On the eve of the Holocaust Memorial Day, Italy calls for Holocaust denial to be treated as a crime. Almost at the very same moment the United Nations adopts a resolution against denial. Read down the current news lists a little further and German prosecutors call for a five year sentence against Ernst Zundel, the alleged high profile Holocaust denier. In a statement to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has said that the day should be marked for future generations.
Where though is the stance of the British Government in all this debate? Could we see Holocaust denial outlawed here? The UN adoption was achieved without a vote. What would Britain have done if it had been put to a vote? Hypothetical questions maybe, but much of our apathy to the Holocaust lies in some of our history since World War II. The attached essay is based on records held at the National Archives, Kew and elsewhere and tells the story of two events that highlight the anxiety that the British state has in dealing with Holocaust events.
Sometimes comical sometimes 'jaw-dropping', the events that unfold in this story of Britain's 'National Holocaust Memorial' are a telling revelation of inter-departmental stalling and downright interference by the state. Papers released at Kew indicate the possibility of overt prejudice by some cabinet ministers determined to see this memorial 'buried' at arms length to Whitehall and the state.
The essay is a lengthy text, fully referenced and is released in full without changes from its original form. It was an attempt at a Foucauldian analysis of events since WWII relating to the idea of Holocaust.
Other side of Hogarth
As I look forward to the William Hogarth (1697-1764) temporary exhibition at Tate Britain this spring, I also reflect on the side of Hogarth that has been little applauded.
Hogarth, best known for his prolific output on London life, sexuality and even patriotism, had a more serious side to his nature which unfolded in some of his artistic creations. In fact Hogarth aspired to being a serious history painter. That is nothing out of the ordinary of course, since all artists followed an established pattern of training and execution on the well-established hierarchy of painting genres with history painting at the very pinnacle. Hogarth would want, especially in the early years of production, to eventually reach this summit. It is considered by many to be a summit that he never conquered, but nevertheless his output of history paintings is a body of works that is worthy of discussion.
Probably the most famous of these are the works that Hogarth donated to his friend Thomas Coram for The Thomas Coram Foundation for Children, originally in a building in Lamb's Conduit Street, Bloomsbury. 'Moses brought before Pharaoh's Daughter', and other history subjects painted for the Foundling Hospital (1747) now adorns the walls of The Foundling Museum adjacent to the old hospital near Brunswick Square.
There are two other sets of Hogarth paintings though, that tend to get only a cursory glance
in discussions of Hogarth's work. One set of works can be found at St. Bartholomew Hospital in West Smithfield, London. Generally locked away from public gaze can be found on the original hospital entrance stairway, two stunning murals by Hogarth. 'Pool of Bethesda' and 'The Good Samaritan' (1736-37). In fact Hogarth provided these murals free of charge on the basis that it was British art, thus preventing the hospital from commissioning an Italian artist to fulfil their wishes.
The murals can be seen by arrangement on Friday afternoons only I believe, and I recommend a visit to see these elaborate murals.
Much lesser known that even these is the triptych (not a true triptych since the central painting was positioned high over the alter) that Hogarth completed for St Marys Redcliffe, Bristol in 1756. In fact if you ask an art historian about these paintings ('Ascension' flanked by 'The Sealing of the Sepulchre' and the 'Three Marys at the Tomb') you will generally get some head scratching and looks of disbelief! Try it out on your favourite historian and tell me I am wrong here.
It is nigh impossible to even find an image on the world wide web on any of these paintings! The closest one gets to it is a 'missing image' announcement on the St Nicholas Church Museum referenced site at artfund.org. Bristol Museums and Galleries have the paintings in their charge and also hold the copyright to photographs. I am indebted to Michael Liversidge, Bristol University History of Art Department, for sending me a copy of his 1980 paper (reference supplied on application) which provides some information about the history of the altarpiece.
What strikes me greatest after seeing the images is a certain resonance with the 'Italian Baroque' painters Claude and especially Poussin. Both were masters at painting in pairs (Pendant). Since the main altarpiece is positioned high above the other two, I surmise that Hogarth was treating the other two as a Pendant.
Whatever the case, it is well worth the visit to Bristol to see these paintings. Not great masterpieces as such but nevertheless a valuable asset to the history of art in Britain. Hogarth enthusiasts should make the effort during the exhibition in London.
Being a critic and the blogger’s revenge
In the Guardian Unlimited blog today (8th January 2007), Dorian Lynskey, the Guardian music writer, hits out at the 'web sphere' and the amateur critic that answers back in the blogs. Although Lynskey agrees that '…there is an appetite for genuine debate on the web…' he is obviously not at all comfortable with the majority of bloggers he encounters after each report hits the newspaper or its web equivalent.
Apparently, the '…howling of people who seem to regard the very existence of professional critics as an outrageous affront..' disturbs him. I agree entirely.
I do not visit the Gaurdian blog regularly and I certainly know little about music, but I thought I would put my two penneth in anyway. That is my right as Citizen editor and not as a '…weary, condescending sneer…' which he claims he receives after each of his articles.
Lynskey is generalising of course, but that may be understandable if he really thinks he is being '…put in the stocks…' by his blogger's comments. Feedback is nothing new My Lynskey, but it is just a lot quicker via the web. You will just have to put up with the Hitlerite echoes in the hope you will find those '…nuanced posts that broadened and enriched the discussion…' you crave. An alternative would be to introduce an edited version, whereby you could remove all the negative feedback, thereby ensuring your integrity remains intact. Perish the day we return to those days of censored or non-existent feedback! I pointed out yesterday on my 'Art Brit' page at TTS, that the image of Manet's 'Execution of Maximilian' was inverted on the page. That is a gross mis-representation of the facts. I'm sure it was not your fault Mr Lynskey, but it does not assist one in defending his/her position when the editors get it so wrong!