Category Archives: Zeitgeist Movement

A bleak creative vision infused with scenic dazzle gave a distinctive edge to three works by young, New York-based choreographer Jonah Bokaer on Friday in Royce Hall at UCLA.

Cold and dark, Bokaers action-plans often focused so intently on Daniel Arsham's mobile settings that dancing became replaced by task-oriented movement theater. In those pieces, Arsham's set designs danced and Bokaer's company didn't.

In the intense, danceless 2010 solo Recess, for example, Bokaer manipulated an enormous roll of white construction paper into pathways, canopies, tents and mountains, creating imposing, ever-changing landscapes but staying just as overwhelmed by pain as he was at the beginning. An oppressive soundscore by Stavros Gasparotos and the unseen presence of James McGinn animating the origami structures from within helped to make a statement about how artists transform the world without ever vanquishing their own demons.

SIGN UP for the free Essential Arts & Culture newsletter

In the 2011 quartet Why Patterns, the cast used long transparent tubes to wall off the stage floor. Then the cast moved inside those barriers for exploratory solos. Suddenly a ping-pong ball flew in from the left, then another, and, as the dancing continued, the balls began arriving in twos and later threes. Eventually the first of two huge overhead cascades of balls blanketed the stage and the piece became about coping with them and, ultimately, rebelling by flinging them into darkness. But they inevitably returned.

Obviously, the piece can be seen as a metaphor for the obstacles that life hurls at us. Or, if you like, you can think of it as the nightmare of someone who has seen the Nutcracker snow scene far too often. Either way, Arsham and his collaborator Alex Mustonen provided the dominant experience, with the music by Morton Feldman and Alexis Georgopoulos/ARP amounting to no more than an oppressive sonic wash and the dancers increasingly serving as faceless functionaries, except perhaps for Laura Gutierrez and Szabi Pataki.

Sustained dancing did turn up in Rules of the Game (2016), along with a terrific original score by pop star Pharrell Williams. But here Arsham was in apocalyptic decline-and-fall mode, with oversized images of sculptural faces, limbs and objects repeatedly colliding and shattering in his large-scale video projections. Perfectly in sync, Boaker had his eight dancers progressively strip out of their layered pink Chris Stamp/STAMPD costumes as their choreography became progressively violent and combative.

As Western Civilization crumbled, James Koroni struggled effectively against the march towards barbarism, Pataki and Sara Procopio found love of sorts among the ruins, and McGinn and Albert Drake battled manfully.

Boaker and Arsham did offer a smidgen of hope at the very end new Adam, new Eve thoughgiven the prevailing pessimism of the program, we might have expected them to be pelted with another barrage of ping-pong balls. These collaborators dont offer much consolation or dance in their portraits of the zeitgeist.

Recorded accompaniments served all the pieces, as did resourceful lighting by Aaron Copp. Besides the dancers previously mentioned, the company also included Callie Lyonsand Betti Rollo.

Follow The Times arts team @culturemonster.

ALSO

Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling's dancing in 'La La Land': magic or misstep?

How Rufus Wainwright and Benjamin Millepied came to collaborate

Review: Benjamin Millepied and L.A. Dance Project

See the article here:

Movement as bleak theater, with some terrific Pharrell music too - Los Angeles Times

At the beginning of the Grammy Awards, Jennifer Lopez evoked the words of Beloved author Toni Morrison to stress the importance of courage in a time when art is threatened.

This is precisely the time when artists go to work, she recited. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear.

The quotation was a stirring kickoff for the Grammys, where throughout the evening, many artists strove to embody thiscri de coeur. Katy Perry wore a Planned Parenthood pin and a sequined persist armband, in solidarity with the womens movement, as she was outlined by a projection of the U.S. Constitution. A Tribe Called Quest led a chant of resist! after a politically charged performance denouncing President Agent Orange. Laverne Cox, in her introduction to Lady Gaga and Metallica, educated the audience about Gavin Grimm and the fight for transgender equality.

In effect, the evening was a crescendo of resistance to political and systemic oppression. However, this crescendo was cut shore when ceremonys top honor, the Album of the Year, did not go to the artist who fulfilled the promise of Morrisons words. It went instead to Adeles 25.

This is not to say that 25 is without artistic merit. The song Hello, in particular, is a stirring power ballad of loss and heartbreak, which resonated worldwide. Commercially, it is one of the best-selling albums of all time.

Yet artistically, it does not hold a candle to Beyoncs Lemonade. Upon its release, the visual album was a revelation, which combined music, poetry, and history with themes of feminism and racial injustice. It gave voice to movements like Black Lives Matter. It was beautiful, painful, and daring. Today, when members of vulnerable communities women, immigrants, people of color, and queer people fear for their safety and rights under a Trump administration, the album seems downright clairvoyant.

In the face of this zeitgeist, The Recording Academy made the wrong decision. And Adele knew it. You could see the embarrassment and confusion swirling in her face when Lemonade was not announced as the winner. For a moment, standing onstage, it seemed like the British artist might reject the music industrys highest honor.

I cant possibly accept this award, Adele said in her acceptance speech. And Im very humbled and Im very grateful and gracious. But my artist of my life is Beyonc. And this album to me, the Lemonade album, is just so monumental. Beyonc, its so monumental. And so well thought out, and so beautiful and soul-baring and we all got to see another side to you that you dont always let us see. And we appreciate that. And all us artists here adore you. You are our light.

