Sunday, April 29, 2007

U.S. Suddenly Wants Talks with Iran


Home

Pavel Morzh
Apr. 26, 2007

Turkey hosted on Wednesday the negotiations between EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana and Iran’s National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani. At the same time, U.S. President George Bush said that next month the U.S. might enter direct talks with Tehran, for the first time in many years. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to meet with Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki at an international conference in Egypt. However, all these negotiations might be a tactic move: Washington is simply trying to prove that any dialogue with Tehran is meaningless.
Secret Relations

Leakages from diplomatic sources, that Washington has entered intensive secret talks with Tehran, have become frequent in U.S. mass media recently. For instance, Houston Chronicle reported that Switzerland acts as the go-between in the secret contacts. That country has represented U.S. interests in Iran since 1979, due to the absence of U.S. embassy there. Reportedly, the dialogue concerns a wide range of issues: first of all, the fate of U.S. citizens listed as missing in Iraq, the Iranian citizens detained by U.S. servicemen during the raid in Iraq’s Erbil several months ago, and the long-term economic and financial disputes. “There is absolutely no doubt that now we are ready to hold dialogue, -- much more ready than several years ago,” a source in the U.S. Department of State said to Houston Chronicle reporter.

Another evidence that Washington intends to carry on dialogue with Tehran is that, according to frequent news in U.S. mass media, a special mission is laid on Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Diplomatic sources claim that he is to establish bridges between the two antagonistic countries. Allegedly, Washington believes that Shiite Muslim Hoshyar Zebari has long-standing and durable relations in Tehran, and thus will be able to persuade Iranian authorities to meet the U.S. half-way.

The international conference on Iraq to be held in Egypt next month will become the apogee of U.S. striving for dialogue. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will take part in it. Besides, Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki is to attend the same conference. Speaking for PBS channel, U.S. President George Bush said that Rice and Mottaki can meet to hold bilateral talks, which would become unprecedented for modern Iran-U.S. relations. Bush said the top diplomats will discuss not the nuclear program, but the chances to improve the relations between the two states.

The issue of direct U.S.-Iran talks has been in the air for many years already. After the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the following seizure of the U.S. embassy, Washington had no official contacts with Tehran. The ‘dialogue among civilizations’ declared by previous Iranian president Mohammad Khatami failed to lead to rapprochement either. Even in those years when the E.U. actively moved towards the Islamic republic, Washington was refraining from rapprochement. It is only now that the U.S. suddenly expressed readiness to enter contact with the current Iranian authorities, who implement a radical and unacceptable for the U.S. foreign policy.

Read more

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

Guardian Unlimited

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps



From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all

Tuesday April 24, 2007
The Guardian


Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody.

They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

Read more on the Guardian

Monday, April 23, 2007

Elahe Massumi


Elahe Massumi is an internationally recognized video artist. She was born in Esfahan, Iran in 1961. She lives in Brooklyn, New York. Elahe was recently reviewed on the Mujeres que hablan de mujeres | Women who talk about women Web site. Click here to read (in both Spanish and English).

Education: MFA, 1990 Pratt institute, Brooklyn NY - BFA, 1984 Trinity College, Washington DC

Read more on her website


Bitter Moon (1992)

Directed by: Roman Polanski

Hi Camp, Lo Art, Superbly directed, one of my guilty pleasures.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Belle de Jour (1967)

Dir: Luis Bunuel

"It is possibly the best-known erotic film of modern times, perhaps the best. That's because it understands eroticism from the inside-out--understands how it exists not in sweat and skin, but in the imagination. "Belle de Jour'' is seen entirely through the eyes of Severine, the proper 23-year-old surgeon's wife, played by Catherine Deneuve. Bunuel, who was 67 when the film was released, had spent a lifetime making sly films about the secret terrain of human nature, and he knew one thing most directors never discover: For a woman like Severine, walking into a room to have sex, the erotic charge comes not from who is waiting in the room, but from the fact that she is walking into it. Sex is about herself. Love of course is another matter.

