8/09/2020

the Complex Origins of Little Orphan Annie



Jeet Heer on the Complex Origins of Little Orphan Annie

"No one story can completely explain Annie."

When we first meet her, Annie is, appropriately enough, in a tight and uncomfortable spot, as she’ll be time and again for the duration of her event-filled existence. An orphan, without even the luxury of a family name (“just Annie” as she’s quick to say), constantly under the stern glare of the orphanage’s bullying headmistress (the prune-faced Miss Asthma), forced to eat mush and scrub the floors, Annie remains not just resilient but even buoyant and chipper as she prays for some nice adopted parents.
She lives a day-to-day existence but is always hopeful for what tomorrow might bring. If today you’re eating gruel and being pushed around, the next day might deliver something better, as it does for Annie when she’s taken under the wings of the good-hearted Miss Fair and, eventually, “Daddy” Warbucks, her long-term guardian and perennial savior. The trick for Annie is to keep watchful and alert, with an eye out for opportunities, a willingness to speak out when necessary, and a heart stout enough to fight for what’s right.
From the very first strip, which debuted today, ninety six years ago in the New York Daily News, Harold Gray established the emotional tenor that would distinguish Little Orphan Annie. Compared to the elaborate and carefully-conceived novel-length narratives Gray created in the 1930s and 1940s, the early Annie strips might seem a bit crude: the drawings are roughhewn (although his line fluid), the plotting has a shambling, seat-of-your-pants haphazardness, and there are occasional longueurs as Annie dawdles around while Gray waits for the next bit of inspiration to hit.
But the main components of the strip are there from the start: at the heart of the series is Annie, much-abused but spunky enough to fight back with a sharp tongue and a good left hook. She serves as a moral litmus test, and around her gathers a polarized cast of characters: on one side are the mean-spirited, snooty types who make life rough for her (prototypically Miss Asthma, but also Mrs. Warbucks and various spoiled children of wealth); against them stand the good souls whose instincts are to help Annie (Miss Fair, “Daddy” Warbucks, and the poor but kindly farmers, the Silos). Before six months are out, Annie has acquired another best friend, as fierce and essential a protector in his own way as the wealthy “Daddy,” Sandy the dog.
The emotional bonds that unite these characters are established almost instantaneously. Annie and “Daddy” immediately recognize each other as kindred spirits. Just as Annie suffers at “the Home” (her name for the Orphanage), “Daddy” also has an unhappy home, his wife a social climbing shrew who cares more about pleasing Society than taking care of either him or their adopted daughter. Annie is a little girl in need of love and protection; “Daddy” a gruff but decent man, successful in business but unlucky in his marriage, hungers for the warmth of family. An intuitive alliance is forged between Annie and “Daddy” at their first meeting. Similarly,  the love between Annie and Sandy derives from shared characters traits: as is often noted in the strip, both are orphaned mongrels who have had to fend for themselves from an early age and both possess an instinctive gallantry that keeps them loyal to friends and willing to do battle with enemies. When one is wounded, the other jealously acts as a sentinel and nurse.
*
Harold Gray was thirty years old when he created Annie and, despite the occasional storytelling misstep and moments of uncertainty, he knew what he was about. This confidence came from the fact that Little Orphan Annie didn’t just spring up full-blown in a fit of wild inspiration. Rather, the strip was the culmination of many years of hard work and ambitious planning. Everything in Gray’s early life—his family background and upbringing, his schooling and military service, his wide-reading and early career—went into the making of Little Orphan Annie. Like his famous creations, Gray was a fighter and a straight-shooter. To look at his life is to see the foundation and building blocks of his work.
He was born in Kankakee, Illinois, a small burg nestled in farmland just outside of Chicago, on January 20, 1894. The original “Gray homestead,” near the small town of Chebanse, Illinois, was first cleared by the cartoonist’s grandfather, William Wallace Gray, in 1870. Gray’s father, Ira Lincoln Gray, was the youngest of six children and perhaps was delegated the traditional role given to the family baby of looking after the mother and father in their old age. Certainly Ira Gray didn’t move far from his parents even after marrying Estella M. Rosencras in 1893 and fathering Harold the following year. Kankakee was not that far from Chebanse and young Harold had many memories of his grandparents.
William Wallace Gray was an active Methodist and his grandson Harold would remain a church-going Protestant all his life (although in later life the cartoonist would occasionally fall asleep during sermons). Religion was important to Harold Gray and its exact nature has to be understood. He was very much a liberal Protestant and universalist: true religion for him was not a matter of reading sacred texts literally or conforming to the fine points of doctrine, it was about being open-hearted, charitable, and neighborly. In Little Orphan Annie, Gray repeatedly emphasizes that all religions have access to God. Annie’s long list of friends would include Jews, Muslims, Confucians, and even a Sikh (the tall, turbaned sword-wielding Punjab). In 1927, Annie is impressed with a minister who argues that “one religion is ‘bout as good as another just ‘so long as yuh live up to th’ one yuh b’lieve in. He says this thing of a lot o’ different kinds o’ churches crappin’ over which is best is th’ bunk.”
What sort of boy was Harold Gray? There’s plenty of evidence that, like Annie, he was a scrapper, never one to run away from fisticuffs.
The geography of rural Illinois left a strong mark on Gray’s imagination, as can be seen if he’s compared to his Wisconsin-born colleague Frank King, who created Gasoline Alley. In King’s work, the country-side is always rolling and sloping, with cars constantly sputtering up hills or flowing down valleys. In the early Little Orphan Annie strips, by contrast, once our heroine leaves the city, the countryside is as flat as a quilt spread out on a bed, each acre of farmland its own perfect square, with stacks of hay and isolated silos the only protrusion on the land. The flatness of the prairies, the prostate manner in which the horizon spreads out as far as the eye can see, spoke to something deep in Gray’s imagination: it perhaps explains his sense of the isolation of human existence, the persistent feeling of loneliness his characters voice, and their commensurate need to reach out to Annie and create strong (although temporary) families with the orphan as their child.
In 1901, the elder Gray sold the family homestead near Chebanse to his youngest son, who continued to raise horses and cattle there, perhaps out of filial obligation. Young Harold must have been busy on the farm because often he wouldn’t go into Chesbanse for three or four months at a time; but once the busy season was over, the family would resume their many personal connections with the town. “We read the Chebanse Herald, banked with the Porch Bank, patronized H. Sykes for drugs and our close and dear friend and doctor was Dr. S.R. Walker,” Harold Gray recalled of those years. “I still remember Frank Spies, Jay Lane, Ed Grace and big Ed Butte, the auctioneer who did not live there but who sold many of the big farm sales in that area. We shipped cattle now and then from the little siding in Chebanse, to Chicago. We bought our implements and groceries in Chebanse.”
Gray’s grandmother died in 1905, his grandfather less than a year later. Immediately after the death of his father, Ira sold the homestead and moved to a new farm in Tippecanoe, Indiana, near Lafayette. The move, along with a later career change, indicates that farming didn’t come easy to Ira and his family.
This was hardly a personal fault: throughout the late 19th and early 20th century American agriculture was in a state of near permanent crisis. Technological advances had greatly increased the productivity of farms but this was offset by a corresponding drop in commodity prices. Tight credit, based on Wall Street’s favored policy of keeping the currency on the Gold Standard, meant that many farmers were perpetually mortgaged (which was certainly the case with the Gray’s). Nor surprisingly, the mean-hearted banker eager to foreclose on farms and kick out widows and orphans became a staple of popular literature (and would show up more than once in the early days of Annie).
There was a positive side to the farmer’s lot, often highlighted in populist political rhetoric of the era. Farmers saw themselves as the backbone of America, the hard toiling sons and daughters of the land whose simple old-fashioned virtues kept the nation fed. By contrast, city life was seen as corrupt, soft, and decadent. Occasionally this sort of populist anti-urbanism is voiced in Annie, although it’s never a strong motif because the strip’s eponymous star is, after all, very much a city girl.
Harold Gray was genuinely divided about farm life, as can be seen in his portrayal of the Silos, the first of many hardworking but impoverished farmers who shelter Annie. Byron and Mary Silo have all the salt-of-the-earth virtues that you could want: they are diligent, persevering, and generous. But they also lead lives of grinding drudgery and economic precariousness. Gray’s gift for reportorial realism, one of his distinctive traits as a cartoonist, shines in his delineation of farm chores, whether it’s the milking of cows or the churning of butter. Gray was especially sensitive to the plight of the farmer’s wife, forced by straightened circumstances to be dowdy and to forego the luxuries enjoyed by her city sisters. In considering the distress of the countryside, Gray was even willing to entertain the idea, suggested by “Daddy” Warbucks of all people, that farmers should unionize.
*
Gray must have been fairly young when he decided that a farmer’s life was not for him. Even before starting college, he started laying the groundwork for a journalistic career, working as a gofer and jack-of-all-trades at the Lafayette Morning Journal, where his earliest cartoons, as well as some news stories, saw print. For $10 a week, the teenaged Gray did all sorts of odd jobs for the paper, with an extra $1 for any editorial cartoon he drew. “I serviced advertising, collected bills, solicited ads and rode the Journal’s motorcycle whenever I could,” he recalled half a century later.
What sort of boy was Gray? There’s plenty of evidence that, like Annie, he was a scrapper, never one to run away from fisticuffs. Gray recalled that when young his neighbors included “the Giertz children, especially Freddy with whom I used to fight what I fondly hope were draws on every opportunity – I surely never could beat him.” At college, Gray’s major form of recreation was boxing. In a nostalgic 1955 sequence of Annie, a boyhood friend of “Daddy” Warbucks recalls the great boxers of the early 20th century: “Ah , yis, Annie,” he reminisces. “Those were th’ days. Real fighters! Jimmy Clabby. Mike Gibbons. Ted Lewis. Kid Graves.” These pugilists were all active when Gray himself was young, and it’s likely that he saw their matches.
