« Pow! Zap! Comics Aren't Just For Adults Anymore! | Main | Red in Tooth and Claw »
Peter Bagge takes on the art world in his online comic for Reason, in terms that will make even the most resilient reader check for the traces of spittle flecked across their face:
95% of what they're hyping is pure crap, yet if you dare to say as much out loud you'll be looked upon as a clueless philistine!
And perhaps you should be, if you can't say it any better than this petulant swipe at an easy yet poorly-observed target.
I have to say at the outset, I should be a much easier sell for this sort of thing. I typically don't care for minimalists or conceptualists or most of the more famous performance and installation artists (to overgeneralize terribly). I find nothing more depressing than that inevitable moment when, upon visiting one of those great museums organized along the old and increasingly rare chronological model, my tour leads me from gallery upon gallery of astonishing Dadaists and Vorticists and cubists and surrealists and pop artists into a room full of dull beige slabs or a few knotted metal cables.
I'm more than willing to entertain criticisms that conceptualism is a vacant or overvalued or even suffocating direction in contemporary art. But I'd rather that critique be a little more incisive than Bagge's frothing about "pure crap" and "nonsense" and "rackets," impotent stabs that work only if you presume your audience already agrees with you. Bagge's own subtitle acknowledges that he's belaboring the obvious, but when he criticizes the "eye-roll inducing self-indulgence" of performance art he seems not to be aware that these old chestnuts roll about as many eyes. His is the sort of piece in which art critics are bitter, elbow-patched hunchbacks, in which the art-world cognoscenti are at least a little queer ("Clay, you have a flair for decorating..."). I was amazed not to see a pair of bongos anywhere.
If the piece were only cliched I would have nodded to Johanna Draper Carlson's concise reactions and left it at that, but the criticisms go beyond Bagge's usual formless misanthropy. They're also deeply confused. At one point, Bagge restates Marcel Duchamp's critique of the aestheticizing effect of the art museum while also dismissing his "Fountain" as a "stupid thing" - and invoking the ghost of Duchamp himself to do it. (Isn't it just possible that the swooning onlookers understand the piece, that they're as in on the joke as Duchamp and Bagge? Why would they fawn if they didn't get it? Do they think it's that great a urinal?)
Bagge also ignores an important element of Duchamp's readymades, their attack on the notion of "taste" as the constituent element that separates art from not-art. That attack, of course, refutes many of Bagge's shrill claims; doesn't this artifact, purely conceptual and deliberately tasteless, say something far more significant than do the technically proficient, aesthetically vapid works of the old salons?
But, conversely, once Duchamp said it it had already been said, and little of the conceptually-driven art to emerge in his wake has been as witty or as deep. There is a serious question here about how we should evaluate this mode of art and its hold on the art world, but Bagge doesn't ask or answer it. (Neither, so far, has Brian K. Vaughan, who raises the same issue in less histrionic but not especially more nuanced terms over in current issues of Ex Machina.) A more effective dismissal, it seems to me, would engage this kind of art as art, challenge and dismantle it on its own terms.
Bagge also picks some puzzling targets. It's one thing to suggest that peformance artists, installation artists, and everybody's favorite piss-boy Andres Serrano are willfully obtuse, but by the third page his litany of "unintelligible" artists includes William Shakespeare. Apparently being produced by the NEA is reason enough to declare him the Yoko Ono of Avon.
Similarly, in one of Bagge's most bizarre digressions he takes PBS to task for airing fundraiser-month specials on Fleetwood Mac and the Bee Gees. Obviously he isn't railing against unintelligibility in the arts anymore (nor is it clear why appearing on PBS automatically confers upon Les Freres Gibb the status of high art; I suppose we'll be seeing "Are You Being Served?" at the next video installation, then) - he's casting about, looking for reasons why anything that public art agencies do is bad. If they focus on ideas, they're obscurantist; if they tackle political or social subject matter, they're dogmatic and elistist; if they offer the popular art for which Bagge has been clamoring, then they're panderers to boot. (Naturally, Bagge doesn't consider that public television stations might not have to pander to their audience if they received adequate funding in the first place.)
If the public sector can't get it right, who then can? Since Bagge's piece appears on Reason's website, it's unsurprising that his answer inevitably boils down to the free market. While he makes some feints towards quality as the ideal arbiter of art, that's one of the grounds on which he persistently refuses to engage the artworks he mentions. He does say, though, Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs were not simply excellent (in his view, I should add) but "commercially successful," as if the two always go hand in hand. He reminds us that Steven Spielberg and Madonna are artists, too, as if their wealth proves that no artist needs support. As Johanna says, "I'm surprised that a cartoonist whose recent bids for mainstream success (Yeah, Sweatshop) were so roundly rejected would make an argument that popularity says something important about art."
But even the artistic vision of Kabbalah-worshipping cone-wearers pales before the awesome vistas of the commercial landscape. In his last two panels, Bagge gushes over "the industrial designs on display in Sony's Tokyo showroom," the "beautiful new cars out on the streets these days" - a P.T. Cruiser and an Audi coupe - and, just for good measure, a Japanese candy wrapper. I won't disagree that consumer products can be stunningly designed, although even his own examples require the necessary and shallow intercession of hipster irony; I love the corn-syrup surrealism of the "Furuta" package that's still sitting somewhere in my belongings, but it won't be displacing Max Ernst anytime soon.
Instead of educating people about art, Bagge says, "we should instead be marveling at the countless inspired man-made objects that literally surround us, both inside and outside our own homes." It's a free-marketeer's wet dream - all the art you need, in the things you and your neighbors are buying anyway!
It's a world aswim in art, but also a world utterly devoid of it. Bagge's gallery of cars and candy wrappers contains no place for content, theme, tone, narrative, emotional affect or social context, no suggestion of humanity's place in relation to itself or the universe save behind a wheel or a wallet. It's a fantasyland without public art; it's also a dystopia with no private access to intellectual stimulation, emotional reach, or aesthetic transport.
Bagge rightly berates contemporary artists and art lovers who undervalue craft and design. But in his zeal he reduces art only to those things, becoming just another variation on the tunnel-visioned critics he despises.
Posted at 08:13 PM in Comics | Permalink
urgh. I almost wish I didn't have to revisit Bagge's piece, but you just had to bring it up... ;)
Posted by: Jon Silpayamanant | August 23, 2004 at 09:20 PM
What I think Bagge should have focused on is the tendency for people to, in effect, want to be told what art is and what it isn't so they don't have to think about it themselves. I think the quotes he uses on page one of the comic were very effective in establishing a sense of absurdity (specifically, the woman who says "Why is this here? The brochure doesn't explain why this is important") and detachment from the process of engaging with art and artistic media: it's a shame he then dropped the ball into his weird rant about how grants are bad, Madonna's an artist too, and PT Cruisers and Candy Wrappers deserve more attention. I think there could have been an interesting debate in the idea that art has more or less been stolen from the people due to their own ignorance as to what art is, or what it should be or do... the idea that art is meant as much to challenge your assumptions as it is to 'look pretty' or 'be important' seems to be lost. I don't think slashing the NEA to the bone or putting PT Cruisers (which, I must say, just look like nostalgic messes to me, a hearkening back to a fake vision of American purity and innocence deliberately and cynically leapt upon to sell cars to aging baby boomers who want to go back to the nice safe blanket of their delusional 1950's memories) in our musems will solve a real problem, which is that we as a culture have become unable to recognize that art can be both entertaining *and* challenging, that 'popular' art and 'fine' art do not have to be distinct from each other but that to engage profitably with art you need to be able to determine what it is saying and how it is saying it, that there's a basic lack of facility in 'artistic vocabulary' as it were. Sure, Spielberg's an artist, but how many works of art has he made that do more than pass the time while you're eating popcorn? Not all that many, and of the films he made that *intended* to be capital-A Art, some come off as treacle and pretension. Great art demands attention and calls you on your beliefs, but often the attempt to make great art ends in a soggy mess, while it can be accomplished almost accidentally by an artist who is simply trying to do their best instead of worrying about the 'importance' of the work.
I may be rambling as much as he did. I do think there's a connection between the artificial definition of art that is liked, that entertains and art that is 'important' and 'groundbreaking' and the inability of some people to make criticial judgments about either effectively. Bagge almost touches upon this with his bit about PBS and Fleetwood Mac, but then he veers away from it: much of PBS's offerings (like, as an example, Are You Being Served) aren't intended to be art at all. They're entertainment, pure and simple, part of the by now entrenched division between the two that only a few works are allowed to surpass any longer. Fleetwood Mac on PBS is essentially comfort food again, just like the PT Cruiser: it's being offered to assure an aging core constituancy that yes, their music is so much better than that of the Brittany Spears' and Linkin Parks of today (and Bagge seems to understand this in the panel itself, if not in its caption) when in fact there is little qualitative difference between them. All three could be examined as art without making an artificial distinction between them based not even on what kind of music they are or what effect they are intended to elicit but entirely on when they were recorded: this is good because you liked it then. Between the false nostalgia that's crept into everything from the design of those cars Bagge loves so much to the music PBS plays that so irritates him and the inability or unwillingness to consider art on its own terms you mention (and, for that matter, to consider the relative merits of art as both an entertainment and a challenge to the assumed maxims of its audience) you end up with the commercial art that is successful being successful because in part it is not even considered to be art at all and the fine art that we are presented being touted as important and yet being marginalized because no one understands how it is important in the first place, since so few people are exposed to the language that it is using to challenge their sacred cows. In essence, by so dramatically cutting back on our arts education, artists have become so specialized that they speak in a language the average viewer of art isn't going to comprehend, which allows for the disconnect between art and its audience. Sure, there are conceptual artists who are frauds putting up dull beige slabs, and they get away with it exactly because to people who have no idea of the rich artistic legacy we've inherited, there's little difference between that and a Pollack or Duchamp's toilet. And cutting the NEA's funding won't address that disconnect as much as expanding people's artistic vocabulary, which would of course cost more money, ultimately.
Posted by: matt rossi | August 24, 2004 at 12:57 AM
Is it just me, or does this comics kind of feel liek a Chick tract?
I kept expecting Satan to show up telling someone he is in hell for not acceting Jesus as his lord.
Posted by: Peli Grietzer | August 24, 2004 at 04:24 AM
"since so few people are exposed to the language that it is using to challenge their sacred cows."