The subject of Severine's passion is always Severine.".....Read the full review on rogerebert.com

Iran: the war ahead


John Pilger

Published 16 April 2007

The sailors' ordeal was a diversion from the bigger danger. The US and UK identified their new enemy long ago and are preparing the propaganda for the war ahead.
Plus Rageh Omaar on how the Iran affair has weakened Britain's hand

The Israeli journalist Amira Hass describes the moment her mother, Hannah, was marched from a cattle train to the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen. "They were sick and some were dying," she says. "Then my mother saw these German women looking at the prisoners, just looking. This image became very formative in my upbringing, this despicable 'looking from the side'."

It is time we in Britain stopped looking from the side. We are being led towards perhaps the most serious crisis in modern history as the Bush-Cheney-Blair "long war" edges closer to Iran for no reason other than that nation's independence from rapacious America. The safe delivery of the 15 British sailors into the hands of Rupert Murdoch and his rivals (with tales of their "ordeal" almost certainly authored by the Ministry of Defence - until it got the wind up) is both a farce and a distraction. The Bush administration, in secret connivance with Blair, has spent four years preparing for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Forty-five cruise missiles are primed to strike. According to Russia's leading strategic thinker General Leonid Ivashov: "Nuclear facilities will be secondary targets . . . at least 20 such facilities need to be destroyed. Combat nuclear weapons may be used. This will result in the radioactive contamination of all the Iranian territory, and beyond."

And yet there is a surreal silence in Britain, save for the noise of "news" in which our powerful broadcasters gesture cryptically at the obvious but dare not make sense of it, lest the one-way moral screen erected between us and the consequences of an imperial foreign policy collapse and the truth be revealed. Read more on the New Statesman


About the writer

John Pilger

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."

John Pilger's new film "The War on Democracy" will be previewed at the National Film Theatre, London SE1, on 11 May. http://www.bfi.org.uk/nft

http://www.johnpilger.com

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Un Chien Andalou (The Andalousian Dog) 1929

The complete Surrealistic fantasy

Dircted by Luis Bunuel & Salvador Dali

No need to run out and rent this one the -- entire movie is here (15 minutes)

Friday, April 13, 2007

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. (November 11, 1922 – April 11, 2007)





Editorial Observer

Published: April 13, 2007

If you read Kurt Vonnegut when you were young — read all there was of him, book after book as fast as you could the way so many of us did — you probably set him aside long ago. That’s the way it goes with writers we love when we’re young. It’s almost as though their books absorbed some part of our DNA while we were reading them, and rereading them means revisiting a version of ourselves we may no longer remember or trust.

Not that Vonnegut is mainly for the young. I’m sure there are plenty of people who think he is entirely unsuitable for readers under the age of disillusionment. But the time to read Vonnegut is just when you begin to suspect that the world is not what it appears to be. Read More

AlterNet

Reflections on Kurt Vonnegut, a Man of Funny Fearlessness

By Reverend Billy, AlterNet. Posted April 13, 2007.


In memory of Kurt Vonnegut, the novelist, socialist and humanist whose friendship and late-in-life peace activism should inspire us all.

My friendship with Kurt Vonnegut blossomed in the last years and months of Kurt's life, after 9/11. He was a dedicated friend, all his friends knew it, and he taught me about the creativity of friendship, with his careful postcards and his rhythm of gifts. His first gift was always the funny fearlessness.

He encouraged us to sing and preach in Union Square in the week after 9/11. "Go! Just go!" Or he would tell us to "Go down to Ground Zero and preach the First Amendment!" And we'd say, "You come with, Kurt -- we'll send a car!" And he'd say, "I'll be with you in spirit. I'm tired." But he never seemed that tired to me. He had powerfully mixed feelings about ending life. As a child of a mother who took her life, he always talked about death as a choice.

But then, as he grew older and older, he was busily creative all the time. When he came to our shows, he would make up names for gods and saints with us. He thought hard about what post-religious worship was and would surprise us with disconcertingly basic questions. I see they unearthed his prayer to "Our Lady of Perpetual Astonishment" -- reprinted in the New York Times yesterday. Read More


From Thinking in Pictures

An Open Apology to the Late Kurt Vonnegut


Listen: You died yesterday after falling weeks ago. You were one of the most important writers of the 20th century. I miss you already. And I'm sorry.

