WWII: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939)

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact was signed on August 23, 1939 (Moscow) between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It is named for the two foreign ministers, Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov, who were involved with the negotiation. Germany was already aligned with Mussolini’s Italy, and by the late 1930s its intent toward expansionism was clear.

Stalin was playing both sides: the Soviets were negotiating with Germany at the same time they were in talks with Britain and France. What would not be known for years was that the German-Soviet agreement also included secret provisions for dividing up the Euro-Soviet borderlands (Finland, the Baltics, Poland, and Romania), setting up the nearly immediate German invasion on September 1.

In the first of these two editorial cartoons, which come from September-October 1939, Germany (in the form of Hitler) is portrayed as relying on some unreliable buffoons, the swigging Soviet water-boy (Stalin) and the assistant who is sniffing his own smelling salts (Mussolini). These are “the boys in his corner,” and the artist intends to communicate to the readership that he thinks Germany is placing its bet on support from some unreliable characters.

Plaschke091539
The Boys in His Corner” (September 15, 1939)
by Paul Albert Plaschke (1880 – 1954)
24 x 36 in., ink and charcoal on paper
Coppola Collection

The message in October is pretty much the same: Hitler is taking a risk on this communist alliance (dubbed by Time Magazine as the “Communazi Pact”). Stalin is portrayed as the  croupier, and the game is played under the Soviet illumination. Pyramiding is a betting scheme used in roulette where you maintain your bet when you are winning but increase it by an increment when you lose, so there is a skepticism being communicated, here, about Hitler’s wisdom in this partnership – which is being cast as just another front is his battle (Kampf).

PaschkeOct21939Roulette
Mein Kampf” (October 2, 1939)
by Paul Albert Plaschke (1880 – 1954)
24 x 36 in., ink and charcoal on paper
Coppola Collection

The Great Wall Series

One of the earliest commission jobs I asked Gerhard to take on was looking through some of my favorite images that I had taken during my trips to China, particularly shots of the Great Wall, and then to transform them through the magic of his ink and watercolor prowess.

He made some terrific choices in how to handle these, particularly in going to the light sepia tones instead of full contrasting color.

As he was reviewing a site that had lots of pictures, we collaborated on narrowing down the exact set according to the different points of view and depictions.

When the four drawings arrived, there was a fifth included. A truly wonderful and amazing and hilarious gift from Gerhard, who, in reviewing the pictures, had come across one that he simple HAD to do. So funny. So cool. It is there at the bottom of this set.

The Great Wall Series (2009)

GreatWall01Great Wall No. 1” (2009)
by Gerhard (1959-)
16×20 in., ink and watercolor
Coppola Collection

GreatWall02
Great Wall No. 2” (2009)
by Gerhard (1959-)
16×20 in., ink and watercolor
Coppola Collection

GreatWall03
Great Wall No. 3” (2009)
by Gerhard (1959-)
16×20 in., ink and watercolor
Coppola Collection

GreatWall04
Great Wall No. 4” (2009)
by Gerhard (1959-)
16×20 in., ink and watercolor
Coppola Collection

 

And… presenting… the bonus fifth drawing.

Yes, that’s me… in garb… on a camel. And yes, that happened.

Camel
Great Wall No. 5” (2009)
by Gerhard (1959-)
16×20 in., ink and watercolor
Coppola Collection

Gerhard surprised me twice with this image. It appeared as a framed picture on the wall of “Gerhard Dreams” (2011).

Fingers, Moons, Trucks, and Groceries

Let’s go with the Confucius attribution for this one:
‘When a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile examines the finger.’

We do too much finger-examinating in education. Time and time (and time) again, teaching effectiveness is not readily attributed to the talent and insight of the individual educator, but rather to a vehicle that carries information. The reasons for this are comprehensible enough and you also see it time and time (and time) again when it comes to talent-based activities that everyone wants to be able to do well.

If you see a photographer whose work you admire and you ask what sort of camera and lenses were used as the strategy to take better pictures.

If you eat a complex meal that was well prepared and you ask what sort of oven and pots and knives were used as the strategy to make delicious food.

If you see a painter whose work you admire and you ask what sort of canvas and paints were used as the strategy to make better pictures.

If you see a builder whose work you admire and you ask what sort of tools were used as the strategy to make better furniture.

You get the idea? These are all examples of staring at the finger.

