Ink over Paint

Edward Bulwer-Lytton once said, “The pen is mightier than the sword,” but is it as mighty as the brush? When people visit an art museum or gallery, it might be a large painting or dainty sculpture that gives a lasting impression, but most likely not a drawing. In fact, most museums and galleries do not even display a lot of drawings, if any. Are drawings less valuable and “artistic” compared to paintings?

Of course they are not, but it does seem that drawings are not as popular as paintings because they are not “perfected” and “complete.”  This subject was brought up and discussed by Holland Cotter in his article, “The Pen, Mightier than the Brush.” The article mentions the Morgan Library Exhibit, “Dürer to de Kooning: 100 Master Drawings from Munich,” which displays drawings from Michelangelo, Picasso, and other artists. The small drawings are mostly shriveled and torn apart which degrades the artworks’ values. However, people tend to overlook the idea that drawings are the foundation of other types of art. Many drawings are the simple black and white first drafts of beautified and intensely hued paintings. A drawing with no supplementary embellishments resembles an innocent child whereas a painting that is ornamented with colors and texture resembles adults. These drawings reveal the thought process of artists and the changes made from one piece to another. As stated in the article, Peter Paul Ruben’s drawing, a draft of his painting of Duke of Lerma, is a good example of this. The face in the drawing was not the duke’s, but that of Emperor Charles V of Spain. Historians later assumed that Ruben replaced the face of Emperor Charles in his painting and used him as a model.

As mentioned in the article, drawings are also significant documentaries that provide information about art that does not exist anymore. A drawing by German artist Egid Quirin Asam presents a sophisticated architectural design of a chapel with extreme details and complex interior structure. Although it was said that the chapel has never been built, this drawing still allows people to visualize how the chapel would look like in reality.

Some people may argue that these drawings are not as valuable as paintings because they are not perfected and lacks the texture and finishing of paintings. Although some drawings do lack colors and texture, there is even more meaning behind these simple and original pieces.  These drawings can serve as blueprints for imagination where the artists convey ideas that the observer can expand on and develop. For those who say drawings are produced with cheaper materials such as pen and paper compared to canvases and  paint, is it the supplies the determines the value? If that is the case, then the purpose of viewing art is destroyed. Others say that ink and paper are easily damaged and does not last as long as paintings, but does that not make it more precious?

Drawings itself are masterpieces. They are the products of the art of originality and conceptualizing.

“This Machine Kills Secrets,” a novel by Andy Greenberg, gives an account of historical events that led to the creation of WikiLeaks. The novel discusses concepts, such as privacy and civil liberties, which were the reason the site was started in the first place. The novel also goes into the advanced technology, which makes WikiLeaks possible.

One of these technologies is a program called Tor, which allows leakers to the site to remain anonymous. Tor, and other similar encryption technologies, is only in use today thanks to people battling the government for the right to use them. The fight made in order to use these technologies took place in the 1990’s in what were called the crypto wars. The crypto wars weren’t really wars in the usual sense of the word, and were really more debates and discussions than anything else. These debates happened on online forums where Julian Assange was both a reader as well as a contributor.

Although encryption technologies have made it possible for leakers to remain anonymous, sites like WikiLeaks still face many problems. In order for people to be willing to leak, the site must appear trustworthy to would be leakers. If potential leakers don’t know who is behind the site, they won’t leak information in case the government runs it. This creates a problem because once the site is no longer anonymous it faces issues like spies joining the staff and threats to its online presence.

The ability for leakers to remain anonymous is also being threatened in ways that encryption can’t prevent. Companies who face leaks are, in some cases, able to learn the identity of the leaker by seeing who accesses the information on their network. There is also a new mandate that all employees in federal intelligence agencies who take lie detector tests are to be questioned about leaking.

