Saturday, July 29, 2006

Dutch Mona Lisa



I visited the Mauritshuis in The Hague twice last week. First with my upstairs neighbor’s little baby daughter and her grandmother, second with an American nephew and one of my younger brothers.

The Mauritshuis houses the work of some fine Dutch painters of our Golden Century such as Rembrandt, Frans Hals and Johannes Vermeer. The three of them created a true revolution in art. And it wasn’t simply technique or angle, or even the reflection of light and darkness that made them unique in depicting the scenes and people of their time.

Most of all the Dutch painters of the 17th century captured the spirit of their day. They had left the elegance and refinement of the Renaissance behind them and had fully immersed in the energy and seriousness, mixed with the joyful passion of the new age of enterprise and human independence.

Vermeer’s girl with the pearl earring – as the painting is officially known (*) – can truly count as the Dutch Mona Lisa. A furtive young woman, busy with her chores, looking straight into the lense, alsmost literally, of Vermeer’s Camera Obscura. Her expression is a far cry from the sensual expression of many of Da Vinci’s women. Yet it is difficult not to be moved by her seeming innocence and the sensuality of the painter’s brush that captured this one second of her life.


Portrait by Frans Hals

The portrait of the man with a hat by Hals is of quite a different nature. But it is a snapshot in much the same way. With quick brushes Frans Hals depicts almost the entire inner life of a joyful, relaxed individual who seems to have come by for just a cup of coffee (or a pint of beer) before moving on.

This year is Rembrandt’s 400th birthday. He is the other historic celebrity next to Mozart to whom much of the Art world has dedicated AD 2006 as a year of commemoration. Rembrandt left us his selfportraits from his early adolescence up to the last year of his life. The portrait depicted below looks very similar to the pictures people nowadays take of themselves with their cellphone. Rembrandt is looking at himself as if he were saying: “Man, what have you done?” Here is a man, selfconscious and very much aware of the fortunes and misfortunes that had befallen him. Is he making excuses, or is he simply trying to make an assessment of himself, in full knowledge of his own weaknesses, not dissimilar from the questions the Apostle St. Paul might have asked whom he represents in this painting?


Rembrandt's selfportrait as St. Paul

It is a great pleasure to be able to visit the lives of people of so many centuries ago. But it is an even greater pleasure, of course, to transmit this enjoyment to people of new generations, whether it is a little baby or an American nephew.
-----------------------
(*) A few years ago Vermeer's painting was the subject of a wonderful movie "Girl with the pearl earring", starring Scarlet Johansson in the title role. I recommend this movie to anyone interested in a credible representation of the stern family life in a Dutch town back in the 1600s.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

God and the Divinity of Life



Life is awesome. It so awesome that only the firm minded will accept life without the need to explain it by calling in (some) Divinity. Two totally unrelated articles in the NY Times of today (25-07) once again reminded me of this.

One was about the discovery of a hitherto hidden mechanism in life’s production system which dictates the exact application of a DNA sequence, or rather: particular parts of our entire genome according to the identity of the cell. Whenever cells split, their DNA splits all the way, and it reassembles all the way, from the stemcell up to the last hairfollicle. We all know that our entire bodyplan is stored in the DNA of each of our countless cells. But we did not so far figure out how the process of protein production in each cell gets so neatly attuned to its specific function.

But now Researchers believe they have found a second code in DNA in addition to the genetic code. This second code, superimposed on the first, sets the placement of the nucleosomes, miniature protein spools around which the DNA is looped. The spools both protect and control access to the DNA – i.e. the relevant part for the particular cell - itself.

The new code is described in the current issue of Nature by Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute in Israel and Jonathan Widom of Northwestern University in Illinois and their colleagues.

Well, that’s a marvel. I mean, the discovery is a marvel, if only one thinks of the tiny dimensions in which all of this has to be sorted out. But the mechanism is a marvel too, of course. Just imagine how it must have come about in the early ascent of living entities billions of years ago. At this level humans are not different from peas, so we can well assume this is pretty fundamental to everything we call life today.

DNA's Double Helix with all our genetic heritage stored in each of our cells

Then there is the other article, titled “Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables”. It is a review of a number of books by scientists (some atheist, some religious) on our contemperary fascination with the Origin of it All.

Initially I thought it was just another ramble about the question whether faith in God can coexist with faith in the scientific method (which is one of the most stupid questions I know). But it highlights a few salient contradictions worth mentioning.

First of all it recounts the stories of intelligent men gone haywhire; ardent scientists who seem to have succumbed to our current latter days religious revivalism.

- In “The Language of God,” Dr. Collins, the geneticist who led the American government’s effort to decipher the human genome, describes his own journey from atheism to committed Christianity, a faith he embraced as a young physician.

