Marie Antoinette’s portraitist and also an ‘Old Mistress’
Joseph S. Blatter’s FIFA Presidential acceptance speech – 29/05/2015
Thankyou. But first of all, I would like to give compliments and express my gratitude to his royal highness Prince Ali. Because Prince Ali was a competitor, a challenger, and he has obtained a very good result and he in such a situation, easy, he could have said ‘no, lets go further, perhaps I would receive more votes’.
On the other hand ladies and gentlemen I thankyou, I thankyou that you accepted me, that for the next 4 years, I will be in command of this boat called FIFA, and we will bring it back. We will bring it back, offshore, and we will bring it back to the beach, we will bring it back, where finally football can be played. Beach soccer. We can play everywhere. But we have to work on that. We have to work on that, we have also to work on other things, that we have to do for FIFA in the future. You will remember four years ago, I had a lot of problems to solve, and I gave it to you, I challenged you at that time. I will not going to challenge you. But we have also to make some organisational problems, inside the FIFA, inside the Executive Committee, because we must have a better representation of the different confederations, and the number of members, of the confederations, shall have also, their repercussion in the organisation of the committee, and, again, we need in this committee women. We need ladies, we cannot just say they are only co-opted, we have to do more. We have to do more in our competitions also.
And I already telled you I will not touch the World Cup, because the World Cup is too important for doing that. But for the other competitions, specially men’s under 17, under 20 also, we shall give, we shall give a second, a second part. We shall have a little bit more respect to one of the confederations that is respected by everybody, it is Oceania. They have only one member in the Executive Committee, they have only one slot, or a semi, a 50% of a slot, we have to do something for that, that is not good. That is not good for the, lets say, for the solidarity in FIFA. But don’t touch the World Cup. I agree with you, we don’t touch the World Cup.
But now, and I have said it before, I take the responsibility to bring back FIFA, with you, we do it, we do it. We do it, and I am convinced we can do it. I was not now in the room, but I was thinking, it was in meditation. I am a faithful man, and I said ‘Now, God, Allah, or whoever is this extraordinary whatever it is, spirit in the world that we believe, we believe. They will help us, to bring back this FIFA, where we shall be. And I tell you and I promise you, in the end of my term, I will give this FIFA to my successor, in a very very strong, strong position. A robust FIFA, and a good FIFA. We have to work together.
You will ask me what age? It is not an age, the age is no problem I always told you. You have people, they are 50, they look old. Its not a…..its not… ha, sure… sorry, sorry. Sorry, I didn’t know we had so many 50 years old people here. No, definitely not. But ladies and gentlemen, you know, I told you at the beginning, or when we started for this election – I like you, I like my job, and I like to be with you. I’m not perfect, nobody’s perfect. But, we will do a good job together I am sure, so I thankyou so much, I thankyou. For the trust and confidence, trust and confidence together we go! Let’s go FIFA! Let’s go FIFA! Thankyou! Thankyou so much. Thankyou. Thankyou. Thankyou. Thankyou. Thankyou Executive Committee. Thankyou. Merci.
Here’s a short film about Forest Pitch, directed by Andy Ashworth, a student at Edinburgh College of Art. The film was made as part of the Film & Television course at ECA, and was supported? commissioned? by The Skinny on/around the 10 year(ish) anniversary of the founding of The Embassy gallery. The film uses some footage from our original short film about Forest Pitch, directed by Nick Gibbon, which can be seen below too.
You might have seen in the news recently a bit of fuss about China creating some artificial islands in the South China Seas on reef’s which are part of the (commonly called) Spratly Islands. These islands are actually reefs, islets, islands and atolls in the middle of one of the worlds busiest shipping routes, and are claimed by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Phillipines. They are literally in the middle of ‘dangerous ground’. Who owns them is obviously in dispute. China claims to have claimed them as part of their territory since the 12th century. Vietnam says some of them are theirs. In the 1843 a British sea captain called Richard Spratly ‘sighted’ them, and they have carried (in english) his name since. In the 1870’s another British sea captain called James George Meads laid claim to the islands and created the nation of Morac-Songhrati-Meads (which split into ‘The Kingdom of Humanity’ for a short period). His relatives continue to claim some kind of soverignity over the islands, and have a strange website where they claim to be part of ‘Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation‘ but have some kind of grievance with the Udmurtese (it may be a joke website, but maybe not…). The French then claimed them through their then colony of Vietnam. During the second World War they were occupied by Japan, afterwards they seem to have been reclaimed by China, but its not clear from what I can see if they were granted them – then a Filipino Tomas Cloma claimed them as part of ‘Freedomland’. Anyway, the wikipedia entry is suspicious to say the least. Now China is building up some sand on one of the reefs and building an airport. The other countries are also building on the bits they occupy. The US isn’t happy, but is claiming to be neutral. China are reported to have called the South China Sea ‘a chinese lake’. Brunei’s official name is ‘Nation of Brunei, Abode of Peace’. It’s interesting stuff. Here are some images.
