Monthly Archives: April 2021

Alice Neel painted the human comedy.

Its a phrase she repeated often in interviews and in text, throughout her life. It is the title of one of the sections of Alice Neel: People Come First, her outstanding and moving retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

In one sense, what she meant is obvious. Memorable and interesting characters abound in her paintings, running from her many lovers to the luminaries of New Yorks Depression-era political and literary Left; from art celebrities like Andy Warhol to her acquaintances in the East Harlem neighborhood where she toiled in obscurity for decades; from the feminist activists and critics who championed her work in the 60s and 70s to her own self, shown naked, at 80, paintbrush in hand and gazing skeptically out at the viewer as if sizing them upone of the most indelible of all 20th-century self-portraits.

Alice Neel, Self-Portrait (1980). Photo by Ben Davis.

The text in the Mets The Human Comedy gallery explains that she meant the phrase as a reference to French author Honor de Balzacs story collection La Comdie humaine, which examines the causes and effects of human action on nineteenth-century French society. It notes that Neel wanted to chronicle suffering and loss, but also strength and endurance, as Balzac did.

Which is fine, as far as it goes, and falls in line with the shows framing of Neel as an anarchic humanist. But the effects of human action is a pretty vague phrase. As opposed to what? The effects of the movement of the planets?

Installation view of Alice Neel: People Come First at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Photo by Ben Davis.

The truth is that the words the human comedy had a lasting magic for Alice Neel because Alice Neel thought of herself as a Communist intellectual. Every artist with an interest in Marxism would have gotten the reference, becausealmost all of Communist aesthetic theory looked for legitimacy, in one way or another, to Marx and Engelss approving remarks on Balzacs La Comdie humaine.

The authors of the Communist Manifesto thought Balzac captured not just the spirit of his time, but provided a portrait of the pathologies of bourgeois society, the toll that money took on human relations (despite Balzacs aristocratic personal politics).

Alice Neels Pregnant Woman (1971) at the Metropolitan Museum. Photo by Ben Davis.

Interviewed by the Yale Press podcast, the exhibitionss curators, Kelly Baum and Randall Griffey, seem very concerned with emphasizing that Neels politicswere independent, non-dogmatic, and that her affinities for Communist ideas softened as she aged. Which may be true: Times change, people change, art and politics and how they intersect change.

You see, its not so much that I am pro-Russia as that I am pro-dtente, she said onstage towards the end of her life. But she also said, around the same time, Reagan has said the government doesnt owe anybody anything. In the Soviet Union you get free medical careeverything is free. There the government owes you everything.

In 1981, just three years before she died, she contributed to a fundraiser for the Reference Center for Marxist Studies, a depository for Communist Party history located in the headquarters of the attenuated CPUSA. The same year she actually did a show in Moscow at the Artists Union, organized by Philip Bonosky, the Moscow correspondent for theDaily World, which was the successor to the CPs Daily Worker.(She had painted him three decades earlier, when he was editor at the Communist magazine Masses & Mainstream.)

Alice Neel, Phillip Bonosky (1948). Photo by Ben Davis.

Interviewed at the age of 82 by art historian Patricia Hills, Neel was still making the case for the significance of her portraiture by referencing Vladimir Lenins respect for Balzacs The Human Comedy (she kept a poster of Lenin in her apartment all her life, according to Phoebe Hobans 2010 biography) as well as Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukcss advocacy for Thomas Mann.

Neither Lenin norLukcs were names you brought up in the 1980s to win points for being with-it, artistically or politically.

Rather than trying to fit Neel into the framework of a rose-colored contemporary progressivism, it seems much more interestingand more accurateto consider how the artists actual, passionately felt, difficult allegiances shaped her: the sacrifices she made in her life; the specifics of her art; and her relation to the New Left feminist movements of the 1960s and 70s that pulled her from obscurity, and that now probably overdetermine the reading of her work still.

Born into small-town Pennsylvania respectability in 1900, Alice Neel went to study art at the Philadelphia School of Design for Women looking for a more interesting life. I came out of that little town the most depressed virgin who ever lived, she remembers in a 2008 documentary directed by her grandson. She met and married Carlos Enrquez, a soon-to-be-important Cuban painter, and travelled to Cuba in 1926, where the sight of poverty in pre-revolutionary Havana radicalized her.

