Joy Belin & Tigger

These photos of my daughter, Joy Belin, and her Tigger, make me incredibly proud. Joy is an amazing young woman, bright, articulate, loving to both Mark and me and a very, very good Cat Mom!

Athenais: Variations

The Slaying of Marsyas

by Richard Titlebaum

The Slaying of Marsyas as a Theme of Humility.

Marsyas, a satyr and superb player of the woodland flute was of such expertise that the nymphs, naiads, shepherds, and all the gentle creatures of the forest often drew near in silence to listen to the beautiful melodies that came forth form Marsyas and his instrument. Marsyas grew proud and boasted that he could out-play even the Lord of Music and all the Arts: the God of the Sun, Apollo. Apollo, hearing of this boast came to Marsyas who did indeed challenge the greatest of all musicians. A bargain was sealed: the winner should have the privelege of using the loser in whatever manner he chose. All of Olympus and the great City of Athens drew nie for this auspicious concert, and the Senate of Athens should decide the winner. Marsyas played as he had never played before, moving all, even Apollo, to smiles and then tears with the sweetness and sorrow of his air. With great and final flourish he finished and bowed. Great applause thundered in the vale until Apollo loosed his cloak and drew forth his lyre to play. As the Sun slowly sank behind the God, radiating all about him, there poured forth from his dulcete harp and nimble fingers the stories of Men and Gods from the beginning to the end of time. The strains rose and filled the Air as if the youthful God were riding upon his firey chariot across the dome of heaven, racing here, resting there, until as surely as the sun does set the music slowly, softtly drew to its sweet honey close until all was still as death. The hush that fell across the vale found all who listened, even Marsyas, so moved as to be unable to even speak. One could only let the glow of warmth and fleeting beauty flush over ones flesh with the utter desire to be with this God of Youth and Lovliness. Slowly, all eyes moved with pity towards the visage of Marsyas, who knew without a vote that he was lost, lost indeed. Apollo raised this head and the cool Saphirre of his eyes sought and found the wells of the eyes of the mortal Satyr. Marsyas found no pity there and made no cry as he was bound upside down to a great black oak. Apollo, wielding now not his harp but a silvered blade of exquisite wrought and finish, approached... and thus, poor Marsys learned as his skin was slowly cut from his flesh that one does not challenge a God of Olympus.

Vive la France!

Liberte! Fraternite! Egalite! Bastille Day, 14 July 2006

Eulogy for A Mother

There is an incredible saddness in my heart now at the New York Supreme Courts anti-gay marriage decision. It feels as though I'm at the death of my AMERICA and what SHE stands for - for our human and civil rights are being hijacked by groups of men and women who wish to make this a religious issue, and a referendum and not - not - what it is: an issue of the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of American citizens.

We gays, lesbians, transgendered and bisexuals are Gods Children, too. WE ARE CITIZENS from every class, every ethnicity, every faith and none, every political calling. We, as gay men and women, cross every societal boundary and every economic level - we are a part of EVERY American family. Every family has been gifted by God with our freely given spirits and for those whose hatred or moral sense must deny us inclusion and equality I say to them each and every one - WE ARE YOUR FAMILY> Your brother or sister, your Mom or Dad, your Grandma or Aunt, your Uncle, your adoipted son.... it doesn't matter whom, it simply matters it IS: that for God in His wisdom He has given us to all of YOU and society. As you are given to us to love and cherish, too.

And I believe, after reflection and prayer that He has a good good reason for that broadly painted pallette - because we have been given a challenge, to teach if you will, this world: now, in this time, that to love as Jesus does MEANS WE must EMBRACE ALL of the flock, all the poor imigrants, the rights of women, the rights of the African and Hispanic Americans and yes even the rights of homosexuals, ALL KINDS. It is THIS SIMPLE: we are each a gift from God, we are the talens given to this society. Will you bury us, or hide us 'neath a bushell basket? Will you throw us upon weed filled rows or will you, with every fiber of your being, bring us, your gay brothers and sisters, to bear our fruit upon the fertile soil of your inclusive love?? Will you??

We are sent to you by Jesus Christ as His challenge to you: do you stand for inclusive, generousity and fairness in the treatment of all peoples - and , yes, even us Faggots? Do you? You've got to decide. I will respect your choice - even if it is against me. But, I ask you, if I'm right, and this challenge is not nearly so much for those of us being wrongly martyred or cheated of our health care or stripped of legal rights to see our partners, or even those whove been tied and then beaten on fences, or even granting the one bond we ask, the one bond of marriage - which would help heal so many others, No, it's not about these.

