Feb 6th 2014

Dreaming Different Dreams: The Early Russian Dissenters

by Michael Johnson

Michael Johnson is a music critic with particular interest in piano. 

Johnson worked as a reporter and editor in New York, Moscow, Paris and London over his journalism career. He covered European technology for Business Week for five years, and served nine years as chief editor of International Management magazine and was chief editor of the French technology weekly 01 Informatique. He also spent four years as Moscow correspondent of The Associated Press. He is the author of five books.

Michael Johnson is based in Bordeaux. Besides English and French he is also fluent in Russian.

You can order Michael Johnson's most recent book, a bilingual book, French and English, with drawings by Johnson:

“Portraitures and caricatures:  Conductors, Pianist, Composers”

 here.

A few years ago, I was standing in a queue at my bank in Tarrytown, New York, when I heard Russian being spoken behind me. This was not an everyday occurrence. Tarrytown is a suburban Republican enclave of neat lawns and narrow minds. I turned around and was startled to see a large, bushy- haired man in a Hawaiian shirt and Bermuda shorts bending down to address his young daughter. He looked slightly uncomfortable in his new American garb.

I recognized him as Pavel Litvinov, grandson of Stalin’s ex-foreign minister and wartime ambassador to Washington, Maxim Litvinov. I had not seen Pavel since our last chat in the corridor of the Moscow District Court House as we awaited the sentencing of a group of his dissident friends in 1968. I was then a young correspondent for Associated Press. He was the most important supporter of the accused, all of whom eventually went to the gulag or into mental hospitals.

Memories came flooding back. The last I had heard of Pavel was news of a different trial a bit later. He and fellow-dissident Larisa Bogoraz were branded as criminals and exiled to a small town in Siberia near the Mongolian border. Generally, they were considered “hooligans.” Specifically, they were sentenced for raising their voices against the 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia and unfurling anti-invasion banners on Red Square. The invasion established the Brezhnev Doctrine, resetting the degree of obeisance the Kremlin required of its client states. And it was a signal to the Soviet people — and the West — that any moves toward freedom of expression would be crushed.

It was seven years before Pavel was allowed to come back to Moscow.

A physics teacher in a Moscow high school, Pavel had become one of the most prominent of the Soviet dissidents — by his courage, his privileged background and his fluency in English. Now he had landed almost literally in my back yard, teaching physics at Tarrytown’s Hackley School, a smart private school for boys. We had a warm reunion standing in that queue, and remained in touch for while, reminiscing about the Moscow hardships we suffered together and separately. He had been valuable to me as I tried to make sense of the growing Russian political resistance of the 1960s.

It was a special pleasure to welcome Pavel back into my life because Russia has been a personal obsession of mine since I first grappled with the Cyrillic alphabet in college. My interest has never flagged. The collapse and dismemberment of the country in 1991 remains a keystone event of my life. Collapse? How could this happen? To some degree because ordinary Russians like Pavel and Larissa had the moxie to face down the old men in charge — the gerontocracy that ruled the Kremlin. “We likely had an effect on changing people’s attitudes,” Pavel reminisced in an interview with a Czech journalist a few years ago. “This eventually — although earlier than we expected — brought about the fall of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe.”

The anguish of the dissidents’ lives has been captured in dozens of books by and about them, creating a genre of protest literature all its own. These books include four volumes by Pavel about his clashes with authority. Others that I still pick up and reread are Vladimir Bukovsky’s To Build a Castle (1978) and Eduard Kuznetsov’s brutal Prison Diaries (1975). My favorite survey of the dissident world is by an American, Josh Rubenstein, who wrote the comprehensive Soviet Dissidents: Their Struggle for Human Rights (1980). Rubenstein praised the dissidents for providing a

consistent and reliable means for the West to see and understand the reality of Soviet life… The dissidents created the first channels to the West, in political samizdat(self-publishing) and the example of courage in the struggle against fear. They proved that one could challenge the regime and survive, that truth provided its own strength, that law was worth defending.