In Genesis 19, we saw that Lot and his daughters escaped from Sodom, and Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she made the mistake of turning round to see the Lord destroy the city. We are now towards the end of Genesis 19, where Lot and his daughters have gone up into the mountains and are hanging out in a cave. They are alone, and this solitude worries the elder daughter. She says to her sister that their father is old, and there is no one else around, and they have to ensure their family line continues, and why don’t we get dad drunk, then I’ll sleep with him, then you can sleep with him, and we’ll get pregnant and hey presto line is continued.
So, the elder sister gets dad drunk, sleeps with him; ‘he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up'; and the next day she suggests to her sister she do the same, which she does – again, Lot doesn’t realise that any of this has happened. And so, it comes to pass that….
‘So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.’
– The daughters obviously feel that maintaining the family line is important. Perhaps, they also feel that there are not a lot of folk left after the Lord’s destruction of the cities. This is real dedication to the family, and helps ensure the longevity of Abraham’s line (the line that the Lord had promised would last). I have a feeling that this family line may, following the course of time, prove to be an important one.
– It should not be assumed that the daughters lusted after their father, or vice versa (which the following paintings generally fail to acknowledge…).
– Did they have time to collect wine before they fled Sodom?
– They must have gotten Lot very drunk for him not to realise. Twice.
– The text is very careful to ensure that Lot is not to blame for what happens, in fact, he had no idea! So, all potential shame is placed on the sisters. How can someone be guilty of something they did not know they had done?
– I am looking forward to hearing about Lot’s reaction to the pregnancies, once they start to show.
– It is possible that Lot is being punished (raped) for previously offering his daughters to the townspeople in Sodom. What he was prepared to put his daughters through, is now being done unto him.
There is an enormous amount of painting dedicated to this biblical scene. I imagine it gave artists and patrons the opportunity to have some sexy paint on their walls while still maintaining a certain amount of piousness. The range of approaches is not very wide though. I have chosen the following as some have unusual touches, or are generally representative of the subject. Also, sometimes this scene is called ‘The Rape of Lot by his Daughters’. (CLICK ON IMAGES TO GET A BIGGER IMAGE AND A BETTER VIEW OF THINGS)
Firstly, the Gentileschi’s – father and daughter. Orazio (the father) has painted two L&hD’s. They are pretty restrained, the first showing a tenderness, with Lot almost being mothered. There isn’t so much sexiness, other than the daughter in yellow’s dress slipping off. The wine is knocked over, and Lot seems knocked out. I’m guessing this is inbetween daughters. The group are entwined with complexity, of limbs and colour. One daughter points off to the distance, probably to Sodom to indicate the fate of the city, and perhaps the families lack of male options to come… Its pretty serene this one.
In his second, later version, there is more of a sense of space, plus a bit more sexiness. One daughter (perhaps the elder) seems to be trying to convince the other of something. Again, Lot seems to be treated with motherly/daughterly tenderness rather than sensuality. The wine is knocked over again, but there is an addition of vine leaves, which might serve to answer the question of whether they brought wine from Sodom or not. I really like the colour of the sky and vine together, a hint of bright hopefulness in the midst of the cave.
Here we have Orazio’s own daughter, Artemisia’s version. It’s interesting to think of the closeness of relationship these two may have shared (Artemisia trained in her fathers workshop) and how it might have affected their approach to the subject matter. Both certainly are straining to a complexity of emotions between all 3 characters in the paintings. Lot in this painting is clearly in the process of becoming drunk, and his affection is growing, a hand on his daughters shoulder, another approaching her elbow. It seems a plan is underway. I do wonder if its a good idea to give Lot a slice of bread though, if you’re wanting to get him drunk. The other daughter tenderly touches Lot’s own shoulder about to ask if he wants more wine. Lot’s cheeks are rosy. In the background, mother is turned to salt. Vine leaves are silhouetted in the opening of the cave.