And the way that you make me and my friends feel, the way you make my black friends feel, is empowering. And you make them stand up for themselves. And I love you. I always have and I always will, she added.

However, Adele, for all her praise of Lemonade and its social importance, did accept the award, with the army of those who helped produce the album standing behind her. Grammys, I appreciate it. The Academy, I love you, she said.

Yet, did Adele truly love the Academy for putting her in this position, for making her yet the latest example of an unjust voting outcome? Should she have rejected the award, handed it to Beyonc, or made some other symbolic gesture to give voice to those who once again felt silenced and marginalized? Probably, yes.

Adele continued to express her conflicted feelings in the media room after the win, telling reporters, "My album of the year was Lemonade, so a piece of me did die inside, as a Beyonc fan."

But ultimately, it is not about how Adele responded to the award or feels about its deservedness. The issue is how The Recording Academy played it safe in a year when, as Morrison said, there is no room for fear. Throughout the awards ceremony, there was much talk of the importance of art and politics. Yet when push came to shove, it was the political and artful that got shoved. After all, if Beyonc can't win Album of the Year for creating music about black lives, what other artists have a chance?

In short, Lemonade was robbed. But fortunately, itdid win for Best Urban Contemporary Album, which gave Beyonc an opportunity to address the urgency and intent of her work.

My intention for the film and album was to create a body of work that would give a voice to our pain, our struggles, our darkness and our history, to confront issues that make us uncomfortable," she said.

I feel its vital that we learn from the past and recognize our tendencies to repeat our mistakes, she concluded. The Recording Academy would do well to listen.

DANIEL REYNOLDS is an editor at The Advocate. Follow him on Twitter @dnlreynolds.

More here:

The Grammys Honored the Wrong Album, and Adele Knew It - Advocate.com

After months of discussing the Church of Englands position on same-sex marriage, its bishops will deliver their summary to the General Synod in London on February 15. As events take place around the country celebrating LGBT History Month, this could have been a good opportunity to explore a rich and positive dialogue around faith and sexuality. But the bishops have blown it. In a document published before the meeting, they reaffirmed the traditional belief that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, for life, for the procreation of children.

The so-called Shared Conversations, the name of the discussion process, offered a chance for the church to jive with a sexuality-savvy generation. The bishops could have made a step further towards institutional equality and shown that they mean it when they say we are all wonderfully made.

But they could not be more culturally tone deaf. What should have been a moment to bridge generations is shaping up to be a lesson in alienation par excellence. When it comes to sexuality, the bishops discussion document is not just a beat behind the cultural zeitgeist, it is an entire hymn sheet behind.

What will appear on the synod agenda on February 15 is a fumbling discussion on sexuality that never achieves eye-contact. Synod is being asked to have a take note debate which means no vote will actually take place for or against the document about same-sex marriage though no doubt campaigners on either side will seek to get their point across. A group of 14 retired bishops published an open letter ahead of the meeting, concerned that the church was not listening to gay Christians.

Todays gender and sexual parlance is conspicuously missing from these debates. The millennial and post-millennial generations are embracing a whole new, non-binary, sexual vocabulary and they are free to be genderfluid, polyamorous and pansexual.

There is more silence than discussion in the bishops document and I suspect the heavy-handed editing was required to present a reassuring unity, something which the bishops are keen not to disrupt under any circumstances. There is little sense in the report of just what was actually discussed among the bishops. They attempt to generate a sense of moving forward in thinking about diverse sexualities, but it is overstated. In fact, you could stub your toe on the inertia the church has moved not an inch.

The synod will be presented with a heavy dose of church law, mainly to restate the traditional belief that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, for life, for the procreation of children. The nuclear family is spiritually and morally privileged. This may generate the rolling of eyes from much of the public, since the spiritual home for all the people of England is megaphoning its belief that swathes of the population are slip-sliding along a continuum of deviancy and sin, having sex outside the sanctity of lifelong heterosexual marriage.

But at the same time, a rather oxymoronic suggestion in the report argues that the church should really work on its welcome to lesbian, gay and bisexual people, while re-affirming its moral stance against same-sex marriage at the same time.

The bishops base their deliberations on the rickety and equivocal three-legged stool of tradition, reason and scripture. My ongoing research with women clergy, however, suggests there is elasticity in belief within the church. Aware of their own journey from the margins, many of these women want the church to be far more open to diverse sexualities.

The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and clergy blogs are expressing disappointment in the bishops homage to heteronormativity. These weather vanes may indicate a shift in direction within the church and a growing resistance to its narrow doctrine.

To me, the act of relying on tradition to legitimise outmoded thinking is myopic. Lesbian, gay and bisexual clergy and lay people (trans people are invisible in the bishops discussion) are being cast as others in their own church.

What especially vexes the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and their allies is the reinforcement of the expectation that gay and lesbian clergy should remain celibate, since they have an exemplary position, binding by church law, and are held to a higher standard of sexual conduct than churchgoers. In the movements letter to the bishops, they wrote:

It is now clear that the process has almost entirely failed to hear the cries of faithful LGBTI+ people. You are proposing to formalise Dont Ask, Dont Tell among clergy in same-sex relationships far from equalising the situation between straight and gay clergy it pushes LGBTI+ clergy back into the closet.

This letter clearly borrows from the language used during the struggle for womens ordination. The church hierarchy has resistance and protest on its hands once again.