And the books are still coming. British journalist Marc Bennett’s Kicking the Kremlin: Russia’s New Dissidents and the Battle to Topple Putin, due out in February, looks at the new breed of dissidents such as the young women of Pussy Riot threatening President Vladimir Putin.

To my mind, the most engaging of all these books is by the late Andrei Amalrik, who wrote with style and humor about his gulag life in Notes of a Revolutionary (1982). His powers of observation never waned despite his dire circumstances. He described one prisoner in these terms:

There were several poets in our camp. One of them, a man of about fifty, was a genuine romantic, and as such, he had planned to commit suicide. He had decided he would use a hunting rifle for the purpose, and would combine his suicide with a 24-shot “salute to the nation,” so that the death of a poet would not go unnoticed. With the tenth shot, however, he accidentally wounded somebody else and got arrested.

Living conditions in the camps were below basic. He recalled life in one of his Siberian gulags:

In Novosibirsk, we had scarcely stretched out on the floor to sleep when a huge rat, accompanied by her little baby rats, came out of a hole and approached us. Meantime, bedbugs were attacking us from the rear. “Those bedbugs aren’t ours,” said the chief warder. “You brought them with you.”

“And the rats? I suppose we brought them along too?”

“No, the rats are ours,” the warder replied proudly. And indeed, the bedbugs could hardly stand comparison with the rats.

Almarik  said he was known in the camp as “the guy got into trouble by scribbling stuff he shouldn’t have.” He was serving a long sentence for his sensational 1970 book Will the Soviet Union Survive till 1984? He was only seven years off. He died in 1980 in a car accident heading for a meeting of protesters in Spain.

Reading these tomes reminds us of what has happened during our lifetime in Russia and how the country’s new experimentation with “managed democracy” faces new repressive measures under President Putin.

The original dissident movement had a specific mission: political relaxation (reform from within) and respect for the law. It was an important factor in Mikhail Gorbachev’s formulation of glasnost and perestroika liberalization policies in 1985. The country was feeling pent-up frustration with the police state and the dissidents helped point the way forward. They were initially known as inakomyslyashchyi — the different-minded. Gorbachev’s most senior advisor, the late Alexander Yakovlev, was said to believe in the relatively small political dissident movement ; Gorbachev’s popular reforms embraced their main values (free expression, judicial transparency, right to emigrate). The lid was off: Their ideas helped lead to an era of liberalization that ultimately released a burst of free expression in the media and a modernized parliament. (Neither, alas, survived intact for very long, although some gains remain.)

Most people outside of Russia have little awareness of the courageous figures who helped break down the barriers and undo seventy years of shopworn communist ideology. By sheer good luck, I witnessed the birth of the dissident movement and came to know the main players personally. Most of them were educated men and women, some from the “working class” and some, like Pavel, from privileged families. With few exceptions, they looked like your typical Russian of that time: unhealthy, somewhat ragged and desperate for intellectual fresh air.

Why is it important to remember them today? Because repression is happening again and no one can say where it will stop or restart. Russia has a long history of clampdowns followed by relaxation followed by more clampdowns. When Vladimir Putin, hand-picked in 1999 by retiring President Boris Yeltsin, suddenly arrived on the scene (“like an imp from a snuffbox,” as the Russian saying goes) he showed initial signs of liberal thinking. He ultimately returned to repressive measures, however, imprisoning opponents and restoring government control of the media. But now, as the Sochi Winter Olympics approach, he has freed some high-profile political prisoners. Does this herald another period of thaw? Maybe.

Leading dissidents from the past have reminisced with me, often marveling at the goals they achieved. Some of these men and women are now in New York and Boston, some are in London, some in Paris, others are in Israel and a surprising number have stayed behind in their beloved Russia. A reunion of emigrant dissidents was held in 2004 at the Russian Tea Room in New York a few years ago. “It all seemed so anti-climactic,” one participant told me. “When the dust settled, we didn’t really get the credit we deserved.” They raised several glasses “to our hopeless cause,” their traditional ironic toast.