I like that...calls to mind Audhumla, or India, whichever you prefer...
Good points Matt.
And yeah, it almost felt like a Chick mini. I really have to find the copies I've collected and review them.
Posted by: Noiseman433 | August 24, 2004 at 04:32 AM
This just in: Matt Rossi thinks WAAAAAY too much.
Posted by: Nathan | August 24, 2004 at 04:01 PM
Yeah, he really does.
Posted by: matt rossi | August 24, 2004 at 04:23 PM
For me, with Bagge, it's not always been, necessarily, what he says, but how he says it that I find amusing. I thought this page was pretty funny, but he didn't do much, if anything, to change my admittedly incomplete and nebulous opinions on fine art. Opinions are like...well, you know what they're like.
Posted by: Johnny Bacardi | August 24, 2004 at 05:40 PM
Umm, I like Fleetwood Mac better than Britney Spears and Linkin Park. And I'm 25. Does that mean I'm an idiot?
Posted by: sifl2 | August 24, 2004 at 09:23 PM
Matt: I wholeheartedly agree that there's room for a serious examination/critique of contemporary art's complete inscrutability to the public - even to that segment of the public that tries, like Bagge's befuddled brochure woman, to understand it with painful supplication. I don't think that disconnect is something we can blame solely on public ignorance or the high/low divide. Too often, even people who want desperately to understand contemporary art have to approach it first as theory, because otherwise what is there to interpret, let alone appreciate? Something in the art itself courts this.
I also have to object that the "frauds" of contemporary art aren't succeeding because they've hoodwinked a public unschooled in Pollock and Duchamp. The art-literate are their bread and butter. How else could critics and patrons appreciate a Robert Morris slab unless they were able to place it in the context of a late-modernist minimalism that thought every other possibility in the plastic arts had been exhausted? Perhaps this is a somewhat rosy view of the art world - I'm sure there are museums, galleries, and especially schools filled with people who have absolutely no idea about the traditions their art is echoing - but it's certainly true that the critical/theoretical establishment upon which conceptual art absolutely depends is familiar with that tradition. Ignorance isn't to blame for their reception, although perhaps the cloistered and hermetic transmission of that artistic vocabulary does bear some responsibility for art's detachment from the public at large.
However, because Bagge wants to turn this problematic inscrutability into an anti-government, pro-market diatribe, we don't get that conversation (or the entertaining rant version thereof).
No, not unless you only like them better because you use them to reassure yourself that the music that was playing when you were a five year old is just better for no other reason than you were five then, and things were better then. It's one thing to actually prefer one artist to another, another to let nostalgia for its own sake be the arbiter of the arts.
Marc: I think you have a good point about the art-literate lapping up stuff like Robert Morris because there's a grounding in what came before... but I have to wonder how many of them really understand what they're inheriting. Of course, this may be because I have a rather jaundiced view of it, myself. Contemporary art of the conceptual variety often tries too hard to be 'important' or 'provocative' and forgets to be art, I'd be willing to say. Then again, there is the idea that art doesn't have to be nice. To quote from an article on Chris Ofili:
Several weeks ago, New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced that the city would cut its funding to the Brooklyn Art Museum unless the museum canceled an upcoming exhibition. Titled Sensation, the show included installations containing animals in formaldehyde and sculptures of people with genitalia replacing their faces. The mayor was particularly offended by The Holy Virgin Mary, a 1996 collage by Chris Ofili, an award-winning British artist, which incorporates elephant feces.
Now, I find it interesting that Rudy was more offended by a collage of the Virgin Mary with crap on it than formaldehyde corpses. You could argue that Ofili's art therefore succeeded: it challenged the expectations of its audience, it struck at the very heart of its viewers to the point where it became more offensive than corpses floating in formaldehyde, which is usually a relatively hard act to follow on the shock scale for an art museum. (They're lucky they didn't have to see the corpses the way I did duing my summer job as a kid, but I digress). Ofili, howeverm, argues that the elephant dung that so offends Rudy isn't even there to shock at all, it's just there to bring a piece of his African descent into the work. From the BBC:
During his stay in Africa, Ofili began to incorporate lumps of elephant dung into his canvases - both as compositional elements and as supports on which to display his paintings. He says this is a way of - quite literally - incorporating Africa into his work.
Now, if there's no disrespect intended, and yet it is taken, is this a measure of the success of the art? Is it just that Rudy Guliani doesn't know what art is? Is it that 'cloistered and hermetic transmission of that artistic vocabulary' (great phrase, by the way, I'm stealing that) to blame here? I'm not sure. I think it may be a combination of these factors, perhaps even more that I'm missing. But it does interest me to consider that you may have a situation where both the artistic establishment and its opponents are viewing a work of art completely divorced from the artist's intentions and reading into it what they bring along. Whether or not Bagge was doing likewise with his rant, or I am with these comments, I guess it's worth considering.
although perhaps the cloistered and hermetic transmission of that artistic vocabulary does bear some responsibility for art's detachment from the public at large.
However, because Bagge wants to turn this problematic inscrutability into an anti-government, pro-market diatribe, we don't get that conversation
Except that perhaps art's divorcing itself from the market through government funding means that art can stay detached from the public at large. By making art funding independent of private donations and admission from paying customers, there's no incentive to educate the public in artistic vocabulary.
What you have is the worst of both worlds where a genre the public doesn't enjoy is funded but it's not even a pure expression of that genre due to fear of providing fodder for demagoguing politicians.
Posted by: Captain Spaulding | August 26, 2004 at 12:05 AM
Spaulding sez: "By making art funding independent of private donations and admission from paying customers, there's no incentive to educate the public in artistic vocabulary."
Again, a lack of general education in artistic vocabulary is not what's hurting the arts - it is, I believe, the artists' propensity for operating at a conceptual, theoretical register most accessible to those already in the know. Government funding, what little there is, has not made the plastic arts more insular; that's a direction they've been taking since at least the 1950s (in America), if not the 1920s, the 1910s, the whole of the twentieth century.
It's also worth noting that, with the rise of modernism, private patronage also began supporting this hermetic trend, so it's not like throwing the arts to the winds of private financing will magically produce a Renaissance of populist art. Nor would it automatically lead to art education; right now public art funding promotes far more. If you're looking to do something as unprofitable as teach people about the arts, the free market isn't the way to go.
I think the aesthetic problems that contemporary artists have created for themselves and the political debates over funding the arts are two almost completely separate issues - except when one party or another likes to seize on the former to justify its position on the latter. I think the arts do face a serious challenge in rethinking their relationship with the public, but, to be absolutely clear on this point, I also think ending all public financing and making them even more dependent on private donations and the art market would do fuck all to solve their problems. It would, I'm sure, result in lots more Impressionist exhibitions and angry, body-smearing performance artists - that is to say, more pandering from all sides.
Finally, I would agree with your "worst of both worlds" comment, with the caveat that our government funds all sorts of things that some taxpayers do like and some don't. (Personally, I'm more concerned that my dollars have supported the real-life sadomasochistic photocollages of Abu Ghraib - and yes, John Stewart beat me to that joke weeks ago.) But your phrasing seems to suggest that a) the NEA does nothing but fund offensive or unpopular art, and b) the public uniformly disapproves, neither of which are true.
Again, a lack of general education in artistic vocabulary is not what's hurting the arts - it is, I believe, the artists' propensity for operating at a conceptual, theoretical register most accessible to those already in the know.
My point is that if the artist's income were dependent on reaching the public, they would potentially have to either make their art accessible to those outside the know or educate to make more people in the know. Or alternately those in the know would have to pay more for their insular art. Putting government money in the mix arguably distorts that from happening.
Why does the insular genre of contemporary art deserve government backing and not the insular genre of superhero comic books (It's for the children!)?
But your phrasing seems to suggest that a) the NEA does nothing but fund offensive or unpopular art
This is where Bagge's citing of Mapplethorpe comes in. Art is either a)popular in which case it doesn't need government funding or b)unpopular in which case perhaps it's not fair to ask people to essentially prop it up by gunpoint. Now obviously there's a wide spectrum of popularity but then we come back to the question of why that guy's sort-of-popular-but-perhaps-not-enough-to-fully-support-it-without-compromise-or-a-dayjob genre gets government support and someone else's doesn't.
Posted by: Captain Spaulding | August 26, 2004 at 04:35 PM
Your speculations about what would happen if the arts could no longer draw upon public funding - and I think you vastly overestimate just how many artists currently do - all presume that a total free-market dependency would Darwinistically force art to become more comprehensible to the general public.
Yet your own example of a completely non-supported niche genre, superhero comics, suggests that's the last thing that would happen. Instead you'd likely produce a more self-referential, inscrutable genre balanced precariously upon the backs of its dwindling patronage. And that would be no mean feat, because that's exactly what we've got now in an art world that's already far more dependent on private support than on government grants. Maybe Bagge should be blaming those private patrons, the Saatchis et al, who have foisted more pig-cutting formaldehyde artists on us than the NEA could ever dream of.
But no, that would be impossible - Charles Saatchi made his money advertising all those consumer products that so enrich our aesthetic landscape. The government must be to blame, somehow.
Your speculations about what would happen if the arts could no longer draw upon public funding [...] all presume that a total free-market dependency would Darwinistically force art to become more comprehensible to the general public.
That's only true if you ignore the part where I say "Or alternately those in the know would have to pay more for their insular art." If the art world stays insular but those in the clique have to pay more to support it, I don't see that as a bad thing (or no more a bad thing than comic book companies having to charge $3 for less popular comic books). If there's enough people that enjoy the status quo of art to support it, great. If it collapses due to an ever-shrinking audience, I again don't see why government needs to intervene (or why it gets precedence over stuff I like that's not terribly popular). If Charles Saatchi wants to buy pig-cutting formaldehyde art, well, he worked for his dough and he's entitled. Plus there's the added advantage that the art community can tell Mayor Tommy Shanks or Senator Claghorn to go screw themselves when they hold press conferences about "offensive" works of art.
Lets consider the less controversial works of the NEA so it's not just a referndum on the art community. If the audience for a city's symnphony, ballet company, opera house or Shakespeare troupe isn't big enough to keep it afloat, why should tax dollars be given to it? Again, why not government support for Broadway or Laurel and Hardy screenings?
If the audience for a city's symnphony, ballet company, opera house or Shakespeare troupe isn't big enough to keep it afloat, why should tax dollars be given to it?