Alice Neel, Futility of Effort (1930). Photo by Ben Davis.

Returning to New York, she suffered the loss of her first child, Santillana, to diphtheriathe subject of the ghostly Futility of Effort (1930), later featured in a 1936 issue of the journal of the Artists Union, Art Front, retitled asPoverty. The couple would separate, and Enrquez would take their second child, Isabetta, back to Cuba.

New Yorks Greenwich Village was where Neel found her most lasting community, in the demimonde that swirled together leftist radicals and artistic strivers amid the hardship brought on by the Great Depression.

Alice Neel, Kenneth Fearing (1935) at the Metropolitan Museum. Photo by Ben Davis.

When the New Deals art projects started up in 33, Neel seized the opportunity as a lifeline, painting a canvas every six weeks on government wages, her eye turning for a time to urban scenes and public demonstrations in the mode of the day.

(An anecdote she liked to tell later in life is that Harold Rosenberg, the critic of abstraction, schemed his way onto the government payroll by submitting two Neel paintings as his own, before becoming an art writer.)

Installation view of Alice Neel: People Come First at Metropolitan Museum of Art. Photo by Ben Davis.

The Communist Party was enthusiastic about the New Deal Arts Projects and a force in pushing for their expansion, and Neel soon joined the Party. It might surprise us now that a figure of Neels scrappy, bohemian independence would be drawn to the CP, even given the fact that she joined in 35, when the USSRs foreign policy needs aligned with Roosevelts agenda, and the turn to the Popular Front opened the doors for fellow-traveling artists of all kinds.

Alice Neel, Nazis Murder Jews (1936). Photo by Ben Davis.

But Cold War dogma and our knowledge of the actual evils of the Soviet system cloud our assessment of the Communist Partys on-the-ground profile at the time. Its opposition to US social order led it to engage with both racism and sexism in ways that mainstream institutions often wouldnt. As Andrew Hemingway writes in his great history of the time, Artists on the Left, Neel is representative of that type of woman artist and intellectual who gravitated to the CP becausewhatever its limitationsit offered the most sustained critique available of class, racial, and sexual inequality.

Alice Neels Death of Mother Bloor (1951) at the Metropolitan Museum. Photo by Ben Davis.

Neels role model would have been someone like Ella Reeve Bloor, aka Mother Bloor, the most well-known female leader in the CPUSA in the 20s and 30s. Born 1862, Bloor was a formidable organizer who supported six children while divorcing and marrying as she pleased. She was a comrade of Eugene Debs and Upton Sinclair, and her labor journalism inspired Woody Guthries song about the Ludlow Massacre. In her sixties, during the Great Depression, Bloor toured the Great Plains with her son, organizing farmers.

Detail of Alice Neels Death of Mother Bloor (1951) at the Metropolitan Museum. Photo by Ben Davis.

Neel painted Mother Bloors funeral in a 1951 work. She is pictured, sainted, in a coffin as a multiracial crowd of mourners files past. A wreath above her head reads COMMUNIST, the word PARTY vanishing as it wraps around a bouquet of roses.

The curators of Alice Neel: People Come First cite approvingly a line by Neel saying that she was never a good Communist, because she hated bureaucracy and the meetings used to drive me crazy. But a distaste for bureaucracy or political meetings doesnt mean she didnt imbibe the party line. (It just means she was an artist.)

In the very same interview Neel also stresses that it [the Communist Party] affected my work quite a bit.

Its one thing to join the Communist Party at a time when Communist ideas were in vogue with the artistic mainstream, and capitalism was in a crisis that was plain for all to see. Many did in the Depression years. But Neel remained faithful to the movement long after.

Alice Neel, Alice Childress (1950). Photo by Ben Davis.

In the 40s and 50s, she studied philosophy at the Jefferson School for Social Research, an adult education school in New York run by the Communist Party. She delivered some of her first slide lectures about her art there.