Combativeness is often a mask for shyness and insecurity. Perhaps Gray’s fighting spirit hid another side of his character. There is a recurring character type that Annie meets several times in her adventures: a young boy, either an only child or the youngest of a large family, who is socially awkward but gifted. Sometimes the boy is a quiet loner given to ruminating alone with nature, or he is a bookish farm boy who is slightly disdained by the better-off town kids because of his lack of the social graces. Often he is a boy who is good with his hands and likes to draw and make his own toys. Equally often he is also a boy who dreams of succeeding in the bigger world once he moves away from his parents. Sometimes the boy is thwarted by his family’s lack of ambition or fearfulness in the face of risk. The first of these boys is Itchy Jones, introduced in early 1930, but variations of the type recur in the strip until shortly before Gray’s death in 1968. When reading about these boys, it’s hard not to see them as partial portraits of the artist when young. The repeated lesson this type of boy learns is not to be satisfied with his lot in life but to dream big and work hard.
Even if Gray didn’t inherit much money or land from his parents, his family left him a lasting political legacy. It’s all there in the middle-names: Ira Lincoln Gray, born two years after the assassination of the Great Emancipator, fathered Harold Lincoln Gray. Gray’s ties to Lincoln were many: Illinois is, of course, the Land of Lincoln and the Chicago Tribune, home of Gray’s work for 50 years, first made its reputation as a national paper right before the Civil War when it became the chief editorial supporter of the lanky, frontier lawyer who became the first Republican president.
Often in the 1920s, Gray would set aside a Sunday in February to have Annie mark Lincoln’s birthday. “He had everything it takes to make a reg’lar honest-to-goodness he-man,” Annie noted about Lincoln in 1928. “He didn’t have money or a lotta swell relatives backin’ him … What color folks were, or where they came from, didn’t cut any ice with him. Folks were all folks to him an’ had feelin’s. So he stuck up for th’ colored people. He wanted them to get th’ chance they’d never had ‘fore then.” These paeans to Lincoln disappeared as Annie became more popular nation-wide, perhaps in deference to white southern readers.
This Lincolnian inheritance is the key not just Gray’s lifelong commitment to Republican Party but also the broader outlines of his worldview. To simply describe Gray as a hidebound conservative doesn’t do justice to his thinking. For one thing the nature of conservatism and the Republican Party changed radically from Gray’s day (the Republicans after all were the Northern party and, for much of Gray’s lifetime, the party supported by most African-Americans). Gray’s conservatism wasn’t the penny pinching creed of Calvin Coolidge, fearful of spending money on the poor; rather it was the expansive ideology of Lincoln, a faith in free labor, hard work, and opportunity.
Rare among cartoonists of his era, Gray was constantly critical of racism and anti-immigrant nativism. In 1927, Annie and Sandy are on the road and hungry. A black railway cook gives them food, leading the waif to draw the appropriate lesson: “That just goes to show yuh, Sandy, just ‘cause a bird isn’t our color is no sign he isn’t right, see?” Or as one of Annie’s father-figures notes, “Breed or creed or doesn’t count with regular folks.”
With his Lincoln-inspired faith in hard-work and upward mobility, Gray went off to the university in 1913. He had hoped to study journalism at the University of Wisconsin or the University of Missouri but funds were tight so he had to stay closer to home and study engineering at Purdue. He paid for his education by working all through university. In 1963, reporter Barbara M. Hawkins vividly described Gray’s youthful work ethic. “His determination and tenacity were honed as a boy,” the journalist noted. “At 20 he was on the crew that dug the Van Orman-Fowler Hotel—10 hours a day for 20 cents an hour. For a time he had to shun newspapering, because the weekly $12 he made for pick and shovel work was $2 more than the Journal was paying.”
Work colored Gray’s university days. “No money, no time for social life except to box,” he once recalled. “I could box an hour and then go to class or study.” In a 1960 sequence, “Daddy” Warbucks returns to his old Alma Mater (which bears a striking resemblance to the Purdue campus), and reflected rueful on his own truncated academic career. “But I never had any girl in those days!” Warbucks tells Annie. “Couldn’t afford a girl! No time of (for?) ‘em anyway, me working nights and Sundays!”  Because of his poverty, Warbucks shyly avoided asking out a girl he had a crush on: “I was a grimy workingman earning my way in the mill! I was broke and I was ugly!”
Between work and studies, Gray found time to draw cartoons for Purdue’s yearbook, The Debris, which he also edited in his final year. His undergraduate cartooning showed little signs of his eventual talent: his yearbook drawings tend to be raw and overly cluttered with wiggly lines. His early characters have the malleable anatomy of rag-doll monkeys, with arms as long as their bodies.
Shortly before graduating, around 1917, Gray decided that he wanted to work for the art department of the Chicago Tribune, then solidifying its position as the Midwest’s leading paper. Gray’s goal was assisted by the fact that that the Tribune’s revered editorial cartoonist John T. McCutcheon was both a Purdue alumni and a possessed a keen eye for up-and-coming talent. At various points in his long life, McCutcheon gave crucial aid to Clare Briggs, Frank King, and Milton Caniff, among others. With McCutcheon opening doors, Gray scouted for jobs at the paper. The art department was full up but the news room was willing to hire Gray as a cub reporter for $15 a week. The experience was short-lived because the art department quickly found an opening, but it proved valuable (as did his earlier reporting for the Lafayette Morning Journal). Little Orphan Annie would become the most journalistically-oriented of all comic strips (at the time or in the 1920s), always reworking headline scandals about political corruption and rampant gangsterism into compelling melodramas. Gray retained a respect for the ink-stained boys of the press all his days; unlike other conservatives he bore no ill-will to the media and always showed reporters and editors in a good light.
Gray’s burgeoning career at the Tribune hit a detour with America’s entry into the First World War. Drafted into the army, he rose to the rank of Lieutenant and spent the war working as a bayonet instructor in Georgia. A striking photograph from the period shows the young Gray as thin-lipped, severe, intently-focused and heavy browed (as an older man he would lose his hair and his face would balloon out to achieve a Warbucks-like roundness).Again, the experience was brief but formative: to the end of his days Gray would remain a card-carrying member of the American Legion. Even in the war-wary years before the attack on Pearl Harbor, military veterans would figure prominently in Annie as bearers of a hard-won wisdom of the necessity of military preparedness. By the 1950s and 1960s, almost every Annie story featured a decent, manly veteran.
After the armistie, Gray rejoined the staff of the Chicago Tribune. It was an opportune moment because the paper was being remade by two fellow vets who ran the paper on behalf of their wealthy family, Robert Rutherford McCormack and his cousin Joseph Medill Patterson. Outsized personalities, the two men took monikers from their military ranks, styling themselves Colonel McCormack and Captain Patterson. Working together the Colonel and the Captain aimed to transform the Tribune from being an important regional journal into the hub of a national media empire. Comics were a key part of this plan, as they wanted to create a stable of strips that could be syndicated nationally and spun off into movie adaptations and, eventually, radio programs.
Captain Patterson was the key man pushing a forward strategy on the comics front, a task to which he brought his colorful past. Born in 1879 to one of the wealthiest of American families, Patterson rebelled as a young man, working as foreign correspondent (he covered the Boxer Rebellion in China), and, like more than a few scions of the ultra-rich of the day, taking up the cause of socialism, and writing plays and novels denouncing the iniquities of the American rich. These activities offended Patterson’s family, who were, after all, the owners of the nation’s leading Republican newspaper, but they served Patterson well when he became an editor.
Patterson had a feel for the rawness of progressive-era America, its class inequalities and seething turbulence. He also had strong narrative sense born of his aborted literary career. For him, a newspaper’s job was not to be objective and detached (as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal aspired to be) but rather an eye-catching and loud tribune of the people. In 1919, aided by the support of Colonel McCormack, Patterson launched the New York Illustrated Daily News, the nation’s first real tabloid, heavy on photographs, gossip and comics. Later shorted to the New York Daily News, the paper shocked even those used to the vulgarities of the “yellow press” journals published by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer by its relentless focus on sex scandals and photographs of leggy models.
Patterson’s background as a playwright and novelist came through in his editing of the comics, an art form he helped re-invent. Prior to the First World War, comic strips were a bicoastal phenomenon, dominated by artists based in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. This first generation of cartoonist were all humorists or fantasists and their work tended to episodic. Mutt and Jeff might have adventures that lasted for a few weeks but these were always done in the spirit of burlesque. Patterson nurtured a stable of cartoonists, most of whom were sons of the Midwest, that took a different approach to comics. The Midwest school of comics would be more story-based, more literary, more melodramatic, and more realistic. The key members of the Midwest school were Sidney Smith (The Gumps), Frank King (Gasoline Alley), Chester Gould (Dick Tracy), Milton Caniff (Terry and the Pirates) and, not least, Harold Gray.
Behind the Midwest school stood the looming figure of Gray’s first mentor John McCutcheon. While primarily an editorial cartoonists, McCutcheon was also know for his “boy’s stuff,” occasional panels that he did that nostalgically reflected on his middle American childhood. Unlike the raucous and violent humor of the Katzenjammer Kids, McCutcheon’s work was quiet and ruminative, more mood pieces than outright comedy. McCutcheon was one of the first newspaper cartoonists to realize the value of simply recording everyday life as it happens, without exaggeration. He had a profound impact on all his colleagues at the Tribune, including Gray.