Given the cloak-and-dagger nature of Moscow reportage, Western journalists had problems deciding how the political dissidents fit into the Soviet jigsaw. Pavel and his friends at first seemed shady — might they have been planted to compromise us? They whispered their information in conspiratorial tones, eyes darting. Who were these strange people? Their motives were unclear. Most were unpublished writers or self-described intellectuals, but a few scientists were mixed in. Much of their news consisted of rather pompous “appeals to world opinion.” Well-trained American journalists were uneasy with them. Who cared about their appeals? And when they reported facts, they could not be double-checked.

Even the U.S. embassy wanted nothing to do with them. High-level Washington and Moscow diplomats in the early 1970s were trying to be accommodating. Furthermore, one could never be sure the alleged dissidents were not playing a game of entrapment. Expulsions often were based on just such traps, causing diplomatic incidents that often got out of hand with tit-for-tat exchanges.

And yet the characters were irresistible.

One of Pavel’s friends and fellow protester was a former Red Army General, Pyotr Grigorenko, a big man, 6 feet tall and over 200 pounds. I first met him in deep snow outside a Moscow courtroom where a handful of reporters waited for the sentencing of two dissidents. I assumed he was KGB. But I was soon disabused, or at least confused, for Grigorenko, ruddy, weather-beaten and bent, always turned up on the street outside these closed-door political trials, tentatively mixing with us reporters on stakeout duty. For a military man he was surprisingly affable, even in front of the thuggish KGB enforcers wearing red armbands and pointing their cameras at us.

My Russian was fluent enough to attract his attention. And yet as a skeptical reporter, I at first wondered how real his life story could possibly be: a defrocked Red Army general, a former cybernetics professor at the Frunze Academy (the Soviet West Point), recently released from a prison psychiatric ward in Tashkent after an arrest on trumped-up charges? We didn’t even know what “cybernetics” was in 1970. His story was too fanciful for words.

Yet it was all true and Grigorenko soon became my main source for dissident actions as reported in the latest copies of the underground press, Chronicle of Current Events, an illegal bimonthly account of civil rights abuses throughout the country. (Translations can be found here.) The samizdat“newspaper” appeared more or less regularly for six years, from 1968 to 1974. (What is samizdat? someone once asked Bukovsky. “I reported it, I wrote it, I typed it up, I distributed it,” he replied.)

Little did we know that as we lived our well-cushioned lives, attending diplomatic receptions and well-oiled dinner parties, what sinister activities were going on out of public view.

Thousands of innocent Soviets were being arbitrarily arrested and sent to labor camps in brutal conditions. Some examples: One physicist was convicted merely for possessing a copy of Boris Pasternak’s banned novel Doctor Zhivago. The charge was anti-Soviet behavior. Hundreds of Christian faithful were imprisoned for being members of the Evangelical Christian Church, known in Russia as the Baptists. In one celebrated case, a young Baptist was beaten unconscious by the police in an effort to force him to recant his religious convictions, then drowned to cover up the cause of death.

A deep strain of anti-Semitism, well-known among Russians for centuries, also surfaced among those who stayed away from the dissidents. Two of the most influential protesters, both of whom who went public after my time there, were Andrei Sakharov and Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Sakharov was nicknamed “Sakharovich” and Solzhenitsyn became “Solzhenitsky,” names that carry Jewish overtones in Russian. The racist slurs were understood by all, insinuating that troubles came from the Jews, not the ethnic Russians. Of course, neither was Jewish.

In his richly documented autobiopgrahy, Grigorenko: Memoir, Grigorenko related in great detail descriptions of torture inside one of the early Soviet “psycho-prisons”:

One method for enforcing discipline was the “wetpack,” in which the inmate was tightly wrapped in strips of canvas sheeting. The wrapping shrank and tightened as it dried, causing such pain that the inmate screamed in pain throughout the day and night. It served as a warning to others that misbehaving might bring the same treatment.