I interviewed you almost 12 years ago, when I was in college, and got to follow you around for a day while you met with people on campus. You were 73 then. I was 19. The university's student activities committee paid you $10,000 to come speak; it was practically their whole budget for the year. I wrote a long profile to advance the event, assuming as so many college journalists do that whatever they have just discovered is news and that they have to bring everyone else up to speed on it. I don't recommend rereading the whole thing, but here's a good excerpt:
What he learned, of course, is that public support doesn't have much to do with American foreign policy. It's a nice thing to have, but our leaders can get along without it. And it really would be ridiculous for any writer to expect that a well-crafted novel could actually change their priorities.

So Vonnegut has a different goal: to catch young people before they become corporate leaders and politicians and, as he puts it, to "poison their minds with humanity."


Take this opportunity to be poisoned. There are few authors, dead or alive, whose work so skillfully marries criticism and compassion, who have so comfortably combined intelligent ideas and a lucid style, and even fewer who have written as seriously and as humorously at the same time.
I meant it then, and still do. You are still one of my favorite writers. More importantly, you influenced which writers would become my other favorites - Thomas Hardy, Donald Barthelme, Laurence Sterne, Saul Bellow. I can trace my appreciation for many of them back to my reading and re-reading of your books. Read More

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

300, A Review (caution: contains spoilers)

Caution: if you read the following you wont be able to sit through the movie.

from IMDB

Watched as a comedy, 300 is not bad, but they should have put in more funny scenes. I won't spoil anything, but we were all cracking up when the mutant ninjas appeared. It's as if the film makers were so scared that all the half-naked men might give the audience the wrong idea about the Spartans, that they turned the Hetero up to 11. At first I was offended, but the homo/xenophobia is so over-the-top, it becomes absurdly funny.

Things I learned from the movie:

1) Spartans are kind of like football players except that they all shave their chests and don't wear shirts.

2) If anyone is effeminate, nonwhite, a lesbian, or physically unattractive, they are an enemy of freedom or a slave.

3) Wearing underwear is only for evil people like hunchbacks and God-kings. The army of freedom goes commando.

4) Throwing your only weapon is a good battle strategy, as is slowing time and teleporting from one location to another. (I knew this from other funny action movies though)

5) The aesthetic style of perfume and car commercials from the early 90's is the new cutting edge of cinematography.

6) Rhinos and elephants are easy to ship, easy to train, and easy to kill.

7) Spartan cloaks never get dirty unless you are returning from a son-avenging murderous rampage. The cloaks can also summon wind if the wearer utters a corny line.

8) "Well-written action movie" (or video game or comic book) still means laugh-out-loud cheesiness during every dramatic scene.

So, while it doesn't quite top The Mummy Returns for unintentionally hilarious nonsensical action, it's a close second. I predict that this movie will score well with male gamers, adolescent boys, and ultra conservative patriarchs. I know it was based on a comic, but really, it's like an allegory for the War on Terror written by a confused twelve year old. If you're looking for quality even on par with the mediocre Gladiator, keep looking. 5/10

P.S. Make sure you watch the credit roll for the multiple evil transsexual Asian roles (I thought transsexual Asian #3 did an excellent job).

Monday, April 9, 2007

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

Director Terry Gilliam

Noam Chomsky on "the Iran Effect"

nationbooks

On Tuesday, meeting with the press in the White House Rose Garden, the President responded to a question about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria this way: "[P]hoto opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror." There should, he added to the assembled reporters, be no meetings with state sponsors of terror.

That night, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that, since 2005, the U.S. has "encouraged and advised" Jundullah, a Pakistani tribal "militant group," led by a former Taliban fighter and "drug smuggler," which has been launching guerrilla raids into Baluchi areas of Iran. These incursions involve kidnappings and terror bombings, as well as the murder (recorded on video) of Iranian prisoners. According to Ross, "U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or 'finding' as well as congressional oversight." Given past history, it would be surprising if the group doing the encouraging and advising wasn't the Central Intelligence Agency, which has a long, sordid record in the region. (New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has been reporting since 2005 on a Bush administration campaign to destabilize the Iranian regime, heighten separatist sentiments in that country, and prepare for a possible full-scale air attack on Iranian nuclear and other facilities.)