Personally, I can’t decide whether or not WikiLeaks is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, it creates a lot of danger by allowing the whole world access to sensitive information. Some of the information on the site could very well cause a rise in tensions between countries, which, at the best may cause problems with international relations and at worst, the outbreak of wars. The site also has the potential to cause problems with military activity and may place soldiers in even more danger than they originally faced. On the other hand, WikiLeaks really does do a lot of good. Governments will, hopefully, respond to the knowledge that secrets are no longer all that safe by increasing their transparency. The threat of sensitive information becoming public also encourages governments to stop activities and such that their people would disapprove. The site also helps expose corruption, and therefore limit corruption.

What is your opinion on the site, WikiLeaks? Do you think that it is harmful? Do you think that WikiLeaks is more beneficial than anything else? Do you think that people have a right to know their government’s secrets?

Six years ago, I was left speechless after seeing one of the most prominent soccer players at that time ungraciously head-butt another player at the 2006 World Cup in Germany. Zinédine Zidane, who was captain of the French national soccer team, was ejected out of what he would later reveal to be the last game of his soccer career. But before this incident, Zidane was France’s pride and joy— he was the son of Algerian immigrants who chose to play for France and would later lead a multicultural French squad to their only World Cup win in 1998. However, just one moment later, all of Zidane’s achievements seemed to be all forgotten, and instead replaced by the memory of a disgraceful act.

It almost seemed that Zidane’s head-butt was the dawn of France’s downfall. After he was ejected, France would go on to lose the game and the title to Italy in extra time. In 2010 World Cup in South Africa, France’s national team was plagued by racial tensions and conflicts between players and coaches that culminated into a player walkout. A usual World Cup favorite, France did not even make it out of the group stage at South Africa. And now, to make matters worse, a French artist has created an 18-foot sculpture of Zidane’s famous moment, displayed in the Pompidou Center in Paris.

Recently in the New York Times, Scott Sayare covered the controversy regarding the new sculpture. Standing in the middle of the Pompidou Center’s courtyard, the sculpture enlarges the two players involved, Zidane and Marco Materazzi into two massive bronze figures. Adel Abdessemed, the creator of the sculpture, named it “Coup de Tête,” a double-entendre meaning head-butt or an impulsive decision. The sculpture is almost real life—the same pained and anguish face is chiseled onto Materazzi’s face and the same stern and angry Zidane as was what happened six years ago.

The sculpture has ignited heated controversy in French politics and society. Critics have said that the sculpture has added onto the ongoing racial tensions and class structure in France. In 1998, when Zidane led the team to their first World Cup victory, the squad composed of black, white, and Arab Frenchmen. It was their success that inspired racial unity in France. However, just a year prior to the incident, racial riots in the poorer neighborhoods of France had begun. The sculptures, critics say, adds on to the racial aggravation.  Some have also claimed that the sculpture idolizes bad sportsmanship and “an ode to violence.”

In retaliation to the criticism of his art piece, Abdessemed, who holds both Algerian and French citizenship, said that his art pieces should not be looked at politically and is not a response to racial tensions. Abdessemed said that “[Zidane] expressed himself as a man,” and that is what his sculpture tries to embody.

In my opinion, I think that the sculpture should not be celebrating Zidane’s action. Although Zidane had good reason to head-butt Materazzi (Materazzi made some snide comments on Zidane’s sister), I think the sculpture embodies bad sportsmanship and should not be cherished. Adding on the racial and social problems that come along with the piece, I think it devalues the admirability of the sculpture and Zidane himself. Zidane was an exceptional player and arguably one of soccer’s greatest, and this sculpture does him not justice. However, I do think that it would be interesting to hear Zidane’s opinion on this sculpture and his reaction to it. Do you think we should be celebrating this moment in history as this piece of art? Do you think that this sends the wrong message? How do you think Zidane will react?

Article: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/the-art-of-soccer-sculpture-in-paris-captures-notorious-incident/?gwh=5A4849E01203128DC499F70514906A32#more-290624