Painters George Shaw and Karla Black, sculptor Martin Boyce and video artist Hilary Lloyd are finalists at Baltic, Gateshead There may be two painters on this year’s Turner prize shortlist, but traditionalists should pause before sighing with relief. One of them paints landscapes in the kind of enamel paint used for decorating model trains and aeroplanes; the other counts lipstick, bath bombs and bronzing powder among her unorthodox materials. The painters, George Shaw and Karla Black, are joined on the 2011 prize shortlist by sculptor Martin Boyce and video artist Hilary Lloyd. Prize juror Katrina Brown, director of the Common Guild in Glasgow , said the list was not representative of “one school, or cluster, or movement – there is every medium in the mix and it has a diversity and maturity about it”. In contrast to the Young British Artist-dominated shortlists of the 1990s, when the centre of UK artistic life appeared to be the few square miles around Shoreditch, this list is determinedly non-metropolitan, with only one of the artists – the Newcastle Polytechnic-trained Lloyd – based in London. “It is a sign of the maturity of the art scene in Britain that it is not all concentrated in the capital,” said Brown. Indeed, the whole prize will turn its back on London this year: the annual Turner prize exhibition, which opens on 21 October, will be hosted by the Baltic gallery in Gateshead . It is the first time in the show’s 27-year history it has been held outside a Tate gallery and only the second time it has been held outside London. Shaw, who studied in Sheffield, lives and works in Devon while Black and Boyce are based in Glasgow – where the last two winners of the prize, sculptor Susan Philipsz and painter Richard Wright, were brought up. Penelope Curtis, director of Tate Britain and chair of the jury, said that the Glaswegian focus was testament to the strength of the training available at Glasgow School of Art in the 1990s. Curtis said of the two painters: “One may be seen as innovative but is actually quite traditional, while the other seems quite traditional but is actually quite innovative.” The work of 38-year-old Black involves cosmetic products – including nail varnish, eyeshadow and moisturiser – deployed on a grand scale in large installations that look more sculptural than painterly. But juror Godfrey Worsdale, director of Baltic, said her work could be compared to that of the abstract expressionists, the artist hurling cosmetic products across a surface just as Jackson Pollock cast paint over canvas. According to Brown, there is a conscious play on the gender associations of what she called Black’s “girly” palette of cosmetic pastels. But the artist also uses more “macho” materials, such as soil and earth. Black represents Scotland at this year’s Venice Biennale. The apparently traditionalist Shaw, 44, paints the landscape of his upbringing – the Tile Hill housing estate in Coventry. In some ways his paintings appear photorealistic, but his palette is restricted by the Humbrol enamel paints he uses – materials usually more associated with hobbyist model-makers than with the Turner prize shortlist. These paints render his scenes “muted and sombre” with a curious surface sheen, according to Brown. His art depicts “forsaken places” – the dull, dark corners of postwar housing projects – and his paintings are often imbued with a “sense of foreboding” and appear to hover uncertainly between the present and the past of Shaw’s adolescence, said Brown. Landscape With Dog Shit Bin (2010) is one of his less romantic titles; but he can also give his bleak, Midlands views grand titles from the annals of art history, such as Assumption. Boyce, 43, creates sculptural installations that often reference the modernist design of the early 20th century. A set of designs for concrete trees made by the modernist French designers Joel and Jan Martel (1896-1966) have been a special focus for him: he has used the twins’ forms in sculptures, and even created a kind of alphabet out of their shapes. Lloyd, 46, is nominated for an exhibition at the Raven Row gallery in London, which she filled with video projections that also became, along with their AV equipment, a kind of sculptural installation. Unedited, and unfolding in real time, her films might focus on a motorway bridge under construction or the movement of a crane. The Turner prize winner will be announced at a ceremony in Gateshead on 5 December. Aside from Brown, Worsdale and Curtis, the judges are curators Vasif Kortun and Nadia Schneider. Previous winners of the prize include Damien Hirst, Gillian Wearing, Mark Wallinger and Martin Creed. Turner prize Awards and prizes Painting Sculpture Art Charlotte Higgins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