Dispassionately, he explained the official rationale:

All of the punishments are applied arbitrarily, as a means of imposing discipline or of punishing inmates who complain or refuse to cooperate. The frequency of their application may vary somewhat from one hospital to another. The newest ones have the mildest regime, but as their medical personnel become ‘militarized’ and traditions develop, the regime there too becomes more savage.

Prisoners sometimes sought transfer to the hospital hoping to find better conditions there. “In fact, the conditions are far worse,” wrote Kuznetsov in his Prison Diaries, “so the criminal employs his own form of protest. Many disfigure their bodies with tattoos. Others rip open their stomachs, swallow sets of dominoes or chess pieces, even bits of glass and barbed wire.”

Grigorenko was shocked by what was going on around him. An act of one prisoner, deranged by a long sentence and intolerable conditions, was to tattoo an anti-Soviet slogan on his body. Another tattooed “Slave of Khrushchev” on his forehead. He was taken to the prison hospital for removal of the offending section of flesh. In stitching up the wound, the surgeon pulled his eyebrows so high that for the rest of his life he could not close his eyelids. The other prisoners from then on called him “The Stare.”

The psycho-prison system greatly expanded under Khrushchev, then continued to grow under Leonid Brezhnev in the 1960s and 1970s. The first justification for this abuse of medicine had been spelled out by Khrushchev himself. Proud of his thaw that began in 1962 in the post-Stalin years, he said that henceforth only the mentally ill were to be incarcerated. As he put it in a Pravda interview:

A crime is a deviation from the generally recognized standards of behavior, frequently caused by mental disorder….To those who might start calling for opposition to Communism…. clearly the mental state of such people is not normal.

Public disruptions were not supposed to happen in Soviet society, and Litvinov and friends had the secret police on full alert, as we know from recently declassified archives. As a senior KGB official put it, Soviet citizens were forbidden to “dream different dreams.”

Archives would show that the dissidents even rattled the top leadership. KGB then-president Yuri Andropov informed Communist Party leader Brezhnev in 1969 that “politically incorrect literature” was circulating throughout the country and that his agents were taking measures “to suppress what the authors of samizdat have done.” Those measures included the full panoply of police state arsenal — telephone taps, unconcealed tailing, death threats, official warnings, interrogations and sentencing to the gulag. Andropov ultimately succeeded in stifling the dissidents in the mid-1970s but not before the breadth of discontent throughout the country had been revealed. In 1969, he reported to the top leadership that samizdat materials were circulating in Leningrad, Kiev, Odessa, Novosibirsk, Gorky, Riga, Kharkov, Sverdlovsk, Karaganda, Iouno-Sakhalinsk and Obninsk, among other towns and cities.

How big was the movement? Certainly there was no groundswell of outrage —ordinary Russians were too cautious for that. Rather, a protest leader told me in the late 1960s on a darkened Moscow side street that the best image would be a series of concentric circles. “I think of myself and my friends as sitting in the center, fully committed,” he said, “and ever-larger rings of sympathizers stretching out across the country like the ripples from a stone thrown into a pond.” The wider the ripple, the more the awareness but the less the commitment to action. His comparison was apt. The ripples reached across the eight time zones of the Russian landscape, from Moscow to Sakhalin to the Sea of Japan, as Andropov had reported.

The movement started so modestly that few of us in the foreign ghettos took it seriously. The original instigator was an eccentric, stuttering mathematician, Alexander Yesenin-Volpin, son of the popular poet Sergei Yesenin who committed suicide in 1925 and famously left a farewell note written in his own blood. The son, who giggled as he spoke and seemed slightly off-kilter, organized the first assembly of dissidents on Pushkin Square in 1965, the starting point for the dissident movement, just 18 months before I arrived to take up my Moscow posting. The ripples were still apparent when I started my job and the police presence at political trials had become markedly reinforced.

