Scalia and the Neo-Con Court

Logo network is reporting Scalia's remarks on homosexuality to a student group in Switzerland. He statess his standard for what the Constitution allows is this : what would the original writers of the Constitution have said?. Clearly in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century homosexuality would have been seen still as an abhoration. This is the very serious problem with Scalia. That he, as a literalist in his interpretation of the Constitution, believes there is no 'living document'. If we accept Scalia's outmoded ideas than the last 250 or so years have never happened - including reproductive rights, womens right to vote, the abolition of slavery; nearly any contemporary right to privacy issue or emmancipation issue you may hold dear and precious - and expect to continue to be your right in a free nation. The debate centers then around whether the Constitution is a static document interpretted only in the manner our forefathers, with all their eighteenth century ideals and prejudices intact, or whether it is indeed the 'living document' subscribed to by moderate and more liberal high court justices. (They are the reason our rights to privacy now exist). Will that precedence be enough in future? Not if Scalia and his neo-con partner judges remain on the bench for very long. The vote now swings their way. (Note the challenges already posed to the cornerstone of privacy rights, Roe vs. Wade) It is interesting to note that the manner in which Scalia interprets the Constitution is still guesswork - however much he may believe the forefathers would decide an issue in a certain manner he was not, nor can he ever be, with them to argue the point. Therefore it is still a theory, still an interpretation, still a 'guess' to what persons in another time and a different society than our own would say. But even if his guesses are close to the views of our founding fathers do YOU and I wish to live by the norms of a defunct society which in no way meets the then unconceived challenges of our time?

I previously posted an essay by a Professor Hyde on this site regarding aspects of this argument in regards to neoclassical paintings and their homoerotic subject matter. It is well worth sifting through again - becuase his theory revolves around this premis: is the Constitution a dead and static documentwith no ability to meet need in modern society or is it a living document which interprets the social change which the founding fathers could never have imagined? It's interesting to learn who wants it to be a static document and who does not....

Here is the URL: http://www.andromeda.rutgers.edu...e/ homo.htm#N_1_

Pink News UK Publishes Peter Tatchel, Britain's Finest Gay Advocate

See this article on PinkNews.CO.UK. (As always, click this post's title to take you to the Article). Peter Tatchel has been beaten, mobbed, arrested, and nearly starves working tirelessly every day year round to promote the equality of Gay and Lesbian men and women around the world. His commentary below expresses the fundamental code of free Speech we say we believe in here in America. It will challenge you... it did me.

