View allAll Photos Tagged article
from wkyc.com/article/news/local/akron/akrons-biggest-mystery-the-signal-tree/460185393
It stands alone, its branches like arms outstretched, near the Cuyahoga River on Akron's north side.
Its massive trunk, its age-stained bark. Its scars of the past. The Signal Tree is a spectacular sight, but it swirls in mystery.
Who was it that "forced" its growth pattern? If age estimates of 350-560 years are to be believed, it may have been Native Americans that traveled through the area in that time frame, well before settlers came to the Western Reserve.
The famous "Portage Path" is in the area, a few miles away, where American Indians portaged their canoes between the north-flowing Cuyahoga River to the south-flowing Tuscarawas River. Indigenous peoples are known to use strangely shaped trees as boundary markers or directional landmarks, and as gathering places for ceremonies.
Seeing the tree today does invite the imagination to wander. According to Mike Greene of Summit Metroparks, there really is no way to confirm any of the legends.
"The key is determining its age," he said. "The tree may be ancient, or it may younger. No one knows because there are very few mentions of the oddly shaped tree in historic records."
For about a hundred years before the Summit Metroparks established the park on land owned by the city of Akron, the tree was located in an area that was dotted with residences. There were farms, and even a junkyard that was active into the 1960s. There are some early photos of the tree, but none have surfaced before the first half on the 20th century.
It's a calming place, and begs the mind to wander. Did Native Americans meet here or hold ceremonies around the tree? Did Civil War soldiers march by it? Did the workers and people who traveled along the Ohio and Erie Canal, which runs right through Akron, stop here?
The tree has seen Akron change from agricultural center to canal town to a manufacturing mecca during the Industrial Revolution. It's seen Akron grow to be the Rubber Capitol of the world, as well as its demise, and the rubber shops and surrounding manufacturing closed. Still, the whole while, standing in the Cuyahoga Valley with arms outstretched.
dodho.com/architecture-by-koji-tajima/
my work featured on dodho.
dodhoというフォトグラファーのシリーズ？にフォーカスを当てて紹介するサイトに掲載して頂きました。
掲載作品は自分で選びましたが「Architecture」ってシリーズ名はdodhoの中の人が決めていてなんだか違和感。
This week, we’re celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Piccadilly line extension to Heathrow. This new service was advertised with these ‘Fly the Tube’ posters, which mixed elements from planes (including the supersonic Concorde) and the 1973 stock trains used on the Piccadilly line. Additional Underground stations at Heathrow were opened in 1986 and 2008, and next year, the airport will become even more accessible when the Elizabeth line opens. Here’s to another 40 years of helping visitors reach central London quickly and easily! London Underground's photo
My write up along with Vijayalayan's photos as Wrapper Article in April 2015 issue of American Tamil Magazine, Thendral
For more details visit: tamilamudam.blogspot.in/2015/04/blog-post_8.html
Best wishes to K.S. Vijayalayan! [ www.flickr.com/photos/clicking-moments/ ]
The Palace of Versailles is a former royal residence commissioned by King Louis XIV located in Versailles, about 19 kilometers (12 mi) west of Paris, France.
The palace is owned by the French Republic and since 1995 has been managed, under the direction of the French Ministry of Culture, by the Public Establishment of the Palace, Museum and National Estate of Versailles. About 15,000,000 people visit the palace, park, or gardens of Versailles every year, making it one of the most popular tourist attractions in the world.
Louis XIII built a simple hunting lodge on the site of the Palace of Versailles in 1623. With his death came Louis XIV who expanded the château into the beginnings of a palace that went through several changes and phases from 1661 to 1715. It was a favorite residence for both kings, and in 1682, Louis XIV moved the seat of his court and government to Versailles, making the palace the de facto capital of France. This state of affairs was continued by Kings Louis XV and Louis XVI, who primarily made interior alterations to the palace, but in 1789 the royal family and capital of France returned to Paris. For the rest of the French Revolution, the Palace of Versailles was largely abandoned and emptied of its contents, and the population of the surrounding city plummeted.
Napoleon, following his coronation as Emperor, used Versailles as a summer residence from 1810 to 1814, but did not restore it. Following the Bourbon Restoration, when the king was returned to the throne, he resided in Paris and it was not until the 1830s that meaningful repairs were made to the palace. A museum of French history was installed within it, replacing the apartments of the southern wing.
The palace and park were designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1979 for its importance as the center of power, art, and science in France during the 17th and 18th centuries. The French Ministry of Culture has placed the palace, its gardens, and some of its subsidiary structures on its list of culturally significant monuments.
History
Main article: History of the Palace of Versailles
An engraving of Louis XIII's château as it appeared in 1652
Versailles around 1652, engraving by Jacques Gomboust [fr]
In 1623, Louis XIII, King of France, built a hunting lodge on a hill in a favorite hunting ground, 19 kilometers (12 mi) west of Paris and 16 kilometers (10 mi) from his primary residence, the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye The site, near a village named Versailles, was a wooded wetland that Louis XIII's court scorned as being generally unworthy of a king; one of his courtiers, François de Bassompierre, wrote that the lodge "would not inspire vanity in even the simplest gentleman". From 1631 to 1634, architect Philibert Le Roy replaced the lodge with a château for Louis XIII, who forbade his queen, Anne of Austria, from staying there overnight, even when an outbreak of smallpox at Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1641 forced Louis XIII to relocate to Versailles with his three-year-old heir, the future Louis XIV.
When Louis XIII died in 1643, Anne became Louis XIV's regent, and Louis XIII's château was abandoned for the next decade. She moved the court back to Paris, where Anne and her chief minister, Cardinal Mazarin, continued Louis XIII's unpopular monetary practices. This led to the Fronde, a series of revolts against royal authority from 1648 to 1653 that masked a struggle between Mazarin and the princes of the blood, Louis XIV's extended family, for influence over him. In the aftermath of the Fronde, Louis XIV became determined to rule alone. Following Mazarin's death in 1661, Louis XIV reformed his government to exclude his mother and the princes of the blood, moved the court back to Saint-Germain-en-Laye, and ordered the expansion of his father's château at Versailles into a palace.
Louis XIV had hunted at Versailles in the 1650s, but did not take any special interest in Versailles until 1661. On 17 August 1661, Louis XIV was a guest at a sumptuous festival hosted by Nicolas Fouquet, the Superintendent of Finances, at his palatial residence, the Château de Vaux-le-Vicomte. Louis XIV was impressed by the château and its gardens, which were the work of Louis Le Vau, the court architect since 1654, André Le Nôtre, the royal gardener since 1657, and Charles Le Brun, a painter in royal service since 1647. Vaux-le-Vicomte's scale and opulence inspired Louis XIV's aesthetic sense, but also led him to imprison Fouquet that September, as he had also built an island fortress and a private army. Louis XIV was also inspired by Vaux-le-Vicomte, and he recruited its authors for his own projects. Louis XIV replaced Fouquet with Jean-Baptiste Colbert, a protégé of Mazarin and enemy of Fouquet, and charged him with managing the corps of artisans in royal employment. Colbert acted as the intermediary between them and Louis XIV, who personally directed and inspected the planning and construction of Versailles.
Construction
Work at Versailles was at first concentrated on gardens, and through the 1660s, Le Vau only added two detached service wings and a forecourt to the château. But in 1668–69, as a response to the growth of the gardens, and victory over Spain in the War of Devolution, Louis XIV decided to turn Versailles into a full-scale royal residence. He vacillated between replacing or incorporating his father's château, but settled on the latter by the end of the decade, and from 1668 to 1671, Louis XIII's château was encased on three sides in a feature dubbed the enveloppe. This gave the château a new, Italianate façade overlooking the gardens, but preserved the courtyard façade, resulting in a mix of styles and materials that dismayed Louis XIV and that Colbert described as a "patchwork". Attempts to homogenize the two façades failed, and in 1670 Le Vau died, leaving the post of First Architect to the King vacant for the next seven years.
Le Vau was succeeded at Versailles by his assistant, architect François d'Orbay. Work at the palace during the 1670s focused on its interiors, as the palace was then nearing completion, though d'Orbay expanded Le Vau's service wings and connected them to the château, and built a pair of pavilions for government employees in the forecourt. In 1670, d'Orbay was tasked by Louis XIV with designing a city, also called Versailles, to house and service Louis XIV's growing government and court. The granting of land to courtiers for the construction of townhouses that resembled the palace began in 1671. The next year, the Franco-Dutch War began and funding for Versailles was cut until 1674, when Louis XIV had work begun on the Ambassadors' Staircase , a grand staircase for the reception of guests, and demolished the last of the village of Versailles.
Following the end of the Franco-Dutch War with French victory in 1678, Louis XIV appointed as First Architect Jules Hardouin-Mansart, an experienced architect in Louis XIV's confidence, who would benefit from a restored budget and large workforce of former soldiers. Mansart began his tenure with the addition from 1678 to 1681 of the Hall of Mirrors, a renovation of the courtyard façade of Louis XIII's château, and the expansion of d'Orbay's pavilions to create the Ministers' Wings in 1678–79. Adjacent to the palace, Mansart built a pair of stables called the Grande and Petite Écuries from 1679 to 1682 and the Grand Commun, which housed the palace's servants and general kitchens, from 1682 to 1684. Mansart also added two entirely new wings in Le Vau's Italianate style to house the court, first at the south end of the palace from 1679 to 1681 and then at its north end from 1685 to 1689.
War and the resulting diminished funding slowed construction at Versailles for the rest of the 17th century. The Nine Years' War, which began in 1688, stopped work altogether until 1698. Three years later, however, the even more expensive War of the Spanish Succession began and, combined with poor harvests in 1693–94 and 1709–10, plunged France into crisis. Louis XIV thus slashed funding and canceled some of the work Mansart had planned in the 1680s, such as the remodeling of the courtyard façade in the Italianate style. Louis XIV and Mansart focused on a permanent palace chapel, the construction of which lasted from 1699 to 1710.
Louis XIV's successors, Louis XV and Louis XVI, largely left Versailles as they inherited it and focused on the palace's interiors. Louis XV's modifications began in the 1730s, with the completion of the Salon d'Hercule, a ballroom in the north wing, and the expansion of the king's private apartment, which required the demolition of the Ambassadors' Staircase In 1748, Louis XV began construction of a palace theater, the Royal Opera of Versailles at the northernmost end of the palace, but completion was delayed until 1770; construction was interrupted in the 1740s by the War of the Austrian Succession and then again in 1756 with the start of the Seven Years' War. These wars emptied the royal treasury and thereafter construction was mostly funded by Madame du Barry, Louis XV's favorite mistress. In 1771, Louis XV had the northern Ministers' Wing rebuilt in Neoclassical style by Ange-Jacques Gabriel, his court architect, as it was in the process of falling down. That work was also stopped by financial constraints, and it remained incomplete when Louis XV died in 1774. In 1784, Louis XVI briefly moved the royal family to the Château de Saint-Cloud ahead of more renovations to the Palace of Versailles, but construction could not begin because of financial difficulty and political crisis. In 1789, the French Revolution swept the royal family and government out of Versailles forever.
Role in politics and culture
The Palace of Versailles was key to Louis XIV's politics, as an expression and concentration of French art and culture, and for the centralization of royal power. Louis XIV first used Versailles to promote himself with a series of nighttime festivals in its gardens in 1664, 1668, and 1674, the events of which were disseminated throughout Europe by print and engravings. As early as 1669, but especially from 1678, Louis XIV sought to make Versailles his seat of government, and he expanded the palace so as to fit the court within it. The moving of the court to Versailles did not come until 1682, however, and not officially, as opinion on Versailles was mixed among the nobility of France.
By 1687, however, it was evident to all that Versailles was the de facto capital of France, and Louis XIV succeeded in attracting the nobility to Versailles to pursue prestige and royal patronage within a strict court etiquette, thus eroding their traditional provincial power bases. It was at the Palace of Versailles that Louis XIV received the Doge of Genoa, Francesco Maria Imperiale Lercari in 1685, an embassy from the Ayutthaya Kingdom in 1686, and an embassy from Safavid Iran in 1715.[
Louis XIV died at Versailles on 1 September 1715 and was succeeded by his five-year-old great-grandson, Louis XV, then the duke of Anjou, who was moved to Vincennes and then to Paris by Louis XV's regent, Philippe II, Duke of Orléans. Versailles was neglected until 1722, when Philippe II removed the court to Versailles to escape the unpopularity of his regency, and when Louis XV began his majority. The 1722 move, however, broke the cultural power of Versailles, and during the reign of Louis XVI, courtiers spent their leisure in Paris, not Versailles.
During Christmas 1763, Mozart and his family visited Versailles and dined with the kings. The 7-year-old Mozart played several works during his stay and later dedicated his first two harpsichord sonatas, published in 1764 in Paris, to Madame Victoria, daughter of Louis XV.
In 1783, the palace was the site of the signing of the last two of the three treaties of the Peace of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolutionary War. On September 3, British and American delegates, led by Benjamin Franklin, signed the Treaty of Paris at the Hôtel d'York (now 56 Rue Jacob) in Paris, granting the United States independence. On September 4, Spain and France signed separate treaties with England at the Palace of Versailles, formally ending the war.
The King and Queen learned of the Storming of the Bastille in Paris on 14 July 1789, while they were at the palace, and remained isolated there as the Revolution in Paris spread. The growing anger in Paris led to the Women's March on Versailles on 5 October 1789. A crowd of several thousand men and women, protesting the high price and scarcity of bread, marched from the markets of Paris to Versailles. They took weapons from the city armory, besieged the palace, and compelled the King and royal family and the members of the National Assembly to return with them to Paris the following day.
As soon as the royal family departed, the palace was closed. In 1792, the National Convention, the new revolutionary government, ordered the transfer of all the paintings and sculptures from the palace to the Louvre. In 1793, the Convention declared the abolition of the monarchy and ordered all of the royal property in the palace to be sold at auction. The auction took place between 25 August 1793 and 11 August 1794. The furnishings and art of the palace, including the furniture, mirrors, baths, and kitchen equipment, were sold in seventeen thousand lots. All fleurs-de-lys and royal emblems on the buildings were chambered or chiseled off. The empty buildings were turned into a storehouse for furnishings, art and libraries confiscated from the nobility. The empty grand apartments were opened for tours beginning in 1793, and a small museum of French paintings and art school was opened in some of the empty rooms.
By virtue of an order issued by the Versailles district directorate in August 1794, the Royal Gate was destroyed, the Cour Royale was cleared and the Cour de Marbre lost its precious floor.
19th century – history museum and government venue
When Napoleon became Emperor of the French in 1804, he considered making Versailles his residence but abandoned the idea because of the cost of the renovation. Prior to his marriage with Marie-Louise in 1810, he had the Grand Trianon restored and refurnished as a springtime residence for himself and his family, in the style of furnishing that it is seen today.
In 1815, with the final downfall of Napoleon, Louis XVIII, the younger brother of Louis XVI, became King, and considered returning the royal residence to Versailles, where he had been born. He ordered the restoration of the royal apartments, but the task and cost was too great. Louis XVIII had the far end of the south wing of the Cour Royale demolished and rebuilt (1814–1824) to match the Gabriel wing of 1780 opposite, which gave greater uniformity of appearance to the front entrance. Neither he nor his successor Charles X lived at Versailles.