Yesenin-Volpin was the most fearless and outgoing of the dissidents. I remember taking a step back the first time he approached me on the street outside a courtroom. Did I really want to be associated with this odd-looking individual? I wasn’t sure what to expect. Chatting, we discovered some common ground — we were both forbidden entry to the courtroom, although these political trials were legally bound to be public.

He found this charade amusing and shared his mirth with me and another correspondent, still giggling as he noted the new Soviet meaning of “open.” “Open, but not to us,” he laughed. It was only after he began speaking seriously in his broken English that we realized he could enlighten us on the proceedings. He believed in the rule of law and explained his position eloquently.

He was a substantial intellectual figure, having studied applied mathematics at Moscow State University and, as I later learned, elaborated a theory on the emancipation of reason from emotion and produced several key works on mathematical logic. A Pennsylvania University history professor, Benjamin Nathans, studied Yesenin-Volpin’s life and works, and looked into the interrogations he underwent while confined at the notorious Serbskii Institute, the main psycho-hospital. In a scholarly paper published in Slavic Review, (Winter, 2007), he noted that Yesenin-Volpin was fascinated by the verbal cat-and-mouse games that inevitably occurred during such conversations. “For many dissidents,” Nathans wrote, “interrogations were the closest one could come to expressing one’s ideas directly to the Soviet government.” The modest demonstration launched by this man had expanded steadily into a mini-movement, and before we realized it we were locked into a strange co-dependency — the dissidents needed the foreign media as their megaphone and we needed them as a news source.

Bored with the daily gruel that we treated as news (“Pravda warned today …”) the foreign press corps gradually focused on the protesters as real news. Still, the Soviets often equated real reporting with a kind of spying so we erred on the side of caution to protect ourselves. Even the dissidents were unhappy with much of our work. They wanted our full commitment to their aims and they expected us to take sides and take risks, just as they had. Bukovsky wrote in To Build a Castle that early in the movement there was little interaction with the Western press. Perhaps overstating his case a bit, he came down hard on us:

Foreign correspondents in Moscow, partly because they were afraid of being expelled, partly because they had been cooped up and misled, were extremely shy of informing their papers of the repressions taking place… the authorities expelled anyone who got too friendly with us.

Was it even possible to do a sensible reporting job in Moscow by U.S. journalistic standards? Probably not. The quality of most journalists’ work from those days does not stand up well to close scrutiny. Coverage was often superficial, cliché-ridden and one-sided. We tended to report in an overtly pro-Western tone. Who were we working for? Even now, more than 30 years later, some people eye me suspiciously when I say I spent four years in Moscow. Just recently a lawyer friend in Paris looked me in the eye and asked, “Mike, were you a spook?” It’s a laughable idea, really. I was an absolute babe in the woods in espionage terms. I wouldn’t have known what to do with a secret missile silo if I had fallen into one. Anyway, I have far too big a mouth to be a spy.

But I did know something about political dissent, having studied Soviet affairs in graduate school in New York. It could be traced back to the loosening of the reins following Stalin’s death in 1953 and it was a seesaw process, manipulated by Khrushchev and his colleagues. One thaw became generally known upon publication of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovichin 1962. Alert Soviet intellectuals recognized that the ground was shifting.

It was another three years, though, before Litvinov, Yesenin-Volpin and friends dared to congregate in public. On Constitution Day, December 5, 1965, some 200 souls bundled up in their dark coats and fur hats and gathered in Moscow’s Pushkin Square in support of imprisoned writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel. The two accused, unknown outside of literary circles, were shortly to go on trial for publishing their works abroad and thereby “subverting the Soviet system”. This brought on a new freeze, orchestrated from the top.