The bishops might be able to publicly maintain collegiate unity, but it risks built-in obsolescence for the church. I would like to think that there are bishops who would distance themselves from this report if they could. Against the fast-paced change in social attitudes to sexuality, particularly among the young, the bishops Shared Conversation is just cultural white noise.

Link:

Bishops' fumble with same-sex marriage means the Church of England is about to lose a generation - The Conversation UK

Luxury & Brands

Text by Nisha Jhangiani

Coco Chanel was a visionary, feverish in her pursuit of a style that represented comfort, freedom from constricting fashion diktats and above all, singular elegance. During his tenure, Karl Lagerfeld has treated this legacy with the respect it demands, combined with an unerring ability to gauge the zeitgeist. The result? Decades of triumphs, of cultivating a customer who believes in timeless quality, with a caveat thrown in possess a frontrunner NOW as much as an icon FOREVER.

When it comes to their bags, the label can boast a sizeable cult following, that has made the 2.55 or the Boy bag more than mere accessories. The latest entrant, Gabrielle, is slated to hit stores this season. Inspired by vintage binocular cases that men toted along to races, it is an homage to Madame Cocos underlying philosophy; adopting principles from mens fashion and translating their ease into slick feminine avatars.

Though moulded from a rigid base, the bag malleably shapes itself to the female form, supporting movement and shift. Adjustable straps of leather intertwined with gold or silver metal allow it to be worn over the shoulder, across the body, or even both ways together. It is the age of more is more, after all.

Aged calfskin and a signature quilted body are a nod to the eternal Chanel aesthetic and the garnet cloth lining emulates the first bags Coco ever designed. The addition of navy to the classic black or flesh tones against white create a trio of colour options. The bag morphs into a variety of versions; theres the backpack for the sporty and fuss-free, the large shopper for the woman who just does not know what to leave behind, and a duet of a purse within a hard case, for those in perennial search of the unusual and new. This last version offers a more generous palette, including cheery summer shades like yellow, pink, red, blue and aqua and will also debut in python for the ultra luxe-minded.

We can all look forward to the Gabrielle storming her way into closets through summer and sitting pretty and polished for eons to come. Coco would be so proud.

Read the original post:

Chanel's New Bag Is Unabashedly Chic | Verve Magazine - India's ... - VERVE

Steps to Financial Freedom

A free seminar titled Managing Personal Finances will take place on Mondays starting Feb. 13 at Mount Bethel United Methodist Church, 3239 70th St. E., Inver Grove Heights.

Attendees will learn how to set up their own financial plan and stick to it.

The four-week seminar will take place from 6:30 to 8 p.m., and use materials from Dave Ramsey, a popular national radio talk show host and author of New York Times bestsellers The Total Money Makeover, Financial Peace Revisited and More than Enough.

Facilitators will be Dan and Marsha Schauer. There is no charge, but pre-registration is required. The seminar is sponsored by New Heights Community Church and Mount Bethel United Methodist Church.

Free childcare is available during the seminar with pre-registration, although space is limited.

For more information or to register for the seminar, call 651-451-3636 or email: danschauer004@gmail.com.

Community band concert

The Inver Hills Community Band will be performing a free concert on Monday, Feb. 13, at 7:30 p.m. in the Simley High School auditorium, 2920 80th St. E., Inver Grove Heights.

The band will be performing The Flight of the Bumble Bee; a Carmen Suite; the classic Ragtime Fluffy Ruffles, and more.

Dr. Andrew Martin will be a guest soloist featured on the xylophone for a couple selections.

For location directions and other information, visit the bands web site at http://www.inverband.org.

Dance together

On Monday, Feb. 6, preschoolers will use movement to explore imagination, stories and music in a class where caregivers and children dance together.

Taking place on Monday, Feb. 13, from 6:15 to 7 p.m. at the South St. Paul Library, 106 Third Ave. N., this is presented by Young Dance and open to children age 3 and younger.

Registration is required for each child. Call 651-554-3240 for more information.

Playing it Close to Home

St. Paul-based new music ensemble Zeitgeist will bring its annual Playing it Close to Home concert to Inver Hills Community College Black Box Theater, 2500 80th St. E., Inver Grove Heights, on Thursday, Feb. 16, at 930 a.m.

The free coffee concert will feature music by award-winning local composer Mary Ellen Childs.

The program includes the world premiere of music composed by Childs for Zeitgeist, plus several other works from her catalog, including excerpts from her opera Propeller, visual percussion pieces, and music for prepared piano.

Dino Dig

On Tuesday, Feb. 14, from 1 to 2 p.m., uncover the mysteries of dinosaurs by examining fossil replicas and asking questions that will help kids ages 3 to 7 understand the life and habitats of dinosaurs before they went extinct.

Taking place at the West St. Paul Library, 199 Wentworth Ave. E., this event is presented by the Minnesota Childrens Museum.

Call 651-554-6800 for more information

British history

From Roman sacred sights to the places of destruction during the British Reformation, a British history program will look at ancient religious sites in England. Taking place on Tuesday, Feb. 14, from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m., this event will be at Thompson Park Activity Center, 1200 Stassen Lane, West St. Paul.

Cost is $8. Call 651-403-8300 to register.

i-Pad basics

Participants will use the iPads at the Inver Grove Heights Library, 8098 Blaine Ave. E., to learn about basic controls, settings, web browsing, apps and uses of this popular tablet.

Registration is required for this class on Wednesday, Feb. 15, from 2 to 4 p.m. Call 651-554-6840 for more information.