If anyone was truly disappointed here it would have been the watching Barcelona manager, Pep Guardiola, who saw almost nothing of the Manchester United team he will face in the Champions League final at Wembley on 28 May. This was, eventually, a spree. Anderson scored two simple goals in the latter stages against a Schalke team who had an unflagging wish to make some impact on the occasion. Their attitude was good but the reality was that they could not dent even the unusual United line-up that they faced. Nothing could deny Sir Alex Ferguson a third Champions League final in four seasons. United have exercised such authority in the tournament this season that they have denied themselves the acclaim they deserve. They are not only unbeaten in the competition but they have also conducted themselves in so steady a manner that the very thought of defeat has looked outlandish. In that regard, then, the final will take United into a wholly different set of circumstances. This match came virtually as a pause for relaxation. Schalke came with a little pride but no real hope. It made no difference that this was so thoroughly altered a United line-up. Those brought into the side, such as Darron Gibson, were rightly excited to be appearing in Champions League semi-final, irrespective of the fact that the tie was, in effect, already settled. The Bundesliga team might have preferred to be taking on a full-strength side that would in fact have been jaded. As it was, United capered to a 2-0 lead early in the evening. At that juncture, it looked as if Schalke would be even more fragile than they had been at home, where they lost 2-0. In the 26th minute Gibson released Antonio Valencia to score the opener. Five minutes later the much-admired Schalke goalkeeper, Manuel Neuer, bungled as he spilled an effort by Gibson into his net, off a post. Even so, Schalke had a purpose to their work before the interval that had been absent from the first leg. Rather than collapse, they cut the deficit almost immediately. The ball broke to Manuel Jurado and, while he was given far too much space by the United defence, the drive he sent high past Edwin van der Sar was still handsome. There was a trace of authenticity to the contest at such a moment. The match was being taken seriously enough, too, for Gibson, Paul Scholes and Anderson all to be booked before the interval. Still, it was impossible to forget that nothing would actually rest on the result of this match, unless Schalke were to go on what was a virtually unfeasible rampage. Some will deem Ferguson’s team to have been lucky in the draw, since their opponents have been feeble. Inadequacy was, for instance, the most obvious characteristic of Schalke in the first leg. It must be a rarity for a manager to turn the home leg of a Champions League semi-final into a rest day for some footballers who will be indispensable as United try to clinch the Premier League in the next week or two. For this fixture, only Van der Sar and Valencia were retained from the starting line-up for the first leg. Schalke came to this match with just a single realistic ambition. In theory, there was just enough time left to dispel the impression that they were semi-finalists by accident. They at least had to try to give some idea of how they had drubbed the holders, Internazionale, in the quarter-finals. Schalke had achieved that ambition in the first 45 minutes, but United still knew that the occasion represented a healthy pause for the footballers who will resume service when Chelsea come here in the Premier League on Sunday. Patronising as it may be to say it about opponents who are not remotely equipped to deal with Ferguson’s players, there was
Continue reading …How did Yvette Vickers, former Playboy playmate and cult horror film star, turn into a real-life mummy ? After all, she didn’t have anyone to wrap her in linen bandages. But mummification does not actually refer to the process undertaken by ancient Egyptians—it refers to the effect that process…
Continue reading …
Mohammed Belkacemi made secret tape of meeting in November 2010 where race quotas were discussed The crisis over French football chiefs’ alleged plan to keep non-white players out of the national squad has escalated after a senior official admitted blowing the whistle and secretly recording a meeting about race. French sport has been shaken by claims that football bosses wanted to limit the number of young black players and those of north African origin emerging as candidates for the national team. The secret plan for ethnic quotas allegedly involved limiting non-white youngsters entering the selection process through training centres as early as age 12 or 13. The investigative website Mediapart ran extracts from a transcript of a meeting last year where football bosses wanted to set a cap of 30% on players of certain origins. The site concluded that officials felt there were “too many blacks and Arabs” in French football and not enough whites. The scandal has revealed a deep malaise over race in football and the notion that “Les Bleus”, despite the multiracial 1998 World Cup winning team, are not patriotic enough unless they have white skin. Two investigations are under way by the French Football Federation and the government, which expects to announce its findings on Monday. Meanwhile, the national