The President also spoke of the Iranian capture of British sailors in disputed waters two weeks ago. He claimed that their "seizure… is indefensible by the Iranians." Oddly enough, perhaps as part of secret negotiations over the British sailors, who were dramatically freed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday, an Iranian diplomat in Iraq was also mysteriously freed. Eight weeks ago, he had been kidnapped off the streets of Baghdad by uniformed men of unknown provenance. Reporting on his sudden release, Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times offered this little explanation of the kidnapping: "Although [Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar] Zebari was uncertain who kidnapped the man, others familiar with the case said they believe those responsible work for the Iraqi Intelligence Service, which is affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency." The CIA, of course, has a sordid history in Baghdad as well, including running car-bombing operations in the Iraqi capital back in Saddam Hussein's day.

And don't forget the botched Bush administration attempt to capture two high Iranian security officials and the actual kidnapping of five Iranian diplomats-cum-Revolutionary-Guards in Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan over two months ago -- they disappeared into the black hole of an American prison system in Iraq that now holds perhaps 17,000 Iraqis (as well as those Iranians) and is still growing. As Juan Cole has pointed out, most such acts, and the rhetoric that goes with them, represent so many favors to "an unpopular and isolated Iranian government attempting to rally support and strengthen itself."

In addition, just this week, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and other ships in its battle group left San Diego for the Persian Gulf. Two carrier battle groups are already there, promising an almost unprecedented show of strength. As the ship left port, U.S. military officials explained the mission of the carriers in the Gulf this way: They are intended to demonstrate U.S. "resolve to build regional security and bring long-term stability to the region."

And stability in the region, it seems, means promoting instability in Iran by any means possible. So, the President's Global War on Terror also turns out to be the Global War of Terror. No one has dealt with the way "state sponsorship of terror" works, when it comes to our own country, more strikingly than Noam Chomsky, who considers the larger Iranian crisis below. His latest book, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, is just out in paperback and couldn't be more to the point at the present moment. Right now, if the U.S. isn't already a failing state, it's certainly a flailing one. Tom

What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?

Putting the Iran Crisis in Context
By Noam Chomsky

Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements -- from Washington and Baghdad -- about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by ....... Read More

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

The Reflecting Skin

Written & Directed: Philip Ridley



Sunday, April 1, 2007

A Track All His Own

The New York Review of Books
Review By Sanford Schwartz
Martìn Ramìrez
Catalog of the exhibition by Brooke Davis Anderson, with essays by Vìctor M. Espinosa and Kristin E. Espinosa, Daniel Baumann, and Victor Zamudio-Taylor, a foreword by Maria Ann Conelli, and an introduction by Robert Storr.
An exhibition at the American Folk Art Museum, New York, January 23–April 29, 2007, and the Milwaukee Art Museum, October 6, 2007–January 8, 2008

Marquand/American Folk Art Museum, 192 pp., $45.00

Ingenious, enchanting, and mysterious, and with an underlying note of relentlessness and rigidity, the work of Martìn Ramìrez presents

The image “http://toryfolliard.com/moxiepix/b1_43.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

a way of newly seeing a specific physical terrain. In the pictures of this self-taught or "outsider"artist, a Mexican immigrant who spent half his life in American mental institutions, where he made all his art, we are given distillations of a rhythmically rolling, mountainous, and largely sand-colored land. It is crossed with sweeping, serpentine railroad tracks and highways, busy always with the movement of trains, cars, and buses, and it is punctuated here and there with dark entrances to tunnels through the mountains—erotically charged zones, in effect, which swallow up the various vehicles or send them zooming out. We see horsemen brandishing pistols, Madonnas, and the towers of Catholic churches. There are hares, antelopes, and wild dogs as well as glimpses, via images from magazines that Ramìrez collaged onto his drawings, of a more modern western landscape, one marked by the smiling, pert young women in cowgirl gear and the huge new locomotives and automobiles of American advertising of the 1940s and 1950s.

Martìn Ramìrez has for years been considered one of the masters of self-taught art, but his drawings and collages (he apparently never painted), rarely seen in number, are probably little known beyond the art world. Long overdue, his retrospective at the American Folk Art

The image “http://www.tfaoi.com/am/2am/2am256.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Museum, the largest and most representative showing he has had, certainly justifies his word-of-mouth reputation. In pictures of considerable vigor, muscularity, and size—Ramìrez was at home with sheets of paper four or five feet on a side—we are presented with a layered, many-sided body of work. It is one that makes an organic unity of the underpopulated western American terrain and of Mexican life and, even more, presents an utterly original vision of continual travel in lands where cities are scarce.

Not that Ramìrez's art is in any way straightforward or naturalistic. In his drawings especially, we are given an entirely linear universe, where so many independent, straight or curved pencil or crayon lines, shown frequently in repeating, parallel form and usually set against a good amount of untouched paper—which accounts for the predominantly buff tones of his work—make up nearly everything we see. (Ramìrez was a sensitive colorist, but his purples, oranges, and greens are largely there to add heft to the lines.) Recalling on the one hand such beguiling masters of linearity as Klee and Saul Steinberg, or more dynamic ones such as Piranesi and the Futurist Giacomo Balla, Ramìrez's drawings have aspects, too, of the suave zigzags of art deco architecture, the traditional blocky forms of Mexican folk designs, and the curvilinear patternings of many different tribal cultures.



What is Ramìrez's own in all this derives from a seeming inability to show the illusion of a volumetric form, combined with an unfettered ego and drive. Because he couldn't get (or wasn't interested in getting) his trains, mountains, canyons, or interior spaces to sit right on a page, and because at the same time he wasn't content to represent them as purely flat, silhouette-thin shapes but had to show what he knew to be their full volume, he wound up making pictures in which, whether the lines are curving or straight (or both in the same picture), the overall effect is that we look at intricate, interconnecting scaffolding sites. We often seem to see the underside, the side, and the top of something all at once, with every element held tautly in place in a web of uniformly firm, dense lines.

The greatest number of Ramìrez's pictures are of boyish, wide-eyed, gun-toting horsemen. They are invariably set in wonderfully busy stages, with countless short, angled parallel lines forming the elaborate floor and curtains around them. More enveloping and extraordinary, though, are landscapes where, entranced by the way his repeating lines form rounded mountain humps,

The image “http://www.tfaoi.com/am/2am/2am257.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

plunging ravines, and sinuous roadways, he takes these shapes to the point where they look more like monster-size loaves of bread, giant mussel shells, or immense slugs, and his subject seems to be the sheer pleasure of drawing parallel lines. In many works (none of his pictures are titled) the bulging ovoid shapes, placed with nonchalant gracefulness here and there on the sheet, have a life of their own, and what we look at are near abstractions that somehow recall landscapes. It is in these pictures, which can be six or seven feet long, where Ramìrez's similarities with cartoonists, fine artists, and folk creators are forgotten, and he is, so to speak, on a track all his own.


It must be said, however, that we have no way of knowing how Ramìrez wanted his pictures seen. He never uttered or wrote a word about them; and it is easy to find yourself responding to his drawings not as artworks on their own but as illustrations of his life's drama, in which the conditions of mental illness and of being an immigrant are intertwined. The pull of his life story is all the greater as crucial aspects of it have only recently been unearthed. When he came to the United States in 1925 Ramìrez found work in mines and the railroad; but by 1931 he had been picked up by the San Joaquin County police on charges of highly erratic and dangerous behavior, and he spent the remaining thirty-two years of his life in mental institutions in northern California, dying in the second of them in 1963, at sixty-eight. He was ultimately diagnosed as a catatonic schizophrenic and, believed never to have spoken, was considered mute and possibly deaf.

Although Ramìrez is known to have made drawings in the 1930s and 1940s, it wasn't until 1948, when he was moved to DeWitt State Hospital in Auburn, that his pictures began to be saved. There he came into contact with a man uniquely able to help him: Tarmo Pasto, a Finnish-American psychology and art professor who was enamored of California's mountainous terrain and was especially interested in how to teach drawing. He provided Ramìrez with a steady supply of art materials, and it was when the two were closest, in the first half of the 1950s, that Ramìrez was most productive. Pasto also arranged for Ramìrez's pictures to be shown in these years, in exhibitions of self-taught artists' work on the west and east coasts. The roughly three hundred sheets that represent Ramìrez's surviving output exist because, before Pasto left the region in the late 1950s, he set them aside for safekeeping.

Some ten years later, Pasto's collection came to the attention of the painter Jim Nutt. Along with Gladys Nilsson and Phyllis Kind, he purchased the lot from Pasto and began studying and showing it. In the decades since, the writing about and exhibiting of work by self-taught artists, particularly by artists who made their work while living in institutions—or who, if not institutionalized, functioned in a zone of their own making, apart from everyday social intercourse—have grown enormously. The current Ramìrez show is accompanied by a first-rate catalog which reproduces the fullest selection of his pictures ever. It also presents, along with a range of articles on the meanings of his drawings and on the way they have been received over the years, the first real biography of the artist, a study by sociologists Vìctor M. Espinosa and Kristin E. Espinosa, whose research is still underway.


After their biography here, Ramìrez will no longer be quite the same person one has read about since the 1970s. That Martìn Ramìrez was a ghostly, impalpable genius of drawing who inhabited the body of an ill man and social nonentity—a sense of him reinforced by his decades-long silence

http://toryfolliard.com/moxiepix/b4_43.jpg

and by a rare photograph in which, at DeWitt, wearing a robe and looking decidedly ill, frail, and unkempt, he stands holding up one of his large pictures along with Pasto. The figure who emerges from the Espinosas' research is still, of course, someone whose thinking we can never be sure of; and he remains a profoundly solitary man who was caught in the grips, to one degree or another, of mental illness, of the chaotic times he must have found in California in the early Depression, and of being a manual laborer with virtually no social or political rights in a country whose language he couldn't comprehend.

Yet Ramìrez is now a particular person, from a specific town and region, and one who connects with the confident, even implacable (although not the often witty and charming) author of the drawings. We now know that when he took the train north from his native Jalisco state in western Mexico to seek work he left behind a wife, Marìa Santa Ana, and three children (a fourth, his first boy, was born some months after he arrived in California). In his homeland he had a small farm, or rancho, and, in a region of Mexico where traditional manly possessions and skills were esteemed, he was known to carry a pistol and to be an expert horseman. Through the Espinosas' research, we learn that on rare occasions Ramìrez spoke in Spanish when he was in the asylums; and whether through confusion derived from mental illness, or from the temperamental dictates of a man who didn't question tradition, or because, on some level, Ramìrez's deepest allegiance was to his art, he maintained a very particular set of ties to his homeland.

The Mexico he left would soon be riven by conflict between the revolutionary, secular government and a Christian insurgency, called the Cristero Rebellion, a movement that held Ramìrez's loyalty. In California, he learned that, during the civil strife back home, he lost his rancho, and he mistakenly seemed to think, through misreading a letter, that at some point his wife went over to the side of the Federales. His written response was that his children should be taken away from their mother if she was still aligned with the government. And later, we learn, he rejected entreaties from fellow Mexicans in California to return home with them, saying that he wished for his brother to take care of his children, whom he realized he would never see again.

The newly discovered facts make the crisis that enveloped Ramìrez after he left home even more excruciating. But they also give many of his images a resonance they didn't have before. His figures of armed, solitary riders now have some reason to be seen as self-portraits, or certainly to connect with the fighting back home. Ramìrez's mixed feelings about Marìa Santa Ana might lie, as the Espinosas note, behind his numerous images of female horseback riders and even of American women, taken from magazines, whom he sometimes shows bearing arms. The finest of his pictures of women, meanwhile, his Madonnas, floating figures whose facial expressions can be serene or agitated and whose clothing and crowns call forth some of Ramìrez's loveliest work with pure line, we now know derive from memories of Madonnas in his home parish church. Undoubtedly it is this personal tie that helps give some of these tall, narrow drawings, particularly a nearly eight-foot-high, untitled masterpiece subtitled La Inmaculada, their sense of ethereality and grandeur.


Looking at and thinking about Ramìrez, it is hard to keep Adolf Wölfli, an equally major figure in the annals of self-taught artists (and the subject of a retrospective at the American Folk Art Museum in 2003[*]), out of one's mind. The remarkable similarities between the two can make it seem as if all institutionalized and self-taught artists are on the same wavelength—except that few of these artists have made such full bodies of work, and in the end there are significant differences between them. The Swiss Wölfli, who died in 1930, aged sixty-six, was also a manual laborer with little formal education who began making drawings after the authorities placed him in an asylum. Wölfli, too, lived for roughly the second half of his life in a hospital (in his native Bern), his efforts there encouraged by a deeply sympathetic onlooker. Like Ramìrez, he eventually began making collages, adding magazine images of young women, among other subjects, onto his sheets; and like Ramìrez's pictures, Wölfli's are often quite big and scroll-shaped in format.