One of her teachers, V.J. Jerome, chair of the Partys Cultural Commission, was convicted under the Smith Act for his 1950 pamphlet Grasp the Weapon of Culture!, which described mass culture as anti-human and a narcotic polluting the masses, arguing the need for a revolutionary art to bring down capitalism. Neel made sure to visit Jerome to show support after he was released from jail.

Installation view of Alice Neel: People Come First at the Metropolitan Museum. Photo by Ben Davis.

This was the high tide of McCarthyism, when most others of the so-called New York Intellectuals were abandoning their earlier, 30s-era Marxist commitments and turning hard towards Cold War liberalism and anti-Communism.

And yet the very title of the Met show, People Come First, comes from a line in a 1950 Daily Worker interview with Mike Gold, the foremost propagandizer of proletarian art in the United States. Even as Abstract Expressionism was being coronated at MoMA, Gold had quoted Neel: I am against abstract and non-objective art because such art shows a hatred of human beings.

(Incidentally, when figuration reemerged in the art world in the late 60s, it was in the form of Photorealismand Neel hated that too. She argued that it also sinned by treating humans the same as things, replicating capitalist ideology. She thought special attention should be reserved for the human. Her particular Marxist aesthetic, therefore, gives insight into the ways she set her subjects off from less defined backgrounds and the meaning she gave to the expressive, painterly qualities of her paintings in that era.)

Alice Neels Mike Gold (1951) at the Metropolitan Museum. Photo by Ben Davis.

Gold championed Neel as a pioneer of socialist-realism in American painting, and she returned the love with a portrait from 1951. His weathered, tan features appear thoughtful and ready for debate. Depicted on the table before Gold in Neels painting is a copy of the Communist intellectual journal Masses.

Detail of Alice Neels Mike Gold. Photo by Ben Davis.

Beneath that is a newspaper. In what I take to be a deliberate suggestion of Neels continuing alignment with Golds output as a writer and propagandist, she has placed her own signature as if it is a part of the newspaper.

Neel had moved to Spanish Harlem in 1938 with her lover, the singer Jos Santiago Negrn (whom she had met when she was 35 and he a decade younger). For her, the paintings she did of neighbors, acquaintances, and comrades from the Puerto Rican community werent just sentimental or picturesque. Works such as Mercedes Arroyo, The Spanish Family, and T.B. Harlem made their debut in a show at the Communist-controlled New Playwrights Theatre, with an essay by Gold, and were presented explicitly as part of a Communist political-cultural project, bound up with the Partys advocacyand sometimes fetishizationof Third World struggle.

Alice Neel, The Spanish Family (1943). Photo by Ben Davis.

Gold quoted Neel like so: East Harlem is like a battlefield of humanism, and I am on the side of the people there, and they inspire my painting.

In the popular imagination, the story of the 60s New Left movements is that they raised issues of race and gender that the Old Lefts idealization of a white male factory worker had ignored. But its a little more complicated than that.

An interesting twist highlighted by recent museum shows reconsidering this period is that, as it turns out, the artists who were adopted as the most vital, heroic exemplars by the insurgent 60s social movements had, in fact, often been forged by the Old Left artistic scene. It was in terminally uncool Social Realism that the idea of an art that honored the experiences of the suffering, oppressed masses had been preserved and could be picked up again when new social movements rebelled against the reining formalism.

Charles White, the masterful social realist who was affiliated with the CPUSA until 1956 and was nurtured in some of the same Communist spaces and periodicals as Neel, was an example for the Black Power generation. Neel was an example for Womens Liberation.

Cover of Time magazine featuring Alice Neel painting of Kate Millet, on display at the Metropolitan Museum. Photo by Ben Davis.

The Communist Party had all but imploded after Khrushchevs secret speech in 1956 revealing Stalins crimes. Without the new feminist movement, there would have been no Neel revival.

Neel, in turn, helped shape the image of the ascendant movement, doing a steely painting of writer Kate Millett for the 1970 cover of Time magazine on The Politics of Sex, just as Womens Liberation was moving into mainstream consciousness.

Alice Neel, Cindy Nemser and Chuck (1975). Photo by Ben Davis.

She painted the luminaries of the feminist movement as faces of their time, just as she had painted the earlier Communist intellectuals: art historians Linda Nochlin (with daughter Daisy) and Cindy Nemser (nude, with husband Chuck, also nude), Redstockings founder Irine Peslikis (described as Marxist Girl), and many more.

Alice Neels Nancy and the Twins (1971) at the Metropolitan Museum. Photo by Ben Davis.

Neel also did numerous images of women nursing and pregnant nudes, among her most celebrated works. Here, her eye for honoring the realities of ordinary peoples lives hidden beneath bourgeois ideology met the feminist project of honoring the hidden world of womens work beneath the sentimental domestic cliches.

But Neel also had a famously difficult relationship with the Second Wave of feminism, even as she reveled in its attention and clearly believed in the importance of Womens Liberation. Partly, this was generational. Like Georgia OKeeffe (though a quarter-century younger) or Joan Mitchell (though a quarter-century older), Neel had spent a lifetime trying to escape the stigma of being patronizingly reviewed as a lady painter, and was suspicious of being touted for her gender.

Alice Neel, Marxist Girl (Irene Peslikis) (1972) in Alice Neel: People Come First at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Photo by Ben Davis.

But this was also partly political, inscribed in the very creed that had allowed her to hack it out all those lonely, unrecognized, pre-feminist-movement years. She had chosen a life of poverty out of an ideological belief in solidarity with the working class and the oppressed. With a combination of insight and narrow-mindedness, she considered a lot of the preoccupations of the new feminist artists she encountered to be self-absorbed and tritein a word, bourgeois.

In 1970, her work was included in the Ann Sutherland Harris and Linda Nochlin-curated Women Artists, 15501950 at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The show had been the product of actual protests by feminists, who had threatened a Civil Rights complaint against the museum for not showing women.

Alice Neel, Linda Nochlin and Daisy (1973). Photo by Ben Davis.

Yet reflecting on the shows reception, Neel was characteristically salty and dismissive of those who didnt share her fundamental political outlook:

What amazed me is that all the woman criticsyou see, you are very respected if you paint your own pussy, as a womans libber. But they didnt have any respect for being able to see an abused Third World. So nobody mentioned that I managed to see beyond my pussy politically. But I thought that was really a good thing if they had a little more brain.

There is ego here: Alice Neel was never shy about saying why her art was better than anyone elses. But the judgement flowed directly from the Marxist theory she used to understand her practice, which held that capitalist life kept us wallowing in immediate subjective experiences, unable to generalize and so unable to change the world.InGeorg Lukcss 1938 essay Realism in the Balance, he had written:

[I]f we are ever going to be able to understand the way in which reactionary ideas infiltrate our minds, and if we are ever going to achieve a critical distance from such prejudices, this can only be accomplished by hard work, by abandoning and transcending the limits of immediacy, by scrutinizing all subjective experiences and measuring them against social reality. In short it can only be achieved by a deeper probing of the world.

You can see how this artistic theory of hard looking would resonate with Neels sense of what a portrait should be.Lukacsian realism was about neither simply life-like description nor the depiction of ordinary experiences in an accessible way; it was about art that moved through the specific case to a revelation of the overall social context that had shaped its meaning and identity.

Installation view of Alice Neel: People Come First at Metropolitan Museum of Art. Photo by Ben Davis.

When, in the Hills interview, Neel says that what she values most in her own art is that she tries to paint the complete person but also, though that depiction, to capture the spirit of the age, it is just such an operation she seems to have in mind.

The favorite author of Georg Lukcs was Thomas Mann, Neel continues, because Mann could see how sick the world was. But the sickness has now been transformed into junkiness. You see, the character of this era is its utter lack of values.

Alice Neels Dominican Boys on 108th Street (1955) at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Photo by Ben Davis.

How seriously did Alice Neel take the mission of her art to capture its time, which went considerably beyond the personal satisfaction she got from organizing paint on canvas or communing with her many interesting sitters?

So seriously that, when it came time to paint the character of the 70s and its utter lack of values, she would show it in the face of her own adult son.