If I'm right, I do believe this TEST is real and IT IS NOW: now of and for the greater people of God, the faith based Churches - and how will they treat, bear witness and choose to treat those whom, whether Queers and Fags or Trannies and Dykes now ARE NOW, IN this countryt,AMERICA, deemed the least of His Bothers? I will tell you it is a simple word which carries from our tongues to our hearts an enormous burden. (We'll need to carry it together to even move it, I think,) IT TRIPS EASILY OFF OUR LIPS UNTIL - BANG! Suddenly the reality of the word - the doing of it, is a TALL REQUEST> We wonder how we miht do less, for it is painful....but it is not a scary burden, or a wrongful burden, it is Christ's Calvary in some ways and His most glorious resurection in others, for neither your Faith nor your Hopeit is the greates of all these, NO it is sweet humble charity. Yes, Charity, that incredible monstrously wonderful word, heaven sent us as as the greatest of all commandments. CHARITY ! Charity... sweet, gentle charity .... My darlings, all charity is is LOVE!!

Soon I will be arriving for a funeral for my Mother - if not next month then in six months, but it is coming and when I arrive I wish simpley to embrace my family, and my dear mother, ask of them each their forgiveness and allow me to forgive them for those silly injuries we've so fluently sailed back and forth these many years. And then celebrate at Mass, the celebration of my Mom's entrance into heaven with all her beloved saints, family friends, Dearest Mother Mary and of course Our Dear God in His Three3 Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I want that great moment of the end of suffering for you, my dearest Mother. To be free in Joy to Love as purely as you ever shall, and now for always.

Grant this Churcch, this community both here and all those around this hate filled world, to pause, reflect and consider. We all know ones we've lost - to war, to AIDS, to shootings, to suicide to diseases rampant: so many hurt and lost men and women - please remember they are to Jesus STILL his little children - let us send them, gently stroking there hair and aising them to stumble forward, to His knees, as He requested. Forget not His admonition to not hurt one of them, the least of his Children - and don't be hesitant just because the ages of these precious children are as often 79 or 41 as they are 4 or 11, have no DOUBT THEY, WE are all HIS CHILDREN just as YOU, and YOU, and yes, even ME!. How good that is - how good to know I AM HIS CHILD.

I heard a glorious Negroe Spiritual sung for a bejeweled drag queen at her funeral - you may know it, Angels in America. - a magnificent issuance of God's Word, (he still speaks when we will listen you know) And the chorale sang about him being His Child, Baby Jesus Child. And the glorious over the top ceremony beribboned and jolly shown the great joy of this man's precious life.God, I loved that - to be loved upon ones death with such joy and happiness, it speaks of a life very well lived.

My Mama, the Irish woman with a temper as red as her auburn hair, has take that step, just one slight small step, before she was swept into the arms of her deaerst father, brother, spirit - her God! How I envy her that joy - no, envy is selfic=sh, and I have no selfish need for it - yet. Sp, what is the word? How I Praise Him for bringing her Home at last. No more pain, no more suffering and lots and lots of premium ice cream!

I love you Mom. Touch me, touch our family and our families friend here now - with the grace and love purified by Jesus. We love you, and not to long away, we'll see you soon, again. You taught me Charity - to love. My family, even when we are distant, my friends even when they make me nuts, the religious right and the Republicans, even when they forget 'CHARITY" in a manner which is just to big, way, way too big.

Me & Athenais

Ma Vie en Rose

The current issue of L'Objet d'Art showcases recent auction sales, including that of a seventeenth century Boulle commode, an eighteenth century signed Migeon Louis XV bureau plat and a signed pair of Tilliard Louis XV fauteuils and a pair of Louis Seize gilt bronze wall sconces, sold to Versailles by the marchand-mercier Dominique Daguerre. The tidy sum for all of the pieces was under 1.1 million Euros, which, when you think of quality and provenace is really pretty amazing. Sure it's the price of a Manhattan apartment - but not a great one. So for a mere two million dollars and some savy shopping you can manage a first rate life for two in the city that never sleeps... surely it can't be that hard to do.

Bird

Frightened birds.
Would it solve the fear I feel to fly away?
When the sparrow flees my approach does it 'light again, content?
It goes about pecking at seed and crumbs, again.
It resumes as though it had not flown,
But it has.
Flown.