technical director of the federation, Francois Blaquart, has been suspended. Mohammed Belkacemi, a respected official responsible for liaising with young players in suburbs and highrise estates, on Wednesday admitted he was the whistleblower who had recorded the controversial meeting in November 2010 where race quotas were discussed. It is believed he gave the tape to other officials rather than directly to the media. The French national coach Laurent Blanc first flatly denied any discussion about quotas, then apologised for any offence about “certain terms” he used. The recordings show officials were debating French players with dual-nationality who could train in France but leave to play for other teams. Several officials suggested limiting these players. Blanc reportedly talks about black players’ morphology. He says of the training centres, which produced French champions such as Thierry Henry and Nicolas Anelka: “You have the impression that they really train the same prototype of players, big, strong, powerful … What is there that is currently big, strong, powerful? The blacks.” He said other criteria should be used to bring in players “with our culture, our history”. The scandal comes after the French team’s mutiny at the World Cup last summer was privately blamed by some on black or Muslim players, suggesting the team had fragmented because there was not enough “national identity”. The French sports minister, Chantal Jouanno, on Wednesday told French radio ethnic quotas would be illegal. She said training centres should teach national players how to “respect their team shirt”. Black French sportsmen expressed their disgust at alleged ethnic quotas. Yannick Noah, the French tennis player-turned pop star, said: “I’ve always thought these things existed, in clubs, leagues and in the federation. Now we need to tell the truth and have a real debate.” Lilian Thuram, the former World Cup defender, scorned the notion black players might not be patriotic enough. “I’m black, well dark brown to be precise, and I feel perfectly French. But I didn’t know that skin pigmentation was what makes one feel French. Does that mean every white person, even Swedish, feels French?” France France Race issues Europe Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Guardian/ICM poll finds 68% plan to vote no, suggesting support for electoral change has slumped in last month The century-long dream of electoral reform in Britain looks likely to be dashed for more than a generation, with a Guardian/ICM poll predicting that voters will back keeping first past the post by a crushing majority. The survey, before the referendum on whether to introduce the alternative vote (AV) for elections to the Commons, predicts a 68% no vote with just 32% for yes. The hopes of yes campaigners that there was going to be a late tightening of the polls have been dashed. The findings suggest support for electoral change has slumped since a Guardian/ICM poll last month revealed the growing size of the no lead – then 16 points, now 36. In a Guardian/ICM poll in February, the yes campaign was two points ahead. A YouGov poll for The Sun also predicts defeat for AV, showing 40% would vote yes, and 60% no. Only 25% of voters in that poll knew which way Eddie Izzard, the Yes campaign’s most high-profile celebrity backer, intended to vote. The referendum result, due to be formally announced on Friday, will prompt deep soul-searching inside the Liberal Democrats, and bitter recriminations over the way that David Cameron sanctioned a full-scale assault on Nick Clegg by the no campaign as a central part of its appeal. Some in the all-party yes camp blame Clegg for abandoning a pledge to stay out of the campaign, saying his presence destroyed their appeal for a new kind of politics and meant their campaign was seen through the prism of the coalition. Clegg vowed that the coalition would continue, but accepted the temperature has been rising inside his own party over the all-party no campaign’s tactics. Refusing to concede defeat, he made a final desperate appeal for the yes vote saying: “If you basically think the current system is absolutely fine, totally perfect, nothing wrong with it then obviously vote no and stick with what we’ve got. If you want something a bit fairer, a bit better, which makes all politicians work a bit harder for your vote then vote yes, vote for change.” The Lib Dems fear they are likely to be hammered in elections for the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly. They are also expected to lose more than 300 councillors in England – and fear as many as 600 losses – ceding control of almost every council they are defending. There is no sign that any serious figure will mount a challenge to Clegg’s leadership, but there will be calls for the party to adopt a cooler relationship with its coalition partners. Senior party figures privately admit that it may take as long as two years for the party to start to recover its former popularity. Labour tried to play down expectations that it could win as many as 1,300 seats in the English council elections, saying that on the basis of council byelection results since the 2010 election the party is likely to win between 400 and 600 seats. Labour officials warn that in the south any collapse in the Lib Dem vote may see the Conservatives gain seats. Independent experts have predicted Labour should make as many as 1,000 gains, and it is hoping to win Clegg’s home city council of Sheffield, as well as Leeds, North Tyneside, Bolton, and Barrow in Furness. Labour is worried that it is likely to fare much worse in Scotland than it expected three months ago, however, even though it has pulled back some support from the Scottish National party. In Wales Labour is on the brink of being able to form a majority government. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, is hoping that the expected crushing defeat for the advocates of the alternative vote will not rebound on him personally even though he has increasingly vocally supported the reform. He signalled that even if the vote is close no political party will return to the issue for a long time. According to the Guardian/ICM poll, a majority of Labour supporters now say they will vote against AV despite Miliband’s endorsement of change. So will almost nine in 10 Conservatives and more than a quarter of definite Lib Dem voters, whose lukewarm support seems confirmed by the fact that they are now less likely than Conservative or Labour voters to say they will turn out. Young voters remain in favour of AV, but are the least likely to vote. Among all voters, before adjustment for likely turnout, 28% said they were for change, with 52% against and 20% who said they didn’t know. After adjustment for voters who say they are likely to vote, 32% back yes, down from 42% in April; 68% say no – up from 58%. Overall, Labour is on 37%, unchanged from April. The Conservatives are on 36%, up one. The Lib Dems are on 15%, unchanged, and others on a combined 11%, down two. ICM interviewed a random sample of 1035 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 2-3 May 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. AV referendum Electoral reform Alternative vote Conservatives Opinion polls Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Liberal-Conservative coalition Local elections Local elections 2011 Julian Glover Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Clicking on links that promise to show photos or video of a dead Osama bin Laden is a bad idea, cybersecurity experts warn. Spammers and scammers have moved even faster than usual to spread malicious links aimed at Facebook and Google users, reports the Los Angeles Times . “The bad guys…
Continue reading …In the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death, some are denouncing the US operation as an illegal execution or assassination, but a senior congressional aide says there was only one way the al-Qaeda honcho would have been allowed to surrender: naked. US officials say troops were told to accept bin…
Continue reading …After years of Pakistan insisting Osama bin Laden wasn’t hiding there, not only does it turn out that he was—but that he had been for six years, noted a flabbergasted Jon Stewart last night . “And by the way, ‘hiding’ bin Laden? ‘Hiding’? Bin Laden wasn’t ‘hiding’ in Pakistan, he…
Continue reading …Pakistan was told nothing about the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, because the CIA thought “any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission,” Leon Panetta told Time yesterday. “They might alert the target.” The statement is likely to deepen the speculation swirling around Pakistan; Afghanistan’s defense…
Continue reading …
Gruesome photos taken in the aftermath of the US raid on Bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout show bodies of al-Qaida militants Gruesome photos taken in the immediate aftermath of the US raid on Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout have emerged showing the blood-soaked bodies of three unidentified al-Qaida militants. Reuters released the pictures as the Obama administration announced it would not be publishing a picture of Bin Laden’s body. The disturbing images, the release of which has not been sanctioned by the White House, give a sense of the extreme violence employed by US Navy Seals as they stormed through the compound in the early hours of Monday. Two of the men lie in pools of congealed blood; a third lies prone with his arms flung over his head. Around are scattered hints of life before the Americans struck: computer cables, bedding, a tin mug and a plastic gun. The photos may also explain why the White House is refusing to release a similar image of Bin Laden: if it is nearly as graphic, it could provide an incendiary rallying point to America’s Islamist enemies. Security in New York and Washington, as well as at US bases and embassies round the world, have been stepped up in case of al-Qaida retaliation over the killing. The pictures emerged as the Obama administration insisted the killing of Bin Laden was