'un homme debout, le bras levé. C'était aussi un obsessionnel. D'ailleurs, quand il érige cette unité d'habitation, on le surnomme le "Fada". Mais il reste un grand monsieur qui m'a beaucoup influencé.
L'Express Styles : En quoi a-t-il inspiré vos créations ?
Ora-ïto : Je ne suis pas habité par Corbu, mais imprégné de ses concepts. Sa rigueur, sa façon d'organiser les espaces en lien avec les modes de vie et sa simplicité restent des valeurs essentielles. C'est le Steve Job de l'architecture !
L'Express Styles : Quelle est pour vous la pièce ou le bâtiment culte ? Ora-ïto : La villa Savoye à Poissy. Art déco, cette première maison de week-end est spectaculaire : une "boîte en l'air" montée sur pilotis, qui a tout pour elle. Elle est lumineuse, élégante et intemporelle.
Le Corbusier : hommage au virtuose de la modernitéSDP
Pierre Charpin, sensibilité des couleurs Pierre Charpin, designer. Prépare une exposition pour la galerie Kréo à Londres.Pierre Charpin, designer. Prépare une exposition pour la galerie Kréo à Londres.SDPL'Express Styles : Que représente pour vous Le Corbusier ?Pierre Charpin : Ce n'est pas un maître à penser, mais un grand architecte et aussi un étonnant plasticien doué d'une sensibilité aux formes hors pair. La chapelle de Ronchamp - tout en courbes et en harmonie avec le paysage - en est un des plus beaux exemples, le contraire d'un bâtiment standardisé. L'Express Styles : En quoi a-t-il inspiré vos créations ? Pierre Charpin : Je ne sais pas s'il m'a influencé, mais son travail sur les couleurs m'a beaucoup intéressé. Il utilise une gamme de coloris plus subtile et sophistiquée que celle des primaires. Comme lui, je n'aime pas les fausses couleurs et les demi-teintes, ni les objets trop lisses. J'apprécie sa façon d'appréhender le béton, notamment à la Cité radieuse. Il en a fait une surface vivante et pas si brutale que ça ! Pour y avoir séjourné, je suis frappé par la sophistication et la simplicité de ce grand vaisseau. Corbu fait partie, avec Sottsass, des gens qui comptent pour moi. C'est à la fois un théoricien et un être très sensible. L'Express Styles : Quelle est pour vous la pièce ou le bâtiment culte ? Pierre Charpin : Son cabanon de Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, de 3,66 mètres sur 3,66, est un modèle d'intelligence : il a optimisé chaque centimètre carré. Cette réalisation démontre à quel point il était libre. Eux aussi l'apprécient... Jérome Dreyfuss, créateur de sacs"Mes grands-parents étant les voisins de Jean Prouvé, à Nancy ; j'ai été sensible, très jeune, à l'architecture et à Corbu, qui a toujours eu une longueur d'avance. A chaque problème il trouvait une solution. Il avait cette capacité d'inventer des concepts et des principes de construction. Il était à la fois rationnel et créatif. Quand j'ai aménagé mon cabanon à Fontainebleau, j'ai optimisé chaque mètre carré. Chaque objet a sa fonction et sa raison d'être." www.jerome-dreyfuss.com Frédérique Dessemond, créatrice de la marque de bijoux Ginette NY "Je vis aujourd'hui à New York mais j'ai grandi - juqu'à 28 ans - à la Cité radieuse, dont je garde un souvenir ému. On vivait en autarcie, entre copains, c'était mieux que le Club Med ! Les appartements étaient très lumineux, remarquablement bien étudiés. J'ai conçu ma future boutique [66, rue des Saints-Pères, Paris VIe] à partir du Modulor. Et mes bijoux sont simples, faciles à vivre et sans ostentation, comme l'étaient ses réalisations." www.ginette-ny.com - www.ladepeche.fr/article/2010/11/02/940025-140-ans-en-arc... dreux-par-pierlouim.over-blog.com/article-chamards-1962-9... missionphoto.datar.gouv.fr/fr/photographe/7639/serie/7695...