Flowers in New York

Athenais Sophie

Moon River

Oh, darling love, when did we stop seeking our rainbow's end? When did our paths diverge? When, love, when? So, Diana hunts in vain the hart, the heart is lost. The moon dims, night fast falls and the strains of Morpheus' harp fade. Muddy Styx take me swiftly from this living land; I shall eat no pomegranite's seed nor seek any return to the harsh light of day. Fare thee well, my love, fare well. Thus doth my tomb enshroud me and no more will I see thee, ruby lipped and golden haired; for all that I love is gone, one way or another the river of the Moon has swept by us and I cannot see the distant bank. I want only that sleep from which even dreams are barred. It is mine.

Papal Politikin'

The Roman Catholic Church is supposed to announce a new pastoral care letter in which it will supposedly state that to some degree condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS are a "lesser evil". Lesser than what? Letting thirty million people become infected and die while having insisted for years now that 'abstinence only' was the answer? Apparently, there is some recognition at the Vatican that the medical communities concern that an 'abstinence only' program may indeed be insufficient to turn the tide and save lives just might be valid.

Isn't this just grand! Should we fall over in thanksgving and praise this bunch of withered old sexless men in Rome who have finally decreed that in some very rare circumstances saving a life just might take precedence over their moral attribution that condom use is an affront to God?! Wow. Clap your hands if you believe in miracles. (Don't expect it to include same sex usage.)

Bullshit politics again.

First of all - it hasn't been announced by the Church, only leaked by an Italian paper on friendly terms with the Vatican. So, don't hold your breath for anything just yet.

Secondly, even if they issue a modest directive that in a very few instances you won't be committing a grave moral sin protecting someone's life from an incurable and fatal disease by suggesting they use a condom if they are having sexual intercourse it will surely fall far short of fully directing all third world countries to make haste to promote the use of condoms and insisting that all medical and scientific means available be used to end this completely preventable disease from killing millions more of the people of God.

And, it is my heartfelt belief that this seeming act of compassion is not one at all, but rather the belated and far from sufficient response to a slowly dawning realization for Rome that if they allow their new financial and political bases, i.e. the Third World, to die off completely that they will have NO support whatsoever for their antiquated morality tales, either financial or political. (Remember, Europe and the West woke up a while ago to the total lack of Chritian compassion that the Church pontificates in these matters.) After all, to run a business like the Church you definitely need to keep the suckers who ARE paying you alive and healthy enough to keep paying you - and to keep voting for the oppressive religious regimes which keep supporters of such bishops of the Church in power.

Eventually, God willing, education and science will be realized amongst these nations and replace the superstious practices and beliefs which enshrine a deity who loves people only if they are constantly terrified of hell fire and damnation - because, for goodness sakes, the loving God of the New Testament is simply an idealistic and transitory super credulous belief - an omnipotent creator who cannot love a sinner, not really, or forgive anyone anything, not really.

The REAL guy upstairs is the "tooth for a tooth" O.T. guy - so, don't touch yourself or know anything about your body or sex or disease prevention, don't be responsible for your health and the health of others except to say, well, if you get that faggot disease you probably deserved it anyway.

Negative? You bet. And I will be until this pope and his hierarchy do a 360 degree turn about on human sexuality being the greatest of sins. It isn't - forgetting to love God's children and protect them is the sin that will destroy our souls.

In case you're not Catholic and you can't fathom why condom use is a sin of the greatest magnitude in the first place let me enlighten you. A (heterosexual) person who chooses to use a condom disallows God the choice of bringing a new life into the world via your fucking. Of course, at the same time, these Church men will insist, while attempting to prove their point reagrding abstinence, that a condom is not full protection from disease because of its very high failure rate. May I ask if the failure rate is so high how is our omnipotent God prevented from bringing a new life into the world? In fact, if He's omnipotent what prevents Him from doing so even if a condom offered one hundred percent protection? Angels dancing on pinheads again, methinks.

Oh, and do not for one moment believe that these men of God are for a single instance concerned about any gays or lesbians being protected from disease. I'm sure any forthcoming statement will clarify for us that the satanic and abominable love of men for men and women for women is utterly worthy of the most insidious death possible. Too bad drawing and quartering is so out of fashion!

Denis Diderot said it best: "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." God bless him!