The French Revolution of 1830 brought a new monarch, Louis-Philippe to power, and a new ambition for Versailles. He did not reside at Versailles but began the creation of the Museum of the History of France, dedicated to "all the glories of France", which had been used to house some members of the royal family. The museum was begun in 1833 and inaugurated on 30 June 1837. Its most famous room is the Galerie des Batailles (Hall of Battles), which lies on most of the length of the second floor of the south wing. The museum project largely came to a halt when Louis Philippe was overthrown in 1848, though the paintings of French heroes and great battles still remain in the south wing.
Emperor Napoleon III used the palace on occasion as a stage for grand ceremonies. One of the most lavish was the banquet that he hosted for Queen Victoria in the Royal Opera of Versailles on 25 August 1855.
During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871, the palace was occupied by the general staff of the victorious German Army. Parts of the château, including the Gallery of Mirrors, were turned into a military hospital. The creation of the German Empire, combining Prussia and the surrounding German states under William I, was formally proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors on 18 January 1871. The Germans remained in the palace until the signing of the armistice in March 1871. In that month, the government of the new Third French Republic, which had departed Paris during the War for Tours and then Bordeaux, moved into the palace. The National Assembly held its meetings in the Opera House.
The uprising of the Paris Commune in March 1871, prevented the French government, under Adolphe Thiers, from returning immediately to Paris. The military operation which suppressed the Commune at the end of May was directed from Versailles, and the prisoners of the Commune were marched there and put on trial in military courts. In 1875 a second parliamentary body, the French Senate, was created and held its meetings for the election of a President of the Republic in a new hall created in 1876 in the south wing of the palace. The French Senate continues to meet in the palace on special occasions, such as the amendment of the French Constitution.
20th century
The end of the 19th and the early 20th century saw the beginning of restoration efforts at the palace, first led by Pierre de Nolhac, poet and scholar and the first conservator, who began his work in 1892. The conservation and restoration were interrupted by two world wars but have continued until the present day.
The palace returned to the world stage in June 1919, when, after six months of negotiations, the Treaty of Versailles, formally ending the First World War, was signed in the Hall of Mirrors. Between 1925 and 1928, the American philanthropist and multi-millionaire John D. Rockefeller, Jr. gave $2,166,000, the equivalent of about thirty million dollars today, to restore and refurbish the palace.
More work took place after World War II, with the restoration of the Royal Opera of Versailles. The theater was reopened in 1957, in the presence of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
In 1978, parts of the palace were heavily damaged in a bombing committed by Breton terrorists.
Starting in the 1950s, when the museum of Versailles was under the directorship of Gérald van der Kemp, the objective was to restore the palace to its state – or as close to it as possible – in 1789 when the royal family left the palace. Among the early projects was the repair of the roof over the Hall of Mirrors; the publicity campaign brought international attention to the plight of post-war Versailles and garnered much foreign money including a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation.
One of the more costly endeavors for the museum and France's Fifth Republic has been to repurchase as much of the original furnishings as possible. Consequently, because furniture with a royal provenance – and especially furniture that was made for Versailles – is a highly sought-after commodity on the international market, the museum has spent considerable funds on retrieving much of the palace's original furnishings.
21st century
In 2003, a new restoration initiative – the "Grand Versailles" project – was started, which began with the replanting of the gardens, which had lost over 10,000 trees during Cyclone Lothar on 26 December 1999. One part of the initiative, the restoration of the Hall of Mirrors, was completed in 2006. Another major project was the further restoration of the backstage areas of the Royal Opera of Versailles in 2007 to 2009.
The Palace of Versailles is currently owned by the French state. Its formal title is the Public Establishment of the Palace, Museum and National Estate of Versailles. Since 1995, it has been run as a Public Establishment, with an independent administration and management supervised by the French Ministry of Culture.
The grounds of the palace will host the equestrian competition during the 2024 Summer Olympics.
Architecture and plan
The Palace of Versailles is a visual history of French architecture from the 1630s to the 1780s. Its earliest portion, the corps de logis, was built for Louis XIII in the style of his reign with brick, marble, and slate, which Le Vau surrounded in the 1660s with Enveloppe, an edifice that was inspired by Renaissance-era Italian villas. When Mansart made further expansions to the palace in the 1680s, he used the Enveloppe as the model for his work. Neoclassical additions were made to the palace with the remodeling of the Ministers' Wings in the 1770s, by Ange-Jacques Gabriel, and after the Bourbon Restoration.
The palace was largely completed by the death of Louis XIV in 1715. The eastern facing palace has a U-shaped layout, with the corps de logis and symmetrical advancing secondary wings terminating with the Dufour Pavilion on the south and the Gabriel Pavilion to the north, creating an expansive cour d'honneur known as the Royal Court (Cour Royale). Flanking the Royal Court are two enormous asymmetrical wings that result in a façade of 402 metres (1,319 ft) in length. Covered by around a million square feet (10 hectares) of roof, the palace has 2,143 windows, 1,252 chimneys, and 67 staircases.[
The palace and its grounds have had a great influence on architecture and horticulture from the mid-17th century to the end of the 18th century. Examples of works influenced by Versailles include Christopher Wren's work at Hampton Court Palace, Berlin Palace, the Palace of La Granja, Stockholm Palace, Ludwigsburg Palace, Karlsruhe Palace, Rastatt Palace, Nymphenburg Palace, Schleissheim Palace, and Esterházy Palace.
Royal Apartments
The construction in 1668–1671 of Le Vau's enveloppe around the outside of Louis XIII's red brick and white stone château added state apartments for the king and the queen. The addition was known at the time as the château neuf (new château). The grands appartements (Grand Apartments, also referred to as the State Apartments[141][142]) include the grand appartement du roi and the grand appartement de la reine. They occupied the main or principal floor of the château neuf, with three rooms in each apartment facing the garden to the west and four facing the garden parterres to the north and south, respectively. The private apartments of the king (the appartement du roi and the petit appartement du roi) and those of the queen (the petit appartement de la reine) remained in the château vieux (old château). Le Vau's design for the state apartments closely followed Italian models of the day, including the placement of the apartments on the main floor (the piano nobile, the next floor up from the ground level), a convention the architect borrowed from Italian palace design.
The king's State Apartment consisted of an enfilade of seven rooms, each dedicated to one of the known planets and their associated titular Roman deity. The queen's apartment formed a parallel enfilade with that of the grand appartement du roi. After the addition of the Hall of Mirrors (1678–1684) the king's apartment was reduced to five rooms (until the reign of Louis XV, when two more rooms were added) and the queen's to four.
The queen's apartments served as the residence of three queens of France – Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche, wife of Louis XIV, Marie Leczinska, wife of Louis XV, and Marie-Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI. Additionally, Louis XIV's granddaughter-in-law, Princess Marie-Adélaïde of Savoy, duchesse de Bourgogne, wife of the Petit Dauphin, occupied these rooms from 1697 (the year of her marriage) to her death in 1712.
Ambassador's Staircase
The Ambassadors' Staircase (Escalier des Ambassadeurs) was an imperial staircase built from 1674 to 1680 by d'Orbay. Until Louis XV had it demolished in 1752 to create a courtyard for his private apartments, the staircase was the primary entrance into the Palace of Versailles and the royal apartments especially. It was entered from the courtyard via a vestibule that, cramped and dark, contrasted greatly with the tall, open space of the staircase – famously lit naturally with a skylight – so as to overawe visitors.
The staircase and walls of the room that contained it were clad in polychrome marble and gilded bronze, with decor in the Ionic order. Le Brun and painted the walls and ceiling of the room according to a festive theme to celebrate Louis XIV's victory in the Franco-Dutch War. On the wall immediately above the staircase were trompe-l'œil paintings of people from the Four Parts of the World looking into the staircase over a balustrade, a motif repeated on the ceiling fresco. There they were joined by allegorical figures for the twelve months of the year and various Classical Greek figures such as the Muses. A marble bust of Louis XIV, sculpted by Jean Warin in 1665–66, was placed in a niche above the first landing of the staircase.
The State Apartments of the King
The construction of the Hall of Mirrors between 1678 and 1686 coincided with a major alteration to the State Apartments. They were originally intended as his residence, but the King transformed them into galleries for his finest paintings, and venues for his many receptions for courtiers. During the season from All-Saints Day in November until Easter, these were usually held three times a week, from six to ten in the evening, with various entertainments.
The Salon of Hercules
This was originally a chapel. It was rebuilt beginning in 1712 under the supervision of the First Architect of the King, Robert de Cotte, to showcase two paintings by Paolo Veronese, Eleazar and Rebecca and Meal at the House of Simon the Pharisee, which was a gift to Louis XIV from the Republic of Venice in 1664. The painting on the ceiling, The Apotheosis of Hercules, by François Lemoyne, was completed in 1736, and gave the room its name.
The Salon of Abundance
The Salon of Abundance was the antechamber to the Cabinet of Curios (now the Games Room), which displayed Louis XIV's collection of precious jewels and rare objects. Some of the objects in the collection are depicted in René-Antoine Houasse's painting Abundance and Liberality (1683), located on the ceiling over the door opposite the windows.
The Salon of Venus
This salon was used for serving light meals during evening receptions. The principal feature in this room is Jean Warin's life-size statue of Louis XIV in the costume of a Roman emperor. On the ceiling in a gilded oval frame is another painting by Houasse, Venus subjugating the Gods and Powers (1672–1681). Trompe-l'œil paintings and sculpture around the ceiling illustrate mythological themes.
The Salon of Mercury
The Salon of Mercury was the original State Bedchamber when Louis XIV officially moved the court and government to the palace in 1682. The bed is a replica of the original commissioned by King Louis-Philippe in the 19th century when he turned the palace into a museum. The ceiling paintings by the Flemish artist Jean Baptiste de Champaigne depict the god Mercury in his chariot, drawn by a rooster, and Alexander the Great and Ptolemy surrounded by scholars and philosophers. The Automaton Clock was made for the King by the royal clockmaker Antoine Morand in 1706. When it chimes the hour, figures of Louis XIV and Fame descend from a cloud.
The Salon of Mars
The Salon of Mars was used by the royal guards until 1782, and was decorated on a military theme with helmets and trophies. It was turned into a concert room between 1684 and 1750, with galleries for musicians on either side. Portraits of Louis XV and his Queen, Marie Leszczinska, by the Flemish artist Carle Van Loo decorate the room today.
The Salon of Apollo
The Salon of Apollo was the royal throne room under Louis XIV, and was the setting for formal audiences. The eight-foot-high silver throne was melted down in 1689 to help pay the costs of an expensive war, and was replaced by a more modest throne of gilded wood. The central painting on the ceiling, by Charles de la Fosse, depicts the Sun Chariot of Apollo, the King's favorite emblem, pulled by four horses and surrounded by the four seasons.
The Salon of Diana
The Salon of Diana was used by Louis XIV as a billiards room, and had galleries from which courtiers could watch him play. The decoration of the walls and ceiling depicts scenes from the life of the goddess Diana. The celebrated bust of Louis XIV by Bernini made during the famous sculptor's visit to France in 1665 is on display here.
Private apartments of the King and Queen
The apartments of the King were the heart of the château; they were in the same location as the rooms of Louis XIII, the creator of the château, on the first floor (second floor US style). They were set aside for the personal use of Louis XIV in 1683. He and his successors Louis XV and Louis XVI used these rooms for official functions, such as the ceremonial lever ("waking up") and the coucher ("going to bed") of the monarch, which was attended by a crowd of courtiers.
The King's apartment was accessed from the Hall of Mirrors from the Oeil de Boeuf antechamber or from the Guardroom and the Grand Couvert, the ceremonial room where Louis XIV often took his evening meals, seated alone at a table in front of the fireplace. His spoon, fork, and knife were brought to him in a golden box. The courtiers could watch as he dined.
The King's bedchamber had originally been a Drawing Room before Louis XIV transformed it into his own bedroom in 1701. He died there on 1 September 1715. Both Louis XV and Louis XVI continued to use the bedroom for their official awakening and going to bed. On 6 October 1789, from the balcony of this room Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette, joined by the Marquis de Lafayette, looked down on the hostile crowd in the courtyard, shortly before the King was forced to return to Paris.
The bed of the King is placed beneath a carved relief by Nicolas Coustou entitled France watching over the sleeping King. The decoration includes several paintings set into the paneling, including a self-portrait of Antony van Dyck.
Private apartments of The Queen
The petit appartement de la reine is a suite of rooms that were reserved for the personal use of the queen. Originally arranged for the use of the Marie-Thérèse, consort of Louis XIV, the rooms were later modified for use by Marie Leszczyńska and finally for Marie-Antoinette. The Queen's apartments and the King's Apartments were laid out on the same design, each suite having seven rooms. Both suites had ceilings painted with scenes from mythology; the King's ceilings featured male figures, the Queen's featured females.
Hall of Mirrors
The Hall of Mirrors is a long gallery at the westernmost part of the palace that looks out onto the gardens. The hall was built from 1678 to 1681 on the site of a terrace Le Vau built between the king and queen's suites. The hall is clad in marble and decorated in a modified version of the Corinthian order, with 578 mirrors facing 17 windows and reflecting the light provided by them. The ceiling fresco, painted by Le Brun over the next four years, embellishes the first 18 years of Louis XIV's reign in 30 scenes, 17 of which are military victories over the Dutch. The fresco depicts Louis XIV himself alongside Classical figures in the scenes celebrating moments in his reign such as the beginning of personal rule in 1661, breaking from earlier frescoes at Versailles that used allegories derived from Classical and mythological scenes.
The Salon of War and the Salon of Peace bookend the Hall of Mirrors on its northern and southern ends respectively. The Salon of War, constructed and decorated from 1678 to 1686, celebrates French victories in the Franco-Dutch War with marble panels, gilded bronze trophies of arms, and a stucco bas-relief of Louis XIV on horsebask riding over his enemies. The Salon of Peace is decorated in the same fashion but according to its eponymous theme.
Royal Chapel
The Royal Chapel of Versailles is located at the southern end of the north wing. The building stands 40-meter (130 ft) high, and measures 42 meters (138 ft) long and 24 meters (79 ft) wide. The chapel is rectangular with a semicircular apse, combining traditional, Gothic royal French church architecture with the French Baroque style of Versailles. The ceiling of the chapel is constituted by an unbroken vault, divided into three frescos by Antoine Coypel, Charles de La Fosse, and Jean Jouvenet. The palette of motifs beneath the frescoes glorify the deeds of Louis IX, and include images of David, Constantine, Charlemagne, and Louis IX, fleur de lis, and Louis XIV's monogram. The organ of the chapel was built by Robert Clicquot and Julien Tribuot in 1709–1710.
Louis XIV commissioned the chapel, its sixth, from Mansart and Le Brun in 1683–84. It was the last building constructed at Versailles during Louis XIV's reign. Construction was delayed until 1699, however, and it was not completed until 1710. The only major modification to the chapel since its completion was the removal of a lantern from its roof in 1765. A full restoration of the chapel began in late 2017 and lasted into early 2021.