If McCutcheon established the tone of the Midwest school, Sidney Smith was its first nationwide hit. Working closely with Patterson, Smith created The Gumps in 1917. It started as a gentle spoof of lower middle class life, with Andy Gump as the perpetual goat of a father, dreaming of great wealth but never getting anywhere. His wife Mim was the brains of the family, offering a reality check to Andy’s futile schemes. At the prompting of Patterson, Smith made The Gumps into a story strip with elaborate cliff-hanger plots involving the hapless family possibly inheriting a fortune from a mysterious uncle. Both Smith and Patterson were good at spinning out melodramatic plot lines reminiscent of Victorian novels. Readers of The Gumps loved following stories about court room intrigue, stolen inventions, vamps who try to seduce rich old men, and pure girls who nearly marry the scoundrels. Within a few years of its launch, The Gumps became arguably the most popular comic strip in America. In 1922, Smith signed an unprecedented contract with the Tribune guaranteeing him a $100,000 a year for the next ten years, making him much better paid than the president of the United States or any star athlete of the era.
Harold Gray was a close witness to Sidney Smith’s spectacular success. Gray befriended Smith in the early days of The Gumps. In 1920, Gray left the Tribune to start his own art studio and one of his first and most important clients was Smith. Perpetually behind schedule, Smith needed an assistant to help with the lettering and the Sunday strip. Gray proved a capable and reliable lieutenant. The flowering of Gray’s art style, which rapidly developed from the awkwardness of his undergraduate work, took place under Smith’s tutelage. (Gray’s gratitude towards Smith can be seen by the fact that he kept a signed photograph of Smith among his personal papers, along with proofs of the Sunday Gumps he worked on).
There are many ways in which Annie is a child of The Gumps. The famous vacant eyes of Gray’s characters is a stylization borrowed from Smith. The talkiness of Annie, the way the characters give themselves over to long monologues, can be traced back in The Gumps. Even Gray’s forays into political commentary have a Gumpian origin: Andy Gump was forever running for office, whether as a Congressman or President.
More broadly, Smith created an art style that was taken over, often in modified form, by all the Midwest cartoonists. The early comic strips tended to be visually frantic, with the Katenzenjammer Kids or Happy Hooligan running all over the place as bricks flew through the air and dynamite blew up. Smith’s art was more static and character-based. He emphasized heads and hands of his characters (which were slightly larger than life). What counted was not so much how characters moved but their facial expressions. Characters gave each other a lot of space in Smith’s strip: they often stood apart, surrounded by an invisible halo. The background of Smith’s work was equally sedate: a drab suburban house or a nondescript building was all he would give reader. This “less is more” approach actually worked very well for the type of long narratives Smith did and it was widely copied. If you look at King, Gray, or Gould closely, you’ll see that they all studied Smith with care.
Of course, no one origin story can completely explain Annie: the character was based heavily on everything Gray experienced up to that point. The early 1920s were a time for Gray to consolidate his life before making his big push for cartooning stardom. Taking informal cartooning lesson from Smith and earning a good salary with his commercial art study, Gray was ready to settle down. On October 22, 1921 he married Doris C. Platt, a frail young school teacher. In her many journeys, Annie would often meet kind-hearted delicately faced young school teachers (Mrs. Pewter, introduced in late 1927 is the first of the breed) and Doris seems a likely model for them. (In the June 11, 1925 strip Gray introduced a joke about his wife’s family by having Byron Silo seek the help of the attorney George Platt). We catch a hint of Gray’s newly married happiness in the Christmas card he designed in 1921, which has valentine hearts everywhere.
Married and learning his trade working for the most successful cartoonist in America, Gray was ready to make his move. Starting in early 1924, he was constantly coming up with ideas for comic strips and pitching them to Captain Patterson. Frustratingly, the editor kept rejecting them. It’s hard to know exactly how Gray came up with Little Orphan Annie, since there are several conflicting accounts of her origin. After Patterson died, Gray offered up one more origin story, one that left the publisher out of the picture. In this version, Gray struck up a conversation with a young street urchin he met while roaming the streets of Chicago looking for ideas. “I talked to this little kid, and liked her right away,” Gray told Editor and Publisher in 1951. “She had common sense, knew how to take care of herself. She had to. Her name was Annie. At the time, some 40 strips were using boys as the main characters; only three were using girls. I chose Annie for mine, and made her an orphan, so she’d have no family, no tangling alliances, but freedom to go where she pleased.”
Of course, no one origin story can completely explain Annie: the character was based heavily on everything Gray experienced up to that point, including the books he read and the movies he watched. Gray as a voracious reader of Dickens and there is a great deal of the Victorian novelist in Annie. “You can take Great Expectations or any Dickens’ book and put in running water and a telephone and you have Annie in a modern setting with a sound story,” Gray told an interviewer in 1938. Annie herself on several occasions extolled the virtues of Dickens. Dickens’s fiction is rife with orphans, lost children who roam the city streets, sudden reversals of fortune with characters finding and losing money rapidly, coincidental meetings, corruptly-administered institutions like orphanages, hypocritical old people who pretend to be charitable but are only interested in their own personal self-aggrandizement, benevolent rich men who provide last minute rescue to those in jeopardy, and many other motifs that would be recycled in Little Orphan Annie.
“Children love her—adults sigh for their own lost spontaneity and initiative of youth, seeing them in her.” Dickens was a natural patron saint and precursor for the comic strip business: aside from Gray, Frank King and George Herriman (the creator of Krazy Kat) were also voracious readers of the Victorian novelist. Many traits made Dickens an attractive aesthetic model: his novels were originally serialized, thus offering hints on how to tell continuous stories in small installments. Dickens worked closely with illustrators, making his novels a form of proto-comics. As a writer, Dickens was noted for his ability to create vivid, memorable characters, a skill that led to the accusation that he was a caricaturist (which is, of course, another way of saying he was a cartoonist).
Dickens was not just a popular novelist, he was also a cultural populist, a writer who was unembarrassed in sharing the taste of the masses for sentimental melodrama and celebrating the lives of ordinary people. Harold Gray in the 1920s was an artist in this mold: in his politics and taste he was very much a populist, championing the cause of the struggling little man and woman. Gray’s populist taste comes through in his favorite foods (he was a steak and potato man) and his preference for American entertainers like Bert Williams over European classical music.
In addition to Dickens, there was a vast array of Victorian and post-Victorian fiction and poetry that Gray took inspiration from. In his hurly-burly plots we can see elements of East Lynne, Over the Hill to the Poorhouse and Pollyanna. Many of these stories had been adapted on stage and in the early movies, which formed another layer of influence. Looking at Gray’s character design and the way his people move, it’s hard not to be reminded of silent movie melodramas, with their emphasis on histrionic action: characters in Gray are always grimacing, leering, or pointing their fingers, all actions taken from the theatrical tradition.
Gray and Captain Patterson had a fruitful but contentious relationship. They would later argue the direction of the comic strip and about money (after the publisher died, Gray painted an unflattering picture of him in a sequence where a cartoonist is frustrated by a credit-hogging blowhard of a boss). In the early days of the strip, the chief argument was over Annie’s fate: Gray wanted to keep her as the daughter of Warbucks while Patterson thought it was better to keep her poor. The inspired solution was to split the difference. Annie would stay with poor couples for half the strip but when necessary “Daddy” Warbucks would rescue her. Of course, this meant that “Daddy” would often have to disappear or seem to die, but these recurring plots actually strengthened, the thematic basis of the strip: Annie was an orphan not once but many times over as her “Daddy” kept vanishing.
On October 27, 1925, the Tribune published an issue without Annie. This seems to have been done deliberately, a ploy on Patterson’s part to test the appeal of the strip. What it proved was that Little Orphan Annie had an immense fan base: readers inundated the newspapers with complaints. One especially perceptive letter from Minnie McIntyre Wallace is worth quoting:
Dear Mr. Gray,
You have achieved rainbow’s end when your creation, Orphan Annie, was made the subject of a column of front page stuff. It is always pleasant to know that merit is recognized. Annie is certainly popular and I want to give you my version of why she has made such a hit.
First—because she is the voice of the people; second, because she is democratic in the true sense of the word, warm of heart, sympathetic, strong for the underdog; third, because she is not dazzled by wealth or shoddy gentility; fourth because she is the eternal child that lives in the hearts of men and women; fifth, because one never knows down what lane she will run next; sixth, because she loves animals and nature, bees and buds and berries and bossy cows. Children love her—adults sigh for their own lost spontaneity and initiative of youth, seeing them in her.
*
All of Gray’s hard work was not paying off: his career was well launched.
Yet this triumph was blighted by tragedy as Doris Platt Gray, after a long illness, died on November 22, 1925. There is a remarkable echo of this painful experience in the strips that Gray was working on while his wife was in her final illness, strips which ran just days following her funeral. In these strips Mrs. Warbucks leaves her husband. Normally a pillar of ramrod strength, “Daddy” falls to pieces and becomes catatonic as he thinks about his departed wife. As Annie notes, “Daddy doesn’t say a word, hardly.” (Dec. 9, 1925). Eventually, “Daddy” is rescued from his emotional meltdown by the fact that he realizes he still has something to live for: his duties of taking care of Annie. In future episodes, those who lose loved ones throw themselves into work, finding that constant activity is the best therapy for grief. Did Gray also discover that looking after Annie, drawing her daily adventures, gave him comfort in the aftermath of loss?
There is a further personal issue that seems connected with the strip. Harold and Doris Gray didn’t have children. When he remarried in 1929, Gray had a second relationship that was happy but childless. In her early adventures, Annie constantly meets couples that wanted to have children but couldn’t: the Warbucks, the Silos, the Flints (who had a daughter who died). “Youngsters were denied us,” Warbucks stoically says about his marriage. The silent pathos of barrenness is a strong theme in the early strips. Perhaps because he didn’t have any real life children, Gray would devote his life to his imaginary creation. Like Annie, Harold Gray knew that life was filled with trials and it’s best to soldier on with a chipper attitude.