legal and not an execution, while human rights groups and international lawyers pressed the White House for more details of the mission. Eric Holder, the US attorney-general, said the killing was justified and that had Bin Laden attempted to surrender, the US forces would have taken him alive. Meanwhile a senior Pakistani intelligence official told the Guardian that members of the Bin Laden family were being held in custody in Pakistan, including his Yemeni-born wife, Amal Ahmed al-Sadah, and his 12-year-old daughter, who allegedly claimed her father had been shot in cold-blood in front of her. The official did not confirm a report by al-Arabiya news that the daughter is claiming her father had been held first and then shot. George Little, a CIA spokesman, denied Bin Laden had been held by US forces before being shot. “There is no indication that Bin Laden was somehow captured and later killed inside the compound. It would be wrong to suggest otherwise.” Questions about the legality of the killing have grown after the White House backtracked on Tuesday on its initial account of the mission, admitting that Bin Laden had not been armed. The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, refused to provide further details about the shooting in Abbottabad. The Obama administration has been forced on the defensive after offering conflicting accounts of what happened. Asked on Wednesday whether the team that killed Obama had come under fire, Carney said the White House had gone to the limit in providing details and that any more would risk future operations. “I am not going to get into operational details,” he said. Carney, asked about the legality of the killing, read from a statement, saying it was consistent with the laws of war and that if Bin Laden had surrendered, he would have been taken alive. Holder, giving evidence to the Senate armed services committee, said it had not been a kill mission but “a kill or capture” mission. “If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate,” Holder said. The attorney-general said Bin Laden had no intention of being captured. “Let me make something very clear, the operation in which Osama bin Laden was killed was lawful. He was the head of al-Qaida, an organisation that had conducted the attacks of September 11. He admitted his involvement,” Holder said. Andrea Prasow, a Washington-based spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch, said: “Our position is that we do not have enough information to determine whether the killing of Bin Laden was lawful. We hope the US government will provide a more detailed accounting of what happened so we can understand if it was in fact lawful under either international humanitarian law – the so-called law of war – or under human rights law.” Philippe Sands, a University College London professor currently writing a book on the making of modern international law, said much would depend on the exact circumstances of Bin Laden’s death. “If no one else was around, if they had him in a room unarmed and the building was covered, then it looks pretty bad,” Sands said. He added that the US would have an additional layer of defence under international law. The “doctrine of necessity” excuses wrongdoing if the actions taken can be demonstrated to be the only way to protect an essential interest, like the lives of large number of citizens. Benjamin Ferencz, an American lawyer who was a US prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials and who lives in New York state, asked whether the killing was justifiable self-defence or premeditated illegal assassination. He would have preferred he had been captured and put on trial. Ferencz, 92, said : “The picture I get is that a bunch of highly trained, heavily armed soldiers find an old guy in pyjamas and shot him in the chest and head and that borders, without access to more facts, on murder.” He added: “Even [the head of the Luftwaffe Hermann] Göring had a right to trial.” The rules of engagement for the Seal team made it unlikely that Bin Laden would have had much chance to surrender. The counterterrorism adviser at the White House, John Brennan, in an interview with Fox, said he could only have surrendered if the team believed he did not pose a threat and were confident he did not have a bomb under his clothes. The Pakistani authorities may get confirmation or a conflicting account from the members of Bin Laden’s family and others from the compound it has in custody. Pakistani intelligence said it would not allow the US to interrogate them. “That would occur only if there was written assent from their country of origin. We are yet to receive any request to my knowledge but given the [critical] statements coming out of Washington and the fact that this [the raid] was not an operation we were involved in, we would not accept,” the Pakistani intelligence official said. Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Global terrorism Pakistan United States Ewen MacAskill Declan Walsh Julian Borger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …