Art of Steve Hanks

Although teachers often cited his artistic ability, Steve Hanks' main interest while growing up around San Francisco was sports.After his family moved to Albuquerque in 1966, Steve Hanks decided to study commercial art. However, at the Academy of Fine Arts, he discovered the challenge of drawing people. He graduated from the California College of Arts and Crafts in Oakland, during the explosive sixties.Steve Hanks was deeply affected by the maelstrom of shifting attitudes, as evidenced by his art. Initially, his works were pencil drawings and oils. Steve Hanks' paintings were impressionistic while his drawings were realistic. Eventually, an allergic reaction to oils forced him to experiment with watercolors. Using the techniques learned from his other mediums, he found he could create watercolors as "finished" as oils.Art jurors began recognizing the quality of his work in 1973. Steve Hanks won the Arts for the Parks Marine Art Award of Excellence in 1990 and 1994, and has been one of the Arts for the Parks top 100 artists since 1989. In 1991, Steve Hanks received the National Watercolor Society Merit Award and the National Academy of Western Art awarded him the Gold Medal in 1992. Since 1993, he has been one of U.S. Art Magazine's top ten American artists. His original works are in high demand by both public and private collectors.

Contributors

Art, Truth & Politics

The the text below we will rewrite the important lecture note of Harold Pinter for receiving the nobel prize of literature in 2005

***

'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'
I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?
Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost.
I have often been asked how my plays come about. I cannot say. Nor can I ever sum up my plays, except to say that this is what happened. That is what they said. That is what they did.
Most of the plays are engendered by a line, a word or an image. The given word is often shortly followed by the image. I shall give two examples of two lines which came right out of the blue into my head, followed by an image, followed by me.
The plays are The Homecoming and Old Times. The first line of The Homecoming is 'What have you done with the scissors?' The first line of Old Times is 'Dark.'
In each case I had no further information.
In the first case someone was obviously looking for a pair of scissors and was demanding their whereabouts of someone else he suspected had probably stolen them. But I somehow knew that the person addressed didn't give a damn about the scissors or about the questioner either, for that matter.
'Dark' I took to be a description of someone's hair, the hair of a woman, and was the answer to a question. In each case I found myself compelled to pursue the matter. This happened visually, a very slow fade, through shadow into light.
I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C.
In the play that became The Homecoming I saw a man enter a stark room and ask his question of a younger man sitting on an ugly sofa reading a racing paper. I somehow suspected that A was a father and that B was his son, but I had no proof. This was however confirmed a short time later when B (later to become Lenny) says to A (later to become Max), 'Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? I want to ask you something. The dinner we had before, what was the name of it? What do you call it? Why don't you buy a dog? You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs.' So since B calls A 'Dad' it seemed to me reasonable to assume that they were father and son. A was also clearly the cook and his cooking did not seem to be held in high regard. Did this mean that there was no mother? I didn't know. But, as I told myself at the time, our beginnings never know our ends.
'Dark.' A large window. Evening sky. A man, A (later to become Deeley), and a woman, B (later to become Kate), sitting with drinks. 'Fat or thin?' the man asks. Who are they talking about? But I then see, standing at the window, a woman, C (later to become Anna), in another condition of light, her back to them, her hair dark.
It's a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that moment have had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even hallucinatory, although sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. The author's position is an odd one. In a sense he is not welcomed by the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy to live with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can't dictate to them. To a certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat and mouse, blind man's buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that you have people of flesh and blood on your hands, people with will and an individual sensibility of their own, made out of component parts you are unable to change, manipulate or distort.
So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, at any time.
But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the spot.
Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise, perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they will. This does not always work. And political satire, of course, adheres to none of these precepts, in fact does precisely the opposite, which is its proper function.
In my play The Birthday Party I think I allow a whole range of options to operate in a dense forest of possibility before finally focussing on an act of subjugation.
Mountain Language pretends to no such range of operation. It remains brutal, short and ugly. But the soldiers in the play do get some fun out of it. One sometimes forgets that torturers become easily bored. They need a bit of a laugh to keep their spirits up. This has been confirmed of course by the events at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Mountain Language lasts only 20 minutes, but it could go on for hour after hour, on and on and on, the same pattern repeated over and over again, on and on, hour after hour.
Ashes to Ashes, on the other hand, seems to me to be taking place under water. A drowning woman, her hand reaching up through the waves, dropping down out of sight, reaching for others, but finding nobody there, either above or under the water, finding only shadows, reflections, floating; the woman a lost figure in a drowning landscape, a woman unable to escape the doom that seemed to belong only to others.
But as they died, she must die too.
Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.
As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.
The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.
But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.
Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.
But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.
Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death - the same thing - and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer.
The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.
I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.
The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.'
Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.
Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.
Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people" were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'
Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.
As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply.
I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.'
The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.
The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.
The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.
I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.
Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.
The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.
But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.
It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'
It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.
The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.
What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days - conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally - a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.
Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.
The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.
Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, 'I'm Explaining a Few Things':
And one morning all that was burning,one morning the bonfiresleapt out of the earthdevouring human beingsand from then on fire,gunpowder from then on,and from then on blood.Bandits with planes and Moors,bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,bandits with black friars spattering blessingscame through the sky to kill childrenand the blood of children ran through the streetswithout fuss, like children's blood.
Jackals that the jackals would despisestones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,vipers that the vipers would abominate.
Face to face with you I have seen the bloodof Spain tower like a tideto drown you in one waveof pride and knives.
Treacherousgenerals:see my dead house,look at broken Spain:from every house burning metal flowsinstead of flowersfrom every socket of SpainSpain emergesand from every dead child a rifle with eyesand from every crime bullets are bornwhich will one day findthe bull's eye of your hearts.
And you will ask: why doesn't his poetryspeak of dreams and leavesand the great volcanoes of his native land.
Come and see the blood in the streets.Come and seethe blood in the streets.Come and see the bloodin the streets!*
Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians.
I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.
The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.
The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.
Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.
I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.
'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'
A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection - unless you lie - in which case of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician.
I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'.
Where was the dead body found?Who found the dead body?Was the dead body dead when found?How was the dead body found?
Who was the dead body?
Who was the father or daughter or brotherOr uncle or sister or mother or sonOf the dead and abandoned body?
Was the body dead when abandoned?Was the body abandoned?By whom had it been abandoned?
Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?
What made you declare the dead body dead?Did you declare the dead body dead?How well did you know the dead body?How did you know the dead body was dead?
Did you wash the dead bodyDid you close both its eyesDid you bury the bodyDid you leave it abandonedDid you kiss the dead body
When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror - for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.
I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.
If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man.