A talented chef can cook MAINLY because of talent, not because of tools. I do not want to put too fine a point on it, because clearly having a sharp knife and a food processor could be better than not having them, but all things being equal, an imbecile with a sharp knife is still an imbecile, while a chef with a stone club and a campfire can probably turn out a masterpiece.

People ask about what kind of camera I use ALL the time when they are paying me a sideways compliment about the pictures I take. It really makes no sense – pictures are composed by the brain behind the camera.

We have reached a point in higher education where talent is nearly universally denied in favor of “deliverable research-based classroom methods” (our data shows that there is a correlation between taking great pictures and using a good camera… so, incredibly enough, the converse must be true). If you participate in various classroom practices, then you are a better instructor and the students are learning more.

PLEASE – take me on and debate this point!

Culturally, we have repeated this error in confounding information delivery with education so many times that the profession probably ought to be brought up on misconduct charges. Books… the mail service… radio… television… computers… the internet… and, soon enough, AI methods.

Read this:

“The speed with which [the new technology] is spreading through the world is one of the technological phenomena of our time… At the same time, educators everywhere are faced with the challenge of a rapidly growing school and college population and the need for a new approach to the content and methods of teaching. [This technology] may provide one of the answers to their problems.”

When was this written and what was it written about?

Ready?

OK.

I’ll tell you later.

In 1983, Richard Clark, one of the founding contributors to ideas about technology-based instruction, wrote:

“Media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition.”

Talking about the truck (a tool of delivery, the finger that points to the moon) is not only easier to do than talking about the groceries (actual educational outcomes), it also removes the knotty and uncomfortable problem of idiosyncratic talent and expertise from the equation.

And, to make matters worse, the educational technology evangelists are pushing the idea of teacher-neutral automation as a way to deal with the (admittedly real)  financial crisis in maintaining higher education. This will end up with a class-based distinction in the value and quality of an education, and we ought to simply acknowledge and admit it and make the best of it, or we ought not to do it. But really, we should not be so delusional.

The quote, by the way, is from a 1960 UNESCO report:

“The speed with which television is spreading through the world is one of the technological phenomena of our time… At the same time, educators everywhere are faced with the challenge of a rapidly growing school and college population and the need for a new approach to the content and methods of teaching. Television may provide one of the answers to their problems.”

Just look how well that worked out.

“Angst”

Angst
Angst” (ca. 1984)
by Jeffrey Catherine Jones (1944-2011)
28 x 28 in, oil and pencil on heavy board
Coppola Collection

“Stupendous” is perhaps the least I could possibly say about this ‘self portrait’ by Jones. She reported to Rob P that it was done while in the “grip of depression” (in the 1980s, Jones was between a divorce and the eventual gender transition that began in the late 1990s). She also said it was her ‘SCREAM,’ which is easy to believe.

Perhaps not too surprising, either: no digit image can do this piece justice.

“Oppenheimer’s Dharma”

dannymac01
I have been buying (and making modest suggestions for the design of) jewelry from an awesome Neo-Modernist named Daniel Macchiarini (1954-) since the late 1990s. Danny is the son of Peter Macchiarini, who was a key fixture in the San Francisco artist scene in the North Beach area of San Francisco from the 1930s to the time of his death in the 1990s. Feel free to visit Danny (virtually or in person) at:

Macchiarini Design
1554 Grant Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94133
Phone: 415.982.2229
Email: danny1mac@sbcglobal.net

Store web site: http://www.macreativedesign.com

anYhOw… thanks to my pent-up desire to do 3D art, which I had never done, and my respect for Danny, and his own pent-up desire to begin to think about offering workshops, we agreed to set a time to see how we might resolve this clearly mutual creative interest. And we did, over the weekend of March 20-21, 2005.

Oppenheimer

Oppenheimer’s Dharma” (2005)
by Brian P Coppola
assisted by Ian Stewart
directed by Daniel Macchiarini

Materials: Ebony, Ivory, Mahogany, Copper, Brass, Stainless Steel, Mild Steel

Created in a Sculpture Workshop (20-21 March 2005) conducted by Daniel Macchiarini @ Macchiarini Creative Design Studio, San Francisco, CA

The Story

Former UM undergrad and Berkeley PhD Ian Stewart, who has been known to drop a peso or two at Macchiarini’s place, joined in the fun on that March 20.

