Disagreeable objects

Back up in the Midlands, I visit one of my favourite places; Wightwick Manor. The De Morgan collection of William’s ceramics and Evelyn’s paintings has recently opened in its new home at the Manor, so this is the first time I’ve seen it since it left its former home in London. The lustreware ceramics are easily as beautiful as I remember them; the paintings are more mixed. The best of them recall Botticelli and Burne Jones; the worst can be rather garish exercises in symbolism.  I also visit Shugborough while I’m up there. It’s not really a place I’ll ever love as such; the grounds are beautiful in the summer, with the reflections of the bridge in the water by the Chinese house being particularly lovely but the brutalist house never really seems in keeping. Some more of the follies are open to visitors than I recall, including Hadrian’s arch.

Back down in London, I visit the Tate’s Giacometti exhibition. The main thing that strikes me is the paintings,which rather remind me of Bacon’s Screaming Popes series. I also rather like some of his earlier surrealist inspired objects as well as his design work, but once he reaches his style for sculpting figures it sets fasts and quickly becomes repetitive.

My choice of reading Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism was obviously prompted by currents events, but in practice her definition of the term is heavily restricted, with it only being applied to Hitler and Stalin and exempting Mao, Lenin and Mussolini. There are parallels to current events though; I’m struck by how she describes totalitarianism are aiming to impose a fictitious mythos rather than producing realistic policy aims. Liberals aiming to critique consistently fail to understand that it has no intention of being a realistic response to events and will not be impaired even as its policies demonstrably fail; Arendt specifically says totalitarian states were often characterised by confused and contradictory government structures and counter-intuitive aims (such as the waste of resources entailed by the final solution in the middle of  a war). The essence of government is reduced to the erratic and inconsistent dictats of the leader. It’s difficult not to think of Trump or the Brexit vote here; Gove’s dismissal of experts obliterated all rational discussion from the campaign and left only fraudulent bromides behind. Blizzards of disinformation in both cases have settled to a point where the populations of both countries seem indifferent to the flagrant charlatanism of their political classes.

Arendt’s analysis of the rise of fascism in the thirties is also interesting; with England remaining stable she characterises the two party system as the source of it, given that it forced both parties to accept a stake in government that could only me met with realistic policies. By contrast, parties in multi-party states could simply retreat into ideological fantasy. In contemporary events, the reverse has been true with the US and UK winner takes all systems embracing ever more extreme and polarised politics even as European parties continued to draw cordon sanitaires around the sources of the infection.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s