Harold Pinter died

English famous playwriter Harold Pinter died in 24 December 2008.

World of literature lost his one of famous figures.

Harold Pinter which undoubtedly is the most influential English language playwriter in last 50 years, after Beckets was considered as the central man in theater of 20th century.

Although his activitis were not confined to literature and art alone also he was a politic activiest and pay tremendously attention to human rights and many times criticis the english govermnet for its participation in Iraq's war .

Pinter had a number of awards bestowed on him during a long and distinguished career, including the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005. In its citation, the Nobel academy said Pinter was "generally seen as the foremost representative of British drama in the second half of the 20th century" and declared him to be an author "who in his plays uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms".

Pinter was best know for his plays, including his 1960 breakthrough production The Caretaker, The Dumb Waiter and The Birthday Party. But he was also a screenwriter, actor and director and in recent years a vociferous campaigner against human rights abuses.

You can visit his homepage in

http://www.haroldpinter.org/home/index.shtml.

We will rewrite his Nobel Lecture in 2005 in the next post.

Shnat Baghramian

MIT open cource/ Major European Novels

picture: A scene from Pere Goriot

MIT university is a pioneer university in web base free education.MIT online courses which is updated each month is a great source of knowledge and educational criteria for nowadays.

The revolutionary existence of Internet in nowadays put his great effect and influence in our life,maybe in future we will centrally pay attention to the information era revolution.

But today I want to introduce a new course taught in MIT in fall 2008 in literature and language department.The course is "Major European Novels" in this fantastic course with Internet address:

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Literature/21L-472Fall-2008/CourseHome/index.htm

in this fantastic course they will revisit the 6 great European novels are under consideration

Cervantes, Don Quixote
Balzac, Père Goriot
Stendhal, The Red and the Black
Flaubert, Madame Bovary
Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

The choice of this masterpieces is great anyhow I want to rewrite here the description that the course contains about it.

This subject traces the history of the European novel by studying texts that have been influential in that history in connection with two interrelated ideas. The first of these ideas underlies much of our modern regard for the novel as a literary form-namely, the idea that if fiction intends to deal with the most important forces animating the collective life of humanity, it will not deal with the actions of persons of immense consequence—kings, princes, high elected officials and the like—but rather with the lives of apparently ordinary people and the everyday details of their social ambitions and desires: to use a phrase of Balzac's, with "ce qui se passe partout" (what happens everywhere). This idea sometimes goes with another: that the most significant representations of the human condition are those dealing with a particular type of protagonist-namely, with someone not obviously qualified to be of consequence in the world (by reason, say, of birth or inheritance) but nonetheless conceives of himself or herself as destined for great accomplishment and who tries to compel society to accept him or her as its agent.
The readings begin for the sake of contrast with a comic representation of this second idea, Part One of Cervantes's masterpiece, Don Quixote, which pokes fun at the idea that one can elect oneself as a person of destiny and which also introduces into narrative fiction a quality with which later novels will be much occupied-a kind of teasing inquiry into the various devices by which narratives tends to endow characters with importance. We then turn to serious representations of the idea in nineteenth century fiction: Balzac's Old Goriot, Stendhal's The Red and the Black, Flaubert's Madame Bovary, Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, and Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Endowing characters with extraordinary intensity, these books constitute part of the main line of what is called the realistic tradition of novelistic representation. In reading them, we will consider the distinctions to be drawn between these texts and the two other main traditions of novelistic fiction in Europe-the romantic tradition, which endows characters with attributes which obviously qualify them for consequence in the world, and also the tradition of naturalism, which deals with characters more subdued in their relation to the social forces that constrain their lives. Four of these six texts are works of considerable length; an effort will be made to keep the reading within the limits of approximately 250 pages while reading them.

Shant Baghramian

Կանաչութիւնը դայլայլում է

Մերիի անշունչ մարմինը ընկած էր պատշգամբի մի կողմը, նրա գլխից թափւող արիւնը հոշոտում էին շները:
Չարլը տեսնելով Մերիի վիճակը նիարտայնացած էր թէ ինչու առաջինը իրեն չեն տեղեկացրել պատահածի մասին, նա որ արդէն գուշակում էր Թէրներ ընտանիքի համար այս ահռելի վիճակը, արդէն երկար տարիներ էր ինչ որպէս հարեւան ծանօթ էր այդ ընտանիքին:
Մի քիչ այն կողմ Դիքը խելագարւած դիրքով կանգնած էր տնից ոչ շատ հեռու ու աննպատակ դիտում էր ինչ որ մի կողմ գտնելով այն ինչ երբէք չէր գտել:
Գիւղի խմբապէտը արդէն կատարել էր գործերը ու ձեռբակալել էր մարդասպանին-սեւականը որը աշխատում էր Մերի ու Դիք Թէրների համար-որը խոստովանել էր պատահածի բոլոր մանրամասնութիւնները:
Թոնի Մարսթոնը թէեւ այդ ընտանիքի հետ ապրում էր միայն քանի ամիս այն էլ միայն որպէս Դիքի օգնականը, բայց արդէն գիտէր Մերիի ու սեւականի մէջ եղած բոլոր պատահածները:
Մերիի մանկութեան յիշողութիւնը միայն իր դժբախտ մօր դէմքը ու մշտահարբած հօր վիճակներ էր այն ինչ Մերիին ստիպում էր մօռացութեան տալ մանկական տարիների բոլոր վայրկեանները, ընտանիքի իրավիճակից ելնելով նրա ծնողները Մերիին գիշերօթի են ուղարկում: Հակառակ ընդանրութեան ,Մերին գիշերօթիում անցկացնում է իր ամենաերջանիկ տարիները:
Նրա կեանքի երկրորդ երջանկութիւնը Դիք Թէրների հետ հանդիպումն էր, Դիքը ապրում էր գիւղում ու զբաղւում էր հողագործութեամբ, Մերին տեղափոխւում է նրա մոտ սկսելով իրենց միասնական կեանքը:
Մերիի քաղաքից գիւղ տեղափոխւելը, կեանքի բոլոր դժւարութիւնները ու ամենաէականը Մերիի շփումը սեւական աշխատաւորների հետ ,..... բոլորը միասին սկիզբն են դժբախտ կեանքի շարունակութեանը:

***

Վերում նշւած պատմւածքը պատկանում է գրող Դորիս Լէսինգին:

Լէսինգը ծնւել է 1919 թւականին Իրանի Քէրմանշահ քաղաքում,իր մանկութիւնը անցկացրել է Հարաւային Աֆրիկայում ու 20 տարեկանից հաստատւել է Լոնդոնում:
« Կանաչութիւնը դայլայլում է» վէպը գրել է 1950 թւականին :
Հարկ է նշել որ Լէսինգը արժանացել է 2007 թւականի Նոբելի գրականութեան մրցանակին:

Վանէ Գալստեան

سرخوردگی از زبان

لغاتی که در زبان روزمره به کار میروند،فقط درفرم بیانی یکسان از جانب افراد مورد استفاده قرار میگیرند.امّا درجه معنایی متفاوتی دارند.تنها اشتراک بین افراد یکسان به کار بردن لغات در فرم یک جمله است.امّا درک معنا میسّر نیست،زیرا لغات دارای درجه معنایی متفاوت هستند.درک معنای حقیقی از طریق فرایند کشف و شهود صورت میگیرد.لذا تنها افرادی قادر به درک معنای سخن یکدیگر هستند که در کالبد یک تجربه مشترک قرار داشته باشند.
تقدیم به ل.ویتگنشتاین

بهرام شاکرین http://bahramshakerin.blogfa.com/

Bahram Shakerin

Again it is a good day for Papier de Liberte!!!
The contributors of Papier are honoured and pleased to have a new guest writer.
Bahram Shakir will join us with his great articles and fantastic blog /which we are permitted to rewrite some of it articles here in Papier/.

Bahram Shakerin received his B.Sc. in physics from Sharif university of technology with a final project with Dr. Mehdi Golshani.Couple of weeks later he will receive his Master in physics in theoretical cosmology in Shahid Beheshti universty-Tehran.
Beside his academic life Bahram is a walking encyclopedia of physics, philosophy, art and literature.
The amount of his readings is innumerable, he is updated in every mentioned object above.
He is the great collector of books/recently the electronic versions/ and undoubtedly familiar with all of them.As he mentioned in his fantastic Farsi blog abadiat with the address of
http://bahramshakerin.blogfa.com/
he is passionate for : theoretical physics,fundamental problems of physics,philosophy,analytical philosophy,philosophy of science,philosophy of art and aesthetics,sociology of art,music,cinema,contemporary history of Iran.

***
Finally welcome Bahram we will enjoy your thoughts.

Contributors

Literature & Education

The question of: Which educational system is a good and suitable one for a nation?

and which subjects must be taught to generations? are the important questions for each nation and each society.

Obviously there are not such complete and exact answers for the above question.

Ever changing educational systems, proves that we do not know the final answer and even more the education is undoubtedly depend on era we live and the cultural, historical background of a nation.After this crystal clear introduction, I want to mention my point.

I am the side of this opinion that a good!!!/it is sort of thing that what it means good/ literature has a great influence on a generation which is under education. I think the literature is the vital one that helps youngsters to found out themselves, know about human beings and experience many lives and situations.

I insist that instead of teaching religious stuff in schools, /primary and high schools/ we should! teach them literature instead.I think a suitable ones will help the young people to know and talk about ethics about morality and about social life.Literature will help generations to understand their rights and responsibilities.

I think instead of stubborn undesirable religious stuff we should pay more attention to the art specially literature.

Finally I want to name 10 most readable American novels taught in US high school , look at the class and importance of them. If they were read in a luminous and right way I want to be assure you that something good happened there.

1) The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Mark Twain's (Samuel Clemen's) classic novel is a must for all students studying American humor and satire. While banned in some school districts, it is a widely read and appreciated novel.

2) The Scarlet Letter
Hester Prynne was marked in scarlet for her indiscretions. Students connect with this classic novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne

3) To Kill a Mockingbird
Harper Lee's awesome novel of the deep south in the midst of the Depression is always an excellent choice for high school students.

4) The Red Badge of Courage
Henry Fleming struggles with bravery and courage during the Civil War in this excellent book by Stephen Crane. Great for integrating history and literature.

5) The Great Gatsby
Can anyone think of the 'flapper' era of the 1920s without thinking of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby?" Students and teachers alike find this era in history fascinating.

6) The Grapes of Wrath
John Steinbeck's tale of Dust Bowl victims travelling west for a better life is a classic look at life during the Great Depression

7) Call of the Wild
Told from Buck the dog's point of view, "Call of the Wild" is Jack London's masterpiece of self reflection and identity

8) Invisible Man
Ralph Ellison's classic novel about racial prejudice should not be missed. Many of the problems that his narrator faces throughout the novel sadly are still present in America today.

9) A Farewell to Arms
One of the best novels of World War I, Ernest Hemingway tells of the war as a backdrop to a love story between an American ambulance driver and an English nurse.

10)Fahrenheit 451
Ray Bradbury's classic 'novelette' portrays a futuristic world where firemen start fires instead of putting them out. They burn books. Students enjoy this quick read that packs a huge psychological punch

Shant Baghramian

Վիլիամ Սարոյեան / Համամարդկային Հսկայ

Այս տարի Վիլիամ Սարոյեանի ծննդեան 100-ամեակն է:

Ակնառու կերպով անդրադարձը գրականութեան այս հսկայի հանդէպ աճել է ու մերթ ընդ մերթ ակնատես ենք լինում միջոցառումների, գեղարւեստական երեկոյնների , գրքերի վերահրատարկման ու գրական յօդւածների... իսկ հարցը մնում է հարց թէ ինչու՞ է Սարոյեանը հսկայ ու ո՞րն է նրա յաջողութեան բանալին:

Պարզ ու անգամ հստակ թւող պատասխանը, որը իսկ առաջին իսկ հայացքից միգուցէ վիրաւորական թւա մեր ազգային նախանձախնդրութեան՝ սա է որ Վիլիամը գրել է Անգլէրէն:

Անկախ հիմնաւորւած ու մերթ ազգասէր հակումներից դրդւած , բարձրաձայն յայտարարում ենք թէ Սարոյեանը ինչպէս ինքն է արտայայտւել- «Ես Հայերէն չեմ գրում, քանզի աշխարհին նայում եմ հայերէն» - իրականում Հայ է , գրում է Հայերէն ու փառքը Հայերին է:

Այնուամենայնիւ ուզում եմ վերին հեշտ ու պարզ Սարոյանական յաջողութեան պատճառաբանումը ՝ / Սարոյեանը Անգլերէն է գրել ուրեմ յանրայայտ է /պատճառաբանումը հիմնաւորել ու աւելի պարզաբանել մի այլ բացադրական տարբերակով:

Սարոյեանի յաջողութեան ամենակարևոր ազդակներից այն է թէ Սարոյեանը համամարդկային բանաստեղծ, թատերագիր ու գրող: Բառի բուն իմաստով:

Սարոյեանի հայացքը աշխարհին Հայերէն է, անկասկած, սակայն նա նայում է համայն մարդկութեան հարցերին ու ցաւերին, նա չի սահմանափակւում ցեղային,տեղային ու ազգային նեղ շրջանակներում: Նա գրում է բոլորի համար ու բոլորի մասին իհարկէ հայկական խոժոռացոյցով :

Իսկ վերին յաջողութեան բանալի երաշխիկը Ամերիկան է, ու անկասկած անգլերէն լեզուն:Քանզի այն ենթահողը , գրական մշակութային առումով , գնահատում է Սարոյանական ժանրը ու մօտեցումը, մարդկային հարցերով զբաղւող արւեստը , այն ինչ մեր մօտ համեմատաբար նւազ է ստացւում:

Մեր գրականութեան տեսահորիզոնը մեծամասնաբար սաւառնում է մեր և «տնում» ու դժւար ենք տեսնում համամարդկայինը: Պարզապէս նմանատիպ գրական անցեալը որը սերտ փոխյարաբերութեան մէջ է գտնւում ԼԵԶՒԻ ու ՀՍԱՐԱԿՈՒԹԵԱՆ հետ պարզապէս չի մեծացնում իր գրկում գրական հսկաներ :

Ուրեմն Սարոյեանի հսկայ լինելու պատճառներից մէկը, ոչ թէ միակը , անգլերէն լեզուն է իր համամարդկային տեքստին ողջունելու համար:

Շանթ Բաղրամեան

The Garden of Pontoise/ Camille Pissarro

*English
Camille Pissarro/The Garden of Pontoise

Camille Pissarro (July 10, 1830 – November 13, 1903) was a French Impressionist painter. His importance resides not only in his visual contributions to and Impressionism post-impressionism , but also in his patriarchal standing among his colleagues, particularly Paul Cezanne and Paul Gauguin . Known as the "Father of Impressionism", Pissarro painted rural and urban French life, particularly landscapes in and around Pontoise, as well as scenes fromMontmartre . His mature work displays an empathy for peasants and laborers, and sometimes evidences his radical political leanings. His example inspired many younger artists, including Californian Impressionist Lucy Bacon .
"from wiki"

*French
Camille Pissarro/ Le jardin de Pontoise

Camille Pissarro (Juillet 10, 1830 - 13 Novembre 1903) était un peintre impressionniste français. Son importance réside non seulement dans son visuel contributions à l'impressionnisme et le post-impressionnisme, mais aussi dans son patriarcale debout au milieu de ses collègues, notamment Paul Cézanne et Paul Gauguin. Connu sous le nom de "Père de l'impressionnisme", Pissarro peint les zones rurales et urbaines la vie française, en particulier des paysages dans et autour de Pontoise, de même que des scènes de Montmartre. Sa maturité travail affiche une empathie pour les paysans et les ouvriers, et parfois des preuves de son orientation politique radicale. Son exemple a inspiré de nombreux jeunes artistes, y compris la Californie impressionnistes Lucy Bacon.
"de wiki"

*Spanish
Camille Pissarro/ El jardín de Pontoise

Camille Pissarro (10 de julio de 1830 - 13 de noviembre de 1903) fue un pintor impresionista francés. Su importancia reside no sólo en sus contribuciones al Visual Impresionismo y Post-Impresionismo, pero también en su permanente entre patriarcal sus colegas, en particular, Paul Cézanne y Paul Gauguin. Conocido como el "Padre del Impresionismo", Pissarro pintó las zonas rurales y urbanas francés vida, en particular los paisajes de Pontoise y sus alrededores, así como escenas de Montmartre. Su trabajo muestra maduro una empatía por los campesinos y obreros y, a veces, evidencias de su orientación política radical. Su ejemplo inspiró muchos jóvenes artistas, entre ellos California impresionistas Lucy Bacon.
"de wiki "

Vane Galstian

Cafe' de flore

Papier de Liberte is also suggest you places to visit ,historical cultural and... But most of the m with a signification which make this place among the others special.

We also dedicate a brief post for each suggestion for visiting the place appeared in the right corner of Papier.

***

Cafe' de flore

from Wiki "Café de Flore sits on the corner of the Boulevard Saint-Germain and the Rue St. Benoit, in the VIe arrondissement of Paris, France. Historically, it has been famed for its intellectual clientele.

The classic Art Deco interior of all red seating, mahogany and mirrors has changed little since World War II. Like its main rival, Les Deux Magots, it has hosted most of the French intellectuals during the post-war years. It is said that Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir would meet here and discuss their philosophy of existentialism over a drink."

The official site of cafe' de flore is http://www.cafe-de-flore.com/

yahoo travel site describe:

An historical landmark in Paris since 1890, this cafe was a favorite of many great 19th-century writers and artists. French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre always took his coffee and croissant on the terrace. These days you can drop in for a quick snack or glass of Champagne having shopped-till-you-dropped in the district's luxurious boutiques. The smart set that revels in the cafe's upmarket style ensures that its reputation lives on.

Shant Baghramian

Moonlight sonate

I think in our music section,now is the time of Ludwig van Beethoven.

His Stormy pieces with the thunder of emotion even in romantic style is real fascinating.

December 16 is the birthday of this genius,let us listen one of the most popular sonates of Beethoven.The moon light sonate.

***

From wikipedia

The Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor "Quasi una fantasia", Op. 27, No. 2, by Ludwig van Beethoven, is popularly known as the "Moonlight" Sonata (Mondscheinsonate in German). The work was completed in 1801 and rumored to be dedicated to his pupil, 17-year-old Countess Giulietta Guicciardi, with whom Beethoven was, or had been, in love The name "Moonlight" Sonata derives from an 1832 description of the first movement by music critic Ludwig Rellstab, who compared it to moonlight shining upon Lake Lucerne.