Comment: Why I Support Free Speech Even if it Mocks Me

Peter Tatchell: Why I support free speech even if it mocks me
In the run up to a Freedom of Expression Rally to be held at 2pm in Trafalgar Square on Saturday 25th March 2006, Human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell explains to PinkNews.co.uk readers why he feels free speech is under attack and needs defending. "The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offence in their time. The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of expression and this includes the right to criticise and mock. We assert and uphold the right of freedom of expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same. We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them." This is the statement of principle that Saturday's freedom of expression rally has been called to defend. How can anyone disagree with these progressive values? I can’t, and that is why I will be joining the thousands in Trafalgar Square. The rally is backed mostly by secular, humanist and libertarian groups, but with support from some left-wingers and liberal Muslims. Some of my friends on the left are refusing to take part. Preferring to remain marginal but pure, they object to the involvement of right-wing groups like the Libertarian Alliance and the Freedom Association. I share their distaste for these groups. But my participation on Saturday is based on supporting the statement of principle, not on who else is taking part. I will not let the dubious politics of others dissuade me from supporting what are important, progressive humanitarian values. Sections of the left moan that the rally is being supported the right. Well, if these socialists object so strongly why don’t they organise their own demo in support of free speech? The truth is that is that some of the left would rarely, if ever, rally to defend freedom of expression because they don’t wholeheartedly believe in it. Mired in the immoral morass of cultural relativism, they no longer endorse Enlightenment values and universal human rights. Their support for free speech is now qualified by so many ifs and buts. When push comes to shove, it is more or less worthless. As a left-wing Green, committed to human rights and social justice, I do not share the politics of some other speakers and rallyists. But this is the whole point of Saturdays’ demo – to defend the free speech of those with whom we disagree. While I support the right of newspapers to publish cartoons satirising any religious or atheist leader, there are bigger, more important free speech issues to fight. When I speak in Trafalgar Square on Saturday, I will defend Muslim communities against prejudice and discrimination, attack the BNP and the war on terror, and condemn the government’s erosion of civil liberties and individual freedom. My speech will also assert the right to condemn British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, urge less state secrecy and more freedom of information, and call for the disestablishment of the Church of England and the freedom to insult the Queen, Prime Minister and Archbishop of Canterbury. When it comes to free speech, I am an equal opportunities free speecher. I even defend the right of others to mock and ridicule me. I may not like it. It might be unfair. But that’s democracy. Some critics are mischievously portraying Saturday’s protest as an anti-Muslim rally. I condemn any attempt to demonise or scapegoat my Muslim brothers and sisters. I also reject the suggestion of a clash of civilisations. Both fundamentalists and progressives can be found in all faiths, politics, ethnicities and cultures. No society has a monopoly of enlightenment and plurality. Muslim societies like Bangladesh have produced Enlightenment icons like the feminist writer Taslima Nasreen; while supposedly cultured nations like Britain and France have spawned the Dark Ages ignorance of the British National Party and the Front National. When considering the vexed question of the limits to free speech, perhaps we should start with first principles: Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” By this standard, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right for every person on this planet. It is a right for all, not some. If we expect free speech for ourselves, then we are duty bound to ensure that it also exists for others. Contrary to what the cultural relativists try to suggest, freedom of expression is not a western value; it is a universal humanitarian value that every member state of the United Nations has pledged to uphold. By demanding the right to free speech, we are not seeking to impose western values on non-western nations. We are merely asking the governments of the world to honour the human rights commitments they agreed when they signed up to the UN. Free speech is one of the litmus tests of a free and democratic society. Alas, not everyone shares a commitment to democracy. To maintain their power, political and religious tyrants have always censored ideas and opinions. Some liberals and left-wingers, often with the honourable motive of tackling prejudice, have also attempted to place constraints on what can be publicly said on issues such as race and sexuality. This authoritarianism lite has its downside too. Suppressing intolerant ideas doesn’t make them go away. They just go underground and fester. This is not a solution. While many people of faith have been recently up-in-arms over cartoons, plays and operas they find offensive, ironically it is the free expression they oppose that is the precondition for genuine political and religious freedom. It is in the interests of people of all political and religious beliefs - and of none - to defend freedom of expression. By defending the freedom of others we are also defending our own freedom. The right to free speech is the surest guarantor of religious freedom. Without freedom of expression, religious minorities tend to be persecuted by religious majorities. Witness, in theocratic Iran, the victimisation of Sunni Muslims by Shia Muslims. A democratic secular state is the true protector of all religions. It guarantees religious freedom and equality, ensuring that no one faith lords it over others. That is why, among other things, I favour the disestablishment of the Church of England, to end the privileged constitutional and legal status of this increasingly diminished protestant sect. Freedom of expression should not, of course, be abused. A harmonious, good natured society is one where people are civil and courteous to each other. Prejudice and discrimination have no place in civilised discourse. Offensive language - whether sexist, anti-gay or racist – is rude and divisive and should always be challenged. Those who justify legal limits to free speech need to answer a number of questions: When it comes to censorship and bans, where do you start and where do you stop? Who decides what is sufficiently offensive to merit restriction? At what point do you draw the line? Isn’t this an inevitably subjective judgement? When does a well-meaning desire to protect vulnerable communities spill over into the dangerous territory of giving some communities privileged protection and immunity from criticism? All human beings are worthy of respect, but not all ideas deserve respect. There is, for example, no obligation to respect Nazism, misogyny, white supremacism, homophobia or creationism. I grew up in Australia in the 1960s, during a period of McCarthyite-style red-baiting. Because I opposed the US and Australian war against Vietnam, I was denounced as a communist and nearly lost my job. From firsthand experience, I know freedom of expression is a precious freedom that must be safeguarded. That is why I argue the right to free speech can be legitimately restricted only when it involves incitement to violence or libel/defamation. The threat of violence and the spreading of untruths diminish free, honest and open debate. Otherwise, speech must remain free. The rare exceptions are instances like not being free to publish terrorist bomb-making instructions. The price of living in a free society is that we are sometimes confronted with views we find offensive and insulting. Faced with bigoted, intolerant opinions, the most effective way to challenge them is by calm, reasoned debate to dispel ignorance and prejudice – not by bans and censorship. Physical threats and violence are unacceptable. In January, I challenged Sir Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain when he denounced homosexuality as immoral, harmful and diseased. But I did not seek to ban him, nor did I support calls for his prosecution. I defended Sir Iqbal’s right to free speech. Will he and his fellow MCB leaders now defend my right to freedom of expression? Or is Sir Iqbal another of those selective free speech proponents? Freedom of expression for me, but not for you? Peter Tatchell's Human Rights Fund remains woefully underfunded. If you support the work that Peter carries out on behalf of the gay community and other groups across the world, please consider making a donation to the Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund.