Sinyavsky would later open his autobiography Goodnight! (1989) with this dramatic line: “They grabbed me near Nikitsky Gate.” He goes on to describe his sham trial, and at the end asks this question:

Have you ever heard applause for a sentence passed on you? In a jolly frenzy, the people in the courtroom bring down the rafters with applause for the charges that will bury you, pitiful you, who in a moment will be taken under guard from the courtroom, as prescribed by law…

On Pushkin Square, some of the demonstrators briefly succeeded in unfurling banners reading “Respect the Constitution!” and “We Demand an Open Trial for Sinyavsky and Daniel!” before being marched to the police station by plainclothes officers of the KGB. From this point on, the movement gained momentum, finally ending with arrests, expulsions, internal exiles and incarceration in psycho-hospitals.

Pavel Litvinov many years later returned voluntarily to Red Square with a group of his Hackley School students. He recalled for me how he walked them through his demonstration — actually a mere sit-down — and told his story to the wide-eyed American boys. The tension erupted in seconds, he said. “People (plainclothes police) came running toward us shouting ‘Shame!” “Disgrace!” “Kikes!” “Parasites!” and “Traitors!” He had no doubt that he would be beaten and sent to a labor camp for many years: “We did not resist but we did not come voluntarily either.” He said he was “pleasantly surprised” at the treatment he received during his interrogation, trial and exile. He was eventually expelled from the Soviet Union in 1974.

I too have made return visits to Moscow and found it an emotional experience to walk the streets I once feared while out chasing forbidden stories. Now talking openly with Russians, it was refreshing to hear them confidently criticize the political leadership and the police, comments that would have been hard to imagine when I worked there. Such were some of the gains of the Gorbachev reforms.

Only with many years of perspective have I come to realize that by reporting the discontent within Soviet society I was contributing to what many have called “the first rough draft of history,” a quip usually attributed to the late Washington Post president and publisher Philip Graham. These courageous men and women knew where they were going, and they were willing to give up their freedom, such as it was, their sanity, or even their lives, for it.

We barely grasped the importance of their initiatives. Even today, Russia remains contradictory and difficult for the Western mind. That’s what makes it fascinating. One journalist friend in Moscow liked to throw up his hands and declare: “It’s China, it’s Byzantium, it’s the moon.”



Drawing of Pavel Litvinov by the author Michael Johnson:

1



     

 


This article is brought to you by the author who owns the copyright to the text.

Should you want to support the author’s creative work you can use the PayPal “Donate” button below.

Your donation is a transaction between you and the author. The proceeds go directly to the author’s PayPal account in full less PayPal’s commission.

Facts & Arts neither receives information about you, nor of your donation, nor does Facts & Arts receive a commission.

Facts & Arts does not pay the author, nor takes paid by the author, for the posting of the author's material on Facts & Arts. Facts & Arts finances its operations by selling advertising space.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Essays