Shant Baghramian

Espresso from Milan

I think you may notice that Papier de Liberte also start to suggest some drinks in the right corner of our blog. So as before after changing our suggestion we will present you a little post about our last suggestion.

***

Espresso, expresso or caffè espresso is a concentrated coffee beverage brewed by forcing steam or hot water under pressure through finely ground coffee.

Espresso is a type of coffee developed in MILAN, Italy in 20th century later on up until the mid-1940s it was a beverage produced solely with steam pressure. The invention of the spring piston lever machine and its subsequent commercial success changed espresso into the beverage as it is known today.

from WIKI

"The origin of the term "espresso" is the subject of considerable debate. Although some Anglo-American dictionaries simply refer to "pressed-out" (rooted in the Latin origin of the word), "espresso,” much like the English word "express," conveys the sense of "just for you" and "quickly," both of which can be related to the method of espresso preparation"

The characteristics of good espresso is described by http://www.coffeeresearch.org/ as below:

The best espresso should be extraordinarily sweet, have a potent aroma, and flavor similar to freshly ground coffee. The cream should be dark reddish-brown and smooth, yet thick. A perfect espresso should be enjoyable straight with no additives, yet bold enough to not disappear in milk. A pleasant and aromatic aftertaste should linger on the palate for several minutes after consumption.

For espresso making we suggest you the site of:http://www.coffeeresearch.org/espresso/potential.htm.

Espresso is the main type of coffee in most of southern Europe, notably Italy, France, Portugal, and Spain. It is also popular throughout much of the rest of Europe and in Argentina, Brazil, and Cuba, and urban centers in North America. In Australia and New Zealand, espresso accounts for nearly all of the commercial cafe, coffeehouse and restaurant coffee business.

Contributors

Revolutionary Paradox

Sometimes paradoxes seems mind tantalizing, sometimes they are interesting and fun ,but there are some that really have a revolutionary consequence on field .

Russel's paradox is the one.

Bertrand Russell who in his first era of his philosophical career after Moore discipline try to construct a self consistence logical system for his philosophy first of all pay attention to the mathematics.

he asked himself :Is mathematics an ideal one which Plato once proposed as idea?

Is it the fundamental building block of our ontology?

Russel try to make mathematics a logical self consistence system in this path he wrote a great monumental work by Whitehead whit the name of Principia Mathematica,

During his work he confront and found out paradox in mathematical set theory described as below.

"It might be assumed that, for any formal criterion, a set exists whose members are those objects (and only those objects) that satisfy the criterion; but this assumption is disproved by a set containing exactly the sets that are not members of themselves. If such a set qualifies as a member of itself, it would contradict its own definition as a set containing sets that are not members of themselves. On the other hand, if such a set is not a member of itself, it would qualify as a member of itself by the same definition. This contradiction is Russell's paradox".

Let me explain this paradox in more detail.

consider a set A which its members are cats , A={cat1,cat2,cat3,...}

This set A is not a cat,it means that the set has not the essence and quality of its members.

Now consider set S as the set of all set that they have not the essence and quality of their members. like this

S={A,B,C,...} which A is the set of all cats that it is not cat ,B is the set of all pencils that it is not a pencil, C is the set of all humans that it is not human and ...

Now is the point that S={A,B,C...}as a set has two choices .

1) S has the essence of its members 2)S has not the essence of its members.

Now let me investigate two possibilities to found out where is the paradox.

If S has the essence of its members so it must contain in the set and we have

S={A,B,C,...,S} but the essence of its members is that they have not the quality and essence of their members so S it is in wrong place.

Second if S has not the essence of its members so it has the same quality as the members of its set so it must considered among them which contradict with our first assumption that it has not this quality.

Wow !!! this is the story

This paradox is really something although some solution proposed late for this paradox like

"In 1908, two ways of avoiding the paradox were proposed, Russell's type theory and Ernst Zermelo's axiomatic set theory, the first consciously constructed axiomatic set theory. Zermelo's axioms went well beyond Frege's axioms of extensionality and unlimited set abstraction, and evolved into the now-canonical Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC)"

but this a great problem for mathematics to be an axiomatic self consistent system.Later with the theory of Godel this dream of Russel seem really dim.

Finally I want to re emphasis the importance of some paradoxes in philosophy and re ask the question of Russell again .Is there any thought ,philosophical mainstream or system to construct are our observation or this type of approach is out of use.

Shant Baghramian

Existentialism and Responsibility

One of the most important philosophical texts of 20 century is undoubtedly Sartre's

Existentialism is a Humanism written in 1945, this fantastic philosophical text was written to describe and define the existentialism as humanistic philosophy and answer to the critiques against this philosophy as Sartre's mention in the first sentence:

"My purpose here is to defend existentialism against several reproaches that have been laid against it."

I want to mention some points about this essay in continuous posts and in this post I want to show that the existential philosophy define some responsibility for human beings did and actions .

Existentialism philosophy claim that the existence is determined and "is" before essence that is the main point in this philosophy of existentialism .Sartre describe it:

"What does this mean? If one considers a manufactured object, say a book or a paper-knife, one sees that it has been made to serve a definite purpose. It has an essence, the sum of its purpose and qualities, which precedes its existence. The concept of man in the mind of God is comparable to the concept of paper-knife in the mind of the artisan. My atheist existentialism is rather more coherent. It declares that God does not exist, yet there is still a being in whom existence precedes essence, a being which exists before being defined by any concept, and this being is man or, as Heidegger puts it, human reality."

But the existentialism of Sartre is an atheistic one, he denied the existence of God and continue.

"That means that man first exists, encounters himself and emerges in the world, to be defined afterwards. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it"

but the main and important part of this article is that the man with out nature is the man that first of all exists so he is the person who create himself and make the essence of human being known.

"It is man who conceives himself, who propels himself towards existence. Man becomes nothing other than what is actually done, not what he will want to be."

But one step forward Sartre try to make this humanity essence definition process a universal one so he declare as Kant did this for his moral philosophy.

"And when we say that man takes responsibility for himself, we say more than that - he is in his choices responsible for all men. All our acts of creating ourselves create at the same time an image of man such as we believe he must be. Thus, our personal responsibility is vast, because it engages all humanity.If I want, say, to marry and have children, such choice may depend on my situation, my passion, my desire, but by it I engage not only myself, but all humanity in the way of the monogamy. In fashioning myself, I fashion man. This helps us to understand some rather grandiloquent words like anguish, abandonment, despair."

in this part I mention the relation between existentialist definition of man and responsibility as Sartre pointed out in his article.

So in the pragmatism point of view and in philosophical application in social every day life I found this point in Sartre's essay important and valuable that the consequence of existence then essence oblige human being to be responsible for their all action because the man himself define his/her essence by his actions.

but in the ontological aspect seem rather soon to conclude about existentialism and the bold assertion of Sartre that there is no God there.

and the question remains that the non aesthetic existentialism how deal with the problem of existence and essence.

Shant Baghramian

Franz liszt / Liebestraum No 3

Franz Liszt (Hungarian: Liszt Ferenc) (October 22, 1811 – July 31, 1886) was a Hungarian virtuoso pianist and composer. He was a renowned performer throughout Europe during the 19th century, noted especially for his showmanship and great skill with the keyboard. Today, he is generally considered to be one of the greatest pianists who ever lived, despite the fact that no recordings of his playing exist. Liszt also contributed greatly towards the Romantic idiom; he is credited with the invention of the symphonic poem. Liszt studied and played at Vienna and Paris and for most of his early adulthood toured throughout Europe giving concerts. He is credited with inventing the modern piano recital, where his virtuosity won him approval by composers and performers alike. His great generosity with both time and money benefited the lives of many people: victims of disasters, orphans and the many students he taught for free. He also contributed to the Beethoven memorial fund. His piano compositions include works such as the Hungarian Rhapsodies, his Piano Sonata in B minor, and two piano concertos, which have entered the standard repertoire. He also made many exuberant piano transcriptions of operas, famous symphonies, Paganini Caprices, and Schubert Lieder. Many of his piano com.

Liebesträume ( German for Dreams of Love), is a set of three solo piano works (S/G541) by Franz Liszt, published in 1850. Often, the term Liebesträume refers specifically to No. 3, the most famous of the three. Originally the three Liebesträume (notturni) were conceived as songs after poems by Ludwig Uhland and Ferdinand Freiligrath. In 1850 two versions appeared simultaneously as a set of songs for high voice and piano, and as transcriptions for piano two-hands."the biographical theme is taken from wikipedia and linked size."

Vane Galstian

Steven Chu , Secretery of Energy

It seems a long time that we do not talk about Barak Obama, but last Thursday the next president of United states make an interesting decision,that make us to write abou it.

He announce that Physics Nobel Laurent Steven Chu will be the Secretary of Energy DoE in upcoming government of United states.

This a great news.The fact that the elected president pay attention to the elite and influential scientists for governing the united states in one aspect and the importance of the university policy in United states in the other aspect make this decision fabulous.

Steven Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and 1997 Nobel Laureate in Physics for his work in laser cooling of atoms is the next secretary of energy who is going to solve the climate issues in a world dependent on fossil fuels .His election promised the dependence of future policies on science coming up with new energy-producing technologies, in the weblog of cosmic variance Sean Carroll http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/ declare that:

"...Chu also cares about the public perception of science — and it’s clear that he has a wide-ranging, creative intellect, which is what we need to tackle the problems of energy production over the years to come. Chu has recently become intensely concerned about the challenge of global warming."

Anyhow this is a good news for physics fans!! but the clear light spot is:

the people around the president, or more clearly the people in any government shows the amount of tendency of a political power in making his gifted-power logical.

And the perception of the point that sometimes the answer is out of politics is great too.

Shant Baghramian

Չարի վերջը

ինչքան էլ որ լինես զգուշ,
Չարի համար թէ վաղ թէ ուշ,
Էդ է պահւած,Աղւես աղա.
Ղա՜ ,ղա՜, ղա՜,ղա՜...
Յ.Թ.