POEZIBAO 6 VIII 2020










Posted: 05 Aug 2020 06:02 AM PDT


Pa
Bailly_naissancedelaphraseuvres livres de ce printemps ou parus au début du déconfinement quand tout le monde avait bien autre chose à penser… Mais justement, penser (à) autre chose était tellement nécessaire, au moment cette « sortie », comme une soif en pleine chaleur.
Ce fut un petit livre rouge et vert, paru chez Nous, qui m’aida à me remettre dans mes propres pas : Naissance de la phrase de Jean-Christophe Bailly, l’insituable qui pourtant a l’étendue dans son œil de travail.
La question du langage est depuis toujours une de ses questions : « le pari aura été de supposer à la question de l’origine des langues (et donc, de l’apparition du langage) celle de la venue en nous, des phrases que nous essayons de former ». Ceci concerne les deux textes du livre, le second étant davantage consacré, mais sur le même thème, au livre de Williams Carlos Williams et au film de Jim Jarmusch au titre éponyme Paterson.Celui qui ne parle pas encore, l’infans, a besoin d’une langue déjà formée, existante non seulement bien sûr pour communiquer mais aussi pour exister. Toutefois il nous arrive de chercher nos mots, de buter sur l’un d’entre eux, d’en oublier avant de les retrouver. « Ce que nous percevons dans des moments resserrés, si nous nous laissons entraîner, c’est l’antériorité absolue où le langage a dû puiser pour être et devenir, c’est le monde muet auquel il renvoie et d’où il provient. » Le langage avant la langue (maternelle), c’est-à-dire aussi, du silence, du non prononcé, « un frayage humain », « un écho » et un éveil du sens, tout ce qui s’est perdu en chemin qui rend si difficile l’expression de nos émotions.
« Phraser (parler, écrire) », c’est chercher et écouter cette origine.
Nourri des réflexions sur ce sujet de Humboldt et bien sûr de Herder et de Benveniste, Bailly réfléchit à la recherche de l’impossible justesse (quand parvenons-nous exactement à dire ce que nous pensons ou ce que nous ressentons ? Si rarement, si imparfaitement, que souvent, nous gardons le silence ou nous nous regardons, le regard étant le passage peut-être le plus proche de cette justesse recherchée… mais aussi, lorsque nous ne parvenons plus à parler (peut-être l’origine des larmes ? enfin, ceci est une pensée qui me traverse).
« La conscience d’un flottement » ... (le « es schwebt » de Webern cher à Lacoue-Labarthe, vers lequel tout ce livre est tendu, adressé, ça flotte, « il » (un neutre) flotte…). Il y a toujours quelque chose « avant », quelque chose, « un pur départ du sens », « une impulsion », avant même le langage, comme une intention.
On pense alors au fredon (ce qui insiste, qu’on retrouve souvent, sous le motif différent de l’obsession, chez Pascal Quignard), au chant, ce faible chant, chantonnement comme inconscient de lui-même, à demi-voix dans un moment de bonheur ou tout au contraire d’inquiétude. C’est le Singbarer Rest cher à Paul Celan (traduit par Ph. Lacoue-Labarthe par « résidu chantable »), proche du marmonnement, dans la même recherche de l’origine, le commencement si léger de la musique, peut-être. Le langage d’une certaine manière n’est que traduction, ouverture d’un monde ou du monde. En arrière-plan on retrouve la « dictée », « chant interne de la langue », ce « phraser » : essayer de faire une phrase, essayer de formuler une prononciation, qui amène à la diction.
A l’origine de cette réflexion, le peuple des chasseurs cueilleurs des Tupis-Guaranis au Paraguay, étudié par Hélène Clastres. En effet chez ce peuple, le père doit concentrer toute son attention, sa pensée (penser étant d’abord être attentif) bien avant la naissance de son enfant, afin de lui ouvrir un chemin, et un seul. De sorte, dit Jean-Christophe Bailly que « l’être à venir est identifié à une phrase, et l’existence de tout être humain considérée comme un phrasé (…) ce qui est donné à l’enfant n’est pas tant  le nom qu’il va porter que l’accès au langage lui-même, que ce qui lui permettra de se porter dans le monde. »Nous ne saurons jamais vraiment ce qui fut à l’origine des langues mais nous pouvons rêver ou penser à ce qui fut « ce monde dénué de noms et de verbes », (pas de grammaire, donc …) et que c’est justement celui-ci qui a « fonctionné comme le seuil même où s’est ouvert le langage. »
Q
u’en est-il du dessin paléolithique, alors ? Un signe, « un signe, et de sens nul » dirait Hölderlin, un pur signe, un signe avant que ne naisse l’image (autre grand champ de travail de Jean-Christophe Bailly), avant les « figures » ou les « empreintes ».
Le but fragile de nommer, de l’émergence d’une phrase, de l’élaboration d’un récit.

Pour clore le petit livre rouge et vert, vingt pages lumineuses sur Paterson, le livre et le film, ce film suspendu, aérien, tout entier écho des voix des passagers dans le bus, des paroles si gracieuses, du corps gracile, des gestes créatifs de la compagne de Paterson (« une femme pareille à une fleur ») le chauffeur de bus poète, le bruit de l’eau… Sur le même thème de ce qui précède : avant le poème : « quelque chose qui n’est pas nommé », et « pendant » le poème « la traversée, par le langage, d’une accalmie qui est aussi une tension ». Dans Paterson le film, il ne se passe presque rien, ce qui donne cette suspension.
Il y a comme un bavardage léger et constant, auquel on ne prête qu’à moitié l’oreille, peut-être justement ce qui précède le moment où Paterson le personnage du film prend son carnet pour écrire un poème. Il s’efface pour laisser affleurer ça en lui, tout sauf de l’inattention, tout au contraire « tout un travail ».
« Le langage ne produit du sens que parce qu’il est l’écho d’une sens qu’il a entendu. ».
« Le sonore vient ajouter l’élongation d’une trace insaisissable où tremble le passage de la vie — soit cela même dont le poème fait son matériau le plus propre ».J’ai pensé, plusieurs fois durant le temps de la lecture de ce livre, à celui de Keith Basso, L’eau se mêle à la boue dans un bassin à ciel ouvert (Zones sensibles) qui étudie les liens entre espace et langue chez les apaches occidentaux en Arizona. Comme il est dit dans la préface de Carlo Séveri : « … un nom de lieu, en apache, est une image décrite par des mots. Il montre ensuite qu’un nom de lieu apache indique une direction du regard ». On retrouve ici, à la place du père du peuple des tupis-guaranis, celle de l’ancêtre qui n’est jamais qu’un père ancien, qui « occupant le lieu pour la première fois ce point dans l’espace, a « vu ainsi » le lieu, et l’a nommé tel qu’il le voyait ».
L’ancêtre n’a donc pas seulement marqué ce lieu d’un nom prêté, pour le distinguer d’autres lieux ; il y a aussi inscrit sa propre présence invisible dans la description verbale du lieu, puisqu’il y a, pour ainsi dire, transcrit son regard. Toute personne qui passe par là se met donc à la place de l’ancêtre. La parole qu’il ou elle énonce – le nom du lieu – est celle de l’ancêtre. Celui qui voit, et qui énonce le nom, voit donc le lieu à partir de ses yeux. »
On en revient au regard mais aussi à celui qui transmet, et à celui qui revient vers lui.
Là-bas, pas de nom de lieu, juste la description du lieu où l’on passe, évidemment mouvante puisque le paysage peut s’éroder, changer mais en même temps reste malgré tout reconnaissable. Où ni les dates ni l’Histoire n’existent, puisqu’elles ne sont que racontées et que chacun la raconte autrement.