Frozen Pond Romp

Theres fun to be had exploring on top and underneath pond ice. On Friday, Feb. 17, preschoolers will peek through the ice to see what might be moving around down there.

Afterwards theyll slide around on kick-sleds for some slip-sliding fun. This is a sensory early childhood experience.

All children must be accompanied by an adult. The event runs from 10 to 11:15 a.m. at the Dodge Nature Center Farm Education Entrance 3, 1701 Charlton St., West St. Paul.

Cost is $7 per child. Call 651-455-4531 or visit dodgenaturecenter.org to register.

Splash Dance at the Grove Water Park

Join others at The Grove Water Park, 8055 Barbara Ave. E., on Friday, Feb. 17, from noon to 3 p.m. for some splashing and dancing fun. Dance music will be playing during the event.

Cost is $8 per person or $25 per family (four people)

For further information and to register, visit http://www.invergroveheights.org/register.

View original post here:

South-West Review bulletin board February 12, 2017 | Lillie ... - Lillie News

Forty years ago, four Brits in a band called the Sex Pistols outraged and angered the British political establishment. Now in 2017 another Brit has done the same thing to the U.S. establishment.

1977 was the year that punk exploded onto the cultural landscape and shook up the status quo of hippy music biz complacency and smug liberal assumptions. Were not into music, were into chaos, sneered the Sex Pistols as they shocked and awed the British public and challenged the old order.

The Pistols, The Clash, The Ramones and all those three-chord wonders with ripped jeans and spiked hair galvanized a generation. Not only rebelling against the stadium rock perpetuated by the likes of Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles and Pink Floyd, but also by criticizing their self-satisfied, Lear Jet lifestyles and their conventional viewpoints.

Led by their manager Malcolm McLaren, the Pistols used outrage and a Situationist agenda to confront the establishment, attack sacred idols and provoke all the right people. As McLaren once said, If it doesnt threaten the status quo, its not worth doing. The punk class of 77 angrily sang about the stupefying dullness of life in mid-70s Britain, the absurdity of pop stars and the conceits of the eras prevailing culture.

For many kids who felt disconnected from the mainstream, punk was a welcome reaction against the post-hippie and cultural malaise that had seeped into all aspects of 1970s society. But the punks also faced a backlash that was both widespread and violent, consisting of demonization from the media, gigs canceled or banned, assaults on punks by reactionary Teddy Boys, and low-key police harassment.

As a former punk myself, I remember being yelled at, spat on and punched in the face just for wearing a Sex Pistols God Save the Queen T-shirt.

Now, nearly four decades later, another establishment is being shaken up, but this time around its the cultural gatekeepers of liberal America who are finding their cosmopolitan we-know-best pieties challenged.

Another crucial difference from 77, of course, is that todays rebellion is more an overtly political one than a musical revolution. But the anti-authoritarian instincts of the original punks also fuel this current generation of free-thinkers.

Somewhat lazily dubbed by critics and some friends alike as the alt-right, this broad movement against liberal orthodoxy has as its unlikely figurehead the flamboyant British export Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial punk provocateur par excellence.

Yiannopoulos, with his calculated outrageousness and refusal to back down, seems well aware of the similarities between todays culture wars and the spirit of 77. During the 2016 presidential election he proclaimed, to cheers from his supporters, that we should vote for Donald Trump because he was the new punk.

In hindsight, it looks like he may have beenright in that comparison. After all, in a mainstream media world where it was assumed that no right-thinking person in America could ever vote for Trump, the actions of Yiannopoulos and his growing band of followers in backing such a controversial Republican candidate could only be seen as a Sid Vicious-style F**k You to political correctness and the established order.

Using social media instead of three-minute songs, Yiannopoulos has revolutionized the fight against political orthodoxy by using the same shock tactics that the punks used to take on the entertainment industry.

It should be noted that the American genesis of this new breed of conservative provocateurs that Milo seems to have galvanized actually has its roots in the South Park Conservatives generation, which moved from left to right after 9/11 as the left became increasingly politically correct and authoritarian.

Like the punks of 77, Milo and his merry band are also demonized by the media and also face assault from reactionary elementsas the recent riot that led to a cancelation of a Yiannopoulos event at the University of California-Berkeley goes to show.

In much the same way as the punk-bashing British Teddy Boys of 40years ago sided with the status quo, so the antifa have allied themselves with the American status quo against the new rebels on the block.

In fact, by being on the same side of the anti-Milo debate as the establishment liberal bastions of the New York Times, California hi-tech billionairesand pampered Hollywood one percenters, the antifa have only confirmed Yiannopoulos and the new anti-authoritarians as underdogs and the real inheritors of the rebellious punk mantle.

And just as the British media lambasted Johnny Rotten for his supposed attacks against the Queen and all common decency, so the American media has run endless critical stories on how Milo is slaughtering the sacred cows of open borders, feminism and the Black Lives Matter movement.

What happens next is anybodys guess. Will Milo and this new movement implode as the Sex Pistols did? Will the opposition to them prove too strong to overcome? Will they be absorbed into a new political mainstream?

Anything is possible but right now, just as in the halcyon days of punk, and whether one agrees with him or not, theres no denying that Milo, like the Sex Pistols before him, is riding the wave of the new zeitgeist.

God Save the Queen!

See more here:

How Milo and the Free Speech Libertarian Movement Resemble the ... - Heat Street

By Killenard based award winning garden designer Brian Burke.

Were all busy. Check. We all want a nice living environment. Check.

That nice living environment would include a garden as well as the soapstone worktop sourced in Nepal. Check.

We all want a nice garden but nobody wants to do any maintenance. Hmm, Id love a car that never needed to be serviced. Where could I get such a thing? They dont exist mate.

So, busy, busy, busy. The garden for the busy family; year-round immersion and stimulation for the kids, something to show off and throw the odd summer soire for the adults.

How do you it? How do you balance everyones requirements, incorporate the practical needs, create something unique, original and eye catching and something that is not going to consume every available weekend in drudge maintenance and upkeep? How do you do it? With great deliberation is the answer.

Anyone can design a house, anyone can design a garden. Give a six-year old a pencil and a piece of A4 paper and they will divide up the rectangular space that they see into a series of smaller spaces.

Thats the grass, thats the deck, thats the path and this triangle left over here, well, lets call that the flower bed. Anyone can do that.

As in most walks of life, its harder to do something good. So, what do you have to bear in mind, to what do you have to keep referring if you are to produce anything worthwhile?

The occupants and their schedules and priorities. The choice of materials; natural materials promote longer periods of engagement for children. Are there pets in the household?

What features can be incorporated to keep them stimulated and prevent them from eating your furniture and plants? Whats your worldview vis a vis neighbours; seclusion or inclusion?

This is Ireland so remember how the garden will look from the inside, through the inevitable glass double door, as the rain teems down 335 days of the year.

Im big on pan generational design right now, futureproofing is never a bad thing. Can you incorporate versatile elements which could be redeployed and adapted over time?

How do you feel about water? Whats the essence, the vibe, the ambience, the theme?

The garden needs to have an identity which all the elements and plants then work towards reinforcing. Is the space small enough to create a courtyard feel, is it expansive enough to embody a rural theme or is it somewhere in between?

Have you ever seen the American TV show, Extreme Makeover Home Edition? Well on that show the designers really like to zone in on a slice of a persons personality and squeeze it for all its worth.

A kid who likes Egyptology ended up with a bedroom not unlike the tomb of Tutankhamun. Being too literal will strangle everything.

Whats your planting palette? We are all about the herbaceous now. Because we know that herbaceous planting lends itself more to the evocation of mood and atmosphere and can subtly provide those suggested paths of movement and flow. Remember your theme and plant to reinforce it.

Dont forget about height and bringing the eye upwards. Often, we step into a space and our gaze never deviates from eye level, we need something to entice us upwards to consider the infinite space above.

And what about the vernacular, how much do you know about it or how interested are you in it?

The vernacular is making a comeback thanks to the auld zeitgeist and new found concerns about the provenance and footprint of materials we consume. Wheres all that Celtic Tiger Indian Sandstone gone?

Turns out we have stone every bit as good in Clare, Meath, Wicklow, Donegal and Roscommon. I will be delivering a talk on everything garden and design related at the upcycled and recycled interiors store of fellow Newbridgian Edward Donnelly, Home Street Home, on Harolds Cross Road in Dublin on April 13th at 7.30 pm. Please come if you can. There will be cake.

Excerpt from:

The busy busy family's garden - Leinster Express

Ava DuVernay has been up until 12:30 a.m. shooting A Wrinkle in Time for Disney, but the director of Selma is enthused to finally talk about the Oscar-nominated documentary 13th.

The former publicist is the first woman of color to direct a live-action film with a production budget of more than $100 million. Last fall, she premiered her first television show, the well-received Queen Sugar, which aired on the Oprah Winfrey Network.

So DuVernay hasnt much time to discuss her powerful documentary released in October which is up for Oscar and BAFTA awards.

13th takes its title from the amendment that outlawed slavery in 1865, though with the caveat except as a punishment for a crime.

The documentary, available on Netflix, examines how that clause has led to a mass-incarceration system that disproportionately imprisons African-American men. In many of the for-profit institutions, inmates are then used as cheap labor, employed for pennies by major companies, creating a de facto form of slavery.

A note here: DuVernay and I were phone acquaintances in her PR days, although we never met. So it was a pleasure to finally meet her in person. What follows is an edited version of our conversation about 13, and what led her to do the film, including an emotional story from when she grew up in Compton.

Q Has the film been getting the response you were hoping for?

A I have been shocked. I really didnt think it would have this much attention, and I did not think that people react to it as emotionally as they have. It is an intimate topic. It is really about the way that we think about race in this country, regardless of who you are and how we engage with each other and what our belief system is. There are some things in this doc that challenge what we believed or even thought we knew. Its a little disconcerting when we realize what we dont know. I thought it would sit on Netflix as a resource for teachers. I really didnt think it would cross into a cultural zeitgeist kind of thing.

Q Are you getting response from legislators?

A Yes, as a teaching tool like Congressman John Lewis and Sen. Cory Booker. Those people are using it as an entry point to talk to their communities and constituents. I havent heard about any pushback from the other side. Havent heard anything from anyone on the right or any conservatives. Its been oddly quiet.

Q When you made this, it was before the presidential election and reforms were being pushed; now with President Trump in the White House, the film is more relevant than ever.

Advertisement

A Stock in private prisons shot up the day after his election. The executive orders that hes signing signal his intention to bolster policies and practices that favor those who profit off of the least of us. Prisons are clearly in the bulls-eye for this. The deregulation through executive is moving to a place that will undo a lot of work that has been done by a bipartisan coalition taking steps toward reform.

Q What can be done?