Մի շատ -շատ հեռու երկրում /որի բնակիչները նրան անւանում էին կարմրասև չնաշխարհ/ ապրում էին մի բուռ խեղճ ժողովուրդ ու մի թագաւոր:
Այս շատ-շատ հեռու չնաշխարհի թագաւորին, ոչ ոք չեր տեսել, բայց ժողովուրդը գիտէր թէ նա կա, քանզի այդ չաշխաարհում ամենինչից կար մէկ հատ ու այն էլ կարմրասև անունով,օրինակ կարմրասև թերթ, դպրոց, աղօթատեղի, գրախանութ ,սափրիչանոց, թռչնաբուծական Ֆաբրիկա,կարմրասև գժանոց ու անգամ կարմրասև հասարակած տուն:
Նաև կային առասպելներ որ սերունդ է սերունդ պատմել ու պատմում էին պապիկներն ու տատիկները իրենց թոռնիկներին կարմրասևի մասին:
Առասպելները ասում էին թէ այս երկրի թագաւորը որ շատ լաւն է ու բարի ու ապրում է միայն ժողովրդի համար,
/այսպէս էին գովում որովհետև չէին տեսել մի մարդու որ մի վատ բան ասէր թագաւորի մասին ու երկնքից մի նզովք չհասներ նրա գլխին /, սակայն վերջում կամաց շշնջում էին թոռնիկների ականջին թէ այս թագաւորը երկգլուխ է ու իր թիկնոցը երկու գունով սև ու կարմիր:
Պատմաբաները ասում էին թէ հէնց այդ առասպելի պատճառով է որ այդ երկրին կարմրասև չնաշխարհ են կոչում, իսկ չնաշխարհ, որովհերև չեր քարտեզագրւել մինչ թագաւորի մահը որևէ քարտեզում:
Այսպէս ապրում էին այս խեղճ ժողովուրդը ու մինչ օրս չէին ճանաչել ու տեսել իրենց թագաւորին:
Դարեր յետոյ, մի նազիր, կարմրասև թիկնոցով թագաւորի մահից շատ յետոյ էսպէս պատմեց աշխարհի պատմաբաներին կարմրասևութեան վերջին օրերի մասին՝
-Նազի՜ր: Սև քողի յետևից կանչեց մի օր թագաւորը :
Լեղապատառ ու գլխի կոր վազեցի պալատի խորքը, լսելու կարմրասևին ու նա այսպէս հրամայեց:
-Լսացել եմ թէ աշխարհով մէկ տիրակալները ունեն արքունիքի ծաղրածուներ, որ զւարճութեան պատճառնն են դառնում, իսկ ես որ ամենա-ամենան եմ չունեմ նման մի տիպ իմ պալատում, բոլորդ մռայլ թափթփուկներ էք որ արդէն իսկ ձանրաձրել էք ինձ:
Այս հրամանը լսելիս նազիր, վէզիր, հազար ու մի պալատական, ապա կարմրասևական, սկսեցին փնտռել ծաղրածու իրենց կուռքի համար, ա՜յ քեզ բան, մի բան չգտան:
Ախր այդ երկրում մինչ այսօր ժողովուրդը չէր ծիծաղել:
Ապա գլխի ահից, որոշեցին իրենց միջից, ամենահամակրելի պալատականին, ներկեն դարձնեն ծաղրածու ու պալատ տանեն որպէս յայտնութիւն:
Կարմրասև թագաւորն ահեղ, որ տեսաւ այս յայտնութեանը, նախ շատ հաւանեց ապա անմիջապէս մտահոգւեց:
-Յանկարծ չպատահի՞, թէ ժողովուրդը մի այլ ծաղրաղու ունենա ու անտեղեակ լինի նա:
Չէ որ նա տէրն էր չնաշխարհի ու չպիտի օտար մի միտք, խօսք ու զրոյց լինի այդ աշխարհում իսկ մտածեց թէ ծաղրածուն էլ անգամ բացառութիւն չէ այս ամէնի մէջ:
Նազիրն այսպէս է շարունակում պատմութիւնը թէ կարմրասև տերը չնաշխարհի, պալատ է հրաւիրում բոլոր խեղճ/այս ածականը յետոյ են աւելացրել պատմաբանները/ ժողովրդին որ միասին դիդեն ծաղրաղուին ու ժողովրդի աչքերից ու րիակցիաից իմանա թէ արդեօ՞ք կա մի ուրիշ միտք, ուրիշ մի ծաղրաղու, թէ ամէն ինչ իր տեղումն է:
Իսկ ծաղրաղուն որ կարմրասևերի ամենատաղանդն էլ էր, սկսեց ծիծաղեցնել թագաւորին իսկ ժողովուրդն էլ սկսեց ծիծաղել իր ծաղրանակարի վրա, որովհետև տերն էր ծիծաղում ու ինչպէս էր կարող չծիծաղել յանկարծ տեսար տէրը անհանգստացաւ ու մի երկնային նզովք իջաւ:
Այս բեմականացումը այնքան դուր եկաւ թագաւորին որ ամէն կիրակի չնաշխարհի ժողովրդին հրաւիրում էր պալատ: Ժողովուրդն էլ սկսեց սիրել!!! ծաղրածուին:
Այս կապը այնքան ամրացաւ կամ սովորոյթ դարձաւ որ արդէն թագաւորը սկսեց խօսել ժողովրդի հետ իր իսկ ծաղրածուի բերանով:Ապա մի առաջընթաց ու արդէն իսկ երկրի նազիր վէզիրին, որոշում էր ինքը ժողովուրդը, իհարկէ ծաղրաղուի առաջադրանքով, իրականում թագաւորի հրամանով, ու այսպէս մի ամբողջ դար անցաւ:
-Ու մի չարաբախտ օր որ չեր տեսել չնաշխարհը իր պատմութեան մէջ,այսպէս շարունակեց հաւատացեալ նազիրը՝
ծաղրածուն թիւրիմացաբա՜ր թէ գիտակցաբա՜ր /ոչ ոք չիմացաւ դրա մասին/ ծաղրանկար խաղաց բեմում,թագաւորի առջև ու կատակ արեց կարմրասև՝ մեր արքայ տիրոջ հետ ու ամենավերջին վարագոյրում այս անպիտան խելառ ծաղրաղուն ձևացրեց թէ դաշոյնահարում է նիհարիկ թագաւորին:
Ժողովուրդը որ արդէն մէկ դար էր որ թագաւորի լուրջ հրամաները լսում էր ծաղրածուի թատերկութիւններում : Այս անգամ թիւրիմացաբա՜ր թէ գիտակցաբա՜ր /դրա մասին էլ ոչ ոք չիմացաւ/ժողովուրդը լուրջ ընկալեց ծաղրաղուի պատգամը ու յարձակւեց պատռեց քողը սևակարմիր, ու դաշոյն խրեց սևակարմիրի նիհար կնճռոտ բարի թագաւորի սիրտը:
Այսպէս պատմեց նազիրն պատմութիւնը չնաշխարհի ու թիւրիմացաբար թէ գիտակցաբար, սա էլ ոչ ոք չիմացաւ հոգւոյց հանեց ու ասեց՝ էս էլ չարի վե՜րջը:





Շանթ Բաղրամեան

The feast of the goat /Mario Vargas llosa

As you noticed the contributors of Papier decided to introduce a readable book once for a while in the right corner of our page, under the title of SUGGEST TO READ .And lately after change our suggestion we will devote a blog for the book represented before.In this sequence we started our suggestion with Feast of the goat.

***

The feast of the goat is a monumental historical novel written by Peruvian famous author and social activist Mario Vargas Llosa.

In this fantastic and pictorial novel,Llosa describe the political and social life of people in Dominican Republic in the era of dictatorship of Trojillio, from 1930 to 1960.

The story is full of feedback and it was written in three different perspectives.

The first narrator of the story are the assassins who want to kill the dictator.

The second one is a 40 years miss telling the story 30 years later after the era and describe the days she lived in Dominican. And the third narrator is the dictator Trujillo himself.

The story is full of pictures most of them make you astonished .

llosa write the novel in a fascinating way that you feel the bitterness of totaliter regime in its deepest way.The realist style of The Feast of the Goat is recognized by some reviewers as being a break from a more allegorical approach to the dictator novel. The novel received largely positive reviews, most of which were willing to accept sacrifices of historical accuracy in favour of good storytelling.
A common comment on the novel is the graphic nature of the many acts of torture and murder which are depicted in the novel. Vargas lets the reader see the realities of an oppressive regime with a degree of detail not often used by his compatriots in Latin American literature, as Michael Wood suggests in the London Review of Books: "Vargas Llosa ... tells us far more about the details of day-to-day intrigue, and the sordid, sadistic minutiae of torture and murder

Shant Baghramian

Almond Branches in Bloom/ Vincent Van Gogh

Almond Branches in Bloom, San Remy, c. 1890- Vincent Van Gogh

*English
ALMOND BRANCHES IN BLOOM

Painted as a symbol of budding life in celebration of his nephew’s birth, Vincent Van Gogh’s exquisite “Almond Blossom” captured the beauty of flowers which were often a source for his inspiration. A post-Impressionist Master and tormented artist, Van Gogh (1853 – 1890) was uplifted when he painted outdoors, surrounded by nature. Producing all of his works within a decade, his output one year totaled 150 paintings and drawings. Ironically only selling one painting while he was alive, Van Gogh’s profound influence on the art world is unsurpassed.