Official Trailer - the Pruitt-Igoe Myth: an Urban History
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7RwwkNzF68 - la dérive des continents youtu.be/kEeo8muZYJU Et la disparition des Mammouths - RILLIEUX LA PAPE & Dynacité - Le 23 février 2017, à 11h30, les tours Lyautey étaient foudroyées. www.youtube.com/watch?v=W---rnYoiQc …
Ginger CEBTP Démolition, filiale déconstruction du Groupe Ginger, a réalisé la maîtrise d'oeuvre de l'opération et produit les études d'exécution. L'emblématique ZUP Pruitt Igoe. vaste quartier HLM (33 barres de 11 étages) de Saint-Louis (Missouri) USA. démoli en 1972 www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq_SpRBXRmE … "Life is complicated, i killed people, smuggled people, sold people, but perhaps in here.. things will be different." ~ Niko Bellic - cité Balzac, à Vitry-sur-Seine (23 juin 2010).13H & Boom, quelques secondes plus tard, la barre «GHJ», 14 étages et 168 lgts, s’effondrait comme un château de cartes sous les applaudissements et les sifflets, bientôt enveloppés dans un nuage de poussière. www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9nBMHS7mzY … - "La Chapelle" Réhabilitation thermique de 667 logements à Andrézieux-Bou... youtu.be/0tswIPdoVCE - 11 octobre 1984 www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk-Je1eQ5po …
DESTRUCTION par explosifs de 10 tours du QUARTIER DES MINGUETTES, à LYON. les tours des Minguettes ; VG des tours explosant et s'affaissant sur le côté dans un nuage de fumée blanche ; à 13H15, nous assistons à l'explosion de 4 autres tours - St-Etienne Métropole & Montchovet - la célèbre Muraille de Chine ( 540 lgts 270m de long 15 allees) qui était à l'époque en 1964 la plus grande barre HLM jamais construit en Europe. Après des phases de rénovation, cet immeuble a été dynamité en mai 2000 www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB3z_Z6DTdc … - PRESQU'ILE DE GENNEVILLIERS...AUJOURD'HUI...DEMAIN... (LA video içi parcours.cinearchives.org/Les-films-PRESQU-ILE-DE-GENNEVI... … ) Ce film de la municipalité de Gennevilliers explique la démarche et les objectifs de l’exposition communale consacrée à la presqu’île, exposition qui se tint en déc 1972 et janvier 1973 - le mythe de Pruitt-Igoe en video içi nextcity.org/daily/entry/watch-the-trailer-for-the-pruitt... … - 1964, quand les loisirs n’avaient (deja) pas le droit de cité poke @Memoire2cite youtu.be/Oj64jFKIcAE - Devenir de la ZUP de La Paillade youtu.be/1qxAhsqsV8M v - Regard sur les barres Zum' youtu.be/Eow6sODGct8 v - MONTCHOVET EN CONSTRUCTION Saint Etienne, ses travaux - Vidéo Ina.fr www.ina.fr/video/LXF99004401 … via - La construction de la Grande Borne à Grigny en 1969 Archive INA www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=t843Ny2p7Ww (discours excellent en seconde partie) -David Liaudet : l'image absolue, c'est la carte postale" phothistory.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/david-liaudet-limage... … l'architecture sanatoriale Histoire des sanatoriums en France (1915-1945). Une architecture en quête de rendement thérapeutique..