Day One (noon): A brief lesson from Danny, on his computer, about space, shape, texture, balance, and other fundamental art ideas, using images and examples of his and his father’s pieces as a resource. Then, Ian and I got a user’s tour of the workshop, and a big old blank spot at a workbench… a large sheet of newsprint, some pencils, and lots of metal and wooden objects to think about as we played “the game of the sculpture.” This is a fun game and takes at least two players: laying out shapes and developing a single drawing as you talk out loud about your ideas. On another day, maybe, I will give a more detailed version of the process. But, once the ideas began to converge as an array of objects whose relationship started to be fixed (around 2-3 pm), Danny (who was just hanging back and mainly answering questions) showed us how to cut and solder different types of metals, and to deal with the other technques that we needed to learn.

In the Neo-Modernist tradition, the plan evolves through iteration: you do not always know the whole story first – it emerges. Most of the basic story emerged for me by the time we started soldering (although I did not share it), and the sculpture itself continued to emerge as the story refined itself in my mind. Yeah – you will be hearing about it soon enough. We worked until about 6 pm.

Day Two (10 am): Just me and Danny. I worked on my sculpture, learned to work with ivory and ebony, and bantered around with Danny while he worked on a large fountain/sculpture that was to be installed in someone’s backyard garden. By about 4 pm, the sculpture was done (except for polishing) and being hung on the wall. I went over to the newsprint design and wrote the title next to the drawing: “Oppenheimer’s dharma.” A client of Danny’s came into the store, and Danny was all “Look what Brian did at this workshop we just finished.” And the client was all “Nice, interesting, whatever.” And I was all “You guys want to know the title and the story of this piece?”

Heh heh heh – Danny tends to sculpt and design in large sweeping ideas and motion, rather than in descriptive narrative, so I think he was at least a little surprised when I had this story to tell.

 

“Oppenheimer’s dharma”
by Brian P Coppola

San Francisco, CA; 03/21/05

To a Hindu, one’s dharma is the “law” or “job” of your position in life: the responsibilities you have as a member of your caste. In contrast with your karma, which is the report card of how well (or not) you did in fulfilling your dharma. One of the reasons why Robert Oppenheimer might have become enamored with Hindu texts, particularly the Bhagavad Gita, was that it helped him reconcile his scientist’s dharma (to discover and always push forward) when faced with the moral dilemma of helping to create a device (the Bomb) that he understood to be morally indefensible and reprehensible. When seeing the flash and the mushroom cloud at the Trinity test site, Oppenheimer is reported to have quoted from the Gita: “I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.”

In “Oppenheimer’s Dharma” I have depicted a classic creation/death/resurrection cycle.

OppenheimerYou can start reading this anywhere, but let’s start at the bottom. A drop of pure white (circular ivory) combines with the void, continuing (because starting has no meaning) the universal cycle (and it moves in the direction of the arrow, in case you need help). Time passes, as suggested by a pendulum swing, the action of a clock – of time. Eventually, worlds form. Inherently nihilistic, creation is accompanied by destruction. The creation (vertical) axis complements the destruction (horizontal) axis: they are not opposites; together they comprise the whole. Nearly at the horizontal, a world explodes.
It always happens: the Bomb. It’s a dirty dharma, but someone has to do it: the shock wave and the mushroom cloud appear. The explosion echoes along history’s path, and creation rises from destruction in the form of the phoenix – purifying and refining in the fires of creation and destruction. Worlds die, but the movement of history goes on (the arc continues), and new worlds arise in the eye of the phoenix. Destruction is cast out in the form of the blackness (in creation, sometimes destruction is destroyed), emerging from the same direction as the refined white teardrop of the phoenix. Darkness and light continue their Oppenheimerbattle in the body of the phoenix until at last there is only the void, again, along with the pure white tear (or is it the seed?) of the phoenix. Pure white combines with the void, continuing the universal cycle.

The creation/death/resurrection cycle requires all players to play their parts. Oppenheimer’s dharma is not merely that of a scientist; his dharma – and his uniqueness – is that of the scientist who must inevitably build the Bomb.

The destruction of destruction, after all, is creation.

 

Stranger than Fiction

In the news, February 2017, in GQ and elsewhere, where Trump has been placed into a puppet presidency by Steven Bannon:

Donald Trump is Signing Executive Orders that He Doesn’t Read or Understand
by Jack Moore

“Speaking with several White House aides and staffers anonymously, Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman of the Times counted the ways the Trump regime has been a disaster in one of the most damning paragraphs I’ve ever read about a politician:

For the moment, Mr. Bannon remains the president’s dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump’s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban.