Here we get a bit more raunchy. Simon Vouet paints Lot in a stupor, happy to fondle his daughters breast. He moves his head back a bit in an attempt to regain focus of his daughters face. She meanwhile lifts a leg over his and gazes into his eyes. The second daughter is grinning a wee bit, and struggles to hold onto the grand vase which looks like it could hold plenty of vino – she also seems to be pulling something out of a purse, obviously not a condom – it looks like a digestive biscuit. Lot has lost control, and the entire episode has an unpleasant creepiness to it, which the Gentileschi’s do not.
Joachim Wtewaeil was a flax merchant as well as a painter, but there is a distinct lack of flax here. He was apparently known for inserting sensual, suggestive elements into his nude paintings, and I dare say the pinkish, folded cloth on the ground beneath the nude daughter may be one of these, plus all the ripe and rotting fruit. There’s also a strange bulbous white growth under the nude daughters elbow, which looks pretty testicle-like. Maybe I’m seeing too much. There is an abundance of fruit and wine here, and a difference being that the daughters too seem to have drunk a bit. Their cheeks are rosy as well (though many things make rosy cheeks). Lot’s drunk looking, but not out of control, and daughter two seems to approach him for a kiss. Again, this seems more about getting away with sexy paint than representing any complex moral situation.
I can’t find much out about this one, but once again, sexual gratification for the viewer seems important here. Lot’s right knee, covered in his robe, seems to have taken on the shape of a giant cock. The see through fabric that almost comes straight out of this cock-knee is not too subtle either. Daughter is grinning, but Lot has a very forced uncomfortable expression. Daughter 2 is also topless, and pouring wine from an extravagant height. Daughter 1 has a strange necklace on, with what I’m guessing is the face of Jesus on it – I don’t know what that means, perhaps all this terrible, unavoidable sexiness is being held together by religious intent and nothing else.
I like this Paul Cezanne, not for its depiction of the scene, but because it seems that Daughter has just leapt into Lot’s lap, almost straight on to his boner. While his face suggests surprise, his right hand suggests readiness. Its the only painting which really has sexual energy in it- there is heat, darkness, fleshiness.
This one is quite weird – there’s a lot of pottery, and the figures and clothing all look a bit like porcelain. They have almost transparent skin, and there is just a hint of pinkishness on Lots cheeks and nose. Lots left hand is relaxed, his right daintily begins to undress his daughter, and he gazes down in anticipation of the soon to be revealed breast. It’s all very cold and passionless, not to mention a lack of moral distress. The strangest thing though is that the rock Lot is sat on seems to be wrapped in cloth. It also (honestly) has a hint of glans penis about it. There is a glacial stillness to the painting which I quite like, it just doesn’t seem appropriate to the scene. Francheschini’s paintings all seem to have this porcelain stillness.
Well, this one has a couple of things going for it as far as I’m concerned. First, Lot is reeking. His eyes are all over the place, his fingers aren’t working properly, his legs are spread, and there’s no chance of him standing up without causing all kinds of mess. Secondly, the daughter on the left is posing in a convincingly post-coitus manner, languid, stretching, maybe about to fall asleep. This painting feels exhausted. In fact, maybe Lot isn’t that knackered, maybe he’s attempting to get up for round two. As an aside, apparently Jacob van Loo killed a man in an inn in Amsterdam, and had to flee to Paris. Positively Caravaggian.
Now this one is just ridiculous. What a barrel of laughs they are having, not a care in the world. Looking at some more of Jean-Francois de Troy‘s work, he seems like a class I pompoustier.
This is another Joachim Wtewael. I put this one in, partly because everyone is a bit green, but also because it seems to further add to the fantasy of the (male) viewer, by adding a little touch of potential lesbian action – daughter on the left is looking over to daughter on the right adoringly, while just about to touch her with a raised big toe…I’m also intrigued by Lot’s choice of breast touching technique.
Johann Rottmayr makes the list due to the fanstastic drunken stare in Lot’s eyes. He is 100% waltered.
Marcelle Hanselaar is the only contemporary artist in this list, she is also only the second woman. What I like about this is that the daughters are clearly in charge here, whether Lot likes it or not. Plus, it is the first to show the actual sexual act, and the daughter is on top and in charge, for responsible and practical reasons. I don’t know what one of the daughters is hiding, it looks like a mirror.
And finally, Otto Dix’s interpretation. This is the best drunken Lot – he is grinning with his moustache, and his gaze and raised hand are actually depicted in the act of missing the glass of wine. He cannot focus at all. His right hand is curling up at something, the nothingness just out of grasp of every true drunkard. The daughter (again on top) seems to be using the wine as a distraction while she mounts him, and this is another more complex representation of the act. The other daughter however looks a little too pleased with the proceedings. Is she undressing or covering up? In the background Sodom burns.