C’est bien sûr un déplacement par rapport au propos de Jean-Christophe Bailly, mais il y reconnaîtra le parallèle et les possibles.
Tout est flottant.
Comme le battement d’une aile.

Isabelle Baladine Howald

Jean-Christophe Bailly, Naissance de la phrase, Nous, 2020, 62 p., 12€


Posted: 05 Aug 2020 05:45 AM PDT

David Mus  quadri romaniLes livres de David Mus sont presque toujours associés à la marche à pied, à l’état de qui-vive que peut procurer cette activité, état toujours prompt à transcrire les premières proximités. Ce poète nous a habitués dans chacun de ses livres à un vers en déploiement constant, qui s’ouvre au jour, à l’espace entier de la page – comme une peinture en quelque sorte –, avec des phases de répit, des saillances, des aplats si l’on veut, et des concentrés de pensée plus ou moins alerte.
Ce nouvel opus publié à Rome chez Empiria, contribue au genre « français » des livres « sur Rome », initiés par Du Bellay, poursuivis par Stendhal ou encore Zola. On décèle comme un retour aux fondamentaux, bien que, et il est capital de le souligner, de livre en livre, ils n’aient jamais été perdus de vue chez ce poète : rendre visible et conjuguer la parole à l’expérience d’un quotidien qui n’a de cesse d’aller de l’avant. Une grande discipline est imposée dans ces 22 « Tableaux romains » et un exergue, écrits entre 2015 et 2018 ; moins d’étal, de largesse, d’amplitude dans la versification.

            On ne rivalise pas avec
                 Gaspard Dughet

            (…)

            Poussin peint dans son frigo
                        l’air humide

            qu’éclaire l’ampoule mais
                         voici au fond

            de la sépulture de marbre
                         des Colonna

            deux bergers un frais matin   
                           attendant
           
            le soleil tout neuf au bord
                       d’un étang

            (…)

Dans leur manière de faire affleurer une fraîcheur perçue de plusieurs siècles en arrière, une fraîcheur qui infléchit la pensée pour lui donner un rythme, une maîtrise, en même temps qu’une sérénité que seule l’expérience du temps apprend, ces Tableaux romains pourraient constituer le pendant contemporain – une cinquantaine d’années les séparent – des Tableaux d’après Brueghel de William Carlos William. Dialogue avec les représentations, les arts connexes, les saints qui inspirent, tentatives de monter en épingle la vivacité fixée dans du marbre, ou dans un tableau, dans ce que le poète (en immersion continue dans sa ville élue) aura croisé de palais, de sculptures, d’églises, sa vie durant. Tout cela, comme né d’une seule et même grande saison, qui aura mûri dans la conscience aigüe du promeneur pour lui procurer un grand bonheur de composition. Une rectitude manifeste, candeur aussi, et qui n’est rien d’autre que le résultat d’un effort de parole sans cesse dirigée vers l’évidence, à l’image même de la nouvelle ligne du métro romain « C » qui, après de multiples difficultés de construction, fréquente désormais de quelques pieds sous terre les foulées romaines du poète.
Aucun interdit bien sûr, pas plus que de recommandations, à lire un poème à la lumière de son référent, ou à regarder un tableau au timbre du détournement verbal du poète, l’opération est à double sens, nous fournissant avant tout une aide pour « voir » et prendre conscience de ce qui entoure, de ce qui est bel et bien présent, dehors plutôt qu’ailleurs1 dirait David Mus, et toujours « en-avant de soi » selon André du Bouchet.
A un second niveau de lecture, on pourrait envisager que ces « Tableaux romains » aient semble-t-il été écrits pour susciter des vocations. Le rythme du poème se calque par évidence sur l’essuie-glace que font les yeux qui observent chaque centimètre carré d’une toile peinte, ou pourquoi pas d’une mosaïque, sur les mouvements de la main qui palpe le stuc pour en sentir le lisse ou rugueux qui traverse les siècles. Une « école de la sagesse » devenue « école d’art », où des étudiantes « à reluquer » ont remplacées les moines.


Mathieu Nuss
1 Dehors plutôt qu’ailleurs, Julien Nègre éditeur, 2016


David Mus, Tableaux romains / Quadri romani (introduction de Fabio Ciriachi), éditions Empiria (Rome), 2018, 96p., 12€
Posted: 05 Aug 2020 05:07 AM PDT

Henri Droguet  grandeur natureHenri Droguet publie Grandeur nature aux éditions Rehauts.


TEXTO

Le vent plus qu'imparfait la brise drue
murmure brisure friture à lanturlus
balaie des arpents d'or décroise
les flots précipités rythmiques
formidablement puis
lassement ravage et démantèle
l'hirsute hercynienne
herbe de guingois les guinguettes
breloques & berniques et c'est
le demi-jour lingot vermillon
l'incertaine clarté déjà qui s'exténue
dans l'ombre perméable épaisse
d'un sous-bois

congestionnés barbelés barbus qui s'avancent
inévitables les nuages
(ouate cartilage et papier crépon)
déroulent leurs fanfreluches
leur histoire farouchement libre sans
figures sans intrigues ni
commencement ni rien
qui ne finit pas

il y a toujours dans le noir
un orage lointain qui s'apprête à
bondir désordonner tondre
la mer où s'entremangent
la barbue l'émissole
le congre et la baudroie

un gibet grince
les corneilles se taisent net
les ajoncs les coucous les jonquilles
fleurissent le bord de l'étroit ruisseau
qu'on enjambe d'un pas
un pétrolier meugle dans la brume
qui sent le lait le fourrage ensilé le crin
des chevaux au pré
un chien bleu furtif et chimère
liche ses badigoinces

novembre la nuit la veille
au pays de papoésie
                        déjà
            quelqu'un meurt
                                    de sa belle mort
on se tient là encore et encore
comme une poule sur
un tonneau de goudron
on aime — ah! les heureux soupirs
et l'apaisant vertige! —
on écrit à tombeau ouvert pour
trouver le bon usage
du silence se dé/dire
et tenir
la mort à distance

                                    (12 novembre 2016)

///

PARADE

La mer c'est pré gagné
champ d'écailles & placenta croustillé
sourcier fulgurant misérable miroir
paillasse à compagnon* et gamelle aux étoiles
l'énorme crépitant fossoyeur mémoriel
chaudron des métaphores et route
dans l'ouvert
pour le partage le dénuement la besogne
malgré les toujours incertains savoirs
ça mûrit vaguement dans les grains
les bruines les songes
                        pour aller

au fond d'un enclos un homme bleu
se laboure et pleure
ricane rigole et pleure

Le vent épais(sement) découche
roule dans l'île aux cent promesses
le gratte-cul le laiteron
la salicorne et le cresson
un peuplier verdit
l’aube confuse et laiteuse
c’est
                                    (30 mai 2019)
*André Frénaud

Henri Droguet, Grandeur nature, éditions Rehauts, 2020, 82 pages - 16€ - sur le site de l’éditeur




8/08/2020

On Deceptive Ravens, Bluffing Shrimp and Other Snake Oil Salesmen


The Natural World Can Teach Us a Lot About the Ancient Art of Bulls**t

On Deceptive Ravens, Bluffing Shrimp and Other Snake Oil Salesmen


We would like to understand what bullshit is, where it comes from, and why so much of it is produced. To answer these questions, it is helpful to look back into deep time at the origins of the phenomenon.
Bullshit is not a modern invention. In one of his Socratic dialogues, Euthydemus, Plato complains that the philosophers known as the Sophists are indifferent to what is actually true and are interested only in winning arguments. In other words, they are bullshit artists. But if we want to trace bullshit back to its origins, we have to look a lot further back than any human civilization. Bullshit has its origins in deception more broadly, and animals have been deceiving one another for hundreds of millions of years.
*
The oceans are full of fierce and wonderful creatures, but few are as badass as the marine crustaceans known as the mantis shrimp or, in more technical circles, stomatopods. Some specialize in eating marine snails, which are protected by hard, thick shells. To smash through these calcite defenses, mantis shrimp have evolved a spring-loading mechanism in their forelimbs that allows them to punch with enormous force.
Their hammer-like claws travel 50 mph when they strike. The punch is so powerful that it creates an underwater phenomenon known as cavitation bubbles, a sort of literal Batman “KAPOW!” that results in a loud noise and a flash of light. In captivity they sometimes punch right through the glass walls of their aquariums.
This punching power serves another purpose. Mantis shrimp live on shallow reefs, where they are vulnerable to moray eels, octopi, sharks, and other predators. To stay safe, they spend much of their time holed up in cavities in the reef, with just their powerful foreclaws exposed. But suitable cavities are in short supply, and this can lead to fights. When an intruder approaches a smaller resident, the resident typically sees. But if the resident is big enough, it waves its claws in a fierce display, demonstrating its size and challenging its opponent.
Like any superhero, however, mantis shrimp have an Achilles’ heel. They have to molt in order to replace the hard casings of their hammer claws—which as you can imagine take more than their share of abuse. During the two or three days that the animal is molting, it is extremely vulnerable. It can’t punch, and it lacks the hard shell that normally defends it against predators. Pretty much everything on the reef eats everything else, and mantis shrimp are essentially lobster tails with claws on the front.
A sophisticated bullshitter needs a theory of mind—she needs to be able to put herself in the place of her mark. So if you’re a molting mantis shrimp holed up in a discreet crevice, the last thing you want to do is flee and expose yourself to the surrounding dangers. This is where the deception comes in. Normally, big mantis shrimp wave their claws—an honest threat—and small mantis shrimp flee. But during molting, mantis shrimp of any size perform the threat display, even though in their current state they can’t punch any harder than an angry gummy bear.
The threat is completely empty—but the danger of leaving one’s hole is even greater than the risk of getting into a fight. Intruders, aware that they’re facing the mantis shrimp’s fierce punch, are reluctant to call the bluff.
Stomatopods may be good bluffers, and bluffing does feel rather like a kind of bullshit—but it’s not very sophisticated bullshit. For one thing, this behavior isn’t something that these creatures think up and decide to carry out. It is merely an evolved response, a sort of instinct or reflex.
A sophisticated bullshitter needs a theory of mind—she needs to be able to put herself in the place of her mark. She needs to be able to think about what the others around her do and do not know. She needs to be able to imagine what impression will be created by what sort of bullshit, and to choose her bullshit accordingly.
Such advanced cognition is rare in the animal kingdom. We have it. Our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, may have it as well. Other apes and monkeys do not seem to have this capacity. But one very different family does: Corvidae.
We know that corvids—ravens, crows, and jays—are remarkably intelligent birds. They manufacture the most sophisticated tools of any nonhuman species. They manipulate objects in their environment to solve all manners of puzzle. The Aesop’s fable about the crow putting pebbles into an urn to raise the water level is probably based on a real observation; captive crows can figure out how to do this sort of thing. Ravens plan ahead for the future, selecting objects that may be useful to them later. Crows recognize human faces and hold grudges against those who have threatened or mistreated them. They even pass these grudges along to their fellow crows.
We don’t know exactly why corvids are so smart, but their lifestyle does reward intelligence. They live a long time, they are highly social, and they creatively explore their surroundings for anything that might be edible. Ravens in particular may have evolved alongside pack-hunting species such as wolves and ourselves, and are excellent at tricking mammals out of their food.
Because food is sometimes plentiful and other times scarce, most corvid species cache their food, storing it in a safe place where it can be recovered later. But caching is a losing proposition if others are watching. If one bird sees another cache a piece of food, the observer often steals it. As a result, corvids are cautious about caching their food in view of other birds. When being watched, ravens cache quickly, or move out of sight before hiding their food. They also “fake-cache,” pretending to stash a food item but actually keeping it safely in their beak or crop to be properly cached at a later time.
So when a raven pretends to cache a snack but is actually just faking, does that qualify as bullshitting? In our view, this depends on why the raven is faking and whether it thinks about the impression its fakery will create in the mind of an onlooker. Full-on bullshit is intended to distract, confuse, or mislead—which means that the bullshitter needs to have a mental model of the effect that his actions have on an observer’s mind.
Do corvids have a theory of mind? Do they understand that other birds can see them caching and are likely to steal from them? Or do they merely follow some simple rule of thumb—such as “cache only when no other ravens are around”—without knowing why they are doing so? Researchers who study animal behavior have been hard-pressed to demonstrate that any nonhuman animals have a theory of mind. But recent studies suggest that ravens may be an exception.
When caching treats, they do think about what other ravens know. And not only do ravens act to deceive other birds sitting right there in front of them; they recognize that there might be other birds out there, unseen, who can be deceived as well. That is pretty close to what we do when we bullshit on the Internet. We don’t see anyone out there, but we hope and expect that our words will reach an audience.
Why is there bullshit everywhere? Part of the answer is that everyone, crustacean or raven or fellow human being, is trying to sell you something.
Ravens are tricky creatures, but we humans take bullshit to the next level. Like ravens, we have a theory of mind. We can think in advance about how others will interpret our actions, and we use this skill to our advantage. Unlike ravens, we also have a rich system of language to deploy. Human language is immensely expressive, in the sense that we can combine words in a vast number of ways to convey different ideas.
Together, language and theory of mind allow us to convey a broad range of messages and to model in our own minds what effects our messages will have on those who hear them. This is a good skill to have when trying to communicate efficiently—and it’s equally useful when using communication to manipulate another person’s beliefs or actions.
That’s the thing about communication. It’s a two-edged sword. By communicating we can work together in remarkable ways. But by paying attention to communication, you are giving other people a “handle” they can use to manipulate your behavior. Animals with limited communication systems—a few different alarm calls, say— have just a few handles with which they can be manipulated. Capuchin monkeys warn one another with alarm calls. On average this saves a lot of capuchin lives. But it also allows lower-ranking monkeys to scare dominant individuals away from precious food: All they have to do is send a deceptive alarm call in the absence of danger.
Still, there aren’t all that many things capuchins can say, so there aren’t all that many ways they can deceive one another. A capuchin monkey can tell me to flee, even if doing so is not in my best interest. But it can’t, say, convince me that it totally has a girlfriend in Canada; I’ve just never met her. Never mind getting me to transfer $10,000 into a bank account belonging to the widow of a mining tycoon, who just happened to ask out of the blue for my help laundering her fortune into US currency.
So why is there bullshit everywhere? Part of the answer is that everyone, crustacean or raven or fellow human being, is trying to sell you something. Another part is that humans possess the cognitive tools to figure out what kinds of bullshit will be effective. A third part is that our complex language allows us to produce an infinite variety of bullshit.
__________________________________
Excerpt from Calling Bullshit. Used with the permission of the publisher, Random House. Copyright © 2020 by Carl T. Bergstrom and Kevin D. West.





Turning to Art for Spiritual Sustenance

Jennifer Remenchik

Hayley Barker, “Astrology” (2020), oil on linen, 25.25 by 20.25 inches (image courtesy Bozo Mag and private collection)
Editor’s Note: This article is the fourth in a four-part series about artists and art movements in Los Angeles and it was made possible by a grant provided by the Sam Francis Foundation.
LOS ANGELES — In a year of massive layoffs, outcries against systemic racism, and our first official global pandemic, it is little wonder that some may be looking beyond the material world and seeking spiritual sustenance, even in the usually secular art world. Increasing global economic and political uncertainty — and not to mention the ongoing reality of climate change, which remains impervious to human calamity — has given new meaning and resonance to one of fire-and-brimstone preachers’ favorite topics: the apocalypse. If indeed the end is not near, it certainly seems near.
As per usual, art reflects the context from which it emerges. While there had already been a growing trend toward exhibitions exploring spirituality in art (see: Hilma af Klint at the Guggenheim, which became the museum’s most-visited exhibition ever), discussions around art as a spiritual practice appear to be ever more salient and pertinent, particularly among certain Angeleno artists.
“A lot of people have been turning to art, needing space to process,” said the artist Edgar Fabián Frías over a phone call. “We’re all collectively moving through a lot of trauma together.”