In the comics, February 1984, in Cerebus (issue 59, pp 14-15), where Cerebus has been placed into a puppet presidency by Adam Weisshaupt (the historical name of the founder of the Illuminati):

“Look… if Cerebus wants to know what he is signing, Cerebus will ask… okay?”

“Much faster this way, don’t you think?”

Yes, sir.

cerebus_59_14

 

cerebus_59_15

 

A Complete Life Cycle

 

SSG2017The 2016-17 leaders in the University of Michigan Structured Study Group (SSG) program for Organic Chemistry, Feb 2017, wishing me a happy birthday from the dinner I could not attend because I was out of town [l to r: James, Jenny, Jack, Danny (middle), Mike (back), Thomas, Charles (front)]

The Chinese people believe that when a person reaches the age of 60, he or she has completed a full cycle of life, which calls for a grand celebration. The history of the 60th birthday is based on Chinese astrology. Twelve animals symbolize astrological signs. The Chinese calender is based the 12 signs and the five natural elements: metal, fire, water, earth and wood.

This 5×12 math results in a 60-year cycle.

Following the 60th birthday, the person begins a new life.

The 60th birthday celebration is marked by special food items, such as noodles and peaches, both representing a long life. During the festivities, adult children, grandchildren and friends come together to show appreciation and give presents. Money, flowers and cakes are common gifts. The larger the family, the bigger the celebration.

I developed, and have been running, the SSG program since 1994-95. SSG1995A
The 1994-95 SSG leaders, Dec 1994 [l to r: Deb, me, Doug, Matt, Sarah, Vidya, Adrian (Marc Feldman, who was missing from the dinner, died tragically in a skiing accident over spring break, two months later; I always regret that Marc missed this dinner)]

In the Chinese tradition, people generally only celebrate every 10 years following their 60th birthday.

“Tales of Suspense #86 ‘Death Duel…’ p 11” (February 1967)

“Tales of Suspense #86: Iron Man p 11” (February 1967)
by Gene Colan (1926 -2011) and Frank Giacoia (1924-1988)
12.5 x 18.5 in., ink on paper
Coppola Collection

After a pitched battle between the Mandarin and Iron Man, Iron Man manages to fight off his foe. As he’s rescuing Happy Hogan from the Mandarin’s soldiers, Iron Man learns that they have altered the course of a test missile being launched in Peking to target the United States.

Fifty years ago!

I’ve got a few pages from comics published in these few months in 1967 that stem from a particular nostalgia. I turned 10 years old in February 1967, and this page was from the Iron Man story in the first issue of Tales of Suspense that I ever bought. And, along with Tales to Astonish #88, the first two Marvel Super-Hero comics I ever read.  Suspense featured two independent 12-page stories starring the Iron Man and Captain America, while Astonish featured Sub-Mariner and the Hulk. This two-story strategy was good, I think. For the price of two books, you got to follow four characters. I have pages from Astonish #87 and #89… but not from #88.

Why pick up these books?

During the Fall 1966 TV season, along with the premieres of Star Trek, the animated “Great Pumpkin” Peanuts special and the animated “Grinch” Christmas special (not to mention the January broadcast of the first Batman episode and the summertime appearance of The Beatles on Ed Sullivan), Marvel created four 13-segment animated adaptations of Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, and Sub-Mariner. I use “animated” in a loose sense, as these were pastiches of photocopies with limited, often toggled still frames, taken mostly from the published comics. I saw them as they appeared in the late afternoon, five days a week, out of the ABC affiliate in Boston. The bridging segments weren’t hosted by a live action emcee dressed (and in character) as Captain America.

I am pretty sure that these cartoons did more for increasing general interest and awareness in the Marvel Super-Heroes than anything else they ever did. There was also a bubble gum card campaign during 1966.

They certainly got me.

“Pensive Birch Bot”

doD3aBba_2608161953131gpadd
Pensive Birch Bot” (2016)
by Lauren Briere (1985-)
16 x 24 in., oil on wood
Coppola Collection

I visited the “Austin Art Garage” a few years ago. It is very cool.

I had been keeping my eye open for when Lauren’s originals are posted. She’s got a nice combination of expressiveness with the classic robot motif. What I liked about this one, in particular, is that while the robot contemplates, close up and framed by the birch, the yellow and green life of the flower, we are contemplating, close up and framed by the birch, the yellow with a splash of green life of the robot.

Or did you think that green reflection is an accident?