Check it out online at TatchellRightsFund.org or send a cheque made out to ‘PTHRF’ to ‘Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund, PO Box 35253, London E1 4YF' For more information on the work of Peter Tatchell, visit his website at PeterTatchell.net

Thierry de Ville d'Avray

Ms. Tracey Albainy of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts has been generously corresponding with me regarding the collection of Thierry royal French furniture recently restored by the BMFA's efforts in conjuction with museums and companies around the world. I'd like to share a little of her writing with you for she tells of the magnificent work the museum has accomplished:

8 March 2006

Dear Ms. Albainy,

First, may I congratulate the museum on such a very fine conservation/restoration, and in recognizing the value of preserving these magnificent artworks.

I'm very grateful to you for taking the time to contact me regarding the Thierry de Ville d'Avray suite of furniture. I was browsing through my old copies of L'Objet d'Art and came across their cover story of the furniture in their January 2003 issue. It goes into depth as to the restoration process and includes photographs which give me a fairly decent idea of how the frames were conserved of further damage to the wood. The article is divided into two parts, and the second regarding the technical processes is where my French is stronger. I am more curious about Xavier Bonnet's article which seems to be verifying the little written documentation available that the museum's furniture was indeed that ordered by Thierry for Fontainebleau and that it is determined in part by these few surviving records but also in the details of the carving and construction (a la anglaise) which differs in later nineteenth century reproductions? The frames were originally to be painted, not gilded? The fabric also was listed in the inventory as blue-gray and white in an arabesque design? How close do you feel the recreated fabric matches the original colour-way? Is the particular symbolism represented in the chosen design relevant to Thierry? (The forgers seem to be hammering a Coat of Arms? The sea-horses and hunting dogs represent? I'm curious about details - such as why the frames went to Los Angeles for the cleaning and retouching of the gilding, as well as how many restorations the pieces have been subjected to over the years?

Please forgive me for going on and taking your time. I have a great love of French furniture and this sort of restoration is seldom done. I understand that your particular type of restoration was developed here in the US, at the Getty? Do you think personally think it maintains the integrity of the original artistry? I lived in Los Angeles for a number of years and spent much time at the Getty enjoying their very fine collection, as well as the pieces at the Huntington. (There is even a small collection formerly owned by the Doheny family at St. John's Seminary in Camarillo.) And of course in New York we have the Frick and the Met. I've seen the best collections in Paris, though not yet the Wallace in London. Steible's has had a pair of Foliot Louis XV fauteuils on their web-site which are truly amazing. So, I feel very ignorant to not have realized we have such a treasure residing in Boston.

I will see if I can purchase the Apollo magazine from the BMFA store - or go to Apollo, which I believe sells back issues on-line. You are telling me, though, that there is no BMFA catalogue containing the suite's history (which I find fascinating), restoration and photographs? Is the furniture on display in it's entirety? We've spoken of taking the train to see the suite one weekend soon.