Having lost two daughters, Alice Neel raised two sons on welfare, in poverty, all while committed to making unsellable art. In the 2008 documentary, Richard Neel remembers Alice tolerating a lover, Sam Brody, who beat him, because she was dependent on him for money and he flattered her artistic ego. Burned by the dispiriting instability of their upbringing, both sons would reject her communist and bohemian values, steering clear of the new movements of the 60s even as they elevated their mother. They became, respectively, a doctor and a lawyeras solidly middle class as you can get.

Alice Neel, Richard (1962). Photo by Ben Davis.

She had painted Richard warmly in the handsome Richard (1962), when he was 24, with five oclock shadow and a casual sweater.

By the time Richard evolved into the late-periodRichard in the Era of the Corporation (1978-79), the real Richard had become an ardent Nixon supporter and chief executive council for Pan Am Airways. In the year she made the painting, Pan Am was okayed by Jimmy Carters Airline Deregulation Act to snap up National Airways for $437 million.

There are very few people as right-wing as I am, Richard says in the 2008 documentary. His mother would say that Richard in the Era of the Corporation was her attempt to capture how the corporation enslaved all these bright young men.

Alice Neel, Richard in the Era of the Corporation (1978-79). Photo by Ben Davis.

Now 40, Richard is shown again on a chair, this time in suit and tie. Compared to the earlier composition, this one is one step farther back, less intimate; the warm brown palette has yielded to a slightly icy climate.

Splashes of green linger around the mouth. Green veins trace his hands.

Detail of Richard in the Era of the Corporation. Photo by Ben Davis.

The 1979 Richard projects cool assurance, his legs casually crossed as beforebut the foot is suspended at a strained angle. Hes literally twisted.

Detail of Alice Neel, Richard in the Era of the Corporation (1978-79). Photo by Ben Davis.

The white patches in the hair in both the figure and his reflection suggest a man graying into middle age, but also make him look as if he is fading away or that something is literally missing from him.

Detail of Alice Neel, Richard in the Era of the Corporation (1978-79). Photo by Ben Davis.

But its his eyes that I notice. Childhood malnourishment had left Richards eyesight damaged. Uniquely among her bespectacled sitters (compare her own self-portrait from a year later), Neel has given Richard shark eyes, all pupils. His glasses, strangely left unfinished, float unevenly around them, agitated halos, as if he were spellbound or hypnotized.

Neel rightly gets credit for painting aspects of female experience that hadnt gotten a lot of play in art before, in her pregnant nudes and nursing mothers and scenes of childbirth.Richard in the Era of the Corporations depiction of political estrangement between mother and son is another intimate experience I am not sure had ever been depicted.

And this painting was telling, not just in terms of capturing a mood among the Neel family but in terms of capturing the larger zeitgeist.

The story of the backlash against the movements of the 1960s by the rising generation and the consolidation of corporate hold over life was indeed the story that defined the decades to comewith so many horrible consequences.

I love, fear, and respect people and their struggle, Neel told Hills in 1982, especially in the rat race we live in today, becoming every moment fiercer, attaining epic proportions where murder and annihilation are the end.

Banner for Alice Neel: People Come First outside the Metropolitan Museum. Photo by Ben Davis.

Finally, why bother spending so much time on Alice Neels Communist affinities?

Theres enough Neel to go around in this show: Theres an erotic Neel; a familial Neel; a Neel as painter of wonky domestic still-lifes. But clearly we are more comfortable with these aspects of her work and are embarrassed by the Communism, rendering it as a soft-focus radicalism or classless feminism that she herself would have hated.

The topic is worth lingering on, but not because you need to defend Communism to defend Marxism or activism. The opposite is closer to the truth, in my opinion. For the entire period Neel was working, there were Marxists and activists who were critical of the CP, critical of the Soviet Unionthey were just much less visible than the CP.

But Communism was a motivating passion for Neel. Its sense of destiny kept her going. Its theory offered a model of intellectualism that was committed to speaking to ordinary people. It offered critical insights that werent easy to find elsewhere along with tragic blind spots. (If you are interested in what it felt like to live these difficult dynamics, Vivian Gornicks The Romance of American Communism cant be beat.)