"The good of the people must be the great purpose of government. By the laws of nature and of reason, the governors are invested with power to that end. And the greatest good of the people is liberty. It is to the state what health is to the individual." (from L'Encyclopédie)

Letter to Boxer - Write your Senator!

Dear Senator Boxer,

I am writing to ask you to oppose Bill H.R. 609 which has now passed the house and is heading for the Senate.

This bill is proposing that Federally funded private universities associated with a particular religious denomination may discriminate lawfully against the GLBT community by refusing to admit them as students and/or hire them as staff.

While I support the right of all Americans to express their religious beliefs I cannot support allowing educational institutions which expect to be subsidized by our taxes being allowed to pick and choose who may work or study at their facility. Either the law is for all companies and institutions or it is for none. Who next will assert that they may still recieve tax benefits and public monies while being able to reject any person they find unacceptable?

Further, the GOP is sending a clear message that the religion of choice in Washington DC is fundamentalist Christianity. Has the principle of separation of Church and State lost any credibility? We are a multicultural and ethnically diverse Nation and we cannot allow favoritism of any particular religious sect, however broad their base may be, to overshadow our pluralism.

It is currently against the law to allow discrimination of any sort in publicly supported institutions. This seems particualrily important to me in our colleges and universities which hold the illumination of learning and understanding as the light by which we see our way forward in the advancement of our society.

Please oppose this narrow minded and unlawful legislation. The GLBT is particularily vulnerable to exclusionary practices, as you well know - we have still to win eqaulity for so many civil rights in America.

I remember my mother, who sacrificed and saved to send us to Catholic school, being exceedingly alarmed back in the late sixties and early seventies as public funding was first diverted to assist schools with religious and private affiliations. She said at the time that nothing good can come of the government being involved with religious schools. She was right - though her concern at the time was for the school's teachings not the public's funding. Now we can see these private institutions want to 'have their cake and to eat it, too', as the cliche goes.

Please hold Washington and the Christian right responsible to the same laws which bind all of us - or ask them to stand-up for their religious beliefs with their own money: without tax exemptions or Federal funding for their discrimination.

Sincerely,

Don Larson

A Mother's Love

The story this Mother relates of her beloved son is similar to many of our Gay and Lesbian stories. It is very similar to my own. Would that every Mother would write such a letter for her own son or daughter.

By SHARON UNDERWOOD
For the Valley News

As the mother of a gay son, I've seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be.

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life with no dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.


No choice

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it.

For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will?

If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."



Principles?

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending.

My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.

You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?

Get It

When our Senators take their oath of office, they put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They do not put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.

No one is your friend who asks you to be Silent or refuses to let you Grow.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of
Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced
one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion?
To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Thomas Jefferson

Un Homme

French Academic Study, Pierre Noir on Paper, Early Nineteenth Century

for Mark

Who
is seductive as you, Man, who rallies inimical to my pitch-black melancholy with ardorous aplomb? No one.
Wit, a sly grin and whispered toss of scarlet locks betray your charm,
as surely as a spell wound tight about a bone and fleshy fetish.

You, my implacable demigod of deep thick wood and moonless night;
You, my Apollo, steeded chariot on fire, thrust freely through tangled limbs into pining heaven's void, ever pliant for your shooting beams.

I succumb; rapt Cupid breathes toilsome as he seats his fevered dart, blazing, deep through my cardinal Heart,
'till I, plunging rearward into celestial vacuity,
my carnal self unfurled, explode light luminous.

So does your Soul persuade me, not through holy invocation penitent,
but by dulcet murmur of sweet vermilion lips like silk my nape caressing; Pneuma speaks:
Fear not! for you are loved.

Easter Hymn to Mark
Donald William Francis Larson, April 16, 2006, New York

Eros Binding the Hands of the Old Centaur

After the Antique, oil on canvas, 36" x 48", D. Larson, 2002

Senator Russ Feingold, D-WI

FEINGOLD OPPOSES DISCRIMINATORY AMENDMENT:
SUPPORTS MARRIAGE EQUALITY

April 4, 2006

Washington, D.C. - Responding to a question posed at his Kenosha County listening session over the weekend, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold said he strongly opposed the proposed civil unions and marriage ban facing Wisconsin voters this November. He also expressed his support for the right of gays and lesbians to marry. Feingold holds listening sessions in each of Wisconsin’s 72 counties every year. Later this year, Feingold will hold his 1000th listening session as a U.S. Senator.