Apr 5th 2020
EXTRACT: "Rarely has an architectural experiment aroused such extremes of ire and admiration. One side is convinced the house is a masterpiece. The other expresses brutal condemnation of the entire project (leaky roof, danger of flooding, too-hot, too-cold interiors depending on the American Midwest weather).........Farnsworth encapsulated her personal ambiguity in her comment to a Newsweek interviewer: “This handsome pavilion I own is almost totally unworkable.” She told one journalist, “ … all I got was this glib, false sophistication. The conception of a house as a glass cage suspended in air is ridiculous.”
Apr 1st 2020
Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Effects of Good Government fresco, Palazzo Pubblico, Siena.
Mar 29th 2020
EXTRACT: "The coronavirus crisis has forced us to look at our behaviour in a way that we’re not used to. We are being asked to act in the collective good rather than our individual preservation and interest. Even for those of us with the best of intentions, this is not so easy."
Mar 23rd 2020
EXTRACT: "In March 2020, my sister Nancy and I did something that, as scholars, we had never done before: we wrote about ourselves, comparing our own experiences receiving cancer care on either side of the Atlantic. As we recently reported in the BMJ, much of our experience is similar. As twins, we both have the same form of cancer. Both of us received excellent treatment in well-established university teaching hospitals. Both of us are now in remission. But there is a glaring difference. Nancy lives in the US, covered under a good private healthcare scheme. I live in the UK, covered by the NHS."
Mar 21st 2020
EXTRACT: "In philosophy, individualism is closely linked with the concept of freedom. As soon as restrictive measures were imposed in Italy, many people felt that their freedom was threatened and started to assert their individuality in various ways. Some disagreed with the necessity of cancelling group gatherings and organised unofficial ones themselves. Others continued to go out and live as they always did. We often assume that freedom is to do as we choose, and that is contrasted with being told what to do. As long as I am doing what the government tells me, I am not free. I am going out, not because I want to, but because that shows I am free. But there is another route to freedom..........."
Mar 12th 2020
EXTRACT: "Repeated stress is a major trigger for persistent inflammation in the body. Chronic inflammation can lead to a range of health problems, including diabetes and heart disease. The brain is normally protected from circulating molecules by a blood-brain barrier. But under repeated stress, this barrier becomes leaky and circulating inflammatory proteins can get into the brain. The brain’s hippocampus is a critical brain region for learning and memory, and is particularly vulnerable to such insults. Studies in humans have shown that inflammation can adversely affect brain systems linked to motivation and mental agility. There is also evidence of chronic stress effects on hormones in the brain, including cortisol and corticotropin releasing factor (CRF). High, prolonged levels of cortisol have been associated with mood disorders as well as shrinkage of the hippocampus. It can also cause many physical problems, including irregular menstrual cycles."
Mar 12th 2020
EXTRACT: "It’s important to do things that make you happy or content as you are doing them – and doing them for yourself. Research has found that picking recovery activities you find personally satisfying and meaningful is more likely to help you feel recovered by the next morning."
Feb 22nd 2020
EXTRACTS: "A recent study of nearly 3,000 physicists found that a scientist’s most highly cited publication had an equal probability of being published at any point within the sequence of papers the scientist published.........Creativity is not the prerogative of the young, but can occur at any stage in the life cycle...........there is not a single kind of creativity, but that in virtually every intellectual discipline there are two different types of creativity, each associated with a distinct pattern of discovery over the life cycle. The bold leaps of fearless and iconoclastic young conceptual innovators are one important form of creativity. Archetypal conceptual innovators include Einstein, Picasso.......very different type of creativity, in which important new discoveries emerge gradually and incrementally from the extended explorations of older experimental innovators.......The single year from with Paul Cézanne’s work is most frequently illustrated in textbooks of art history is 1906 – the last year of his life, when he was 67."
Feb 22nd 2020
EXTRACT: "As our global population is projected to live longer than ever before, it’s important that we find ways of helping people live healthier for longer. Exercise and diet are often cited as the best ways of maintaining good health well into our twilight years. But recently, research has also started to look at the role our gut – specifically our microbiome – plays in how we age."
Feb 16th 2020
EXTRACT: "In an increasingly polarised political landscape, we see differing political views challenged, not through debate and discussion, but through tribal behaviour. We often consider the groups that we belong to as worthy of empathy, respect and tolerance – but not others. What’s more, recent research has identified that we reward our leaders for being naysayers – negating, refuting or criticising others – rather than empowering them."
Feb 14th 2020