Neels politics were bound up with all that other stuff that made her remarkable. The art-historical dilemmas they leave us with are heritage of the fact that the society she was trying to survive and depict was actually full of awful dilemmas. The best way to honor her as a painter of difficult truths is by not smoothing these over.

Alice Neel: People Come First is on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art through August 1, 2021.

Continued here:

Alice Neels Communism Is Essential to Her Art. You Can See It in the Battlefield of Her Paintings, and Her Ruthless Portrait of Her Son - artnet News

Every decade or so anarchism seems to find its way back into the limelight for another 15 minutes. Were usually roundly vilified but it still offers us a rare window to attract the non-political class and shop around our ideas. In the late nineties, we had the Anti-Globalization Movement and the Battle of Seattle. About a decade and change later we had the Occupy Movement and today I believe we may be approaching another 15-minute window with the uprisings against the grotesque overreach of our post-modern police state. The seemingly unique thing about this latest upsurge in stateless insurrection is that it appears to have two bipolar sources, one on the left and one on the right. On the left we have the rise of an old but reinvigorated movement known as Antifa, engaging in fantastic displays of direct action with the state across the Pacific Northwest. On the right we have the more libertarian Boogaloo Movement, creating their own powerful brand of confrontational street theatre with their heavily armed and well-organized marches on state capitols across the heartland. Both groups are autonomously decentralized and stateless in nature and outlook. But both groups represent opposing ends of the ideological anarchist spectrum.

All in all, this need not be a bad thing and it really isnt that unusual either. Anarchism has always been a movement that defies and transcends the traditional left-right spectrum. But attempt to suggest as much online and just wait for the bricks to fly.

Contrary to the popular caricature of the tattooed green-haired vagabond like myself, anarchism is an almost mind-bogglingly diverse ecosystem of fantastic radical freaks. Travel into this jungle online and you will find yourself amidst a teeming forest of colorful countercultures. You have your modern day barbarians of anarcho-primitivism, your cyber punk geeks of crypto-anarchism, your dandy nihilist outlaws of egoism, and your maligned heathen LARPers of National-Anarchism. But most of my fellow anarcho-freaks can find themselves beneath one of two major ideological umbrellas. The red leftists of anarcho-communism and the right-libertarians of anarcho-capitalism, and here is where my beloved stateless ecosystem finds itself in the eternal conflict that threatens to spoil our latest fifteen minutes of zeitgeist defining public imagination.

The internet is lousy with ancoms and ancaps wasting their precious intellect shitposting on each others perceived flaws, to the degree that many have foolishly come to see the other as a bigger enemy than the state itself. According to your average ancom keyboard guerrilla, an anarcho-capitalist is a greedy, self-absorbed, commodity fetishist who wants nothing less perverse than to hand over the reigns of power to major corporations and usher in a new era of puppy eating Social Darwinism. And according to your average ancap social media maven, an anarcho-communist is but a knuckle-dragging, quasi-Maoist, rube out to round up everybodys private property and declare the year zero. Both of these representations bare little resemblance to reality and both sides would likely quickly realize this if they could get past their kneejerk revulsion to heavily loaded labels like communist and capitalist. The anarcho-interpretations of both are far from incompatible and even farther from anything youll find in a mainstream history book, and this is where anarchy without adjectives comes into play.

Developed in a time of far greater social upheaval than ours, anarchism without adjectives was designed by a couple of Spaniards named Ricardo Mella and Fernando Terrida del Marmol in the 1880s to end the eternal bitching of their eras own communists and individualists, and unite them under a single game plan to annihilate the state they both despised first and then sort out the less dyer details along the way to a new stateless society. It was always intended to be more of a strategy than an ideology and it ended up being adopted by some of the eras greatest and most diverse anarchist minds, like the so-called Italian Lenin, Errico Malatesta, and the mother of American Individualist Feminism, Voltarine de Cleyre, before their 15 minutes blew up into an unfortunate fit of headline-grabbing assassinations.

To me anarchism without adjectives always made sense as more than just a strategy because Ive always been something of an anarchist with a thousand adjectives. DeLeonist libertarian socialism will always be my first love because of my childhood infatuation with Marxism and my lifelong fixation with the full spectrum direct democracy of radical syndicalism. But my devotion to a stateless Queer nation has come to be the most significant motivator for my continued dedication to smashing the state and in a twist even I didnt see coming, Ive come to see typically ancap philosophies like the Non-Aggression Principle and Agorism as the best ways to achieve my goals for a new humane society without fucking it up like my forefathers did with a bunch of dick-wagging initiatory violence.

And thats what I love about anarchism without adjectives. It allows us to erase silly ideological lines and allows everyone with something stateless to offer, a place at the table. Its a veritable market place of non-dogmatic ideologies competing in real time. The only real absolute is that everything must be voluntary. Nothing must be coerced. As long as every idea, every new society, remains a choice, it remains kosher for a new revolutionary era of exploration. Wanna live like a barbarian in a torch lit cave without the evils of polyfibers and plumbing? Fuck it, make it voluntary and give it a shot. Wanna create a new Kowloon Walled City of cyberpunk capitalist debauchery? Fuck it, make it voluntary and give it a shot. Wanna create a post-apocalyptic red light republic of genderfuck neon haired syndicates? Fuck it, Im gonna make it voluntary, and give it a shot.

The future is simply too unpredictable for doctrinaire model building bullshit and dogmatic absolutes. When Western Society finally collapses beneath the weight of its own imperial hubris, you and I will see more revolutionary changes evolve in the first 15 seconds than weve seen in the last 1500 years. The only way for anarchism to survive the coming cataclysm is to remain united by a collective open mind to the endless possibilities of the greatest upheaval this planet has seen since the dinosaurs. Antifa and Boogaloo both have all the right ideas, they just need to respect each others right to approach those ideas from different directions and remain open to the possibility that somebody outside their circle might know something they dont. Otherwise, were just going to blow another 15 minutes on shitposting and ballyhoo and it might be the last 15 minutes we got.

If humanity has a future, its anarchism. If anarchism has a future, its without adjectives. Lets make it fucking happen people. Some tattooed green haired vagabond believes in you.

Here is the original post:

Anarchists Need to Drop the Adjectives - CounterPunch.org - CounterPunch

The Tank watch is Cartier elegance embodied, a pure and precise design, an uncompromising line. From its very creation in 1917, Louis Cartier made the distinct aesthetic choice of a rectangular shape, as opposed to the round watches of his generation. The Tank was already an avant-garde piece when launched and continues to be today. The two parallel brancards are its signature. Inspired by the design of a combat vehicle viewed from above, this watch follows one clear graphic principle: the brancards were the treads, the case was the turret. For the first time with the Tank, the case attachments were aligned with the strap to maintain the rhythm of the design.

Wearing it becomes a statement. Vanguard Andy Warhol and his Tank were inseparable, he said about it: I dont wear a Tank watch to tell the time. Actually, I never even wind it. I wear a Tank because it is the watch to wear! By refusing to wind his watch, the leader of pop art sanctifies the elegance of the Tank.

Timeless, sure of itself and of the purity of its design, the Tank watch captures the zeitgeist in 2021. After more than a century, it has been reinvented with the Tank Must. Tank and Must, the fusion of two Maison icons: on one hand, Tank, essential and dandy, and on the other, Must, a name immortalised at Cartier in the 1970s that revisits the classic conventions of luxury. The Must watches are part of the Maisons heritage and legend (). They have withstood the test of time thanks to their instantly recognisable style, but also their excellent craftsmanship, which Cartier applies to all its creations right down to the smallest detail. Pierre Rainero, Director of Image, Style and Heritage at Cartier.

Tank Must Watch Cartier

Tank Must is a chic watchmaking feat worn by many. A Maison signature whose design and movements are continuously evolving, driven by Cartiers watchmaking commitment to constant progress. The Design Studio has reworked the design of these new Tank Must with monochrome versions and an original version based on a new photovoltaic movement.

Taking direct inspiration from the Tank Louis Cartier, the design of the Tank Must has been developed while staying faithful to the historic model. Rounded brancards, revisited dial proportions: finesse is the guiding force behind this new design. A watch that dares to return to great classicism down to the smallest detail, with a precious pearled cabochon winding crown and the return of a traditional ardillon buckle on the leather strap version.