“The proposed ban on civil unions and marriage is a mean-spirited attempt to divide Wisconsin and I indicated that it should be defeated,” Feingold said. “It discriminates against thousands of people in our communities – our co-workers, our neighbors, our friends, and our family members. It would single out members of a particular group and forever deny them rights and protections granted to all other Wisconsin citizens. It would also outlaw civil unions and jeopardize many legal protections for all unmarried couples, whether of the same or the opposite sex. We shouldn’t enshrine this prejudice in our state’s Constitution.”

At the listening session, held at the Village Hall in Paddock Lake, Wisconsin, Feingold also expressed his support for the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

“As I said at the Kenosha County listening session, gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry and have access to the same rights, privileges and benefits that straight couples currently enjoy,” Feingold added. “Denying people this basic American right is the kind of discrimination that has no place in our laws, especially in a progressive state like Wisconsin. The time has come to end this discrimination and the politics of divisiveness that has become part of this issue.”

Feingold noted that removing the prohibition against gay marriage would not impose any obligation on religious groups. He indicated that no religious faith should ever be forced to conduct or recognize any marriage, but that civil laws on marriage should reflect the principle of equal rights under the law.

Dear Senator,

I was deeply impressed on reading your statement today supporting the rights of all Americans in Wisconsin, including gays and lesbians, to marry and protect their relationship and family members. It is a refreshing and courageous position and I wanted to acknowledge your action and attempt to stop a Wisconsin state constitutional amendment.

As a New York resident I am not in a position to assist you much at present, but should you move forward to a national stage please be assured that continuing to hold our Democratic parties strong beliefs in diversity and fairness will be well remembered by me and acknowledged to everyone I speak.

I have recently contacted Senator Clinton challenging her on her support of DOMA and her refusal to support same sex marriage in New York and nationally. Supposedly, we here in New York, hold an international reputation for civilized and progressive thinking - buy I'd say that acoulade is better reserved today for Wisconsin.

My sincere congratulations for a brave stand.

Don Larson
New York, New York

Dear Senator,

I came to your site because of your statement today on eqaulity for gays and lesbans - to thank you, which I did a few minutes ago in a separate e-mail.

I had to write back because I'm simply astonished at the many, many courageous positions you are taking. All are issues I'm deeply concerned about, from the President's abuse of power through the Patriot Act to the seeming unjustness of the administartion of the death penalty.

You are the most principled man I've witnessed in politics for some time. As a former California resident (New York is a new home for me and my partner of 17 years) I find you ranking with a couple of people I'm deeply proud of in my home state - Senator Barabra Boxer and Mayor Gavin Newsom, as well as a number of lesser know but just as hard-working Democrats. (My partner and I were one of the 4000 or so couples who married, if briefly, in San Francisco).

Senator, they say you are one of the "new breed" of Democrats which I believe our party so desaprately needs to take stand against the divisive and oppresive actions of the current Republican monopoly in Washington and the frightening shift towards a singular far-right Christian viewpoint for our wonderfully multicultural society.

I offer my support, little though it may be worth to you. You have inspired me to keep open the debate and work towards the continued good of all Americans.

I do not know your religious beliefs, and I do not ask, but as a Catholic I find your values to represent the very best of a genuinely loving God inclusive of all. That is the Christianity I was taught.

Thank You!

Don Larson
New York, New York

You may contact Senator Feingold via his website,
just click this post's title to take you there.

Un Homme?

Inside each of us there is an Antinous; a great love, a child and a god.
Why do we drown him?

Into the Wood

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth; 5

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same, 10

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back. 15

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Mr. Frost is wrong. There is no doubt that we come back, time and time again, to the same crossroad. Perhaps not for years, perhaps tomorrow, but we come back. The idea that we solve the great question of our lives with one decision, however thoughtful and premeditated, is a dreamer's answer to the complexity of our lives. Often, I believe, we don't even choose the path, but rather we're swept along the trail like a raft on rapids, trying to avoid the rocks and shoals, yet without success even in this: we always smack into something, and whether we survive or not depends on... what?

Faith? Fortitude? Upper body strength?

I have an image of a man. He is resolved, sure and implacable. Steadfast and true. He posseses beauty and intellect in abundance. He takes the less travelled path and never returns to the question he asked himself that day in the wood. He is the man we all wish to be: the hero without regret. The renaissance gentleman who will live his life over again without change, knowing with surety the rationale of every pace his boots have made upon the fallen autumn leaves.

He is not I.

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.