- In “God’s Universe,” Dr. Gingerich, an emeritus professor of astronomy at Harvard, tells how he is “personally persuaded that a superintelligent Creator exists beyond and within the cosmos.”

Indeed, the more we understand of life’s underlying fabric, the stronger our tendency to reject the idea that life arose just by itself rather than by the machinations of a superior intelligent creator. This notion brings me the shivers. From the Age of Reason we are full circle back in the Age of Superstition.

But then the article mentions the courageous, yet countereffective efforts of professor Richard Dawkins (the emeninent scientist of the 1970s publication on The Selfish Gene) to help our world retain its common sense. He doesn’t convince above Gingerich, who argues that in simultaneously defending evolution and insisting upon atheism, Dawkins probably “single-handedly makes more converts to intelligent design than any of the leading intelligent design theorists.”. My God (I beg your pardon for saying so), what a conundrum! But indeed, most likely nothing good is achieved if we try to hammer in the concept of evolution through God bashing. Still, it is pretty disconcerting that scientists use their aura of knowledge to gain a higher footing with the unsuspecting faithful. Secondly, behind their reasoning lurks the argument that if we cannot disprove the existence of a Divine Creator, then he must exist. I find it hard to grasp that serious people readily accept this ignorant position, but there it is.

So far, I believe, Richard Dawkins (*) has made all the sense in the world. But we may have to accept that to counter Religion with more science, this will only throw new oil on the fire. Most likely, it will be more effective to counter the arguments with Religion itself.

I am not particularly religious, but I do hold that there is a place for God in our human life. The mistake we should never make however, is to use God, or Divinity, or any other Creator, to explain life on Earth or the life of humanity itself. God was never created for explanation. God and all his institutions are with us for guidance only. Humanity created God (not the other way around)to serve its need for moral codes of conduct and to glue the fabric of society. Religion in essence is the antithesis to the rules of nature. God would never think of Darwinian wildness and genetic selfishness. Yet these very processes made the advent of humanity possible, including the advent of spiritual life - and of science.

In the larger part of its history the Roman Church stifled science, and interfered with the advance of knowledge at great cost and human sacrifice. It learned the hard way never to try that again. So let's not wish to go back to the days of Galileo or worse.

Learned professors too better stick to their trade.
----------------------------
(*)
In a recent TV documentary aired by BBC Channel 4 (The Root of All Evil) Dawkins describes his astonishment that, at the start of the 21st century, religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth. Science, based on scepticism, investigation and evidence, must continuously test its own concepts and claims. Faith, by definition, defies evidence: it is untested and unshakeable, and is therefore in direct contradiction with science.

In addition, though religions preach morality, peace and hope, in fact, says Dawkins, they bring intolerance, violence and destruction. The growth of extreme fundamentalism in so many religions across the world not only endangers humanity but, he argues, is in conflict with the trend over thousands of years of history for humanity to progress – to become more enlightened and more tolerant.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

To understand our future, we must study the past – and study it hard



People without a decent sense of history (and I should add: geography) live in a total fog when it concerns their future. But now at least two generations have been educated mainly to consume the present, and to do this with unprecendented voracity, lacking even the most basic understanding of how their present came to be.

When I grew up – which was in the 50s and 60s – history was served at dinner, at school, on Television, in books. Sure, it was still served in a way faintly reminiscent of the heroic tales which constituted the main part of ‘history’ in our parents’ time and in the 19th Century. But the many movies and upcoming documentaries with increasingly realistic footage at least provided people of my generation with a sound ciritical attitude towards history – and all but the wish to throw it away.

Then, heroism was out, and our newly acquired sense of progress – and progressiveness – became the overriding driving force in our public culture, and this very much included education policies. History had to accept the back seat. Children could readily discard it in their curriculum resulting in an endemic ignorance even of elementary chronology: “Yeah, in the old days they had to learn dates and events etc.”. In the old days...

So increasingly people respond in highly short sighted terms to the events of their own time. In many ways the crazy hypes which have visited my own country in the recent years should largely be attributed to the lack of basic information about the historic context of many of these events whether in our own country or in foreign places.


This little girl in the Middle East experiences the force of history every day, every night

We also know that history is not a static phenomenon. The past is just as much alive as our present, and – of course – our future. Especially the past decade is a demonstration of this. Until 1990, Europe seemed such a simple thing, as was East versus West. But today things are not that simple any more. And the only way to grasp this is to go back in time and revisit the events of the late 19th and early 20th century.

I do not live in the past, but I thoroughly like to walk around in history. I thoroughly enjoy pondering about the issues of religion and politics as they developed troughout the centuries; I thoroughly enjoy every effort I make to understand the history behind the conflicts between our Western world and, for instance, the Arab world. But the greatest enjoyment I derive from gaining a sharper view of our possibilities in the future: the potential for history that lies ahead.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

All Elephants now Extinct


How would the world respond to such a headline? What will the outlook of our planet be when the world’s greatest living herbivore no longer roams the African or Asian forests and savannahs?

The prospect is not so unlikely, as many of us know only too well. Accellerated extinction of animal and plant species is a regular dish of our daily news in todays world. So let’s not get upset when it happens.



West African Black Rhino extinct. Another headline. But this one is not fictional. It is for real. It has happened, just recently. Check the National Geographic if you don’t believe me.

It seems just a footnote. Some may shed a tear. Not simply because of the Black Rhino, but because we realize that this is just another chapter of an ongoing story. A sequence of events, over thousands of years, in which humanity grows larger and larger, six billion of us and counting, consuming, cutting down, killing off, building and skyscraping….well yes, an ongoing story.

But can we still ask the question, on our way to wherever we go, whether the Elephant has a value to us? Whether we shouldn’t make all the effort to keep him alive and abundant? This isn’t just a question of ecology or environment, it is not just a matter of biology. We don’t even know what damage we cause in those terms.

But there is also the damage to ourselves, to our humanity. I don’t think I could face my child or any child of future generations and tell them to forget about elephants, lions, rhinos, gorillas, bonobos, or any other free spirited mammal that we effectively cleared out of our way – just to have it all our way. Technically we may continue to live, but in our spirit we will have killed an essential element of ourselves.

It is imperative that humanity address this development. It is imperative that we develop a Global Charter for the preservation and protection of animal life and that we implement this with discipline and rigidity.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Summertime @ :-)



It is mid summer, and the hottest season ever recorded by man is approaching. Global warming? White western consumption abuse? Will we all burn in bush fires and super volcanos exploding or terrorists bombs being thrown all over?

For the next few weeks I will let all these and many other questions rest. I am going to enjoy every day in the sun or in the rain, whichever, have lots of coffee and chocolate, read some good books on history and politics, spend time with my daughter, in short: I will make my days most comfortable.

Perhaps there after I will redesign my weblog, or just continue the way I started, with fresh posts, new thoughts.

But for now, have a nice holiday.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Troubled youth, troubled culture



Troublesome reports have surfaced about substantial numbers of rightist extremists, or ‘Neo-Nazi’s’, having been recruited in the US Army and effectively living out their Aryan fantasies amongst themselves but also out in the front, e.g. in Iraq and other places in the world.

The New York Times today quotes a Defense Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."

People belonging to ‘hate groups’ are exactly in the places where the United States project their selfappointed mission of democracy, christian righteousness and justice. This indeed must be a considerable embarrasment for the US Government, especially at a time of repeated accounts of US Army men apparently having gotten involved in shootings or even outright killings that are difficult to account for as normal acts (or risks) of combat.

It would be unwise however to treat these reports as mere exceptions to the normal rules of conduct. Young people with apparent affiliations to extremist or racist views are not mere aliens who can simply be traced and subsequently be taken out.

Moreover, to call them ‘Neo-Nazi’s’ is an easy way out. It suggests that they represent the last remnants of long forgotten, ill fated Germans, born on foreign ground. They are not. They are sons of US soil. They are the very product of the culture which now professes the wish to crack them down.

But no public expression of disgust of these young, ignorant men can take away the stains that are already there, and that are equally the product of the prevailing US culture. Stains that are called Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison, or more subtle: deliberately misconstrued intelligence to justify cracking down on an entire nation. In fact the source of extremism may well be the same sense of righteousness and superiority which runs through a significant portion of the US population.

So really, we should not turn our backs on these boys, but rather look into our own mirror.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Some thoughts on the 4th of July



There is the story that when Thomas Jefferson was busy writing the American Declaration of Independence in the summer of 1776, he had a copy of William of Orange’s Apology of 1580 which denounced the claims of King Philip II of Spain as rightful sovereign of the Netherlands provinces.

Both documents indeed were written in a very similar spirit. Their main point was to establish the principle that a government is there to protect the rights of the people and not to trample them. In the case of the Netherlands, this was the first time ever in history that such clear language on behalf of a sovereign people was written.

Jefferson’s words and those of William of Orange continue to firmly root the identities and legal principles of our two nations.



Today, we consider the principle of an accountable government, installed to serve the people and not to bully them, as self evident. However, it is far from superfluous to remind ourselves – now and then – of the circumstances and the persuasions of those long forgotten days. History has not been a single avenue from slavery and oppression to freedom and individual enterprise. Time and again, people in power extended their reach, movements emerged to submit entire nations, wars have been waged – for no other reason than egotism, greed or shere hatred.



My own – American and European – forebears were immediate witnesses to the historic events of independence and self government on either side of the Atlantic, and thus there is an additional incentive for me to honour the memory of their contribution to our present day liberties – at least in my own country. But I also consider this a personal responsibility. In whatever way I can, which of itself is modest and most certainly of litle bearing to the general course of history, I will at least attest to this heritage.

The 4th of July for me has a very special meaning. Jefferson has been my hero for most of my life, and so has William of Orange. Today is a day of celebration for many people in our world.

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Who or what drives America?


Over the past decade or more, US assets have progressively passed into the hands of foreign interests. In the Age of Globalization this of itself is no reason for concern, let alone for any kind of xenophobic reflex. Capital must flow, and the greatest profits are reaped by those most successful. The United States themselves are champion of competition. Hence, nothing wrong.

Of course, this development requires a significant adjustment in the mindset of most US citizens, and it is clear from events in the recent past, such as the near take over by Dubai Arabs of the New York harbor (or something to that effect), that for many this involves a painful process. And let’s see what really will happen with Kerkorian's suggestion to have GM combine forces with French Renault and Japanese Nissan – a proposal which makes all the business sense in the world.

At another level, one would expect the Government to change its mindset. I do not think I get it wrong by stating that at present the main thrust of US foreign policy – i.e. the billions spent in Iraq – in fact is financed by, let’s say, the rest of the world. This is not a subject for outright exaggeration, but broadly speaking the current US economy is largely kept afloat by other nations who – at least so far – have sufficient confidence in the US economy over the longer term to allow for a considerable measure of financial trust.

Politically speaking however, the rest of the world is at great odds with the prevailing US attitudes. And I think most of us have come to the point where we simply hope for the best once the current presidency is over.

Whatever might have been said at the time of the War on Iraq, surely after 2008 it can not be a simple ‘who is not supporting us, is against us’. Financial resources will most definitely not be there anymore to support such ongoing arrogance and US self centeredness. There will be much less acceptance in Europe of another France or Germany bashing next time around.

There are those who say: next time around, it will be China who will be in the world’s driving seat. I do not believe that. Or at least I do not think this is the only plausible scenario.

The key problem is that our global political institutions, designed to forge alliances and to foster peace and prosperity, by and large do not fit our future world. I do agree with the US Government that the United Nations system has become obsolete, almost beyond repair. But it needs to be replaced by another, stronger system of international co-operation, it should not be abandoned altogether. Another case is the NATO. In my opinion we should get rid of this organization as soon as possible, and never again have separate political and military systems for consultation and co-operation.

I would urge all sensible US citizens, all sensible politicians, Democrat and Republican, to seriously re-evaluate who and what should drive America in the future.

J'accuse Car Design


In a world where people become increasingly conscious of the need to economize on fuel and the general usage of natural resources, somehow when we hit the road, we wish to ignore it all.

And even though there are some good exceptions, the great majority of car manufacturers seem only too happy to stuff our streets and highways with one ridiculous vehicle after the other. This is not typically an American phenomenon. Sure, many crazy vehicles are US made. But I look at a good number of European products much in the same way.

First of all, there is this outrageous idea that if you have a family, you need to drive cars they call MPV’s or SUV’s. What other purpose do these cars serve most of the time than being huge show offs - of monstruous proportions - of their owners, who most of the time sit at the wheel without a single passenger to accompany them?

I was born in a family of six children, and my father had this wonderful car called the Peugeot 404 Familiale: highly economic in its own days, not taking any more space than a regular sedan; a very simple car, a light weight, but beautiful. And now – I regret to say: look at the Peugeot 407! A true monster of egotism.


The Peugeot 404 Familiale in 1963: a marvel of economy and function

They don’t make these simple and beautiful cars anymore. Cardesign has gone bezirk. The majority of today’s cars are the product of designer’s orgies; and this includes quality cars such as BMW or Mercedes Benz, all the recent models being plump and overdesigned, obese, without regard to true function and the need for economy in claiming space.

When was the last time that a new model came out that was smaller and carried less weight than its predecessor? In my memory, this must be some fourty to fifty years ago. Why is it that we can manufacture ever stronger and lighter composite materials, but cars get stuffed with ever more superfluous kilos?

The US alone is responsible for 50% of the global motorcar CO2 exhaust in the atmosphere, with only 5% of the world’s population. That is a massive contribution by all counts.

The true culprit in the end is us, the consumer. There is no way we could think of anything else than owning a car and projecting our self esteem to it. I am convinced that in hundred years time, people will look back at us with amazement bordering on disgust. By that time people will no longer need Fords or Volkswagens to tell eachother who they are. They will be more concerned about the efficiency of transportation and the comfort of getting from A to B in the shortest possible time. To have designers constantly work on new models for automobiles to them will seem outrageous, a total waste of time and resources. Until then, alas, we will have to put up with ugly piles of metal, glass and rubber polluting our cities and landscapes. Yuk.