Royal Opera
The Royal Opera of Versailles was originally commissioned by Louis XIV in 1682 and was to be built at the end of the North Wing with a design by Mansart and Vigarani. However, due to the expense of the King's continental wars, the project was put aside. The idea was revived by Louis XV with a new design by Ange-Jacques Gabriel in 1748, but this was also temporarily put aside. The project was revived and rushed ahead for the planned celebration of the marriage of the Dauphin, the future Louis XVI, and Marie-Antoinette. For economy and speed, the new opera was built almost entirely of wood, which also gave it very high quality acoustics. The wood was painted to resemble marble, and the ceiling was decorated with a painting of the Apollo, the god of the arts, preparing crowns for illustrious artists, by Louis Jean-Jacques Durameau. The sculptor Augustin Pajou added statuary and reliefs to complete the decoration. The new Opera was inaugurated on 16 May 1770, as part of the celebration of the royal wedding.
In October 1789, early in the French Revolution, the last banquet for the royal guardsmen was hosted by the King in the opera, before he departed for Paris. Following the Franco-German War in 1871 and then the Paris Commune until 1875, the French National Assembly met in the opera, until the proclamation of the Third French Republic and the return of the government to Paris.
Museum of the History of France
Shortly after becoming King in 1830, Louis Philippe I decided to transform the palace into a museum devoted to "All the Glories of France," with paintings and sculpture depicting famous French victories and heroes. Most of the apartments of the palace were entirely demolished (in the main building, practically all of the apartments were annihilated, with only the apartments of the king and queen remaining almost intact), and turned into a series of several large rooms and galleries: the Coronation Room (whose original volume was left untouched by Louis-Philippe), which displays the celebrated painting of the coronation of Napoleon I by Jacques-Louis David; the Hall of Battles; commemorating French victories with large-scale paintings; and the 1830 room, which celebrated Louis-Philippe's own coming to power in the French Revolution of 1830. Some paintings were brought from the Louvre, including works depicting events in French history by Philippe de Champaigne, Pierre Mignard, Laurent de La Hyre, Charles Le Brun, Adam Frans van der Meulen, Nicolas de Largillière, Hyacinthe Rigaud, Jean-Antoine Houdon, Jean-Marc Nattier, Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun, Hubert Robert, Thomas Lawrence, Jacques-Louis David, and Antoine-Jean Gros. Others were commissioned especially for the museum by prominent artists of the early 19th century, including Eugène Delacroix, who painted Saint Louis at the French victory over the British in the Battle of Taillebourg in 1242. Other painters featured include Horace Vernet and François Gérard. A monumental painting by Vernet features Louis Philippe himself, with his sons, posing in front of the gates of the palace.
The overthrow of Louis Philippe in 1848 put an end to his grand plans for the museum, but the Gallery of Battles is still as it was, and is passed through by many visitors to the royal apartments and grand salons. Another set of rooms on the first floor has been made into galleries on Louis XIV and his court, displaying furniture, paintings, and sculptures. In recent years, eleven rooms on the ground floor between the Chapel and the Opera have been turned into a history of the palace, with audiovisual displays and models.
Estate of Versailles
The estate of Versailles consists of the palace, the subsidiary buildings around it, and its park and gardens. As of June 2021, the estate altogether covers an area of 800 hectares (8.0 km2; 2,000 acres), with the park and gardens laid out to the south, west, and north of the palace. The palace is approached from the east by the Avenue de Paris, measuring 17 miles (27 km) from Paris to a gate between the Grande and Petite Écuries. Beyond these stables is the Place d'Armes, where the Avenue de Paris meets the Avenue de Sceaux and Avenue de Saint-Cloud (see map), the three roads that formed the main arteries of the city of Versailles. Exactly where the three roads meet is a gate leading into the cour d'honneur. hemmed in by the Ministers' Wings. Beyond is the Royal Gate and the main palace, which wraps around the Royal and finally Marble Courts
The estate was established by Louis XIII as a hunting retreat, with a park just to the west of his château. From 1661, Louis XIV expanded the estate until, at its greatest extent, the estate was made up by the Grand Parc , a hunting ground of 15,000 hectares (150 km2; 37,000 acres), and the gardens, called the Petit Parc, which covered 1,700 hectares (17 km2; 4,200 acres). A 25-mile (40 km) long, 10-foot (3.0 m) high wall with 24 gateways enclosed the estate.
The landscape of the estate had to be created from the bog that surrounded Louis XIII's château using landscape architecture usually employed in fortress building. The approach to the palace and the gardens were carefully laid out via the moving of earth and construction of terraces. The water from the marsh was marshalled into a series of lakes and ponds around Versailles, but these reservoirs were not sufficient for the palace, city, or gardens. Great lengths were taken to supply Versailles with water, such as the damming of the river Bièvre to create an inflow in the 1660s, the construction of an enormous pumping station at the river Seine near Marly-le-Roi in 1681, and an attempt to divert water from the river Eure with a canal in the later 1680s.
Gardens
The gardens of Versailles, as they have existed since the reign of Louis XIV, are the work of André Le Nôtre. Le Nôtre's gardens were preceded by a simple garden laid out in the 1630s by landscape architects Jacques Boyceau and Jacques de Nemours, which he rearranged along an east–west axis that, because of Louis XIV's land purchases and the clearing of woodland, were expanded literally as far as could be seen. The resulting gardens were a collaboration between Le Nôtre, Le Brun, Colbert, and Louis XIV, marked by rigid order, discipline, and open space, with axial paths, flowerbeds, hedges, and ponds and lakes as motifs. They became the epitome of the French formal garden style, and have been very influential and widely imitated or reproduced.
Subsidiary structures
The first of the subsidiary structures of the Palace of Versailles was the Versailles Menagerie [fr],[199][200] built by Le Vau between the years 1662 and 1664, at the southern end of the Grand Canal. The apartments, overlooking the pens, were renovated by Mansart from 1698 to 1700, but the Menagerie fell into disuse in 1712. After a long period of decay, it was demolished in 1801. The Versailles Orangery, just to the south of the palace, was first built by Le Vau in 1663, originally as part of the general moving of earth to create the Estate.[191] It was also modified by Mansart, who, from 1681 to 1685, totally rebuilt it and doubled its size.
In late 1679, Louis XIV commissioned Mansart to build the Château de Marly, a retreat at the edge of Versailles's estate, about 5 miles (8.0 km) from the palace. The château consisted of a primary residential building and twelve pavilions, in Palladian style placed in two rows on either side of the main building. Construction was completed in 1686, when Louis XIV spent his first night there. The château was nationalized and sold in 1799, and subsequently demolished and replaced with industrial buildings. These were themselves demolished in 1805, and then in 1811 the estate was purchased by Napoleon. On 1 June 2009, the grounds of the Château de Marly were ceded to the Public Establishment of the Palace, Museum and National Estate of Versailles.
La Lanterne, is a hunting lodge named after the lantern that topped the nearby Menagerie that was built in 1787 by Philippe Louis de Noailles, then the palace governor. It has since 1960 been a state residence.
Petit Trianon
The Petit Trianon, whose construction from 1762 to 1768 led to the advent of the names "Grand" and "Petit Trianon", was constructed for Louis XV and the Madame du Barry in the Neoclassical style by Gabriel. The building has a piano nobile, basement, and attic, with five windows on each floor. On becoming king, Louis XVI gave the Petit Trianon to Marie Antoinette, who remodeled it, relaid its gardens in the then-current English and Oriental styles, and formed her own court there.
In 1668, Louis XIV purchased and demolished the hamlet of Trianon, near the northern tip of the Grand Canal, and in its place, he commissioned Le Vau to construct a retreat from court, remembered as the Porcelain Trianon. Designed and built by Le Vau in 1670, it was the first example of Chinoiserie (faux Chinese) architecture in Europe, though it was largely designed in French style. The roof was clad not with porcelain but with delftware, and was thus prone to leaks, so in 1687 Louis XIV ordered it demolished. Nevertheless, the Porcelain Trianon was itself influential and copycats were built across Europe.
The Grand Trianon
The Grand Trianon with courtyard and gardens. The wing at left is a residence of the President of France.
The Grand Trianon with courtyard and gardens. The wing at left is a residence of the President of France.
To replace the Porcelain Trianon, Louis XIV tasked Mansart with the construction in 1687 of the Grand Trianon, built from marble in three months. The Grand Trianon has a single story, except for its attached service wing, which was modified by Mansart in 1705–06. The east façade has a courtyard while the west faces the gardens of the Grand Trianon, and between them a peristyle. The interiors are mostly original,[214] and housed Louis XIV, the Madame de Maintenon, Marie Leszczynska, and Napoleon, who ordered restorations to the building. Under de Gaulle, the north wing of the Grand Trianon became a residence of the President of France.
The Queen's hamlet and Theater
Near the Trianons are the French pavilion, built by Gabriel in 1750 between the two residences, and the Queen's Theater and Queen's Hamlet, built by architect Richard Mique in 1780 and from 1783 to 1785 respectively. These were both built at the behest of Marie Antoinette; the theater, hidden in the gardens, indulged her appreciation of opera and is absolutely original, and the hamlet to extend her gardens with rustic amenities. The building scheme of the Queen's Hamlet includes a farmhouse (the farm was to produce milk and eggs for the queen), a dairy, a dovecote, a boudoir, a barn that burned down during the French Revolution, a mill and a tower in the form of a lighthouse.
Modern political and ceremonial functions
The palace still serves political functions. Heads of state are regaled in the Hall of Mirrors; the bicameral French Parliament—consisting of the Senate (Sénat) and the National Assembly (Assemblée nationale)—meet in joint session (a congress of the French Parliament) in Versailles to revise or otherwise amend the French Constitution, a tradition that came into effect with the promulgation of the 1875 Constitution. For example, the Parliament met in joint session at Versailles to pass constitutional amendments in June 1999 (for domestic applicability of International Criminal Court decisions and for gender equality in candidate lists), in January 2000 (ratifying the Treaty of Amsterdam), and in March 2003 (specifying the "decentralized organization" of the French Republic).
In 2009, President Nicolas Sarkozy addressed the global financial crisis before a congress in Versailles, the first time that this had been done since 1848, when Charles-Louis Napoleon Bonaparte gave an address before the French Second Republic. Following the November 2015 Paris attacks, President François Hollande gave a speech before a rare joint session of parliament at the Palace of Versailles. This was the third time since 1848 that a French president addressed a joint session of the French Parliament at Versailles. The president of the National Assembly has an official apartment at the Palace of Versailles. In 2023 a state visit by Charles III to France included a state banquet at the Palace.
This article is about the ancient city of Anatolia. For other uses, see Miletus (disambiguation).
Miletus
Μί̄λητος
Milet
The theater of Miletus
Shown within Turkey
Location
Balat, Didim, Aydın Province, Turkey
Region
Caria
Coordinates
37°31′49″N 27°16′42″E
Coordinates: 37°31′49″N 27°16′42″E
Type
Settlement
Area
90 ha (220 acres)
History
Builder
Minoans (later Mycenaeans) on site of the Luwian or Carian city[1][2][3]
Site notes
Public access
Yes
Website
Miletus Archaeological Site
Miletus (/maɪˈliːtəs/; Ancient Greek: Μί̄λητος Mīlētos; Hittite transcription Millawanda or Milawata (exonyms); Latin: Miletus; Turkish: Milet) was an ancient Greek city on the western coast of Anatolia, near the mouth of the Maeander River in ancient Caria.[3][4][5] Its ruins are located near the modern village of Balat in Aydın Province, Turkey. Before the Persian invasion in the middle of the 6th century BC, Miletus was considered the greatest and wealthiest of Greek cities.[6][7] In other sources however it is mentioned that the city was much more modest up until the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), when, for example, the city state of Samos on the island of Samos opposite Miletus was considered a larger and more important city and harbor at the time. Miletus' greatest wealth and splendor was reached during the Hellenistic era (323–30 BC) and later Roman times.
Evidence of first settlement at the site has been made inaccessible by the rise of sea level and deposition of sediments from the Maeander. The first available evidence is of the Neolithic. In the early and middle Bronze age the settlement came under Minoan influence. Legend has it that an influx of Cretans occurred displacing the indigenous Leleges. The site was renamed Miletus after a place in Crete.
The Late Bronze Age, 13th century BC, saw the arrival of Luwian language speakers from south central Anatolia calling themselves the Carians. Later in that century other Greeks arrived. The city at that time rebelled against the Hittite Empire. After the fall of that empire the city was destroyed in the 12th century BC and starting about 1000 BC was resettled extensively by the Ionian Greeks. Legend offers an Ionian foundation event sponsored by a founder named Neleus from the Peloponnesus.
The Greek Dark Ages were a time of Ionian settlement and consolidation in an alliance called the Ionian League. The Archaic Period of Greece began with a sudden and brilliant flash of art and philosophy on the coast of Anatolia. In the 6th century BC, Miletus was the site of origin of the Greek philosophical (and scientific) tradition, when Thales, followed by Anaximander and Anaximenes (known collectively, to modern scholars, as the Milesian School) began to speculate about the material constitution of the world, and to propose speculative naturalistic (as opposed to traditional, supernatural) explanations for various natural phenomena.
Miletus is the birthplace of the Hagia Sophia's architect (and inventor of the flying buttress) Isidore of Miletus and Thales, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher (and one of the Seven Sages of Greece) in c. 624 BC
One of several "inserts" in a JM asbestos product marketing folder discussing use of asbestos fiber in asphalt road application. This is a two-page article reprinted from a 1965 industry publication.
Some background:
Instead of a story compiled/edited by myself, a very good “real” source: an article about the “American Spirit” project from 1996, scanned from a magazine and posted elsewhere:
This and some more information, including a drawing of the (apparently never) finished aircraft and a photo of the semi-finished airframe on airliners.net were the basis for my build.
The kit and its assembly:
This is my third and last entry to the “Racing” group build at whatifmodelers.com that ended in Feb. 2019. It is nothing less than the attempt to re-create the potentially fastest piston engine aircraft in the world as a model, based on the sparse information I was able to gather (see above). The aircraft’s design is quite odd, and it is worth reading the design background in the article, because it was a true “garage build” with the intention to use as many existing components in order to save costs and development time.
This was, more or less, mirrored during the building process, and like the real “American Spirit” the model consists at its core of a Matchbox T-2 “Buckeye” jet trainer! The T-2 fuselage lost its nose section, the ventral engine bay and the original cockpit fairing. This left a lot of fuselage surface to be re-constructed. The fin was clipped, too, just like in real life. At the fin’s base I added a cockpit opening and implanted a cockpit tub, taken from a Revell G.91. A new bucket seat (probably from an Academy Fw 190) was installed, and a new, tight canopy – I think it originally came from a Revell Go 229, but it was trimmed down considerably to match the T-2’s fuselage lines. The canopy was blended into the fin root with massive 2C putty sculpting, and the area in front of the windscreen was created with 2C putty, too. Both a tedious PSR process.
Once the upper fuselage shape was finished I started searching for a cowling and a matching propeller. After several attempts with bigger engines (e. g. from a Super Constellation) I eventually settled upon a rather narrow (but bleak) cowling from an Pioneer2/Airfix Hawker Sea Fury, which turned out to have just the right diameter for the re-constructed T-2 fuselage and matched the “American Spirit” drawing’s well.