passy-culture.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Les-15-Glori... … … & hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01935993/document … explosion des tours Gauguin Destruction par implosion des Tours Gauguin (quartier de La Bastide) de Limoges le dimanche 28 novembre 2010 à 11 heures. Limoges 28/11/2010 youtu.be/cd0ln4Nqqbs … 42 Roanne - c'etait le 11 novembre 2013 - Souvenirs des HLM quartier du Parc... Après presque 45 minutes de retard, les trois dernières tours Chanteclair sont tombées. Le tir prévu etait à 11h14 La vidéo içi www.leprogres.fr/loire/2013/11/01/roanne-les-3-dernieres-... … … www.leprogres.fr/loire/2013/11/01/roanne-une-vingtaine-de... …Besançon (25) - la Nouvelle cité d'HLM La Planoise en 1960 avec la video des premiers habitants de Planoise en juin 1968 www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVKAkJSsCGk … … … archive INA … BEGIN Japanology - les utopies de l'extreme et Kenzo Tange l'architecte japonnais - la video içi www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlAOtYFE4GM … 71 les Prés Saint-Jean a Chalon-sur-Saône - L'Implosion des 3 tours HLM de 15 etages le 5 décembre 2009 par FERRARI DEMOLITION içi www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDsqOjQJS8E … … … & là www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARQYQLORBBE … 21 DIJON Cité des Grésilles - c'etait l'implosion de la residençe HLM Paul Bur le 19 02 2010 www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAEuaq5mivM … … & la www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTUm-mky-sw … 59 - la technique dite du basculement - Destruction de l'immeuble Rhone a Lille avec pleins de ralentit içi video-streaming.orange.fr/actu-politique/destruction-de-l... … 21 Chenôve (le GRAND DIJON) - Implosion de la barre François RUDE le 3 nov 2010 (top video !!) www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClmeXzo3r5A … …Quand l histoire çe repete et çe repetera autant de fois que nesçessaire quand on voie la quantitée de barres 60 70's...dans le collimateur de l'ANRU2.. 77 MEAUX 3 grandes tours..& puis s'en vont.. Démolition Pierre Collinet Batiment Genêt, Hortensia et Iris - Reportage Journal le 26 juin 2011 youtu.be/fpPcaC2wRIc 71 CHALON SUR SAONE C'etait les Prés Saint Jean le 05 décembre 2009 , pour une implosion hlm hors du commun !!! Caméra mise à même le sol , à une vingtaine de mètres de la première tour .... www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVlC9rYU-gs … 78 les MUREAUX le 3 octobre 2010 ,Les dernières minutes de la Tour Molière aux Mureaux (Yvelines) et sa démolition par semi-foudroyage, filmés du quartier de la Vigne Blanche. www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2FDMxrLHcw …71 MACON LES GRANDES PERRIERES C'etait un 30 juin 2013, avec l'implosion de la barre HLM des Perrières par GINGER www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzYwTcCGUGA … … une video exceptionnelle ! c'etait Le Norfolk Court un ensemble résidentiel, le Norfolk Court, construit dans les années 1970, a été démoli à Glasgow en Ecosse le 9 mai 2016 . Il rate la démolition d'un immeuble au tout dernier moment LES PASSAGERS DU BUS EN PROFITE A SA PLAçE lol www.20minutes.fr/tv/t-as-vu/237077-il-rate-la-demolition-... … 69 LYON Quand La Duchère disait adieu à sa barre 230 le jeudi 2 juillet 2015 www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSwidwLw0NA … www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdLjUAK1oUk … www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DZ5RSLpYrM …Avenir Deconstruction : Foudroyage de 3 barres HLM - VAULX-EN-VELIN (69) www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E02NUMqDno Démolition du quartier Bachelard à Vaulx-en-Velin www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSAEBIYYpXY Démolition des tours du Pré de l'Herpe (Vaulx-en-Velin)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG5sD1G-QgU REPORTAGE - En sept secondes, un ensemble de 407 appartements à Vaulx-en-Velin a été détruit à l'explosif dans le cadre du renouvellement urbain... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js6w9bnUuRM www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCj5D1NhxhI - St-QUENTIN LA ZUP (scic)- NOUMEA - NOUVELLE CALEDONIE historique de la cité Saint-Quentin içi www.agence-concept.com/savoir-faire/sic/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gt6STiH_pM …[VIDEOS] Trois tours de la cité des Indes de Sartrouville ont été démolies dans le cadre du plan de rénovation urbaine du quartier Mille quatre cent soixante-deux détonateurs, 312 kilos le 06/06/2010 à 11 heures. la belle video içi www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY1B07GWyDE VIGNEUX-SUR-SEINE, VOTRE HISTOIRE, VOS SOUVENIRS. içi www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o_Ke26mB48 … , Film des Tours et du quartier de la Croix Blanche, de 1966 à 1968. Les Tours en train de finir de se construire, ainsi que le centre commerciale. Destruction de la Tour 21, pour construire de nouveaux HLM... l'UNION SOCIALE POUR L HABITAT fete ses 90 ans "TOUT savoir tout voir, tout connaitre, sur le LOGEMENT SOCIAL des HLM aux HBM avec le Musée HLM" en ligne sur le WEB içi musee-hlm.fr/ www.banquedesterritoires.fr/lunion-sociale-pour-lhabitat-... … içi www.banquedesterritoires.fr/lunion-sociale-pour-lhabitat-... … De grandes barres d’immeubles, appelées les grands ensembles, sont le symbole de nos banlieues. Entrée Libre revient sur le phénomène de destruction de ces bâtiments qui reflètent aujourd’hui la misere www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCqHBP5SBiM twitter.com/Memoire2cite/status/1121877386491043840/photo... Avril 1993, 6 ans après l'implosion de la tour DEBUSSY des 4000, 30% seulement des travaux de rénovation ont été réalisés et le chômage frappe toujours 1/3 des hbts. C'est un échec. A Mantes la Jolie, 6 mois après la destruction des 4 tours du Val Fourré, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta4kj05KJOM … Banlieue 89, Bacalan à Bordeaux 1986 - Un exemple de rénovation urbaine et réhabilitation de l'habitat dans un des quartiers de Bordeaux La Cité Claveau à BACALAN. A l'initiative du mouvementla video içi www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN0JtGBaA1o … L'assoçiation de ROLLAND CASTRO @ Le Plan Banlieue 89 - mode d'emploi - Archive INA - La video içi. TRANSFORMER LES PAYSAGES URBAINS AVEC UNE APPROCHE CULTURELLE www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw-_f-bT2TQ … SNCF les EDITIONS DU CABRI PRESENTE PARIS LA BANLIEUE 1960-1980 -La video Içi. www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDEQOsdGjsg … Içi la DATAR en 1000 clichés missionphotodatar.cget.gouv.fr/accueil - Notre Paris, 1961, Réalisation : André Fontaine, Henri Gruel Les archives filmées de la cinémathèque du ministère de 1945 à nos jours içi www.dailymotion.com/video/xgis6v?playlist=x34ije
31 TOULOUSE - le Mirail 1962 réalisation : Mario Marret construction de la ville nouvelle Toulouse le Mirail, commentée par l'architecte urbaniste Georges Candilis le film www.dailymotion.com/video/xn4t4q?playlist=x34ije Il existe de nos jours, de nombreux photographes qui privilégient la qualité artistique de leurs travaux cartophiles. A vous de découvrir ces artistes inconnus aujourd’hui, mais qui seront peut-être les grands noms de demain.Les films du MRU - Le temps de l'urbanisme, 1962, Réalisation : Philippe Brunet www.dailymotion.com/video/xgj2zz?playlist=x34ije … … … … -Les grands ensembles en images Les ministères en charge du logement et leur production audiovisuelle (1944-1966) MASSY - Les films du MRU - La Cité des hommes, 1966, Réalisation : Fréderic Rossif, Albert Knobler www.dailymotion.com/video/xgiqzr?playlist=x34i - Les films du MRU @ les AUTOROUTES - Les liaisons moins dangereuses 1972 la construction des autoroutes en France - Le réseau autoroutier 1960 Histoire de France Transports et Communications - www.dailymotion.com/video/xxi0ae?playlist=x34ije … - A quoi servaient les films produits par le MRU ministère de la Reconstruction et de l'Urbanisme ? la réponse de Danielle Voldman historienne spécialiste de la reconstruction www.dailymotion.com/video/x148qu4?playlist=x34ije … -les films du MRU - Bâtir mieux plus vite et moins cher 1975 l'industrialisation du bâtiment et ses innovations : la préfabrication en usine, le coffrage glissant... www.dailymotion.com/video/xyjudq?playlist=x34ije … - TOUT SUR LA CONSTRUCTION DE NOTRE DAME LA CATHEDRALE DE PARIS Içi www.notredamedeparis.fr/la-cathedrale/histoire/historique... -MRU Les films - Le Bonheur est dans le béton - 2015 Documentaire réalisé par Lorenz Findeisen produit par Les Films du Tambour de Soie içi www.dailymotion.com/video/x413amo?playlist=x34ije …
archipostcard.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-02-13T... -Créteil.un couple à la niaiserie béate exalte les multiples bonheurs de la vie dans les new G.E. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT1_abIteFE … La Ville bidon était un téléfilm d'1 heure intitulé La Décharge.Mais la censure de ces temps de présidence Pompidou en a interdit la diffusion télévisuelle - museedelacartepostale.fr/periode-semi-moderne/ - archipostalecarte.blogspot.com/ - Hansjörg Schneider BAUNETZWOCHE 87 über Papiermoderne www.baunetz.de/meldungen/Meldungen_BAUNETZWOCHE_87_ueber_... … - ARCHITECTURE le blog de Claude LOTHIER içi leblogdeclaudelothier.blogspot.com/2006/ - - Le balnéaire en cartes postales autour de la collection de David Liaudet, et ses excellents commentaires.. www.dailymotion.com/video/x57d3b8 -Restaurants Jacques BOREL, Autoroute A 6, 1972 Canton d'AUXERRE youtu.be/LRNhNzgkUcY munchies.vice.com/fr/article/43a4kp/jacques-borel-lhomme-... … Celui qu'on appellera le « Napoléon du prêt-à-manger » se détourne d'ailleurs peu à peu des Wimpy, s'engueule avec la maison mère et fait péricliter la franchise ...que dire de RICARDO BOFFIL Les meilleures balades que j’ai fait autour de Paris je les ai faites dans l’application Plans. Je ne minore pas le rôle de Google Maps, révolution cartographique sans précédent et sans égale, qui aura réalisé nos fantasmes d’Aleph borgesien — l’idée d’un point d’où le monde serait visible en totalité — parachevé Mercator et permis d’explorer des parties du globe inconnues de Cook, Bougainville et Amundsen. Je n’oublie pas non plus cet exercice de cartographie au collège, qui nous avait démontré que nous étions à 3 cartes IGN de la capitale, et que le tissu urbain était de plus en plus serré à mesure que nous avancions vers le nord. Mais Plan possédait une fonctionnalité inédite, le Flyover, technologie à l’origine destinée aux pilotes de chasse, et qui fournissait des rendus 3D spectaculaire des bâtiments survolés — ainsi que des arbres et des déclivités du sol On quittait enfin les champs asphyxiants de la photographie aérienne pour des vues à l’oblique des villes visitées : après un siècle d’écrasement — la photographie aérienne est étroitement contemporaine du bombardement aérien — les villes reprenaient enfin de la vigueur et remontaient vers le ciel. J’avais d’ailleurs effectué moi-même une manœuvre de redressement similaire le jour où j’étais parti, à pied depuis Paris, visiter à Nanterre une exposition sur la photographie aérienne. J’étais à la quête des premières vues de Paris qu’avait prises Nadar depuis un ballon captif. À défaut de ces images, définitivement manquantes, j’avais parcouru, après la Grande Arche, les derniers kilomètres de la Voie Royale, cette prodigieuse perspective historique partie du Louvre — rare exemple de frise chronologique implémentée dans une structure urbanistique.J’avais en réalité un peu dévié de la ligne droite pour aller voir les tours Nuages d’Emile Aillaud, le Facteur Cheval du modernisme, dont je connaissais déjà les autres chefs d’œuvres d'architecture naïve, les nouilles chinoises de Grigny et le spaghetti de Pantin.C’était précisément l’usage que j’avais fait de l’application Plans : j’étais parti à la recherche de tous les groupements de tour qu’elle m’avait permis d’identifier, sur mon iPad. Je les faisais tourner avec deux doigts, comme un éclaireur qui marcherait autour d’un donjon, avant de les immortaliser, sous leur plus bel angle, par une capture d’écran.Un éclaireur autour d’un donjon : c’était exactement cela, qui m’avait fasciné. Les guerres territoriales entre Les Tarterêts de Corbeil et les Pyramides d’Evry avaient marqué mon enfance. La notion de cité, telle qu’elle avait été définie, à partir des années 80, dans le second âge des grands ensembles, l’âge du déclin, avait conservé un cachet médiéval. Ici, vivaient guetteurs et trafiquants, condottieres à la tête d’une écurie de go-fast et entretenant des chenils remplis de mâtins rares et dangereux. Ici, l’État central ne remplissait plus ses tâches régaliennes, ici la modernité laïque était entrée en crise. Mais ce que j’avais découvert, en collectionnant ces captures d’écran, c’était à quel point l’urbanisme de la banlieue parisienne était, strictement, d’obédience médiévale. On était passé, d’un seul mouvement et sans même s’en rendre compte de Château-Gaillard à la Cité 4000, du Donjon de Vincennes aux tours de Sarcelles, du château de Gisors aux choux fleurs de Créteil.J’ai même retrouvé la colonne détruite du désert de Retz dans le babylonien château d’eau de Noisiel.Des hauteurs de Rosny à celle de Chanteloup, du plateau de Clichy à la dalle d’Argenteuil, on avait bizarrement livré des pastiches inconscients de la grande architecture militaire médiévales : les environs de Paris s’étaient retrouvés à nouveau fortifiés, la vieille tour de Montlhéry n’était plus solitaire, et même les immeubles de briques rouges qui avaient succédé à l’enceinte de Thiers évoquaient des murailles.Et ce que j’avais initialement pris pour des anomalies, des accidents malheureux du post-modernisme, les grand ensembles voûtés et cannelés de Ricardo Boffil, étaient peut-être ce qui exprimait le mieux tout cela — ou du moins qui clôturaient avec le génie le plus clair cet âge des grands ensembles.Car c’était cela, ces Carcassonnes, ces Acropoles, ces Atlandides qui surnageaient avec le plus de conviction au milieu des captures d’écrans de ruines médiévales qui s’accumulaient sur mon bureau.Si décriées, dès leur construction, pour leur kitch intolérable ces mégastructures me sont soudain apparues comme absolument nécessaires.Si les Villes Nouvelles n’ont jamais existé, et persisteront dans la mémoire des hommes, elles le doivent à ces rêveries bizarres et grandioses, à ces hybridations impossibles entre les cités idéales de Ledoux et les utopies corbuséennes.L’Aqueduc de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, les Espaces d’Abraxas à Marne-la-Vallée, les Colonnes de Saint-Christophe à Cergy-Pontoise sont les plus belles ruines du Grand Paris. www.franceculture.fr/emissions/la-conclusion/ricardo-bofill immerssion dans le monde du logement social, l'univers des logements sociaux, des H.B.M au H.L.M - Retour sur l'histoire du logement collectif d'apres guerre - En Françe, sur l’ensemble du territoire avant, 4 millions d’immeubles étaient vétustes, dont 500.000 à démolir; au total 10% des logements étaient considérés comme insalubres et 40% réputés d’une qualité médiocre, et surpeuplés. C’est pour ces raisons que, à partir de 1954, le Ministre à la Reconstruction et au Logement évalue le besoin en logements à 2.000.660, devenant ainsi une priorité nationale. Quelques années plus tard à l’appel de l’Abbé Pierre, le journaliste Gilbert Mathieu, en avril 1957 publiait dans le quotidien Le Monde une série d’articles sur la situation dramatique du logement : Logement, notre honte et dénonçant le nombre réduit de logements et leur impitoyable état. Robert Doisneau, Banlieue après-guerre, 1943-1949 /Le mandat se veut triple : reconstruire le parc immobilier détruit durant les bombardements essentiellement du printemps/été 1944, faire face à l’essor démographique et enfin résorber l’habitat insalubre notamment les bidonvilles et les cités de transit. Une ambition qui paraît, dès le début, très élevée, associée à l’industrialisation progressive de la nation entre autre celle du secteur de la construction (voir le vidéo de l’INA du 17 juillet 1957 intitulée La crise du logement, un problème national. Cela dit, l’effort pour l’État français était d’une ampleur jamais vue ailleurs. La double nécessité de construire davantage et vite, est en partie la cause de la forme architecturale excentrique qui constituera les Grands Ensembles dans les banlieues françaises. Cinq caractéristiques permettent de mieux comprendre ce terme : la rupture avec le tissu urbain ancien, un minimum de mille logements, une forme collective (tours, barres) de quatre jusqu’à vingt niveaux, la conception d’appartements aménagés et équipés et enfin une gestion destinée pour la plupart à des bailleurs de logement social.Pour la banlieue parisienne leur localisation s’est opérée majoritairement dans la périphérie, tandis que dans les autres cas, plus de la moitié a été construite dans le centre ville, le plus souvent à la limite des anciens faubourgs. Architecture d’Aujourd’hui n° 46, 1953 p. 58-55 C’est le triomphe de l’urbanisme fonctionnel et rationaliste cher à Le Corbusier. Entre 1958 et 1973, cent quatre-vingt-quinze Zones à Urbaniser en Priorité (ZUP)