A Its important that people continue to assert what they believe. I believe in the power people have and the power in the protest. That isnt just pie in the sky stuff. Three years ago, the Black Lives matter movement was happening and people thought this is a moment, but there has been a concerted, concentrated effort with deliberate action that has not stopped since that day. The Civil Rights Movement at its height was over 10 years. In the two weeks of Trumps presidency, weve seen spontaneous protests at airports and huge numbers at the womens marches all around the country expressing their dissent. Its going to be more crucial now than ever to continue do that, and for artists to continue to promote that and do what we can to amplify it.

Q How did you come to the project?

A I was an African American studies major at UCLA. We were encouraged to do a deep dive into the Constitution, and it has just kind of been putting together the pieces from there understanding there is a direct correlation between that clause and the mass incarceration that were experiencing now. At first, I hadnt done the research to connect the dots, but with some 2.3 million people behind bars it seemed there was something to that. So I began tracing and tracking it and really being able to get down to the kind of granular policies legislation signed that actually perpetuated it. It was important to break down the images of the war on drugs and what was perpetuated by the media. So the assignment for myself was to focus on prison for profit, the way that many companies are profiting on punishment.

Q You reached out to conservatives in the documentary, like Newt Gingrich.

A I know what I think, but it was important to reach out to Republicans and Democrats and liberals. I wanted this to be a conversation like a master class from people of all walks of life. Sometimes we learn from people who dont think anything like us.

Q Youve been pretty busy.

A These films are my children. I dont have kids, and Im not going to have kids. So this is what Im leaving behind. But for this film, I havent had a chance to go out there and beat the drum for it.

Q It seems like everyone in the black community Ive talked to feel connected to this film because of things that happened in their lives.

A Growing up in Compton, police aggression and issues of incarceration were all around. I have a very, very small family. So theres no one in my direct family involved, but when every black man you know has a police story, a lot of the people have been directly touched by it. I tell this story on this Netflix special I did with Oprah about my father being tackled in our backyard in Compton because the police were running through peoples backyards looking for someone else. My father was in the backyard watering the grass. Hes a very dignified man a beautiful, beautiful man. He was tackled to the ground like a criminal, handcuffed in front of his family, cursed at I saw all this berated and belittled because they thought he was a criminal. They had no respect for his property a man in his own backyard and they couldnt hear his protests. These are the kinds of incidences that many people of color in this country are scarred with, and so when I watch 13th, it has a particular vibe to it for me.

Original post:

Ava DuVernay's Oscar-nominated '13th' documentary aims to unlock the truth - The Pasadena Star-News

Michel Guerard, French chef of the restaurant Les Pres d'Eugenie, poses on September 26, 2013 at his restaurant at Eugenie-les-Bains, France. NICOLAS TUCAT/AFP/Getty Images

"The new gourmet law: hold the butter," reads the strapline of the European edition of TIME's Feb. 9 1976 issue, alongside a cartoon of the French culinary master Michel Gurard, then 42.

Fast forward four decades and the debate over butter and fat intake is still magazine-cover-worthy . But now it's a far more saturated conversation: evidence of links between certain fats and heart disease changes on a regular basis, as does the merit of plant-based dairy alternatives, made from almonds or coconut or walnuts. Thanks to prominent campaigns , the clean eating movement and savvy restaurateurs , healthy eating is more in the zeitgeist than ever before.

However, back in the 70s, Gurard's 'waist-not, want-not' approach was revolutionary. Considered a founding father of 'Nouvelle Cuisine' - a Japanese-inspired cooking style which emphazises freshness, lightness and flavor, Gurard eschewed the copious quantities of butter, large servings and cream-filled sauces ubiquitous with traditional French cooking while still maintaining the highest order of taste. Thanks to Gurard, reported TIME's George M. Taber in 1976, "no longer need a Frenchman dig his grave with a fork."

Gurard's main restaurant, Les Prs d'Eugnie, which specializes in low-calorie, full-flavour cooking, won the chef three Michelin stars: in 1974, 1975 and 1977. Now 83, he remains a key figure in educating and changing perceptions of healthy cuisine.

The pioneering chef celebrated the ruby anniversary of his three Michelin Stars this week. He spoke to TIME in an email interview about how the culinary industry has changed during his 69 years in the industry, clean eating and what he thinks of people's obsession with photographing their food.

TIME: How have attitudes towards healthy food changed during your career?

Michel Gurard: When I launched my slimming cuisine back in 1975, it triggered a wave of outrage within the culinary world. I will never forget my friend [chef] Paul Bocuse saying to everyone that if they go to Gurards, they should take their medical prescription with them. My attitude towards food did not make sense to chefs at the time; I was at worst an outcast and at best a crazy cook. Fortunately, I had two Michelin stars at that point, which spoke for my professionalism.

Today, health has become fashionable and it is reassuring to see that trendsetters have caught up with the idea. I was very appreciative of Michelle Obamas fight , for instance. I know that Im one of the people who have mattered the most in this realization. But I dont draw any pride in that: it was only a matter time before public health and governments were obliged to do something.

Although healthy food has been a hot topic for a while, it doesn't mean that all problems are solved. Healthy food remains something that wealthier people can enjoy; it excludes the poor and it will be a long time before they benefit from the trend.

And how is the world of haute cuisine different today?