Edgar Fabián Frías, Meditation Mondays, “Week 5: Creating Sacred Spaces with Ofelia Esparza and Rosanna Esparza Ahrens” (2020), digital collage (image courtesy the artist)
Frías, a native Angeleno, incorporates spiritual rituals adopted from their indigenous Wixárika heritage into their work, along with an array of other mindfulness practices and is, in addition to an artist, a licensed psychotherapist. While normally based in Los Angeles, Frías is currently a visual arts fellow at the Tulsa Artist Fellowship in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a city recently ruled Native American territory in a landmark Supreme Court decision. During April and May of this year, Frías hosted weekly livestream pieces on Instagram for the Vincent Price Art Museum in Los Angeles called Meditation Mondays. The series aimed to “set the tone for the week supporting wellbeing, healing, mindfulness, and gratitude” and introduced viewers to a variety of spiritual and therapeutic practices including, of course, meditation, delivered in their benevolent, calming voice. Said Frías of the project, “there’s so much grief in the air right now. Spirituality and coming together are ways we can keep sustaining each other as we move through this time.”

Much of Frías’s work revolves around community empowerment and collaboration. For many of the Meditation Mondays sessions, for instance, they invited artists and friends as co-presenters. Artist Asher Hartman accompanied Frías on one livestream in which Hartman performed intuitive readings of viewers’ submitted names, telling one viewer that inhabiting her name made him feel like he was in “a bucket seat above the world.” Spoken passionately with his head thrown back and arms outstretched, the readings are charming and captivating. Frías followed up the readings by drawing and interpreting tarot on the same name. In another, Frías was joined by artists Ofelia Esparza and Rosanna Esparza Ahrens on the topic of creating sacred spaces, with the intention that viewers could learn about the process, its potential in self-care practice, and create their own.

Hayley Barker, “Still Angry” (2020), oil on linen, 25 by 20 inches (image courtesy Shrine NYC and the artist)
For several years now, the Los Angeles-based artist Hayley Barker, who lives and works in Crestview, has taken a more introspective approach to the intersection of art and spirituality. Her paintings, typically oil on linen and a colorist’s dream, carry an intense emotional weight that gives depth to the subjugation that their female subjects experience. For instance, in “Astrology” (2020), exhibited in February at the BozoMag booth of Art Los Angeles Contemporary’s 2020 fair, Barker depicts the German-Jewish painter Charlotte Salomon, who was murdered by the Nazis, using Salomon’s own self-portrait as the basis of the work. In the painting, Salomon confronts the viewer with her bright eyes and angular bone structure, with the word “Astrology” simply painted onto the surface, as though Barker were communicating with Salomon through the stars. Says Barker of the piece, “Looking at her portrait now, (and the self-portraits of other painters) I suspect that we somehow wear our traumas all over our faces. And that includes traumas that have yet to come.” More recently, in the wake of George Floyd’s killing, Barker painted “Still Angry” (2020), in which an anonymous woman stares directly at the viewer, her fair skin marred with a sickly tinge of green, yellow, and blue. She appears despondent yet determined. “Anger is a spiritual project,” Barker said over email.
Like Barker and Frías, artist Julie Weitz has been making space for emotional response during moments of political upheaval — and she has invented a character to do so. Weitz, who has lived in Los Angeles for seven years, created the long-running project MY GOLEM (2017–present) to serve as a vessel for exploring calls for social justice and the various feelings and traumas that these injustices produce, all through the lens of a golem character whom Weitz says “revitalizes the golem mythology as an empowerment fantasy.” In a video posted on Instagram on July 6, “GOLEM MEDITATION” (2020), Weitz conducted a Zoom meeting with the golem character, leading it through a meditation with Hebrew letters until Golem, overcome with emotion, finally breaks down.

Julie Weitz, “My Golem at Geo Group ICE Detention Center Protest on May 5th, 2020 in Adelanto, CA” (2020), performance documentation (photo credit Molly Tierney)
Golems are significant to Jewish mythology and generally mean something akin to an unfinished human or a raw form, though interpretation of both the mythological creature itself and its meaning are highly mutable. They tend to be depicted as dumb and inherently obedient, though sometimes they are portrayed as rebelling from their master-like creators. Following this vein, Weitz’s golem regularly takes stances on social justice issues, such as in MY GOLEM PROTESTS (2019–2020). The performances, and the photos documenting them, depict Weitz as the golem character protesting against ICE detention centers. The Golem character, dressed in a lavish costume consisting of a white leotard, tights and full-face makeup, holds up signs that say “NEVER AGAIN MEANS FREE THEM ALL” and “CLOSE THE CAMPS,” drawing parallels between the United States’s current treatment of immigrants and the Holocaust.
Artist and activist Patrisse Cullors, perhaps best known as co-founder of Black Lives Matter, has consistently referenced spirituality in her performance work as both a coping mechanism and a call to action. In Prayer to the Iyami, performed at the Broad before the shutdowns earlier this year, Cullors uses her older brother’s clothes to build a 20-pound tapestry of wings, which she then wore. Each pound of its weight symbolizes the 20 years she has spent attempting to protect her brother from imprisonment and police brutality. Cullors says on her website that she thinks of the piece “as a love letter to Los Angeles and, most importantly, a loving prayer for her brother Monte,” affirming art-making as inextricably linked to the fight for social justice and spiritual solace as an antidote to the exhaustion it can produce.
On June 13, Cullors performed “A Prayer for the Runner” over Zoom as part of a celebration of Pride month and the Stonewall Uprising of 1969 at the Fowler Museum. In her performance (available to watch in full above), Cullors enacts a spiritual ritual for Ahmaud Arbery, who was fatally shot by white vigilantes near Brunswick, Georgia while on a run. On the right side of the split-screen video, Cullors physically performs the ritual, lighting candles on an altar below another set of wings, while on the left, the words of the prayer are depicted in subtitles, appearing and disappearing as Cullors moves through them. Cullors orates clearly and in an even tempo, saying “you were running for respite” to the spiritual entities of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd.
Throughout these practices, Angeleno artists are processing their emotional responses, both political and personal, to the incredible upheavals of this year and beyond. In the context of stay-at-home orders and shutdowns that ebb and flow on a seemingly endless basis, it is perhaps unsurprising that the artworks depict both the longing for community, as with Frías’s Meditation Mondays, and the need for thoughtful introspection, like with Barker’s “Still Angry.” Continuing on a trend that was already brewing, the stark events of 2020 have served to move the spiritual impetus in art forward, albeit in an often more direct, politically affected way.