Again, you are very, very kind to respond so kindly and quickly to my interest. I am

Sincerely Yours,

Don Larson

Her response:

Dear Mr. Larsen,

I apologize for the delay in responding. I have just returned from the art fair in Maastricht--an extraordinary experience I recommend highly!

Xavier Bonnet's article in L'Estampille/Object d'Art is a superb reference for the conservation project. Xavier, as you now know, was one of the team of upholsterers who researched the original upholstery treatment by Claude-Francois Capin and recreated it using the wealth of documentation they had available. Because the suite was paid for by the Crown, it was extensively documented. We had at our disposal an unprecedented amount of physical and written documentation for this project, so very little interpretation was necessary. In addition to the order in the registers of the Garde-Meuble, we also had the account books of the individual craftsmen responsible for the project to provide details of the work.

To answer your questions in order:

The original suite was ordered for Thierry's apartment in the Hôtel du Garde-Meuble in Paris, not the château of Fontainebleau. I think that the confusion arose because the silk lampas was originally designed for the King's Gaming Room at Fontainebleau. As a perquisite of his royal appointment, Thierry had access to the leftover yardage stored in the Garde-Meuble and consequently used the same silk for his bedroom.

We reproduced the silk lampas using a large panel--either a bedhanging or a portiere--comprising three complete widths seamed together. This panel, given to the Museum of Fine Arts by a direct descendant of James Swan, is the only surviving document of the complete pattern, which measures approximately 11 feet 7 inches in length and includes four major motifs representing the Four Elements: spaniels (Earth), winged sea horses (water vapor, or Water), river gods (Water), and a cyclops forging Jupiter's thunderbolts (Fire). Although the Lyons firm, Reboul, Fontebrune et Compagnie, originally woven the three-color silk lampas for the King's Gaming Room at Fontainebleau, there are no royal symbols included in the pattern. The elegant pattern is a characteristic neoclassical arabesque design attributable to Jean-Demosthene Dugourc. In addition to the lampas, the Museum also had in its storerooms fragments of the original woven borders in two widths and a variety of passementeries, which also served as documents for reproduction.

The registers of the Garde-Meuble described the colors as blue, white and grey, though the panel clearly shows them to be a turquoise blue, cream, and taupe. We identified the original colors by opening the seams of the panel, exposing areas of unfaded textile, and had the silk fibers dyed to match. There is no doubt in my mind that the colors we used are accurate.

The conservation project comprised three parts: the treatment of the gilded frames, the reproduction of the lampas and trims, and the reupholstery. The gilding conservation was done by Cynthia Moyer, a private conservator working under the supervision of Brian Considine in the objects conservation laboratories at the J. Paul Getty Museum. Brian and Cynthia are Paris-trained specialists in 18th-century French gilding and we chose them for this treatment because of their highly specialized training and understanding of period gilding. The Getty Museum generously offered Cynthia the use of their facility so that she would have adequate insurance coverage, the equipment required, and a photo lab at her disposal. At the same time, the Getty was interested in researching the suite. All the pieces had undergone one or more restorations during their long history; most had a later toned varnish on top of the gilding to even out the color and to fill in areas of loss. Cynthia removed this varnish, filled in areas using 18th-century gilding techniques, and lightly burnished areas, as appropriate. Many pieces had retained the majority of the original gilding, as well as the gesso underlayer. Each piece had a different history, as the suite was divided in the 1820s between the three Swan daughters and the pieces had descended through several branches over the family. The amount of restoration depended on how much the pieces were used; the firescreen and bed, for example, had had little restoration and represent the most authentic surfaces.

Cynthia discovered traces of the bluish-white paint under the gilding through microscopic analysis. This physical evidence confirmed the information provided in the account book of the Parisian painter-gilder Louis Chatard, who entered a charge for painting the ten pieces of furniture, then, in a later entry dated August 1787, crossed out the painting and wrote in gilding. Clearly, Thierry de Ville d'Avray visited the workshop while work was in process and had a change of heart!