Certainly the rise of the celebrity chef. We all got out of the kitchen and into the media. Today, you cannot take a walk without seeing chefs everywhere. The upside is that the move has meant a lot of people now choose to be a chef - when I started out, that was not the case. I understand that I contributed to this rise, but the media frenzy around cooks has become extreme and sometimes ridiculous.

Another change is that food and gastronomy have become a globalized product. I find it striking that you can eat exactly the same things in New York as you can in Paris. This was not the case 15 years ago and I dont know what to make of it. Should we fear this standardization of taste? I dont think so, but we should still remain cautious as some of our culinary heritage has been disappearing for some years. There is surely a risk that our national cuisines will one day fade to nothing.

Are there foods you think people should and shouldn't eat?

I am not a guru wholl tell you what to eat and what not to eat. As long as food comes from nature herself, I dont see why you shouldnt eat it - and just as a reminder, Dominos Pizza does not come from nature! I believe you can eat anything as long as you keep a balanced diet.

Which cuisines and ingredients excite you the most?

I am a big fan of Chinese cuisine, which is very precise with its seasonings. The Chinese have beautiful cooking, like Peking duck. When it is done the traditional way, it is like a piece of art.

I dont have a favourite food. But I like to work with ingredients that can surprise you. For instance, once I wanted to create something with oysters and I wondered for many months what taste or what other ingredient I could combine with their very particular flavor. Finally, I decided on green coffee. Served as a frothy chiboust like a cloud on an oyster, it is sumptuous and delicious.

What do you remember about your TIME interview in 1976?

I had previously done interviews with American media, but the TIME cover was a total surprise. To me, the only French people who would make a TIME cover were individuals like General de Gaulle. It was when I did the cover that I became aware of how unique what I was doing was; it made me realise that my work was important. The journalists who interviewed me had a premonition that health would become a cornerstone of cooking.

Do you think social media has changed the way people eat?

Professionally, my daughters [take photos of their food in restaurants] all the time, to feed our websites and digital accounts. It shows everyone that follows us what we do, who we are and what were working on for our guests. It entices people; its publicity.

But from a personal point of view, I have a hard time understanding what seems to have become an addiction. People are living by proxy through their phones. They want to show everyone how great their lives are, choosing carefully what they display. It makes sense in a way; its self-promotion that reflects the individualistic society we live in.

I find it a little bit sad that for some the picture has become more important than the food itself; the fact that the picture must be pretty has had a huge influence on cuisine and pastry. In most high-end restaurants, it is unthinkable to serve something that doesnt look great except what looks smart doesnt always taste nice.

Pastry has become a dog and pony show for desserts I mean cold desserts that can be made and dressed prettily in advance. Minute pastry, like souffl, is disappearing. And I think its a pity because the know-how is disappearing too. Some chefs are so attached to the way their dishes look that they refuse to change the recipe when people mention that they dislike the taste. They know it will end up on the Internet, so they want to make sure it looks the way it is supposed to.

If you were going to predict the biggest food craze in 50 years time, what would you say?

Ten years ago, we predicted a lot of funny things such as dried food like astronauts or even food tablets. But the act of eating is about much more than just filling a physiological need: it gives pleasure and its a social ritual. We will carry on eating as weve been doing for tens of thousands of years. However, Im sure healthy cooking will become even more important than it is now.

Finally, what would you choose as your last supper?

I would like this supper to be completely natural. The chef cooking it would have to have great experience, as well as a sensitivity which would allow him to play with his culinary creation freely and effortlessly. I would like to taste something that surprises me and would make me think: "How did I not come up with this this myself?".

Read the original post:

Q&A: Chef Michel Gurard, a Pioneer of Low-Calorie Cuisine - TIME

Every awardshows history is riddled with controversial selections andsnubs, but the Grammyspast is especially turbulent. Its voters have repeatedly proven that they areout of touch to a staggering degree. This was the case in the 60s, when they couldn't let go of Sinatra, in the 70s, when they favored disco over Elvis Costello and Debby Booneover "Hotel California," and in the 80s, which we'll get to. By the time the 90s arrived, the Grammys lost most of its cach. Just ask Homer.

Not much has changed.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

In anticipation of Sunday's ceremony, we'vecompiled some of the most egregious flubs in Grammys history, from crowining one-hit wonders as the Next Big Thingto all butignoring entire genres of music.

Related: Beyonc, Adele lead Grammy nominations

In 1985, the competition for Album of the Year seemed to be a tight race between Princes Purple Rainand Bruce Springsteens Born In the U.S.A.So it was surprising when the award went to...Lionel Richies Cant Slow Down.Sure, it was a solid recordAll Night Long (All Night) and Hello are perfect pop songsbut the album came out in 1983.Even though ittechnically qualified for Album of the Year based on the Grammys' seemingly arbitrary rules, it was certainly not the best album of thatyear.