EXTRACT: "All of which is to say that the Communist Manifesto is not a historical relic of a bygone era, an era of which many would like to think we have washed our hands. As long as workers’ rights are trampled on, and children are pressed into wretched servitude; as long as real wages stagnate, so that economic inequality continues to grow, allowing wealth to be ever more concentrated in the hands of the few – then the Communist Manifesto will continue to resonate and we will hear the clarion call of workers of the world to unite, “for they have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” "
Feb 4th 2020
EXTRACTS: "In my many visits to Michael’s studio I have had the opportunity to observe his process up close and over time.............."Armageddon Yacht (2019)". The name is derived from a term that US sailors use for an aircraft carrier. Power and violence are recurring themes in Anderson’s work – and no less here. With irony and wit he questions our contemporary assumptions and illusions about power. The central image of three models sipping martinis on a yacht presents us with an idealized vision of Western luxury and decadence, privilege and wealth."
Jan 23rd 2020
EXTRACT: " For the first time in over two decades a painting by Marc Chagall will be going up for auction in Israel. Tiroche Auction House will be hosting the Israeli & International Art auction on January 25th – featuring paintings by a number of Israeli masters, including Reuben Rubin, and Yosl Bergner. The highlight of the evening however is Chagall’s Jacob’s Ladder (1970-1974), a theme to which the artist would return at least a dozen times in paintings and drawings."
Jan 16th 2020
EXTRACT: "Between 1940 and 1942 Charlotte Salomon, a young German-Jewish artist, created a sequence of 784 paintings while hiding from the Nazi authorities. She gave the sequence a single title: Leben? oder Theater? (Life? or Theatre?). Viewed in the 21st century, Salomon’s artwork could be considered a precursor to the contemporary graphic novel, creating a complex web of narratives through words and images."
Jan 9th 2020
EXTRACT: "It’s simply not possible to do justice to the value of Iran’s cultural heritage – it’s a rich and noble history that has had a fundamental impact on the world through art, architecture, poetry, in science and technology, medicine, philosophy and engineering. The Iranian people are intensely aware – and rightly proud of – their Persian heritage. The archaeological legacy left by the civilisations of ancient and medieval Iran extend from the Mediterranean Sea to India and ranges across four millennia from the Bronze age (3rd millennium BC) to the glorious age of classical Islam and the magnificent medieval cities of Isfahan and Shiraz that thrived in the 9th-12th centuries AD, and beyond."
Jan 9th 2020
EXTRACT: "Lautrec had a genius for representing people. He would rarely paint any other subject. When he looked at a person who caught his interest, not only their appearance, but seemingly also their personality would magically flow from his hand, fixing a moment of their life, and his, on a piece of cardboard or canvas."
Jan 7th 2020
EXTRACT: "In 2010, Great Britain generated 75% of its electricity from coal and natural gas. But by the end of the decade*, these fossil fuels accounted for just 40%, with coal generation collapsing from the decade’s peak of 41% in 2012 to under 2% in 2019. The near disappearance of coal power – the second most prevalent source in 2010 – underpinned a remarkable transformation of Britain’s electricity generation over the last decade, meaning Britain now has the cleanest electrical supply it has ever had. Second place now belongs to wind power, which supplied almost 21% of the country’s electrical demand in 2019, up from 3% in 2010. As at the start of the decade, natural gas provided the largest share of Britain’s electricity in 2019 at 38%, compared with 47% in 2010."
Jan 5th 2020
EXTRACT: "Owing to these positive developments, many were lulled into thinking that modern advanced economies can run on autopilot. And yet economists knew that market capitalism does not automatically self-correct for adverse distributional trends (both secular and transitional), especially extreme ones. Public policies and government services and investments have a critical role to play. But in many places, these have been either non-existent or insufficient. The result has been a durable pattern of unequal opportunity that is contributing to the polarization of many societies. This deepening divide has a negative spillover effect on politics, governance, and policymaking, and now appears to be hampering our ability to address major issues, including the sustainability challenge."
Jan 2nd 2020
In September 2018, Ian Buruma was forced out as editor of The New York Review of Books, following an outcry over the magazine’s publication of a controversial essay about #MeToo. A year later, in a conversation with Svenska Dagbladet US correspondent Malin Ekman, he reflects on lost assignments, literature, cancel culture, threats to freedom of speech, and the state of liberal democracy.
Dec 31st 2019
EXTRACT: "I have long been troubled by the way so many believing Christians in the West have either been ignorant of or turned their backs on the plight of Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim. Right​-wing Evangelicals, under the sway of heretical theology, are so blinded by their obsession with Israel that they can't see Israel's victims. Other Western Christians simply just don't know or about the people of Palestine. I find this state of affairs to always distressing, but especially so at Christmas time, since the Christmas story we celebrate not only took place in that land, it continues to define the lives of the Palestinians who live in places like Bethlehem and Nazareth. "