Finally, Xavier's article is the best explanation of the non-interventive upholstery method employed for the set. Non-interventive methods were first explored by American conservators in the 1970s as a means of preserving the original tacking margins of historic furniture. The most common technique is to carve a simulation of the original seat profile out of Ethafoam, a hard foamlike material resembling styrafoam, and then cover the foam seat with the finish fabrics. The technique developed by Remy Brazet is far more satisfying. Under Remy's direction, a furniture restorer created beechwood frames to fit into the upholstered openings. Remy, in turn, tacked the foundation materials--i.e. the webbing, horsehair, and coarse textiles stretched over the horsehair--into these drop-in frames. The finish fabrics were then glued onto thin pieces of flexible plywood cut to follow to the line of the tacking margins. The result is a traditional horsehair upholstery without any tacks inserted into the original wood frames--a result that is very convincing and historically appropriate.

Xavier also discusses at length the seat profiles, which are based on fragments of the original 1787 upholstery (found in the MFA's storerooms) and the account book of the upholsterer Claude-Francois Capin. The rounded seats were surprising at first, but unequivocally correct.

There, unfortunately, isn't a catalogue on the suite and the conservation project. The Apollo article does, though, provide a concise summary and before and after images.

Thank you, again, for your interest in the project. Please let me know when you plan to visit--it would be a pleasure to meet you.

With best wishes,

Tracey Albainy

My follow up letter:

15 March 2006

Dear Ms. Albainy,

My partner, Mark, and I had the great privilege of residing for about three years in Amsterdam, in a smaller seventeenth century row house on the Keizersgracht. Our neighbors in the 'achter huis' were a marvelous Dutch family, Jan Martin and Monique Wilschut-Brink, with a great and noble lineage; and it was they who introduced us to the Maastricht fair . Monique is an antiquaire/designer and as it is a small world I though you may know of her. So, I am very happy to hear of your journey - and not a little envious for we haven't travelled for some time! Nevertheless, your automated reply let me know you were out of town until today, or now yesterday, the fourteenth - so it is indeed a kindness to hear from you so quickly upon your return. I hope the jet lag has not taken too much of a tole.

Such a wealth of information you've taken the time to share. Thank you! It is a wonderful glimpse back in time. I love that Thierry perhaps attempted economy (slightly) by using the store of silk and by originally suggesting the painted frames instead of gilding. Yet, at the same time having the same fabric as the King speaks of his pride, while the decision to gild surely confirms the same. The impact of the realities of politics and the loss of the furniture for basic goods must have been heart wrenching. These images are what, for me, makes the conservation process priceless. We have this amazing vision of how our societies differ over time but, charmingly, remain the same, too. A little glimpse into the minds and hearts of the people who used these furnishings daily to live and we find their motives not unlike ours today. Over the years I have had the honor of being caretaker to far lesser pedigree furnishings and when you touch the wood or gilding and let fingers glide over carvings made so long ago you wish to hear their many whispered stories. I had for a while a small country fall-front secretary, Louis Seize, original marble and brasses, and at least old leather. The walnut would make you gasp, it was so smooth and sensuous, and I often wondered whose correspondence was written at this small desk: were births and deaths recorded there? Love letters written? Simple housekeeping books kept, accurately or not! Thank you for clarifying M. Bonnet's article for me. My little French is a dangerous thing!

The 'four elements' motif of the silk is somewhat rare I would think? At least as compared to the seasons, or references to the arts and sciences (such as the Boucher cartoons at the Frick.) I at least have not seen it before. If it was chosen for the kings gaming room does it suggest, perhaps, his passion for lock-making? The refined arabesque design is very beautiful. When you find the little area of unfaded silk in a fold of the upholstery how is it able to be conserved for later restores? I think of the complexity of the conservation/restoration processes and it reminds me of the very systems/guilds set in place to assure the original refinement and excellence of the furniture. The Getty has a small marquetry table which was copied in several stages of production to show the entire creative process - extraordinary work. It of course makes perfect sense that the Getty would be at the forefront of surface restoration. Water gilding is a technique I hope to learn, if only for my own pleasure. At any rate the frames of your pieces are exquisitely patinated. My congratulations to Ms. Moyer and Mr. Considine.