It also had at the front end the right diameter for the propeller: it comes, just like in real life, from a C-130 Hercules, even though I used a late variant with six blades, a resin aftermarket piece, taken from an Attack Squadron engine nacelle set. Unfortunately, the spinners were molded onto the engines, so that I had to cut my donor part away. Three of the six propeller blade attachment points were faired over. While the original “American Spirit” carried clipped blades from an Electra airliner, I used parts from a P-3 Orion – the come very close in shape and size, and were easy to install. Finally, the propeller received a metal axis and a matching styrene tube adapter in the Sea Fury cowling.
Once the engine was in place, the cowling was filled with as much lead as possible, since the model would be built with an extended landing gear.
However, a large ventral section was still missing, and it was created with a leftover underwater section from a model ship hull, and lots of more putty, of course. A small tail bumper was added under the fin.
Once the fuselage was more or less finished, I turned my attention to the wings and stabilizers. The latter were supposed to be “un-swept F-86H stabilizers”, but unfortunately I could not find visual evidence of what this would have looked like. I tried some donor parts, including stabilizers from an F-86A and D, as well as from a MiG-15, and eventually decided to use individual parts, because nothing looked convincing to me, either swept or straight. Actually the MiG-15 parts looked the best, but they were too small, so I used the wings from an 1:144 Panavia Tornado (Dragon) and tailored them into a sweep angle similar to the MiG-15 parts, but with more depth and span. Not certain how “realistic” this is, but it looks good and compliments the swept T-2 fin well.
The T-2 wings saw only minor modifications: the wing tip tanks were cut off and the tips as well as the flaps faired over, since the “American Spirit” did not feature the latter anymore. The small LERXs were cut away, too, and instead I added small air intakes – the “American Spirit” probably did not feature them, but I wondered where the aircraft’s engine would feed its carburetor or an oil cooler? The respective gaps on the fuselage flanks were filled accordingly.
Some more work waited on the fuselage, too. The aircraft’s drawing showed shallow openings on the forward fuselage’s flanks, but their function was not clear – I assume that the exhausts from the 18 cylinder engine were collected there, 9 on each side, so I carved the openings into the massive plastic and putty fuselage with a mini drill tool and added exhaust stubs as well as deflector plates.
Another issue was the well for the front landing gear – this came, together with the complete front leg, from an Italeri F-100, just like in real life. The good thing about the Italeri kit is that it comes with a separate well tub, which made the installation quite easy. I just cut a square section out of the lower fuselage behind the engine and the landing gear well snuggly fell into place, with only little PSR effort. And, to my surprise, the end result seems to be a very good match to the real life design – even though I was not able to confirm this with picture material.
The main landing gear was taken OOB from the Matchbox T-2 – and it is really a weird sight, since the T-2’s track is very wide while the wheelbase is unusually short. But the source article indicates that this must have been the designers’ plans!
Painting and markings:
While the model’s hardware came quite close to the real thing, the livery of the “American Spirit” was totally open, so I created my own. I felt that two design directions would be appropriate: either a relatively dry and clean design, e. g. in overall silver or white with a little trim, or something patriotic, reflecting the aircraft’s name.
I eventually settled for the latter, and considered several approaches in white, red and blue, and eventually settled for one of my first ideas, a kind of “flying American flag” in an asymmetrical design, somewhat inspired by a Bicentennial F-106A from 1976: this machine carried a white fuselage with some red trim stripes and a blue nose section that featured lots of tiny white stars. I took this layout a little further and gave the “American Spirit” a dark blue engine cowling and front fuselage section, as well as a single blue wing. From that, wide red and white stripes stream backwards across the other wing, the fuselage and the tail. The design was mirrored on the undersides.
The stripes were painted with a wide brush with Humbrol 19 and 22, after the kit had been primed with white and had received an overall white basic coat with acrylic paint from the rattle can, too. The blue section was painted with Revell 350 (RAL 5013/Lufthansa Blue). I tried to add some “wavy flag texture” effect to the basic paints with slightly different tones, added wet-in-wet to the basic paints, but the visual effect turned out to be minimal, so I left it like that.
The stars are all individual waterslide decals, coming from an 1:87 Allied WWII markings sheet from TL Modellbau. The big white stars that are the background for the starting numbers on top and below the blue wing come from an 1:72 F4U. The red and blue starting numbers themselves were taken from a TL Modellbau sheet for firefighting vehicles: they are actually parts of German emergency telephone numbers…
Some stencils and leading edges on all wings, created with generic silver decal material, completed the outside, and finally I painted some fake panel lines onto the hull with a soft pencil. The T-2 air brakes, which were retained for the “American Spirit”, were re-created with fine black decal lines. Similar material in silver was used to simulate panel lines for the cooling air outlet flaps on the cowling. Unfortunately, the T-2 kit itself did not come with much surface detail, and any leftover rest (like the air brakes) disappeared during the extensive PSR sessions and under the primer and paint coats. Finally, the kit was sealed with a coat of semi-gloss acrylic varnish (Italeri).
A massive scratch-build. While challenging the work on this model was fun because it followed in its creation a similar process as the real “American Spirit”, which was, AFAIK, sold and never completed. In the end, I am positively surprised how close the overall outlines seem to come to the real (and odd-looking) aircraft, even though the garish livery is purely speculative, so that this model is, despite its roots in the real world and the attempt to stay true to the original, a fictional/whif piece. The finish is a bit rough, though, but that’s probably the price to pay when you create things from scratch.
I still have one or two pictures to post of my stay in Barbezieux, so it is not finished ... but nice surprise, an article in the local press, released today.
J'ai encore un ou deux dessins à poster de mon séjour à Barbezieux, donc c'est pas fini... mais, joli surprise, un article paru dans la presse locale, publié ce jour.
Article in this months American Bungalow magazine. Authentic period fashions from Syacuse University's Sue Ann Genet Costume Collection with styling by Jeffrey Mayer, curator. Mannequin makeup by Dash-N-Dazzle.
Article in this months American Bungalow magazine. Authentic period fashions from Syacuse University's Sue Ann Genet Costume Collection with styling by Jeffrey Mayer, curator. Mannequin makeup by Dash-N-Dazzle.
Very honored to have been asked to write a cake editorial in the latest issue of Forsyth Women Engaged! Magazine.
NASA is gearing up to test a structural representation of the ESA (European Space Agency)-built Service Module for Orion at the agency’s Glenn Research Center Plum Brook Station in Ohio. The test article will be subjected to mechanical and acoustic vibration, pyro-shock, fairing separation and solar array deployment tests at Plum Brook Station’s Space Power Facility, where the liftoff environment the service module will endure can be tested. The adapter that will connect the crew and service module, shown here inside the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building high bay, is being prepared for shipment to Plum Brook Station from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and will be mated with the ESA Service Module prior to testing. The adapter is expected to be delivered to Ohio in June, followed by ESA’s delivery in October. Photo credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett
As a keen fan of the mechanically outrageous, I have read many an article about the Guy Wulfrunian but I have to confess that until last weekend, I had never actually seen one in the flesh. That was rectified at the Dewsbury Bus Museum's November Running Day - my first visit to this establishment too. Although access on to the bus was not actually possible I was pleased to see quite a bit of technical stuff through the windows. Enough to make me think that apart from the unfortunate bulk of the engine, everything else should have worked if it had been developed properly. After all, the Leyland Atlantean was originally intended to have independent front suspension and the many driveline failures experienced by those that embraced rear engines suggests that Guy were wise to consider a relatively conventional layout. Guy parts aside I was intrigued to realise that not only does the Roe body have removable panels for access to the front of the engine, but the whole offside front, windscreen and all is on hinges and is a useful door for getting to all sorts of things in the cab area that require maintenance. Usually one requires the services of a double jointed small boy for that sort of thing. Some will point to the later Volvo Ailsa as evidence that all could have been well, but the fact is that the Wulfrunian was in production for a number of years and Guy still didn't get it right. True, their thoughts were probably several thousand miles away in Africa. Ah well, you can't change history now. For Guy, what a pity.
i don't feel like posting the rest of the article cause then i've have to take another pic so blah. ummmmm school starts day after tomorrow....wooooohooooh. but i am so excited to see all my models...ahem....biffers again. i'm actually a bit excited for school. just got back from london. bought a holga!
UPDATE: the "shoot the cover" contest was fun. I know I did crappily, but the model was really nice and so were the other contestants. during the shoot i found the nikon d300 so hard to shoot in autofocus, which is what they had everyone shoot in. i had to switch to manual because i was so confused loll. You got to choose your favorite picture you took after the 15 min shoot and then they'd print it with the "digital photography monthly" header and frame it.
oh...and I LOVEEEE chocolate farina. i'm running out of the boxes i bought in ireland. you can only get it in england and ireland and actually after years of searching i've only just found it again in ireland in a remote supermarket. it's sooooo yummy.
this was a great summer and I've grown a lot in my photography. I'm really excited about what the upcoming year has to offer.
UPDAE (sept 10th): 2 greatttt concepts planned. i have a feeling there will be great results.
"Yes, I Use Botox", an article in People talking about actress Virgina Madsen using Botox and how others are using it. Botox is a common treatment for many situations at the Vancouver Laser & Skin Care Centre.
A very interesting article on the MSN Cars website on how the numbers of certain once popular cars are dropping off - we're the ones hunting down what's left!
Link to article below:
www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/popular-cars-vanishing-from-o...
The Curtiss JN-4 was one of the most popular aircraft in the late 1910s and early 1920s. Designed by Englishman Benjamin Thomas, formerly with the Sopwith Aviation Company, it was manufactured by the Curtiss Aeroplane Co. of Hammondsport, New York. The JN built upon the previous Curtiss Model J and Model N series of trainers that had developed before the First World War. The name “Jenny” came from the JN designation and is associated with the American (Curtiss Aeroplane Co.) variants of this aircraft. It was originally developed as a training aircraft in response to a U.S. Army competition seeking a two-seater biplane (student in front, instructor behind) with dual controls. The JN-4 model first appeared in 1916 and sported a 90 hp Curtiss OX-5 water cooled V8 engine. By 1918 a larger 150 hp Hispano-Suiza engine was installed to provide more power. LINK - albertaaviationmuseum.com/in-formation-curtiss-jn-4-jenni...
The Curtiss Model 41 Lark was a commercial biplane manufactured by Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company that was used by pioneering airmail, airline and bush pilots in the 1920s. Patrica Airways operated a Lark for early bushplane operations. The aircraft flew with floats in warm weather, and skis in the winter. The aircraft was pressed into service as an early hearse once, with the cargo needing to be seated upside down in the open seat and secured with haywire.
(The Gazette newspaper - Montreal, Quebec, Canada •
Friday, March 12, 1926) - AIR SERVICE FOR RED LAKE DISTRICT - Company is Formed and Flying Boat and Cruiser Purchased - Red Lake, which was brought within one and half hours of the outer world on March 3, 1926 when the first airplane flight was made in from Hudson, as compared with from ten to twelve days previously, made with dogs, is to have an even better service with the formation yesterday of the Elliot Fairchild Air Service and the purchase of one aeromarine, seven passenger, all metal flying boat, together with a large deluxe cruiser passenger boat. Jack V. Elliot who inaugurated the original service with two machines, spent yesterday in Montreal making arrangements with the Fairchild Aerial Surveys Company of Canada Limited, with the result that a company has been formed and a charter applied for. To date there has been a daily service into Red Lake from Hudson, three planes being in operation and carrying two passengers and 500 pounds of baggage each. They cover the 140 miles separating Hudson and Red Lake in one hour and a half. Air mail is carried from Hudson, the post office address for Red Lake being via Rolling Portage, Ontario. Stamps for the air-mail service may be purchased from the post offices at Hudson (Hudson being the rail road station and Rolling Portage the post office address). Toronto. Winnipeg, Montreal, Ottawa. North Bay, Sudbury, Cobalt, Haileybury and Timiskaming. When navigation opens about May 1, a boat service is to be provided from Hudson to Pineridge, two-thirds the distance from Hudson to Red Lake, and the large flying boats will take passengers, mail and express freight the balance of the distance into Red Lake. Heavier packages and canoes are to be taken in by Indians, who will be brought back by airplane. The passenger cruiser, which has been purchased for the boat service, will have three staterooms with sleeping accommodation for 16 and day accommodation for 50, the journey by water taking seven or eight hours. It has been planned to erect a broadcasting station at Red Lake, Hudson and on the boat so that communications may be kept up between these three and the outer world at all times. President of the new company is Elwood Wilson, M E.I.C., and Jack V. Elliot is vice-president and general manager. LINK - www.newspapers.com/article/the-gazette-air-service-for-re...
(The Daily Sun-Times newspaper - Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada • Monday, March 22, 1926) - NEW AIRPLANE FOR HUDSON TO RED LAKE ROUTE IS ON THE WAY "The Lark" Leaving Buffalo for Toronto and There Will Take on Sleeping Bags, Etc. (Canadian Press Despatch) BUFFALO, N. Y., Mar. 22, 1926 -The new airplane, "'The Lark", to be used in the Lake service, by the Patricia Airway and Exploration company, arrived here shortly after noon, yesterday, from New York, with "Casey" Jones, test pilot for the Curtis Airplanes Corporation, in charge, and two passengers. Frederick Griffin, press writer, and Captain W. R. Maxwell, Director of the Ontario Provincial air service. The Lark expected to continue its northward flight, to-day, by way of Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie, Orient Bay, Sioux Lookout and Hudson. Roy Mitchell will replace Mr. Jones in the pilot's seat from this point. At Toronto the ship will take on snowshoes, sleeping bags, and food, preparation for an overland tramp, in the event of ship coming down unscheduled, in northern territory. LINK - www.newspapers.com/article/the-daily-sun-times-new-airpla...
(The Toronto Star newspaper - Toronto, Ontario, Canada •
Tuesday, June 29, 1926) - RED LAKE MAIL SERVICE - F. E. Davidson of the Patricia Air Service into Red Lake, made an announcement this morning that starting today all mail will be carried into Red Lake via Sioux Lookout instead of via Hudson. All letters should bear the mark "Via Sioux Lookout." The Elliot Fairchild service has been carrying mail since March 20th. From now on the Patricia Air Service will be permitted to issue their own postage stamps. The government intends to redeem the old Elliot-Fairchild stamps but in the meantime old stamps are good for carriage over the Patricia Air Service. The new Patricia stamps can now be purchased at post offices for 25 cents apiece. The Patricia Air Service makes the trip from Sioux Lookout to Red Lake in about 60 minutes. It also makes trips to Woman Lake, Pine Ridge and to Bull Dog Lake, Manitoba. The Elliot Fairchild boat service still continues. LINK - www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-red-lake-mail...
(The Toronto Star newspaper - Toronto, Ontario, Canada •
Wednesday, June 30, 1926) - Patricia Airways • Exploration- Above is reproduced a facsimile of one of new postal stickers of the Patricia Air Service, operating airplanes into Red Lake. The postmaster has granted the company permission to issue these stickers in future, and they can be procured at any post office for 25 cents apiece. The old Elliot-Fairchild stamps are being redeemed, but can still be used for letters. In future letters to Red Lake should be marked "Via Sioux Lookout." LINK - www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-patricia-airw...