Ramìrez and Wölfli were separated by a full generation. Yet each made an art that, equally stylized, fantastical, and emphatically ordered and measured, often has to do with travel and movement. Comprised of numberless little interconnecting shapes, figures, and stretches of writing and of musical notation, Wölfli's images would seem to be the stifling opposites of Ramìrez's airy, linear worlds. In their underlying design, though, the Swiss artist's pictures are game boards or mazes; they form curvy pathways that, like Ramìrez's tracks, connote endlessly alluring yet destinationless voyaging.

The two men even presented themselves in their pictures in a similar way. Commandingly self-assured creators as they were, they imagined themselves, in the various alter egos that dot their scenes, as playful little—and bald—heroes. We see Ramìrez as the armed horseman taking various poses and, elsewhere, as the same man at a desk, drawing pictures, or simply looking out at us, while Wölfli clearly put a lot of himself into a fellow with an eye mask who is often seen glancing offstage, like a burglar suddenly realizing he is not alone.

If Wölfli is the more astonishing of the two it is because, especially in pencil drawings made only in shades of gray, his ability to create interlocking shapes and figures and to do so over large areas without losing a caressing, sensuous touch is stupendous. One seems to stand in the presence of an inexplicable energy. Ramìrez is not so mind-boggling. Yet the scope of his art is in no way smaller, as his looming Madonnas (which have no counterpart in the Swiss artist's work) attest. Ramìrez's drawings are more grounded in common human experiences, at least for American and Mexican viewers, and while Wölfli's art subtly changed over time, Ramìrez made real leaps in his work.

Although few of his pictures can be dated precisely, it is clear, for instance, that there were times when Ramìrez didn't want or need to show the world as primarily a matter of decisively clear lines. In certain panoramic views, we see trees, many kinds of buildings wedged together, and lots of delicate marks to indicate texture. There are roadways, tunnels, and cars of every vintage, yet the roadways are so many detoured paths or dead ends, and Ramìrez's subject might be urban confusion in itself. Despite one of these panoramas being nearly nine feet long and clearly a major effort, the views aren't as compellingly strange as Ramìrez's more purely linear visions of order and movement. In these pileups of details, where he uses collage as much as drawing, his result, ironically and a bit deflatingly, is not so different from that of numerous professional or trained twentieth-century artists, from the Cubists on, who have employed a cut-and-paste method. Yet it is refreshing to see him make so radical a change in his work. He is like any artist who feels strong enough to branch out from his signature approach.


Ramìrez as an artist may always be a little hard to reach, and not simply because he never said a word about his artistic intentions or because his biography, with its complex social and cultural ramifications, is so powerful in itself. What keeps the torments he faced so much the chief subject is that his images, which can suggest more than one meaning at a time—as when his trains speeding into dark tunnels bring to mind sexual intercourse—almost ask to be read symbolically. Moreover, we somehow need to see these drawings, with their sense of endless movement going nowhere, as a sign language created precisely for telling the stories of being a schizophrenic and an immigrant—of being someone continually torn between two identities and two homes.

In the catalog's essays, Ramìrez's images are perceptively and engagingly described as reflections of a man who came to live in a state of "permanent dislocation," as Victor Zamudio-Taylor writes, and whose work was an "expression of longing and remembrance," as Brooke Davis Anderson puts it. Yet the words that stood out for this writer in these lucid and densely informative articles came in a description by Daniel Baumann of one of Ramìrez's pictures of ani-mals in a desert setting, where he says, "one rarely experiences a more elegant, discreet, and lighthearted way to represent the feeling of solitude." These adjectives are unlike those generally used in regard to Ramìrez. Yet they capture much of the tenor of his pictures, which are not only about rupture and loss but, and perhaps even more, a man in love with lines.

Notes

[*] See my review, "Wölfli's Empire," The New York Review, May 29, 2003.