And of course my most sincere congratulations to you, Ms. Albainy, and your staff for investing so much of yourselves in this process. I hear the great pride and passion in your writing for this collection and it is justifiably very well deserved. I will not feel too guilty, then, for having pressed for details, for I hoped you enjoyed telling the stories as much as I have enjoyed hearing them from you.

When I do make it to Boston to see the collection I indeed hope we may meet, your schedule permitting. Lunch, or at the very least coffee, would be my privilege with neither being repayment enough for this measure of your time you have shared with me.

Thank you!

My Very Best Regards,

Don

I Am David

Sometimes an art work does everything it is supposed to do - the film, I Am David, is one such piece. It is the story of a boy who is helped to escape from a Bulgarian prison camp in 1954 - did you know there were prison camps in Bulgaria in 1954, because I didn't - so, I am better eduacated for this film. David trusts no one because of the murders and beatings amd conscripted labor he has been witness to in his very young life - I, too, have trouble trusting those in authority having seen it abused so often by both my government and my Church. So, David's journey from Bulgaria to Denmark is simply the story of each of our journeys through this life and how we help ourselves and allow ourselves to be helped by others. Trust. Well, trust is not easily given anymore by me. The great beauty and trajedy of David's story is that someone so young and beautiful - beauty of the spirit - has suffered so much in such a short time. The catharsis and the redemption are David learning to trust, once more and to, perhaps, find the love he searches for... will he? I won't spoil the ending for you, but I know, I'm reminded, that even as I approach fifty it is not too late to hold the tiny flicker of hope in your cupped hands and guard it against the wind... for to let it go out, well that is to continue accepting the murders, the beatings, the loss of dignity and civil equality, the loss of justice and faith, but most especially the loss of whatever Love is meant to be for me and you. I thank God for all the artists, film makers, writers, musicians, and bread bakers - and maybe just especially Saint Elizabeth.

(Click on the post's title to buy the DVD)

L'Objet D'Art at Museum Fine Arts Boston

I received my first subscription copy of L'Objet D'Art yesterday. The first true glimpse of civilization - other than the Met - that I've had in New York. There is a magnificent suite of restored Louis Seize fauteiuls, firescreen, prix-deux and bergeres made for Marc-Antoine Thierry de Ville d'Avray. The original gilding has been left in place with retouches but the original silk, which was a Wedgwood Blue colour woven with gold thread, had yellowed and crumbled. The fabric has been meticulously rewoven and the restored suite main be seen on display at the Boston Mueseum of Fine Arts.

From the Boston Museum of Fine Art's Website (Click the title of this post to take you there.)

The Museum holds the only complete set of eighteenth-century French royal furniture in the United States - prized objects from the MFA’s Swan Collection. In the mid-1790s, Bostonian James Swan, the French government’s sole American purchasing agent, acquired the gilded-wood furni-ture in exchange for necessities such as wheat, rice, tobacco, leather, and naval supplies he procured for the cash-strapped Revolutionary government. He and his wife, Hepzibah, used the furniture in the French-style residence they had built in Dorchester, and the furniture subsequently descended through various branches of the family in New England. The MFA acquired all ten pieces through gifts and bequests made by members of the Swan family between 1921 and 1953. Due to their varied histories, many of the pieces had been reupholstered and had undergone several restorations to the gilded frames; therefore, they differed greatly in appearance.

The ten pieces recently returned from Paris, the last stop in a complicated four-year conservation project. In the process of treating the gilded surfaces and reupholstering the furniture, conservators made startling discoveries about the practices of gilders and upholsterers in late-eighteenth-century France.

The gilded frames of the furniture were conserved in Los Angeles by Cynthia Moyer, an expert in the conservation of gilded surfaces. Next, the textile firm of Tassinari & Chatel, founded in Lyon, France, about 1680, reproduced the silk show fabric and borders, custom-dyeing the silk to match the blue, taupe, and cream colors of the original textile. The reweaving of the finish fabric, from the design of the cartoon (the full-scale drawing of the pattern) to the completion of nearly 220 yards, took approximately nine months.