Sherman Mills Fairchild (April 7, 1896 – March 28, 1971) was an American businessman and investor who founded over 70 companies, including Fairchild Aviation, Fairchild Industries, and Fairchild Camera and Instrument. LINK - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Fairchild
John "Jack" Vernon Elliot (1893 - 1964), was a pilot in the western Ontario area providing passenger service and flights for thrill seekers in the early 1920's. By 1925, he had his own flying school and by purchasing partially completed aircraft, managed to complete his own aircraft. LINK - www.semiofficials.ca/elliot_1.html
Canadian magazine chose one of my photographs & put it on the magazine cover ..
جريـــدة الرايــــــة القطرية - ( Page 12)
___________________________
Starfall: And we are back again, this time with Evgeniya “Pepperjane” Perchina, the support of Strike 5.
Pepper: Hey.
Starfall: Pepper, how does it feel to be the only girl on the pro scene?
Pepper: Like an adventure, but it does get lonely sometimes. Turning to my teammates and going “Hey, that guy is so hot!” just doesn’t have the right feel to it, ya know?
Starfall: *smiles* Yes, I think I do. What made you decide to go into gaming? It’s not a very girly thing to do.
Pepper: Well, I was going to be a motorcycle mechanic, that’s not very girly either. But I dunno, for a while we were joking around that we’d make a great team and mocked up future plans… And suddenly Grey is all serious about it and next thing I know, Shane and I are moving out to Cali. It just happened.
Starfall: You and Shane know each other for a long time?
Pepper: Oh yeah. We grew up together, suffered through high school together… He is family.
Starfall: Speaking of family, I understand that you are related to your current manager, Rachel?
Pepper: Yeah, Rache was married to my brother for a while. She was my idol when I was younger and when I decided to move out here, she came with me and started taking care of all of us, while we were trying to become a real team.
Starfall: What’s your role on the team?
Pepper: To make sure Shane doesn’t do stupid shit, make calls for objectives and keep everyone as much alive as possible.
Starfall: If there was an all-girl team out there, would you join?
Pepper: Nah. I like my guys. They are easier to talk to than girls.
Starfall: Which one of them is the hardest to be around?
Pepper: It’s between Doranson and Hawk. One is very closed off and the other is a pain in the ass.
Starfall: Who are the top three ADC’s you’d like to play with?
Pepper: Ooh! Definitely Genja, then maybe Aphromoo and Imp.
Starfall: I have a request here for a fuck, marry, kill for the following players: xPeke, Krepo and Ocelot.
Pepper: Too easy! Definitely fuck xPeke, marry Krepo, since he seems like the nicest of the bunch and like he’d appreciate me cooking for him… that means I have to kill Ocelot, even though he’s never done nothing to me.
Starfall: And of course, I can’t let you leave without asking, because it’s the whole community that wants to know: are you dating anyone?
Pepper: Nah, don’t really have the time for that. We practice way too much.
Starfall: Thank you Pepper, it’s nice to have a girl here for a change. Tomorrow we finish up our string of interviews, tune in!
Holy Trinity Church in Kraków
This article is about the Dominican church. See also: floor plan of the same name .
Church of the Holy Trinity
Dominican convent church
Parish Church
Distinctive emblem for cultural property.svg A- 21, 25/03/1931 , A- 188 / M 02/09/1999 [1 ]
View from us . Dominican
Country Poland
In Kraków, ul. Joiners 12
the Roman Catholic
The Roman Catholic Church
Parish of the Holy Trinity
Minor Basilica of 1957
History
Data temple
Location map of the Old Town in Krakow
Church of the Holy Trinity
Church of the Holy Trinity
Earth 50 ° 03'33 .44 " N 19 ° 56'21 , 89 " E
Multimedia Commons Wikimedia Commons
Holy Trinity Church - a historic church located in the Old Town of Krakow, ul. Stolarskiej 12, combined with the Dominican convent.
History
Church. Trinity ( XVII -XIX century )
The service on the ruins of the church after a fire in 1850
Holy Trinity Church
Dominican Republic, with St . Jack at the helm, came to Krakow to Bologna in 1222. He brought the Cracow bishop Iwo Odrowąż who gave the Dominicans partly wood, partly brick parish church. Trinity, moving to a new parish church of St Mary, March 12, 1223, the church was consecrated .
New Gothic church and monastery of the Dominicans began to rise after the Tartar invasion in 1241. Originally it was a three-aisled hall, which was then, at the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the basilica was rebuilt. Until the mid nineteenth century, one of the characteristic features of the exterior of the temple was made of brick bell tower, standing not in front of the facade of the Church Street exit. Carpentry. After a fire in 1850, the church bell tower remained of the burned walls that were demolished during the reconstruction work of the church. In 1876, in place of the tower dostawiono the neo-Gothic facade of the temple porch. It protected the Gothic, the fourteenth-century portal of the main entrance, which was renovated in 1893 Among other things, lists the number of broken fragments of stone.
The end of the glory of the church put a terrible fire Krakow in 1850. It burned the whole interior with the exception of some of the chapels of the nave vault collapsed. Immediately after the fire started a comprehensive reconstruction of the temple. Construction lasted between 1850-1884 , and guided by the architect Theophilus Żebrawski. Blown walls were so weak that they had to dismantle part of the imminent collapse of the facade. After joining the reconstruction, it turned out that even the lower parts of the walls and pillars are too damaged to be able to carry the weight of the new vault. Therefore temporarily propped up with wooden beams and pillars of pressed metal rims. In the years 1853-1854 the rate of recovery was very slow, but such managed to bring the new stained glass windows by German artist Hübner The following year, construction was resumed, supporting silhouetted walls and covering them with arches supported on pillars of brick, stone interleaved only. After removing the props from under the arches of the nave vaults in the morning, April 12, 1855, a portion of the vault and the walls collapsed, damaging a neighboring house. This catastrophe building in Kraków moved public opinion. Especially criticized austerity policies in the selection of materials. In order to ensure adequate control was established in 1856 by a special committee conservation. After collecting the necessary funds and uprzątnięciu debris, only in 1858 began to laying new foundations for the pillars. Three years later roofed aisles, and in 1863 - the main nave. Basic work on the reconstruction was completed in 1872 . As a result, the appearance of the temple has changed considerably, which was criticized by the artistic community. Especially firmly decided to include sculptor Edward Stehlik. Later, many attacks also met Francis activity prior Pavoni who has pseudogotyckich interior alterations, furnishings and architectural details of the church. At the present time a high altar, choir stalls and confessionals. After the restoration, in 1884, the church was consecrated .
Since 1957 the church is a basilica minor .
Interior
Today the Trinity church is a three-nave Gothic temple of brick and stone, built in the characteristic of the Krakow-skarpowym (clothing) pillar system, with an elongated choir ended straight wall.
In the church, next to the main altar, is buried Leszek the Black Prince, who died in 1288. In the chancel of the church has a brown plate eminent humanist Filip Callimachus , who died in 1496, and made according to a design by Veit Stoss.
Authorities built in the 1890s the company Rieger Brothers of Jägerndorfu as opus 756. The instrument has 30 votes, mechanical and pneumatic tracker game tracker registers. It is a valuable and interesting example of the romantic organ building, while maintaining to this day its original concept of the tone.
Chapels
The interior of the church
Nave south (right )
Saint Joseph's Oratory. Rose Limańskiej (Lubomirski) - built in the early seventeenth century Gothic chapel, burial place Pilecki (erected in the late fourteenth century). The founders were Sebastian Lubomirski and his wife Anna Branicka, their portraits are on the walls in TONDACH brakes. The interior of the dome filled with images of St. Sebastian, Stanislaw and Anna Samotrzeć and the prophet Elijah, in the niches are statues of saints (Dominik, Stanislaus, Stanislaus Kostka, Czeslaw, Kazimierz, Jacek, Florian and Wojciech). The chapel was closed seventeenth century grid.
Saint Joseph's Oratory. Thomas - built in the fifteenth century by the characteristics of tailors. Is covered with a dome network. Equipment is designed by Marian Pavoni neo-Gothic altar with statues of St. Thomas, Casimir Stanislaus Kostka, Anthony and Albert, Renaissance tomb of Nicholas Bogusz Krasnystaw governor and Tommaso Dolabella image depicting a school of St . Thomas Aquinas.
Chapel of the Saviour (Przeździeckich) - placed by Nicholas Edeling in 1368, subsequent came under the care of the bakers' guild, and in the sixteenth century passed into the possession of the family Orliki. After a fire in 1850 and restored by the family Przeździeckich. Equipped with a neo-Gothic altar made by Edward Stehlik, designed by Theophilus Żebrawskiego.
Saint Joseph's Oratory. Joseph (Szafraniec, Provanów) - built in the fifteenth century by the characteristics of shoemakers, after many years was owned by the family Szafraniec. Equipment is a neo-Gothic altar designed by Marian Pavoni with the image of Christ in the Holy workshop. Joseph John Angelika Drewaczyńskiego brush and Mannerist tombstone Prosper Prov - żupnika Wieliczka .
Saint Joseph's Oratory. Dominic Myszkowskis - founded in 1614. It is located on the second to last in the side, the right aisle. It is specific and easy to recognize because it can see a gallery of family Myszkowskis. These are the family carved figures inside the dome. This chapel is easy to recognize from the outside, because it is decorated with rustication. The building was used srebrzystoczarny (shiny metallic grey) noble marble columns are colored in soft, broken pink and white sculptures emphasize elegance.
Chapel of the Rosary - it was built on a Greek cross with a dome over the intersection of the arms in the years 1685-1688 on the site of an earlier fifteenth- century chapel of the Annunciation. In 1668 was placed in the chapel of the image of Our Lady of the Rosary, which according to tradition was to belong to St . Stanislaus Kostka. It is located between the main altar with statues of St . Pius V and error . Benedict IX. The walls and ceiling covered by a polychrome painted over in 1820 by Teodor Baltazar Stachowicz and in 1875 by Valentine and Wladyslaw Bąkowskich. It reveals the mysteries of the Rosary, the coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the saints and angelic choirs. The chapel is the tomb of Stanislaus Sołtyka by F. Pozzi, painting of the Madonna and Child in a silver dress and the statue of Christ the Man of Sorrows in the early sixteenth century. Since 1983, the chapel is the burial place Teofili Sobieska mother of King John III Sobieski , and Marek Sobieski (brother of John III) .
Nave north (left )
Headstone of General Jan Skrzynecki in the chapel of Jesus Crucified
Saint Joseph's Oratory. Catherine of Siena (Zbaraskis) - built the foundation of George Zbaraskiego Castellan of Cracow in the years 1627-1633 by Andrew and Anthony Castellich. Perched on a rectangular plan and is covered with a dome of elliptical projection. The interior is made of black marble. Opposite the entrance is an altar with a picture of Teodor Baltazar Stachowicz showing a vision of St . Catherine of Siena. On both sides of the picture are statues of St . St. Catherine of Alexandria and St . Catherine of Siena. On the right side of the altar - George Zbaraskiego tombstone, and on the left - Christopher Zbaraskiego. The chapel was closed grille of the 2nd half. Nineteenth century, mounted on a marble balustrade.
Saint Joseph's Oratory. Mary Magdalene (Malachowski) - built in the fifteenth century, in the sixteenth century wore call St . John the Baptist, and was owned by the family Tęczyńska. Since 1884 belongs to the family Malachowski. It is located in the neo-Gothic design by Marian altar painting of St. Pavoni. Mary Magdalene Wladyslaw Bąkowski brush, painting Feast of Simon Thomas Dolabella and Malachowskis tombstone from 1884.
Chapel of Jesus Crucified - built in the late fourteenth century with the foundation of John Castellan łęczycki Ligęza. It wore once call St . Stanislaus. In the seventeenth taken care of her features masons. At the arcade, there are fragments of Gothic paintings from the end of the fourteenth century St . Catherine of Alexandria and the two prophets. The equipment includes the neo-Gothic altar designed by Marian Pavoni an image of Christ crucified Joseph Simmler brush. The high altar is gothic reliquary containing the remains of Bl. Wit - the thirteenth-century apostle of Lithuania. In front of the altar is the marble tomb of General Jan Skrzynecki. In the chapel Masses are celebrated on the anniversary of the Battle of Olszynka Grochowska.
Chapel of the Holy . Jack - in it, in a late Baroque tomb placed on the altar are the remains of the saint. The altar was made in the years 1695-1703 by Baltazar Fontana. The same artist around 1700 the chapel decorated with stucco. Then covered wall murals Charles Dankwart. In the chapel there are also scenes from the life of St . Jack painted by Tomasz Dolabella. The chapel is closed grille of the mid-eighteenth century.
Monastery
The monastic buildings adjacent to the church on the north and center on three wirydarzy. The galleries around the first of them are called campo santo Krakow because of the numerous monuments, tombstones and epitaphs set in the walls. Cross-ribbed vault of the cloister dates from the fourteenth century, tombstones and epitaphs in most of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The oldest portion of the buildings are Romanesque refectory of wild stone and portal decorated with braid. Is identified with the original church of St. Trinity devoted to the Dominicans in 1222 by Iwo Odrowąż, or the oratory built after the fire of 1225 years. Inside are paintings of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. On the left of the Roman relics are early Gothic windows, identified by some scholars of the Church of the former St . Thomas. The buildings also include:
chapter house erected from the thirteenth to the beginning. The sixteenth century. It leads to the Gothic portal .
Gothic hall is covered with cross-ribbed vault supported on three pillars
Old library, built in the thirteenth, and rebuilt in the seventeenth century.
Stock monastery include, among others portraits of the bishops of the Dominican order, Tommaso Dolabella images from the years 1614 to 1620, the so-called accommodation. Dominican polyptych by the Master of the Dominican Passion, painting of St . Jude Luke Orlowski, Vision of St. Sophie Michael Stachowicz, alabaster sculpture Gothic Madonna and Child (called jacks) on the head reliquary of St . Jack baroque vestments, numerous incunabula, old books and even manuscripts from the thirteenth century.
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazylika_%C5%9Awi%C4%99tej_Tr%C3%B3...
Article In a South African HipHop Magazine.
A really cool interview leading to a really cool article, written by a really cool person.
->Who has since, become a good friend.
A good panoramic view of China’s recent development and its current rejection of the democracy model for its own governance, by former Singapore ambassador to the UN, Kishore Mahbubani:
Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs on the Covid vaccines, New World Order, global leadership and multilateralism:
Former U.S. Ambassador Max Baucus on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan trip:
----------
The Foreign Affairs article below is typical American, full of obligatory and unsubstantiated propaganda spread by the West even though it's not all complimentary about the U.S. The fact is China has alleviated extreme poverty; millions of Chinese tourists have visited overseas with hundreds of thousands of students attended various universities in the West without a single individual seeking political asylum. If China were as repressive as the West describes, wouldn't these tourists and students seek political asylum while abroad? There have been no proven evidence of any mistreatment of Uyghurs inside China. If as many as 2 million Uyghurs were incarcerated, surely, the West can show us satellite photos of these humongous prison camps, right? The fact is an overwhelming majority of the people in China believe their country is heading the right direction.
worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-...
In this 2022 freedom Index, Hong Kong ranks #30, ahead of South Korea (31) France (34) and Singapore (48).
When President Jimmy Carter established diplomatic relationship with China in 1978, he agreed to the Shanghai Communiqué which reads, among others, "The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China."
The author fails to disclose that Taiwan's Tsai Ing-wen unwillingness to accept the 1992 Consensus is one of main reasons for Mainland China's treatment of her.
www.foreignaffairs.com/china/china-trap-us-foreign-policy...
The China Trap
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Perilous Logic of Zero-Sum Competition
By Jessica Chen Weiss
Competition with China has begun to consume U.S. foreign policy. Seized with the challenge of a near-peer rival whose interests and values diverge sharply from those of the United States, U.S. politicians and policymakers are becoming so focused on countering China that they risk losing sight of the affirmative interests and values that should underpin U.S. strategy. The current course will not just bring indefinite deterioration of the U.S.-Chinese relationship and a growing danger of catastrophic conflict; it also threatens to undermine the sustainability of American leadership in the world and the vitality of American society and democracy at home.
There is, of course, good reason why a more powerful China has become the central concern of policymakers and strategists in Washington (and plenty of other capitals). Under President Xi Jinping especially, Beijing has grown more authoritarian at home and more coercive abroad. It has brutally repressed Uyghurs in Xinjiang, crushed democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, rapidly expanded its conventional and nuclear arsenals, aggressively intercepted foreign military aircraft in the East and South China Seas, condoned Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and amplified Russian disinformation, exported censorship and surveillance technology, denigrated democracies, worked to reshape international norms—the list could go on and will likely only get longer, especially if Xi secures a third five-year term and further solidifies his control later this year.
Yet well-warranted alarm risks morphing into a reflexive fear that could reshape American policy and society in counterproductive and ultimately harmful ways. In attempting to craft a national strategy suited to a more assertive and more powerful China, Washington has struggled to define success, or even a steady state, short of total victory or total defeat, that both governments could eventually accept and at a cost that citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders would be willing to bear. Without a clear sense of what it seeks or any semblance of a domestic consensus on how the United States should relate to the world, U.S. foreign policy has become reactive, spinning in circles rather than steering toward a desired destination.
To its credit, the Biden administration has acknowledged that the United States and its partners must provide an attractive alternative to what China is offering, and it has taken some steps in the right direction, such as multilateral initiatives on climate and hunger. Yet the instinct to counter every Chinese initiative, project, and provocation remains predominant, crowding out efforts to revitalize an inclusive international system that would protect U.S. interests and values even as global power shifts and evolves. Even with the war in Ukraine claiming considerable U.S. attention and resources, the conflict’s broader effect has been to intensify focus on geopolitical competition, reinforced by Chinese-Russian convergence.
Leaders in both Washington and Beijing claim to want to avoid a new Cold War. The fact is that their countries are already engaged in a global struggle. The United States seeks to perpetuate its preeminence and an international system that privileges its interests and values; China sees U.S. leadership as weakened by hypocrisy and neglect, providing an opening to force others to accept its influence and legitimacy. On both sides, there is growing fatalism that a crisis is unavoidable and perhaps even necessary: that mutually accepted rules of fair play and coexistence will come only after the kind of eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation that characterized the early years of the Cold War—survival of which was not guaranteed then and would be even less assured now.
Even in the absence of a crisis, a reactive posture has begun to drive a range of U.S. policies. Washington frequently falls into the trap of trying to counter Chinese efforts around the world without appreciating what local governments and populations want. Lacking a forward-looking vision aligned with a realistic assessment of the resources at its disposal, it struggles to prioritize across domains and regions. It too often compromises its own broader interests as fractious geopolitics make necessary progress on global challenges all but impossible. The long-term risk is that the United States will be unable to manage a decades-long competition without falling into habits of intolerance at home and overextension abroad. In attempting to out-China China, the United States could undermine the strengths and obscure the vision that should be the basis for sustained American leadership.
The lodestar for a better approach must be the world that the United States seeks: what it wants, rather than what it fears. Whether sanctions or tariffs or military moves, policies should be judged on the basis of whether they further progress toward that world rather than whether they undermine some Chinese interest or provide some advantage over Beijing. They should represent U.S. power at its best rather than mirroring the behavior it aims to avert. And rather than looking back nostalgically at its past preeminence, Washington must commit, with actions as well as words, to a positive-sum vision of a reformed international system that includes China and meets the existential need to tackle shared challenges.
That does not mean giving up well-calibrated efforts to deter Chinese aggression, enhance resilience against Chinese coercion, and reinforce U.S. alliances. But these must be paired with meaningful discussions with Beijing, not only about crisis communications and risk reduction but also about plausible terms of coexistence and the future of the international system—a future that Beijing will necessarily have some role in shaping. An inclusive and affirmative global vision would both discipline competition and make clear what Beijing has to lose. Otherwise, as the relationship deteriorates and the sense of threat grows, the logic of zero-sum competition will become even more overwhelming, and the resulting escalatory spiral will undermine both American interests and American values. That logic will warp global priorities and erode the international system. It will fuel pervasive insecurity and reinforce a tendency toward groupthink, damaging the pluralism and civic inclusion that are the bedrock of liberal democracy. And if not altered, it will perpetuate a vicious cycle that will eventually bring catastrophe.
THE INEVITABLE RIVALRY?
In Washington, the standard account for why the relationship has gotten so bad is that China changed: in the past decade or two, Beijing has stopped “biding its time,” becoming more repressive at home and assertive abroad even while continuing to take advantage of the relationships and institutions that have enabled China’s economic growth.
That change is certainly part of the story, and it is as much a product of China’s growing clout as of Xi’s way of using that clout. But a complete account must also acknowledge corresponding changes in U.S. politics and policy as the United States has reacted to developments in China. Washington has met Beijing’s actions with an array of punitive actions and protective policies, from tariffs and sanctions to restrictions on commercial and scientific exchanges. In the process, the United States has drifted further from the principles of openness and nondiscrimination that have long been a comparative advantage while reinforcing Beijing’s conviction that the United States will never tolerate a more powerful China. Meanwhile, the United States has wavered in its support for the international institutions and agreements that have long structured global interdependence, driven in part by consternation over China’s growing influence within the international system.
The more combative approach, on both sides, has produced a mirroring dynamic. While Beijing believes that only through protracted struggle will Americans be persuaded to coexist with a strong China, Washington believes that it must check Chinese power and influence to defend U.S. primacy. The result is a downward spiral, with each side’s efforts to enhance its security prompting the other to take further steps to enhance its own.
In explaining growing U.S.-Chinese tensions, some scholars point to structural shifts in the balance of power. Graham Allison has written of “the Thucydides trap”: the notion that when a rising state challenges an established power, a war for hegemony frequently results. Yet a focus on capabilities alone has trouble accounting for the twists and turns in U.S.-Chinese relations, which are also driven by shifting perceptions of threat, opportunity, and purpose. Following President Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to Beijing, Washington came to view China as a strategic partner in containing the Soviet Union. And as the post–Cold War era dawned, U.S. policymakers began hedging against growing Chinese military power even while seeking to encourage the country’s economic and political liberalization through greater integration.
Throughout this period, Chinese leaders saw a strategic opportunity to prioritize China’s development in a stable international environment. They opened the country’s doors to foreign investment and capitalist practices, seeking to learn from foreign expertise while periodically campaigning against “spiritual pollution” and “bourgeois liberalization.” Despite occasional attempts to signal resolve, including during the 1995–96 Taiwan Strait crisis and after the 1999 NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, Chinese leaders largely adhered to the former leader Deng Xiaoping’s lying-low strategy to avoid triggering the sense of threat that could precipitate efforts to strangle China’s rise.
If there is a year that marked an inflection point in China’s approach to the world, it is not 2012, when Xi came to power, but 2008. The global financial crisis prompted Beijing to discard any notion that China was the student and the United States the teacher when it came to economic governance. And the Beijing Olympics that year were meant to mark China’s arrival on the world stage, but much of the world was focused instead on riots in Tibet, which Chinese officials chalked up to outside meddling, and on China’s subsequent crackdown. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) became increasingly fixated on the idea that foreign forces were intent on thwarting China’s rise.
In the years that followed, the halting movement toward liberalization went into reverse: the party cracked down on the teaching of liberal ideas and the activities of foreign nongovernmental organizations, crushed pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, and built a sprawling surveillance state and system of internment camps in Xinjiang—all manifestations of a broader conception of “national security,” animated by fears of unrest. Internationally, China gave up any semblance of strategic humility. It became more assertive in defending its territorial and maritime claims (along the Indian border, in the East and South China Seas, and with regard to Taiwan). Having surpassed Japan as the world’s second-largest economy in 2010, it began wielding its economic power to compel deference to CCP interests. It ramped up development of military capabilities that could counter U.S. intervention in the region, including expanding its once limited nuclear arsenal. The decision to develop many of these capabilities predated Xi, but it was under his leadership that Beijing embraced a more coercive and intolerant approach.
As it registered China’s growing capabilities and willingness to use them, Washington increased its hedging. The Obama administration announced that it would “pivot” to Asia, and even as Washington sought a constructive role for China in the international system, the pace of China’s rise quickly outstripped U.S. willingness to grant it a correspondingly significant voice. With Donald Trump’s election as president, Washington’s assessment became especially extreme: a Marxist-Leninist regime was, in Trump’s telling, out to “rape” the United States, dominate the world, and subvert democracy. In response, the Trump administration started a trade war, began to talk of “decoupling” the U.S. and Chinese economies, and launched a series of initiatives aimed at countering Chinese influence and undermining the CCP. In speeches, senior U.S. officials hinted at regime change, calling for steps to “empower the Chinese people” to seek a different form of government and stressing that “Chinese history contains another path for China’s people.”
The Biden administration has stopped any talk of regime change in China and coordinated its approach closely with allies and partners, a contrast with Trump’s unilateralism. But it has at the same time continued many of its predecessor’s policies and endorsed the assessment that China’s growing influence must be checked. Some lines of effort, such as the Justice Department’s China Initiative, which sought to prosecute intellectual property theft and economic espionage, have been modified. But others have been sustained, including tariffs, export controls, and visa restrictions, or expanded, such as sanctions against Chinese officials and companies. In Congress, meanwhile, ever more vehement opposition to China may be the sole thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on, though even this shared concern has produced only limited agreement (such as recent legislation on domestic semiconductor investments) on how the United States should compete.
Over five decades, the United States tried a combination of engagement and deterrence to bring China into an international system that broadly sustains U.S. interests and values. American policymakers knew well that their Chinese counterparts were committed to defending CCP rule, but Washington calculated that the world would be less dangerous with China inside rather than outside the system. That bet largely succeeded—and is still better than the alternative. Yet many in Washington always hoped for, and to varying degrees sought to promote, China’s liberal evolution as well. China’s growing authoritarianism has thus fed the narrative of a comprehensive U.S. policy failure, and the focus on correcting that failure has entrenched Beijing’s insecurity and belief that the United States and its allies will not accept China as a superpower.
Now, both countries are intent on doing whatever is necessary to demonstrate that any move by the other will not go unmet. Both U.S. and Chinese decision-makers believe that the other side respects only strength and interprets restraint as weakness. At this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in June, China’s defense minister, General Wei Fenghe, pledged to “fight to the very end” over Taiwan a day after meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
TELL ME HOW THIS ENDS
Where the current trajectory leads is clear: a more dangerous and less habitable world defined by an ever-present risk of confrontation and crisis, with preparation for conflict taking precedence over tackling common challenges.
Most policymakers, at least those in Washington, are not seeking a crisis between the United States and China. But there is growing acceptance that a crisis is more or less inevitable. Its consequences would be enormous. Even if both sides want to avoid war, crises by definition offer little time for response amid intense public scrutiny, making it difficult to find pathways to deescalation. Even the limited application of force or coercion could set in motion an unpredictable set of responses across multiple domains—military, economic, diplomatic, informational. As leaders maneuver to show resolve and protect their domestic reputations, a crisis could prove very difficult to contain.
Taiwan is the most likely flash point, as changes in both Taipei and Beijing have increasingly put the island at the center of U.S.-Chinese tensions. Demographic and generational shifts in Taiwan, combined with China’s crackdown in Hong Kong, have heightened Taiwan’s resistance to the idea of Beijing’s control and made peaceful unification seem increasingly fanciful. After Taiwan’s traditionally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the presidency in 2016, Beijing took a hard line against the new president, Tsai Ing-wen, despite her careful efforts to avoid moves toward formal independence. Cross strait channels of communication shut down, and Beijing relied on increasingly coercive measures to punish and deter what it perceived as incremental moves toward Taiwan’s permanent separation.
In response, the United States increased military patrols in and around the Taiwan Strait, loosened guidelines for interacting with Taiwanese officials, broadened U.S. declaratory policy to emphasize support for Taiwan, and continued to advocate for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations, including the United Nations. Yet many well-intentioned U.S. efforts to support the island and deter China have instead fueled Beijing’s sense of urgency about the need to send a shot across the bow to deter steadily growing U.S.-Taiwanese ties.
Even with an official U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” on whether the United States would intervene in the event of an attack on Taiwan, Chinese military planners expect U.S. involvement. Indeed, the anticipated difficulty of seizing Taiwan while also holding the United States at bay has long underpinned deterrence across the Taiwan Strait. But many U.S. actions intended to bolster the island’s ability to resist coercion have been symbolic rather than substantive, doing more to provoke than deter Beijing. For example, the Trump administration’s efforts to upend norms around U.S. engagement with Taiwan—in August 2020, Secretary for Health and Human Services Alex Azar became the highest-ranking cabinet member to visit Taiwan since full normalization of U.S.-Chinese relations in 1979—prompted China to send combat aircraft across the center line of the Taiwan Strait, ignoring an unofficial guardrail that had long served to facilitate safe operations in the waterway. Intrusions into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) have become a frequent means for Beijing to register displeasure with growing U.S. support. In October 2021, Chinese intrusions into Taiwan’s ADIZ hit a new high—93 aircraft over three days—in response to nearby U.S.-led military exercises.
This action-reaction cycle, driven by mutually reinforcing developments in Beijing, Taipei, and Washington, is accelerating the deterioration of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. In recent months, Chinese official rhetoric has become increasingly threatening, using phrases that have historically signaled China’s intent to escalate. “Whoever plays with fire will get burnt,” Xi has repeatedly told U.S. President Joe Biden. In May, after Biden implied an unconditional commitment to defend Taiwan, rather than simply expressing the longstanding U.S. obligation to provide the island with the military means to defend itself and to maintain the U.S. capacity to resist any use of force, the Chinese Foreign Ministry stressed that Beijing “will take firm actions to safeguard its sovereignty and security interests.”
Although Beijing continues to prefer peaceful unification, it is coming to believe that coercive measures may be necessary to halt moves toward Taiwan’s permanent separation and compel steps toward unification, particularly given the Chinese perception that Washington’s support for Taiwan is a means to contain China. Even if confidence in China’s military and economic trajectory leads Beijing to believe that “time and momentum” remain on its side, political trends in Taiwan and in the United States make officials increasingly pessimistic about prospects for peaceful unification. Beijing has not set a timetable for seizing Taiwan and does not appear to be looking for an excuse to do so. Still, as the political scientist Taylor Fravel has shown, China has used force when it thinks its claims of sovereignty are being challenged. High-profile symbolic gestures of U.S. support for Taiwan are especially likely to be construed as an affront that must be answered. (As of this writing, Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, the first trip by a U.S. speaker of the house since 1997, has prompted Chinese warnings that “the Chinese military will never sit idly by,” followed by unprecedently threatening military exercises and missile tests around Taiwan.)
As both the United States and Taiwan head into presidential elections in 2024, party politics could prompt more efforts to push the envelope on Taiwan’s political status and de jure independence. It is far from clear whether Tsai’s successor as president will be as steadfast as she has been in resisting pressure from strident advocates of independence. Even under Tsai, there have been troubling signs that DPP leaders are not content with the status quo despite its popularity with voters. DPP leaders have lobbied Washington to refrain from making statements that the United States does not support Taiwan independence. In March, Taipei’s representative office in Washington gave former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a hefty honorarium to visit Taiwan, where he called on the United States to offer the island “diplomatic recognition as a free and sovereign country.”
The risk of a fatal collision in the air or at sea is also rising outside the Taiwan Strait. With the Chinese and U.S. militaries operating in proximity in the East and South China Seas, both intent on demonstrating their willingness to fight, pilots and operators are employing dangerous tactics that raise the risk of an inadvertent clash. In 2001, a Chinese fighter jet collided with a U.S. reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea, killing the Chinese pilot and leading to the 11-day detention of the U.S. crew. After initial grandstanding, the Chinese worked to head off a full-blown crisis, even cracking down on displays of anti-Americanism in the streets. It is much harder to imagine such a resolution today: the desire to display resolve and avoid showing weakness would make it exceedingly difficult to defuse a standoff.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
Even if the two sides can avoid a crisis, continuation of the current course will reinforce geopolitical divisions while inhibiting cooperation on global problems. The United States is increasingly focused on rallying countries around the world to stand against China. But to the extent that a coalition to counter China forms, especially given the ideological framing that both the Trump and Biden administrations have adopted, that coalition is unlikely to include the range of partners that might stand to defend universal laws and institutions. “Asian countries do not want to be forced to choose between the two,” Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wrote of China and the United States in these pages in 2020. “And if either attempts to force such a choice—if Washington tries to contain China’s rise or Beijing seeks to build an exclusive sphere of influence in Asia—they will begin a course of confrontation that will last decades and put the long-heralded Asian century in jeopardy.”
The current approach to competition is also likely to strengthen the alignment between China and Russia. The Biden administration has managed to deter Chinese military assistance to Russia in Ukraine, and China has mostly complied with sanctions, demonstrating that there are in fact limits to Beijing and Moscow’s “no limits” partnership. But so long as the two governments share a belief that they cannot be secure in a U.S.-led system, they will continue to deepen their cooperation. In the months since the invasion of Ukraine, they have carried out joint military patrols in the Pacific Ocean and worked to develop alternatives to the U.S.-controlled financial system.
Ultimately, Chinese-Russian relations will be shaped by how Beijing weighs its need to resist the United States against its need to preserve ties to international capital and technology that foster growth. China’s alignment with Russia is not historically determined: there is an ongoing high-level debate within Beijing over how close to get to Moscow, with the costs of full-fledged alignment producing consternation among some Chinese analysts. Yet unless Washington can credibly suggest that Beijing will see strategic benefits, not only strategic risks, from distancing itself from Moscow, advocates of closer Chinese-Russian cooperation will continue to win the argument.
Growing geopolitical tension also crowds out progress on common challenges, regardless of the Biden administration’s desire to compartmentalize certain issues. Although U.S. climate envoy John Kerry has made some headway on climate cooperation with China, including a joint declaration at last year’s climate summit in Glasgow, progress has been outweighed by acrimony in areas where previous joint efforts had borne fruit, including counternarcotics, nonproliferation, and North Korea. On both sides, too many policymakers fear that willingness to cooperate will be interpreted as a lack of resolve.
Such tensions are further eroding the already weak foundations of global governance. It is not clear how much longer the center of the international rules-based order can hold without a broad-based effort at its renewal. But as Beijing has grown more concerned that the United States seeks to contain or roll back its influence—by, for example, denying it a greater say in international economic governance—the more it has invested in alternative institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Meanwhile, China’s engagement with the multilateral system is increasingly aimed at discrediting U.S. leadership within it. Even though Beijing has not exactly demonstrated fealty to many of the principles it claims to support, the divide between the haves and have-nots has allowed it to cast the United States as protecting the privileges of a minority of powerful states. At the United Nations, Beijing and Washington too often strive to undercut each other’s initiatives, launching symbolic battles that require third countries to choose between the two.
Last but far from least, a fixation on competition brings costs and dangers in the United States. Aggressive U.S. efforts to protect research security, combined with increased attacks against Asian Americans, are having a chilling effect on scientific research and international collaboration and are jeopardizing the appeal of the United States as a magnet for international talent. A 2021 survey by the American Physical Society found that 43 percent of international physics graduate students and early career scientists in the United States considered the country unwelcoming; around half of international early career scientists in the United States thought the government’s approach to research security made them less likely to stay there over the long term. These effects are particularly pronounced among scientists of Chinese descent. A recent study by the Asian American Scholar Forum found that 67 percent of faculty of Chinese origin (including naturalized citizens and permanent residents) reported having considered leaving the United States.
As the United States has sought to shield itself from Chinese espionage, theft, and unfair trading practices, it has often insisted on reciprocity as a precondition for commercial, educational, and diplomatic exchanges with Beijing. But strict reciprocity with an increasingly closed system like China’s comes at a cost to the United States’ comparative advantage: the traditional openness, transparency, and equal opportunity of its society and economy, which drive innovation, productivity, and scientific progress.
The climate of insecurity and fear is also having pernicious effects on democracy and the quality of public debate about China and U.S. policy. The desire to avoid appearing “soft” on China permeates private and public policy discussions. The result is an echo chamber that encourages analysts, bureaucrats, and officials to be politically rather than analytically correct. When individuals feel the need to out-hawk one another to protect themselves and advance professionally, the result is groupthink. A policy environment that incentivizes self-censorship and reflexive positioning forecloses pluralistic debate and a vibrant marketplace for ideas, ingredients critical to the United States’ national competitiveness.
From the World War II internment of Japanese Americans to the McCarthyism of the 1950s to hate crimes against Muslim and Sikh Americans after September 11, U.S. history is replete with examples of innocent Americans caught in the crossfire of exaggerated fears of the “enemy within.” In each case, overreaction did as much as or more than the adversary to undermine U.S. democracy and unity. Although the Biden administration has condemned anti-Asian hate and stressed that policy must target behavior rather than ethnicity, some government agencies and U.S. politicians have continued to imply that an individual’s ethnicity and ties to family abroad are grounds for heightened scrutiny.
BEFORE CATASTROPHE
If the United States and Soviet Union could arrive at détente, there is no reason that Washington and Beijing cannot do so as well. Early in the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy, hailing the need to “make the world safe for diversity,” stressed that “our attitude is as essential as theirs.” He warned Americans “not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.”
Even while making clear that Beijing will pay a high price if it resorts to force or other forms of coercion, Washington must present China with a real choice. Deterrence requires that threats be paired with assurances. To that end, U.S. policymakers should not be afraid of engaging directly with their Chinese counterparts to discuss terms on which the United States and China could coexist, including mutual bounds on competition. It was relatively easy for Americans to imagine coexistence with a China thought to be on a one-way path of liberalization. The United States and its partners now have the harder task of imagining coexistence with an authoritarian superpower, finding a new basis for bilateral interaction that focuses on shaping outward behavior rather than changing China’s domestic system.
The most pressing need relates to Taiwan, where the United States must bolster deterrence while also clarifying that its “one China” policy has not changed. This means ensuring that Beijing knows how costly a crisis over Taiwan would be, putting at risk its broader development and modernization objectives—but also that if it refrains from coercive action, neither Washington nor Taipei will exploit the opportunity to push the envelope further. While Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other senior officials have affirmed that the United States does not support Taiwan’s independence, other actions by the administration (especially Biden’s repeated statements suggesting an end to “strategic ambiguity”) have sown doubt.
While helping bolster Taiwan’s resilience to Chinese coercion, Washington should avoid characterizing Taiwan as a vital asset for U.S. interests. Such statements feed Beijing’s belief that the United States seeks to “use Taiwan to contain China,” as China’s ambassador to Washington put it in May. The United States should instead make clear its abiding interest in a peaceful process for resolving cross-strait differences rather than in a particular outcome. And as they highlight the costs Beijing can expect if it escalates its coercive campaign against Taiwan, U.S. policymakers should also stress to Taipei that unilateral efforts to change Taiwan’s political status, including calls for de jure independence, U.S. diplomatic recognition, or other symbolic steps to signal Taiwan’s permanent separation from China, are counterproductive.
These steps will be necessary but not sufficient to pierce the growing fatalism regarding a crisis, given Beijing’s hardening belief that the United States seeks to contain China and will use Taiwan to that end. To put a floor beneath the collapsing U.S.-China relationship will require a stronger effort to establish bounds of fair competition and a willingness to discuss terms of coexistence. Despite recent meetings and calls, senior U.S. officials do not yet have regular engagements with their counterparts that would facilitate such discussions. These discussions should be coordinated with U.S. allies and partners to prevent Beijing from trying to drive a wedge between the United States and others in Europe and Asia. But Washington should also forge a common understanding with its allies and partners around potential forms of coexistence with China.
Skeptics may say that there is no reason for the leadership in Beijing to play along, given its triumphalism and distrust. These are significant obstacles, but it is worth testing the proposition that Washington can take steps to stabilize escalating tensions without first experiencing multiple crises with a nuclear-armed competitor. There is reason to believe that Beijing cares enough about stabilizing relations to reciprocate. Despite its claim that the “East is rising and the West is declining,” China remains the weaker party, especially given its uncertain economic trajectory. Domestic challenges have typically tended to restrain China’s behavior rather than, as some Western commentators have speculated, prompting risky gambles. The political scientist Andrew Chubb has shown that when Chinese leaders have faced challenges to their legitimacy, they have acted less assertively in areas such as the South China Sea.
Because Beijing and Washington are loath to make unilateral concessions, fearing that they will be interpreted as a sign of weakness at home and by the other side, détente will require reciprocity. Both sides will have to take coordinated but unilateral steps to head off a militarized crisis. For example, a tacit understanding could produce a reduction in Chinese and U.S. operations in and around the Taiwan Strait, lowering the temperature without signaling weakness. Military operations are necessary to demonstrate that the United States will continue to fly and sail wherever international law allows, including the Taiwan Strait. But ultimately, the United States’ ability to deter and Taiwan’s ability to defend against an attempt at armed unification by Beijing have little to do with whether the U.S. military transits the Taiwan Strait four, eight, 12, or 24 times a year.
In the current atmosphere of distrust, words must be matched by actions. In his November 2021 virtual meeting with Biden, Xi said, “We have patience and will strive for the prospect of peaceful reunification with utmost sincerity and efforts.” But Beijing’s actions since have undercut its credibility in Taipei and in Washington. Biden likewise told Xi that the United States does not seek a new Cold War or want to change Beijing’s system. Yet subsequent U.S. actions (including efforts to diversify supply chains away from China and new visa restrictions on CCP officials) have undermined Washington’s credibility among not just leaders in Beijing but also others in the region. It does not help that some administration officials continue to invoke Cold War parallels.
To bolster its own credibility, the Biden administration should also do more to preempt charges of hypocrisy and double standards. Consider U.S. policy to combat digital authoritarianism: Washington has targeted Chinese surveillance technology firms more harshly than similar companies based in the United States, Israel, and other Western democracies.
THE WORLD THAT OUGHT TO BE
So far, the Biden administration’s order-building efforts have centered on arrangements that exclude China, such as the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Although officials have been careful to insist that these initiatives are not targeted at any one country, there is little sign of any corresponding effort to negotiate Beijing’s role in the international or regional order. At the margins, there have been some signs that inclusive groupings can still deliver. (The World Trade Organization has struck agreements on fishing subsidies and COVID-19 vaccines.) But if investments in narrower, fit-for-purpose coalitions continue to take priority over broader, inclusive agreements and institutions, including those in which China and the United States both have major roles to play, geopolitical tensions will break rather than reinvigorate the international system.
Renewing U.S. leadership will also require doing more to address criticism that a U.S.-led order means “rules for thee but not for me.” Clear and humble acknowledgment of instances where the United States has violated the UN Charter, such as the invasion of Iraq, would be an important step to overcoming that resentment. And Washington must deliver value for citizens in developing countries, whether on COVID-19, climate, hunger, or technology, rather than simply urging them not to work with China. At home, Washington must work to rebuild bipartisan support for U.S. engagement with the international system.
As the United States reimagines its domestic and international purpose, it should do so on its own terms, not for the sake of besting China. Yet fleshing out an inclusive, affirmative vision of the world it seeks would also be a first step toward clarifying the conditions under which the United States would welcome or accept Chinese initiatives rather than reflexively opposing them. The countries’ divergent interests and values would still result in the United States opposing many of Beijing’s activities, but that opposition would be accompanied by a clear willingness to negotiate the terms of China’s growing influence. The United States cannot cede so much influence to Beijing that international rules and institutions no longer reflect U.S. interests and values. But the greater risk today is that overzealous efforts to counter China’s influence will undermine the system itself through a combination of paralysis and the promotion of alternate arrangements by major powers.
Finally, the United States must do much more to invest in the power of its example and to ensure that steps taken to counter China do not undermine that example by falling into the trap of trying to out-China China. Protective or punitive actions, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, should be assessed not just on the basis of whether they counter China but also on how they affect the broader system and whether they reflect fidelity to U.S. principles.
Competition cannot become an end in itself. So long as outcompeting China defines the United States’ sense of purpose, Washington will continue to measure success on terms other than on its own. Rankings are a symbolic construct, not an objective condition. If the pursuit of human progress, peace, and prosperity is the ultimate objective, as Blinken has stated, then the United States does not need to beat China in order to win.
JESSICA CHEN WEISS is the Michael J. Zak Professor of China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Cornell University. She served as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow on the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State from August 2021 to July 2022. The views expressed here are her own.
Lohas magazine in China contacted me a few months ago about doing an article about me. Kind of funny to see my photos and name in a magazine I can't read.
I've been cross-posting this to several forums now:
Brickshelf may be gone, it may not be. But the fact is, there are other host options for lego pictures. One way of helping the community get past the loss is to help everyone get into these sites.
Now, flickr has risen to be one of the most used image-hosting sites by us builders. It's only natural that some of us will continue housing there after this, whatever the outcome. That's why I'd like to start an article describing how Flickr works, and good stuff to know about the site for Lego builders.
Problem is, I don't have time to write it myself. That's where you come in. If I take on the role as an editor, I want everyone to help writing the article and putting it together. I will, of course, write as well. Here's a suggestion for disposition:
--------------------------
Introduction
What is Flickr?
What does it offer?
The two memberships
Signing up
Managing photos
Upload
- Web interface
- Flickr Uploadr
Privacy Settings
Organizing with the Organizr
- Collections
- Sets
- Tags
- FOITSOP
Managing contacts
Adding contacts
Contact types
?
Groups
Joining groups
Big groups
?
API tools
?
--------------------------
Here's what I hope that you'll do:
1. Look at this disposition and notify me of stuff that should go in the article. Remember that the info must be relevant to builders.