But also, considering how well Princesand Springsteens work has held up respective to Richies, the decision is a spectacular misstep. These are the kind of brilliant classic records that one can argue in favor of just by adding curse words to their titles:Born In the God Damn U.S.A.! Purple Fucking Rain! See? End of shitting argument. Joe Veix

In 1981, RunD.M.C. and the Beastie Boys both formed in New York. That year the Grammys were busy fawning over Christopher Cross. As hip-hop emerged as the most significant musical and social movement of the 1980s, the Recording Academy was characteristically late to the party. The Best Rap Performance category was added in 1989, but it wasnt actually included in the televised ceremony, prompting nominees Will Smith, LL Cool J and Salt-n-Pepa to lead a Grammy boycott. (Some more politically charged rap acts, like N.W.A, were ignored altogether.) During the 1990s, seminal albums like Nass Illmatic and A Tribe Called Quests The Low End Theory were overlooked. It was not until 1999 that a hip-hop album finally won Album of the Year: Lauryn Hills The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. Even in the Best Rap Album category, the Academy cant seem to get it right, with Macklemore famously responding to his own win with a sheepish texted apology to Kendrick Lamar.Zach Schonfeld

Santana's meme-friendly Supernatural edging out the Backstreet Boys, TLC, the Dixie Chicks and Diana Krall in 2000 was a portentous start to a decade that thoroughly confused Grammy voters. The following year, a thoroughly forgettable Steely Dan album was honored over Beck, Radiohead and Eminem. In 2002, the award was given to a motion picture soundtrack (O Brother, Where Art Thou?) over Outkast's Stankonia. A few years later, in 2005, a posthumous Ray Charles album won. This is fine, but it illustrates the Grammysinability to tap into the zeitgeist. This brings us to the decades most egregious snub. In 2006, a Herbie Hancocks jazz tribute to Joni Mitchell won over both Amy Winehouse's Back In Black and Kanye West's Graduation. And music lovers also groaned when U2 won for How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb in 2006, an album best listened to in an iPod commercial. Ryan Bort

In 1989, Jethro Tull won Best Hard Rock/Metal Performanceover Metallica. This is "Jump Start," fromCrest Of A Knave, the album Jethro Tull won for:

This is "Harvester Of Sorrow," from Metallica's ...And Justice For All:

You be the judge of what qualifies as "metal/hard rock." (Hint: it's not the one with pan flute.) Ryan Bort

The Best New Artist category is, in theory, a well-intentioned idea: Give an award to a musician fresh on the scene, who might not be able to compete in the Best Album category against bigger acts like Michael Jackson or The Rolling Stones or Milli Vanilli. The only problem is the Grammys have a really bizarre definition of new. According to rule changes implemented by the Recording Academy in 2016, artists only become ineligible for the award after releasing more than three records (or 30 singles). Also, they cant have been nominated more than three times, and must have achieved a breakthrough into the public consciousness and impacted the musical landscape during the eligibility period. So: not exactly new! A pedantic music nerd could make the case that multiple bands from the 70s could still be eligible.

Not surprisingly, this broad definition translates to some choices that are...unconventional. Just a few examples: Bon Iver won Best New Artist in 2012five years after his breakout debut For Emma, Forever Ago and two years after guesting on Kanye Wests My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. Lauryn Hill won the award in 1999, even though she released two prior records with the Fugees years earlier. Going further back, the Beatles won in 1965, even though by then they werekind of a big deal. If the Grammyswere concerned about accuracy, the category should really be called Best Artist That the Recording Academys Kids Just Told Them About. Joe Veix

Its customary for the Grammys to acknowledge trailblazing weirdo geniuses decades late if at all. So when David Bowie was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2006, it felt more like an apologetic shrug than a wholehearted endorsement. Speaking of lifetime achievements, Bowie released 25 albums during his life. Only one of them, 1983s Lets Dance, was nominated in the most prestigious category: Album of the Year. (It lost.) The Grammys roundly ignored Bowie during the 1970s, when he arguably reached his creative peak (Ziggy Stardust, Low, etc). And even in death, the Thin White Duke is being snubbed: Blackstar, Bowies final album, was shut out of the top category and instead was nominated for Best Alternative Music Album,proving that alternative music is about as meaningless a phrase in 2017 as fake news.Zach Schonfeld

The 60s can claim arguably the richest musical output of any decade since someone first figured out how to run electricity through a guitar. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin, the Velvet Underground, Led Zeppelin, the Who. The list goes on. Of all of these artists, only the Beatles would take home one of the decade's Best Album Grammys when they won in 1968 for Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. In fact, the Beatles were the only pop rock artists even nominated for the award. The same can be said for Song of the Year. The Beatles won in 1967 for "Michelle." In 66, "Yesterday" lost to Tony Bennetts "The Shadow Of Your Smile." The latter is a lovely song, but its win proves that Grammy votershave always been behind the times. Ryan Bort

Tony Bennett won Album of the Yearfor "The Shadow Of Your Smile" in 1966, and then again 30 years later in 1995, for his MTV Unplugged album, which was filled with old standards like "Fly Me to the Moon" and "I Left My Heart in San Francisco." These are great and all, but shouldnt the Grammys recognize the years achievements in original music? Shouldn't the winners be in some way indicative of the current moment? Do voters not want their choices to reflect the music that had the deepest cultural impact? Apparently not, which was evinced in an even more egregious fashion two years earlier... Ryan Bort

More proof that the Grammys are perennially 20 years stuck in the past: Eric Clapton was persona non grata during his Cream/Derek and the Dominos heyday but swept the 1993 ceremony with his live Unplugged recording. (Tears in Heaven, Claptons heartfelt tribute to his late son, garnered several prizes of its own that year.) Similarly, during this same era, Nirvana did not receive a Grammy win until the band softened its sound for its own MTV Unplugged in New York album. By this point, Kurt Cobain was already dead. Nevermindarguably the most culturally significant album of 1991was denied an Album of the Year nomination, perhaps to make room for Amy Grants Christian pop sensation Heart in Motion.Zach Schonfeld

Originally posted here:

9 Ways the Grammys have Totally Blown It - Newsweek - Newsweek