zseike posted a photo:
your lungs fill & spread themselves,
wings of pink blood, and your bones
empty themselves and become hollow.
+
zseike posted a photo:
your lungs fill & spread themselves,
wings of pink blood, and your bones
empty themselves and become hollow.
+
Jade M. Sheldon posted a photo:
Illustration based on the novel "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. What does our future hold? I certainly hope hatred and violence are abandoned and we all somehow learn how to come together and find peace.
BAD BAB posted a photo:
"Habitation" by Margaret Atwood
Marriage is not
a house or even a tent
it is before that, and colder:
The edge of the forest, the edge
of the desert
the unpainted stairs
at the back where we squat
outside, eating popcorn
the edge of the receding glacier
where painfully and with wonder
at having survived even
this far
we are learning to make fire
BAD BAB posted a photo:
Day 335, Dec. 1: The kind of cold that makes you ache.
"Habitation" by Margaret Atwood
Marriage is not
a house or even a tent
it is before that, and colder:
The edge of the forest, the edge
of the desert
the unpainted stairs
at the back where we squat
outside, eating popcorn
the edge of the receding glacier
where painfully and with wonder
at having survived even
this far
we are learning to make fire
wnyc posted a photo:
twotadpoles posted a photo:
A visual representation of the Margaret Atwood poem "A photograph of me"
Model: Roberta :)
Location: Accrington
littlemissairgap posted a photo:
littlemissairgap posted a photo:
jaygoldman posted a photo:
Fifth of five stops on the cross country lecture series, at Convocation Hall at the University of Toronto. The lecture is titled Payback (Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth) and is very timely given the meltdown of the world's economies based on borrowing against the future.
jlmaral posted a photo:
La escritora canadiense Margaret Atwood, gran defensora de la dignidad de las mujeres y crítica de la injusticia social recibio el Premio Príncipe de Asturias de las Letras.
mejuan posted a photo:
Cow Boy Harper...should have kept his mouth shut. He's angered Artist in the great white north with just a few stupid words and the absurd "new world order" mentality that is becoming so jaded.
Here's a great article concerning this issue...
MARGARET ATWOOD From Thursday's Globe and Mail - September 24, 2008 at
11:00 PM EDT
What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we
already live in? What do we like? Who are we?
At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been
punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular
music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the
world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of
our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector
generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And,
according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an
"estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry,
fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined)."
But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he
gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group
called "ordinary people" didn't care about something called "the arts."
His idea of "the arts" is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas
whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately
rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand: I'm one of
them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I
don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young
people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal
and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the
salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers
actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may
be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack
into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not
because they think they'll be millionaires.
Every single one of those people is an "ordinary person." Mr. Harper's
idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of
artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for
anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is
quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we
have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique
languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings,
textiles, clothing and special cuisines. "Ordinary people" pack into the
cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them
live. The total attendance for "the arts" in Canada in fact exceeds that
for sports events. "The arts" are not a "niche interest." They are part of
being human.
Moreover, "ordinary people" are participants. They form book clubs and
join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery,
photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and
other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their
own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own
graphic novels. "Ordinary people" have other outlets for their creativity,
as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken
very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume
design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it
seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are
made.
They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages
volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art
galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of
the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are
so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country -
volunteers set them up and provide the food, and "ordinary people" will
drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea
- in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss
their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those
millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them
in contempt.
I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative
activity, to be creative is "ordinary." It is an age-long and normal human
characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any
appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has
demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities
and interests of "ordinary people." He's the "niche interest." Not us.
It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a
result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is "ideologically motivated."
Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite
rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his
own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated
surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in
addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those
billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here?
That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not
vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the
wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in
one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts
jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those
provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario -
$20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble
grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as
not to appreciate his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the
arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.
Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the
artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute
very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the
uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only
kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced,
because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's
why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He
didn't like the competition for media space.
The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it
that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall
was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative
prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the
Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper
himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In communist countries,
this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who -
rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school
and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way
it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the
rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times
since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the
common motto. Then build a big statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!
*raffaella posted a photo:
It seems that the Ordinary People group is the only one I post to these days. I guess I'm just taking in a lot of arts events these days. But that's an understatement. By taking photos I am participating in the arts, by posting to my blog I am participating in the arts, by knitting, by reading... the list continues. My participation in the arts is a daily sort of thing. Just like many other ordinary people.
Rally this evening in churchill square before Margaret Atwood spoke at the Winspear for the Hurtig Lecture series. The rally did not have the attendance that I would have liked to see (although I'm one to talk, I was eating dinner and only caught the tail end). I've yet to see a rally on the scale of the ones I used to see in Victoria. Thousands of people would storm the streets and take over the Inner Harbour. It was pretty fantastic. Nevertheless, it was still good to see people gathering to stress the importance of arts funding in Canada.
*raffaella posted a photo:
Rally in Churchill Square before Margaret Atwood spoke at the Winspear for the Hurtig Lecture.
*raffaella posted a photo:
*Margaret Atwood's opening statement
Mel Hurtig introduces Margaret Atwood at the 3rd Annual Hurtig Lecture at the Francis Winspear Centre for Music in Edmonton Alberta.
Margaret Atwood has long been one of my favourite authors and is a very intelligent and inspiring Canadian. Her lecture was very insightful and posed the sort of questions that we need to be thinking about, both during the election and afterwards.
The Globe and Mail recently published an excerpt from her speech. Read it here.
The Daily Planet posted a photo:
To be creative is, in fact, Canadian
Mr. Harper is wrong: There's more to the arts than a bunch of rich people at galas whining about their grants
MARGARET ATWOOD
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
September 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM EDT
What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we already live in? What do we like? Who are we?
At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an “estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).”
But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called “ordinary people” didn't care about something called “the arts.” His idea of “the arts” is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand: I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.
Every single one of those people is an “ordinary person.” Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. “Ordinary people” pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for “the arts” in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. “The arts” are not a “niche interest.” They are part of being human.
Moreover, “ordinary people” are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. “Ordinary people” have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.
They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and “ordinary people” will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.
I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is “ordinary.” It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of “ordinary people.” He's the “niche interest.” Not us.
It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is “ideologically motivated.” Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.
Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.
The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big statue of yourself. Now that would be Art! Adapted from the 2008 Hurtig Lecture, to be delivered in Edmonton on Oct. 1
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080924.wcoa...
SiRiChandra posted a photo:
I read this book once a year.
I't amazing.
I remember every single sentence, but I try to understand.
"Chapter 1
Time is not a line but a dimension, like the dimensions of space. If you can bend space you can bend time also, and if you knew enough and could move faster than light you could travel backward in time and exist in two places at once.
It was my brother Stephen who told me that, when he wore his raveling maroon sweater to study in and spent a lot of time standing on his head so that the blood would run down into his brain and nourish it. I didn't understand what he meant, but maybe he didn't explain it very well. He was already moving away from the imprecision of words.
But I began then to think of time as having a shape, something you could see, like a series of liquid transparencies, one laid on top of another. You don't look back along time but down through it, like water. Sometimes this comes to the surface, sometimes that, sometimes nothing. Nothing goes away."
Here is an inspiration to my "Time and Tide" sonnet. I haven't thought of that.
The Daily Planet posted a photo:
I couldn't decide whether to claim points. Though on balance, they did make a movie out of The Handmaid's Tale so she could have been flittin' around on film business right? Why not. However, before I announced to a few of my colleagues the cards I was holding in what I personally believe to be a most excellent double celebrity spot, I had to check the rules and definitions that were posted on the fridge in the office kitchen, which ultimately we all agreed we understood: Despite earlier conclusions in reason, 'celebrity' hadn't been defined; excepting a Canadian celebrity by definition is only worth .5 of a point. I did pretty well with my two cards.
I stole my glimpse and but gosh, she's beautiful. Her and Joanne Woodward both have my mother's face, including that twinkle.
We're not even in England and she's still a Dame