 hyperallergic.com





8/06/2020

Le masque et la vie



LE MASQUE ET LA VIE

L'imposition du port du masque est une mesure qui doit faire débat. Et c'est bien le cas, hélas dans une polarisation qui rend difficile d'avoir des échanges d'idées sereins et étayés sur des faits ou des données solides.
Ceci alors qu'il n'y a à l'heure actuelle aucun consensus sur l’utilité réelle de cette mesure.
Le Pr Toussaint -qu'il faut écouter car il est une des rares voix libres et rationnelles à s'exprimer actuellement- relève que si le port du masque aurait effectivement fait sens en mars et avril (dans la phase de flambée de l'épidémie) ce n'est absolument plus le cas aujourd'hui. Et que les effets nocifs et délétères de son imposition l'emportent de loin sur tout hypothétique bénéfice.
Sur ce sujet comme tant d'autres, nous sommes hélas pris dans l' "hyperréalité" comme l'appelaient Jean Baudrillard et Umberto Eco, soit une narration découplée du réel qui est fallacieusement devenue "la réalité" pour la plupart des gens comme pour celles et ceux qui nous gouvernent.
J'ai essayé de toutes mes forces dès le 12 mars de rappeler les contours du "réel" tels qu'ils devraient (enfin !) finir par être reconnus  aujourd'hui : nous sommes sur les sept premiers mois de l'année en sous-mortalité en 2020 par rapport à 2019 et non, contrairement à ce qu'indiquent des membres de la Task Force (hum) le confinement n'y est pour rien : une étude publiée le 21 juillet dans The Lancet (non truquée celle-là) montre que le confinement ne réduit en rien la mortalité due au Covid, ce qui est cohérent avec tous les plans pandémie qui ne recommandaient le cas échéant cette mesure qu'au tout début de l'épidémie sur une durée brève.
Bref, nous vivons depuis des mois dans un semblant de réalité que la population a introjecté à grand renforts de ce qu'il faut bien appeler propagande.
Dans cette hyperréalité, le port du masque peut bien sûr faire sens. "Mieux vaut porter un masque qu'avoir besoin d'un respirateur", "on le porte pour protéger les autres" et "même si c'est peu agréable, c'est un effort que chacun peut faire"...
Sauf que : nous somme dans une phase où cette mesure n'a aucune utilité avérée alors qu'elle est toxique , hygiéniquement, socialement et existentiellement. L'épidémie est terminée depuis avril et nous avons urgemment à reprendre pied dans la réalité : que le virus circule sous une forme atténue dans des groupes qui ne risquent rien est de surcroît à ce stade une bonne chose.
Les conséquences de cette dérive sécuritaire sont d'une lourdeur dont seule le basculement dans l'hyperréalité explique qu'elle puisse pareillement nous échapper.
La décision du canton de Neuchâtel d'imposer le port du masque dans l'enseignement post-obligatoire à la rentrée, disons-le haut et fort, est une horreur psychique et sociétale. Qui se profile déjà dans l'imaginaire grimaçant de certains dirigeants pour les classes d'âge inférieures. Et des fabricants mettent déjà sur le marché des masques pour enfants en bas-âge ! Nous sommes en train d’empoisonner psychiquement les générations futures avec des formes de maltraitance imposées au nom d’un moralisme sanitaire absurde.
Dans le même temps, l'instrumentalisation des acteurs sociaux comme agents de mise en conformité et de répression débouche sur une logique et des dynamiques d'oppression au quotidien. Pour en donner un exemple frappant, le constat que l'on est en train de faire sur l'augmentation des violences obstétricales pendant la période épidémique fait froid dans le dos, en montrant la déshumanisation inévitable à laquelle conduisent toutes mesures sécuritaires. Avec comme d'habitude les femmes, les enfants et les personnes âgées qui en paient le plus lourd tribut.
Il faut donc bien rappeler les choses, ce d'autant plus que la communication officielle au long des mois écoulés a méchamment brouillé les repères au sein de la population : la plupart des mesures qui ont été imposées (en particulier le confinement et le port du masque) ne sont pas des mesures sanitaires et ne reposent sur aucune science solide.
Il s'agit de mesures sécuritaires, à l'impact incertain et dont le coût sociosanitaire global est systématiquement minimisé ou nié par les panels "d'experts" qui concoctent diligemment ces mesures attentatoires aux libertés fondamentales comme à la dignité des personnes.
Si effectivement elles étaient nécessaires ou même utiles, on pourrait y adhérer à la condition toutefois que la pesée d'intérêts coûts / bénéfices soit réalisée avec rigueur. Ici, il n'y a qu'un dogmatisme idéologique mâtiné de manipulation : même le Pr Didier Pittet s'est récemment fait aboyer dessus par certains de ses confrères du fait de sa position tiède sur l'utilité  des masques ! Dès lors que le "message officiel" affirme cette utilité, tout son de cloche autre est problématique, quel qu'en soit la pertinence. Tout ceci n'a bien sûr plus rien à voir avec la science. En français : il s'agit d'une propagande d’état sécuritaire au nom de la science. Inquiétant...
D'où l'importance d'inclure des penseurs compétents issus d'autres disciplines que la médecine ! La gestion d'une épidémie impacte tous les domaines de la vie en société, et ces impacts doivent impérativement être diligemment pensés et inclus dans la réflexion. Comme le veut l'adage de sagesse populaire, la santé est quelque chose de bien trop sérieux pour être laissée aux seuls médecins.
Les "répercussions" dommageables du port du masque n'étant pas pensées semble-t-il, je suis heureux de donner ici la parole à M. Michel Rosenzweig, philosophe et psychanalyste, qui nomme les choses avec une vitalité qui fait du bien.
Il nous rappelle l'importance de ne pas oublier l'essentiel, et je le remercie chaleureusement de m'avoir donné son autorisation de publier sur cette page son très beau texte. Espérons que quelques responsables politiques aient le courage de s'ouvrir à cette parole avant d'être tentés d'infliger de nouvelles décisions délétères et à l'utilité douteuse !


LE MASQUE ET LA VIE
Par Michel Rosenzweig (philosophe et psychanalyste)
Vivre masqué en permanence dans les espaces clos et à l'extérieur alors que ce virus circule à bas bruit est un non-sens total. Et quoi qu'en pensent les adhérents au masque obligatoire qui n'y voient toujours rien d'autre qu'une simple mesure d'hygiène envers les autres, ce qui reste encore à démontrer, c'est toute la vie quotidienne qui est affectée et durablement. Car tout est à présent soumis au règne du masque obligatoire, les moindres gestes, la moindre action, les moindres déplacements, les visites, les rendez-vous, c'est toute notre vie quotidienne qui est à présent régie et rythmée par ce régime du masque : sortir, faire ses courses, aller chez le coiffeur, au restaurant, dans un bar, un musée, au cinéma, faire du sport, de la danse, etc. etc.
Et si ce régime est imposée aujourd'hui dans des conditions sanitaires saines, qu'en sera-t-il lorsque les autres coronavirus mutants et les influenza reviendront bientôt ?
Au moindre rhume, aux moindres symptômes grippaux, que fera-t-on?
Si ces contraintes limitantes drastiques sont imposées alors qu'elles ne se justifient pas aujourd'hui, à quelles mesures aurons-nous droit à la saison des grippes?
Dans ces conditions, il est clair que ce régime sera maintenu sans aucune limite de temps. C'est un peu comme si on avait érigé un immense barrage face à une hypothétique vague démesurée, un tsunami dont la survenue est loin d'être certaine. C'est un peu aussi comme le désert des Tartares avec sa forteresse érigée contre un ennemi qui ne venait jamais.
Nous avons basculé dans un univers de précaution absolue visant l'asepsie et le risque zéro pour préserver la vie et nous sommes en réalité en train de perdre la vie. Car la vie n'est pas la survie.
Lorsque vous marchez dans une rue commerçante de votre quartier et qu'un inconnu masqué vous fonce dessus pour vous prévenir que la police vient de verbaliser deux personnes pour non port du masque alors que rien n'indique qu'il est obligatoire dans ce secteur, vous réalisez qu'il se passe quelque chose qui n'a strictement rien à voir avec la santé. Lorsque vous prenez les transports en commun et que des patrouilles de police sanitaire arpentent la plateforme en dévisageant les passagers, vous comprenez que ce monde est devenu invivable. Lorsque vous entrez dans votre bistrot familier et qu'on exige de vous de mettre votre masque pour faire 2m50, et qu'en vous installant, la serveuse masquée vous présente un carnet dans lequel vous êtes invité à indiquer votre nom et votre numéro de téléphone pour être autorisé à manger, vous comprenez que rien ne sera jamais plus comme avant et que la joie, le plaisir de sortir, la convivialité, les échanges et les partages dans ces conditions, c'est terminé.
Je suis désolé pour toutes les personnes qui approuvent ce régime de dictature sanitaire, sincèrement, car je pense qu'elles ont perdu leur sens commun, leur bon sens, leur faculté de juger et de discriminer. Et je le pense sincèrement. Ces personnes qui en insultent d'autres sont en réalité atteintes d'un autre virus bien plus toxique, celui de l'intoxication médiatique et du formatage des cerveaux alimenté et entretenu par la propagande médicale et politique anxiogène et contre lequel il n'y a aucun remède ni aucun vaccin.
Ce masque qu'ils exigent parfois avec violence au nom de leur santé en masque en réalité un autre, celui qui voile leur conscience et surtout leur liberté de conscience, de penser, d'apprécier et d'évaluer correctement la situation, celui qui voile la raison au profit du fantasme de la maladie mortelle qui rode à chaque coin de rue, celui de la peur panique d'être contaminé par la peste.
D'abord il y a eu un virus. Ensuite des malades, puis des morts. Comme chaque année à la même saison, cette année l'aire des morts aura juste été plus concentrée sur une plus courte période. Mais au total, comparé aux pics épidémiques annuels et saisonniers ? Prenez la peine honnêtement de regarder un graphique de santé publique étalé sur les dernières années.
C'est la visibilité de cette épidémie qui a choqué les consciences et construit une image, une représentation erronée de la réalité, une discordance, ce sont les discours et les messages changeants, les injonctions contradictoires et paradoxales, les conflits d'intérêts de toute catégorie, l'instrumentalisation, la récupération et l'exploitation politiques de l'épidémie qui ont brouillé la lisibilité correcte et rationnelle de cet épisode.
Oui il y a eu une épidémie due à un coronavirus dont l'origine demeure mystérieuse pour moi et pour d'autres.
Oui les plus fragiles et les plus âgés en ont été victimes. Soit. Et alors ? Est-ce une raison suffisante pour imposer ce régime de dictature sanitaire totalement disproportionné au moment où nous avons besoin de légèreté et d'air ?
Est-ce une raison pour enfermer et astreindre toute une population au moment où rien ne le justifie lorsqu'on regarde les courbes des hospitalisations et des décès ?
Et après ?
Le contrôle électronique et numérique des contaminés ?
Des codes de couleurs ?
Un bracelet électronique pour les pestiférés ?
Et puis pourquoi faire croire que ce régime prendra fin avec un vaccin alors que l'on sait parfaitement bien qu'aucun vaccin contre un coronavirus n'a jamais vraiment fonctionné ? Si les vaccins contre la grippe saisonnière fonctionnaient massivement, on le saurait me semble-t-il. A-t-on éradiqué la grippe avec un seul vaccin ?
Alors j'avoue, oui, j'avoue et je reconnais volontiers que je suis atteint d'un syndrome très connu : celui du canari dans la mine. Vous savez, cet oiseau que les mineurs emportaient pour les prévenir du gaz méthane qui s'échappait du charbon, un gaz incolore inodore et indétectable.
Lorsque que le canari s'endormait, ou mourait, il était temps de sortir.

© Michel Rosenzweig