2. Write stuff for the sections. Please notify me (thread, PM, e-mail) when you've decided what section, no matter how big or small it is, you want to write. That way we'll minimize duplicate work. I'll update this post when I know a section has been claimed.
I'll start by writing the "organizing" section. Lets make this the best article ever!
blogged a bit about my recent article in FRANKIE magazine...
The article is on shooting with different toy cameras.
Covers all my favs.
LOMO, Holga, fisheye, polaroid sx-70 and a few other bits peices....
oh Frankie how i love thee! except when you put crap photo with my article!
Demel
The title of this article is ambiguous. Other uses, see Demel (disambiguation).
K.u.K. Hofzuckerbäcker Ch Demel 's Söhne GmbH
Founded in 1786
Coffee and pastry industry
Products Coffee, tea, cakes
website www.Demel.at
Interior furnishings from Komptoir Demel in Vienna, from Portois Fix
When decorating goods Visitors may watch.
Demel is one of the most famous Viennese pastry at the carbon (cabbage) market (Kohlmarkt) 14 in the first Viennese district Innere Stadt. Demel was a k.u.k. Hofzuckerbäcker and runs this item today in public.
History
1778 came the of Wurttemberg stemming confectioner Ludwig Dehne to Vienna. 1786, he founded his pastry shop at the place of St. Michael. Dehne died in 1799 of tuberculosis. His widow then married the confectioner Gottlieb Wohlfahrt. In 1813 they bought the house in St. Michael's Square 14. Despite numerous innovations such as frozen the company's finances could not be rehabilitated. After the death of Gottlieb Wohlfahrt in 1826 the widow and her son from her first marriage August Dehne succeeded but the economic boom. August Dehne managed to great wealth, he invested in land. As the son of August Dehne struck another career as a lawyer, Dehne sold the confectionery in 1857 to his first mate Christoph Demel.
Demel also had success in the continuation of the company and established it to a Viennese institution. After the death of Christoph Demel in 1867 his sons Joseph and Charles took over the business, which is why it since "Christoph Demel 's Söhne" means. On request Demel received 1874 the Hoflieferantentitel (the titel as purveyor to the court). The proximity to the Imperial Palace directly opposite made business more profitable. The Hofburg borrowed from Demel occasionally staff and tableware for special occasions such as proms and parties. Recent developments in the art of confectionery were brought from Paris. Trained at Demel, professionals quickly found employment.
1888 Old Burgtheater was demolished at Michael's place and transformed the place. Demel had to move out of the house and he moved to the Kohlmarkt 14. The new store inside was equipped inside with high costs by purveyor to the court Portois & Fix. The interior is decorated in the style of Neo-Rococo with mahogany wood and mirrors. Regulars were members of the Viennese court as Empress Elisabeth, and other prominent members of the Vienna society of the time, the actress Katharina Schratt and Princess Pauline von Metternich. A peculiarity of Demel from the time of the monarchy is that the always female attendance, which originally was recruited from monastic students, is dressed in a black costume with a white apron. They are called Demelinerinnen and address the guest traditionally in a special "Demel German", which is a polite form of the third person plural, omitting the personal salutation and with questions such as "elected Have you?" or "want to eat?" was known.
After the death of Joseph and Carl Demel took over Carl's widow Maria in 1891 the management. She also received the k.u.k. Hoflieferantentitel. From 1911 to 1917 led Carl Demel (junior) the business and then his sister Anna Demel (4 March 1872 in Vienna - November 8, 1956 ibid ; born Siding). Under her leadership, the boxes and packaging were developed by the Wiener Werkstätte. Josef Hoffmann established in 1932 because of a contract the connection of the artist Friedrich Ludwig Berzeviczy-Pallavicini to Anna Demel. The design of the shop windows at that time was an important means of expression of the shops and there were discussions to whether they should be called visual or storefront (Seh- or Schaufenster - display window or look window). While under the Sehfenster (shop window) an informative presentation of goods was understood, the goods should be enhanced by staging the showcase. From 1933 until his emigration in 1938 took over Berzeviczy-Pallavicini the window dressing of Demel and married in 1936 Klara Demel, the adopted niece of Anna Demel.
During the Nazi regime in Austria the confectioner Demel got privileges from the district leadership because of its reputation. Baldur von Schirach and his wife took the confectioner under their personal protection, there were special allocations of gastronomic specialties from abroad in order to continue to survive. But while the two sat in the guest room and consumed cakes, provided the Demelinerinnen in a hallway between the kitchen and toilet political persecutws, so-called U-Boats. Those here were also hearing illegal radio stations and they discussed the latest news.
1952 Anna Demel was the first woman after the war to be awarded the title Kommerzialrat. She died in 1956. Klara Demel took over the management of the bakery. Berzeviczy-Pallavicini, who lived in the United States until then returned to Vienna. After Clara's death on 19 April 1965, he carried on the pastry. During his time at Demel he established the tradition to make from showpieces of the sugar and chocolate craft extravagant neo-baroque productions. Baron Berzeviczy sold the business in 1972 for economic reasons to the concealed appearing Udo Proksch, who established in 1973 in the first floor rooms for the Club 45; also Defence Minister Karl Lütgendorf had his own salon. After Proksch was arrested in 1989 in connection with the Lucona scandal, he sold Demel to the non-industry German entrepreneur Günter Wichmann. 1993 it came to insolvency. Raiffeisen Bank Vienna as principal creditor, acquired the property in 1994 from the bankrupt company to initially continue itself the traditional Viennese company through a subsidiary. In the process of the renovation in March 1995 on the fourth floor were mura painting from the 18th century exposed and the baroque courtyard covered by a glass construction which since the re-opening on 18 April 1996 can be used as Schanigarten (pavement café) or conservatory.
In 2002 the catering company Do & Co took over the Demel. The company was awarded with the "Golden Coffee Bean " of Jacobs coffee in 1999. Demel now has additional locations in Salzburg and New York.
Products
Demel chocolate products
One of the most famous specialty of the house is " Demel's Sachertorte" . The world-famous Sachertorte was invented by Franz Sacher, but completed only in its today known form by his son Eduard Sacher while training in Demel. After a 1938 out of court enclosed process occurred after the Second World War a till 1965 during dispute between Demel and the Sacher Hotel: The hotel insisted on its naming rights, Demel, however, could pointing out already since the invention of the "Original Sacher" called pie "having used the denomination". Demel had after the death of Anna Sacher in 1930, under defined conditions, the generation and distribution rights for "Eduard-Sacher-Torte" received. The dispute was settled in favor of the Hotel Sacher and the Demelsche cake is today, "Demel 's Sachertorte" and is still made by hand. While a layer of apricot jam under the chocolate icing and another in the center of the cake can be found in the "Original Sacher-Torte", is in "Demel 's Sachertorte " the layer in the middle omitted.
Besides the Sachertorte helped another specialty the pastry to world fame: the original gingerbread figures whose modeling came from the collection of Count Johann Nepomuk Graf Wilczek on Castle Kreuzenstein. Then there are the Demel cake (almond-orange mass with blackcurrant jam, marzipan and chocolate coating), Anna Torte, Dobos cake, cake trays, Russian Punch Cake, Esterházy cake, apple strudel and other confectionary specialties. Popular with many tourists are the candied violets with which Demel earlier supplied the imperial court and they allegedly have been the Lieblingsnaschereien (favorite candies) of Empress Elisabeth ("Sisi"). Rooms in the upper floors as the Pictures Room, Gold Room and the Silver rooms are rented for events. In addition to the pastry shop Demel operates, as it did at the time of the monarchy, a catering service, after the re-opening in 1996 as well as storage, shipping and packaging was desettled in the 22nd District of Vienna. Demel is also responsible for the catering at Niki Aviation.
This week for our article exchange with Fat Cap we present the Made U Look Crew. This series of article exchanges are based on a partnership between Sixty Inches From Center and Fat Cap. The goal of this partnership is to build bridges within our writing community, help promote one another to new audiences across the board and give more exposure to the art that keeps our Chicago experience compelling.
For more information about The Chicago Arts Archive go to www.sixtyinchesfromcenter.org
Article about Nithi Anand's Photography
tamilamudam.blogspot.com/2014/06/blog-post.html
வாழ்த்துகள் நித்தி ஆனந்த் [ www.flickr.com/photos/nithiclicks/ ]
Demel
The title of this article is ambiguous. Other uses, see Demel (disambiguation).
K.u.K. Hofzuckerbäcker Ch Demel 's Söhne GmbH
Founded in 1786
Coffee and pastry industry
Products Coffee, tea, cakes
website www.Demel.at
Interior furnishings from Komptoir Demel in Vienna, from Portois Fix
When decorating goods Visitors may watch.
Demel is one of the most famous Viennese pastry at the carbon (cabbage) market (Kohlmarkt) 14 in the first Viennese district Innere Stadt. Demel was a k.u.k. Hofzuckerbäcker and runs this item today in public.
History
1778 came the of Wurttemberg stemming confectioner Ludwig Dehne to Vienna. 1786, he founded his pastry shot at the place of St. Michael. Dehne died in 1799 of tuberculosis. His widow then married the confectioner Gottlieb Wohlfahrt. In 1813 they bought the house in St. Michael's Square 14. Despite numerous innovations such as frozen the company's finances could not be rehabilitated. After the death of Gottlieb Wohlfahrt in 1826 the widow and her son from her first marriage August Dehne succeeded but the economic boom. August Dehne managed to great wealth, he invested in land. As the son of August Dehne struck another career as a lawyer, Dehne sold the confectionery in 1857 to his first mate Christoph Demel.
Demel also had success in the continuation of the company and established it to a Viennese institution. After the death of Christoph Demel in 1867 his sons Joseph and Charles took over the business, which is why it since "Christoph Demel 's Söhne" means. On request Demel received 1874 the Hoflieferantentitel (the titel as purveyor to the court). The proximity to the Imperial Palace directly opposite made business more profitable. The Hofburg borrowed from Demel occasionally staff and tableware for special occasions such as proms and parties. Recent developments in the art of confectionery were brought from Paris. Trained at Demel, professionals quickly found employment.
1888 Old Burgtheater was demolished at Michael's place and transformed the place. Demel had to move out of the house and he moved to the Kohlmarkt 14. The new store inside was equipped inside with high costs by purveyor to the court Portois & Fix. The interior is decorated in the style of Neo-Rococo with mahogany wood and mirrors. Regulars were members of the Viennese court as Empress Elisabeth, and other prominent members of the Vienna society of the time, the actress Katharina Schratt and Princess Pauline von Metternich. A peculiarity of Demel from the time of the monarchy is that the always female attendance, which originally was recruited from monastic students, is dressed in a black costume with a white apron. They are called Demelinerinnen and address the guest traditionally in a special "Demel German", which is a polite form of the third person plural, omitting the personal salutation and with questions such as "elected Have you?" or "want to eat?" was known.
After the death of Joseph and Carl Demel took over Carl's widow Maria in 1891 the management. She also received the k.u.k. Hoflieferantentitel. From 1911 to 1917 led Carl Demel (junior) the business and then his sister Anna Demel (4 March 1872 in Vienna - November 8, 1956 ibid ; born Siding). Under her leadership, the boxes and packaging were developed by the Wiener Werkstätte. Josef Hoffmann established in 1932 because of a contract the connection of the artist Friedrich Ludwig Berzeviczy-Pallavicini to Anna Demel. The design of the shop windows at that time was an important means of expression of the shops and there were discussions to whether they should be called visual or storefront (Seh- or Schaufenster - display window or look window). While under the Sehfenster (shop window) an informative presentation of goods was understood, the goods should be enhanced by staging the showcase. From 1933 until his emigration in 1938 took over Berzeviczy-Pallavicini the window dressing of Demel and married in 1936 Klara Demel, the adopted niece of Anna Demel.
During the Nazi regime in Austria the confectioner Demel got privileges from the district leadership because of its reputation. Baldur von Schirach and his wife took the confectioner under their personal protection, there were special allocations of gastronomic specialties from abroad in order to continue to survive. But while the two sat in the guest room and consumed cakes, provided the Demelinerinnen in a hallway between the kitchen and toilet political persecutws, so-called U-Boats. Those here were also hearing illegal radio stations and they discussed the latest news.
1952 Anna Demel was the first woman after the war to be awarded the title Kommerzialrat. She died in 1956. Klara Demel took over the management of the bakery. Berzeviczy-Pallavicini, who lived in the United States until then returned to Vienna. After Clara's death on 19 April 1965, he carried on the pastry. During his time at Demel he established the tradition to make from showpieces of the sugar and chocolate craft extravagant neo-baroque productions. Baron Berzeviczy sold the business in 1972 for economic reasons to the concealed appearing Udo Proksch, who established in 1973 in the first floor rooms for the Club 45; also Defence Minister Karl Lütgendorf had his own salon. After Proksch was arrested in 1989 in connection with the Lucona scandal, he sold Demel to the non-industry German entrepreneur Günter Wichmann. 1993 it came to insolvency. Raiffeisen Bank Vienna as principal creditor, acquired the property in 1994 from the bankrupt company to initially continue itself the traditional Viennese company through a subsidiary. In the process of the renovation in March 1995 on the fourth floor were mura painting from the 18th century exposed and the baroque courtyard covered by a glass construction which since the re-opening on 18 April 1996 can be used as Schanigarten (pavement café) or conservatory.
In 2002 the catering company Do & Co took over the Demel. The company was awarded with the "Golden Coffee Bean " of Jacobs coffee in 1999. Demel now has additional locations in Salzburg and New York.
Products
Demel chocolate products
One of the most famous specialty of the house is " Demel's Sachertorte" . The world-famous Sachertorte was invented by Franz Sacher, but completed only in its today known form by his son Eduard Sacher while training in Demel. After a 1938 out of court enclosed process occurred after the Second World War a till 1965 during dispute between Demel and the Sacher Hotel: The hotel insisted on its naming rights, Demel, however, could pointing out already since the invention of the "Original Sacher" called pie "having used the denomination". Demel had after the death of Anna Sacher in 1930, under defined conditions, the generation and distribution rights for "Eduard-Sacher-Torte" received. The dispute was settled in favor of the Hotel Sacher and the Demelsche cake is today, "Demel 's Sachertorte" and is still made by hand. While a layer of apricot jam under the chocolate icing and another in the center of the cake can be found in the "Original Sacher-Torte", is in "Demel 's Sachertorte " the layer in the middle omitted.
Besides the Sachertorte helped another specialty the pastry to world fame: the original gingerbread figures whose modeling came from the collection of Count Johann Nepomuk Graf Wilczek on Castle Kreuzenstein. Then there are the Demel cake (almond-orange mass with blackcurrant jam, marzipan and chocolate coating), Anna Torte, Dobos cake, cake trays, Russian Punch Cake, Esterházy cake, apple strudel and other confectionary specialties. Popular with many tourists are the candied violets with which Demel earlier supplied the imperial court and they allegedly have been the Lieblingsnaschereien (favorite candies) of Empress Elisabeth ("Sisi"). Rooms in the upper floors as the Pictures Room, Gold Room and the Silver rooms are rented for events. In addition to the pastry shop Demel operates, as it did at the time of the monarchy, a catering service, after the re-opening in 1996 as well as storage, shipping and packaging was desettled in the 22nd District of Vienna. Demel is also responsible for the catering at Niki Aviation.
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demel