Declercq Passementiers in the Ile-de-France hand made six different trimmings, including silk gimps, braids, and tassels, for the reupholstery, using eighteenth-century techniques. Finally, upholsterer Rémy Brazet, of the firm of Jacques Brazet in Paris, employed an innovative, non-interventive technique to upholster the furniture. Traditionally, tacks are nailed into the wooden frame to secure the upholstery. However, with repeated reupholsteries tacking causes significant damage and deterioration to the fragile, original seat frames. Brazet instead affixed the horse-hair padding and upholstery fabrics to new drop-in wooden frames. Archival documents and surviving upholstery fragments provided the upholsterers with the evidence needed to re-create the original appearance of the upholstery.

The furniture, made for Marc-Antoine Thierry de Ville d’Avray, the general administrator of the Crown furniture, in 1787, will be on view along with other magnificent works from the Swan Collection, including a pair of gilt-bronze andirons made for Marie-Antoinette. Portraits of James Swan and his wife, painted by Gilbert Stuart, complete this noteworthy installation.

Le meuble de la chambre de Thierry de Ville d'Avray restauré

Le musée des Beaux-Arts de Boston conserve le meuble complet de la chambre de Thierry de Ville d'Avray à l'hôtel du Garde-Meuble de la Couronne, actuel hôtel de la Marine, place de la Concorde à Paris. Chef-d'œuvre du menuisier en siège Jean-Baptiste-Claude Séné et du tapissier Claude-François Capin, seul ensemble de sièges de cette importance aux États-Unis, il est à nouveau présenté dans la nouvelle galerie du musée consacrée au XVIIIe siècle. Sous la conduite de Tracey Albainy, conservateur au musée, il a fait pendant quatre années l'objet d'une restauration exemplaire, confiée, aux États-Unis, à Brian Considine et Cynthia Moyer pour la dorure et, à Paris, à Michel Jamet, ébéniste, aux ateliers Jacques Brazet, tapissiers, pour les châssis et la garniture. Nous présentons ici l'histoire de cet ensemble prestigieux ainsi que les principales étapes de sa restauration qui a remis en cause certaines idées reçues quant à la garniture des sièges Louis XVI.

Auteur : Xavier Bonnet et Michel Jamet
Magazine : L'Objet d'Art n° 376 Page : 62-77
Date : 01/01/2003

A touts les glories de la France

Quebec Priests Oppose Vatican

The Spanish Inquisition is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

There are more and more signs that the Vatican's Nazi-like attitude towards gay men and women is unacceptable to the Church. The definition of the Church is "the people of God". We, homosexuals, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered, are also His creation and part of the people of God. Thank you to the courageous religious men and women who renounce the false teaching and remind us all that we are loved in God's eyes. (You may click the title of this post to go to the original article, this version is more in-depth than the article previously published and so I repaet the story.)

By PHIL COUVRETTE Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

MONTREAL — In a rare public dissent, 19 Catholic priests have denounced the Vatican's opposition to gay marriage and allowing homosexuals into the priesthood.

The clerics signed an open letter that ran Sunday in Montreal's La Presse newspaper, criticizing the church's positions on the issues.

The priests said the church was invoking "natural law" to make its case against homosexuality, arguing that slavery was also once considered "natural."

"What we are saying is that human nature is constantly evolving," Claude Lemieux, one of the signatories, told The Associated Press by phone Tuesday. "We believe this position is closer to that which is shared by our parishioners."

The letter questions whether the church has "the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life."

"In these matters," the letter says, "the official teaching of the church has shown itself more than once to be wrong."

The letter was in response to the position against gay marriage by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Recent guidelines of the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education also restated opposition to the ordination of priests with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies." But the Vatican said there would be no crackdown on gays who are already ordained.

Canada last year legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, a move many clerics of all religions opposed.

There are roughly 13 million Catholics in Canada, about 43 percent of the population, and nearly half live in the French-speaking province of Quebec. In 2004, Quebec legalized gay marriage.