A watchmaking classic from the Maison whose sophistication is measured on every level, from its steel strap with curved links, entirely redesigned and interchangeable, to the latest high-efficiency quartz movement - autonomy of around 8 years.

With the launch of the Must watches in 1977, the Tank watch, a Maison watchmaking icon created sixty years earlier, was made available in a vermeil version. With a burgundy or all black dial and a large gold-coloured logo, it freed itself from traditional watchmaking codes, opting instead for elegant simplicity. Faithful to the spirit of the 80s, the new Tank Must watch is available in three monochromatic colours that are embedded into Cartiers DNA: red, blue and green. Steel watches that favour minimalist dials with no Roman numerals or rail-tracks and a fully chromatic look with matching straps.

Since the very beginning, Cartiers watchmaking ambition has been to constantly strive to improve, relying on technical progress as well as the Maisons response and commitments to the environment and biodiversity. Pioneering since the invention of the first watch worn on the wrist with the Santos watch (1904), or the one with the folding buckle (1910), Cartier Watchmaking has always been committed to anticipating its clients needs. Whether its the QuickSwitch patent (2018), which allows straps to be interchanged at home, or the latest photovoltaic dial found on the Tank Must watch, a modern alternative with a quartz movement with no need to change the batteries, the approach is the same; improve the lives, and satisfaction, of Cartiers clients.

Tank Must Watch Cartier

The challenge lies in applying a new technique to the watchs aesthetic and shape every time, finding a confluence between modernity and watchmaking tradition, a challenge and commitment crystallised by the Cartier Manufacture at La Chaux-de-Fonds. More than simply a production site, the Manufacture is a research hub, a creative and innovative laboratory that has succeeded in applying the photovoltaic principle to the Tank watchs dial, without altering its aesthetic. A true technical feat that relies on the delicate and invisible perforation of Roman numerals, whose openings allow solar energy to reach the photovoltaic cells hidden under the dial. It took two years for the development team to integrate this SolarBeatTM movement, with an average lifespan of 16 years, into the Tank Must, the first watch to benefit from this technology.

A pioneering watch that also introduces a bracelet produced in an innovative material that guarantees a high level of both quality and comfort. It is composed of around 40% plant matter, produced using waste from apples grown for the food industry in Switzerland, Germany and Italy.

The production procedure represents a step forward in preserving the environment by reducing our carbon footprint (6 times less), saving water (up to 10 litres) and energy (up to 7 megajoules, or approximately 200 smartphone charges) compared to the manufacture of a calfskin strap.

Weve taken a local, European approach: the apples are grown and their waste collected in Europe, from the material production site in Italy, to the strap maker in Portugal and the watch assembly in Switzerland.

Loyal to its reputation as an avant-garde timepiece, the Tank watch hasnt quite finished telling us what it has to say. Its creativity is limitless. Once again with the Tank Must, Cartier dares to make its timepieces evolve with the times while looking towards the future.

Created in 1917, the Tank watch very quickly spawned several variations. Louis Cartier reworked its design from as early as 1922. Its case was stretched, brancards refined and edges softened: the Tank L.C. had arrived. (Louis Cartier). A classic was born.

Tank Louis Cartier Watch Cartier

Rail tracks, cabochon sapphire, Roman numerals, Louis Cartier laid the foundations of a signature watchmaking aesthetic, with its very latest version perpetuating this tradition to within a few subtle nuances.

The Louis Carter Tank cultivates its timeless elegance in colour. The choice of blue and red was a must, as these colours are a part of Cartiers DNA. An intense red and a bright blue highlight and enhance the watchs pure lines.

Cartier has added sophisticated details to these two precious versions, including Roman numerals and gold-coloured rail tracks, which help to enhance the dials graphic intensity.

The blue version is in pink gold, the red in yellow gold, both coordinated with the straps, these two watches come with a Manufacture 1917 MC movement with manual winding.

Read this article:

Cartier - Tank - Watches and Wonders - WorldTempus