To insure that all citizens have equal access to something that improves the city's quality of life and its educational climate? (And, incidentally, makes the city more attractive to the types of highly-skilled workers and businesses that cities like.) Some institutions - schools, libraries, and museums among them - require more support than we can reasonably expect most individual citizens to afford. Total privatization means denial of access.
As for Broadway or Laurel and Hardy screenings, why not support them? Indeed, plenty of cities already do, with summer movie screenings and the like. The local governments aren't doing it to subsidize the movie industry, they're doing it to serve their citizens.
I'm glad you shifted to considering other, uncontroversial grants, though, as any mention of Mapplethorpe or Andres Serrano tends to cloud the issue. In fact, you've reminded me that I wanted to point out that Mapplethorpe, for all that he gets metonymized as Mr. NEA Funding For Obscene Art, wasn't being funded by the NEA. Museums that used NEA grants to fund a traveling exhibition of his work sparked the controversy. Those grants were never about funding the art (sadly, Mapplethorpe was already dead when the controversy peaked), they were about making the art available to people outside Manhattan and the art market, people who otherwise would never see it.
As for Mr. Saatchi, remember, I only brought him up as an example of how private patronage actually produces much of inaccessible art you've suggested it might eliminate through the magic of the free market. And, again, if Bagge is really worked up about artistic standards rather than government funding, why doesn't he take the private art market's tastes to task? The fact that his strip appears in Reason probably answers that question. Public support for the arts - which can come through tax deductions, higher education subsidies or artist employment as well as direct funding - might actually lead to more accessibility rather than less.
But I've said all this before, and have little desire to repeat it a third or fourth time. Rather than continue this duet, does anyone else care to join in?
To insure that all citizens have equal access to something that improves the city's quality of life and its educational climate?
Except if NEA-funded ballets and symphonies are charging around fifty bucks a ticket like Bagge claims (I haven't priced either so I'm taking his word) then the charge that the NEA is subsidized entertainment for the rich is perhaps not an illegitimate one? One could argue that a purchase of CDs, videotapes, and DVDs of operas, symphonies, Shakespeare performances, etc. to the city's library system would provide more access at a fraction of the cost.
if Bagge is really worked up about artistic standards rather than government funding, why doesn't he take the private art market's tastes to task?
Because the private art market is, by defintion, customers who want the stuff and consists of voluntary transactions. Like I said, if there's enough support in the private market to keep things as is, then they should enjoy.
Public support for the arts - which can come through tax deductions, higher education subsidies or artist employment as well as direct funding - might actually lead to more accessibility rather than less.
Do you want government in the business of determining what is and isn't good art or accessible art?
A few points: should we also get rid of the National Endowment for the Humanities? Many of the writers I know dream of an NEH grant. It would make it possible to quit that job at the liquor store/meat packing plant/supermarket and actually sit down and write something. One thing public patronage of the art does is rescue artists: unless we're willing to admit that artists need time to create art, and it may be in the public interest to make the creation of art possible, we're just going to keep circling the issue here. Both the NEA and NEH are miniscule in their tax drain. You'd save more money if Halliburton wasn't allowed to overcharge us for gas in Iraq.
When i first mentioned the trend of people not being conversant in artistic 'language' and so being easily confused or led (think of it as 'the artist has no clothes') I wasn't thinking about the NEA at all, because I was remembering my Grad School experience. My teachers all basically told me that the only reason to get an MFA was, basically, to teach writing. How many of these students were going to go on to get publicaion? How many of them were going to be able to pay for their chosen career by participation in it? The visual arts have a similar issue. Unless you're one of the lucky few who can get a wealthy patron to exert pressure on galleries (and this usually leads to the aforementioned 'hermetic transmission' issue, where the rich and of course 'enlightened' class of upper-class patrons look down their nose at most of art and select only those works that appeal to their own particular artistic ethos, which has been the ever broader and shallower class of 'conceptual' art over the past 30 years, the very trend Bagge was originally discussing) you're more or less shit out of luck. Now, I think I understand Captain Spaulding's point that being divorced from having to make a profit allows the arts to drift along this path to irrelevancy, but as Marc points out letting upper-class elites (and hell, they're probably snooty liberals, too :) pay for everything is creating The Land Of The Lost in the arts, where lumbering dinosaurs and hideous sleestaks stalk unfettered by the idea that any of this stuff should ever branch out of those valley walls. Based on how hard it is to GET an NEA grant and how few are actually given out, I doubt cutting off that trickle would make much of a difference, but cutting down the NEA at this point might well mean the death of the museum in America. (Okay, that might be hyperbole, but I don't think it's by much.) Personally, I think we need to keep them up and running.
And as another commentator pointed out, it's interesting to hear this argument from Bagge of all people, whose recent attempt at mainstream success tanked. But let's consider the idea: what effect on art would there be if you removed public funding for art? I think Marc is dead on that the darlings of the patrons would continue on as they are, producing insular works that they can all sit around and jabber excitedly about while the rest of us would be staring into catalogues looking for a breadcrumb of understanding. "It doesn't say why this is important" comes ringing into my ears. Furthermore, we'd basically be turning our museums and galleries entirely over to the mercy of these self-same rich patrons.
In short, it's deregulation writ large. It didn't work for power in California and it wouldn't work here, unless you want to see a few wealthy folks with total control over not only what fine art is produced but even the few places it can be publicly displayed. Taken to its logical extreme, the end result of Bagge's argument is that we proles can be contented with our candy wrappers, PT Cruisers (which we might not be able to afford, but hey, we can look at them) and Fleetwood Mac, while the elect few can sample the good stuff in their privately run museums, made even more incomprehensible by a total divorce from the concerns and issues of the comman man or woman. Art that is entirely about art and the artistic process.
Which it would, unless it has the consequence of preventing any future performances of operas, symphonies and Shakespeare performances. The NEA doesn't give these agencies very much money at all: across the country, they're barely hanging on. Now, I understand the argument that if they're not making a lot of money, then that's fine and they should fail. But I can't really go along with it. If nothing else, it will lead to the cultural impoverishment of those popular artists who do make money (many of whom would freely admit that they gained the facility to do so via exposure to all kinds of art forms, including experimental ones and ones such as symphonies that help keep older traditions alive for the future) and could well leave us without sources for creativity. I'm very leery of applying Darwinian natural selection to the arts in the same manner that I'm leery of applying it to our schools: it seems to have led to shittier and shittier schools for the public and more and more vouchers for a wealthy few. I don't want that to be the case, and I don't want it to be the case for art, either.
Is there a reason the Government couldn't simply give a tax break to someone who works as a creative artist in order to encourage the production of art without making a qualitative determination? Tax breaks and education subsidies do not have to make any sort of determination as to what is and what isn't good or accessible art. Giving a tax break to a museum or a college for its arts programs is as simple or complex a process as we make it: if the government chooses to make it about how good or accesible the art is, that doesn't immediately invalidate the idea of support.
That's it for me for now. I'll try and come back later.
And as another commentator pointed out, it's interesting to hear this argument from Bagge of all people, whose recent attempt at mainstream success tanked.
Like I said on my blog, referring to Bagge's failed projects is an irrelevant cheap shot because Bagge is not asking for government support for his comic books. Bagge to support his less popular stuff does work that's perhaps not his first choice (like his Spider-Man comic or his Batboy comic strip in Weekly World News). Similarly artists can either, on occassion, "sell out" and do something that they don't love but will sell or they can take day jobs.
Me:Do you want government in the business of determining what is and isn't good art or accessible art?
Matt:Is there a reason the Government couldn't simply give a tax break to someone who works as a creative artist in order to encourage the production of art without making a qualitative determination?
Marc was using tax breaks, etc. as a method to make art accessible. I have no problem necessarily of non-qualitive determination but then it doesn't solve the acessible problem. Again, I'm not sure "accessible" is a problem government needs to solve or that we want them to solve for the "do you want government making that decision" reason I gave.
Perhaps more later (or perhaps not).
Like I said on my blog, referring to Bagge's failed projects is an irrelevant cheap shot because Bagge is not asking for government support for his comic books.
While it's certainly a cheap shot (and barely much of the substance of what I said) it's not irrelevant. Bagge's entire comic was nothing more than a series of cheap shots: from his summoning of the shade of Duchamp to mock his original conceptual art to his accusations of cheap hackery at Shakespeare, Bagge delights in taking cheap shots: it seems disingenuous to leap to his defense over one. If Bagge's attack on the art establishment is in fact entirely rooted in the fact that it takes government money, he should make that point seperate from whether or not it's any good: he was too busy to use anything but invective to make that point.
But yeah, it's a cheap shot. After reading that thing, I felt like meat on a hook in a Stallone movie, so I gave one back. And a borrowed one, at that. I should have been more direct about it.
Well, as I pointed out, I don't see any reason we therefore have to go the deregulation approach. Why can't we have both private and public support for the arts? Is art that irrelevant than we can't see the two means of funding co-exist, or is it just a case that we should ideologically not let the government do anything? Right now they have bombs they could kill us all with, and we trust them with those... while I certainly wouldn't want them to have anything like total control of the artistic world or the ability to approve or deny the creation of art (the way Rudy Giuliana threatened to pull public support for a museum that put up a painting he didn't like... one that was pre-existent and had no means to shock, no less) I don't see why we can't have the NEA out there making some grants to people while other people make money in other ways, thus establishing multiple channels of accessibility. What I'd like to see is more money for education on multiple levels, allowing more people to gain mental accessibility to the techniques and intentions of art. RIght now, we let government make the decisions on what we teach our kids (local and state, not federal) and maybe we need to go look at how good a job they're doing.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned corporate support for the arts. Corporate sponsorship rarely happens unless the donation can be writen off, and that is usually not the case unless the arts organization has 501c non-profit status. Hell, a number of grants work this way as well. And usually, how non-profit status is gained for an organization depends on how much the organization actually interacts with the community (usually local). I think too much is being made of having dichotomized the types of sponsorship of artistic organizations or the arts. I know that in Indiana, most of the state grants for the arts require some sort of community "outreach" program from the artists/arts organization to the local community. It doesn't seem to me that grants are given "for nothing" (or merely on "artistic" merit)--or at least they shouldn't be given for purely these reasons--that the artist or organization must give back something in return--something other than mere artistic production.
Sure, private patronage doesn't require this at all, but I think cutting funding at the governmental level (whether local or federal) will just exacerbate things even further.
Posted by: Noiseman433 | August 27, 2004 at 07:51 PM
A few not-so-quick points:
1. Spaulding, in response to my question of why Bagge doesn't criticize private art patrons for the effect their funding decisions have on art the way he does the NEA, says, "Because the private art market is, by defintion, customers who want the stuff and consists of voluntary transactions."
Remember, Bagge spends the first two pages of his four-page strip (and much of the last two) criticizing the contemporary arts themselves, not just public funding. His strip leaves the impression that the arts' predominantly conceptual bent is the result of government support through grants and universities, that "the common people" don't like it and wouldn't support it. He doesn't consider that private support for the arts outpaces federal funding by an order of magnitude. So, if Bagge doesn't like current directions in the arts, why doesn't he criticize the private donors and buyers who support those directions far more than the government does - criticize them not on fiscal grounds, but simply on matters of taste?
There is no logical reason for assuming that contemporary aesthetics are a product of government funding, but Bagge insinuates just that. Presumably to do otherwise would run against libertarian orthodoxy.
2. Spaulding: "Do you want government in the business of determining what is and isn't good art or accessible art?"
This is, of course, not at all what the NEA does - at least, not any moreso than I'm "determining what is and isn't good literature" when I decide which books I'm going to teach. Yes, I'm making a value judgment on the various books I consider, as does the NEA on the grants it considers; that doesn't mean we're defining all art or literature or demanding that others follow our judgments. The attempts by Helms and others to gut the NEA in the late 80s and early 90s were far more censorious in this respect than the NEA itself is.
3. Spaulding and Matt (see, I can share the love!): Johanna's reference to Bagge's own failure to crack the mainstream is neither a cheap shot nor irrelevant. It would be irrelevant if he were talking about popularity only in terms of arts funding, but Bagge also links it to the quality of the art itself. On nearly every page Bagge opposes the good, commercially successful art of the Common Folk to the bad, unpopular art of those Cultural Elites, from his apposite linkage of Mapplethorpe's financial success to his photos' quality, to his final paean to consumer products. Bagge claims popular = good, again in lockstep with libertarian orthodoxy; Johanna and I simply note the implications that absurd formula would have for his own career.
(Come to think of it, I might just as easily have noted the hypocrisy of Bagge's criticizing conservative and liberal orthodoxies when he's echoing an equally inflexible dogma.)
4. Noiseman (Jon?), thanks for grounding this discussion in some actual experience with arts funding. One of the serious problems with Bagge's piece - and one the reasons I feel you shouldn't be getting all your information about the arts from it, Spaulding - is that he seriously misrepresents both the extent and the nature of public arts funding.
To hear Bagge tell it, you'd think every piece of performance art or furniture art is sponsored by the NEA or some other governmental agency, when private support is in the billions, state and local support of the kind Noiseman describes climbs over a billion, and the NEA's budget is around $100 million. Now Noiseman is also suggesting that these grants are not the elite subsidies Bagge paints them as - they require community involvement as well. As I said yesterday, public arts funding serves the public as much as it does the arts.
Whatever your feelings about government and the arts, Bagge's piece is deeply confused, disingenuous rant (and it doesn't even have the decency to be funny - haw haw that art is actually a giant TURD!). It makes for a poor authority.
Marc:
Having read Joanna's piece, I'd say it wasn't a cheap shot when she used it, but I do believe it probably was when I did: it didn't have anything to do with my argument and was just a jab at the man, when I did better later in the post.
Yeah, sorry Marc--that was me. I think the first time I posted a comment at your blog I did so as Noiseman433 and I just forgot to unclick the remember personal info box or something.
Having done some work on different sides of the funding issue I think has helped me to see it as something more than just being "free money"--and since I'm currently on the look-out for some grant monies myself I've had to consider what type of "outreach" I would be capable or even willing to do to secure particular grant monies.
I had just skimmed the NEA page and there are definately requirements, albeit-rather vague ones, concerning the outcome of a grant proposal that has nothing to do with the actual product itself. This is also where the issue of being a good grant-writer is a more important skill than actually having, say, a project with a high degree of local or national (whatever those mean) social relevance. but anyway...
Posted by: Jon Silpayamanant | September 06, 2004 at 12:00 AM


← Marilyn Will Give Book Review
Garth Brooks and The Knights →
The Lyman and Manson Family
I lived three blocks down the street from the Lyman Family who took over about twelve houses on Fort Hill. My niece, Drew Benton shares the same DNA with Jessie Benton and Mel’s child by Jessie. Quentin Taranteno could have had a fictional showdown in Roxbury, with the Lyman Family, but he didn’t. He will have to pay me for this opportunity.
Two female members of The Process Church came to visit me in our Roxbury commune. One became my lover. The other I saved from the Mafia. This is the real deal – not Hollywood! This authentic drama called for a foreign film director.
I talked to Paul Williams when I went up to the fort during the first snow. He approached me and asked me what I doing there. I had on my black cape. He told me he was a guard. He said he was.
“Do you carry a gun?”
Paul showed me a small pistol. He may have made his break after out long talk. These were extremely interesting times. There were a lot of gutsy people who wanted their experiences. Every day was a movie! Terantino swooped down and picked up some cash and more fame. We dropped out of that trap. We went to the Lyman house to pick up food in our Food Conspiracy where hippies went into the produce market at five in the morning and bought wholesale. We should have been backed my the government. I just saw a report where twenty-five million Americans got hurt last year by misusing alcohol.
Then there was the shoe factory we lived in. I lucked out! To wake up and find a beautiful young woman standing at the foot of your bed wearing a blue cape, was heavenly. In five minutes she climbs into my bed.
https://rosamondpress.com/2013/06/30/boston-art-colony/
http://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/episodes/tag/Michaelangelo+Antonioni
Once the crimes of Charles Manson came to light, the media brought new focus to The Lyman Family. Fairly or not, comparisons were increasingly drawn between the two communities. Jim Kweskin joked cryptically with the press, “The only difference between us and the Manson Family is that we don’t go around preaching peace and love… and haven’t killed anyone yet.” He was kidding, but a lot of people took the quote at face value. The Lyman camp had an aberrant attitude about Manson. Lynette Fromme progressed from a regular on The Lawrence Welk Show to an extended stay at Fort Hill followed by a westward jaunt to join the Spahn Ranch. Lyman Family member Faith Franckenstein remarked that it did not matter whether Charles Manson was innocent or guilty as “He made a gesture against all the things we do not believe in.”
David Felton was a writer at Rolling Stone when he was granted exclusive access to the Lyman world. He was the first member of the media allowed to report on their private affairs. He quickly became the last. Lyman did not expect Fort Hill’s movements to be portrayed as abnormal. People outside Fort Hill were shocked by what they read. Felton learned about “The Vault,” a walled-in area, devoid of light, deep within the Lyman bunker where family members that were “having problems” could be placed. There, the struggling or dissenting family member could “learn about oneself.” Felton observed a climate of paranoia in which the Fort Hill community believed all outsiders were determined to destroy their God. The bizarre portrait told of a mechanic that had his life threatened by a Lyman disciple after he fixed Mel’s Volkswagen in a less than satisfactory manner. Felton observed “bulletins” sent down by Lyman, sets of “remarkably specific” rules, regulating diet, sleeping habits and hygiene. One such Lyman pronouncement was quoted: “To bathe less than once [but] more than twice a week is sick.”
This blog – is king! Everyone must come to – the king – eventually. The game of Bohemian Thrones is the oldest game in the Western World.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/keanu-reeves-among-hollywood-stars-to-condemn-alt-right-attack-on-italian-film-group/ar-AADEkFq?ocid=spartandhp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Lyman
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-lyman-familys-holy-siege-of-america-235776/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/06/my-childhood-in-a-cult
https://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2011/03/the-mel-lyman-personality-cult-revisited.html
Process Church of Final Judgement
Posted on August 4, 2013 by Royal Rosamond Press
Darcy told me she wanted to get away from her boyfriend who was at the top of the Boston Process. He had a hold on her, was playing mind games, and was trying to control her. Being a follower of Meher Baba who looked down on cults, I helped her break the chain. Darcy’s mother was very grateful when I cme to her house with her daughter who had become distant.
Now Michelle was in deep trouble. She and her boyfriend had come to live in our commune James Harkins and I founded and sustained. One day she pointed out a guy sitting in a car across the street.
“He’s Mafia. He wants to give us money to help him find our friend who became his lover. She stole a belt with a code in it for box cars containing drug shipments. She took it thinking it would buy her freedom from him. He is very abusive. He wants her and the belt back. We are thinking of taking the money and run.”
“Do not take Mob money – period! If you do, they believe they own you. They will find you and dispose you.”
“Can you go talk to him?”
I was fearless in those day. I was a dead-an walking. I was Strider from the Lord of the Rings in my black cape. I was a Ranger. I went downstairs, walked up to the car, and said;
“Michelle wants to talk to you.”
Where? When?”
There’s a bar around the corner. Will an hour from now do?”
I wanted to prepare Michelle, put a white light of protection around her. Playing at playing with Satan, was over. Time to wake up.
The Process Church of The Final Judgment
The Process, or in full, The Process Church of the Final Judgment, commonly known by non-members as the Process Church, was a religious group that flourished in the 1960s and 1970s, founded by the English couple Mary Anne and Robert DeGrimston (originally Robert Moor and Mary Anne MacLean).[1] Originally headquartered in London, it had developed as a splinter group from Scientology,[1] so that they were declared “suppressive persons” by L. Ron Hubbard in December 1965.[2] In 1966, members of the group underwent a social implosion and moved to Xtul on Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula, where they developed “processean” theology (which differs from, and is unrelated to process theology). They later established a base of operations in the United States in New Orleans.[2]
Lyman grew up in California and Oregon. As a young man, according to the music newsletter The Broadside of Boston, he spent a number of years traveling the country and learning harmonica and banjo from such musicians as Brother Percy Randolph and Obray Ramsey.[2][3]
During a period in the early 1960s, Lyman lived in New York City, where he associated with other artists, filmmakers, musicians and writers. He was a friend of underground filmmaker Jonas Mekas, which led to the studios of Andy Warhol and Bruce Conner. He learned the art of filmmaking from Conner and made some films with him.[3]
Musician[edit]
“ Mel Lyman played harmonica like no one under the sun / Mel Lyman didn’t just play harmonica, he was one. – Landis MacKellar[4] ”
In 1963 Lyman joined Jim Kweskin’s Boston-based jug band as a banjo and harmonica player. Lyman, once called “the Grand Old Man of the ‘blues’ harmonica in his mid-twenties”,[5] is remembered in folk music circles for playing a 20-minute improvisation on the traditional hymn “Rock of Ages” at the end of the 1965 Newport Folk Festival to the riled crowd streaming out after Bob Dylan’s famous appearance with an electric band. Some felt that Lyman, primarily an acoustic musician, was delivering a wordless counterargument to Dylan’s new-found rock direction. Irwin Silber, editor of Sing Out Magazine, wrote that Lyman’s “mournful and lonesome harmonica” provided “the most optimistic note of the evening”.[6]
In 1966, supported and funded by Mekas, Lyman published his first book, Autobiography of a World Savior, which set out to reformulate spiritual truths and occult history in a new way. In 1971, Lyman published Mirror at the End of the Road, derived from letters he wrote during his formative years, starting in 1958 from his initial attempts to learn and become a musician, through the early 1960s as his life widened and deepened musically and personally. The last entries are from 1966 which simply express the profound joys and deepest losses which defined and gave his life direction and meaning in the years ahead. The key to the book and the life he lived afterwards are stated simply in the dedication at the beginning “To Judy[7] who made me live with a broken heart”.[8]
The Lyman Family[edit]
The Fort Hill Community
It was his relationship with Judy Silver that brought him to Boston in 1963. Again, Lyman became acquainted with many artists and musicians in the vibrant Boston scene, including Timothy Leary‘s group of LSD enthusiasts, International Foundation for Internal Freedom (IFIF). Lyman was involved for a very short time and, against his wishes, so was Judy. Knowing LSD’s power, he felt she was not ready but stated “the bastards at IFIF gave her acid … I told her not to take it. I knew her head couldn’t take it.” Lyman’s fears turned out to be justified and she left college and returned to her parents in Kansas. According to one of the anonymous sources interviewed by David Felton for Rolling Stone, “Judy got all fucked up – this is his second old lady – I mean like she got really twisted. I don’t know if it was the acid or the scene or whatever, but she split. She went back to Kansas. She was totally out of the picture by the summer of 1963. Judy is probably the most important thing in Mel’s life. He worshipped Judy, really loved her. Then she split, you know? She couldn’t help it, she was totally freaked out. They took her away.”[9] Lyman was by all accounts very charismatic and later, after Judy had left, a community or family naturally tended to grow up around him. At some point thereafter Lyman began to view himself as destined for a role as a spiritual force and leader.
In 1966, Lyman founded and headed The Lyman Family, also known as The Fort Hill Community, centered in a few houses in the Fort Hill section of Roxbury, then a poor neighborhood of Boston. The Fort Hill Community, to observers in the mid-to-late Sixties, combined some of the outward forms of an urban hippie commune with a neo-transcendentalist[10] socio-spiritual structure centered on Lyman, the friends he had attracted and the large body of his music and writings. Members of Lyman’s Community briefly included the young couple Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin, two non-actors who had been discovered and cast by Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni for the lead roles in his second English-language feature, the 1970 film Zabriskie Point. Michael Kindman, founder of the East Lansing underground newspaper The Paper, briefly worked on Avatar and remained with the group for five years. He later wrote of his experiences in his book My Odyssey Through the Underground Press.[11] Journalist and poet Paul Williams, founder of Crawdaddy rock magazine and author of Das Energi, spent a few months on Fort Hill. He told David Felton he had had to escape under cover of darkness after being told he would not be allowed to leave.[9][12]
Although Lyman and the Family shared some attributes with the hippies – prior experimenting with LSD and marijuana and Lyman’s cosmic millennialism – they were not actually hippies; in fact, the ethos of the community was virulently anti-hippie. Female members dressed and behaved conservatively and male members wore their hair relatively short by the standards of the era. According to both Felton and Kindman, Lyman discouraged sexual activity and at least once ordered a pregnant member to get an abortion. Couples were discouraged from spending private time together. Women were expected to be obedient and serve in domestic capacities only, while men were expected to dominate and control them. Members turned over whatever money they had to the Family. Funds were used to purchase houses in the Fort Hill area for members to live in, construction tools and vehicles along with sound and video recording equipment for Lyman’s use. The community’s primary activity was construction and remodeling work. The foremost goal was to provide a supportive environment for Lyman to do his creative work.
According to both Felton and Kindman, a macho, bullying ethic prevailed and guns were frequently brandished. Lyman seemed to believe that one could only be truly creative when one was “real” or “awake” – defined in practice as experiencing intense pain or anger – and that fear and cowardice caused one to remain “asleep” or even to die. People were subjected to rigid discipline and highly structured lives.[13]
By the Spring of 1967 the Fort Hill Community had become an established presence in Boston and it, along with members of the wider community in greater Boston and Cambridge, came together to create and publish the underground newspaper Avatar. It contained local news, political and cultural essays, commentary and more personal contributions, writing and photography, from various members of the Fort Hill Community including Lyman. Throughout the first year of its existence it created what became a national audience and many more people visited Fort Hill at that time, some eventually staying and becoming part of the community.
Rather than the gentle and collectivist hippie ethic in other underground publications of the time, Lyman’s writing in Avatar espoused a philosophy that contained, to some readers of the time, strong currents of megalomania and nihilism and to others a powerful alternative voice to the prevailing ethos.[14]
I am going to reduce everything that stands to rubble
and then I am going to burn the rubble
and then I am going to scatter the ashes
and then maybe SOMEONE will be able to see SOMETHING as it really is
—  Mel Lyman
After working very intensely on each issue, in the Spring of 1968 the Family gained complete editorial control of Avatar for the final issue of the paper. Later they founded their own magazine, American Avatar which continued the editorial directions of the newspaper. Lyman’s writings in these publications brought increased visibility and public reaction both pro and con. His writings, along with others in the publications, could be poetic, philosophical, humorous and confrontational, sometimes simultaneously, as Lyman at various times claimed to be: the living embodiment of Truth, the greatest man in the world, Jesus Christ, and an alien entity sent to Earth in human form by extraterrestrials. Such pronouncements were typically delivered with extreme fervor and liberal use of ALL CAPS.
Post-Manson Family[edit]
On The Dick Cavett Show in 1970, Mark Frechette said Lyman’s group was not a commune: “It’s a ‘community’, but the purpose of the community is not communal living. … The community is for one purpose, and that’s to serve Mel Lyman, who is the leader and the founder of that community.”[16]
In 1971, Rolling Stone magazine published an extensive cover exposé on the Family by associate editor David Felton. The Rolling Stone report described an authoritarian and dysfunctional environment, including an elite “Karma Squad” of ultra-loyalists to enforce Lyman’s discipline, the Family’s predilection for astrology, and isolation rooms for disobedient Family members. Family members disputed these reports, but ex-members corroborated much of them, especially Michael Kindman in My Odyssey Through the Underground Press.[11]
The only difference between us and the Manson Family is that we don’t go around preaching peace and love and we haven’t killed anyone, yet. – Jim Kweskin (perhaps in jest)[9]
The Rolling Stone article appeared less than two years after the arrest of Charles Manson and members of the Manson Family for several murders. Lyman seemed to share some traits in common with Manson, which raised the Family’s profile and, whether fairly or not, established Lyman in the public mind as a bizarre and possibly dangerous person.
In 1973, members of the Family, including Frechette, staged a bank robbery. One member of the Family was killed by police, and Frechette, sentenced to prison, died in a weightlifting accident in jail in 1975.[17]
Unlike the Manson Family, Lyman’s did not explode in a dramatic denouement. Rather, the Family took a lower profile and carried on, quietly building on the relationships formed in the turbulent early years.
Growing up in The Family[edit]
Another description of life in the Lyman Family comes from actress and screenwriter Guinevere Turner who spent her first eleven years (1968-1979) in the family, being expelled after her mother (who lived apart from her) ran away from the Family. According to Turner, by 1968 there were a hundred adults and sixty children in the family living “under the reign” of Lyman,” a charismatic, complicated leader”. They were taught that “World People”, all those outside the family, were soulless, and had as little contact with them as possible lest they have their souls sucked away. Doctors were called only in emergencies like losing a finger or being scalded by water. The family had compounds in Kansas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Boston, and Martha’s Vineyard, each with a house for Adults and one for children. Children were home schooled. While Turner had fond memories of camaraderie among the children, she describes punishment for children as severe, including “being locked in a closet for a whole day, or being deprived of food, or being beaten while everyone else was brought out to watch, or being the object of shunning, when no one was allowed to look at you or talk to you for days.”[12]
Turner states that around the age of thirteen and fourteen, girls were often “chosen” by one of the adult men of the family: “They called it marriage, though there was no ceremony or anything official.” At least one girl Guinevere knew who had been chosen by Mel cried at the prospect of her marriage and said “that she didn’t want to have sex with Lyman but knew that soon she would have to”.[12] Another unusual belief of the Family was that “the world would end on January 5, 1974. On that date, Mel Lyman told us, we would be taken away to Venus. As the day approached, we children were told to put out our favorite clothes and pick one toy to bring on the journey. We sat in the living room all night, listening for the hum of the U.F.O.s.” When the prophecy failed, Lyman told the group that it was because their souls weren’t ready, which “ruined things for Mel, whose soul was exactly where it needed to be.”[12]
When she became an adult, Turner was invited to return to the Family and spent several days visiting them before going away to college. She relates feeling “a surge of love and belonging” in the compound before being alienated by the traditional gender roles, men sitting and talking in the living room while women served them, did dishes, and got children ready for bed.[12]
1 Response to The Lyman and Manson Family
I will be posting more on the Bohemian Gangster Clubs of Berlin to show the paralells of Hip Culture.


#5 in Christian persecution, Pakistan
Second-class citizens and blasphemy laws In 1947, the year of the country’s independence, the situation for Christians became more complicated as Pakistan officially became a Muslim state. All Christians suffer from institutionalized discrimination, illustrated by the fact that occupations seen as low, dirty and derogatory are reserved for Christians by the authorities. Many Christians are poor and some are victims of bonded labor. There are middle-class Christians as well, but this does not save them from being marginalized or persecuted. Historic churches (like Anglican or Roman Catholic churches) have relative freedom for worship, but they are heavily monitored, and extremists regularly target them for attacks—the last one occurring in December 2017. Christian churches that are active in outreach and youthwork face more persecution. In general, Christians are regarded as second-class citizens. Also, the country’s anti-blasphemy laws are disproportionately applied against the Christian minority—making it difficult and dangerous to live out one’s faith in public. These laws tend to target religious minorities (including Muslim minorities), but affect the Christian minority in particular given their overall percentage of population. Examples from the reporting period In May 2019, a landlord killed a Christian worker because he dared to work for another employer, according to a report by Morning Star News. This case illustrates the low social status of most Christians and is just a glimpse of the many similar cases that often go unreported. Although there have been no major bombing attacks against church buildings in the 2020 World Watch List reporting period, dozens of smaller “everyday attacks” against churches and cemeteries occur. One example is the desecration of the Christian cemetery of Okara on May 12, 2019. Population and number of Christian statistics: Johnson T M and Zurlo G A, eds., World Christian Database (Leiden/Boston: Brill, accessed April 2019).
Pray for Pakistan
Pakistan is an Islamic Republic that suffers from a plethora of radical Islamic groups. Pray the Pakistani government passes laws that will protect the Christians and other religious minorities in the country.
Pray for peace for Christians who converted from Islam. Family, friends and neighbors see these conversions as shaming the community.
Pray Christians accused under blasphemy laws will not face violence or mob “justice” and that they would stand strong in the midst of this dangerous trial.
Please pray for protection of Christian women and girls who are often raped and then forcefully married to Muslim men in the community. This usually results in forced conversions.
Pakistan Photo Gallery
Stories from Pakistan June 17, 2020 A Christian girl was kidnapped—Pray NOW! A parent's worst nightmare and an ongoing crisis for Christian women and girls today reveals persecution against believers in some of its darkest forms. Read More + READ MORE April 2, 2020 ‘It is very painful’: How coronavirus is impacting persecuted Christians in Asia + READ MORE March 6, 2020 A ‘living death’: How Christian women experience persecution A new 2020 Open Doors in-depth report focusing on gendered persecution surfaces some disturbing realities for Christian women and girls in the top 50 countries where women are highly persecuted for their decision to follow Jesus. Read More + READ MORE


You are here: Home Results 2014 November Munster Universities Road Relay Results - November 2014
Munster Universities Road Relay Results - November 2014
Results of Munster Universities Athletic Association Road Relay Championships 2014
CIT, Cork
An Athletics Ireland registered event
Organised and Hosted by CIT AC
Cork Athletics Facebook Page
Results of Athletics Ireland Registered Events - April 2014 - May 2016 (on Old Cork Athletics website)
Results of Athletics Ireland Registered Events - May 2016 to date
Race Calendar / Fixtures List - Athletics Ireland Registered Events
Results of Munster Colleges Road Relays 2014
Results courtesy of CIT AC
Relays Format
Teams of 3
Leg 1 2km
1km Splits
Leg Splits
1 University College Cork A 1 Niamh Moore 23:03:24 00:03:24
University College Cork A 1 Niamh Moore 00:03:27 23:06:51 00:06:51
University College Cork A 2 Anke Suijkerbuijk 00:03:30 00:03:30 00:10:21
University College Cork A 3 Orna Murray 00:03:18 00:13:39
University College Cork A 3 Orna Murray 00:03:19 00:10:08 00:20:29
2 University of Limerick A 1 Grace Lynch 23:03:24 00:03:24
University of Limerick A 1 Grace Lynch 00:03:17 23:06:41 00:06:41
University of Limerick A 2 Ellen Moran 00:03:26 00:03:26 00:10:07
University of Limerick A 3 Niamh Donnelly 00:03:27 00:13:34
University of Limerick A 3 Niamh Donnelly 00:03:32 00:10:32 00:20:39
3 Cork IT A 1 Rachael O'Shea 23:03:29 00:03:29
Cork IT A 1 Rachael O'Shea 00:03:47 23:07:16 00:07:16
Cork IT A 2 Jessica Neville 00:03:37 00:03:37 00:10:53
Cork IT A 3 Susan Finn 00:03:33 00:14:26
Cork IT A 3 Susan Finn 00:03:47 00:11:12 00:22:05
4 University of Limerick B 1 Sinead Rigney 23:03:39 00:03:39
University of Limerick B 1 Sinead Rigney 00:03:53 23:07:32 00:07:32
University of Limerick B 2 Olwen Kennedy 00:03:39 00:03:39 00:11:11
University of Limerick B 3 Clodagh Galvin 00:03:45 00:14:56
University of Limerick B 3 Clodagh Galvin 00:03:59 00:11:42 00:22:53
5 Waterford IT A 1 Alison Daly 23:03:41 00:03:41
Waterford IT A 1 Alison Daly 00:04:11 23:07:52 00:07:52
Waterford IT A 2 Una Rowe 00:03:33 00:03:33 00:11:25
Waterford IT A 3 Shannen Ryan 00:03:45 00:15:10
Waterford IT A 3 Shannen Ryan 00:04:02 00:11:50 00:23:15
6 Waterford IT B 1 Cara Powell 23:03:55 00:03:55
Waterford IT B 1 Cara Powell 00:04:05 23:08:00 00:08:00
Waterford IT B 2 Niamh Tebay 00:03:50 00:03:50 00:11:50
Waterford IT B 3 Julie Gay 00:03:41 00:15:31
Waterford IT B 3 Julie Gay 00:04:15 00:12:36 00:24:26
7 University of Limerick D 1 Sinead Gaffney 23:03:51 00:03:51
University of Limerick D 1 Sinead Gaffney 00:04:04 23:07:55 00:07:55
University of Limerick D 2 Aoife Doyle 00:03:45 00:03:45 00:11:40
University of Limerick D 3 Maedbh Chesser 00:03:54 00:15:34
University of Limerick D 3 Maedbh Chesser 00:04:30 00:12:55 00:24:35
8 University of Limerick C 1 Cliona Mulroy 23:03:51 00:03:51
University of Limerick C 1 Cliona Mulroy 00:04:04 23:07:55 00:07:55
University of Limerick C 2 Claire Broderick 00:04:08 00:04:08 00:12:03
University of Limerick C 3 Orla Mulvihill 00:04:08 00:16:11
University of Limerick C 3 Orla Mulvihill 00:04:29 00:13:07 00:25:10
9 Waterford IT C 1 Jenny O'Loughlin 23:03:54 00:03:54
Waterford IT C 1 Jenny O'Loughlin 00:04:05 23:07:59 00:07:59
Waterford IT C 2 Cora Doyle 00:04:25 00:04:25 00:12:24
Waterford IT C 3 Jenifer Rice 00:04:16 00:16:40
Waterford IT C 3 Jenifer Rice 00:04:23 00:13:16 00:25:40
10 Cork IT B 1 Mai O'Leary 23:03:55 00:03:55
Cork IT B 1 Mai O'Leary 00:03:53 23:07:48 00:07:48
Cork IT B 2 Celine O'Shea 00:03:57 00:03:57 00:11:45
Cork IT B 3 Eimear FitzGerald 00:04:14 00:15:59
Cork IT B 3 Eimear FitzGerald 00:04:51 00:14:01 00:25:46
11 Cork IT C 1 Roisin Kelleher 23:04:13 00:04:13
Cork IT C 1 Roisin Kelleher 00:04:26 23:08:39 00:08:39
Cork IT C 2 Grainne Kearney 00:05:21 00:05:21 00:14:00
Cork IT C 3 Joy O'Leary 00:04:24 00:18:24
Cork IT C 3 Joy O'Leary 00:04:45 00:14:09 00:28:09
N/A Waterford IT D 1 Sorcha Keniry 23:05:08 00:05:08
N/A Waterford IT D 1 Sorcha Keniry 00:09:42 23:14:50 00:14:50
N/A Waterford IT D 2 Siobhan Halley 00:05:01 00:05:01 00:19:51
Womens Team Results
1 University College Cork A 20:29
2 University of Limerick A 20:39
3 Cork IT A 22:05
4 University of Limerick B 22:53
5 Waterford IT A 23:15
6 Waterford IT B 24:26
7 University of Limerick D 24:35
8 University of Limerick C 25:10
9 Waterford IT C 25:40
10 Cork IT B 25:46
11 Cork IT C 28:09
1 University of Limerick A 1 Niall Tuohy 23:02:47 00:02:47
University of Limerick A 1 Niall Tuohy 00:02:48 23:05:35 00:05:35
University of Limerick A 2 Tom Hennesy 00:02:50 00:02:50 00:08:25
University of Limerick A 3 Kevin Chesser 00:02:58 00:11:23
University of Limerick A 3 Kevin Chesser 00:02:57 00:09:03 00:17:28
2 Waterford IT A 1 Brian Murphy 23:02:54 00:02:54
Waterford IT A 1 Brian Murphy 00:02:58 23:05:52 00:05:52
Waterford IT A 2 Shane O'Rahilly 00:02:45 00:02:45 00:08:37
Waterford IT A 3 Andrew Connick 00:02:55 00:11:32
Waterford IT A 3 Andrew Connick 00:02:56 00:08:57 00:17:34
3 Cork IT A 1 Cullen Lynch 00:02:53 00:02:53
Cork IT A 1 Cullen Lynch 00:02:57 00:05:50 00:05:50
Cork IT A 2 Jamie Skelly 00:02:58 00:02:58 00:08:48
Cork IT A 3 Mark O'Sullivan 00:02:56 00:11:44
Cork IT A 3 Mark O'Sullivan 00:02:54 00:08:54 00:17:42
4 University College Cork A 1 Kieran James 23:02:53 00:02:53
University College Cork A 1 Kieran James 00:03:04 23:05:57 00:05:57
University College Cork A 2 Chris Mintern 00:02:53 00:02:53 00:08:50
University College Cork A 3 Ben Thistlewood 00:02:54 00:11:44
University College Cork A 3 Ben Thistlewood 00:02:59 00:08:57 00:17:47
5 University of Limerick B 1 Aaron O'Brien 23:02:54 00:02:54
University of Limerick B 1 Aaron O'Brien 00:03:04 23:05:58 00:05:58
University of Limerick B 2 Shawn McCormack 00:02:56 00:02:56 00:08:54
University of Limerick B 3 Jake O'Regan 00:02:51 00:11:45
University of Limerick B 3 Jake O'Regan 00:03:15 00:09:14 00:18:08
6 Waterford IT B 1 James Cloney 23:02:58 00:02:58
Waterford IT B 1 James Cloney 00:03:15 23:06:13 00:06:13
Waterford IT B 2 Richie Lucas 00:03:03 00:03:03 00:09:16
Waterford IT B 3 Chris Jeuken 00:03:06 00:12:22
Waterford IT B 3 Chris Jeuken 00:03:14 00:09:37 00:18:53
7 Cork IT C 1 Mark Clifford 23:03:04 00:03:04
Cork IT C 1 Mark Clifford 00:03:10 23:06:14 00:06:14
Cork IT C 2 Aidan Cremin 00:03:13 00:03:13 00:09:27
Cork IT C 3 Michael Bruton 00:03:06 00:12:33
Cork IT C 3 Michael Bruton 00:03:16 00:09:38 00:19:05
8 University of Limerick C 1 Jamie Buckley 23:02:59 00:02:59
University of Limerick C 1 Jamie Buckley 00:03:13 23:06:12 00:06:12
University of Limerick C 2 John McCallion 00:02:56 00:02:56 00:09:08
University of Limerick C 3 Sean O'Sullivan 00:03:07 00:12:15
University of Limerick C 3 Sean O'Sullivan 00:03:22 00:09:58 00:19:06
9 Cork IT B 1 Craig Harrington 23:03:04 00:03:04
Cork IT B 1 Craig Harrington 00:03:18 23:06:22 00:06:22
Cork IT B 2 Philip Crowley 00:03:12 00:03:12 00:09:34
Cork IT B 3 Sheldon Kirkwood 00:03:22 00:12:56
Cork IT B 3 Sheldon Kirkwood 00:03:35 00:10:29 00:20:03
10 Waterford IT C 1 James Deasy 23:03:16 00:03:16
Waterford IT C 1 James Deasy 00:03:36 23:06:52 00:06:52
Waterford IT C 2 Shane Connick 00:03:02 00:03:02 00:09:54
Waterford IT C 3 Eoin Lynam 00:03:30 00:13:24
Waterford IT C 3 Eoin Lynam 00:03:40 00:10:52 00:20:46
11 University College Cork B 1 John Durcan 23:02:58 00:02:58
University College Cork B 1 John Durcan 00:03:09 23:06:07 00:06:07
University College Cork B 2 James Grufferty 00:02:54 00:02:54 00:09:01
University College Cork B 3 Jamie Fraser 00:03:29 00:12:30
University College Cork B 3 Jamie Fraser 00:04:34 00:11:49 00:20:50
12 University College Cork C 1 David Kavanagh 23:02:53 00:02:53
University College Cork C 1 David Kavanagh 00:03:00 23:05:53 00:05:53
University College Cork C 2 Adrian Who 00:03:26 00:03:26 00:09:19
University College Cork C 3 Olan Harrington 00:03:39 00:12:58
University College Cork C 3 Olan Harrington 00:04:17 00:12:01 00:21:20
13 University of Limerick D 1 Tom Melligan 23:03:19 00:03:19
University of Limerick D 1 Tom Melligan 00:03:47 23:07:06 00:07:06
University of Limerick D 2 David Bell 00:03:11 00:03:11 00:10:17
University of Limerick D 3 Eoin Callinan 00:03:35 00:13:52
University of Limerick D 3 Eoin Callinan 00:03:39 00:11:17 00:21:34
14 Waterford IT D 1 Louis O'Carroll 23:03:16 00:03:16
Waterford IT D 1 Louis O'Carroll 00:03:43 23:06:59 00:06:59
Waterford IT D 2 Ian Lordan 00:03:49 00:03:49 00:10:48
Waterford IT D 3 Graham Butler 00:03:25 00:14:13
Waterford IT D 3 Graham Butler 00:03:38 00:10:48 00:21:36
15 UCC/CIT A 1 Corman Hickey 23:03:20 00:03:20
UCC/CIT A 1 Corman Hickey 00:03:35 23:06:55 00:06:55
UCC/CIT A 2 Kevin Maybury 00:03:25 00:03:25 00:10:20
UCC/CIT A 3 TJ Hogan 00:03:30 00:13:50
UCC/CIT A 3 TJ Hogan 00:04:08 00:11:47 00:22:07
Mens Team Results
6 Cork IT B 18:53
7 Cork IT C 19:05
11 University College Cork B 20:50
12 University College Cork C 21:20
13 University of Limerick D 21:34
14 Waterford IT D 21:36
15 UCC/CIT A 22:07


Celebrity / Trending
The Celebrity Couples Who Will Explore Their Relationships On ‘Power Couple,’ A New Reality Show
by Chaitra Ramalingegowda · December 1, 2015
Seems like the reality TV bug is not quite through with Indian audiences. With a new reality show being unleashed on the unsuspecting Indian audiences almost on a monthly basis, there’s a brand new reality show that is all set to wow the viewers – Power Couple. Like most reality shows on air today, Power Couple, is an import too – this time from Israel.
All set to kick off from December 12th on Sony Entertainment Television, Power Couple is hosted by none other than a power couple themselves, Malaika Arora Khan and Arbaaz Khan. The original show, aired in Israel was apparently a big hit, and the Indian producers are looking to successfully replicate the model.
Image source: PowerCouple
The show, which is shot entirely in Goa, will have 10 celebrity couples from various arenas of celebdom – including TV, movies, fashion, modeling, and reality TV. During the course of the show, each of the celebrity couple’s knowledge of each other is tested, while undergoing various other tests to prove how powerful their love is, all while living under one roof with other celebrity couples. You can only imagine the kind of drama and shenanigans viewers can expect with 20 people with different temperaments living under one roof for the duration of the show. Whew!
Suggested read: Biggest hookups that have happened on Bigg Boss so far
Anyway, there were speculations as who’ll be among the 10 celebrity couples who’d be participating in the show, with names like Sania Mirza – Shoaib Malik, Riteish Deshmukh – Genelia D’Souza, Upen Patel – Karishma Tanna, being thrown around. However, the 10 celebrity couples who will actually be a part of the new reality TV show, Power Couple, are:
1. Ashmit Patel – Mehek Chahal
While Ashmit was famously linked with Pakistani import Veena Mallik during Bigg Boss 4, Mehek, who was a part of Bigg Boss 5, was famously proposed to by her then-boyfriend, Danish Khan, during the grand finale. The two have since moved on from their link-ups and have been dating for the past three months. And now, they’re all set to participate in another reality show together. Let’s see how they fare.
2. Apurva Agnihotri and Shilpa Saklani
The bad boy of ‘Pardes,’ Apurva and the ideal third generation (or is it fourth?) bahu of Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi, Shilpa, have been married for 11 years now. And they even participated in Bigg Boss 7. Now, they’re all geared up to be one of the celebrity couples who’ll explore their relationship on national television.
3. Mugdha Godse and Rahul Dev
‘Fashion’ star and model Mugdha Godse and Rahul Dev have been dating for quite some time now. Apparently, the model-actress was a source of support to Rahul, who lost his wife of over a decade to cancer. And now that they’ve found love once again, they’re ready to test that love on the show.
4. Delnaaz Irani and DJ Percy Karkaria
Again, a former Bigg Boss 6 contestant, Delnaaz, along with her partner of two and a half years, DJ Percy, are geared up to accept any challenges thrown their way on Power Couple. If you recall, Delnaaz’s fellow housemate on Bigg Boss 6 was none other than her then-separated husband, Rajeev Paul. Although Delnaaz was a loudmouth on the show, her best appearance till date – according to me, at least – is as Sweetu in the movie ‘Kal Ho Naa Ho.’
5. Shawar Ali and Marsela Ayesha
Shawar Ali is a renowned model, who has appeared in numerous commercials, fashion shows, and music videos. Earlier this year, he got married to Marsela Ayesha, a ballet dancer/opera singer. They sure make a handsome couple.
6. Salil Ankola and Ria Banerjee
Salil is a cricketer-turned-actor, who will appear on Power Couple along with his second wife, Ria Banerjee. This will be his return to television after a hiatus of two years.
7. Jesse Randhawa and Sandip Soparkar
While Jesse is a supermodel, who has been in numerous shows, Sandip is a ballroom dancer and choreographer. The couple, who has been together for a decade and married for five, has a son.
8. Naved Jaffery and Sayeeda
Javed Jaffery’s younger brother and reality show host/judge/producer, Naved is all set to explore his relationship with his NRI banker wife, Sayeeda, on national television. The couple has been married for three years.
9. Rahul Raj and Pratyusha Banerjee
Another couple who’s in the initial stages of their relationship, is Rahul Raj and TV’s favorite bahu, Pratyusha Banerjee. They’ve been dating for three months, and they’re all set to announce their relationship for the first time on the show.
Suggested read: 10 gorgeous Bollywood brides who gave us #WeddingGoals
10. Aamir Ali and Sanjeeda Sheikh
At one time, it seemed like every time you switch on the TV, you’d see these two faces – Aamir and Sanjeeda – that’s how much this couple was adored by viewers. The two were last seen back in 2007 on Nach Baliye 3, which they won. One of TV’s most loved couples, Aamir and Sanjeeda have been married for three years now.
Well, there you have it. These are the 10 celebrity couples who’ll be putting their relationships to the test on Power Couple. We wish them all the very best!
Which of these are you rooting for? Which of these couples will get booted out of the show during the first week itself? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!
Featured image source: PowerCouple
10 Celebrity Couples Participating In Power Couple, The New Reality Show
Check out the 10 celebrity couples all set to test their relationships on national TV, in the new reality show, Power Couple!
Biggest hookups on Bigg Boss in the last 8 seasons
Salman Khan: 6 Reasons Why ‘Bhai’ Has The Biggest Heart In Bollywood
1000 weeks of DDLJ – Everything you need to know about the cast, then and now!
Sunny Leone-starrer Ek Paheli Leela’s first trailer is out, and it’s seriously hot!
Salman Khan: “Marriage Is Not For A Lifetime”
#NaPoWriMo 10 Of The Best Poems By Jack Prelutsky
The Best Anis Mojnani Poems To Cherish This #NaPoWriMo
#NaPoWriMo Some Of The Best Poems By Claude McKay
#NaPoWriMo Some Of The Best Poems By Phillis Wheatley
Lewis Carroll And His Magical Poetry


Kids Say the Darndest Things, With Tiffany Haddish, Revived at CBS
Kids Say the Darndest Things is returning to its original network. CBS has revived the latest version of the variety series, hosted and executive-produced by Tiffany Haddish, for a second season to air in 2021.
The news comes seven months after the family friendly series was cancelled at ABC. It aired as part of the network’s Sunday-night lineup during the 2019-2020 TV season, sandwiched between America’s Funniest Home Videos and Shark Tank.
“I see my role as giving kids a safe environment where they can say anything they want with complete freedom and no judgement,” Haddish said in a statement. “What I love about this show is that we let kids truly be themselves. I’m the straight man here, and that’s fine with me.”
Adds Mitch Graham, CBS Entertainment’s senior VP of Alternative Programming, “Few things have more universal appeal and humor than the unfiltered honesty of a child, and the comedic genius of Tiffany Haddish takes that to the next level. It’s great to have Kids Say back on CBS and part of our expanding alternative slate for 2021.”
Cancelled TV Shows That Came Back
Kids Say the Darndest Things originated as a CBS Radio segment in 1945, when Art Linkletter interviewed children as part of Art Linkletter’s House Party. The show made the leap to TV in 1952 and ran for an additional 17 years. A standalone version of Kids Say, hosted by Bill Cosby, aired on CBS from 1998 to 2000.
ABC’s one-and-done revival season averaged 3.6 million total viewers and a 0.6 demo rating (in Live+Same Day numbers). Its season finale aired in January.
Are you looking forward to the return of Kids Say the Darndest Things?
TAGS: CBS, Kids Say the Darndest Things, Tiffany Haddish
GET MORE: News, Revivals and Reboots, Series Orders


Type - Any -Content (All)Media (All)ArticleAwardEventFunding OpportunityPublicationSpeech/General Message
Effect of High-Visibility Enforcement on Motor Vehicle Crashes
Notes From the Field: Emphasizing Education First in School Policing
Notes from the Field: Snapshot of the United States Indian Policing Academy
Researcher-Survivor Formative Evaluation of San Francisco's Anti-Human Trafficking Task Forces: Analysis of San Francisco Police Department Incident Reports
The Neurobiology of Sexual Assault: Implications for Law Enforcement, Prosecution, and Victim Advocacy
Research for the Real World
Dr. Campbell brings together research on the neurobiology of trauma and the criminal justice response to sexual assault. She explains the underlying neurobiology of traumatic events, its emotional and physical manifestation, and how these processes can impact the investigation and prosecution of sexual assaults. Real-world, practical implications are examined for first responders, such as law enforcement, nurses, prosecutors, and advocates.
Review the YouTube Terms of Service and the Google Privacy Policy
Violent Repeat Victimization: Prospects and Challenges for Research and Practice
Research tells us that a relatively small fraction of individuals experience a large proportion of violent victimizations. Thus, focusing on reducing repeat victimization might have a large impact on total rates of violence. However, research also tells us that most violent crime victims do not experience more than one incident during a six-month or one-year time period. As a result, special policies to prevent repeat violence may not be cost-effective for most victims.
Opening the Black Box of NIBIN
Bill King discusses the operations of the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN), a program through which firearms examiners at state and local crime laboratories compare tool marks on fired bullets or cartridges found at a crime scene to digitized images of ballistic evidence in a nationwide database.
Civil Protection Order Enforcement
T.K. Logan discusses her study that looked at the impact of civil protective orders for domestic violence victims in five Kentucky jurisdictions. Civil protective orders, sometimes known as restraining orders, may cover various situations, such as ordering an assailant to avoid a victim's home and workplace or forbidding any contact with the victim, including by mail or telephone.
Legitimacy and Community Cooperation With Law Enforcement
Tom R. Tyler, chair of the New York University psychology department, describes research on profiling and community policing. His research found that citizens of all races show greater respect for law enforcement when they believe officers are treating them fairly. Even citizens who experienced a negative outcome getting a traffic ticket, for example showed higher levels of respect for and cooperation with law enforcement as long as they believed they were not being singled out unfairly.
How Collaboration Between Researchers and Police Chiefs Can Improve the Quality of Sexual Assault Investigations: A Look at Los Angeles
Panelists discuss the application of research findings from an NIJ-sponsored study of sexual assault attrition to police practice in Los Angeles. There are three main focal points: (1) the mutual benefits of researcher/practitioner partnerships, (2) the implications of variation in police interpretation of UCR guidelines specific to clearing sexual assault (with an emphasis on cases involving nonstrangers), and (3) the content of specialized training that must be required for patrol officers and detectives who respond to and investigate sex crimes.
Economical Crime Control: Perspectives from Both Sides of the Ledger
The surge in incarceration since 1980 has been fueled in part by the mistaken belief that the population can be divided neatly into "good guys" and "bad guys." In fact, crime rates are not determined by the number of at-large criminals, any more than farm production is determined by the number of farmers. Crime is a choice, a choice that is influenced by available opportunities as much as by character. This perspective, drawn from economic theory, supports a multi-faceted approach to crime control. Dr.
Don't Jump the Shark: Understanding Deterrence and Legitimacy in the Architecture of Law Enforcement
Deterrence theory dominates the American understanding of how to regulate criminal behavior but social psychologists' research shows that people comply for reasons that have nothing to do with fear of punishment; they have to do with values, fair procedures and how people connect with one another. Professor Meares discussed the relevance of social psychologists' emerging theory to legal theory and practice and how deterrence and emerging social psychology theories intertwine.
Report on Reducing Gun Violence
Reforming New Orleans' Criminal Justice System: The Role of Data and Research
With its criminal justice system in disarray following Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans invited the Vera Institute of Justice to examine the city's court and jail operations. For five years, Vera has been tracking arrest-to-first-appearance time, custodial arrests versus summonses, the granting of pretrial release, and many other decision-making points. Based on analysis of these data, Vera is making policy recommendations to assist with the implementation of new procedures and to ensure performance monitoring.
Just Wrong: The Aftermath of Wrongful Convictions
The strength of our criminal justice system depends on its ability to convict the guilty and clear the innocent. But we know that innocent people are sometimes wrongfully convicted and the guilty remain free to victimize others. The consequences of a wrongful conviction are far-reaching for the wrongfully convicted and the survivors and victims of the original crimes.
Backlogs and Their Impact on the Criminal Justice System
Evidence backlogs have been known to be an issue in crime laboratories. A recent study published by NIJ has shown that backlogs of untested evidence are also an issue in law enforcement evidence storage. This panel will discuss the issues and present preliminary findings from a study of the Los Angeles Police Department's and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's experience with clearing out a large backlog of unanalyzed rape kits.
Elder Abuse: How Much Occurs and How Do We Measure It?
NIJ Conference Panel
Panelists will present NIJ research on elder mistreatment in noninstitutionalized adults as well as tools for measuring the financial exploitation and psychological abuse of the elderly. A recently completed telephone survey of more than 6,500 older adults living in the community provides the most accurate estimates of the prevalence and incidence of physical, sexual, financial and emotional elder abuse. A second study used state-of-the-art science methods to develop a tool that measures the financial and psychological abuse of elders.
Situational Approaches to Making Communities and Correction Institutions Safer
NIJ Conference panelists will present the results of three studies that applied situational crime prevention (SCP) principles: (1) an evaluation of the Safe City initiative in Chula Vista, Calif., designed to combine the expertise and resources of local law enforcement, retailers and the community to increase the safety of designated retail areas; (2) a randomized controlled trial (in partnership with the Washington Metro Transit Police) that assessed the effectiveness of SCP to reduce car crime in Metro's parking facilities; and (3) an evaluation of the impact of SCP on pr
An Examination of Justice Reinvestment and Its Impact on Two States
Funded in part by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Pew Center on the States, the justice reinvestment project is a data-driven strategy aimed at policymakers to "reduce spending on corrections, increase public safety and improve conditions in the neighborhoods to which most people released from prison return." Representatives from two states where the justice reinvestment strategy is currently being implemented will discuss how it is being used to reduce the rate of incarceration and how states can reinvest in local communities.
Sexual Violence Research 15 Years After VAWA
Panelists will summarize the progress and results of sexual violence research since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The panel will also examine how research has contributed to policy, assess current knowledge gaps and discuss research needs.
Custody Evaluation in Domestic Violence Cases
Panelists will examine practices, beliefs and recommendations of professional and custody evaluators in domestic violence cases. Panelists will discuss current NIJ studies that use both qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the impact of personal attitudes and beliefs on custody evaluation.
Active Representation and Police Response to Sexual Assault Complaints
COPS Office and Police Foundation Release Reports on Averted School Violence
Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Replication Research on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the U.S.
The Impact of Primary Aggressor Laws on Single Versus Dual Arrest in Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence


Up To £20m
Speller Metcalfe picked to build Cinderford hospital
24 Nov 20 Gloucestershire Health & Care NHS Foundation Trust (GHC) has appointed Speller Metcalfe to build a new £11m community hospital in Cinderford.
Andy Metcalfe, joint managing director of Speller Metcalfe
Initial work on the design and position of the building is under way but the full specifications will only be finalised after the completion of the public consultation into services to be provided from the new facility.
The £11m hospital, which will be built on the Lower High Street Playing Field in Steam Mills Road, will replace the existing community hospitals in Cinderford and Lydney.
Building work is planned to start in autumn 2021.
Angela Potter, director of strategy and partnerships at GHC, said: “Spellers demonstrated considerable experience of working on health and public sector projects and offering innovative and sustainable solutions so I am confident that together we can deliver a new hospital that will really improve the overall experience for patients and the staff who work there.
“We look forward to the feedback from the public consultation so that we can work up a final design and begin the planning and building process.”
Speller Metcalfe previously built Cinderford Health Centre and Station Medical Centre in Hereford, as well as working on the extension and refurbishment of Hadwen Medical Centre in Gloucester.
Andy Metcalfe, joint managing director of Speller Metcalfe, said: “We know that supporting the health sector is absolutely vital in the current climate, and as a local contractor we recognise how significant this hospital development will be for the wider community. With a strong history of successful project delivery for the NHS, we look forward to working with Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust to develop the latest addition to the Forest of Dean’s health provision.”