*French
ALMOND BRANCHES EN FLEUR

Peint comme un symbole de la vie naissante à l'occasion de son neveu de la naissance, Vincent Van Gogh de l'exquis "Almond Blossom" capturé la beauté des fleurs qui sont souvent une source de son inspiration. Un post-impressionnistes et Master artiste tourmenté, Van Gogh (1853 - 1890) a été soulevés quand il peint en plein air, entouré par la nature. La production de l'ensemble de ses travaux au sein d'une décennie, sa production a totalisé un année 150 peintures et dessins. Ironie du sort seulement une peinture de vente, alors qu'il était en vie, Van Gogh la profonde influence sur le monde de l'art est inégalée.

*Spanish
RAMAS DE ALMENDRAS EN FLOR

Pintado como un símbolo de la incipiente vida en la celebración de su acta de nacimiento del sobrino, Vincent Van Gogh de la exquisita "Almendra en Flor" capturados la belleza de las flores que a menudo son una fuente de su inspiración. Un post-impresionista Master y atormentado artista, Van Gogh (1853 - 1890) era elevado, cuando pintó al aire libre, rodeado de naturaleza. La producción de la totalidad de sus obras dentro de una década, su producción un año un total de 150 pinturas y dibujos. Irónicamente sólo la venta de una pintura mientras él estaba vivo, Van Gogh de la profunda influencia en el mundo del arte es insuperable.

Vane Galstian

Վրձինով կինո նկարել

Առաջին հանդիպումը իմ եւ Էդվարդ Հուպերի աշխատանքի, տեղի ունեցավ Վիէննաի մետրոի կայարաներից մեկում: Նրա հանրահայտ Արեւմտյան Հյուրանոց գեղանկարը սքանչելի տպավորություն թողեց իմ վրա:
Նրա աշխատանքը բնորոշում է Ամերիկան ոչ թե միայն մակերեսում այլ փորելով խորը փորձում է վերլուծել ամերիկյան երազը: Նրա յուրքանչյուր պատկերը ասես սինեմատոգրաֆիկ կադր է որի մեջ ամեն մի իր ու անձ իր ճիշտ տեղում է գտնվում ու լիովին փոխանցում է այն զգացմունքը որ երեւի թե բառերը ու երաժշտությունը անկարող է փոխանցել:
Առհասարակ հաջող կինոները բախկացած են հաջող կադրերից,իսկ մասնագետները հավատացած են որ հաջող կադրը պիտի մի ֆոտոի կամ գեղանկարի պես խոսուն ու մտածված լինի: Պատկերի միջի բոլոր սուբյեկտները միասին պիտի պատճառեն միախոհ մի կոմպոզիցիոն:
Տարանտինոի պաշտպաները հավատացած են ամեն մի կադրը նրա ֆիլմերի, ինքնին մի գեղանկար է: Անձամբ Սպանիր Բիլին քիլմում այս անսխալ պատկերներին շատ եմ հանդիպել, իսկ երբ տեսնում եմ Հուպերի աշխատանքը, ապա լիովին մի ուրիշ գաղափարի եմ հասնում անսխալ կոմպոզիցիոնից: Նա սքանչելի պատկերի կողքին հաջողում է ներլուծել իր գեղարվեստական յուրահատուկ ճաշակը եւ առօրյան...պահի տակ առաօրյան, ասես մի վարկյան առաջ կամ հետո անհնար էր ստեղծել այդ բոլոր խեղտված զգացմունքը որ հանդես է գալիս նրա ցանկացած պատկերում: Իսկ այն ժամանակ է երբ զգում ես Տարանտինոն ու հազար ու մի ուրիշ ռեժիսոր չեն կարող ոչ մի սելոլոիդ կադրում տեղավորել այն ինչ Հուպերի յուղաներկի հզոր երանգներն են իմի բերում:
Նրա աշխատանքում մարդը չափված ու ճշտված խիստ հարաբերության մեջ է իր շրջապատի հետ: Իսկ նա օգտվելով լույսերի եւ ստվերների էֆեկտիվ ազդեցությունը հաջողում է յուրահատուկ զգացմունք ու մուդ բերել տարածքիւմ:
Նրա պատկերները ունեն երկու հիմնական աղբյուրներ՝ առաջինը Ամերիկյան կյանքի առօրյա մասնիկները՝ փողոցները,թատրոները,ավտոլվացման տարածքները,հյուրանոցները, կայարաները եւ երկու ծովը եւ ծովափնյա տեսարաները: Անձամբ շատ ավելի սեղմ կապեր եմ հաստատել առաջինի հետ եւ նրա ոճը հիշեցրեց ինձ նոար կինոները:
Նրա արեւմտյան հյուրանոց գեղանկարը, այնպիսի դադարկություն եւ սառնություն է փոխանցում ամերիկյան կյանքից որ գուցե Արթուր Պենի հանրահայտ հակաամերիկյան ֆիլմ՝Հետապնդումը անգամներ նայելով չի հաջողի փոխանցել: Թվում է թե կարմիր հագուստով անտարբեր հայացքով կինը մահչակալին մեզ հարց է տալիս՝ քեզ համար երջանկությունը ինչ է նշանակում . . .

Արմէն Սարվարեան

Armen Sarvarian

It is great Pleasure and honour for the contributors of Papier de Liberte to have a new and sophisticated friend among us. From today Armen Sarvarian will join us with his articles.

It is nice for us to hear his voice in Papier.Welcome Armen.

***

Armen Sarvarian was born in 1979 in Tehran.

He participated to Ararat cultural organization scout section from 1989 for more than a decade and after that he cooperate with cultural-art section and media-communication sector of Ararat organization in Tehran.He gains a great fame and friendship among the Tehran Armenian-Iranians.

His studies are in the field of theater and art, He attended to Yerevan university for couple of years.

Armen is a real passion of artistic photography, art in general , video photography/as a career/ , communication and media. He is also interested in world history,literature and anthropology.

Not forget his great experience in theater

***

Hope to enjoy his presence frequently in Papier.

Contributors